Blaming a dead man, your parents and the labor aristocracy

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at
Thu Oct 12 16:29:35 MDT 1995

On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Bryan A. Alexander wrote:

> Sigh.  Once again a flung bash at the anarchsists.
> 	And a weird harmony between Louis and MIM, both reproaching 
> anarchism for its real results.
> 	I'll point to Spain for now - you all know when.  The anarchists 
> as a popular movement abolished state power, trashed elites, improved 
> life, successfully lived in anarchist-modeled society, and defended 
> themselves for years despite comparative originary weakness.  Then again, 
> having the Stalinists help destroy them might have played a role?

Pat for MIM replies: Opposing sectarianism means upholding truth
when it is held in the hands of other individuals and
organizations. Proyect said the right thing about anarchism.

The part about the transformation process of ex-CPs is
not correct. Here we can link two threads at once:
the people who don't have our line on the actual corruption of
imperialism through its labor aristocracy, these people tend
to blame Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Feuerbach
and let's not forget Feuerbach's parents, because it's always
the parents' fault in the end. 

We agree with Proyect that there needs to be a self-examination,
a self-criticism in the imperialist countries and Eastern Europe.
It's evident that everywhere there is degeneration and failure.
Some Trotskyists are beginning to realize that they never posed
a real alternative to "Stalinism" this century. Even when the
"Stalinist" experiment is supposedly dead, the masses do not
rise up for Trotskyism in Germany, the ex-Soviet Union etc.
This is not to mention that really criticism of Stalin
has been going on for over 40 years now, and there isn't much
to show for it, except the self-comfort and purity of 
intellectuals in their own self-images.

This whole approach to the Soviet history which has ex-Khruschevites,
ex-Trotskyites and ex-Gorbachevites in bed together in the CoC
falls apart when you look at the evidence in the Third World. See
the people in Nepal, India, Peru and the Philippines don't know
that communism is dead, because it isn't there. This should tell
us something about where the source of our problems here truly lies.

Proyect takes advantage of the media blight and says we have to
try something "new." We have to make concessions to bourgeois democracy
says the CoC. We have to mush ourselves together without regard to
theory says Proyect quoting Castro, FMLN and FSLN.

The problem is that these ideas are not new at all. It's been done
before, a lot more than the approach of forming parties in the
tradition of Lenin. And those mush-collections, "democratic" projects
etc. are a huge failure historically speaking. For Proyect to prove
otherwise, he has to demarcate from a number of historical political
practices that he hasn't, and he has to show us what is really new
about what he is saying.

I will give Proyect credit though. Some people see that AZT doesn't
cure AIDS so they recommend witchcraft as an approach. At least
Proyect recommends a drug, even if it does have no track record
relative to AZT.

I sense that Proyect would not be happy to hang his hat on one country,
like Spain for instance. Others on this list seem to have little
concern for materialism.

Even if we take the anarchists at face-value, and grant them 100%
of their story on evil Stalin in Moscow crushing Spain,
what does their story amount to? How is it that the proletariat
let Stalin crush them in every country this century? (Same
question to like-minded Trotskyists who blame Stalin for their
own failure to mobilize the proletariat and other laboring masses.)
If Trotskyism or anarchism are proletarian ideologies, they should be 
able to mobilize the masses to stop evil Stalin. In fact, Trotskyism
and anarchism are just idealisms, not proletarian ideologies,
so they fail.

Actually, anarchism is older than Marxism, thousands of years old
in China if we believe some scholars. What is there to show for it?
How can Stalin be blamed for the failure of an ideology that pre-dates
Stalin? Anarchism was a failure before Stalin and it continues to be one
after him as well. We need not get into much historical detail to see
that anarchism is detached from historical reality, unscientific
and not capable of mobilizing the proletariat.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list