'armed strikes' and workers' democracy : notes of a liquidator

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Tue Oct 1 20:56:10 MDT 1996


>Adolfo regards discussing this major difference over revolutionary
>strategy as 'obnoxious' and an example of 'back seat driving'. I have
>been called worse in recent months on this list. But let's avoid the
>smokescreen of rude language Adolfo. Behind all your huffing and
>puffing and waving of iron brooms, you have not answered me on
>whether Lenin called for the removal of Stalin from the General
>Secretaryship.
>


Mr. Plant should be ashamed of himself by reproducing that tract of
counter-revolutionary propaganda emanating from wind-bags who - living
within a revolutionary situation in which dual power exists - dare to
challenge the people's justice when applied to snitches who they dress up as
"Leftists".

However, I still hope that once the facts are fully in front of them, people
in the western-Left - like Mr. Plant - who are so easily taken in by this
kind of organisms who work directly with the reactionary state, such as the
non-entity called "Poder Obrero" is, will undergo the same change of opinion
that many people who long believed the allegations of their "comrades" in
Peru (I mean here those who went there under the guise of pro-Soviet or
pro-Chinese "communists parties" and other "leftist" organisations) about
the great "revolutionary qualities of the "Leftist" heroine Maria Elena
Moyano".  Many such people, like Mr. Plant does today by throwing the case
of this individual Chiara, berated the PCP for this "cruel assassination"
and were unwittingly taken in by these bogus people who they mistakenly
regarded as "comrades" due to their ignorance of the true facts in Peru.

Now they realise that that was not the case.  That Moyano and her "leftist"
comrades in Peru had nothing really in common with them despite repeating
the same slogans and subscribing - in words - to the same "school" of thought.

Why is this so?  Because, whereas we may have differences of policies here,
where there is still no OPEN AND DECISIVE CLASS CONFRONTATION ARMS IN HAND,
something that always decants the revolutionaries in mere words (the
wind-bags) from the revolutionaries in deeds, there is something that,
despite differences, unites us: the common struggle against imperialism and
the enemies of socialism, and particularly, the defense of revolutionary
policies.

However, in Peru the "comrades" of Moyano (and those of Chaira too) are
working to SUPPORT AND SUSTAIN the state of the ruling classes while trying
to deceive people abroad to think of them as "revolutionaries" by the use of
empty slogans and honeyed words about revolution - while in practice they
work against it.

That is a difference of living within a revolutionary situation in which
armed revolution confronts armed counter-revolution.  There is no middle
ground there.

There is plenty already about this phenomena in the interviews with the
ranking military officers I have already transcribed.  This will become more
evident with transcriptions - from the "leftist" leaders themselves - in
which the role of that "Left" in Peru will become evident even to people
like Mr. Plant.

Moreover, Mr. Plant - to take with any degree of seriousness your "major
strategic differences" you have FIRST to be on the side of the revolution
and not on that of the reactionary state.  When you see through the
fraudulent "Left" organisms in Peru (and here not only Trotskysts are
hoaxes, but the whole bloody lot and - as it transpires from the interviews
with the military - they are nothing but willing tools of the military High
command) your opinions will then be more than sheer hot air inspired on
abstract formulas and may have some value for the concrete situation.  In
the mean time, you find yourself - whether you have noticed it or not - in
the same side as VOICE OF AMERICA and the CIA.
_____________


As to his question about Stalin.  Everybody knows of Lenin's recommendations
to "find some one EVEN better than Stalin" for the post of General
Secretary.  He did not recommend anyone in particular, and the Party found
no one better.  Lenin was not a dictator nor the owner of the party either.

Trotskyst make a lot of noise about this.  But what does it mean?  Not much.
While recognising and underlining Stalin's most excellent qualities and
merits, Lenin wanted someone who was more polite and tractable WHILE STILL
HAVING STALIN'S GREAT (and, in a revolutionary leader, much more important)
QUALITIES. Or does Mr. Plant prefer to read Lenin's words so selectively
that he ignores the praise that he places on Stalin, while berating him for
his rudeness.

If wishes were horses Lenin's wish would have been granted and Stalin would
surely not have minded to serve in another capacity or even from the rank
and file.  However, the PARTY did not find anyone better and decided to
retain Stalin.  That is called democratic centralism.

What's the big deal about that?  Being rude?  What is that compared to being
a "semi-Menshevik" like Trotsky (Lenin's words too!).  There was never any
question of Trotsky being GS either.  He was a relatively new man in the
bolshevik party, and the bolshevik party is not the Labour party where
leaders are created overnight like "Tony Blair" - for example.

The post of Genral Secretary reflects the trust of the Party organisations
as a whole - not merely the personal wishes, however respected and listened
too, of the Party leader.  The concept that Mr. Plant expresses in relation
to this incident reflects his misconceptions regarding the nature of a
communist party, and the relationship between the Party and the leaders
within a communist Party.

Adolfo



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list