to vladimir bilenkin on state capitalism

[malecki@xxxxxxxxxx (Robert Malecki)]

Walter attempts to critisise Cliff,s variat of state capitalism from the
left. This is good but not enough. In fact you wind up in a knot of
confusion and contradictrions.

walter d. writes:
There is a difference between defending the workers' gains and
defending the Soviet state. The working class had every need to
defend statified property and the gains this property embodied.
But that should not be confused with defending the Stalinist
state, which was not a trustworthy protector of these gains (or
even of state property, as events showed). State capitalism as a
system is primarily capitalism, not some third system based
fundamentally on state property. In crisis it turned toward
intensifying capitalistic methods by reducing statification, not
towards a more democratic form of state.

Malecki: The above is the problem with both you Walter and Neil. In Neils
case he can not see the difference between defending the trade unions as
workers organisations despite the reformist traitors who lead these unions.
In your case you can not see the difference between defenging a deformed
workers state against imperialism despite its leadership.

You both have the same sickness. Ultra left childness in throwing out the
baby with the bath water. Communists understand living reality and do not
try to put a workerist blue jean deguise on and trying to portay themselves
as radical.

The Soviet union was a victorious revolution led by the Bolshevik party. The
dictatorship of the proletariat was set up and as time passed the workers
state had its power ursurped by a conservative bureaucracy and the long
history of Stalinist politcs and mismanagement. But the point is that the
Stalinists could only do that in the name of the living history of a
successful workers revolution..So naturally communists make there line along
these lines.

As far as the east European states occupied by the Red Army at the end of
the second world war. In fact the Trotskyists defended these gains made by
the Red Army. It was paid for in the blood of 20 million Russians. And the
so called "Fourth International" split over this question with Pablo who had
the line of entering the Stalinists pasrties and reforming them from the
inside. The real Trotskyists at this time were led by the SWP.

Walter writes;
Moreover, it was not just a question of failing to carry out
Trotsky's program for building a revolutionary party; they worked
in the opposite direction. During the events of 1989 and after,
both the orthodox Trotskyists and Cliffites tailed the pro-
bourgeois "democratic" opposition leaderships and often the new
governments these leaders later formed. Poland's Solidarnosc was
a favorite of both -- the government ministers as distinct from
the union structures. For example, after Walesa had been in power
for a year the Mandelite Bulletin in Defense of Marxism reasoned
as follows:

Malecki writes;

You are absolutely right that the Mandelites tailed the Solidarnosc and
chatholic chruch in Poland. However the Mandelites are certainly not
authodox trotskists. In fact they broke with Trotskyism already around the
events in Cuba and tailing the various Che types that developed after the
victory of the Cuban revolution. And since then have tailed everything that
moves from the Mullahs in Iran, to feminism, and some vague "democratic
oppposition" in Russia. The Mandelite line is basically some sort of
dynamics in all these movements makes them inheritly revolutionary. thus
sooner or later we will have a mass party by recruiting people to our
movement by being the best supporters of these movements. This is hardly
anything to do with building a communist international along the lines of
Lenin and Trotsky..

Finally the Russian situation of today and critical support. I think that
anyone who has been watching the TV realises that there are a lot of things
at stake in Russia at present. Communists can not just say we "boycott" the
elections on principle.

Especially small organisations as the Trotskyists would be in the former
Soviet Union. We take sides in the class struggle despite its present
leaders. I think that that the Stalinists now turned Social Democrats or
what ever can be given critical support in the first round against Jeltsin.
However we would also put forth our own candidates on a program of
revolution and workers power. In those places we did not have candidates we
would call for a vote for the Stalinists. Not because we like the Stalinists
but because at present they appear to be the only thing standing in the way
of a total capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union. We are not sectarians
and put everything in Russia in one big bag and say fuck you. Communists do
not do that. They stand on the side of the working class. This critical
support is given while we clearly state that this party is not going to lead
the workers to power..
and all the rest..

But to abstain in the Russian elections is to abstain from class struggle.
And in fact help those forces which really want to finish off the former
Soviet union a wide open door to walk through. That is the bottom line of
your politics here Walter and i do not agree.

However i note that both you an Neil are not Cliffites and actually want to
be on the working classes side in the coming struggle. But in order to do
this you will have to break with your ultra left state cap positions and
help reforge a revolutionary International along thje lines of Trotsky and
Lenin..

Warm Regards
malecki in exile..






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---