********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************

Andrew Pollack wrote: 
> Yesterday I read the two CV articles you mentioned.
> They're boilerplate Stalinism, 

You don't quote anything from those articles.  This shows that you couldn't 
find anything in those articles that denigrated class demands.  And yet you 
won't retract your charges against me, but just keep adding new ones. I'm 
sorry, Andrew, but that's not honorable.

The fact is that the CVO has been fighting Stalinism as well as Trotskyism 
right from our foundation. We have patiently re-thought the critique of 
Trotskyism, and have set forth a modern critique that shows that Trotskyism 
and Stalinism are two sides of the same coin.  (See 
www.communistvoice.org/00Trotskyism.html) 

>there is no meaningful discussion to be had with those who deny
>the revolutionary potential of the working class in general.

This is your pretext for evading the question of whether the present Syrian 
uprising could, if successful, bring socialism. You proudly make general 
statements such as "ONLY a socialist revolution...will stop regional 
barbarism" (your emphasis). But when I asked you how this statement applies 
to the current situation in Syria, what do we get ... silence. 

So I looked to see if I could find what you had written in the past about the 
Arab Spring and socialist revolution . It turns out that you wrote about the 
Libyan struggle against Qaddafi on March 14, 2011. With regard to socialist 
revolution, you wrote that:

 >Beside their willingness to fight arms in hand, the other major weapon the 
>insurgents have is the deepening of their revolution, the development of a 
>program that would make clear to the population in Tripoli that a mass 
>rising against Qaddafi is worth risking, ...

>Such a program would necessarily seek to replace the capitalist economic 
>system with one that serves the needs of the working people of Libya, and is 
>controlled by them. And it would raise the call for a pan-Arab "Socialist 
>United States" spanning the artificial borders that the colonialists erected 
>throughout the Middle East.

>(http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?auteur236)

So you claim that the only major weapon the Libyan uprising had, other than 
the willingness to resort to arms, was a socialist program that called for a 
"pan-Arab 'socialist United States'.[of the Middle East]." 

I don't think this was a realistic appraisal of the situation in Libya and 
the Middle East. Did you really think that a regional uprising for a pan-Arab 
socialist United States of the Middle East was possible in time to strengthen 
the Libyan uprising?

Or was your idea that it didn't matter whether the the pan-Arab socialist 
revolution would take place soon or many years later, since
 just calling for it would strengthen the Libyan uprising? And do you really 
believe that such a call would have been be supported by any substantial 
section of the Libyan masses, either the Arab or non-Arab ones?

Well, now it's 2016. What do you think about the issue of socialist 
revolution with respect to the current uprising in Syria?  Do you still think 
that the only major weapon of the uprising, aside from being willing to 
fight, would be a program that calls for the pan-Arab socialist United States 
of the Middle East?

You charge me with losing faith in the revolutionary potential of the working 
class because I didn't think socialist revolution was a possibility in the 
Arab Spring, and I don't think it is a possibility in Syria at this time. But 
if you think it is, why don't you repeat your idea that the major weakness of 
the democratic uprising is that it doesn't have a  program for the "pan-Arab 
socialist United States" of the Middle East? Or are you yourself the one 
losing faith in the masses? I don't think you can cover this up by silence, 
for it surely isn't honorable to denounce others for not advocating a 
position that you are reluctant to put forward yourself.

There's also the issue of Egypt, which shouldn't be swept under the rug. It 
was raised in Khiyana, and it is an important issue with respect to judging 
"permanent revolution" with regard to the Arab Spring. But you're still 
silent about it:

JG:

> > And he [an-Nar] wrote that "...the events of Egypt, the leftist misreading 
> > of the
> > army
> > coup as the 'next wave' of the revolution and the subsequent bloodbath is
> > such an appalling error that it should provide food for thought for the
> > whole
> > international revolutionary left." (p. 14)
> >

You are stubbornly refusing to don't say anything about this. Do you think 
that people will forget about what happened in Egypt if only you keep your 
mouth shut and your eyes closed? 

-- Joseph Green

_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to