Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:03:13 +0200
From: Jorn Andersen <jorn.andersen-AT-vip.cybercity.dk>
Subject: Re: Hard core/soft core


At 07:28 16-09-96 +0200, Robert Malecki wrote:

>gary,
>
>Since when is questioning the tactic of starving yourself to death pouring 
>shit on Turkish Hunger strikers? Futhermore what exactly do you mean about 
>the IRA.

I'll let Gary and Malecki sort that out, but then he continues:

>But coming from a Stalinist who seees the Social democracy as the 
>main reason for facism i doubt if i could get and intelligent answer.

Robert, I think you should know better than calling Gary a stalinist, which
he is not - if I were him, I would take it as an insult. Being soft on
stalinism (or rather stalinists) is not the same as being a stalinist :-)

Secondly, I don't understand why you think it is so horrible to blame the
social democrats for the victory of fascism. To quote Trotsky:

"The misfortune consists precisely of the fact that the leaders of the
German Communist Party have placed themselves on the same ground as the
Social Democracy, only with inverted prefixes: the Social Democracy votes
for Bruening [Bourgeois leader], recognizing him as the lesser evil. The
Communists on the other hand .... recognize in Hitler the lesser evil."
(From "For a Workers' United Front Against Fascism" - more specifically it
refers to the infamous "Red Referendum" in Preussen where the KPD supported
Hitler against the Social Democrats.)

The reason why Trotsky directed most of his attacks on the KPD and not the
SPD was that he at that time still had hopes that the KPD could be won for
revolutionary politics in general, and at least specifically for a united
front with the Social Democrats against the Nazis. It took Hitlers eventual
victory to convince him that this was not the case.

More generally I think that it is exactly the shortcomings of reformist
politics which breeds fascism. When workers loose their illusions in
reformist politics they often look for more militant solutions. In the
absence of a strong revolutionary socialist alternative for some workers
fascism or militant nationalism can seem be to a way forward.

And maybe worse: By disarming the working class Social Democracy tells the
petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletariat that they should not expect
any help from the workers against the capitalist class. And then why
shouldn't they join fascists who claim to maintain exactly their interests.

It was no coincidence that Le Pen's Front National started to grow short
after Mitterand had made it clear, that his election for president in 1979
in no way meant better conditions for workers.

So I think Social Democracy is very much to blame for Hitlers victory -
they lay much of the ground for it. The Stalinists are also to blame - for
not fighting for a workers' united front, which was the only way to beat
Hitler.

Trotsky had this wonderful little story, which I think explains this (you
probably have heard it many times before, but I can't resist quoting it):

"A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse. And the
butcher came nigh with his sharp knife.
"Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns", suggested
one of the bulls.
"If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who
drove us hither with his cudgel?", replied the bulls who had received their
political education in Manuilsky's institute.
"But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well afterwards!"
"Nothing doing", replied the bulls, firm in their principles to the
counselor. "You are trying to shield our enemies from the left; you are a
social-butcher yourself."
And they refused to close ranks."

You see: He makes the role of Social Democracy quite clear.


Yours

Jorn



-

Jorn Andersen

Internationale Socialister
Copenhagen, Denmark


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