Re: On Stalinism and Trotskyism

[iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (CEP )]

You (L. Candreva) wrote:
>
>
>Re: On Stalinism and Trotskyism
>
>1. In the capitalist countries the politics of the stalinist
>parties were in no way different from those of the
>socialdemocrats.

    Carlos: Today, a number of CPs or former CPs are acting in
    undistinguished from Socialdemocracy.  This is not true in
    several other instances (particularly in Latin America, Asia,
    Africa).  I don't think that you may say the CP from India, or
    the Phillipine's CP or the Uruguayan, Brazilian or even the
    Salvadorean CPS are "socialdemocrats". Certainly you cannot
    include the Tamil CP or the Chinese, or the Burmese CPs, or
    the Vietnamese, Thai or Nigerian or even the South African Cps.

    Maybe in the end results
    of policies, but certainly not in strategical, theoretical or
    tactical issues.  The phenomenoa you point out is more common
    in industrialized countries where CPs were more influenced by
    the "bourgeois democratic" (socialdemocratic) working class
    prejudices.  But remember, Europe is only a piece of the world.


    L. Candreva wrote:

).,
>like Rifondazione comunista in Italy (which HAS BEEN the
>stalinist, strong pro-Moscow wing of the Pci).

    Carlos asks:
    Would you please ellaborate on this.  I'm not familiar with
    the process that ended up with the division of the PCI and
    the founding of PDS and Refoundazione.  If refoundazione *was*
    the stalinist wing, what happened that changed that? Or it didn't?

    Carlos adds:
    I agree with you point and Dondero's (and Louis) that the absence
    of an International centre of Stalinism is an important point to
    be considered.

    I also agreed on the question of united fronts, with
    socialdemocrats and Stalinists, I was actually and I'm actually
    involved in them.  But, one thing is the united workers front
    and a another one is to build them refusing to discuss your
    differences.  The United Workers Front should include both the
    agreement on united actions and united program around specific
    issues and the freedom to publicly debate your differences.  If
    not, you don't have a united workers front, you have a capitulation
    to the least common denominator.  Another thing is your tactical
    approach to those discussion in a way that they will not produce
    the break of the United Workers front insofar you need it.  But
    that's a tactical consideration, not an strategical one.

    Comradely,
    Carlos


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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