[A-List] The national question

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Melvin writes:

>This is a settled matter.  We won this one.

<snip>

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?

-----

The issues that Melvin raises are very important and certainly germane to
this list. I am only sorry -- once again -- that Mark is not here to add his
wisdom on this matter. Nevertheless it is for us to advance as best we can.

What impresses me most about Melvin's stance is that, time and again, he
brings the question back to one of what are *we* doing, in the sense of "we"
as inhabitants of the metropolis. The abundant quantities of "good advice"
that metropolitan Marxists and "revolutionaries" shower upon those elsewhere
struggling against capitalism stands in stark contrast to the progress made
by these very same "revolutionaries" in their own back yard. Thus, in the
midst of the Thatcherite counter-revolution, for example, Militant in
Britain was rationalising the "defence" of the Falkland Islands by focusing
on the heinous crimes of Galtieri and his predecessors, whilst saying little
to nothing about what we now know was an incredibly dirty war being fought
by the British state in Northern Ireland. To this day Peter Taaffe and co.
come down heavily on Cuba as if somehow Castro is among the greatest threats
to working class advance in the world today.

This sort of seeing the dust in the other's eye whilst ignoring the plank of
wood in your own would be comical were the consequences not so serious for
those engaged in the actual struggles that metropolitan revolutionaries feel
so qualified to peddle advice on. No wonder Charles Brown (are you still
here, comrade?) used to sign off his emails with the signature, "Workers of
the West, it's your turn".

In a very small way, this is what this list is supposed to be a contribution
to. It's good that, from time to time, debate from other lists spills over
here and we can look at the issues from a different perspective, without
descending into ad hominem attacks. This is because from the very beginning
this list was intended as a place where it is taken for granted that
metropolitan inhabitants are in no position to lecture those in the
South/Third World/call it what you will, on anything. Instead we have a
space where subscribers from various parts of the world can participate
without feeling condescended towards and patronised by pseudo-sophisticated
salon socialists. Additionally, even on a list where that is not a problem,
such as Marxmail, recurring doctrinal clashes of a Stalin vs. Trotsky nature
make a level-headed discussion of these and other matters much more
difficult, especially when characters like Bob Gould ratchet up the rhetoric
in the service of metropolitan sensibilities. That is why the A-list ought
to be a place where those of a Leninist disposition can find a respite from
such time-consuming and tiresomely repetitious "debates" and instead
construct something more valuable to whatever movements we might be working
in. From the beginning we have prohibited sectarianism, but we've never had
to eject anyone for that sort of thing -- the sectarians have left
voluntarily. So it looks like that, on this score at least, the list is
functioning well and offers the potential to function even more effectively,
if we can take advantage of this space and explore, together, those issues
which are most pressing.

Among our subscribers are plenty with a Trotskyist background who,
nevertheless, have little in common with the sort of caricature metropolitan
Marxism that infuriates (rightly) those comrades with actual experience of
struggle. Thus, if we are to make criticisms of Trotsky, Trotskyism, et al.,
we should be very precise about exactly what we mean by those criticisms and
to whom they are directed. Otherwise we risk alienating those with whom we
are otherwise in close agreement. So my suggestion to Melvin is that, in
making legitimate criticisms of Trotskyism or any other aspect of left
political activity, that it is done in a way that does not inflame the
passions of others because they feel that they, personally, are under attack
in some way. If US Trotskyism was a terrible mistake, an "abortion", then it
is surely better that we convince others of that case by reference to robust
argument based upon the marshalling of as many relevant facts as we can
muster. And that would be as true for any critique of Stalinism, or anything
else for that matter. Merely stating it polemically or ad hominem is not an
invitation to rethink a position.

Revisiting the national question might be a good place to start anyway.
Melvin has repeatedly brought up the subject of the "national colonial
question" in the USA, after the work of Nelson Peery. (I'm still waiting for
my copy of that book, but once it arrives I intend to use it as a
springboard for discussion here.) Meanwhile Donnie and I are looking at the
question of Scottish independence. And there is plenty of experience on this
list with respect to anti-imperialist struggle in the non-metropolitan
world. Not to mention Jim and Lou who have experience with respect to the
struggles of Indians in North America. Additionally, there are subscribers
who have already written very contrasting views on the national question
elsewhere but who would nevertheless be regarded as comrades-in-arms. So
howsaboutit? Does anyone want to start a serious study of the national
question, rather than merely trade slogans?

Michael