Stalinism and Standards of Intellectual Discourse

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I warmly applaud the tone of the exchanges between Scott and Marc, coming to
this question from very different political traditions. Scott for his dogged
and patient opposition to blanket denunciations of "Stalinism", over the months.

Marc for comments like:

>>>>>>
Don't worry about being combative, comrade. Good, reasoned debate is only
good for our movement. Flames and unprincipled personal attacks are what
we need to watch for, and I don't ever recall you engaging in either.
<<<<<

Marc also IMO very properly in an earlier post argued that the phenomena
under criticism must be analysed in their social context:

>>>>>Groups which uphold
"Stalinist" ideology, such as the "theory" of socialism in one country may
be considered Stalinist. This, however, is probably an un-Marxist way of
analyizing Stalinism, since it relies on ideology, rather that the role
that the group plays, although the two are often linked.
<<<<<<<


Seriously analysing the social context, is part of taking responsibility to 
think
through the actual dilemmas and choices that basically well intentioned
marxists/communists have tried to make throughout the decades of this
century. Some of what looks like unspeakable crimes, may have come about
through a dynamic in which no one is fully conscious of the consequences.

For example if Krushchev were called before the bar of history for beating
the drum in his 1939 speech about our "Stalinist Central Committee", he could
probably claim he was only doing what he thought every one thought they ought to
be doing. He was just a bit more successful in drawing out the applause, than
some other comrades, who were later less successful in winning promotion.

I would like to make one other link which I think is relevant. In response to
Jerry's reasoned but pretty negative criticisms of China, Scott pointed out
that the earliest targets to the Cultural Revolution were the comrades
in the party and trade union organisations. People who were almost certainly
not bad people, although the nature of their posts might make them vulnerable
to charges of being stodgy, bureaucratic, conventional, controlling, party 
hacks,
(I am using adjectives that might be thrown  nowadays at a trade union official
in the west, who is believed to be a member of a "Stalinist" party, to try
to show the universality of the problem). And yet those officials were 
conforming
to rules of accountability which were swept away in the cultural revolution in
great lawlessness.

These are not just abstract questions that we can comfortably dump on 
"Stalinism"
or "Maoism", or Trotskyism. These are concrete dilemmas that have to be handled 
as
part of the fabric of political work, and perhaps life itself, every week.
There is a particularity to this all, which connects us to the generality.
We all have to take some responsibility for our actions.


Chris, London.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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