[Marxism] MR-2004

Philip Ferguson plf13 at student.canterbury.ac.nz
Mon Feb 2 23:58:48 MST 2004

Zivko wrote:
>The conclusion of Mr. Wallerstein's article is particularly striking.
How he actually managed to calaculate and propose the assumption that
the WSF came out on top at the end of the of Mumbai summit is beyond me.

>MR 2004, organized by some of India's most feared political groups, has
effectively surpassed nearly all of its set out tasks, and significantly
further intensified the internal discontent and dissatisfaction within
the WSF itself. There is a substantial ammount of articles from India
that can clearly confirm this. The fact that some neo-leftist groups
like the 'Z Magazine' almost totally ignored the MR event is due simply
to their own sectarianism.

Hi Zivko,
It's great to hear that the MR-2004 was such a big success and had such
an effect.  The ACA comrades who went - we also gave a donation and a
solidarity message, and one of our comrades (who is in the Workers Party
wing of the ACA) delivered a couple of papers (one on imperialism and
one on the commodification of women) - haven't returned to New Zealand
yet, so we've only had partial email reports on the success of MR-2004.

I don't know if any Trotskyists went to MR-2004.  I suspect not.  They
would be more likely to be found nestled into the WSF.  This is one
reason why the *revolution* group wing of the ACA are not Trotskyists -
we are supporters of Trotsky's analysis of the degeneration of the
Russian Revolution and the nature of Stalin/ism, but we don't identify
with any of the 'Fourth Internationals' or the post-Trotsky movement.
Most 'Trotskyism' today is pretty harmless, as far as the interests of
capitalism are concerned.  

We prefer to learn from the work of a variety of organisations, from the
industrial work of the (Trotskyist) Lutte Ouvriere, the partyist
approach of the CPGB/Weekly Worker and the experiences of Maoist
movements in places like the Philippines, India and Nepal.  

We tend to think that the 'Trotskyist' vs 'Maoist' thing of the 60s and
70s is not relevant today.  A good example is that the *revolution*
group and the WP, despite our different origins and different takes on
historical questions, work together better than any other groups in this
country.  In fact we are the only groups on the left here who have
managed to work together in any ongoing alliance.  

In *revolution* we have far more in common in day-to-day politics and
work on the ground with WP than we do with any Trotskyist groups here
(who are mainly a combination of nutters and right-opportunists) and WP
have far more in common with us than with the tiny groups in NZ that
identify as purely Maoist (and are mainly right-opportunist, being
pro-Labour, sympathetic to NZ nationalism etc).

At present WP and Revo are in a fusion process, which should be
completed by the end of this year.  The ACA, the alliance we initiated,
will continue.  It's now the largest group on the far left here, despite
what our critics deride as our "ultraleftism" (much of the NZ left are
still clinging on the coat-tails of the capitalist Labour Party and/or
arguing that NZ is a neo-colony and/or supporting politics that suggest
NZ is a neo-colony).

When the ACA delegation come back from India, we are organising a
national speaking tour for them, which we hope will get out publicity
about what life in India is really like.  Especially in countering the
hippy and certain kind of Green view of India that is widespread here
and which romanticises the country as some kind of idyllic spiritual

It would be good if you or Jakob could post some info on MR-2004 on this
list - how many people attended, what kinds of things took place and
what kind of impact they had.

I will email the ACA comrades and get some more info and post this on
the list too.

Philip Ferguson


More information about the Marxism mailing list