Comrade Reimann, you are unwilling to look seriously
into the criticism of permanent revolution, and so instead
you claim that I are distorting what you say. So let's see
if that is true.
Take the issue of the Local Coordinating Committees
(LCCs). I wrote that "you present the Local Coordinating
Committees in Syria as having the potential to be analogous
to Soviets". You seek to prove that this is a grave
distortion by saying "they [the LCC's] had the potential to
develop in that direction [Soviets]". What's the difference?
Take the issue of raising the socialist banner. I wrote
that you imagine that "the movement could become socialist
if only someone put forward a socialist program". You say
this is a "complete distortion" because how the banner is
raised and developed "is extremely complex". And you refuse
to go deeper than that, saying that you "would not presume
to answer such a question". So you still haven't said how
you think the movement should have become socialist other
than raising the banner of socialism.
As to distortions, people in glass houses shouldn't
throw stones, comrade Reimann. You write that you "cannot
see how" my position "does not end up with the view that the
entire revolution was doomed from the start". But as I
stated in reply to you a couple of months ago on Facebook,
"From the very beginning in 2011, CVO [the Communist Voice
Organization, that I belong to] wrote that these struggles
were very important, and deserved firm support, but that,
even if successful, they would not bring socialism."
It is various advocates of permanent revolution who
openly claimed that the democratic uprisings couldn't
achieve anything unless they led to workers' power or
socialism. Since anyone who wasn't blinded by false theories
or dogma could see that the Arab Spring couldn't lead to
workers' regimes, this meant that the theory of permanent
revolution was leading activists to either romanticize the
stands of the insurgent masses, such as seeing the LCC's as
leading to Soviets, or to deep pessimism.
By way of contrast, here is an excerpt from what I
wrote in 2011:
"The Arab Spring shows the masses refusing to accept the
passive role that the police states and authoritarian
regimes have placed them in. It is a revolt against tyranny,
but also against the increasing misery from neo-liberal
reforms and economic crisis. The high food prices of the
last few years, the increasing inequality fostered by
neo-liberal reforms, and the growing unemployment, which
extends even to educated youth, have spurred on this
upsurge.
"But this is not a socialist movement, nor even a radical
anti-imperialist one. Instead it has a lot in common with
the liberalization movements which we have seen elsewhere
around the world in the last several decades. These
movements brought down various dictatorships, but often left
conservative or even market-fundamentalist regimes in their
place.
"In the case of the Arab Spring, everywhere the insurgent
masses are split up in disparate groupings. Everywhere
different class factions take part in the struggle, and
different class interests are expressed. Nowhere is the
struggle led by a clear revolutionary force, by a truly
socialist force as opposed to the fake socialism of various
regimes, or by a real anti-imperialist force as opposed to
the fake anti-imperialism of the nationalist regimes. Even
as the masses fight the market fundamentalism of the old
regimes, there are strong elements in the movement who
advocate more market fundamentalism, and these elements are
supported by imperialism and the local bourgeoisie. And
everywhere there are illusions about the imperialist powers.
"Why then should this movement, which will not bring
economic liberation, be supported? Why, when it will bring,
not universal harmony, but a new class struggle? ...
"But the reason to support this movement is precisely
*because* it will bring a new class struggle. This is the
only path to the working masses themselves taking politics
into their own hands. There is no way forward for the
working class other than by fighting against tyranny, and by
using whatever freedoms it wins to organize, or extend and
strengthen, its own independent trend. These two things --
the working class seeking freedom, and using this freedom to
develop a specifically working-class trend in the movement
-- are interrelated, as only the working masses seek to
sweep away all the old institutions of political tyranny.
"This means that the Arab Spring, even if the uprisings are
successful, is only the first step, and the resulting
regimes will probably be quite disappointing. But
nonetheless, breaking the iron grip of the old regimes has
the possibility of rejuvenating the politics of the region."
("Against Left-Wing Doubts in the Democratic Movement", Nov.
2011, http://www.communistvoice.org/46cLeftWingDoubts.html.)
<>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3939): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/3939
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/78477155/21656
-=-=-
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.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
