Young Liberal Fascist (XII)

[SHAWGI TELL <v600a8e6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If anyone missed parts I & II, please let me know.  I will forward them
to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A READER CLAIMS that "All sorts of people, including 'good
communists' and socialists died in his (Stalin's) camps, as did
many 'religious.' It would help your credibility if you
acknowledged this and the excesses of his regime. A little of Mao's
self-criticism would be useful."
     What is the issue here? Between 1887 to 1953, from the time
V.I. Lenin started his revolutionary activities to the year J.V.
Stalin was killed, there have been thousands upon thousands of
controversies that arose pertaining to the economy, politics,
ideology, theory, philosophy, culture, military affairs,
organisational questions, strategy and tactics, the role of the
various social forces, etc. These controversies, as well, did not
disappear with the death of Stalin. What issue does the reader want
to raise? Which controversy does he have in mind?
     Nikita Khrushchev, using his authority as the First Secretary
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, introduced into the communist movement the method of
character assassination. Through his "secret speech" at the
Twentieth Party Congress in 1956 he employed character
assassination as a method to destroy the ideological edifice of
communism. The consequences of this dastardly activity can be seen
in the destruction of the socialist Soviet Union and other
countries, especially in Eastern Europe. Instead of building on the
enthusiasm and impetus generated by the defeat of the fascist
forces in the Second World War, Khrushchev created conditions for
the world to be pushed back into medievalism at a rapid rate. Our
advice to this letter writer is the same as we gave to the Young
Liberal: It is better to refrain from this method of character
assassination if he wishes to contribute to the discussion about
socialism and communism and what must be done at this time to
change the situation.
      From the present situation let us take an example of the
activities of what are called "good communists." Boris Yeltsin was
a good communist, was he not? He was a member of the Political
Bureau, meaning that he was one of the leaders of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union. Where has he led the Soviet Union and
the Russian Federation? From the armed assault on the People's
Congress to his scorched earth policy in Chechnya he is proving
himself to be a student of Hitler. All the former republics of the
Soviet Union are full of such "good communists." Now, let us
suppose that instead of capitalist counter-revolution there was a
proletarian revolution during the period 1985-95 and the "good
communist" Yeltsin was shot as an agent of imperialism (which he
has amply proved by his deeds) after a public trial by the Soviet
State. How would the propaganda machine of U.S. imperialism
describe such an event? They would not have complained about their
agent being shot. On the contrary, they would have complained that
a "good communist" was shot. For decades they applauded everyone
hiding behind the signboard of socialism and communism, all those
who were their agents of capitalism. The U.S. widely promoted "good
liberal communists" such as Dubchek in Czechoslovakia, literally
hundreds of exceptionally "good communists" in Hungary, to
"Euro-communists and socialists" in France and Italy and throughout
the world. There were "dissidents," as well. What did these
"dissidents" accomplish in these countries? Look at the disasters
that have unfolded, the internecine wars in Yugoslavia, the
anarchy, poverty, chaos and violence of the former Soviet Union and
the anti-social movement worldwide.
     Imperialism and reaction also use religion for
counter-revolutionary subversive purposes. In many places religions
and their leaders have led the counter-revolution or aided the
fascist movement, such as the Catholic Church in Poland or the role
of the Pope during the Second World War. As far as "his (Stalin's)
camps"  are concerned, it is the cheapest possible propaganda
designed to discredit the adversary rather than clarify and rectify
an issue.
     Mao Ze Dong's criticism of J.V. Stalin, in the first instance,
was quite silly in that he suggested that Stalin was 70 percent
right and 30 percent wrong. Communists do not engage in criticism
and self-criticism in this manner. They deliberate on the general
line, and the problems appearing within its context, and within the
overall framework of the present era of imperialism and proletarian
revolution. This is the era of proletarian revolutionary wars, and
the construction of socialism and its final victory. Mao's specific
criticism of Stalin is generally formulated as "socialisation
before mechanisation" as opposed to the Marxist thesis of
"mechanisation before socialisation." Mao has been proven very
wrong by life itself. Mao Ze Dong believed he could even build
communes before the material and technical base had been created
for them. He contended that socialisation would happen in one swoop
without much ado, before mechanisation and large-scale production.
China was, and still is, awash in petty production. Until that
problem is sorted out there can be no advance to "socialization."
This was one of the main reasons that Mao Ze Dong could not build
socialism in the PRC but Stalin did in the Soviet Union. Even with
these shortcomings, Mao Ze Dong remains one of the greatest
anti-imperialist revolutionaries of the twentieth century and the
founder of the People's Republic of China. The ouster of the
Japanese, European and American marauders from the homeland of
one-quarter of humanity was a gigantic step forward for the world's
people.

     Stalin's thesis is that laying down the material and technical
base of socialism precedes and proceeds alongside the step-wise
socialisation of the relations of production. According to Stalin,
even in the Soviet Union of 1953, the building of socialism was
still at the initial stage. He advocated that the law of value
still operates under socialism and that class struggle will become
acute because of it. A large amount of production in the Soviet
Union, especially agricultural production owned by the
cooperatives, still consisted of commodities (goods destined for
the market). On this front, Stalin made a theoretical contribution,
while Mao Ze Dong made a theoretical blunder on this and many other
questions of socialist revolution and construction.
     The reader says that, "His [Stalin's] statism is problematic.
If I understand Marx, the goal is the eventually elimination of the
state in its repressive form and its replacement by 'true
democracy' in what may be described as the Aristotelian tradition,
where the citizens are no longer alienated and no longer regard
government as something outside of them but as an educational
exercise in which they participate."
     As far as "his statism being problematic", the reader is
totally mistaken on this question as well. It was not Stalin who
gave the thesis of statism. It is one of the trends against
socialism that appeared amongst those who were in the state
bureaucracy. One of the advocates of statism was G. Malenkov. Its
origin dates to the struggle Stalin waged against Leon Trotsky and
others who were advocating variations of Party dictatorship in
place of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The key point of
contention was whether development takes place on the basis of
uninterrupted revolution, or whether the state and the Party are
permanent features for the building of socialism. Uninterrupted
revolution defines that momentum in which people go from one
initiative to another, and finally make it to the stage when the
state becomes superfluous. Nikita Khrushchev was statist par
excellence. He reduced all questions to efficiency and management,
and eliminated the role of the revolutionary initiative of the
masses altogether.
     There is no such thing as "true democracy," especially not in
the "Aristotelian tradition." Aristotle, particularly in political
theory, was a reactionary. He was opposed to the rule of what he
called the "multitude," "the rabble." He was a theoretician for the
democracy of his time, democracy of the slavemaster. Democracy is
a feature of class society, it is the rule of one class over
others. In Europe it went from slavery to medievalism to
wage-slavery, the period we are now passing through. The aim of the
working class is to establish its own democracy as a prelude to the
transition to the overthrow of class society and the creation of a
classless society. Once there are no classes there is no need for
any democracy, true or false, and the state becomes superfluous and
withers away. On this high road of humanity towards that great
victory, the work of Stalin shines, as he was the architect of
direct democracy in which for the first time in history, it was the
working people who decided who were to represent them. This was the
initial stage of that democracy and its development was interrupted
by several factors. Firstly, the spread of fascism throughout
Europe and militarism in Japan during the thirties and the failure
of socialist revolution to succeed in any advanced capitalist
country. Secondly, the destruction caused by the invasion of the
German Nazis. Finally, the cold war was unleashed and the death of
Stalin gave "statists" an opportunity to seize power in the Soviet
Union. Direct democracy, where working people actually govern
themselves and have control over their lives, was cut short in its
development.
     It is in the direction of direct democracy that CPC(M-L) has
made its own contribution by advancing the slogan of "no election
without selection." It has organised itself as the Party whose
mission is to enable people to govern themselves and not the other
way around, as is the case under bourgeois democracy where
political parties organize to come to power themselves, using the
people as voting cattle. These parties are a block to the people
capturing the citadel of power, governing themselves and having
control over their own lives.
     The writer continues in his character assassination by
flippantly tossing out, "If you keep ascertaining, all evidence to
the contrary, that Stalin was some kind of Saint on Earth, you're
flogging a dead horse."
     Stalin was neither a saint nor a devil. He was one of the
greatest communist revolutionaries of the twentieth century. His
name will always be connected with the building of socialism and
being the architect of the victory over fascism. In theory he made
an exceptional contribution sorting out the national question
during this period when the bourgeoisie has thrown the banner of
the nation in to the mud. Neither have we canonised Stalin nor are
we the salespersons of revolution. In fact, Stalin has become the
divide between those who stand for opening the path for the
progress of society and those who are opposed to it. All those who
are for progress hold high the name and work of Stalin while every
reactionary vilifies it. There may be some who are confused by all
the anti-communist, anti-Stalin smear campaign but sooner or later
they will realize the contributions of this great communist
revolutionary of the twentieth century.
     The reader exposes his own ambivalent attitude towards the
suffering and destruction caused by the Second World War with the
following comments: "The war wasn't that black and white. Many
German and Austrian people still revere Hitler because his
war-making got their economy moving again, and gave them
employment. Also, some of the occupied territory was administered
rather democratically and some very ruthlessly."
     Nazism and fascism remain black and white. The first part of
the war was inter-imperialist in which not only the Nazis but their
appeasers also played a destructive role. The second part of the
war from 1941, was the anti-fascist national liberation war and was
certainly black and white. The Hitlerite line on the economy was to
completely destroy it by gearing it mainly to the arming of the
huge Nazi army, and robbing other countries of everything this war
machine needed. The Nazi myth that there was no unemployment was
concocted in order to fool the gullible on the basis that large
numbers of Germans were press-ganged into the army and other
apparatuses of the Nazi war machine, while the minorities and
foreigners were placed in the worst conditions to carry out
production, persecuted and executed. Hitlerites raised the level of
exploitation to an extreme in which people, exhausted and hungry,
had to be dragged from work places to their graves. To have such a
soft attitude towards the Nazi economy is to suggest that the
decision by the world's peoples after the Second World War that
Nazism was an agency of crime against humanity was wrong. This view
of the reader expresses extreme hostility to all the people who
fought to liberate humanity from the Nazi holocaust. It creates
dangerous illusions that the capitalists are not reorganizing a
repeat of such a calamity, and undermines the people's resolve that
fascism must be actively opposed.
     As far as the Nazis administering "democratically" the
occupied areas, it would be a laugh if it were not such a sinister
thing to say. The Nazis introduced the scorched earth method of
warfare against all resistance to their rule in the occupied
territories, and the most brutal dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
within Germany itself. It was give in or perish, the carrot and the
stick. The only parallel examples to their savage rule has been the
Japanese swath of destruction through Korea and China, and the U.S.
and Russian imperialists more recently.
     The final comment of the reader continues the insinuation that
CPC(M-L) somehow opposes the truth: "The more you are prepared to
state the truth, the more people will be prepared to listen." We
give our opinions only to elaborate an issue. We let the readers
make up their minds. We base our views on facts of life, on social
science. In the final analysis it is the people who, by engaging in
class struggle and upholding social science, will determine what is
true and what is false.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
V600A8E6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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