Date: 03 May 96 19:37:26 EDT Subject: Communist Marxism vs. Det. CVO maoist menshevism ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: "J.S.Daborn", INTERNET:J.S.Daborn-AT-sheffield.ac.uk TO: "Dave B.", 102644,3557 Barb, INTERNET:UBRANES-AT-UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU "Ben (RSSG)", 74471,2416 "Ms. Evelyn", INTERNET:SMDMS-AT-CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Val & Frank, 76275,1621 "Steve G.", INTERNET:GILBERTS-AT-IX.NETCOM.COM Gary, 73764,204 "D. Henwood", INTERNET:DHENWOOD-AT-PANIX.COM June & Hodie, 74471,1464 "J.S.Daborn", INTERNET:J.S.DABORN-AT-SHEFFIELD.AC.UK Sarah and Jack, 73613,516 Jake, 73623,137 Joseph, 73532,1325 "Misc. left list", INTERNET:MARXISM-AT-JEFFERSON.VILLAGE.VIRGINIA.EDU Mauro, INTERNET:MAURO.JR-AT-IOL.IT Neil, 74742,1651 Pete, 73174,2070 Phil, 73633,2655 Curtis Price, INTERNET:CANSV-AT-IGC.APC.ORG "Vince (NY)", 74461,3603 Richard Broza, 73532,1325 CC: (unknown), INTERNET:SAIFI-AT-KHALKHAL.DEMON.CO.UK DATE: 5/3/96 8:51 AM RE: Re: reply to JS Daborn Sender: owner-marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu Received: from jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU [128.143.200.11]) by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA17466; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:29:24 -0400 Received: (from daemon-AT-localhost) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) id KAA93388 for marxism-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 10:17:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199605031417.KAA93388-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU> Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:52:14 +0100 From: "J.S.Daborn" <J.S.Daborn-AT-sheffield.ac.uk> To: "Dave B." <102644.3557-AT-compuserve.com>, Barb <ubranes-AT-uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, "Ben (RSSG)" <74471.2416-AT-compuserve.com>, "Ms. Evelyn" <smdms-AT-CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>, Val & Frank <76275.1621-AT-compuserve.com>, "Steve G." <gilberts-AT-ix.netcom.com>, Gary <73764.204-AT-compuserve.com>, "D. Henwood" <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>, June & Hodie <74471.1464-AT-compuserve.com>, "J.S.Daborn" <J.S.Daborn-AT-sheffield.ac.uk>, Sarah and Jack <73613.516-AT-compuserve.com>, Jake <73623.137-AT-compuserve.com>, Joseph <73532.1325-AT-compuserve.com>, "Misc. left list" <marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>, Mauro <Mauro.jr-AT-iol.it>, Neil <74742.1651-AT-compuserve.com>, Pete <73174.2070-AT-compuserve.com>, Phil <73633.2655-AT-compuserve.com>, Curtis Price <cansv-AT-igc.apc.org>, "Vince (NY)" <74461.3603-AT-compuserve.com>, Richard Broza <73532.1325-AT-compuserve.com> Cc: saifi-AT-khalkhal.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: reply to JS Daborn Sender: owner-marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Precedence: bulk Reply-To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU To Richard Broza A Slow Response from an Internationalist I am sorry that I was unabvle to at this sation for a few weeks inorder to reply to the attempt by "Mark" to defend the reactionary ideas of Joseph Green which I criticised in "A Hasty Response from an Internationalist". In fact we seem to have rattled a few <aoist cages here so that the response is the usual mixture of distortion, diversion and plain old-fashioned lies. However Mark's reply does at least have the merit of laying bare the class distinctions. This is not a debate within marxism but between the proletariat and the petty (very petty!) bourgeoisie. Maoism has never stood on the terrain of the proletariat but has always based itself on the peasantry. It grew as a movement out of the very defeat of the working class in the 1920s both globally and in particular in China. After the massacres of Canton and Shanghai (which, note this well Mark, were the sorry results of the degenerated Comintern's attempt to support the nationalist Kuomintang of Chiang Kai Shek) the leadership of the Chinese CP eventually fell to Mao and his peasant tendency. Their victory in October 1949 was therefore not a workers victory but one of an all class nationalist alliance (the bloc of 4 classes). It was only after the pretensions of Mao in 1954 that the CCP even claimed to be leading a proletarian revolution. It is little wonder then that Mark should twist the subject of our discussion from the working class to the confusionist one, typical of the petty bourgeoisie of "toilers". It is entirely logical for the Communist Voice crew to defend the peasantry (or even the black bourgeoisie of the ANC in South Africa) because they do not stand on a proletarian position. This is why they have never responded to the promptings of Neil and the LAWV comrades to explain their past (and, who knows, present?) support for such anti-working class regimes as Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot etc. today they hide behinda caricature of Marxism in order to disguise their anti-proletarian positions. All this means that debate with them is useless but there are others >from the Maoist debacle who may now understand the stupidity and untenability of the whole Maoist project. We urge them to read and study the positions of the Communist Left which does not need to revise or recant its postions. More and more the events that unfold confirm to the long and, at times, heroic struggle our predecessors have fought against the degneration of revolutionary organisation and theory over the last seven decades. First we had to fight against the degenration of the Comintern towards Stalinism, then we had to criticise the still-born attempt of Trotsky to voluntaristically create a Fourth International largely based on reiterating Social Democratic politics from before World War One and today we are still fighting against these tendencies attempt to patch up their outworn theories (largely by pinching bits of our analysis). However there is no such attempt being made by Mark since he fails to recognise that anything new has happened in the world in this century and thus constantly takes us back to the old worn-out slogans of the past. We don't propose to respond to all Mark's assertions but we do need to be clear about some of the phrases he has seized upon. We do not say that only the movment which immediuatley begins as a struggle for socialism can be supported. Every revolutionary movment of the past has begun inside the bourgeois political framework and it would be a species of idealism for us to take up a stance which ignored that fact. Howver this a debate about what is the communist programme and we must first recognise what that is in this epoch. This is why we find that the CVO is on the other side of the class barrier. WE can no longer find any progressive national movment anywhere on the planet. the local bourgeoisie are tied in to global capital and imperialism. Compare the awdry ANC with the Talian liberation movment of the last century. The proletariat could support the latter because it expanded the capitalist framwork and therefore the growth of their own class. Today imperialism is not expanding in the same way (yes there is till economic growth but the point is that this growth is only achieved at the increased barbarism of war and famine i.e. we now live in the era when capitalism's own laws are a fetter on a real growth in the productive forces. It's social costs are no longer acceptable and only socialism can break this mould and create a society which liberates the forces of production once again). This once understood we can see that the so-called liberation movements are simply tools of imperialism (the ANC could have struggled for ever more if it had not been for Anglo-American) who cannot deliver anything to the working class. This is why the working class in fighting oppression has to retain its own INDEPENDENT organaisation and programme today. To argue that the workers should put themselves under the banner of the local bourgeoisie and then when they ahve helped them to victory they should start struggling for their own liberation is both pie in the sky (a never never world if ever there was one) and a betrayal of the tasks of communists. Communism will not be achieved quickly (and in historical time it has come a long way in a short time - we now know as a class that we cannot reform the bourgeoisie out of existence, we now know that natiomalisation is not anti-capitalism but actually helps support state capitalism, and above all we now know that only the proletariat through its own political organisations, especially its political party can only make the revolution). All the Maoist crap about the "toilers", about the continued dominance of "feudal relations" in large parts of the world (where? everywhere but the tiniest enclaves ares subject to the laws of the global market) are reactionary and intended to prevent the formation of an independent working class communist consciousness. The final defence of aour decadent Maoists for their reactionary support for the bourgeoisie is to claim that Neil and the Communist Left are "social imperialists". This is an amusing smokescreen which fools no-one (except perhaps their supporters). The Communist Left supports onlythe independence of the working class in every struggl;e and this means wwe reject any support for any local imperialism. We did not support Galtieri in the Malvinas issue (although we campaigned vigorously in factories for the British working class to strike against the British war machine), we did not support Saddam Hussein in the Gulf although we denounced the NATO genocide. To do anything else is to make the working class a hostage to imperialist interests. There are are big bourgeoisies and little bourgeoisies who fight over the spoils of imperialism. We do not support any of them but fight for the unity of the proletariat everywhere. At the moment this happens only in pockets but gradually the bourgeoisie is running out of reasons for marching us off to war. Only the Left of capital with its talk about fighting on the side of oppressed nations (as Thatcher and Major also did about Kuwait!) provide the new rationale for imeprialist war. The leftists are the real social-imperialists! Thew first task today is to be clear about what is the communist programme. This means being clear about where we are in history. Until the left have a clear analysis of imperialism (which is not just Amerika) they cannot even begin that task. The negative tone of the CVO responses show that they have nothing to offer the working clas today. We urge all serious communist to take up the theoretical acquisitions of the communist left and untiing organisationally around them. Jock --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005