[Marxism] Re: Welcomed Back
dwalters at marxists.org
dwalters at marxists.org
Sun Oct 23 10:58:48 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.
> Because the question was not really posed. There was no
>revolutionary leadership, or that leadership made grave errors.
Paddy, you wonderfully avoided the point about REAL revolutionary
situations...and how revoluitionaries dealt with them, ergo avoiding any
possible lessons from them.
"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 !!)"
Right through 1927 (and in some cases later) Trotskyists WERE part of the
Communist parties so what are we talking about? Better put, there really were
not any "Trotskyists" outside of Russia before 1926 (except Greece, where the
Left Oppositionists were bigger than the official CP). So this is a false
dicotomy that never existed.
> 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."
You will probably not get any disagreement here on this list, that is how you
poise the answer to the 5 Year Plan(s). The method employed to do that
conversion is another discussion.
"The "revolutionary" leadership Lueko supports continues to act more
as disrupters of working-class activity than anything that might be
called "leaderhsip" "
Paddy, now your walking on current eggshells, throwing marshmellows at groups to
the left of the very stagnent CPs that are now far more influential than the old
pro-Moscow wings, except in Eastern Europe where they've become the transmission
belt for privatization.
>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.
I actually agree with this at a certain level. At least on the "Tasks". There is
no difference between the Trotskyist and Stalinist view on this...the "tasks"
are democratic (outside of the advanced capitalist democracies) in the
developing world. That is part of the point of Permanent Revolution (despite
ultra-left and anti-Trotskyist takes on PR)...it's how to *complete* the tasks
that seperate out Trotskyist from Stalinist politics. The real reason
Trotskyist perspectives were rejected with some notable exceptions (Vietnam,
Ceylon) was the power of October and the bureaucracies ability to crush those
to it's left (Vietnam, India, Indonesia, etc.).
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
More information about the Marxism