Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[Macdonald Stainsby]

Nestor, that was Vladimir Bilenkin. All four (when we were four) of us dumped him.

in other words, he wont respond.

Macdonald

- Original Message -
From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.


> En relación a Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.,
> el 14 Jan 01, a las 18:58, rosskommuna dijo:
>
> Now, it is me who did not understand. Could you please expand?
>
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky]

En relación a Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.,
el 14 Jan 01, a las 18:58, rosskommuna dijo:

>
> --- Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > In fact, the working class can be integrated to the
> > capitalist system, as it
> > actually has been for decades in the core countries.
> > But this integration
> > cannot deny the fact that, existentially, this class
> > is the negation of
> > anything that is human by the system. So that it
> > takes the form of a rebellious
> > integration, thus, centrism.
>
> I am not sure I understand this last sentence, but the
> one before is implausible.  The imperial working class
> simply could not have been integrated into imperial
> society unless it's been allowed to climb closer to
> the
> better end of the alienation stick. The average
> British or US worker is no more "existentially
> negated" than the pardoned genius of leveraged buyouts
> Milken or the chief editor of London Times.

Now, it is me who did not understand. Could you please expand?

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[rosskommuna]

--- Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


> In fact, the working class can be integrated to the
> capitalist system, as it
> actually has been for decades in the core countries.
> But this integration
> cannot deny the fact that, existentially, this class
> is the negation of
> anything that is human by the system. So that it
> takes the form of a rebellious
> integration, thus, centrism. 

I am not sure I understand this last sentence, but the
one before is implausible.  The imperial working class
simply could not have been integrated into imperial
society unless it's been allowed to climb closer to
the
better end of the alienation stick. The average
British or US worker is no more "existentially
negated" than the pardoned genius of leveraged buyouts
Milken or the chief editor of London Times. 

> Centrism, if anything, and I don't care if I am not
> in agreement with Leon
> Trotsky here (though I am sure that if the Old Man
> were alive he would
> devilishly smile and support me), means not so much
> a _party_ that is not to
> the height of its own historic task. It means a
> _class_ which is not to the
>height of its own historic task.

Bingo!  So the centrist is the one who knows that the
center holds, and very much so.
Leon did smile you, Nestor, just about the last time,
when he conscientiously envisioned the 'unlikely'
outcome of WW2 and a 'new program' for the 'slaves' of
the post-war world.  

Vladimir Bilenkin


=
Proletarii vsekh stran, soediniaites'!

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky]

En relación a [L-I] On Centrism Today.,
el 12 Jan 01, a las 21:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] dijo:

> ... we have to understand
> the most basic, the most essential contradiction in its essence; that is,
> centrism wavers between reform and revolution. It means in fact, that when there
> is no relatively consistent, all-rounded genuine Marxist organisation - when
> there is no revolutionary pole of attraction to which all the best sincere
> revolutionaries would gravitate - then where is the material base of the
> revolutionary side of the wavering between reform and revolution. It exists not
> as a material force, but as an historically derived aspiration. And wishful
> thinking is not much of a material force.

What I do not like too much in the above is the reference to the "relatively
consistent, all-rounded genuine Marxist organisation". I know Leon Trotsky
himself spoke in this terms, but it is not the "scientific" (in the sense of
research for the ultimate, _material_  origin of facts of politics and
consciousness) explanation Steve is looking after.

I would rather try to establish the _general social conditions_ upon which
large tracts of the worker's movements develop a wavering policy, conditions
which IMHO should place not so much the stress on the existence of a political
organization (Luxemburgist to the rotten marrow, I always tend to believe that
there will appear an organization when reality claims for it --kidding, not
serious, but not completely so!) but on the inertia of the core class of
socialist revolution, that is the working class, and its difficulties in
actually _transforming itself_ in the sense that our tasks require.

In fact, the working class can be integrated to the capitalist system, as it
actually has been for decades in the core countries. But this integration
cannot deny the fact that, existentially, this class is the negation of
anything that is human by the system. So that it takes the form of a rebellious
integration, thus, centrism. Then, since I differ in the diagnosis, I tend to
differ in the prescription. Steve says:

>
> To understand this a Marxist must grasp the one fundamental of Marxist
> philosophy; must understand Marx's 'Thesis on Feuerbach', or Lenin's
> 'Materialism & Empirio Criticism'; must know deeply that deeds expose the
> truth behind words, as being determines consciousness; must know the Marxist
> theory of knowledge.

I find the above exceedingly idealistic. Of course that one must understand the
tools that will work with. I am a frequent (mis?)quoter of the _Theses_ myself,
so that I am not proposing anything that denies the general thrust of the idea
expressed above. But this will not enable us to understand "centrism", not more
than learning how to use an adjustable spanner will allow us to repair _that_
particular bolt in a jet engine.

I guess that, centrist as it may look (and Lou Proyect has stated this bluntly
on a post within this thread), the way to understand "centrism" not as a narrow
political phenomenon but as a concrete social and political issue which
involves masses of millions does not pass through the staunch adherence to the
basic books and ideas. It passes through meddling with actual people in actual
world, with learning the history behind our present, with betting to
organizative and political projects which may take all of us (and of course,
this "us" is still under construction, but it will certainly include those who
decide to launch themselves on this program) to power and socialism.

Centrism, if anything, and I don't care if I am not in agreement with Leon
Trotsky here (though I am sure that if the Old Man were alive he would
devilishly smile and support me), means not so much a _party_ that is not to
the height of its own historic task. It means a _class_ which is not to the
height of its own historic task.



Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky]

En relación a Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.,
el 13 Jan 01, a las 9:05, Louis Proyect dijo:

>
> ... If you are trying to establish
> connections between Economism and centrism, then we disagree. Economism ...
> advocated struggles at the plant-gate level around
> demands that were of immediate interest to the working class. It was an obstacle
> to the consolidation of a nation-wide Marxist movement. Centrism, by and large,
> refers to a current *within* Marxism that emerged after 1917 and which occupies
> a space between the Second International and the Third International. Forces
> opposed to the creation of a Third International, such as the French Socialist
> Party and the German Independent Socialist Party, are classic "centrists".

I would keep a closer eye on this. Economism was dealt with in the only really
important parts of _What is to be done?_, which were not precisely the ones on
organizational issues. In this sense, there is a common root to economism and
centrism IMHO, and this root is what is wrongly defined as "immaturity" of the
working class. In both cases, revolutionary Marxists are dealing with working
classes which either _have not yet_ raised themselves above the crass though
essential level of economic struggle ("tradeunionism") towards the higher level
of full political (thus, in Lou's words, "national") struggle,  or either _do
not want to_ do it. Centrism is the expression of the second situation, and in
this sense I do not share Lou's definition below of the MIR in Allende's Chile.

The MIR represented a far higher level of political consciousness, and
addressed a more intrepid audience, than any of the remaining Left parties in
those times. It should be no surprise to anyone that in today's Chile, the MIR
is the only Leftist formation with both some roots in actual people and with no
compromise of any kind with the ruling coalition of "progressives" and
"leftists" so aptly represented by that child of Purgatorium known as Isabel
Allende.

It is my own impression that since on these lists we are seriously attempting
to generate something (what will this be, we still do not know) that helps
restoring the red thread of world revolution after the debacle of the last 25
years, and since our friends the imperialists are doing their best to help us,
we should watch the common kernel of economism and centrism ("Presbyter is
priest writ large"?), and extract the practical consequences thereof.

On another posting, Lou speaks of the beauties in the swamp, ironizing on the
actual things that can be found if we don't think of swamps as metaphores of
the ugly.  True enough, and absolutely agreed. Even in the dismal-looking
colonies of crabs at Samborombom Bay in the Province of Buenos Aires there are
beautiful things to watch.

But if we are to stick to Lenin's ideas on this issue, we may go a step further
and say that the most interesting beauty in social life in its full
concreteness, misery and exaltation included, is that the swamp of capitalism
can be transformed into the dry ground of socialism.

Thus, if there is a "centrist swamp", the way out of the swamp (which step must
be taken if we want to do a revolution) towards dry land includes a clear
exposure of the economist roots (in the sense that, in the end, centrist
positions tend to support the statu quo insted of bringing about a revolt).

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[Louis Proyect]

Yoshie:
>Lenin's criticism of Economism (socialism conflated with 
>trade-unionism) still stands, and if the criticism of Economism is 
>what Lou means by "centrism," a "swamp," etc., I cannot agree more. 

I am not sure what you are trying to say. If you are trying to establish
connections between Economism and centrism, then we disagree. Economism was
a current in the emerging Russian socialist movement that opposed a
nation-wide organization. It instead advocated struggles at the plant-gate
level around demands that were of immediate interest to the working class.
It was an obstacle to the consolidation of a nation-wide Marxist movement.
Centrism, by and large, refers to a current *within* Marxism that emerged
after 1917 and which occupies a space between the Second International and
the Third International. Forces opposed to the creation of a Third
International, such as the French Socialist Party and the German
Independent Socialist Party, are classic "centrists". Although these types
of parties existed throughout the 20s and 30s (they are virtually extinct
today in the advanced capitalist countries but occasionally crop up in the
third world--the MIR in Allende's Chile might be called a centrist type
formation),  there was little to distinguish them ideologically from
Marxism broadly defined. Economism came to an end at the famous split
conference that generated the "What is to be Done" pamphlet. The closest
one comes to such a phenomenon today is autonomist Marxism, which makes a
fetish of local organizing and eschews challenging the state on a national
level.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>  >It is entirely possible, nay necessary, to learn from centrists, especially
>>like the POUM, but does Louis Proyect really want to stay in that mish-mash
>>of political confusion? Or is it just an emotional response to their bravery
>  >and general anti-Stalinist approach to life. Explain yourself comrade.
>
>  >from a self-declared and unashamed centrist, but one who desperately wants
>  >to break out of this morass -
>  >- Steve Myers.
>
>I will tell you the same thing that I told Yoshie Furuhashi on the Marxism
>list. I like what you call the mish-mash, but I prefer to call it a swamp.
>All sorts of lovely, green things grown in the swamp. Have you ever seen an
>orchid? Or an Snowy Egret stretching her wings? Or bearded oaks? Or
>magnolias? It's enough to make a grown man cry.
>
>Louis Proyect

*   It is only natural to expect that for a Social-Democrat whose 
conception of the political struggle coincides with the conception of 
the "economic struggle against the employers and the government", the 
"organisation of revolutionaries" will more or less coincide with the 
"organisation of workers".  This, in fact, is what actually happens; 
so that when we speak of organisation, we literally speak in 
different tongues.  I vividly recall, for example, a conversation I 
once had with a fairly consistent Economist, with whom I had not been 
previously acquainted.  We were discussing the pamphlet, Who Will 
Bring About the Political Revolution? and were soon of a mind that 
its principal defect was its ignoring of the question of 
organisation.  We had begun to assume full agreement between us; but, 
as the conversation proceeded, it became evident that we were talking 
of different things.  My interlocutor accused the author of ignoring 
strike funds, mutual benefit societies, etc., whereas I had in mind 
an organisation of revolutionaries as an essential factor in 
"bringing about" the political revolution.  As soon as the 
disagreement became clear, there was hardly, as I remember, a single 
question of principle upon which I was in agreement with the 
Economist!

What was the source of our disagreement?  It was the fact that on 
questions both of organisation and of politics the Economists are 
forever lapsing from Social-Democracy into trade-unionism.  The 
political struggle of Social-Democracy is far more extensive and 
complex than the economic struggle of the workers against the 
employers and the government.  Similarly (indeed for that reason), 
the organisation of the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party must 
inevitably be of a kind different from the organisation of the 
workers designed for this struggle.  The workers' organisation must 
in the first place be a trade union organisation; secondly, it must 
be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as 
conditions will allow  On the other hand, the organisation of the 
revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make 
revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of 
the organisation of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary 
Social-Democrats).  In view of this common characteristic of the 
members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers 
and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and 
profession, in both categories, must be effaced

In countries where political liberty exists the distinction between a 
trade union and a political organisation is clear enough, as is the 
distinction between trade unions and Social-Democracy.  The relations 
between the latter and the former will naturally vary in each country 
according to historical, legal, and other conditions; they may be 
more or less close, complex, etc. (in our opinion they should be as 
close and as little complicated as possible); but there can be no 
question in free countries of the organisation of trade unions 
coinciding with the organisation of the Social-Democratic Party 
(Lenin, _What Is to be Done?_, at 
 
*

Lenin's criticism of Economism (socialism conflated with 
trade-unionism) still stands, and if the criticism of Economism is 
what Lou means by "centrism," a "swamp," etc., I cannot agree more. 
I like Lenin's remark on effacing "all distinctions as between 
workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and 
profession" in "the organization of revolutionaries" as well. 
However, Lenin also made a distinction between an organization of 
revolutionaries & an organization of workers (& other political 
organizations, I presume -- for instance, women's organizations, 
black people's organizations, indigenous peoples' organizations, 
etc.), & he argued that the latter must be far broader than the 
former.  I take this to imply also that while we should be active in 
our agitational work in the wider world of diverse political 
organizations, we should also maintain the c

Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.

[Louis Proyect]

>It is entirely possible, nay necessary, to learn from centrists, especially 
>like the POUM, but does Louis Proyect really want to stay in that mish-mash 
>of political confusion? Or is it just an emotional response to their bravery 
>and general anti-Stalinist approach to life. Explain yourself comrade.
>
>from a self-declared and unashamed centrist, but one who desperately wants
to 
>break out of this morass -
>- Steve Myers.

I will tell you the same thing that I told Yoshie Furuhashi on the Marxism
list. I like what you call the mish-mash, but I prefer to call it a swamp.
All sorts of lovely, green things grown in the swamp. Have you ever seen an
orchid? Or an Snowy Egret stretching her wings? Or bearded oaks? Or
magnolias? It's enough to make a grown man cry.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

[L-I] On Centrism Today.

[SMye5]

In a message dated 12/01/01 15:02:40 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Johannes Schneider wrote:
>  >In recent postings other organisations have been referred to as being
>  >'centrist'. Though especially in Trotskyite circles this is a very popular
>  >attribute given to political (mostly other Trotskyites) adversaries, as a
>  >moderator I would like to point out, that this kind of lingo is not
>  >particularly encouraged on L-I. Rather than using just a shorthand, I 
would
>  >prefer to see an example and an explanation what is meant in detail and 
let
>  >the reader come to its own conclusion.

>  Louis Proyect
>  Trotsky called centrists, like the POUM allegedly, revolutionary in word
>  and reformist in deed. I personally identify with the centrist current and
>  think that Marxism can learn much from a group like the POUM. Basically the
>  POUM-ists broke with the FI because they felt it was a hindrance to being
>  rooted in the Spanish class struggle. Looking at the sorry record of the
>  official Trotskyist group in Spain, it looks like they hit the nail on the
>  head. Of course they adapted to the reformists, but affiliation with the FI
>  was no cure for that. Such affiliation would only guarantee the purism of a
>  church.
>  
>  I also identify strongly with the forces in the world Communist movement
>  who questioned the wisdom of the 21 points of the Comintern. If Marxism had
>  heeded their advice, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.
>  
>  Louis Proyect

Centrism is a concept that is immensely important, nay, absolutely essential, 
to  genuine Marxism today if we are to build a new revolutionary workers 
International. This International will probably be called the Fifth 
International.

This chameleon phenomenon, centrism, must be understood in all its 
variations, by the leadership that eventually renews a genuine Marxism, in 
theory and practice, at the quality, or above, with which Lenin and Trotsky 
in general applied Marxism in their days.

Rosa Luxemburg was the first to use this term in any modern sense of the word 
at a time when Lenin failed in understanding what Kautsky was, before 1914. 
Revisionism was in fact an earlier term, much less scientific understanding 
of centrist wavering.

Of course Lenin, and later the Comintern before Lenin's death, took up the 
term in a much more scientific manner - and it appears in numerous documents 
of the early Comintern, that is, before it collapsed into centrism itself.

It was then left to Leon Trotsky to further develop this concept, as he 
historically traced the actual changes in the centrist phenomenon, of Kautsky 
centrism, bureaucratic centrism of a Stalinist origin, centrism of a mass 
reformist origin, the petrified centrism of small sectarian grouplets, etc. 

Use of this concept enabled Trotsky to know the point at which the Communist 
International had definitely gone over from centrism to counter-revolutionary 
reformism, with Hitler taking power in Germany in 1933. Likewise, today, we 
can see another type of centrism of a Stalinist origin has emerged, following 
the collapse of the Soviet Union - and indeed, added to the complexity of 
Trotskyist centrism today, the concept has become even more complex.

Unfortunately, as comrade Johannes points out, this term, now used mostly by 
a few Trotskyist groups, has become a swear word, a term normally of abuse, 
and it is better when labelling comrades or groups as 'centrist', to in fact 
detail which specific arena's of criticism, inadequacy, of sectarianism or 
opportunism, we are referring to.

You see comrades, none of the Trotskyist groups who use this term, use it in 
a scientific manner. Indeed for it to be used in this way, we have to 
understand the most basic, the most essential contradiction in its essence; 
that is, centrism wavers between reform and revolution. It means in fact, 
that when there is no relatively consistent, all-rounded genuine Marxist 
organisation - when there is no revolutionary pole of attraction to which all 
the best sincere revolutionaries would gravitate - then where is the material 
base of the revolutionary side of the wavering between reform and revolution. 
It exists not as a material force, but as an historically derived aspiration. 
And wishful thinking is not much of a material force.

To understand this a Marxist must grasp the one fundamental of Marxist 
philosophy; must understand Marx's 'Thesis on Feuerbach', or Lenin's 
'Materialism & Empirio Criticism'; must know deeply that deeds expose the 
truth behind words, as being determines consciousness; must know the Marxist 
theory of knowledge. 

For in fact, for any 'Trotskyist' or 'Stalinist' today to be correctly 
labelled 'left centrist' - if it came from a genuine Marxist (which I doubt 
exists) this would indeed be a compliment of the highest order. 

Though I would characterise myself as objectively 'centrist' today, and for 
the last 23 years as a subje