[Marxism] MDC weaknesses
nmgoro at gmail.com
Thu Jul 3 07:47:36 MDT 2008
2008/7/3, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>:
> Odd that Luko and Nestor, two comrades who had some connections with
> Leon Trotsky's ideas at some point in their lives, seen intent on
> excavating the corpse of the Stalintern at this point in history and
> applying rouge to its rotting face.
Well, this last paragraph would mean war had it been uttered by someone else!!!
I believe I am STILL in close relation with Leon Trotsky's ideas,
particularly with his ideas on what was to be done in a semicolony
when confronting imperialism.
The Spanish Revolution and Civil War has little if anything to do with
this Zimbabwe issue, at least this is what I believe. I am puzzled why
can't Louis Pr. see this obvious fact.
Imperialism did not have the same influence in Spain, 1936, as it does
in Zimbabwe, 2008.
Spain was (and still is) a member of the imperialist bloc. Ask the
Moroccan revolutionaries -if there is anyone alive after the long
history of joint Spanish-French-USA colonialism there- what was it
that the Spanish Republic did with them, and ask them too for the name
of one of the greatest killers in Spanish colonial history there.
Spain was NOT a semicolony. It was advisable not to establish any
"national front" policy which would most probably be self-defeating,
as it actually was when considered on a Long History level. But even
under such condition, it should be kept in mind that although LDT's
positions on the "win the war/make revolution" false opposition -which
was, in a sense, the way in which the "national front" quandary took
shape- were clearly that unless you revolutionized the war it would be
almost impossible to win it, what was actually unacceptable for his
followers and for himself was the murderous, self-defeating and (to
put it bluntly) monstruous role Stalinism played behind Republican
lines in the name of that debate. Much has been said from the
Stalinist side in the sense that "Permanent Revolution" implied a full
array of mistaken policies on the international level, resembling a
permanent, bloody and mad massive series of attacks against the core
fortifications of a Maginot line by weaponless, bare chested troops.
But this was not true, of course. There were less differences, AT THAT
LEVEL, than Stalinists (and later Trotskyists) would imply.
In Zimbabwe we face such a situation. In Zimbabwe there is an ACTUAL
possibility that a fully pro-imperialist, imperialist-backed, and
imperialist-funded, etc., movement, grabs power. The most recent
events there leave little place -if any- for doubt.
Under such conditions, Trotsky's writings on Brazil apply quite better
than those on Spain.
Trotsky considered the Brazilian regime of Vargas a _fascist_ regime.
I won't enter now in the debate on whether he was right or not.
Suffice it to say that many formal traits of that regime, particularly
under the Estado Novo, lent support to such an interpretation.
However, Trotsky informed his followers and the world that if such a
regime entered in war against Britain, he would side with Fascist
Brazil against Democratic Britain.
So, who's nearer to Stalin here? Trotsky on Spain or Trotsky on Brazil?
Please. couldn't we try to debate without slinging mud at each other's face?
I believe this list deserves it.
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría
More information about the Marxism