Re: re AUT: Seeking info on Negri and Fortunadi

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Wright"
Sent: 3. august 2002 13.05
Subject: Re: re AUT: Seeking info on Negri and Fortunadi



> cwright wrote:
> >
> > Hey Steve,
> >
> > I quite literally meant "Stalinoid", not "Stalinist".  The latter means
a
>
> so wouldn't just be easier to call them 'leninist', if for you stalinoid
> encompasses trotskyists?

Just a more general comment, Steve. Needless to say, it is
not directed against you.
Trotskyist comes in different shapes, but Trotsky himself surely
was not only a Stalinist, but the greatest theoretical apologist
for Stalinism, as well as one of its great practical advocates. This was
of course prior to the existence of the term itself, and prior to
Trotsky's exile. That is, it was at a time when his words still had
real-life consequences.

In "Terrorism an Communism" he had written: "The principle of
compulsory labor is absolutely beyond dispute for a
communist". And in his speech at the 9th party conference, 30th of
March 1920, he precisely defined the ideology and policies of
Leninst-Stalinism:
        "If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to
acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are
assigned  in accordance with the economic plan at the given
stage of development, the working masses cannot be left wandering
all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed,
commanded, just like soldiers. [...] Desertes from labour ought to
to be  formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration
camps".
        He was unsurprisingly echoed by Lenin, who stated in his
speech at the 4th conference for the Province Chekas, February
6, 1920: "In this struggle the Cheka organs should become the
weapon for the realisation of the centralised will of the proletariat,
a weapon for the creation of discipline such as we have been
able to establish in the Red Army "
        He knew everything about the latter, of course. In the following
passages of a letter to Lenin, the Commander-in-Chief of the
Red Army, Ioakim I. Vatsetis, only described what was offical policy:
        "Discipline is based on harsh punishments, particulary
executions... Through these punishments and executions  we have
struck terror in the hearts of everyone, soldiers, commanders, and
commisars alike.... The death penalty ... is  utilized as often at the
front, for all possible reasons and on all possible occasions, that
the discipline in the Red Army could be called sanguinary in the
full sense of the word."

All this was all a long time ago,  a couple of years prior to
Mussolini took power. Still there are groups around today who
define themselves as Leninist and Trotskyists and cling to some
idea of being or becoming the new vanguard of the working
class, just as some still define themselves as fascists. So what
is the difference? Well probably that for the former fascism is
thought as a necessary means, while the latter think of it as an
end itself. Or is so that Leninism nad Trotskyism is just
another word for willed ignorancy?
            However you bend and twist it, these groups should
not be defined as part of the left, if you within this term, or within
this "multiplicity" or "movement," do not also explicitly include
a space for a "tactcial" or "strategical" defence of fascism.

Harald




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