RE: [L-I] Why I am on this spamming kick...
what the heck is a Leninist program today? Is it reading the Leninist classics? Some, but not really. I, unlike Mark Jones, don't see tremendous merits in simply re-tracing the steps (I'm bastardising you, Mark- feel free to tear a strip off of me) of the first successful Leninist project. It's impossible to replay history, except as farce, and we've had the farce of the groupuscules long enough. Where I agree with Lou about the 'zinovievisation' of the Bolshevism is that the Bolsheviks before the revolution were not AT ALL a party of robotised cardes following central committee liones with automatic discipline: the Bolshevik p[arty was a boiling broth of different ideas, trends, viewpopints etc, and debate was often incandescent. They lived for debate more than any other form of organising work (eg leading strikes). The monolithic bureaucratised verion which emerged in the early 1920s and crystallised only after Lenin's death, had almost no relation except the name (and even that was changed) to the Party which had actually led the revolution and won power. We should think about this and ponder the meaning of it all the time. Do not engage i sterile somnambulist readings of the Holy Write of Lenin, etc. Look at the historical context, look at what was actuially going on, think about it as a historical novelist might. Then the Scripture starts to look mighty different. There are some people who misrepresent the past in order to pretend that Lenin's Bolshevik party pre-1917 was the same kind of brain-dead monolith it later became, and then to argue that 'times have change' and 'we don't need that sort of thing any more'. Usually they can't say very well WHY we don't need a revolutionary organisation any more, but the arguments for this sort of DEFEATIST thinking which only serves to DISARM the workers and leave them defenceless so that there never IS a revoluion, come down to (a) something's changed within society which makes the leninist 'party-form' (a creature ONLY of their own imaginings!) irrelevant: eg, the internet, the mobile phone etc, or which makes it impossible -- too much police surveillance etc. Then they go on to say that (b) because of globalisation, the state ain't the powerfil thing it was anyway, and overthrowing the state is therefore a waste of time; and finally (c) they go on to say that what we really need to do is to working to build up all the amorphous social movements and political currents we saw at Porto Alegre. I have some sympathy with THIS at least, for these movements are indeed the seed-beds of the future revolution, HOWVER, let us be, as Gramsci said, not the manure that gets ploughed into history but the sharp ploughshare which turns it all over. On (a), we don't need boring old parties any more because we've get the Net etc: the truth is that this is just RAVING IDIOCY. Without an organisation, there cannot be a revolution, and don;t let anyone kid you. This means both idoelogical organisation and political organisation. It means taking up positions on major issues, like for eg the state, and and and when these positions are adopted by the party, after prolonged debate, using them as powerful ideological weapons to smash the petit-bourgeois vaciliaationism, the empty slogabnising about 'social movemenmts' etc, and the cowardly spiel that the state is 'no longer the enemy.' In this resopect, NOTHING has change: Lenin and the Bolsheviks were QUITE SURE that the Russian revolution would be STRANGLED if the revolution did not spread. So nothing has changed, or much less than people pretend. They were quite sure that you could not have islands of socialism in a sea of capitalism, and that control of YOUR OWN state is NOT enough to solve the fundamental social problems and histyorical tasks faced by the working class in power. That does not mean that you don't try to destroy the bourgrois state! Of course not! There IS no more important goal for revolutionaries than that of helping the working class seize state power thru the revolutionary, insurrectionary overthrow of the existing state, not be a putsch but by a mass revolutionary rising. Yes, we cannot create socialims in one country. But yes, the overthrow of the state is an indispensable first step. Of course, the international dimension remains the OTHER key to the lock so there has ALSO to be an international and it has to organise the overtrhow of internetional instutions of bourgeois power and has to generalisew the world revolutionary process. Lenin was so sure of this that despite the incredible difficulties he faced INSIDE Russia he never ceased to work, to carry out enormous organisational feats and propaganda work, on the international front, and he took the view that the Third International was essential to the survival of Soviet socialism. We too have to have the same two-fronted approach to our campaigns; we have to organsie the overthrow of our own state, and we have to work for the World
RE: [L-I] Borodin Falsely Arrested - Washington's Excuse a Lie
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 February 2001 15:33 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [L-I] Borodin Falsely Arrested - Washington's Excuse a Lie The URL for his article is http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bor.htm www.tenc.net [Emperor's Clothes] Borodin Falsely Arrested - Washington's Excuse a Lie by Jared Israel [revised 1-31-2001] I responded to this on CrashList as follows and await a response from Jared: Jared, I think the story about Pavel Borodin is more complicated than this. Your interest in the matter seems to come down to this: an important Russian diplomat and public official is arrested. This is prima facie an attack on 'the former Soviet peoples' themselves and a sign of renewed American aggression. If only life was so simple. I guess where you are coming from is the parallels with the possible fates of former Yugoslav leaders, or, let me rephrase that, leaders of different ethnic and political and national groupings within the ex-YF. But frankly I don't think you are doing your cause many favours by attaching it to the fate of someone as notoriously corrupt and evil as Pavel Borodin, someone that, according to opinion polls cited yesterday on Johnson's Russia List, many ordinary Russians *themselves* don't want back. Borodin is a hate-figure for millions of Russians; he is one of the oligarchs and pro-western modernisers with strong Kremlin links, like Anatolii Chubais or Boris Berezovsky, who could not appear in a public place: if he did, the mob would tear him to pieces. So arresting Borodin is one of the few 'unfriendly acts' by Americans which most ordinary Russians would actually be grateful for. Before being shunted off to the semi-retirment of his new post as Secretary of the Russian-Belarus Union, Borodin was in charge of the Kremlin property administration. This was the heart of darkness of the Yeltsin programme for plundering Russia and enriching his oligarch cronies. Trying to save Borodin on the grounds of his alleged diplomatic status is equivalent say to the attempts which some well-meaning Americans made to have Hermann Goering saved from the noose on the grounds that he was a former member of a Govenrment and should have immunity as a result of the German surrender.It is absurd to argue that criminals can enjoy life with immunity because they own a piece of paper. But I'll tell you something else about Russian diplomat passports: these documents occupy a special place in Russian consciousness even today, because the main beauty of them during the Soviet era was not so much that you could go *into* any third country with them, but that they allowed you *out* of the Soviet Union without the (almost impossible to obtain) exit visa. This made the dip passport such a revered object that any Soviet (now Russian) possessor of one has an almost preternatural awareness of its importance; if you have one, you are in a class apart. This means that Borodin did a thing almost incomprehensible to any Russian, especially a high-placed bureaucrat, when he chose to travel on an ordinary passport because he couldn't get a visa for his dip. passport. True, these days a Russian doesn't need an exit visa from the KGB to leave his homeland. That's the theory. But in practice, life is not so simple. Highly-placed persons who have fallen from grace, like Borodin, in particular are aware that coming and going is not so simple. Not only the Russian people are calm about Borodin's arrest, so too is president Putin, who so far has not uttered a single word on this incident. Why is that? The answer is that there is a secret war going on between the Putinites and the Yeltsinites. It is not a war for the soul of Russia, but it is a fight between 2 groups, one in decline, one ascendant, for access to the stream of plundered wealth and for new sources of power and privilege. Yeltsin's 2 main oligarch backers, Gusinsky and Berezovsky, are in trouble. Gusinsky is in a Spanish jail awaiting extradition to Russia. Berezovsky, now in New York, faces the same fate. Top bureaucrats and oligarchs do live in fear, surrounded by guards, with travel plans constantly updated. Chubais himself recently fled Russia for a time. ALL these people -- the elite of "New Russians" -- depend on being able to flee Russia at a moment's notice. There were times in Yeltsin's presidency when HE HIMSELF had his personal jet warm its engines up, when the going got specially rough. ALL these people have based themselves on the export of capital: phenomenal amounts. There are more than 100 dollar billionairs living in the Moscow region alone. A game has gone on for more than a decade, in which the West has not only countenanced but encouraged the export of capital from the ex-SU, perhaps a trillion dollars in all. This helped impoverish the Soviet people, destroy its industry and turn it into a helpless appendage of the West,
[L-I] RE: [CrashList] Z-Net Flunks Test on Depleted Uranium
OK, now I have Jared's response and I'm sorry if I seemed peevish. FWIIW, I much respect Jared's work so this is a comradely talk. Just read your long commentary, hjowever, and I think you miss the point - which is, arrest of Borodin is flagrant act of aggression by the Us and SWISS cohorts. It employs a new US weapon of choice - whom the US would make an example of, it first calls corrupt. Whether or not the charge is without foundation - as is apparently the case with Milosevic - or whether it may have foundation which you say is true with Borodin is irrelevant. The accusers are corrupt on a scale impossible for mere Russians to achieve - including creating the conditions of misery for most Russians today. 'Mere Russians' took the decisions to liquidate the Soviet Union, and no-one else. It was an unforced move. They didn't have to do it. If Cuba can survive, so self-evidently could the USSR. There were many forks which the postwar Soviet leadership stumbled over and took the wrong turning, but the really critical one was the decision by Gorbachev to surrender, to concede defeat in the Cold War. I know we all know by heart Trotsky's famous lines on how the 'bureaucracy' was a bourgeoisie in waiting, but there were and are always antidotes - *political* antidotes - to Jekyll + Hyde transformations. 'Corruption' was not a kind of accessory, it was the whole idea, the only game in town, and it wasn't long before 'mere Russians' like Borodin and Yeltsin began to give lessons to their US (Harvard-trained) masters in how it is done. They really took the best of the old and melded it with the best of the new. Every minor form of bureaucratic self-enrichment and self-advancement perfected in Brezhnev's time now flourished like cancer gone world in the brave new world of Russian capitalism. And Pavel Borodin was amongst the grossest, Roman-empire style, thieves. To say that we must line up in defence of him is grotesque, and surely absurd. We cannot talk like this; it insults our own movement, + the huge historical struggle and sacrifice of the Soviet working class, and to the whole tradition of Marxist and Leninist theory and practice. Nor is it the case that this is simply the US employing a new weapon )to do what? Terrorise corrupt plunderes and thieves? If so, it's NOT a new weapon and indeed it is a very old weapon, often used by imperial nomenclaturas against quislings who become a political embarrassment: to take just one example out of many, Noriega -- is he someone we should defend?). But in fact, in this case it seems clear that their is collusion between the Kremlin and the Swiss and US authorities. But if it is true that Putin is trying to establish his independence from Yeltsin (stooge, criminal and quisling No. 1) and is trying to create a new 'strong' Russian state - as the Bushites themselves now appear to be arguing, then you might expect that the US would not be rushing to help him, you might indeed expect them to simply refuse to act in a way which *supports* Putin and which pulls the rug from under their old ally, Yeltsin and family. So it simply is not the case that the Borodin arrest is another example of US state terrorism against foreign leaders. As for theBelarus connection, Borodin's disappearance can only HELP the strengthening of ties between Belarussia and Russia. His presence as secretary for the Belraussian-Russian alliance was simply a guarantee that nothing woiuld happen except the discovery of new forms of corruption and enrichment. And I think that relations between Putin and Lukashenko are etxremely warm and are developing strongly; nor have I heard one word of complaint from Lukanshenko about Borodin's fate, only the same ominous silence as from Putin himself. Lukashenko of Belarus has offered his view - that this is calculated slap in the face to Russian and Belarus sovereignty and an attempt to sabotage the Russia-Belarus union - and I think he's right. I haven't seen this. Can you provide a reference? As for the corruption of leaders, I say, let the Russian people - who with all due respect are not adequately represented by Internet polls - decide on that. Internet polls? We are talking about public opinion polls tekn by VtSIOM and other domestic Russian agencies. BTW Since we are quoting polls, Lukashenko is more popular than Putin in Russia. Also BTW isn't it an outrage that Putin has remained silent on this - calling Bush to congratulate him on his inauguration after Bush went on the Barbara Walters show 20/20 to read Russia a lecture about corruption after arresting a state secretary - and Putin calls to congratulate. And then there was that sub which rapparently was really rammed by a US vessel and which coincidentally had been helping the Yugoslavs during the bombing and Putin said nothing...Oh my. There is no evidence that the Kursk was rammed, and it almost certainly sank as a result of an onboard explosion. Mark
RE: [L-I] Re: Whither the List?
A.Wosni wrote: I find that M.J's position is entirely defeatist: If I get him right he says, 1. we must not blame a party which carries the name of 'communism' for not being communist but reformist, and 2. that anyway it doesn't make any difference for the revolutionary process if there is a revolutionary mass party or non, since there is no objective chance for a revolution. To my mind this amounts to rejecting Leninism (and therefore of course Marxism) interely. It would be if I said it but I didn't. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] FW: DEBATE: Zim's main neoliberal hits back
[this is the kind of concrete analysis we need much more of. Mark] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Patrick Bond Sent: 04 February 2001 23:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DEBATE: Zim's main neoliberal hits back My submission to the Zim Independent... probably won't get in but I feel better already. It was better, pre-Esap by Patrick Bond AGAINST all evidence, Eric Bloch (Independent, 2 February) continues to insist that the 1991-95 Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (Esap) was necessary because of "the devastatingly shattered state of the economy then prevailing." Bloch starts by disputing my first round of figures-- higher growth from 1980-90, and much lower from 1991-95- -because "averages can distort" especially in light of "substantial growth in the years immediately after Independence." Right then, let's consider the period 1985-90, to factor out droughts following the 1979-82 economic upturn. Gross domestic product rose from $17.1 to $20.9 billion (correcting for inflation, using 1990 prices) but then, using the same measure, fell from $22.7 to $22.3 billion from 1991 to 1995. Inequality increased dramatically during the latter years as well, transferring most pain from GDP declines to the poor, especially rural women, children and the aged. Why was the economy "shattered"? Bloch claims that "economic policies from 1982-90 were increasingly destructive." How so? "The economic decline accelerated as government progressively pursued Marxist-Leninist economic policies with increasing vigour." In reality, the alleged "Marxist" policies were nowhere near as state-interventionist as the Rhodesian Front's 1962-79 exchange controls, directed investment, parastatal expansion, rigid import/export system, etc. The "Marxist" Zanu PF government deregulated in virtually all areas of economic activity from the outset, with the exception of a very few (irrelevant) new state investments (e.g., Zimbank) and institutions, which changed nothing by way of overall corporate behaviour. A 1982 US AID report concluded that Zanu PF "has adopted a generally pragmatic, free-market approach... and this approach has the full support of the US AID." Liberalisation only stalled occasionally, e.g. 1984, when there was a forex crisis. But even that year, finance minister Bernard Chidzero confirmed that Zimbabwe was the IMF's "blue-eyed boy." By 1990, Deloitte and Touche praised Zimbabwe's monetary and financial policies as "pragmatic and conservative." Was Zanu PF more "Marxist-Leninist" during the late 1980s, leading to a "devastatingly shattered" economy just before Esap was implemented? No and no. Bloch accuses me of ignoring "increases in unemployment in the first decade of independence" as well as "the magnitude of the depreciation of the Zimbabwe dollar in the 1982-90 period, and... the then horrific lack of foreign exchange." Let's take these in turn. Total formal-sector jobs (including agricultural) rose from just under a million at independence to 1.244 million in 1991 and then remained flat. More importantly, urban employment (not commercial farmwork) rose from 454,000 in early 1980 to 620,000 in 1991 before falling back to 590,000 by year-end 1995. So the unemployment rate grew faster during Esap than before. And between 1980 and 1990, the Zimbabwe dollar lost 70% of its value against the US$; between 1991 and 1996, it lost 67%. During which period was average annual devaluation twice as rapid--pre-Esap or Esap? Interestingly, the Zimdollar's early-1990s slide is explained by the combination of exploding inflation (as price controls were lifted in mid-1991) and massive growth in foreign debt (which as a percent of GDP rose from 8.4% to 21.8% from 1991-96). The new debt was mainly taken on to pay for imports (which were double the volume anticipated by planners). Certainly there were forex shortages during the 1980s, but whose fault was that? Bloch should recall the role of Washington loan-pushers. The World Bank alone unloaded US$700 million on Chidzero during the 1980s. In early 1983, Chidzero reckoned that the foreign debt repayment burden--which required 16% of export earnings that year--would "decline sharply until we estimate it will be about 4% within the next few years." Astonishingly, the Bank concurred: "The debt service ratios should begin to decline after 1984 even with large amounts of additional external borrowing." In reality, Zimbabwe's foreign debt servicing spiralled up to an untenable 35% of export earnings by 1987. Forex crises were inevitable thanks to such impressive miscalculations, for which in any serious profession malpractice and disbarment would result. Instead, the very same people--in the finance ministry in Harare, and at 18th and H Sts in Washington--went on to design Esap, where their record was similarly destructive. Here's another point about the 1980s and 1990s that
RE: [L-I] The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy
Warines is definitely recommended, but Reddaway seems to usefully summarise the reasons why hopeful old-fashioned liberals like him became so jaundicved about the New Russia. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Barry Stoller Sent: 31 January 2001 05:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L-I] The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy. I read a review in The Nation which confirmed my suspicions raised by such an offensive phrase as 'market Bolshevism.' Under it all lurks the promise of social-democracy with a little rugged anarchism to radicalize it. Perhaps the book may serve as another sad but necessary glossary of facts regarding the joys of capitalism in its primitive accumulation phase of development, otherwise wariness is recommended. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] sorry
Sorry for inadvertently crossposting twice between l-i and crashlist yesterday, it's against the rules and hope didn't inconvenience too many of you masses hungry for knowledge out there. best to all Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] request
Can anyone email me the following paper: Bunker, Stephen G. and Paul Ciccantell. 1999. "Economic Ascent and the Global Environment: World-Systems Theory and the New Historical Materialism," in Goldfrank, et al., eds., Ecology and the World-System Many thanks Mark Jones ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] IMF 'apes Soviets' : more original ideas from Kagarlitsky
BBC Monitoring Russian opponents of the IMF hold anti-Davos news conference in Moscow Source: Kommersant, Moscow, in Russian 27 Jan 01 None to vanquish the IMF. In Moscow yesterday, a few Russian antiglobalists held a news conference timed to coincide with the summit in Davos. During it they expressed their regret that they had no money to go to Davos and sling manure at the participants in the summit. The organizers began the news conference with a statement that the antiglobalists are certainly not hooligans, as they are usually represented, but altogether serious people. And of course, the especially serious antiglobalists live in Russia. They organize news conferences rather than sensational protest actions. However, they are not averse to participating in a sensational protest action either. In September a delegation of 60 Russian citizens were about to try to get into Prague where the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange [MICEX] and the IMF were conducting their most recent meeting ... However, [former dissident] Boris Kagarlitskiy said, the antiglobalists are not antiglobalists at all and the term "antiglobalists" is just as wrong as "anti-Soviets". Actually they are in favour globalization but of a democratic globalization. The very method of organization of this movement, with leadership exercised from several centres via the Internet, is a model of true democracy whereas, according to Mr Kagarlitskiy, the IMF itself apes the purely Soviet structure and is an implement of diktat and pressure. In the opinion of Moscow State University Professor Aleksandr Buzgalin, Russia suffers more than other countries from globalization. Salvation can come from religious fundamentalism or great power chauvinism, but according to the professor, these are not, of course, appropriate for Russia. So true antiglobalists are advising Russia to join the third world countries and start a difficult economic struggle against the "global players". Mr Kagarlitskiy went on to say that there is no reason for Russia to ask to join the World Trade Organization, which is even worse for Russia than MICEX and the IMF. He also commented that our "great power opposition" did not participate in the actions abroad. "How would they look against the background of the anarchists and feminists there?" the former dissident asked people to picture. He himself participated in the actions in Prague and apparently did not look too bad in the eyes of the feminists. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] IMF 'apes Soviets' : more original ideas from Kagarlitsky
Nestor: I know Mark hates Kagarlitsky to the guts, which I highly deplore I don't hate him at all. I'm trying to get a debate going about the difference between revolutionary reforms and reformist reforms. The trouble is that the likes of you, Boris Kagarlitsky and others may very well succeed in getting rid of the WTO, IMF and WB, but you may not like what you get instead. Clamouring to get rid of these engines of exploitation is all very well if your only purpose is didactic (politics as a way to teach the masses something about struggle, transitional demands etc) but if all you are going to do is to argue for 'regional' banks instead, or for Russia to join some 'Third World" organisation, then I'd call it refomrist utopianism and also (and Boris must know this) it just ain't never going to happen anyway: NO WAY is Russia going to give up its great power pretensions. So the whole politics is vacuous, however superficially reasonable and well-thought out it might seem. What we need is a *revolutionary* politics which doesn't waffle on about 'Keynesian' alternatives, 'regional' banks, 'delinking' and such hoopla, but which talks directly about socialism on a world scale. That means *abolishing* banks and financial systems IN THEIR ENTIRETY and it means MOVING beyond commodity production: look, Lenin thought it was possible to move straight from precapitalist to postcapitalist relations of production and from an anti-tsarist bourgeois revo straight to an anti-bourgeois, SOCIALIST revolution without any any intervening period. But we GOT the intervening period after all, and now there are NO precapitalist social formations left, and NO societies which have not in all broad respects completed the bourgeois revo, or won its major social gains (free labour, the franchise, personal sovereignty etc). So why on earth are we still talking about these kinds of empty, dare I say it, Menshevik style reforms, when what we face is an abrupt historical turning point, we face the EXTERMINIST phase of capitalism, biocide, ecocide, energy-system collapse and a giant social impasse. If people ever DO rise up en masse against it, they won't be dying at the barricades in order to win 'regional' banks, 'delinking' etc. They will want, as you rightly say, REAL globalisation, and that can only be achieved by dissolving class, social, regional, territorial barriers, dissolving nation-states (not reincarnating them!) and above all by ABOLISHING CAPITALIST COMMODITY PRODUCTION which is the source of inequality and injustice and of core-periphery distinctions. What Kagarlitsky is indeed different from what Fidel wants, because Castro understands that ending neoliberal globalization entails ending capitalism as such, ie, world socialist revolution. It is not going to mutate into something nicer and more welfareist because of popular pressure but only because of more fundamental shocks and events, which destroy the system itself. I am deeply suspicious of populist demagoguery which has learnt nothing from history. People thought that the German workers movement and its disicplined social democrats would never permit the catastrophe of war in Europe in 1914. The means of ideological and poltiical hegemony are far stronger now than then, and the workers movement far weaker. In any crisis, the deacons of corporate and finance capitalism will have the rank and file of the working class marching up and down in uniforms a lot quicker than we will get them at the barricades. But social crises and wars are inevitable and are bound to happen BEFORE there are any serious revolutionary outbreaks which might really threaten bourgeois hegemony in the capitalist heartlands. The people now leading the New Social Movements are highly likely to find themselves watching that unfold from behind barbed wire, if they are alive at all. So it seems to me to be simply fatuous to be so optimistic as B Kagarlitsky is about his "anarchists and feminists". Noble though they are, they are not going to make a revolution and nor are the massed ranks at Porto Alegre. Only when all these people take definite political and organisatiopnal steps capable of meeting the *real nature*, the extremely serious and threatening nature, of the crisis, will there be any hope that the revolution will even survive the counter-revolutionary pressures on it. You live in Argentina, you know how it is when the Black Hundreds start to work. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Louise Bryant: Smolny during October
from Six Red Months in Russia SMOLNY INSTITUTE, headquarters of the Bolsheviki, is on the edge of Petrograd. Years ago it was considered "way out in the country," but the city grew out to meet it, engulfed it and finally claimed it as its own. Smolny is an enormous place; the great main building stretches in a straight line for hundreds of feet with an ell jutting out at each end and forming a sort of elongated court. Close up to the north ell snuggles the lovely little Smolny Convent with its dull blue domes with the silver stars. Once young ladies of noble birth from all over Russia came here to receive a "proper" education. I came to know Smolny well while I was in Russia. I saw it change from a lonely, deserted barracks into busy humming hive, heart and soul of the last revolution. I watched the leaders once accused, hunted and imprisoned raised by the mass of the people of all Russia to the highest places in the nation. They were borne along on the whirlwind of radicalism that swept and is still sweeping Russia and they themselves did not know how long or how well they would be able to ride that whirlwind Smolny was always a strange place. In the cavernous, dark hallways where here and there flickered a pale electric light, thousands and thousands of soldiers and sailors and factory workers tramped in their heavy, mud-covered boots every day. All the world seemed to have business at Smolny and the polished white floors over which once tripped the light feet of careless young ladies became dark and dirt-stained and the great building shook with the tread of the proletariat I ate many of my meals in the great mess hall on the ground floor with the soldiers. There were long, rough wooden tables and wooden benches and a great air of friendliness pervaded everywhere. You were always welcome at Smolny if you were poor and you were hungry. We ate with wooden spoons, the kind the Russian soldiers carry in their big boots, and all we had to eat was cabbage soup and black bread. We were always thankful for it and always afraid that perhaps to-morrow there would not be even that. ... We stood in long lines at the noon hour chattering like children. "So you are an American, Tavarishe, well, how does it go now in America?" they would say to me. Upstairs in a little room tea was served night and day. Trotsky used to come there and Kollontay and Spiradonova and Kaminoff and Volodarysky and all the rest except Lenine. I never saw Lenine at either of these places. He held aloof and only appeared at the largest meetings and no one got to know him very well. But the others I mentioned would discuss events with us. In fact, they were very generous about giving out news. In all the former classrooms typewriters ticked incessantly. Smolny worked twenty-four hours a day. For weeks Trotsky never left the building. He ate and slept and worked in his office on the third floor and strings of people came in every hour of the day to see him. All the leaders were frightfully overworked, they looked haggard and pale from loss of sleep. In the great white hall, once the ball-room, with its graceful columns and silver candelabra, delegates from the Soviets all over Russia met in allnight sessions. Men came straight from the first line trenches, straight from the fields and the factories. Every race in Russia met there as brothers. Men poured out their souls at these meetings and they said beautiful and terrible things. I will give you an example of the speeches of the soldiers: A tired, emaciated little soldier mounts the rostrum. He is covered with mud from head to foot and with old blood stains. He blinks in the glaring light. It is the first speech he has ever made in his life and he begins it in a shrill hysterical shout: "Tavarishi! I come from the place where men are digging their graves and calling them trenches! We are forgotten out there in the snow and the cold. We are forgotten wile you sit here and discuss politics! I tell you the army can't fight much longer! Something's got to be done! Something's got to be done! The officers won't work with the soldiers' committees and the soldiers are starving and the Allies won't have a conference. I tell you something's got to be done or the soldiers are going home!" Then the peasants would get up and plead for their land. The Land Committees, they claimed, were being arrested by the Provisional Government; they had a religious feeling about land. They said they would fight and die for the land, but they would not wait any longer. If it was not given to them now they would go out and take it. And the factory workers told of the sabotage of the bourgeoisie, how they were ruining the delicate machinery so that the workmen could not run the factories; they were shutting down the mills so they would starve. It was not true, they cried, that the workers were getting fabulous sums. They couldn't live on what they got! Over and over and over like the beat of the
RE: [L-I] IMF 'apes Soviets' : more original ideas from Kagarlitsky
I have been receiving information on P. Alegre. Too much foam, too little beer. Will try to give some report to the list. excellent, we need to see the materials and here more about it. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy
From: Johnson's Russia List From: Peter Pavilionis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New Book: The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy by Peter Reddaway and Dmitri Glinski 768 pp./6 x 9 $29.95 (paper); ISBN: 1-929223-06-4 $55.00 (cloth); ISBN: 1-929223-07-2 For more information or to place an order: Domestic United States Institute of Peace Press P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Tel.: 1-800-868-8064 (U.S. toll-free only) or 1-703-661-1590 Fax: 1-703-661-1501 International Pricing inquiries and orders for Europe and the U.K. should be directed to: United States Institute of Peace Press c/o Plymouth Distributors Ltd. Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY United Kingdom Tel.: 1752-202301 Fax: 1752-202333 Throughout the rest of the world, orders should be sent directly to: United States Institute of Peace Press P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 USA Fax: 703-661-1501 CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgments Introduction 1. Reform or Reaction? The Yeltsin Era in a Millennium of Russian History 2. Russian Postcommunism in the Mirror of Social Theory 3. Populists, the Establishment, and the Soviet Decline 4. From Russian Sovereignty to the August Coup: A Missed Chance for a Democratic Revolution 5. Catching up with the Past: The Political Economy of Shock Therapy 6. Yeltsin and the Opposition: The Art of Co-optation and Marginalization, 199193 7. Tanks as the Vehicle of Reform: The 1993 Coup and the Imposition of the New Order 8. The Imperial Presidency in a Privatized State, 19941996 9. Market Bolshevism in Action: The Dream Team, Shock Therapy II, and Yeltsins Search for a Successor Epilogue: Market Bolshevism, A Historical Interpretation Notes Index *** INTRODUCTION The Tragedy of Russia's Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy By Peter Reddaway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Dmitri Glinski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) United States Institute of Peace Press [www.usip.org] 2001 768 pp. Washington, D.C. Few would dispute that the events of 1989-91 that originated in Moscow and culminated in the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Russia as its main successor state marked a watershed in recent world history. Yet the true meaning and consequences of these events are subjects for a worldwide debate that is only beginning to unfold. While many Western observers--and a few fortunately positioned Russians--exulted in these changes and in the glowing prospects they saw for a new world order, Russia from at least 1990 has been sinking--from the socioeconomic, demographic, cultural, and moral points of view--into turmoil and decay. From late 1991-early 1992, a period marked by the first application of the medicine of radical deregulation, privatization, and an economic austerity regime prescribed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)--a course of treatment that was known, perhaps for lack of a better term, as shock therapy--the countrys disease became markedly more severe. Whether the eventual bottoming out and upturn in the economy of 1999-2000 can be sustained remains to be seen. The amount of destruction has exceeded that of the comparable American experience during the Great Depression and the industrial loss inflicted on the Soviet Union in 1941-45 by World War II. To give but a few figures: from 1991 to 1998, Russias gross domestic product (GDP) declined by 43.3 percent; in particular, industrial production fell by 56 percent, and the agricultural decline was even larger. (For comparison, from 1929 to 1933, U.S. GDP shrank by 30.5 percent; between 1941 and 1945, the Soviet GDP declined by 24 percent.) Meanwhile, capital investment in the Russian economy fell by a spectacular 78 percent between 1991 and 1995, and this decline has continued ever since. Of all the countrys economic activities, its high-technology industries--which are strategically important for the economic development and survival of major industrial nations--suffered the worst. Thus, for example, production in electronics fell by 78 percent between 1991 and 1995. Closely related to this collapse of domestic production, imports in 1997 made up half of the Russian consumer market until the rubles 1998 collapse reversed the trend. Inflation, which soared to 1,354 percent in 1992, was gradually but never fully tamed--declining to 11 percent in 1997, but rising sharply again in 1998 to 84 percent, and then declining again. It cut the average real incomes of working Russians by 46 percent in 1992; incomes managed to improve until 1998; but in 1998-99, the populations real disposable income dropped by a third. Behind these figures lurk qualitative changes in Russias identity and its place in the world. Thus Russia has been precipitously losing its status as an intellectual great power--a status it enjoyed for a much longer time, and with much more benefit for itself and the rest of the world, than it enjoyed its status as a military giant. The
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Louis Proyect wrote: I stand corrected. Furthermore, as a rule of thumb whatever Sam says I agree with in advance. Unless, of course, it is related to the topic of wild life preservation. I'd like to get a wilder life myself. I'm a protected sub-species, too, according to my wife. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Stephen E Philion: Mark, Who was criticising Frantz Fanon? And what is wrong with saying that an argument that Doug Henwood, even if you do think he is the most evil force haunting the world today, happens to be similar to or even the same as FF's on a particular issue? What is Leninist about that? I don't think Doug H is particularly evil (not banal enough, perhaps). My remark was not directed at you anyway, and I'm glad you mentioned Fanon. Sorry if I sounded rebarbative. Didn't intend it. Not about you, anyway. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Sacher-Masoch in the Age of Shock Therapy
Masochism seems like an appropriate psychological accompaniment for the transition from communism to capitalism in Russia and the Ukraine. The citizens are being screwed so best that they like it and continue under the whip of the oligarchs, and receive shock-treatment by following the policies of western neo-liberal advisers et al.. couple of points (and thanks, Yoshie, for this thread): (a) Ken Hanly is presumably being ironic: I never met a single Soviet person who got pleasure from being deprived of job, housing, health, social security and who now suffers malnutrition, sickness, family breakdown and the loss of basic services including communal heating (very important) public transport etc, and who is now stranger in his/her own country, allowed to remain on sufferance but preferred to die soon and with no fuss. As for Judith Butler, whatever the relative merits of her work as social theory, (I have no idea), it has scant bearing on the felt experiences and concrete day to day lives of people in eastern Europe (the broad masses, not the super-elite and their thin cohorts of semi-westernised dollar-earning 'professional' servitors). Peope are not resigned, do not need to be resignified (are we object which bear lables, like Winnie the Pooh?) and are not attached to their subjection. Their problem is like ours: TINA. For 75 years there was an alternatived,. now there is not. Read the latest UNDP figures comparing living standards, HDP, GDP indices etc and see the dismal story of what happened throughout the socialist world after 1989 with the solitary and blindingly significant exception of Cuba (it's at: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base/ Those who seek to become the tribune of the oppressed in Russia ( the periphery in general) have a difficult task cut out for them: to represent the interests of women at the same time as to champion residents of small towns rural regions in practice. I think you can go further and make a distinction between Moscow/St Peterburg and Everywhere Else. Moscow is a sump into which, after 1993, flowed everying that could be turned into liquid assets from the accumulation-effort of 75 years of socialism. The sump drains into the smooth and silent laundries of Zurich, New York and London, and subsidiary centres: Cyprus, Bahamas etc. From there this huge flow of value, equivalent in fertilising effect to the flow of gold and silver plundered from the America after the 16th century, became anonymous investment capital. As they say, money doesn't have to wash its face. I think the experience of the 1998 financial crash showed that as soon as (ie within 24 hours) the chokehold of finance capital comes of the Russian windpipe -- because of some financial emergency or Wall St meltdown: there is immediate political galvanising effect in Russia. We shall see. They haven't managed to bury Lenin yet, they are afraid to, and for the good reason. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Mac, where was this published? Reference, please Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Macdonald Stainsby Sent: 28 January 2001 07:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [L-I] The legacy...part 1 Any comments? - Macdonald *** Colin Leys and Leo Panitch ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
this link goes to a different article! Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Macdonald Stainsby Sent: 28 January 2001 09:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1 "reply to article in New Left Review 2, 2000" http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/panitch.htm Mac, where was this published? Reference, please Mark --- Macdonald Stainsby Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/rad-green Leninist-International: Building bridges in the tradition of V.I. Lenin. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
I'm glad Mac posted this Panitch artcle (presumably the intro essay to a recent Soc Register, publication detalils WOULD be welome) and I think that L-I has a raison d'etre as a site dedicated to high-level theoretical debate about the state, and how we analyse and conceptualise it within the process of developing revolutionary theory/practice. I would like to propose that we resolve different schools of thought into a schemata. This article is part of the MR/SR school/tradition of non-soviet/anti-stalin critiques of the state and capital in the Baran/Sweezy tradition of anti-leninism (another anti-lenin tradition is that of Paul Mattick, shading over into Lucien Goldman and the autonomist/Tony Negri school which for eg Tahir Wood follows, is Tahir on l-i btw?) If we can agree to some admittedly arbitrary scheme then we can try to sharpen up/deepen our understanding of these different 'schools' thru further debate, elaboration etc. The link Mac gave goes to Martin Shaw's pages. Here he discusses NLR, Perry Anderson, Peter Gowan etc. I have on file a huge (and I mean big) file of papers on the state + capital by these and otthers which i can put into a zipfile if anyone wants to get it. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] FW: DEBATE: (Fwd) Stop the DRC War... (pls circulate)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dominic Tweedie Sent: 28 January 2001 11:00 To: Patrick Bond Cc: Hugh Macmillan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DEBATE: (Fwd) Stop the DRC War... (pls circulate) A warm welcome to Dominic Tweedie (well known to readers of letters-to-editor) ?Since you mention my letters let me just say that if one is trying to "speak truth to power" then one had better do so in public. To business. In the "18th Brumaire", as I recall, Marx describes four contending (self-conscious, organised) classes: the (Bourbon) Monarchists, the Peasants, the Bourgeoisie (capitalists), and the Proletariat (workers). No single one of these classes was at the time able to subordinate the other three. This made the opportunity, which Louis Napoleon took, for a placeholder. He was able to hold the ring for a while "precisely because he was a nobody" or words to that effect. The eventual resolution of all this was the victory of the bourgeoisie in France, the survival of the proletariat, the permanent reduction of the peasants, and the disappearance of the monarchists and Louis Napoleon of course. In a situation of simultaneous class formation and unresolved class conflict there may be many opportunities such as the one exploited by Louis Napoleon, and so therefore many nonentities and anomalous figures "in power". Rather follow Marx and examine the basic arrangement of class forces that produces the surface phenomena than get preoccupied with the personal qualities or faults of such individuals. They are part of a complex superstructure which is fascinating but not understandable without a prior knowledge of the base upon which they stand. What is the disposition of class forces in African countries? Mahmood Mamdani in "Citizen and Subject" provides a simple basic model which he says is typical and which is convincing and useful. Imperialism allies itself with the most anachronistic, feudal forces, the "traditional leaders", in support of a quisling class which acts to frustrate and suppress the modernising urban population. This pattern is inherited from colonialism. Mamdani concludes by pleading for democracy in the abstract, which is no doubt what his American readers like to hear. Looking at this again with a more Marxist glass than Mamdani cares to supply, it is clear that imperialism is as defined by Lenin, the force of finance capital, the party of war, and of monopoly, having no concern for the interests of the inhabitants at all. This force positively "underdevelops" (see Walter Rodney) the neo- colonial territories. It started its monstrous life in Africa in the form of the Anglo-Boer War, roughly 16 years before Lenin wrote "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" (and sixty-odd years before Kwame Nkrumah's "Neo-colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism"). Mamdani thinks that South Africa has the most developed examples of the complicity between imperialism and "traditional leadership". Gatsha Buthelezi with his IFP is only one of many examples. This is because SA is more deeply penetrated by monopoly finance capital than any other African country. Now to Mamdani's other contender, his modernising urban force. This has two components. The leading one is the national bourgeoisie. Following and supporting the national bourgeoisie is the working class. This is how it has been in Africa for the last hundred years at least. You do not understand class conflict in Africa if you cannot see that it is firstly a contradiction between national capital and international finance capital. African Nationalism is a bourgeois phenomenon and its enemy is imperialism. The working class, for very good reasons, sides with its African Nationalist bourgeoisie. Imperialism hates this "intra-capitalist" conflict to be exposed. It prefers to speak of generalities such as "free enterprise" and "democracy" or even just "stability". It seeks to co-opt sections of the national bourgeoisie using these rubrics. Good current examples are the Millenium Council and the attempt at co-opting the black business association NAFCOC into the fold of monopoly capital in SA. Thus those who conflate imperialism with the national bourgeoisie under the general heading "neo-liberal" are objectively serving imperialism. The intellectuals who will serve the working class will be those who sharpen the contradictions between the national bourgeoisie and imperialism. (Colin Leys in "Underdevelopment in Kenya" rightly remarks that Frans Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" omits any discussion of active neo-colonial imperialism, which makes the book to be "like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark"). The African working class follows its national bourgeoisie in the anti-imperialist cause because it is in its interest to do so. Anti-imperial capital will employ and organise a working class and prepare the material conditions for working-class rule (the
[L-I] more important stuff from kagarlitsky
Moscow Times January 26, 2001 Russia Needs A Pokemon to Call Its Own By Boris Kagarlitsky Even children's cartoons can provoke political controversy. As soon as ORT announced plans to broadcast the Japanese cartoon Pokemon, the press was full of critical commentary. Why do we need these "pocket monsters" if we already have our own excellent cartoon favorites, such as the adorable Cheburashka? ORT ended up broadcasting a special program defending Pokemon and showing its roots in Japanese culture. In terms of artistic quality, Soviet cartoons are indeed considerably better both the artwork and the literary value. Many of the most labor-intensive forms of animation were practiced almost exclusively in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Cheburashka is a creation of the great writer Eduard Uspensky, while most Japanese cartoons are based on comic books that have absolutely no literary merit. It is hard to imagine the creators of Pokemon developing a scene in which the mini-heroes, having lost their masters, decide not to fight one another but to instead sit down over tea and discuss life. After all, its producers must crank out hundreds of episodes each year, so there is simply no time for aesthetic niceties. Alas, however, it is this mass production that guarantees Pokemon's victory. Cheburashka stars in only four films, while Pokemon is attacking along the broadest possible front. Every day new episodes appear on our screens, while the stores are full of related toys and clothing and goodness knows what else. The advent of Pokemon will not mean the end of Cheburashka. After all, he and his friends continue to fire children's imaginations. However, it is impossible to ignore mass production. In this instance, the experience of Finland may be instructive. Instead of whining about the onslaught of American/Japanese popular culture, it fought back with its own weapons. They created a mass-culture version of the popular Moomintroll series by the talented Finnish writer Tove Jansson. Now Moomintroll has become an entire industry books, toys, comics, clothes, etc. Moreover, the Moomintrolls appeared on television with the help of the Japanese, who shared their mass-production techniques. The profundity and beauty of the original stories were combined with mass production and highly efficient Japanese technologies. As a result, Jansson's heroes now speak not only Swedish and Finnish, but English, German and Japanese as well. The Finns were never tempted to try to block themselves off from global culture: Instead, they sought a serious and realistic response. But we have a different tradition. Inertia prompts us to immediately start bandying words like "ban," "prohibit," "censor." If we can't formally cut off the flow of Japanese cartoons, then we will call upon parents to forbid their children from watching them. We can lobby state-controlled ORT to stop showing Pokemon. We can pass laws banning foreign mass culture. We can make our children watch Leopold, Baba Yaga and Cheburashka until they are absolutely sick of them. Of course, this is no answer. The late-Soviet system of restrictions and semi-bans on foreign culture simply produced a generation that was willing to blindly consume absolutely any trash as long as it was produced in the West. By defending one's native culture with idiotic means, one merely hurts oneself. We should learn from the Finns. You can and must defend your native culture, but you have to do it using the means and opportunities of the modern world. Even with our limited resources we can find a creative solution if we apply our imaginations. In order to resist the onslaught of mass culture, we need to understand the secrets of its success and learn from it while maintaining our own traditions and values. Cheburashka can learn from Pokemon. Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] FT: Davos elite poised to vie with protesters
Demonstrators look to steal the show at the leading global talking shop, says Guy de Jonquihres Published: January 23 2001 21:23GMT | Last Updated: January 24 2001 07:59GMT The 2,000 members of the international power elite converging on Davos for the start of the World Economic Forum on Thursday may be wondering whether they or rowdy opponents of global capitalism will be the stars of the show. Inside the conference centre political leaders such as presidents Vicente Fox of Mexico, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Vojislav Kostunica of Yugoslavia, are set to share the stage with business moguls including Bill Gates of Microsoft, Steve Case of AOL-Time Warner and Coca-Cola's Douglas Daft. But as they discuss issues as diverse as the digital divide, executive stress and the ethics of science, they may face competition for media attention from protesters outside. Unprecedented security measures are planned to repel threats by dissident groups, branded "hooligans" by the forum organisers, to infiltrate the Swiss Alpine village and disrupt proceedings. Several hundred protesters slipped into Davos last year and held a brief demonstration, trashing the local McDonald's restaurant. This time, they are making more elaborate plans. A Swiss group called Anti-WTO Coordination has been rallying dissident groups on the internet for months in support of a "total blockade" of Davos in protest against "capitalism, racism, patriarchy, authoritarianism, nationalism, homophobia and anti-semitism". Swiss authorities have responded by banning all demonstrations, barring about 300 known troublemakers from entering the country and beefing up the police presence. Meanwhile, up tp 10,000 activists are expected to attend an "Anti-Davos" meeting starting on Thursday in Porto Alegre, Brazil. They aim to counter the forum's agenda. For the forum organisers, the prospect of trouble poses a delicate public relations dilemma. It would hardly do if Davos, with its carefully-cultivated image as the pre-eminent global talking shop, escaped attention. On the other hand, there is a risk that too much of the wrong sort of publicity could frighten away the right kind of people, and violent protests have been a hallmark of high-level international economic conferences since Seattle. The US State Department has advised American citizens to defer plans to visit Davos until after the six-day meeting. So far, the most conspicuous no-shows are representatives of US President George W. Bush's administration. Several cabinet nominees were invited, but declined, saying Senate confirmation hearings prevented them attending. The organisers are relieved that most other invitees still plan to come. "Considering the media coverage given to dissidents, we are pleased that we have had fewer cancellations than last year," said Charles McLean, the forum's director of communications. However the assembled masters of the universe may be in a disconcertingly hesitant mood. Many regulars from government and business are likely to have more questions than answers, particularly about prospects for the world economy, financial markets and Mr Bush's policies. In only a year, the confidently upbeat atmosphere evident at the last Davos meeting has given way to doubts, as US growth has slowed, equity prices have tumbled and dotcoms have imploded. These trends may well mute the US triumphalism about its "new" economy miracle and high-tech prowess that has dominated recent Davos meetings and caused some participants to complain that they risked becoming a paean to American hegemony. This year, European speakers seem more likely to set the tone of economic discussions. They are expected to include Hans Eichel and Laurent Fabius, the finance ministers of Germany and France. Meanwhile, a glance at the guest list suggests executives from old economy businesses will heavily outnumber high-tech whiz-kids. For the first time, Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states are sending delegations. However, east Asia's presence will be restricted by Chinese New Year, while president Vladimir Putin of Russia has said nyet. Restoring world growth is among the headline discussion themes, along with bridging the rich-poor divide, the future of IT and biotechnology and the 21st century corporation. The organisers hope for "action-oriented" outcomes to some sessions. However, as in previous years, the really big decisions are likely to be taken in private in hotel rooms, well away from the gaze of protesters and the media. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Socialism, Regionalism, Pan-Africanism (was Learning)
Patrick Bond: True, the better people writing on this (e.g., Amin and Bello) haven't got to the point of staking out concrete strategic approaches (in the current issue of Socialist Register, two SA comrades and I make some tentative arguments about regionalism from below). In the southern African case, the logical trajectory is to have Southern African people's movements unite to contest a) neoliberalism, b) Pretoria's subimperialism, and c) particular national regimes (like Mugabe's or Nujoma's). That process has begun nicely, at last August's Windhoek meeting of Southern African Development Community, where a superb collection of these movements issued a dramatic statement against neoliberal regionalism (http://www.aidc.org.za) The links don't work. Bur there is a report of a workshop, entitled: ""Making Southern African Development, Cooperation and Integration, a People based, People-centred, and People-driven Regional Challenge to Globalisation" The title itself is part of the problem. There is *no* viable model for "Southern African Development, Cooperation and Integration" etc, and there is NO SUCH PROCESS IN REALITY, ie, on this planet. What there IS is a very typical construction of pork barrel politics for bureaucrats and bigwaigs, and there academic ideologists and APOLOGISTS who provide theoretical cover for this process of plunder. The aims of the workshop are "to promote information and capacity building amongst popular organisations on the inter-governmental structures and programmes, and other processes already underway within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). However, the more fundamental concern was to identify the ways in which the existing inter-governmental and business initiatives in the region were, or were not, advancing the aims of genuine development". Specifically: 1. to share amongst non-governmental organisations(*) in-depth information on the broad aims and strategic possibilities, as well as problems confronting regional development cooperation and integration in Southern Africa; (*) meaning not only professional research and development policy institutes, many of which are engaged in different ways on/in SADC, but broad social movements, church-linked organisations, campaigning and community-based organisations, trade unions and so on; 2. to make available to participating organisations - as intermediate bodies to carry the processes further in their own countries - comprehensive information on the structures and functioning of the Southern African Development Community, and the formal institutional spaces' and political opportunities that could be used for non-governmental engagement and popular inputs to help shape the methods of operation, the content of SADC agreements and programmes, and the direction, character - and very progress - of regional development processes; 3. to provide in-depth analysis of the main formal agreements already underway - particularly on trade and investment, but also the other many and varied joint programmes being carried out in all spheres between the member countries, or sub-groupings of these countries; that are little known but are already impacting upon the lives of the people of Southern Africa; and that can have very different and/or improved developmental effects with the informed interventions of peoples organisations; 4. to provide mutual information through country reports, on the impact of SADC programmes within the respective countries, including the various cross-border development projects, and particularly the role and effects of the operations of South African businesses and investors throughout the region; the positions of national or domestic businesses with or against this penetration; and the positions of regional business in general and the governments of the region towards the penetration and role of international trade and investment in the region; 5. to encourage joint efforts amongst non-governmental organisations in Southern Africa, through diverse cross-border initiatives in many spheres: not only to influence inter-governmental decisions but to build on and encourage the strong ties of mutual support and positive interactions amongst the people of Southern Africa; and to counter any negative, and even xenophobic, attitudes towards each other in some sectors of the population, and competitive chauvinistic tendencies amongst the political, governing, business elites; 6. to consider and contribute to the creation and functioning of regional, supra-national democratic institutions and organisations - such as a regional human rights court, a supreme court of appeal, a regional parliamentary forum etc. - as the concrete institutional expressions, and means, to share and extend to the whole of the region the various democratic strengths and popular gains achieved within the respective countries, and to advance genuine regional democratic cooperation and mutual support; 7. to
FW: [L-I] Re: Socialism, Regionalism, Pan-Africanism [reformatted]
y purchase on state power is in the most marginal of peripheries, eg Phillippines, Indonesia etc and even there we are not exactly seeing the second coming of Great October. (Flattered for the attention, but you do realise, Yoshie, that I'm merely a fast-typing mouthpiece for lots of much more organic Southern Africa leftist work going on around here... and as an expat--soon to be an SA citizen--I should be much more discrete, really. But you can pass this on if it adds anything.) Why should you be much more discreet? Mark Jones ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: Teaching: [L-I] Learning (was Re: Congo)
No one on LBO talk could last five postings in a debate with the Leninists who "dwell" on L-I, and they would never subject their fragile egos to several posts with us anyways), but rather forwarded something from the "Week". It is true that they tend to avoid debate, but nonetheless there are some good economists and social thinkers there. You have to winnow a lot. But in any case, elists are not a substitute for real life, real struggles, and most of they are not a substitute for books and libraries (wherein indeed both Marx and Lenin spent the greater part of their adult lives: working in libraries). Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] FW: DEBATE: (Fwd) Kagarlitsky on Prague
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Patrick Bond Sent: 24 January 2001 06:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DEBATE: (Fwd) Kagarlitsky on Prague (Just received...) Boris Kagarlitsky The Lessons of Prague The events of September 2000 in Prague marked a turning-point. When the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund planned their annual meeting for the Czech Republic, they hoped for a peaceful gathering in the only Eastern European country where hatred of neo-liberalism has not yet become a mass phenomenon. The outcome was that the international bankers were obliged to flee from a city whose streets had become the scene of battles between police and thousands of demonstrators from all parts of Europe. The bankers did not even manage to hold a concluding press conference. By no means all the participants in the movement against capitalist globalisation, however, interpreted what had happened as a victory. Many were shocked by the violence on the streets, and still more were dismayed by the united attack mounted on the movement by the press. It is thus essential to draw up a balance sheet of the events and to form conclusions. After Prague, the movement is clearly shifting into a new phase. It is not simply that disagreements have begun appearing among the protesters. The international financial organisations are not standing still either. For them, Prague was a severe defeat, in a certain sense even more serious than the "uprising in Seattle". For this very reason, the "executive committee of the ruling class" will inevitably draw conclusions from what has happened, and will adjust its course. So what did Prague mean for the left? The most important development was that in Prague, the movement against corporate globalisation became truly international, that is, global. Seattle was above all a manifestation of protest by a new generation of American youth, to a significant degree retracing the route of the 1960s radicalisation, though in new historical circumstances. Now, thanks to Prague, the movement has taken root in Europe. For the first time since the international brigades in Spain in the 1930s, people from different countries joined in resisting a common enemy, resisting it physically. Solidarity, from being a slogan and a symbol, was transformed into practical action. In Prague, Turks and Kurds, Turks and Greeks, Germans and Poles, Spaniards and Basques marched together. They were forced to stand up not only to the police, but also to neo-nazis. The anti-globalist movement is at the same time both internationalist and anti-nationalist. Meanwhile, the "defenders of globalisation", in order to stop the movement, resorted to the power of the national state. They not only used the Czech police against demonstrators, but also set out illegally to stop people on the borders of the republic, deported people from the country, and so on. After the IMF and the World Bank had fled, the police took out their frustrations on the Czech protesters, who were subjected to widespread repressions. It was made clear that globalisation does not mean "the impotence of the state", but the rejection by the state of its social functions in favour of repressive ones, irresponsibility on the part of governments, and the ending of democratic freedoms. As the movement has spread to Europe, it has changed in many ways. If an anticapitalist spirit or mood prevailed in Seattle, in the case of Prague one can speak of a much more distinctly formulated anti-capitalist message. Here the difference in political cultures is making its effects felt; Europe has a far stronger socialist tradition. In Prague, far-left organisations that had gathered from the whole continent also played a notable role. Here we find new prospects opening up, but also new problems. In principle, the ideological clarity and readiness of the participants to articulate their principles represented a step forward. At the same time, many people recognised that the red flags and revolutionary rhetoric frightened not just ordinary residents of Prague, but the more moderate participants in the movement as well. The ultra-left groups unexpectedly proved capable not just of uniting and working together on a European scale. They also showed that masses of young people are once again pouring into their ranks. At the same time, the predominance of the most radical and ideologised groups may act as a brake on the growth of the movement. In my view, the solution to this problem does not lie in cultivating "moderation" - this would be the same thing as the activists admitting their own powerlessness - but in the participants in the movement making their own positions more profound. The time has come for left activists not just to denounce globalisation, but to formulate their own demands. There needs to be less socialist rhetoric, and more
RE: [L-I] oTWET: [L-I] Re:Svetlana to Moderation team
Svetlana Baiborodova wrote: I go away, be happy! Svyetichka, this already your 5th or 6th curtain call, are you going or staying? Privyet, Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: oTWET: To moderators from Russia -to Louis Proyect
Carrol Cox wrote: Freedom of speech refers only to the use abuse of state power. it is irrelevant in the present context. Damn, and here was I hoping to drag Lenin into it somehow. You're right of course. As ever. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Baiborodova-Bilenkin-Myers-Shein
I wonder why Svetlana is so upset because of Bilenkin's expulsion only and not about expulsion of Myers. A very interesting question. Ho-hum, I suppose we shall never know, know that Svyeta has *gone*. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
The man's craftier than Zyuganov, I gather. He has his supporters use the anti-Semitic rhetoric, avoiding it himself. This was not an anti-semitic joke but a joke by a famous *Jewish* comedian. If the context had been transferred to Brooklyn and the person who made the joke was Woodie Allen, you might have got the point. The joke was made *at the opening of a synagogue*. More recently, Putin observed on the eve of Hanukah that the Jewish minority were an important and valuable part of Russian society, etc. He has striven to tone down and eliminate signs of anti-semitism in the media, political life etc. He has warmly embraced the work of the leadership of Russian Jewish people. Antisemitic? Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP Leader Supports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
Yoshie wrote: One one hand: * Financial Times (London) January 5, 2001, Friday London Edition 1 SECTION: WORLD NEWS - EUROPE; Pg. 6 HEADLINE: WORLD NEWS - EUROPE: Russia turns its back on western aid: In order to understand anything in Russia, you have to dig beneath the surface and that applies as much to FDI, foreign and Soviet debt repayment issues a fortiori. The review of Yulia Latynina's novel which I just posted (sorry for the formatting) gives a clue about this. Because of the way Soviet debt was structured, the odd thing is that much of it *is actually owned by the Russian oligarchs themselevs*. They bought up bonds and debt instruments when Soviet debt was securitised some years ago. Now they want to cash in: so the Putin govt's eagerness to pay the Soviet debt etc, is actaully just another example of the oligarchs looting Russia, because it is Russian taxpayers who must pay this bill. This btw tells you who Putin is working for, if anyone believes the fairytale that there is an 'objective difference' between the Russain security services (which he is alleged to be part of) and the oligarchs (which he is supposed to be cleaning up and isn't). Meanmwhile, the breathtaking, undisguised cynicism (lack of 'hypocrisy' etc) of the Russian oligarchs continues: for the so-called 'Paris Club' debt is the ONE part of Soviet/Russian debt which ISN'T substantially owned by the oligarchs. It is owned by western govts. Therefore, there is no need to repay it, is there? And that's why they are refusing. No principle involved, of any kind. As for turning its back on western aid, of course they are not turning their backs on real money. What they don't like is 'aid' which mostly finds its way into the pockets of *western* consultants and not their own pockets etc. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
This may be chauvinism. But probably the less "C" of all the CPs in the world was the Argentine one (and the Uruguayan?). I missed it on Mark's short list, when in fact it should have been heading it. sorry, Nestor. My mistake. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Latynina article on Russian external debt
[from JRL, which anyone interested in Russia shiould be on] Moscow Times January 17, 2001 Some Debts Are Better Than Others By Yulia Latynina President Vladimir Putin has announced that pensions will be raised. At the same time, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin announced that Russia would not make its full payment due on its Paris Club debts this quarter. The reason for skipping payment is easily understood: Money for this purpose was not allocated in this years budget. Of course, money for increasing pensions was also not included in the budget, but they will be paid all the same from unanticipated budget revenues. It should be acknowledged that the Paris Club debt is one of the only debts that our otherwise generous government seems reluctant to pay. London Club debt, for instance, was drastically restructured: Before restructuring, it amounted to $32 billion and afterward $41 billion. In connection with this restructuring, these debts dramatically increased in value and those insiders who knew about it in advance were able to make billions. Debts racked up by Soviet foreign-trade organizations are similar to London Club debt. These organizations were set up during the late 60s by the KGB to finance Soviet-backed insurgencies and governments in third-world countries. By the 70s, they were mostly used to launder money abroad for Party insiders. By the 80s, they were laundering money for the KGB leadership itself and in the 90s their debts were resold, goodness knows where, through a network of offshore companies. There has been much speculation that those companies were controlled by the very government officials who were negotiating the restructuring of these debts. All that is known for certain is that in 1994 these debts stood at $5 billion and now, after resale and restructuring, they amount to more than twice that, according to Kudrin. The government has also promised to pay off the debts of the company building the Moscow-St. Petersburg High-Speed Railway. Since everyone knew that this company would not be able to pay its debts, its bonds were selling literally for kopeks. Insiders who got wind of the governments pending decision could (and did) make some easy money. In addition, Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov has promised to pay $16 billion that the government owes to the military-industrial complex. These debts were never included in the latest budget or in any previous budget for that matter. They were "incurred" when these factories without any state orders simply produced aircraft or tanks and then presented the government with a bill. By now youve guessed that these hopeless debts too could at one time be cheaply bought up and that the states decision to pay brought hefty profits to those who did so. So, what is the problem with Paris Club debt? After all, the government is ready to pay off even debts that it never incurred. It is, Im afraid, not very difficult to guess the answer to this question. London Club debts and the others mentioned above trade freely on debt markets. These bonds can easily be transformed into hard cash in the pockets of government insiders. But Paris Club debt cannot be. These debts are the only ones that Russias corrupt politicians do not owe to themselves. Or, rather, to "their" banks, companies, offshore firms. These debts are owed directly to Western governments. They do not trade on the open market. From the point of view of Russian bureaucrats, that means that there is absolutely no reason to pay them. Yulia Latynina is creator and host of "The Ruble Zone" on NTV television. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] To moderators from Russia - Activity of the Workers Trade Union Defense
Svetlana Baiborodova: Well, I shall tell the members of the list about my organisation`s activity and not only in Samara because Interregional Association of the Workers Trade Union "Defense of Labor" is All-Russian trade union. I suppose it is interesting for our Western comrades therefore I shall detail the story. I am grateful to you for this. I hope that this is only the beginning of our dialogue and of your participation on L-I. As for my own work, which you asked me about, it goes back a number of years. The first active role I played in the peace movement was in 1961, when I organised 2 buses of people from Lancashire, who participated in the Aldermaston CND march. I was lucky enough to meet Bertrand Russell and also Dora Russell on that occasion. I attended every subsequent CND march. I became a communist at that time. I have continued to be active in the workers' and revolutionary movement from that time. I lived in the USSR from 1987 until the mid-1990s. Now I am semi-retired, and not in good health. But my faith in the Russian working class is not more or less than it was. I wrote two books about the Soviet Union, "Moscow on World War 2" (Chatto + Windus 1985) and "Storming the Heaveans" (Pluto Press, 1987). The latter book is about the Great October Revolution. If you would like to more about what I am not doing, some of recent writings are collected at: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base If you would like to know more, please write to me offlist at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Let me say once more, and from the heart, Svetlana Baiborodova, that I am very glad of the participation of revolutionary Russian workers on this elist. Best wishes Mark Jones ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
FW: [L-I] To moderators from Russia - Activity of the Workers Trade Union Defense
[typos corrected! Eyesight not what it was] -Original Message- From: Mark Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 18 January 2001 23:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [L-I] To moderators from Russia - Activity of the Workers Trade Union "Defense" Svetlana Baiborodova: Well, I shall tell the members of the list about my organisation`s activity and not only in Samara because Interregional Association of the Workers Trade Union "Defense of Labor" is All-Russian trade union. I suppose it is interesting for our Western comrades therefore I shall detail the story. I am grateful to you for this. I hope that this is only the beginning of our dialogue and of your participation on L-I. As for my own work, which you asked me about, it goes back a number of years. The first active role I played in the peace movement was in 1961, when I organised 2 buses of people from Lancashire, who participated in the Aldermaston CND march. I was lucky enough to meet Bertrand Russell and also Dora Russell on that occasion. I attended every subsequent CND march. I became a communist at that time. I have continued to be active in the workers' and revolutionary movement from that time. I lived in the USSR from 1987 until the mid-1990s. Now I am semi-retired, and not in good health. But my faith in the Russian working class is not more or less than it was. I wrote two books about the Soviet Union, "Moscow in World War 2" (Chatto + Windus 1985) and "Storming the Heavens" (Pluto Press, 1987). The latter book is about the Great October Revolution. If you would like to more about what I am now doing, some of my recent writings are collected at: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base If you would like to know more, please write to me offlist at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Let me say once more, and from the heart, Svetlana Baiborodova, that I am very glad of the participation of revolutionary Russian workers on this elist. Best wishes Mark Jones ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] JRL
I think you have to write to David Johnson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Sent: 19 January 2001 00:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [L-I] JRL En relacisn a [L-I] Latynina article on Russian external debt, el 18 Jan 01, a las 10:20, Mark Jones dijo: [from JRL, which anyone interested in Russia shiould be on] Could you post the instructions to sub, Mark? You once gave them to me, but I could not sub at the moment and do not find them. I suppose many on L-I would join JRL, that's why I send the request to the list. Nistor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Owen-the-Kid Panics Old Goats
Mac, it's not a question of being pro- or anti-kprf. I don't think, for instance that either Lou or I are pro-kprf (i shouldn't speak for him anyway). The point is that we have to begin from two simultaneous start-points: (a) analysis of the global conjuncture and how Russia sits in that and (b) analysis of the programme, history, leadership etc of specific political entities oncluding bnut not only the kprf. It's impossible to analyse the kprf in asbtraction from overall russian reality and from the concrete history of the kprf, cpsu etc. Bilenkin and Myers are simply hopeless sectarians, who were once bosom pals and then fell out and became bitter enemies; and the whole hollow hoopla is about nothing and for nothing. i don't honestly think that kagarlitsky is any better; altho he is undoubtedly better-informed, better-paid and better-known, he too has a self-marginalising sectarian take on russian reality and the kprf. his conspiracy-theory analysis of the kprf's alleged role as 'loyal opposition' to the yeltsin/putin regime ignores the basic social, class and economic realities which define the existence of all political entities in all countries, not only russia, and which mark off or delimit the social space and political opportunities open to them. quite obviously the kprf is not a leninist revolutionary party, and if it tried to be the regime would instantly close it down. equally obviously, it has an important social and political role to play. you might as well get hyserical about tony blair or chancellor schroeder or lionel jospin or al gore, as get wound up about zyuganov. They all claim to be socialists. blair is against fox-hunting and pro socialised health care. on balance, i'd vote for him, definitely. but, as they say, *without illusions*. people like owen jones, steve myers etc, are great fountains of moral indignation and outrage when it comes to the alleged derelictions of political leaders in far-away countries of which they know perilously little. It might be helpful if they at least supplemented their activity with equivalent indignation, outrage etc about events and personalities closer to home. at least bilenkin and kagarlitsky have the merits of being russian citizens, altho as far as i can tell both spend much of their time elsewhere. The plain fact is that all this indignation and hysteria is simply a fuel for what would otherwise be extraordinarily empty and sectarian politics of the kind for which grouplets avowing allegiance to trotsky[ism] are notorious. It is simply a complete waste of time (and one cannot help noticing how this great indignation, principled stands over 'antisemitism' etc, is always highly tuned to whatever is winding up the NY Times or WSJ this week, etc.) What we need is theory, theory, theory, and concrete analysis, investigation, synthesis. We need ideological organisation and we need to struggle for political clarity, not about the rights and wrongs of zyuganov etc but about *global capitalist crisis*. Our ideas about the infamy of Bush, the horrors of Makashov etc etc, must be focussed on *how these things relate to capitalist crisis, the crisis of the state* etc, and not the other way around. best wishes as ever and keep up the good work: you did the right thing. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Macdonald Stainsby Sent: 17 January 2001 03:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L-I] Re: Owen-the-Kid Panics Old Goats - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is not about censoring a point of view. It is about trying to move away from dead end factionalism. There were problems with James (Red Rebel) Tait, the DHKC, and A. Wosni as well. I can't even remember if they were unsubbed or not. This mailing list had turned into trench warfare of the kind that destroyed mailing lists in the past. My only observation is that unless it can figure out what it's mission is--and adhere to it--it will be vulnerable to destructive interventions. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ If people want to know these things, Anton has been allowed back on the condition that getting into silly combats where we sling slogans and labels at one another ceases. In other words, no attempts to start fights. James has been warned, and one of the DHKC addresses was removed and has not returned. The moderators have agreed on a basic mission for the list. It will be announced. A personal note. I like Owen, but he has now informed me that I am a "Proyectist" and that he will not return. To make this very dramatic, he also removed himself from my other project, Rad Green. We had an exchange on "ICQ" about this whole recent spate this morning. He threatened to try and "organize list member walkouts" is the best way to sum it up- if I didn't bounce all the pro-KPRF people and show my
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
I just want to point out that it was no less a rooted stalinoid perverted sectarian than I myself who originally invited Nestor G. -- and what's more, Johannes S. -- to comoderate L-I. So I picked up a stone and dropped it on my own foot, in the latter case, as the maoists say. But I have always taken the view that we need to talk, and still do. Mostly what I hope for is to *raise the level of debate*. We should not be afraid of losing arguments. In the case of Nestor and many other folks whose political backgrounds are dissimilar to my own, the dialogue has generally been fruitful and I am very glad of it. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Macdonald Stainsby Sent: 17 January 2001 09:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I - Original Message - From: Johannes Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:16 PM Subject: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
CB: What the fuck is going on , Mark ? Why the hell would you call for closing down the list like some goddamn the lord giveth and the lord taketh away ? If you've been following the exchanges you'll see that i'm concerned to make the list a success, not close it down. maybe licence for a little hyperbole is permissible. but it must surely be clear that i want the list to succeed. i'm not responsible for johannes' or anyone else's misunderstandings. maybe you should ask him why he says the odd things he does. mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Whither the List?
Tony, I agree with most of your remarks, and I'm glad you're here and also that you are struggling heroically at Solidarity. In particular I agree that "the phobic iSWor/ Kagarlitsky crowd" is just a front. You're right: they "trumpet within the Left of the imperialist bloc countries a hysterical fear that a Russian 'Red -Brown' uprising is the world's greatest menace" and this is "thoroughly repugnant and reactionary. " However I also agree with what Lou said the other day: that people who are active on a list, must share some kind of basic commitment to the purpose of the list. People who are actually fronting imperialist, anti-working class propaganda, who are just stooges, obviously do not share this commitment to leninism. It is not searching for purity that motivates me to want to draw a line, but the fact that it is impossible to have any kind of serious discussion while this trench warfare is going on. The fact that the miscreants have gone does not necessarily mean that we shall now get serious debate, because that depends on the energy and input of the rest of us. But it is surely a start. It is noteworthy that people like Doug Henwood and Slavoj Zizek - cynical opportunists and leftwing careerists - have starting talking again about Lenin. I think this is because people sense that things like an economic slowdown or recession, combined with the incoming Bush regime, are going to sharpen social tensions, increase workplace struggles and polarise politics etc. I'm sure they are quite cynical about this: they think there is a political cycle just like the business cycle, and probably in lockstep with it. In a recession you have to sound a little more militant, otherwise you start to look stale and uninteresting. Doug H. is a great one for finding out where the "mainstream" is, and his antenna work. On the one hand, it's fine that people are talking more militantly; but on the other, it makes it all the more important that we don't let these people, who are our political enemies, drown out the real message about what is a real revolutionary, leninist politics. To do this, we have to have some kind of material base or presence, and an elist is one possibility (there are others, obviously). If we were a leninist party, we wouldn't let anti-leninists or imperialist stooges in. So why should we let them in here, since this is the workshop or foundry where we have to try and forge new theory, analysis etc? I agree that there is a fine distinction between censorship and liberal over-indulgence -- lenin himself talked about that all the time and in the excerpts I just posted from Lenin on the press + media, you can see clearly how he saw the problem. And it was never solved in the USSR. And the death of real debate practically guaranteed the eventual death of the Soviet state itself. However Lenin's position was simple: any accommodation between the USSR and the encircling capitalist powers was bound to be illusory and transient, and war to the death was inevitable in the long run. In *that* situation, the party monopoly of power and control of the press was essential for survival; so here is an insoluble contradiction or paradox. If you monopolise power, you guarantee corruption, political senility and bureaucracy. If you permit pluralism, OTOH, you're dead just the same only quicker. The only sure way out of the impasse is to *beat the enemy*, ie destroy world capitalism. That IS the only way. We're not trying to make believe that an elist can be a workers' party, let alone a wrokers' state, but it is important that we do what Lenin wanted to do in 1901, in WITBD: to draw a line between ourselves and the others. Before you unite, you have to split: you have to get ideological and political clarity. That is what we should be trying to do here. Get clarity. It is still possible to debate Myers etc, and even possible to invite them back (btw, it was the moderators who unsubbed them, not me). If it was me, I'd argue the shit out of the sods, but I'm damn sure they'd soon run away anyway, they always do. You wouldn't need to expel them. But then you really would get a gigantic flame war. I'm particularly good at that, but what's the point? Nothing is achieved that way. mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
((( CB: Please give an example of a successful list . It would be invidious to make examples, but I suppose that if Bob Malecki really has 312 people listening to him on his egroups list, perhaps we should call that a success, hey? Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Yoshie wrote: The CPRF's program, such as it is, can never be achieved by the CPRF's means. This means that it's a normal party no? Operating according to the normal rules of hypocrisy, double-dealing, sanctimoniousness etc of bourgeois parties everywhere. Until just a few years ago, the British Labour Party's programme for more than 70 years had contained the famous Clause 4, which obliged the party when in govt to take the means of production (!) into national ownership and to secure the full fruits of those who labour by hand and brain, in a just and equitable system of distribution. Nobody called all Labour MPs, ministers etc, systematic thieves, crooks and liars when they did the exact opposite, because no-one ever expected them to carry out any part of their programme. Why is not the same decency, the same right to a fig-leaf, permitted to the KPRF? Actually, hypocrisy is all right in its way. The 'Red Directors' who now squat like tribal hetmen over the plunder of state and party, or the famous oligarchs, are not hypocrites: they honestly behave like feudal barbarians. Which is better? Let's face it, the hypocritical morality of the bourgeois is the only public morality we've got. Better that than the alternative. This from JRL: Foreign Policy January-February 2001 In Other Words True Crime, Russian-Style By Chrystia Freeland Okhota na izyubrya (Stag Hunting) By Julia Latynina 527 pages, Moscow: Olma-Press and St. Petersburg: Neva, 1999 (in Russian) Pity the would-be Russian thriller writer. A big part of the pleasure we take in the latest blockbuster mob movie or bestselling crime novel is the sheer, children's-bedtime-story catharsis of entering an imaginary world whose dangers are vivid, yet safely removed from the struggles of our ordinary existence. But in postcommunist Russia, "real life" is as lurid and scary as any John Grisham pot-boiler. This is a country where a small-business owner, engaged in a trade as mundane as selling shoes, must pay local gangsters more often than the electric company. Here, tax officials sometimes wear bulletproof vests, conceal their faces in black balaclavas, and carry machine guns; the best restaurants have metal detectors in the foyer; and the country's leading tycoons routinely must evade car bombs and flee the country under threat of arrest. And as for luridb well, one of Moscow's most popular news programs features an anchorwoman who strips while she recites the day's top stories. Against the backdrop of this surreal reality, Russian journalist Julia Latynina's attempt to write an "economic thriller" is a heroic undertaking. She tells the story of a Moscow banking oligarch's underhanded campaign to seize control of a Siberian metallurgical factory from Vyacheslav Izvolsky, the plant's tough, young local owner. The book's publishers have tried to set the tone with a pulpish cover featuring a steely-eyed assassin cocking his pistol at the reader. Latynina gamely struggles to keep the book jacket's guns-and-molls promise. She stages a gangland shootout, gives us a couple of scenes of creatively gruesome torture, and, by the end of the book, manages to tote up three corpses, a half-dozen assassination attempts, and several encounters with the prostitutes of Moscow's casino land. It's a noble effort, but ultimately, Latynina is outgunned by the sheer brutality of everyday Russian life. In a country where a week of headlines produces more gore than all 527 pages of Stag Hunting, Latynina's thriller never quite manages to thrill. That may be why Stag Hunting hasn't quite achieved the runaway popular success its publishersb who touted the novel as "a book with every chance of becoming a national best-seller"b had hoped for. But Latynina's work has become a must-read for the select group of mostly Moscow-based journalists, pundits, politicians, and executives who unselfconsciously refer to themselves as the Russian elita. Stag Hunting owes its influence among the elita to the meticulously detailed economic story Latynina tells once she has dispensed with her sex-and-guns subplots. As one of Russia's leading business journalists, Latynina is an able guide to the intricacies of post-Soviet economic life. She deftly combines a firm grasp of the dizzying financial detail of Russian businessb an intentionally confusing realm of barter, arrears, and offshore bank accountsb with a clear understanding of the larger, systemic role these transactions serve. When it comes to interpreting the Russian economy, Latynina is, to borrow Isaiah Berlin's terms, both a fox and a hedgehog, and that is what makes Stag Hunting such a fascinating book. The novel, which helpfully includes a three-page appendix listing all the banks, offshore companies, and trading firms attached to the Siberian metallurgical factory that is the main theater of action, is full of riveting detail. Latynina explains precisely how factory directors use offshore firms to evade taxes,
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
you don't think that the CPRF = Marxism-Leninism, do you? No, no and again no, as Vladimir Ilyich might say. But so what? Is it the use of the name 'communist' which winds people up into such hysterical frenzies? But we have had non-communist communist parties for years and decades and people have fogiven them their tactless misappropriation of the name (eg, CPUSA, PCF, PCI, Chinese CP etc etc). So why single out poor Zyuganov? Since your comeback, you have argued for the importance of revolutionary theory the need to debate it on this list. This may as well be our point of departure. indeed. Russia today, it seems to me, is virtually free from Marxism-Leninism. By what test? According to a recent poll, Russians voted Lenin as 'man of the 20th century' (followed by Stalin) by handsome majorities. There is a well-attested yearning for the good old soviet days, which all polls confirm. Even if Kagarlitsky is right in rubbishing the kprf, there is no getting away from the fact that the Kremlin and its western minders acknowledge *the need* for the kprf, because of the huge residual popularity of Communist ideas, values etc. And I know it's true, because I've spent time there. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP Leader Supports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
Yoshie wrote Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000 BBC MONITORING ZYUGANOV INTERVIEW: RUSSIAN COMMUNIST LEADER EXPANDS ON MOVE TO SUPPORT KREMLIN, DROP OLD ALLIES but if you read what the man says, is it so unreasonable? Russia today is at a crossroads. Either we following the new state line which takes the national interest as its guide or continue with the old policy of [acting prime minister in the early nineties Yegor] Gaydar or rather [Economic Development and Trade Minister German] Gref. If the choice is in favour of the latter, of liberal reforms when the land is sold off and they try to finish off the nuclear missile shield, when the railways are sold off and the last natural monopolies are eliminated and when even our forests are sold into private hands then there will be nothing left of Russia. So we shall do everything we can to ensure that people who understand how far things have gone and recognize that very little time indeed is left in which to take decisions gain the upper hand in the executive structure. What do you expect him today, lead platoons of pensioners in an assault on the Telegraph Office, Kremlin etc? Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Whither the List?
I think Yoshie's interventions are helpful and I am obliged to her for them. HOWEVER: to say The clarity of revolutionary Leninist politics can't be achieved if one part of the Left remains trapped in the overblown fear of Red-Brown alliances on the periphery and the other part falls for the overestimation of political capacity of whatever party or movement that claims to be patriotic, socialist, etc. (e.g. the CPRF). Indeed, we need to raise the level of the debate here! I ask sober heads who are still here to post their thoughts. begs a question. Firstly and IN PRINCIPLE I do not think it is Leninist to accord equal merit to 'one part of the left or another'. ONE part is revolutionary and wishes to overthrow capitalism; the other is accommodationist and has no such intention. The phraseology they use may be almost identical, mensheviks v. bolsheviks q.v., but there is a world of difference IN PRACTICE, no? Second, as Tony properly says, outfits like ISWOR are not part of the left at all, they are stooges of imperialism. If I ran the CIA or MI5 I probably wouldn't help out this kind of thing, but I'm not sure thay are so dignified and noble-minded. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Program, Organization, Conjuncture
Last year I had my e-mail program crash, so I lost the Crashlist URL, among other things. Can you mail the URL to me or post it here? Yoshie I'll sub you if you like. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] To moderators from Russia
My name is Svetlana Baiborodova. I am a chairwomen of Samara branch of
Russian Association of the Workers Trade Union "Defense of Labor", a member
of Coordinating Commitee of the All-Russian Campaign in Defense of Acting
Labor Code, an editor of weekly Left.ru ("Left Russia"): http://left.ru.
I am sure we'd all want to welcome Svetlana to this list. It is very good to
establish cordial relations with Russian leftist and working class organisations. I
hope that she will play an active part in our discussions. When comrades honestly
and sincerely strive to understand each other's positions, and diligently seek to
explain and analyse differences, much can be achieved. But to begin by attacking the
moderators is not helpful. Rather than begin with a discussion of personalities and
of list policy, I think it would be more useful if Svetlana informed the list about
the activities of her organisation in Samara, and about its viewpoint and arguments,
and also if she asks any questions she has about the political orientations etc of
other people on the list. Then we can hope to find some common ground, or anyway to
understand one another better.
Mark
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Yoshie wrote: Putin, by co-opting anti-Semitic anti-liberal rhetoric widespread in Russia, can coopt the themes of "socialism = the modern form of Russian patriotism" as well. The CPRF has only itself to blame, since it's happy with the role of the loyal opposition. On the contrary, Putin has been at pains to publicly oppose anti-semitism. For example: BBC MONITORING PUTIN CRACKS JEWISH JOKE AT THE OPENING OF COMMUNITY CENTRE Source: NTV International, Moscow in Russian 1800 gmt 18 Sep 00 [Correspondent] Vladimir Putin is the second Russian president who have opened a synagogue. The first was Boris Yeltsin, who was present at the consecration of a chapel on Poklonnaya Gora [Great Patriotic War memorial in Moscow]. Today Putin took part in the opening of a Jewish community centre - the largest in Eastern Europe. First, the president was invited to have a look inside - the community had a lot to be proud about. Apart from a synagogue, the seven-storey building will house a library, a gym, a cinema, an Internet-cafe, a huge kosher restaurant and offices... [Correspondent] Putin spoke briefly, but passionately, saying that the times of state anti-Semitism in Russia are gone forever. He ended on a more personal note. [Putin] I met Gennadiy Khazanov [popular Jewish stand-up comedian] today and we had lunch together. He told me a good joke. It goes like this: a Jewish family man walks about his home stark naked, save for his tie. His wife asks him indignantly what does he think he is doing walking around like this. To this, the man says can't he just take it easy in is his own home? OK says the wife, I suppose you can. But must you wear a tie? Well, the man says, what if we get visitors? [laughter] And I think now that we have this community centre opened, we can all take it easy, take our ties off and enjoy ourselves because this will be a meeting place for everybody... ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Whither the List?
Yoshie: we don't want to lose someone like Johannes from the list, do we? He's on the side of anti-imperialism. ONE part is revolutionary and wishes to overthrow capitalism; the other is accommodationist and has no such intention. The problem is that the CPRF has will accommodate itself to Yeltsin, Putin, etc., remaining a "responsible" opposition, to borrow Zyuganov's own words. Yoshie, I didn't expel Johannes or ask him to leave, so you're talking to the wrong person. As for the cprf, why is it any more a problem that it is a reformist not a revolutionary party than is the case with any mass electoral party anywhere on earth? Russia is a normal capitalist country at least in the sense that there is simply no social space nor historical opportunity for a mass revolutionary party there. It is simply fantasy to suppose that the kprf could be other than it is, and still be permitted to exist. *THAT* is the problem. We do not live in an era of revolution. It is useless to waste time excoriating Zyuganov for being what he cannot help being. The idea that if Zyuganov was a little more honest, bolshevik, revolutionary etc, there would be the insurrectionary overtrhow of capitalism in Russia is, I repeat, simply fantasy. The fact that people like Kagarlitsky, who should know better, also seem to share this fantasy, changes nothing. But in fact, K does know better. He is chasing the kprf for the same reason ultra-left sectarians always do this: in order to appear to be on the side of the angels while actually NOT doing anything politically, ie, not actually attacking capitalist state, society etc etc. I don't, however, question any L-I poster's _desire_ to overthrow capitalism, least of all yours. That posters are filled with revolutionary desire doesn't mean, though, that some of us may not commit some errors trying achieve our objective. If this list is to amount to anything, it should become a place where comrades can correct comrades, without needless outbursts deflecting attention from substantial issues. That's what you wanted yourself, no? I'd rather you said what's on your mind than resort to innuendo. I am not a moderator here but you are. My position is clear: I gave up moderating l-i when I was too ill to continue. Now I'm not so ill and I'm in a mood to try to help the list get back on track. What I mean by this is that we should not indulge sectarianism here. Have you forgotten the prehistory of lists like this? The *whole point* about l-i was that it should be a non-sectarian and leninist platform. I have always encouraged debate and it was I who first invited Johannes to particpate, altho I obviously do not share his politics. But trench warfare is what we don't want. I am very glad you are participating + moderating and I hope you will use your undoubted skills as scholar, theorist, feminist and revolutionary to make the list a better and more useful political tool. By all means, let us talk about substantive issues. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP Leader Supports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
Yoshie: First of all, Russian leftists need to expand the base for support of Communism beyond "platoons of pensioners"! I don't think they can expand it while accommodating themselves to Putin, though. It seems to me that Zyuganov ain't smart or ambitious enough to use Putin for his social-democratic purpose. What's happening is the other way around, most likely. actually you raise important and central issues, I think. You also spoke about rising tides of dissent and protest which is not yet politically focussed or canalised. The problem is that is is simply and literally impossible to create mass revolutionary parties under today's conditions when the overpowering, stifling and suffocating weight of US imperialism, ideological hegemony etc, simply strangles almost every form of protest, even the most seemingly innocuous and vapid. We live in a world where US finance and monopoly capitalism is strong enough not merely to snuff out the socialist ideals or national pretensions of ex-Soviet people, but even to trample on US democracy itself. At the same time as there exists a monstrous apparatus of mass surveillance, of mind-policing, and of thousands of insidious forms of mass coercion and persuasion, there also exists the seemingly unanswerable logic of mass consumerism with its intense, hypnotic influence over mass consciousness. However, despite the seemingly overwhelming pressure of imperialism and of ideological hegemony and political control, the world system is so inherently unstable and riven with contradictions that crises and upheavals of variopus kinds are surely simply inevitable. Perhaps it is true, as Clinton says, that 'the state of the Union has never been stronger' but it is also true that world capitalism faces certain fundamental problems which it cannot yet overcome and which collectively constitute a serious historical impasse. These objective contradictions are why it is important that we also discuss the subjective questions of working class political organisation, of our programmatic and ideological goals. Your own contribution to this is really very important, of course, and we all of us accept this. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Notes from Louise Bryant Six Red Months in Russia [reformatted]
Notes from Louise Bryant "Six Red Months in Russia" [written 1917]. [Bryant was the political co-worker and lover of John Reed. In this little memoir she gives her thumbnail impressions about Lenin, the Bolsheviks and the early days of Soviet Power.] The workingmen demand, above all, frankness and the unpowdered truth. An address by Lenin is, therefore, as direct, unsentimental and full of facts as a statement to a board of directors by an executive of an American corporation... The Russians of today... are close to the earth and striving for the stars. Lenin's calm, majestic as a Chinese Buddha's. The Lenins ... had become accustomed to privations long before the revolution, had lived in the meanest quarters of every city they visited, occupy as a rule only one room, where they ate, slept, studied and carried on their revolutionary work. Lenin more interested in America than in any other country. 'We must make friends with America'- for the thousands of tractors, railway engines, cars etc we need. Lenin 'will flay an opponent in debate and walk out of the hall arm-in-arm with him. Every man in Lenin's cabinet, except Trotsky and Chicherin had worked with him +20 years- they are his disciples.' Us editors always asked Louise Bryant to get Lenin to keep a diary. Non vanity- Lenin 'in real distress' when he had to sit for Clair Sheridan to do his bust. Angelica Balabanova said revolutionaries should not waster their time in such a way; but Lenin only sat for a few hours, and worked through'. After the revolution Lenin only had time to attend the theatre once- he went to see Yelena Suchachova in 12th Night. Lenin also went in for hunting and horseback riding. 6 months after October Lenin said 'if they crush us now they can never efface the fact that we have been. The idea will go on'. During the Civil-War when Red-Army morale fell very low and even the trusted Lettish sharpshooters guarding the Kremlin grew discouraged- the enemy was at the gates of Peter. They began to drink the wine in the Kremlin cellars. One night Lenin came down to barracks and, wordlessly, felt in the soldiers pockets, finding several vodka bottles he smashed them on the cobblestones, still without a word. The soldiers were so shamed they never drank on duty again. Bryant talks of the 'legendary significance' which the blockade bestowed on Lenin. One of his best friends and advisers was his sister Anna. In Moscow after the revolution, Lenin and Krupskaya lived in two small rooms, simply furnished, with piles of books scattered about and pot-plants. Lenin always jumps out to greet visitors to his office, smiling and shaking hands warmly. When you are seated he draws up another chair leans forward and begins to talk as if there was nothing else to do in the world...Loves to tell and to hear stories. About Kamenev, Bryant said: he has the genial manners of an American small-town politician. He [Kamenev] is with Zinoviev, and these are the weakest members of Lenin's government; he still has middle class consciousness. Zinoviev : short, heavily-built, flabby; strongly sectarian, vain- 'the most photographed man in Russia'. Kamenev guilty of petty corruption- eg giving away sable-fur coats (state property) to beautiful women: both Kamenev and Zinoviev are tolerated because of the sheer shortage of talent. Pyotr Stuchka - a Latvian, close friend of Lenin, and his adviser. Drafted the First Soviet constitution. Drafted the First laws on marriage, sex equality etc; aged 70, felt he was too old and conservative, so invited 5 young women revolutionists to his office and they drafted the (very liberated!) laws on marriage. He said 'for centuries, women have been oppressed, they have been the victims of prejudice, superstition and the selfish desires of men'- now the new marriage laws should even give them 'an advantage over men' to compensate. Rykov - serene, good-humoured, though terribly persecuted before revolution (7 years in Siberian solitary (!) confinement): 'resembles Lenin', and his natural successor. Dzerzhinsky: tall, noticeably delicate, slender white hands, long straight nose, pale countenance and the drooping eyelids of the over-bred and super-refined; health wrecked by 11 years in a Warsaw prison, where he learnt a habit of self-effacement, even abasement, he is totally devoted to Lenin. Dzerzhinsky is incorruptible, and is determined to save revolution by the Red Terror and Cheka if necessary. Bill Shatov: the anarchist who returned from the States and joined the Bolshevik revolution, becoming Piter's Chief of Police. Now violently opposed to the Anarchists, during a spate of serious robberies, Shatov arrested every so-called Anarchist, holding them 2 weeks without trial- during which not a single robbery took place! At the trial he released all the anarchists who actually knew something about the subject [ie, anarchist philosophy]- the rest were charged. Shatov said that anyway anarchists are the most difficult of
[L-I] Lenin on the National Question
V. I . Lenin Lenin on the National Question THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION (THESES) 1. IMPERIALISM, SOCIALISM AND THE LIBERATION OF OPPRESSED NATIONS Imperialism is the highest stage of development of capitalism. Capital in the advanced countries has outgrown the boundaries of national states. It has established monopoly in place of competition, thus creating all the objective prerequisites for the achievement of socialism. Hence, in Western Europe and in the United States of America, the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the overthrow of the capitalist governments, for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, is on the order of the day. Imperialism is forcing the masses into this struggle by sharpening class antagonisms to an immense degree, by worsening the conditions of the masses both economically--trusts and high cost of living, and politically--growth of militarism, frequent wars, increase of reaction, strengthening and extension of national oppression and colonial plunder. Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of a free union--and a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession--such parties would be committing treachery to socialism. Of course, democracy is also a form of state which must disappear when the state disappears, but this will take place only in the process of transition from completely victorious and consolidated socialism to complete communism. 2. THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY The socialist revolution is not one single act, not one single battle on a single front, but a whole epoch of intensified class conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts, i.e., battles around all the problems of economics and politics, which can culminate only in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure, or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy. It would be no less mistaken to delete any of the points of the democratic programme, for example, the point of self-determination of nations, on the ground that it is "infeasible," or that it is "illusory" under imperialism. The assertion that the right of nations to self-determination cannot be achieved within the framework of capitalism may be understood either in its absolute, economic sense, or in the conventional, political sense. In the first case, the assertion is fundamentally wrong in theory. First, in this sense, it is impossible to achieve such things as labor money, or the abolition of crises, etc., under capitalism. But it is entirely incorrect to argue that the self-determination of nations is likewise infeasible. Secondly, even the one example of the secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905 is sufficient to refute the argument that it is "infeasible" in this sense. Thirdly, it would be ridiculous to deny that, with a slight change in political and strategical relationships, for example, between Germany and England, the formation of new states, Polish, Indian, etc., would be quite "feasible" very soon. Fourthly, finance capital, in its striving towards expansion, will "freely" buy and bribe the freest, most democratic and republican government and the elected officials of any country, however "independent" it may be. The domination of finance capital, as of capital in general, cannot be abolished by any kind of reforms in the realm of political democracy, and self-determination belongs wholly and exclusively to this realm. The domination of finance capital, however, does not in the least destroy the significance of political democracy as the freer, wider and more distinct form of class oppression and class struggle. Hence, all arguments about the "impossibility of achieving" economically one of the demands of political democracy under capitalism reduce themselves to a theoretically incorrect definition of the general and fundamental relations of capitalism and of political democracy in general. In the second case, this assertion is incomplete and inaccurate, for not only the right of nations to self-determination, but all the fundamental demands of political democracy are "possible of achievement" under imperialism, only in an incomplete, in a
[L-I] Nikolai Podvoisky on Lenin and October 1of2
The October Rising: a feeble putsch by a few intellectuals? "... my relations with Vladimir Ilyich had been most cordial. But at that moment... I saw the full extent of [his] responsibility for the fate of the country and the revolution... " "... an armed insurrection means arming wide sections of the working class... revolutionary enthusiasm is not enough for victory..." . Nikolai Podvoisky. My autograph copy of Podvoisky's memoirs was given me by Nina Sverdlova-Podvoiskaya, grand-daughter of Podvoisky himself and of Yakov Sverdlov, leading Bolshevik and first president of the Soviet Republic. I met Sverdlova-Podvoiskaya in 1985 in the Old Bolshevik commune where she lived, in Serpukhovskaya Ulitsaya, Moscow. A socialist publisher before the October Revolution, Nikolai Podvoisky was Chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. He was a leading organiser of the October Rising, which was coup de theatre as well as coup d'etat. Podvoisky's memoirs, excerpted below, incidentally cast a special light on some of Trotsky's claims. Podvoisky's testimony is direct and compelling. I post the following extract, taken from my book 'Storming the Heavens' (Pluto, 1987) to counter support shown on this List for the new right-wing orthodoxy associated with Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes. Mark Jones ___ The evening of October 17 has remained firmly fixed in my memory After a meeting in one of the regiments I hurried to the Smolny Institute The long corridors of the gigantic vaulted building resounded to the trample of many feet. Soldiers' grey greatcoats, the black jackets and smocks of the Red Guards, the dark pea-jackets of sailors with machine-gun belts strapped round them and bristling with hand-grenades, armed men everywhere -- such was the picture presented by the Smolny. At the entrance were two quick-firing guns, between them and on their flanks stood machine-guns. A big former class-room of the Institute, on the ground floor, was the headquarters of the Bolshevik group; the only furniture in the room was the desks moved up against the walls. The room was full of people. An important conference of representatives of all districts of the Petrograd Bolshevik organisation and the Military Organisation of the Central Committee was under way. The question of armed insurrection was being discussed. The chairman was Comrade Sverdlov. In the middle of the room stood a simple little table without a cover. One report after another told that the workers and soldiers of Petrograd were prepared for the insurrection. Party workers from the districts produced facts and figures showing that the time was ripe... As chairman of the Military Organisation of the Bolshevik Party, I reported to the conference on the Red Guards, the army units and the fleet. I began with the Red Guards in Vyborg District. They were in close contact with the factory and district Bolshevik organisations and with the factory committees. I mentioned the names of the organisers of the Red Guards. I made special mention of those secretaries of Party groups and chairmen of factory committees who had shown ability in drawing workers into their in the Red Guard. These organisers of the Red Guards had worked well to put into force the battle slogans of the Bolshevik Party. The former Moscow Regiment of Life Guards had given great assistance to the Red Guards of Vyborg District, where it was quartered. I spoke about the Red Guard of Petrograd District which was developing into an important force. It had had its baptism of fire during the April demonstration when a group of Tsarist officers had attacked the Red Guards in an attempt to take away and tear up their red flag. They were repulsed by armed force. I spoke of Moscow- Narva District and the giant Putilov Works with its forty-thousand strong army of workers. The February Revolution began with the demonstration and strike of the Putilov workers. As early as 5 March 1917, the Putilov workers adopted a resolution not to lay down their arms until the final victory of the proletarian revolution. The Putilov workers were a well-disciplined Red Guard. I reported on the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison, on the famous Armoured-Car Detachment amongst whom were many former Petrograd, Moscow and Kolomna workers. The older soldiers amongst them remembered the battles with the Tsarist government in 1905. They had shown no fear of court-martial when, in April, they took two armoured cars to the Finland Railway Station on the memorable day of Lenin's arrival. The 17 armoured cars in possession of the detachment were an important force. The officers of the Provisional Government had got control of this force and with its aid were guarding the railway stations, telephone exchange, telegraph office, post office, the Winter and Marinskii palaces and the Army Headquarters. Then I spoke about other units. The Bol
RE: [L-I] Re: Owen-the-Kid Panics Old Goats
I am also a member of Solidarity, and contribute commentary on that list sponsored by that organization, where Owen and Steve's views on Milosevic and Kagarlitsky reign supreme. It does not make my case easier to argue against these views there, when a level of intolerance for debate is set on this list and/or others, with like sympathetic political lines. I believe that the presence on this list of these 3 indiviuals that have now been thrown off, helped provide contrast. Contrast is necessary to make the list of interest to more than just the most narrow circle of subscribers. A variety of views is obviously important. We do not want to replicate what happened to marxism-international when Lou Godena achieved his ambition of taking over. Now only Godena himself posts there, and his posts are all crossposts. m-i used to be the liveliest list on the marxist net. At the same time, debate has to be real. we are not duelling bands of antique tribesmen whose best warriors strut their stuff in front of the massed ranks and repeat well-known phraseology without actually listening to the other side. Posturing is not debate. empty rhetoric is not debate. lack of scholarship and arrogant opinionation is not debate. The plain fact is that there is NOT ONE serious forum where revolutionary theory is analysed and discussed from a leninist perspective, anywhere on the Net. This is the ONLY place. By all means, argue the kagarlitsky position if you will, but first tell us what relationship there is between kagarlitsky and leninism, anywhere in HIS OWN writings? None that I know of. So why on earth should he be a benchmark for debate HERE? Solidarity is and ANTI-leninist organisation. Why should its views also reign supreme HERE? I would urge the moderators to control their 'piss', and resub these 3 individuals. Why? As you say, they have other platforms. Would I be welcome on the solidarity list? Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
1. The acceptance of the defence of anti-semitism ('not the real question')
or anti-semitism itself ( criticising Yeltsin for beeing a Jew ) from the
side of moderators. This is simply too disgusting that I do not want to go
into further details.
It is not a *criticism* of Yeltsin to say that he is of Jewish origin. Lenin *also*
had Jewish antecedents, so what?
3. After Mark Jones had been subbed to L-I he publicly called for closing
down L-I.
Nonsense.
Mark
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] my participation on L-I
Mac has subbed me here *involuntarily*. This seems to be a change in Mac's previous policy of making a virtue out of the crassly petit-bourgeois individualistic method of letting people decide for themselves. As a good proletarian Soldier Schweik of our movement, I am of course happy to go where I'm sent (within reason). His reasons, as supplied to me are, (a) The ends justify the means, and (b) there has to be at least one list where you, Louis and Yoshie all co-exist. I am not sure about co-existing with Yoshie, since she has moved dramatically to the right, on the evidence of postings I have seen of hers to counter-revolutionary fora such as LBO and Pen-l, and what's more she shows clear signs of pomposity. However, I'm prepared to make a go of it despite that. As far as L-I is concerned, I have to honestly say that I am not as proud to be associated with it as I once was, and I frankly think that the present team of moderators (Yoshie Furuhashi (from Japan), Macdonald Stainsby (Canada) and Mine Aysen Doyran (Turkey) ) have made a hash of things. The list seems to have no direction at all and there is a good deal of hopeless sectarianism and idiotic flaming. This has got to stop. In order to avoid all tincture of sectarianism, and to simplify things for me, from now on I will let you know what to think and you will all agree. Clear? Second, all flaming is to be rationalised as follows: the only permissible flames are those which satisfy the concordance of the Medieval Insult Generator. The url for this is: http://www.win.bright.net/%7Eblbeast/medieval/insults.html Finally, if L-I is to continue at all (I see little point in this List at present) it ought to do what it was set up to do, ie, debate revolutionary theory. There ought to be a whole let less flim-flam, crossposting, idiotic news items of the 'from the frontlines' type, and a whole lot less Talin-Srotsky baggage. I hope that's all clear enough. Mark Jones ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] unsuscribe
thanks for being with us, I've put your crashlist sub on hold best wishes Mark venceremos! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julio FernandezBaraibar Sent: 13 January 2001 11:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L-I] unsuscribe Dear and admired comrade Mark: Life is not so easy here. I don't have phone line for the last three months, because the fucking spanish company wants me to pay them a $ 500 bill, which I have not. Due to this situation, I am forced to receive my emails at the house of different friends. Of course, this is very annoying, as everybody can understand. Anyway I am solving my temporary lack of cash, because some Gods have remembered me and I begun to work in the official radio station of the Buenos Aires City. That means that soon I will get enough resources to fix this financial disagreement between me and the antique colonial power. Dear Mark and everybody else: My retirement of the list is not only, but VERY TEMPORARY, in order not to bother my tolerant friends. In a few weeks, my argentinian voice will be back with a fistfull of truths. Greetings in the millenium of the socialist revolution. Julio FB ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: my participation on L-I
Fire away. Yoshie I'm on the following lists: this, Lou's, deep-eco, wsn and the crashlist. For the past couple of weeks I've been scanning the archives of other lists, and I haven't felt the urge to join or participate in them. I may rejoin Rob's list or perhaps he'll be good enough to do it for me and save me the bother, altho I would prefer not to discuss Bhaskar unless someone can first identify for me the name of one practising and fairly well thought of scientist in any major discipline like physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy etc, or sub-division thereof, who even knows of the existence of Roy Bhaskar let alone thinks him of any worth whatsoever. That's all I'm doing right now and even that is too much. This means, as far as I can see, that unless you contribute to l-i more it is not likely we are going to be discussing anything much. I'm already doing more than I meant to anyway. This does not mean that I do not like to talk with you or don't respect your mind. But I'm not initiating anything right now, so you better unpack your own torpedos (not Russian ones, I hope, which are designed on the uroborus principle). Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Program, Organization, Conjuncture
A revolutionary organization with a clear program has yet to come into being in my corner of the planet. What of yours? In the absence of a revolutionary party active within a mass movement, into what should one assimilate? We have to build it, first of all. Now, why don't you lay out your analysis of the present conjuncture, now that you are here? That should be a good point of departure. Ah, I see you are indeed working on the uroborus principle of circularity. You can't build a party without a theory, and you can't have a theory without first having a party seems to be your position. IMO what you have to do is (a) make some kind of analysis of the global conjuncture; (b) persuade other people of it and (c) organise around it. If you want to know where I think (a) is at, check out the crashlist website and archive. There is a good resume of where (a) is, written by Stan Goff. You have already long ago rejected my version of (a). You still think in terms of socialist construction, social meliorism, bettering the human condition, emancipation, more dignity for labour, worldwide social justice etc. These ideas are completely reactionary in the circumstances, they are a brake on the *revolutionary* movement because they do not address the nature of the historical impasse which capitaism has now draghged humankind into; your ideas are a century out of date and belong with the progressivism of 'storming the heavens' bolshevism and 19th century social optimism generally. What we *ought* to do is construct people with the bitter truth about the fate of biodiversity which exterminist capital has brought us all to. One of the latest and most pitiful incarnations of this idea, which attempts the impossible squaring of eco-doom with social progress circles (impossible even for an uroborus) is the latest effort by Foster to ground Marxism in epicurus. In england you can buy at harrod's an upmarket raspberry jam called Epicurus. I would rather spend my money that way, on the whole. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
FW: [L-I] Program, Organization, Conjuncture
-Original Message- From: Mark Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 13 January 2001 12:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [L-I] Program, Organization, Conjuncture [[typos corrected] A revolutionary organization with a clear program has yet to come into being in my corner of the planet. What of yours? In the absence of a revolutionary party active within a mass movement, into what should one assimilate? We have to build it, first of all. Now, why don't you lay out your analysis of the present conjuncture, now that you are here? That should be a good point of departure. Ah, I see you are indeed working on the uroborus principle of circularity. You can't build a party without a theory, and you can't have a theory without first having a party seems to be your position. IMO what you have to do is (a) make some kind of analysis of the global conjuncture; (b) persuade other people of it and (c) organise around it. If you want to know where I think (a) is at, check out the crashlist website and archive. There is a good resume of where (a) is, written by Stan Goff. You have already long ago rejected my version of (a). You still think in terms of socialist construction, social meliorism, bettering the human condition, emancipation, more dignity for labour, worldwide social justice etc. These ideas are completely reactionary in the circumstances, they are a brake on the *revolutionary* movement because they do not address the nature of the historical impasse which capitaism has now dragged humankind into; your ideas are a century out of date and belong with the progressivism of 'storming the heavens' bolshevism and 19th century social optimism generally. What we *ought* to do is confront people with the bitter truth about the fate of biodiversity which exterminist capital has brought us all to. One of the latest and most pitiful incarnations of this idea, which attempts the impossible squaring of eco-doom with social progress circles (impossible even for an uroborus) is the latest effort by Foster to ground Marxism in epicurus. In england you can buy at harrod's an upmarket raspberry jam called Epicurus. I would rather spend my money that way, on the whole. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Cuba
Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky dijo: In the end, the result of all this is either deserved and navel- gazing loneliness for the Left, or tremendous defeats (such as in Bolivia, 1972) for the masses. Anton, I am seriously afraid that you do not have the slightest idea of what does the word "dialectic" mean. Oh, come on. He doesn't even know what 'navel' means. The rest of us know it's an orange. For Wonsi it's just a black hole. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] (Fwd) [Fwd: Kursk hit by British submarine (part2)]
I just had a look at this site: http://www.redstar.ru/kursk5.html This is the online version of Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), the armed forces newspaper published by the Russian Defence ministry. Today's issue (25/08) also discusses Kursk. The line seems to be that there was an *accidental* collision with a Nato submarine, but that such accidents are likely to happen in the Barents Sea, because it is crowded with Nato ships and subs, which are not just monitoring but trying to blockade the Russian navy, basically to prevent a Russian naval presence from developing in the Mediterranean, which might help counterbalance Nato strength in the Balkans. So the Russian take on the geopolitics is that Nato wants a free hand in the Balkans. Which is all true, but doesn't quite read like WW3 is about to begin. If Russian top military brass hadn't spent the better part of the past decade looting the reserves of the former Soviet armed forces for personal gain, to the point where there are documented stories of Russian naval officers selling off the airconditioning life support systems of *their own* submarines, one might take thenm more seriously. Indicentally, the Kursk, which was launched in 1994, has only ever put to sea once before. On this occasion it apparently put to sea with vital equipment, including emergency batteries, missing. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Sent: 24 August 2000 01:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [L-I] (Fwd) [Fwd: Kursk hit by British submarine (part2)] No comments. If the message below is accurate, then we are facing very very serious problems. Please an expert to cast some light! ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Moderator's note on the Kossovo debate
I asked people on the Crashlist to quit talking about Yugo a little while back, because I couldn't find a way to anchor this debate to the Crashlist topic, but if Jared is not welcome on L-I (I'm sure he is, really) he is more than welcome on the Crashlist; and in fact, Yugo matters terribly, and has global significance in all kinds of ways. I'd be glad to see some debate about the geopolitics of Nato, its strategic reach in the Balkans, and the very-related question of energy politics. I hope this doesn't look like I'm shilling for the crashlist; I think L-I has a fantastically important role to play, not least in the clarification of theory. But somehow we haven't quite found the ways of *centralising* or *focussing* debate about the Balkans/Yugoslavia; we need to do more stuff on Nato + geopolitics. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 August 2000 23:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L-I] Moderator's note on the Kossovo debate Dear friends, This argument about Kosovo isnot in a vacuum, in life or on this list. There was a long back and forth argument between me and Schneider readable on the LI archives. In it, I presented much evidcence, and some useful reference material. Besides the LI archives, where one can read the extensive debate between me and Schneider, which I won'd duplicate, here is some original material for those who want to learn more about the situation: On whether Serbia has encouraged nationalist divisions or seen them as a danger, people should study Milosevich's speech in Kosovo field at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/milosaid.html and read the interview with Tika Jankovich and Petar Makara., 'A nightmare with the best intentions' about what it was like being a Serb in the 70s and 80s, at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/tika.htm The interview and Milosevic's speech together give some idea of what many Serbs are thinking. On the ties between the US and the KLA, see for instance: 'The Cat is Out of the Bag" at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/ciaaided.htm (The above deals partly with William Walker, whose jobs was setting up liaison with the KLA during the OSCE verification mission to Kosovo in fall '98. On William Walker's death squad credentials see 'Meet Mr. Massacre' at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/meetmr.htm On the history and present practice of fascism in Kosovo, see for instance: History: George Thompson's 'The roots of Kosovo fascism' at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/thompson/rootsof.htm On the KLA as fascist: : 1) 'Driven from Kosovo: Jewish Leader Blames NATO - Interview With Cedda Prlincevic' at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/prlincevic.htm 2) "Save the Families - Women of Orahovac Speak" at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/savethe.htm 3) "UN appoints alleged war criminal in Kosovo" by Michel Chossudovsky at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/unandthe.htm Follow the suggested links at the end of each article. All together, there must be over a hundred articles on Emperors Clothes - www.tenc.net -- that deal with what has happened since NATO took over Kosovo. I will now post three articles -- two that deal with life in Kosovo today and one interview with a magnificent Albanian. Best regards, Jared Israel ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
