Sun, 2 Mar 1997 06:47:15 -0500 COCKROACH! #41 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. Bolshevism and Menshevism? 2. Re: Workers Communism? 3. Special Announcement! -------------------------------------------------------- Bolshevism and Menshevism? As usual Louis P. asks lots of questions but does not come up with adequate answers. Picking up on a common thread in the M-I list while Ive been on it, I'll put the Bolshie case against the Menshies. I share Louis opposition to the market socialists, who are in retreat from the failure of the "experiment". Louis makes a good point when he says that we have to find marxist explanations for what went wrong in the USSR. There are several non-marxist traditions which need to be isolated and confronted. The Anarchists are one; the state capitalists are one; the mensheviks are a third. As cross-cousins they are related in their hostility to Bolshevism. Against these currents I would put the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were those who understood the importance of uniting theory and practice in the class struggle. How can you apply the dialectical method unless you are part of a Bolshevik party? How can you test theory in practice and correct your programme unless you operate as a democratic centralist organisation? Anything else is petty-bourgeois self-indulgence where everyone does their "own thing" and the result is organisation degeneration into bureaucratic centralism around ideological gurus. Lenin and Trotsky were the outstanding examples of Bolsheviks. They had a good grasp of Marxist dialectics which they applied to Russia by developing Marx's analysis of capitalism as a world system - imperialism. For them the "truth is concrete" . Russia was a backward semi-colony; was the `weakest link' where the working class could make a socialist revolution, but could not carry it through without the support of the European revolution. [ If this list has proved anything against people like Karl, Leninism is not voluntarism, but revolutionary marxism at the head of the working class and poor peasantry. 1917 shows that Lenin tested and changed his theory according to the developing struggle; that major divisions existed in the Bolsheviks about tactics.] Trotsky did not understand the significance of the vanguard party until 1917. This changed in 1917 when Trotsky took on the task of leading the Revolution. 1917 was therefore not an `experiment' at all but the product of Bolshevik leadership under conditions which were fully grasped theoretically and practically. The "weakest link" gave but the rest of the chain stayed firm. Why? As I understand it, it was not the lack of objective conditions. Imperialism was `rotten ripe' for revolution. Rather it was a failure of leadership which has to be charged home to the petty bourgeois marxism prevalent in the European parties - in a word - Menshevism. Mensheviks and others who pour scorn on the Bolshevik revolution are in reality reponsible for its bureaucratisation, not the demise of the working class in Russia as Louis, and Tony Cliff argue. How many is enough workers?. In the Bolsheviks view there were sufficient workers and poor peasants to make a revolution, but insufficient to make "socialism in one country". The insurrection was always going to be a "holding operation" until the rest of the world caught up. Lenin's last article "Better Fewer but Better" makes this clear. Mensheviks were against the Bolshevik revolution - the closet Mensheviks Stalin, Zinoviev and Karmenev even conspired to prevent the insurrection - but failed to stop it. They truly believed that a bourgeois stage was necessary to prepare the pre-conditions for socialism in Russia. But they did succeed in preventing revolutions in Europe and in Asia. They did so because they were in the leadership of the communist parties along with ultlralefts, and the European revolution was sacrificed for want of a Bolshevik leadership in Germany after 1918 that could unite theory and practice and make a revolution. Once the European revolution had failed, the Mensheviks drew the usual conclusion - they did not blame themselves. They blamed the workers who were not ready yet because the objective pre-conditions were not complete. The whole of Western Marxism from Bernstein onwards is one gigantic attack on the working class as backward, politically and ideologically, unready for revolution until the petty bourgeois leadership decides `history' is ripe. The mensheviks also gained power in Russia as the Stalinist bureauracy. The stalinists are mensheviks. They immediately reverted to a stage theory of world revolution, where semi-colonies must go through a national/democratic revolution before moving on to a socialist one. Thus the prestige of the Bolshevik revolution for the worlds workers got dragged in the mud of this stage theory which required workers and peasants to form political alliances with their class enemy and hand over their weapons to the likes of Chiang Kai Shek or today, Nelson Mandela. This stageism also brought about Hitler's victory over the German workers. Stalin didnt fight Hitler, as recent postings to the list show, but believed that the victory of fascism would automatically result in the victory of Communism. Or course the whole murderous stage theory was just an ideological prop for Stalin's alliances with "friendly" imperialist states to defend "socialism in one country". There's a lot of hostility to post-war "Trostskyism" on the M-I list. Lets not fudge this question. Post-war Trotskyism succumbed to the same fatalism as the pre-war Stalinists. This meant abandoning the living link between the objective and subjective reality forged by the vanguard party, and tailing a whole range of petty bourgeois and bourgeois currents. But if post-war Trotskyism collapsed into bureaucratic centrism, it is Stalinist/menshevism that must be brought to account. Trotsky's attempts to keep the Bolshevik current alive had to face the murderous counter-revolution of Stalinists who slandered the opposition/Fourth International as bourgeois agents in the working class, and eliminated whole generations of revolutionaries. Even then, the Stalinists were forced to collaborate with the imperialists to stop Trotskyist-led revolutions in Greece and Indo-China, to name only two striking examples. [Check out the Revolutionary History web page for sources on these post-war Stalin-aborted revolutions]. If we want a Marxist explanation for the failure of the "experiment", then we should take a Bolshevik position against the Mensheviks. We cannot bury the past behind "non-aggression pacts" such as Rob wants. The record of the Mensheviks is one of counter-revolution. To paraphrase Trotsky, those who cannot face up to this, who do not learn the lessons of history, cannot defend old conquests, and will not go on to make new ones. Dave. > > >Dave wrote: > > Against these currents I would put the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were > > those who understood the importance of uniting theory and practice in > > the class struggle. How can you apply the dialectical method unless you > > are part of a Bolshevik party? > Louis: I think you mean *your* Bolshevik party, don't you? However, your > idea of a Bolshevik party is different from Lenin's and has more in common > with the grotesque Zinovievist model. Louis you don't answer the question, but throw up a smokescreen which is that Lenin did not believe in a democratic-centralist Bolshevik party, but Zinoviev somehow smuggled this idea into Bolshevism giving Lenin a bad name. If you reject democratic centralism and dialectics you should say so. > > Dave:As I understand it, it was not the lack of objective conditions. > > Imperialism was `rotten ripe' for revolution. Rather it was a failure of > > leadership which has to be charged home to the petty bourgeois marxism > > prevalent in the European parties - in a word - Menshevism. > Louis: Actually, the failure of socialism revolution in Western Europe in > the 20s and 30s must be shared by the three major working-class currents. > The CPs subordinated themselves to Soviet foreign policy. The SPs had the > same sort of gradualist and class-collaborationist flaws that they had > before WWI. The Trotskyist parties could never gain a mass following > because they combined an often correct strategic line with virulent > sectarianism. This sectarianism lays at the foot of the early Comintern. > In the hands of Stalin, it led to powerful bulwarks to defend Soviet > foreign policy in the short run, even though in the long run it undermined > the USSR. Zinovievest "vanguardism" in the hands of the small Trotskyist > currents led them to become bizarre cult formations after Trotsky's death. > When he was alive, the Fourth International was a haven for some brilliant > intellectuals and even some capable worker's leaders. Since the 1940s, it > has produced a cast of madmen that Tariq Ali's satire hardly does justice > to. Here you run a whole lot of things together which just creates confusion. You run THREE internationals together. You identify a common problem with each. That's OK. But what causes it? Evolutionary thinking in the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. The 2I adapted to evolutionary socialism in the interests of the petty bourgeois and the labour aristocracy. The 3I under the menshevik/stalinist leadership did the same after 1923. This goes deeper than "subordinating to soviet foreign policy". The 4I also capitulated to the petty bourgeoisie currents in the post-war period. What is common to all degenerations of healthy revolutionary currents is the failure to apply the Bolshevik method of uniting theory and practice in the class struggle. The results are the grotesque deformations you speak of. But unless we find the root cause, there is not stopping the same thing happening next time. You do not provide any answers against this - my point. > > Dave : Mensheviks and others who pour scorn on the Bolshevik revolution are > > in reality reponsible for its bureaucratisation, not the demise of > > the working class in Russia as Louis, and Tony Cliff argue. How many > > is enough workers?. In the Bolsheviks view there were sufficient > > workers and poor peasants to make a revolution, but insufficient to > > make "socialism in one country". The insurrection was always going > > to be a "holding operation" until the rest of the world caught up. > > Lenin's last article "Better Fewer but Better" makes this clear. > Louis: Well, what are you waiting for? When can we expect a proletarian > dictatorship in New Zealand. Long live the RED KIWI!! > up yours too. > >Dave: If we want a Marxist explanation for the failure of the "experiment", > > then we should take a Bolshevik position against the Mensheviks. We > > cannot bury the past behind "non-aggression pacts" such as Rob wants. > > The record of the Mensheviks is one of counter-revolution. To paraphrase > > Trotsky, those who cannot face up to this, who do not learn the lessons > > of history, cannot defend old conquests, and will not go on to make new ones. > Louis: What would you do if the words Bolshevik and Menshevik were purged > from your vocabulary? Listening to you reminds me of the religious > oriented AM stations I turn on late at night for kicks. Substitute the > "Faithful" for "Bolsheviks" and the "Sinner" for Mensheviks and you get > the same sort of eschatological spirit. There are of course sins of > commission. One of them I mentioned the other day was the German CP > support for a Nazi referendum to recall SP members of parliament. Then > there are sins of omission--perhaps it would be more appropriate to call > them pecadillos. That of course is the story of the Trotskyist movement. > They never betray revolution, but by the same token they never lead them. > Just a pecadillo I guess. (What's that old song, "Just a Pecadillo" or > "Just a Gigolo"? I can't remember.) This is typical of you Louis. You can't give a straight answer. But you do demonstrate the point I am trying to make in the last paragraph. To paraphrase Trotsky again. If you don't recognise the dialectic, it still recognises you. There is a marxist explanation for you method and style of argumentation. It has a name - unfortunately for you, but fortunately for us, it is a scientific name, just like Bolshevik and Menshevik, which we cannot use or not use on individual whim. Yes you guessed it. Right first time. Red Kiwi -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Malecki wrote: >> > >> It is not really very interesting that you say that "Trotsky was a great >> revolutionary and writer" it sounds like a bookworm spreading peanut butter on bread, > but the revolutionary programatical and tactical positions of both Lenin and Trotsky > we or at least I am talking about. And these positions are opposed to the fundemental >> line of the "worker-communist document. >> > >You are probably right in not being sactisfied with my reply. I wrote it >in a sleepless night and in somewhat painful conditions. Then my english >doesn't come easy and I get lazy and careless. On the other hand, it's >true that I'm far more acquainted of Trotsky as a revolutionary figure >and as a >historian than of his "programatical and tactical" positions, of which I >only know generalities. I'll read (or re-read, I'm not sure) the >"Transitional Program" and I get back to you soon. OK? Fine! And know let us see what you have written. >>Malecki wrote; >> Well, your admission about thinking then Lenin "bends the stick" too far >> here is your problem. And you dig at Trotsky being a "luxemburguist" is just >> ridiculous in light of the history and programatical positions of the Left >> Opposition and the founding documents of the Fourth International. Joao replied; >Actually, Lenin retreated from some of the most extreme positions of >"What's to be done?" (1903). And he did it not long after, in 1905, >speaking of the working class as being "instintively social-democrat" >(which at that time meant socialist). >Lenin was a "political animal" as they say here, he had an acute >perception of the necessities of the moment. He had to fight the >"economists" and so he did it, throwing everything he could muster >against them. Not long after, he was saying: "Any movement of the >proletariat, however small, however modest he may be at the start, >however slight its occasion, inevitably threatens to outgrow its >immediate aims and to develop into a force irreconcilable to the entire >old order and destructive of it. The movement of the proletariat, by >reason of the essential peculiarities of the position of this class >under capitalism, has a marked tendency to develop into a desperate, >all-out struggle, a struggle for complete victory over all the dark >forces of exploitation and oppression." >He was saying this when he saw that the "spontaneous" revolutionary >outburst of the russian proletariat was going far beyond what any >political organization at that time could accompany, let alone lead. OK! However I do not see anything here that says Lenin contradicted himself. I think that he describes the contradictions of the workers movement. On the one hand "the "trade union conciousness" being "bougeois" conciousness in his polemics against both the Bernsteins and "terrorist" factions in What is to be done and on the other hand saying that; "Any movement of the proletariat, however small, however modest he may be at the start, however slight its occasion, inevitably threatens to outgrow its immediate aims and to develop into a force irreconcilable to the entire old order and destructive of it. The movement of the proletariat, by reason of the essential peculiarities of the position of this class under capitalism, has a marked tendency to develop into a desperate, all-out struggle, a struggle for complete victory over all the dark forces of exploitation and oppression." Joao continues; >Now, Hekmat doesn't go half this far. All he says is that there has >always been present in the working class a tendency that "aspires to, >and constantly tries to, push the entire class in a socialist >direction." I am prepared to say a little more: that with the >development of the productive forces, the enlargement of technical >skills and the awakening of class-consciousness among the workers, the >push for apropriation of the means of production is likely to become >stronger and stronger - with or without a political party. Which doesn't >mean we can do without one. This is not what i was critising about the workers Communist trend. It was in fact there classical modern day "economist" turn to the working class albeit with a Maoist twist. Thus they think that right wing trade union leaders should be treated as anti imperialist allies all the time. Whereas the classical Leninist-Trotskyist tactic is the proletaian United Front. In other words if these traitors take one step in the right direction we will march with them, however keeping the right to ruthlessly critise their politics which ultimately keep the workers in chains. > >Now, back to Lenin. The thing is, he was probably right on both >occasions. What happens is that we can't have a ready-made, >passe-partout leninist formula on this question as on many others. As >for Trotsky, sorry again. I'll get back to you later. What I can say >right now is that it hasn't worked until now and I'm not seeing any >historical jackpot falling in old Leon's hands all of a sudden. History >isn't about fairness. >I wouldn't be the least surprise to find Trotsky to be a far more >profound and powerful political strategist than Hekmat. The problem is >that he hasn't been around for some time and his real-time leadership is >not available. As we have just seen with Lenin, this is absolutely >crucial. You just can't find a substitute for that pondering moment of >political feeling and judgment. Leadership skills can be cultivated and >refined by reading past experiences. But they must not be >straight-jacketed in "theoretical" steriotypes. If we start making >things by the book, Lenin (or Trotsky) is likely to burn in pure rage on >his grave with our stupid, proselitistic mistakes. First you say that Lenin was right on both counts. Then you go on to say that these experiences along with Trotsky must not be "straigt jacketed in 'theoretical' steriotypes". But that is the whole point. Either Lenin and Trotsky were correct on this stuff or they were not. The only substituting going on here is that their are quite a few tendencies Internationaly who are trying to revise "Marxism" and "Leninism" along the political lines of the very same kind of people who they were arguing politically against in the first place. Thus in this case with the Worker Communist trend they appear to without admitting it openly have the position of the "party of the whole class"...It has nothing to do with whether Lenin or Trotsky are dead. But the political line that they historically represented. > >The workers' conception of the world is marxism - it gives them a theory >of history and a materialist philosophy. The rest is politics, tactical >stuff. You can bent the stick at will - careful, now, don't break it. >I'm not for that constant adding of ever new (mor or less) barbed men's >profiles to the picture: marxism-leninism-maoism-hoxhism, or >marxism-leninism-trotskyism-mandelism or cliffism or lambertism or >maleckism. The "correct" line is geting narrower and narrower till >there's only you left holding this historical Ariadne's thread. You're >absolutely right, but you're alone. The correct line has been >succesfully decanted from generation to generation but you look around >and there's no-one listening to you anymore. All of the above have very specific political clarification. And do you really think that if Lenin or Trotsky were around they would use your reasoning. I mean Lenin was quite alone in 1914! But it certainly didn't stop him from trying to argue the correct political points. >You see, the point is that I believe more in the working class >self-emancipation as a living historical process and less in >intellectual formulas engendered by privileged brains to be imported by >the workers for their salvation. And that's what worker-communism is all >about and where I decisively side with it. As Hekmat says: "Socialism is >not a model, a Utopia or a profound design for society, only waiting for >us socialists to implement it. It is not an arbitrary design, or a >prescription exported from the real of reason to the realm of practice. >Socialism is, first and foremost, a framework for a certain social >struggle that is being waged inevitably and independently of the >presence or absence of a party". Ahh! Now we come to it. Here is the problem. No longer Marxist arguements but organic arguements! The only honest answer to the above is the the Proletariat is alive and well! But beheaded of a leadership which can show it the way forward. And the above is not just talking about "Lenin bending the stick to far" but the classical modern day version of the "economist" trend of the early 1900's. You are arguing as the great, great, great, great grandson of the Bernsteins! > >Now, I have said before that "What's to be done?" can be a receipt for >non worker "communism", including state capitalism. I want to emphasize >now, in Lenin's honor, that , this being possible, it is not necessarily >so. For sure, I'll say that this isn't where we should be looking for >the reasons of our defeat in the russian revolution. And after the "economist" confession of Joao, he throws in a classical Schatmanite state capitalist arguement. Where onlt two parafgraphs before he was talking about those horrible "Cliffites"! So you are blaming the degeneration of the Soviet Union on Lenin and Trotsky and not Stalin and his henchmen. And doing it with a "plague on both your houses" Schactminite line. Neil! Here is your chance! > >I didn't say Trotsky was a luxemburguist, though he did have Rosa in >great regard, or at least said so. All I said is that Trotsky (with "Our >Political Tasks") actually sided with her against Lenin on >organizational questions back in 1903-4. You can't deny that, can you? OK! Trotsky was a Menshevik on the party question in 1903-04. But as one of the leaders of the October Revolution he was a Bolshevik on the Party question. > >> And my >> answer to you about your thinking that Hekmat does not bow to the reformism >> of workers is not true! He bows to the reformist leadership quite openly in >> the document. > >Not so. Anyway we've got two problems here. I was saying that he doesn't >bow to the reformist disposition of the bulk of the workers in normal >times. He set himself the task of building a party specifically for the >revolutionary workers. As for the union leaderships, he certainly has >lots of questions to ask them and the idea seems to be bringing >revolutionary ideas and discussions to everyday union life. The line is: >we should stay in the unions, questioning the leaders' behaviour and >shotsightnesses... until we have something better - the workers' >councils. Don't the trotskyists subscribe this? To my knowledge only the >bordiguists (and lately not even Bordiga himself) are against this. And I said that the Worker Communist Trend had a stagest theory on party building in the workers movement and the above by you just clarifies the correctness of this very economist line. What is the difference between the above and Lenins arguements against the economists on just the very same ideas. > >> Another big mouth ballon! Or at best the "wolf" in the story of the >> three little pigs saying "I huff and i puff and i blow your house down." The >> only differences is that you are both the wolf and the pig who is supporting >> backhandedly a straw house of politics while beating your breast about >> Trotsky being a Luxemburgist and Lenin "bending the stick" to far! Naturally >> I am prepared to take this back when and if you can give me a serious reply! > >Please don't. I never had such a great time as on reading this Glad you liked it! And the last part i take back because you finally gave me a serious, seriously wrong! answer at least.. Warm Regards Bob Malecki SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT! TO ANTI-DEATH PENALTY ACTIVISTS, ANTI-RACIST ACTIVISTS, SUPPORTERS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN SOCIAL JUSTICE: **** SAVE THIS DATE: MAY 3, 1997 **** AD-HOC COMMITTEE WORKS TO BROADEN COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND MOBILIZE GRASSROOTS ACTION ******************************************************** The Ad Hoc Coalition Against Racism and the Death Penalty is sponsoring an exciting media event and conference on Saturday, May 3, 1997 in Philadelphia, PA to increase the level of community consciousness and mobilize grassroots participation around issues of the death penalty including, but not limited to: 1. Education regarding the need to end the death penalty, including the roots of racism and class disparity in determining who is executed, and discussion on a national mobilization for a Moratorium on the Death Penalty. 2. Increasing and consolidating campaigns to free Political Prisoners/ Prisoners of War through community education and support; 3. Organizing to build a strong community-based movement to stop police beatings, frame-ups and murder. WHAT CAN YOU DO: Individuals and organizations who are eager to work with the Organizing Committee to insure maximum community participation by sharing mailing lists, hosting pre-conference meetings, organizing transportation to help get folks to the conference, donating educational and other materials, broadcasting live from the event, videotaping the event to use for future grassroots organizing, and offering your ideas, experience and concrete support should contact ASAP: Sis. Marpessa Kupendua - nattyreb@ix.netcom.com Bro. Komboa Ervin - komboa@mindspring.com !! SPEAK TRUTH TO THE PEOPLE !! ALL OUT FOR MAY 3RD! MORE INFORMATION FORTHCOMING. ================================================== 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 workingclass people http://www.algonet.se/~malecki --------------------------------------------------------