 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||
Letters and etc Duffy, your assertions are Submitted by Mister Grumpy on Tue, 2009-11-03 16:18. Duffy, your assertions are strange. I am not interested in specifically defending the previous poster's positions, but I have to say a few things about your characterization of them, plus I'll add some things of my own. First, where was Stalin arguing what you said he was arguing that you allege is "very close" to what anon said? Was it the Stalin of 1926 (the Third Period)? Of 1935 (the Popular Front era)? Without a citation, all we have is your rhetorical allegation, based on ... nothing at all. That's some weak shit Duffy. I've come to expect more from someone of your intellectual caliber. I agree that there's nothing to discuss with fascists, but why is that? They have bad (authoritarian) intentions and bad (authoritarian) politics. According to you, Leninists have good (emancipatory) intentions but bad (authoritarian) and mistaken politics. What I see when I examine Leninists are people who have historically and consistently engaged in actions that run counter to their stated intentions of emancipation while consistently putting in place authoritarian policies. Are you saying that Leninists are consistently making mistakes while maintaining irreproachable intentions? That seems unlikely. What I see are Leninists making consistent policies that reflect their implicit intentions. You take them at their word, but I maintain that they lie. Leninists have never shown themselves to be interested in pursuing the self-organized liberation of the working class from exploitation and alienation. The Bolshevik suppression of the Russian factory committees, the rounding up/imprisoning/liquidation of Russian anarchists and other independent revolutionaries, the suppression of the Makhnovist movement, the suppression of the non-anarchist Kronstadt Commune, the Maoist abandonment of the non-Communist Shanghai Commune to the reactionaries of the KMT, the crushing of the East Berlin general strike, the destruction of the Hungarian uprising... And let's not forget the grandmother of all Leninist counter-revolutionary actions: the total destruction of any and all anarchist-inspired and non-Stalinist revolutionary experiments in Republican Spain. How can you see any positive (from an anarchist perspective) intentions in these policies? To be a mistake, there must be a lack of consistency somewhere. The only inconsistency among Leninists is between what they say and what they do. As a materialist, I am not interested in what people say; intentions are subjective and subject to change. The actions of Leninists from 1917 have been clear: to command any and all opposition to the rule of the bourgeoisie, to keep those in opposition in line, to keep that opposition under the control of their authorized representatives (Party bosses), to crush all resistance to their control over that opposition. They can yammer on all they want about working class emancipation, but they have never once promoted it in a way that looks emancipatory. So either they are completely insane (since they continued with the same failed policies from 1917 through today), or they are liars, who are not really interested in working class emancipation. My considered opinion is that they are liars, that they know precisely what they want (to rule) and will use any and all means at their disposal to hoodwink, cajole, manipulate, and otherwise confuse good-hearted class conscious proles and peasants to follow them. You can try the old Trot policy of splitting the leadership from the base all you want, since you believe that at least some Leninists are "misguided." As for me and my friends and allies, we already know that a greater enemy is the one who pretends to be our friend. Fascists are clear about their enmity toward workers' revolution, so they do not interest me in the realm of ideas. Leninists pretend they're on something vaguely determined to be "our side." I don't believe them, and will do my best to expose their historical chicanery and almost instinctual homicidal relationship with anarchists and other authentic revolutionaries. Tresca knew what he was talking about. =Mister Grumpy PS - as that tiresome, Marxist-loving, 'name'-dropping, Israel-supporting, 'anarchist' politician, Uri Gordon, now regards the internet as a 'temporary anomaly' perhaps the net might return the favor? Uri Gordon is surely one of the most temporary 'anarchists' around today. Post a comment in response: |
| © 2002-2008. Blurty Journal. All rights reserved. |