[Marxism] Re: Welcomed Back
e.c.apling at btinternet.com
Sun Oct 23 10:22:29 MDT 2005
At 13:14 23/10/2005, Lueko Willms wrote:
>. On 23.10.05
> wrote marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marvin Gandall)
> on /ALIST/MARXMAIL
> in 001901c5d7c2$4a145180$0202a8c0 at MARVIN
> about Re: [Marxism] Welcomed Back
> >> Critical moments, CB asks? Where? Where and when-- China 1926-27;
> >> Indochina 1937; Spain 1937; France, etc. etc.
>MG> The difficult question (perhaps I'm alone in
>MG> this on the list) is why - in all of the historical situations where
>MG> these rival lines were tested - the masses opted in the end to follow
>MG> the leaderships of the Communist parties rather than the currents to
>MG> their left like the Trotskyists and anarchists?
> Because the question was not really posed. There was no
>revolutionary leadership, or that leadership made grave errors.
Or rather the revolutionary leadership throughout the period from
1919 to well past the death of Stalin WAS the Communist parties - and
throughout that period the Trotskyists were various sects "cruing in
the wilderness" without any connection to the mass of the working
class (as now !!)
>MG> crushed the Left Opposition.
which would have led to the crushing of the revolution by the imperialists.
> No, no, no. The Russion Revolution was led by the revolutionists,
>and the socialdemocrats, i.e. those whom you see as the "natural"
>leadership where pushed aside.
> Stalinism came later as a reaction _against_ the Russian
>Revolution, and as a movement to _crush_ the leadership of that
Figment of the imagination - the 5-year plans converted Russia (and
the Soviet union generally, with extremely good relations with the
other nationalities and control on "great-Russian chauvinism") into a
modern industrial country - the first country able to stand up to the
Nazi blitzkrieg - and the major factor in the defeat of fascism in 1941-5.
>MG> The customary response is that the masses were manipulated or
>MG> terrorized into submission or both,
whereas in truth, the masses are learning, too late, how much their
welfare depended on the policies of the Bolshevik party during the
whole period - and even beyond, despite the increasing difficulties
arising after the end of WWII.
> No, there was not yet a revolutionary leadership built who could
>take over. That was quite visible in 1914. Only in Russia, where Lenin
>had build the Bolshevik faction against the Mensheviks (which you
>apparently see as the "natural" leaders of the masses) did the war
>turn into a successful revolution.
The "revolutionary" leadership Lueko supports continues to act more
as disrupters of working-class activity than anything that might be
>MG> I'm more persuaded that the revolutionary masses regularly accepted
>MG> the leadership of the CP's and social democrats ahead of the
>MG> Trotskyists and anarchists because the twentieth century tasks in
>MG> these societies were radical-democratic rather than socialist ones -
>MG> primarily land reform in the developing countries, and trade union
>MG> rights and social insurance in the capitalist democracies - and that
>MG> the hope and expectation that these struggles would grow over into
>MG> socialist ones were, at best, wildly premature.
MG is clearly absolutely right on all points.
> The transition to socialist tasks is something different, but the
>revolutionary crises cited above did not give birth to successful
>revolutions because the stalinist leaderships did _stop_ the fight for
>land reform and national independence, in order not the propertied
>classes which they saw as the natural leaders in that time.
No, no, Lueko, you really need to follow Lenin not just in following
quotes from him or Trotsky, but to learn to properly apply the
Marxist/Leninist METHOD to a clear appreciation of the situation in
the world, and country by country.
Comradely greetings to both of you - and all on the list - from an
oldster with over 65 years in the movement
More information about the Marxism