I can and do sympathise with Michael's position below and there is always a shiver of dejavu whenever stalin/trotsky etc are mentioned, all too readily translated into repeat performances of nightmarish proportions.
Your assessment is probably correct that it will not be solved here, afterall this is only being realistic. But the problem is that we have to collectively get over the stalin-trotsky dilema before anything else gets clearer in the political field. I do not mean by this that we have to refight this crudge-match, but somehow we have to get our own collective history into a true perspective, if only to escape repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Charles' point about the Popular Front is one of the keys. Another, I believe, is getting a hold on the meaning of NEP and how Stalin and Trostky shared the same views on socialism (the evil and good twin if you like, but both wrong for the same reasons). It is the heretical point of view which is absent, the one which would shove Stalin and Trotsky into the same camp and make room for another view on how things may be brought forward. One I would argue which apprieciated the Popular Front as an important innovation and something of a guide to what we should be doing and perhaps turns over NEP to discover a very clear understanding of the dynamics of making proletarian socialism. In this it appears very clearly that Charles is trying desperatedly to break with tradition (Traditional Stalinism despised the Popular Front though it had to put up with it for a time - mainly because it produced such a powerful class force). On the other hand, without having a go at anyone in particular, the arguments against his proposition simply revive old accusations which take on a severe ahistorical dimension. Charles I think is not proposing a revival of everything that came to pass as the Popular Front, but at its logic. In this the critics talk of the same language of left exceptionalism, and in principled stands which do not translate into any particular policies, rather just opposition to a consistant policy development which I think is strongly impled by the Popular Front as it has beern presented here. Now Charles' critics have every right to dismiss this view of what they are saying and here I lay a simple challenge before you Michael. Please go through what has been said and simply summarise the debate so far. Now apply to this all your resources of objectivity (no need to go into the details, just the logic of positions presented) and conclude what is in fact being said. Perhaps your conclusion will only pose some questions that need to be answered, perhaps the process might lead to a debate which gets past its present impasse. I said it was a challenge, but I do not mean by this a personal affront, but rather a real challenge, something that somewhere and somehow will have to be done (Pen may not be the place for it, that is a separate question, but I would apprieciate your honest assessment). Now I am not mking any accusation against the comrades who disagree with Charles, but I would passionately point out to them that from their positions there is no logical conclsions, no positive political direction, just a negative position of oppositionalism. The Popular Front may be wrong, but not for the reasons I have ever seen raised. I honestly ask the critics to go into a little more depth into this question. If the PF is wrong then its error should be pronounced at all levels, the logic of the porposition should fold in on itself. On the other hand if it is substantially correct (that is in my opinion flows directly from the communist duties first outlined in the Communist Manifesto and correlates with good communist work in general) then one would expect the criticisms to be superficially, internally contradicted and ahistorical. Hari Kumar below is a good example and clearly a no mean minded critic (I will shortly read his references) so perhaps I should address you directly and simply say how much of this directly relates to the Popular Front as such and how much can be explained as the resulting from other historical factors pre-existant to the PF. In the case of France, does this suggest that the PCF was somehow on the verge of revolution and hence a something of a ideal party organisation before the PF and only the policy of the PF resulted in catastrophe or are other factors at play? The question is not meant as a snide attack but rather in the cause of locating exactly what we are talking about. Greg --- Message Received --- From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:27:09 -0700 Subject: [PEN-L:25439] Re: Importance of history I thought that i said that you can learn from history in a dialogue in which people can address the subject objectively. I don't think that it will happen here. I wish that I were wrong. On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 07:12:53PM -0400, Hari Kumar wrote: > Wrote Michael Perelman: > "How is an analysis of Stalin going to help us understand the world > today? History, of course, is important, especially when it is relevant, > but in matters such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. the subject leads > to too much emotional finger-pointing to lead to much. I recall that on > one list -- not pen-l -- Henry Liu was called a fascist for suggesting > that the Nazis had some economic accomplishments. Maybe my memory is > playing tricks on me. " > A REPLY: > As far as I am concerned, this list is not a serious place to take on > issues related to the Stalin-Trotsky divide. I am continually amazed > [and impressed actually] at Charles' fortitude in persisting in trying > to discuss these types of issues with most of you. Let us face it - > most - if not all of you have made up your minds. I somewhat except a > few individuals - including Louis Project who at times has an ability to > take an objective viewpoint. But Michael - your question is ridiculously > nihilistic and in fact, belies the tenor of your own general comments > and your more general work. You cannot be seriously saying, that one > cannot learn from history? As regards the matter that started this > little series going - Dimitrov - It was he who put into practice in > Bulgaria a policy of unite with one's own bourgeoisise; Dimitrov was set > free by the Nazis; Dimitrov policies allowed the French CP to preside > over the destruction of the French revolution: In essence Dimitrov > proposed and installed the revisionist policy of : "A United Front From > Above at All Costs"; as opposed to the Lenin-Stalin line of : "A UF From > Above & Below - With Strict conditions". > Now Michael: Are you seriously saying that such lessons are not relevant > today? > Hari Kumar for Alliance - (Articles on Dimitrov and this analysis at > that web-site-Go to index). > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------- Greg Schofield Perth Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Modular And Integrated Design - programing power for all Lestec's MAID and LTMailer http://www.lestec.com.au also available at Amazon.com ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
