RESPONSE TO JIM CRAVEN ON VIETNAM

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Tue May 20 07:04:24 MDT 2003


Bob Gould:
> I notice that Jim Craven stakes some kind of a claim as a representative of
> indigenous people. Well, it's also a matter of historical fact that part of
> the Trotskyist tradition, despite its contradictions and weaknesses, is a
> preoccupation  with the national question, and the right of nations to self
> determination, and the Trotskyists of all shapes and sizes, have a pretty
> substantial record of agitation and solidarity with colonial struggles.

But the Trotskyist movement had no special insight into the American 
Indian. George Novack's articles on American history put forward the 
conventional Marxist view, which is strongly influenced by social 
Darwinism and a crude Hegelianism, that there was a kind of Necessity 
that drove the subjugation and genocide of the Indian.

> I crave the moderator, Louis Proyect's tolerance in these matters.

Your post contained 31 references to Stalin, while Jim Craven did not 
mention his name once. I have heard Jim refer favorably on occasion to 
Dmitrov, but he has never promoted Stalin's reputation here. I should 
add that most people understand that this is a no-no. Since I am a good 
friend of Jim's and pay careful attention to what he writes, I can only 
remember him recommending the writings of the following individuals: 
István Mészáros, Michael Parenti, David Colander and Christopher Simpson.

I am afraid that your Stalinophobia tends to turn every manifestation of 
anti-Trotskyist thinking into a kind of inkblot that you project your 
obsessions onto. That is not good for your brain, nor for your blood 
pressure. Let's move on.

-- 

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org





More information about the Marxism mailing list