Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:44:04 +0200 (MET DST)
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: Malecki volunteers for service in Peru...


Matt writes:
>The "leadership question" as posed by the trotskyists is one of the
>biggest red herrings ever tossed before the workers' movement.
>Endless hair-splitting, hand-wringing, and teeth-gnashing about
>the "lack of leadership" go hand in hand w/ self-congratulations
>and smug assurance that "we" (i.e. Messrs. the trotskyists) have
>solved the problem -- and off you merrily go to the workers, eager
>to tell them that "well, here we are, your leaders!"

Well matt, the problem about this is that in every kind of situation that 
has developed throughout the world in regards to revolution and counter 
revolution there have been both leaders and parties. If that fact is a "red 
herring" for Matts,it is important for people who are serious about 
revolution. In fact the only one being "smug" here is Matts!  

Do you really think that what happens in the world is some sort of movement 
that just develops out of thin air? Or is it just that you have no 
understanding of what is taking place around you. Their are reformist leaders,
left leaders, worker militants that are leaders etc. It is sort of like a 
process that takes place in real life. The problem is not that there are 
leaders. The problem is where are the leaders taking the working class. Or 
do you have some mystical wand or something that says things happen like 
UFO,s or something?
>
>The fact that this plea has always and will always fall on deaf ears,
>and that the "vanguard of the vanguard" idiocy has resulted in
>endless and absurd sectarian squabbles combined w/ disturbingly
>frequent support on the part of trotskyist "leaders" for overt or
>covert *counter-revolution* would, one thinks, be enough to bury
>it once and for all.  But I guess as long as capitalism has use for
>its lackey "vanguard", you'll continue to pose the "leadership
>question" at every opportunity.

This is just unadulterated bullshit. History has shown time and again 
leaders coming forward and doing just that-leading. The problem is to 
determine where this leadership is taking things. Will it end in victory or 
disaster and so on..And yes, time and again ever since the communards 
stormed the gates of heaven the leadership question is posed. It is not some 
sort of gray mass that starts moving around in some sort of mystical way you 
know..There will all be a vanguard of the most couragious and militant part 
of the class always. The point is that unless they have a program and a 
stratagy for taking power from the capitalists i.e. a concious leadership 
with concious goals (a party) they will be defeated. Because the capitalist 
are well organised and have organisations and leaders also Matts..The 
capitalists allso have a vanguard for counter revolution...
>
>You would do well to study how your "question" is solved in practice
>by an actual revolution in the making.  Application of the mass line,
>criticism and self-criticism, combination of practical and theoretical
>work, development of new cadres from the bases, respect on the
>part of the bases for the leadership together w/ humility of the lead-
>ership before the bases: these characterize the practice of the PCP,
>currently the most successful revolutionary current in the world.

The problem with the PCP line is not the above. In fact, the real problem is 
the maoist menshevik ideas of a block with the class enemy. There is noway 
that the workers can come to the conclusion that the liberal capitalists are 
there allies. These ideas have come from a pett-bougeois intelligensia that 
has incorporated a non leninist policy. The real leninist policy is 
proletarian independence against the bougeoisie.
>
<snip>

>True.  You'd more likely be blocking w/ the most reactionary wing of the
>bourgeoisie against the "Stalinist terrorists of Sendero".

Matts the above is a disgusting cop provacation! You are acting like and 
agent of the Fujimora regime..But i think that you will try to paint anybody 
that takes the line of proletarian independence as agents of Fujimora. 

 I have my differences with the PCP. But i will never call these people 
Stalinists terrorists because they are fighting a peoples war against the 
present regime in Peru. In fact i defend the PCP against these people as 
long as their guns are turned on the class enemy!

My fight with the PCP is their menshevik maoist line on the class 
question.And when Leninists revolutionaries critisie the maoist line of 
making deals with the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. Where you defend a 
multi-class line and see parts of the bougeoisie playing some sort of 
"anti-imperialist" role. That is what causes you to slander the 
"trotysyists" and their proletarian vanguard ideas.

That is what you matts are really worried about. For a Leninist policy of 
proletarian independence. Against the maoist menshevik ideas of a 
multi-class party.

By the way this is not Trotsky,s line on the vanguard party question, but 
Lenin,s line. Trotsky was a menshevik on the party question!

 For proletarian revolution throughout Latin America led by a Lenist party 
towards the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

No deals with the class enemy under the maoist "anti imperialist"  menshevik 
theroy for the third world. 

Instead we counterpose proletarian Internationalism and workers solidarity 
with the revolution proletariat in Peru as elsewhere..

No more popular fronts! The gravedigger of revolutions....

malecki in exile... 









     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---