====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 2:06 PM > dear joaquin, > > your post raises waaaaayy too many issues for a simple > working-class intellectual as myself to address in toto. > joking aside... > i would , however like to offer a comment on your > statement, > "History showed that the true character of the revolutions > that could and > did overthrow Stalinist regimes in the USSR and Eastern > Europe was > bourgeois. And that what lay behind the popular > participation in those > overthrows was the deep-seated desire of many/most Soviet > and East > European working people to share in imperialist privilege. > It didn't > turn out quite the way they imagined, but that's what they > wanted: to > share the lifestyle and standard of living of the more > privileged layers > of the working class in the imperialist countries. > So as it turned out, a KEY question in the eventual fate of > the USSR > was NOT a millimeter-precise socio-political > characterization of the > government/regime/ state but rather a question that BOTH > the > Schactmanites and their successors, as well as the > Cannonites and their > heirs, ignored for DECADES and continue ignoring to this > day even though > I think it is the number one factor that has both currents > 95% ready to > take their place next to the mummies and dinosaurs in the > Field museum. > > That question is how imperialism transforms the working > class, or to put > it succinctly, imperialist privilege. > > But back to the "great debate" on the "class character" of > the USSR." > ..................................................... > > yes, joaquin - back to the class character of the old > soviet union - a degenerated workers state! > > all "imperialist privilege" aside - this was > workerstate WITHOUT workers democracy! > > imagine how much more efficient might soviet production > have been if the industrial workers had had the confidence > of a workers' democracy? if the engineers and > designers had not feared to veer from party > convention? > > what if the soviet ambassadors, consulars and diplomats had > the confidence that trotsky and lenin had when they > leafleted the rank and file soldiers at brest-litovsk? > how far might the revolution have progressed around the > world, then? > > i am friends with an old hard-line stalinist who blames the > imperialist attacks on the soviet union for its fall... > no - no - the soviet union commited suicide by lack of > workers democracy. > > maybe - it is my hope - that the grandchildren and great > grandchildren of the october revolution will learn from > history and russia will become a beacon for the world once > again. > > best wishes, > -A > "if they give you lined paper, write sideways."- juan > ramon jimenez (1881-1954) > > contact info for annette gagne: > [email protected] > yahoo IM ID - adgagne > ............................................................... > > Re: Felix Morrow > Posted by: "Joaquín Bustelo" [email protected] joaquin_bustelo > > Fri May 14, 2010 6:08 pm (PDT) > > > On 5/13/2010 3:02 PM, Tom wrote: > > Well, I would say that defense of the Soviet Union in > World War 2 was a > > pretty serious political issue that was of more import > than the > > organizational dynamics of the SWP, a sectarian > group. > > I agree completely. Anyone who writes a bad article on this > is a > Trotskyite wrecker and splitter ... I mean a Stalinist > betrayer ... er, > make that an imperialist agent ... who should be shot. > > Jokes aside, how did this "serious political issue" > manifest itself? On > the ground, I mean. Did this mean the SWP abstained from > poisoning > workers and derailing trains in order not to harm the war > effort, as > opposed to the WP, that insisted on it as an expression of > > r-r-revolutionary defeatism? > > Oh, but I forgot. The SWP also took a defeatist position of > opposition > to the US in the war. And neither side was big on > anarchist-style > "direct action." On the overriding *practical* political > question of the > time in this country, Roosevelt's drive toward war and then > the war > itself, there was agreement. > > There was ALSO agreement on the somewhat more distant > question of what > attitude to take towards the Stalin regime: both wanted its > > revolutionary overthrow by the toilers, who would then put > the Soviet > economy under the democratic control of he working people. > The > difference there came down to ONE word: "political." The > Cannonites > insisted the anti-Stalinist revolution be classified as > merely > "political," among the Schactmanites some wanted to call it > "social" and > others didn't care, if I remember right. > > And because we know how the story of the USSR comes out, we > can also > judge how much importance this difference had to the future > course of > developments in the Soviet Union. Which is ZERO. > > I take it back. Make that "Less than zero." > > History showed that the true character of the revolutions > that could and > did overthrow Stalinist regimes in the USSR and Eastern > Europe was > bourgeois. And that what lay behind the popular > participation in those > overthrows was the deep-seated desire of many/most Soviet > and East > European working people to share in imperialist privilege. > It didn't > turn out quite the way they imagined, but that's what they > wanted: to > share the lifestyle and standard of living of the more > privileged layers > of the working class in the imperialist countries. > > So as it turned out, a KEY question in the eventual fate of > the USSR > was NOT a millimeter-precise socio-political > characterization of the > government/regime/ state but rather a question that BOTH > the > Schactmanites and their successors, as well as the > Cannonites and their > heirs, ignored for DECADES and continue ignoring to this > day even though > I think it is the number one factor that has both currents > 95% ready to > take their place next to the mummies and dinosaurs in the > Field museum. > > That question is how imperialism transforms the working > class, or to put > it succinctly, imperialist privilege. > > And it's not like Lenin hadn't warned these latter-day > Leninists. Even a > fleeting quick scan of his article, "Imperialism and the > split in > Socialism," written on the eve of the February Revolution, > should have > been enough, for there he says what was behind the collapse > of the > Second International was imperialist privilege. > > It's worth thinking about what that says, because the > parties of the > Second International were not ideological currents, but the > organic > political expression of a class already cohered and in > motion, and most > of all the German Party. > > But back to the "great debate" on the "class character" of > the USSR. > > Now, if both had been based in, say, Kiev, I could > understand the split. > But in the US? > > If the practical implications of the positions on the USSR > was at the > heart of the split, what it resulted from was agreement > between both > sides on a gag order against dissidents to stop them from > expressing > their own views, contrary to the practice of Lenin's > Bolsheviks and all > groups that Marx and Engels ever had anything to do with. > > Because the ONLY "practical" consequences of the different > positions on > the USSR were exclusively literary, what you wrote in an > article, i.e., > the expression of ideas. If Cannon's "party" had really > BEEN like the > Bolsheviks, there could not possibly have been a split on > this basis > because Lenin's comrades were free to write and speak their > own minds. > > In fact, if someone could remind me of some instance before > the seizure > of power when the RSDLP or the Bolsheviks debated and voted > on a > position on an issue that was not a direct and immediate > political > question in the tsarist empire but instead was half a world > away, I > would appreciate it. Because I can't think of a single > instance. > > And, of course, what this shows is what an IDEALIST > distortion of > Marxism the whole song-and-dance about "correct program" is > and the > DAMAGE that insistence on sectarian shibboleths does to the > actual > movement when coupled with the unmarxist, pseudo-Leninist, > "Bolshevik > Party" schema. > > "Every step of real movement is worth a dozen paper > programmes." It is > worth remembering not just that Marx said this, but the > exact > circumstances when he said it and what practical steps he > was advocating. > > The occasion was the unification congress that brought into > one party > the followers of Lassalle and Marx in Germany, and Marx's > devastating > analysis of the muddle-headed (and worse!) Gotha Programme > that was the > basis for unification. And it is what follows the dictum > about the dozen > programmes that should be noted: > > "If, therefore, it was not possible – and the conditions > of the item did > not permit it – to go beyond the Eisenach programme, one > should simply > have concluded an agreement for action against the common > enemy.... > > "The Lassallean leaders came because circumstances forced > them to. If > they had been told in advance that there would be [no] > haggling about > principles, they would *have had* to be content with a > programme of > action or a plan of organisation for common action." > > Marx advocated UNPRINCIPLED unity. His position was that > ideological > unity would come from a united movement, NOT THE OTHER WAY > AROUND. > > And also remember what happened AFTER he wrote the Critique > of the Gotha > Programme in relation to it. Which is, nothing. He sent the > scathing > document to a few of his friends in the leadership of the > German Party, > nothing more. He did not even carry out his threat to > publish a brief > statement disowning, so to speak, the Gotha Programme. > > So this one step of "real movement" was worth MORE not just > than any old > dozen paper programmes, it was worth more that the Critique > of the Gotha > Programme itself. > > The split that Trotsky, Cannon and friends on one side, and > Schactman, > Abern and Burnham, on the other, engineered in the SWP may > have been > "principled" but it was anti-Marxist. > > Joaquin > > > > > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
