Tony Abdo schrieb:
> Anton, I don't want to bore the list with a point by point reply to all
> points discussed. For example, I doubt it's worth our time to talk
> about the Republic of Texas Rightists. But let me respond to two
> items you wrote.
>
> <I think the truth is that those Marxists who supported the right of
> national selfdetermination of the Albanians have never been part of the
> campaign of the US- and German governments because these
> governments(even though they at some point might be forced to concede a
> separate state)never supported national selfdetermination for the
> Albanians (including e.g. the right to form a common state of all parts
> of the Balkans with an Albanian majority).>
>
> What do you call a refusal to engage in a campaign to stop German and US
> intervention militarily against Yugoslavia? That's what THOSE
> MARXISTS have been guilty of. In fact, THOSE MARXISTS in the US
> refuse to try to built any sort of Movement anywhere against US military
> interventionism. They don't even use the excuse of hiding behind
> Milosevic anymore to justify their inactivity. Instead, they hide
> behind the Nader campaign, and the excuse that they are busy off
> building the union movement.
Tony, I'm not sure that I understand you point correctly. Let me just say that
here in Germany all the minority-forces (i.e. mainly several brands of
'Trotzkyists' and some Maoists) who supported the right of national
selfdetermination for the Kosova-Albanians were actively engaged in the protest
demonstrations against imperialist aggression against Serbia (and in fact the
Kosova). There were of course bourgeois forces like the Greens who 10 years ago
had still taken part in anti-war demoinstrations with the slogan 'No blood for
oil' who were absent this time because they claimed that even if imperialism's
record is bad this time it was fighting for a good cause. And there were those
Stalinist and/or poststalinist forces (the majority of the antiwar movement) who
in final analysis justsided politicallywith Milosovic and were unable to see the
truth of national oppression against the Albanian population behind the
proimperialist stand of the UCK. I think that this position contributed to the
fact that this time the antiwar movwement was the weakest I have ever seen in
Germany (i.e. frm the earlyx 70s on). Those Trotzkyist and Maoist groups which
were themostardent advocates of Albanian selfdeterminationin general were also
the iones who were the clearest against imperialism. The British SWP e.g.
whichfor opportinist reasons put the slogan of selfdetermination aside during
the war also signed joint stzatement together with leftwing liberals calling on
other imperialist agencies such as the UN or the OECD to intervene. This was not
our position. I think that especially since the antiwar movement was so weak
anyway that it could't have anyreal impact on what wasgioing on oin the ground
it was of utmostr importance to wage a uncompromizing ideological struggle and
not to engage in foul tactical compromises. I hope it is understood that I have
nothing to do with the sort of 'Marxists' who hide behind the patty bourgeois
Nader-campaign. Tactics are important but the class line has to be guarded.
> This is one thing that you and Jared share in common, telescoping the
> whole concept of anti-US militarism into the national question of the
> Kosovar Albanians!
On the contrary. Unless you can prove that my analysis is build on wring facts I
hold that in essence defending selfdetermination for the Kosovar Albanians is
part of the primordial struggle against US (and German etc.) imperialism. We
defend national selfdetermination because we want to fight narrow nationalism by
internationalism.
> <Many things 'can' be the biggest crap, but the question is whether it
> is or is not. Is 'democratic centralism' crap or is it perhaps only used
> as a figleaf for beaucratic centralism? It doesn't help much to my
> opinion to spread around timeless generalities like the ones collected
> in the paragraph above. Everyone might have very different ideas as to
> what they refer to. I'd like to see your definition of 'orthodoxy'. I
> hope you don't mean all positions in accordance with the ones of people
> like Marx, Engels, Lenin (and if you like Trotzky) because in this case
> I would have some difficulties to understand why you take part in a
> 'Leninist' list.>
>
> I'm happy to explain why I can stay on this list and talk about the
> biggest con of crap around, marxists using the concept of 'democratic
> centralism' to stifle debate and purge comrades. Marxists need this
> truth thrown in the faces of marxist 'leaders' constantly.
>
> And at the same time, non-marxists need to have patiently explained
> exactly why this concept of 'democratic centralst' organization is so
> valid and necessary, in conditions of illegality and repression.
>
> If we just mouth orthodoxy in the same manner in both cases, we just
> come away justifying cadre repression by leadership, and not being able
> to comunicate the difference between organizing socialist organizations
> in the US or Germany, as compared to say..... Colombia or Turkey.
As far as I can grasp what you mean here I think that I don't have no
objections, but I still feel that all this is not concrete enough to really
discuss it. In particular I feel that your position might have a tendency
towards - let's call it cultural or national - particularism. There is some
Truth in it since definitely the worls isn't exactlythe same all over, but the
danger ist to overlook the fact that the world revolutionary progress is one
since in thisd epoch the prevailing mode of production in all parts of the world
is capitaliast and thereforethe onlysolution is socialism and not the
'democratic' revolution with or without the leadership of the proletariat. As
far as the revolutionary process in Columbia e.g. is concerned my impression is
that the FARC and the ELN are in fact fighting for the illusionary programm of a
nice liberal bourgeois state and are an force alien to the working class in
their country. We have to support them and any otherforce in Columbia which
fights against imperialist intervention, but I think that we servethe
revolutionary process worldwide and in Columbia in particular badly if we stop
here and allow illusions in what the real programm of the FARC is and what their
strategy and tactics will eventually lead to. There are so many axamples of this
kind, such as the URNG, the Sandinistas, the FMNL, the PLO, the FRETILIN etc.
etc. who all sought compromise with the ruling system, who got integrated into
this system in varying degrees and where the masses were left off as bad as or
worse than before the struggle started.
A.Holberg
> Tony Abdo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leninist-International mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
