Communist University
Mike
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>Has anyone got any news from the CPGB's Communist University?
>
of those who are still Stalinists, Trotskyists, or state caps, and those
who come from these traditions, but do not follow them any more.
More reports shall certainly follow. Now to return to CU98.
--
Peter [remove .nosp in address before emailing]
~ Weekly Worker electronic edition at ~
<URL: http://www.duntone.demon.co.uk/CPGB/>
Mike
Peter West wrote in message ...
>In article <35c8c...@newsread1.dircon.co.uk>, Mike
><mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Has anyone got any news from the CPGB's Communist University?
>>
>Comrades, there have been fascinating discussions with the participation
>of those who are still Stalinists, Trotskyists, or state caps, and those
>who come from these traditions, but do not follow them any more.
Sounds like a bizarre mixture to me - a friend told me that one of the key
note speeches was by Harpal Brar defending Stalinsim as the true
revolutionary politics. Is that true?
I thought that the CPGB had broken from their Stalinist past but if they are
giving a platform for betrayers of the revolution then maybe its all just
talk....
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Peter West wrote in message ...
>>In article <35c8c...@newsread1.dircon.co.uk>, Mike
>><mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>Has anyone got any news from the CPGB's Communist University?
>>>
>>Comrades, there have been fascinating discussions with the participation
>>of those who are still Stalinists, Trotskyists, or state caps, and those
>>who come from these traditions, but do not follow them any more.
>
>
>Sounds like a bizarre mixture to me - a friend told me that one of the key
>note speeches was by Harpal Brar defending Stalinsim as the true
>revolutionary politics. Is that true?
Interestingly, one of the fullest session in terms of participants was
on Sunday August 2 entitled 'The legacy of Stalin', addressed by Harpal
Brar, leading light of the Stalin Society and editor of the Stalinite
paper Lalkar. It was even more interesting that most of those present
were from the Trotskyist tradition, many still members of various
Trotskyist organisations. For those who attended on August 2 who are no
longer nor ever have been Stalinist or Trotskyist (though both terms are
pretty slippery, anyway), there was an illuminating degree of
commonality of approach to the Soviet Union between Brar and his
supporters and at least some of the avowed Trotskyists present.
So, we had the spectacle of support for the oxymoronic ideas of
'socialism in one country'/deformed workers' state as forms of special
pleading for the post-capitalist formation which was the Soviet Union,
instead of rejection of the possibility of any kind of real socialism
existing without simultaneous revolution around the world. Even some of
those who adhere to an idea of 'permanent revolution' seemed to
interpret it as a process akin to Stalin's and Kruschev's ridiculous
claims that the Soviet Union was building socialism and advancing to
communism. Trotsky, after all, even in the '30s thought possible a
rapprochement with Stalin's bloodsoaked regime of non-socialism.
>
>I thought that the CPGB had broken from their Stalinist past but if they are
>giving a platform for betrayers of the revolution then maybe its all just
>talk....
>
The most useful aspect of the meeting Brar attended was to observe the
perhaps shocking congruence between arch-Stalinists and thoroughgoing
Trotskyists. Comrades who attended bearing Trotskyist positions should
hopefully have left questioning their undue faith in this one
individual, great revolutionary though he was.
The August 2 meeting was, intriguingly, more of a platform for
Trotskyists to expose their too-close-for-comfort similarities with
Stalinist method and conclusions. To be effective, revolutionary,
communist politics cannot depend on adherence to the pronouncements of
Lenin or Trotsky, but on the method developed by them, to the extent
that they developed it.
Mike
>>Sounds like a bizarre mixture to me - a friend told me that one of the key
>>note speeches was by Harpal Brar defending Stalinsim as the true
>>revolutionary politics. Is that true?
>
>Interestingly, one of the fullest session in terms of participants was
>on Sunday August 2 entitled 'The legacy of Stalin', addressed by Harpal
>Brar, leading light of the Stalin Society and editor of the Stalinite
>paper Lalkar. It was even more interesting that most of those present
>were from the Trotskyist tradition, many still members of various
>Trotskyist organisations. For those who attended on August 2 who are no
>longer nor ever have been Stalinist or Trotskyist (though both terms are
>pretty slippery, anyway), there was an illuminating degree of
>commonality of approach to the Soviet Union between Brar and his
>supporters and at least some of the avowed Trotskyists present.
Stalinism and Trotskyism "slippery" terms - are you for real? The political
differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism are quite clear, you may not
agree with either perspective but the differences are quite clear to anyone
who can read and knows anything of the history of the workers' movement.
I can only assume that you are referring to the various claims made by
groups using those titles to describe themselves and others. However in that
sense both Marxism and Leninism are "slippery" too.
Just what point are you trying to make?
>So, we had the spectacle of support for the oxymoronic ideas of
>'socialism in one country'/deformed workers' state as forms of special
>pleading for the post-capitalist formation which was the Soviet Union,
>instead of rejection of the possibility of any kind of real socialism
>existing without simultaneous revolution around the world. Even some of
>those who adhere to an idea of 'permanent revolution' seemed to
>interpret it as a process akin to Stalin's and Kruschev's ridiculous
>claims that the Soviet Union was building socialism and advancing to
>communism. Trotsky, after all, even in the '30s thought possible a
>rapprochement with Stalin's bloodsoaked regime of non-socialism.
Well here we have a clear divergence between Stalinism and Trotskyism.
Stalinism does indeed argue that the Soviet Union became really socialist
under Stalin while I am not aware of ANY Trotskyist current who argues that
there was "real Socialism" in the Soviet Union at any time. The dictatorship
of the proletariat and a workers' state yes but as you point socialism is
not possible in a single country. How would you explain the call for a
political revolution if Trotskyists thought there was "real socialism".
>The most useful aspect of the meeting Brar attended was to observe the
>perhaps shocking congruence between arch-Stalinists and thoroughgoing
>Trotskyists. Comrades who attended bearing Trotskyist positions should
>hopefully have left questioning their undue faith in this one
>individual, great revolutionary though he was.
What was this "shocking congruence" between the Stalinists and Trotskyists
at your meeting? If, as it appears, you are referring to the fact that both
currents were defencist regarding the Soviet Union (albeit for very
different reasons) then you must be amoung the most politically naive people
I have ever met to find this well known fact "shocking". As this is unlikely
perhaps what is going on here is some kind of literary trick to lump these
irreconciliable enemies together and therefore have the CPGB pose as the
lilly white way forward....
>The August 2 meeting was, intriguingly, more of a platform for
>Trotskyists to expose their too-close-for-comfort similarities with
>Stalinist method and conclusions. To be effective, revolutionary,
>communist politics cannot depend on adherence to the pronouncements of
>Lenin or Trotsky, but on the method developed by them, to the extent
>that they developed it.
As I pointed out above Trotskyism includes the call for a REVOLUTION to
remove the Stalinist leadership of deformed workers' states - this is one of
the reasons that Stalin had Trotsky killed. Are you saying that some
"Trotskyists" denied the need for political revolution to remove the
Stalinist caste - if so name them and we will see if they really are
"Trotskyists" as you claim.
Peter I am amazed at this polemic of yours on the congruence of Stalinism
and Trotskyism. You can only point to the defencism of both currents which
is something I understand that the CPGB still officially holds to. Unless
you can come up with some other evidence I can only view your argument with
contempt as it obviously isn't a serious attempt to evaluate the two
political perspectives - it looks more like silly debaters tricks than any
kind of Marxism to me. Just because you repeat it over and over doesn't mean
there is actually any political "convergence" between Stalinism and
Trotskyism.
Clearly something is going on however... Is this part of some kind of
preparation for the CPGB to come out with a third campist position?
Comradely
Mike
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>Peter West wrote in response to me...
>
>>>Sounds like a bizarre mixture to me - a friend told me that one of the key
>>>note speeches was by Harpal Brar defending Stalinsim as the true
>>>revolutionary politics. Is that true?
>>
>>Interestingly, one of the fullest session in terms of participants was
>>on Sunday August 2 entitled 'The legacy of Stalin', addressed by Harpal
>>Brar, leading light of the Stalin Society and editor of the Stalinite
>>paper Lalkar. It was even more interesting that most of those present
>>were from the Trotskyist tradition, many still members of various
>>Trotskyist organisations. For those who attended on August 2 who are no
>>longer nor ever have been Stalinist or Trotskyist (though both terms are
>>pretty slippery, anyway), there was an illuminating degree of
>>commonality of approach to the Soviet Union between Brar and his
>>supporters and at least some of the avowed Trotskyists present.
>
>
>Stalinism and Trotskyism "slippery" terms - are you for real? The political
>differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism are quite clear, you may not
>agree with either perspective but the differences are quite clear to anyone
>who can read and knows anything of the history of the workers' movement.
For one thing, there is a range of ideas that might be termed
'Stalinist' and a range of ideas that might be termed 'Trotskyist', but
they are inexact terms. A narrow interpretation would suggest that
Stalinists centre their ideas on Stalin's writings (a few of which were
written on Lenin's instructions) and ideas, and that Trotskyists centre
their ideas on Trotsky's writings and ideas. Of course, neither of these
approaches is a communist/Marxist method, any more than biblically
'following' Lenin's thought would be, but, then, when did that ever stop
anyone? Works by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and even Stalin are
worthy of study, but to adhere to one particular author is anathema to
the method communists need to construct.
In addition, Stalinism has been used confusingly to cover the (varying)
ideology of communist parties and individuals supporting the CPSU's
hegemony in the Soviet Union even after Stalin's death, the actions of
the regime itself in post-capitalist Russia especially after Lenin's
death, and, of course, as a generalised form of abuse for
authoritarianism on the left.
>I can only assume that you are referring to the various claims made by
>groups using those titles to describe themselves and others. However in that
>sense both Marxism and Leninism are "slippery" too.
Quite.
>[...]
>Well here we have a clear divergence between Stalinism and Trotskyism.
>Stalinism does indeed argue that the Soviet Union became really socialist
>under Stalin while I am not aware of ANY Trotskyist current who argues that
>there was "real Socialism" in the Soviet Union at any time. The dictatorship
>of the proletariat and a workers' state yes but as you point socialism is
>not possible in a single country. How would you explain the call for a
>political revolution if Trotskyists thought there was "real socialism".
What is the Trotskyist formulation (though not univerally approved,
AFAIK) 'deformed worker's state', but another way of saying that the
state _in some way_ was proletarian? There is very little difference in
calling it 'socialist', in that case. We know Lenin used it for the
stalled period after the socialist revolution, but nothing stands still,
least of all the state formation existing after a _failed_ revolution.
The Soviet Union turned into its opposite (which is why communists like
Reich called it 'red fascism'.) Who knows how Lenin would have ended up
if he had not died and Stalin had not come into prominence?
>[...]
>What was this "shocking congruence" between the Stalinists and Trotskyists
>at your meeting? If, as it appears, you are referring to the fact that both
>currents were defencist regarding the Soviet Union (albeit for very
>different reasons) then you must be amoung the most politically naive people
>I have ever met to find this well known fact "shocking". As this is unlikely
>perhaps what is going on here is some kind of literary trick to lump these
>irreconciliable enemies together and therefore have the CPGB pose as the
>lilly white way forward....
Was the Soviet Union defended by 'Stalinists' and 'Trotskyists' because
the proletarian revolution continued? If it stalled and post-capitalism
did not progress at all to socialism, why did that require worldwide
proletarian defence of fictitious 'gains of October' and a murderous
regime?
>As I pointed out above Trotskyism includes the call for a REVOLUTION to
>remove the Stalinist leadership of deformed workers' states - this is one of
>the reasons that Stalin had Trotsky killed.
Revolution in the Marxist (oops, attaching ideas to an individual again)
sense suggests the overthrow of class rule. What class was ruling in the
Soviet Union? It certainly was not the proletariat and I find it more
than a little difficult to agree with the state caps that it was a
capitalist class, even if the bureaucracy might be construed as 'pro-
capitalist' in some way.
>Clearly something is going on however... Is this part of some kind of
>preparation for the CPGB to come out with a third campist position?
The CPGB does not hold any 'position' on the Soviet Union. Comrades
operating within the discipline of the CPGB(PCC) hold differing views on
the social formation known as the Soviet Union at distinct variance with
one another. And this is as it should be while we try to bring
communists together into one party (and afterwards, too).
But to answer the question: maybe this 'third camp' is worthy of
consideration and examination. Why not? (Though it may be more
accurately designated a 'fourth position', after those crudely described
as 'Stalinist', 'Trotskyist', and 'state capitalist'.)
Chris Faatz
political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the
political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years
ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, divesionists spies
and murdererers [!] acting ont he instruction if the intelligence services
of foreign states."
Stalin, "Mastering Bolshevism," March, 1937
Nick Holden & Kate Ahrens
> But to answer the question: maybe this 'third camp' is worthy of
> consideration and examination. Why not? (Though it may be more
> accurately designated a 'fourth position', after those crudely described
> as 'Stalinist', 'Trotskyist', and 'state capitalist'.)
Interesting that the 'third camp' should come up in discussion (or that I should
spot it first, maybe you've been talking about it for ages) when I've just
finished reading a new book that uncovers a number of documents from the SWP / WP
split over this very issue. I would strongly recommend it to anyone who considers
thinking about history to be a task of revolutionaries.
Called, "The Fate of the Russian Revolution", it starts from Trotsky's oft-quoted
points about not attaching 'ruling class' labels to the Stalinist clique in
advance of confirming evidence, and goes on to show, using documents from the
time, how plenty of that confirming evidence came to light, and how the
"orthodox" Trotskyists failed to apply Trotsky's method to that evidence.
Reclaiming October from those who would argue that Lenin led inexorably to
Stalin, the book makes clear that there were some on the left, even at the height
of the pro-Soviet mood in the USA during the war, who were prepared to call
things by their real names, and base their approach to revolution on the working
class, and not on the victories of "Trotsky's Red Army".
Maybe you're old enough to remember the split in 1939, in which case, perhaps you
won't find these documents so enlightening. But then again, maybe you will.
More details are at: http://www.labournet.org.uk/awl/book/index.htm and I believe
you can order the book through amazon.
Nick
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
But for Peter West, Stalinism and Trotskyism are pretty much the same
thing.....
Mike
Peter West wrote ...
>For one thing, there is a range of ideas that might be termed
>'Stalinist' and a range of ideas that might be termed 'Trotskyist', but
>they are inexact terms. A narrow interpretation would suggest that
>Stalinists centre their ideas on Stalin's writings (a few of which were
>written on Lenin's instructions) and ideas, and that Trotskyists centre
>their ideas on Trotsky's writings and ideas. Of course, neither of these
>approaches is a communist/Marxist method, any more than biblically
>'following' Lenin's thought would be, but, then, when did that ever stop
>anyone? Works by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and even Stalin are
>worthy of study, but to adhere to one particular author is anathema to
>the method communists need to construct.
In a certain abstract sense this is correct but it misses something very
important as well. It is true that to "biblically" take the writings of
major leaders of the past is not the method of a communist - we are critical
thinkers after all. However it is also true that important trends in the
workers' movement have become associated with particular individuals - there
is a body of ideas which can be called Marxist, there is a body of ideas
which can be called Leninist, there is a body of ideas which can be called
Trotskyist, there is a body of ideaa which can be called Stalinist etc.
There is an important issue of various competing claims within all of these
traditions and I would argue that Marxism, Leninism and Trotskyism, as I
understand them, are all effectively aplying the same methodology while
Stalinism is something else.
There was a world social movement lead by the victorious Bolshevik Party and
codified in the documents of the first years of the Communist International
(I would say the first four congresses) and the writings of central leaders
such as Lenin. Stalinism as a social phenomenum represents the degeneration
of that social movement while Trotskyism represents the attempt to defend
the politics of the Comintern against that degeneration.
The CPGB's supposed even handedness in dealing with these two strands in the
workers movement is acually a rejection of the defence of the general
political method of Marx, Lenin and Bolshevism.
>What is the Trotskyist formulation (though not univerally approved,
>AFAIK) 'deformed worker's state', but another way of saying that the
>state _in some way_ was proletarian? There is very little difference in
>calling it 'socialist', in that case. We know Lenin used it for the
>stalled period after the socialist revolution, but nothing stands still,
>least of all the state formation existing after a _failed_ revolution.
>The Soviet Union turned into its opposite (which is why communists like
>Reich called it 'red fascism'.) Who knows how Lenin would have ended up
>if he had not died and Stalin had not come into prominence?
If it is possible that a proletarian state could become politically deformed
and the social transformation of society could be stalled (which I think is
what happened) then I think that it is useful to come up with a term which
explains taht in some way. Socialism implies a more or less healthy
transformation of society and that the basis for a move to the next stage of
social development, communism, has been laid - I don't think ths was true of
the Soviet Union but I do think that it represented an advance for the
working class and needed to be defended thus I use the term deformed
workers' state. And I think that difference is important, unlike Stalinists
and third campists.
>Was the Soviet Union defended by 'Stalinists' and 'Trotskyists' because
>the proletarian revolution continued? If it stalled and post-capitalism
>did not progress at all to socialism, why did that require worldwide
>proletarian defence of fictitious 'gains of October' and a murderous
>regime?
>>As I pointed out above Trotskyism includes the call for a REVOLUTION to
>>remove the Stalinist leadership of deformed workers' states - this is one
of
>>the reasons that Stalin had Trotsky killed.
>
>Revolution in the Marxist (oops, attaching ideas to an individual again)
>sense suggests the overthrow of class rule. What class was ruling in the
>Soviet Union? It certainly was not the proletariat and I find it more
>than a little difficult to agree with the state caps that it was a
>capitalist class, even if the bureaucracy might be construed as 'pro-
>capitalist' in some way.
Ok this is what it is all about isn't it. The Stalinist regime was so evil
and terrible that it is impossible to believe that the society that caste
ruled represented in any way a gain for the working class - therefore there
was no need to defend it. That is where you are leading isn't it Peter.
Well how do you explain the events of the early 90's as capitalism has begun
to be re-established in these societies? Are there gains which have been
lost? Have the material conditions of the working class suffered huge blows
as a result? I think so, the re-establishment of capitalism represents an
historic defeat for the working class. For Peter it must mean just a change
from one equally bad society to another and things remain the same for the
working class.
And if there were gains which have now been lost in the absolute devastation
for the working class now occurring in the former Eastern Bloc isn't it
sensible to use a term to describe them which catches the contradiction
between those gains and the regime which governed those societies -
"deformed workers state".
>>Clearly something is going on however... Is this part of some kind of
>>preparation for the CPGB to come out with a third campist position?
Good guess eh.....
>
>The CPGB does not hold any 'position' on the Soviet Union. Comrades
>operating within the discipline of the CPGB(PCC) hold differing views on
>the social formation known as the Soviet Union at distinct variance with
>one another. And this is as it should be while we try to bring
>communists together into one party (and afterwards, too).
While this may be to exist for a short period it is impossible for a group
claiming to be communist to hold many positions on the Soviet Union and be
able to intervene effectively in the world as a cohesive force. The "Russian
Question" touches to many other questions, not least the nature of the
state, for significant and fundamental differences on this question not to
be reflected in other areas central to communist functioning.
And it is also not a dead question - what will the various comrades within
the CPGB do if or when this question is posed in some way in China or Cuba
for instance? Will those who still favour some kind of defencism (if there
are still any of those) be able to reconcile themselves with those who come
out and side with capitalist restoration (and I know there will be some of
those given the direction of Peter's writing)?
>But to answer the question: maybe this 'third camp' is worthy of
>consideration and examination. Why not? (Though it may be more
>accurately designated a 'fourth position', after those crudely described
>as 'Stalinist', 'Trotskyist', and 'state capitalist'.)
Why not? - because it leads you to not defend the gains of the revolution in
favour of some desire for abstract socialist purity and those who can not
defend the gains of the past will never make new gains. And this will most
likely lead to not being able to defend other gains of the workers'
movement.
And as an aside most groups who have taken this position have ended up
siding with "democratic" capitalism against "undemocratic" bureaucratic
collectivism (or whatever "new" term the CPGB may come up with).
Peter West
<cfa...@user1.teleport.com> writes
>"Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a
>political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the
>political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years
>ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, divesionists spies
>and murdererers [!] acting ont he instruction if the intelligence services
>of foreign states."
>
>Stalin, "Mastering Bolshevism," March, 1937
An excellent example of the Stalinite regime's corrupt and reactionary
thinking. But why post it without comment?
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
>>political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the
>>political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years
>>ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, divesionists spies
>>and murdererers [!] acting ont he instruction if the intelligence services
>>of foreign states."
>>
>>Stalin, "Mastering Bolshevism," March, 1937
>
>thing.....
>
others likeminded want to warn our Trotskyist comrades about dangerous
similarities we perceive between some of their thought and that of
present-day lovers of Stalin, like Harpal Brar, which was what was
useful about having both at the recent Communist University at Brunel.
That said, it should not be necessary to say, but seems it must be said,
that Trotsky and other communist oppositionists around him struggled
valiantly to save the revolution and subsequently suffered under
Stalin's repression, with many, like Trotsky himself, paying the
ultimate price for continuing the revolutionary tradition, murdered by
the Stalin regime of terror. The Stalinite reactionaries and the
revolutionaries around Trotsky cannot be equated and must not be
portrayed as "pretty much the same thing ..." I certainly do not.
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
: >"Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a
: >political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the
: >political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years
: >ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, divesionists spies
: >and murdererers [!] acting ont he instruction if the intelligence services
: >of foreign states."
: >
: >Stalin, "Mastering Bolshevism," March, 1937
: But for Peter West, Stalinism and Trotskyism are pretty much the same
: thing.....
I don't think so, Mike, however well you argue (and argue well you do). I
think he sees them as a) both being fundamentally applications of Marxism
in the epoch of imperialism, b) recognizes their fundamental differences
(the hyper-revolutionism of Trotskyism ["the last crisis of capitalism is
upon us! Rebuild the Fourth International!" interminably] vs the
bureaucratic caution and conservatism, which, in the end, translated and
continues to translate into a kind of social democracy). The difference is
that he sees, as I understand it, that in reappraising the gains and
losses of the twentieth century communist movement in all its shadings,
that there are hard-won lessons to be learned from all tendencies and
currents, that none held All Truth nor the Correct Line on every question
and that it's necessary for a Communist to approach the world in a manner
that recognizes that truth "Is as radical as reality itself."
Chris
--
Chris Faatz
: In article <GYBA1.17646$MV.12...@news.teleport.com>, Chris Faatz
: <cfa...@user1.teleport.com> writes
: >"Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a
: >political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the
: >political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years
: >ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, divesionists spies
: >and murdererers [!] acting ont he instruction if the intelligence services
: >of foreign states."
: >
: >Stalin, "Mastering Bolshevism," March, 1937
: An excellent example of the Stalinite regime's corrupt and reactionary
: thinking. But why post it without comment?
: --
: Peter [remove .nosp in address before emailing]
Simple. Because it speaks so eloquently for itself.
Mike
>>But for Peter West, Stalinism and Trotskyism are pretty much the same
>>thing.....
>>
>This comrade is being mischievous. As fellow revolutionaries, I and
>others likeminded want to warn our Trotskyist comrades about dangerous
>similarities we perceive between some of their thought and that of
>present-day lovers of Stalin, like Harpal Brar, which was what was
>useful about having both at the recent Communist University at Brunel.
>That said, it should not be necessary to say, but seems it must be said,
>that Trotsky and other communist oppositionists around him struggled
>valiantly to save the revolution and subsequently suffered under
>Stalin's repression, with many, like Trotsky himself, paying the
>ultimate price for continuing the revolutionary tradition, murdered by
>the Stalin regime of terror. The Stalinite reactionaries and the
>revolutionaries around Trotsky cannot be equated and must not be
>portrayed as "pretty much the same thing ..." I certainly do not.
Sorry to have offended you Peter ;-)
However you haven't presented any evidence for any kind of real political
convergence between Stalinism and Trotskyism - you just repeat it a few
times and that is what annoys me.
You made these statements
"there was an illuminating degree of commonality of approach to the Soviet
Union between Brar and his supporters and at least some of the avowed
Trotskyists present"
"shocking congruence between arch-Stalinists and thoroughgoing Trotskyists"
"more of a platform for Trotskyists to expose their too-close-for-comfort
similarities with Stalinist method and conclusions"
- but the only thing you refer to is the fact that both Stalinism and
Trotskyism were defencist of the Soviet Union - while defence of deformed
workers' states is a very important question it is also true that the
methods of Stalinism and Trotskyism are completely different in how they
arrive at this position. It seemed fairly clear to me that your post was
trying to imply that more than a little degree of political similarity
between Stalinism and Trotskyism - perhaps not "pretty much the same thing"
but you were well on the way towards that - and that is the bull shit
arguments of third campists who have flinched under the general rightward
pressure we all face in the current period.
My previous post may well have been light-hearted but better to be
mischievous than misleading.
Mike
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote in reply to my comment ...
>: But for Peter West, Stalinism and Trotskyism are pretty much the same
>: thing.....
>
>I don't think so, Mike, however well you argue (and argue well you do). I
>think he sees them as a) both being fundamentally applications of Marxism
>in the epoch of imperialism, b) recognizes their fundamental differences
>(the hyper-revolutionism of Trotskyism ["the last crisis of capitalism is
>upon us! Rebuild the Fourth International!" interminably] vs the
>bureaucratic caution and conservatism, which, in the end, translated and
>continues to translate into a kind of social democracy). The difference is
>that he sees, as I understand it, that in reappraising the gains and
>losses of the twentieth century communist movement in all its shadings,
>that there are hard-won lessons to be learned from all tendencies and
>currents, that none held All Truth nor the Correct Line on every question
>and that it's necessary for a Communist to approach the world in a manner
>that recognizes that truth "Is as radical as reality itself."
I would agree that no-one had the correct line on every question but I
strongly disagree with anyone who argues for an even-handed assessment and
that there is not a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism
and a side to take in conflicts between them.
Trotskyism was an attempt, whatever weaknesses you may ascribe to that
attempt, to continue to apply the method and programme of the most advanced
political consciousness the international workers' movement has ever seen -
the Bolshevik Party and the first years of the Communist International.
Stalinism on the other hand represents a fundamental break with that
revolutionary tradition. The physical liquidation of the old Bolshevik
leadership who made the revolution, the policy of social fascism which
played a significant role in the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany,
the cross-class alliances of the Popular Front and resulting blood baths and
lost revolutionary situations in China, Spain, Indonesia and Chile, the
disbanding of the Comintern and peaceful coexistence with imperialism at the
expense of the world proletariat, the misleadership of Stalinist leaderships
in the Trade Unions. I could go on and on - Stalinism is not a legitimate
strand of the Bolshevism - it is an enemy of Bolshevism and a misleadership
of the working class, like Social Democracy, which must be politically
defeated where it does not have state power and ousted from power by
political revolution where it does.
I challenge you, and Peter, to show me how this analysis of a FUNDAMENTAL
difference between the programme and method of Stalinism and Trotskyism is
wrong.
Mike
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in reply to my comment ...
: >: But for Peter West, Stalinism and Trotskyism are pretty much the same
: >: thing.....
: >
: >I don't think so, Mike, however well you argue (and argue well you do). I
: >think he sees them as a) both being fundamentally applications of Marxism
: >in the epoch of imperialism, b) recognizes their fundamental differences
: >(the hyper-revolutionism of Trotskyism ["the last crisis of capitalism is
: >upon us! Rebuild the Fourth International!" interminably] vs the
: >bureaucratic caution and conservatism, which, in the end, translated and
: >continues to translate into a kind of social democracy). The difference is
: >that he sees, as I understand it, that in reappraising the gains and
: >losses of the twentieth century communist movement in all its shadings,
: >that there are hard-won lessons to be learned from all tendencies and
: >currents, that none held All Truth nor the Correct Line on every question
: >and that it's necessary for a Communist to approach the world in a manner
: >that recognizes that truth "Is as radical as reality itself."
: I would agree that no-one had the correct line on every question but I
: strongly disagree with anyone who argues for an even-handed assessment and
: that there is not a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism
: and a side to take in conflicts between them.
I'll point out that, imo, an "even-handed assessment" indicates that one
weighs all the facts, and makes judgements accordingly. So, I defend that
approach. I also don't believe I've ever said that there weren't
fundamental differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism. Nor would I.
: Trotskyism was an attempt, whatever weaknesses you may ascribe to that
: attempt, to continue to apply the method and programme of the most advanced
: political consciousness the international workers' movement has ever seen -
: the Bolshevik Party and the first years of the Communist International.
This is true--as far as it goes. It fails to take into consideration a)
the fact that the FI and its sections, from the beginning, were, for the
most part, almost totally isolated from the actual workers' movement; b)
that, again for the most part, their membership included few worker
militants and lots of professionals, academics, etc.; c) that this led
inexorably to a striking distortion of what was, in essence, a good
political line. One example of this distortion is, again, the eternal cry
that "the last crisis of capitalism is upon us! Rebuild the FI (again)!"
Another is the historically well-documented drive for doctrinal purity.
Primitive Baptists couldn't be any more hardshell than most Trots. This
is, imo, problematic.
The countries where Trotskyism actually achieved anything like a mass
following--Sri Lanka/Ceylon, parts of South America--those gains quickly
succumbed to various weaknesses: an inability to weigh the realities of a
given situation due to the constant catastrophism of program, the sudden
limelight with no or little prior historical experience leading to a
tailing after some group or line that would propel them into power, etc.
: Stalinism on the other hand represents a fundamental break with that
: revolutionary tradition. The physical liquidation of the old Bolshevik
: leadership who made the revolution, the policy of social fascism which
: played a significant role in the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany,
: the cross-class alliances of the Popular Front and resulting blood baths and
: lost revolutionary situations in China, Spain, Indonesia and Chile, the
: disbanding of the Comintern and peaceful coexistence with imperialism at the
: expense of the world proletariat, the misleadership of Stalinist leaderships
: in the Trade Unions. I could go on and on - Stalinism is not a legitimate
: strand of the Bolshevism - it is an enemy of Bolshevism and a misleadership
: of the working class, like Social Democracy, which must be politically
: defeated where it does not have state power and ousted from power by
: political revolution where it does.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'd add a few things:
a) under Stalinism, the Soviet Union was industrialized and able to
survive against full-fledged assaults by imperialism for over seventy
years, giving immense support ot national liberation and other struggles
abroad;
b) under Stalinism, Hitler was smashed;
c) even in the senile dementia that was Stalinism, *basic human needs*
such as education, health care, etc., were not only guaranteed but carried
through on;
d) Stalinist parties in some countries, such as the US, played not only a
negative role, but an overwhelmingly positive role in such issues as the
raising of consciousness and struggle among blacks and workers, organizing
unions, etc. This may have been, and often was, independent of the actual
program of the Party in question at the time, but it's still a fact of
history. Of course, equally a fact of history are the horrid capitulations
to capital by the leaderships of those bodies. So, all in all, it's a very
mixed bag, and needs to approached as such.
Now, this doesn't vitiate the crimes of Stalinism, either in the USSR or
internationally. But, these things need to be taken into account along
with your very correct critique.
: I challenge you, and Peter, to show me how this analysis of a FUNDAMENTAL
: difference between the programme and method of Stalinism and Trotskyism is
: wrong.
It's not wrong. It's a question of how do we approach history: as
objectively as possible, while still giving blame or credit where it's
due, or with our polemical passions aflame. Your choice.
Chris
--
Joseph A. Tomaras
cfa...@user1.teleport.com says...
>(the hyper-revolutionism of Trotskyism ["the last crisis of
capitalism is
>upon us! Rebuild the Fourth International!" interminably] vs the
>bureaucratic caution and conservatism, which, in the end,
translated and
>continues to translate into a kind of social democracy). The
This is a caricature of Trotskyism (sounds more like Healyism to
me.) There's nothing wrong with stressing the deepening of the
capitalist crisis, or the fact that we are in the epoch of decay.
Those, however, who purveyed the "last crisis" obviously overlooked
that, as Lenin said, capitalism can survive as long as it can get
the working-class to pay for it. Without revolutionary leadership,
that is just what will happen. In predicting that with the "last
crisis" the workers would soon come streaming into the "true
vanguard party," "Trotskyists" of this stamp were engaging in the
same kind of bureaucratic manipulationism as Third Period
Stalinism.
>and that it's necessary for a Communist to approach the world in a
manner
>that recognizes that truth "Is as radical as reality itself."
>
Nothing more Trotskyist than that, IMHO. Unfortunately, the more I
read about the CPGB, the less I am inclined to think that that is
what they are doing.
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote ...
>: I would agree that no-one had the correct line on every question but I
>: strongly disagree with anyone who argues for an even-handed assessment
and
>: that there is not a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Stalinism and
Trotskyism
>: and a side to take in conflicts between them.
>
>I'll point out that, imo, an "even-handed assessment" indicates that one
>weighs all the facts, and makes judgements accordingly. So, I defend that
>approach. I also don't believe I've ever said that there weren't
>fundamental differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism. Nor would I.
Fair enough. I am concerned however that Peter is trying to do just that to
justify a move to a third campist position - see my other recent reply to
him - and you seemed to be defending him so I tilted my response to you
accordingly.
>: Trotskyism was an attempt, whatever weaknesses you may ascribe to that
>: attempt, to continue to apply the method and programme of the most
advanced
>: political consciousness the international workers' movement has ever
seen -
>: the Bolshevik Party and the first years of the Communist International.
>
>This is true--as far as it goes. It fails to take into consideration a)
>the fact that the FI and its sections, from the beginning, were, for the
>most part, almost totally isolated from the actual workers' movement; b)
>that, again for the most part, their membership included few worker
>militants and lots of professionals, academics, etc.; c) that this led
>inexorably to a striking distortion of what was, in essence, a good
>political line. One example of this distortion is, again, the eternal cry
>that "the last crisis of capitalism is upon us! Rebuild the FI (again)!"
>Another is the historically well-documented drive for doctrinal purity.
>Primitive Baptists couldn't be any more hardshell than most Trots. This
>is, imo, problematic.
>
>The countries where Trotskyism actually achieved anything like a mass
>following--Sri Lanka/Ceylon, parts of South America--those gains quickly
>succumbed to various weaknesses: an inability to weigh the realities of a
>given situation due to the constant catastrophism of program, the sudden
>limelight with no or little prior historical experience leading to a
>tailing after some group or line that would propel them into power, etc.
All of these points are problems but they are problems WITHIN the Bolshevik
tradition - do you agree with me that the body of ideas represented by
Stalinism and put into practice by Stalinists is a BREAK with the Bolshevik
tradition?
>a) under Stalinism, the Soviet Union was industrialized and able to
>survive against full-fledged assaults by imperialism for over seventy
>years, giving immense support ot national liberation and other struggles
>abroad;
>b) under Stalinism, Hitler was smashed;
>c) even in the senile dementia that was Stalinism, *basic human needs*
>such as education, health care, etc., were not only guaranteed but carried
>through on;
>d) Stalinist parties in some countries, such as the US, played not only a
>negative role, but an overwhelmingly positive role in such issues as the
>raising of consciousness and struggle among blacks and workers, organizing
>unions, etc. This may have been, and often was, independent of the actual
>program of the Party in question at the time, but it's still a fact of
>history. Of course, equally a fact of history are the horrid capitulations
>to capital by the leaderships of those bodies. So, all in all, it's a very
>mixed bag, and needs to approached as such.
>
>Now, this doesn't vitiate the crimes of Stalinism, either in the USSR or
>internationally. But, these things need to be taken into account along
>with your very correct critique.
I agree that there were huge material advantages for the working class in
the Soviet Union and the capitalist counter-revolution has shown this as it
proceeds to destroy them all. This is at the heart of the reason why is was
correct to call it a deformed workers' state and to be defencist of it when
it was under threat from capitalism - I'm not sure from your previous posts
whether you were a defencist or not, what do you think Bolsheviks should
have done in Moscow in 1991?
I hope Peter is noting all this as he is the one who wants to "throw the
baby out with the bath water".
However I am somewhat concerned when you say that in some countries
Stalinism had "an overwhelmingly positive role in such issues as the raising
of consciousness and struggle among blacks and workers, organizing unions,
etc. ".
It is obviously true that not all the propaganda and activity of Stalinists
is bad in-of-itself and indeed in proclaiming the need for communism,
however distorted that communist perspective may be, they have played a role
in raising the consciousness of the working class of the need for communism
and revolution. And as you point out there have been many decent working
class activists (particularly the closer to the Russian revolution we go
back in time) who have done good work under the banner of the Stalinist
organisations. However I'd be extremely doubtful that the overall assessment
of the Stalinist tradition,even in these terms, in the USA would end up on
the credit side of the balance sheet. I'd like to know what comrades from
the USA had to say on this question.
But even assuming you are correct (and I'd point out that the number of
crimes of Stalinists is directly related to the degree of state/military
power they hold) I'd still say that the crimes of general misleadership on
questions like the Popular Front - support for Roosevelt and the USA
imperialist war machine for instance - would leave them clearly on the
negative side of the balance sheet.
I am talking about Stalinism as a political movement and the fact that not
all the members of Stalinist organisations have been hardened Stalinists and
some decent and worthwhile things have been done in the name of Stalinism no
more mitigates it's overall negative impact on the workers' movement than
the mistakes of the Trotskyist movement in the name of Trotskyism negate its
role in the struggle to defend and rebuild the Bolshevik tradition agaisnt
Stalinist degeneration.
>: I challenge you, and Peter, to show me how this analysis of a
FUNDAMENTAL
>: difference between the programme and method of Stalinism and Trotskyism
is
>: wrong.
>
>It's not wrong. It's a question of how do we approach history: as
>objectively as possible, while still giving blame or credit where it's
>due, or with our polemical passions aflame. Your choice.
The problem I seem to be having with you is not one of looking at history as
objectively as possible but it is one of drawing lines of qualitative
differences in that historical record. This thread started because of my
response to Peter's attempt to blur the lines between Stalinism and
Trotskyism as part of the CPGB's building of a theoretical justification for
their revisionist move to a third campist position. You seem to be trying to
be on both sides of this argument I am having with Peter and I don't think
that is possible. Either I am right that there are FUNDAMENTAL difference
between Stalinism and Trotskyism which places Trotskyism WITHIN and
Stalinism OUTSIDE the Bolshevik tradition or Peter is right and they are
BOTH failed currents within that tradition.
Discussions about the good things done in the name of Stalinism and the bad
things done in the name of Trotskyism are interesting and important but they
are secondary questions which should occur within the framework of taking a
position on the fundamental role these two currents in the workers' movement
have played. And on that question I ask - which side are you on Chris?
Comradely
Mike
Chris Faatz
> In article <EwYA1.18742$MV.13...@news.teleport.com>,
> cfa...@user1.teleport.com says...
>
> >(the hyper-revolutionism of Trotskyism ["the last crisis of
> capitalism is
> >upon us! Rebuild the Fourth International!" interminably] vs the
> >bureaucratic caution and conservatism, which, in the end,
> translated and
> >continues to translate into a kind of social democracy). The
>
> This is a caricature of Trotskyism
Yes it is, and intentionally so. <grin>
> (sounds more like Healyism to
> me.) There's nothing wrong with stressing the deepening of the
> capitalist crisis, or the fact that we are in the epoch of decay.
But, do we have the sufficient analytical tools to determine what will
*inexorably* happen next?
BTW, it's not only the Healyites (who started out a very healthy
formation as the SLL) who were and are catrastrophist: the ISO/IST,
Cannon's SWP and the Barnesites, Morenoites, the ICL, etc., all succumb
to this disease/mild stomach ailment (depending on how you see it).
> Those, however, who purveyed the "last crisis" obviously overlooked
> that, as Lenin said, capitalism can survive as long as it can get
> the working-class to pay for it. Without revolutionary leadership,
> that is just what will happen. In predicting that with the "last
> crisis" the workers would soon come streaming into the "true
> vanguard party," "Trotskyists" of this stamp were engaging in the
> same kind of bureaucratic manipulationism as Third Period
> Stalinism.
*Exactly* my point. Well said.
>
> >and that it's necessary for a Communist to approach the world in a
> manner
> >that recognizes that truth "Is as radical as reality itself."
> >
>
> Nothing more Trotskyist than that, IMHO. Unfortunately, the more I
> read about the CPGB, the less I am inclined to think that that is
> what they are doing.
Depends on the Trot, I fear. And, with the CPGB I'd rather wait and see
before judging now. They've launched some ineresting inititatives, not
least of which is an openness to a "new type of party of a new type" with
their experiments with factions, tendencies, and a plethora of bodies
co-existing under one organizational mantle. Similarities can be drawn
with the Bolsheviks in their heyday, also, I think, with the WP.
C
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote ...
: >: I would agree that no-one had the correct line on every question but I
: >: strongly disagree with anyone who argues for an even-handed assessment
: and
: >: that there is not a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Stalinism and
: Trotskyism
: >: and a side to take in conflicts between them.
: >
: >I'll point out that, imo, an "even-handed assessment" indicates that one
: >weighs all the facts, and makes judgements accordingly. So, I defend that
: >approach. I also don't believe I've ever said that there weren't
: >fundamental differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism. Nor would I.
: Fair enough.
I'd hope so <grin> Seems like Marxist method to me.
: I am concerned however that Peter is trying to do just that to
: justify a move to a third campist position - see my other recent reply to
: him - and you seemed to be defending him so I tilted my response to you
: accordingly.
I'm not defending him, although I like him and I watch with interest what
the CPGB (PCC) is doing. It's a rather unique experiment, in my mind, and
I think one should be slow to condemn these things.
As to his (and the Party majority's) moving to a third camp position--that
may very well be true, but what, inherently, would be wrong with that on
a political level? Let's look at some examples: North Korea, the "People's
Republic" of China (if capitalism's not been, or isn't being, restored
there, I don't know where it is), Cuba.
Like an ortho Trot, a third campist would call for revolutions in all of
the above (although some ortho Trots wouldn't do so in the case of Cuba--
personally, I think Cuba's a seriously deformed workers' state that's in
need of a healthy dose of either glasnost [*not* perestroika!] or a
revolutionary democratic upsurge from below). While they may not call
it "political revolution," what they'd stress would be essentially the
same things.
ON the same scale, any of the above who had any principles would defend
the three examples against imperialist intervention. And, in the case of,
for example, the PRC, any person of principle would call for
self-determination for the Tibetan people, no matter what. It's an ABC of
national liberation that the ethnic genocide and environmental rape that's
occurring on the Tibetan plateau should be opposed--regardless of your
assessment of the nation's that's perpetrating the acts, and regardless
of your feelings about Lamas, Tulkus, and the previous feudalistic status
of Tibet.
: >: Trotskyism was an attempt, whatever weaknesses you may ascribe to that
Not wholly, for the reasons below. I believe it's a different strain,
heavily distorted by internal and external pressures, and of a much less
overall healthy nature than at least *some* of that which has gone under
the name of "Trotskyism."
I think, like Peter, it's the "isms" perhaps that I'm willing to drop
in the current historical period, under the current historical conditions,
and while making the necessary political assessments of the century. Does
that make sense?
: >a) under Stalinism, the Soviet Union was industrialized and able to
I was a defencist, an ortho-Trot until several years ago. Now I'm
interested in and friendly with folks who I'd never have spoken to years
back, as well as with groups like Workers Action in the UK (whose work I
respect enormously).
Personally, I don't think the Bolsheviks were in a position to do anything
in 1991. If they would have been in such a position, i.e., if there were
an authentic and honest Communist Party of some sort, multi-tendency, and
enjoying mass support among workers, both urban and rural, national
groups, within the armed forces, and among grassroots activists of various
flavors, they should have called for political revolution to oust both the
old Stalinist guard and Yeltsin's restorationists.
But, again, I could argue that a third campist would have argued the same
thing.
: I hope Peter is noting all this as he is the one who wants to "throw the
: baby out with the bath water".
: However I am somewhat concerned when you say that in some countries :
Stalinism had "an overwhelmingly positive role in such issues as the
raising : of consciousness and struggle among blacks and workers,
organizing unions, : etc. ".
: It is obviously true that not all the propaganda and activity of Stalinists
: is bad in-of-itself and indeed in proclaiming the need for communism,
: however distorted that communist perspective may be, they have played a role
: in raising the consciousness of the working class of the need for communism
: and revolution. And as you point out there have been many decent working
: class activists (particularly the closer to the Russian revolution we go
: back in time) who have done good work under the banner of the Stalinist
: organisations. However I'd be extremely doubtful that the overall assessment
: of the Stalinist tradition,even in these terms, in the USA would end up on
: the credit side of the balance sheet. I'd like to know what comrades from
: the USA had to say on this question.
Well, you have my assessment. It's a mixed bag, but at the grassroots men
and women in the CPUSA played pioneer roles in labor defense, in building
labor unions on an industrial basis, and in fighting racism. Also, when
one speaks of revolutionary gains, the idea of consciousness and the role
of culture in the creation thereof is often simply ignored. I think the CP
played a tremendous role in that area, and that some of our greatest
writers from the 30s and 40s were writing from a strong socialist
perspective, with a liberatory thrust, even while under the aegis of the
CP.
Examples: Langston Hughes, Meridel LeSueur, Tillie Olsen, Hemingway, etc.
: But even assuming you are correct (and I'd point out that the number of
: crimes of Stalinists is directly related to the degree of state/military
: power they hold) I'd still say that the crimes of general misleadership on
: questions like the Popular Front - support for Roosevelt and the USA
: imperialist war machine for instance - would leave them clearly on the
: negative side of the balance sheet.
I wouldn't argue against that position. Although I could see support for
Roosevelt as a defencist line during WWII, the biggest betrayal was that
of democratic rights in the unions: the right to strike, support for the
suppression of such minorities as the leadership of the Minneapolis
teamsters, etc.
: I am talking about Stalinism as a political movement and the fact that not
: all the members of Stalinist organisations have been hardened Stalinists and
: some decent and worthwhile things have been done in the name of Stalinism no
: more mitigates it's overall negative impact on the workers' movement than
: the mistakes of the Trotskyist movement in the name of Trotskyism negate its
: role in the struggle to defend and rebuild the Bolshevik tradition agaisnt
: Stalinist degeneration.
I'm in general agreement with you.
: >: I challenge you, and Peter, to show me how this analysis of a
: FUNDAMENTAL
: >: difference between the programme and method of Stalinism and Trotskyism
: is
: >: wrong.
: >
: >It's not wrong. It's a question of how do we approach history: as
: >objectively as possible, while still giving blame or credit where it's
: >due, or with our polemical passions aflame. Your choice.
: The problem I seem to be having with you is not one of looking at history as
: objectively as possible but it is one of drawing lines of qualitative
: differences in that historical record. This thread started because of my
: response to Peter's attempt to blur the lines between Stalinism and
: Trotskyism as part of the CPGB's building of a theoretical justification for
: their revisionist move to a third campist position. You seem to be trying to
: be on both sides of this argument I am having with Peter and I don't think
: that is possible. Either I am right that there are FUNDAMENTAL difference
: between Stalinism and Trotskyism which places Trotskyism WITHIN and
: Stalinism OUTSIDE the Bolshevik tradition or Peter is right and they are
: BOTH failed currents within that tradition.
Or, they are both currents within that tradition from which much can and,
more importanlty, *must* be learned in order to correct our practice for
the class battles of the coming millenium.
: Discussions about the good things done in the name of Stalinism and the bad
: things done in the name of Trotskyism are interesting and important but they
: are secondary questions which should occur within the framework of taking a
: position on the fundamental role these two currents in the workers' movement
: have played. And on that question I ask - which side are you on Chris?
You've got it right above the preceding para, mate. <grin>
Comradely best wishes,
Chris
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote in reply to Joseph A. Tomaras
>Depends on the Trot, I fear. And, with the CPGB I'd rather wait and see
>before judging now. They've launched some ineresting inititatives, not
>least of which is an openness to a "new type of party of a new type" with
>their experiments with factions, tendencies, and a plethora of bodies
>co-existing under one organizational mantle. Similarities can be drawn
>with the Bolsheviks in their heyday, also, I think, with the WP.
I view attempts to build a "new" party of a "new" type with more than a
small degree of skepticism.
The CPGB's "new" position on the class nature of the Soviet Union changing
with the coming to power of the Stalinist bureaucracy is not new and I side
with Trotsky in his polemics against such Schactmanite trends. Peter has
produced nothing in the way of serious arguments to justify taking such a
third camp position, indeed all that he has tried to do is show that
Stalinism and Trotskyism are closely linked in their method which I is not
true.
I don't know exactly what this "new" organisational form of the CPGB is,
though I doubt if it is actually "new" but it sounds like some kind of
diluting of the need for a clear programme and agreement with the
fundamentals of that programme as being the basis for membership of the
group - Peter's comment about many different positions on the nature of
Soviet Union being able to coexist as almost being a healthy thing makes me
think that something like that is going on. We are in a terrible period for
Bolshevik politics with the programme under immense threat from all sorts of
rightward drift and the idea of building some kind of programmatically
heterogeneous group at this time is fraught with danger.
Of course Chris is right to pose the idea that we shouldn't be stuck in
dogmatic positions but it is also true that we should not abandon old
positions and say nothing is certain and its all up for re-evaluation (as I
think you are ending a bit towards Chris) before we are sure that the old
position is wrong. Those who can not defend the gains of the past (and this
applies to programme as well as material gains) will not be able to make new
gains.
Comradely
Mike
Mike
>I'm not defending him, although I like him and I watch with interest what
>the CPGB (PCC) is doing. It's a rather unique experiment, in my mind, and
>I think one should be slow to condemn these things.
Sorry Chris but that does sound like you are defending him - perhaps like a
lawyer defends someone without taking responsibility - but defending him
none the less.
>As to his (and the Party majority's) moving to a third camp position--that
>may very well be true, but what, inherently, would be wrong with that on
>a political level? Let's look at some examples: North Korea, the "People's
>Republic" of China (if capitalism's not been, or isn't being, restored
>there, I don't know where it is), Cuba.
The only thing wrong with it is that its a wrong application of the
Bolshevik method as I see it and I would be remiss not to argue against it
when I am involved in a political conversation about it. There is nothing
wrong with people changing their political positions in the abstract but
unfortunately our political positions are not just abstract and the CPGB
moving in this direction - away from Trotskyism and Bolshevism, whatever
their subjective intentions - is a blow to the reforging of a Bolshevik
movement in Britain and internationally.
>Like an ortho Trot, a third campist would call for revolutions in all of
>the above (although some ortho Trots wouldn't do so in the case of Cuba--
>personally, I think Cuba's a seriously deformed workers' state that's in
>need of a healthy dose of either glasnost [*not* perestroika!] or a
>revolutionary democratic upsurge from below). While they may not call
>it "political revolution," what they'd stress would be essentially the
>same things.
In the absence of imperialism they would indeed seem very similar but we
don't live in that world of only deformed workers states (assuming such a
thing were possible). The problem with third campism is not that they are
for the overthrow of the bureaucratic Stalinist regimes but that they make
no distinction between these regimes and capitalism (either they are a
special type of capitalism or they are something new which is just as bad or
worse than capitalism) and take no side if there is a conflict between them.
And in fact quite often third campist groups use the nastiness of the
Stalinist regimes as a reason to side with the "democratic" capitalists - as
was the case with most of the left regarding Yeltsin and of course the open
third campists were not alone in doing that...
>ON the same scale, any of the above who had any principles would defend
>the three examples against imperialist intervention. And, in the case of,
>for example, the PRC, any person of principle would call for
>self-determination for the Tibetan people, no matter what. It's an ABC of
>national liberation that the ethnic genocide and environmental rape that's
>occurring on the Tibetan plateau should be opposed--regardless of your
>assessment of the nation's that's perpetrating the acts, and regardless
>of your feelings about Lamas, Tulkus, and the previous feudalistic status
>of Tibet.
I must to confess to not being sure about Tibet. For me it hinges around the
processes taking place inside China - clearly the process of capitalist
restoration is taking place on some level, or at least the building of a
capitalist restorationist third column is very well advanced if they don't
already hold the reins of state power. But if China is still fundamentally a
workers state then to support Tibet's separation would objectively only
hassen the moves to capitalist restoration - and that is going to a much
larger disaster for the working class and peasantry than all the crimes the
Chinese have and are committing in Tibet.
I'm worried about the amount of importance you appear to put on the DEGREE
of nastiness of the Chinese oppression of the Tibetan people. For one thing
it implies that a separate Tibetan state, presumably under the control of
the Lama's at least initially, would be qualitatively better for its workers
and peasants - which is somewhat of a moot point. But more importantly it
appears to make the most important criteria in assessing such questions the
degree of personal moral outrage at the acts of oppression being carried out
by the oppressing nation. Of course this is an important factor in how we
assess questions of national oppression as it reflects the degree to which
relations between the working classes of the two nations have been poisoned
but it is important as evidence of our main concern which is that national
oppression poisons relations bewteen working classes and our support for the
right to self-determination is because we believe it is the best way for the
working class in the oppressor country to show the working class of the
oppressed country that it wants unity and will not side with its own
opressing leadership whatever position on separation the working class of
the oppressed country may take.
However in the case of a workers state, deformed or otherwise, this is
subsumed within more general considerations such as the relationship of
self-determination to capitalist restoration. From your paragraph above you
seem to be saying that the most important thing is the nastiness of the
crimes being committed and that I'm afraid is more a liberal than a Marxist
argument.
By the way what did you argue when the Baltic states wanted to secede from
the Soviet Union in the late 80's early 90's? Should we have supported their
support "right" to self-determination or opposed it as it was part of the
overall project of capitalist restoration (I think you can guess my
position)?
>Not wholly, for the reasons below. I believe it's a different strain,
>heavily distorted by internal and external pressures, and of a much less
>overall healthy nature than at least *some* of that which has gone under
>the name of "Trotskyism."
>
>I think, like Peter, it's the "isms" perhaps that I'm willing to drop
>in the current historical period, under the current historical conditions,
>and while making the necessary political assessments of the century. Does
>that make sense?
But just what "ism" are you referring to, are "Marxism", "Leninism",
"Bolshevism" to be included in this because there are so many distortions
and mistakes made in the names of these isms? So everything is up for grabs
and the programmatic advances of the workers movement in the past,
especially its highest point around the early years of the Communist
International mean nothing? I for one am very reluctant to think that the
tiny grouplets and individuals who claim to be part of the process of
building such an international again should say that those historical
lessons, those "isms" are less important now - in fact I think that if
anything bending the stick towards "orthodoxy" and "dogmatism" around
defending the programme and method of revolutionary Bolshevism is integral
in the current period.
>I was a defencist, an ortho-Trot until several years ago. Now I'm
>interested in and friendly with folks who I'd never have spoken to years
>back, as well as with groups like Workers Action in the UK (whose work I
>respect enormously).
Could you fill me in on where this Workers Action lot fit in - the name
doesn't mean anything to me from back when I was active in and around
organised left politics. Do they have a web site?
>Personally, I don't think the Bolsheviks were in a position to do anything
>in 1991. If they would have been in such a position, i.e., if there were
>an authentic and honest Communist Party of some sort, multi-tendency, and
>enjoying mass support among workers, both urban and rural, national
>groups, within the armed forces, and among grassroots activists of various
>flavors, they should have called for political revolution to oust both the
>old Stalinist guard and Yeltsin's restorationists.
>
>But, again, I could argue that a third campist would have argued the same
>thing.
Now I'm really confused - how can you call yourself a defencist if you saw
no difference between the remnants of the Stalinist bureaucracy and the fast
track capitalist restorationists around Yeltsin? Surely Yeltsin represented
the greater danger and in a conflict between him and coup plotters
Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union should have aimed their guns at him for the
period of the conflict - fairly clear analogy with Kerensky/Kornilov
regarding greater dangers I would have thought.
>I wouldn't argue against that position. Although I could see support for
>Roosevelt as a defencist line during WWII, the biggest betrayal was that
>of democratic rights in the unions: the right to strike, support for the
>suppression of such minorities as the leadership of the Minneapolis
>teamsters, etc.
But surely defencism doesn't imply POLITICAL support - your defencism of the
Soviet Union in no way implies political support for the bureaucracy and I
fail to see how political support to Roosevelt fits into defencism - it has
more to do with the class collaborationist distrotions of Stalinism...
>: I am talking about Stalinism as a political movement and the fact that
not
>: all the members of Stalinist organisations have been hardened Stalinists
and
>: some decent and worthwhile things have been done in the name of Stalinism
no
>: more mitigates it's overall negative impact on the workers' movement than
>: the mistakes of the Trotskyist movement in the name of Trotskyism negate
its
>: role in the struggle to defend and rebuild the Bolshevik tradition
agaisnt
>: Stalinist degeneration.
>
>I'm in general agreement with you.
>: The problem I seem to be having with you is not one of looking at history
You really do seem to trying to have it both ways Chris.
You say you are a defencist yet you yourself point out that your position on
August 1991 is the same as a third campist. You say that you are in general
agreement with me in my debate with Peter but then say that Stalinism and
Trotskyism are "both currents within that tradition from which much can and,
more importantly, *must* be learned in order to correct our practice for the
class battles of the coming millenium" which is actually to side with Peter,
or at least is somewhere in the middle which because of the degree of
contradiction between the positions ends up siding with Peter.
Chris it is clear that you are in political movement at the moment but I
would urge you to be careful about rejecting the programme of our tradition
too easily. I know that it is a difficult period for the left and as someone
who is effectively retired from organised politics I hardly occupy the moral
high ground, so to speak, but I do know that the lessons and programme of
the Communist International and the attempt of Trotsky to defend that
programme against Stalinist degeneration is something we reject (or approach
evenhandedly) at our, and ultimately the wider working classes, cost.
For bending the stick towards "dogmatism"
Mike
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in reply to Joseph A. Tomaras
: >Depends on the Trot, I fear. And, with the CPGB I'd rather wait and see
: >before judging now. They've launched some ineresting inititatives, not
: >least of which is an openness to a "new type of party of a new type" with
: >their experiments with factions, tendencies, and a plethora of bodies
: >co-existing under one organizational mantle. Similarities can be drawn
: >with the Bolsheviks in their heyday, also, I think, with the WP.
: I view attempts to build a "new" party of a "new" type with more than a
: small degree of skepticism.
One, in all seriousness, can't blame you. First thing that comes to mind
for me is the Amsterdam Inernational. Second is Solidarity in the US. But,
time will tell.
: The CPGB's "new" position on the class nature of the Soviet Union changing
: with the coming to power of the Stalinist bureaucracy is not new and I side
: with Trotsky in his polemics against such Schactmanite trends. Peter has
: produced nothing in the way of serious arguments to justify taking such a
: third camp position, indeed all that he has tried to do is show that
: Stalinism and Trotskyism are closely linked in their method which I is not
: true.
Do you think that the CPGB is actually evolving an explicitly Shachtmanite
position? Or, is it more of a state capitalist one? Peter, what's your
take on this? The AWL is heading definitely towards Shachtmanite politics.
But, there was apositive side to those politics as well, despite the mess
out of which they arose, and the swamp into which they sank.
: I don't know exactly what this "new" organisational form of the CPGB is,
: though I doubt if it is actually "new" but it sounds like some kind of
: diluting of the need for a clear programme and agreement with the
: fundamentals of that programme as being the basis for membership of the
: group - Peter's comment about many different positions on the nature of
: Soviet Union being able to coexist as almost being a healthy thing makes me
: think that something like that is going on. We are in a terrible period for
: Bolshevik politics with the programme under immense threat from all sorts of
: rightward drift and the idea of building some kind of programmatically
: heterogeneous group at this time is fraught with danger.
Again, I understand your point, and, to an extent, agree with you. But,
I'd point out that the heterogeneous party was exactly the kind of party
that Lenin built (prior to 1917): otherwise, how can one account for the
different positions that arose and had to be destroyed polemically in
the struggle for power?
The debates were even held publicly, in the pages of the Party's press.
Why? *Because the Party's primary interest was to educate, not stifle,
the intellectual and activist curiosity and actino of its worker members
and periphery.* An absolutely clear and essential point, in my mind. It
was the "Zinovievism" of the 21 Conditions, along with the banning of
factions, that really began, on a subjective level, to gut the party of
its revolutionary essence.
: Of course Chris is right to pose the idea that we shouldn't be stuck in
: dogmatic positions but it is also true that we should not abandon old
: positions and say nothing is certain and its all up for re-evaluation (as I
: think you are ending a bit towards Chris)
I think you could probably say that, and I'd probably agree--again to a
point <grin>
: before we are sure that the old
: position is wrong. Those who can not defend the gains of the past (and this
: applies to programme as well as material gains) will not be able to make new
: gains.
There are gains of the past that are well worth defending.
a) the theory of imperialism
b) the theory of the party--it's the *form* that theory takes that's under
question here both historically and theoretically, although some form of
democratic centralism is definitely in order--but what's that mean in
1998?
c) the transitional method
d) combined and uneven development
e) Marx's dictum "doubt everything"
f) the role of social democracy and the labor leadership as it is
g) the *essential* role of most CPs as basically a cheerleader for
Stalin's USSR
h) the evolution of most CPs into a kind of social democracy of their
own
One thing I'd think was up in the air was permanent revolution vs a more
stageist perception. I haven't made up my mind on that one yet.
These are just some examples. Others?
Chris
--
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in reply to me ...
: >I'm not defending him, although I like him and I watch with interest what
: >the CPGB (PCC) is doing. It's a rather unique experiment, in my mind, and
: >I think one should be slow to condemn these things.
: Sorry Chris but that does sound like you are defending him - perhaps like a
: lawyer defends someone without taking responsibility - but defending him
: none the less.
Your call, Mike. I'm not in the CPGB, and I read it more for its reporting
on other left groups in the UK rather than for its analysis of politics
(and I'll point out that it's awfully short of internatinoal stuff).
: >As to his (and the Party majority's) moving to a third camp position--that
: >may very well be true, but what, inherently, would be wrong with that on
: >a political level? Let's look at some examples: North Korea, the "People's
: >Republic" of China (if capitalism's not been, or isn't being, restored
: >there, I don't know where it is), Cuba.
: The only thing wrong with it is that its a wrong application of the
: Bolshevik method as I see it and I would be remiss not to argue against it
: when I am involved in a political conversation about it. There is nothing
: wrong with people changing their political positions in the abstract but
: unfortunately our political positions are not just abstract and the CPGB
: moving in this direction - away from Trotskyism and Bolshevism, whatever
: their subjective intentions - is a blow to the reforging of a Bolshevik
: movement in Britain and internationally.
The CPGB is moving away from "Trotskyism and Bolshevism" in your
definition of them, my friend. I see them moving away from the Stalinism
that they arose from. I embrace that move, and watch with interest their
further development. Remember, they were never, but *never*, a Trotskyist
organization.
: >Like an ortho Trot, a third campist would call for revolutions in all of
: >the above (although some ortho Trots wouldn't do so in the case of Cuba--
: >personally, I think Cuba's a seriously deformed workers' state that's in
: >need of a healthy dose of either glasnost [*not* perestroika!] or a
: >revolutionary democratic upsurge from below). While they may not call
: >it "political revolution," what they'd stress would be essentially the
: >same things.
: In the absence of imperialism they would indeed seem very similar but we
: don't live in that world of only deformed workers states (assuming such
a : thing were possible). The problem with third campism is not that they
are : for the overthrow of the bureaucratic Stalinist regimes but that
they make : no distinction between these regimes and capitalism (either
they are a : special type of capitalism or they are something new which is
just as bad or : worse than capitalism) and take no side if there is a
conflict between them. : And in fact quite often third campist groups use
the nastiness of the : Stalinist regimes as a reason to side with the
"democratic" capitalists - as : was the case with most of the left
regarding Yeltsin and of course the open : third campists were not alone
in doing that...
The latter part is a formulation that applies, as far as I know, only
to the Shachtmanites in the period of their decline.
However, your point in the first half of the para is well taken and I
agree with you (on their not differentiating between bourgeois regimes
and Stalinist/deformed workers' states, and our responsibility in that
regard).
: >ON the same scale, any of the above who had any principles would defend
: >the three examples against imperialist intervention. And, in the case
of, : >for example, the PRC, any person of principle would call for :
>self-determination for the Tibetan people, no matter what. It's an ABC of
: >national liberation that the ethnic genocide and environmental rape
that's : >occurring on the Tibetan plateau should be opposed--regardless
of your : >assessment of the nation's that's perpetrating the acts, and
regardless : >of your feelings about Lamas, Tulkus, and the previous
feudalistic status : >of Tibet.
: I must to confess to not being sure about Tibet. For me it hinges around the
: processes taking place inside China - clearly the process of capitalist
: restoration is taking place on some level, or at least the building of a
: capitalist restorationist third column is very well advanced if they don't
: already hold the reins of state power. But if China is still fundamentally a
: workers state then to support Tibet's separation would objectively only
: hassen the moves to capitalist restoration - and that is going to a much
: larger disaster for the working class and peasantry than all the crimes the
: Chinese have and are committing in Tibet.
It's a point worth considering, but I stand by my assessment on the right
of this small nation to self-determination.
I'll admit this: I've been fairly unquestioning of the Dalai Lama until
recently. That's changed, and I view the situation differently now. After
his endorsement of India's nuclear tests, and some other such shenanigans
in the Tibetan exile community, my head's clear enough to try and make
an objective assessment.
: I'm worried about the amount of importance you appear to put on the DEGREE
: of nastiness of the Chinese oppression of the Tibetan people. For one thing
: it implies that a separate Tibetan state, presumably under the control of
: the Lama's at least initially, would be qualitatively better for its workers
: and peasants - which is somewhat of a moot point.
Let me say that I stand for self-determination for the Tibetan people in
a revolutionary democracy from below. I also stand for their freedom of
religion, but think that that right should be strictly separated from
state power.
: But more importantly it
: appears to make the most important criteria in assessing such questions the
: degree of personal moral outrage at the acts of oppression being carried out
: by the oppressing nation. Of course this is an important factor in how we
: assess questions of national oppression as it reflects the degree to which
: relations between the working classes of the two nations have been poisoned
: but it is important as evidence of our main concern which is that national
: oppression poisons relations bewteen working classes and our support for the
: right to self-determination is because we believe it is the best way for the
: working class in the oppressor country to show the working class of the
: oppressed country that it wants unity and will not side with its own
: opressing leadership whatever position on separation the working class of
: the oppressed country may take.
Objectively, the situation is Tibet is horrible for native Tibetans. If
you'd like, I can cite stuff up one side and down the other.
: However in the case of a workers state, deformed or otherwise, this is
: subsumed within more general considerations such as the relationship of
: self-determination to capitalist restoration. From your paragraph above you
: seem to be saying that the most important thing is the nastiness of the
: crimes being committed and that I'm afraid is more a liberal than a Marxist
: argument.
No, the most important thing is the right of Tibetans to make their own
decisions, as Lenin wrote in his tract on self-determination. The Tibetans
form a nation of their own according to all the criteria in Lenin's
writings and that of the Comintern's first couple congresses.
The Chinese forcibly annexed Tibet, which had been, on and off again for
centuries, an independent country. The fact that it's a veritable treasure
house of mineral wealth, etc., is beside the point, and doesn't give the
Chinese any historic, political, or moral right to take over that nation
for their own ends, *deliberately* pursuing genocidal policies toward the
Tibetan people.
: By the way what did you argue when the Baltic states wanted to secede from
: the Soviet Union in the late 80's early 90's? Should we have supported their
: support "right" to self-determination or opposed it as it was part of the
: overall project of capitalist restoration (I think you can guess my
: position)?
I think that, under the circumstances we've discussed regarding the status
of the USSR at that time, one would have to defend that right. Also, in
accordance to principle, considering the nature of their annexation.
: >Not wholly, for the reasons below. I believe it's a different strain,
: >heavily distorted by internal and external pressures, and of a much less
: >overall healthy nature than at least *some* of that which has gone under
: >the name of "Trotskyism."
: >
: >I think, like Peter, it's the "isms" perhaps that I'm willing to drop
: >in the current historical period, under the current historical conditions,
: >and while making the necessary political assessments of the century. Does
: >that make sense?
: But just what "ism" are you referring to, are "Marxism", "Leninism",
: "Bolshevism" to be included in this because there are so many distortions
: and mistakes made in the names of these isms? So everything is up for grabs
: and the programmatic advances of the workers movement in the past,
: especially its highest point around the early years of the Communist
: International mean nothing? I for one am very reluctant to think that the
: tiny grouplets and individuals who claim to be part of the process of
: building such an international again should say that those historical
: lessons, those "isms" are less important now - in fact I think that if
: anything bending the stick towards "orthodoxy" and "dogmatism" around
: defending the programme and method of revolutionary Bolshevism is integral
: in the current period.
See my earlier post on this question. I think that marxism and Leninism
have stood the test of time. Why? Because they've been able to grow and
change as any true science does in relation to reality. I'm thinking now
of Al Richardson's (is that the guys' name?) article on the Transitional
Programme and revolutionary practice in the first issue of Workers' Fight.
I think that, depending on the tradition, there is much to be learned of a
positive nature from what has been termed "Stalinism," "Trotskyism,"
"Maoism," etc.
Of course, I'd argue very strongly that the insights--repressed as they
were for decades--of the likes of Gorter, Pannekoek, and their co-thinkers
also still bear study.
: >I was a defencist, an ortho-Trot until several years ago. Now I'm
: >interested in and friendly with folks who I'd never have spoken to years
: >back, as well as with groups like Workers Action in the UK (whose work I
: >respect enormously).
: Could you fill me in on where this Workers Action lot fit in - the name
: doesn't mean anything to me from back when I was active in and around
: organised left politics. Do they have a web site?
Loosely speaking, ortho Trot. Their address is PO Box 7268, London E10
6TX. They're the ex-majority of the British section of the LTT.
: >Personally, I don't think the Bolsheviks were in a position to do anything
: >in 1991. If they would have been in such a position, i.e., if there were
: >an authentic and honest Communist Party of some sort, multi-tendency, and
: >enjoying mass support among workers, both urban and rural, national
: >groups, within the armed forces, and among grassroots activists of various
: >flavors, they should have called for political revolution to oust both the
: >old Stalinist guard and Yeltsin's restorationists.
: >
: >But, again, I could argue that a third campist would have argued the same
: >thing.
: Now I'm really confused - how can you call yourself a defencist if you saw
: no difference between the remnants of the Stalinist bureaucracy and the fast
: track capitalist restorationists around Yeltsin? Surely Yeltsin represented
: the greater danger and in a conflict between him and coup plotters
: Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union should have aimed their guns at him for the
: period of the conflict - fairly clear analogy with Kerensky/Kornilov
: regarding greater dangers I would have thought.
Maybe. I'm being drawn away from the computer by family calls :P
: >I wouldn't argue against that position. Although I could see support for
: >Roosevelt as a defencist line during WWII, the biggest betrayal was that
: >of democratic rights in the unions: the right to strike, support for the
: >suppression of such minorities as the leadership of the Minneapolis
: >teamsters, etc.
MORE LATER
: But surely defencism doesn't imply POLITICAL support - your defencism of the
--
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote in message <_FDB1.19877$MV.14...@news.teleport.com>...
>The CPGB is moving away from "Trotskyism and Bolshevism" in your
>definition of them, my friend. I see them moving away from the Stalinism
>that they arose from. I embrace that move, and watch with interest their
>further development. Remember, they were never, but *never*, a Trotskyist
>organization.
True enough but it would be a shame if they don't continue that move further
in the direction of Bolshevism.
>No, the most important thing is the right of Tibetans to make their own
>decisions, as Lenin wrote in his tract on self-determination. The Tibetans
>form a nation of their own according to all the criteria in Lenin's
>writings and that of the Comintern's first couple congresses.
Sorry Chris but you can't claim Lenin on this one.
The Tibetan's are definitely a separate nation but Bolshevism's support for
the right to self-determination is not absolute.
"In practice, the proletariat can retain its independence only by
subordinating its struggle for all democratic demands, not excluding the
demand for a republic, to its revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of
the bourgeoisie"
From Theses 5 of "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to
Self-Determination".
The bourgeois democratic demand for self-determination is surely
sub-ordinate to the defence of a workers' state when threatened by
capitalist restoration.
Comradely
Mike
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Chris Faatz wrote in reply to Joseph A. Tomaras
>
>>Depends on the Trot, I fear. And, with the CPGB I'd rather wait and see
>>before judging now. They've launched some ineresting inititatives, not
>>least of which is an openness to a "new type of party of a new type" with
>>their experiments with factions, tendencies, and a plethora of bodies
>>co-existing under one organizational mantle. Similarities can be drawn
>>with the Bolsheviks in their heyday, also, I think, with the WP.
>
>I view attempts to build a "new" party of a "new" type with more than a
>small degree of skepticism.
Why? How else are we to build a party worthy of the name rather than a
'chemically pure' sect that disappears up its own orifices? Chris is
wrong in calling the CPGB's position 'experiments', though; this is
essential to a healthy party at all times, without exception. It is not
a party in the Bolshevik sense unless it has this character.
>
>The CPGB's "new" position on the class nature of the Soviet Union changing
>with the coming to power of the Stalinist bureaucracy is not new and I side
>with Trotsky in his polemics against such Schactmanite trends.
How is the admittedly sketchy position I (not the CPGB, which does not
have a view, as I keep emphasising) put forward 'Schachtmanite'?
>[...]
>I don't know exactly what this "new" organisational form of the CPGB is,
>though I doubt if it is actually "new" but it sounds like some kind of
>diluting of the need for a clear programme and agreement with the
>fundamentals of that programme as being the basis for membership of the
>group - Peter's comment about many different positions on the nature of
>Soviet Union being able to coexist as almost being a healthy thing makes me
>think that something like that is going on.
Here's the crucial point, comrades. It is not 'agreement' with the
program that is necessary, but 'acceptance'. This is not a quibble, but
the essence. A healthy party regime of acceptance of the party program
combined with thoroughgoing, genuine democratic centralism will give us
the best tool to beat the class enemy and enable the self-liberation of
the working class.
--
Peter [remove .nosp in address before emailing]
~ Weekly Worker electronic edition at ~
<URL: http://www.duntone.demon.co.uk/CPGB/>
Peter West
<jtom...@ntrnet.net> writes>>(the hyper-revolutionism of Trotskyism ["the last crisis of
>capitalism is
>>upon us! Rebuild the Fourth International!" interminably] vs the
>>bureaucratic caution and conservatism, which, in the end,
>translated and
>>continues to translate into a kind of social democracy). The
>
>capitalist crisis, or the fact that we are in the epoch of decay.
>that, as Lenin said, capitalism can survive as long as it can get
>the working-class to pay for it. Without revolutionary leadership,
>that is just what will happen. In predicting that with the "last
>crisis" the workers would soon come streaming into the "true
>vanguard party," "Trotskyists" of this stamp were engaging in the
>same kind of bureaucratic manipulationism as Third Period
>Stalinism.
>
>manner
>>that recognizes that truth "Is as radical as reality itself."
>>
>
>Nothing more Trotskyist than that, IMHO. Unfortunately, the more I
>read about the CPGB, the less I am inclined to think that that is
>what they are doing.
Say what? Is this comrade discussing the CPGB as it exists, as it should
exist, or what?
Peter West
>There was a world social movement lead by the victorious Bolshevik Party and
>codified in the documents of the first years of the Communist International
>(I would say the first four congresses) and the writings of central leaders
>such as Lenin. Stalinism as a social phenomenum represents the degeneration
>of that social movement while Trotskyism represents the attempt to defend
>the politics of the Comintern against that degeneration.
Trotskyism is bound by the limitations of its birth as a reaction
against reactionary developments in the Soviet regime, headed by Stalin.
>
>The CPGB's supposed even handedness in dealing with these two strands in the
>workers movement is acually a rejection of the defence of the general
>political method of Marx, Lenin and Bolshevism.
No, it is not a question of evenhandedness. As the Soviet Union
continued in existence its regime became more sclerotic and its leaders
more reactionary. While money ceased to exist and the law of value was
overthrown, the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism were not
established. It was a freak, anti-capitalist society such as Marx had
warned against as a possibility should socialist revolution occur in one
country.
>[...]
>If it is possible that a proletarian state could become politically deformed
>and the social transformation of society could be stalled (which I think is
>what happened) then I think that it is useful to come up with a term which
>explains taht in some way. Socialism implies a more or less healthy
>transformation of society and that the basis for a move to the next stage of
>social development, communism, has been laid - I don't think ths was true of
>the Soviet Union but I do think that it represented an advance for the
>working class and needed to be defended thus I use the term deformed
>workers' state. And I think that difference is important, unlike Stalinists
>and third campists.
Why was the prison-house that the Soviet Union quickly became an advance
for the working class? Its example tainted communist ideology and
propaganda for generations: it still does. Workers in their droves
deserted the Soviet regime politically, but were atomised under Stalin's
rule and without a voice.
>[...]
>Ok this is what it is all about isn't it. The Stalinist regime was so evil
>and terrible that it is impossible to believe that the society that caste
>ruled represented in any way a gain for the working class - therefore there
>was no need to defend it. That is where you are leading isn't it Peter.
No. If the USA attacks Cuba, or Iraq, or China, etc. revolutionaries
have to be in the forefront of campaigns against imperialist aggression.
>
>Well how do you explain the events of the early 90's as capitalism has begun
>to be re-established in these societies? Are there gains which have been
>lost? Have the material conditions of the working class suffered huge blows
>as a result? I think so, the re-establishment of capitalism represents an
>historic defeat for the working class. For Peter it must mean just a change
>from one equally bad society to another and things remain the same for the
>working class.
No, it is not a question of 'equally bad' societies, but of what
potential exists in any country to heighten our world struggle for
revolution and socialism.
>While this may be to exist for a short period it is impossible for a group
>claiming to be communist to hold many positions on the Soviet Union and be
>able to intervene effectively in the world as a cohesive force. The "Russian
>Question" touches to many other questions, not least the nature of the
>state, for significant and fundamental differences on this question not to
>be reflected in other areas central to communist functioning.
This misunderstands completely the meaning of democratic centralism (as
opposed, of course, to the Stalinite and current Trotskyite
implementations which result in bureaucratic centralism).
>
>And it is also not a dead question - what will the various comrades within
>the CPGB do if or when this question is posed in some way in China or Cuba
>for instance? Will those who still favour some kind of defencism (if there
>are still any of those) be able to reconcile themselves with those who come
>out and side with capitalist restoration (and I know there will be some of
>those given the direction of Peter's writing)?
Are China and Cuba to be 'defended' from attack by imperialism any less
than Libya, Iraq, or Panama?
>[...]
>And as an aside most groups who have taken this position have ended up
>siding with "democratic" capitalism against "undemocratic" bureaucratic
>collectivism (or whatever "new" term the CPGB may come up with).
What a cynic!
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Sorry to have offended you Peter ;-)
Take more than a ng discussion to do that, thank you very much.
>
>However you haven't presented any evidence for any kind of real political
>convergence between Stalinism and Trotskyism - you just repeat it a few
>times and that is what annoys me.
What about 'socialism in one country'? One of the two largest
organisations of the left in Britain, the Socialist Party of England and
Wales (SPEW) (the other is the state capitalist Socialist Workers Party)
and its Scottish breakaway, Scottish Militant Labour, programmatically
fight for 'socialism in one country'. How is that different from
Stalin's view that socialism could be built, let alone exist, in one
country?
Then there are Workers Power and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, both
of which advocate voting for and working within the Blairite,
liberalised New Labour Party. How is that different from the
accommodation with social democracy reached by Stalin's satellite
parties in countries like Britain and France under Popular Front class
collaborationism?
Joseph A. Tomaras
Peter...@duntone.demon.nosp.co.uk says...
>
>What about 'socialism in one country'? One of the two largest
>organisations of the left in Britain, the Socialist Party of
England and
>Wales (SPEW) (the other is the state capitalist Socialist Workers
Party)
>and its Scottish breakaway, Scottish Militant Labour,
programmatically
>fight for 'socialism in one country'. How is that different from
>Stalin's view that socialism could be built, let alone exist, in
one
>country?
>
>Then there are Workers Power and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty,
both
>of which advocate voting for and working within the Blairite,
>liberalised New Labour Party. How is that different from the
>accommodation with social democracy reached by Stalin's satellite
>parties in countries like Britain and France under Popular Front
class
>collaborationism?
Peter makes an excellent point here. Not only have the various
orthotrots (and their not-so-ortho counterparts) frequently made
theoretical concessions to "progressive" Stalinists or
petty-bourgeois nationalists abroad, but these are parallel to the
real political concessions made to social-patriotism at home. Anyone
familiar with the ill-concealed American chauvinist tendencies of
the the most fiercely pro-Stalinist of "Trotskyists," the SL-US,
will have noticed this: these social engineers consider "Soviet"
power to be the best state of affairs, and the good old "advanced"
U. S. of A. to be the place most deserving of it.
But Peter, contrary to his belief, is not criticizing the
theory and practice of the International Left Opposition and the
Fourth International, but the stinking, rotten, fragments of its
butchered corpse.
Joseph A. Tomaras
Peter...@duntone.demon.nosp.co.uk says...
a
>>manner
>>>that recognizes that truth "Is as radical as reality itself."
>>>
>>
>>Nothing more Trotskyist than that, IMHO. Unfortunately, the more I
>>read about the CPGB, the less I am inclined to think that that is
>>what they are doing.
>
>Say what? Is this comrade discussing the CPGB as it exists, as it
should
>exist, or what?
There was another article which I posted about this time in which I
referred parenthetically to the CPGB's apparent belief that the
impossibility of socialism in one country means that world
revolution if it is to succeed must break out in a matter of a
couple of years, if not a few months. As I argued there, while this
may sound very "rrrevolutionary," in practice, if followed
seriously, it could mean taking the Menshevik side of opposing
"premature" revolutions. There was also the Indonesia incident which
I commented on many moons ago, in which one week the Weekly Worker
published a statement that sounded like a reprise of Stalinist
popular frontism--and then the next week printed a statement that
could have come straight from Trotsky on Permanent Revolution--all
under the by-line of the same comrade. I understand that the
CPGB(PCC) is in a--welcome--state of ideological flux, in which old
dogmas are being mercilessly reexamined. But a bit more consistency
and Marxist science, rather than impressionism, might help.
Overall, though, your criticisms of the centrist British
left are often right on target, even if your participation in the
Socialist Alliances strikes me as a dangerous diversion from
building a revolutionary party. In other words, the CPGB's
development is combined and uneven, and if the leftward shift keeps
up, a positive sign.
Chris Faatz
{earlier stuff snipped. Let us proceed <grin>}
: : >Personally, I don't think the Bolsheviks were in a position to do anything
: : >in 1991. If they would have been in such a position, i.e., if there were
: : >an authentic and honest Communist Party of some sort, multi-tendency, and
: : >enjoying mass support among workers, both urban and rural, national
: : >groups, within the armed forces, and among grassroots activists of various
: : >flavors, they should have called for political revolution to oust both the
: : >old Stalinist guard and Yeltsin's restorationists.
: : >
: : >But, again, I could argue that a third campist would have argued the same
: : >thing.
: : Now I'm really confused - how can you call yourself a defencist if you saw
: : no difference between the remnants of the Stalinist bureaucracy and the fast
: : track capitalist restorationists around Yeltsin? Surely Yeltsin represented
: : the greater danger and in a conflict between him and coup plotters
: : Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union should have aimed their guns at him for the
: : period of the conflict - fairly clear analogy with Kerensky/Kornilov
: : regarding greater dangers I would have thought.
More clearly: I argued for workers' revolution against both the
bureaucratic remnant and against the restorationists. Your qeustion was
very clear: what should *Bolsheviks* have done.
My position is that there was not a Bolshevik Party in the USSR at the
time.
As it was, I half-heartedly supported the coup. Why only half-heartedly?
Because I could never, in good faith, fully support the spurious
allegations of Stalinism to have constructed "socialism in one country,"
because the coup-plotters were so obviously weak and demoralized, and
because they clearly had no popular support.
The economic question is very, very different: as I said, I believed in
Glasnost and radical socialist democracy, not in Perestroika and a
restorationist thrust in the economy. A typical Mandelista position.
: : >I wouldn't argue against that position. Although I could see support for
: : >Roosevelt as a defencist line during WWII, the biggest betrayal was that
: : >of democratic rights in the unions: the right to strike, support for the
: : >suppression of such minorities as the leadership of the Minneapolis
: : >teamsters, etc.
: : But surely defencism doesn't imply POLITICAL support - your defencism of the
: : Soviet Union in no way implies political support for the bureaucracy and I
: : fail to see how political support to Roosevelt fits into defencism - it has
: : more to do with the class collaborationist distrotions of Stalinism...
Did the USSR need the collaboration of the US to actually win the war?
Yes, as much as did Britain. That's the point I'm arguing. I'm not arguing
support to either Roosevelt or the CP, but that their line was coherently
defencist. It was even, clearly, dictated by Moscow.
Now, what was the alternative? Most FIists in the US, who were of age,
fought in the war. Were they capitulating to a leftish bourgeois regime
by doing so?
: : >: I am talking about Stalinism as a political movement and the fact that
See above for, hopefully, more clarity on this.
: : You say that you are in general
: : agreement with me in my debate with Peter but then say that Stalinism and
: : Trotskyism are "both currents within that tradition from which much can and,
: : more importantly, *must* be learned in order to correct our practice for the
: : class battles of the coming millenium" which is actually to side with Peter,
: : or at least is somewhere in the middle which because of the degree of
: : contradiction between the positions ends up siding with Peter.
You know, this may be so. Even worse, I have nothing against the AWL
<grin> At least they function openly! And, I've read much worse stuff than
that of Draper or Shachtman or CLR James....
Like I said, I stand in *general* agreement with you on certain key
questions. I believe that somewhere I've made clear what those questions
are. But, the above accurately displays my politcs of the last several
years. If that means I side with Peter (and I don't see it as "siding"
with anyone, but of being open to questioning dogmas and to a free and
open debate), so be it.
: : Chris it is clear that you are in political movement at the moment but I
: : would urge you to be careful about rejecting the programme of our tradition
: : too easily. I know that it is a difficult period for the left and as someone
: : who is effectively retired from organised politics I hardly occupy the moral
: : high ground, so to speak, but I do know that the lessons and programme of
: : the Communist International and the attempt of Trotsky to defend that
: : programme against Stalinist degeneration is something we reject (or approach
: : evenhandedly) at our, and ultimately the wider working classes, cost.
: : For bending the stick towards "dogmatism"
<Grin> Dogmatist ;)
What organization *did* you belong to, or current, if you don't mind y
asking? It may help me understand where you're coming from. FWIW, most
of my political activity hasn't been formally organizational either for
the last several years--at least, not in the Trotskyist mold.
Chris
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in message <_FDB1.19877$MV.14...@news.teleport.com>...
: >The CPGB is moving away from "Trotskyism and Bolshevism" in your
: >definition of them, my friend. I see them moving away from the Stalinism
: >that they arose from. I embrace that move, and watch with interest their
: >further development. Remember, they were never, but *never*, a Trotskyist
: >organization.
: True enough but it would be a shame if they don't continue that move further
: in the direction of Bolshevism.
Mike, I think we need to be speaking on the same plane (although I don't
know if we can arrive at an understanding of what that plane would be). I
feel like they're moving towards Bolshevism from Stalinism; you feel like
they're moving away from Trotskyism (a station that they'd never landed
at) towards Third Campism.
I still feel as though all the above are authentic strands in a communist
tradition that has been thorougly corrupted in all its aspects by both
subjective and objective factors in the twentieth century.
: >No, the most important thing is the right of Tibetans to make their own
: >decisions, as Lenin wrote in his tract on self-determination. The Tibetans
: >form a nation of their own according to all the criteria in Lenin's
: >writings and that of the Comintern's first couple congresses.
: Sorry Chris but you can't claim Lenin on this one.
: The Tibetan's are definitely a separate nation but Bolshevism's support for
: the right to self-determination is not absolute.
: "In practice, the proletariat can retain its independence only by
: subordinating its struggle for all democratic demands, not excluding the
: demand for a republic, to its revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of
: the bourgeoisie"
: From Theses 5 of "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to
: Self-Determination".
: The bourgeois democratic demand for self-determination is surely
: sub-ordinate to the defence of a workers' state when threatened by
: capitalist restoration.
Okay, a pint of your choice toyou on this one :)
But, tell me: is China yet a workers' state?
C
james...@hotmail.com
> Mike <mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
> >[...]
> >There was a world social movement lead by the victorious Bolshevik Party and
> >codified in the documents of the first years of the Communist International
> >(I would say the first four congresses) and the writings of central leaders
> >such as Lenin. Stalinism as a social phenomenum represents the degeneration
> >of that social movement while Trotskyism represents the attempt to defend
> >the politics of the Comintern against that degeneration.
>
> Trotskyism is bound by the limitations of its birth as a reaction
> against reactionary developments in the Soviet regime, headed by Stalin.
There is a truth to Peter's statement. There has no significant attempt
among the Trotskyists in the last 50 years to develop Marxist theory. This
runs counter to the tradition of the Bolshevik-Leninists, which elaborated
Marxism to meet the changing conditions.
(Let me stop here to make a distinction between Bolshveik-Leninists -- those
cadres, led by Leon Trotsky, who organized against the Stalinist degeneration
of the USSR and the Communist International -- and the Trotskyists -- the
organization(s) that came out of the Second World War and claimed the
heritage of the Bolshevik-Leninists.)
> >
> >The CPGB's supposed even handedness in dealing with these two strands in the
> >workers movement is acually a rejection of the defence of the general
> >political method of Marx, Lenin and Bolshevism.
>
> No, it is not a question of evenhandedness. As the Soviet Union
> continued in existence its regime became more sclerotic and its leaders
> more reactionary. While money ceased to exist and the law of value was
> overthrown, the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism were not
> established. It was a freak, anti-capitalist society such as Marx had
> warned against as a possibility should socialist revolution occur in one
> country.
>
This is where differences between myself and Peter begin on this issue. The
proletarian dictatorship was established in October 1917. It survived Civil
War and imminent counterrevolution by White Guard forces. But the effects of
an ebb in international class struggle and imperialist encirclement furthered
a process of degeneration which -- objectively -- began at the moment the
workers' state (proletarian dictatorship) was born.
Socialism, as defined by Lenin, was never established. This would have
required an international extension of the socialist revolution and the
increase of productive forces to a level where material need is eliminated.
"History knows all sorts of transformations," Lenin once said. The USSR, as
a result of the Stalinist seizure of political power, became stagnant in the
transitional period of the proletarian dictatorship. This kind of stagnant
"transformation" is what led Trotsky to develop the theory of the
"degenerated workers' state" -- a stagnant and degenerate proletarian
dictatorship which, by virtue of its inability to move forward, began moving
backward.
The proletarian revolution, unlike the social revolutions of the past, is a
conscious act. The ideologies of the forces guiding a proletarian
dictatorship do matter. Stalinism embodied tremendous contradictions -- its
material ties to the collectivized property and need for ideological ties to
the October Revolution versus its desires for peaceful coexistence and
collaboration with imperialism.
It is the amalgam of these contradictions that not only guided the internal,
but also the external, motions of Stalinism. It is why Stalinism derailed
and betrayed the incipient proletarian revolutions in Europe while
simultaneously overturning the bouregeois states in Central Europe and
creating (bad) clones of the USSR in these countries -- on the bayonets of
the Soviet Army.
> >[...]
> >If it is possible that a proletarian state could become politically deformed
> >and the social transformation of society could be stalled (which I think is
> >what happened) then I think that it is useful to come up with a term which
> >explains taht in some way. Socialism implies a more or less healthy
> >transformation of society and that the basis for a move to the next stage of
> >social development, communism, has been laid - I don't think ths was true of
> >the Soviet Union but I do think that it represented an advance for the
> >working class and needed to be defended thus I use the term deformed
> >workers' state. And I think that difference is important, unlike Stalinists
> >and third campists.
>
> Why was the prison-house that the Soviet Union quickly became an advance
> for the working class? Its example tainted communist ideology and
> propaganda for generations: it still does. Workers in their droves
> deserted the Soviet regime politically, but were atomised under Stalin's
> rule and without a voice.
>
The advance came with the October 1917 revolution. And, because it was not
completely destroyed by Stalin (that job was left to his heirs), some
advances -- specifically on the level of economy -- remained. These were the
gains of October. Stalin and the bureaucracy were not able to bring about as
qualitative a change as the Bolsheviks did in 1917. Basically, Stalin was
not able to unwind the film of the October Revolution in reverse due to the
contradictions inherent within Stalinism.
Let us not confuse Stalinism (as analyzed by Trotsky) with either the
neo-Stalinism of Malenkov-Krushchev-Brezhnev or the neo-Bukharinism of
Gorbachev.
> [...]
>
> >And as an aside most groups who have taken this position have ended up
> >siding with "democratic" capitalism against "undemocratic" bureaucratic
> >collectivism (or whatever "new" term the CPGB may come up with).
>
> What a cynic!
Peter, there is also a bit of truth in what Mike says. Many of the
Trotskyist organizations that have historically adhered to positions of
"state capitalism" or "bureaucratic collectivism" have -- in practice --
sided with the forces of "democratic" capitalism. Whether it was siding with
the "democrat" Boris Yeltsin during the August 1991 coup or with "poor little
Bosnia", the client state of U.S.-German imperialism.
Many of these groups tried to couch their capitulation to imperialism in
words like "democracy", "furthering the class struggle" or
"self-determination". But the concrete result was support to
counterrevolution.
> --
> Peter [remove .nosp in address before emailing]
>
> ~ Weekly Worker electronic edition at ~
> <URL: http://www.duntone.demon.co.uk/CPGB/>
>
James Paris,
Marxist Workers' Group
http://www.marxistworker.org/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mike
Joseph A. Tomaras wrote
> But Peter, contrary to his belief, is not criticizing the
>theory and practice of the International Left Opposition and the
>Fourth International, but the stinking, rotten, fragments of its
>butchered corpse.
Excellent point - these so-called Trotskyist groups also call them selves
Leninist and Marxist, would Peter therefore judge Leninism and Marxism on
their politics and programmes?
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
>Mike, I think we need to be speaking on the same plane (although I don't
>know if we can arrive at an understanding of what that plane would be). I
>feel like they're moving towards Bolshevism from Stalinism; you feel like
>they're moving away from Trotskyism (a station that they'd never landed
>at) towards Third Campism.
I think that the CPGB's break from Stalinism opened up the possibility of a
move towards Bolshevism/Trotskyism but now is vearing away towards third
campism and probably other divergence from Bolshevism as well.
>But, tell me: is China yet a workers' state?
Well that is a very interesting question - if it still is then its a pretty
fucked up one and won't be lasting much longer.
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
>Did the USSR need the collaboration of the US to actually win the war?
>Yes, as much as did Britain. That's the point I'm arguing. I'm not arguing
>support to either Roosevelt or the CP, but that their line was coherently
>defencist. It was even, clearly, dictated by Moscow.
>
>Now, what was the alternative? Most FIists in the US, who were of age,
>fought in the war. Were they capitulating to a leftish bourgeois regime
>by doing so?
But there are different types of support. I have learnt a distinction
between political support and military support. The classic example of this
is the bloc between the Bolsheviks and Kerensky against Kornilov. At no time
did the Bolsheviks give political support to the Kerensky regime they just
recognised a qualitatively greater threat in Kornilov.
The CPUSA however clearly gave generalised political suppport to Roosevelt -
thus undermining the central Marxist principleof class inderpendence.
>You know, this may be so. Even worse, I have nothing against the AWL
><grin> At least they function openly! And, I've read much worse stuff than
>that of Draper or Shachtman or CLR James....
>
>Like I said, I stand in *general* agreement with you on certain key
>questions. I believe that somewhere I've made clear what those questions
>are. But, the above accurately displays my politcs of the last several
>years. If that means I side with Peter (and I don't see it as "siding"
>with anyone, but of being open to questioning dogmas and to a free and
>open debate), so be it.
But surely openness and questioning doesn't mean not taking sides in
conflicts - unless you think both sides are equally right/wrong/confused.
>What organization *did* you belong to, or current, if you don't mind y
>asking? It may help me understand where you're coming from. FWIW, most
>of my political activity hasn't been formally organizational either for
>the last several years--at least, not in the Trotskyist mold.
I was around the IMG and then the Sparts - both experiences having a
demoralising effect on me, albeit in different ways.
Mike
>>I view attempts to build a "new" party of a "new" type with more than a
>>small degree of skepticism.
>
>Why? How else are we to build a party worthy of the name rather than a
>'chemically pure' sect that disappears up its own orifices? Chris is
>wrong in calling the CPGB's position 'experiments', though; this is
>essential to a healthy party at all times, without exception. It is not
>a party in the Bolshevik sense unless it has this character.
>>
>>The CPGB's "new" position on the class nature of the Soviet Union changing
>>with the coming to power of the Stalinist bureaucracy is not new and I
side
>>with Trotsky in his polemics against such Schactmanite trends.
>
>How is the admittedly sketchy position I (not the CPGB, which does not
>have a view, as I keep emphasising) put forward 'Schachtmanite'?
It is Schachtmanite because I understand what you are saying as to mean that
the workers' state was replaced by some kind of new social formation,
neither deformed proletarian nor bourgeois. "Bureaucratic collectivism" was
the name the 1940s split from the SWP gave the "new" society - you may come
up with a different name but it sounds quite similar in essence to me.
This is all very confusing - the CPGB doesn't have a view on the Russian
question, do you have organisational positions on anything then? Or is the
CPGB some kind of electic mixture of individuals? Do you come to majority
positions on a political line or is that "old" style politics? Just what is
the discipline of your organisation based on?
So for you a Bolshevik organisation is one which has no agreed positions and
everyone is free to say whatever they want???? I think more than one or two
figures from the history of Bolshevism might have a slight disagreement with
you on this one....
>Here's the crucial point, comrades. It is not 'agreement' with the
>program that is necessary, but 'acceptance'. This is not a quibble, but
>the essence. A healthy party regime of acceptance of the party program
>combined with thoroughgoing, genuine democratic centralism will give us
>the best tool to beat the class enemy and enable the self-liberation of
>the working class.
"Agreement" or "acceptance" of the programme??? This is the "essence"????
You are playing with words comrade.
I "accept" the programme of any organisation I support because I "agree"
with it - my degree of agreement/acceptance being reflected in the amount of
day-to-day involvement with the organisaiton in question and the level of
discipline I am willing to place myself under.
But even allowing for your bizarre pedantism - what is the current ACCEPTED
organisational position of the CPGB on the nature of the Soviet Union?
And to slightly rephrase my question above - Do you come to majority
positions on the ACCEPTED political line concerning any programmatic
questions?
Comradely
Mike
bus...@ici.net
Admiting they were different periods but it still represented a similar
phenomon(Stalinism) reacting to different periods of Soviet development.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > >And as an aside most groups who have taken this position have ended up
> > >siding with "democratic" capitalism against "undemocratic" bureaucratic
> > >collectivism (or whatever "new" term the CPGB may come up with).
> >
> > What a cynic!
>
> Peter, there is also a bit of truth in what Mike says. Many of the
> Trotskyist organizations that have historically adhered to positions of
> "state capitalism" or "bureaucratic collectivism" have -- in practice --
> sided with the forces of "democratic" capitalism. Whether it was siding with
> the "democrat" Boris Yeltsin during the August 1991 coup or with "poor little
> Bosnia", the client state of U.S.-German imperialism.
>
> Many of these groups tried to couch their capitulation to imperialism in
> words like "democracy", "furthering the class struggle" or
> "self-determination". But the concrete result was support to
> counterrevolution.
>
Admitingly some holding to third camp positions, like Schactman , decided to
support the camp of Western Imperialism against its Soviet variety. However a
siding with one of the two global camps was a betrayal of genuine third
campism, because geniune third campism was just that, a third camp beyond
Washington and Moscow. Schactmans later evolution was obscene, but no more so
than groups like Workers World which supported the crushing of the Hungarian
Revolution or the Spartacists who glorified Soviet stalinism. And its certainly
no more obscene than siding with the Serbian chauvinists against Bosnia.
Buster
Nick Holden & Kate Ahrens
> support the camp of Western Imperialism against its Soviet variety. However a
> siding with one of the two global camps was a betrayal of genuine third
> campism, because geniune third campism was just that, a third camp beyond
> Washington and Moscow. Schactmans later evolution was obscene, but no more so
> than groups like Workers World which supported the crushing of the Hungarian
> Revolution or the Spartacists who glorified Soviet stalinism. And its certainly
> no more obscene than siding with the Serbian chauvinists against Bosnia.
>
Besides which, pointing to the "old" Shachtman in order to discredit the theories he
worked on when he was younger is a bit like blaming Lenin for Stalinism. The fact
that Shachtman ended up supporting the democratic wing of the bourgeoisie doesn't
prove that the third camp position has within it some inherent flaw which will
inevitably lead you to capitulation.
The theory stands or falls on its own merits, by analysis of the world which Cannon
and Shachtman were trying to explain. On that basis, the 'official' Trotskyists hold
up rather poorly against Shachtman, for example over Finland at the start of the war,
or over Tito after the war had ended (except for Cannon, who avoided facing the
conclusion Trotsky had planted the seed for by explaining that the war hadn't ended
yet, just entered a new phase).
Incidentally, can anyone currently involved in this discussion shed any more light on
the origin of the WP? A couple of you have referred to them as a 'split' from the
SWP, but the documents in the recent book I mentioned seem to show fairly clearly
that Cannon had them expelled. What say you?
Nick
james...@hotmail.com
>
> james...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Peter, there is also a bit of truth in what Mike says. Many of the
> > Trotskyist organizations that have historically adhered to positions of
> > "state capitalism" or "bureaucratic collectivism" have -- in practice --
> > sided with the forces of "democratic" capitalism. Whether it was siding
> > with the "democrat" Boris Yeltsin during the August 1991 coup or with "poor
> > little Bosnia", the client state of U.S.-German imperialism.
> >
> > Many of these groups tried to couch their capitulation to imperialism in
> > words like "democracy", "furthering the class struggle" or
> > "self-determination". But the concrete result was support to
> > counterrevolution.
> >
>
> Admitingly some holding to third camp positions, like Schactman , decided to
> support the camp of Western Imperialism against its Soviet variety. However a
> siding with one of the two global camps was a betrayal of genuine third
> campism, because geniune third campism was just that, a third camp beyond
> Washington and Moscow. Schactmans later evolution was obscene, but no more so
> than groups like Workers World which supported the crushing of the Hungarian
> Revolution or the Spartacists who glorified Soviet stalinism. And its
> certainly no more obscene than siding with the Serbian chauvinists against
> Bosnia.
>
Well, Buster, where do you stand in a war between U.S.-German imperialism
(and their client states) and the remnants of the Yugoslav workers' state?
We defend Serbia against imperialism without supporting the communalist
nationalism of the Chetniks. What about you?
> Buster
>
Jim Paris
bus...@ici.net
>
> bus...@ici.net wrote:
> >
> > james...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter, there is also a bit of truth in what Mike says. Many of the
> > > Trotskyist organizations that have historically adhered to positions of
> > > "state capitalism" or "bureaucratic collectivism" have -- in practice --
> > > sided with the forces of "democratic" capitalism. Whether it was siding
> > > with the "democrat" Boris Yeltsin during the August 1991 coup or with "poor
> > > little Bosnia", the client state of U.S.-German imperialism.
> > >
> > > Many of these groups tried to couch their capitulation to imperialism in
> > > words like "democracy", "furthering the class struggle" or
> > > "self-determination". But the concrete result was support to
> > > counterrevolution.
> > >
> >
> > Admitingly some holding to third camp positions, like Schactman , decided to
> > support the camp of Western Imperialism against its Soviet variety. However a
> > siding with one of the two global camps was a betrayal of genuine third
> > campism, because geniune third campism was just that, a third camp beyond
> > Washington and Moscow. Schactmans later evolution was obscene, but no more so
> > than groups like Workers World which supported the crushing of the Hungarian
> > Revolution or the Spartacists who glorified Soviet stalinism. And its
> > certainly no more obscene than siding with the Serbian chauvinists against
> > Bosnia.
> >
>
> (and their client states) and the remnants of the Yugoslav workers' state?
> We defend Serbia against imperialism without supporting the communalist
> nationalism of the Chetniks. What about you?
>
> > Buster
> >
>
> Jim Paris
>
> --
I'm not sure which conflict you are refering to, as the interpertation of the recent
conflicts that tore apart the former Yugoslavia as being a war between
US/German Imperialism and a workers state is way too removed from what
actually went on to be taken seriously. Neither Croatia nor Bosnia-Hertzogivina
were clinet states of any foreign power. Croatia did recieve some aid from
Germany but it was quite limited. Serbia recieved some from Russia but I
wouldn't term it a "client state. The war broke out due to ethnic and national
rivalries that had been brewing for years as various region of Yugoslavia began
to drift apart and nationalist demagoges filled the vacume. In so far as I would
take a side in that conflict I would defend the right for any region that was
under assult the right for self determination. That would include the right of
Bosnia to exist free from Serbian domination. I also oppose any foreign
intervention, like the blockade on arms to the region which weakened the
ability of Bosnia to defend itself fropm the Serb onslaught. I assume you
considered Serbia to be a workers state? How? Were the workers in control?
What progressive features can you detect about a state under the domination of
Ex-Stalinist nationalists who engaged in ethnic genocide? The region still
contained many nationalized industries, but so does Indonesia. The orthodox
Trotskyist argument that nationalization equals workers state does orwellian
damge to the whole term workers state.
Buster
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
: >Mike, I think we need to be speaking on the same plane (although I don't
: >know if we can arrive at an understanding of what that plane would be). I
: >feel like they're moving towards Bolshevism from Stalinism; you feel like
: >they're moving away from Trotskyism (a station that they'd never landed
: >at) towards Third Campism.
: I think that the CPGB's break from Stalinism opened up the possibility of a
: move towards Bolshevism/Trotskyism but now is vearing away towards third
: campism and probably other divergence from Bolshevism as well.
Such as?
: >But, tell me: is China yet a workers' state?
: Well that is a very interesting question - if it still is then its a pretty
: fucked up one and won't be lasting much longer.
I agree, but then, under the circumstances, what about Tibet?
--
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
: >Did the USSR need the collaboration of the US to actually win the war?
: >Yes, as much as did Britain. That's the point I'm arguing. I'm not arguing
: >support to either Roosevelt or the CP, but that their line was coherently
: >defencist. It was even, clearly, dictated by Moscow.
: >
: >Now, what was the alternative? Most FIists in the US, who were of age,
: >fought in the war. Were they capitulating to a leftish bourgeois regime
: >by doing so?
: But there are different types of support. I have learnt a distinction
: between political support and military support. The classic example of this
: is the bloc between the Bolsheviks and Kerensky against Kornilov. At no time
: did the Bolsheviks give political support to the Kerensky regime they just
: recognised a qualitatively greater threat in Kornilov.
: The CPUSA however clearly gave generalised political suppport to Roosevelt -
: thus undermining the central Marxist principleof class inderpendence.
Excellent points.
: >You know, this may be so. Even worse, I have nothing against the AWL
: ><grin> At least they function openly! And, I've read much worse stuff than
: >that of Draper or Shachtman or CLR James....
: >
: >Like I said, I stand in *general* agreement with you on certain key
: >questions. I believe that somewhere I've made clear what those questions
: >are. But, the above accurately displays my politcs of the last several
: >years. If that means I side with Peter (and I don't see it as "siding"
: >with anyone, but of being open to questioning dogmas and to a free and
: >open debate), so be it.
: But surely openness and questioning doesn't mean not taking sides in
: conflicts - unless you think both sides are equally right/wrong/confused.
No, I take sides. I hope you've seen that. At least, where I think things
are clear enough to warrant it, and there are many things of our tortured
century that don't.
: >What organization *did* you belong to, or current, if you don't mind y
: >asking? It may help me understand where you're coming from. FWIW, most
: >of my political activity hasn't been formally organizational either for
: >the last several years--at least, not in the Trotskyist mold.
: I was around the IMG and then the Sparts - both experiences having a
: demoralising effect on me, albeit in different ways.
I can understand that. I was in Britain and a member of the IMG's
foundling group, Socialist Action, during the Barnesite fiasco.
Chris Faatz
: It is Schachtmanite because I understand what you are saying as to mean that
: the workers' state was replaced by some kind of new social formation,
: neither deformed proletarian nor bourgeois. "Bureaucratic collectivism" was
: the name the 1940s split from the SWP gave the "new" society - you may come
: up with a different name but it sounds quite similar in essence to me.
Actually, the theory of bureaucratic collectivism, as has recently been
pointed out to me, was developed *after* the Shachtmanite break. They
no longer recognized the USSR as a degenerated workers' state, but the
theories as to what it was were many.
The question is, what is the CPGB's line? And, as you point out below:
: This is all very confusing - the CPGB doesn't have a view on the Russian
: question, do you have organisational positions on anything then? Or is the
: CPGB some kind of electic mixture of individuals? Do you come to majority
: positions on a political line or is that "old" style politics? Just what is
: the discipline of your organisation based on?
...it doesn't have one coherent one.
: So for you a Bolshevik organisation is one which has no agreed positions and
: everyone is free to say whatever they want???? I think more than one or two
: figures from the history of Bolshevism might have a slight disagreement with
: you on this one....
This is a pallid polemic, Mike, setting up a straw man to bat down.
In the Bolshevik Party prior to the revolution and its stresses, there
were numerous positions on all kinds of matters. Democratic centralism
allows for just that--difference on opinion, but the necessity to bow
to the decisions of the majority in the class struggle. Splits are--as
the Bolsheviks again proved--and will be inevitable. But, we can't forget,
as so many Trots do, the *democratic* side of democratic centralism.
C
Chris Faatz
: Admitingly some holding to third camp positions, like Schactman , decided to
: support the camp of Western Imperialism against its Soviet variety. However a
: siding with one of the two global camps was a betrayal of genuine third
: campism, because geniune third campism was just that, a third camp beyond
: Washington and Moscow. Schactmans later evolution was obscene, but no more so
: than groups like Workers World which supported the crushing of the Hungarian
: Revolution or the Spartacists who glorified Soviet stalinism. And its certainly
: no more obscene than siding with the Serbian chauvinists against Bosnia.
Buster's absolutely right about the nature of Third Campism. Once
Shachtman attached himself to the US State Department, he could hardly be
called "third campist" with any legitimacy, could he?
Mike
Peter West wrote in message ...
>No. If the USA attacks Cuba, or Iraq, or China, etc. revolutionaries
>have to be in the forefront of campaigns against imperialist aggression.
Good to hear that - how about if the question of imperialism isn't involved
and it was a conflict between a non-imperialist capitalist state and the
deformed workers' state (or whatever you decide to call it Peter). Say China
vs India?
>>[...]
>>And as an aside most groups who have taken this position have ended up
>>siding with "democratic" capitalism against "undemocratic" bureaucratic
>>collectivism (or whatever "new" term the CPGB may come up with).
>
>What a cynic!
I may well be a cynic but that doesn't mean that the above isn't true. Some
of your descriptions of the Soviet Union have sounded more like liberal
outrage against "evil" than scientific Marxism so I am concerned that this
"new" theory of the CPGB's (or at least some of its members) is also going
to lead in that direction.
bus...@ici.net
>
> Mike <mikew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : It is Schachtmanite because I understand what you are saying as to mean that
> : the workers' state was replaced by some kind of new social formation,
> : neither deformed proletarian nor bourgeois. "Bureaucratic collectivism" was
> : the name the 1940s split from the SWP gave the "new" society - you may come
> : up with a different name but it sounds quite similar in essence to me.
>
> Actually, the theory of bureaucratic collectivism, as has recently been
> pointed out to me, was developed *after* the Shachtmanite break. They
> no longer recognized the USSR as a degenerated workers' state, but the
> theories as to what it was were many.
>
forward a version of BC going back to the first convention of the SWP. The
collection of documents put out by Pathfinder on the SWP first convention has a
motion by Carter on the subject. The oppostion which would latter emerge
wouldn't possess a single line on the subject. Schactmans view was that the
socialists could extend conditional defense to the USSR as opposed to Cannons
unconditional defense. After the split the new WP would move towards Carters
view.
Buster.
Philip Ferguson
> Incidentally, can anyone currently involved in this discussion shed any more light on
> the origin of the WP? A couple of you have referred to them as a 'split' from the
> SWP, but the documents in the recent book I mentioned seem to show fairly clearly
> that Cannon had them expelled. What say you?
>
Isn't the outcome recorded in 'Struggle for a Proletarian Party'. It's
many years since I last read it, but I seem to remember that the
minority walked, and pocketed some party property (like the theoretical
journal) on their way out. (Although, to be fair, they had about 40
percent of the membership so I suppose they could claim they were
entitled to 40 percent of the assets.)
Philip Ferguson
Mike
Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
>: So for you a Bolshevik organisation is one which has no agreed positions
and
>: everyone is free to say whatever they want???? I think more than one or
two
>: figures from the history of Bolshevism might have a slight disagreement
with
>: you on this one....
>
>This is a pallid polemic, Mike, setting up a straw man to bat down.
I prefer to see it as just a "polemical excess" ;-)
I know its not really the case but I'm trying to draw Peter out on what
exactly all this "party of a new type" stuff is all about. My real concerns
were in the paragraph before - the execellent points you refer to...
>In the Bolshevik Party prior to the revolution and its stresses, there
>were numerous positions on all kinds of matters. Democratic centralism
>allows for just that--difference on opinion, but the necessity to bow
>to the decisions of the majority in the class struggle. Splits are--as
>the Bolsheviks again proved--and will be inevitable. But, we can't forget,
>as so many Trots do, the *democratic* side of democratic centralism.
Certainly there will be a range of opinions and disagreements within the
context of fundamental agreement/acceptance of the groups politics and
sometimes those disagreements will develop into fundamental disagreement and
therefore splits.
However I am interested in the extent to which Peter is arguing for a
Bolshevik group having no clear external line based on majority positions
following democratic debate. Rather he seems to be arguing, though it is a
bit unclear to me, that all minority groupings have the right to take their
positions outside the party - which effectively means that the group has no
collective line on anything. Is this accurate Peter or am I missing
something?
Unfortunately I'm not going to have access to this computer for much longer
and I'm not sure if I'll be able to get access to another one - maybe I
should buy my own one, though thats a bit different from just sitting down
and typing with someone else to worry about how it actually works..... I've
enjoyed being part of this discussion and following the other debates taking
place on the news group and hopefully this little adventure won't be the
last you see (or should that be "read") of me.
Mike
Chris Faatz
: Nick Holden writes:
This is accurate. They lost the convention, and they walked, taking Party
assets with them. I suspect that reading WP documents would explain why
they thought that this was an ethical--or a proletarian--thing to do,
another "principled" position.
FWIW, they felt that they'd been treated abysmally by the Party majority.
And, over the decades, the ramifications of that split continued to be
felt in the Party's animosity towards intellectuals.
C
Chris Faatz
: Actually thats not quite true. Both Joseph Carter and James Burnam had put
: collection of documents put out by Pathfinder on the SWP first convention has a
: motion by Carter on the subject. The oppostion which would latter emerge
: wouldn't possess a single line on the subject. Schactmans view was that the
: socialists could extend conditional defense to the USSR as opposed to Cannons
: unconditional defense. After the split the new WP would move towards Carters
: view.
I stand corrected. Thanks, Buster.
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
: >: So for you a Bolshevik organisation is one which has no agreed positions
: and
: >: everyone is free to say whatever they want???? I think more than one or
: two
: >: figures from the history of Bolshevism might have a slight disagreement
: with
: >: you on this one....
: >
: >This is a pallid polemic, Mike, setting up a straw man to bat down.
: I prefer to see it as just a "polemical excess" ;-)
Okay. No biggie by me, buddy.
: I know its not really the case but I'm trying to draw Peter out on what
: exactly all this "party of a new type" stuff is all about. My real concerns
: were in the paragraph before - the execellent points you refer to...
: >In the Bolshevik Party prior to the revolution and its stresses, there
: >were numerous positions on all kinds of matters. Democratic centralism
: >allows for just that--difference on opinion, but the necessity to bow
: >to the decisions of the majority in the class struggle. Splits are--as
: >the Bolsheviks again proved--and will be inevitable. But, we can't forget,
: >as so many Trots do, the *democratic* side of democratic centralism.
: Certainly there will be a range of opinions and disagreements within the
: context of fundamental agreement/acceptance of the groups politics and
: sometimes those disagreements will develop into fundamental disagreement and
: therefore splits.
*Thank you.* I thought, for a minute, you were reverting to you Spartacist
background <grin>
: However I am interested in the extent to which Peter is arguing for a
: Bolshevik group having no clear external line based on majority positions
: following democratic debate. Rather he seems to be arguing, though it is a
: bit unclear to me, that all minority groupings have the right to take their
: positions outside the party - which effectively means that the group has no
: collective line on anything. Is this accurate Peter or am I missing
: something?
I think, and I may be wrong, and I hope you catch this, that the CPGB
a) follows one line, while b) allowing differences to beopenly debated
in its publications. The Bolsheviks did the same thing in the days leading
up to October.
: Unfortunately I'm not going to have access to this computer for much
longer : and I'm not sure if I'll be able to get access to another one -
maybe I : should buy my own one, though thats a bit different from just
sitting down : and typing with someone else to worry about how it actually
works..... I've : enjoyed being part of this discussion and following the
other debates taking : place on the news group and hopefully this little
adventure won't be the : last you see (or should that be "read") of me.
Take care friend.
It's been fun.
Have a pint for me.
Chris
--
Peter West
writes
>[...]
>The advance came with the October 1917 revolution. And, because it was not
>completely destroyed by Stalin (that job was left to his heirs), some
>advances -- specifically on the level of economy -- remained. These were the
>gains of October. Stalin and the bureaucracy were not able to bring about as
>qualitative a change as the Bolsheviks did in 1917. Basically, Stalin was
>not able to unwind the film of the October Revolution in reverse due to the
>contradictions inherent within Stalinism.
What 'advance' is it that was not destroyed in the Stalin years (if not
before)? What kind of economy existed in the Soviet Union, in fact? This
is exactly the nub of the problem revolutionaries face in characterising
the Soviet social formation. Also, this inability to 'unwind the film'
has aspects that are true and untrue. Stalin patently did not reinstate
capitalism, money did not exist, etc. But a counterrevolutionary
ideology was in control, the world did not progress to socialism as one,
and the freak society degraded in the ways we know.
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Peter West wrote in message ...
>
>>No. If the USA attacks Cuba, or Iraq, or China, etc. revolutionaries
>>have to be in the forefront of campaigns against imperialist aggression.
>
>
>Good to hear that - how about if the question of imperialism isn't involved
>and it was a conflict between a non-imperialist capitalist state and the
>deformed workers' state (or whatever you decide to call it Peter). Say China
>vs India?
Is there any reason to 'support' either side in such a situation? Just
what would be the concrete manifestation in, say, San Francisco, New
York, London, or Paris of such 'support' in the present day? It is true
that conflict between the extreme right-wing regime in India now and the
capitalist restorationist regime in Beijing might occur: India's
explosion of nuclear devices this year was partly to sabre-rattle in
China's direction, as well toward Pakistan. Unless we fall for the false
dawn argument of 'lesser of two evils', defeat for the bourgeoisie in
India and the incipient bourgeoisie in China (i.e. revolutionary
defeatism) should surely be the call from communists. It is difficult to
see how success for Great Han chauvinism (N.B. Tibet) could be
considered better than success for Indian chauvinism and expansionism.
(Interestingly, Harpal Brar, scion of the Stalin Society and with
affinity to People's War in India, has come out in favour of the BJP
government's nuclear explosions as an expression of 'anti-imperialist'
assertiveness: see this week's Weekly Worker for more.)
Peter West
<jtom...@ntrnet.net> writes
>
>There was another article which I posted about this time in which I
>referred parenthetically to the CPGB's apparent belief that the
>impossibility of socialism in one country means that world
>revolution if it is to succeed must break out in a matter of a
>couple of years, if not a few months. As I argued there, while this
>may sound very "rrrevolutionary," in practice, if followed
>seriously, it could mean taking the Menshevik side of opposing
>"premature" revolutions.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no 'Menshevik' side to take, unless
we are to consider Menshevism to reside in the remains of the Stalinite
parties (Rifondazione Comunista, for example), a new Menshevism would
certainly be possible should a communist international be founded.
Otherwise it would seem unlikely.
> There was also the Indonesia incident which
>I commented on many moons ago, in which one week the Weekly Worker
>published a statement that sounded like a reprise of Stalinist
>popular frontism
What was in the published article that sounded like 'Stalinist popular
frontism'? It's no good casting aspersions without backing them up.
Indeed, I never saw a letter in the Weekly Worker from this comrade
challenging this apparent error, something it would be his revolutionary
duty to submit if indeed he believes the charge he now makes.
>--and then the next week printed a statement that
>could have come straight from Trotsky on Permanent Revolution--all
>under the by-line of the same comrade. I understand that the
>CPGB(PCC) is in a--welcome--state of ideological flux, in which old
>dogmas are being mercilessly reexamined. But a bit more consistency
>and Marxist science, rather than impressionism, might help.
This really needs more exposition. The comrade may be right in his
criticism, but he cannot expect others to do the argumentational
spadework for him.
> Overall, though, your criticisms of the centrist British
>left are often right on target, even if your participation in the
>Socialist Alliances strikes me as a dangerous diversion from
>building a revolutionary party.
Building a revolutionary party cannot be done in isolation, away from
the cut and thrust of whatever platforms exist on the left in Britain
... and there aren't many of them.
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>[...]
>This is all very confusing - the CPGB doesn't have a view on the Russian
>question, do you have organisational positions on anything then? Or is the
>CPGB some kind of electic mixture of individuals? Do you come to majority
>positions on a political line or is that "old" style politics? Just what is
>the discipline of your organisation based on?
Answering the question at the end first: real democratic centralism lies
at the heart of the CPGB's approach. Comrades are giving time and
attention to the question of the Soviet Union (see the current issue of
the Weekly Worker, including reports on the recent Communist University
98) because it is likely to provide insight into the nature and
trajectory of the aftermath of failed socialist revolution. Not all
comrades agree, as on any question, in fact, that any group of
communists may address. Why should the CPGB pretend otherwise? A prime
example of the diametrically opposed approach, shared by all Trotskyist
organisations to large degree, is the chemically pure 'line' of the
Spartacist League, whose acolytes will never admit that differences
exist within their 'religious faith', that everything they say is agreed
by everyone within their organisation (even if there aren't many, like
the 15 in Britain). Pure bullshit. So why should not the class share in
the discussions that so far remain closed only to members in left
organisations? Is it because the sect mentality really believes that one
day only their sect will be chosen by 'the workers' to lead them ...
what, by the nose? Totally uncommunist.
>
>So for you a Bolshevik organisation is one which has no agreed positions and
>everyone is free to say whatever they want???? I think more than one or two
>figures from the history of Bolshevism might have a slight disagreement with
>you on this one....
Of course there are agreed majority positions in a Bolshevik, communist
organisation. But the crucial question then is: what rights are there
for minorities disagreeing with those positions. Democratic centralism
means precisely that there is unity in carrying out actions which have
been decided by majority vote, all the while the minority having the
right to express its disagreement, argue its position, and have the
right to become the majority.
>>[quoting Peter West]
>>Here's the crucial point, comrades. It is not 'agreement' with the
>>program that is necessary, but 'acceptance'. This is not a quibble, but
>>the essence. A healthy party regime of acceptance of the party program
>>combined with thoroughgoing, genuine democratic centralism will give us
>>the best tool to beat the class enemy and enable the self-liberation of
>>the working class.
>
>"Agreement" or "acceptance" of the programme??? This is the "essence"????
>
>You are playing with words comrade.
>
>I "accept" the programme of any organisation I support because I "agree"
>with it - my degree of agreement/acceptance being reflected in the amount of
>day-to-day involvement with the organisaiton in question and the level of
>discipline I am willing to place myself under.
No, this misses the point entirely. My acceptance of the party's
program, which means I work within its parameters as the expression of
the majority's position which it represents when formulated, means that
I can, may, and am allowed to disagree with elements of it. Indeed, if I
see serious flaws in it it is my duty to point them out and try and
mount a cogent argument to persuade other comrades to my view so that
they may be changed. The degree of discipline which a party member is
placed under, though, is not up to the comrade: that is precisely the
centralist aspect of democratic centralism. Without democracy, and the
right to make one's view known both within and without the organisation,
centralism could well be a tyranny within the party; without centralism,
democracy would be a sham talking shop of social democratic proportions,
with each comrade pleasing themselves about their degree of commitment.
>
>But even allowing for your bizarre pedantism - what is the current ACCEPTED
>organisational position of the CPGB on the nature of the Soviet Union?
This comrade really should have been at Communist University 98. The
CPGB really does not have a current 'accepted' position on the Soviet
Union. Honest.
>
>And to slightly rephrase my question above - Do you come to majority
>positions on the ACCEPTED political line concerning any programmatic
>questions?
Well, majority positions obviously tend to appear more, such as within
articles in the Weekly Worker. But a reading of the paper over a period
would show that there are minority positions expressed which differ,
sometimes markedly. There is indeed a Draft Program of the CPGB, but the
party has yet to endorse it; however, there has been little demur from
its provisions since it was written, so it provides a framework that
comrades accept (yes, it too is on the website, in the Archive).
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Chris Faatz wrote in message ...
>>
>>were numerous positions on all kinds of matters. Democratic centralism
>>allows for just that--difference on opinion, but the necessity to bow
>>to the decisions of the majority in the class struggle. Splits are--as
>>the Bolsheviks again proved--and will be inevitable. But, we can't forget,
>>as so many Trots do, the *democratic* side of democratic centralism.
>
>Certainly there will be a range of opinions and disagreements within the
>context of fundamental agreement/acceptance of the groups politics and
>sometimes those disagreements will develop into fundamental disagreement and
>therefore splits.
>
>Bolshevik group having no clear external line based on majority positions
>following democratic debate. Rather he seems to be arguing, though it is a
>bit unclear to me, that all minority groupings have the right to take their
>positions outside the party - which effectively means that the group has no
>collective line on anything. Is this accurate Peter or am I missing
>something?
I'm quite happy for a Bolshevik/communist group to have the majority's
position after thorough, open debate. But only as long as the minority,
or minorities, if still unconvinced has/have a continuing right to open
disagreement and the right to fight within and without the organisation
for its/their views, including the right to form factions for as long as
they wish to keep them and the right to become the majority without
hindrance. The party organisation must be a ferment of ideas, reflecting
the multiplicity of individuals within. How else can we build a mass
party that will appeal to workers, which will be their own tool to wield
for their own self-liberation as a class?
Mike
Peter West wrote ...
>I'm quite happy for a Bolshevik/communist group to have the majority's
>position after thorough, open debate. But only as long as the minority,
>or minorities, if still unconvinced has/have a continuing right to open
>disagreement and the right to fight within and without the organisation
>for its/their views, including the right to form factions for as long as
>they wish to keep them and the right to become the majority without
>hindrance. The party organisation must be a ferment of ideas, reflecting
>the multiplicity of individuals within. How else can we build a mass
>party that will appeal to workers, which will be their own tool to wield
>for their own self-liberation as a class?
I think the development of a coherent revolutionary programme is essential
if our class is to take power. The lack of a mass revolutionary organisation
based on that coherent programme is the main problem facing the working
class. The development of the programme is going to require the fullest
ferment of democratic discussion and debate. So far we agree - yes.
However I do not see how the development of that programme is helped by
minorities arguing their line outside the organisation - in fact I think it
is more likely to be hindered. The programme of Bolshevism has no organised
expression in the working class other than some extremely small tendencies
who are all just very rough approximations of that programme. Having
minorities arguing their positions to the wider workers' movement as a
matter of course (I don't argue that this is unprincipled but I wouldn't
think it was useful in most cases and it is a collective decision to do so
certainly not a "right") only adds to the swamp of political ideas and aids
unclarity rather than clarity.
More importantly it is opposed to the idea that the revolutionary leadership
represents the highest consciousness of the working class. If I am of the
opinion that the organisation I am in at a particular time is one which I
fundamentally politically agree with, and therefore accept its programme and
I have a difference on a particular question then my primary task is to
convince my fellow members so as to win a majority line and get the
organisation acting differently. To go public with a minority position is to
attempt to use the lower consciousness of the swamp against the higher
consciousness of my fellow members - it can have no other purpose if it is
not part of a split and attempt to build a new organisation with other
elements.
To argue, as Peter, does that this is normal (and perhaps even essential to
healthy bolshevik functioning?) implies that their is no special importance
of the revolutionary organisation in terms of programme.
It can well be useful to publicise the main documents of major political
debates after a majority line has been arrived at as an aid to political
clarity but this is not a question of "rights" of the minority, it is a
collective majority decision to do so - incidentally I consider it a major
weakness of the Spartacist tradition that they do not do this nearly enough.
As far as I can tell the most important thing that the CPGB does, as regards
their time and resources, is the production of the Weekly Worker. And yet in
this their most important activity there is apparently no discipline with
any minority having the right to argue their point of view, any number of
opinions on a particular question could appear in the same issue - and
indeed if the CPGB's "rapprochement" project were to be even moderately
successful it could only turn the Weekly Worker into a debating circle
journal for the fundamentally different world views represented in it. It is
not the journal of an organisation based on a clear and coherent programme
for social change.
Revolutionaries exist to change the world. Our activity is based on our
programme. Activity which is an expression of, and is a feedback to, our
programme. At the present time much of the activity of
pseudo/proto-bolshevik groups will of necessity be written, I fail to see
why the same discipline which I am sure Peter and Chris would agree with me
is necessary on say an intervention on a demonstration is not also
appropriate for written activity.
Why should there be the "right" to argue minority positions publicly when
that "right" doesn't extend to doing different things on a demonstration?
Democratic centralism means both accepting AND PUTTING INTO PRACTICE the
majority position by any comrades holding minority positions on any disputed
question. Bolsheviks accept the decisions of the majority and do not believe
in liberal notions of individual "rights" being more important than those
collective decisions.
Clear political leadership not more confusion is what our class needs.
Revolutionary organisations should exist because of programmes not the other
way around - the CPGB's appeal for all subjective communists to come
together in a disciplined centralised organisation around a very low level
of programmatic agreement only helps build the swamp and undermines the
centrality of programme.
This is one thing that I do think the Sparts are right on in theory ( I
recommend their pamphlet "Lenin and the Vanguard Party" for a fuller
explanation of this position), although their abject sectarianism means they
are unable to put that theory into practice effectively. This sectarianism
also provides a nice polemical tool for supporters of "openness" to say that
bending the stick towards clarity must of necessity turn out like the
Sparts. I don't see any logical reason why this should be the case - the
Spart's sectarianism and cult like nature is the result of more general
pressures on small groups - they are far from alone in being sectarian....
The conception of Bolshevik organisation I have outlined above must go side
by side with non-sectarian work with other groups where there is real
agreement, despite the other differences. It is within the context of that
joint work that organisational sectarianism is overcome and political
clarity leading potentially to the development of more permanent
organisational links can occur. But this requires political combat between
the different world views and programmes not a fudging of the lines and
implying that Bolshevism encompasses all "communist" views from Stalinism to
Trotskyism to radical left reformism as Peter and Chris seem to be arguing.
Finally to end with another, no doubt controversial comment. I don't think
the working class with "self-liberate" itself except through the leadership
of a revolutionary organisation based on a coherent political programme.
Mike
Mike
>Of course there are agreed majority positions in a Bolshevik, communist
>organisation. But the crucial question then is: what rights are there
>for minorities disagreeing with those positions. Democratic centralism
>means precisely that there is unity in carrying out actions which have
>been decided by majority vote, all the while the minority having the
>right to express its disagreement, argue its position, and have the
>right to become the majority.
Of course the minority must have the right to argue for, and potentially win
a majority to, its position - but why don't you see that the publication of
a document arguing a different line from the majority is as much an "action"
as anything else we may do.
>>I "accept" the programme of any organisation I support because I "agree"
>>with it - my degree of agreement/acceptance being reflected in the amount
of
>>day-to-day involvement with the organisaiton in question and the level of
>>discipline I am willing to place myself under.
>
>No, this misses the point entirely. My acceptance of the party's
>program, which means I work within its parameters as the expression of
>the majority's position which it represents when formulated, means that
>I can, may, and am allowed to disagree with elements of it. Indeed, if I
>see serious flaws in it it is my duty to point them out and try and
>mount a cogent argument to persuade other comrades to my view so that
>they may be changed. The degree of discipline which a party member is
>placed under, though, is not up to the comrade: that is precisely the
>centralist aspect of democratic centralism. Without democracy, and the
>right to make one's view known both within and without the organisation,
>centralism could well be a tyranny within the party; without centralism,
>democracy would be a sham talking shop of social democratic proportions,
>with each comrade pleasing themselves about their degree of commitment.
When I said "agree" I meant FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT (I think I've "shouted"
this before - why aren't you listening Peter?). I can understand to some
extent comrades from a Stalinist background not realising the difference
because of the monolithic nature of their political and organisational past
but I have explained it a few times now and its starting to get a bit
tedious to have the same "Trots are mindless agreeing robots" crap continual
thrown up - unless you think "fundamental agreement" is a
conceptual/theoretical impossibility.
My point about the level of discipline has more to do with the fact that
there are a range of organisational frameworks which Bolsheviks can work in
(single issue united fronts to highly centralised groups) and that there is
a fairly high correlation between the level of discipline accepted and the
amount of political agreement.
A party containing left Stalinists, Trotskyists and other assorted centrists
as the CPGB proposes building will only be able to have a very low level of
discipline as it would only have a very low level of political agreement.
Certainly it would not be democratic centralist in any meaningful sense of
the term.
Mike
Nick Holden & Kate Ahrens
> : > Incidentally, can anyone currently involved in this discussion shed any more light on
> : > the origin of the WP? A couple of you have referred to them as a 'split' from the
> : > SWP, but the documents in the recent book I mentioned seem to show fairly clearly
> : > that Cannon had them expelled. What say you?
> : >
>
> : Isn't the outcome recorded in 'Struggle for a Proletarian Party'. It's
> : many years since I last read it, but I seem to remember that the
> : minority walked, and pocketed some party property (like the theoretical
> : journal) on their way out. (Although, to be fair, they had about 40
> : percent of the membership so I suppose they could claim they were
> : entitled to 40 percent of the assets.)
>
> This is accurate. They lost the convention, and they walked, taking Party
> assets with them. I suspect that reading WP documents would explain why
> they thought that this was an ethical--or a proletarian--thing to do,
> another "principled" position.
>
But didn't they firstly raise a demand for the debate to be continued, in the light of the
limited time available for preparation for the congress, and the closeness of the vote? A
demand which was rejected by the majority? This doesn't necesarily mean that they were right
to leave (if that is what happened), but it makes your use of the phrase "they walked" look
rather mean...
And where in this drama do you fit the Political Committee resolution suspending those
members of the PC who refused to vote in favour of the degenerated workers' state definition?
I understood that having won the convention vote, the majority tried to turn the vote into an
article of faith, i.e. declare unfit for membership / office those comrades of the minority
who would not disavow their ideas. Not very in keeping with proletarian democracy, in my
book.
And does your reply imply that a 40% split from such a group would not be entitled to 40% of
the 'assets'? Why not?
Comradely,
Nick
Chris Faatz
: Chris Faatz wrote:
: > : > Incidentally, can anyone currently involved in this discussion shed any more light on
: > : > the origin of the WP? A couple of you have referred to them as a 'split' from the
: > : > SWP, but the documents in the recent book I mentioned seem to show fairly clearly
: > : > that Cannon had them expelled. What say you?
: > : >
: >
: > : Isn't the outcome recorded in 'Struggle for a Proletarian Party'. It's
: > : many years since I last read it, but I seem to remember that the
: > : minority walked, and pocketed some party property (like the theoretical
: > : journal) on their way out. (Although, to be fair, they had about 40
: > : percent of the membership so I suppose they could claim they were
: > : entitled to 40 percent of the assets.)
: >
: > This is accurate. They lost the convention, and they walked, taking Party
: > assets with them. I suspect that reading WP documents would explain why
: > they thought that this was an ethical--or a proletarian--thing to do,
: > another "principled" position.
: >
: But didn't they firstly raise a demand for the debate to be continued, in the light of the
: limited time available for preparation for the congress, and the closeness of the vote? A
: demand which was rejected by the majority? This doesn't necesarily mean that they were right
: to leave (if that is what happened), but it makes your use of the phrase "they walked" look
: rather mean...
You're technically correct. And, I'd add, I think that the debate *should*
have been continued--albeit under Party discipline and internally.
: And where in this drama do you fit the Political Committee resolution suspending those
: members of the PC who refused to vote in favour of the degenerated workers' state definition?
: I understood that having won the convention vote, the majority tried to turn the vote into an
: article of faith, i.e. declare unfit for membership / office those comrades of the minority
: who would not disavow their ideas. Not very in keeping with proletarian democracy, in my
: book.
IMO, there were serious breaches of proletarian democracy on both sides of
the equation. The Cannonites were no more pure than the Shachtmanites. In
fact, as I've pointed out in another thread somewhere at some time, this
whole nasty internecine family squabble in the only section of the FI at
the time that had *any* working class base or *any* real impact anywhere
led to some really sad results, such as the anti-intellectualism of the
Cannon group over the next few decades, etc.
: And does your reply imply that a 40% split from such a group would not be entitled to 40% of
: the 'assets'? Why not?
Nick, my para was intended to point out that there were two sides to the
"stealing of the assets" story. And, it's the Cannonite picture that, in
my tradition, won the day. I'd be very interested in the other side's
view. As I pointed out, I'm certain they felt they had full ethical and
other justification for their positions, etc.
Personally, I think the whole imbroglio was necessary under the conditions
internationally at the time. The nastiness of it was not necessary (and
particularly unfortunate when one looks at the careers and cooperation of
men like Cannon and Shachtman in the Communist movement for decades before
the split). It could have, and should have, been a much more amiable
parting of the ways, and each group's program could and should have been
tested in struggle, with frequent communicatinos between both sympathizing
groups of the FI.
Today, as I've made clear earlier in this thread, there is nothing, but
*nothing* that should keep state caps, bureaucratic collectivists, and
degenerated/deformed workers' states people out of the same party, so long
as they submit to a truly democratic centralist discipline.
Chris
--
Chris Faatz
Mike on the question of the way a Communist Party should be organized than
with the formulations put forward by Peter and the CPGB (PCC). Although, I
do part ways with Mike in two significant ways, if I understand his
arguments correctly, which I'll illustrate later.
First, I believe that a democratic centralist party should be just that:
democratic and centralist. Party decisions should be made at the lowest
possible level, i.e., the branch or club level, through the fullest and
freest possible discussion prior to a convention, as determined in a
Party's constitution. Majorities and minorities free to form, and
maintain, factions and tendencies and to explain and fulminate over their
views of this, that, and the other thing and related Matters of Principle.
At the convention, all decisions should be made democratically by the
elected members of each branch/club as to the general line of the Party in
the next period. At that time, those decisions *become binding* on all
members of the Party, and are tested in the fire of the crucible of
radical reality.
At the next convention, corrections are made, along the same lines and
with the same results.
The Party should show a united face to the public on a line for the period
consistent with testing its political analysis, and the means and ways of
intervention therein.
The continuing existence of factions and minorities *publicly* spouting
their lines in contradistinction to that of the democratically arrived at
decisions of the majority in convention is a recipe for both chaos and
political irrelevance. The Communist Party is a combat party aimed at the
most menacing and powerful enemy the people of the world have ever known;
it does not have the *leisure* to be a perennial public debating society.
Indeed, it's potentially paralyzing to go into a period of crisis with a
Party that is not united under one general line and devoted to its
propagation, even if there are disagreements with that line among the
membership.
That said, to ensure the life of the Party, and to remain constantly
vigilant against its degeneration, factions and tendencies need and
deserve full voice on all leadership bodies and in the editorial bodies
of the Party press. And, there is nothing, but *nothing*, that precludes
continued internal discussion, so long as the general line is carried out
in public in a united manner.
In a political crisis, such discussion may, of necessity, have to be
curtailed.
That, by the way, is one point where I differ from MIke: on allowing the
continuing discussion within the Party. I see it as a vehicle for keeping
one's political wits honed.
The second point is this: I don't believe that ever advanced worker is
going to be a member of the Party. And, in certain periods, or in pre-
convention periods, I don't see anything that, under certain clearly
defined circumstances, should preclude free and open discussion of issues
within the Party press, whether it be between a minority and the majority,
or between the organization itself and other political currents with which
it is vying for class leadership.
Why? Because the for true mass penetratino of the workers' movement, one
has to take into account the fact that many workers who may be leaders in
their unions, shops, etc., may be close to the organization, but not of
it. The ideas of the Party should be, at times, represented in full to
that very important periphery so that, if push comes to shove, their
political education has been done in such a way that the line of the
organization is carried by folks who are not members of the organization
as well. Also, such a periphery should be given access for full discussion
to the pages of the paper/press so that real discussion and educatin are
carried out, rather than the sterile bleating of the ostensibly Bolshevik
Leninist organizations of our day.
Personally, I'd be delighted to participate in a multi-tendency democratic
centralist organization that knows when to emphasize the democratic part
and when to emphasize the centralist.
So, it may not be totally clear, but that's my deal. Help me clarify my
thoughts, comrades.
Chris
Chris Faatz
than get their hands on the brief book published by New Course
Publications (the Australian DSP's publishing arm), "Building the
Revolutionary Party: An Introduction to James P. Cannon." The most
important piece in there, imo, is the old FIT pamphlet, "Don't
Strangle the Party." Hopefully, it'll make the ETOL sooner rather than
later, but it's a great bit of writing and principled political analysis.
james...@hotmail.com
say -- "break it down" for our friend.
The Yugoslav civil war was a question of imperialism versus a non-imperialist
state. It was a proxy war, with Croatia and the BosMus as proxy armies of
U.S. and German imperialism.
Far from your assertions, the German and the U.S., through a myriad of fronts
and religious "aid" groups, funneled billions (that is with a "b") of low- and
no-interest loans to Tudjman and Izetbegovic. In addition, there are several
confirmed reports of U.S. and German military advisers training and equipping
their armies.
As for Serbia receiving funds from Russia, it is almost laughable to address
it. A couple of things can be implied by this statement: 1) Russia had the
means to not only fund the Serbs, but also break the imperialist blockade, or
2) Russia was imperialist.
"The war broke out due to ethnic and national rivalries that had been brewing
for years as various region of Yugoslavia began to drift apart and nationalist
demagoges [sic] filled the vacume [sic]"? And who aggravated those national
rivalries? Imperialism. Why? The drive for new markets.
"Self-determination" is not the issue. Often times, slogans like "self-
determination" and bourgeois "democracy" are used to cover capitalist
restoration and nationalist rivalry -- the very thing Marxists are supposed to
fight against. For all your talk about Bosnian "self-determination," are you
factoring in Bosnian Serbs? Or, are they "Hitlers" in your eyes?
Even if we were to leave aside the question of whether or not the remains of
Yugoslavia were a workers' state, a Marxist's position should not change. If
you were to consider Serbia a capitalist state, it is then a question of
imperialism against a semicolonial (or, at least a non-imperialist) country.
Then the similarities between Yugoslavia and Iraq begin to form a symmetry.
Which side were you on during the Gulf War? Were you defending Iraq against
imperialism? Or, were you shedding tears for "poor little Kuwait" and tying
yellow ribbons?
Jim Paris
MWG4LIFE
bus...@ici.net wrote:
>
> I'm not sure which conflict you are refering to, as the interpertation of the
> recent conflicts that tore apart the former Yugoslavia as being a war between
> US/German Imperialism and a workers state is way too removed from what
> actually went on to be taken seriously. Neither Croatia nor Bosnia-
> Hertzogivina were clinet states of any foreign power. Croatia did recieve some
> aid from Germany but it was quite limited. Serbia recieved some from Russia
> but I wouldn't term it a "client state". The war broke out due to ethnic and
> national rivalries that had been brewing for years as various region of
> Yugoslavia began to drift apart and nationalist demagoges filled the vacume.
> In so far as I would take a side in that conflict I would defend the right for
> any region that was under assult the right for self determination. That would
> include the right of Bosnia to exist free from Serbian domination. I also
> oppose any foreign intervention, like the blockade on arms to the region which
> weakened the ability of Bosnia to defend itself fropm the Serb onslaught. I
> assume you considered Serbia to be a workers state? How? Were the workers in
> control? What progressive features can you detect about a state under the
> domination of Ex-Stalinist nationalists who engaged in ethnic genocide? The
> region still contained many nationalized industries, but so does Indonesia.
> The orthodox Trotskyist argument that nationalization equals workers state
> does orwellian damge to the whole term workers state.
>
> Buster
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
james...@hotmail.com
> james...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >[...]
> >The advance came with the October 1917 revolution. And, because it was not
> >completely destroyed by Stalin (that job was left to his heirs), some
> >advances -- specifically on the level of economy -- remained. These were the
> >gains of October. Stalin and the bureaucracy were not able to bring about as
> >qualitative a change as the Bolsheviks did in 1917. Basically, Stalin was
> >not able to unwind the film of the October Revolution in reverse due to the
> >contradictions inherent within Stalinism.
>
> What 'advance' is it that was not destroyed in the Stalin years (if not
> before)? What kind of economy existed in the Soviet Union, in fact? This
> is exactly the nub of the problem revolutionaries face in characterising
> the Soviet social formation. Also, this inability to 'unwind the film'
> has aspects that are true and untrue. Stalin patently did not reinstate
> capitalism, money did not exist, etc. But a counterrevolutionary
> ideology was in control, the world did not progress to socialism as one,
> and the freak society degraded in the ways we know.
> --
What "advance", you ask?
Three words for you, Peter -- think trade unions.
> Peter [remove .nosp in address before emailing]
>
> ~ Weekly Worker electronic edition at ~
> <URL: http://www.duntone.demon.co.uk/CPGB/>
>
Jim Paris
--
Marxist Worker Online
<http://www.marxistworker.org/>
Coming soon ... new features on MWO
Chat Room, News Board ... and so much more!
bus...@ici.net
>
> My, oh my, oh my! Poor Buster hasn't a clue. Let me -- as my friends would
> say -- "break it down" for our friend.
>
> The Yugoslav civil war was a question of imperialism versus a non-imperialist
> state. It was a proxy war, with Croatia and the BosMus as proxy armies of
> U.S. and German imperialism.
Are you saying that Bosnia and Croatia were puppets of the US and Germany,
like the Diem regime in Yugoslavia? What evidence do you have for this. Aid
dosen't make a nation a proxy state. The purpose of US aid to Bosnia was not to
help it win its war against the Sebian "workers state" put to pressure to play
ball and compromise with Serbia to restore a Nato enforced "order" in the
region.
>
> Far from your assertions, the German and the U.S., through a myriad of fronts
> and religious "aid" groups, funneled billions (that is with a "b") of low- and
> no-interest loans to Tudjman and Izetbegovic. In addition, there are several
> confirmed reports of U.S. and German military advisers training and equipping
> their armies.
>
> As for Serbia receiving funds from Russia, it is almost laughable to address
> it. A couple of things can be implied by this statement: 1) Russia had the
> means to not only fund the Serbs, but also break the imperialist blockade, or
> 2) Russia was imperialist.
Are you saying that Russia didn't aid Serbia?. Here is an excerpt from the
Independent (20 Febuary 1994) "The involvement of Russia in the conflict was
one element of the strategy mapped out two weeks ago, when Nato put forward
its plan for air strikes. The objective was to bring in the US to put pressure on the
Bosnian government, and the Russians to exercise their leverage on the Serbs."
Basicly, the world was intervining and it was multi-ethnic Bosnia which had
suffered the worse was getting the short end of the stick.
And yes I think Russia is imperialist though in a small scale regional way,
similar to its status before the revolution.
>
>
>
> "Self-determination" is not the issue. Often times, slogans like "self-
> determination" and bourgeois "democracy" are used to cover capitalist
> restoration and nationalist rivalry -- the very thing Marxists are supposed to
> fight against. For all your talk about Bosnian "self-determination," are you
> factoring in Bosnian Serbs? Or, are they "Hitlers" in your eyes?
It isn't the issue. The fate of independent Bosnia, which was in fact fact
multi-ethnic was at stake. Both Serbia and Croatia were moving to tear it
apart. Bosnia wasn't a homogenous nation, it contained Croats, Serbs and
Muslims. It wasn't socialist or my ideal of a future non-ethnic world, and near
the end the forces of Muslim chauvinsm was greatly strengthened due to the fact
that Islamic nations were the only ones to unconditionaly support it. However
compared to the ethnic cleaninng practiced by Serbia and Croatia,I think in such
a war, I defend Bosnia.
>
> Even if we were to leave aside the question of whether or not the remains of
> Yugoslavia were a workers' state, a Marxist's position should not change. If
> you were to consider Serbia a capitalist state, it is then a question of
> imperialism against a semicolonial (or, at least a non-imperialist) country.
> Then the similarities between Yugoslavia and Iraq begin to form a symmetry.
I was against foregin all intervention in the region.
> Which side were you on during the Gulf War? Were you defending Iraq against
> imperialism? Or, were you shedding tears for "poor little Kuwait" and tying
> yellow ribbons?
The main enemy was the US and thats where the fire of the anti-war movement
should have been directed, both in its military and sanction stage. However I
don't support Saddam Hussien bloody dictatorship or its invasion of Kuwait and
am against the various sectarians like the RWL who went around with the
slogan "Victory to Iraq".
Buster
SECTLESS4LIFE
>
> Jim Paris
> MWG4LIFE
>
> bus...@ici.net wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure which conflict you are refering to, as the interpertation of the
> > recent conflicts that tore apart the former Yugoslavia as being a war between
> > US/German Imperialism and a workers state is way too removed from what
> > actually went on to be taken seriously. Neither Croatia nor Bosnia-
> > Hertzogivina were clinet states of any foreign power. Croatia did recieve some
> > aid from Germany but it was quite limited. Serbia recieved some from Russia
> > but I wouldn't term it a "client state". The war broke out due to ethnic and
> > national rivalries that had been brewing for years as various region of
> > Yugoslavia began to drift apart and nationalist demagoges filled the vacume.
> > In so far as I would take a side in that conflict I would defend the right for
> > any region that was under assult the right for self determination. That would
> > include the right of Bosnia to exist free from Serbian domination. I also
> > oppose any foreign intervention, like the blockade on arms to the region which
> > weakened the ability of Bosnia to defend itself fropm the Serb onslaught. I
> > assume you considered Serbia to be a workers state? How? Were the workers in
> > control? What progressive features can you detect about a state under the
> > domination of Ex-Stalinist nationalists who engaged in ethnic genocide? The
> > region still contained many nationalized industries, but so does Indonesia.
> > The orthodox Trotskyist argument that nationalization equals workers state
> > does orwellian damge to the whole term workers state.
> >
> > Buster
> >
>
bus...@ici.net
>
> james...@hotmail.com wrote:
I made an error in my reply. It should be the Diem regime in Vietnam. Sorry
Peter West
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> writes
>[...]
>First, I believe that a democratic centralist party should be just that:
>democratic and centralist. Party decisions should be made at the lowest
>possible level, i.e., the branch or club level, through the fullest and
>freest possible discussion prior to a convention, as determined in a
>Party's constitution. Majorities and minorities free to form, and
>maintain, factions and tendencies and to explain and fulminate over their
>views of this, that, and the other thing and related Matters of Principle.
>
>At the convention, all decisions should be made democratically by the
>elected members of each branch/club as to the general line of the Party in
>the next period. At that time, those decisions *become binding* on all
>members of the Party, and are tested in the fire of the crucible of
>radical reality.
>
>At the next convention, corrections are made, along the same lines and
>with the same results.
>
>The Party should show a united face to the public on a line for the period
>consistent with testing its political analysis, and the means and ways of
>intervention therein.
Meaning presumably that the party should pretend, like the Spartacist
League et al, that there is no disagreement within the party, that we
all agree the line, and our minds are switched off. What workers are
going to be convinced by such dishonesty?
>
>The continuing existence of factions and minorities *publicly* spouting
>their lines in contradistinction to that of the democratically arrived at
>decisions of the majority in convention is a recipe for both chaos and
>political irrelevance. The Communist Party is a combat party aimed at the
>most menacing and powerful enemy the people of the world have ever known;
>it does not have the *leisure* to be a perennial public debating society.
>Indeed, it's potentially paralyzing to go into a period of crisis with a
>Party that is not united under one general line and devoted to its
>propagation, even if there are disagreements with that line among the
>membership.
If comrades in this revolutionary party disagree, they have the duty to
make this known. Why should the working class, which will have to make
its own self-liberation real through the medium of ideological struggle
and the tasks carried out by its party, not see the argument and
ideological struggle of party members and factions? Otherwise, we have
the farcical situation where each time a line changes only those 'in the
know' (which might not even be all party members) in the party know why
or how it changed. Why should the masses not be _party_ to the party's
decisions? No, such sectish behaviour, honing revolutionary theory in a
vacuum without the mass of the working class borrows nothing from the
history of the Bolsheviks as they built the party.
>
>That said, to ensure the life of the Party, and to remain constantly
>vigilant against its degeneration, factions and tendencies need and
>deserve full voice on all leadership bodies and in the editorial bodies
>of the Party press. And, there is nothing, but *nothing*, that precludes
>continued internal discussion, so long as the general line is carried out
>in public in a united manner.
How are the masses outside the party to know if such 'free' internal
discussion is going on? Why should they trust a party which does not
trust them?
>
>In a political crisis, such discussion may, of necessity, have to be
>curtailed.
Why? It is just in such times that discussion needs to be expanded and
opened out more and more. Any other approach is a totally incorrect
method which leads to the sect mentality we see on the left all around
us now.
--
Peter West
writes
>Peter West <Peter...@duntone.demon.nosp.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> What 'advance' is it that was not destroyed in the Stalin years (if not
>> before)? What kind of economy existed in the Soviet Union, in fact? This
>> is exactly the nub of the problem revolutionaries face in characterising
>> the Soviet social formation. Also, this inability to 'unwind the film'
>> has aspects that are true and untrue. Stalin patently did not reinstate
>> capitalism, money did not exist, etc. But a counterrevolutionary
>> ideology was in control, the world did not progress to socialism as one,
>> and the freak society degraded in the ways we know.
>
>
>Three words for you, Peter -- think trade unions.
When I think of Soviet trade unions I think of tame state vehicles for
ensuring labour discipline. Is any comrade on this ng seriously
suggesting that they were anything else? Maybe this is related to the
oft-quoted aim of Trotsky to militarise the unions in the period soon
after the revolution, but to suggest that the unions under Stalin were
independent working class organisations so flies in the face of the
facts that it is an incredible claim.
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>Peter West wrote ...
>
>>Of course there are agreed majority positions in a Bolshevik, communist
>>organisation. But the crucial question then is: what rights are there
>>for minorities disagreeing with those positions. Democratic centralism
>>means precisely that there is unity in carrying out actions which have
>>been decided by majority vote, all the while the minority having the
>>right to express its disagreement, argue its position, and have the
>>right to become the majority.
>
>
>a majority to, its position - but why don't you see that the publication of
>a document arguing a different line from the majority is as much an "action"
>as anything else we may do.
Absolutely not. To agree this is to go along with the suffocatingly
bureaucratic sectarianism of the Gerry Healy school of thought: say what
we say in public or we beat you up. Bankruptcy and complete fiasco
follows such a line of thought.
>
>When I said "agree" I meant FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT (I think I've "shouted"
>this before - why aren't you listening Peter?). I can understand to some
>extent comrades from a Stalinist background not realising the difference
>because of the monolithic nature of their political and organisational past
>but I have explained it a few times now and its starting to get a bit
>tedious to have the same "Trots are mindless agreeing robots" crap continual
>thrown up - unless you think "fundamental agreement" is a
>conceptual/theoretical impossibility.
Clearly fundamental agreement does not equal 'total agreement'. No-one
is suggesting that, certainly not me. But it still leaves a question
about the definition of fundamental agreement, since were my fundamental
agreement from a minority position might well be seen (half full or half
empty glass) by a majority supporter as not validly within the
organisation's basic tenets. What happens then? Does the majority have
the right to expel me for holding what it deems fundamental
disagreement? Do I then have the right to express what I see as
fundamental agreement, but with differences? Who decides?
And don't give me this presumptuous guff about 'Stalinist background'.
Just like formerly existing and present-day Stalinite parties, almost
every Trotskyist and state capitalist organisation in existence puts up
monolithic face to the mass of the working class: 'oh, no, we have no
differences, we are a united party'. Bullshit baffles brains again -
not. I don't for one moment imagine that 'Trots are mindless agreeing
robots': they are my comrades in revolution, which I believe they
sincerely desire, and for that very reason are inevitably going to have
disagreements. Place two revolutionaries in a room and you will soon
have divergent views on any number of topics. It is the wrong method I
am railing against, the pretence that 'we all agree'. Inevitable
disagreement provides in principle absolutely no reason to avoid being
in the same party and no reason to split a single party.
Peter West
>
>>I'm quite happy for a Bolshevik/communist group to have the majority's
>>position after thorough, open debate. But only as long as the minority,
>>or minorities, if still unconvinced has/have a continuing right to open
>>disagreement and the right to fight within and without the organisation
>>for its/their views, including the right to form factions for as long as
>>they wish to keep them and the right to become the majority without
>>hindrance. The party organisation must be a ferment of ideas, reflecting
>>the multiplicity of individuals within. How else can we build a mass
>>party that will appeal to workers, which will be their own tool to wield
>>for their own self-liberation as a class?
>
>I think the development of a coherent revolutionary programme is essential
>if our class is to take power. The lack of a mass revolutionary organisation
>based on that coherent programme is the main problem facing the working
>class. The development of the programme is going to require the fullest
>ferment of democratic discussion and debate. So far we agree - yes.
>
>However I do not see how the development of that programme is helped by
>minorities arguing their line outside the organisation - in fact I think it
>is more likely to be hindered.
>More importantly it is opposed to the idea that the revolutionary leadership
>represents the highest consciousness of the working class. If I am of the
>opinion that the organisation I am in at a particular time is one which I
>fundamentally politically agree with, and therefore accept its programme and
>I have a difference on a particular question then my primary task is to
>convince my fellow members so as to win a majority line and get the
>organisation acting differently. To go public with a minority position is to
>attempt to use the lower consciousness of the swamp against the higher
>consciousness of my fellow members - it can have no other purpose if it is
>not part of a split and attempt to build a new organisation with other
>elements.
This can be summarised as the 'whited sepulchre' approach: only my
organisation shall lead. Of course, it is the duty of all
revolutionaries to express their ideas and disagreements fully and hope
to win the majority to their views, of that there should be no doubt.
But a party can only forge itself in struggle, including in the field of
ideas, and if the ideas which its members espouse are shrouded in a
false monolithicism it is not going to be terribly convincing. It is not
a question of the 'lower consciousness of the swamp' being wielded
against the 'purer' elements (presumably 'higher') within the working
class as a whole, it is a question of raising the consciousness of the
whole working class by embracing and encouraging participation in the
ideological work of the party. What is there to fear in that?
>
>To argue, as Peter, does that this is normal (and perhaps even essential to
>healthy bolshevik functioning?) implies that their is no special importance
>of the revolutionary organisation in terms of programme.
Not at all. Program is all when it comes down to it. What else do we
have on the road to revolution, but program and a will within the
working class to make it its own?
>[...]
>As far as I can tell the most important thing that the CPGB does, as regards
>their time and resources, is the production of the Weekly Worker. And yet in
>this their most important activity there is apparently no discipline with
>any minority having the right to argue their point of view, any number of
>opinions on a particular question could appear in the same issue - and
>indeed if the CPGB's "rapprochement" project were to be even moderately
>successful it could only turn the Weekly Worker into a debating circle
>journal for the fundamentally different world views represented in it. It is
>not the journal of an organisation based on a clear and coherent programme
>for social change.
No, the CPGB does not aim to be a mere debating circle: its existence is
posited on revolution, building the tool to achieve it, and arming the
working class ideologically and politically with what it needs to carry
out its own liberation.
>
>Revolutionaries exist to change the world. Our activity is based on our
>programme. Activity which is an expression of, and is a feedback to, our
>programme. At the present time much of the activity of
>pseudo/proto-bolshevik groups will of necessity be written, I fail to see
>why the same discipline which I am sure Peter and Chris would agree with me
>is necessary on say an intervention on a demonstration is not also
>appropriate for written activity.
Writing is not 'activity', but the expression of thought and ideas which
we need to develop our program. This point is precisely the one upon
which Trotskyist organisations founder. How can we pretend we all agree
when we do not? I fail to see what greater good is served by such
dishonesty.
>
>Why should there be the "right" to argue minority positions publicly when
>that "right" doesn't extend to doing different things on a demonstration?
>Democratic centralism means both accepting AND PUTTING INTO PRACTICE the
>majority position by any comrades holding minority positions on any disputed
>question. Bolsheviks accept the decisions of the majority and do not believe
>in liberal notions of individual "rights" being more important than those
>collective decisions.
The right for minority positions to exist and express themselves in
front of the mass of the working class shows out ultimate strength of
ideology. Any ideology which is afraid of such expression is not worth a
damn and deserves to die. Actions decided by majority are totally
different in nature, character, essence: they are binding for the
duration of the action. But do not forget that once an action is over,
it is the duty of comrades to express any disagreements they may still
hold over the way it was conducted, the reason for it, and so on. We
shall have no respite from the continual need to discuss our
differences, even though this may seem a burden for more
bureaucratically minded comrades.
>
>Clear political leadership not more confusion is what our class needs.
>Revolutionary organisations should exist because of programmes not the other
>way around - the CPGB's appeal for all subjective communists to come
>together in a disciplined centralised organisation around a very low level
>of programmatic agreement only helps build the swamp and undermines the
>centrality of programme.
Who says the CPGB wants a low level of programmatic agreement?
>[...]
>The conception of Bolshevik organisation I have outlined above must go side
>by side with non-sectarian work with other groups where there is real
>agreement, despite the other differences. It is within the context of that
>joint work that organisational sectarianism is overcome and political
>clarity leading potentially to the development of more permanent
>organisational links can occur. But this requires political combat between
>the different world views and programmes not a fudging of the lines and
>implying that Bolshevism encompasses all "communist" views from Stalinism to
>Trotskyism to radical left reformism as Peter and Chris seem to be arguing.
We all have different views about what Bolshevism or communism (the word
I prefer) means. That is why such revolutionaries need to be within the
same party to thrash out all these questions, all the while joining in a
united manner in concrete actions. That is the essence of democratic
centralism. Overstressing centralism to the virtual exclusion of
democracy leads toward sectishness and precisely the danger that has
been suggested, the reformism and economism of most, if not all,
Trotskyist groups.
>
>Finally to end with another, no doubt controversial comment. I don't think
>the working class with "self-liberate" itself except through the leadership
>of a revolutionary organisation based on a coherent political programme.
Correct. How do we get it?
Chris Faatz
[clip]
: >
: >The Party should show a united face to the public on a line for the period
: >consistent with testing its political analysis, and the means and ways of
: >intervention therein.
: Meaning presumably that the party should pretend, like the Spartacist
: League et al, that there is no disagreement within the party, that we
: all agree the line, and our minds are switched off. What workers are
: going to be convinced by such dishonesty?
No. And, I don't think my formulatin asserts that.
Individual comrades may disagree, and should be articulate as to why.
They should be equally articulate, though, on why they *voluntarily*
bow to democratic centralist norms in carrying out the decisions of the
Party. The reason is a simple one of a dialectical approach to social
change and revolutionary movement.
: >
: >The continuing existence of factions and minorities *publicly* spouting
: >their lines in contradistinction to that of the democratically arrived at
: >decisions of the majority in convention is a recipe for both chaos and
: >political irrelevance. The Communist Party is a combat party aimed at the
: >most menacing and powerful enemy the people of the world have ever known;
: >it does not have the *leisure* to be a perennial public debating society.
: >Indeed, it's potentially paralyzing to go into a period of crisis with a
: >Party that is not united under one general line and devoted to its
: >propagation, even if there are disagreements with that line among the
: >membership.
: If comrades in this revolutionary party disagree, they have the duty to
: make this known. Why should the working class, which will have to make
: its own self-liberation real through the medium of ideological struggle
: and the tasks carried out by its party, not see the argument and
: ideological struggle of party members and factions? Otherwise, we have
: the farcical situation where each time a line changes only those 'in the
: know' (which might not even be all party members) in the party know why
: or how it changed. Why should the masses not be _party_ to the party's
: decisions? No, such sectish behaviour, honing revolutionary theory in a
: vacuum without the mass of the working class borrows nothing from the
: history of the Bolsheviks as they built the party.
The masses should be party to the party's decisions, and, as I write
below, they should be a part of the discussions in a wider sense.
However, even as comrades disagree, they need to patiently explain--and
explain, and explain, and explain--the tasks, functioning, and norms of
a communist party in the face of imperialism.
: >
: >That said, to ensure the life of the Party, and to remain constantly
: >vigilant against its degeneration, factions and tendencies need and
: >deserve full voice on all leadership bodies and in the editorial bodies
: >of the Party press. And, there is nothing, but *nothing*, that precludes
: >continued internal discussion, so long as the general line is carried out
: >in public in a united manner.
: How are the masses outside the party to know if such 'free' internal
: discussion is going on? Why should they trust a party which does not
: trust them?
: >
: >In a political crisis, such discussion may, of necessity, have to be
: >curtailed.
: Why? It is just in such times that discussion needs to be expanded and
: opened out more and more. Any other approach is a totally incorrect
: method which leads to the sect mentality we see on the left all around
: us now.
Because, at that point, united action and centralism take precedence over
discussion and the confusion on direction that a lot of that may bring.
I hope it's clear by this time that I support a democratic centralism that
isn't hidebound, but, rather, adapts to the situation of a given period/
moment/movement in the class struggle.
That way you survive politically, are able to correct your practice
ideologically and dialectically, walk your talk before the class and its
allies, and enhance your credibility and the quality and results of
interventions.
C
james...@hotmail.com
> james...@hotmail.com writes
> >Peter West <Peter...@duntone.demon.nosp.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > What 'advance' is it that was not destroyed in the Stalin years (if not
> > > before)? What kind of economy existed in the Soviet Union, in fact? This
> > > is exactly the nub of the problem revolutionaries face in characterising
> > > the Soviet social formation. Also, this inability to 'unwind the film'
> > > has aspects that are true and untrue. Stalin patently did not reinstate
> > > capitalism, money did not exist, etc. But a counterrevolutionary
> > > ideology was in control, the world did not progress to socialism as one,
> > > and the freak society degraded in the ways we know.
> >
> > What "advance", you ask?
> >
> > Three words for you, Peter -- think trade unions.
>
> When I think of Soviet trade unions I think of tame state vehicles for
> ensuring labour discipline. Is any comrade on this ng seriously
> suggesting that they were anything else? Maybe this is related to the
> oft-quoted aim of Trotsky to militarise the unions in the period soon
> after the revolution, but to suggest that the unions under Stalin were
> independent working class organisations so flies in the face of the
> facts that it is an incredible claim.
Sorry I didn't have a better chance to explain before -- work schedules didn't
permit. I still don't, so I'll have to make this short.
When I said "think trade unions", I meant the analogy of the Stalinists and
the trade union bureaucracy. Trotsky referred to the Stalinists as akin to a
"trade union bureaucracy" in power -- a thoroughly counterrevolutionary
ideology guiding a parasitic appartaus sitting atop a workers' organism
(trade union/ proletarian dictatorship).
Having been a trade unionist for a while, I can relate to the analogy.
James Paris
MWG4LIFE
> --
> Peter [remove .nosp in address before emailing]
>
> ~ Weekly Worker electronic edition at ~
> <URL: http://www.duntone.demon.co.uk/CPGB/>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Mike
Peter West wrote ...
>
>Absolutely not. To agree this is to go along with the suffocatingly
>bureaucratic sectarianism of the Gerry Healy school of thought: say what
>we say in public or we beat you up. Bankruptcy and complete fiasco
>follows such a line of thought.
Fine argument I'm sure. Nothing like a bit of mud slinging to avoid a
question.
>Clearly fundamental agreement does not equal 'total agreement'. No-one
>is suggesting that, certainly not me. But it still leaves a question
[..]
>have divergent views on any number of topics. It is the wrong method I
>am railing against, the pretence that 'we all agree'. Inevitable
Well "total agreement" and "we all agree" sound quite similar to me!
Why should the working class be any more unable to cope with an organisation
which says - we have discussed and have come up with a majority position on
what to do in this "action" and despite any number of differences we are all
going to act together with the minority accepting the will of the majority -
as compared to an organisation which says - we have discussed and have come
up with a majority position on what we think about this issue of working
class politics and despite any number of difference we are all going to ..
with the minority accepting the will of the majority.
Communist organisations exist to express a programme for social change. A
programme is a internally coherent set of ideas for changing the world. The
CPGB seems to think a communist organisation exists only for concrete
physical actions and can have any number of FUNDAMENTALLY different
political programmes any one of which may be dominant at a particular time -
leading incidentally to quite different kinds of "action".
Unfortuantely I am not going to be able to continue this debate as from
today I lose my access to the internet - I will try to find another way to
get access so you may see me again.
Mike
Mike
Peter West wrote in response to me ...
Well I think that you might find that this is not only a "white sepulchre"
but also a Leninist/Bolshevik approach. Just how do you explain Lenin's many
polemics against other groups and his many factional struggles to make sure
the organisations he was in were leading. I do think that the working class
requires an organisation based on the Bolshevik programme to lead them -
what exactly are you counterposing to this?
Of course we need to engage the wider layers of the working class in the
ideological struggles which at the current time are just the preserve of the
far left. However there is nothing inherent in this statement which implies
anything about the quesiton in dispute, either approach can do this.
There is nothing to "fear" from your approach - it is just not as useful and
efficient in building the organisation we need. But perhaps it is you who
fear something from losing your "right" as an individual to say whatever you
want whenever you want to....
>>To argue, as Peter, does that this is normal (and perhaps even essential
to
>>healthy bolshevik functioning?) implies that their is no special
importance
>>of the revolutionary organisation in terms of programme.
>
>Not at all. Program is all when it comes down to it. What else do we
>have on the road to revolution, but program and a will within the
>working class to make it its own?
But Peter you want to build an organisation composed of people with many
FUNDAMENTALLY different programmes and give them the right to all argue
their positions publically.
>>As far as I can tell the most important thing that the CPGB does, as
regards
>>their time and resources, is the production of the Weekly Worker. And yet
in
>>this their most important activity there is apparently no discipline with
>>any minority having the right to argue their point of view, any number of
>>opinions on a particular question could appear in the same issue - and
>>indeed if the CPGB's "rapprochement" project were to be even moderately
>>successful it could only turn the Weekly Worker into a debating circle
>>journal for the fundamentally different world views represented in it. It
is
>>not the journal of an organisation based on a clear and coherent programme
>>for social change.
>
>No, the CPGB does not aim to be a mere debating circle: its existence is
>posited on revolution, building the tool to achieve it, and arming the
>working class ideologically and politically with what it needs to carry
>out its own liberation.
Fine words indeed but how about a reply to my question. Why wouldn't the
Weekly Worker turn into merely a discussion journal if lets say 4 or 5
organisations with Stalinist, Trotskyist and State Capitalist programmes
(let alone all the "communists" in Britain today) decide to take up the
CPGB's call for rapproachment and joined the CPGB with the right to publish
their views.
>>Revolutionaries exist to change the world. Our activity is based on our
>>programme. Activity which is an expression of, and is a feedback to, our
>>programme. At the present time much of the activity of
>>pseudo/proto-bolshevik groups will of necessity be written, I fail to see
>>why the same discipline which I am sure Peter and Chris would agree with
me
>>is necessary on say an intervention on a demonstration is not also
>>appropriate for written activity.
>
>Writing is not 'activity', but the expression of thought and ideas which
>we need to develop our program. This point is precisely the one upon
>which Trotskyist organisations founder. How can we pretend we all agree
>when we do not? I fail to see what greater good is served by such
>dishonesty.
This is a bizarre and false distinction you are making and fails to stand up
in even the merest hint of the light of concrete reality.
It is not a question of "pretending to agree" - this is a particularly
pathetic straw horse which you hope will convince people merely by
repitition no matter how many times I explain my view - it is merely that
the discipline of the organisation extends beyond these "actions" of yours
to the whole political programme. This no more means we are being
"dishonest" than a comrade in the CPGB is being dishonest when he accepts
the will of the majority and takes part in an "action" which he disagrees
with.
>The right for minority positions to exist and express themselves in
>front of the mass of the working class shows out ultimate strength of
>ideology. Any ideology which is afraid of such expression is not worth a
>damn and deserves to die. Actions decided by majority are totally
>different in nature, character, essence: they are binding for the
>duration of the action. But do not forget that once an action is over,
>it is the duty of comrades to express any disagreements they may still
>hold over the way it was conducted, the reason for it, and so on. We
>shall have no respite from the continual need to discuss our
>differences, even though this may seem a burden for more
>bureaucratically minded comrades.
So is the leaflet I (as a hypothetical member of the CPGB with a minority
position on a particualr question) take on a demonstration or picket line
not part of the "action" and can I take my own leaflet promoting my own view
point?
And if not why not according to the "logic" of your argument against me?
This "duration of the action" is just stupid. If I (as a CPGB minority) have
been arguing consistently in the pages of the Weekly Worker for a particular
type of action to occur when a particular type of situation arises then that
is going to have an effect - if I am a better and or more prolific writer
than other comrades then my ideas, which may or may not be correct, are
going to have a greater effect on the readers of the Weekly Worker and when
that particular situation arises I could well have convinced them to act in
a different way from what I as a disciplined minority do - and in extreme
cases this could mean being on different sides of the barricades.
This is all our written programme is comrade - it is a guide to action. You
seem to think that it would be better if the Weekly Worker had many
different guides to action being regularly published in it.
>>Clear political leadership not more confusion is what our class needs.
>>Revolutionary organisations should exist because of programmes not the
other
>>way around - the CPGB's appeal for all subjective communists to come
>>together in a disciplined centralised organisation around a very low level
>>of programmatic agreement only helps build the swamp and undermines the
>>centrality of programme.
>
>Who says the CPGB wants a low level of programmatic agreement?
I do based on the fact that you say you want every subjective communist to
join the CPGB - therefore the level of programmatic agreement must be quite
low as all these people disagree on even the most fundamental questions of
Marxism. How can this be interpreted in any other way?
>>[...]
>>The conception of Bolshevik organisation I have outlined above must go
side
>>by side with non-sectarian work with other groups where there is real
>>agreement, despite the other differences. It is within the context of that
>>joint work that organisational sectarianism is overcome and political
>>clarity leading potentially to the development of more permanent
>>organisational links can occur. But this requires political combat between
>>the different world views and programmes not a fudging of the lines and
>>implying that Bolshevism encompasses all "communist" views from Stalinism
to
>>Trotskyism to radical left reformism as Peter and Chris seem to be
arguing.
>
>We all have different views about what Bolshevism or communism (the word
>I prefer) means. That is why such revolutionaries need to be within the
>same party to thrash out all these questions, all the while joining in a
>united manner in concrete actions. That is the essence of democratic
>centralism. Overstressing centralism to the virtual exclusion of
>democracy leads toward sectishness and precisely the danger that has
>been suggested, the reformism and economism of most, if not all,
>Trotskyist groups.
But why should I place myself under discipline to always act in the
interests of a programme I think is actually at odds with what is required.
I would find myself continually "acting" in a way which I thought was
contrary to the interests of the working class
Lets say for instance the majority in the CPGB supported building Popular
Fronts (with of course some left wing criticism) would it be principled of
me to remain in this organisation and take part in building the Popular
Front when in fact I thought that this was going to end in betrayal and
slaughter of working class militants?
If I was in a hypothetical Moscow section of the CPGB in 1991 and the
majority supported Yeltsin should I have gone out and fought with him -
despite believing that this was leading to immediate capitalist restoration
and represented the greatest danger for the working class?
Remember programme is a guide to action and our written programme is only
really judged by how we put it into practice. The two are intertwined and
cannot be separated as the CPGB seem to think.
>>Finally to end with another, no doubt controversial comment. I don't think
>>the working class with "self-liberate" itself except through the
leadership
>>of a revolutionary organisation based on a coherent political programme.
>
>Correct. How do we get it?
By political struggle - both in writing and in physical actions based on
that written programme - between the FUNDAMENTALLY different world views put
forward by the different tendencies and organisations.
In some ways I'm glad that I am being forced to end my participation in this
discussion, it is getting quite tedious to repeat my argument over and over
with Peter always coming back as though I had written nothing - on the other
hand I am going to miss my discussion with Chris. He has really discussed
with me and thus has had an effect on me - on the question of China and
Tibet for instance and it is a shame I won't be able to develop this further
with him.
Mike
Chris Faatz
[clip]
: In some ways I'm glad that I am being forced to end my participation in this
: discussion, it is getting quite tedious to repeat my argument over and over
: with Peter always coming back as though I had written nothing - on the other
: hand I am going to miss my discussion with Chris. He has really discussed
: with me and thus has had an effect on me - on the question of China and
: Tibet for instance and it is a shame I won't be able to develop this further
: with him.
Ah, but you will, mate, you sectarian bastard {grin}, cos I'm gonna hunt
your ass down and make you buy me a pint someday!
Take care. It's been a damned good discussion.
Chris
Peter West
<mikew...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Peter West wrote ...
>>
>>Absolutely not. To agree this is to go along with the suffocatingly
>>bureaucratic sectarianism of the Gerry Healy school of thought: say what
>>we say in public or we beat you up. Bankruptcy and complete fiasco
>>follows such a line of thought.
>
>Fine argument I'm sure. Nothing like a bit of mud slinging to avoid a
>question.
What, is the preceding statement untrue? Healy's sect shows us one
disastrous result of bureaucratic centralism, surely.
>
>>Clearly fundamental agreement does not equal 'total agreement'. No-one
>>is suggesting that, certainly not me. But it still leaves a question
>
>[..]
>>have divergent views on any number of topics. It is the wrong method I
>>am railing against, the pretence that 'we all agree'. Inevitable
>
>Well "total agreement" and "we all agree" sound quite similar to me!
But you shouldn't have to agree, that's the point. If we all agree on
particular questions, that's fine; no-one surely wants to waste time
discussing what we agree on. But if we don't agree, then there needs to
be toleration of difference: that is the essence of democratic
centralism. To pretend that comrades in these sects agree on all and
every important question is nonsense and unrelated to human experience.
>
>Why should the working class be any more unable to cope with an organisation
>which says - we have discussed and have come up with a majority position on
>what to do in this "action" and despite any number of differences we are all
>going to act together with the minority accepting the will of the majority -
>as compared to an organisation which says - we have discussed and have come
>up with a majority position on what we think about this issue of working
>class politics and despite any number of difference we are all going to ..
>with the minority accepting the will of the majority.
It's a totally wrong method. Are these tablets of stone which the party
gods deliver to the benighted masses? What kind of interaction and
relationship with the working class does this approach suggest?
Digesting questions solely within a sectish organisation, deciding a
view by a majority only of that organisation's members, and then binding
members to keep quiet about differences can have no resonance with the
class as a whole since it treats members of both with patronising
disrespect.
>
>Communist organisations exist to express a programme for social change. A
>programme is a internally coherent set of ideas for changing the world. The
>CPGB seems to think a communist organisation exists only for concrete
>physical actions and can have any number of FUNDAMENTALLY different
>political programmes any one of which may be dominant at a particular time -
>leading incidentally to quite different kinds of "action".
Of course I want the program that I support. But if that were supported
by a majority in the party, then if democratic centralism is real those
supporting minority positions need to have the assurance that their
ideas will be permitted, up to and including the right to become the
majority. We return again, though, to whether differences are
fundamental or not and if that is a criterion for exclusion: who is to
decide what is a fundamental question? Luxemburg's differences with
Lenin on the national question were pretty fundamental, most would
agree, but there was no reason for her to be in another party. She and
he argued fiercely their positions openly, to the benefit of comrades
and the working class at the time, as well as ourselves and generations
to come. That's the method we need.
>
>Unfortuantely I am not going to be able to continue this debate as from
>today I lose my access to the internet - I will try to find another way to
>get access so you may see me again.
I very much hope so. Otherwise it might be only Chris and I left
debating this important question (though maybe other comrades will join
in).
Peter West
<cfa...@user2.teleport.com> writes
>Peter West <Peter...@duntone.demon.nosp.co.uk> wrote:
>[clip]
>: >
>: >The Party should show a united face to the public on a line for the period
>: >consistent with testing its political analysis, and the means and ways of
>: >intervention therein.
>
>: Meaning presumably that the party should pretend, like the Spartacist
>: League et al, that there is no disagreement within the party, that we
>: all agree the line, and our minds are switched off. What workers are
>: going to be convinced by such dishonesty?
>
>No. And, I don't think my formulatin asserts that.
>
>Individual comrades may disagree, and should be articulate as to why.
>They should be equally articulate, though, on why they *voluntarily*
>bow to democratic centralist norms in carrying out the decisions of the
>Party. The reason is a simple one of a dialectical approach to social
>change and revolutionary movement.
OK, but is this bowing to 'democratic centralist norms' another way of
gagging comrades who disagree? Or is it, as I would hope, having the
discipline to carry out the party's decisions while continuing to
disagree, and expressing that disagreement within and without the party
before and after agreed actions? Because it is not only the right to
express disagreement that is inherent in real democratic centralism, it
is the duty to express disagreement that comrades must exercise.
Chris Faatz
: Chris, did you know that you are a "Type II"? Rest easy. This is a
: compliment. Were I the author I would not have included the word "naive":
: "II. Mr. B felt genuine love for the People and pity for their
: sufferings. He was generous and kindly toward everyone, including
: 'reactionaries.' During one of our chats, he told me that he and nine
: friends were planning to open a cooperative book store and send the
: proceeds to liberation movements overseas, keeping only enough to pay
: their minimal living expenses. He hoped to go to Nicaragua to help the
: revolution then in progress. When he discovered that I disagreed with most
: of his beliefs, he did not conclude that I was a wicked person. In fact we
: had the most amiable debate. He was a naive idealist who presumed that
: most people were as selfless as he." (Kraditor, p. 42)
I'm delighted to be a type II if the above is what it is, Hunter. As it
is, I'm called to that position theologically rather than politically. I
can't see any human in the absence of the spark of God in them, and,
therefore, the possibility of rising above evil (read: sin, if you'd
like).
: Proyect on the other hand is the prototypical Type I. I won't provide the
: definition here as it will be more apposite appended to one of his recent
: fulminations. Suffice it to say, certainly as to him:
I'd prefer not to speak of Proyect. I find it extremely distasteful. I
empathize with his passion and admire his mind (and some of his politics,
although he's a shameless ideologue--kind of like you, I guess <grin>); on
a moral and personal level, I'd prefer to have nothing to do with
him. *His* brand of furor makes him all-too-ready to brand others as
enemies, and then to eviscerate them. Hell, he doesn't even have to know
what they really think or feel.
On my behalf, it's really quite simple: there are more questions than
answers in the socialist project at the end of the century. A closed mind
towards any aspect of that experience is harmful to the project itself.
The more I read, the more I think, the more I look inward, the more active
I become, the more I say "Here's to Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker,
the most radical movement of the century."
Cheers,
Chris
Louis N Proyect
> I'm delighted to be a type II if the above is what it is, Hunter. As it
> is, I'm called to that position theologically rather than politically. I
> can't see any human in the absence of the spark of God in them, and,
> therefore, the possibility of rising above evil (read: sin, if you'd
> like).
God, does this shit make me sick to my stomach. I walked out synogogue
after I got bar-mitzvahed and never went back. I love the story about
Isaac Deutscher joining a Marxist youth group in Poland, which was
predominantly made up of ex-Jews like him and me. They had an initiation
ceremony where they would eat porkchop sandwiches in a Jewish cemetery at
midnight.
> him. *His* brand of furor makes him all-too-ready to brand others as
> enemies, and then to eviscerate them. Hell, he doesn't even have to know
> what they really think or feel.
Yes, you and Michael Lerner, two virtuous souls in a world of evil. Lerner
schmoozes with Clinton while you blow kisses at Hunter Watson.
>
> On my behalf, it's really quite simple: there are more questions than
> answers in the socialist project at the end of the century. A closed mind
> towards any aspect of that experience is harmful to the project itself.
God, what liberal tripe. Why do I have the distinct impression that the
next thing I will hear is a fund pitch for NPR or PBS.
>
> The more I read, the more I think, the more I look inward, the more active
> I become, the more I say "Here's to Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker,
> the most radical movement of the century."
Why don't you go find a Christian Buddhist liberal newsgroup where you
will feel more at home. And take the CIA-pimp Watson with you.
Louis P.
Hunter H. Watson
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.9808...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>, Louis N
Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
As you were saying about Proyect, Chris . . . . . .
By the way, in the other thread where the Kraditor "typology" is used I
mistakenly described you as Type I. That was an error my friend. That's
Proyect's designation and he describes himself as "flattered". Check out
Kraditor's definition and let me know if you think I've got it as right as
Proyect does.
Hunter
H.
H.W.
Chris Faatz
: Louis P.
--