MIM vs. the Chegitz
Maoist Internationalist Movement
mim3 at nyxfer.blythe.org
Sun Oct 29 17:45:34 MST 1995
On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Chegitz Guevara wrote:
> > Pat for MIM replies: You think we haven't heard all these
> > criticisms of Stalin before? Like we need more brainwashing
> > because we don't get it? Do you think we don't know the
> > communist goal is one without a state, war or violence of any kind?
> > Making the promises is easy; the gettin' there is the hard part.
> True enough. But the ends do not justify the means, necessarily. Just
> because we believe that human being can have a better world, doesn't give
> us the right to just slaughter those opposed us. Frankly, I would only
> consider killing those actively engaged in armed insurrection against the
> workers' state, and then, only in combat. It serves no useful purpose to
> execute those already neutralized by capture.
Pat for MIM replies: OK this at least is a position. Mao too
said it was not a good idea to chop off heads, because they
don't grow back if you made a mistake.
It depends on the context though. Mao executed people during
the war and after it in war crimes trials. There were landlords
and puppets of Japan with blood crimes against the people
that the people found worthy of capital punishment.
Today it is hard to appreciate Stalin's context,
unless one has experience of war on one's soil and
the experience of famine. Hence, I don't think it's clear-
cut that once a Nazi or Nazi-sympathizer is captured it's ok
and executions are unnecessary. There is still a problem
with C.G.'s position as an absolute moral principle.
Hitler overran countries very quickly. It was then in his
power to release his supporters from prison. They would then
turn around and support Hitler in war. That meant more
deaths for the progressive forces.
Hitler also overran the European part of the Soviet Union.
He came very close to a complete takeover and obtained
the "breadbasket" lands of the Soviet Union before being
turned back at Stalingrad.
If no one is starving and there is no danger of war on
one's soil, then by all means send the Nazi-sympathizers
to country-club prisons for re-education, provided
they owe no blood debts. We at MIM are doing work with
one prisoner in Mao's prisons who to this day upholds
the experience and goes around speaking about it.
If there is a danger
of famine, loss of resources for war materials or
the capture of prisons by the enemy, then labor camps in
Siberia would be good if it is possible. However,
hard-boiled fascists who would disrupt the labor camps
and make it impossible to support themselves should not
be fed and clothed by the masses at war with the enemy:
these hard-boiled overly disruptive enemies should be executed
in that context. Another consideration is the possibility
of intimidating others with executions. Intimidating
the many fascist-sympathizers with execution of the few
is something to consider.
If C.G. is saying more people should have been sent to
labor-camps in Siberia instead of being executed, we'd
probably agree. Even in that case, we have to wonder
if Siberia is safe from being overrun by imperialists such
as Japan. Another consideration is if you can afford the
guards necessary when you need soldiers at the front,
whether to deter, prepare for or turn back invasion. In addition
there is still the question
of how many were really executed. If it was in the tens of thousands
as some claim, there's not much to complain about.
People laugh when we cite Stalin on this, but if it weren't
for what he said, we wouldn't be sure of the evidence,
so contradictory, incomplete and biased it is with regard
to the executions.
> > 1. Can you name a successful movement against fascism
> > in any of Europe that was not led by Stalin-inspired
> > communists? Was it generalizable and what was it called?
> Yes, it was called imperialism. This, however, is not an option for us.
> There were also Tito's Partisans.
Pat for MIM replies: Then we are in agreement on the facts and it
is merely a matter of method in looking at the facts. By the
way, at that time Tito's Partisans regarded themselves as the most
loyal "Stalinists" of the time. It wasn't until later that there
was a fallout. One of the partisan leaders named Milovan Djilas
named a chapter of his book "Raptures" in reference to Yugoslavian
loyalty to the Soviet Union and Stalin. See Conversations with Stalin
NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1962
We raise this because of the fatuous idealisms spread by Trotsky
and so readily accepted by the Western intelligentsia. According
to Trotskyists all the resitance to Hitler succeeded "in spite"
of Stalin. Yet it was supposed to be some coincidence that
all the independent partisan efforts then, all the successful
revolutions and all the successful revolutionary movements of
1995 are in the tradition of Stalin, and not Trotsky. If
Trotskyism is an advantage to the proletariat and real
Marxism-Leninism is a drag on the proletariat, then why this
"coincidence"? Why not a few successful Trotskyist revolutionary
Another thing this gives the lie to is Trotky's theory that
"Stalinism" is an ideology of a bureaucracy. The partisans
were not bureaucrats; the Peruvian and Filipino revolutions
today are not led by bureaucrats. The Black Panthers did not
get a plurality of Black support after becoming bureaucrats.
These successes were all in the tradition of Stalin but
outside any bureaucratic apparatus.
> > 5. Exactly what years of Stalin's rule do you
> > think were indefensible and with view to
> > repression, how much repression by Stalin was
> > there in those years and do you or don't you
> > think World War II was already in progress in those
> > years?
> I think that Stalin never should have been in any position of authority.
> He invaded Soviet Georgia, he caused the failure of the war on Poland, he
> had the Chinese CP enter into a suicidal alliance with the Kuomindong,
> the Britsh general strike capitulate, the German KPD fight the SPD while
> the Nazi's grew in stregnth, surrendered the French general strike, lost
> the war in Spain, executed the Bolshevik leadership, decapitated the Red
> Army, help RE-ARM AND TRAIN the Nazi German army and air force, built the
> gulag system, executed millions of LOYAL soviets, signed the
> Non-Agression pact with Hitler, allowing Hitler to take Poland (had the
> U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany gone to war in 1939, Germany would likely have
> lost), allowed the Warsaw uprising to be crushed, crushed the Berlin
> workers' strikes after the war, deported the Crimean Tatars, deported the
> Kazahks, prepared a program against the Jewish people of the U.S.S.R.,
> had the Italian revolution surrender to the Allies, and so on.
Pat for MIM replies: I'm going to divide these above
mentioned things into international and domestic.
For argument's sake I'm going to accept that all these
international occurrences mentioned reflect defeats or
setbacks in hard times for the proletariat. Where does
that leave us? The ultimate problem is not the facts,
but the method, and this is something we of 1995 have to
fight out too. Dusty historical facts may appear to have no relevance,
but C.G.'s method of criticizing actually-existing revolutions
with his ideals is a double-standard. This becomes evident
in the following exercise in which I paraphrase C.G.
with one small difference.
"Trotskyists in Poland failed to lead a successful insurrection.
Trotskyists in China failed to stop the Shanghai massacre in 1927.
Trotskyists in Germany failed to stop the Nazis and instead
fought with "Stalinists." The Trotskyists in Spain lost the
war against the rightists. The Trotskyists couldn't pull off the
general strike in Britain and France and Trotskyists blew the
chance for revolution in Italy after the war etc. etc.."
The above is all historically true. You never hear it from
the idealists, because they have grown used to applying
double standards--one for real world revolutionaries that
is oh so stringent, and one for idealist critics who were never
expected to accomplish anything anyway.
As for the domestic situation in the Soviet Union, C.G.
indicated in a part I cut being unsure about fascist
popularity in the Soviet Union. It's quite something to
be unsure about given that the whole argument hinges on it.
C.G. says 3 million executions (and let's grant him his figure)
is too many, but he doesn't know how many fascists there were.
Fascists were winning pluralities and majorities throughout
colony-mad Europe. Yet when it comes to the Soviet Union,
he's not sure that 3 out of 180 million were disloyal.
He thinks it excessive to question the loyalty of less than
two percent while the rest of Europe went to fascist hell
and while even Western intelligence agencies were saying
there were many with fascist sympathies in the Soviet Union.
Even internally deporting Tatars and Kazahks is too much for
C.G. He has been befuddled by the bourgeoisie's propaganda
effort to whitewash fascists. Instead, C.G. calls these
fascists and their sympathizers "loyal."
We shouldn't be surprised, because even in the single
case of Trotsky, C.G. is unwilling to admit disloyalty.
He had nothing to say about Trotsky's turning over Soviet intelligence
methods to the West in connection to Japan.
I share with C.G. his wish that Trotsky had been loyal
and his wish for a world where proletarian dictatorship and
war is unnecessary. Moreover, I wish the 20 years of
Bolshevik revolution had made everyone in the Soviet Union
an internationalist and anti-fascist. As we see now
in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union today,
the corpse of the old society rotted and provided soil
for new parasites. It did not simply vanish.
Vicious ultra-right nationalisms exist and existed
in Europe as they have historically. Whether they were
completely Nazi or not is secondary in this context
to whether there was material the Nazis could use
in the Soviet Union, as they did everywhere else.
Finally, to put a contemporary spin on this, it
is not a coincidence that those who want to
flatter the imperialist country working classes
and the working classes of wannabe imperialist
nations in Europe, these same flatterers of
the labor aristocracy whitewash the extent of
the fascist problem and the need for war measures
against it. They'd rather blame Stalin and
Feuerach's parents for the successes of fascism
and the temporary failure of ALL its opponents
in Europe. By blaming Stalin, these apologists
spare the feelings of the European labor
aristocracies. Making such concessions to
European nationalisms, and by championing labor aristocracy
demands, our critics go beyond
whitewashing fascism and enter into unleashing it with
economic nationalism in the imperialist countries.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism