Re: Carlos on Stalinism

[iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (CEP )]

>On 12 Jan 1996, Chris, London wrote:
>>
>> All sides contribute to this undialectical situation when they
refuse to
>> argue out a concrete analysis of the contradictions: the "rightists"
or if
>> you will, the "Stalinists" when they refuse to discuss; the
"leftists" or if
>> you will, the "Trotskyists", "Maoists" or whatever, when they just
attack
>> and denounce.
>>
>> I suggest therefore that the ideological construct of "Stalinism"
traps
>> those who adhere to it in an ideological ghetto that is perpetually
>> oppositional.
>>
    Carlos:
    I disagree with this assertion.  This is my theses:

    1. Until 1917 it was general agreement about what Marxism was all
    about.  There were, particularly in the German and Russian Marxist
    movement several schools of Marsxists but they all generally agreed
    on a number of economic theories and in a number of principples
    inherent to Marxism.  After 1917 was a regroupment of two basic
    tendencies: the leninist wing of Marxism and the loosely knitted
    reformist school of Marxism (Berstein, Plekhanov,etc).  They differ
    in strategy (party, state theory, dictatorship of the proletariat
    and democracy).  Between the Leninist camp there were agreement on
    most of the strategy but disagreement on the national question and
    other important areas.  Still, some of the economic theories and
    most of the principples remained the same in an ample array of
    issues.

    2. The advent of Stalinism was a shift in favor of the reformist
    wing of Marxism first and then estblished a tendency of its own.
    Stalinism started by distorting and falifying history, particularly
    the history of the Russian Revolution.  Its approach to politics
    was pragmatic, they tried anything and everything they tought would
    work to a)preserve the ascendant bureaucracy and b) maintain the
    international status-quo as part of maintaining the power of the
    bureaucracy.

    3. Then came the "theoretical" development of Stalinism.  Merely,
    the justification of the errors and mistakes, crimes and
    missdemeanors of the Russian bureacracy.  Stalinism was an all out
    attack on Leninism first: a) replacement of internationalism by
    the theory of "Socialism in one country" and b) the replacement
    of the United Workers Front tactic by first the "united front from
    below" in the so-called "Third Period" and then for the "Popular
    Front", a political amalgam of granting the bourgeoisie the
    political direction of the fight against fascism.


    4. Then, Stalinism developed all kinds of "theoretical" stuff; from
    the invention of "People's and democratic Republics" to "peaceful
    co-existence with imperialism"; from the assertion first that the
    Soviet Union was at the Socialist stage, to later claim that it was
    in the communist "stage" negating all theoretical work of Marx,
    Engels and Lenin, etc.

    5.  The anti-imperialist united front was another invention of
    Stalinism to replace the Leninist (and luxenbourgist theories) of
    national self-emancipation and self-determination of nations.

    6.  What about the infamous "revolution by stages" of Stalinism
    that run directly against the theory of Permanent Revolution
    (Marx, Trotsky), adopted later by Lenin ("April Theses")?

>
>Louis: I tend to agree with this on some level. There are a whole host
of
>Trotskyite sects who continue to fight the battles of the 1930's, as
if
>nothing has changed.
>
    Carlos Disputes:

    Louis, the reason for this is that the battles of the 30s are not
    settled.  The provisional winner was Stalinism and see where we are
    now.  The question is, all the "addemdums' of Stalinism to Marxist
    theory are garbage, pure and simply.

    If we want to advance Marxist theory and Marxist practice, then we
    have *first and simlutaneously* clean all the garbage and separate
    it from real Marxism.  The socialdemocrats are doing part of the
    work for us, they are more and more rennouncing to even the
    slightest and formal tie with Marxism.  We need to proceed to
    finish the job, clean Marxism of 60 years or so of added
    "theoretical" garbage and then proceed to advance from what is
    left: namely, old fashioned, princippled, Marxism.

    Louis adds:

>I would point out a number of significant changes:
>
>1. There is no longer any international center that exercizes control
>over the policies of individual CP's. The result is a hodge-podge of
>currents acting in the name of Communism. You have some genuinely
>revolutionary currents like the CP of El Salvador or the South African

    Carlos replies:
    Both the Salvadorean CP and the South African CP, in my opinion,
    are as "revolutionary" as the Sandinistas are (I know, I know
    Louis, they are your favorites).  Let's discuss their theoretical
    garbage and their practical garbage.  But let's discuss it
    seriously.  Take one of them at the time and start discussing it.
    Would you like to start with the Sandinistas?

    Louis asserts:

>CP; you have CP's which have begun to function much more like social
>democracy; you have CP's in which the model from 50 years ago still
seem
>operative.
>
    Carlos adds:
    All of them share the same baggage of "added"stalinist "theory".
    They can differ in tactics and some times in strategies, but
    they all share a common theoretical stalinist background.  But,
    no problem, again is my proposal.  Let's discuss their theory and
    practice. My point is *it doesn't matter that is no international
    center of Stalinism" no more, the "theoretical garbage" is is
    die-hard inheritance that riddled those parties.

    Louis says:

>2. There is no attempt to physically squelch opponents on the left. I
>worked side by side with CPers during the Vietnam antiwar movement and

>there was never a hint of implied violence. The Maoists are another
story...
>
    Carlos disputes:
    This is simply not true.  Maybe the fact is that the *power* to
    squelch oppponents in the left is diminished.  Most Stalinist
    parties has, today, a different relationshjip of forces in the
    class.  They can't go about beating up "Militant Tendency" or
    the SWP in England, for example.  If they try, they probably will
    be loosers... Moreover, the USCP cannot even get away with beating
    up a Trotskyist "sect" nowadays.  Simply, the relationship of
    forces has changed.  Let's see waht happen *if* the Stalinist
    parties reconstitute themselves.  Moreover, Louis, Maoists are
    Stalinists, aren't they?  What about Tianamen Square?

    Louis says:

>3. The traditional charge of "class collaborationism" that comes from
>hard-core ultraleft Trotskyite sects in the United States seems based
on the
>proposition that the CP continues to support liberal Democrat
candidates.

    Carlos adds:
    No, no only that.  They support democrats, liberals, tradeunion
    bureaucrats and sellouts, pettybourgeois candidates, etc.  a whole
    array of pro-bourgeois characters.  But, more importantly, they
    *do have* a class collaborationist *program*; a program calling
    for uniting *programmatically* with the *progressive bourgeoisie*
    and under *its leadership* to "advance the cause of the working
    class.

    Louis states:

>I, for one, am willing to give a party that supports some Democrats
from
>time to time the benefit of a doubt as long as they are fighting on
the
>front lines for racial and economic justice.

    Carlos:
    You simply cannot do both things consistently. Let's argue about
    it.  Let's start with the support of the Sweeney leadership in
    the AFL-CIO.  How that put the CP in the "front lines for racial
    and economic justice"?  Moreover, what is racial and economic
    justice for you?

    `Louis states:

" Trotsky was
>doing the best he could in the 1930's to build a socialist movement,
but
>his party-building ideas were of the most sectarian sort. It is easy
to
>blame the CP for every failure of revolutions to triumph over the last
50
>years. What about the failure of leadership of the Fourth
International?

    Carlos:
    Sure, the Trotskyists failed to develop an alternative to Stalinism
    and socialdemocracy.  That is their main fault.  But not for being
    sectarians, for the most part, but because they *capitulated* to
    Stalinism and Socialdemocracy.

    Louis wrote:

>This is a movement that has spawned a side-show of megalomanicacs:
>Posadas, Healy, Barnes, Robertson, the list is endless. Perhaps the
>reason we don't have socialism today is because Trotskyism has failed
so
>miserably as a revolutionary model.
>
    Carlos writes:
    Sure, you are write about this.  But all the "crimes" and
    missdemeanors of
    Posadas-Pablo-Healy-Lambert-Robertson-Barnes-Moreno-Grant and
    every other leader of Trotskyism put together *are not equal to
    one of the thosands of betrayals and massacres* committeed by
    the Stalinists.  Do we have any sense of proportions here?
    As to the absence oof socialism due to the failure of trotskyism,
    we agree.  But different from Stalinism, I'm giving Trotskyism,
    of the most sectarian variety, a second chance.  I bet for them.
    In my opinion *all and every trotskyist* in the world have the
    potential of leading a movement.  Stalinists, insofar as they
    remain stalinists, do not/

    I'm all in favor of building all kinds of alliances, fronts,
    coalitions among the left.  Whether is among stalinists, social
    democrats or Trotskyists.  But the fundamental right of arguing
    about theory and politics is the *only* firm basis for any
    lasting association.  And whether you like it or not, we need
    to discuss what is was left undiscussed.

    Comradely.
    cARLOS

    p.s.: i WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH OTHER PARTS OF
    YOUR POSTING.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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