Re: fascism and nonsense

[Mauro junior <mauro.jr@xxxxxx>]

At 08.43 04/12/95 GMT, Adam Rose wrote:
>>
>> Mauro jr:
>> For Alan and all the leftists (left of establishment) the socdems are
>> workers organisation: so the Labour Party, the italian Pds (once even the
>> Socialist Party of Craxi), the unions, and a bulk of others.
>
>Yes, indeed, they are workers organisations.

Mauro jr:
This is the "vexata quaestio": the workers organisations.
What does it means? I already stated my/our (IBRP) stand on this, but it
worths to argue.
If you read the Manifesto you find that the communists "amongst the workers
organisations are the most____". Reading the German Ideology the Capital,
the Grundrisse et al., that sentence should have been written differently
(but it's up to the marxists to be able to understand the phrases trough the
entire development of the method): amongst the organisations attended by the
workers___ etc.
In fact, you find in the other texts (oh, the catholic esegesis) that the
class becomes class for itself, historical subject, only during the
revolutionary periods. The class party grows and can take the revolutionary
leadership only when the collapse of the bourgeois social formation impulses
the class polarisation; only at those times the class becomes class for
itself and recognises its own programme, and hence its party.
During the "normal" times of the capitalist social formation, the "workers
organisations" are the organisations which organize workers for the
political mediations inside the establishment (as said in my previous post
on Left politics). The objective division of societies in classes reflects
itself on the political scene with the lefts which try to defend the working
class conditions inside the limits of capitalism (do you remember Mario, the
plebs' trubune and his role in the Roman social formation? read Mommsen or
Kovaliov). This works when the social formation is in its ascendant period.
But when capital has its own troubles in surviving (like it is nowadays)the
lefts lose their same characterization as "plebs'defenders" and it can occur
that the attacks to the working class are made by them (what about your damn
Labour Party during the 70s? Who launched the first brutal attacks to wage
and employment in Great Britain?).
Thus these "workers organisations" organize workers for mediate, yes, again,
but the capitalist interests inside the worker class.
Thei progran is a capitalist program, their politics is a capotalist
politics. How "cazzo" can you talk of workers organisation, while you are
claiming to be communist, to be revolutionary?

Mauro jr:
>> For marxists the workers organisation are only the organisations which stand
>> for the proletarian emancipation.
Adam:
>This is saying that the only people qualified to fight fascism are those
>who believe in socialist revolution. If the fight against fascism is
>artificially limited in this way, it is doomed.

Mauro jr: Save it for some moments.

Adam:
>You are right to say that reformists will always side with the capitalists
>when a socialist revolution is possible. So what ? Fascism means the
>destruction of ALL workers organisations, Revolutionary, Reformist,
>Trade Union, and cultural. This means a joint fight against the fascists
>is possible. It is neccessary because the full collective force of the
>working class needs to be bought into action against the fascists in
>order to defeat them.

Mauro jr:
Fascism happens when the bourgeoisie has already and compactly choosen it,
against the others options. Thus, the joint fight against the fascists is
possible,yes, but is also hopeless (as it has always been).

Mauro jr:
>> How is it that
>> it never occured that a fascist attempt has been stopped by such a united
front?

Adam:
>Lenin + the Bolsheviks stopped Kornilov by fighting alongside Kerensky.
>This was actually a crucial step in winning enough influence to
>overthrow Kerensky.

Mauro jr:
Hey Adam are you joking? Kornilov was trying to defeat militarily a working
class which was standing and arising. A completely different political
situation which cannot be compared with the situations where fascism seized
the power. It's an old trick of opportunism to exchange at pleasure the
"historical examples", without any redard to the marxist analysis of them.

Mauro jr:
>> Comrades, the failures of many United fronts has not yet convinced you that
>> it is a bankruptcy politics?

Adam:
>No, Popular fronts have led to defeat.
>There is a difference.

Mauro jr:
Uhmmm. Is the difference the fact that the Popular fronts had the political
power and the United front had not? Adam, this is terribly weak. But anyway,
show me and the readers an example of United front which won anything (for
the working class, I mean, of course)

Adam:

>It is possible to unite with reformists in action but argue against them
>politically. This isn't a very difficult concept : why do you find it so
>hard to understand ?

Mauro Jr:
This is an other old trick of opportunism: to separate "politics" and action.
The history teach that is always the "communist" party wich gives up its
politics for joining "in action" with the bourgeois left; not the reverse.
The ABC of marxist revolutionary politics is that the "tactics" descends
immediately from the strategy; there is no break between the strategical
goals and the day by day politics. Who makes this separation, falls
inevitably in the ___ bourgeois left. Oh poor Lenin!
Rev. greetings

>
>
Mauro Junior
Tel  (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------