>Comrades,
>Yes, I do agree that Yeltsin dealt the final blows to the Soviet workers'
>state, but what it demonstrated is that Stalin's theory of socialism in one
>country is inherently flawed. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution
>logically concludes that socialism must be international in order for it to
>succeed.
>
>Heikki,
>I think discussion of these issues are crucial to moving the international
>revolutionary movement forward. Debate will never end simply because human
>beings will be forever trying to move forward, which is a good thing.
>Debate helps us get where we need to go. We can certainly be civil and
>debate on the issues and theories; as an example, Comrade Proyect's
>editorial comments on Comrade Hodderson's article on saving the Fourth
>International was name-calling, instead of debate. I hope some time he
>expresses why he disagrees with FSP's analysis. That would be fruitful.
>Comradely,
>Jordana
>FSP
OK. After all, maybe you are right... Obvioulsy we must handle this hot
potatoe and try to avoid misunderstandings.
Let us remeber that the most important issue of today is to concentrate
all progressive powers. There is an anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist
front borning and nothing is allowed to break it.
Well.
Stalin and his era.
The thirties in the SU was a traumatic era for world communism. What
really happened... quite obviously we will never know about significant
processes.
One thing is sure. After the October Revolution the "whites" revenged their
defeat in "red" uniforms. Many NKVD units may very well have been "white"
in all secrecy. There were killing everywhere. Actually the civil war
continued up to the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Finding the real
guilty persons for all bad in the thirties in SU is even much more
difficult than it is now in Yugoslavia.
In these circumstances, in order to keep the Soviet Union in one piece
also mistakes were made. I know that for instance members of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Finland were excuted in the SU.
However, we will never know if they were guilty for something or not. And
after all, is it quite right to put everyhting on Stalin�s account? He
used hard methods, but did he have much choice in his efforts to govern
such a huge country in those circumstances?
I have personally known Stalin�s secretary, prof. Fyodor Burlatsky. He
worked in the Kremlin in the early fifties together with Stalin and with
his Finnish colleague, comrade O.W. Kuusinen.
Fyodor Burlatsky lectured in Helsinki University in the seventies.
According to Fyodor and according to those Finnish bourgeois politicians
who dealt with Stalin he was a civilized man with an excellent sense of
humour. This characterization is in sharp contradiction with the generally
given picture.
L. Trotsky and J.V. Stalin were both clever men, but in a difficult
situation their opinions differed as sharply as we know.
I think both LT and JVS would hope all of us to fight and work in good
co-operation against today�s enemies, capitalists, imperialists and
"leftist" traitors.
Attitude in using violence seems to be connected on the Stalin-Trotsky
topic. Let us try to be realistic.
I find it self-evident that we need concentrated power, even organized
military power. On the other hand, it is also self-evident that we hope not
be forced to use violent methods. All unnecessary violence must be
carefully avoided. A person who admires violence is never a communist.
Admiring nazi-type military power lives now in NATO and especially in their
political backgroud headquarters. The mediocre bourgoisie supports this
militarims exactly like they did in Germany in the thirties.
The anti-imperialist countries Yugoslavia, Cuba, Libya, and DPRK would not
exist without their strong armies and leaders. It is another question what
kind of persons there are and what kind of politics these countries carry
on. Mentioning these countries means that they are anti-imperialist,
nothing more in this connection. We need strong leaders. But why to try
to build links back to the thirties-fourties and to the persons of that
era...
Democarcy and strong leadership seem often to be contradictory. It is not
necessary to be so. I find this problematics in a way like dialectic. On
the other hand we have theoretically a pyramide of councils based on
grassroot level and on the other hand we have sharp leadership, which
should obey the impulses from the bottom of the pyramide of councils.
I know how strong emotional attitudes there are connected with the names of
Stalin and Trotsky. So... comrades, do not misunderstand me....
In solidarity,
with revolutionary regards.
Heikki
The thirties in the SU was a traumatic era.
There where "white" in red uniforms. And Stalin was not "white",
This situation caused hard internal struggle up to the beginning of the
Great Patriotic War.
But how to explain this this to the Trotskites...?
Their emotions are so far too hard to be overcome.
__________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki - Finland
+358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
___________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/unsubscribe messages
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________
