[Marxism] Comparisons with Lenin

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Mon Aug 29 20:54:37 MDT 2005


"Right," said Fred who is much too sexy for his shirt.

I had given up reading Fred's posts so Nestor's reference eluded me.
Knowing that Nestor and Fred think (sic!) alike, I figured I'd check
back to see what Right said Fred said.

In response:

1. I am not a Wallestein fan.  Actually  I think Brenner is much more
accurate in his analysis of the origins of modern capitalism.  Which
will only convince those who thought I was a Wallersteinian that they
were right all along in thinking I am a Brennerite, or is that
Wallersteinites and Brennerians?  Like I said, you take the boy out of
the SWP, you can't take the SWP out of the boy.  There is no analysis
that needs to be answered when it can be linked to some other analysis
already attacked and discarded.

2. No I do not think the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor
countries.  I think the oppressed and oppressor countries are linked,
interdependent, with specific ties that need to be examined and analyzed
and are far more complicated and intertwined than simple oppressed vs.
oppressor.  The mechanisms for the accumulation and preservation of
capital are the mechanisms for the expropriation of wage labor.  The
real class arrangements in the world do not merge the antagonistic
classes of a developing country into a unified exploited body; the real
class arrangements in the developed countries do not merge, create no
identity of, those antagonistic classes.

3. What I have consistently stated is that the distinction between main
and secondary enemies is ideological, an attempt to impose moral
categories that cover the actual concrete relations.  In the previous
discussions about Brazil, and Bolivia,  Right said Fred  never once
engaged in an actual examination of the economic, social policies of the
"progressive" local bourgeoisie.   If there is a real, concrete, social
distinction in terms of relations to means of production, in terms of
property, in terms advancement of the prospects for social welfare and
the emancipation of labor, of the indigenous peoples, of women, then
Fred ought to be able to show it.  He has not.

And if we can show that progress, then we need to examine whether it is
the product of the erstwhile "allies" of socialism, or whether  it is
actually a product of the struggle of the poor and workers against
capitalism, international and national.  In Venezuela, we can measure
that progress-- and we measure it precisely in the independent
organization and mobilization of the workers, of the poor.

Fred shows nothing.

4.  But showing nothing doesn't stop Right Said Fred from usual bullshit
slanders--

"  It really doesn't matter much whether the US invaded Iraq, or Iraq
invaded the US.  All capitalists are the same, all capitalist actions
are the same, and to differentiate and politically act on the
differentiation is "popular frontism," which describes any struggle or
conflict in which the participants cross class lines -- that is, all
conflicts and struggles"

This is pure posing crap.  I have written on list and off list
extensively as to exactly why it matters, as to who does what-- and of
equal importance why.  For Right Said Fred though every concrete issue
simply becomes an opportunity to put forth the same old same old about
national liberation, democratic allies.. oppressed vs. oppressor
countries.  Right Said Fred is the man with one system for all seasons.

So that the war in Iraq is to be countered for the demand for Iraqi
self-determination; so that the service of Lula to the international
bourgeoisie is masked as the actions of a national democratic force; so
that Zapatero's comments about Iraq are praise-worthy, almost heroic
(social democrat on steroids, R.S. Fred), but please don't say anything
about the Spanish police in Haiti, the troops in Afghanistan etc.

4.  And more bullshit keeps on coming... from RS Fred:
"All revolutions have been "scotched in the cradle" Cuba, China,
Vietnam,
Venezuela -- all essentially the same, all rulers serving the basic
interests of imperialism on whatever foundation.  All our main enemy,
just like Bush or Blair or Chirac."

I have never argued any such thing.  I have certainly defended the Cuban
revolution on this list.  And I have pointed out the difference in
property relations that distinguish production in Cuba from that of
other countries.  But Marxism isn't about 3 monkeys, hearing, seeing
speaking no evil-- or about blindness to the social forces of
decomposition at work, and at work on a massive scale in China, at work
in Vietnam, that grow up around the weaknesses of the Cuban economy.

5. The fact of the matter is that basically  RS Fred is one lazy guy who
can't be bothered with the complexities, the interpenetrations of
advanced and less-developed countries, with the difficulties of sorting
through the democratic rhetoric of a local bourgeoisie clamoring for
market share with one hand, while leading living standards lower, while
exploiting their neighbors in ways exactly equal to modern, advanced,
capitals.

So we get lies:  Rubinelli said Fidel serves imperialism, Rubinelli says
all the bourgeoisies are the same all the time, Rubinelli is outraged
that anyone would compare Fidel to Lenin....  a real load of shit from a
person made from the same material.

And you can quote me, Fred.




rr





More information about the Marxism mailing list