Rob and Chas,
This discussion is a load of shit.
Bolsheviks are not sectarian because they stand with the class in 
all of its struggles.  SDs are sectarian because they substitute 
themselves for the proletariat, betray it, and generally shit on it as 
unable, incapable, unprepared etc for the holy state of SD 
enlightenment. The most recent name for this enlightenment 
seems to be 'market socialism' - well actually that has been 
overtaken by 'radical democracy'. 
SDs are separated from Bolsheviks by method, theory and the 
barricade.  SDs and Bolshelviks can bloc in defence of workers 
democratic rights, but as soon as a pre-revolutionary situation 
emerges, SDs sellout, witness Luxemburg and Liebknecht.
Bolsheviks can claim responsibility for the only socialist revolution 
in history. SDs can claim responsiblity for stopping many more. 
Cut the shit and get down to some serious politics.

On 31 Mar 00, at 16:15, Rob Schaap wrote:

> G'day Chas,
> 
> Sez you:
> 
> "It is not clear that this is factually true. Left social democrats don't
> have too many successful organizings that I can see, except by becoming
> right "social democrats".  Where there were successes, it is not clear that
> communists didn't play as big or bigger role than the social democrats."
> 
> Which is a point all in itself.  The left made what ground it did when it
> did when they were pushing for the same things.  That's not the only reason
> we got anywhere when we did, but it was probably an important factor.
> 
> "In other words, where are the forces of the voices who criticize the
> Trotskyists, et al. ?  More in your mind than in matter. LEFT social
> democrats seem as sectarian as the Bolsheviks they criticize. There is
> little evidence that they are less reality impaired."
> 
> Whilst I agree sectarianism is a bad thing, I don't think there is anything
> necessarily sectarian about a left soc-dem position, though.  We've all
> benefited from some insightful Trotskyist critiques and histories, and
> their preparedness to put their ideas about transition on the table make
> for useful democratic debate (remember Chas - to disagree is not to purge,
> split or ostracise) within the left.  And the world's workers (well, the
> ones I know about - the 'western' working class) do not, as a whole, aspire
> to communist revolution just now, feel positively yoked to the system in
> train, and are split every which way but loose.  Times can change quickly,
> but they haven't, in this respect, for a very long time.
> 
> And at such a historical moment, there's nothing necessarily mutually
> exclusive about the positions of (genuine) socdems and a plethora of other
> leftish positions.  The tasks at hand are about the defence of workers,
> finding the public ear, and constructing lines of alliance and cohesion
> across borders and between tendencies.  And I reckon I'm not Robinson
> Crusoe in thinking that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---




     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to