Though I'm not addressed let me intervene by saying that if you say that there
is at present a (strong) tendency towards fascism this may be true, but saying
so also implies that we don't have fascism as yet. This again means that we have
to find out what differs fascism from all sorts of bourgeois democracy in its
state of decomposition. I think that the factors you mention below can be found
at several times of the history of bourgeouis democracy. I know that the German
KPD spoke about fascism years before Hitler came to power ('social fascism' and
what you got), and they had good reasons to be upset about the way 'bourgeois
democracy' slaughtered revolutionary workers at that time. But they had to learn
it the hard way that fascism was different. Unfortunately, but not at all by
chance they then stumbeled from ultraleftism (3rd period) into utmost right wing
opportunism (popular frontism). In the case of France the CP, which during the
3rd period had also called the 'socialists' "social fascists", when allegedly
threatened by a take over by the real fascists even went as far as to call for
including the 'nationalist' bourgeoisie in the front to build. Lots of
revolutionary fever is welcome but it shouldn't make us blind for differences.
Best A. Holberg
xxxxxxxxxx
Macdonald Stainsby schrieb:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You don't say a word about my analysis. You just freak out on the
> > realities of bourgeois democracy, one of the most ruthless state
> > machines in human history.
>
> What really bothers me is this tendency to tell people that "real" leftists
> "know" that the system was always like this. Formally, this will never not be
> true. That is the entire point. There is _no_ ability to change things in a
> manner that has not existed before. You could get a new deal before, you could
> hope for some small level of reform for all your revolutionary movements. Now,
> more than ever before, we are faced with a "bourgeois democracy" that has no
> wiggle room, no alternative point of view outside of these email lists. All
> that, and no possibility of even a small l liberal like Robert Kennedy to
> emerge
> to challenge for power, and you don't think that this stage of capitalism,
> somewhere in limbo for definition, shouldn't be called anything other than the
> same ol' thing.
>
> We need something better.
>
> Now.
>
> Macdonald
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leninist-International mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
