Re: SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Andrew Wayne Austin]

I think Bob is onto something. Over there at LM there is a collective mind
set that people worry too much over things like pollution, the safety of
consumer products, neo-nazi activities, etc. The line is handed down by
Furedi and informed by the "sociology of risk," the latest libertarian
craze in social scientism. This has ideological and practical utility. For
LM, the right wing is dead namely because LM has become an adjunct to it.

Andy
http://web.utk.edu/~aaustin



 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Bob Malecki]

>Bob Malecki wrote:
>
>>I bet! Being that reports here last night were talking about "citizen
>>militias" to defend themselves. No wonder the cops came up with a "lone"
>>suspect! Think if Jim had tried to link up this with some militant trade
>>unions rather then pushing is Repunzell version!
>
>This is less than usually coherent for you, Bob. What are you talking about?
>
>Doug


What?

Bob



 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: VB: For Whom the Bell Tolls/Por quien doblan las campanas

[Bob Malecki]

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: den 2 maj 1999 22:48
Ämne: For Whom the Bell Tolls/Por quien doblan las campanas


> For Whom the Bell Tolls:
>  Requiem for the Spanish Left
> by Lorenzo Peña
>   [excerpts]
>  
> Por Quién Doblan las campanas
>   Requiem por la izquierda española
>[extractos]
> 
>[the whole text can be found at:]
>[el texto íntegro puede leerse en:]
>
> 
>  The journalist Mr. Andrés Aberasturi, the criminologist Mr. Santiago
>Wachter and many other signatories (I just mention the first and the last by
>alphabetic order) have authored a `Manifesto for Peace' which has appeared on
>the Spanish press. (Henceforward called `the Manifesto' for brevity's sake.)
>  The Manifesto's signatories include several distinguished, highly
>prestigious personalities, mainly representing what is vaguely called `the
>Spanish Left', and who are broadly regarded as sacred cows. This is not going
>to hinder the present writer from denouncing the Manifesto as a betrayal, a
>neutralist stance which goes a long way to meaning an admittedly half-hearted
>endorsement of NATO's position.
>  The current war has been unilaterally launched by NATO against
>Yugoslavia. Before NATO's aggression there was no war. There were armed
>actions by a secessionist guerrilla in the Serbian region of Kosovo which had
>triggered a police crack-down. Whatever the particular figures -- which are
>highly contested and at this stage at best extremely contentious -- the
>conflict was very much like those which in recent decades have plagued other
>European countries: the Bask-Region conflict in Spain, the Brittany and
>Corsica conflicts in France, the South-Tirol conflict in Italy (in the
>sixties) and the Northern Ireland conflict in the UK.
>  It was a purely internal matter, wherein probably both sides were
>overstepping the bounds of legitimate action. The responsibility fell first
>and foremost on the Kosovo guerrilla, which had taken the initiative of an
>armed secessionist uprising helped by the American, German, Turkish and
>Albanian secret services (which by itself already amounted to an act of
>aggression according to international law).
>  No armed struggle is legitimate except when it aims to topple an
>unbearable tyranny.[...] Whatever the shortcomings of Mr Milosevic's
>government in Serbia and then in the whole of (what remained of) Yugoslavia,
>those conditions [for a regime to count as un unbearable tyranny] were not
>met, whether in Kosovo or in the other Serbian regions.
>  In fact Mr. Milosevic's government is an elected one, which has evolved
>through peaceful development from the previous administration, which in turn
>had seized power by expelling the German invaders. In Yugoslavia there are
>legal opposition parties, the elections are genuinely contested (otherwise how
>could it be explained that Mr Milosevic's party was defeated in Montenegro?),
>and there are legal ways of expressing opposition to the government and to ask
>for political changes.
>  Admittedly Mr Milosevic's policies in Kosovo can be regarded as wrong
>by many people, including Albanian secessionists and even Albanian autonomists
>(in the same way as France's policies in Brittany and Corsica are looked upon
>with resentment and anger by Breton and Corsican irredentists).
>  But for a set of policies by the existent government to be wrong or
>deserve blame is by no means a reasonable ground for an armed struggle against
>the government to become licit.
>[...]
>  As far as the present writer's knowledge extends, those conditions were
>not met in the Kosovo case; perhaps none of the seven conditions was fulfilled
>there. [...]
>  The Manifesto addresses none of those issues. In fact it evinces a
>flippant disregard for those questions. It maintains that the first cause of
>the people's suffering in the Balkans is `the ethnic cleansing and repression
>committed by Milosevic', whereas NATO's bombing comes in only as a second
>(and, we gather, minor or secondary) cause.
>  Accordingly, the plan proposed by the Manifesto is comprised of two
>points: (1) to put en end to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing and repression; and
>(2) a stop to NATO's bombings.
>  Obviously, despite what they say, the signatories are indeed careless
>as to what counts as the rule of law, as to what is in accordance with
>established principles of public international law (respect for international
>treaties) and what is a gross violation of international law. So much so that
>they even

SV: M-TH: Revolutionary situations? -- Never heard of 'em...

[Bob Malecki]

Hugh's long reply to Doug

>
>Bob's being very empirical here, which is why Doug is trying to lure him
>into bed with him. Me I stick with Trotsky. He wrote about the Spanish
>*Revolution* as from 1931 to 1939.


As much as I would like to agree and do with Hugh and do in regards to the world since 
1917 being in a period of war and revolution must take into question just the enormous 
historical defeat that the destruction of the deformed workers states and the 
degenerated workers state the Soviet Union mean.

This defeat is a defeat! And unlike Hugh who tries to put blindfolders on as Dave does 
on this question has pushed the workers movement back into pre 1914 politics. So there 
is a reason that the Blairites who have become and International trend are heading 
towards liberalism rather then Social Democracy. Just as the ex-Stalinist are leading 
the capitalist counter-revolution in the east.. So instead of bourgeois workers 
parties we are seeing the reformists leaping into the bourgeois camp in the advanced 
industrial countries while the ex Stalinists are leading capitalist counter-revolution 
in the east. And they do have imperialist pretentions in Russia...

Empirism which Hugh accuses me of I find confusing. Because nothing can be more 
empirical then not being able to confront a historical defeat and what it means for 
the world working class. 

And if the Social Democrats (Blairites) and the Stalinists have left the workers 
movement, the far left is trying to take up the position of the Social Democracy! Note 
the shift to the right towards pre 1914 positions on the question of wars but also the 
reformist politics on the national levels..The entire left wants to fill the vacum 
that the Social Democrats and Stalinists have left behind them!

-

Note...Just supporting their *own* bourgeoisie is not enough for leaving the workers 
movement. The far left is doing this Kautskyite version also on the war, But it is 
connected to the program the Blairites of the world are using to destroy all the 
reforms they once were forced to support to head off any revolutionary movement at 
home..
-

The far left has recognized, unconciously that the Social Democrats and Stalinists 
have leaped into the camp of the bourgeoisie. and are now trying to fill the vacum. 
Thus the rise of Kauitskyism on the far left these days!

So it is no wonder I mention a new Zimmerwald to seperate all of the garbage in the 
next period. Obviously the main point being the main enemy is at home like it was back 
in Zimmerwald..

To deny that the destruction of the SU has not changed anything is to deny what the 
political consequences which Hugh takes up quite clearly in his letter like the 
Blairites.

He mentions a number of revolutionary uppsurges since ww2 which all led to defeat with 
the exception of Albania, China, Yugoslavia,Cuba and North Korea and Vietnam. The 
reason for this was the Stalinists. With the death of the SU even these situations 
have now come to a dead end. We will not see any more Cuba's which led to a successful 
overthrow of capitalist property relations in the form that they took in the late 
fifties and onwards to places like Columbia today. The destruction of the SU closed 
that door.

He forgot to mention Africa where our former "Marxists" are now becoming the frontmen 
for imperialism...

The general shift to pre 1914 days politically comes in the context of the enormous 
growth of the proletarian population throughout the world especially in the east. This 
is the bright side.

But to deny and try to brush over the defeat of the SU with Trotsky's writtings is 
wrong. Especially when Hugh draws the wrong conclusions as if nothing has happened. 
Unfortunately with the destruction of the SU the Leninist Vanguard is worse off then 
the Russian Party when Lenin in August 1914 came came out for a new International.

However this is the road we must travel again! But to deny that anything has happened 
is ridiculous..The revolutionary Internationalists are unfortunately a very small 
factor in all of this. Connected to the world historical defeat and the betrayal of 
the Social Democrats and Stalinists leaves us in fact in a far worse position then 
anything after 1917.

And Hugh's false pretentions that nothing has happened is false.

So the empirism of Hugh's letter is also connected to his wrong analisis of the SU 
..Which he at least last year was pushing on this list. This goes for Dave too! In 
fact NATO aggression and imperialist war is connected very much to this stuff and also 
the shift of the Stalinists and the Social Democrats into the bourgeois camp.

Like Hugh I do agree that the only way out i

M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Doug Henwood]

Bob Malecki wrote:

>I bet! Being that reports here last night were talking about "citizen
>militias" to defend themselves. No wonder the cops came up with a "lone"
>suspect! Think if Jim had tried to link up this with some militant trade
>unions rather then pushing is Repunzell version!

This is less than usually coherent for you, Bob. What are you talking about?

Doug


 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

SV: SV: SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Bob Malecki]

Hans wrote..

>It seems the British police have arrested an individual for the bombings
>who they claim was acting alone, the spokesman went out of his way to deny
>claims that any organised far right group was responsible.


I bet! Being that reports here last night were talking about "citizen militias" to 
defend themselves. No wonder the cops came up with a "lone" suspect! Think if Jim had 
tried to link up this with some militant trade unions rather then pushing is Repunzell 
version!

Bob





 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: Revolutionary situations? -- Never heard of 'em...

[Hugh Rodwell]

>Doug wrote..
>>
>>Sure sounded to me like you were arguing that the Nazis were a serious
>>political threat, and by your own definition, the ruling class used Nazis
>>to fight a pre-revolutionary situation. So I was wondering if you were
>>implying that this is indeed a pre-revolutionary situation, a claim so
>>curious I'd like to hear more. But maybe you don't believe that. So please
>>clarify.
>>
>>Doug
>
>No I was not arguing a "pre-revolutionary" situation today. But that
>fascism is the tool that the bourgeoisie uses in a pre-revolutionary
>situation. So fascism is always a danger and must be combatted whether in
>England today or a pre-revolutionary situation tomorrow..

Bob's being very empirical here, which is why Doug is trying to lure him
into bed with him. Me I stick with Trotsky. He wrote about the Spanish
*Revolution* as from 1931 to 1939.

I'd distinguish between revolutionary crisis for starters, which is the
flash-point explosion that can only go to victory or reaction, and a
revolutionary situation, which is a developing situation through many
levels up to flashpoint. Read Trotsky on the October Revolution (which
Deadwood thinks is shit and for praising which he threw me off his
chit-chat crap). During a revolutionary situation (Lenin's Letters from
Abroad and the Bolshevik April Conference screamed that one had arrived)
the question of power is posed in concrete terms -- whose guns, whose
policies, whose political methods and organizations.

Then there's the prerevolutionary situation where the ice is pretty thin
over the revolutionary volcanics. In a prerevolutionary situation the old
routines are still gone through, but they wear very thin and often act by
default.

Viewed internationally the world has been in a revolutionary situation
since the revolutionary crisis of 1917. Up until 1991 more than half the
world's population was living in a workers state of some kind -- dual power
if there ever was! Of course the reason none of this is recognized by the
stupigentsia is that no political leaderships ever told them this was the
case (none in power that is, so they could believe the big gun). The
leadership of the workers states, the counterrevolutionary turncoat
bureaucracy, was blathering about peaceful coexistence, peace and democracy
for all it was worth, after all.  But the world revolutionary situation has
been punctuated by revolutionary crises all along -- victorious ones
postwar in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, China and Cuba, and very near things in
other places like Bolivia in 1952, Portugal and Spain (minor imperialist
powers!) in the mid-1970s and Iran and Nicaragua in 1979.

We've seen power up for grabs in the old Soviet bloc, a successful national
liberation struggle in Chechnya, the arming of the people and the
disintegration of the state forces in Albania and very nearly the same
thing in Romania.

The epoch of wars and revolutions (and the transition to socialism) is
still erupting -- and the revolutionary situation is palpably closer to
crisis now that imperialism no longer has the balancing force of the
workers states to stabilize it willy-nilly. The imperialist solution is
forced labour, starvation and destruction, and people don't like it. With
the Stalinists up in smoke or tuxedoed into a new bourgeoisie, and the
Social Democrats Blairing out the marvels of the market and the
progressiveness of profit while they loose the hounds of imperialist war on
the Kosovars and Serbs alike, people are starting to scratch around for
other solutions.

It's all the crisis of leadership, as Trotsky said.

And even if Deadwood thinks everything's dandy in Uncle Sam's own backyard,
in a healthy society that's stable and prosperous and not looking for new
solutions you don't get schoolkids slaughtering each other with bombs and
small arms (for instance). Or parents slaughtering their families and
themselves out of desperation as obviously happened where Bob lives in good
old milk-of-human-fucking-kindness Sweden -- a softer, gentler imperialism,
a weakened capitalism as Deadwood thinks, the kind of thing we need to
stave off the rising magma of revolution...

To summarize:

World   Revolutionary situation since 1917

World   Many revolutionary crises since 1917

Individual nations  More and more frequent and chronic revolutionary
situations

Individual nations  Continuous eruptions of revolutionary crises, even
in Europe

Why so many abortive revolutionary crises?  Lack of revolutionary
working-class leadership and presence of deliberately counter-revolutionary
leaderships determined to derail any revolution that gets its foot in the
door.

Want to help bring a revolutionary crisis to a successful conclusion?
Help build a revolutionary working-class leadership like the LIT.

Simple -- but not easy.

Cheers,

Hugh

PS It's typical of the chronic pre-revolutionary situation that exists even
in the most apparently stable countries that the slightest ripple 

Re: SV: SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[David Welch]

[This post was delayed because it was sent from an address
not subscr*bed to the list.  Hans Ehrbar.]



It seems the British police have arrested an individual for the bombings
who they claim was acting alone, the spokesman went out of his way to deny
claims that any organised far right group was responsible.

On Sun, 2 May 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Sure sounded to me like you were arguing that the Nazis were a serious
> political threat, and by your own definition, the ruling class used Nazis
> to fight a pre-revolutionary situation. So I was wondering if you were
> implying that this is indeed a pre-revolutionary situation, a claim so
> curious I'd like to hear more. But maybe you don't believe that. So please
> clarify.
> 
> Doug
> 
> 
>  --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
> 




 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

SV: SV: SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Bob Malecki]

Doug wrote..
>
>Sure sounded to me like you were arguing that the Nazis were a serious
>political threat, and by your own definition, the ruling class used Nazis
>to fight a pre-revolutionary situation. So I was wondering if you were
>implying that this is indeed a pre-revolutionary situation, a claim so
>curious I'd like to hear more. But maybe you don't believe that. So please
>clarify.
>
>Doug

No I was not arguing a "pre-revolutionary" situation today. But that fascism is the 
tool that the bourgeoisie uses in a pre-revolutionary situation. So fascism is always 
a danger and must be combatted whether in England today or a pre-revolutionary 
situation tomorrow..

See my reply to Rob on this stuff..

Bob



 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Bob Malecki]

Rob wrote


>G'day Bob,
>
>I think Doug's questions would be answered if we could get a handle on
>
>a) What constitutes a pre-revolutionary situation?
>b) In which respects might we be said to be approximating one?
>c) In which respects might we not be said to be approximating one?
>d) Can the developments within the far right of today be related to this
>such as they might be seen as indicative?
>e) Can we expect to recognise a pre-revolutionary situation?

Hi Rob..

Well, the point was not that we are near a pre-revolutionary --But that fascism is the 
instrument the bourgeoisie well let out of the closet in order to defend its interests 
ih a pre-revolutionary situation.
Then continues his meandering..

>As I reckon a pre-revolutionary situation is recognisable only from the
>revolutionary situation that succeeds it, and as I reckon any situation has
>pre-revolutionary forces and forces of static inertia within it, I can't
>help much.

Think that is a bit backwards. A pre-revolutionary situation led 1n 1905 to a defeat, 
in 1917 to a victory another defeat in Germany and then the fascists coming to power 
in the 30ties on top of a pre-revolutionary situation. In three cases 1905, and the 
first pre-revolutionary siyuation in Germany the defeat can be laid fundamentally in 
the crisis of leadership in the German Party and the second defeat the complete 
bankruptcy of the Stalinist leadership connected to his followers in the KPD who were 
responsible for this huge defeat.
>
>As for (d), what's going on in what we call the far right varies over space,
>I reckon.  Me, I'm still plenty concerned by it.  And I'm happy to call lots
>of it Fascist, and other bits potentially Fascist.  I even reckon we're
>mainstreaming stuff that we used to call 'Fascist' only twenty years ago -
>the relations particular to Fascism would have to rise to the political
>surface in new ways in the west of today, but I don't say it can't be done. 
>As for Russia and many other lumps of our benighted planet's surface, I can
>imagine a fairly familiar route for it there.  There I do discern
>'pre-revolutionary situations'.  But no sign that revolution will be one to
>anticipate with glee.  

Well the revolution being around the corner was hardly the point. The point was Jim's 
revising the fundamental analisis of fascism and his petty bourgeois orientation in 
how to treat it.. What I was trying to point out that this is the historal instrument 
the bourgeoisie has to smash the workers movement in pre-revolutionary situations.
>
>In my darker moments, I can even imagine these tragic developments coming
>along in time to feed a new cold war (if not a mushroom-shaped hot one), and
>just possibly ward off the sort of depression in the west that might have
>got us to examine our navels long enough to see the virtues of
>revolutionising our own patch.  

This is a very interesting point! However a new "cold war" is not exactly what I would 
call it. We have a big problem in that we are not dealing with the ex-Soviet Union as 
a degenerated workers state with the bankrupt line of peaceful co-existence and 
popular front politics. We are dealing with a number of countries in the east that 
have had capitalist counter-revolutions and in the case of Russia with its old 
imperialist appetites being the thrust of this counter-revolution. Thus this makes the 
ex SU a potential imperialist power even with its economic condition which being bad 
does not change the class character of the state.

So if this stuff spreads into a International showdown it will be quite interesting to 
see who winds up on what side in this stuff. And the options at this time are quite 
variable. The Germans I believe have learned that a two front war just won't work. The 
Japanese are rearming and we have the wild card the (still) deformed workers state 
China..

So a lot can happen. For example the third world war can very well be a conflict 
between imperialists or potential imperialist powers with all kinds of line ups. This 
stuff ain't gonna be easy to intervene in just because of the counter revolution in 
Russia which has confused many people.

Ask Dave and Hugh. We have had long hot discussions on this stuff.
>
>But then, I'm a miserable bastard by nature, and one who'll speculate as far
>into an unseeable future as is necessary to wallow in pre-emptive despair. 
>I tend to experience fewer profound disappointments that way ...

Matter a fact the situation especially on the left is very bleary, confused and out 
right heading towards the politics of the second Internatiuonal which we know never 
did or will work.. Perhaps it will be a new Zimmerwald seperating the bullshit artists 
from all the rest..The real point being that THE MAIN ENEMY IS AT HOME!
>
>This is shallow and short, but I'm up to my ears - back to it ...

Me to. A family father just killed his wife, 2 children and then himself it appears at 
11 am today. Being responsible for the kids in th

Re: SV: SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Doug Henwood]

Bob Malecki wrote:

>>You mean we're in a pre-revolutioanry situation now? So the alleged rise of
>>Nazis, from London to Littleton, is somehow a response to this? How do you
>>know?
>>
>>Doug
>>
>What?
>
>Bob

Sure sounded to me like you were arguing that the Nazis were a serious
political threat, and by your own definition, the ruling class used Nazis
to fight a pre-revolutionary situation. So I was wondering if you were
implying that this is indeed a pre-revolutionary situation, a claim so
curious I'd like to hear more. But maybe you don't believe that. So please
clarify.

Doug


 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Doug Henwood]

Hugh Rodwell wrote:

>>Presumably articles in Hugh's journal 'An Audience of One' include the
>>same redundant paragraph at the end about the falling rate of profit and
>>the coming class struggle. But he should now that you can't say
>>everything all at once. Even Lenin's (taken from Plekhanov) definition
>>of propaganda 'many ideas to a few' doesn't mean every single idea.
>
>Again the sneering reference to central phenomenon of social development
>today.

What's that? FROP? Not in the U.S., where the rate of profit is sharply up
from its early 1980s lows. Nor is there a great profits crisis in Europe. I
just got a paper from the Bank for International Settlements, which I
haven't read yet, that wonders aloud why European profit rates are so high.

Doug


 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Bob,

I think Doug's questions would be answered if we could get a handle on

a) What constitutes a pre-revolutionary situation?
b) In which respects might we be said to be approximating one?
c) In which respects might we not be said to be approximating one?
d) Can the developments within the far right of today be related to this
such as they might be seen as indicative?
e) Can we expect to recognise a pre-revolutionary situation?

As I reckon a pre-revolutionary situation is recognisable only from the
revolutionary situation that succeeds it, and as I reckon any situation has
pre-revolutionary forces and forces of static inertia within it, I can't
help much.

As for (d), what's going on in what we call the far right varies over space,
I reckon.  Me, I'm still plenty concerned by it.  And I'm happy to call lots
of it Fascist, and other bits potentially Fascist.  I even reckon we're
mainstreaming stuff that we used to call 'Fascist' only twenty years ago -
the relations particular to Fascism would have to rise to the political
surface in new ways in the west of today, but I don't say it can't be done. 
As for Russia and many other lumps of our benighted planet's surface, I can
imagine a fairly familiar route for it there.  There I do discern
'pre-revolutionary situations'.  But no sign that revolution will be one to
anticipate with glee.  

In my darker moments, I can even imagine these tragic developments coming
along in time to feed a new cold war (if not a mushroom-shaped hot one), and
just possibly ward off the sort of depression in the west that might have
got us to examine our navels long enough to see the virtues of
revolutionising our own patch.  

But then, I'm a miserable bastard by nature, and one who'll speculate as far
into an unseeable future as is necessary to wallow in pre-emptive despair. 
I tend to experience fewer profound disappointments that way ...

This is shallow and short, but I'm up to my ears - back to it ...

Cheers,
Rob





>>You mean we're in a pre-revolutioanry situation now? So the alleged rise
of
>>Nazis, from London to Littleton, is somehow a response to this? How do you
>>know?
>>
>>Doug
>>
>What?





 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---