Re: [A-List] Jack Straw: Beslan hostage-takers and Nazism are alike

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

>>Who can argue against a "return to socialism"? But what does that have to
do with the Bonapartist figure who is running Russia today and whose hands are
drenched with the blood of the Chechen "bandits". And whose oil tycoons are
sitting down at the table with Conoco to divide up the Iraqi pie. And how proper
and fitting that you cite R.B. Ware as some kind of big-time expert on what
the Dagestanis want. This is the same guy who shows up regularly in Peter
Lavelle's columns and every other media whore for Putin's Kremlin. Lavelle, Chris
Doss and all these other characters really turn my stomach. They went over to
Russia as carpet-baggers and have all launched careers as stenographers for the
people in power. But at least Lavelle and Doss, unlike you, are not confused
about what they seek, namely a powerful capitalist Russian state. Honestly, if
I have to deal with Russian nationalism, I'll prefer it without leftish
pretensions.<<

Comment

Individuals such as all of us have opinions that mean very little in history
unless they are connected with popular movements and organizations that impact
history.

A return to socialism should not be in quotes. This is revealing and over
steps the bounds of common sense. The masses want a return to public property
relations and you and I cannot determine the forms of political compliance on the
basis of criticism. The only impact we can have is if and when we have a
political federation that welds and wield real power and authority and everything
else is the ideological individualism of the petty bourgeois intellectual in
love with his own voice.

Russia and the former Soviet Union cannot return to the 1930s if they wanted
to because this era of industrial development no longer exists. Return to
socialism is desired by the masses in the former Soviet Union and hatred of Stalin
cannot obscure this simple fact. Comrade Lou is a chauvinists on a
fundamental level and this is revealed in everything he writes, especially concerning
the former Soviet Union and the American Union and the National Question. That
is why you are taken to the mat.

"Bonapartist figure who is running Russia today" is the cry of the Trotskyite
who refuses to allow a real open a space for discussion without the ideology
of the imperial bourgeoisie and chauvanists. Here is what prevents principled
unity of Marxists in America.

I enter this discussion of the basis of the value of the political slogan of
"self determination" in this political period of time. Let me get to the
point. Stalin did not lose the store and the Trotskyites won nothing in history and
will never win anything other than a thin layer of disgruntled intellectuals
who fancy themselves "more knowing" than the winners of real combat.

Comrade Lou speaks of "what turns his stomach" and everything turns all of
our stomachs depending on how it is presented and the orientation it imparts to
real combatants. What turns my stomach is Marxists in America who have the
solution to the National Factor everywhere except America.

Self determination for nations today - in 2004. is a dangerous slogan and
political position and I have no personal problem with people who believe such is
relevant until they write and say nothing about the nationality question in
American and NEVER raise this as a slogan unless it coincide with my own
imperialist bourgeoisie.

I have never defended Putin on any level. Putin is not a Bonapartist figure
who is running Russia today, and liquidating a section of the political
representative of his bourgeois class and trying to preserve the Soviet forum. This
would constitute a Thermidor in the convoluted thinking of ideological
Trotskyism.

Chechnya - and the question I objected to was the political slogan of self
determination - (for less than a million people, under today's conditions, and
the collapse of the Soviet State, and the dis enfranshinment of the working
class and bourgeois nationalism, which some people call "nationalist struggle" to
obscure the class factor in 2004 - not 1921, and how they apply this same
body politic to the American Union) - because it is incorrect.

Ideologists know nothing of politics or they would not be ideologists.

They win nothing but a thin layer of intellectuals, who in the last instance
have their political will bent to the political communists.

The reason this things about Stalin is promoted by Lou P. is because he
thinks he has an answer.  No one is obligated to apologize for any political
leader. Stalin was fundamentally correct on every political question and his
orientation for the masses and their next step in building an industrial society
without the bourgeois property relations. Trotsky was wrong on every fundamental
question and defeated. It is really that simple.

Do the math on all the political leaders of majors countries during the past
100 years and the Stalin regime was objectively the most peaceful. Clinton's
polices perpetuated the death of more people than Stalin's. You mad because you
could not paint a picture?

Everyone with a molecule of common sense know that in 10 years more people
have suffered and died in Russia and the former Soviet Union than during all the
years of Stalin's rule. Everyone knows that Soviet industrialization was more
peaceful than bourgeois industrialization in human terms. Was Stalin crimes
greater than Roosevelt's? Stalin was great and with every year the masses
slowly understand his greatness as well as his weaknesses.

Comrade Lou thinks he knows something that other political leader in America
do not know.

Self determination raised by American Communists on behave of Chechen
bandits, is supreme ignorance and has nothing to do with Russia, Lenin  or Putin.
This is outright capitulation to the imperial bourgeoisie. One does not have to
take a side.

What next for Lou? To call for the overthrow of the government of China.
Trotskyism is very bankrupt.

Melvin P.