[Marxism] Honduras: Unequivocal signs of coming repression,,

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 28 05:51:14 MST 2009


In answer to your questions:

1. "comrade"  because you have initiated a discussion minus slurs, 
accusations of being a leftist ally of mass murder.  Should you care to make 
such a slur then obviously "comrade" has no place as we will be enemies. And 
if you do, please throw in "social-fascist," "agent of the Mikado,"  "leader 
of the Hitlerite conspiracy," etc. etc.-- the usual shit that has 
historically been thrown around.

2. constituent assembly:  Correct, the constituent assembly never was 
assembled.  My question referred to the FUNCTIONING of a real constituent 
assembly, not the demand for a constituent assembly-- a demand which I 
explicitly said could be included in the activity of a united front, but not 
without other demands of a specific class nature.

3. The defense against Kornilov:  "Sure" you say, and then ignore the sure 
to return to what did NOT occur in that defense.  We had this discussion, in 
detail, at the time of Morales' referendum in Bolivia.  Then as now, the 
claim was made that the Bolsheviks had risen to the defense of the 
Provisonal Government.  I recommend you review that discussion, but if 
that's too much effort, I can summarize:

First, Kornilov's attack was not, in origin, and attack on the provisional 
government.  It was an attack on the soviets which in their agitation 
against the war, against capital punishment were threatening the entire 
military structure.

Secondly,  if I recall correctly, Trotsky in his History of... points out 
how the provisional government, Kerensky, had actually been in negotiations 
with Kornilov for the timing and terms of Kornilov's assault on the workers 
and Bolsheviks and dispersal of the soviet.  I believe negotiations may have 
been broken down by Kornilov's refusal to swear loyalty to the Provisional 
Gov, and his subsequent self-selection as Napoleon to the Prov. Gov's 
fantasy of itself being the Directory.

Thirdly, the defense organized by the soviets and the Bolsheviks was not of 
the Prov Gov, but of the revolution, of the soviets.  The organization of 
that defense was undertaken by the soviets with the soviets replacing 
"questionable" members of the gov. bureaucracy with their own members to 
function as overseers.  Orders of the PG were not to be acted upon without 
the countersignature and approval of the soviet representative.

Again there was no agitation to "defend Kerensky."  The reality, in all its 
complexity and dynamism has nothing to do with my imagination, and certainly 
not with your imaginary retelling thereof.

4. Yes, the question of power is central.  Supporting Zelaya does not create 
a "government which is able and willing to act on that, and which give room 
for such fights to develop."  How do we know that?  For the same reason that 
the Bolsheviks, to use your historical reference, never supported-- at least 
officially-- the Kerensky government, never claimed a portfolio in the 
Kerensky government, but instead after the arrival of Lenin demanded all 
power to the soviets.  Zelaya may be so paralyzed as to not mobilize 
directly against that developing fight-- as Kerensky was, but in being so 
paralyzed he will also be unable to "create room" for the fight-- only the 
workers and poor organizing around the demands of such a fight can do that. 
And Zelaya will only, at his best, play the role of Kerensky if there are 
something similar to soviets developing.  He might even then play the role 
of an Allende, but that too is no step forward for the struggle.  Need I 
remind you it was reported on Sept 11, 1973, in the midst of the coup, 
Allende broadcast an appeal via radio for the workers to NOT mobilize, to 
NOT take action, to NOT take to the streets but rather "trust" in their 
democratic institutions and their democratically elected government?

5. Revolutionary power needs the majority of the population and not an 
enlightened minority?  You need to define "needs," and not just by a 
quantity or a quality but by time.  By that I mean, certainly the revolution 
to fulfill itself must win more than the majority of the population to the 
construction, the reproduction of revolutionary power, but that does not 
require a linear sequence of steps where first a majority declare their 
support, and then power can be taken.  It is quite possible, as has occurred 
in other revolutions that the numerical majority will/might be passive, 
undecided, hesitant, and that only after the revolutionary power has 
established itself, and the real work, the work of transforming the social 
relations of production has begun, only after that will the numerical 
majority embrace as their own that revolutionary power.

Other revolutions -- check them out, man.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lüko Willms" <lueko.willms at t-online.de>
To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Honduras: Unequivocal signs of coming repression,,






More information about the Marxism mailing list