Thu, 8 May 1997 01:07:55 -0400 COCKROACH! #59 A EZINE FOR POOR AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE. WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT OUR CHAINS. It is time that the poor and working class people have a voice on the Internet. Contributions can be sent to Subscribtions are free at Now on line! Check out the Home of COCKROACH! http://www.algonet.se/~malecki How often this zine will appear depends on you! -------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Trotsky quarantine. 2. The squatters movement.. 3. Election: Capital votes for Europe. 4. Cockroach vs Lcmcri! -------------------------------------------------------- The Trotsky quarantine. OK.Mark. What I mean by busy is that this list is only a small part of politics for me. So I have to ration my time. But I'll give it a `go' in the spirit of comradely discussion as you suggest. Ive argued ever since ive been on this list [5 months] that the key to politics is class struggle, and the class division between bolsheviks and mensheviks. The reason I'm a Trotskyist is because he was the main surviving bolshevik after Stalin had done his piece For me Trotsky was a Marxist and and Bolshevik/Leninist. He alone carried much of the responsibility for defending the Bolshevik tradition through struggle after struggle. So your question is really answered by Trotsky himself. In practice Trotsky opposed Stalin. He labelled stalinism menshevism, recognising the class basis of his "socialism in one country". However, if you look at Trotsky's practical alternative [you know, inspired by the fascists to defeat the SU] it wasnt some abstract "world revolution". It was the same conception of revolutionary internationalism that inspired the Bolsheviks from the start. So the path-breaking analysis of Lenin on capitalism in Russia, and Trotsky on permanent revolution, was based on applying marx's method to the concrete truth of Russia as a semi-colony. The weakest link etc. [I don't know if youve read Results and Prospects from 1906 which lays out the basics of Permanent Revolution. I dont know what your opinion of The History of the Russian Revolution is. For me it is the marxist classic of the 20th century] But socialism was always dependent on a European, and then an Eastern revolution.[We don't disagree on this and Trotsky was with Lenin on the need to retreat to survive, up to including using the market to augment the plan and the opening up of trade with capitalism in the 1930's. But the point of this is to defend the gains of October, not give Stalinism any political support]. So it was this method that inspired Trotsky and the LO to fight Stalin's block of four classes in China as a nationalist deathtrap. Trotsky argued that a Chinese October was possible. Not an abstract world revolution, but revolution in another weak link that would also act as a spark for the European revolution, and revive the class struggle in the SU. [Leon Trotsky on China] IT was the same method that tried to win back the Comintern to a proletarian internationalism up to 1933 and the massive betrayal of the workers to Hitler etc.[You must have read The Struggle against Fascism in Germany]. Compare this with the menshevik `internationalism' touted on this list where various national chauvinisms are added up to mean `internationalism'. I mean if I don't post some message talking about NZ then i'm not an internationalist. Of course Ive done that, but not to meet this chauvinist list definition of `internationalism'. A number of apologetics are still being heard on this list why we can't go on about Stalinism. One is that rank and file stalinists were genuine workers. Of course. Part of this genuineness however is not the desire to be led by a great leader which is put forward to blame workers for the rise of dictators. Where can we see this need on the part of workers uncontaminated by a bureaucratic leadership? This is where I think that your characterisation of the great counter-revolutionary dynamic after 1923 is in danger of slipping into the same mode of thinking. Apart from 1917, where Lenin recognised this huge desire of workers to be lead, by stating that the party was being left behind! there are many later examples of worker uprisings aborted not by their authoritarian submission, but by counter-revolutionary misleaders. China 1927 is a tragic case. This line is the old familiar menshevik alibi of blaming the workers for succumbing to a bureaucratic dictatorship. Trotsky fought as an opposition inside the CP's until 1933. What was his aim if not to break the CP rank and files from the bureaucrats? He was also in favour of entering CP's after 1933 as in France in 1934 and later in the US. But of course the bureaucratic stranglehold the Stalinist leaders had by that time made life too dangerous for Trotskyists, so they entered second international parties instead - if they had left-moving elements in a revolutionary situation. Almost all the leading Trotskyists from this period far from ending up as `conservatives' [why not fascists] - a smokescreen if there ever was one - ended up dead at the hands of Stalin's apparatus. Almost all of Trotsky's immediate family died this way, notably his son Sedov, or in the case of his closest daughter, who killed herself because she was refused permission to return to the SU to be with her children. Trotsky's own case is only the most celebrated [and still celebrated]. Clearly Stalin was shit-scared that the opposition, later the 4I, would destroy the deals he made with bourgeois states to defend his precious SIOC, and might even bring his dictatorship to an end. And he had good reason to fear Bolshevik/Leninism/Trotskyism. Hitler himself is said to have referred to Trotsky as a problem for Stalin. [Ive got the reference somewhere]. And, when reduced to pitiful 100's - without the 100's of thousands trapped in the popular fronts - the 4I fought on a bolshevik/Leninist programme of `turn the imperialist war into a civil war'. Some Trotskyists capitulated, no wonder. Others led those` backward' workers seeking out some` demagogue', and actually began to stage armed insurrections - notably in Greece and in Indochina - similar to the great aborted German revolution of 1919 - only to be met with Yalta and Potsdam. You in your small corner me in mine. These aborted proletarian revolutions were the price of Stalin's `peaceful coexistence' with imperialism. While Trotskyists saw the formation of deformed workers states in Eastern Europe and in China, Korea, Vietnam as post-capitalist states, they were not based on proletarian revolutions and remained under stalinist dictatorships. While defensible despite the stalinist regimes, they were no subsitute for the real thing. Trotskyists blocked with the Stalinists in the defence of workers property, but always with the object of ultimately removing the bureaucratic caste from power and opening the road to socialism. Post-war you get a lot of debate among Trotskyists about who continues the tradition of Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. In my view, the 4I had already gone off the rails by the end of the war, despite loyal and courageous rank and filers, the leadership started to adapt to petty bourgeois currents, and national bourgeoisies. None of the fractions is capable today of rebuilding a new international. We must all go back to the key lessons of revolutionary history and rebuild struggle by struggle defending all the gains, and smashing the SD, Stalinist and other petty bourgeois currents which still exercise a lot of influence over the working class. [I don't know if you are familiar with post-war Trotskyism. Its collapse into centrism goes back to the same old problem - petty bourgeois leadership and end of unity of theory and practice means end of dialectics means end of democratic centralism and onset of bureaucratic centralism.] The cornerstone of the new international has to be the recovery of marx's dialectical method as it was developed and practiced by Lenin and Trotsky, which makes it clear that theory and practice have to be united. And there is no way that this can be done except through the democracy and discipline of a vanguard party. Despite the risks and undoubted defeats we will suffer along the way we have no alternative. This is why any new international has to settle accounts with the past betrayals and learn these hard lessons. We want to win next time, not find ourselves under the same old bureaucratic boot. Not to mention the bootlickers on this list. Solidarity, Dave. ------------------------------------------------------- The squatters movement.. Bob -- Your word of warning about "single issue stuff orientated to lifestylism" is, I believe, off-base in relation to the NYC squatters movement. While it is true that squatting is an international phenomenon, the political direction (and, sometimes, class content) can vary significantly. For example, in some urban areas squatters have become either a conservative and/or passive force. In other cases, they are more radical and militant. In large part, this is a consequence of state policy, i.e. in those regions where squatters are tolerated by the state, they tend to become more passive whereas in those regions where the state has launched a campaign to eradicate the squats the dynamic of the ensuing struggle tends to radicalize the squatters. In addition to supporting city-wide demonstrations and actions against police brutality, budget cuts, ending rent control laws, and for peddlers, the homeless, legalizing weeds, etc., the squatters have also helped to organize demonstrations and benefits in solidarity with anarchists and squatters under attack in other nations, in support of Mumia, in support of the Mohawks, in support of the Zapatistas, and in opposition to the Gulf War. In many other cases where they supported the actions called by other groups, they would meet first in the LES and then march _en masse_ to the demo and participate as a contingent. Indeed, I have seen many actions where every single housemember of a squat would march together to an action (this can be pretty impressive sometimes). In part, the above is a consequence of the fact that as a result of the Tompkins Square Park struggle, which attracted international attention, the LES has served as a magnet of sorts for radicals (especially anarchists) from other areas. However, more importantly, it is the struggle itself -- i.e. the dynamic of resisting the attack by the state, the banks, and the real estate developers -- which has propelled this community in a radical direction. Moreover, in the course of that struggle they have increasingly come to recognize how their struggle is part of an international struggle and have been more active in solidarity actions as a consequence. So, no Bob, it is not a "single issue" thing "orientated to lifestylism." Jerry I want to add a few more comments on this subject -- I should have mentioned in my previous post the consistent support by the LES squatters for the womens's movement. In recent years, this has often involved the mobilization of squatters for clinic defense. There have also been some local actions organized by the squatters themselves, e.g. the "Fierce Pussy Fest" held in Tompkins Square Park two summers ago. Part of this involvement reflects the substantial number of young feminist punk squatters. Before finishing my comments at this time on this thread, I want to add some critical commentary on the scene here. The squatters, as I mentioned before, have made a number of mistakes. Most serious in my opinion has been an inability to successfully outreach into the renters' community in the East Village/Lower East Side. While the squatters tend to have very good relations with the residents on their own blocks -- in part because when the squats move in, the drug dealers tend to move elsewhere; also they engage in community enhancement projects like building and supporting community gardens -- they have been less than successful in other ways in terms of outreach. Part of the problem here has been the ultraleft and incorrect accessment by many squatters that non-squatters are mostly "yuppies." While it is true that there are yuppies in the community, a much larger percentage of community residents remain low-to-medium income working-class families. Slogans like "Die Yuppie Scum" are not the best from this standpoint. Many of the slogans and leaflets of the squatters can be a bit ultraleft as well. While this posturing is embraced by many of the squatters, it doesn't really help build solidarity (yet, again, I want to emphasize that despite this, the squatters themselves have been forthcoming in offering solidarity to other groups under attack). I also want to note again that the squatters community is very heterogeneous and there are frequently very heated divisions among them on strategy and tactics. Probably the most notorious ultraleft grouping is a small contingent that puts out the "Class War Organizer" (it was this group that held a demo in 1991 around the slogan "Revenge is Coming!"). There is also too much of a emphasis on battling the cops. While the antagonism between the squats and the cops has its roots in the massive brutality by the infamous 9th Precinct, I believe that the emphasis on the cops is misplaced since the cops are obeying orders (with too much vicious glee, to be sure) from above. Individual squats are often bitterly divided internally as well -- which sometimes leads to violent evictions of squatters by squatters. The racial composition of some of the squats could also stand some improvement (a sore point with some Hispanic groups from the LES who feel that Hispanics are underrepresented in squats). While the lifestyle question isn't really a problem in terms of the relation of squats to others in the community since the East Village in particular has a long tradition of acceptance and toleration of counter-cultural types, the real problem is that some elements of the lifestyle of punk squatters can be _self_-destructive, e.g. chronic alcohol abuse and significant use of some heavy-duty drugs such as crack and heroin. I can't even count the number of squatters I have known who have died from this. _So_ sad -- especially so since they are frequently very young (in their 20's). Of course, the biggest obstacle remains external -- the City, the banks, real estate companies. For years now (since 1991), the squatters have been on the defensive (e.g. in 1991 Tompkins Square Park was closed, the homeless encampment called "Dinkinsville" was squashed, and the TSP bandshell was demolished; then sometime later the biggest squat, "Glass House" was evicted; then there were the evictions on 13th Street and the closing of a community park called "La Plaza Cultural"; just recently the eviction of the 5th St. squatters; and the performance space/squat called "ABC No Rio" is now threatened with eviction). Furthermore, the opening of new squats has not been able to make-up for the loss of existing ones (in large part, this is a consequence of the increasing shortage of available buildings suitable for squatting). I should also add that community gardens throughout the City, and in particular the LES, are threatened with eviction. This could very well be the site of some of the next major confrontations in the neighborhood (of course, squatters support the community gardens). Some of the blame, though, must be placed on other radicals, in particular the Marxist groups which have chosen to abstain from support for the squatters. Perhaps those groups think that only trade-union and international solidarity movements deserve their active support. Perhaps they are intimidated politically by the large presence of anarchists on the scene. Whatever the cause, these groups have isolated themselves from the most militant community in NYC. Jerry -------------------------------------------------------- Election: Capital votes for Europe At 11:54 1997-04-27 GMT, you wrote: >Capital casts its vote > >It has been exceptionally difficult to analyse the capitalist >position on the most crucial economic question of British politics >- whether Britain should join the European Monetary Union (EMU) >which has almost split the British Conservative Party, with >John Major having to lean more and more towards a >Euro-sceptic position. Why? > >Events this week show the way international capital wishes >to influence the result of the election and why it wishes to >do so discretely. Last night in the form of a press release >by the International Monetary Fund it signalled its desire for >a Blair victory. > >This is an exercise in the marxist method of analysis and >in the marxist theory of causation. It would be a ridiculous >travesty of marxism to say after 1st May that capital voted >Blair into power. That would be a crude, mechanistic, reductionist >distortion. But out of the interplay of many determining factors, >in which contradictions in the superstructure are not unimportant, >nevertheless, in the final analysis, in the "last instance" >the economic factors act as force of gravity on the whole political >process, no matter what superficial variations may affect the trend. > >But how does this work? Thanks Buford for and interesting and important article. Actually you are touching on a subject which is very fucking important for poor and working class people for a change. I think that the main thesis on the present jockying certainly has to do with partially the Euro-dollar and a united states of Europe for the capitalists. But it is not just the money question here but the whole tactical orientation of the European bougeoisies around the present situation they find themselves in. But i think that it has to be seen in the historical context of the demise of the Soviet Union, the old question for the German imperialists of a two front war, and the various tactical manorves in regards to Germany because it is the reunified Germany connected to the fall of the Soviet Union which I believe is the central underlying issue and current which is determining the various moves from different quarters. Some quite conciously and others unconciously. I think that the present split in the conservative party quite clearly poses the question if the war with Germany is really over. The answer is naturally of course not! And the twists and turns around the Euro-dollar are connected to sections of the British Bougeoisie who really see and understand what a threat the new Germany is to their interests despite the sghort sighted economic problems Germany finds itself in in rebuilding Berlin as the capitol and the interghration of the former eastern part of the country. The reason that elememts of the Britisk bougeoisie is so fucking upset is partially their Germophilism and the fact that they realize that they would like to do exactly as the Germans and rebuild the great empire but don't have the bucks nor economic power to do it. The Germans on the other hand have quite clearly after Jugoslavia made the point albeit in back of the scenes that they are once again a serious imperialist power to deal with again. I think the major concern of the Germans has been the problem of the historical two front war which in two great wars led to their defeat. As to whether they have learned anything only time will tell. But the present orientation appears to be a united states of Europe and the power German mark controling the Euro-dollar and the market. The problem is and they are fairly aware of it. Is that the Russian card is a reality that has to be dealt with. I think at present the Germans are for European "unity" to deal with the Russian problem once and for all before starting anything with their age old rivals of the French and English variants. The French by the way appear to be playing the classical role of the chicken race. Historically knowing that every war has led to the occupation of their country by the invading Germanns they think that at present a Franco-German axis against the English as being the course that the majority of the French Bougeoisie want to travel at this particular time. Naturally there are some real problems and prizes up for grabs. For example who gets what in Russia? With the Germans being closest geographically and with the strongest economy in Europe the Brits and the Americans are certainly climbing the fucking walls in worry. And in fact what would be the scenario if Jeltsin or somebody who comes after him were to turn towards Berlin rather then at present Washinton? And what about North Africa and the oil connected to Islamic fundementalism. The Germans have been extremely clever in building up both strong economic links and factories in these countries while the Americans and English are fighting some sort of new crusade against the fundementalists. This part of the world is another strategic prize. Finally, when you look at it rather closely we have and extremely complicated a very dangerous situation developing as the various imperialist interests begin a new round of jockying for positions after the demise of the Soviet Union. In fact the danger is much greater today then it was prior to world war 2 because the Soviet Union despite the Stalinists were defending the gains of the October revolution. So the constellations coming out of the present situation will not have the character that the Stalinist led degenerated workers state had prior to World war 2. Your article in a bizaar way points out what is really at stake and the elections and the various moves by the capitalists and imperialists to these elections certainly does give some signals. My bet is that the Germans are down on their knees secretly praying that Blair's new Labor comes to power. The Americans I do not think are exactly over joyed by this possibility. Because a LP victory must be seen as a strengthening of the German card. And I think the Americans in their long term interests feel that it is the Germans who they are going to have to deal with perhaps in a new alliance with a Russian Bougeois government. To say that the development of a Revolutionary Marxist Internationalist tendency with a mass pole of attraction in this new situation must be the undewrstatement of the year! As the recent reactionary rule on M-I prevents me from cross posting to other lists and publishing this important discussion in a future issue of Cockroach I post my reply to M-G only on the danger of being expelled from M-I for cross posting. But this thead is probably one of the most important threads started in a long time and unfortunately because of bureaucratic rules set up by the neo Stalinist Mensheviks, yourself Buford, and the moderaters actually stops any kind of real discussion on M-I. At least on Malecki and Cockroaches part. Because this kind of discussion has to reach the broadest Socialist, Communist, "Marxist" public on the net as elsewhere. Not to mention poor and working class people on the Net as elsewhere. Unfortunately the "new" rule prevents this on M-I. Warm Regards Bob Malecki ------------------------------------------------------- Cockroach vs Lcmcri! A very interesting exchange can be found at my homepage. A long exchange between Cockroach and the Lcmcri who claim to be authodox "Trotskyists" fighting to build a revolutionary International.. The exchange has sent these centrists into accusing Malecki and Cockroach of being a "Stalinist" along the lines of "icepick" Aldolfo O. a Peruvian exile who's main claim to fame is support of the PCP killing its political opponents along with accusing everybody else of being "agents" of Fujimora. In fact the documents show that the Lcmcri when pressed politically from the left--backhandely try to paint up their political opponents as possible cop/agents in the workers movement. However this is not the point! The point is the long exchange which started off on the British elections, quickily led to a whole series of questions facing Revolutionary Marxists Internationally. So turn your browsers to my homepage (see below) and push on the "Cockroach vs the Lcmcri" button. Then go off line and read this interesting exchange in your browser. Or I can send it to you Email... Warm Regards Bob Malecki and Cockroach! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check Out My HomePage where you can, Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara, Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball! Or Get The Latest Issue of, COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people http://www.algonet.se/~malecki Back issues of Cockroach and my book at http://www.kmf.org/malecki/ --------------------------------------------------------