RED DAVE
18th June 2011, 01:32
Since the "Hate on Marxist-Leninists" thread was closed," I thought that one of the more interesting subthreads might be continued.
(1) M-Ls supported Roosevelt, the Democrat, in 1936.
Forming a front against fascism may occasionally involve gaining tactical support to and from representatives of other classes.Oh really? According to who? Your speaking as if forming an antifascist front is so fucking easy, and you know all about it. (You sure fucked it up in Spain.) What you are saying is that in order to counter a movement engendered by capitalists, it’s okay to get into an alliance with them. And, after all, you were so successful in fighting fascism. Concretely, the CPUSA became the left wing of the liberal New Deal.
It is merely a temporary alliance, however.Oh, it’s temporary all right: until the bourgeoisie finds a better ally, like itself.
The main belief that Marxist-Leninists unanimously praised Roosevelt was due to blunders in the views of the CPUSA, who had made rightist and opportunistic decisions and errors, including their more solely positive conceptions of Roosevelt.Now you’ve begged so many questions here you need to get a tin cup with a hammer and sickle on it. First of all, the CPSU was politically wed to the Comintern, so any “blunders” were due to Stalinism as a whole. Secondly, just how were such “rightist and opportunistic decisions and errors” made by those allegedly so superbly schooled in Marxism that they know how to form a front. Apparently, this knowledge meant possessing and spreading severe illusions about the capitalist class and its leadership. And where would the CPSU get such dumb-ass perceptions, "more solely positive conceptions” of Roosevelt and the rest of the capitalist class? It certainly wasn’t from Marxism (unless, somehow, you think Roosevelt = Lincoln) and it wasn’t from Leninism (Roosevelt had worked in the Wilson Administration that had sent the US into WWI).
Furthermore, the Soviets continued to affirm socialistic principles even while in alliance with Roosevelt.The CPUSA, which was taking its line from the Comintern, was social democratic, not socialist, during the latter 1930s.
Considering that the most aggressive elements of the war were being provoked by Germany and Japan, it was only logical for the Soviets to temporarily unite with capitalist nations against legitimate fascist nations.We are not talking about WWII and the Allies. We are talking about the illusions that the CPUSA saw fit to promulgate abut Roosevelt. While Roosevelt ordered a blockade of Republican Spain, the CPUSA was praising him in its papers.
Considering bourgeois leaders such as Roosevelt and Churchill inherently had the hopes that the Nazis and Soviets would both kill each other off, it was necessary for Stalin to counter this view, thus aiding the effort to combat fascism.So you are justifying the lies that the CPUSA told about Rooselvelt.
(2) M-Ls were supportive of the anti-fascist movement until the Stalin-Hitler Pact, then they torpedoed it.
We torpedoed it? Nonsense.
(There was a powerful antifascist movement in the USA which was destroyed after the Stalin-Hitler Pact.
Especially when you compare the Soviet war effort to the Western war effort, which was a scale multiple times larger and more intensive. Secondly, it is not the "Stalin-Hitler Pact," it is the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or the Nonaggression Pact if you will. The pact was, though controversial, necessary to advance Soviet defense. In fact, the expansion of strategic defense was key in the future battles between invading German forces and the Red Army. Plus, Britain and France finally unified with the Soviets once Germany broke with the Pact, whereas they previously refused. Likewise, peace was temporarily made, which again increased the Soviet's defenses and industry and made them better equipped for the war. The entire argument that is taken up by leftist-communists and others against the Pact does not understand the historical context of the Pact. Nor does it understand that Stalin was not dismantling socialism or abandoning it's ideology. http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Bill%...iet%20pact.htmIrrelevant. We are taking about the destruction of a left-wing political movement in the USA. It was Molotov who said, “Fascism is a matter of taste.”
(3) M-Ls supported the no-strike pledge during WWII.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.So it’s okay for a so-called Marxist movement to subordinate the working class to the bourgeoisie. (This is exactly what the Maoists are doing right now in Nepal.) This is class collaborationism on a whole 'nother level.
Industry and other such aspects of life needed to be kept up to date so as to properly prepare against the war.And this is your explanation for placing the working class at the mercy of the bourgeoisie?
Assuming somehow it was either morally wrong of usMorally wrong? What are you some kind of seminary student? How about politically treasonous?
or whatever other reasons you could have, still denies material conditions.Now you are just throwing out words to try to fog things over. There was nothing in the “material conditions” during WWII that would justify the no-strike pledge. In fact, conditions were so bad in the coal mines, the casualty rate was actually higher than that of the combat troops, that the Miners Union called a strike. For defending the working class, John L. Lewis was denounced by the Stalinists.
Furthermore, do you think preventing deaths through the development of new equipment is worse than working more hours? Do you think that having inefficient technology against the fascists is worse than working more hours?What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about the no-strike pledge, not engineering.
There are certain contexts where strikes would have been a detriment, it is foolish to assume every single area of production demands the right to strike regardless of conditions. Of course there were ulterior motives of the US capitalists, so too is the notion of a "people's war", but my point is still valid.Your point is bullshit. You are still justifying a crime against the working class. (By the way, the Nepalese Maoists are also supporting making strikes illegal in the enterprise zones in Nepal.)
(4) M-Ls supported the jailing of Trotskyists under the Smith Act.
Some of us also supported killing TrotskyYou sure as shit did, you murderous punks.
but what's your point?No point. Calling for the jailing of political opponents by the bourgeois state is cool. Cold-blooded murder is cool, too. It’s all right. Have some milk and cookies. Take a nap.
Especially given the later trials of the Marxist-Leninist based CPUSAOkay, so the CPUSA was M-L.
had harsher consequences for the defendants than the initial trial of the SWP membersSo? Did the SWP call for the jailing of CPers? They sure as shit didn’t.
which perhaps meant America was surely more worried about those who identified with Marxist-Leninists than Trotskyists. I wonder why? Piffle. Like the US government was shaking in its shoes about the CPUSA (which dissolved itself into the Communist Political Organization during the war).
And at any rate, the CPUSA made blunders, as I've stated. Don't act as though they're somehow the representative of Marxism-Leninism, especially considering their statusThey were the representatives of Marxism-Leninism back then. And what you are failing to do is analyze why these “blunders” took place.
(5) M-Ls did not support A. Philip Randolph's call for a March on Washington during WWII to integrate the Army and war contract manufacturing.
Again assuming that the CPUSA represented every Marxist-Leninist at the time?You know of any other group at the time with any political significance? Stop bullshitting.
It is true the CPUSA denounced his calls for integration,So they openly engaged in public racism.
but they still called for defense contractors to integrate anywayAnd in the absence of a working-class-based political movement, which Randolph represented, and without the ability to strike, how was that to come about? Because Roosevelt was a good guy?
and had always demonstrated anti-racismNot this time, when it mattered at the workplace. And, of course, keeping African-Americans out of the Army actually hampered the fight against fascism. (Same kind of racism that kept Black soldiers out of combat for most of the Civil War.)
they had previously had alliances with other black groups, and even A. Philip Randolph. They did, but they sabotaged those groups. This is one of the reasons why during the Civil Rights Movement, the CPUSA had very little traction while Trots and other tendencies were much stronger.
(1) M-Ls supported Roosevelt, the Democrat, in 1936.
Forming a front against fascism may occasionally involve gaining tactical support to and from representatives of other classes.Oh really? According to who? Your speaking as if forming an antifascist front is so fucking easy, and you know all about it. (You sure fucked it up in Spain.) What you are saying is that in order to counter a movement engendered by capitalists, it’s okay to get into an alliance with them. And, after all, you were so successful in fighting fascism. Concretely, the CPUSA became the left wing of the liberal New Deal.
It is merely a temporary alliance, however.Oh, it’s temporary all right: until the bourgeoisie finds a better ally, like itself.
The main belief that Marxist-Leninists unanimously praised Roosevelt was due to blunders in the views of the CPUSA, who had made rightist and opportunistic decisions and errors, including their more solely positive conceptions of Roosevelt.Now you’ve begged so many questions here you need to get a tin cup with a hammer and sickle on it. First of all, the CPSU was politically wed to the Comintern, so any “blunders” were due to Stalinism as a whole. Secondly, just how were such “rightist and opportunistic decisions and errors” made by those allegedly so superbly schooled in Marxism that they know how to form a front. Apparently, this knowledge meant possessing and spreading severe illusions about the capitalist class and its leadership. And where would the CPSU get such dumb-ass perceptions, "more solely positive conceptions” of Roosevelt and the rest of the capitalist class? It certainly wasn’t from Marxism (unless, somehow, you think Roosevelt = Lincoln) and it wasn’t from Leninism (Roosevelt had worked in the Wilson Administration that had sent the US into WWI).
Furthermore, the Soviets continued to affirm socialistic principles even while in alliance with Roosevelt.The CPUSA, which was taking its line from the Comintern, was social democratic, not socialist, during the latter 1930s.
Considering that the most aggressive elements of the war were being provoked by Germany and Japan, it was only logical for the Soviets to temporarily unite with capitalist nations against legitimate fascist nations.We are not talking about WWII and the Allies. We are talking about the illusions that the CPUSA saw fit to promulgate abut Roosevelt. While Roosevelt ordered a blockade of Republican Spain, the CPUSA was praising him in its papers.
Considering bourgeois leaders such as Roosevelt and Churchill inherently had the hopes that the Nazis and Soviets would both kill each other off, it was necessary for Stalin to counter this view, thus aiding the effort to combat fascism.So you are justifying the lies that the CPUSA told about Rooselvelt.
(2) M-Ls were supportive of the anti-fascist movement until the Stalin-Hitler Pact, then they torpedoed it.
We torpedoed it? Nonsense.
(There was a powerful antifascist movement in the USA which was destroyed after the Stalin-Hitler Pact.
Especially when you compare the Soviet war effort to the Western war effort, which was a scale multiple times larger and more intensive. Secondly, it is not the "Stalin-Hitler Pact," it is the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or the Nonaggression Pact if you will. The pact was, though controversial, necessary to advance Soviet defense. In fact, the expansion of strategic defense was key in the future battles between invading German forces and the Red Army. Plus, Britain and France finally unified with the Soviets once Germany broke with the Pact, whereas they previously refused. Likewise, peace was temporarily made, which again increased the Soviet's defenses and industry and made them better equipped for the war. The entire argument that is taken up by leftist-communists and others against the Pact does not understand the historical context of the Pact. Nor does it understand that Stalin was not dismantling socialism or abandoning it's ideology. http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Bill%...iet%20pact.htmIrrelevant. We are taking about the destruction of a left-wing political movement in the USA. It was Molotov who said, “Fascism is a matter of taste.”
(3) M-Ls supported the no-strike pledge during WWII.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.So it’s okay for a so-called Marxist movement to subordinate the working class to the bourgeoisie. (This is exactly what the Maoists are doing right now in Nepal.) This is class collaborationism on a whole 'nother level.
Industry and other such aspects of life needed to be kept up to date so as to properly prepare against the war.And this is your explanation for placing the working class at the mercy of the bourgeoisie?
Assuming somehow it was either morally wrong of usMorally wrong? What are you some kind of seminary student? How about politically treasonous?
or whatever other reasons you could have, still denies material conditions.Now you are just throwing out words to try to fog things over. There was nothing in the “material conditions” during WWII that would justify the no-strike pledge. In fact, conditions were so bad in the coal mines, the casualty rate was actually higher than that of the combat troops, that the Miners Union called a strike. For defending the working class, John L. Lewis was denounced by the Stalinists.
Furthermore, do you think preventing deaths through the development of new equipment is worse than working more hours? Do you think that having inefficient technology against the fascists is worse than working more hours?What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about the no-strike pledge, not engineering.
There are certain contexts where strikes would have been a detriment, it is foolish to assume every single area of production demands the right to strike regardless of conditions. Of course there were ulterior motives of the US capitalists, so too is the notion of a "people's war", but my point is still valid.Your point is bullshit. You are still justifying a crime against the working class. (By the way, the Nepalese Maoists are also supporting making strikes illegal in the enterprise zones in Nepal.)
(4) M-Ls supported the jailing of Trotskyists under the Smith Act.
Some of us also supported killing TrotskyYou sure as shit did, you murderous punks.
but what's your point?No point. Calling for the jailing of political opponents by the bourgeois state is cool. Cold-blooded murder is cool, too. It’s all right. Have some milk and cookies. Take a nap.
Especially given the later trials of the Marxist-Leninist based CPUSAOkay, so the CPUSA was M-L.
had harsher consequences for the defendants than the initial trial of the SWP membersSo? Did the SWP call for the jailing of CPers? They sure as shit didn’t.
which perhaps meant America was surely more worried about those who identified with Marxist-Leninists than Trotskyists. I wonder why? Piffle. Like the US government was shaking in its shoes about the CPUSA (which dissolved itself into the Communist Political Organization during the war).
And at any rate, the CPUSA made blunders, as I've stated. Don't act as though they're somehow the representative of Marxism-Leninism, especially considering their statusThey were the representatives of Marxism-Leninism back then. And what you are failing to do is analyze why these “blunders” took place.
(5) M-Ls did not support A. Philip Randolph's call for a March on Washington during WWII to integrate the Army and war contract manufacturing.
Again assuming that the CPUSA represented every Marxist-Leninist at the time?You know of any other group at the time with any political significance? Stop bullshitting.
It is true the CPUSA denounced his calls for integration,So they openly engaged in public racism.
but they still called for defense contractors to integrate anywayAnd in the absence of a working-class-based political movement, which Randolph represented, and without the ability to strike, how was that to come about? Because Roosevelt was a good guy?
and had always demonstrated anti-racismNot this time, when it mattered at the workplace. And, of course, keeping African-Americans out of the Army actually hampered the fight against fascism. (Same kind of racism that kept Black soldiers out of combat for most of the Civil War.)
they had previously had alliances with other black groups, and even A. Philip Randolph. They did, but they sabotaged those groups. This is one of the reasons why during the Civil Rights Movement, the CPUSA had very little traction while Trots and other tendencies were much stronger.