Re: Organising against capitalism (2nd reply to Phil)

[David Walters <dwalters@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I wanted to respond some on this issue. Phil quite easily dismissing
"objective conditions"...kind of strange for a Marxist. There has only
been ONE Maoist victory: China. That's it. For all the  Maoist armed
struggles around the world, they've all been failures, including, and
spectacularly I might add, in India. They've been far MORE isolated
than Phil likes to let on, with little actual mass support. Ironically,
in India, it's those groups that have broken with the armed struggle
that have done best in mobilizing the working class and rural masses in
defense of their own interests...that is, those that have rejected the
Naxalbari in practice (few reject them historically, for obvious
reasons.).

The only group that seems to have reversed the steady failures of armed
struggle Maoism are the Nepalese, or one faction of it.

Phil cites an example he is personally familiar with, Ireland, and
cites the INLA. I find this very odd as the INLA is also a failure of
large proportions with most of it's cadre in the goal or dead. They
actually lead little of the mass movement via their IRSP, albeit they
had a very sophisticated program based on nationalism and Marxism. I'm
not citing them for polemical reasons Phil, you did, but their
existence, as such, proves absolutely nothing vs Trotskyism (and we
know their were quite a few IRSPers who bounced off of Trotskyism, as
well). It would of been better to site the Provos as they did have a
mass base (actually, still do) but, like the Sri Lankan Trotskyists,
have ended up social-democrats.

Maoism and most armed struggle formations have lead no where in Latin
America. Only in Nicaragua...and we know where they ended up...and
Cuba. The one great example is El Salvador, and, as Louis pointed out,
facing US Imperialism, and without a political means to back out, lead
the FMLN, too, to social democracy. Che's movement in Bolivia petered
out quite quickly and was an abject failure, in large part because of
Che's own ignorance of local conditions: he couldn't speak the
language. So what do ya' know?

I haven't forgotten Shining Path; that lead an armed rebellion, mostly
of it's OWN members, against the gov't of Peru, failed to even move the
rural masses, and attacked urban leftists by murdering them.

Trotskyists have lead, like some non-armed struggle ex-Maoists, and of
course the mainline Stalinist groups, mass  movements none of which
could of come to power given limited cadre (I'm talking about all the
groups, not just the Trot ones) and real *objective conditions*. That
the Argentine Trotskyists in the 1980s built a movement MUCH larger
than the Sri Lankan Trotskyists is a testimony to their influence and
political accumen. That's Trotksyists of various factions hold about
20% of seats of the executive the largest trade union in Latin America,
the Brazilian CUT, also is a point in their favor (not to mention
founding the CUT and PT to begin with).

So...all things are not equal. The Maoists were able to grow in large
part, as were the Focoistas, due to the largess of the material basis
of Stalinism and/or the Cuban workers state. That the USSR and China
existed as centers for International Stalinism, and Cuba as a center
for material aid to revolutions after 1960 says most of why Trotskyists
there did not compete, in many places, with the other insurgent or
socialist movements. To ignore the material basis for his displays a
very once sided view on your part of the "failure of Trotskyism".

The Vietnamese Trotskyists were murdered. The recent book of letters by
Vietnamese activists, published by Socialist Platform, Ltd. includes
letters by Ho chi-Mihn, activists of both the Viet Mihn and Trotskyist
movement. Who says they were 'large'? AT one point maybe they had 1500
members, compared to 80,000 of the Viet Mihn...again, it's nice to have
benefactors...in fact it is crucial for organizational stability and
longevity, it seems. The murders took place during the chaos that
reigned after the surrender of the Japanese and after the landing of
British troops serving as surrogate for the French. The Trotskyists
placed their faith in the People's Councils then organizing mostly in
Cochin and other parts of southern Vietnam. They were very open, not
clandestinely organized enough, very demonstrative of the need to keep
the British from landing. They were too open, and were unprepared for
the murderous assault by the Vietnamese Stalinists. Shame on the
Trotskyists then...it cost them their lives and, I believe, another 30
years of never ending death and destruction of the Vietnamese people.

I think one has to look at each country, view the conditions as such,
analyze the currents and judge from their who has the best program and
strategy for power. I don't think 'others' hold anything over a
Bolshevik approach to revolution. We'll see...

David


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.