Neils figment of imagination!

[malecki@xxxxxxxxxx (Robert Malecki)]

Neil writes;

>Dear robert,
>
>You don't seem to understand what capitalism or socialism really is.
>You seem wedded to that old bankrupt social democrat reform view that it
>is mere nationalization of industry by the state.
>Your  concepts of workers states would include not only ex-Russia
>E. Europe state caps but also Sweden, Israel, Spain, England,
>Germany, Italy which also have nationalized many industries (to save
> the industries for revamped capitalist profits while paying
>the capitalists to sit on their fat arses and lord it over the workers.)
>You love the wages system , but you just think it needs new management-
>that is why your trend tails behind stalinist states and the trojan
>horse union apparatus of labor aristocrats in the west.

The above is Neils words and not malecki,s. It also shows the complete
inability of the State Capitalists and Neil to think.

In the real world there are basically, at least from 1917 and onwards three
kinds of states. Capitalists,imperialists states and transitional states
where the capitalists have been overthrown either by workers revolution
(Russia) or peasant gurreilla warfare (China,Vietnam,Cuba, North Korea).
Thirdly,transitional states occupied by the Red army at the end of world war
two (East Europe.

Naturally the third world countries come under in general capitalist
imperialist domination through colonialism.

All other states mentioned by Neil fit into one of these three
categories.Meaning Sweden,Israel,Spain,England,Germany and Italy are
capitalist imperialist states.

But what Neil is really talking about is the transitional states. Meaning
not capitalist and not communist but something in between!

This is where the state capitalists go into a frenzy against the
Trotskyists. In a backhanded way i think that state capitalism as a theroy
was discovered by the Mensheviks and liberals of modern times who under the
pressure of imperialism lacked the guts to defend these very transitional
states that came after 1917 and were ursurped and betrayed by the Stalinists.

So one does not have to be an economists to realise that there is a
difference between a capitalist imperialist state and a transitional state.
Just basic common sense should tell us that between capitalism and communism
there is a whole road to travel. Even for real communists like Lenin and
Trotsky economic planning in Russia was not based on any communist ideals
but neccessity in the present stage of development. How much resistance is
put up by the capitalists who have been overthrown etc.

Over and above that the history of the left opposition describes rather
clearly the bureacrats and Stalin ursurping power over the gains of October
and the consequences of this development. Despite Stalin the economic
planning was superior to capitalist imperialism just because it was on the
backs of the October revolution and the confiscation of the capitalist
class. Despite Stalinist mismanagement Trotskists defended these higher
forms against imperialist counter revolution.

In regards to China we have basically the same scenario. Mao and the Red
Army forced into taking power and driving the capitalists into the sea.
However here we did not have a victorious October Revolution, but a
victorious peasant army under the leadership of Mao who took power. They
smashed capitalist domination and began also to set up a transition regime
of things. Despite Maos leadership events in China were a great step forward
and should be defended against imperialism.

In Cuba the same thing! In Vietnam the same thing! In North Korea the same
thing!

Transitional states are exactly that. Something going from one place to another.
Either to a higher stage of economic development even in a bureacratic way
or perhaps Neil thinks that nothing at all has happened?


>Your think you represent bolsheviks but your apologetics are
> bullshittricks!

When and where have Trotskyist been apologists for anybody. Defending these
transitional states against imperialism is a duty of every communist.
Despite the Stalinist leadership.

The state capitalist view puts you outside of class struggle. And ultra left
childness for being afraid to defend a higher stage in the development of
states in transition from capitalism to communism. This has nothing to do
with defending the bureaucrats and their methods of struggle. But basic
fundemental common sense..

>Like today ,will you define and explain what is the ECONOMIC BASE of
>No. Korea , Vietnam, China, Cuba, Laos, etc.  please??
>Marxists put forward a scientific one, is it communal, slave, fuedal,
>or capitalist , worker controlled transition to socialist society??
>Your previuos concepts have been more like the bourgeois university
> political science Depts.
>I want your view on the ECONOMY Robert. Then we can turn to dealing
> with the political political superstructure.

See above! Now to the political structure. Neil, you are acting like a child
who is tryiny to put a round brick into a square hole!  All your talk below
about socialization with complete disregard for reality is that you are
acting like a text book marxist who understands nothing and does less.

For Malecki your ideas at best are some sort of text book utopia which
completely disregards concrete reality. Poof heres socialism.. The struggle
for a communist society has been going on for a long time. It is not
something you can set ten points like the ten commandments and its there. It
is a huge and complicated struggle where living classes are in a life and
death struggle.

And the people and organisations are also living and effected by this
struggle. One has to realise that we are going to see a lot of strange
things not perhaps unlike the first five year plans of the Soviet union. It
is not that communists particully like war communism but it is a living
reality which has to be dealt with. Otherwise it would not be called class
struggle. There wouldn,t be civil wars and starvation and all the rest.
Actually the below appears to me to be a fake intellectual text book example
of a dream of some sort of peaceful road to socialism. Menshevism and Social
democratic in to its very core.

I will be honest i do not really know how the transitional states will see
out in the future. A lot will depend on who is in the leadership and the
concrete situation and circumstances surrounding every revolutionary
uppheaval. It also depends on the resistance put up by the class being
overthrown. War and civil war a whole lot of things.

There will be Soviets or something simular. Naturally we will try and plan
things in relation to a given situation in order to defend the workers and
their organisations while moving towards a communist society. But their are
a lot of rivers to cross on the way..

But you my friend see no rivers and certainly can not build bridges to cross
these rivers in regards to transitional states. Your screaming and whining
about trotskyists being unconditional supporters of various forms of
Stainist bureaucratic rule will not change the facts. Either one realises
the difference between a transition state where capitalism has been
overthrown or you don,t. The state caps with ultra left arguements see no
contradictions between these states and capitalist states. That is the problem.

Being incapable of seeing these differnces you are running around blue in
the face and attacking everybody. It is going to be very difficult for you
to be involved in the coming struggles with you tactics that evolve out of
your analisis. Good luck! But i doubt that you will lead anything anywhere.

The only utopians on this list are in fact state caps on this subject. The
text book version of your group just will not work. Concrete reality will
determine historic struggles going on. Side line cheerleaders screaming your
all wrong and we are building our group to prove this will play no part in
this process.

And all this smoke about wage labor is just a fucking smoke screen. You just
refuse to recognise that the struggle for communism is a very bumby road
which you think you can fly over with a theroy which does not correspond to
living reality in a given situation..

And your arguements about the bureaucrats in these state being a capitalist
class is just ridiculous also. The state run economies in these transitional
states were and are run by bureaucrats. They don,t own it! However in the
Soviet Union it appears some of them would like to get a piece of the action
if capitalist restoration is successful..

The only jig that is up Neil, is the complete inability for the state caps
to see reality in the face. Instead they are inventing labels to put on this
reality while trying to tale a left posture. In fact, the truth is you
capitulated under the pressure of defending these transitional states
against imperialism. That is the underlining motive for all this crap..

Warm Regards
malecki in exile...

PS: Once again Neil, i recommend any organisaton almost that claims to be
"Trotskyist". For you it would be a step in the right direction. Then
perhaps you will find your way to the real Bolshevik Leninists in the future..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
<http://www.ios.com/~dizzyman/haha/>
Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my
Cristalball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------








     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---