>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) > >COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA diffuse >Presentation: We diffuse this information made by translator >(translator from russian to english of Razlatski's works) after his >recent journey to Samara (Russia)for its actuality and its >importance. Please send your opinions and suggestions to stachkom- >inter or proletarism > >de: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: [stachkom-inter] >Re: Journey to Samara From: Perry Vodchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >http://www.onelist.com >and shortly on the English page at http://proletarism.org > >Journey to Samara > Time Slip > >Like a fast car on a collision course with a bridge abutment, the new >Russia is moving forward. The signs are everywhere. Eight years ago, >the Arbat in Moscow boasted a single cafe, one restaurant and two >antique shops. Today there are dozens of each! More Mercedes, more >BMWs; more of all those charming little comforts that amuse the >bourgeoisie. Superficially, you might be in New York City, London, >Paris or Rome. Yet a nagging sense of dislocation tears at this >familiar picture. What is its source? > >Step on a train from the Kazan Station for Samara and the >dislocation overpowers the familiar. The simple act of travelling >1150 km from the metropolis produces an overpowering impression of >time travel. Have you jumped back 60 years? Or is it really 1000? In >my imagination, this experience has much in common with travelling >down the Danube in the year 1000. Yet how can this be? The train is >electric, the landscape includes all the evidence of a modern >industrial power in addition to the quaintly rural; so why is it so >easy to believe that you are on an adventure at the time of the >Crusades, that you are at the mercy of every local feudal lord? > >Because you are! The railway staff, three to a car, and the militia >play the role of those who, in times of old, in the service of their >feudal masters, lowered the chain on each boat passing up or down the >Danube. The "new" Russia is really a vast battleground between the >rising bourgeoisie and the feudal lords who were born as a class out >of the errors of the first world wave of proletarian revolution. The >"Soviet Union" which this new ruling class built was actually a >society firmly based on feudal relations, in which the working class >played the role of the serfs. Still today, it is feudal relations >which dominate Russia. And while, historically, the Feudals may be >doomed, it is far too early to give the palm of victory to the new >bourgeoisie. > >So, arriving in Samara, you have jumped back, not just a few easy >decades, but an entire era in social relations. Making a mental >adjustment for this is not easy. These feudal lords are armed not >with lances but with ICBMs, they even boast the planet's only >orbiting space station. Appearances are deceptive. A casual glance at >the lobby of a Moscow hotel reveals the same computer technology as >virtually defines advanced capitalism in the consciousness of many >Westerners. But pay attention and you will see that these are feudal >computers. They serve the predominant social and production relations >in the land. They support, perpetuate and reproduce feudal and not >capitalist relations. > > Meeting the Serfs. > >Samara! Why am I here today, a thousand years ago? Well, though >Hollywood and Disney love to forget it, feudalism was not all lords, >ladies and glittering court balls. It was predominately, vassals and >serfs and grinding poverty and oppression. I was here now/then, at >the invitation of the some of the most advanced and militant >representatives that any serfs ever had! Two janitors from the ZIM >plant had turned up to meet me. They were Grigorii Isaev, Chairman >and Victor Kotelnikov Vice-Chairman of the Stachkom (Strike >Committee) of the City of Samara and leaders of the Party of the >Dictatorship of the Proletariat (PDP). > >How had such an unlikely meeting, such an improbable juxtaposition >of cultures and eras and classes, come to pass? > > Razlatzky and the Internet > > The late founder of the PDP, Alexei Borisovitch Razlatzky, was a >unique individual. He was an independent Marxist who struggled with >and for the working class under the extreme conditions of political >repression in the pre-Perestroika USSR, and who paid with a long >prison stretch for this privilege. He was a Marxist theoretician and >dialectician of extraordinary abilities. Beyond the PDP, his legacy >is a remarkable body of theoretical writings, much of which was >created in the late 1970's, on the burning issues of the >international movement of the working class and of Marxism. > >About six months ago, in the course of trying to improve both my >Russian and my understanding of the failure of the USSR, I stumbled >across these works of Razlatzky on the Internet. They were like a >revelation to me. > >Neither as a Marxist, nor as an intellectual, had I ever been able >to reconcile myself to either of the two most popular left- >wing characterizations of the USSR. To say nothing of the CPSU line >that it was a "state of the entire people" happily on the >interminable road to communism. Both the neo-Stalinist line that it >was state-capitalism and Trotsky's view that it was a deformed >worker's state, fail to fit the facts. > >Having visited Russia myself, shortly after the collapse of the USSR, >I knew that, with even one good eye, anyone could see that the USSR >had been a class society. Moreover, the idea that it was a form >of state-capitalism was patently false. Were that the case, the >victory of the new Russian bourgeoisie would have been as simple as >changing the names on some share certificates, a Thatcherite >privatization on a grand scale. No, production relations in the USSR >were never mediated primarily by money and thus genuine capitalist >social relations had never really emerged. > >And those who would still hew to Trotsky's line are faced with >the insuperable task of explaining how, for nearly four generations, >the working class was unable to eliminate the deformations from its >own state. Why did they continue to endure, for more than 50 years, >conditions of political and economic oppression far worse than those >borne by their class brothers in the West? And why, when the system >was on the point of collapse from sheer exhaustion, were the workers >ready, at least with their passivity, to hand power to the radical >bourgeoisie? No, if Brezhnev's USSR was a deformed worker's state >then there is no reason not to call the USA a deformed small farmer's >state! > >Finally, in the works of Razlatzky, there lay a fresh view! Here, at >long last, was a materialist explanation of the fate of the October >Revolution. Not a series of obfuscations in terms of personalities >and dates; Kronstadt, the NEP, Trotsky, Stalin, the purges, >Dimitrov's speech, Kruschev's secret speech, the 20th Party Congress >etc. But a profoundly dialectical and materialist understanding of >the inescapable consequence of the development of production and the >social relations created by it - in a worker's state with one fatal >flaw. The fatal flaw in question is the belief that a party of the >working class can also be the ruling party. This assumption which >even Lenin himself was unable to see through, was the basis on which >all the countries of the "Socialist Camp" rose, rotted and fell. >In every case, it produced a feudal, dynastic order. From Brezhnev to >Mao to Ceaucescu to Kim Il Sung, the leaders were in power for life >and presided like emperors over the feudal court, vassals and serfs. >It fell to Alexei Borisovitch Razlatzky in Samara to reveal this >demand of history: "THE PARTY OF THE PROLETARIAT MUST NOT BE THE >RULING PARTY!" > >That is why I was in Samara! > > Theory and Practice > > The work of A.B. Razlatzky, is of course, vastly richer than a >catchy slogan or two. Yet it is in a small number of such slogans, >or, more precisely, in their embodyment in the work of the Samara >Stachkom and the PDP that the radical ideas of Razlatzky find their >practical expression and confirmation. For Marxists this is vital. >The interpretation of the world by philosophers is nice, but the >point, as Marx said, is to change it! The PDP has set out to do >exactly that. And from my brief experience of them and their work, >they are doing an amazing job. > >Though Grigorii Isaev himself sometimes likes to apologize for the >slow progress that Razlatzky's ideas have made on a national or world >scale, and he presents many valid arguments in doing so, I think he >may be selling himself and the workers of Samara a bit short. The >power of the Samara example is extremely compelling. Firmly basing >themselves on the working class and on the ideas of Razlatzky, the >PDP and Samara Stachkom have built a fighting detachment of the >workers which has successfully challenged and to a significant extent >beaten back the economic attacks of the regional administration. This >organization has raised the consciousness of workers and even >commands the grudging respect of their class enemies. It is utterly >unlike any organization that I have encountered in thirty years of >participation in and study of the radical left in Europe and North >America. Now it is certainly true, and for reasons worth examining, >that the ideas of Razlatzky have not yet achieved the currency >or respect that they doubtless merit; but the power of the >example set by the Samara Stachkom and the large fraction of the >workers who actively support it, proves the power of these ideas more >effectively than a thousand intellectuals singing their praises ever >could. > >So what are the reason's which have delayed the spread of >Razlatzky's theoretical insights nationally and internationally since >the initial, hand-copied, underground, distributions of his chef >d'oeuvre "The Second Communist Manifesto" in 1979. The first reason >Grigorii explained to me this way, "Why do people in Russia and in >the Socialist camp not easily understand Razlatzky? For this we have >the CPSU to thank. For the seventy years during which it was the >ruling party, it was like a mangle crushing the consciousness of >people. For generations, it stole from them the right to think and >consider. At the beginning it was like this, "Stalin thinks >for us!" Later it was our Leninist Central Committee, then Leonid >Brezhnev and all the rest. They simply beat out of people the >capacity for thought." And the second is explained in the 1999 >introduction to the "Second Communist Manifesto" as follows "If the >open enemy of the working class, the bourgeoisie, conducts its >struggle using the normal means of repression, then our "Marxists," >"Trotskyists," "communists" and other "friends" of the workers have >chosen a different path. Although they are enemies and >frequently compete among themselves, they have, without discussion, >organized an information blockade, a conspiracy of silence around the >ideas of "The Second Communist Manifesto," the like of which has >never before been seen in history." > > You can Lead a Horse to Water, but You can't Make him Drink. > >This second problem is clearly the more crucial on a world scale. All >ruling classes endeavour to limit, constrain and deform the creative, >intellectual potential of their subjects, and with good reason; class >societies always conceal the fundamental contradiction between the >rulers and the ruled, and with too much thought these antagonisms >will be revealed. Moreover, it is far from clear to me that new >feudals in the USSR were vastly more successful at "beating out of >people the capacity for thought" than the capitalists in the West - >although they certainly chose different tools for the task. > >As to the second problem, on a world scale, the verdict is not yet >in. The "Second Communist Manifesto" has been available in English >for not quite half a year. It has now appeared, in serialized form, >in French, Spanish and Catalan with complete versions to be available >soon. There is also a German translation in preparation. So the >friends of the workers, from among the world intelligentsia, have a >little time left before they can be justly accused of organizing a >blockade of silence. > >Yet the early signs are not terribly encouraging. At least in the >English speaking world, there seems to be a marked desire to avoid >grappling with the crucial issues addressed by Razlatzky. And so far, >frenzied denunciations outnumber reasoned criticism among the small >number who are willing to respond at all. Here again there is an >eerie feeling of convergence. How is this to be explained? While the >specific circumstances of the "friends" of the workers vary widely >around the world, from the countries of the collapsed Socialist Camp >to the third world to the capitalist heartlands, the class position >outlook of the intelligentsia is a world wide factor. As Razlaztky >states in his incisive analysis of the bourgeois intelligentsia, "At >the heart of every intellectual is his completed model for >restructuring society, which consists of the removal of such >obstacles as he has experienced in his personal relations with >society, and the illogicality of whose existence appears self-evident >to him." > >All too frequently, this characterization applies equally well >to intellectuals of the radical left as to the purely bourgeois >intelligentsia. The former have at least tried to sublate their >personal antagonisms with society in a critique at the level of >classes, but are still left with their own "completed model" for >social restructuring and with it their own "approved history" of the >workers movement. And it is this which leads them into sectarian >isolation. There can be no "completed model." Life is always richer >than any model. This is precisely why the hegemony of the >working class is everything on the road to a classless society. > >However, believing that they posses the completed model and the >approved history, such people must defend it against all comers. >Razlatsky, in their minds, cannot be an authentic Marxist because he >touches on questions and develops ideas not raised in the classic >works of Marxism; he is not on their list of authorities. > >I urgently appeal to the readers of this article to not side, in this >way, with those bourgeois philosophers who want an end to history. >For if the list of Marxist classics is closed for all time then we >are doomed to repeat the tragedies of history endlessly. > >If there are errors in the works of Razlatzky then they are the >errors of genius. And it is the responsibility of the international >movement of the working class to clarify such questions. It is a >certainty that the questions Razlatzky addresses are the right >questions. Who, in their right mind, now wishes to repeat the path of >October? No, the PDP is right! What is needed is a NEW October. This >is how Grigorii Isaev put it to me, "We are not blindly repeating the >historical experience. We move forward consciously. We are not the >Bolsheviks. We are not Stalin, nor Anpilov, Zhyuganov nor Makashov. >We are the new proletarian revolution, the NEW OCTOBER." > >Without a clue as to how to avoid the tragedy of the first Socialist >Camp, what workers in their right minds will fight to build a second >socialist camp. The lessons of the first October are stark, as are >those of the Chinese Revolution, Albania and the rest of the >Socialist Camp! They must be assimilated into the consciousness of >the international workers movement. This assimilation is the legacy >of Razlatzky. > >The test for those of the intelligentsia who want to stand with >the proletariat is clear. Please cease your knitting with classic >texts of Marxism and answer two simple questions of the working >class; > > Why did the path of Great October lead to Yeltsin standing on the >tank? > >How can this be avoided in the future? > > And if your answer to the first question involves a lot of detail >about Soviet history (e.g. "If only Dimitrov had given quite a >different speech at the 7th Congress of the Comintern, everything >would have turned out quite differently ... " or the shorter, more >popular, version "Stalin was INSANE!!", or "Trotsky was the only man >for the job!") then the sad truth is that you can have no answer to >the second question! And therefore no right to appeal to the working >class. > >Yet there is an answer to both questions! > >"THE PARTY OF THE PROLETARIAT MUST NOT BE THE RULING PARTY!" > >And we owe this answer to Alexsei Borisovitch Razlatzky! > > Practice > > But it is not my purpose here to speak for Razlatzky or to summarize >his enormous theoretical contribution. He pleads very effectively in >his own defense and his works are now increasingly available on-line >in an growing list of languages. They can be found at; > >http://proletarism.org or http://stachkom.org > >Though the ideas of Razlatzky can be judged quite well without >leaving home, today, the practical power of this revolutionary theory >is to be found only in Samara. > >And truly it presents a remarkable picture, one certainly worthy of >the attention of the international movement of the working class. The >Samara City Stachkom and the emerging Stachkoms of the All Russia >Union of Stachkoms, represent a new form in the struggles of the >international working class. > >The following question, put to me by a young journalist from a >local newspaper, at a press-conference in the Bunker, Stachkom >headquarters, gives a hint of the power of the Stachkom example; > > Well, I'll ask my question, and then perhaps you can translate. Here >we have Grigorii Zinovievitch (Isaev) who has, in his time organized >the Stachkom to block Novaya Sadovaya Street and the Moscow Prospekt. >Because the factory workers didn't get paid for a very long time, in >fact, in general, they didn't receive their pay, he organized >the Stachkom to block these streets, some of the busiest and >most important routes through the city. So I ask you, can you imagine >that, for example, in your country, some union in a company, even >quite a powerful one, could organize to block some ... well, I don't >know the names of the streets there ... Main Street in New York City? > > I must confess, I was at a loss as to where to even begin to answer >this question. > > The Political Background > >However, in order to understand the Stachkoms better, it is important >to have a general political picture of Russia, and an understanding >of the current conditions in the worker's movement. Who better to >present this material than Grigorii Zinovievitch Isaev, chairman of >the Samara Stachkom. [The following quotations are taken from rough >transcripts of an interview I conducted with Grigorii in Samara. The >complete transcript of this interview will shortly be available on >the Stachkom page.] First, on the general political picture; > > Well it is very simple. Outwardly, there are two forces, the >Democrats and the Communists, and they are naturally competitive, >they struggle in the Duma, they enter the presidential elections >separately. But this is only from the outside. At the same time, >(here I'm expressing the point of view of a worker, of the working >class) both the Communists and the Democrats are one and the same >exploiters, there is only some minor distinction between them. The >Communists are the old defeated Communists from before Perestroika, >we call them the Feudals, that have hung on until now. Such a one is >Zhyuganov, so too is Anpilov, also Makashov, who is an old >Brezhnevite Party general; but the Democrats are the camouflaged >Bourgeoisie, there essence is bourgeois while their clothing, their >camouflage is democratic. The essence of the Communists is feudal, >while their clothing is communist. > >So today even a blind man can see that in the Duma, when there are >boycotts and disorder, that in fact this is only competition in the >struggle for power. For us, for the workers, whether it is the old >exploiters or the new exploiters, nothing whatsoever will change. > >What I want to say is that the Communists, the feudals will not >return to power. They get fewer and fewer votes in the elections. >Today the word "communist" can be used to scare small children. This >is a terrible picture but it is a given, such are the circumstances. >But what constitutes another force in its infancy, also a political >force, is the striking workers. >From time to time mass strikes flare >up and are fought out, whether it's the miner's or the transport >workers cutting the roads, or us here in Samara or let's say the >Urals, the Kuzbass or other regions of Russia. This third force, of >its own accord, obstructs the other two, the Communists and the >Democrats, the Feudals and the Bourgeoisie. > >They try to lead us when we begin to struggle, when we go onto the >streets; to lead us so that we will be headless. We ourselves, long >since understood that we can fight only under our own banner, only >under our own direction. We don't ask who should we go with, but who >will come with us! "(Cont Pt 2 JC) > > > > > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
