State caps vs. Party membership

Robert Malecki malecki at
Fri Jun 7 05:47:05 MDT 1996

Neil writes:

>Dear Ray,
>Hopefully the current list debate on the issue of state caps. vs. workers
>will continue. This is a crucial class line question in theory and PRACTICE.

Well, not really crucial, but some basic fundemental base to stand on.
Because you views are both steril and non productive in the living class
dstruggle of today..
>Class struggles are an  objective fact of life in any  class society.
>Struggles  like the Poll tax  fight in the UK, etc. and  others are very
>important to the
>class  to organize fighting spirit , resolve, conscoiusness , organizations,
>ability to spread these type fights to other sectors of masses.

True and working both in and outside of the trade unions and a whole loy of
other struggles.
>The (revolutionary ) party  and fractions participate in these actions but the
>party is a distinct organized entity. The party is(will be) the embodyment of
>the communist  programme, the retained experience of the workers over decades.

You mean you actually have a program. So do we. it is based on the
transitional program.

>can only be composed of forces who defend and fight for the distinct
>workers class cause agaisnt all other alien classes and trends. Not all
>who are in the mass struggle are in the party , in day to day fights against
>capital also engages forces form many non worker class and trends. The
> struggle if sustained helps sort out these trends to other millitant workers.

Yes the party must be the most advanced workers and intellectuals who have
both understood and support some of the basic tactics and positions of the
party. It is not a party which accepts membership on a coupon basis.
>EG . You strike, picket , blockade in industrial actions , you fight ,
>up against  racist gangs, you link up with envirionmentalist and anti war
>mass protests , marches, etc. But there is the class issue smacking you in the
>face from not only with out but from within--with tactics and goals..
>Not just a mishmash of leftists, but liberals, pacifists , priests, labor
>fakers, managers,   sexists, and  others with very anti-proletarian views. A
>polemic and debate inside the struggles is nessessary to bring the struggle
>forward. The actual experience and study of politics, and history  becomes key.
>Only the most dedicated to the workers cause  see  forward to that need for
>Party to be built and it must have its goals , tactics, etc. clear and a
>marxist pole.
>This explains why you can have forces "striking together but marching

Seems here like you understand the United front. But i am not quite entirely
sure the mish mash we don,t participate in are popular fronts.

>You cannot have forces who want to support state capitalism ang those who
>want to eventually rid society of all capitalist relations in a real
>revolutionary Party together as the Party is a concentrated class question,  A
>key issue when the tempo
>of the worker mass action grows hotter in the next few years.

This is just some smoke to throw in the eyes of people. If you can not
understand the funemental difference between imperialist states and
transitional states you can not lead a revolution. Because the society that
will come out of any future overthrow will not be whips socialist, but full
of contradictions and tactics corresponding to the situation.

>Study the workers experience in past revolutionary or pre-revolutionary
>situations from Germany 1919, England 1926 , France 1968, up to today  in our
>To build a Mishmash Party of all to get numbers quick is pragmatism, a
>ideology. In the short a nd long term a setback for workers in struggle.

Yes, and follow the struggle going on here also. Because it is the struggle
between the revolutionary Bolshevik Lenisty trend and those who could not or
would not walk the long hard path from 1917 till today.

There will be a neccessity for a regroupment internationally in this
struggle and one of the fundemental marxist criteria will be knowing the
difference between states in transition from capitalisn to something.

A good example is Peru. If the PCP took power and crushed the Fujimora
refime and the capitalist structure it would be the duty of every communist
to defend them against imperialist counter attack. However with the policys
they have they might make a deal instead of going all the way. Or they could
like Mao be forced to go futher then they want..

Warm regards
malecki in exile

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list