On Stalinism and Trotskyism (was Re: Carlos on Stalinism)

[Luciano Dondero <DOND001@xxxxxx>]

Maybe it is too late already, but I would urge all the current and potential
participants in this thread (renamed for de-personalising) to avoid jumping
into a huge flame war with both feet. Here is an attempt at furthering this
debate in a possibly more productive way.

>On 12 Jan 1996, Chris, London (C,L) wrote:

<C,L> All sides contribute to this undialectical situation when they
<C,L> refuse to argue out a concrete analysis of the contradictions:
<C,L> the "rightists" or if you will,
<C,L> the "Stalinists" when they refuse to discuss; the
<C,L>"leftists" or if you will, the "Trotskyists", "Maoists" or
<C,L> whatever, when they just attack and denounce.
<C,L> I suggest therefore that the ideological construct of "Stalinism"
<C,L> traps those who adhere to it in an ideological ghetto
<C,L> that is perpetually oppositional.

Carlos (CEP):
<CEP> I disagree with this assertion. This is my theses: (snip)

My comments are as follows:
Luciano (LD):
<LD> In the main I agree with the theses presented by Carlos,
<LD> but I don't reject Chris's approach outright.

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

Carlos Disputes:
<CEP> Louis, the reason for this is that the battles of the 30s are not
<CEP> settled. The provisional winner was Stalinism and see where we are
<CEP> now. The question is, all the "addemdums' of Stalinism to Marxist
<CEP> theory are garbage, pure and simply.
<CEP> If we want to advance Marxist theory and Marxist practice, then we
<CEP> have *first and simlutaneously* clean all the garbage and separate
<CEP> it from real Marxism. The socialdemocrats are doing part of the
<CEP> work for us, they are more and more rennouncing to even the
<CEP> slightest and formal tie with Marxism. We need to proceed to
<CEP> finish the job, clean Marxism of 60 years or so of added
<CEP> "theoretical" garbage and then proceed to advance from what is
<CEP> left: namely, old fashioned, princippled, Marxism.

Louis asserts:
<LNP> CP; you have CP's which have begun to function much more like social
<LNP> democracy; you have CP's in which the model from 50 years ago still
<LNP> seem operative.

 Carlos adds:
<CEP> All of them share the same baggage of "added"stalinist "theory".
<CEP> They can differ in tactics and some times in strategies, but
<CEP> they all share a common theoretical stalinist background. But,
<CEP> no problem, again is my proposal. Let's discuss their theory and
<CEP> practice. My point is *it doesn't matter that is no international
<CEP> center of Stalinism" no more, the "theoretical garbage" is is
<CEP> die-hard inheritance that riddled those parties.

Luciano: Carlos is too one-sided in my view. I have this to say:
<LD> Louis' point about the disappearance of an international
<LD> centre for Stalinist ideology cannot be underestimated. This is
<LD> not simply an ideological point, obviously. With the destruction
<LD> of the USSR and various deformed workers states in Eastern Europe,
<LD> together with a number of gains for the working people (which I
<LD> regret) have also gone away most of the concrete locations of
<LD> Stalinist power (state resources, money for corrupting people,
<LD> etc. etc.) - and that is an extremely good thing. But that's just
<LD> my value judgement. From the standpoint of facts, and how the
<LD> above has affected the operations of the various parties that either
<LD> call themselves "Stalinist" in some way, or that claim to belong
<LD> to the "World Communist movement" (a less blatant way to do
<LD> the same, IMO), the changes are very important ones.
<LD> And Carlos seems to not want to see them.

 Louis says:
<LNP> 2. There is no attempt to physically squelch opponents on the left. I
<LNP> worked side by side with CPers during the Vietnam antiwar movement and
<LNP> there was never a hint of implied violence.
<LNP> The Maoists are another story...

 Carlos disputes:
<CEP> This is simply not true. Maybe the fact is that the *power* to
<CEP> squelch oppponents in the left is diminished. Most Stalinist
<CEP> parties has, today, a different relationshjip of forces in the
<CEP> class. They can't go about beating up "Militant Tendency" or
<CEP> the SWP in England, for example. If they try, they probably will
<CEP> be loosers... Moreover, the USCP cannot even get away with beating
<CEP> up a Trotskyist "sect" nowadays. Simply, the relationship of
<CEP> forces has changed. Let's see waht happen *if* the Stalinist
<CEP> parties reconstitute themselves. Moreover, Louis, Maoists are
<CEP> Stalinists, aren't they? What about Tianamen Square?

Luciano: This is a concrete example of what I was saying above:
<LD> Carlos, please don't play the ostrich! The leadership of the
<LD> French CP met in the course of the recent wave of strikes with
<LD> the leadership of the LCR. While you and I may not regard the LCR
<LD> as a "real Trotskyist organisation", the fact is that the PCF *does*
<LD> have the organisational strength to deal with the LCR in a physical
<LD> sense, but not only they don't do that; they discuss with the
"Trotskyites"!
<LD> You also seem to ignore entirely the situation of Rifondazione
<LD> comunista in Italy. Furthermore the problem is that you do not see
<LD> that this represents an historical victory for Trotsky's positions.
<LD> Throughout the 1930's and 1940's the Stalinists called us "Hitlero-
<LD> Trotskyists", they denounced us to the fascist state apparatuses
<LD> and/or killed us on their own. We Trotskyists always kept trying to
discuss
<LD> politics, programme, tactics. In other words, while they were doing
<LD> their damned best to destroy some of the best fighters for the working-
<LD> class, we kept arguing for the positions that could best further the
<LD> class struggle.
<LD> Today, by and large, the Stalinists - or perhaps I better say "leading
<LD> members of the official CP's" - are quite willing to discuss with you,
<LD> me and anybody else they must view like some kind of horned devil,
<LD> about politics, programme, tactics. You might still say (and I would
<LD> mostly agree with you) that they do that from a standpoint which
<LD> does not really further the interests of the working class.
<LD> But for goodness' sake don't go on
<LD> as if Scott Marshall, as a concrete example, were about
<LD> to thrust a knife into your (or my) back!
<LD> And here I must really express agreement with Chris's original point:
<LD> how are we (by which I mean the pure and correct Trotskyists, even
<LD> though there are so many various groups each claiming 100% PTC) going
<LD> to win people away from the CP's (and all the other non-revolutionary
<LD> formations) unless we are willing to engage in a discussion based on
<LD> current realities. Yes, that includes the past, but we can't demand
<LD> that they repudiate entirely their past in order for us to deign to talk
<LD> to them.
<LD> Furthermore, I don't believe that it is possible to do any useful work
<LD> unless it is linked to the real and concrete struggles of today. While
<LD> it is important to know what are the lessons to be drawn from history,
<LD> many people are willing to fight now (and on the right side of the
<LD> barricades) even though they haven't yet drawn those lessons, as
<LD> we would like them to do. This should always be first and foremost
<LD> in our approach to all the comrades from different backgrounds -
<LD> including in this list, and obviously not limited to those who regard
<LD> themselves as "comrades". It should be added here that Carlos'
<LD> practice follows this very rule - witness his generally mild approach,
<LD> usually sober comments about various political points and the
<LD> recent soft exchange with Scott.

Louis states:
<LNP> Trotsky was doing the best
<LNP> he could in the 1930's to build a socialist movement, but
<LNP> his party-building ideas were of the most sectarian sort. It is easy
<LNP> to blame the CP for every failure of revolutions to triumph over the last
<LNP> 50 years. What about the failure of leadership of the Fourth
<LNP> International?
<LNP> This is a movement that has spawned a side-show of megalomanicacs:
<LNP> Posadas, Healy, Barnes, Robertson, the list is endless. Perhaps the
<LNP> reason we don't have socialism today is because Trotskyism has failed
<LNP> so miserably as a revolutionary model.

 Carlos writes:
<CEP> Sure, you are write about this. But all the "crimes" and
<CEP> missdemeanors of
<CEP> Posadas-Pablo-Healy-Lambert-Robertson-Barnes-Moreno-Grant and
<CEP> every other leader of Trotskyism put together *are not equal to
<CEP> one of the thosands of betrayals and massacres* committeed by
<CEP> the Stalinists. Do we have any sense of proportions here?

Luciano: If we take this on the proper world historical scale,
<LD> Carlos is absoutely right. The problem IMO is the following:
<LD> On one side you have Stalin and his henchmen, plus various
<LD> other traitors to the proletariat under various Socialdemocratic,
<LD> tradeunionist and even Anarchist labels (Spain, again), and on
<LD> this side you have people who claim to stand on the revolutionary
<LD> programme.
<LD> How many people have been mislead and lost to the cause of
<LD> the working class thanks to the activities of various sects?
<LD> I don't single out Trotskyist sects for this; at least from my
<LD> specific national angle, I can see that Bordiga and his followers
<LD> played an analogous negative role. (They too were killed by
<LD> the Stalinists, they too failed to offer an adequate leadership).

Carlos continues:
<CEP> As to the absence of socialism due to the failure of trotskyism,
<CEP> we agree. But different from Stalinism, I'm giving Trotskyism,
<CEP> of the most sectarian variety, a second chance. I bet for them.
<CEP> In my opinion *all and every trotskyist* in the world have the
<CEP> potential of leading a movement. Stalinists, insofar as they
<CEP> remain stalinists, do not.

Luciano:
<LD> I cannot share this faith in the potential leadership capacities
<LD> of people trained to split hairs and count pins on an angel's head
<LD> (being materialistic, they can't count angels on a pin's head).
<LD> A lot of the destructive traits of certain sects, in particular, have
<LD> also deeply demoralized their adherents (eg. the Healyites),
<LD> witness some of the things one can read in the USENET
<LD> newsgroup "alt.politics.socialism.trotsky".
<LD> And I also don't believe that the self-consciousness of people
<LD> always matters a great deal. A little Talmudism here: Trotsky
<LD> wrote in the Transitional Programme that "one cannot categorically
<LD> deny in advance the theoretical possibility that (snip) the
<LD> Stalinists may go further than they themselves wish along the
<LD> road to a break with the bourgeoisie." If that could be said for
<LD> the *parties* how much truer it must be for individual Stalinist
<LD> comrades, especially if involved in working-class struggles.
<LD> There is an important point to make here:
<LD> Wrong (to Carlos and/or me) political views can be argued
<LD> against, if our right to do so isn't suppressed; if our views are
<LD> superior and better, this must be proved in practice. But surely
<LD> there must be something that other people have going for them
<LD> otherwise why should they waste their time in tiny left-wing
<LD> parties and groups (even if called CPUSA) when they could make
<LD> more money by working for the bourgeoisie?
<LD> In retrospect, that must have been true for many Stalinists even
<LD> back then, when they were killing us.
<LD> Or should we deny anybody the right/duty to change views,
<LD> positions and sides? What about Ignat Reiss? Trotsky thought that
<LD> a chunk of the apparatus might follows his road. He may have
<LD> been wrong in concrete. But was it wrong in principle to admit
<LD> that a bunch of Stalinist bureaucrats could come over to the
<LD> revolutionary side?

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

Luciano:
<LD> OK. Let's do this. Only in a more constructive fashion, please.
<LD> Let's agree to disagree here and there. Let's admit that there
<LD> may be certain areas where the blood can quickly heat up
<LD> and once you get one statement for and one against, there
<LD> is really no point in engaging in an endless dispute.

Louis:
<LNP>  I suggest that the left that we need to build must incorporate some
<LNP>  dialectically opposed tendencies. It must learn to adopt the ability of
<LNP>  the CPs to reach the masses. No party in the United States over the last
<LNP>  60 years or so has managed to involve itself as successfully, and as
on a
<LNP>  consistent basis, in grass-roots struggles as the CP. They know how to
<LNP>  speak to working-people, they know how to build the mass-movement.

Luciano:
<LD> This is a point that Carlos probably agrees with. I certainly do.
<LD>  Within Rifondazione comunista, which is why this could be a very
<LD>  fruitful experience, there are people from so many different
<LD>  backgrounds, yet willing to engage in discussions on how to
<LD>  further the work in commong. I know that there are lots of things
<LD>  that I have to learn from people whom I have had (and still have)
<LD>  to fight politically against every day.

Comradely (to all),
Luciano




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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