PASOK to legalise all illegals living in Greece
Vngelis
nada
> http://www.athensnews.gr/articles/13359/10/10/2009/3139
>
> http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/10/greek_socialist.php
This was the old program of the KDE if I remember correctly.
D.
nada
articles:
This “legalization” of non-Greeks is technically in violation of the
Greek Constitution. Greek Nationality Law clearly stipulates that only
people of Greek descent can attain citizenship (i.e. jus sanguinis).
Attempts made by the PASOK government to subvert the Constitution by
implementing jus soli policies will only prove that the socialists
care more about their idealized fantasies involving the Other rather
than the livelihoods of hard-working Greeks.
It is important to note that the PASOK government received nearly the
same amount of votes it did back in the 2004 elections. No one denies
that Jeffrey Pappandreou secured roughly 44% of the “Greek vote” (i.e.
“legalized” Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Albanians, Romanians,
Bulgarians, Chinese, Turks, Kurds, etc.) and won 160 seats in the
Greek Parliament. However, no one cares to notice the fact that voter
turnout was lower than in the last parliamentary elections (i.e.
disgruntled Greek natives). In other words, hundreds of thousands of
Greeks acted on their disgust with the political establishment by not
voting. This shouldn’t come as a surprise given the fact that polls
showed approximately 80% of the native Greek population distrusts the
parliamentary system (Greek mostly trust the military and the Greek
Orthodox Church).
Even though the socialists are dominant, their power has not increased
in absolute terms despite the presence of other socialist groups in
the Greek Parliament (the KKE or Communist Party of Greece led by
“proletariat Papariga” actually lost votes; the SYRIZA party, led by
pro-Other/anti-Greek politicians Tsipras and Alavanos, was almost
disbanded and was saved only as a result of intervention from
“parliamentary forces”). The reason for this dynamic is simple: 1)
average Greeks punished the New Democracy Party for its incompetence
regarding national issues, 2) the leader of the New Democracy Party,
Karamanlis, had already planned to surrender power to Pappandreou,
because it is the PASOK party’s “turn” to govern Greece (since 1974,
the country has technically been ruled by two very large mafia-like
families, the Karamanlis/Mitsotakis clan of New Democracy and the
Pappandreou/Simitis clan of PASOK).
Despite Greece’s current grim circumstances, there is still hope (I
mean actual hope, not the kind of “hope” perpetuated by Jeffrey
Pappandreou’s socialist penpal, Obama). Many Greeks have resisted and
are still resisting the barbarians along with their supporters, the
“Jannisaries of Multiculturalism” (i.e. Greek traitors who have no
sense of kin and country). If you look at places like Agio
Panteleimona, Plateia Attikis, Vathylakko (near the city of
Thessaloniki), and Patras, you will see Greeks literally up in arms.
And this is just the beginning if the PASOK party fails to deliver on
its promises (which it will since it is just as pathetic and corrupt
as the New Democracy party).
It is true that there were many Greeks who voted for PASOK (perhaps
out of desperation), but their support for Jeffrey Pappandreou began
to significantly dwindle the minute they saw hundreds of barbarians
cheering in the streets after the elections. PASOK used to have a
slogan: “Greece belongs to the Greeks”. Now, the slogan that everyone
(including Greeks who voted PASOK) chants is: “Greece belongs to the
Pakistanis” (or whichever barbarian lot “legally” resides in Greece).
The socialists will do their worst, but their blatantly anti-Hellenic
actions will only galvanize the Greeks’ innate sense of patriotism (in
fact, many patriotic grass roots organizations in Greece are gaining
more support as the economic crisis continues and the barbarians are
taking jobs and wages away from Greeks).
On a sidenote, don’t believe everything you read from mainstream Greek
media outlets since they have a tendency to brand anything that does
not coincide with their pathetic New Age philosophies as “racist”,
“fascist”, and “xenophobic”. Moreover, the notion that Greeks are
“lazy” or that they “rely on poor illegal immigrants to do jobs they
refuse to do” is complete propagandistic hogwash (i.e. Greeks had jobs
before the 1990s; once the borders were opened by the hapless ND/PASOK
forces in government, unemployment has been steadily rising because of
the constant influx of cheap unskilled labor; most government figures
regarding unemployment are either exaggerated or completely false).
Hellenism will ultimately prevail, because this is not the first time
that dark forces (substitute the Ottomans for “multi-culti PC
warriors”) have threatened to destroy it. The Greeks have a right to
preserve their ethnic and cultural identity in their own homeland.
Those that disagree can go lick Archimedes’s “screw” for all I care.
Like Metaxas, I say “Ohi!” (No!) to the soulless hordes that preach
about “human rights” while imposing their tyrannical will upon the
Greeks in their attempts to fully transmogrify the home of Western
civilization into a hellish pit. At the end of the day, either the
barbarians will be expelled en masse (a possibility) or the Greeks
will fight until their country is theirs again (a certainty).
Archon
P.S. For those of you who are curious, Greeks are indeed the genuine
descendants of their ancient forebears according to anthropological
and genetic sources. Go to the “Articles” section on the right-hand
section of Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog and enjoy.
jh
I don't know about the KDE or Vangelis, but this guy is definitely a
Greek fascist.
-jh-
macphineas
What tipped you off? The explicit support for Metaxas, or the
implicit linking of immigrants to Italian Fascist imperialism? Isn't
bngelis also a big fan of saying "Ohi!"?
macphineas
Vngelis
>
> What tipped you off? The explicit support for Metaxas, or the
> implicit linking of immigrants to Italian Fascist imperialism? Isn't
> bngelis also a big fan of saying "Ohi!"?
>
> macphineas
We should have said Yes when the Italians invaded.
A quisling always reveals his true colours. Its just a matter of
time...
vngelis
srd
I don't see anything there bn would reject. I might have expected bn
to reject the Metaxas paragraph, but he just corrected that erroneous
expectation.
srd
Vngelis
Another quisling said we should have said Yes.
vngelis
srd
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can't be a quisling when I'm NOT GREEK. (Ain't no jews in Greece, like
no homosexuals in Iran.)
srd
srd
Orthodox Church."
srd
macphineas
When the border is militarized and they start shooting immigrants.
macphineas
Vngelis
What to legalise millions of illegals?
I dont think so.
We never wrote it or said it.
Thats just an amalgamation.
vngelis
Vngelis
A quisling is one who supports the new order.
McDonalds just posted and said the Greek nation should have said Yes
to the Italian invasion.
You defended him and Jesse Helmes the anti-greek Robertsonite chipped
in.
Your comments are noted for All Greeks to read.
vngelis
Vngelis
>
> When the border is militarized and they start shooting immigrants.
>
> macphineas
Hence collapse the borders, collapse the state, partition the country.
Welcome the NWO...
Go fuck yourself McDonalds.
vngelis
srd
Not likely from here; better cross-post to the Chauvinistic Left. Then
I'll be exposed for sure.
I don't know a Greek from an Italian. I only know Metaxas was a
rightist dictator, and the quote supports him politically.
srd
> vngelis
dusty
Yes but the principle is there. You would oppose the resistance by the
Greek state against the Italian invasion. The KKE didn't - they
clamoured for their comrades to be let out of the prisons to fight on
the front line.
Just as well that no Trotskyists of your kind gained dominance in the
mass movement - they would have sold out nations and the hard won
conditions of working people within them - only 50 or 60 years in
advance of what they are doing today.
Vngelis
Their greek counterparts collaborated with HItler under the guise that
Greeces
war of national liberation was reactionary in the era of imperialism
and collaboration with german
soldiers took preponderance. The Spart position in other words.
Thats why Robertson always hated Greeks. The deflated his
'theoretical' veneer.
I mean how do you run an organisation when the last time you were
gainfully employed
was 6 decades prior?
vngelis
srd
Under the fascist officers? And you call _that_ Marxism?
srd
jh
The guy clearly believes that Greeks are a superior race to the
barbarians. Just like the Nazis with their Aryan fixation.
-jh-
jh
> On 27 Dec, 03:05, dusty <trackdu...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>...
> Their greek counterparts collaborated with HItler under the guise that
> Greeces
> war of national liberation was reactionary in the era of imperialism
> and collaboration with german
> soldiers took preponderance. The Spart position in other words.
>
I think he is talking about the Archeo-Marxists, who did indeed go
from Trotskyism to an extremely bad position during WWII. I don't know
my Greek Trotskyist history well enough to know whether or not they
were actually collaborationists, or just Third Campers. I think they
were in fact Shachtmanites on the Russian question.
-jh-
dusty
You make a fetish of "fascism", And you do that (in USA radical
tradition) to the point where you cannot see its modern-day equivalent
when it stares you in the face. That is a sad reality when it is a
property possessed by the most enquiring and - intelligent - mind of
the anti-KDE block on apst.
Metaxas showed that he was really a kind of "national
bonapartist" (albeit with fascist trappings) when he parted company
from any alliance with the Axis on the basis of loyalty to his own
bourgeoisie versus their Axis planned fate under Italian Fascism. In
that he undoubtedly expressed the popular will (Ho Chi Minh: the most
precious thing is Independence...).
The Italians were seriously defeated in that venture and the Germans
invaded in strength to enforce the fate of the Greek nation with the
Italians in a despised junior partner role in occupation.
The "fascist capitulating" KKE (your view) went on to lead the nation,
to bring into their controlled parts of Greece (most of it)
significant reforms in land and major social reforms (if you talk to
older Greeks today, even in remote - er..."peasant"...areas - they
still remember that with affection) - constituting the equivalent of 7
divisions - and then going on to lead the Civil War, with the prospect
of taking power.
All this history was profoundly linked.
That's real dialectics - in the sense that its not just a working of
ideas in ones head but in real, material, historical movements.
srd
The program was to legalize all the _settled_ immigrants. When I asked
bn what constituted being "settled," bn replied that needs to be
worked out.
srd
Vngelis
They are all illegal. They didn't ask the Greek nation how many are
needed/how
many will arrive. Hence the campaign now is for a referendum on
illegal immigration.
vngelis
dusty
And if that is won, the state will be forced into preventing entry and
deporting illegals - as was the case in Australia before the
relatively recent over-immigration.
Vngelis
and the granting of nationality after only 5 years residence
in Greece by one parent.
That is 8 out of 10. In reality its about 9.9 out of 10 but gallops
have to be fixed so it appears to be 'democratic'.
vngelis
srd
> On Dec 27, 9:21 am, Vngelis <meberr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Dec, 03:05, dusty <trackdu...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >...
> > Their greek counterparts collaborated with HItler under the guise that
> > Greeces
> > war of national liberation was reactionary in the era of imperialism
> > and collaboration with german
> > soldiers took preponderance. The Spart position in other words.
>
> I think he is talking about the Archeo-Marxists, who did indeed go
> from Trotskyism to an extremely bad position during WWII. I don't know
> my Greek Trotskyist history well enough to know whether or not they
> were actually collaborationists, or just Third Campers. I think they
> were in fact Shachtmanites on the Russian question.
The Stinas tendency, state capitalist. But it didn't collaborate and
its anti-Resistance line was weaker than Karliafis's. All Trotskyist
factions reviled all Nazi collaborators, although Nazi terror broke
many individuals of all persuasions.
srd
jh
> On Dec 27 2009, 3:44 pm, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 9:21 am, Vngelis <meberr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Dec, 03:05, dusty <trackdu...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >...
> > > Their greek counterparts collaborated with HItler under the guise that
> > > Greeces
> > > war of national liberation was reactionary in the era of imperialism
> > > and collaboration with german
> > > soldiers took preponderance. The Spart position in other words.
>
> > I think he is talking about the Archeo-Marxists, who did indeed go
> > from Trotskyism to an extremely bad position during WWII. I don't know
> > my Greek Trotskyist history well enough to know whether or not they
> > were actually collaborationists, or just Third Campers. I think they
> > were in fact Shachtmanites on the Russian question.
>
> The Stinas tendency, state capitalist. But it didn't collaborate and
> its anti-Resistance line was weaker than Karliafis's. All Trotskyist
> factions reviled all Nazi collaborators, although Nazi terror broke
> many individuals of all persuasions.
>
> srd
>
I did read the RH material on all this, but that was more than a
decade ago, and I am going by memory. I do seem to recall that there
*were* Greek Trotskyists or a Trotskyist who went collaborationist
(Witte himself maybe?), "quisling" in Vangelis's terminology. I just
can't remember exactly who.
If you can clear this up I would be grateful. I do dislike having to
rely on Vangelis on a matter as serious as this.
-jh-
David
others of course and the whole issus is available at the RH web site
here:
http://www.revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/rh0303.html
(it is the issue with the ICL-RH debate over Ukraine)
Here are the contents on matters pertaining to Greece:
Loukas Karliaftis : Stalinism and Trotskyism in Greece (1924 - 1949)
Part 2
P. Pouliopoulos & P. Giatsopoulos : Open Letter to the KKE
Raymond Molinier & Pavel Okun : The Left Opposition in Greece
Archeiomarxist Congress Resolution (Sept 1930)
Open Letter to the ECCI (from the Archeiomarxists, July 1933)
Loukas Karliaftis : From Acronauplia to Nezero
Loukas Karliaftis : On War and Revolution
jh
*If* I remember right, which is open to question, the answer to my
question is in the footnotes to one of the pieces by Karliaftis.
-jh-
srd
From http://tinyurl.com/ycbwtx5
START QUOTE
It should be stated that one of the most ferocious battles to break
out inside the Greek concentration camps was against all who had made
'declarations' against Communism. Capitulations occurred within the
ranks of the KKE as well as of the Trotskyists. Anyone who capitulated
to Metaxas or to the Germans was considered as a traitor by the
movement as a whole. Among the Trotskyists who were considered to have
capitulated were several who were later to become important in the
history of Greece and of the Fourth International. Andreas Papandreou,
later to become leader of PASOK, belonged to the 'Group of the
Thirteen' and was associated with the Proletarios (EOKDE) group. He
made an open declaration against Communism on 7 July 1939, as
described below, and betrayed all his comrades to the police. His
family connections enabled him to obtain a passport, which he used to
flee to America. Cornelios Castoriadis, also in the 'Group of
Thirteen', also made a declaration against Communism. At the end of
the war he went to France, where he became a leader of a faction
inside the French Trotskyist organisation, the PCI. In 1949 this
faction split and began to publish the magazine Socialisme ou
Barbarie, which went on to develop a new revolutionary philosophy,
from which the British group Solidarity in part draws its inspiration
(for examples of his ideas, cf Socialism or Barbarism, Solidarity
pamphlet no 11, and C Castoriadis, History as Creation, Solidarity
pamphlet no 54). Stinas' group, which broke from the Greek Trotskyist
movement in 1947, became the main supporter of these theories in
Greece. Due to the fact that he was a famous theatrical actor, George
Vitsoris was allowed to go abroad when Kotopoulea, a famous actress,
put pressure on Maniadakis. On his way to internal exile, Vitsoris was
forcibly taken out of the car against his will. In the end he gave all
his revolutionary literature to another comrade and departed for
France. There he took part as a Greek delegate at the clandestine
European Conference of the Trotskyists in February 1944 (Rodolphe
Prager, 'The Fourth International
During the Second World War', in Revolutionary History, volume I , no
3, Autumn 1988, p36, n42) whilst playing an enthusiastic part as an
explosives expert in the French Resistance to the extent of being
decorated by De Gaulle at the end of the war. Pablo was also
considered to have compromised himself, as the following text makes
clear.
END QUOTE
START SECOND QUOTE
Acronauplia Concentration Camp
Acronauplia was not, of course, as bad as Auschwitz or Dachau, but it
was modelled upon the Fascist concentration camps. It was a Venetian
castle, a medieval fort. An extension adjacent to it was first used as
a barracks, and then as a conference centre. A prison for those
serving hard labour sentences was built on a hill opposite the main
prison, and being sent there was a virtual death sentence.
Kolokotronis, the leader of the Greek revolution of 1821, had been
imprisoned there. Acronauplia was first given the title of a prison
for Communists, but it was not a prison. The prisoners were not there
by order of a court, but by virtue of the decisions of Public Security
Committees, or on the order of the Minister of Public Security,
Maniadakis. There were many exiles amongst the detainees.
Eventually it was decided that the most apt term for the prison was
that of a concentration camp, as in the Fascist countries. The
authorities in Acronauplia attempted to enforce strict military
discipline. We were isolated from the outside world. Correspondence,
except two letters per month to one’s family, was forbidden. Only
family visitors were permitted, and they were persuaded and sometimes
even threatened to try and make us sign declarations renouncing our
principles and beliefs.
After great efforts on our part, we were permitted to have a very few
books, but no newspapers at first. Much later we were allowed to read
a newspaper, but that contained nothing but Fascist poison. We had
very little water at first, the time permitted for a walk in the
prison yard was barely enough for us to stretch our legs, and we went
hungry very often. A strict military discipline was imposed, we could
not rise before reveille had sounded, and revolutionary songs were
strictly forbidden.
At the beginning an internal guard was maintained. Every morning we
were counted and reported on, with the prisoners standing to attention
right through the proceedings. Bed-time and lights out regulations had
to be obeyed without question. We protested and fought tooth and nail
to break this unpopular Fascist barracks regime.
We acted very carefully to secure what freedom we could within those
walls. The situation became critical. In September 1937 the prison
guards attacked the prisoners, after having encouraged them to break
the prison rules - in other words, a provocation.
One night ‘Göring’ entered cell 2 and ordered us to stop what we were
doing and go to bed, as lights out had been signalled. Nobody moved.
He left and we heard a pistol shot. That was the signal for the guards
to shoot. A hail of bullets hit the cells. They were shooting to kill.
We were not frightened. On the contrary, we shouted back, ‘Shame on
you, murderers!’ We crept under our beds, shielding ourselves with
mattresses or stood in the corners or behind bullet-proof walls. This
continued until Vrettos, the Prison Director, returned from Nauplia
and ordered a cease fire.
This murderous assault cost the school teacher P Stavridis his life.
His head was shattered as if it was a vase, and his brains spilled out
onto the floor. The prison authorities said he was shot dead whilst
trying to escape...
Raptis was exiled to Folegandros. He had not at that point signed any
declaration of repentance. He did not take part in any of our meetings
there. He was neither warm nor fraternal towards us. Was it his
temperament? Was he pretending to be somebody else? Or did he have
psychological problems? However, he did not give us the impression of
being somebody likely to sign a declaration of repentance. Suddenly he
left and was taken to the Ministry. After a while we heard that
Maniadakis had freed him on condition that he went abroad. We were
certain that he signed a declaration of repentance. It was well known
that nobody had ever been released without signing one.
Meanwhile Vitsoris had been arrested, but through the mediation of the
great actress Kotopouli, he had been freed to go abroad by Maniadakis,
just as in the previous case of a highly esteemed member of the Glinos
group, Likogiannis. The group’s leadership had said nothing, but we
knew that Maniadakis would not free anyone without obtaining a
declaration of repentance.
We discussed the cases of Raptis and Vitsoris, but could not form a
uniform opinion. The majority approved of the behaviour of Raptis, but
not that of Vitsoris. Only Xipolitos, Tournopoulos and I condemned
Raptis. These were times when those who signed a declaration were
rejecting all their beliefs and convictions, and would lose the
respect held towards those who remained in prison, facing death with
courage.
Theodorou, the former Secretary of the OKNE (the KKE’s youth group),
who belonged to the Sklavos group, approached the prison authorities
and asked for the records of the Raptis case. There he read:
‘Maniadakis asked Raptis "Your parents have assured me that you were
involved in the movement because you were young and immature, and that
if I let you go abroad, you will never become involved again. What do
you say?" He did not answer.’
And as is very well known, he who remains silent, consents.
Raptis was not an ordinary member. He was a co-leader of the
Pouliopoulos group, and a member of its Central Committee. Was it
correct for the leaders to get a passport from Maniadakis and go
abroad? And what about the ordinary members?
Should they sign repentance declarations in order to leave? If the
leaders deserted, should not the entire working class leave for
abroad? If not, who would lead the working class to break its bonds?
In this case Pouliopoulos showed all his greatness. To begin with, he
had not heard of the affair. But prior to his capture he had met
Raptis, who was by then freed. We never learned what Raptis told him
or held back. Anyway Pouliopoulos brought the case before a Central
Committee meeting, and Raptis’ behaviour was condemned by Vourzoukis,
Tamtakos and Anastasiadis. When Pouliopoulos was arrested, he was
first taken to the Averof jail, and then to the jail on Aegina. From
there he managed to send a letter to us at Acronauplia saying that
‘Raptis is advising me to go abroad in the same way as he did. What is
the opinion of the Acronauplia group?’ We decided unanimously - ‘No’.
Pouliopoulos had signed a contract of honour with the movement. He was
not going to kneel before the ridiculous dictator. He had already
started a struggle against the declarations of repentance, saying
‘they can only take me abroad in chains, and even then I will find a
way to return’. Our comrades abroad were not aware of how we were
fighting against the declarations of repentance.
Raptis and Vitsoris were accepted abroad as representatives. But of
whom, the Workers Front or The Proletarian? Nobody had nominated them
as their representatives. Their behaviour abroad was irritating. Even
during the dictatorship of Papadopoulos (1967) those abroad showed the
same rotten liberal attitude, and today we know how much this costs.
We have been heavily criticised over the matter of declarations of
repentance. We know better than anyone else what we have lost, as the
leadership of the international Trotskyist movement [in Greece] was
wiped out. But we refused to reverse our decision. We believe that
they had the same feelings on this as us. They are not dead, they live
because their ideas live on.
END SECOND QUOTE
srd
BEGIN QUOTE
‘After an extensive search, the Special Security Police arrested the
following students who had formed an organisation of Fourth
Internationalists, followers of the exiled Trotsky, led by the
Communist Menelaos Megariotis, a chemistry student, who appears to be
the Secretary of the Central Committee of the organisation. From the
house of Andreas Papandreou was taken a typewriter and a duplicator,
with which the illegal Communist paper The Proletarian was printed,
along with various Communist papers and leaflets. Those arrested
confessed their activities and, with the exception of Megariotis,
submitted declarations of regret and a renunciation of their Communist
views:
1.Andreas Papandreou
2.Cornelius Castoriadis
3.Kirkos Kirkou
4.Eleutherios -----
5.Christos Karabelas
6.Helias Kolovos
7.Ioannis Kontogiannis
8.Stefanos Gastratos - all law students
9.Christos Valias - a sixth-form student in the High School
10.Nikos Kondilis - a student and electrician
11.Menelaos Megariotis - a law student
Plus two or three others.’
END QUOTE
srd
srd
considers karliaftis a quisling, but vngelis is too chickenshit to
admit it.
But this whole quisling thing is a farce coming from vngelis, a
supporter of ELAS, arm of British imperialism.
srd
jh
Thanks, Steve, very useful postings.
Quisling seems strong. Pouliopoulos did not think so. Remaining silent
under interrogation cannot be a bad thing in my book, whatever
interpretations others might draw from it.
And Raptis-Pablo certainly did *not* do what the policeman expected
him to do after release from custody.
Still the affair puts a certain cloud over his head, so if followers
of Sklavos *now* are praising Pablo to the skies while accusing others
of quislingism, that is pretty despicable.
-jh-
srd
> On Jan 4, 3:31 am, srd <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The quisling is Pablo, whom the KDE now idolizes. vngelis clearly
> > considers karliaftis a quisling, but vngelis is too chickenshit to
> > admit it.
>
> > But this whole quisling thing is a farce coming from vngelis, a
> > supporter of ELAS, arm of British imperialism.
>
> > srd
>
> Thanks, Steve, very useful postings.
>
> Quisling seems strong.
Agreed.
srd
Vngelis
> -jh-
He has now become ...Steve.
How the world turns.
Not long ago SiRgunD was asking for a boycott for Jesse Helmes.
Aris Veluhiotis signed to leave prison as well and led a guerilla war
against the
German occupation. Lucas was conservative with a small c. He preferred
the safety
of the prison to fighting the occupation on the street. Its easily
done.
But you cant turn this into a theory and call the
resistance ...reactionary.
But then again lets not forget you supported the US invasion of
Yugoslavia and Iraq and
Afghanistan by refusing to support military victory to the
insurgents...
David
SRD supported the invasion of Iraq and Yugoslavia? Really? I don't
remember that. I don't think anyone here supported that.
DW
Vngelis
Read carefully, its sometimes hard, I know.
The post was directed to Jesse Helmes not SiRgunD...
vngelis
jh
He's actually claiming *I* did.
I guess the Internet will take anything posted, to misquote Stalin.
-jh-
macphineas
Unmoderated forums certainly will. I want to know how bngelis defines
"quisling"-- I take it to mean someone who knowingly collaborates with
imperialist occupiers (like his Iraqi hero al-Sadr). Nobody mentioned
in these postings, despite some questionable, even renegade, conduct
(especially Papandreou and Castoriadis) actually collaborated with the
German occupation. I see nothing wrong in becoming an exile if
necessary-- the Bolshevik leadership spent many years in exile--
although the specific conditions would dictate whether signing a
document renouncing Communism was opportunist or not. Karliaftis
survived prison, and apparently had some outside contact, so maybe
that was indeed the better choice.
macphineas
srd
What are you going to do when I soon terminate my vngelis-translation
service? He's talking about Holmes. The IG attacked the SL for failing
to call for military victory against U.S. in Iraq, and vngelis echoes
that criticism. (To me, failing to call for victory is chickenshit on
the Spart League's part, but it isn't a contradiction. Failing to call
for victory doesn't imply being against victory, however much as
vngelis (and the whole Healyite tradition) revels in collapsing these
distinctions. (Objectively the same!)
On Yugoslavia, there's the Spart League's zigzags based on
nationalities issues, which probably stem from the SL's (imo) Pabloite
views on national liberation, although I haven't yet thought it
through in that light.
srd
David
What is a "pabloite view on national liberation"?
DW
srd
question.
srd
David
Ah. This is also Trotsky's, I believe but I'd have to back an look.
There is a section in the TP about countries under Fascist (which
meant German) occupation.
DW
macphineas
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text2.htm#fc
The Program of Transitional
Demands in Fascist Countries
It is a far cry today from the time when the strategists of the
Comintern announced the victory of Hitler as being merely a step
toward the victory of Thaelmann. Thaelmann has been in Hitler’s
prisons now for more than five years. Mussolini has held Italy
enchained by fascism for more than sixteen years. Throughout this
time, the parties of the Second and Third Internationals have been
impotent, not only to conduct a mass movement, but even to create a
serious illegal organization, even to some extent comparable to the
Russian revolutionary parties during the epoch of Tsarism.
Not the least reason exists for explaining these failures by reference
to the power of fascist ideology. (Essentially, Mussolini never
advanced any sort of ideology.) Hitler’s “ideology” never seriously
gripped the workers. Those layers of the population which at one time
were intoxicated with fascism i.e., chiefly the middle classes, have
had enough time in which to sober up. The fact that a somewhat
perceptible opposition is limited to Protestant and Catholic church
circles is not explained by the might of the semi-delirious and semi-
charlatan theories of “race” and “blood,” but by the terrific collapse
of the ideologies of democracy, Social Democracy and the Comintern.
After the massacre of the Paris Commune, black reaction reigned for
nearly eight years. After the defeat of the 1905 Russian revolution,
the toiling masses remained in a stupor for almost as long a period.
But in both instances the phenomenon was only one of physical defeat,
conditioned by the relationship of forces. In Russia, in addition, it
concerned an almost virgin proletariat. The Bolshevik faction had at
that time not celebrated even its third birthday. It is completely
otherwise in Germany where the leadership came from powerful parties
one of which had existed for seventy years, the other almost fifteen.
Both these parties, with millions of voters behind them, were morally
paralyzed before the battle and capitulated without a battle. History
has recorded no parallel catastrophe. The German proletariat was not
smashed by the enemy in battle. It was crushed by the cowardice,
baseness, perfidy of its own parties. Small wonder then that it has
lost faith in everything in which it had been accustomed to believe
for almost three generations. Hitler’s victory in turn strengthened
Mussolini.
The protracted failure of revolutionary work in Spain or Germany is
but the reward for the criminal politics of the Social Democracy and
the Comintern. Illegal work needs not only the sympathy of the masses
but the conscious enthusiasm of its advanced strata. But can
enthusiasm possibly be expected for historically bankrupt
organizations? The majority of those who come forth as emigre leaders
are either demoralized to the very marrow of their bones, agents of
the Kremlin and the GPU, or Social Democratic ex-ministers, who dream
that the workers by some sort of miracle will return them to their
lost posts. Is it possible to imagine even for a minute these
gentlemen in the role of future leaders of the “anti-fascist”
revolution?
And events on the world arena – the smashing of the Austrian workers,
the defeat of the Spanish Revolution, the degeneration of the Soviet
state – could not give aid to a revolutionary upsurge in Italy and
Germany. Since for political information the German and Italian
workers depend in great measure upon the radio, it is possible to say
with assurance that the Moscow radio station, combining Thermidorian
lies with stupidity and insolence, has become the most powerful factor
in the demoralization of the workers in the totalitarian states. In
this respect as in others, Stalin acts merely as Goebbels’ assistant.
At the same time, the class antagonisms which brought about the
victory of fascism, continuing their work under fascism too, are
gradually undermining it. The masses are more dissatisfied than ever.
Hundreds and thousands of self-sacrificing workers, in spite of
everything, continue to carry on revolutionary mole-work. A new
generation, which has nor directly experienced the shattering of old
traditions and high hopes, has come to the fore. Irresistibly, the
molecular preparation of the proletarian revolution proceeds beneath
the heavy totalitarian tombstone. But, for concealed energy to flare
into open revolt, it is necessary that the vanguard of the proletariat
find new perspectives, a new program and a new unblemished banner.
Herein lies the chief handicap. It is extremely difficult for workers
in fascist countries to make a choice of a new program. A program is
verified by experience. And it is precisely experience in mass
movements which is lacking in countries of totalitarian despotism. It
is very likely that a genuine proletarian success in one of the
“democratic” countries will be necessary to give impetus to the
revolutionary movement on fascist territory. A similar effect is
possible by means of a financial or military catastrophe. At present,
it is imperative that primarily propagandistic, preparatory work be
carried on which will yield large-scale results only in the future.
One thing can be stated with conviction even at this point: once it
breaks through, the revolutionary wave in fascist countries will
immediately be a grandiose sweep and under no circumstances will stop
short at the experiment of resuscitating some sort of Weimar corpse.
It is from this point onward that an uncompromising divergence begins
between the Fourth International and the old parties, which outlive
their bankruptcy. The emigre “People’s Front” is the most malignant
and perfidious variety of all possible People’s Fronts. Essentially,
it signifies the impotent longing for coalition with a nonexistent
liberal bourgeoisie. Had it met with success, it would simply have
prepared a series of new defeats of the Spanish type for the
proletariat. A merciless exposure of the theory and practice of the
“People’s Front” is therefore the first condition for a revolutionary
struggle against fascism.
Of course, this does not mean that the Fourth International rejects
democratic slogans as a means of mobilizing the masses against
fascism. On the contrary, such slogans at certain moments can play a
serious role. But the formulae of democracy (freedom of press, the
right to unionize, etc.) mean for us only incidental or episodic
slogans in the independent movement of the proletariat and not a
democratic noose fastened to the neck of the proletariat by the
bourgeoisie’s agents (Spain!). As soon as the movement assumes
something of a mass character, the democratic slogans will be
intertwined with the transitional ones; factory committees, it may be
supposed, will appear before the old routinists rush from their
chancelleries to organize trade unions; soviets will cover Germany
before a new Constituent Assembly will gather in Weimar. The same
applies to Italy and the rest of the totalitarian and semi-
totalitarian countries.
Fascism plunged these countries into political barbarism. But it did
not change their social structure. Fascism is a tool in the hands of
finance capital and not of feudal landowners. A revolutionary program
should base itself on the dialectics of the class struggle, obligatory
also to fascist countries, and not on the psychology of terrified
bankrupts. The Fourth International rejects with disgust the ways of
political masquerade which impelled the Stalinists, the former heroes
of the “Third Period,” to appear in turn behind the masks of
Catholics, Protestants, Jews, German nationalists, liberals – only in
order to hide their own unattractive face. The Fourth International
always and everywhere appears under its own banner. It proposes its
own program openly to the proletariat in fascist countries. The
advanced workers of all the world are already firmly convinced that
the overthrow of Mussolini, Hitler and their agents and imitators will
occur only under the leadership of the Fourth International.
***
It's fascist rule, ie the native bourgeoisie, not occupation. The
clearest piece I know of by Trotsky was the one SRD and I were arguing
about:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/06/course.htm
We disagreed about its meaning.
macphineas
srd
If it _were_ Trotsky's position, then the Spart League (or in any
event, Holmes) would be Trotskyist in holding that Israel would become
an oppressed country if the Arab states won a final war. (Note that
during Trotsky's life, he never considered Norway or part of it to
have become oppressed as opposed to imperialist.)
srd
macphineas
Leon Trotsky
Balance Sheet
of the Finnish Events
(April 1940)
Written: 25 April 1940.
First Published: Fourth International, Vol.1 No.2, June 1940, pp.
41-44.
Translated: By Fourth International.
Reprinted: Leon Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism, New York 1942.
Checked Against: Leon Trotsky, In Defence of Marxism, London 1966, pp.
212-222.
Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters.
Copyleft: Leon Trotsky Internet Archive (www.marxists.org) 2003.
Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under
the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
They Couldn’t Foresee
“WE” FORESAW the alliance with Hitler – write Shachtman and Burnham –
but the seizure of Eastern Poland? the invasion of Finland? – no, “we”
couldn’t foresee these events. Such completely improbable and utterly
unexpected events necessitate, they insist, a complete upheaval in our
politics. These politicians labored under the impression apparently
that Stalin needed an alliance with Hitler in order to roll Easter
eggs with him. They “foresaw” the alliance (when? where?) but couldn’t
foresee what it was for and why.
They recognize the right of the workers’ state to maneuver between the
imperialist camps and to conclude agreements with one against another.
These agreements should, obviously, have as their goal the defense of
the workers’ state, the acquisition of economic, strategical and other
advantages, and, if circumstances permit, the extension of the base of
the workers’ state. The degenerated workers’ state attempts to gain
these ends with its own bureaucratic methods, which at every step come
into conflict with the interests of the world proletariat. But exactly
what is so unexpected and so unpredictable about the Kremlin’s attempt
to get as much as it could from its alliance with Hitler?
If our ill-starred politicians failed to foresee “this” it is only
because they fail to think a single question seriously through to the
end. During the protracted negotiations with the Anglo-French
delegation in the summer of 1939, the Kremlin openly demanded military
control over the Baltic States. Because England and France refused to
grant him this control, Stalin broke off negotiations. This alone
clearly indicated that an agreement with Hitler would secure Stalin at
least control over the Baltic states. Politically mature people the
world over approached the matter from precisely this standpoint,
asking themselves: Just how will Stalin accomplish this task? Will he
resort to military force? And so on. The course of events depended,
however, a great deal more on Hitler than on Stalin. Generally
speaking, concrete events cannot be predicted. But the main direction
of the events as they actually unfolded contained nothing essentially
new.
Because of the degeneration of the workers’ state, the Soviet Union
turned out at the threshold of the second imperialist war to be far
weaker than it need have been. Stalin’s agreement with Hitler had as
its objective the securing of the USSR from a German assault and,
generally, securing the USSR from being drawn into a major war. While
seizing Poland, Hitler had to protect himself on the East. Stalin was
compelled, with Hitler’s permission, to invade Eastern Poland in order
to avail himself of some supplementary guarantees against Hitler on
the Western boundary of the USSR. As a result of these events,
however, the USSR acquired a common frontier with Germany, and by
virtue of this very fact the danger from a victorious Germany became
much more direct, while Stalin’s dependence on Hitler was greatly
increased.
The episode of the partitioning of Poland had its development and
sequel in the Scandinavian arena. Hitler could not have failed to give
some intimation to his “friend” Stalin that he planned to seize the
Scandinavian countries. Stalin could not have failed to break into a
cold sweat. After all, this signified complete German domination of
the Baltic Sea, of Finland, and hence constituted a direct threat to
Leningrad. Once again Stalin had to seek supplementary guarantees
against his ally, this time in Finland. However, he met with serious
resistance there. The “military excursion” dragged on. Meanwhile
Scandinavia threatened to become the arena of major warfare. Hitler,
who had completed his preparations for the blow against Denmark and
Norway, demanded that Stalin conclude an early peace. Stalin had to
cut his plans short, and renounce sovietizing Finland. These are the
salient features of the course of events in the European Northwest.
Small Nations in the Imperialist War
Under the conditions of World War, to approach the question of the
fate of small states from the standpoint of “national independence,”
“neutrality,” etc., is to remain in the sphere of imperialist
mythology. The struggle involves world domination. The question of the
existence of the USSR will be solved in passing. This problem which
today remains in the background, will at a certain moment come to the
forefront. So far as the small and second rate states are concerned,
they are already today pawns in the hands of the great powers. The
sole freedom they still retain, and this only to a limited extent, is
the freedom of choosing between masters.
Two governments struggle for a while in Norway: The government of the
Norwegian Nazis, covered by the German troops in the South, and the
old social-democratic government with their King in the North. Should
the Norwegian workers have supported the “democratic” camp against the
fascist? Following the analogy with Spain, it might at first glance
appear as if this question should be answered in the affirmative. In
reality this would be the crudest kind of blunder. In Spain there was
an isolated civil war; the intervention of foreign imperialist powers,
however important in itself, nevertheless remained of secondary
character. What is involved in Norway is the direct and immediate
clash between two imperialist camps in whose hands the warring
Norwegian governments are only auxiliary tools. On the world arena we
support neither the camp of the Allies nor the camp of Germany.
Consequently we have not the slightest reason or justification for
supporting either one of their temporary tools within Norway itself.
The very same approach must be applied to Finland. From the standpoint
of the strategy of the world proletariat, Finnish resistance was no
more an act of independent national defense than is the resistance of
Norway. This was best demonstrated by the Finnish government itself
which preferred to cease all resistance rather than have Finland
completely transformed into a military base of England, France and the
United States. Secondary factors like the national independence of
Finland or Norway, the defense of democracy, etc., however important
in themselves, are now intertwined in the struggle of infinitely more
powerful world forces and are completely subordinate to them. We must
discount these secondary factors and determine our policy in
accordance with the basic factors.
The programmatic theses of the Fourth International on the war gave an
exhaustive answer to this question six years ago. The theses state:
“The idea of national defense especially if it coincides with the idea
of the defense of democracy, can most readily be utilized to dupe the
workers of small and neutral countries (Switzerland, in particular
Belgium, the Scandinavian countries ...).” And further on: “Only petty-
bourgeois blockheads (like Robert Grimm) from a god-forsaken Swiss
village could seriously believe that the World War into which he will
be drawn is a means for defending the independence of Switzerland.”
Other petty-bourgeois equally stupid imagined that world war is a
means for defending Finland, that it is possible to determine
proletarian strategy on the basis of a tactical episode such as the
invasion of Finland by the Red Army.
Georgia and Finland
Just as during strikes directed against big capitalists, the workers
often bankrupt in passing highly respectable petty-bourgeois concerns,
so in a military struggle against imperialism, or in seeking military
guarantees against imperialism, the workers’ stateeven completely
healthy and revolutionary – may find itself compelled to violate the
independence of this or that small state. Tears over the ruthlessness
of the class struggle on either the domestic or the international
arena may properly be shed by democratic Philistines but not by
proletarian revolutionists.
The Soviet Republic in 1921 forcefully sovietized Georgia which
constituted an open gateway for imperialist assault in the Caucasus.
From the standpoint of the principles of national self-determination,
a good deal might have been said in objection to such sovietization.
From the standpoint of extending the arena of the socialist
revolution, military intervention in a peasant country was more than a
dubious act. From the standpoint of the self-defense of the workers’
state surrounded by enemies, forceful sovietization was justified: The
safeguarding of the socialist revolution comes before formal
democratic principles.
World imperialism for a long time utilized the question of violence in
Georgia as the rallying cry in mobilizing world public opinion against
the Soviets. The Second International took the lead in this campaign.
The Entente aimed at the preparation of a possible new military
intervention against the Soviets.
In exactly the same way as in the case of Georgia, the world
bourgeoisie utilized the invasion of Finland in mobilizing public
opinion against the USSR. The social-democracy in this case too came
out as the vanguard of democratic imperialism. The unhappy “third
camp” of the stampeding petty-bourgeois brings up the rear.
Along with the striking similarity between these two instances of
military intervention there is, however, a profound difference – the
present USSR is far from being the Soviet Republic of 1921. The 1934
theses of the Fourth International on War declare: “The monstrous
development of Soviet bureaucratism and the wretched living conditions
of the toilers have extremely reduced the attractive power of the USSR
for the world working class.” The Soviet-Finnish war revealed
graphically and completely that within gunshot of Leningrad, the
cradle of the October revolution, the present regime of the USSR is
incapable of exercising an attractive force. Yet it does not follow
from this that the USSR must be surrendered to the imperialists but
only that the USSR must be torn out of the hands of the bureaucracy.
“Where Is the Civil War?”
“But where is the Civil War in Finland which you promised?” demand the
leaders of the former opposition, who have now become the leaders of
the “third camp.” I promised nothing. I only analyzed one of the
possible variants of the further development of the Soviet-Finnish
conflict. The seizure of isolated bases in Finland was as probable as
the complete occupation of Finland. The seizure of bases presupposed
maintaining the bourgeois regime throughout the rest of the country.
Occupation presupposed a social overturn which would be impossible
without involving the workers and poorer farmers in civil war. The
initial diplomatic negotiations between Moscow and Helsinki indicated
an attempt to solve the question in the way it was solved with the
other Baltic states. Finland’s resistance compelled the Kremlin to
seek its ends through military measures. Stalin could justify the war
before the broadest masses only by sovietizing Finland. The
appointment of the Kuusmen government indicated that the fate awaiting
Finland was not that of the Baltic states but that of Poland, where
Stalin – no matter what the amateur columnists of the “third camp”
scribble – found himself compelled to provoke civil war and to
overthrow property relations.
I specified several times that if the war in Finland was not submerged
in a general war, and if Stalin was not compelled to retreat before a
threat from the outside, then he would be forced to carry through the
sovietizing of Finland. This task by itself was much more difficult
than the sovietizing of Eastern Poland. More difficult from a military
standpoint, for Finland happened to be better prepared. More difficult
from a national standpoint, for Finland possesses a long tradition of
struggle for national independence from Russia, whereas the Ukrainians
and the White Russians were fighting against Poland. More difficult
from a social standpoint, for the Finnish bourgeoisie had in its own
way solved the pre-capitalist agrarian problem through the creation of
an agricultural petty-bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the military victory
of Stalin over Finland would unquestionably have made fully possible
an overthrow of property relations with more or less assistance from
the Finnish workers and small farmers.
Why then didn’t Stalin carry out this plan? Because a colossal
mobilization of bourgeois public opinion began against the USSR.
Because England and France seriously posed the question of military
intervention. Finally – last but not least in importance – because
Hitler could wait no longer. The appearance of English and French
troops in Finland would have meant a direct threat to Hitler’s
Scandinavian plans which were based on conspiracy and surprise. Caught
in the vise of a twofold danger – on one side from the Allies and from
the other, Hitler-Stalin renounced sovietizing Finland, limiting
himself to the seizure of isolated strategical positions.
The partisans of the “third camp” (the camp of the stampeding petty-
bourgeois) now piece together the following construction: Trotsky
deduced the civil war in Finland from the class nature of the USSR;
inasmuch as no civil war occurred, that signifies the USSR is not a
workers’ state. In reality there was no necessity whatever for
logically “deducing” a possible civil war in Finland from a
sociological definition of the USSR – it was sufficient to base
oneself on the experience in Eastern Poland. The overturn in property
relations which was accomplished there could have been achieved only
by the state that issued from the October revolution. This overturn
was forced upon the Kremlin oligarchy through its struggle for self-
preservation under specific conditions. There was not the slightest
ground for doubting that under analogous conditions it would find
itself compelled to repeat the very same operation in Finland. That
was all I pointed out. But conditions changed during the course of the
struggle. War, like revolution, often develops abrupt turns. With the
cessation of military operations on the part of the Red Army,
naturally there could be no talk of the unfolding of civil war in
Finland.
Every historical prognosis is always conditional, and the more
concrete the prognosis, the more conditional it is. A prognosis is not
a promissory note which can be cashed on a given date. Prognosis
outlines only the definite trends of the development. But along with
these trends a different order of forces and tendencies operate, which
at a certain moment begin to predominate. All those who seek exact
predictions of concrete events should consult the astrologists.
Marxist prognosis aids only in orientation. I made reservations
several times as to the conditionality of my prognosis as one of
several possible variants. To clutch now, as the rock of salvation, at
the tenth rate historical fact that the fate of Finland was
temporarily determined on the pattern of Lithuania, Latvia and
Esthonia rather than the pattern of Eastern Poland can occur only to
sterile scholastics or – the leaders of the “third camp.”
The Defense of the Soviet Union
Stalin’s assault upon Finland was not of course solely an act in
defense of the USSR. The politics of the Soviet Union is guided by the
Bonapartist bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is first and foremost
concerned with its power, its prestige, its revenues. It defends
itself much better than it defends the USSR. It defends itself at the
expense of the USSR and at the expense of the world proletariat. This
was revealed only too clearly throughout the entire development of the
Soviet-Finnish conflict. We cannot therefore either directly or
indirectly take upon ourselves even a shadow of responsibility for the
invasion of Finland which represents only a single link in the chain
of the politics of the Bonapartist bureaucracy.
It is one thing to solidarize with Stalin, defend his policy, assume
responsibility for it – as does the triply infamous Comintern – it is
another thing to explain to the world working class that no matter
what crimes Stalin may be guilty of we cannot permit world imperialism
to crush the Soviet Union, reestablish capitalism, and convert the
land of the October revolution into a colony. This explanation
likewise furnishes the basis for our defense of the USSR.
The attempt of the conjunctural defeatists, i.e., the adventurers in
defeatism, to extricate themselves from their difficulty by promising
that in the event the Allies intervene they will change their
defeatist policy to a defensist one is a contemptible evasion. It is
in general not easy to determine one’s policies according to a stop
watch, especially under wartime conditions. In the critical days of
the Soviet-Finnish war, as has now become known – the Allied general
staffs reached the conclusion that serious and quick aid to Finland
could come only through destroying the Murmansk railway by bombing it
from the air. From the point of view of strategy this was quite
correct. The question of intervention or non-intervention by the
Allied air forces hung by a hair. From the same hair apparently, the
principled position of the “third camp” also dangled. But from the
very beginning we considered that it was necessary to determine one’s
position in accordance with the basic class camps in the war. This is
much more reliable.
No Surrender to the Enemy of Positions Already Won
The policy of defeatism is not punishment of a given government for
this or that crime it has committed but a conclusion from the class
relationships. The Marxist line of conduct in war is not based on
abstract moral and sentimental considerations but on the social
appraisal of a regime in its reciprocal relations with other regimes.
We supported Abyssinia not because the Negus was politically or
“morally” superior to Mussolini but because the defense of a backward
country against colonial oppression deals a blow to imperialism, which
is the main enemy of the world working class. We defend the USSR
independently of the policy of the Moscow Negus for two fundamental
reasons. First, the defeat of the USSR would supply imperialism with
new colossal resources and could prolong for many years the death
agony of capitalist society. Secondly, the social foundations of the
USSR, cleansed of the parasitic bureaucracy are capable of assuring
unbounded economic and cultural progress, while the capitalist
foundations disclose no possibilities except further decay.
What unmasks the noisy critics most of all is that they continued to
consider the USSR a workers’ state at a time when Stalin was
destroying the Bolshevik party; when he was strangling the proletarian
revolution in Spain; when he was betraying the world revolution in the
name of “People’s Fronts” and “collective security.” Under all these
conditions they recognized the necessity of defending the USSR as a
workers’ state! But no sooner did this same Stalin invade “democratic”
Finland, no sooner did bourgeois public opinion of the imperialist
democracies – which covered up and approved all Stalins’ crimes
against the communists, the workers and the peasants – raise a howl to
the skies, than our innovators immediately declared: “Yes, this is
intolerable!” And following Roosevelt they declared a moral embargo
against the Soviet Union.
Educated witch-doctor Burnham’s reasoning on the theme that by
defending the USSR we thereby defend Hitler, is a neat little specimen
of petty-bourgeois fatheadedness which seeks to force contradictory
reality into the framework of a two-dimensional syllogism. By
defending the Soviet Republic after the Brest-Litovsk peace did the
workers support Hohenzollern? Yes or no? The programmatic theses of
the Fourth International on war which deal in detail with this
question, establish categorically that agreements between a soviet
state and this or that imperialist state do not place any restrictions
upon the revolutionary party of that state. The interests of the world
revolution stand above an isolated diplomatic combination, however
justifiable the latter may be in and of itself. By defending the USSR
we struggle far more seriously against Stalin, as well as Hitler, than
do Burnham and Co.
It is true, Burnham and Shachtman do not stand alone. Leon Jouhaux,
the notorious agent of French capitalism, also waxes indignant over
the fact that the “Trotskyists defend the USSR.” Who should be
indignant if not he! But our attitude toward the USSR is the same as
our attitude towards the CGT (General Confederation of Labor) we
defend it against the bourgeoisie despite the fact that the
Confederation is headed by scoundrels like Leon Jouhaux who deceive
and betray the workers at every step. The Russian Mensheviks likewise
are howling: “The Fourth International is in a Blind Alley!” because
the Fourth International still continues to recognize the USSR as a
workers’ state. These gentlemen themselves are members of the Second
International, which is led by such eminent traitors as the typical
bourgeois mayor Huysmans, and Leon Blum, who betrayed an exceptionally
favorable revolutionary situation in June 1936 and thereby made
possible the present war. The Mensheviks recognize the parties of the
Second International as workers’ parties but refuse to recognize the
Soviet Union as a workers’ state on the ground that at its head stand
bureaucratic traitors. This falsehood reeks with brazenness and
cynicism. Stalin, Mobtoy, and the rest, as a social layer are no
better and no worse than the Blums, Jouhaux, Citrines, Thomases, etc.
The difference between them is only this, that Stalin and Co. exploit
and cripple the viable economic foundation of socialist development,
while the Blums cling to the thoroughly rotted foundation of
capitalist society.
The workers’ state must be taken as it has emerged from the merciless
laboratory of history and not as it is imagined by a “socialist”
professor, reflectively exploring his nose with his finger. It is the
duty of revolutionists to defend every conquest of the working class
even though it may he distorted by the pressure of hostile forces.
Those who cannot defend old positions will never conquer new ones.
April 25, 1940
***
Trotsky doesn't make a clear statement about the question of
nationalism in occupied imperialist countries. He does, however,
support my contention that Stalin had initially planned to sovietize
Finland.
macphineas
jh
on Greece be any different from his position on Norway or Finland or
Georgia? No reason whatsoever.
Trying to draw a distinction between Norway and Greece is totally
absurd. Norway was an oppressed colony first of Denmark then of
Sweden, and got its independence only in 1905. Like Greece, it had a
working class and peasantry with a militant tradition. And the economy
was about on a level with that of Greece back then, and remained so
until oil was discovered in the North Sea. Norway was *never* an
imperial power, not ever, unless you want to go back to the Vikings.
And if you are going back to the Vikings, what about Alexander?
This reads almost like a direct polemic vs. the Vangelis-Dusty
position.
So, if they want to continue arguing it, it is time for them to
explain just where Trotsky went wrong and why. And drop the claim of
being any kind of Trotskyists, once and for all.
-jh-
> military intervention there is, ...
>
> read more »
srd
>From the standpoint of a revolution in one’s own country the defeat of one’s
>own imperialist government is undoubtedly a “lesser evil.” Pseudo-
>internationalists, however, refuse to apply this principle in relation to the
>defeated democratic countries. In return, they interpret Hitler’s victory
>not as a relative but as an absolute obstacle in the way of a revolution in
>Germany. They lie in both instances. (http://tinyurl.com/yz657nu)
National resistance ----> "Refusal to apply this principle in relation
to the DEFEATED democratic countries"
srd
srd
MacQuisling
srd
srd
Simply amazing.
No, MacQuisling, you aren't an Opportunist if you sign such a
document; you're a crawling insect.
[Particularly obnoxious position for something who knows some history,
as along with signatures, the turncoat also was required to disclose
the location of his comrades. Will MacQuisling say "Oh, I didn't MEAN
THAT TOO--like a nincompoop--or will he more forthrightly say, "that
too depends on circumstances."]
srd
srd
I guess I wasn't doing the Spart League any favor with that referral.
srd
dusty
> On 4 Jan, 14:14, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Steve, very useful postings.
>
> > Quisling seems strong. Pouliopoulos did not think so. Remaining silent
> > under interrogation cannot be a bad thing in my book, whatever
> > interpretations others might draw from it.
>
> > And Raptis-Pablo certainly did *not* do what the policeman expected
> > him to do after release from custody.
>
> > Still the affair puts a certain cloud over his head, so if followers
> > of Sklavos *now* are praising Pablo to the skies while accusing others
> > of quislingism, that is pretty despicable.
> vngelis
> > -jh-
>
> He has now become ...Steve.
> How the world turns.
> Not long ago SiRgunD was asking for a boycott for Jesse Helmes.
Hadn't you heard? The Sparts have prioritised processing of "Stevie's"
application for admittance (Sympathiser Status only) for the luxurious
Man-Boy "Love-in" bathhouse.
jh
This may be a quote out of context, mac should speak to this.
In any case, there is absolutely no question that Andreas Papandreou
was a quisling of the worst sort. Ended up being rewarded for his
treachery with the prime ministership or something of Greece, and even
was able to hand the position over to his son, the current prime
minister.
-jh-
srd
> On Jan 5, 2:32 am, srd <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 11:22 pm, srd <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "the specific conditions would dictate whether signing a
> > > document renouncing Communism was opportunist or not."(!!!) --
> > > MacQuisling
>
> > > srd
>
> > Simply amazing.
>
> > No, MacQuisling, you aren't an Opportunist if you sign such a
> > document; you're a crawling insect.
>
> > [Particularly obnoxious position for something who knows some history,
> > as along with signatures, the turncoat also was required to disclose
> > the location of his comrades. Will MacQuisling say "Oh, I didn't MEAN
> > THAT TOO--like a nincompoop--or will he more forthrightly say, "that
> > too depends on circumstances."]
>
> > srd
>
> This may be a quote out of context, mac should speak to this.
Sorry I neglected to make the context more accessible, although it is
in this thread. The message is here: http://tinyurl.com/yjubv2s
Here's all the context contained in the message itself:
[BEGIN MACPHINEAS'S RESPONSE]
Unmoderated forums certainly will. I want to know how bngelis
defines
"quisling"-- I take it to mean someone who knowingly collaborates
with
imperialist occupiers (like his Iraqi hero al-Sadr). Nobody
mentioned
in these postings, despite some questionable, even renegade, conduct
(especially Papandreou and Castoriadis) actually collaborated with
the
German occupation. I see nothing wrong in becoming an exile if
necessary-- the Bolshevik leadership spent many years in exile--
although the specific conditions would dictate whether signing a
document renouncing Communism was opportunist or not. Karliaftis
survived prison, and apparently had some outside contact, so maybe
that was indeed the better choice.
macphineas
[END MACPHINEAS'S RESPONSE]
>
> In any case, there is absolutely no question that Andreas Papandreou
> was a quisling of the worst sort.
Not according to MacPhineas, see above (taken together, making his
meaning perfectly clear).
srd
macphineas
He was a post-war quisling for British and American imperialism--I
don't know enough of what he did during the war in exile to know if he
warranted the label then. But given that his father was a career
bourgeois politician it's likely.
But I was speaking of the period during the war.
macphineas
macphineas
They weren't quislings for the Germans, afaik, which is what I said.
That's what the evidence presented shows, unless you know something
else. Papandreou was later the left-bourgeois puppet of British and
American imperialism, maybe he was during the war as well, I don't
know.
As to the question of signing one of the statements renouncing
communism, in almost all cases it would be cowardly and more
importantly, self-defeating; any such statement would put a clear pall
over the signatory, forever after. But I can imagine certain cases
where it could be justified. For example, a revolutionary belongs to
a group that has been largely imprisoned, but maintains a certain
outside network, with which our hypothetical revolutionary remains in
contact, even if that is tenuous. Let's say this is Greece during the
German invasion, and the guards are getting antsy, realizing their
country, and thus their employer, is about to be conquered. So they
start offering the following deal: sign a declaration renouncing your
political beliefs, and you get to go into exile. Refuse, and you'll
be executed. So our revolutionary confers with his group, they say
accept the deal and stay alive, maybe passing along outdated safehouse
info to the guards, and he lives to fight on. Would he still be a
"crawling worm?" Or has our resident desert hermit philosopher
revealed himself to be a moralistic metaphysician?
macphineas
Vngelis
I would have to agree with the above for that is how it was presented.
Indeed the KKE took the decision to release cadres to fight in an
underground manner.
But being the KKE if one signed a declaration and then went against
whatever idiotic
turn in policy, then ones past would be brought up, ie signing the
declaration.
But the issue: was the national resistance of the vietnamese, the
chinese and the greeks
reactionary. SiRgunD has argued thus. by arguing thus your position
becomes objectively
quisling...
vngelis
vngelis
srd
That's exactly how the question was presented, and with K. I say a
hundred times YES, a crawling insect.
What is the use of "fighting on" if no one worth a shit will have
anything to do with you? Absolute ethical standards do exist within
the relative of the struggle for socialism. One of those bans is
against political lies. To lie politically under coercion is no
different from doing it "voluntarily;" all politics is under
"coercion" of one kind or another. The only way a person signing would
not be a clawling insect is if he _were_ a coward and broke under
torture.
Your position is the pragmatist morass of Pabloism whose infection
spread throughout Trotskyism because of Soviet postwar prestige and
the related glory of the patriotic resistance movements. Those you
happen to call "fascist" have a political and ethical philosophy
fundamentally identical to yours, Pabloism at the most degenerate.
srd
Vngelis
Organisations took the decision as to who should escape and also who
should
sign a declaration. Pouliopoulos was presented with escape but refused
it.
Others did escape.
vngelis
srd
technicolor. Hygiene will not permit me a direct response. (Nothing
like a CORRECT ANALYSIS to smoke out the enemy.)
srd
jh
The way I read it, he is stating that Papandreou & Castoriadis were
renegades, but not necessarily quislings, as they were not puppet
rulers of Greece under Nazi occupation.
-jh-
srd
As K makes vividly clear, nothing is so disorienting to the masses as
these *collaborationist* declarations.
srd
srd
A "renegade" is Karl Kautsky. So, you agree that signing anticommunist
declarations is mere renegacy? [Maybe the point really does relate to
the semantics of "quisling" (not exactly a Marxist technical term). If
you read a semantic concern in context, you get a trivialization of
the issue as unbalanced as the justificatory interpretation. Anyway,
MP admits the thinks that signing the declarations under exactly the
conditions the declarations were actually offered is a revolutionary
option.]
Vngelis
Greeks are defined by their collective greek national consciousness
wherever they may be.
They aint defined by stateless globalists or by the parameters the set
in debate...
Indeed when it comes to defining greeks rules are invented, when it
comes to immigrants
movement they are defined by movement alone. So an immigrant can quite
easily become
allegedly a greek by movement but a greek who upholds greek values
loses his rights.
Ironic if not ludicrous.
vngelis
jh
I don't think writing words on a piece of paper is always a principled
question. Isn't there a legal conception of signing something under
duress?
When the Bolshevik delegates got admission to the Tsarist Duma, I
think they had to sign something declaring their loyalty to the Tsar.
I don't see renegacy as "mere." Kautsky sided with the imperialists
vs. the Russian Revolution, that's why Lenin called him a renegade.
And not just in words.
The renegacy of Papandreou was turning in his comrades. Anybody who
thinks *that* is OK had better stay far, far away from any working
class movement, revolutionary or not. But that's not at issue here.
-jh-
macphineas
Here's Trotsky's take, from the concluding section of "Their Morals
and Ours:"
Dialectic Interdependence of End and Means
A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn
needs to be justified, From the Marxist point of view, which expresses
the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if
it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the
abolition of the power of man over man.
“We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is
permissible?” sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that
he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really
leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can be achieved
only through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat of
necessity is endowed with a revolutionary character. It irreconcilably
counteracts not only religious dogma but every kind of idealistic
fetish, these philosophic gendarmes of the ruling class. It deduces a
rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus
primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws.
“Just the same,” the moralist continues to insist, “does it mean that
in the class struggle against capitalists all means are permissible:
lying, frame-up, betrayal, murder, and so on?” Permissible and
obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the
revolutionary proletariat, fill their hearts with irreconcilable
hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for official morality and
its democratic echoers, imbue them with consciousness of their own
historic mission, raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice in
the struggle. Precisely from this it flows that not all means are
permissible. When we say that the end justifies the means, then for us
the conclusion follows that the great revolutionary end spurns those
base means and ways which set one part of the working class against
other parts, or attempt to make the masses happy without their
participation; or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and
their organization, replacing it by worship for the “leaders”.
Primarily and irreconcilably, revolutionary morality rejects servility
in relation to the bourgeoisie and haughtiness in relation to the
toilers, that is, those characteristics in which petty bourgeois
pedants and moralists are thoroughly steeped.
These criteria do not, of course, give a ready answer to the question
as to what is permissible and what is not permissible in each separate
case. There can be no such automatic answers. Problems of
revolutionary morality are fused with the problems of revolutionary
strategy and tactics. The living experience of the movement under the
clarification of theory provides the correct answer to these problems.
Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The
end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the
means are subordinated to the end. The immediate end becomes the means
for a further end. In his play, Franz von Sickingen, Ferdinand
Lassalle puts the following words into the mouth of one of the heroes:
... “Show not the goal
But show also the path. So closely interwoven
Are path and goal that each with other
Ever changes, and other paths forthwith
Another goal set up.”
Lassalle’s lines are not at all perfect. Still worse is the fact that
in practical politics Lassalle himself diverged from the above
expressed precept – it is sufficient to recall that he went as far as
secret agreements with Bismark! But the dialectic interdependence
between means and end is expressed entirely correctly in the above-
quoted sentences. Seeds of wheat must be sown in order to yield an ear
of wheat.
Is individual terror, for example, permissible or impermissible from
the point of view of “pure morals”? In this abstract form the question
does not exist at all for us. Conservative Swiss bourgeois even now
render official praise to the terrorist William Tell. Our sympathies
are fully on the side of Irish, Russian, Polish or Hindu terrorists in
their struggle against national and political oppression. The
assassinated Kirov, a rude satrap, does not call forth any sympathy.
Our relation to the assassin remains neutral only because we know not
what motives guided him. If it became known that Nikolayev acted as a
conscious avenger for workers’ rights trampled upon by Kirov, our
sympathies would be fully on the side of the assassin. However, not
the question of subjective motives but that of objective expediency
has for us the decisive significance. Are the given means really
capable of leading to the goal? In relation to individual terror, both
theory and experience bear witness that such is not the case. To the
terrorist we say: it is impossible to replace the masses; only in the
mass movement can you find expedient expression for your heroism.
However, under conditions of civil war, the assination of individual
oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror. If, we shall say,
a revolutionist bombed General Franco and his staff into the air, it
would hardly evoke moral indignation even from the democratic eunuchs
Under the conditions of civil war a similar act would be politically
completely expedient. Thus, even in the sharpest question – murder of
man by man – moral absolutes prove futile. Moral evaluations, together
with those political, flow from the inner needs of struggle.
The liberation of the workers can come only through the workers
themselves. There is, therefore, no greater crime than deceiving the
masses, palming off defeats as victories, friends as enemies, bribing
workers” leaders, fabricating legends, staging false trials, in a
word, doing what the Stalinists do. These means can serve only one
end: lengthening the domination of a clique already condemned by
history. But they cannot serve to liberate the masses. That is why the
Fourth International leads against Stalinism a life and death
struggle.
The masses, of course, are not at all impeccable. Idealization of the
masses is foreign to us. We have seen them under different conditions,
at different stages and in addition in the biggest political shocks.
We have observed their strong and weak sides. Their strong side-
resoluteness, self-sacrifice, heroism – has always found its clearest
expression in times of revolutionary upsurge. During this period the
Bolsheviks headed the masses. Afterward a different historical chapter
loomed when the weak side of the oppressed came to the forefront:
heterogeneity, insufficiency of culture, narrowness of world outlook.
The masses tired of the tension, became disillusioned, lost faith in
themselves – and cleared the road for the new aristocracy. In this
epoch the Bolsheviks (“Trotskyists”) found themselves isolated from
the masses. Practically we went through two such big historic cycles:
1897-1905, years of flood tide; 1907-1913 years of the ebb; 1917-1923,
a period of upsurge unprecedented in history; finally, a new period of
reaction which has not ended even today. In these immense events the
“Trotskyists” learned the rhythm of history, that is, the dialectics
of the class struggle. They also learned, it seems, and to a certain
degree successfully, how to subordinate their subjective plans and
programs to this objective rhythm. They learned not to fall into
despair over the fact that the laws of history do not depend upon
their individual tastes and are not subordinated to their own moral
criteria. they learned to subordinate their individual desires to the
laws of history. they learnd not to become firghtened by the most
power enemies if their power is in contradiction to the needs of
historical development. They know how to swim against the stream in
the deep convition that the new historic flood will carry them to the
other shore. Not all will reach that shore, many will drown. but to
participate in this movement with open eyes and with an intense will –
only this can give the highest moral satisfaction to a thinking being!
***
So moral absolutes, extending even to "political lies," play no role
in revolutionary morality. Lenin had some quotes along similar lines,
like "To tell the truth is a petty bourgeois habit, while for us to
lie is justified by our political objectives." (http://
www.springerlink.com/content/g2775l2817563407/) However, that is a
right-wing source, and I couldn't find the telegram to Chicherin in
the MIA, so that one may be apocryphal. I do know he wrote something
about telling the truth to the workers, while using every means to
deceive political (bourgeois) enemies; but I can't remember either the
exact quote or the source, atm.
As to renegacy, JH's response is exactly what I meant--abandoning
Trotskyism in favor of Allied imperialism, as Papandreou did.
macphineas
macphineas
>
> As K makes vividly clear, nothing is so disorienting to the masses as
> these *collaborationist* declarations.
>
> srd
>
>
While martyrdom would have been crystal clear?
macphineas
macphineas
And back to reactionary subjectivist blather...
macphineas
Vngelis
That is Lenins definition of nations though.
Not the one defined by the Holocaust rule of anti-communism.
vngelis
srd
You're stretching as far as MacQuisling to preserve your liberal
moralist positions, at the expense of basic proletarian morality. This
comparison is so ridiculous I disdain to respond. It shows grave
intellectual dishonesty on a very basic question.
>
> When the Bolshevik delegates got admission to the Tsarist Duma, I
> think they had to sign something declaring their loyalty to the Tsar.
Absurd comparison. Everyone knew the Bolsheviks were for overthrow of
the Tsar, whereas a personal denunciation is accepted because of its
credibility.
>
> I don't see renegacy as "mere." Kautsky sided with the imperialists
> vs. the Russian Revolution, that's why Lenin called him a renegade.
> And not just in words.
That's pretty slimy. Renegacy is "mere" renegacy when compared to
signing a denunciation.
srd
srd
You conclude from quotation like vngelis. Where the fuck does it say
what you claim?
srd
> Lenin had some quotes along similar lines,
> like "To tell the truth is a petty bourgeois habit, while for us to
> lie is justified by our political objectives." (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2775l2817563407/) However, that is a
srd
reads the K essay, and the conclusions of the Greek Trotskyists
deliberating the subject, their hatred for all who signed
denunciations, anyone who's done these things and still thinks signing
denunciations is tactical decision, that anyone who signs one should
be reviled for his entire remaining life, such a person is more
hopeless than one who refuses to support a colonial country against an
imperialist one.
If you and Holmes are so afraid to die, don't be revolutionaries.
Don't build a political philosophy on your personal cowardice.
srd
srd
By one who is just now preparing to denounce communism to gain entry
to fascism. It's "just a piece of paper," cries the martyred son of
Sklavos/Abraham.
srd
A conclusion that's obviously false. Otherwise, even Holmes's
rudimentary proletarian morality, which forbids turning comrades over
to the police, would be no automatic standard at all. Pragmatists deny
the absolute within the relative; dialectical materialists don't.
srd
srd
> I don't think writing words on a piece of paper is always a principled
> question.
Then I wonder why you thought that I quoted out of context here:
> > "the specific conditions would dictate whether signing a
> > document renouncing Communism was opportunist or not."(!!!) --
> > MacQuisling
> > srd
> Simply amazing.
> No, MacQuisling, you aren't an Opportunist if you sign such a
> document; you're a crawling insect.
> [Particularly obnoxious position for something who knows some history,
> as along with signatures, the turncoat also was required to disclose
> the location of his comrades. Will MacQuisling say "Oh, I didn't MEAN
> THAT TOO--like a nincompoop--or will he more forthrightly say, "that
> too depends on circumstances."]
> srd
>>This may be a quote out of context, mac should speak to this.
The quote again:
"the specific conditions would dictate whether signing a document
renouncing Communism was opportunist or not."
Isn't that precisely saying what you now say: signing such a document
isn't always a principled question. Why did it sound so bad that you
had to wonder if it was out of context?
The position sounded bad because it's horrible, until you brought your
"higher mental functions" (read, Robertsonite training) into play.
srd
srd
Opportunist, but here is Trotsky's commitment to the absolute within
the relative:
"Precisely from this it flows that not all means are
permissible." [Trotsky can be terse, as in the dispositive one-liner I
quoted yesterday proving Trotsky's opposition to national resistance.]
You probably interpret this as meaning that means are determined on a
case-by-case basis, like an Opportunist or an ethical utilitarian. No,
that would make this sentence redundant with all the rest he says.
Certain ends are rejectable out of hand.
Or perhaps you don't get what I mean by a "political lie." I would
have thought it obvious I don't mean deception of the bourgeoisie. The
Greek denunciations were designed to deceive the MASSES. And from K's
report, but not from vngelis's, it seems that very few Trotskyists
_did_ sign them. Only a handful of quislings.
srd
srd
Read the K essay; if you have, try to understand it. Those why were
martyred in fact did NOT cause mass disorientation; the denunciations
did.
srd
srd
> right-wing source, and I couldn't find the telegram to Chicherin in
> the MIA, so that one may be apocryphal. I do know he wrote something
> about telling the truth to the workers, while using every means to
> deceive political (bourgeois) enemies; but I can't remember either the
> exact quote or the source, atm.
>
> As to renegacy, JH's response is exactly what I meant--abandoning
> Trotskyism in favor of Allied imperialism, as Papandreou did.
>
> macphineas
"Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer,
which unite the revolutionary proletariat, fill their hearts with
irreconcilable hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for
official morality and its democratic echoers, imbue them with
consciousness of their own historic mission, raise their courage and
spirit of self-sacrifice in the struggle."
I suppose you think these goals are accomplished by signing lying
denunciations.
Oh, I see, the denunciation serves broader purposes. That
circumvention isn't what Trotsky had in mind by the dialectical
relation between ends and means.
srd
srd
jh
I think there's something I'm not getting here. Singing a piece of
paper saying Communism Bad is no different than, say, signing a
loyalty oath, as until recently was required for certain jobs, due to
McCarthyism. I never have done so myself, but I've never considered
that as a principled question. Are you saying that that would be
unprincipled?
>
>
> > When the Bolshevik delegates got admission to the Tsarist Duma, I
> > think they had to sign something declaring their loyalty to the Tsar.
>
> Absurd comparison. Everyone knew the Bolsheviks were for overthrow of
> the Tsar, whereas a personal denunciation is accepted because of its
> credibility.
>
Personal denunciation? Of whom? A personal denunciation of a fellow
prisoner is renegacy. A denunciation of Communism In The Abstract is a
possible maneuver, when they are getting out the electrodes. Unless
you are somebody like Pouliopoulos, but not everybody is Pouliopoulos.
My personal hero among the Greek Trotskyists, by the way.
Passive voice is always a mistake in such situations. Accepted by
whom?
>
>
> > I don't see renegacy as "mere." Kautsky sided with the imperialists
> > vs. the Russian Revolution, that's why Lenin called him a renegade.
> > And not just in words.
>
> That's pretty slimy. Renegacy is "mere" renegacy when compared to
> signing a denunciation.
Signing a denunciation of another victim of oppression is the worst
form of renegacy, nothing "mere" about it.
But that's not what we are talking about. Or is it?
-jh-
jh
As far as anybody knows, nobody is hooking electrodes up to Vangelis.
Very different situation.
-jh-
jh
> On Jan 5, 3:03 pm, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think writing words on a piece of paper is always a principled
> > question.
>
> Then I wonder why you thought that I quoted out of context here:
I was simply wondering. You answered my wonder, thank you. Not out of
context, as it happens.
>
> > > "the specific conditions would dictate whether signing a
> > > document renouncing Communism was opportunist or not."(!!!) --
> > > MacQuisling
> > > srd
> > Simply amazing.
> > No, MacQuisling, you aren't an Opportunist if you sign such a
> > document; you're a crawling insect.
> > [Particularly obnoxious position for something who knows some history,
> > as along with signatures, the turncoat also was required to disclose
> > the location of his comrades. Will MacQuisling say "Oh, I didn't MEAN
> > THAT TOO--like a nincompoop--or will he more forthrightly say, "that
> > too depends on circumstances."]
> > srd
> >>This may be a quote out of context, mac should speak to this.
>
> The quote again:
>
> "the specific conditions would dictate whether signing a document
> renouncing Communism was opportunist or not."
>
> Isn't that precisely saying what you now say: signing such a document
> isn't always a principled question. Why did it sound so bad that you
> had to wonder if it was out of context?
I was wondering if you thought that mac was thinking that Papandreou
turning in his comrades was OK under certain circumstances. That
seemed to me to require precise clarification. Anybody who thinks that
should indeed be kept away from working class organizations,
revolutionary or otherwise.
-jh-
David
> Very different situation.
>
> -jh-
How would know? It would explain his ravings and non-sequitors-on-
steroids.
jh
Who would be doing that? His father?
-jh-
Vngelis
From the position that all illegals would be expelled they are all
being legalised.
ALL the major political parties agree to this. None have called
publically for repatriation.
The reasons of course are simple as Marx noted way back in time.
The bosses use immigration to break the labour movement...
vngelis
Vngelis
In 2015 aacording to this poster there will be 4 million illegals.
REFERENDUM NOW.
The national campaign for a referendum with all the blog sites
supporting it.
http://dhmopshfisma.blogspot.com/2010/01/bloggers_06.html
srd
> I think there's something I'm not getting here. Singing a piece of
> paper saying Communism Bad is no different than, say, signing a
> loyalty oath, as until recently was required for certain jobs, due to
> McCarthyism. I never have done so myself, but I've never considered
> that as a principled question. Are you saying that that would be
> unprincipled?
No, that isn't unprincipled, but I'm totally amazed you don't
immediately see the difference. To me this is a rock bottom issue of
political honesty of communists. Knowing what somenoe thinks on this
determines what can be expected of a person in a wide variety of
conditions, including ordinary political discussion because
REVOLUTIONARIES ARE ALWAYS UNDER ONE FORM OF DURESS OR ANOTHER.
A loyalty oath is a lie to the bourgeoisie. Only some petty bourgeois
liberal might think lying to the bourgeoisie is unprincipled. When the
government demanded a denunciation of communism in Greece, it was in
essence saying this: "We'll let you out of prison on one condition--
that you tell the MASSES through this statement that you reject
communism and that you speak to its evilness." The "compromise" in
question had the sole purpose of deceiving the masses, on which
condition a person might be released. This is out-of-hand an
unprincipled compromise.
>
> > > When the Bolshevik delegates got admission to the Tsarist Duma, I
> > > think they had to sign something declaring their loyalty to the Tsar.
>
> > Absurd comparison. Everyone knew the Bolsheviks were for overthrow of
> > the Tsar, whereas a personal denunciation is accepted because of its
> > credibility.
>
> Personal denunciation? Of whom? A personal denunciation of a fellow
> prisoner is renegacy. A denunciation of Communism In The Abstract is a
> possible maneuver, when they are getting out the electrodes. Unless
> you are somebody like Pouliopoulos, but not everybody is Pouliopoulos.
> My personal hero among the Greek Trotskyists, by the way.
My hasty writing in anger. Substitute simply denunciation for
"personal denunciation." The expression only refers to the
"compromises" actually made, short of turning people in.
Electrodes are no different from any other form of duress to which
revolutionaries may be exposed. Duty is to resist giving information
or other concessions; obviously what one thinks about a person who
breaks differs depending on the degree of duress, but that's an
entirely different question from calling such concessions justified.
(MP does so; you refuse to see the issue.)
>
> Passive voice is always a mistake in such situations. Accepted by
> whom?
>
Same excuse about the writing. The masses accept the denunciations as
true. This is merely my former point that the denunciations were
designed to deceive the masses.
>
>
> > > I don't see renegacy as "mere." Kautsky sided with the imperialists
> > > vs. the Russian Revolution, that's why Lenin called him a renegade.
> > > And not just in words.
>
> > That's pretty slimy. Renegacy is "mere" renegacy when compared to
> > signing a denunciation.
>
> Signing a denunciation of another victim of oppression is the worst
> form of renegacy, nothing "mere" about it.
>
> But that's not what we are talking about. Or is it?
>
MP and (less clearly) you want to treat denunciations of communism as
tactical on purely pragmatic grounds. Why treat denunciations of
comrades as not an option but treat denunciations of communism as such
a one? MP says there are no ethical absolutes within the relative of
the socialist struggle. He has no *reason* to oppose turning comrades
in, and in fact it seems most of those who gave denunciations of
communism also were required to turn people in. Your reason is that
people break under electrodes. When they break, they may disclose
names too. If you don't extend proletarian morality to dire
situations, you have to accept all the consequences.
>
>
> > > The renegacy of Papandreou was turning in his comrades. Anybody who
> > > thinks *that* is OK had better stay far, far away from any working
> > > class movement, revolutionary or not. But that's not at issue here.
MP describe Papandreous's acts thus:
"questionable, even renegade, conduct."
I was reacting both to the weakness of this characterization of
denunciations of *comrades* and his position on the denunciation of
communism. Only the latter was worth addressing at length.
srd
macphineas
> On Jan 6, 9:20 am, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think there's something I'm not getting here. Singing a piece of
> > paper saying Communism Bad is no different than, say, signing a
> > loyalty oath, as until recently was required for certain jobs, due to
> > McCarthyism. I never have done so myself, but I've never considered
> > that as a principled question. Are you saying that that would be
> > unprincipled?
>
> No, that isn't unprincipled, but I'm totally amazed you don't
> immediately see the difference. To me this is a rock bottom issue of
> political honesty of communists. Knowing what somenoe thinks on this
> determines what can be expected of a person in a wide variety of
> conditions, including ordinary political discussion because
> REVOLUTIONARIES ARE ALWAYS UNDER ONE FORM OF DURESS OR ANOTHER.
>
> A loyalty oath is a lie to the bourgeoisie. Only some petty bourgeois
> liberal might think lying to the bourgeoisie is unprincipled. When the
> government demanded a denunciation of communism in Greece, it was in
> essence saying this: "We'll let you out of prison on one condition--
> that you tell the MASSES through this statement that you reject
> communism and that you speak to its evilness." The "compromise" in
> question had the sole purpose of deceiving the masses, on which
> condition a person might be released. This is out-of-hand an
> unprincipled compromise.
>
>
The reason the bourgeoisie demands loyalty oaths is the same as it is
for the denunciations of Communism--so that an individual will appear
compromised before the masses, seeming to lack political principle,
and thus be both ineffective as a revolutionary, as well as an
isolated target for future persecution. Neither one is something a
revolutionary should just acquiesce to thoughtlessly, as though they
are worthless pieces of paper; in both cases, they should do so only
in conjunction with the revolutionary party's guidance, as a means to
further a clear end. In most cases, no, it would not be justified;
but to declare, as you do, that the martyrdom of cadres, under
circumstances which nearly led to the complete physical destruction of
the 4th International, is always preferable to a piece of paper signed
in bad faith, in order to secure the ability to fight on, betrays the
worst forms of moralistic subjective idealism. A revolution needs
revolutionary cadre to succeed--what effect do you think the murder of
Luxemburg and Liebknicht had for the prospects of a German
revolution? Or Connolly's martyrdom in the Easter rising?
>
> > > > When the Bolshevik delegates got admission to the Tsarist Duma, I
> > > > think they had to sign something declaring their loyalty to the Tsar.
>
> > > Absurd comparison. Everyone knew the Bolsheviks were for overthrow of
> > > the Tsar, whereas a personal denunciation is accepted because of its
> > > credibility.
>
> > Personal denunciation? Of whom? A personal denunciation of a fellow
> > prisoner is renegacy. A denunciation of Communism In The Abstract is a
> > possible maneuver, when they are getting out the electrodes. Unless
> > you are somebody like Pouliopoulos, but not everybody is Pouliopoulos.
> > My personal hero among the Greek Trotskyists, by the way.
>
> My hasty writing in anger. Substitute simply denunciation for
> "personal denunciation." The expression only refers to the
> "compromises" actually made, short of turning people in.
>
> Electrodes are no different from any other form of duress to which
> revolutionaries may be exposed. Duty is to resist giving information
> or other concessions; obviously what one thinks about a person who
> breaks differs depending on the degree of duress, but that's an
> entirely different question from calling such concessions justified.
> (MP does so; you refuse to see the issue.)
>
Under *certain* conditions, I recognize the necessity of unsavory
actions. Not all duress is created equal, nor is the objective
situation equivalent.
>
>
> > Passive voice is always a mistake in such situations. Accepted by
> > whom?
>
> Same excuse about the writing. The masses accept the denunciations as
> true. This is merely my former point that the denunciations were
> designed to deceive the masses.
If you believe the masses are so easily deceived, what would keep them
from believing the loyalty oaths required to practice law, or teach,
or work for CalTrans, in California?
>
> > > > I don't see renegacy as "mere." Kautsky sided with the imperialists
> > > > vs. the Russian Revolution, that's why Lenin called him a renegade.
> > > > And not just in words.
>
> > > That's pretty slimy. Renegacy is "mere" renegacy when compared to
> > > signing a denunciation.
>
> > Signing a denunciation of another victim of oppression is the worst
> > form of renegacy, nothing "mere" about it.
>
> > But that's not what we are talking about. Or is it?
>
> MP and (less clearly) you want to treat denunciations of communism as
> tactical on purely pragmatic grounds. Why treat denunciations of
> comrades as not an option but treat denunciations of communism as such
> a one? MP says there are no ethical absolutes within the relative of
> the socialist struggle. He has no *reason* to oppose turning comrades
> in, and in fact it seems most of those who gave denunciations of
> communism also were required to turn people in. Your reason is that
> people break under electrodes. When they break, they may disclose
> names too. If you don't extend proletarian morality to dire
> situations, you have to accept all the consequences.
Obviously this isn't the preferred option, and if an individual
revolutionary is expendable yet has info useful to class enemies, he
should die for the cause of revolution before giving it up. But
sometimes hard choices must be made; I only accept this as valid when
made within the confines of the revolutionary party. For instance, an
undercover intelligence officer who is captured may be forced to give
up lower level informants to protect higher placed ones. In dire
situations, context is key; without that understanding, there is no
such thing as proletarian morality.
>
>
>
> > > > The renegacy of Papandreou was turning in his comrades. Anybody who
> > > > thinks *that* is OK had better stay far, far away from any working
> > > > class movement, revolutionary or not. But that's not at issue here.
>
> MP describe Papandreous's acts thus:
>
> "questionable, even renegade, conduct."
>
> I was reacting both to the weakness of this characterization of
> denunciations of *comrades* and his position on the denunciation of
> communism. Only the latter was worth addressing at length.
>
> srd
I hadn't read the article carefully, and I missed the sentence about
him denouncing his comrades to the police, in order to save himself--
this is beyond renegacy, it's class treason. I had assumed he'd only
signed a document and left the movement later, in London. So he's
traitorous scum, by my estimation.
macphineas
jh
This of course begs the question of what one means by "unsavory." As
Trotsky put it, unsavory means are only appropriate for unsavory ends.
Right.
Somehow, the idea of discussing when and under what circumstances one
should martyr oneself For The Revolution seems deeply inappropriate to
APST of all places.
-jh-
macphineas
I put the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion and the use of
blocking battalions by the Red Army in the "unsavory" category; yet
Trotsky and I both defend them under the specific conditions they were
used. Were they used to further unsavory ends?
It's one of the great contradictions; free to pontificate on any
subject, with the veil of internet anonymity cloaking one's identity,
any and all topics can be discussed. But only because the discussion
here has no discernible effect on the world. The weightiest subjects
inveighed upon here have been taken from the Earth and launched up
into space, where they no longer have any weight at all.
macphineas
srd
What's "deeply inappropriate" is a so-called socialist calling simple
observance of proletarian morality "martyring oneself." )K. obviously
wanted the matter widely discussed because of its centrality to
socialist morale.)
Indeed, YOU try to apply the standards of a Robertsonite apst
dilletante to deep question of proletarian morality. (The
Robertsonites having done some amazing things in the name of "saving
the cadres." You merely reflect the stink.)
srd
srd
srd
>
> Somehow, the idea of discussing when and under what circumstances one
> should martyr oneself For The Revolution seems deeply inappropriate to
> APST of all places.
Your idea that other posters on apst face no duress is laughably
egocentric. You don't; because you and your tendency compromise every
position that might cause you trouble in the real world: you are
reactionaries on Zionism and antiterrorism. Don't assume others, who
aren't cowards, don't suffer for *their* beliefs.
Your primitive, formalistic thinking cuts off dire situations
artifically from "ordinary" situations. You refuse to understand that
when YOU compromise correct positions on Zionism and the defensibility
of terrorists in favor of Spart -League State Dept. socialism, you
could (and inwardly do) claim the same justification that you offer
for the traitors. (K. publicly outed even the college students who
signed the filthy statements against communism.) You're a follower of
bourgeois convention when you try to do any thinking.. [Contract law
distinguishes duress; isn't it reasonable, you say, to allow betrayers
excused by duress?]
(As to MacFool, I generally don't read his shallow garbage and haven't
wasted my time in this thread.)
srd
srd
srd
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 12:35 pm, srd <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 9:20 am, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Under *certain* conditions, I recognize the necessity of unsavory
> > actions. Not all duress is created equal, nor is the objective
> > situation equivalent.
>
> This of course begs the question of what one means by "unsavory." As
> Trotsky put it, unsavory means are only appropriate for unsavory ends.
It begs EVERY question, and it's a subjectivist stinkhole. If only
MacFool chose Holmes's way of begging any embarrassing question:
declare _asking_ the question (somehow) immoral.
Some tendencies *train* their cadres in doing the "unsavory."
srd
jh
The suppression of the reactionary, White-inspired pseudo-anarchist
Kronstadt rebellion of privileged sailors on the quietest and least
dangerous front of the Civil War was a heroic act, for which many many
brave soldiers of the Red Army paid the final price. It was something
to be proud of, not "unsavory" in any way.
Not sure about the reference to "blocking batallions." Clarify?
>...
> > > I hadn't read the article carefully, and I missed the sentence about
> > > him denouncing his comrades to the police, in order to save himself--
> > > this is beyond renegacy, it's class treason. I had assumed he'd only
> > > signed a document and left the movement later, in London. So he's
> > > traitorous scum, by my estimation.
>
> > > macphineas
>
> > Right.
>
> > Somehow, the idea of discussing when and under what circumstances one
> > should martyr oneself For The Revolution seems deeply inappropriate to
> > APST of all places.
>
> > -jh-
>
> It's one of the great contradictions; free to pontificate on any
> subject, with the veil of internet anonymity cloaking one's identity,
> any and all topics can be discussed. But only because the discussion
> here has no discernible effect on the world. The weightiest subjects
> inveighed upon here have been taken from the Earth and launched up
> into space, where they no longer have any weight at all.
>
> macphineas
Yeah. But still this makes me uncomfortable. Martyrdom should not in
my book be argued about in cyberspace, where you can say anything at
all with no consequences.
-jh-
macphineas
The suppression of Red Army units, although mutinying under apparently
reactionary leadership, is not something to be proud of. Least of
all, that such a thing *had* to be done, especially in as symbolic a
base as Kronstadt. Their mutiny and demands spurred the Soviet
government to radically change course, so there clearly was *some*
legitimacy to those demands.
>
> Not sure about the reference to "blocking batallions." Clarify?
>
>
Loyal detachments used as a rearguard to keep front-line troops from
retreating against orders, since they would be shot down by the
blocking units as deserters. It was one of the Civil War measures
Trotsky defended (in Terrorism or Communism, I believe). They were
also used in WWII.
>
> >...
> > > > I hadn't read the article carefully, and I missed the sentence about
> > > > him denouncing his comrades to the police, in order to save himself--
> > > > this is beyond renegacy, it's class treason. I had assumed he'd only
> > > > signed a document and left the movement later, in London. So he's
> > > > traitorous scum, by my estimation.
>
> > > > macphineas
>
> > > Right.
>
> > > Somehow, the idea of discussing when and under what circumstances one
> > > should martyr oneself For The Revolution seems deeply inappropriate to
> > > APST of all places.
>
> > > -jh-
>
> > It's one of the great contradictions; free to pontificate on any
> > subject, with the veil of internet anonymity cloaking one's identity,
> > any and all topics can be discussed. But only because the discussion
> > here has no discernible effect on the world. The weightiest subjects
> > inveighed upon here have been taken from the Earth and launched up
> > into space, where they no longer have any weight at all.
>
> > macphineas
>
> Yeah. But still this makes me uncomfortable. Martyrdom should not in
> my book be argued about in cyberspace, where you can say anything at
> all with no consequences.
>
> -jh-
Actually there are certain consequences; the US state apparatus will
be able to track and monitor your statements, if it so desires. But
other than personal or organizational security concerns, I don't see
why it shouldn't be debated here. It's all hypothetical at the
moment. When it becomes something more than hypothetical, I can see a
whole host of reasons why this would not be an appropriate forum to
discuss life and death issues.
macphineas
jh
> On Jan 9, 5:30 pm, jh <jhsherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
> > > > This of course begs the question of what one means by "unsavory." As
> > > > Trotsky put it, unsavory means are only appropriate for unsavory ends.
>
> > > I put the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion and the use of
> > > blocking battalions by the Red Army in the "unsavory" category; yet
> > > Trotsky and I both defend them under the specific conditions they were
> > > used. Were they used to further unsavory ends?
>
> > The suppression of the reactionary, White-inspired pseudo-anarchist
> > Kronstadt rebellion of privileged sailors on the quietest and least
> > dangerous front of the Civil War was a heroic act, for which many many
> > brave soldiers of the Red Army paid the final price. It was something
> > to be proud of, not "unsavory" in any way.
>
> The suppression of Red Army units, although mutinying under apparently
> reactionary leadership, is not something to be proud of.
The willingness of the Red Army leadership to use military force to
suppress reactionary, anti-Semitic kulak agitation and crimes, even if
by Red Army soldiers and sailors, is definitely something to be proud
of. In Ukraine, when certain Red Army units engaged in Jewish pogroms,
this was put down and the evildoers were shot. Even when this meant
weakening the front. This is very much something to be proud of. This
showed that the Soviet state was about workers' rule, and was not just
a "red" military dictatorship.
The Kronstadt rebellion was simply a northern reflection of such
Ukrainian developments. Most Kronstadt sailors, by 1921, were recent
recruits from Ukrainian peasant backgrounds, or transferred from the
no-longer-existent Red navy in the Black Sea on the Ukrainian
coastline. The more reliable worker and peasant sailors who had
participated in the 1917 Revolution, many of whom were honest
anarchists, had almost all been transferred to other fronts, and often
had died there in battle.
> Least of
> all, that such a thing *had* to be done, especially in as symbolic a
> base as Kronstadt. Their mutiny and demands spurred the Soviet
> government to radically change course, so there clearly was *some*
> legitimacy to those demands.
>
That the Soviet Union had persisted in ultra-left "war communist"
policies as late as the spring of 1921, instead of making the
necessary concessions to capitalism, was not something to be proud of.
But suppressing pro-capitalist "free market" rebellions was necessary.
And the Kronstadt rebellion was exactly that. Calling for free trade
was its central economic plank.
>
>
> > Not sure about the reference to "blocking batallions." Clarify?
>
> Loyal detachments used as a rearguard to keep front-line troops from
> retreating against orders, since they would be shot down by the
> blocking units as deserters. It was one of the Civil War measures
> Trotsky defended (in Terrorism or Communism, I believe). They were
> also used in WWII.
Somebody who retreats against orders in combat against White Guards is
a traitor to the Revolution. How to deal with such treachery is a
tactical question, not principled.
Such measures are very dangerous, as they could lead to mutinies. But
they are not "unsavory." They are morally justifiable, whether or not
they are tactically wise.
-jh-
macphineas
Ah, out comes the Spart chest-beating. More Trotskyist than Trotsky;
with their own "military" leaders, forming up their own little Red
Army in miniature. I never said they weren't justified; but what
justified them was their necessity to preserving the revolution, not
their character in the abstract. That is what makes killing the Tsar
and his little girls justifiable--their continued existence would pose
a perpetual threat to soviet power in Russia, and a rallying point for
White reactionaries to organize around.
As to the "treason" of unauthorized retreat, that's a bit much. Or
are Red officers so much smarter than capitalist ones that their
orders are always correct, never suicidal, never self-defeating?
Blocking units were justified not by the "treason" they punished and
deterred, as by the fact that they were able to maintain order along
the front and allow the victory of the Red Army over imperialist and
reactionary armies.
With regards to Kronstadt, my position is that it was regrettably
necessary; regrettably because they were Red Army sailors who
mutinied, over justifiable concerns, and necessary because it was led
by reactionaries who used their discontent to put forward demands that
would have destroyed Soviet Russia had they been implemented, and
allowed imperialism to crush the Red Army.
macphineas
jh
That, not at all. I have probably *never* posted anything as purely
"orthodox Trotskyist" as that posting. Just take a look at Trotsky's
Red Army writings, and you'll see what I mean.
> with their own "military" leaders, forming up their own little Red
> Army in miniature. I never said they weren't justified; but what
> justified them was their necessity to preserving the revolution, not
> their character in the abstract.
I am not sure there is a meaningful differentiation here. As I think
they actually had engraved or something on the Supreme Soviet
building,
"Salus Revolutionis Suprema Lex"
That is what makes killing the Tsar
> and his little girls justifiable--their continued existence would pose
> a perpetual threat to soviet power in Russia, and a rallying point for
> White reactionaries to organize around.
The Romanovs were the scum of the earth. I suppose the children could
be rescued in theory, but I doubt it. Romanovs killing each other was
an old family habit, interrupted after Catherine killed her husband.
Peter the so-called Great actually tortured his son to death. Pugachev
had the right idea about the Romanovs.
And then there was Alexandra. Marie Antoinette probably never did say
"let them eat cake." Alexandra actually did say "the Russian people
love the whip." The letter she wrote this in has been preserved.
Killing them all was not something to be proud of, but definitely
necessary, what with the Whites about to seize the town they were held
in.
>
> As to the "treason" of unauthorized retreat, that's a bit much. Or
> are Red officers so much smarter than capitalist ones that their
> orders are always correct, never suicidal, never self-defeating?
As I recall, the famous incident was at Svyazhk, which some see as the
key battle of the entire Civil War. It was exactly the Red officer and
commissar who were shot for unauthorized retreat, for opening the
front and possibly leading to a historic defeat, narrowly averted. As
the commissar was an old communist with lots of friends, the incident
was used as an organizing tool by Stalin's anti-Trotsky clique.
Given that many units were peasants, and not a few deserters from the
Whites, measures such as the blocking units had a class character. The
blocking units were the most loyal, and most proletarian. It was not a
question necessarily of the officer caste vs. the rank and file, as in
capitalist armies.
> Blocking units were justified not by the "treason" they punished and
> deterred, as by the fact that they were able to maintain order along
> the front and allow the victory of the Red Army over imperialist and
> reactionary armies.
That which prevents victory helps the enemy, that which helps the
enemy is treason.
>
> With regards to Kronstadt, my position is that it was regrettably
> necessary; regrettably because they were Red Army sailors who
> mutinied, over justifiable concerns, and necessary because it was led
> by reactionaries who used their discontent to put forward demands that
> would have destroyed Soviet Russia had they been implemented, and
> allowed imperialism to crush the Red Army.
>
> macphineas
Well, yes, if fewer political mistakes had been made then there would
have been no rebellion. So the whole incident was regrettable. But
that the necessary actions were taken was not regrettable. And the
heroism of the Red Army soldiers charging over melting ice into point-
blank machine gun fire deserves recognition. Thousands of them died in
the charge.
-jh-
srd
This is a totally bullshit response to a matter you find embarrassing.
For one thing, it's a non sequitur. For another, you can say the same
about other topics. The point isn't "martyrdom" but the demands of
proletarian morality. You apparently think it's martyrdom, *precisely*
because you DON'T think proletarian morality applies. But you are
unwilling because unable to defend _that_ position; hence, you argue
that there's something wrong with discussing "martyrdom."
Where do you stop? Is it "martyrdom" to go to jal for refusing to
testify before Joe McCarthy? Would you be against discussing that? Oh,
it's different, because it's a matter of "martyrdom." (Completely
unargued and arbitrary distinction.) Letting you have this ridiculous
distinction for the moment, you come upon another problem: people were
killed in Greece for NOT GIVING NAMES. WAS THAT MARTYRDOM? Why not?
Why is one "martyrdom" discussable and not another? Answer: you have a
response about giving up names, although you are unable (don't even
try) to demonstrate a QUALITATIVE DISTINCTION between forms of
"duress" which reverses the judgment of proletarian morality or
between kinds of relevant "compromises" with the same effect.
I don't think you'd have the courage these days to defend a picket
line. Should I therefore tell you not to discuss picket lines. You can
say what you want; everyone knows you won't put your ass where your
mouth is? A hundred times no. Attacking wrong views, even if they're
insincere, is beneficial (on ANY subject).
srd
srd
>
> > > I put the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion and the use of
> > > blocking battalions by the Red Army in the "unsavory" category; yet
> > > Trotsky and I both defend them under the specific conditions they were
> > > used. Were they used to further unsavory ends?
>
> > The suppression of the reactionary, White-inspired pseudo-anarchist
> > Kronstadt rebellion of privileged sailors on the quietest and least
> > dangerous front of the Civil War was a heroic act, for which many many
> > brave soldiers of the Red Army paid the final price. It was something
> > to be proud of, not "unsavory" in any way.
>
> The suppression of Red Army units, although mutinying under apparently
> reactionary leadership, is not something to be proud of.
If you're trying to be some kind of Marxist these days, maybe you
should provide bases for your qualitative distinctions. Exchanging
opinions about what to be proud of is subjectivism even a petty
bourgeois should be embarrassed of. You quoted Trotsky; now _try_ to
apply what you read. [But don't make everyone wait three days before
you find you didn't understand what you read because you "missed" a
critical part.]
What principles of proletarian morality should make one unproud of
suppressing a reactionary rebellion? Did Trotsky act ashamed?
Holmes provides reasons no more than you do about your position on
Kronstadt.
srd
srd
"Regrettable" is an evasion; it isn't a moral judgment. I find it
"regrettable" (but not shameful on my part) that I must correct you.
"Regrettable." What bullshit in the service of avoiding principled
confrontation.
srd