|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:36:39 GMT -5
Here I would like to repost the content of a PM conversation at Revolutionary Left which I had with Che y Marijuana, an anarchist and an RL administrator, who I consider my closest non-MLM comrade and who, like me, posts at E-G a lot. It started out as a casual conversation about Iron Feliks being demodded at E-G and went on to become a very deep exchange about how to counter the tendencies towards fascism among many E-G members, including many who are moderators.
I want to post this because I really don't know where to stand on this issue, and I think I could make up my mind better if I got some feedback from fellow MLMs. And just so you know, I have CyM's permission to do this.
I am going to do this post by post. Wait until I say I am done to comment.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:39:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:40:50 GMT -5
CyM wrote:Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Jan 23 2005, 09:49 PM YAY!!!!!!!! ![](http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif) Companero, this is a good day. Let's hope Berserk is next, have you seen his excuses in the NBP thread?
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:42:26 GMT -5
1949 wrote:Sent: Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Jan 24 2005, 04:53 AM I don't think Berserk has flamed enough for him to be de-modded. I don't support de-modding Iron Feliks because of his political views. I just support de-modding him for flaming. Although, Tarasi told Berserk to cut out his anti-Semitism in a "talk about anything" thread which was locked (I think it was Iron Feliks' thread about "Socialist-Jew-Gonzo" becoming a libertarian), so who knows. Although, I will tell you something I have never told anyone before. When you were calling for Sensitive to be de-admined a few months ago, I agreed with you. ![](http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif) Do you still support that idea?
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:44:23 GMT -5
CyM wrote:Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Jan 24 2005, 10:22 AM Yes, I do support that idea of course As for Berserk, my reason for wanting him demodded is that he speaks of Socialism and is in reality as close to a Nazi as one can get without striking an outstretched hand into the air. Look at his new avatar, listen to what he says, the NBP and thrid positionism is dangerous for Marxists. Fascism is a dangerous distraction that props up when Capitalism is in a crisis. Capitalism is now in a crisis, and to have someone at a site named after Che advocating Fascism at this important crossroads is wrong. Berserk has had alot of influence on Iron Feliks, Red Skyscraper, Sensitive, Thursday Night, has already corrupted them, even though Iron Feliks and Red Skyscraper at least, consider themselves Marxists. That is dangerous... scary... and it is our duty as Marxists to prevent that. Young Marxists coming to EG should not be faced with Fascist propaganda masquerading in red flags.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:47:28 GMT -5
1949 wrote:Sent: Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Jan 24 2005, 04:05 PM Let me be blunt: I don't really care what people are advocating at a board named after a revisionist. With the possible execption of thursday night, I think the members you named, as well as Ixabert, definitely lean towards Fascism, but I think to say that is the defining aspect of their line sort of misses the point. With regards to those who still seem to adhere to certain formal aspects of Marxism (this includes Sensitive, IHMO): their lines are not fundamentally defined by the fact that they have sympathies towards a few fascist parties such as the Baathists in Iraq or the National Bolsheviks in Russia--but are actually defined by the fact that they are dogmato-revisionists. Namely, revisionists who claim to uphold Marxism-Leninism, and who say positive things about Stalin--and even Mao, to a certain extent--but in fact are rejecting key developments in communist theory by mechanically upholding Stalin’s errors and denying that Maoism is a third and higher stage of Marxism--among other things, some of which are particular to some and don't exist in others. This is a problem that most of the key members of E-G suffer from, including most of the moderation team. Why would you single out only a few members based on their sympathies towards fascist parties? I think I know the answer...but I'll let you speak for yourself. And besides, I consider Red Skyscraper to be one of my best comrades on E-G--at least out of the ones you named. ![](http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/cool.gif)
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:49:42 GMT -5
CyM wrote:Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Jan 24 2005, 07:45 PM We should, because Fascism by its very nature attempts to confuse young radicals, and uninformed workers. Guess who appeals most to them? I didn't mention Ixabert, because he came to that conclusion of his own accord. The others I have seen drift that way, with plenty of help from Berserk. I'm not saying that defines who they are, but Fascism as an idea is very dangerous. Sensitive said he was no longer a marxist. But support for National Bolshevism, at a time in Russia where that Fascism is growing stronger, opposed by a growing Communist movement, is still unacceptable. Our movement is threatened by the rise of Fascism as a response by Capitalism to endangerment. Their support of this defence mechanism, and attacks on any who oppose it as "trotarchists", places them on the other side of the barricades. Disagreements between different schools and factions of Marxism and the revolutionary left are to be expected. They are something I can deal with, and from what I know of you, something you can deal with to. I don't support Stalin or Mao, but I support you, and trust you as a companero in the workers' movement. I cannot say the same about these people, for the very important reason that they oppose the workers' movement. Fascism is antithetical to that. We can disagree about many things, but Fascism is not a grey area. As I said above, because debate over the specifics of Marxism or radical leftism is natural. But there are simply certain points that cannot be compromised upon. Fascism denies class warfare, denies Marxist internationalism, denies collective ownership of the means of production. Without those things, can we really call someone a companero? ![](http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif) He's not far gone yet. We might still be able to get him back. But the time to act is now, or else I fear he will be no different from Berserk a year from now. By the way, if you plan on sticking around here, I will start a poll in the Forum Forum (CC) about letting you in.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:51:40 GMT -5
1949 wrote:Sent: Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Jan 25 2005, 06:45 PM Thank you for your thoughtful responses. What I meant by "adhering to certain formal aspects of Marxism" is that they say positive things about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, and still seem to be somewhat warm to the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course, when I say "formal", I mean just that-- in form. In actual content, I don't think there is a single person on the moderating teams of either Ernesto 'Che' Guevara or Revolutionary Left who is a Marxist. See, when I speak of revisionists and anarchists, I am not saying they are "communists I disagree with", I am saying they are people who are following an objectively non-communist line and thus are not communists--even though most of them probably have subjectively revolutionary intentions (which is why I consider many of them comrades). I honestly have very mixed feelings about the batch of people at E-G, but ultimately, I have always thought of it as a board that is open to all political views. I think if people really want a strictly leftist discussion, they should just go to Revolutionary Left, or Another World is Possible. Speaking of, I am curious as to why you have not chosen to invest more of your time and energy into AWIP. I know you have an account and two posts there, as I have seen your thread in the introductions forum entitled "Hiyo". I would think you would enjoy it a lot more than E-G, as the moderators don't tolerate fascism and all the shit associated with it, and the people there don't support countless revisionist dictators like Castro or the Kim dynasty, and in general are much more principled and advanced than the people at E-G. I will just remind you that you are always welcome to join the discussion there when you feel like it. I would be overjoyed to be allowed into the CC, but I will remind you of a few points: -I can't come on a daily basis, because of school work; -I don't read every thread, or even the majority of threads, at RL anyway; -if I find that people are starting threads in the CC calling upon CC members to spam E-G and/or AWIP, I will reveal this fact publicly; and -I think flyby and RosaRL deserve CC access a lot more than I do. I have more to say, but I'll stop there for now, as I have to eat dinner and go to bed.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 14:56:00 GMT -5
1949 wrote:Sent: more on fascism and 3rd positionism, Feb 11 2005, 10:03 AMI was waiting for you to respond to my last PM, and was sort of surprised and disappointed when you didn't. Since you haven't yet, here is some more stuff I wanted to say on fascism, third positionism, 'n stuff. I remain undecided on whether third positionism in general is fascism. I think third positionism of the Strasser or Limonov type (i.e. in imperialist nations) is definitely fascism. But other third positionist leaders like Peron, Qadhafi and Nasser (i.e. in oppressed countries) I have not read enough about to have much of an opinion on. I would never consider them socialists (since that requires MLM), but I have never read a compelling argument that those leaders are fascists, or otherwise not progressive. Is there any literature on them which you suggest? Anyway, I think you generalize about nationalism too much. Nationalism in third world nations, or in oppressed nations within imperialist boundaries (i.e. the African American nation within the U.S.), can be progressive and can be united with, as long as it doesn't take the lead of the struggle. Sometimes you seem to acknowledge this, like when you praise Malcolm X or the Black Panthers in the NBP-USA thread at E-G. But other times you seem to make blanket condemnations of nationalism which contradict this. Another thing that is a major flaw I've seen with Berserk (I'm referring to him because he's the only third positionist I've ever seen on the internet, or anywhere for that matter, and I don't want to generalize about third positionists), which you seem to consistently fail to point out, is that a lot of the leaders and movements he upholds as models of third positionism--i.e., Castro, Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, the Vietnamese leadership after Ho Chi Minh's death, and probably others which I either don't know about or am forgetting--were/are not actually nationalists, and in fact sold/sell out their countries to imperialism! And, it occurred to me the more I thought about this that you focus a lot on fascists like the Nazbols which are numerically small and far from power, and generally appeal to those that are isolated from power--which takes your focus off those people who are actually in power right now and attempting to consolidate a fascist program, i.e. the Bush administration in the U.S. I urge you to read and circulate the extensive literature by the RCP on this subject, particularly the new statement: THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE FORWARD!
I'd like to close this PM with an excerpt from Avakian's "Democracy: More Than Ever We Can and Must Do Better Than That" which I was reminded of by the conversation we were having about fascism. I'm not sure there is anything in this that is relevant to the conversation, but it's still interesting to mention this. Tell me what you think of it:
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 15:00:07 GMT -5
CyM wrote:Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Feb 12 2005, 10:05 AM You could make the case that there are no Marxists (though I don't think you'd get very far), but to say there are no communists doesn't work. Marxism is merely one form of communism. Anarcho-Communism is another one, which I would say is an appealing one, especially since they've incorporated much of the Marxist analysis of class structures, and augmented it with a proper analysis of what I believe is Marx's weakest point, the state. Similarly, I think the idea that Maoism, Stalinism, or Leninism is in any way "the" proper Marxism, disturbs me. I don't mind people saying their ideas are an extension of Marxism, built from it, or above it, but there needs to be a realization that they are not alone as Marxists. I, for example, find that the ideas I'm closest to amongst the "second/third generation marxists" has been the Trotskyist camp represented by the Committee for a Marxist International. Even them I have issues with. To me, there is no comrpomise with Fascism. Having an open board is not an excuse, no platform for Fascism, especially not on a site that attracts young confused leftists who might relate it to Che and not have any intelligent mods who would show them otherwise. I may soon take you up on that offer. None of those are a problem, so long as you know nothing is official policy unless it is voted on. If someone comes up and makes a thread complaining about EG, which has happened from time to time, and nothing comes of it, then it must be made clear that it is not RL, but someone stating their opinions. Sorry I took so long to reply.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 15:01:15 GMT -5
1949 wrote:Sent: Re:HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!111, Feb 17 2005, 07:33 AM This is bound to sound bizarre, but, I think we should repost this discussion on fascism and E-G, or start a new one on the same subject, at AWIP. It might make it easier for me to be able to make up my mind on where to stand on this if I get some feedback on this from fellow MLMs. Would that be okay with you? Anyway, thank you again for your thoughtful--and principled--responses. Be sure to tell me how that poll in the CC turns out.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 15:07:02 GMT -5
CyM wrote:
Re:more on fascism and 3rd positionism, Feb 17 2005, 12:34 PM
Sorry! Here's the final part.
I'll try to find some good literature.
To me the ideas of third positionism are purely Fascistic, and have little to do with regular "small nationalism". I just recently found out from my dad, who used to be an underground youth organizer for Ba'ath in Syria back in the day, that he's painfully realizing Ba'ath were Fascists themselves. He said the signs were all there, but everyone always looked the other way. The death of the Communist party after Stalin supported Israel meant that Ba'ath was the only secular supposedly socialist movement the left had. Apparently the upper intellectual elite of the party were ferried back and forth between Syria, Germany and Italy before and during the war, many of them going to university there. Germany and Italy also provided financial support and propaganda material.
I think Nationalism needs to be fought as much as possible, but remember that I had to bend the stick the other way at EG. Faced with Nazis, I have to exagerate that. Of course I believe that "small" nationalists, subordinated to the working class and its aims, can provide a limited amount of support.
I think that shouldn't stop us from criticizing them publicly though.
Umm... Ho Chi Minh is the example he brings, not the later leadership I don't think, Saddam is out and out Fascist, Ho is slightly nationalist. Ceausescu I don't know much about. Castro isn't really a nationalist at all.
As for selling out, there's no such thing. Nationalism is an imagery, not a real idea that can be betrayed. It is impossible to be "loyal" to a nation, because that implies being loyal to both its classes. Which we know is impossible.
In the same vain, one cannot "sell out" a nation, because what is good for the working class is not the same as what is good for the bourgeoisie.
One cannot sell out a nation, because nations aren't real.
I've experienced sensory overload from the US movement. I have tuned out everything from there, as I believe it is far too immature to do anything at the moment. Since there's nothing I can do for it, being in canada, I will depress myself no longer with it.
Until I see signs of real class analysis taking root amongst the elements of the movement that consider themselves anti-Capitalist, I'm mostly ignoring it. Of course, RCP may have class analysis, but from what I have seen they haven't implemented much of it in their massive opportunities to appeal to class consciousness they were thrown over the past two years.
Suffice it to say though, I consider Fascism a social phenomenon that arises when the working class threatens Capitalism, and is defeated repeatedly. It is only then that the ruling class allows those radicals, who they too fear, to seize power in order to end the impasse and save class society.
The US hasn't gone through any such impasse, and the dictatorial clique in power today is in fact accelerating the coming crisis, rather than saving Capitalism in any way.
The representatives of social conservatism and reaction, brought to power by the economic pressures placed upon American capitalism and the world market in general, have not consolidated the bourgeoisie, though they've tried.
[At the end of this PM, CyM gave me permission to post this material here, but asked that he omit his response to the Avakian document, as he felt his response was not well thought out. That's what I have done...although I really do want to post what he said. -1949]
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 19, 2005 15:08:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Feb 26, 2005 13:40:29 GMT -5
CyM gave me permission to post his response to the Avakian document. It took me a while to get around to this, but here's what he said, finally.
---
Very well.
Well, recently the "democratic upsurges" in China have had a class character, and have all come from the left.
In the 80's, it would have been rediculous to simply call them "democratic upsurges", but who's fault was it that the working class had been mislead in such a way?
It was the failure of leadership that convinced the working class that their best interests lay with the bourgeoisie. Faced with a Communist party that could not respond to this shift, except with repression, it was time to give it a rebirth. The fall of the Communist bureaucracy across the world, while I wish it hadn't happened, was inevitable. It become a corrupted, rotten corpse, and it did need to be burried. Only now, after the collapse, has the movement been able to form its own ideas, and respond properly. Which, coincidentally, is also the time that the left as a democratizing force (for proletarian democracy) has come back.
That would have been the proper response to the bourgeois democratic movements. Oh well, better late than never.
The people demanded democracy, the communist party responded with guns, the bourgoeisie responded with capitalism. Had the communist party responded with proletarian democracy (reestablishing dictatorship of the proletariat, and not the party), do you really think the people would have chosen Capitalism?
I wouldn't refer to any of it as Fascism really.
Though I do think the bureaucracy rested on two classes for a long time. As far back as Stalin, the bourgeoisie found respite in the bureaucracy of the Communist party itself. "Revisionism" was only really that point where the party found it no longer needed the support of the working class to hold itself up. It was that point where it could represent one class only, and undo the gains of the revolution completely.
The trend began with Stalin, who leaned on the bourgeoisie and rich peasants to expell Trotsky and his "left opposition", then leaned the other way, on the proletariat and poor peasants to expell Bukharin and his "right opposition". He played with class dynamics far too much, and the party got burnt as a result. For future leaderships, it wasn't an unconscious power game. It was a conscious manipulation of class divisions.
|
|
|
Post by Che y Marijuana on Mar 30, 2005 8:27:21 GMT -5
So? Any comments?
|
|