******************** 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
