Re:What is Lüko looking for?

dmschanoes dmschanoes at
Sat Sep 27 11:48:55 MDT 2003

Dearest Nestor,

As Levi Stubbs sang, "you know that I love you..." BUT  "can't help

 L.'s remarks may or may not be "useful" but your remarks, your
reinterpretation is just wrong-- flat out dead wrong.. and a trip guide for
getting nowhere.. but to avoid any possible distortion, let me parse....

NG:What I am defending is _not_ a group of persons but a societal structure,
and I am doing it _only_ as against what replaced it.

4Tops:  Do you mean the bureaucracy?  Is that what you are defending?  Well,
that's not the social structure to be defending-- the structure to defend is
the legacy of the Russian Revolution against the bureaucracy's tendency to
administer the impulse to capitalist restoration. The bureaucracy represents
and compresses in its organization the inadequate development of the
material base of the revolution-- the poor level of relations between city
and countryside, manufacturing and agriculture, at the same time as it
achieves a historical longevity by being both product and producer of the
defeat of the international revolution.  If that's too obtuse, I'm sorry,
but this is the modern era, so a little abstraction is required otherwise
all you get is:  The Same Old Song.  Just Ask the Lonely.

NG:Trotsky himself explained that the bureaucratic system was a
middle-of-the-road-house between capitalism and socialism, and that it would
eventually turn either socialist (that is, forwards) or capitalist (that is,

4Tops: There isn't any middle road about it-- absent the international
revolution there was no going forward, or the only going forward was enabled
through advancing the prospects of barbarism.  Trotsky's awkward and wholly
unmaterial notion of "political revolution" is itself the middle of the road
formation, obsolete in its very emergence, as history has proven, and all
that's left of the middle of the road is Seven Rooms of Gloom (Four Tops).
NG:Marx's hatred for Napoleon did not distract him for a single second of
his struggle against those who destroyed Napoleon, nor did it turn him an
anti-Napoleonic. If you read the "18th Brummaire" carefully, you will
realize that Marx compares Napoleon in his greatness to Louis Napoleon in
his pettiness, which is exactly what he expected the French people to do.
4Tops: This is more than Just A Little Misunderstanding (Contours) of Marx
and Marxism.  First, while you claim you are defending not an individual but
a social structure and then you begin defending an individual.  Do you mean
to equate Stalin  with Napoleon?  That is an ahistorical analysis and points
out the limit of analogy.   Stalin was no Napoleon. The distinction between
the consolidation of a bourgeois revolution and the defenseof the
proletarian revolution is a difference between nation and international,
between integration into the world market and its overthrow. And finally, a
historical appreciation for Napoleon after the exhaustion of the
revolutionary process within its historical limits should not be confused
with a justification for  the defeat  of the revolutionary process.  So we
have to Keep On Holding On (The Marvelettes).

NG:It seems to me that in the current moment, it is ESSENTIAL to restablish
consciousness of all that was lost with this violent restoration of
capitalism in the fSU

4Tops:  But that can't be done by nostalgia for the regime that acted as the
conduit for that restoration.  And that can't be established without an
international assessment of the role of the Soviet Union in the history of
modern capitalism.   Can I Get A Witness? (Marvin Gaye).
NG: (b) as I have already told cdes. in the First World, it is alsoESSENTIAL
to understand why didn't _you_ and _your working classes_in Western Europe
come to the struggle when it was most necessary.
4Tops:  So tell us again Nestor, why didn't me and my working classes come
to the struggle, and please do it concretely, referring to the specific
struggles between 1918 and 1939.  And please account for the role of the
Soviet Union which had unparalleled influence with our working classes.
Nowhere to Run (Martha and  the VDs) on this one, sugar pie honeybunch.

NG:I can't honestly understand what does a German Marxist do when, instead
of scrutinizing the record of its own Left and working class as regards the
Soviet Union, scrutinizes the record of the Soviet bureaucracy and
(indirectly) of the Soviet masses who found no way to shrug it off their
shoulders.Honestly and comradely, Lüko, I feel that you are failing to your
duty. Germany is still, and will be while capitalism exists, the cornerstone
of the European building. Your responsibilities are highest.Why, instead of
talking to us about the Soviet bureaucrats, you don't talk to us on the
Social Democrat bureaucrats in Germany, who have lost in Bayern against 61%
vote to the Christian Democrats? Aren't there working class votes in that
61%? What are you able to tell us about the German working class? What about
the consequences of unification? What about the Ostalgie?
4Tops:  Slow down heart (Temptations).  Nestor, you exhibit the
highest/lowest form of parochialism with that comment or is it the most
parochial type of formalism? Why don't we just admit that those two
bureacracies go together, are different manifestations of the same forces,
i.e. the class struggle and then see how each supports the other?  Why don't
we cut out the passport theory of Marxism and dispense with the visa
requirements to analyze the functioning of the totality of capitalism?  Aint
that Peculiar (Marvin Gaye).

As for the rest of you comments, trying to find a truly internationalist
perspective in your posts is like trying to find a Needle in a Haystack

Truly Yous (The Spinners)

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list