[A-List] Re:Aspects of the Political logic of Trotsyism in America

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

Sorry but this is sent in the middle of an ongoing debate and I wanted the
A-List to get the first peek.

MP.


>This is a settled matter.  We won this one.  I prefer to debate those who
still disagree on matters on which they are more willing to accept the test of
reality. This is not 1937 when Trotsky, Sedov, Shachtman, Novack, and others
had to spend day after day pounding away at the trials.  Its a settled issue,
extremely well documented by thousands of people both better and worse qualified
than Bertram Wolfe. Nothing Bob Gould can say will convince the stragglers,
nothing he can say strengthens the verdict that the human race, almost as a
species, has reached on this matter.

Those of us who can securely chalk this battle up in our win column should be
eager to move on and determined to do so, as I am.

Fred Feldman<


Comment

You hit the nail on the head inadvertently or rather from an old ideological
polarity. There are no columns of win and lose except to the polarity that
evolved in America called the CPUSA and the Trotskyite Ideological "Movement."
These two sides - reflections, of the political process shadowing the social
movement in America, have never really had anything in common with a Marxist or
rather materialist grasp of American history and the historical record exist to
prove this. The reason I state nothing about the Moscow trials is because I
speak of the trails in America during the period in question.

The Trotskyite movement on earth evolved from the inner politics of the
Soviet state and not from social movements in society.  This is obvious to anyone
that has looked at the history and is not a Trotskyite or genuflecting heir of
the CPUSA.

What a tragedy for the workers to say, "our" side won. What did you win?

Well, I agree that your side won nothing and I am looking at the history of
the polarity that appeared as the CPUSA and the Trotskyite ideological
movements in America. Here is a story that may bring out the logic of how one can be
blind to events when they exist as a polarity of a distortion.

It was one of those days in the jungle when it was not to hot, but a little
dry and the elephant was standing under some shade drinking from a small pond.
The lion came roaring up to the elephant beating on his chest screaming, "I am
the king of the jungle."   The small animals scattered everywhere and the
monkey climbed high up a tree to stay out of the lion's way.

The elephant said nothing and threw a hardy splash of water on his back.

The Lion shouted out, "I am the King of the jungle and will kick anyone ass
that says different."

The elephant said nothing and the lions ran up to him and bite him on the
leg. The elephant brush him to the side with his trunk and resumed his bathing.

The monkey broke out in laughter and told the other animals the lion wasn't
shit and they start laughing at the lion.

The lion became angry and let out a loud roar and scream, "I AM THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE."

The elephant looked at the lion, said nothing and went on bathing.

In a fraction of a second the lion leaped from the ground onto the back of
the elephant and started biting him in the back of his neck. The elephant
quickly stepped to the side, inverted his back and with a swift movement of his
trunk snatched the lion of his back and stepped on his several times.

The elephant looked at the lion, said nothing and went on bathing.

Moments from death the lion raised his front leg and said, "I AM THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE" and died.

The monkey climbed from the tree and went over to the elephant and signaled
for him to bend down to tell him something. The elephant bent down to listen
because the monkey be signifying but picked up a lot of wisdom from hanging out
high in the trees.

The monkey says, "some know and some don't know. Some know but don't know
they know. Some don't know and do not know they do not know, but think they know.
The lion is a mutherfucker that don't know and thinks he knows. When a cat
doesn't know, a cat don't know and that is a cat that definitely don't know
shit. Then again there are a bunch of cats out there that don't know."

The idea of winning, in a "no win" situation reminds me of the cat that don't
know.  Here is a cat that don't know.

In America the communists of the generation of the Moscow trails - a couple
of generations ago, were not students of jurisprudence but lined up on the
basis of political alignment, which was rooted in history and the work in front of
them. World War 1 cased a realignment in the political movement and groups
was reconfigured on the basis of the October Revolution. The significance of the
book "The Great Conspiracy" in this regard is the description of a historical
political alignment and not the trails. The historical crime of the
Trotskyite Movement in America is their politics and what they refuse to do, which is
an inverted reflection of the CPUSA.

It is so hard fore some to say good-bye to yesterday and deny the origins of
their birth. Trotskyism in America has always understood that it was a
polarity to the CPUSA and unknowingly admits the origin of its birth. Trotskyism in
America did not evolve on the basis of the October Revolution but the CPUSA.
Trotskyism in America is an abortion because it comes from an aborted and
disfigured political movement. Shit does not know it stinks.

Cats do not understand American history except on the basis of ideological
categories or shit. It is hard to accept that everyone can be historically
wrong, but that is how history unfolds for everyone. I did not come out of this
polarity and have my own historical errors and limitations. My activity evolved
at a different juncture in American history.

During the last era, the qualitative transition in the internal political
fabric in America occurred in the form of the Watts Rebellion of 1965. Another
juncture would be reached on the basis of this new qualitative configuration
that is Watts in 1967 Detroit, but that is a story for later.  During the
rebellion Dick Gregory ran into the street and mounted a podium to claim the masses
in revolt.

There was a young man standing about 100 feet from a police officer listening
attentively to what Dick Gregory was saying. Dick was pleading with the
masses to return home and allow the leaders of the community to solve the issues of
police brutality and poverty.

The young man was very angry over the police violence and social decay in
which he lived. He looked at the police officer and stuck his hand in his jacket
and put it firmly around the handle of his pistol. He looked at Dick Gregory
and then looked at the police. He looked at the police and then Dick again. For
a full thirty seconds his head turned back and forth from the police to Dick
Gregory and finally he pulled out his pistol and shot Dick Gregory. The new
qualitative ingredient was not the rebellion but the rejection of the political
middle, which momentarily "broke" the connection of a historical political
contradictory motion in American politics.

This is a true story and here is the point where the petty bourgeois leaders
were rejected with a bullet and a new level of struggle emerged in America
that rendered the CPUSA and the Trotskyite ideological movements obsolete. Things
went further in Detroit and a political development emerged placing a section
of the proletarians leaders forever outside the orbit of the CPUSA/Trotskyite
polarity because they are ideological groups of disgruntled intellectuals and
not political groups on the one hand. On the other hand they are formation of
another era.  If is not that "we" made an analysis of "the rejection of the
political middle" and then evolved on that basis, but rather we evolved on the
basis of this rejection - or old political alignment and then analyzed why.

Here is the point. No one in American history even attempts to write about
the real history of the working class movement and its political logic except
the communist workers. Everyone else writes ideological pronouncements. The
degeneracy of the Trotskyite ideology is no different from that of the CPUSA and
both did not see new ingredients in the working class movement but a social
movement of a race of people. When we said, "No you are making a horrible
mistake" both aspects of the polarity of distortion said, "No, you people do not
understand the importance of race."

To this very day this is the polarity on Marxline, which I am forever outside
of. Not because of thinking, but the communist workers cannot enter an
ideological polarity outside of their class instincts. Here is why the comrades
cannot understand the Civil War. A fight between two groupings is never complex.
The complexity is the inner logic compelling one to fight and how this inner
logic transforms the combatants and gives shape to slogans, rallying cries and
the historical assertions. I do not sound like any of the comrades because of
the history juncture from which I emerged. Yet, anyone can understand the
simple logic of the complexity of the social process with straight talk.

A win column? Who are you fighting? Let me guess, the folks who sided with
the proletariat state. Here is why we reprinted "The Great Conspiracy" to teach
political alignments. As if we cared about the Moscow trails forty years the
fact!  For that matter we simply do not care about the Lysenko Controversy or
for that matter the murder of Kirov or the horrible imprisonment of Molotov's
wife. I have personally have profound feeling about what happened to Molotov's
wife, but I will not cross the line that send one into the camp of the enemy.
In America our workers ask one question and one question only: "Which Side Our
You On!"

The only difference between the Trotskyite ideological movements - they are
not political movements because politics deal with the art of people, classes
and maneuver, and their mother in and as the CPUSA in America is that the CPUSA
better understands how to appear on the side of the workers. Both "movements"
are adjuncts of the intelligence communities in America. We are not going to
defeat "intelligence" but they flip because they are in the last instance an
adjunct of a class rule.

Take the gold and run with it.

But then again, when a cat don't know a cat don't know.

A win column? Nothing was won or could be won until the last phase of the
polarity exhausted itself !

I call this a Marxist understanding of history but that is not really true
because there is no such thing as a "Marxist understanding of history in the
first place."  All that exist is the materialist conception of history and the
study of ones own peculiarity. Ideological doctrine will help no one in this
task.

Melvin P.