I agree, as a moderator too, with Mark. Of course I take Dennis' comments very seriously. Let's argue that Charles comments on one particular leader "Pyatnitsky", were out of place since there is exactly one sources for his comments, completely unverifiable, an author of whom itself is quite controversial and we don't want to descend into this issue of slanders and "hit pieces". I understand that Charles was responding to MY comment...which was based on actual history of the 1925-27 failed revolution in China. We can discuss that but not conspiracy theories of the one Charles, I'm afraid, was engaging in. So let's just drop that line of thought. Unless he wants to actually discuss the role of the Comintern in the Chinese Revolution which would be quite interesting. The Soviet 20s was a fascinating period of time that more folks ought to read up on.
*So...the original thread "Democratic Party lawmakers urge troops to "disobey unlawful orders" is now closed. This by agreement from the Moderators* ( https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39560 ) Be aware, Charles initial comment, or response to what I had written about post-Bolshevik party organization was a good one and I noted it as such. But I would agree that, as part of Marv's comments, I'd rather return to that issue, that of Marxist organization and, because Mark raised it, the validity of the history of the pre- and post- October party organizations: basically the "Bolshevik period" and the "Comintern period". In the developed world, meaning Europe and North America and to the degree it influenced the more overseas colonies (and neo-colonies) such Vietnam, Ireland, China, Algeria etc., not a single party modeled themselves on party that made the revolution. They were all modeled, in some ways, on the post 1919 period advocated by the Comintern (21 Conditions, etc.). So here I will take up Marv's comments since I think they too deserve a response. I think Marv was a bit flippant in writing about the Party during the Russian Civil War. I think he is basically wrong on the facts. The "Party", that is the 1918-1921 (changed its name to the Communist Party in 1919 though I don't know the exact date, but the same year that brought into existence the Comintern) did not ban factions until almost to the end of the Civil War, that is until the 10th Party Congress in March of that year. The party was riddled with "factions", tendencies, grouping, etc etc. throughout the period of the Civil War. That is why the motion camp down to ban factions at that Party Congress and, in what I consider one of the worst sins of the revolution, expelled many (albeit not all) of both the Workers Opposition faction and the Democratic Centralists among others. Prior to this, folks could pretty much say what they wanted, organize around their positions when deviated from the the Party's positions on things, but they could not attack the Party publicly or call on members to abstain or march against the position of the party on a particular issue. In that sense prior to 1921, the Communist Party was far closer to the pre-October 1917 Party than it was what it turned into during and subsequent to the 10th Party Congress. Even a cursory examination of the book The Bolsheviks Come to Power by Alexander Rabinowitch shows this Party to be, compared to the post-10th Party Congress, more akin to anarchists in organization than a steeled disciplined party. Of course the Party in power, after October, and through the summer of 1918 (kind of the official date of the start of the Civil War), had to share power with the Left SRs, Anarchists, many others and thus the name of Rabinowtich's book is something of a misnomer. It was a period when workers constantly shifted allegiance from the Bolsheviks to the other groups and back again. In other words loyalty to the soviets was as important if not more so than loyalty to one faction of the workers movement. Real history isn't "what Lenin and Trotsky wrote" but rather where the working class in all its tendencies decided to move, follow, lead, etc. Please note that this last sentence is the first time mentioned Lenin and Trotsky. To many here (and I include myself here!) have a tendency to textually decide what is correct or not based on these another individual writers and not on actual history of the movement itself. I'm for moving away from textual interpretations of history. They are important but not decisive. Hopefully we can tone down the rancor on end of the last discussion. David -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39561): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39561 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116549413/21656 -=-=- 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. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
