On a method of discussion that leaves ALL the questions unanswered
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Sun Sep 28 14:02:30 MDT 2003
In a message dated 9/28/03 10:29:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dwalters at lanset.com writes:
Fred made a very important point to all those "tankies" out there: Not a one,
not a two, not anyone lifted a finger to defend these Stalinist regimes that
Mel calls "socialist". By the way, "tankies" is a term for anyone who defended
the to the last day the maintaining of the bureaucratic regimes that
crumbled under their own weight as some sort of socialism...and it includes
Stalinists as well as many who call themselves Trotskyists.
One of the highest most extensive Marxist works ever are Trotsky's collection
of writings . . .Both present a Marxist-Leninist defense of both the class
nature of the USSR and the need to rid the state of the bureaucratic caste that
was going to doom it, one way or another.
No one denies the existence of the "bureaucratic caste," which I described
fairly accurately in the two-part article called "DMS and bureaucracy." I am
familiar with the writing of Mr. Trotsky you refer to but would rather use the
material reproduced from Frederick Engels as the theory basis for the evolution
of bureaucracy in human society. What the Soviet workers faced was not simply
a "bureaucratic caste" without definition but what a section of communist in
the Soviet Union called a "caricature of the bourgeoisie."
The reason why Soviet socialism was real socialism and not "socialism" - what
ever that means, depends on how one understand the meaning of the bourgeois
property relations. The bourgeois property relation did not exist within the
industrial infrastructure. As long as the question is posed "capitalism or
socialism" one cannot make heads of tails of the issue and become stuck in
Without question Nikita was a buffoon of no merit whosoever, not because of
what he stated but his specific policy internal to Soviet society and in
relations with imperialism. I of course do not defend what you call "Stalinist
regimes" and tend to be historically specific. My defense of Stalin is as I have
repeatedly stated and inexplicably tied to the evolution of the CPUSA/Trotskyite
cabal in America. What became the CPUSA/Trotskyite cabal is rooted in the
semi-fascist Populist movement in American history. This "movement" carried forth
semi-fascist political logic that to this day prevents it from disclosing the
national colonial question and traps it in the ideology of
The real question if of course not the Soviet Union but America. For reason
of history development the CPUSA/Trotskyite cabal has never been more than
basically a political assertion of the most bribed and privileged workers of the
North - the white industrial workers in unions. Here is the unpleasant question
Mr. Walters can avoid by screaming "Mel" and "Stalinism." Without question
the defense of Stalin's Soviet Union was more important for the American
communist in the period in question - 1917 to the victory of the Soviet Workers in
the Great Patriotic War.
A new political alignment emerged during the mid 1950s and coincided with the
death of Stalin. During the war the "screamers" and "hater" of course point
to the subordination of the struggle of the most privilege sector of white
workers in the North, and the blocking of the leadership of the right-wing
socialist A. Phillip Randolph and its subordination to the defense of the Soviet
Union. See, the question poses itself different depending on ones political
orientation and location in life. We are not anarcho-syndicalist, chauvinists or
ideologist of white chauvinist.
History is strange but contains its own logic. CPUSA/Trotskyite cabal in
America was and remains to this very day an ideological movement of the
historically most bribed sector of the workers. The reason for this is bound up with the
history of the development of the American union and how the working class in
the North was formed on the basis of European immigrants, who would later
become the Anglo-American people, and our industrial curve of development.
In American history Stalin means the national colonial question. The
CPUSA/Trotskyite cabal in America rejects this political position to this very day and
uses in its place a theory of race. How can one claim to understand world
history and not understand that American in its origins was a Southern country.
My challenge to Mr. Walters is to locate this formulation in any of the history
of the CPUSA/Trotskyite cabal in America.
Stalin means the national colonial question and no amount measly mouth
ideology can cover the political crimes of history.
Deal with the issue. The political ideologist of the most imperial of the
workers in the imperial centers are consistent in their behavior and singularly
point a finger at Moscow - like the German comrade, in stead of coming to grips
with their own history. The defeat of the German revolution was not Lenin's
or Stalin's or Moscow fault. The formation of the CPUSA/Trotskyite cabal in
America was not Lenin or Stalin's fault or for that matter Trotsky's fault - who
was more advance on the national colonial question that his students in
Where do we go from right now today is reveals the political logic of the
CPUSA/Trotskyite cabal in America and they are no more than imperial ideologues
America was Southern in its origins and political structures and remained so
up to the Civil War. Here is the political fault line communist must look at,
while mastering the tactics of organizing the most poverty stricken sector of
the proletariat. Here is where the fight back against the state will take
The politics of our history are really simple to anyone not an ideologue. All
you smart guys - what about America? The question is are you going to
continue fighting along the wrong political fault line? The communist class has
arisen and you did not formulate this political logic because of your chauvinism
and imperial logic.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism