Re: economics of communist societies (fwd)

[LPA <blissett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> Indeed I find it hard to understand why those whose defence of
>>the third International ends with the second congress - i.e. that at which
>>the Bolsheviks stitched it up - want to spend so much time defending
>>Bolshevism. At least the GIK set out to analyse their error, whereas group=
s
>>like C'WO seem to denigrate the Bolsheviks in practice while still
>>defending their name. I don't know if the Internationalist Communist Party
>>has a similarly bizarre position.
>
>M.jr
>I believe you cant understand why for us the Communist International ends
>after the Second Congress: you start from your prejudice that bolshevism wa=
s
>"anti-communist", which is not.
>Has the October Revolution been a proletarian revolution? Yes. (and if you
>say not, well, there is no mean to discuss further)
>Has it been led by the bolsheviks on the basis of the revolutionary
>programme for a soviet state? Yes
>Are the first two Congresses aimed to favour the internationalisation of th=
e
>communist revolution? Again, yes (read the documents please).
>The Third Congress is already on the way out.
>The Italian communist left began its battle there and went forward.... Read
>the =85 "Bordiga Last Fight in the Communist International 1926" in ICR14
>(it's on our web-site) and perhaps you'll understand our "bizarre postion".
>I find much more bizarre the positions of people who denigrate the October
>revolution as a bourgeois one, when the entire class was moving, while see =
a
>"movement" in every jerk of the intellectual strata of the petty bourgeoise
>(e.g. the 1975 Italian movement of Laura).
>Ciao

Leutha:
Well there is a world of diffence between "ending with" and "ending after"
the former implying condemnation of the conclusions of the second congress,
the later with support for it. So I feel you have clarified a semantic
confusion. But this is of minor importance compared to the political
confusion you have opened up. Reading "Bordiga Last Fight in the Communist
International 1926", I'm not sure whether you've managed to get your
pyramid the right way up or not! You seem to be concentrating on the
showbiz angle, i.e. check out R=FChle's report from Moscow where Radek
describes the 2nd Congress as being "in the pocket". The second congress is
clearly in favour of manipulation and confusion:

"The Communist International is the party of the revolutionary education of
the world proletariat. It rejects all those organisations and groups which
openly or covertly stupefy, demoralise and weaken the proletariat,
exhorting it to kneel before the fetishes which are a facade for the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie: legalism, democracy, national defence
etc."
                Manifesto of the 2nd Congress

"At the same time, the Second Congress of the Third International must
declare itself in favour of the Communist Party, and the groups and
organisations sympathisin with Communism in England [sic], joining the
Labour Party, although this party is a member of the Second International."
                Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist Internation=
al

        Surely it's bizarre to take this sort of rubbish seriously? This is
just mealy mouthed politicking. Yes many communists got suckered by this,
but is that anything to be proud of?

        And another point of clarification, does your 'after the 2nd
Congress' include the hideous Baku Congress?

>If somebody tells me he is trotskist or something else, I say ok, it
>doesn't matter, what are we going to do? It will be on what he wants to do
>now and here that I will be able to chose if we do things together (I have
>no pregiudizi)

>ciao compagno
>laura

Perhaps I've become too cynical, but I've discovered that if someone's a
Trotskyist, they usually belong to a trotskyist organisation, i.e a racket
run by creeps who are more interested in the future of their petty
organisation than the class struggle. Indeed, they like to see struggles
collapse ina maze of reformist conntradictions so that the demoralised
workers join their organisation as a substitute for the class struggle.
These organisations do not even extend basic solidarity to their members
faced with the problems of proletarian life (which just makes them lazy
reformist organisations). In the end I find collaboration with a Trotskyist
implies either I become a Trotskyist (hardly likely) or that they cease to
be a Trotskyist. Is this sectarianism? Isee it just as self preservation.


for communism

Leutha Blissett

http://www.unpopular.demon.co.uk
http://www.dsnet.it/qwerg/blissett/bliss0.htm
http://www.skatta.demon.co.uk




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---