real vs vulgar stalinism

robert scheetz 76550.1064 at
Tue Jul 4 15:51:15 MDT 1995

DIa!?ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyRyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyNDequal contest.  1917 saw a
vast polyglot, illiterate, undeveloped, peasant Soviet Union...almost
unimaginably more backwards than say modern day Mexico.  Arrayed against
it was not only its internal former ruling class, noblesse de robe
(professional caste), and bourgeoisie, but all the great imperial powers -
US & Britain- and all the advanced countries of the world.  This embattled
condition of unrelenting hot/cold/covert war against an immensely more
powerful foe is the sufficient reason for the ph enomenon vulgarly termed
"Stalinism", the tyranny/terror - i.e. a military regimen necessitated by
said extraneous circumstances (hence, if you are really interested in
doing moral philosophy, but for the relatively negligable quantum
attributable to t he machiavellian inter-party power struggle- a constant,
from Caesar to Lincoln- this evil must be laid squarely at the feet of the
Capitalist West , the cold war aggressor).  Vulgar Stalinism, the stuff of
melodrama, the Gulag, was wholly adventitious t o Communism.
     Real Leninism/Stalinism- a very derivative thing, btw- has to do with
their opting for a defensive posture, survival (as opposed to "permanent
revolution").  Brest-Litovsk is the archetype, which the Hitler-Stalin
Pact reprised, and so on with all S talin's attempts, betraying the Greek
Resistence, Mao,..., at an evil pact with the West.  All Kruschev's
attempts at "thaw", Brehznev's at detente, all the way to the Gorbachev's
glasnost, this real "leninism/stalinism" persisted to the last absurd
abject extreme.
	Probably trotskyism would have fared no better in the narrow
sense, victory/defeat, nor maybe endured near so long, but the terrible
thing about this stalinism was its demoralizing effect.  This tactic was,
of course, the source of an immense ideological contradiction from whence
flowed a veritable ocean of casuistry. The International, all the national
CP's were foreign policy extensions of the Politburo, conveyed this
central "line" worldwide and inevitably alienated all principled adherents
and attracted aparatchiks, dittoheads and parasites, slugs and thugs, like
Yeltsin.  It was a progressively degenerative strategy whose only hope wa
s some kind of deus ex machina of history which would save it from itself.
     It is surely the ultimate scholastic absurdity to engage now in
serious discourse on this spurious ideology, this body of casuistry.  The
argument, however, stalinism vs. trotskyism remains....  The Central
American War of the 80's perfectly illustrated the issue: lots of people
(Tomas Borge) think the Sandinistas (Ortega) blundered terribly (or simply
hadn't the vision or metal) in chosing not to openly join effort with
their counte rparts in Salvador, Guatemala,..., and above all Mexico and
opting instead for a paltry negotiated interregnum legitimacy.


     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list