Re: A defense worse than the deed

[hariette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hariette spierings)]

>On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, hariette spierings wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is there identity between Trotkysm and Leninism? should be the first one.
>> It does not matter if Rodwell and malecki keep reiterating their baseless
>> assertions.  The question is hardly with Trotskysm.  The question is with
>> the bourgeois viwe of the socialist movement.
>>
>
>Louis: Look, the problem with "Trotskyism" is its concrete manifestation
>on this mailing list. Hugh Rodwell and Robert Malecki, who are two of the
>only "unreconstructed" Trotskyists are blithering idiots. The first one
>writes a speech at least once a month about the need for proletarian
>revolutionary parties (his own, of course), and from Malecki we get the
>same speech twenty-seven times a day. Rodwell, to his credit,is
>politically active. Maleki lives in the woods with his donkeys and a
>computer and hasn't passed out a leaflet since bell-bottom jeans were in
>style.
>
>They are the best arguments that Leninism does not equal Trotskyism. They
>are not capable of rigorous thought. They just like to chant slogans. The
>real discussion that has to take place on the list, as you know, is
>between people like us around the question of class alliances and the
>socialist revolution. We can not have this discussion when Trotskyite
>static overloads our circuits. Maybe later in the year we should explore
>the Marxism 3 question.
>


In that we fully agree Louis.  There is no possibility of serious discussion
unless there is a differentiation with the dissemblers, negators and mystifiers.

But in the mean time, isn't it hilarious to the lenghts they will go to
avoid having a serious debate about their UNSUBSTANTIATED allegations which
now have been proven to be 90% Orwellian to say the least!.   What a song
and dance these chickens have performed to defend their circus act.

The question is not what the central political question of the era is.  On
that we can all agree that it is the proletarian revolution, and that of
course includes not only the October revolution, Socialism, the Chinese
Revolution, the GPCR and today the People's War of which the Peruvian
revolution is a shining example.

The question is now, in this list, which is the central political question?
The reason to have this debate is because Hugh Rodwell, Malecki et all,
assert of view of history which is totally anti-proletarian and fits like a
glove the point of view of the class enemy, particularly Anglo-American
Imperialism.  They do that day in and day out - ranting against "Stalin and
Stalinism" every two sentences and for the most unrelated purposes.  I do
not have to refer you to the archives because I am sure you must be just as
fed up as anyone else with those mantras.

Now comrade Jim, who I know personally and respect as a serious and
systematic theoretical worker, has offered to debate very concrete points.
This debate would also be different from debates before because it takes
place against the background of very concrete revelations of how imperialism
has in fact been the guiding hand in the elaboration of a black legend which
is but the growing shadow of the seeds planted by British intelligence
during the 30s and 40s, in particular through George Orwell, whose seminal
influence in shaping some basic assumptions which are ingrained on most
people of the Anglo-saxon tradition from earliest childhood  - and the
enormous investment of the bourgeosie in promoting these assumptions - have
been finally unmasked.

What has to be analysed now is whether or not the slant put by the
Trotskysts sects upon the history of the proletarian revolution and the
experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat is but the elaboration of
Animal Farm and 1984 rolled into one and augmented to the point of
ridiculousness by a persistent and Goebbles like propaganda machine in which
these sects have played a leading part for anumber of decades.

That is how I understand the present challenge.  Now that the Maoist parties
are going to deal hands on with the case of "Quispe" directly on the ground
- you will notice that with the pronouncement of Action Socialiste, the
"Quispe" comedy is now politically finished even in the North American
Continent, and thus we need not concern the list anymore with these morons -
I feel that the time has come to set open ground for a positive
understanding of the history of the working class movement among the serious
people in this list.

I do not think that a debate about the themes proposed by comrade Jim would
mean that everyone would have to turn into a personal fan of J.V. Stalin.
No.  The main purpose is to foster a rational and factual appreciation of
the concrete history of the proletariat, so that on that basis, we can
advance in the task of reconstituting the morale of the class in view of the
coming struggles.

There is no question, as comrade Jim has already said of defending
"Stalinism" since there is no such a thing as "Stalinism" except in the
minds of people like Rodwell and malecki.

It is a question of defending the proletarian version of history,
overturning the bourgeois slanders and reversing the ludicrous situation
that has led to the identification of the Hitler regime with that of the
proletariat in the Soviet Union, thus in fact embellishing and justifying
Anglo-American imperialism which is the fascism of today!.

I hope you join me in taking a sanguine view and letting this debate proceed
and comrade Jim to have his say.  Concerted action on the part of those who
understand the need to debunk the fallacies of the Trotskyst sects will
certainly be a good precedent for fruitful collaboration on a seminars list
as proposed for Marxism 3.

With kind regards

Adolfo



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---