Robert Cherry wrote: > Whatever the outcome of the Swangi Tell saga, I am struck by the looseness > of the use of the term "Stalinism." This is not a matter for dispute. The person in question has written in great length in defense of Stalin. > It upsets me just as much as when the > left used the term "Reaganism." Using Reaganism was a way of avoiding being > explicitly anti-capitalist while using Stalinism is often a way of being > explicitly anti-communist. The anti-communist right doesn't generally use the term stalinism -- they prefer other words (e.g. communist, totalitarian, evil empire, etc.). It is the *failure of the left* to address stalinism that has, in large part, isolated progressives from the working class. It is the failure of the left -- and *apologetics* by the left -- to critically examine its own history .... > (Of course, the Left's anti-communism is > different than the Right's.) Well ... what does anti-communism mean in this context? Certainly, social democrats are anti-communist. Are Trotskyists? (I don't think so) Are autonomist Marxists? (I don't think so). Are Marxist-humanists? (I don't think so). Anti-communism is one of those words that has been used by stalinists to unjustly discredit their political opponents on the left. After all, Hitler and Franco were anti-communist, if you oppose "us" then you must be like them! And, btw, let's not forget Stalin's policy of describing political opponents like social democrats as "social fascists." That, after all, was the pretext for why the KPD didn't have a united front with the SPD -- and *that* led to Hitler's election victory. > With all its warts, the CP in the United States > played a crucial constructive role in the fight for working people and > against bigotry. I would say that the CPUSA play both a constructive and destructive role. Was it constructive when they opposed the March on Washington during WW2 organized by A. Philip Randolph? Was it constructive when they opposed the Miners and Montgomery Ward strikes during the same period? Were they being constructive when they supported FDR's plans for a 4th term? Were they being constructive when they wanted to extend the no-strike pledge into the post-WW2 period? > While the case for the constructive role of Stalin's regime > in the 1930s is not as strong -- there are clearly more than warts -- much of > the Left seems so willing to accept the worst assessments of that period -- > that it becomes a comfortable cover for dismissal of supporting ANY communist > movement. But _that_ wasn't the problem. The problem was that a certain segment of the left made *apologies*, *excuses*, and *denials* for Stalin and what followed. *And* these same people were the ones who said to others on the left that if they were critical of the "leadership" in the USSR, then *they* were being anti-communist. Wasn't _Stalin_ an anti-communist? Hell, he murdered most of the Bolshevik leadership (not to mention other political opponents, including communists, on the left). Jerry
