The Emptiness at the Heart of Marxism-Leninism Today

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Wed Oct 9 22:42:43 MDT 1996


>At 7:31 PM 10/8/96, Vladimir Bilenkin wrote:
>
>>  In reality, there is a struggle going on between the revolutionary,
>>*proletarian* and the opportunist, *petty-bourgeois* elements...
>>The struggle between these two *political currents* has been going on
>>in all countries of the world without exception...
>>  Without separation from this *current* , which by its waverings,
>>its *Menshevism*... brings in the bourgeois influence on the
>>proletariat *from within* the labor movement, *from within*
>>socialist parties, without separation from this current, without
>>a schism with it, without the EXPULSION of all its leading
>>representatives - the solidarity of revolutionary proletariat is
>>impossible.>> (Lenin, "A Letter to German and French Workers" 1920.
>>CW, 5th, vol.41, 295-7. Trans mine).
>>
>>This is how we shall build a COMMUNIST International.
>
>In 1920, you would have had an easy time finding millions of workers who
>responded to this message. Now you'd be lucky to find thousands. Just how
>do you go about building a COMMUNIST International under the circumstances
>of 1996?
>
>And before anyone brings up the term labor aristocrats, notice that this
>was directed to German and French workers. Bark a paragraph like this on a
>street corner in North Carolina and you'd be lucky not to be carted away by
>folks in white, not blue.
>
>Doug
>


Well Doug;  I agree with Bilenkin and disagree with you on this one.  That
is still absolutely valid.  It is not a question of preaching this to the
wide masses at this point, it is a question for those claiming to be
Marxists to understand first, and understand well:  That there is no
possibility of unity between those for revolution and those against it, no
matter if they share a common "label" such as "The Left".  There is a
counter-revolutionary "left", and a real left, which is supportive of
revolution and opposes imperialism in a consistent manner.

What Lenin said about the Party can be applied to this list, for an example.
Here too a mechanism for expulsion of the extraneous anti-revolutionary
elements is missing, and therefore no party building or communist work as
such is possible in this atmosphere, only contradiction with hidden
anti-communism.
That is why this is only good as a bulletin board and not to establish
relations of understanding which can have concrete expression within a
single revolutionary organisation with a single will and a single aim.

Is it possible in this list to think of the "solidarity of the revolutionary
proletariat" manifesting itself in any other way as that of uncompromising
struggle on the part of those who truly have any, against its enemies within
this very list?

Imagine if this list was supposed to agree on something, let alone on
strategy and tactics for a revolution.  It can not even agree on anything
but to regrad itself as a battlefield for different class positions.

If you want a revolution, you must have a revolutionary party.  There must
be unity of will and unity of aims, otherwise it goes nowhere.  Most
definitely in this Vladimir and Lenin are right and you are not.  The very
reality of this list proves it!


Adolfo


PS:  Now whether a "Communist International" can be built in Internet, that
is another question.  But that a communist current can arise anywhere only
by breaking with the counter-revolutionaries, and the opportunists cannot be
doubted.

Where Vladimir goes wrong is in defining his counter-revolutionaries, his
Mensheviks, revisionists and opportunists.  His capacity to distinguish
enemies from friend is somewhat faulty for it is the maleckis, and the
Rodwells, who are the counter-revolutionary elements in this list in the
first place.

Secondly, we are not here in Spoons at the point of building an
internationalof any kind, except if you take it to be an international of
progressive pen-pals.
We are here to defend Marxist ideas and make of this list a place in which
counter-revolutionaries (enemies of Marxism) cannot prosper.  Therefore,
unity of all those people who are, to varying degrees, for the revolution
and against imperialism is possible, even if we do not see eye to eye in
communist matters, and even if some hold Menshevik and liberal ideas too.
There are Mensheviks, and mensheviks.  The counter-revolutionary big
revisionist chieftains cannot be equated with those who, at one time or
another, due to insuficient awareness of concrete situations or due to a low
theoretical development may follow such mis-leaders against their own class
interests.  The very course of the Soviet revolution shows that many workers
who initially followed the mensheviks went over to the bolsheviks.  In Peru
too initially the mass of the socialist minded and revolutionary people
followed the misleader of the bogus left - the peruvian Menshevik leaders of
various hues and denominations.  That is why the legal Left got at one point
to capture a third of the national vote for their revisionist, electoralist
and parliamentary cretin road.  Today, they stand at 0.2% (taking into
consideration the enormous increase of the electoral boycot and the spoilt
ballots which together exceed 54% of the electorate, demonstrating that
millions who initially followed the Mensheviks have gone over to the
Peruvian bolsheviks, while the Menshevik leaders have been left to play
flunkey to the fascist dictatorship alleging that it is not really fascist,
but democratic (albeit with hooded military judges and no right of defense
with your lawyer too being sent down to life imprisonment for daring to
attempt to mount a defence - just a Peruvian peculiarity, according to the
fleas who cavort with the roaches in this list!)

Bilenkin is also wrong in thinking there is anything sinister in our
coincidences against the activities of these counter-revolutionary saboteurs
who so blatantly carry out provocateur activities in this list.

It is his own touch of liberalism that makes him miss the fact that our
coincidences are based on democratic principles and not on communist ones,
and that for communist ones to prevail in THIS KIND OF ENVIRONMENT, each
school of thought ought then to go their separate ways into different lists,
and this one should then remain simply as another arena for the class
struggle in the ideological field, or as I have put it before, a bulletin
board.


Adolfo





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




More information about the Marxism mailing list