Κυριακή, 25 Νοεμβρίου 2012

Ο πι-πι για το κράτος και την επανάσταση

Το καφέ έναστρο στην κυριολεξία ξεχείλισε από κόσμο που γοητεύεται ακόμα από το άστρο του τσε γκεβάρα κι είχε γεμίσει ασφυκτικά κάθε γωνία του βιβλιοπωλείου, ως και τις εισόδους. Ανάμεσά τους κι ο νέος πρέσβης της κούβας στην ελλάδα, ίσως στην πρώτη του δημόσια εμφάνιση στην χώρα μας, όπως μας πληροφόρησε ο πι-πι. Για δες μέρος που διάλεξε, ντεμπούτο για να κάνει...


Πρώτη στη σειρά μίλησε η καθηγήτρια νέδα κανελλοπούλου που έκανε μια σχεδόν αστική τοποθέτηση, σοσιαλδημοκρατικής χροιάς. Μας τόνισε τρεις φορές πως δε θα μιλήσει για την επανάσταση και επέλεξε να μιλήσει γενικά για τη σημασία του βιβλίου του καλτσώνη σε μια εποχή που διακηρύσσει το τέλος των ιδεολογιών και προβάλλει μια οικουμενική μη ιδεολογία. Μια αποϊδεολογικοποίηση που εκφράζεται σε διάφορα πεδία: τις δήθεν ουδέτερες αποφάσεις των τεχνοκρατών, τις συνταγές των μάνατζερ για την ανταγωνιστικότητα, την κοινωνική συναίνεση, κτλ. Μίλησε επίσης για το θρίαμβο της γερμανίας στην εε, την παγκόσμια οικονομική εξουσία των αγορών και των τραπεζών και την απαξίωση των κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων με έναν ολοκληρωτικό τρόπο, που την ξενίζει...

Κότσαρε κάπου κι ότι η απεργία δεν είναι πλέον αποτελεσματικό μέσο, αλλά δεν έχουμε βρει το καινούριο, που θα την αντικαταστήσει. Συνέχισε με μια μικρή αναφορά στις θέσεις του καλτσώνη σχετικά με τη σύγχρονη αποικιοκρατία και την εθνική απεξαρτησία. Για να κλείσει με μια φράση του τσε για την αλήθεια –που την αναφέρει κι ο καλτσώνης στο βιβλίο του- συμπεραίνοντας ότι από αυτό πάσχει σήμερα η πολιτική (!), η οποία καλείται να πάρει θέση στο δίλημμα «μακιαβέλι ή τσε» -θυμίζοντας αρκετά το αντίστοιχο «μακιαβέλι ή μαρξ» της έλλης παππά.

Η σκυτάλη πέρασε στον πρόεδρο του ελληνοκουβανικού νίκου καρανδρέα, που είπε ότι 45 χρόνια μετά τη δολοφονία του ο τσε υπάρχει παντού: σε λάβαρα, αφίσες, μπλουζάκια και σε μια σειρά εμπορεύματα –μέχρι και μάρκα τσιγάρων έχει γίνει. Επίσης παρουσιάζεται με διάφορους τρόπους: ο τσε αυτόχειρας, ο τσε-χριστός, ή ο αντι-σοβιετικός και αντι-καστρικός τσε, για να στρεβλωθούν οι ιδέες του και η πορεία του.
Στη συνέχεια ακολούθησε τη δομή των κεφαλαίων του βιβλίου, και στάθηκε κάπως περισσότερο στη σημασία του εθνικοαπελευθερωτικού αγώνα, ως προϋπόθεση για τη σοσιαλιστική επανάσταση και το άρθρο του τσε για το «σχεδιασμό και τη συνείδηση στη μετάβαση στο σοσιαλισμό», όπου αναπτύσσει τις ιδέες του σχετικά με το ρόλο των ηθικών κινήτρων και το προϋπολογιστικό σύστημα χρηματοδότησης, που κινούνταν σε διαφορετική κατεύθυνση με τις μεταρρυθμίσεις που συντελούνταν εκείνη την εποχή στη σοβιετική ένωση.

Στην ομιλία του κουβανού πρέσβη –που βρίσκεται λίγο καιρό στην ελλάδα και δε μπορούσε προφανώς να μας μιλήσει στα ελληνικά, ούτε να διαβάσει το βιβλίο για να εκφέρει προσωπική άποψη- υπήρχε ένα πρόβλημα στη μετάφραση από τα ισπανικά, που το έλυσε ο από μηχανής πι-πι, ο οποίος συμπλήρωνε δημιουργικά ό,τι δεν καταλάβαινε, ή το μάντευε από τα συμφραζόμενα, κι είναι άξιος συγχαρητηρίων για αυτό.

Ο πρέσβης σημείωσε την εντύπωση που του προκάλεσε ο κόσμος που συγκεντρώθηκε κι είπε ότι είναι αδύνατο να μιλήσει κανείς για τον τσε χωρίς να αναφερθεί στην κουβανική επανάσταση, ή να αντιπαραθέσει το ένα στο άλλο, όπως έχουν προσπαθήσει διάφοροι κατά καιρούς. Είπε ότι ο τσε δεν ήταν αργεντίνος, ούτε κουβανός, αλλά πολίτης του κόσμου. Κι ότι το πρώτιστο μέλημά του ήταν η προετοιμασία του νέου ανθρώπου, που θα οικοδομούσε τη νέα κοινωνία. Αναφέρθηκε στις πρώτες συναντήσεις του κάστρο με τον γκεβάρα, όπου ο τσε ζήτησε να μην υπάρχει καμία δέσμευση μετά τη νίκη του αγώνα τους, που να τον εμποδίζει να πάρει μέρος σε άλλα επαναστατικά κινήματα. Καθώς και στο αποχαιρετιστήριο γράμμα του φιντέλ προς τον τσε, όπου εύχεται όλα τα παιδιά μας να του μοιάσουν και να γίνουν σαν αυτόν.

Ύστερα ήρθε η σειρά του παπακωνσταντίνου, που έκανε την πιο ενδιαφέρουσα ομιλία κι είπε περίπου τα εξής: η συζήτηση για το βιβλίο του καλτσώνη πριν από πέντε χρόνια θα έμενε πιθανότατα σ’ ένα στενό κύκλο μεταξύ μαρξιστών, αφού τα ζητήματα που πραγματεύεται δεν είχαν τεθεί στην ημερήσια διάταξη. Σήμερα όμως είναι εξαιρετικά επίκαιρο, καθώς τα ζητήματα του κράτους και της επανάστασης αφορούν για πρώτη φορά ίσως τη δική του γενιά (δηλ του πι-πι) και η τρέχουσα μεγάλη κρίση ανοίγει μπροστά μας δυνατότητες για το καλύτερο και το χειρότερο.

Εκ πρώτης όψεως υπάρχει ένα παράδοξο σε μια μελέτη του θεωρητικού έργου του τσε, καθώς ο γκεβάρα δεν ήταν κυρίως θεωρητικός, αλλά ξεχώρισε χάρη στην επαναστατική πρακτική του. Υπάρχει επίσης και η αστική μυθοπλασία που αντιπαραθέτει το «ρομαντικό, desperado» τσε στο σκληρό ρεαλιστή φιντέλ, όπως έκανε με τη ρόζα λούξεμπουργκ και το λένιν. Στην πραγματικότητα βέβαια αυτό που δε μπορούν να συγχωρήσουν στον κάστρο είναι ότι έχει «θάψει» δέκα αμερικανούς προέδρους και πάει για τον ενδέκατο.

Υπάρχει επίσης ένα ακόμα παράδοξο που κάνει μερικούς να αναρωτιούνται: τι έχει να μας προσφέρει ο τσε σήμερα, που είναι μια τελείως διαφορετική εποχή, χωρίς «ανοιχτές» χούντες και δικτατορίες; Παρόλα αυτά το θεωρητικό έργο του τσε έχει να πει πολλά στο σημερινό αναγνώστη. Ειδικά ένα απόσπασμά του που μιλάει για την εθνική αστική τάξη, που στάθηκε ανίκανη να κρατήσει αγωνιστική στάση και να το επιλύσει, γιατί φοβάται περισσότερο τη λαϊκή επανάσταση, θα μπορούσε να έχει γραφτεί για τη σημερινή ελλάδα που υφίσταται έναν εθνικό εξευτελισμό, πρωτοφανή μετά τα χρόνια της κατοχής ή μάλλον το διεθνή οικονομικό έλεγχο που της επιβλήθηκε μετά τον ελληνοτουρκικό πόλεμο, στα 1897.

Σήμερα λοιπόν τίθεται εθνικό ζήτημα. Κι αυτό που προξενεί ιδιαίτερη εντύπωση είναι η στάση του κκε, που αποφεύγει να το θέσει, ενώ θα μπορούσε να προβάλει και να εκφράσει από προνομιακή θέση το εθνικό, αντι-ιμπεριαλιστικό αίσθημα του λαού, όπως είχε κάνει παλιότερα, στον πόλεμο της γιουγκοσλαβίας και την επίσκεψη κλίντον στην αθήνα –χαίροντας γενικής εκτίμησης για αυτή τη στάση του. Το κκε ακυρώνει με αυτόν τον τρόπο τον εαυτό του και χαρίζει αυτό το πεδίο στο σύριζα, έναν χώρο που παραδοσιακά μειονεκτούσε –από την εποχή του κκε εσ.- στον αντι-ιμπεριαλιστικό αγώνα.
Ας μην ξεχνάμε ότι από αυτόν τον χώρο προέρχεται το στέλεχος της δημαρ, που έγραψε το βιβλίο ιστορίας με το συνωστισμό της σμύρνης –όπου πέραν των άλλων δεν υπάρχει η παραμικρή αναφορά στην οκτωβριανή επανάσταση και το πώς προέκυψε η εσσδ. Αλλά και συναγωνιστές όπως ο μηλιός, που εσχάτως ταυτίζουν με τους ανεξάρτητους έλληνες –αν όχι με την χρυσή αυγή- όσους τολμούν να μιλήσουν για έξοδο από το ευρώ.

Αντίστοιχο ενδιαφέρον παρουσιάζει το βιβλίο και για τα ζητήματα της δημοκρατίας. Όχι τόσο για όσα λέει ο τσε για τις χούντες της εποχής του, αλλά για τις εκτιμήσεις του καλτσώνη περί νέου απολυταρχισμού κι ενός απολυταρχικού κράτους εκτάκτου ανάγκης, όπως το χαρακτήριζε ο γκράμσι –κι όπως φάνηκε με τις συλλήψεις συνδικαλιστών στη θεσσαλονίκη για την υπόθεση φούχτελ.

Στις σελίδες του βιβλίου ο συγγραφέας κρατάει ως σταθερά τον άξονα λένιν-τσε, χωρίς όμως να επαναλαμβάνει το σύνηθες λάθος κάποιων μαρξιστών που κρατάνε από το βλαδίμηρο μόνο το κράτος και επανάσταση, αλλά πετάνε το πριν και το μετά: από τις δυο τακτικές της σοσιαλδημοκρατίας, όπου εμφανίζεται για πρώτη φορά στο λένιν η έννοια της ηγεμονίας, που θα χρησιμοποιήσει αργότερα ο γκράμσι, μέχρι τον αριστερισμό, που είναι –σύμφωνα με τον πι-πι- το τελευταίο μεγάλο έργο του. Σε μια σειρά έργα και άρθρα του ο βλαδίμηρος μας διδάσκει κατ’ ουσίαν πώς να είμαστε επαναστάτες σε μη επαναστατικές εποχές. Αντίθετα με όσους μιλάνε διαρκώς για την Επανάσταση με έψιλον κεφαλαίο, χωρίς να παίρνουν υπόψη τους τη συνείδηση των ανθρώπων που καλούνται να την πραγματοποιήσουν.

Σήμερα όμως δεν χρειαζόμαστε συνθήματα παντός καιρού, όπως η κοινωνικοποίηση των μέσων παραγωγής – εξάλλου η επανάσταση στη ρωσία δεν έγινε με τέτοια αιτήματα- αλλά να σκεφτούμε τη λενινιστική έννοια του αδύναμου κρίκου (που ο πι-πι επιμένει να τον λέει αδύνατο), όχι με τη γεωγραφική έννοια, αλλά ψάχνοντας εκείνα τα συνθήματα που θα γίνουν κρίκοι και θα συσπειρώσουν τις μάζες. Μπορεί το πασόκ στην εποχή του να έκανε κάποιες μεταρρυθμίσεις, σήμερα όμως κανείς δε μπορεί να φανταστεί ότι θα παρθούν παρόμοια μέτρα χωρίς να υπάρξει σύγκρουση και χωρίς να επιφέρουν καίρια πλήγματα στο σύστημα.

Στη συνέχεια ο παπακωνσταντίνου αναφέρθηκε κριτικά (κι εν μέρει ίσως αυτοκριτικά προς το δικό του πολιτικό χώρο) στις δυνάμεις που προβάλλουν μόνο αρνητικά συνθήματα, χωρίς καμία θετική θέση –και δεν εννοούσε το κκε, που προβάλλει με το δικό του τρόπο κάποια θετικά συνθήματα. Αυτές οι δυνάμεις εγκλωβίζονται στην κουλτούρα του αντί και στοιχίζονται σε διάφορα τέτοια μέτωπα (της αντιπαγκοσμιοποίησης, το αντι-ιμπεριαλιστικό, κτλ), με στείρο καταγγελτικό λόγο, ξεχνώντας ότι δε μπορεί να υπάρξει καμία ρήξη κι ανατροπή, αν δεν έχεις κάτι να χτίσεις.

Ο πι-πι άφησε για το τέλος το ζήτημα του κόμματος που είναι αναντικατάστατη αξία, αλλά μπορεί να εξελιχθεί σε κατάρα, αν γίνει αυτοσκοπός και μετεξελιχθεί σε γραφειοκρατικό ζουρλομανδύα. Όπως έλεγε κι ο τρότσκι εξάλλου (!) στην ιστορία της ρώσικης επανάστασης, οι μάζες είναι αυτές που κινούν το έμβολο της ιστορίας κι όχι το κόμμα. Στην κούβα άλλωστε η επανάσταση δεν έγινε από το τοπικό κκ –που ήταν κατά φαντασίαν μαρξιστικό-λενινιστικό), αλλά από το κίνημα της 21ης απρίλη, που κήρυσσε αρχικά πίστη στο αστικό σύνταγμα του 1940 –το ενιαίο κκ σχηματίστηκε αργότερα.

Τα κόμματα είναι οργανισμοί που αλλάζουν και δε μπορεί να υπάρχουν ελέω θεού ή ιστορίας κόμματα, που δεν αλλάζουν ποτέ –προς το καλύτερο ή προς το χειρότερο. Ο πι-πι έκλεισε το θέμα με μια ιστορική παρατήρηση πάνω στο ζήτημα της διαλεκτικής μεταξύ πολιτικού μετώπου με την οργανωμένη πρωτοπορία του κόμματος. Λέμε συχνά ότι το κκε έφτιαξε το εαμ. Αλλά είναι εξίσου σωστό ότι και το εαμ έφτιαξε το κκε, που πριν την κατοχή βρισκόταν σε τραγική θέση, διαλυμένο σχεδόν από την ασφάλεια του μανιαδάκη.

Στον επίλογο ο παπακωνσταντίνου είπε ότι όσοι τηρούν κριτική στάση –κι όχι πολεμική- στα υπάρχοντα πολιτικά κόμματα, δικαιούνται να παραμένουν ιστορικά αισιόδοξοι, παρόλα αυτά –θυμίζοντας πολύ εκείνο το προεκλογικό «παρόλα όσα αριστερά» του μπιτσάκη με το οποίο πριμοδοτούσε εμμέσως το σύριζα.

Στο κλείσιμο της εκδήλωσης ο καλτσώνης ήταν κάπως αμήχανος –πιθανόν να μην περίμενε τόσο κόσμο στην παρουσίαση του βιβλίου του. Ευχαρίστησε πρώτα απ’ όλα τους φοιτητές του, που είχαν έρθει μαζικά στο καφέ έναστρο και του ανταπέδωσαν με ένα θερμό χειροκρότημα. Είπε ότι δεν ξέρει αν αυτό το βιβλίο είναι το καλύτερό του, αλλά σίγουρα το θέμα που πραγματεύεται είναι το αγαπημένο του. Ότι χρειαζόμαστε ένα επαναστατικό κόμμα, που δε θα διαχειρίζεται το σύστημα, αλλά δε θα είναι και βερμπαλιστικά αποκομμένο από το λαό. Κι ότι η απουσία του καθιστά πολύ δύσκολη τη διάνοιξη διόδων για την εθνική ανεξαρτησία και για μια πραγματική δημοκρατία, από το λαό για το λαό. Για να κλείσει κι αυτός με τη φράση του τσε για την αλήθεια.

Δεν αμφιβάλλω καθόλου ότι ο καλτσώνης καταθέτει στο βιβλίο αυτό τις αλήθειες του, όπως τις καταλαβαίνει ο ίδιος. Η αλήθεια είναι όμως ότι κάποιος έπρεπε να θυμίσει στον πι-πι τη στάση του χώρου του τον καιρό της γιουγκοσλαβίας, και τα άσχημα αντανακλαστικά που επέδειξε. Να πει ότι ο τρότσκι είχε μια ιδιαίτερη ροπή στις γραφειοκρατικές μεθόδους κι αυτό αντανακλούσε εν μέρει και στις αντιλήψεις του για το κόμμα και τα συνδικάτα. Κι ότι η έννοια του αδύναμου κρίκου περιέχει και τη γεωγραφική διάσταση, σε αντίθεση με ό,τι πιστεύουν οι τροτσκιστές για την παγκόσμια επανάσταση και το αδύνατο της σοσιαλιστικής οικοδόμησης σε μια μόνο χώρα. Η αλήθεια είναι ότι σήμερα δεν αρκεί ένα μίνιμουμ πρόγραμμα μεταβατικών αιτημάτων και μεταρρυθμίσεων για να μας σώσει από «την καταστροφή που μας απειλεί» και να κερδίσει τις μάζες. Κι ότι το βιβλίο του καλτσώνη –που δεν έχω προλάβει να το διαβάσω- δεν χρειαζόταν τη ρητορική δεινότητα και τον τροτσκίζοντα πολιτικό λόγο του πι-πι, για να κερδίσει πόντους.

Η αλήθεια είναι ότι κάποιος έπρεπε να τα πει όλα αυτά στον πι-πι, για να ανοίξει τουλάχιστον η πολιτική συζήτηση. Κι αυτός ο κάποιος ήταν ο ίδιος ο καλτσώνης, εφόσον δε μίλησε κανείς άλλος μετά από αυτόν –μόνο ένας σύντροφος διέκοψε σε κάποια φάση τον πι-πι, λέγοντάς του ότι αλλάζει το θέμα της εκδήλωσης. Αλλά αυτή η συζήτηση δεν άνοιξε ποτέ. Κι όπως είπε στο τέλος ο πι-πι συνεχίζεται στις ταβέρνες και τους χώρους κοινωνικής δικτύωσης!!

Φεύγοντας ένας παππούς μου είπε: «τι ανάλυση μας έκανε ο τύπος, ε;» εννοώντας προφανώς τον πι-πι. Αλλά δεν κατάλαβα αν το έλεγε σοβαρά ή για πλάκα. Κατά έναν περίεργο τόπο άλλωστε ίσχυαν και τα δύο. Είναι αυτή η οπορτουνιστική μαεστρία, που έλεγε κι ο γραμματέας του χρηματοπιστωτικού (βλέπε προηγούμενη ανάρτηση).

92 σχόλια:

Αναυδος είπε...

Ολοι αυτοι οι δήθεν κομμουνιστες τύπου καλτσωνη ππ κλπ βολεμενοι και ταισμενοι ειτε απο το αστικο κρατος ειτε απο καποιο αφεντικο προσπαθουν να πεισουν την εργατικη ταξη να παψει να παλευει για τον σοσιαλισμο και να παλεψει για μια νεφελωδη εθνικη υποθεση. Αφου ο ελληνικος καπιταλισμος εκμαυλιζε χιλιαδες συνειδησεις με τα χρηματα των ξένων ηταν βεβαιο οτι καποια στιγμη θα ζητουσε το λογαριασμο. Ολα αυτα τα στρωματα που για τα δικα τους συντεχνιακα συμφεροντα προσεφεραν τη συναινεση τους στο κεφαλαιο για να βυθισει την εργατικη ταξη της ελλαδας (ντοπιους και μεταναστες) στη μεγαλυτερη φτωχεια και εξαθλιωση Η μερα αυτη ήρθε και τα αφεντικά δεν εχουν λεφτα ουτε για μπατσους ουτε για καθηγητες ουτε για δημοσιογραφους ουτε για δημοσιους υπαλληλους. Οι πρωην βολεμενοι θυμηθηκαν ξαφνικα τον αγωνα αλλά ο μοναδικος τους σκοπος ειναι να επιστρεψουμε στο 2008 οπου αυτοι παχαιναν και οι εργατες στεναζαν. Περιοριζουν το πολιτικο τους συνθημα στη διαγραφη του δημ χρεους στην εθνικοποιηση τραπεζων και στρατηγικων επιχειρησεων . Με τον τροπο αυτο πιστευουν οτι θα συνεχιζουν να την βολευουν αφηνωντας το 1,5 εκ ανεργων στην τυχη τους τον εργατη να δουλευει για 400ευρω κλπ. Κανεις απο τους περισπουδαστους αυτους δε μας εξηγει πως ειναι δυνατον να αυξηθουν οι μισθοι στον ιδ. Τομεα αν διαγραφει το χρεος ή αν γυρισουμε στη δραχμη εφοσο οι καπιταλιστες θα συνεχοσουν να υπαρχουν και να αναζητουν κερδη
Η αληθεια ειναι οτι μια λαικη εξουσια τον ππ θα τον στειλει να μαζευει ελιες μεσα στο κρυο σε κανεναν χωραφι και τον καλτσωνη να σφουγγαριζει τις σκαλες στο Παντειο. Κι ετσι μιλανε για εθνικο ζητημα για ιμπεριαλισμο για εξαρτηση μπας και πεισουν την πρωτοπορια της εργατικης ταξης να ματωσει για να περνανε αυτοι καλά
Η ζημια που κανουν σημερα στο κινημα ειναι τεραστεια και μονο με περιφρονηση πρεπει να αντιμετωπιζονται

Αναυδος είπε...

Τσιπρας 24/11/2012
Με μια κυβέρνηση που επιμένει στη στρατηγική της υποτέλειας

Κατσέλη 19/11/2012
Ούτε οι δυνάμεις της ναζιστικής κατοχής δεν επέβαλαν στις κυβερνήσεις Κουίσλιγκ τέτοιους όρους πλήρους υποταγής, εξάρτησης και εκχώρησης εθνικής κυριαρχίας όπως αυτούς που περιλαμβάνονται στην Πράξη Νομοθετικού Περιεχομένου που προωθεί η τρικομματική κυβέρνηση

Τσιπρας 4/1//2012
η συνείδηση της ευθύνης απέναντι στην πατρίδα είναι σημαντικότερη από την οποιαδήποτε κομματική πειθαρχία
να καταψηφίσετε τα μέτρα καταστροφής της χώρας και να ανοίξεται τον δρόμο για την ανάκτηση της κυριαρχίας και της εθνικής ανεξαρτησίας,
Ο επικεφαλής του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ έθεσε στους βουλευτές του ΠΑΣΟΚ και της ΔΗΜΑΡ το δίλημμα «είτε συντάσσονται με το μαύρο μέτωπο του Μνημονίου και της εξάρτησης ή δικαιώνουν την ιστορία τους και ανανεώνουν τη συμμετοχή τους στο μέτωπο σωτηρίας του τόπου», αναλαμβάνοντας πατριωτικές ευθύνες.

Τσιπρας 19/11/2012
Έχουμε να κάνουμε πια με τη σταδιακή μετατροπή της χώρας μας σε μια άλλη χώρα.
Έχουμε να κάνουμε με αυτό που ο ίδιος ο κ. Βενιζέλος , χρησιμοποιώντας αυτές τις «ανεύθυνες εκφράσεις του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ», είχε πει προτεκτοράτο. Η χώρα μας μετατρέπεται σε μια αποικία χρέους και καταστρατηγείται το Σύνταγμα και η ίδια η δημοκρατία.
Τέρμα με την πολιτική της υποτέλειας
, η αριστερά βρέθηκε στην πρώτη γραμμή των αγώνων για κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, ανεξαρτησία, λευτεριά. Δεν είναι απλά ένα σύνθημα. Είναι η ιστορία του τόπου.
Είναι η ιστορία του εργατικού και λαϊκού κινήματος, είναι η παρακαταθήκη που μας άφησαν χιλιάδες αγωνιστές της δημοκρατίας.

Μ. Γλεζος
Σήμερα, βέβαια, δεν υπάρχει στρατιωτική κατοχή της χώρας. Υπάρχει, όμως, στρατιωτική, οικονομική και πολιτική εξάρτηση της Ελλάδας. Το ΝΑΤΟ καθορίζει τη στρατιωτική και πολιτική πορεία της χώρας και η Τρόικα την οικονομική και πολιτική της ύπαρξη


Σε τι διαφερουν απο τα κειμενα του ΕΑ και του ΔΚ?. Και που καταληγουν ολοι οι αποπανω σε μια αναδιαπραγματευση του χρεους σε ενα νεο σχεδιο Μαρσαλ ναι στην ΕΕ κουβεντα για το ΝΑΤΟ υγιης επιχειρηματικοτητα και αλλα φιαδρα και ακρουντως καπιταλιστικά

dimos tanalias είπε...

Έχω αναλυτικά γράψει τη γνώμη μου (http://dimostanalias.blogspot.gr/2012/11/blog-post.html) για τον "εργατικό αγώνα" και τους γύρω από αυτόν. Όμως αυτός ο απίστευτος άναυδος που νομίζει ότι κρατάει κάποιο "κομμουνιστόμετρο"¨καλύτερα θα ήταν να σωπάσει. Χαρακτηρισμοί του τύπου "δήθεν κομμουνιστές" για ανθρώπους που πέρασαν κάποιες δεκαετίες από το Κόμμα δεν ταιριάζουν. Οι κομμουνιστές ξέρουν να αντιπαρατίθενται με επιθετικούς πολιτικούς χαρακτηρισμούς, αλλά όχι τέτοιου είδους φτήνιες. Αν νομίζει ότι κάνει καλό στο Κόμμα, είναι μακριά γελασμένος. Επιτέλους αν δεν μπορεί να πεί κάτι άλλο ας σωπάσει...

Ανώνυμος είπε...

@dimostanalias

"Όμως αυτός ο απίστευτος άναυδος που νομίζει ότι κρατάει κάποιο "κομμουνιστόμετρο" καλύτερα θα ήταν να σωπάσει."

"Επιτέλους αν δεν μπορεί να πει κάτι άλλο ας σωπάσει..."

Πα να πει να του βουλώσουμε το στόμα του "άναυδου", λογοκρισία, τσιμουδιά και μόκο δηλαδή (και χρησιμοποιείς και το ψευδώνυμο του Μπάρμπα-Κώστα του Βάρναλη που τόσες φορές πήγανε τα τέρατα της μαύρης αντίδρασης να του κλείσουνε το στόμα)… Μπράβο, σύγχρονε ιεροεξεταστή, κι εις ανώτερα!

Wem είπε...

"Χαρακτηρισμοί του τύπου "δήθεν κομμουνιστές" για ανθρώπους που πέρασαν κάποιες δεκαετίες από το Κόμμα δεν ταιριάζουν."

Ναι, ποιος να πει έστω και δήθεν κομμουνιστή τον Ανδρουλάκη ή τον Πάγκαλο;
Μα επιτέλους, ας αφήσουμε τα "ναι μεν αλλά" και ας κοιτάξουμε που στέκεται ο καθένας σήμερα. Δηλαδή αν κάποιος ήταν στο ΚΚΕ πριν 20 χρόνια και με το κεφάλαιο σήμερα, τι; Του χρωστάμε αιώνια ευγνωμοσύνη ως προλετάριοι; Δε νομίζω.


Οι προτάσεις όπως διατυπώνονται έχουν το νόημα σχηματισμού μίας κοινωνικής συμμαχίας με την ηγεμονία όμως όχι των εργατών. Δεν καλείται ο καθηγητής να πιάσει την κόκκινη σημαία και να αγωνιστεί, να θυσιαστεί, για το σοσιαλισμό, αντιθέτως καλείται ο εργάτης να πιάσει ξένη σημαία και να αγωνιστεί εκείνος για χάρη άλλων.

Βέβαια σύγχρονη οικονομία με καθηγητάδες και μικροαστούς στο τιμόνι δε στέκεται, οπότε όποιος θέλει συμμαχίες θα γνωρίζει ότι θα είναι είτε της ανατροπής με την εργατική τάξη μπροστά είτε της υποταγής με τους αστούς μπροστά. Άλλες απόψεις δεν πατάνε στην πραγματικότητα.


Εγώ κρατάω αυτό που ειπώθηκε ότι από την πλευρά του ο ομιλητής είπε τις αλήθειες του. Ναι αλλά ποια είναι η πλευρά του; Γιατί αν η πλευρά του είναι η απέναντι, αν η πλευρά του είναι η ίδια με των αστών, δίπλα -και κάτω- απ' τους οποίους θα περνά τη σχετικά προνομιούχα ζωή του, πρέπει εμένα να με συγκινήσει η ειλικρίνειά του; Η ειλικρίνεια του βιομήχανου που ζητά μειώσεις για να βγει, να με συγκινήσει κι εκείνη;


Λοιπόν τα πράγματα είναι απλά. Οικονομία χωρίς συγκεντρωμένη παραγωγή δε στέκεται. Άρα καπιταλιστική οικονομία δε στέκεται χωρίς πλουτοκράτες. Οι πλουτοκράτες ζητάνε από μένα, την εργατική τάξη, να πουλήσω την εργατική μου δύναμη για μισθούς πείνας, όχι από τον κύριο Καλτσώνη ή τον πιπι. Επειδή εγώ δεν πρόκειται να δεχτώ, μπορούν αυτοί είτε να στοιχηθούν πίσω μου είτε να σταματήσουν να μου απευθύνουν το λόγο σαν φίλοι.

AGIS είπε...

"Η αληθεια ειναι οτι μια λαικη εξουσια τον ππ θα τον στειλει να μαζευει ελιες μεσα στο κρυο σε κανεναν χωραφι και τον καλτσωνη να σφουγγαριζει τις σκαλες στο Παντειο."

Το αρχικό ερώτημα ειναι αν φράσεις σαν κι αυτήν αποπροσανατολίζουν ή δεν αποπροσανατολίζουν από το οφειλόμενο πεδίο ιδεολογικής αντιπαράθεσης, στην τελική μόνο και μόνο για εκτόνωση του γράφοντός τες.

"Κι ετσι μιλανε για εθνικο ζητημα για ιμπεριαλισμο για εξαρτηση μπας και πεισουν την πρωτοπορια της εργατικης ταξης να ματωσει για να περνανε αυτοι καλά"

Το πρόβλημα δεν είναι ότι μιλάνε "για εθνικο ζητημα για ιμπεριαλισμο για εξαρτηση". Το πρόβλημα είναι ότι το κάνουν αυτό μετά από δεκαετίες (πολλοί απ' αυτούς) ενασχόλησης με τη μοναξιά (που ως γνωστό υπάρχει "εκτός" από τον ιμπεριαλισμό), και το κάνουν επίσης με τους ιδιους όρους μη-ενασχόλησής τους ουσιαστικά με τον ιμπεριαλισμό. "Εθνικό ζήτημα" και ζήτημα "εξάρτησης" υπάρχει από οικονομική άποψη ήδη από την ένταξη στην ΕΟΚ που εβαλε την ανάπτυξη της χώρας στην προκρούστεια κλίνη του ευρωπαϊκού ιμπεριαλισμού, με τον οποίο ταύτισε την τύχη της η εγχώρια μονοπωλιακή αστική τάξη τραβώντας μαζι της και τα λοιπά αστικά και μικροαστικά στρώματα - συμμάχους της. "Εθνικό ζήτημα" είναι η (από κοινωνική άποψη) στρεβλή οικονομική ανάπτυξη της αγροτικής και βιομηχανικής παραγωγής υπό τους ΕΟΚικούς και ευρωενωσιακούς κανονισμούς, που υπονομευσε και υπονομεύει τις παρούσες και μελοντικές κοινωνικές παραγωγικές δυνατότητες της χώρας. Μόνο που πρόκειται για "εθνικό ζήτημα", που όπως και κάθε "εθνικό ζήτημα" δεν πλήττει αδιάκριτα όλο το "έθνος", αλλά το έθνος των εργαζομένων (την εργατική τάξη και τους κοινωνικούς της συμμάχους), "εθνικό ζήτημα" που μπορεί να λυθεί μόνον από τη σκοπιά της εργατικής τάξης και των συμμάχων της.

Από αυτή τη σκοπιά δεν είναι παράξενο να γίνεται λόγος για "μια κυβέρνηση που επιμένει στη στρατηγική της υποτέλειας". Μονο που πρόκειται για στρατηγική εξυπηρέτησης των ταξικών συμφεροντων του εγχώριου μονοπωλιακού κεφαλαίου (και των προσδεμένων σε αυτό "κατώτερων" τμημάτων του), στα οποία συμφεροντα είναι πράγματι υποτελής ο εργαζομενος λαός, για τον οποίο ειναι επομένως φυσικό αυτή η ταξική πολιτική να εμφανίζεται σαν πολιτική "υποτέλειας".

"Ούτε οι δυνάμεις της ναζιστικής κατοχής δεν επέβαλαν στις κυβερνήσεις Κουίσλιγκ τέτοιους όρους πλήρους υποταγής, εξάρτησης και εκχώρησης εθνικής κυριαρχίας"
Πέρα από αυτές τις γελοιότητες περί "ναζιστικής κατοχής", πρέπει να είναι καθαρό ότι οι ιμπεριαλιστικές στρατηγικές επιδιώξες των διάφορων κέντρων (όπως λχ της Γερμανιας) παραμένουν σχετικά αναλλοίωτες στο πέρασμα μερικών δεκαετιών, και είναι γεγονός ότι τα σχέδια επιβολής ορισμένου διεθνούς οικονομικού καταμερισμού που είχε η Γερμανία του 40 δεν διαφέρουν στο περιεχομενο τους από τα σημερινά (και δεν θα μπορούσαν να διαφέρουν, όπως λχ δε θα μπορούσαν και των ΗΠΑ, της Βρετανίας ή της Γαλλίας).

(σνχζται)

AGIS είπε...

(σνχεια απ το πργμνο)

Με τον ίδιο τρόπο πρέπει να αντιμετωπίζονται και τα υπόλοιπα:

"η συνείδηση της ευθύνης απέναντι στην πατρίδα"

(πατριωτισμός το δίκιο του λααύ κι όχι τα καπιταλιστικά συμφέροντα, φωνάζουμε στις κινητοποιήσεις του ΠΑΜΕ).

"να καταψηφίσετε τα μέτρα καταστροφής της χώρας και να ανοίξετε τον δρόμο για την ανάκτηση της κυριαρχίας και της εθνικής ανεξαρτησίας"

"Ανάκτηση" της εθνικά ανεξάρτητης και κυρίαχης επιδότησης του αγροτικού ξεκληρίσματος, του πριονίσματος του εθνικού αλιευτικού στόλου, της απαγόρευσης εμπορικής παραγωγής των ναυπηγείων σκαραμαγκά, της επιδοτούμενης εξαγωγής της εθνικής βιομηχανικής παραγωγικής υποδομής, της επιβολής όρων καπιταλιστικής οικονομικής ανάπτυξης που αντιστρατεύονται ωμά τις ανάγκες ανάπτυξης της κοινωνίας. Κλπ.

"η αριστερά βρέθηκε στην πρώτη γραμμή των αγώνων για κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, ανεξαρτησία, λευτεριά"

Η αριστερά βρέθηκε και βρίσκεται στην πρώτη γραμμή αυτών των αγώνων, μόνο που σε αυτή την πρώτη γραμμή βρέθηκε και βρίσκεται αντιμέτωπη με τις δυνάμεις της "αριστερής" υποταγής και ενσωμάτωσης στην εκάστοτε στρατηγική της άρχουσας τάξης είτε στη φάση της καπιταλιστικής ανάπτυξης είτε στη φάση των διεργασιών που αποσκοπούν στο πρόσκαιρο ξεπέρασμα ης κρίσης της.

"Σήμερα, βέβαια, δεν υπάρχει στρατιωτική κατοχή της χώρας. Υπάρχει, όμως, στρατιωτική, οικονομική και πολιτική εξάρτηση της Ελλάδας. Το ΝΑΤΟ καθορίζει τη στρατιωτική και πολιτική πορεία της χώρας και η Τρόικα την οικονομική και πολιτική της ύπαρξη"

Πολύ ωραία τα λέει ο Γλέζος χωρίς να το καταλαβαίνει: Εκεί που μέχρι χθες δε θα'λεγε λέξη για την ΕΕ, τώρα ξαφνικά είναι ενάντιος και στην ΕΕ/ΕΚΤ και στο ΔΝΤ που συναποτελούν την "τρόικα". Ξεχνά βέβαια τον Ευρωστρατό όταν μιλά για το ΝΑΤΟ, αλλά αν το παραβλέψουμε αυτό, εκφράζει πολύ συνοπτικά όλη την εξάρτηση της χώρας στα δίχτυα του σύγχρονου μονοπωλιακού κεφαλαίου, στον μηχανισμό εξάρτησης στον οποία έχει προσδέσει τη χώρα η αστική της τάξη, η μονοπωλιακή ολιγαρχία της, η πλουτοκρατία, που με το βαθμό όξυνσης της αντίθεσης των συμφερόντων της με τις ανάγκες της κοινωνίας, βρίσκεται πια σε οριστική αντίθεση με τις αναγκες της ίδιας της χώρας που εξουσιάζει και κυβερνά και δεν απομένει παρά το ζήτημα για πόσον καιρό ακόμα θα παρατείνεται αυτό το καθεστώς οριστικής αντίθεσης, με όλο και πιο επώδυνες συνέπειες για τη χώρα και το λαό της.

"Σε τι διαφερουν απο τα κειμενα του ΕΑ και του ΔΚ?. Και που καταληγουν ολοι οι αποπανω σε μια αναδιαπραγματευση του χρεους σε ενα νεο σχεδιο Μαρσαλ ναι στην ΕΕ κουβεντα για το ΝΑΤΟ υγιης επιχειρηματικοτητα και αλλα φιαδρα και ακρουντως καπιταλιστικά"

Πραγματικά στο τελευταίο δεν μπορώ να δώσω μια γενική απάντηση (άλλωστε δεν ξέρω τι θα πει ΕΑ και ΔΚ, ούτε και τα κείμενά τους). Προσπάθησα απλώς να δείξω την ανάγκη να μπει ένα τέρμα στο παιχνίδι με τις λέξεις και να επικεντρώσουμε στο πραγματικό τους περιεχόμενο κι όχι στα φούμαρα με τα οποία θέλουν να τυλίξουνε τέτοιες σοβαρές και σπουδαίες έννοιες και αξίες.

Ειλικρινά νοσταλγώ τα χρόνια του ΚΝίτικου δήθεν "αριστερισμού" μου, τότε που στην ΟΒΑ μαθαίναμε τις ρήσεις του Λένιν ότι μέσα σε κάθε ΕΘΝΟΣ υπάρχουν ΔΥΟ ΕΘΝΗ με αντικρουόμενα συμφέροντα και ανάγκες, το ΕΘΝΟΣ των εκμεταλλευτών και καταπιεστών απ' τη μια, και το ΕΘΝΟΣ των καταπιεζομενων που τελούν υπό εκμετάλλευση από την άλλη. Πώς άραγε κι έχει ξεχαστεί αυτή η συγκεκριμένη προσέγγιση από κάθε αμφότερη πλευρά τη στιγμή ακριβώς που έπρεπε να αποτελεί οδηγό στην πραξη αντί να κάνουμε ιδεολογικές επιθέσεις στους λεκτικούς ανεμόμυλους των τσιπραίων και των καζάκηδων;

φορμιωνος είπε...

μενω αναυδος με τη χοντροκεφαλια μερικων μερικων

Σεχτάρ ο Τρομερός είπε...

Μόλις γύρισα από την εκδήλωση στο ΣΕΦ, που ήταν εντυπωσιακή. Καθώς παρακολουθούσα και αναπολούσα και εγώ, με τα από σκηνής ερεθίσματα, την Ιστορία, αναρωτιόμουν πόσο τιποτένιοι είναι όλοι αυτοί, που προσπαθούν διαχρονικά να κοντύνουν το ΚΚΕ, πότε με αταξικά φληναφήματα περί "εξάρτησης", πότε αποκηρύσσοντας τον ίδιο τον εαυτό τους για να βοηθήσουν, όχι το ΚΚ, όπως τουλάχιστον διακήρυσσε στα λόγια ο Μπουχάριν, αλλά την "εθνική αστική μας τάξη"(;!!;), η, το πολύ-πολύ, τον μαγειρευόμενο "νέο αριστερό πόλο".
Ολοι αυτοί οι πρώην σύντροφοι, Ρούσης, Καλτσώνης, Λιόσης (αυτές τις μέρες τελειώνω το βιβλίο του - μάπα επί της ουσίας...)κ.α., του ΕΑ+ΝΣ κλπ., αν είχαν καταλάβει, όχι παπαγαλίσει, κάτι από Λένιν, δεν θα κράταγαν αυτή την στάση, τούτα τα χρόνια, που δεν έχω ούτε δεί ούτε διαβάσει για δυσκολότερα για το κομμ. κίνημα, την εργατική τάξη (και το έθνος της, και όχι των αστών) της Πατρίδας μας.
Αλήθεια πιστεύουν ότι μπορεί να υπάρξει κομμ. κόμμα με τις προδιαγραφές (όσο προσδιορίσιμες μπορούν να είναι...), που έχουν στο κεφάλι τους; Δε βλέπουν πως η πραγματικότητα τους έχει ήδη προλάβει και έχει ήδη δόσει την λύση; Αυτό, που θέλουν, κι αυτοί και οι τρότσκοαριστερούληδες του Ανταρσύα (εντάξει, όχι όλη η βάση του Ναρ) είναι μπροστά τους: ΣΥΡΙΖΑ.
Δεν ξέρω αν πράγματι υλικά είναι βολεμένοι/ταϊσμένοι, όπως υποστηρίζει ο Αναυδος, η αν επέβαλαν με το σπαθί τους την παρουσία τους στην αστική τάξη. Θεωρώ πάντως ότι η πολιτική τους σκέψη είναι απαλλοτριωμένη από την αστική τάξη και η ζημιά, που κάνουν αυτές τις ώρες, δε σηκώνει ούτε επιείκεια, ούτε κατανόηση λόγω προτέρου εντίμου βίου, που σε συνθήκες νομιμότητας δεν είναι και εύκολο να φανεί και να αποδειχτεί.
Στα δύσκολα ο καθένας κρίνεται και τα στερνά τιμούν τα πρώτα.

AGIS είπε...

"Στην κούβα άλλωστε η επανάσταση δεν έγινε από το τοπικό κκ –που ήταν κατά φαντασίαν μαρξιστικό-λενινιστικό), αλλά από το κίνημα της 21ης απρίλη, που κήρυσσε αρχικά πίστη στο αστικό σύνταγμα του 1940 –το ενιαίο κκ σχηματίστηκε αργότερα."

Η απόλυτη ακρίβεια αυτής της φράσης είναι αλλο ζήτημα. Το κυριότερο τώρα είναι να διορθωθεί αντι "21ης απρίλη" [!] στο σωστό που είναι 26ης Ιουλίου

Αναυδος είπε...

Για ευαισθητους ανθρωπους που τους πειραζουν οι χαρακτηρισμοι
Ο ΔΚ εχει φτιαξει ενα site (EA) στο οποιο το 99% των αρθρων του ειναι μια ανηθικη πολεμικη στο ΚΚΕ με προσωπικες επιθεσεις σε ηγετικα του στελεχη με διαστρεβλωση των θεσεων του κομματος κλπ. Εμβληματικο ειναι το τελευταιο άρθρο για τον μισιο και το Ριζοσπαστη. Οι θεσεις τους ελαχιστα απεχουν απο τις θεσεις του Συριζα και της Ανταρσυας και οι κατηγοριες που εκτοξευουν εναντια στο ΚΚΕ για σεχταρισμό, για εργατικη εξουσια στη β’ παρουσια κλπ δεν διαφερουν πουθενα απο τις ιδιες κατηγοριες του Συριζα και της ανταρσυας. Δεν ειναι τυχαιο οτι ο Τσιπρας προεκλογικα το δικο τους επιχειρημα για δηθεν καταστρατηγηση του προγραμματος του κομματος χρησιμοποιησε στην προσπαθεια του να παρασυρει το ΚΚΕ στη αριστερη του κυβερνηση.

Με λιγα λογια οι ιδιοι εχουν τοποθετησει τον εαυτο τους στο στρατοπεδο των εχθρων του κομματος. Σαν τον Γριβα δοξαζονται κρυπτομενοι για να γελιοποιηθουν εμφανιζομενοι και σαν εχθρους πρεπει να τους αντιμετωπιζουμε. Εχουμε πολεμο και ο καθενας διαλεγει στρατοπεδο

Υπαρχει και μια αλλη παραμετρος για τους αποστατες του κομματος καθε εποχης. Αν και τα κριτηρια του καθενος ειναι ατομικά δεν αλλαζει το γεγονος οτι η πλειοψηφεια τους ανηκει σε συγκεκριμενα κοινωνικα στρωματα που επωφελουνται σε μεγαλυτερο βαθμο απο την καπιταλιστικη αναπτυξη και ευκολα τα διαπερνα η ιδεολογια των αφεντικών. Τα στρωματα αυτα (μικροαστιο, διαννοηση, εργατικη αριστοκρατια) δεν εχουν συμφερον την ανατροπη του συστηματος Υπαρχει πιθανοτητα μελη τους να συρθουν απο την καπιταλιστικη βαρβαροτητα πισω απο την εργατικη ταξη αλλα οχι και να ηγηθουν. Σε ατομικο επιπεδο και ο ΠΠ γνωριζει οτι Καθημερινη στη λαικη εξουσια δεν θα υπαρχει και ο ΔΚ οτι τοσε νομικες σχολες ειναι αχρηστες αρα πισω απο το δημοσιο λογο τους υπαρχουν και τα ιδιοτελη τους συμφεροντα

dimos tanalias είπε...

@ανώνυμο 25/11 10:58 και WEM
Αν καταλαβαίνετε τι έγραψα, δεν αναφέρθηκα σε αυτά που γράφει ο άναυδος, αλλά στους χαρακτηρισμούς που χρησιμοποιεί. Αυτό δεν έχει καμία σχέση με λογοκρισίες, τσιμουδιές, ιερές εξετάσεις, αιώνιες ευγνωμοσύνες κλπ. Έχει όμως σχέση με την ηθική όσων πρεσβεύουν ότι είναι κομμουνιστές. Και στο φινάλε δε νομίζω ότι χρειάζεται συνήγορους ο άναυδος για αυτά που γράφει.
Υ.Γ.Όσο για το σχόλιο για το ψευδώνυμο, ας μιλήσει ο ίδιος καλύτερα
"Βάρα γερὰ τὸν νταγερέ, πιωμένε μου λεβέντη!
Κορδέλλα κόκκινη κρεμῶ στὸν ἄγριο ἐσὲ ζουρνᾶ σου!
Φλουρὶ κολλῶ στὸ στῆθος σου, ξυπόλυτη χορεύτρα!
στρογγυλοπαίζει σου ἡ κοιλιὰ κι ὁ κόρφος σου πετάει
τὰ μπρούνζινα γιορτάνια σου καὶ τὰ χοντροβραχιόλια."

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Ρε Τρομερέ Σεχτάρ, άσε αυτούς που "προσπαθούν" να κοντίνουν το ΚΚΕ στη μοίρα τους...ας παν στο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ κι όπου θέλουν, αυτοί που το κατάφεραν και το κόντιναν όσο δε πάει τα τελευταία χρόνια δεν σου ήρθαν στο μυαλό;;που έχουν σφετεριστεί την ηρωική 94χρονη πορεία το Κόμματος και παν να τη πετάξουν στο γκρεμό, δε σου πέρασαν λίγο απ το μυαλό.

Ρούχα Gucci,
Μυαλό κουκούτσι...

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Συγγνώμη για την άλλη τροπή που θα δώσω στα σχόλια αλλά δεν αντέχω το επίπεδο ξεφτίλας που φτάνουν κάποιοι για να χτυπήσουν το ΚΚΕ. Άλλωστε αφορά και τον κ. "καθηγητή" του Παντείου που μοστράρεται για αυθεντικός εκφραστής του ΚΚΕ:

http://ergatikosagwnas.gr/EA/index.php/2012-02-04-19-31-33/561-2012-11-23-13-56-07

Η ανακοίνωση του Μικροαστικού Αγώνα για το θάνατο του Μίσσιου και την ανακοίνωση του Ριζοσπάστη. Πλήρης ταύτιση με το σκυλολόι του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ με αρκετή κλαψιάρικη γαρνιτούρα μπας και τσιμπήσει κανένας.

Κυριολεκτικά δεν μπορώ να καταλάβω πόσο χαμηλά έχουν πέσει όλοι αυτοί. Δηλαδή τι έπρεπε να γράφει ο Ριζοσπάστης για το Μίσσιο; Ούτε τον έβρισε, ούτε τίποτα. Απλά παρέθεσε ότι πέθανε, ότι ήταν αγωνιστής στην Αντίσταση και μετά πήγε στην "Ανανεωτική Αριστερά". Δηλαδή ο άλλος σε έχει ξεχέσει με όλα του τα βιβλία, βγάζοντας τους καθοδηγητές αλλά και τα μέλη του Κόμματος κομπλεξικούς, ανέραστους, μικρόνοες και δε συμμαζεύεται (προσοχή αυτούς που υποτίθεται ότι κι εσείς υπερασπίζεστε...), ο αντίπαλος το τσιμπάει και προωθεί τα βιβλία - οχετούς του με κάθε τρόπο, κι εσύ πρέπει να του κάνεις τεμενάδες επειδή πέθανε; Ο νεκρός ΔΕΝ δεδικαίωται, όταν στη ζωή του ήταν με το άδικο... Προσπαθήστε να θυμηθείτε τι λέγατε κι εσείς όταν ήσασταν κομμουνιστές: Αν ο άλλος δεν σκεπαστεί με την κόκκινη σημαία στο φέρετρο του, δεν σημαίνει τίποτα η πρότερη ζωή του (είναι αυτό που λένε οι αρχαίοι "μηδένα προ του τέλους μακάριζε")

Κι επειδή το έχετε παραξηλώσει, το ΚΚΕ είναι αυτό, αυτό θέλουν τα μέλη του κι οι φίλοι του (όχι απλά "οι ψηφοφόροι", μπολιασμένοι με την κοινοβουλευτική καμαρίλα και τον κυβερνητισμό παραγοντίσκοι του ΜΑ). ΕΣΕΙΣ ΔΕΝ ΕΧΕΤΕ ΣΧΕΣΗ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΚΚΕ κι αρχίζω να αμφιβάλλω αν είχατε ποτέ... (Ξέρω, ξέρω ο ένας αντιπάλεψε τον τάδε στην Πάτρα το 91, ο δεύτερος τον δείνα στην ΚΟΑ κάποια χρονολογία, μείνατε στην ΚΝΕ το 91 και για αυτό δικαιώνεστε για όλα ας έχουν περάσει 20 χρόνια... μάλλον στο Μίσσιο βλέπετε τον εαυτό σας για αυτό σας έπιασε κωλοπιλάλα να τον υπερασπιστείτε...)

Υ.Γ. Επαναλαμβάνω: το άρθρο του "Ρ" είναι λιτό, απλό και χωρίς κανένα υπονοούμενο, εκτός από αυτούς που θένε να κατασκευάσουν κάτι...
Υ.Γ.2 Συγγνώμη ξανά για την παρέκβαση, πόσο μάλλον όταν το ζήτημα έχει ανοίξει και σε προηγούμενο άρθρο, αλλά η μπόχα του βάλτου του ΜΑ μου γύρισε το μυαλό

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Ο Άναυδος επικαλείται τον "γέρο της Δημοκρατίας" (εδώ γελάμε) Γ. Παπανδρέου (δική του είναι η ρήση για τον Γρίβα) για να βρίσει ανώνυμα κάποιον που μιλάει επώνυμα και ζει από τη δουλειά του, τον Δημήτρη Καλτσώνη.

Μιας και του αρέσει ο Γ.Π. (εμένα δεν με συγκινεί ιδιαίτερα) θυμίζω το εξής περιστατικό στη Βουλή: Σε μία κοινοβουλευτική συζήτηση, ακούγοντας μίαν ύβρη προς το πρόσωπό του, ρώτησε "Ποίος το λέει αυτό;" για να απαντήσει, μόλις ο υβριστής απάντησε "εγώ": "Τότε δεν έχει καμία σημασία!". Φανταστείτε τι θα μπορούσε να πει κανείς αν αντί "εγώ" απαντούσε κάποιος "εγώ ο Ανώνυμος"...

Ανώνυμος είπε...

"Αν ο άλλος δεν σκεπαστεί με την κόκκινη σημαία στο φέρετρο του, δεν σημαίνει τίποτα η πρότερη ζωή του" Ας μην συνεχιστεί αυτή η συζήτηση. Μας αφήνετε άναυδους και μας προκαλείτε ανατριχίλα ορισμένοι

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Ο από πάνω είμαι:
Στην Πάτρα; Ποιός μίλησε για Πάτρα; Καρφώνεστεεεεε :))))

Ανώνυμος είπε...

"Τα στρωματα αυτα (μικροαστιο, διαννοηση, εργατικη αριστοκρατια) δεν εχουν συμφερον την ανατροπη του συστηματος". Το μυαλο σου και μια λιρα Αναυδε. Σωστα τα υπολοιπα που λες αλλα εδω, το μυαλο σου και μια λιρα.

Δεν εχουν συμφερον οι καταχρεωμενοι, καταφοβισμενοι και αντιδραστικοτατοι μικροαστοι που προλεταριοποιουνται με ταχυτατους ρυθμους, την ανατροπη του συστηματος? Οι μικροαστοι που ονειρευονται ενα καλο πασοκ που θα τους ξαναγυρισει να ζησουν μερες προ οκταετιας δεν εχουν συμφερον το σοσιαλισμο? Η διανοηση τι ειναι? Κατι ξεχωριστο με ενιαια χαρακτηριστικα? Και τοτε γιατι δεν μας λες οτι ειναι ταξη? Υπαρχουν διανοουμενοι που βρισκονται κοινωνικα σε υψηλη βαθμιδα κι αλλοι που πεινανε. Αυτοι οι δευτεροι δεν ειναι αντικειμενικα μαζι μας? Και τμηματα της εργατικης αριστοκρατιας ακομη εχουν το ιδιο συμφερον. Παρ΄ολο που ξεπουλανε την ταξικη τους συνειδηση στους αστους. Ακομα και τετοιοι εχουν συμφερον απο μια κοινωνια που δεν θα τους "εξαναγκαζει" να ξεπουλιουνται. Απο το σοσιαλισμο δεν εχουν συμφερον μονον οι εργατες, οι μικροι αγροτες, οι ανεργοι, οι χαμηλοσυνταξιουχοι και οι φτωχοδιαβολοι μεταναστες (που δεν ειναι "μονον" βεβαια ολοι αυτοι). Εχει συμφερον η συντριπτικη πλειοψηφια της κοινωνιας και μεσα σ΄ αυτη ειναι και μικροαστοι και μικρομεσαια στρωματα. Ασχετα απο το τι σταση κρατανε ολοι οι παραπανω σημερα.

Αναυδος είπε...

Σατανικων (και ολοτελα τυχαιων) Ομοιοτητων συνεχεια

Γραφει ο ΠΠ στο Να ξεκινήσουμε Κοινωνικό Ανέκδοτο διαρκείας! (aka Γερων της δημοκρατίας)

‘...Μιλάμε βέβαια κυρίως για το ΚΚΕ, το οποίο αντιμετωπίζει το ΣΥΡΙΖΑ όχι ως ιδεολογικό αντίπαλο, αλλά ως ταξικό εχθρό και μάλιστα ως τον κυριότερο ταξικό εχθρό της περιόδου, αναπαράγοντας τις χειρότερες σεχταριστικές στιγμές του “σοσιαλφασισμού”. ...’

‘...Η γραμμή του ενιαίου μετώπου δεν είναι νεολογισμός κάποιων “όψιμων συνοδοιπόρων του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ”. Είναι η στρατηγική που χάραξε η Τρίτη Διεθνής για τη Δυτική Ευρώπη στο Τρίτο και το Τέταρτο Συνέδριο, τα τελευταία που έγιναν ζώντος του Λένιν και υπό την καθοδήγησή του...’

Τα μεγαλα πνευματα συναντιονται ειδικα στην παραχαραξη της ιστοριας για να σαλπισουν και παλι εναν ιστορικο συμβιβασμο. Δεν εχει νόημα η παλη για λαικη εξουσία ολοι με τον Συριζα για την νεα νεα αλλαγη (κι εχει ο θεος)

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Πείτε στον Τάκλα να βγάλει στη φόρα την τοποθέτηση του Λιόση στο 15ο Συνέδριο. Κάτι έχω ακούσει αλλά δεν μπορώ να τη βρω με τίποτα...

Σεχτάρ ο Τρομερός είπε...

Δεν το είχα δει αυτό:
"Μια τέτοια αγωνιστική ιστορία ποιος μπορεί να μην την σέβεται; Ποιος μπορεί να μην την έχει ως παράδειγμα; Ποιος μπορεί να την αποσιωπά αντί να την διδάσκει στις νεότερες γενιές; Μόνο κάποιος που δεν έχει ίχνος αγωνιστικού ήθους και αγωνιστικής διαπαιδαγώγησης. Μόνο εκείνος που δεν διδάχτηκε τίποτα από την ιστορία του ΚΚΕ και δεν θέλει να διδαχτεί."
Σωστά!
Μόνο κάποιος που επιχαίρει για την ήττα αυτής της αγωνιστικής ιστορίας!
Μόνο κάποιος, που λέει: "καλύτερα, που χάσαμε το '44"!
Αναγνωρίζοντας δηλ. στον Σκόμπυ, και στους χίτες/μοναρχοφασίστες την προοδευτική-πατριωτική στάση! Το Δίκηο!
Ας μην παρεκτραπώ σε χαρακτηρισμούς, άλλωστε περιττεύουν...
Να επαναλάβω μόνο μια παρατήρηση του Δ. Μυράτ, που μας θύμισε προ ημερών ο σ. "Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμη), από της ακτές της Βαλτικής": "Ο ΑΠΟΘΑΝΩΝ ΔΕΔΙΚΑΙΩΤΑΙ ΑΝΘ' ΩΝ ΑΓΑΘΩΝ ΕΠΡΑΞΕ"!
0 Μίσσιος απόκτησε μέγιστη αξία για την αστική τάξη (και τα καρακόλια της...) ακριβώς γιατί απαρνήθηκε τον εαυτό του, υπέγραψε την "δήλωση" με καθυστέρηση τριάντα ετών και έγινε η σημαία του διασυρμού εκείνων των αγώνων, εκείνης της Αριστεράς και του διαχρονικού ΚΚΕ, (που δε μετανοιώνει γι αυτούς). Αλλιώς θα είχε μείνει στην αφάνεια, όπως χιλιάδες άλλοι, προσμένοντας την ώρα να σημάνουν την Ανάσταση...
Καληνύχτα και όνειρα γλυκά, Μικροαστικέ Αγώνα!
Καταλάβαμε!
------------------------
Αγησίλαε, σωστά, για την ελληνική ΑΤ η ένταξη στην ΕΟΚ ήταν "εθνική" πολιτική, για το δικό τους έθνος. Και δεν ήταν "εξάρτηση", αλλά βήμα προόδου για την πάρτη τους. Σήμαινε και ασφάλεια (γι αυτούς, έναντι των ΕΣΣΔ/ΚΚΕ) και οικονομική αναβάθμιση. Αλλωστε, πολύ σωστά το είπαν και το λένε "Ολοκλήρωση", παραλείποντας φυσικά το "ιμπεριαλιστική-καπιταλιστική".
Το δικό μας λάθος τότε ήταν ότι νομίζαμε ότι θα κάνουμε κοινωνικές συμμαχίες υποστηρίζοντας πως υπήρχε, στα πλαίσια ενός, έστω και μεταβατικού (αυτό δεν το λέγαμε) καπιταλισμού, μια οικονομικά καλύτερη λύση, τουλάχιστον για το εγχώριο μη μονοπωλιακό κεφάλαιο και οπωσδήποτε για τα μικροαστικά στρώματα. Υποτιμώντας αναγκαστικά την ανάπτυξη της συνείδησης της ντόπιας ΕΤ και την διαπαιδαγώγησή της σαν τάξης για τον εαυτό της.
Λάθος εκτιμήσεις, με γνωστή αιτία, να μην το τραβάω.
Τώρα πια όλα αυτά έχουν ιστορική και διδακτική αξία.
Η ελληνική εργατική τάξη δεν έχει άλλη επιλογή, παρά να προετοιμάζεται να διεκδικήσει την δική της εξουσία, όσο ανέτοιμη και αν είναι, όσο χρόνο και αν πάρει αυτό.
Με την ευκαιρία, προ καιρού είχε πάρει το μάτι μου κάποιο δικό σου άρθρο σε μια ΚΟΜΕΠ (μάλλον της δεκαετίας με της βάτες, που λέει και ο Μπρεζ). Μήπως θυμάσαι πότε ήταν;

AGIS είπε...

@Σεχτάρ
Με την ΕΟΚ/ΕΕ/ΟΝΕ το θέμα είναι νομίζω ότι εκεί που υπήρχε ως τότε η όποια εθνική ανάπτυξη, ξαφνικά επιβλήθηκε πάνω της η πολιτικά οργανωμένη κυριαρχία του ευρωπαϊκού μονοπωλίακού κεφαλαίου και την "χειραγώγησε". Η ανάπτυξη αυτή δε συνεχίστηκε με τους ικανούς όρους της, αλλά εκτράπηκε στους όρους που της επέβαλε εν ψυχρώ το μονοπωλιακό κεφάλαιο για τις "συγκεντρωμένες" ανάγκες του. "Εξάρτηση" έτσι και αλλιώς υπήρχε και υπάρχει, με διαφορετικούς όρους πριν και με διαφορετικούς τώρα. Απλά για την άρχουσα τάξη αυτή η "εξάρτηση" είναι επενδυτικό πεδίο, ενώ για το λαό (και τον τοπο: δεν το λέω αστεία) υποθήκευση του μέλλοντός του. Αυτά τα λόγια μπορεί φαινομενικά να μη βγαίνουν έξω από τα όρια του καπιταλισμού, αλλά μόνο έξω από τα όρια του καπιταλισμού (δηλαδή μέσα στα όρια του σοσιαλισμού) θα ήταν δυνατή και η τότε συνέχιση της ανάπτυξης στις ήδη υπάρχουσες βάσεις της και η τώρα στροφή προς την ανάπτυξη της κοινωνίας και όχι του κεφαλαίου.
Κατά τα άλλα, πράγματι, "ενδιάμεση και εξαρτημένη".

Για το Μίσσιο και το όλο θέμα δεν θα ήθελα να τοποθετηθώ άλλο, αλλά θα το κάνω: Κάπου χρειάζεται ίσως μια μεγαλύτερη αποστασιοποίηση από πράγματα που στρέφονται εναντίον μας αλλά στην τελική δε μας αγγίζουν. Ο Μίσσιος απέκτησε αξία για την κυρίαρχη ιδεολογία για όλους τους λόγους που έχουν γραφτεί τις τελευταίες μέρες. Παρ'όλα αυτά εγώ θα "ομολογήσω" ότι διαβάζοντας το πρώτο του βιβλίο θεωρω τον εαυτό μου "πλουτισμένο" για όλους τους άλλους λόγους, για τους οποίους η κυρίαρχη ιδεολογία δεν θα "αγκάλιαζε" τον Μίσσιο αν ήταν τα γενικά και τελικά του συμπεράσματα διαφορετικά όπως θα μπορούσε να είναι. Τώρα να το πω "δήλωση" αυτό που έκανε, μου φαίνεται οτι δεν έχει νόημα όταν πριν από αυτή τη "δήλωση" έχει πια αφήσει πίσω του 22 χρόνια φυλακής και εξορίας και, στην τελική, δεν έχει κι αναγκη κανέναν. Εν πάση περιπτώσει θα αρκούσε στη σύντομη είδηση του θανάτου του ανάμεσα στις φράσεις "πέρασε από το ΔΣΕ" και "δε στάθηκε στο πλευρό του ΚΚΕ/δεν αναγνώριζε τη διέξοδο της ταξικής πάλης" να παρεμβληθεί η φράση "για αυτή του τη δράση και στάση έκανε 22 χρόνια φυλακή". Δε νομίζω τώρα να καθόμασταν να συζητάμε γιατί μπήκε τέτοια φράση, και κάθε "εκ του πονηρού" κριτική θα έπεφτε "αυτόματα" στο κενό. Θέλω να πω: Γιατί να υπερασπιστώ το ότι δεν μπήκε αυτή η φράση, εφόσον αν έμπαινε ούτε ένας δεν θα βρισκόταν να υποστηρίξει ότι η φράση αυτή θα έπρεπε να απαλειφθεί.

Τέλος για την ΚΟΜΕΠ που μου θύμισες, κοίταξα τα ράφια μου και βρήκα πράγματι κάποιο κείμενο σε προσυνεδριακό διάλογο, έκτακτο τεύχος 2004, 17ο.

Αναυδος είπε...

Μια παρατηρηση σε εναν ανωνυμο παραπανω
Οι μικροαστοι που εχουν συμφερον το σοσιαλισμο ειναι οι πρωην μικροαστοι που εχουν μετατραπει σε προλεταριους αρα εχουν ηδη χασει την προηγουμενη τους ταξικη θεση. Οι μικροαστοι που παραμενουν μικροαστοι δεν εχουν κανενα συμφερον στο σοσιαλισμο . Το αυτο ισχυει και για την εργατικη αριστοκρατια αλλα και τη διανοηση που ειτε αυτοαπασχολειται ειτε διαθετει ενα μικρο γραφειο με 1-3 υπαλληλους ειτε ειναι υπαλληλος σε καποιο αφεντικο. Στο επιπεδο βεβαια της ιδεολογιας ολοι αυτοι που ειτε αντεχουν ειτε προλεταριοποιουνται ειναι φορεις της αστικης ιδεολογιας και ειναι αδυνατον ενεργα να συμμετασχουν σε μια επανασταση εκτος απο μεμονωμενους. Θα συρθουν με το ζορι.
Το προβλημα σημερα ειναι οτι η εργατικη ταξη ειναι ανοργανωτη συνδικαλιστικά και ακομη κι οταν νιωθει την αναγκη να αντιδρασει πεφτει στα διχτυα διαφορων εξοργισμενων μικροαστων τυπου συριζα-αντασυα-επαμ-σπιθα κλπ. Αν ακολουθησει τα συνθηματα τους για αλλη μια φορα θα προδοθει

ΥΓ το να γελιοποιηθει καποιος ειναι βρισια ?. Μηπως αντι τον Μαρξ και τον Τσε στους οποιους δεν τα πολυκαταφερνετε να πιασετε κι εναν Μπαμπινιωτη

Ανώνυμος είπε...

"Οι μικροαστοι που εχουν συμφερον το σοσιαλισμο ειναι οι πρωην μικροαστοι που εχουν μετατραπει σε προλεταριους αρα εχουν ηδη χασει την προηγουμενη τους ταξικη θεση. Οι μικροαστοι που παραμενουν μικροαστοι δεν εχουν κανενα συμφερον στο σοσιαλισμο . Το αυτο ισχυει και για την εργατικη αριστοκρατια αλλα και τη διανοηση που ειτε αυτοαπασχολειται ειτε διαθετει ενα μικρο γραφειο με 1-3 υπαλληλους ειτε ειναι υπαλληλος σε καποιο αφεντικο."

Άναυδε, δε σκοπεύω να σχολιάσω τα παραπάνω ως προς το ΑΑΔΜ, λαϊκό μέτωπο, κομματικό πρόγραμμα κλπ. Απλά θα ήθελα αν έχεις χρόνο και διάθεση, να με παραπέμψεις σε κάποια κομματική θέση ή έστω άρθρο στο ρίζο που να επιχειρηματολογεί κυρίως στο "υπάλληλος σε κάποιο αφεντικό". Δηλαδή οι υπάλληλοι (δε μιλάω για την εργατική αριστοκρατία) που ασχολούνται με μη χειρωνακτικές εργασίες, π.χ.προγραμματιστές,λογιστές, δάσκαλοι σε φροντιστήρια και ιδιωτικά σχολεία (δε βάζω δημόσιο για να μη σε ταράξω, κλπ δεν εντάσσονται στην εργατική τάξη; Επαναλαμβάνω, οι διαφωνίες μου είναι μεγάλες, αφού θεωρώ ότι όταν μιλάγαμε τόσα χρόνια για φτωχομεσαία στρώματα, δε μιλάγαμε για πρώην τέτοια και νυν προλετάριους ή όταν φτιάχναμε την αντιμονοπωλιακή συσπείρωση των ΕΒΕ δεν τους λέγαμε να απαρνηθούν την τάξη τους ως φωστήρες, αλλά αυτό το σημείο του σχολίου σου σημαίνει ότι προφανώς όταν λέμε εργατική τάξη μπορεί να εννοεί ο καθένας κάτι άλλο.

Π.Δ.

Ανώνυμος είπε...

«Μ’ ΑΡΕΣΕΙ ΝΑ ΠΕΤΑΩ ΨΗΛΑ!»

Αρχικά να ευχαριστήσω τον Σεχτάρ τον Τρομερό που με θυμήθηκε και να του πω ότι γι’ άλλη μια φορά συμφωνώ μαζί του.

Τώρα μια σκέψη που μου πέρασε από το μυαλό διαβάζοντας την τόσο ωραία ανάρτηση του φίλου του Βασίλη σχετικά με την εκδήλωση παρουσίασης του νέου βιβλίου για τον Κώστα Βάρναλη και τα σχόλια που ακολούθησαν: αντί η ανάρτηση να δώσει το έναυσμα σχολιασμού για τον μεγάλο κομμουνιστή διανοούμενο, κριτικό, μεταφραστή και πριν απ’ όλα ποιητή και το έργο του, η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των σχολίων περιστράφηκε γύρω από τον Χρόνη Μίσσιο. Αυτό κατά την ταπεινή μου γνώμη αγγίζει τα όρια της ιεροσυλίας απέναντι στον τιμώμενο Κώστα Βάρναλη.

Τελικά αναγκάζομαι να αναπαράγω κάτι που ’γραψα στο ιστολόγιο Lenin Reloaded του φίλου Αντώνη πριν από μερικές μέρες:

Δεν ξέρω όμως μήπως με την αντίδραση που παρατηρώ εμείς δίνουμε στον Χρόνη τον Μίσσιο και τις ανέκαθεν πρωτόλειες ιστοριούλες του περισσότερη απ’ όση έχουν αξία. Εντάξει ο θανών προσπαθώντας μάταια να αρθρώσει στοιχειώδη λογοτεχνικό λόγο δεν έκανε τίποτ’ άλλο από το να χ… πατόκορφα —συγνώμη για την έκφραση, αλλά αποδίδει κάτι από το ύφος των γραπτών του — το ελληνικό κομμουνιστικό κίνημα (επί τη ευκαιρία: δεν ήταν ούτε ο πρώτος ούτε θα παραμείνει ο τελευταίος, αν εξαιρέσει βέβαια κανείς την αβελτηρία —συχνό υβρεολόγιο αντί επιχειρηματολογίας— του πολυσυζητημένου και «πολυπαινεμένου» ύφους του). Ε, τι περίμεναν: να του πλέξει το εγκώμιο ο «Ριζοσπάστης»; Πήρε τους «στέφανους» που του άρμοζαν από κει που έπρεπε όπως και τις αντίστοιχες μεταθανάτιες τιμές κι έτσι θα γίνεται: ο καθείς με την τάξη του ή με την τάξη που διάλεξε να ακολουθήσει.

Ελπίζω να πάψουμε να σκύβουμε μπροστά στους νάνους και να αρχίσουμε να ενατενίζουμε τους γίγαντες προς ίδιον και κοινόν όφελος (εδώ θυμήθηκα και το τραγούδι «Μ’ αρέσει να μη λέω πολλά, μ’ αρέσει να κοιτάω ψηλά» των «Υπόγειων Ρευμάτων» που τόσο συγκλονιστικά το ’χει τραγουδήσει η αείμνηστη Μαρία Δημητριάδη [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw2X186jDnM]).

Ας κοιτάξουμε ψηλά!

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Μπρεζνιεφικό απολίθωμα είπε...

Άγη έχεις δίκιο, έλα όμως που ήμασταν δύο άτομα στον χώρο κι αμφότεροι ακούσαμε τον πι-πι να λέει για το κίνημα της 21ης απριλίου. Αυτός είναι κι ο λόγος που το άφησα έτσι -αλλιώς θα πίστευα ότι είχα παρακούσει και τον αδικώ.
Συμφωνώ σε γενικές γραμμές και με την αντιμετώπιση προς το μίσσιο. Αλλά αυτά μάλλον σε άλλη ανάρτηση.

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Από μία πολύ πρόχειρη αναζήτηση στο ρίζο: "Τέλος ένα μέρος της εντάσσεται στην εργατική τάξη, όπως π.χ οι δάσκαλοι, οι απλοί λογιστές, κλπ. Επίσης υπάρχει και ένα τμήμα μισοπρολετάριων, όπως για παράδειγμα καθηγητές, που μπορεί να εργάζονται σαν ωρομίσθιοι σε μια καπιταλιστική επιχείρηση φροντιστηρίων και να κάνουν και ορισμένα ιδιαίτερα μαθήματα.", "Ο Β. Ι. Λένιν ξεκαθάρισε ότι η διανόηση «δεν είναι αυτοτελής οικονομική τάξη και γι' αυτό δεν εκπροσωπεί καμιά αυτοτελή πολιτική δύναμη»." από http://www.rizospastis.gr/wwwengine/story.do?id=434108&textCriteriaClause=%2B%CE%94%CE%99%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%9F%CE%97%CE%A3%CE%97+%2B%CE%95%CE%A1%CE%93%CE%91%CE%A4%CE%99%CE%9A%CE%97+%2B%CE%A4%CE%91%CE%9E%CE%97

και ειδικά για τα μεσαία στρώματα της διανόησης:

"Το ΚΚ απορρίπτει τις οπορτουνιστικές θεωρίες του «εργατισμού» που προβάλλοντας το στοιχείο της «μικροαστικής ταλάντευσης» λόγω θέσης της μεσαίας διανόησης και στενεύοντας την εργατική τάξη στους χειρώνακτες εργάτες, αδυνατίζει το κοινωνικό μέτωπο των δυνάμεων της επανάστασης." από http://www.rizospastis.gr/wwwengine/story.do?id=516413&textCriteriaClause=%2B%CE%98%CE%95%CE%A9%CE%A1%CE%99%CE%91+%2B%CE%A3%CE%A4%CE%91%CE%94%CE%99%CE%A9%CE%9D

Π.Δ.

Αναυδος είπε...

καλες οι προβοκατορικες ερωτησεις αλλα θεωρουσα περιτο να διευκρινησω οτι δεν αναφερομαι σε εργατικη ταξη με πτυχιο αλλα σε υπαλληλους του κρατους και των αφεντικων με τους παρακατω ρολους

- Στελεχώνουν τους αστικούς ιδεολογικούς μηχανισμούς (κρατικούς και μη) ανατροφοδοτώντας την αστική ιδεολογία μέσω των διαφόρων παραλλαγών της (π.χ. η συγκέντρωση διανοουμένων στην εκπαίδευση ή στα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης είναι τεράστια).
- Στελεχώνουν τα κόμματα - διαχειριστές της αστικής εξουσίας.
- Διασφαλίζουν τις τεχνικές συνθήκες άντλησης υπεραξίας στην καπιταλιστική παραγωγή (ανεξάρτητα από τη μορφή του παραγόμενου εμπορεύματος) και την εμπέδωση των κυριαρχικών σχέσεων μεταξύ μισθωτής εργασίας και κεφαλαίου. (Κυρίως τα μεσαία μισθωτά στρώματα - ανεξάρτητα του γεγονότος ότι είναι ταυτόχρονα και εκμεταλλευόμενα - και τα ανώτερα).

μηπως οι παραπανω αποτελουν ρυακι του ΑΑΔΜ ?

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Επιτρέψτε μου να προσπεράσω την προηγούμενη συζήτηση σας περί των κακών μικροαστών που ορισμένοι συντροφοι ανυπομονούν να στείλουν στα γκουλάγκ της μελλοντικής Λαικής Δημοκρατίας καθώς και τη συζήτηση για το Μίσσιο , η οποία εξαντλήθηκε απο τα γνωστά οργανα του Κομμ. Κινηματος πχ Lifo, athens voice, εργατικός αγωνας κλπ. Για το θεμα της ανάρτησης λοιπόν, αγαπητό Απολίθωμα, αξιζει η αγορά του βιβλίου; γιατι μου κινησες το ενδιαφερον αλλα τα οικονομικα ειναι τσιμα-τσιμα

Ουτε καν

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Ρε συ ΠΔ πραγματικά, πιστεύεις ότι βοηθάει να κάθεσαι να κουβεντιάζεις με τον Άναυδο; Ο τύπος έχει ξεφύγει τελείως. Πλεόν δεν αναπαράγει απλώς τις γνωστές και χιλιοειπωμένες μπούρδες, αλλά έχει ξεπεράσει κάθε όριο. Δεν έχει κανένα νόημα να κουβεντιάζεις μαζί του σοβαρά και, εντελώς φιλικά, σου λέω ότι πιστεύω ότι δεν εξυπηρετεί σε τίποτε να αντιπαρατίθεσαι μαζί του ανώνυμα στο ιντερνετ. Απλώς αυξάνεις την αναγνωσιμότητα του μπλογκ.

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Ναι, έχεις δίκιο ανώνυμε, αλλά παρασύρομαι. Αλλά αν έχεις κάποιο εύκαιρο τρόπο για την αποτροπή της διάλυσης, στην οποία σίγουρα θα οδηγήσει η θεωρητική συγκεχυμένη παράλυση που ενώνει Αλτουσέρ Πουλαντζά Τρότσκι και ΠΟΛ ποτ, πες. Εγώ που δεν έχω, πού και που γράφω στο Ίντερνετ, κυρίως για διάγνωση του μεγέθους της ζημιας. Χωρίς αυταπάτη...

Π.Δ

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Ο/Η Αναυδος είπε...

«Μια παρατηρηση σε εναν ανωνυμο παραπανω
Οι μικροαστοι που εχουν συμφερον το σοσιαλισμο ειναι οι πρωην μικροαστοι που εχουν μετατραπει σε προλεταριους αρα εχουν ηδη χασει την προηγουμενη τους ταξικη θεση. Οι μικροαστοι που παραμενουν μικροαστοι δεν εχουν κανενα συμφερον στο σοσιαλισμο . Το αυτο ισχυει και για την εργατικη αριστοκρατια αλλα και τη διανοηση που ειτε αυτοαπασχολειται ειτε διαθετει ενα μικρο γραφειο με 1-3 υπαλληλους ειτε ειναι υπαλληλος σε καποιο αφεντικο. Στο επιπεδο βεβαια της ιδεολογιας ολοι αυτοι που ειτε αντεχουν ειτε προλεταριοποιουνται ειναι φορεις της αστικης ιδεολογιας και ειναι αδυνατον ενεργα να συμμετασχουν σε μια επανασταση εκτος απο μεμονωμενους. Θα συρθουν με το ζορι.»


Σκόρπιες σκέψεις για αυτό το μνημείο εργατισμού:

1) Το κείμενο είναι τόσο σαφές που η μετέπειτα αυτοερμηνεία από τον άναυδο είναι εκτός στοιχειώδους λογικής. Το ίδιο γίνεται για ΟΡΙΣΜΕΝΑ πολύ σαφή αποσπάσματα του προγράμματος.

2)Αποτελέι τμήμα της κυρίαρχης (;) άποψης στο Κόμμα που εκφέρεται δημόσια από ορισμένα στελέχη και βασιζόμενη στο οτι όλες οι τάξεις και στρώματα δρουν σύμφωνα με τα πραγματικά τους συμφέροντα περιορίζει μέχρι μηδενισμού το επαναστατικό υποκείμενο ( ή μήπως το ταυτίζει με το Κόμμα;). Οι μικροαστοί και αυτοαπασχολούμενοι είναι εχθροί, η διανόηση αντιδραστική, οι δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι μικροαστοί (σαν τάξη όχι απλά επιρρεπείς σε αστική/ μικροαστική ιδεολογά λες και η εργατική τάξη είναι αλώβητη), όποιος έχει ένα πτυχίο είνα ζήτημα αν ανήκει στην Ε. Τ. Και τι μένει ο στενός πυρήνας της εργατικής τάξης. Όχι δεν μενει ούτε αυτός αφού μήπως τα 700-1200€ που έπερνε ο εργάτης στην Ελλάδα τον καθιστούν εργατική αριστοκρατία σε σχέση με τα 200-450€ στη Βουλγαρία; Αυτή η τελευταία, δυστυχώς διαδεδομένη άποψη στο Κόμμα, παρότι «πατάει» σε μια πραγματικότητα είναι ιδιαίτερα επικύνδυνη αφού και ο Βούλγαρος εργάτης που μένει σε σπίτι και έχει λεοφωρείο, νοσοκομείο, τηλεωραση, φαγητό κτλ κτλ (όπως τα έχει) είναι εργατική αριστιοκρατία σε σχέση με τον εργάτη της Μπουργκίνα Φάσο των 50€.

3) Αν οι δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι ανήκουν στην μικροαστική ΤΑΞΗ τότε στην οικοδόμηση του σοσιαλισμού όλοι θα είναι μικροαστοί (εξασφαλισμένη θέση εργασίας, μέτρια- καλή ποιότητα ζωής, μη μπαμπούλας-«κερδοσκόπος» εργοδότης) ; Και το Κόμμα τι θα χρειάζεται, θα τους επιτηρεί μην ανατρέψουν το σύστημα;

4) Οι παραπάνω ανάλυση όπως αυτή του Άναυδου γιατί δεν περιλαμβάνει τα Κομματικά στελέχη που έχουν αποκοπεί από τη παραγωγή; (όχι οτι το ενστερνίζομαι)

5) Όταν, γενικά, ένα κόμμα έχει ας πούμε «λάθος» γραμμή πιθανόν να εγκαταλειφθεί από τις μάζες αλλά αυτές ΔΕΝ πρόκειται να του κάνουν «σωστή» επαναστατική κριτική. Αν ένα κόμμα είναι δεξιά οπορτουνιστικό δεν θα το μαζέξουν οι μάζες. Αν είναι σεχταριστικό δεν προκειται εγκαταλείποντάς το να του κάνουν «κομμουνιστική» κριτική όπως πολύς κόσμος (και όπως είδαμε αλλού όχι όλος) στρέφεται καναπεδάτος στον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ. Κι εσύ τι λες; Υπάρχει ή αυτό που κάνω ή συνεργασία με οπορτουνισμό/ σοσιαλδημοκρατία, δεν θα γίνουμε σαν τα μούτρα σας...

471

Ανώνυμος είπε...


"να θυμίσει στον πι-πι τη στάση του χώρου του τον καιρό της γιουγκοσλαβίας, και τα άσχημα αντανακλαστικά που επέδειξε. Να πει ότι ο τρότσκι είχε μια ιδιαίτερη ροπή στις γραφειοκρατικές μεθόδους κι αυτό αντανακλούσε εν μέρει και στις αντιλήψεις του για το κόμμα και τα συνδικάτα."

Θα μπορούσες μήπως να κάνεις μια πιο εκτενή αναφορά σε αυτά τα δύο σημεία, αλλά κυρίως αν σου είναι εύκολο να μου πεις πού μπορώ να βρω περισσότερες πληροφορίες για το δεύτερο;
Ευχαριστώ πολύ.


Θάνος Κ.

Μπρεζνιεφικό απολίθωμα είπε...

Ούτε καν, το αγόρασα μεν αλλά δεν έχω προλάβει να το διαβάσω, για να εκφέρω γνώμη. Τα περιεχόμενα ενδιαφέροντα φαίνονται πάντως. Η τιμή του είναι 12 ευρώ.

Θάνο Κ, δυστυχώς δε μπορώ να σε παραπέμψω κάπου ηλεκτρονικά για αυτά που μου ζητάς. Σχετικά με τον χώρο του πι-πι εννοώ τα άσχημα αντανακλαστικά του ναρ και τις ίσες αποστάσεις που κράτησε αρχικά από τις ηπα και το σφαγέα των λαών μιλόσεβιτς. Ειδικά για τον πι-πι νομίζω ότι το πάθημα δεν έγινε καν μάθημα, αν λάβει κανείς υπόψη τι έγραφε ως απεσταλμένος στη λιβύη

Σχετικά με το δεύτερο. Το 1921 έγινε το δέκατο συνέδριο του κόμματος των μπολσεβίκων, όπου συζητήθηκε μεταξύ άλλων το θέμα των συνδικάτων και του ρόλου που πρέπει να έχουν στη διεύθυνση και την οργάνωση της παραγωγής.
Εκτός από την εργατική αντιπολίτευση της κολοντάι, υπήρχε επίσης η πλατφόρμα του λένιν και η πλατφόρμα του τρότσκι, που ζητούσε τη στρατιωτικοποίηση των συνδικάτων για να πετύχει τον αυστηρό έλεγχό τους.
Από τη βιβλιογραφία που έχω υπόψη μου, θα μπορούσες να αναζητήσεις για περισσότερες λεπτομέρειες σε κάποια παλαιοπωλεία, το βιβλίο της κολοντάι "εργατική αντιπολίτευση" όπου υπάρχουν στοιχεία και για τις άλλες πλατφόρμες. Φαντάζομαι ότι θα υπάρχουν κι αρκετά άρθρα-συζητήσεις στο διαδίκτυο, αλλά δεν έχω υπόψη κάτι συγκεκριμένο για να σε παραπέμψω.
Πέρα από αυτό, υπάρχει και η αναφορά στην περίφημη "διαθήκη" του λένιν για την υπερβολική ροπή του τρότσκι στις διοικητικές, γραφειοκρατικές μεθόδους -άσχετα αν στη συνέχεια ήρθαν έτσι τα πράγματα που οι τροτσκιστές μιλούσαν για την αντιγραφειοκρατική επανάσταση, λίγο πριν το δεύτερο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο.
Ελπίζω να σε βοήθησαν κάπως αυτά τα στοιχεία.

Ανώνυμος είπε...

ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΞΕΧΝΑΜΕ ΤΑ ΒΑΣΙΚΑ

Θεμελιακό κείμενο κριτικής της ροπής του Τρότσκι —κι όχι μόνο αυτού, αλλά και άλλων όπως εν μέρει φαίνεται από τον τίτλο— προς τις γραφειοκρατικές μεθόδους στις θεωρητικές και πολιτικές αντιλήψεις του για την συνδικαλιστική δουλειά καθώς και στην όποια πρακτική δραστηριότητά του στα συνδικάτα είναι η εργασία του Β. Ι. Λένιν «Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν» που γράφτηκε μεταξύ 21ης και 25ης Ιανουαρίου του 1921 και προοριζόταν αρχικά για αυστηρά εσωκομματική χρήση (η μπροσούρα με την συγκεκριμένη εργασία πρώτα διανεμήθηκε στα μέλη της ΚΕ και ύστερα στα στελέχη που καθοδηγούσαν την κομματική δουλειά σε επίπεδο σοβιέτ μεγάλων πόλεων ή περιοχών καθώς και την κομματική δουλειά στα αντίστοιχα επίπεδα των συνδικάτων), γρήγορα όμως δημοσιεύτηκε και στον σοβιετικό τύπο, όταν η συζήτηση για το συνδικαλιστικό πρόβλημα επεκτάθηκε κι αγκάλιασε ολόκληρη την τότε σοβιετική κοινωνία. Η εργασία δεν αναφέρεται αποκλειστικά στο συνδικαλιστικό, γιατί εκτός από διαπραγμάτευση του συνδικαλιστικού προβλήματος από την σκοπιά της σχέσης πολιτικής και οικονομίας θίγει στο φιλοσοφικό της μέρος και θέματα υλιστικής διαλεκτικής, πράγμα που την κάνει λίαν ενδιαφέρουσα για όσους επιθυμούν να εντρυφήσουν στα σχετικά ζητήματα. Αν και το κείμενο δεν είναι πολύ μεγάλο —πιάνει στην πέμπτη ρωσική έκδοση των «Απάντων» που έχω πρόχειρη σαράντα σελίδες— ενδείκνυται ειδικότερα για να εμβαθύνει κανείς στο πώς ο Β. Ι. Λένιν εφάρμοζε δημιουργικά την διδασκαλία του Μαρξ σε μια συγκεκριμένη κατάσταση που απαιτούσε την σύντονη λήψη πρακτικών μέτρων.

Η εργασία περιέχεται στον 42ο τόμο των «Απάντων» του Β. Ι. Λένιν (δεν έχω δυστυχώς πρόχειρες τις σελίδες της ελληνικής έκδοσης της «Σύγχρονης Εποχής»).

Όσο για την λεγόμενη «Διαθήκη» του Β. Ι. Λένιν σήμερα επιβάλλεται κατά την ταπεινή μου γνώμη αρκετή προσοχή στην «άνευ όρων» επίκληση, αποτίμηση και χρησιμοποίησή της για λόγους που αναλυτικά εκτίθενται σε άρθρο ρώσου ιστορικού, αγγλική μετάφραση του οποίου είχα παλιότερα στείλει κι είχε δημοσιευτεί χάρη στην πάντα ευγενή φιλοξενία του φίλου Βασίλη στο παρόν ιστολόγιο.

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...


Για αρχή θα ψάξω στο ίντερνετ μήπως βρω κάτι και μετά βλέπουμε.
Ευχαριστώ πολύ και του δυο.

Θάνος Κ.

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Όσοι αγγλομαθείς πιστοί, προσέλθετε!

Καλημέρα και καλό μήνα σ’ όλους σας.

Χτες το βράδυ ξαναδιάβασα αφορμής δοθείσης μετά από πολύ καιρό την εργασία του Β. Ι. Λένιν «Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν» (Ιανουάριος 1921).

Επειδή την (ξανα)βρήκα κα-τα-πλη-κτι-κά αγέραστη και επίκαιρη, αποφάσισα να την στείλω σε συνέχειες στην αγγλική μετάφραση των «Απάντων» του Β. Ι. Λένιν από τις εκδόσεις Progress της Μόσχας. Μέχρι να βρεθεί κάποιος να την ανεβάσει από την ελληνική μετάφραση που —υπενθυμίζω— υπάρχει στον 42ο των «Απάντων» της «Σύγχρονης Εποχής», ας σπεύσουν οι αγγλομαθείς να επωφεληθούν.

Προσοχή: οι συνέχειες είναι είκοσι εφτά (27).

Φίλε Βασίλη, ευχαριστώ γι’ άλλη μια φορά για την φιλοξενία.

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (α΄ μέρος)

V. I. LENIN

ONCE AGAIN ON THE TRADE UNIONS, THE CURRENT SITUATION AND THE MISTAKES OF COMRADES TROTSKY AND BUKHARIN[1]

The Party discussion and the factional struggle, which is of a type that occurs before a congress—before and in connection with the impending elections to the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.—are waxing hot. The first factional pronouncement, namely, the one made by Comrade Trotsky on behalf of “a number of responsible workers” in his “platform pamphlet” (The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions, with a preface dated December 25, 1920), was followed by a sharp pronouncement (the reader will see from what follows that it was deservedly sharp) by the Petrograd organisation of the R.C.P. (“Appeal to the Party”, published in Petrogradskaya Pravda[2] on January 6, 1921, and in the Party’s Central Organ, the Moscow Pravda, on January 13, 1921). The Moscow Committee then came out against the Petrograd organisation (in the same issue of Pravda). Then appeared a verbatim report, published by the bureau of the R.C.P. group of the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions, of the discussion that took place on December 30, 1920, at a very large and important Party meeting, namely, that of the R.C.P. group at the Eighth Congress of Soviets. It is entitled The Role of the Trade Unions in Production (with a preface dated January 6, 1921). This, of course, is by no means all of the discussion material. Party meetings to discuss these issues are being held almost everywhere. On December 30, 1920, I spoke at a meeting in conditions in which, as I put it then, I “departed from the rules of procedure”, i.e., in conditions in which I could not take part in the discussion or hear the preceding and subsequent speakers. I shall now try to make amends and express myself in a more “orderly” fashion.

The Danger Of Factional Pronouncements To The Party

Is Comrade Trotsky’s pamphlet The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions a factional pronouncement? Irrespective of its content, is there any danger to the Party in a pronouncement of this kind? Attempts to hush up this question are a particularly favourite exercise with the members of the Moscow Committee (with the exception of Comrade Trotsky, of course), who see the factionalism of the Petrograd comrades, and with Comrade Bukharin, who, however, felt obliged, on December 30, 1920, to make the following statement on behalf of the “buffer group”:

“… when a train seems to be heading for a crash, a buffer is not a bad thing at all” (report of the December 30,1920 discussion, p. 45).

So there is some danger of a crash. Can we conceive of intelligent members of the Party being indifferent to the question of how, where and when this danger arose?

Trotsky’s pamphlet opens with the statement that “it is the fruit of collective work”, that “a number of responsible workers, particularly trade unionists (members of the Presidium of the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions, the Central Committee of the Metalworkers’ Union, Tsektran and others)” took part in compiling it, and that it is a “platform pamphlet”. At the end of thesis 4 we read that “the forthcoming Party Congress will have to choose [Trotsky’s italics] between the two trends within the trade union movement”.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (β΄ μέρος)

If this is not the formation of a faction by a member of the Central Committee, if this does not mean “heading for a crash”, then let Comrade Bukharin, or anyone of his fellow-thinkers, explain to the Party any other possible meaning of the words “factionalism “, and the Party “seems to be heading for a crash”. Who can be more purblind than men wishing to play the “buffer” and closing their eyes to such a “danger of a crash”?

Just imagine: after the Central Committee had spent two plenary meetings (November 9 and December 7) in an unprecedentedly long, detailed and heated discussion of Comrade Trotsky’s original draft theses and of the entire trade union policy that he advocates for the Party, one member of the Central Committee, one out of nineteen, forms a group outside the Central Committee and presents its “collective work” as a “platform”, inviting the Party Congress “to choose between two trends”! This, incidentally, quite apart from the fact that Comrade Trotsky’s announcement of two and only two trends on December 25, 1920, despite Bukharin’s coming out as a “buffer” on November 9, is a glaring exposure of the Bukharin group’s true role as abettors of the worst and most harmful sort of factionalism. But I ask any Party member: Don’t you find this attack and insistence upon choosing” between two trends in the trade union movement rather sudden? What is there for us to do but stare in astonishment at the fact that after three years of the proletarian dictatorship even one Party member can be found to “attack” the two trends issue in this way?

Nor is that all. Look at the factional attacks in which this pamphlet abounds. In the very first thesis we find a threatening “gesture” at “certain workers in the trade union movement” who are thrown “back to trade-unionism, pure and simple, which the Party repudiated in principle long ago “ (evidently the Party is represented by only one member of the Central Committee’s nineteen). Thesis 8 grandiloquently condemns “the craft conservatism prevalent among the top trade union functionaries” (note the truly bureaucratic concentration of attention on the “top”!). Thesis 11 opens with the astonishingly tactful, conclusive and business-like (what is the most polite word for it?) “hint” that the “majority of the trade unionists … give only formal, that is, verbal, recognition” to the resolutions of the Party’s Ninth Congress.

We find that we have some very authoritative judges before us who say the majority(!) of the trade unionists give only verbal recognition to the Party’s decisions.

Thesis 12 reads:

“… many trade unionists take an ever more aggressive and uncompromising stand against the prospect of ‘coalescence’… . Among them we find Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky.

“What is more, many trade unionists, balking at the new tasks, and methods, tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of corporative exclusiveness and hostility for the new men who are being drawn into the given branch of the economy, thereby actually fostering the survivals of craft-unionism among the organised workers.”

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (γ΄ μέρος)

Let the reader go over these arguments carefully and ponder them. They simply abound in “gems”. Firstly, the pronouncement must be assessed from the standpoint of factionalism! Imagine what Trotsky would have said, and how he would have said it, if Tomsky had published a platform accusing Trotsky and “many” military workers of cultivating the spirit of bureaucracy, fostering the survivals of savagery, etc. What is the “role” of Bukharin, Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov and the others who fail to see—positively fail to note, utterly fail to note—the aggressiveness and factionalism of all this, and refuse to see how much more factional it is than the pronouncement of the Petrograd comrades?

Secondly, take a closer look at the approach to the subject: many trade unionists “tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit”… . This is an out-and-out bureaucratic approach. The whole point, you see, is not the level of development and living conditions of the masses in their millions, but the “spirit” which Tomsky and Lozovsky tend to cultivate “in their midst”.

Thirdly, Comrade Trotsky has unwittingly revealed the essence of the whole controversy which he and the Bukharin and Co. “buffer” have been evading and camouflaging with such care.

What is the point at issue? Is it the fact that many trade unionists are balking at the new tasks and methods and tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new officials?

Or is it that the masses of organised workers are legitimately protesting and inevitably showing readiness to throw out the new officials who refuse to rectify the useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy?

Is it that someone has refused to understand the “new tasks and methods”?

Or is it that someone is making a clumsy attempt to cover up his defence of certain useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy with a lot of talk about new tasks and methods?

It is this essence of the dispute that the reader should bear in mind.

Formal Democracy and the Revolutionary Interest

“Workers’ democracy is free from fetishes”, Comrade Trotsky writes in his theses, which are the “fruit of collective work”. “Its sole consideration is the revolutionary interest” (thesis 23).

Comrade Trotsky’s theses have landed him in a mess. That part of them which is correct is not new and, what is more, turns against him. That which is new is all wrong.

I have written out Comrade Trotsky’s correct propositions. They turn against him not only on the point in thesis 23 (Glavpolitput) but on the others as well.

Under the rules of formal democracy, Trotsky had a right to come out with a factional platform even against the whole of the Central Committee. That is indisputable. What is also indisputable is that the Central Committee had endorsed this formal right by its decision on freedom of discussion adopted on December 24, 1920. Bukharin, the buffer, recognises this formal right for Trotsky, but not for the Petrograd organisation, probably because on December 30, 1920, he talked himself into “the sacred slogan of workers’ democracy” (verbatim report, p. 45)… .

Well, and what about the revolutionary interest?

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (δ΄ μέρος)

Will any serious-minded person who is not blinded by the factional egotism of Tsektran” or of the “buffer” faction, will anyone in his right mind say that such a pronouncement on the trade union issue by such a prominent leader as Trotsky does promote the revolutionary interest?

Can it be denied that, even if Trotsky’s “new tasks and methods” were as sound as they are in fact unsound (of which later), his very approach would be damaging to himself, the Party, the trade union movement, the training of millions of trade union members and the Republic?

It looks as if the kind Bukharin and his group call them selves a “buffer” because they have firmly decided not to think about the obligations this title imposes upon them.

The Political Danger Of Splits In The Trade Union Movement

Everyone knows that big disagreements sometimes grow out of minute differences, which may at first appear to be altogether insignificant. A slight cut or scratch, of the kind everyone has had scores of in the course of his life, may become very dangerous and even fatal if it festers and if blood poisoning sets in. This may happen in any kind of conflict, even a purely personal one. This also happens in politics.

Any difference, even an insignificant one, may become politically dangerous if it has a chance to grow into a split, and I mean the kind of split that will shake and destroy the whole political edifice, or lead, to use Comrade Bukharin’s simile, to a crash.

Clearly, in a country under the dictatorship of the proletariat, a split in the ranks of the proletariat, or between the proletarian party and the mass of the proletariat, is not just dangerous; it is extremely dangerous, especially when the proletariat constitutes a small minority of the population. And splits in the trade union movement (which, as I tried hard to emphasise in my speech on December 30, 1920, is a movement of the almost completely organised proletariat) mean precisely splits in the mass of the proletariat.

That is why, when the whole thing started at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions on November 2–6, 1920 (and that is exactly where it did start), and when right after the Conference—no, I am mistaken, during that Conference—Comrade Tomsky appeared before the Political Bureau in high dudgeon and, fully supported by Comrade Rudzutak, the most even-tempered of men, began to relate that at the Conference Comrade Trotsky had talked about “shaking up” the trade unions and that he, Tomsky, had opposed this—when that happened, I decided there and then that policy (i.e., the Party’s trade union policy) lay at the root of the controversy, and that Comrade Trotsky, with his “shake-up” policy against Comrade Tomsky, was entirely in the wrong. For, even if the “shake-up” policy were partly justified by the “new tasks and methods” (Trotsky’s thesis 12), it cannot be tolerated at the present time, and in the present situation, because it threatens a split.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ε΄ μέρος)

It now seems to Comrade Trotsky that it is “an utter travesty” to ascribe the “shake-up-from-above” policy to him (L. Trotsky, “A Reply to the Petrograd Comrades”, Pravda No. 9, January 15, 1921). But “shake-up” is a real “catchword”, not only in the sense that after being uttered by Comrade Trotsky at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions it has, you might say, “caught on” throughout the Party and the trade unions. Unfortunately, it remains true even today in the much more profound sense that it alone epitomises the whole spirit, the whole trend of the platform pamphlet entitled The Role and Tactics of the Trade Unions. Comrade Trotsky’s platform pamphlet is shot through with the spirit of the “shake-up-from-above” policy. Just recall the accusation made against Comrade Tomsky, or “many trade unionists”, that they “tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men”!

But whereas the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions (November 2–6, 1920) only saw the makings of the atmosphere fraught with splits, the split within Tsektran became a fact in early December 1920.

This event is basic and essential to an understanding of the political essence of our controversies; and Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin are mistaken if they think hushing it up will help matters. A hush-up in this case does not produce a “buffer” effect but rouses passions; for the question has not only been placed on the agenda by developments, but has been emphasised by Comrade Trotsky in his platform pamphlet. It is this pamphlet that repeatedly, in the passages I have quoted, particularly in thesis 12, raises the question of whether the essence of the matter is that “many trade unionists tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men”, or that the “hostility” of the masses is legitimate in view of certain useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, for example, in Tsektran.

The issue was bluntly and properly stated by Comrade Zinoviev in his very first speech on December 30, 1920, when he said that it was “Comrade Trotsky’s immoderate adherents” who had brought about a split. Perhaps that is why Comrade Bukharin abusively described Comrade Zinoviev’s speech as “a lot of hot air”? But every Party member who reads the verbatim report of the December 30, 1920 discussion will see that that is not true. He will find that it is Comrade Zinoviev who quotes and operates with the facts, and that it is Trotsky and Bukharin who indulge most in intellectualist verbosity minus the facts.

When Comrade Zinoviev said, “Tsektran stands on feet of clay and has already split into three parts”, Comrade Sosnovsky interrupted and said:

“That is something you have encouraged” (verbatim report, p. 15).

Now this is a serious charge. If it were proved, there would, of course, be no place on the Central Committee, in the R.C.P., or in the trade unions of our Republic for those who were guilty of encouraging a split even in one of the trade unions. Happily, this serious charge was advanced in a thoughtless manner by a comrade who, I regret to say, has now and again been “carried away” by thoughtless polemics before this. Comrade Sosnovsky has even managed to insert “a fly in the ointment” of his otherwise excellent articles, say, on production propaganda, and this has tended to negate all its pluses. Some people (like Comrade Bukharin) are so happily constituted that they are incapable of injecting venom into their attacks even when the fight is bitterest; others, less happily constituted, are liable to do so, and do this all too often. Comrade Sosnovsky would do well to watch his step in this respect, and perhaps even ask his friends to help out.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ϛ΄ μέρος)

But, some will say, the charge is there, even if it has been made in a thoughtless, unfortunate and patently “factional” form. In a serious matter, the badly worded truth is preferable to the hush-up.

That the matter is serious is beyond doubt, for, let me say this again, the crux of the issue lies in this area to a greater extent than is generally suspected. Fortunately, we are in possession of sufficiently objective and conclusive facts to provide an answer in substance to Comrade Sosnovsky’s point.

First of all, there is on the same page of the verbatim report Comrade Zinoviev’s statement denying Comrade Sosnovsky’s allegation and making precise references to conclusive facts. Comrade Zinoviev showed that Comrade Trotsky’s accusation (made obviously, let me add, in an outburst of factional zeal) was quite a different one from Comrade Sosnovsky’s; Comrade Trotsky’s accusation was that Comrade Zinoviev’s speech at the September All-Russia Conference of the R.C.P. had helped to bring about or had brought about the split. (This charge, let me say in parenthesis, is quite untenable, if only because Zinoviev’s September speech was approved in substance by the Central Committee and the Party, and there has been no formal protest against it since.)

Comrade Zinoviev replied that at the Central Committee meeting Comrade Rudzutak had used the minutes to prove that “long before any of my [Zinoviev’s] speeches and the All-Russia Conference the question [concerning certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy in Tsektran] had been examined in Siberia, on the Volga, in the North and in the South”.

That is an absolutely precise and clear-cut statement of fact. It was made by Comrade Zinoviev in his first speech before thousands of the most responsible Party members, and his facts were not refuted either by Comrade Trotsky, who spoke twice later, or by Comrade Bukharin, who also spoke later.

Secondly, the December 7, 1920 resolution of the Central Committee’s Plenary Meeting concerning the dispute between the Communists working in water transport and the Communist group at the Tsektran Conference, given in the same verbatim report, was an even more definite and official refutation of Comrade Sosnovsky’s charges. The part of the resolution dealing with Tsektran says:

“In connection with the dispute between Tsektran and the water transport workers, the Central Committee resolves: 1) To set up a Water Transport Section within the amalgamated Tsektran; 2) To convene a congress of railwaymen and water transport workers in February to hold normal elections to a new Tsektran; 3) To authorise the old Tsektran to function until then; 4) To abolish Glavpolitvod and Glavpolitput immediately and to transfer all their funds and resources to the trade union on normal democratic lines.”

This shows that the water transport workers, far from being censured, are deemed to be right in every essential. Yet none of the C.C. members who had signed the common platform of January 14, 1921 (except Kamenev) voted for the resolution. (The platform referred to is the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions. Draft Decision of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P., submitted to the Central Committee by a group of members of the Central Committee and the trade union commission. Among those who signed it was Lozovsky, a member of the trade union commission but not of the Central Committee. The others were Tomsky, Kalinin, Rudzutak, Zinoviev, Stalin, Lenin, Kamenev, Petrovsky and Artyom Sergeyev.)

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ζ΄ μέρος)

This resolution was carried against the C.C. members listed above, that is, against our group, for we would have voted against allowing the old Tsektran to continue temporarily. Because we were sure to win, Trotsky was forced to vote for Bukharin’s resolution, as otherwise our resolution would have been carried. Comrade Rykov, who had been for Trotsky in November, took part in the trade union commission’s examination of the dispute between Tsektran and the water transport workers in December, and saw that the latter were right.

To sum up: the December 7 majority in the Central Committee consisted of Comrades Trotsky, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov and other C.C. members who are above suspicion of being biased against Tsektran. Yet the substance of their resolution did not censure the water transport workers but Tsektran, which they just stopped short of dissolving there and then. This proves Sosnovsky’s charge to be quite groundless.

There is one other point to be dealt with, if we are to leave no room for ambiguity. What were these “certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy” to which I have repeatedly referred? Isn’t this last charge unsupported or exaggerated?

Once again it was Comrade Zinoviev who, in his very first speech on December 30, 1920, provided the answer which was as precise as one could wish. He quoted from Comrade Zoff’s water transport circular of May 3, 1920: “Committee treadmill abolished.”[3] Comrade Zinoviev was quite right in saying this was a fundamental error. It exemplified the unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy and the “appointments system”. But he said there and then that some appointees were “not half as experienced or as tried” as Comrade Zoff. I have heard Comrade Zoff referred to in the Central Committee as a most valuable worker, and this is fully borne out by my own observations in the Council of Defence. It has not entered anyone’s mind either to make scapegoats of such comrades or to undermine their authority (as Comrade Trotsky suggests, without the least justification, on page 25 of his report). Their authority is not being undermined by those who try to correct the “appointees’” mistakes, but by those who would defend them even when they are wrong.

We see, therefore, that the danger of splits within the trade union movement was not imaginary but real. And we find that the actual disagreements really boiled down to a demand that certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, and the appointments system should not be justified or defended, but corrected. That is all there is to it.

Disagreements On Principle

There being deep and basic disagreements on principle—we may well be asked—do they not serve as vindication for the sharpest and most factional pronouncements? Is it possible to vindicate such a thing as a split, provided there is need to drive home some entirely new idea?

I believe it is, provided of course the disagreements are truly very deep and there is no other way to rectify a wrong trend in the policy of the Party or of the working class.

But the whole point is that there are no such disagreements. Comrade Trotsky has tried to point them out, and failed. A tentative or conciliatory approach had been possible—and necessary—before the publication of his pamphlet (December 25) (“such an approach is ruled out even in the case of disagreements and vague new tasks”); but after its publication we had to say: Comrade Trotsky is essentially wrong on all his new points.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (η΄ μέρος)

This is most evident from a comparison of his theses with Rudzutak’s which were adopted by the Fifth All Russia Conference of Trade Unions (November 2–6). I quoted the latter in my December 30 speech and in the January 21 issue of Pravda. They are fuller and more correct than Trotsky’s, and wherever the latter differs from Rudzutak, he is wrong.

Take this famous “industrial democracy”, which Comrade Bukharin hastened to insert in the Central Committee’s resolution of December 7. It would, of course, be ridiculous to quibble about this ill-conceived brainchild (“tricky flourishes”), if it merely occurred in an article or speech. But, after all, it was Trotsky and Bukharin who put themselves into the ridiculous position by insisting in their theses on this very term, which is the one feature that distinguishes their “platforms” from Rudzutak’s theses adopted by the trade unions.

The term is theoretically wrong. In the final analysis, every kind of democracy, as political superstructure in general (which must exist until classes have been abolished and a classless society established), serves production and is ultimately determined by the relations of production in a given society. It is, therefore, meaningless to single out “industrial democracy”, for this leads to confusion, and the result is a dummy. That is the first point.

The second is that if you look at Bukharin’s own explanation given in the resolution of the C.C. Plenary Meeting on December 7, which he drafted, you will find that he says: “Accordingly, the methods of workers’ democracy must be those of industrial democracy, which means… .” Note the “which means”! The fact is that Bukharin opens his appeal to the masses with such an outlandish term that he must give a gloss on it. This, I think, is undemocratic from the democratic standpoint. You must write for the masses without using terms that require a glossary. This is bad from the “production” standpoint because time is wasted in explaining unnecessary terms. “Which means,” he says, “that nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc., must proceed with an eye not only to their political staunchness, but also business efficiency, administrative experience, leadership, and proved concern for the working people’s material and spiritual interests.”

The reasoning there is obviously artificial and incorrect. For one thing, democracy is more than “nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc.” Then, again, not all elections should be held with an eye to political staunchness and business efficiency. Comrade Trotsky notwithstanding, an organisation of many millions must have a certain percentage of canvassers and bureaucrats (we shall not be able to make do without good bureaucrats for many years to come). But we do not speak of “canvassing” or “bureaucratic” democracy.

The third point is that it is wrong to consider only the elected, the organisers, the administrators, etc. After all, they constitute a minority of outstanding men. It is the mass, the rank and file that we must consider. Rudzutak has it in simpler, more intelligible and theoretically more correct terms (thesis 6):

“… it must be brought home to each participant in production that his production tasks are appropriate and important; that each must not only take a hand in fulfilling his assignments, but also play an intelligent part in correcting any technical and organisational defects in the sphere of production.”

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (θ΄ μέρος)

The fourth point is that “industrial democracy” is a term that lends itself to misinterpretation. It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship and individual authority. It may be read as a suspension of ordinary democracy or a pretext for evading it. Both readings are harmful, and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries.

Rudzutak’s plain statement of the same ideas is more correct and more handy. This is indirectly confirmed by Trotsky’s parallel of “war democracy” which he draws with his own term in an article, “Industrial Democracy”, in Pravda of January 11, and which fails to refute that his term is inaccurate and inconvenient (for he side-steps the whole issue and fails to compare his theses with Rudzutak’s). Happily, as far as I can recall, we have never had any factional controversy over that kind of term.

Trotsky’s “production atmosphere” is even wider of the mark, and Zinoviev had good reason to laugh at it. This made Trotsky very angry, and he came out with this argument: “We once had a war atmosphere… . We must now have a production atmosphere and not only on the surface but deep down in the workers’ mass. This must be as intense and practical an interest in production as was earlier displayed in the fronts….” Well, there you are: the message must be carried “deep down into the workers’ mass” in the language of Rudzutak’s theses, because “production atmosphere” will only earn you a smile or a shrug. Comrade Trotsky’s “production atmosphere” has essentially the same meaning as production propaganda, but such expressions must be avoided when production propaganda is addressed to the workers at large. The term is an example of how not to carry it on among the masses.

Politics And Economics. Dialectics And Eclecticism

It is strange that we should have to return to such elementary questions, but we are unfortunately forced to do so by Trotsky and Bukharin. They have both reproached me for “switching” the issue, or for taking a “political” approach, while theirs is an “economic” one. Bukharin even put that in his theses and tried to “rise above” either side, as if to say that he was combining the two.

This is a glaring theoretical error. I said again in my speech that politics is a concentrated expression of economics, because I had earlier heard my “political” approach rebuked in a manner which is inconsistent and inadmissible for a Marxist. Politics must take precedence over economics. To argue otherwise is to forget the ABC of Marxism.

Am I wrong in my political appraisal? If you think so, say it and prove it. But you forget the ABC of Marxism when you say (or imply) that the political approach is equivalent to the “economic”, and that you can take “the one and the other”.

What the political approach means, in other words, is that the wrong attitude to the trade unions will ruin the Soviet power and topple the dictatorship of the proletariat. (In a peasant country like Russia, the Soviet power would surely go down in the event of a split between the trade unions and a Party in the wrong.) This proposition can (and must) be tested in substance, which means looking into the rights and wrongs of the approach and taking a decision. To say: I “appreciate” your political, approach, “but” it is only a political one and we “also need an economic one”, is tantamount to saying: I “appreciate” your point that in taking that particular step you are liable to break your neck, but you must also take into consideration that it is better to be clothed and well-fed than to go naked and hungry.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ι΄ μέρος)

Bukharin’s insistence on combining the political and the economic approach has landed him in theoretical eclecticism.

Trotsky and Bukharin make as though they are concerned for the growth of production whereas we have nothing but formal democracy in mind. This picture is wrong, because the only formulation of the issue (which the Marxist standpoint allows) is: without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either.

Let us take a concrete example. Zinoviev says: “By carrying things to a split within the trade unions, you are making a political mistake. I spoke and wrote about the growth of production back in January 1920, citing the construction of the public baths as an example.” Trotsky replies: “What a thing to boast of: a pamphlet with the public baths as an example (p. 29),’and not a single word’ about the tasks of the trade unions” (p. 22).

This is wrong. The example of the public baths is worth, you will pardon the pun, a dozen “production atmospheres”, with a handful of “industrial democracies” thrown in. It tells the masses, the whole bulk of them, what the trade unions are to do, and does this in plain and intelligible terms, whereas all these “production atmospheres” and “democracies” are so much murk blurring the vision of the workers’ masses, and dimming their understanding.

Comrade Trotsky also rebuked me for not “saying a word” (p. 66) about “the role that has to be played—and is being played—by the levers known as the trade union apparatus”.

I beg to differ, Comrade Trotsky. By reading out Rudzutak’s theses in toto and endorsing them, I made a statement on the question that was fuller, plainer, clearer and more correct than all your theses, your report or co-report, and speech in reply to the debate. I insist that bonuses in kind and disciplinary comrades’ courts mean a great deal more to economic development, industrial management, and wider trade union participation in production than the absolutely abstract (and therefore empty) talk about “industrial democracy”, “coalescence”, etc.

Behind the effort to present the “production” standpoint (Trotsky) or to overcome a one-sided political approach and combine it with an economic approach (Bukharin) we find:

1) Neglect of Marxism, as expressed in the theoretically incorrect, eclectic definition of the relation between politics and economics;

2) Defence or camouflage of the political mistake expressed in the shake-up policy, which runs through the whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, and which, unless it is admitted and corrected, leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat;

3) A step back in purely economic and production matters, and the question of how to increase production; it is, in fact, a step back from Rudzutak’s practical theses, with their concrete, vital and urgent tasks (develop production propaganda; learn proper distribution of bonuses in kind and correct use of coercion through disciplinary comrades’ courts), to the highbrow, abstract, “empty” and theoretically incorrect general theses which ignore all that is most practical and business-like.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ια΄ μέρος)

That is where Zinoviev and myself, on the one hand, and Trotsky and Bukharin, on the other, actually stand on this question of politics and economics.

I could not help smiling, therefore, when I read Comrade Trotsky’s objection in his speech of December 30: “In his summing-up at the Eighth Congress of Soviets of the debate on the situation, Comrade Lenin said we ought to have less politics and more economics, but when he got to the trade union question he laid emphasis on the political aspect of the matter” (p. 65). Comrade Trotsky thought these words were “very much to the point”. Actually, however, they reveal a terrible confusion of ideas, a truly hopeless “ideological confusion”. Of course, I have always said, and will continue to say, that we need more economics and less politics, but if we are to have this we must clearly be rid of political dangers and political mistakes. Comrade Trotsky’s political mistakes, aggravated by Comrade Bukharin, distract our Party’s attention from economic tasks and “production” work, and, unfortunately, make us waste time on correcting them and arguing it out with the syndicalist deviation (which leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat), objecting to the incorrect approach to the trade union movement (which leads to the collapse of the Soviet power), and debating general “theses”, instead of having a practical and business-like “economic” discussion as to whether it was the Saratov millers, the Donbas miners, the Petrograd metalworkers or some other group that had the best results in coalescing, distributing bonuses in kind, and organising comrades’ courts, on the basis of Rudzutak’s theses, adopted by the Fifth All-Russia-Trade Union Conference on November 2–6.

Let us now consider what good there is in a “broad discussion”. Once again we find political mistakes distracting attention from economic tasks. I was against this “broad” discussion, and I believed, and still do, that it was a mistake—a political mistake—on Comrade Trotsky’s part to disrupt the work of the trade union commission, which ought to have held a business-like discussion. I believe Bukharin’s buffer group made the political mistake of misunderstanding the tasks of the buffer (in which case they had once again substituted eclecticism for dialectics), for from the “buffer” standpoint they should have vigorously opposed any broad discussion and demanded that the matter should be taken up by the trade union commission. Here is what came of this.

On December 30, Bukharin went so far as to say that “we have proclaimed the new and sacred slogan of workers’ democracy, which means that questions are no longer to be discussed in the board-room within the corporation or at small meetings but are to be placed before big meetings. I insist that by taking the trade union issue before such a large meeting as this one we are not taking a step backward but forward” (p. 45). And this man has accused Zinoviev of spouting “hot air” and overdoing the democracy! I say that he himself has given us a lot of hot air and has shown some unexampled bungling; he has completely failed to understand that formal democracy must be subordinate to the revolutionary interest.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιβ΄ μέρος)

Trotsky is in the same boat. His charge is that “Lenin wants at all costs to disrupt or shelve the discussion of the matter in essence” (p. 65). He declares: “My reasons for refusing to serve on the commission were clearly stated in the Central Committee: until such time as I am permitted, on a par with all other comrades, to air these questions fully in the Party press, I do not expect any good to come of any cloistered examination of these matters, and, consequently, of work on the commission” (p. 69).

What is the result? Less than a month has passed since Trotsky started his “broad discussion” on December 25, and you will be hard put to find one responsible Party worker in a hundred who is not fed up with the discussion and has not realised its futility (to say no worse). For Trotsky has made the Party waste time on a discussion of words and bad theses, and has ridiculed as “cloistered” the business-like economic discussion in the commission, which was to have studied and verified practical experience and projected its lessons for progress in real “production” work, in place of the regress from vibrant activity to scholastic exercises in all sorts of “production atmospheres”.

Take this famous “coalescence”. My advice on December 30 was that we should keep mum on this point, because we had not studied our own practical experience, and without that any discussion was bound to degenerate into “hot air” and draw off the Party’s forces from economic work. I said it was bureaucratic projecteering for Trotsky to propose in his theses that from one-third to one-half and from one-half to two-thirds of the economic councils should consist of trade unionists.

For this I was upbraided by Bukharin who, I see from p. 49 of the report, made a point of proving to me at length and in great detail that “when people meet to discuss something, they should not act as deaf-mutes” (sic). Trotsky was also angry and exclaimed:

“Will every one of you please make a note that on this particular date Comrade Lenin described this as a bureaucratic evil. I take the liberty to predict that within a few months we shall have accepted for our guidance and consideration that the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions and the Supreme Economic Council, the Central Committee of the Metalworkers’ Union and the Metals Department, etc., are to have from one-third to one-half of their members in common” (p. 68).

When I read that I asked Comrade Milyutin (Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Economic Council) to let me have the available printed reports on coalescence. I said to myself: why not make a small start on the study of our practical experience; it’s so dull engaging in “general Party talk” (Bukharin’s expression, p. 47, which has every chance of becoming a catchword like “shake-up”) to no useful purpose, without the facts, and inventing disagreements, definitions and “industrial democracies”.

Comrade Milyutin sent me several books, including The Report of the Supreme Economic Council to the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets (Moscow, 1920; preface dated December 19, 1920). On its p. 14 is a table showing workers’ participation in administrative bodies. Here is the table (covering only part of the gubernia economic councils and factories):

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιγ΄ μέρος)


Administrative
Body Total members Workers Specialists Office workers
and others

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Presidium
of Supreme Economic
Council and gubernia
economic councils 187 107 57.2 22 11.8 58 31.0

Collegiums of
chief administrations,
departments,
central boards
and head offices 140 72 51.4 31 22.2 37 26.4

Corporate and 1,143 726 63.5 398 34.8 19 1.7
one-man management
of factories

Total 1,470 905 61.6 451 30.7 114 7.7

It will be seen that 61.6 per cent, that is, closer to two-thirds than to one-half, of the staff of administrative bodies now consists of workers. And this already proves that what Trotsky wrote on this matter in his theses was an exercise in bureaucratic projecteering. To talk, argue and write platforms about “one-third to one-half” and “one-half to two-thirds” is the most useless sort of “general Party talk”, which diverts time, attention and resources from production work. It is empty politicking. All this while, a great deal of good could have been done in the commission, where men of experience would have refused to write any theses without a study of the facts, say, by polling a dozen or so “common functionaries” (out of the thousand), by comparing their impressions and conclusions with objective statistical data, and by making an attempt to obtain practical guidance for the future: that being our experience, do we go straight on, or do we make some change in our course, methods and approach, and how; or do we call a halt, for the good of the cause, and check things over and over again, make a few changes here and there, and so on and so forth.

Comrades, a real “executive” (let me also have a go at “production propaganda”) is well aware that even in the most advanced countries, the capitalists and their executives take years—sometimes ten and more—to study and test their own (and others’) practical experience, making innumerable starts and corrections to tailor a system of management, select senior and junior executives, etc., fit for their particular business. That was the rule under capitalism, which throughout the civilised world based its business practices on the experience and habits of centuries. We who are breaking new ground must put in a long, persistent and patient effort to retrain men and change the old habits which have come down to us from capitalism, but this can only be done little by little. Trotsky’s approach is quite wrong. In his December 30 speech he exclaimed: “Do or do not our workers, Party and trade union functionaries have any production training? Yes or no? I say: No” (p. 29). This is a ridiculous approach. It is like asking whether a division has enough felt boots: Yes or no?

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιδ΄ μέρος)

It is safe to say that even ten years from now we shall have to admit that all our Party and trade union functionaries do not have enough production training, in much the same way as the workers of the Military Department, the trade unions and the Party will not have had enough military experience. But we have made a start on production training by having about a thousand workers, and trade union members and delegates take part in management and run factories, head offices and other bodies higher up the scale. The basic principle underlying “production training”—which is the training of our own selves, of the old underground workers and professional journalists—is that we should start a painstaking and detailed study of our own practical experience, and teach others to do so, according to the rule: Look before you leap. The fundamental and absolute rule behind “production training” is systematic, circumspect, practical and business like verification of what this one thousand have done, and even more efficient and careful correction of their work, taking a step forward only when there is ample proof of the usefulness of a given method, system of management, proportion, selection of men, etc. And it is this rule that Comrade Trotsky has broken by his theses and approach. All his theses, his entire platform pamphlet, are so wrong that they have diverted the Party’s attention and resources from practical “production” work to a lot of empty talk.

Dialectics and Eclecticism
“School” and “Apparatus”

Among Comrade Bukharin’s many excellent traits are his theoretical ability and keen interest in getting at the theoretical roots of every question. That is a very valuable trait because you cannot have a proper understanding of any mistake, let alone a political one, unless you dig down to its theoretical roots among the basic premises of the one who makes it.

Responding to this urge, Comrade Bukharin tended to shift the controversy into the theoretical sphere, beginning from December 30, if not earlier.

In his speech on that day he said: “That neither the political nor the economic factor can be ignored is, I believe, absolutely incontrovertible—and that is the theoretical essence of what is here known as the ‘buffer group’ or its ideology” (p. 47).

The gist of his theoretical mistake in this case is substitution of eclecticism for the dialectical interplay of politics and economics (which we find in Marxism). His theoretical attitude is: “on the one hand, and on the other”, “the one and the other”. That is eclecticism. Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development but not a patchwork of bits and pieces. I have shown this to be so on the example of politics and economics.

That of the “buffer” has gone to reinforce the point. You need a buffer, and it is useful when the Party train is heading for a crash. No question about that at all. Bukharin has built up his “buffer” problem eclectically, by collecting odd pieces from Zinoviev and Trotsky. As a “buffer”, Bukharin should have decided for himself just where, when and how each individual or group had made their mistake, whether it was a theoretical mistake, one of political tact, factional pronouncement, or exaggeration, etc. He should have done that and gone hammer and tongs at every such mistake. But he has failed to understand his task of “buffer”, and here is good proof of it.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιε΄ μέρος)

The Communist group of Tsektran’s Petrograd Bureau (the C.C. of the Railwaymen’s and Water Transport Workers’ Union), an organisation sympathising with Trotsky, has stated its opinion that, “on the main issue of the trade unions’ role in production, Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin hold views which are variations of one and the same standpoint”. It has issued Comrade Bukharin’s report in Petrograd on January 3, 1921, in pamphlet form (N. Bukharin, The Tasks of the Trade Unions, Petrograd, 1921). It says:

“Comrade Trotsky’s original formulation was that the trade union leadership should be removed and suitable comrades found to take their place, etc. He had earlier advocated a ‘shake-up’, but he has now abandoned the idea, and it is therefore quite absurd to use it as an argument against him” (p. 5).

I will let pass the numerous factual inaccuracies in this statement. (Trotsky used the term “shake-up” at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, November 2–6. He mentions “selection of leadership” in Paragraph 5 of his theses which he submitted to the Central Committee on November 8, and which, incidentally, some of his supporters have published as a leaflet. The whole of Trotsky’s pamphlet, The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions, December 25, reveals the same kind of mentality, the same spirit as I have pointed out before. When and how he “abandoned” this attitude remains a mystery.) I am now dealing with a different matter. When the “buffer” is an eclectic, he passes over some mistakes and brings up others; he says nothing of them in Moscow on December 30, 1920, when addressing thousands of R.C.P. functionaries from all over Russia; but he brings them up in Petrograd on January 3, 1921. When the “buffer” is a dialectician, he directs the full brunt of his attack at every mistake he sees on either side, or on all sides. And that is something Bukharin does not do. He does not even try to examine Trotsky’s pamphlet in the light of the “shake-up” policy. He simply says nothing about it. No wonder his buffer performance has made everyone laugh.

To proceed. In that same Petrograd speech he says (p. 7):

“Comrade Trotsky’s mistake is insufficient support for the school-of-communism idea.”

During the December 30 discussion, Bukharin reasoned as follows:

“Comrade Zinoviev has said that the trade unions are a school of communism, and Trotsky has said that they are a technical and administrative apparatus for industrial management. I see no logical grounds for proof that either proposition is wrong; both, and a combination of both, are right” (p. 48).

Bukharin and his “group” or “faction” make the same point in their thesis 6: “On the one hand, they [the trade unions] are a school of communism … and on the other, they are—increasingly—a component part of the economic apparatus and of state administration in general” (Pravda, January 16).

That is where we find Comrade Bukharin’s fundamental theoretical mistake, which is substitution of eclecticism (especially popular with the authors of diverse “fashionable” and reactionary philosophical systems) for Marxist dialectics.

When Comrade Bukharin speaks of “logical” grounds, his whole reasoning shows that he takes—unconsciously, perhaps—the standpoint of formal or scholastic logic, and not of dialectical or Marxist logic. Let me explain this by taking the simple example which Comrade Bukharin himself gives. In the December 30 discussion he said:

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιϛ΄ μέρος)

“Comrades, many of you may find that the current controversy suggests something like this: two men come in and invite each other to define the tumbler on the lectern. One says: ‘It is a glass cylinder, and a curse on anyone who says different.’ The other one says: ‘A tumbler is a drinking vessel, and a curse on anyone who says different’” (p. 46).

The reader will see that Bukharin’s example was meant to give me a popular explanation of the harm of one-track thinking. I accept it with gratitude, and in the one-good turn-deserves-another spirit offer a popular explanation of the difference between dialectics and eclecticism.

A tumbler is assuredly both a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel. But there are more than these two properties, qualities or facets to it; there are an infinite number of them, an infinite number of “mediacies” and inter-relationships with the rest of the world. A tumbler is a heavy object which can be used as a missile; it can serve as a paper weight, a receptacle for a captive butterfly, or a valuable object with an artistic engraving or design, and this has nothing at all to do with whether or not it can be used for drinking, is made of glass, is cylindrical or not quite, and so on and so forth.

Moreover, if I needed a tumbler just now for drinking, it would not in the least matter how cylindrical it was, and whether it was actually made of glass; what would matter though would be whether it had any holes in the bottom, or anything that would cut my lips when I drank, etc. But if I did not need a tumbler for drinking but for a purpose that could be served by any glass cylinder, a tumbler with a cracked bottom or without one at all would do just as well, etc.

Formal logic, which is as far as schools go (and should go, with suitable abridgements for the lower forms), deals with formal definitions, draws on what is most common, or glaring, and stops there. When two or more different definitions are taken and combined at random (a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel), the result is an eclectic definition which is indicative of different facets of the object, and nothing more.

Dialectical logic demands that we should go further. Firstly, if we are to have a true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and “mediacies”. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity. Secondly, dialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in “self-movement” (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world. Thirdly, a full “definition” of an object must include the whole of human experience, both as a criterion of truth and a practical indicator of its connection with human wants. Fourthly, dialectical logic holds that “truth is always concrete, never abstract”, as the late Plekhanov liked to say after Hegel. (Let me add in parenthesis for the benefit of young Party members that you cannot hope to become a real, intelligent Communist without making a study—and I mean study—of all of Plekhanov’s philosophical writings, because nothing better has been written on Marxism anywhere in the world.[3b])

I have not, of course, run through the whole notion of dialectical logic, but what I have said will do for the present. I think we can return from the tumbler to the trade unions and Trotsky’s platform.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιζ΄ μέρος)

“A school, on the one hand, and an apparatus on the other”, says Bukharin, and writes as much in his theses. Trotsky’s mistake is “insufficient support for the school-of-communism idea”; Zinoviev errs by being lukewarm on the apparatus “factor”.

Why is Bukharin’s reasoning no more than inert and empty eclecticism? It is because he does not even try to make an independent analysis, from his own standpoint, either of the whole course of the current controversy (as Marxism, that is, dialectical logic, unconditionally demands) or of the whole approach to the question, the whole presentation—the whole trend of the presentation, if you will—of the question at the present time and in these concrete circumstances. You do not see Bukharin doing that at all! His approach is one of pure abstraction: he makes no attempt at concrete study, and takes bits and pieces from Zinoviev and Trotsky. That is eclecticism.

Here is another example to clarify the picture. I know next to nothing about the insurgents and revolutionaries of South China (apart from the two or three articles by Sun Yat-sen, and a few books and newspaper articles I read many years ago). Since there are these uprisings, it is not too far-fetched to assume a controversy going on between Chinese No. 1, who says that the insurrection is the product of a most acute nation-wide class struggle, and Chinese No. 2, who says that insurrection is an art. That is all I need to know in order to write theses à la Bukharin: “On the one hand, … on the other hand”. The one has failed to reckon with the art “factor”, and the other, with the “acuteness factor”, etc. Because no concrete study is made of this particular controversy, question, approach, etc., the result is a dead and empty eclecticism.

On the one hand, the trade unions are a school, and on the other, an apparatus; but they also happen to be an organisation of working people, an almost exclusive organisation of industrial workers, an organisation by industry, etc.[3c] Bukharin does not make any analysis for himself, nor does he produce a shred of evidence to prove why it is that we should consider the first two “facets” of the question or object, instead of the third, the fourth, the fifth, etc. That is why his group’s theses are an eclectic soap bubble. His presentation of the “school-apparatus” relationship is fundamentally eclectic and wrong.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιη΄ μέρος)

The only way to view this question in the right light is to descend from empty abstractions to the concrete, that is, the present issue. Whether you take it in the form it assumed at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, or as it was presented and slanted by Trotsky himself in his platform pamphlet of December 25, you will find that his whole approach is quite wrong and that he has gone off at a tangent. He has failed to understand that the trade unions can and must be viewed as a school both when raising the question of “Soviet trade-unionism”, and when speaking of production propaganda in general, and even when considering “coalescence” and trade union participation in industrial management, as Trotsky does. On this last point, as it is presented in Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, the mistake lies in his failure to grasp that the trade unions are a school of technical and administrative management of production. In the context of the controversy, you cannot say: “a school, on the one hand, and something else on the other”; given Trotsky’s approach, the trade unions, whichever way you look at them, are a school. They are a school of unity, solidarity, management and administration, where you learn how to protect your interests. Instead of making an effort to comprehend and correct Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake, Comrade Bukharin has produced a funny little amendment: “On the one hand, and on the other.”

Let us go deeper into the question. Let us see what the present trade unions are, as an “apparatus” of industrial management. We have seen from the incomplete returns that about 900 workers—trade union members and delegates—are engaged in industrial management. If you multiply this number by 10 or even by 100—if it helps to clarify your fundamental mistake let us assume this incredible speed of “advance” in the immediate future—you still have an insignificant proportion of those directly engaged in management, as compared with the mass of six million trade union members. This makes it even clearer that it is quite wrong to look to the “leading stratum”, and talk about the trade unions’ role in production and industrial management, as Trotsky does, forgetting that 98.5 per cent (6 million minus 90,000 equals 5,910,000 or 98.5 per cent of the total) are learning, and will have to continue to do so for a long time to come. Don’t say school and management, say school of management.

In his December 30 argument against Zinoviev, whom he accused, quite groundlessly and incorrectly, of denying the “appointments system”, that is, the Central Committee’s right and duty to make appointments, Comrade Trotsky inadvertently drew the following telltale comparison:

“Zinoviev tends to overdo the propaganda angle on every practical matter, forgetting that it is not only a source of material for agitation, but also a problem requiring an administrative solution” (p. 27).

Before I explain in detail the potential administrative approach to the issue, let me say that Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake is that he treats (rather, maltreats) the questions he himself had brought up in his platform pamphlet as administrative ones, whereas they could be and ought to be viewed only from the propaganda angle.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιθ΄ μέρος)

In effect, what are Trotsky’s good points? One undoubtedly good and useful point is his production propaganda, but that is not in his theses, but in his speeches, especially when he forgets about his unfortunate polemics with the allegedly “conservative” wing of the trade-unionists. He would undoubtedly have done (and I believe he will do) a great deal of good in the trade union commission’s practical business, as speaker and writer, and as a member of the All-Russia Production Propaganda Bureau. His platform theses were a mistake, for through them, like a scarlet thread, runs the administrative approach to the “crisis” and the “two trends” within the trade unions, the interpretation of the R.C.P. Programme, “Soviet trade-unionism”, “production training” and “coalescence”. I have listed all the main points of Trotsky’s “platform” and they all happen to be topics which, considering the material at Trotsky’s disposal, can be correctly approached at the present time only from the propaganda angle.

The state is a sphere of coercion. It would be madness to renounce coercion, especially in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat, so that the administrative approach and “steerage” are indispensable. The Party is the leader, the vanguard of the proletariat, which rules directly. It is not coercion but expulsion from the Party that is the specific means of influence and the means of purging and steeling the vanguard. The trade unions are a reservoir of the state power, a school of communism and a school of management. The specific and cardinal thing in this sphere is not administration but the “ties” “between the central state administration” (and, of course, the local as well), “the national economy and the broad masses of the working people” (see Party Programme, economic section, §5, dealing with the trade unions).

The whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet betrays an incorrect approach to the problem and a misunderstanding of this relationship.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κ΄ μέρος)

Let us assume that Trotsky had taken a different approach to this famous question of “coalescence” in connection with the other topics of his platform, and that his pamphlet was entirely devoted to a detailed investigation of, say, 90 of the 900 cases of “coalescence” where trade union officials and members concurrently held elective trade union posts and Supreme Economic Council posts in industrial management. Let us say these 90 cases had been analysed together with the returns of a selective statistical survey, the reports of inspectors and instructors of Rabkrin and the People’s Commissariats concerned: let us say they had been analysed in the light of the data supplied by the administrative bodies, the results of the work, the headway in production, etc. That would have been a correct administrative approach, and would have fully indicated the “shake-up” line, which implies concentrating attention on removals, transfers, appointments and the immediate demands to be made on the “leading stratum”. When Bukharin said in his January 3 speech, published by the Tsektran people in Petrograd, that Trotsky had at first wanted a “shake-up” but had now abandoned the idea, he made another one of his eclectical mistakes, which is ridiculous from the practical standpoint and theoretically inadmissible for a Marxist. He takes the question in the abstract, being unable (or unwilling) to get down to brass tacks. So long as we, the Party’s Central Committee and the whole Party, continue to run things, that is, govern, we shall never—we cannot—dispense with the “shake-up”, that is, removals, transfers, appointments, dismissals, etc. But Trotsky’s platform pamphlet deals with something else, and does not raise the “question of practical business” at all. It is not this but the “trends within the trade union movement” (Trotsky’s thesis 4, end) that was being debated by Zinoviev and Trotsky, Bukharin and myself, and in fact the whole Party.

This is essentially a political question. Because of the substance of the case—this concrete, particular “case “—it is impossible to correct Trotsky’s mistake by means of eclectic little amendments and addenda, as Bukharin has been trying to do, being moved undoubted]y by the most humane sentiments and intensions.

There is only one answer.

First, there must be a correct solution of the political question of the “trends within the trade union movement”, the relationship between classes, between politics and economics, the specific role of the state, the Party, the trade unions, as “school” and apparatus, etc.

Second, once the correct political decision has been adopted, a diversified nation-wide production propaganda campaign must be carried through, or, rather, systematically carried forward with persistence and patience over a long term, under the sponsorship and direction of a state agency. It should be conducted in such a way as to cover the same ground over and over again.

Third, the “questions of practical business” must not be confused with trend issues which properly belong to the sphere of general Party talk” and broad discussions; they must be dealt with as practical matters in the working commissions, with a hearing of witnesses and a study of memoranda, reports and statistics. And any necessary “shake-up” must be carried out only on that basis and in those circumstances: only under a decision of the competent Soviet or Party organ, or of both.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κα΄ μέρος)

Trotsky and Bukharin have produced a hodgepodge of political mistakes in approach, breaks in the middle of the transmission belts, and unwarranted and futile attacks on “administrative steerage”. It is now clear where the “theoretical” source of the mistake lies, since Bukharin has taken up that aspect of it with his example of the tumbler. His theoretical—in this case, gnosiological— mistake lies in his substitution of eclecticism for dialectics. His eclectic approach has confused him and has landed him in syndicalism. Trotsky’s mistake is one-track thinking, compulsiveness, exaggeration and obstinacy. His platform says that a tumbler is a drinking vessel, but this particular tumbler happens to have no bottom.

Conclusion

It remains for me to go over a few more points which must be dealt with to prevent misunderstanding.

Thesis 6 of Trotsky’s platform quotes Paragraph 5 of the economic section of the R.C.P. Programme, which deals with the trade unions. Two pages later, his thesis 8 says:

“Having lost the old basis of their existence, the class economic struggle, the trade unions… “ (that is wrong, and is a hasty exaggeration: the trade unions no longer have to face the class economic struggle but the non-class “economic struggle”, which means combating bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet apparatus, safeguarding the working people’s material and spiritual interests in ways and means inaccessible to this apparatus, etc. This is a struggle they will unfortunately have to face for many more years to come). “The trade unions,” says Trotsky, “have, for various reasons, not yet succeeded in mustering the necessary forces and working out the necessary methods enabling them to solve the new task, that of organising production” (Trotsky’s italics, p. 9, thesis 8), “set before them by the proletarian revolution and formulated in our Programme.”

That is yet another hasty exaggeration which is pregnant with grave error. The Programme does not contain any such formulation nor does it set the trade unions the task of “organising production”. Let us go over the propositions in the Party’s Programme as they unfold in the text:

(1) “The organisational apparatus” (but not the others) “of socialised industry should rely chiefly” (but not exclusively) “on the trade unions.” (2) “They must to an ever increasing degree divest themselves of the narrow craft-union spirit” (how? under the leadership of the Party and through the proletariat’s educational and other influence on the non-proletarian mass of working people) “and become large industrial associations, embracing the majority, and eventually all of the workers in the given industry.”

That is the first part of the section of the Party Programme dealing with the trade unions. You will have noted that it starts by laying down very “strict conditions” demanding a long sustained effort for what is to follow. And what follows is this:

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κβ΄ μέρος)

“The trade unions being, on the strength of the laws of the Soviet Republic and established practice, participants” (note the cautious statement: participants only) “in all the local and central organs of industrial management, should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration in their hands of the whole administration of the whole national economy, as a single economic entity” (note this: should arrive at a de facto concentration of management not of branches of industry and not of industry as a whole, but of the whole national economy, and moreover, as an economic entity. In economic terms, this condition may be considered fulfilled only when the petty producers both in industry and agriculture account for less than one-half of the population and the national economy). “The trade unions ensuring in this way” (the way which helps to realise all the conditions listed earlier) “indissoluble ties between the central state administration, the national economy and the broad masses of working people, should draw the latter” (that is, the masses, the majority of the population) “into direct economic management on the widest possible scale. At the same time, the participation of the trade unions in economic management and their activity in drawing the broad masses into this work are the principal means of combating the bureaucratisation of the economic apparatus of the Soviet power and making possible the establishment of truly popular control over the results of production.”

There again, in that last sentence, we find a very cautious phrase: “participation in economic management”; and another reference to the recruitment of the broad masses as the chief (but not the only) means of combating bureaucratic practices; finally, we find a highly cautious statement: “making possible” the establishment of “popular”—that is, workers’ and peasants’, and not just purely proletarian—“control”.

It is obviously wrong to boil this down to the Party Programme “formulating” the trade unions’ task as “organisation of production”. And if you insist on this error, and write it into your platform theses, you will get nothing but an anti-communist, syndicalist deviation.

Incidentally, Comrade Trotsky says in his theses that “over the last period we have not made any headway towards the goal set forth in the Programme but have in fact retreated from it” (p. 7, thesis 6). That statement is unsupported, and, I think, wrong. It is no proof to say, as Trotsky did in the discussions, that the trade unions “themselves” admit this. That is not the last resort, as far as the Party is concerned, and, generally speaking, the proof lies only in a serious and objective study of a great number of facts. Moreover, even if such proof were forthcoming, there would remain this question: Why have we retreated? Is it because “many trade-unionists” are “balking at the new tasks and methods”, as Trotsky believes, or because “we have not yet succeeded in mustering the necessary forces and working out the necessary methods” to cut short and correct certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy?

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κγ΄ μέρος)

Which brings me to Bukharin’s rebuke of December 30 (repeated by Trotsky yesterday, January 24, during our discussion in the Communist group of the Second Miners’ Congress) that we have “dropped the line laid down by the Ninth Party Congress” (p. 46 of the report on the December 30 discussion). He alleged that at that Congress I had defended the militarisation of labour and had jeered at references to democracy, all of which I now “repudiate”. In his reply to the debate on December 30, Comrade Trotsky added this barb: “Lenin takes account of the fact that … there is a grouping of opposition-minded comrades within the trade unions” (p. 65); that I view it from the “diplomatic angle” (p. 69), and that there is “manoeuvring inside the Party groups” (p. 70), etc. Putting such a complexion on the case is, of course, highly flattering for Trotsky, and worse than unflattering for me. But let us look at the facts.

In that same discussion on December 30, Trotsky and Krestinsky established the fact that “as long ago as July (1920), Comrade Preobrazhensky had proposed to the Central Committee that we should switch to a new track in respect of the internal life of our workers’ organisations” (p. 25). In August, Comrade Zinoviev drafted a letter, and the Central Committee approved a C.C. Letter on combating red-tape and extending democracy. In September, the question was brought up at a Party conference whose decisions were endorsed by the Central Committee. In December, the question of combating red-tape was laid before the Eighth Congress of Soviets. Consequently, the whole Central Committee, the whole Party and the whole workers’ and peasants’ Republic had recognised that the question of the bureaucracy and ways of combating its evils was high on the agenda. Does any “repudiation” of the Ninth Congress of the R.C.P. follow from all this? Of course, not. The decisions on the militarisation of labour, etc., are incontestable, and there is no need for me at all to withdraw any of my jibes at the references to democracy by those who challenged these decisions. What does follow is that we shall be extending democracy in the workers’ organisations, without turning it into a fetish; that we shall redouble our attention to the struggle against bureaucratic practices; and that we shall take special care to rectify any unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, no matter who points them out.

One final remark on the minor question of priority and equalisation. I said during the December 30 discussion that Trotsky’s formulation of thesis 41 on this point was theoretically wrong, because it implied priority in production and equalisation in consumption. I replied that priority implied preference and that that was nothing unless you also had it in consumption. Comrade Trotsky reproached me for “extraordinary forgetfulness” and “intimidation” (pp. 67 and 68), and I am surprised to find that he has not accused me also of manoeuvring, diplomatic moves, etc. He has made “concessions” to my equalitarian line, but I have attacked him.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κδ΄ μέρος)

Actually, however, anyone who takes an interest in Party affairs, can turn to indisputable Party documents: the November resolution of the C.C. Plenum, point 4, and Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, thesis 41. However “forgetful” I may be, and however excellent Comrade Trotsky’s memory, it is still a fact that thesis 41 contains a theoretical error, which the C.C. resolution of November 9 does not. The resolution says: “While recognising the necessity of keeping to the principle of priority in carrying out the economic plan, the Central Committee, in complete solidarity with the decisions of the last All-Russia Conference (September), deems it necessary to effect a gradual but steady transition to equality in the status of various groups of workers and their respective trade unions, all the while building up the organisation on the scale of the union as a whole.” That is clearly aimed against Tsektran, and it is quite impossible to put any other construction on the exact meaning of the resolution. Priority is here to stay. Preference is still to be given to enterprises, trade unions, trusts and departments on the priority list (in regard to fulfilment of the economic plan), but at the same time, the “equalitarian line”—which was supported not by “Comrade Lenin alone”, but was approved by the Party Conference and the Central Committee, that is, the entire Party—makes this clear-cut demand: get on with the gradual but steady transition to equalisation. That Tsektran failed to carry out this C.C. resolution (November) is evident from the Central Committee’s December resolution (on Trotsky and Bukharin’s motion), which contains another reminder of the “principles of ordinary democracy”. The theoretical error in thesis 41 is that it says: equalisation in consumption, priority in production. That is an economic absurdity because it implies a gap between production and consumption. I did not say—and could never have said—anything of the sort. If you don’t need a factory, close it down. Close down all the factories that are not absolutely essential, and give preference to those that are. Give preference to, say, transport. Most certainly. But the preference must not be overdone, as it was in Tsektran’s case, which was why the Party (and not just Lenin) issued this directive: get on with the gradual but steady transition to equality. And Trotsky has no one but himself to blame for having come out—after the November Plenary Meeting, which gave a clear-cut and theoretically correct solution—with a factional pamphlet on “the two trends” and proposed a formulation in his thesis 41 which is wrong in economic terms.

* * *

Today, January 25, it is exactly one month since Comrade Trotsky’s factional statement. It is now patent that this pronouncement, inappropriate in form and wrong in essence, has diverted the Party from its practical economic and production effort into rectifying political and theoretical mistakes. But, it’s an ill wind, as the old saying goes.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κε΄ μέρος)

Rumour has it that some terrible things have been said about the disagreements on the Central Committee. Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries undoubtedly shelter (and have sheltered) behind the opposition, and it is they who are spreading the rumours, incredibly malicious formulations, and inventions of all sorts to malign the Party, put vile interpretations on its decisions, aggravate conflicts and ruin its work. That is a political trick used by the bourgeoisie, including the petty-bourgeois democrats, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who, for very obvious reasons, hate—and cannot help hating—the Bolsheviks’ guts. Every intelligent member of the Party is familiar with this political trick, and knows its worth.

Because of the disagreements on the Central Committee, it had to appeal to the Party, and the discussions that followed clearly revealed the essence and scope of these disagreements. That killed the rumours and the slander. The Party learns its lessons and is tempered in the struggle against factionalism, a new malaise (it is new in the sense that after the October Revolution we had forgotten all about it). Actually, it is an old malaise, with relapses apparently bound to occur over the next few years, but with an easier cure now well in sight.

The Party is learning not to blow up its disagreements. Let me quote at this point Comrade Trotsky’s correct remark about Comrade Tomsky: “I have always said —even when the polemic against Comrade Tomsky was at its bitterest—that it is quite clear to me that only men with his experience and authority ought to be our trade union leaders. I told this to the Party group of the Fifth Conference of the Trade Unions, and repeated it at the Zimin theatre a few days ago. Ideological struggle within the Party does not mean mutual ostracism but mutual influence”[4] (p. 34 of the report on the December 30 discussion). The Party will naturally apply this correct approach to Comrade Trotsky himself.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κϛ΄ μέρος)

During the discussion it was Comrade Shlyapnikov and his group, the so-called Workers’ Opposition, who showed the most pronounced syndicalist trend. This being an obvious deviation from communism and the Party, we shall have to reckon with it, talk it over, and make a special propaganda effort to explain the error of these views and the danger of making such mistakes. Comrade Bukharin, who actually coined the syndicalist phrase “mandatory nominations” (by trade unions to management bodies) tries to vindicate himself in today’s issue of Pravda, but I’m afraid his line of defence is highly ineffective and quite wrong. He wants us to know, you see, that he deals with the role of the Party in his other points. I should think so! If it were otherwise it would have been more than just a mistake, requiring correction and allowing some slight rectification: it would have been withdrawal from the Party. When you say “mandatory nominations” but neglect to add, there and then, that they are not mandatory for the Party, you have a syndicalist deviation, and that is incompatible with communism and the Party Programme If you add: “mandatory but not for the Party” you are giving the non-Party workers a false sense of having some increase in their rights, whereas in fact there will be no change at all. The longer Comrade Bukharin persists in his deviation from communism—a deviation that is wrong theoretically and deceptive politically—the more deplorable will be the fruits of his obstinacy. You cannot maintain an untenable proposition. The Party does not object to the extension of the rights of the non-Party workers in general, but a little reflection will show what can and what cannot be done in this respect.

In the discussion by the Communist group of the Second All-Russia Miners’ Congress, Shlyapnikov’s platform was defeated despite the backing it got from Comrade Kiselyov, who commands special prestige in that union: our platform won 137 votes, Shlyapnikov’s, 62, and Trotsky’s, 8. The syndicalist malaise must and will be cured.

In this one month, Petrograd, Moscow and a number of provincial towns have shown that the Party responded to the discussion and has rejected Comrade Trotsky’s wrong line by an overwhelming majority. While there may have been some vacillation “at the top” and “in the provinces”, in the committees and in the offices, the rank-and-file membership—the mass of Party workers—came out solidly against this wrong line.

Comrade Kamenev informed me of Comrade Trotsky’s announcement, during the discussion in the Zamoskvorechye District of Moscow on January 23, that he was withdrawing his platform and joining up with the Bukharin group on a new platform. Unfortunately, I heard nothing of this from Comrade Trotsky either on January 23 or 24, when he spoke against me in the Communist group of the Miners’ Congress. I don’t know whether this is due to another change in Comrade Trotsky’s platform and intentions, or to some other reason. In any case, his January 23 announcement shows that the Party, without so much as mustering all its forces, and with only Petrograd, Moscow and a minority of the provincial towns going on record, has corrected Comrade Trotsky’s mistake promptly and with determination.

The Party’s enemies had rejoiced too soon. They have not been able—and will never be able—to take advantage of some of the inevitable disagreements within the Party to inflict harm on it and on the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.

January 25, 1921

Delivered: 25 January, 1921

First Published: January 1921 by the Press Department of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’ and Red Army Deputies; Published according to the pamphlet text collated with the manuscript

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κζ΄ μέρος — τελευταίο)

Endnotes

[1] Lenin began writing the pamphlet on January 21 or 22, 1921, in Gorki where he was taking a rest. Upon his return to Moscow on January 22, he handed the greater part of the pamphlet to his secretary for typing. He finished the work on January 25 and had it sent to the printer’s. Late on January 26, C.C. members who were going to attend local discussions of the trade unions’ role and tasks were given copies of the printed pamphlet, while the rest of the copies were ready on January 27.

[2] Petrogradskaya Pravda (Petrograd Truth)—a daily published from April 2, 1918, as the organ of the Bolshevik Central and Petrograd Party Committees. Since January 1924, it has been appearing as Leningradskaya Pravda.

[3] V. I. Zoff’s circular of May 3, 1920, was published in the Bulleten Mariinskogo Oblastnogo Upravlenia Vodnogo Transporta (Bulletin of the Mariinsky Regional Water Transport Administration) No. 5, 1920. It ran: “A great change is about to occur in the life of water transport: primitive methods, committee treadmill, haphazard work and anarchy are on the way out. Water transport is becoming a state enterprise, headed by political commissars with appropriate powers. Committees, trade unions and elected delegates will no longer have the power to interfere in technical and administrative matters.”

[3b] By the way, it would be a good thing, first, if the current edition of Plekhanov’s works contained a special volume or volumes of all his philosophical articles, with detailed indexes, etc., to be included in a series of standard textbooks on communism; secondly I think the workers’ state must demand that professors of philosophy should have a knowledge of Plekhanov’s exposition of Marxist philosophy and ability to impart it to their students. But all that is a digression from “propaganda” to “administration”—Lenin.

[3c] Incidentally, here again Trotsky makes a mistake. He thinks that an industrial union is designed to control industry. That is wrong. When you say that a union is an industrial one you mean that it admits to membership workers in one industry, which is inevitable at the present level of technology and culture (in Russia and elsewhere).—Lenin.

The order was an example of administration by injunction and bureaucratic practices, which Tsektran’s leadership was introducing, and was evidence of their misunderstanding of the trade unions’ role in getting transport back on its feet. The trade unions were equated with outdated army committees, and barred by order from taking part in improving water transport operations.

[4] On December 24, 1920, in what used to be the Zimin theatre, Trotsky gave a report on the trade unions tasks in production at a joint meeting of trade union activists and delegates to the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets, called by the Central Committee of the Joint Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers. It started the open Party discussion on the trade unions.

V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 70–107

(Τέλος)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (β΄ μέρος)

If this is not the formation of a faction by a member of the Central Committee, if this does not mean “heading for a crash”, then let Comrade Bukharin, or anyone of his fellow-thinkers, explain to the Party any other possible meaning of the words “factionalism “, and the Party “seems to be heading for a crash”. Who can be more purblind than men wishing to play the “buffer” and closing their eyes to such a “danger of a crash”?

Just imagine: after the Central Committee had spent two plenary meetings (November 9 and December 7) in an unprecedentedly long, detailed and heated discussion of Comrade Trotsky’s original draft theses and of the entire trade union policy that he advocates for the Party, one member of the Central Committee, one out of nineteen, forms a group outside the Central Committee and presents its “collective work” as a “platform”, inviting the Party Congress “to choose between two trends”! This, incidentally, quite apart from the fact that Comrade Trotsky’s announcement of two and only two trends on December 25, 1920, despite Bukharin’s coming out as a “buffer” on November 9, is a glaring exposure of the Bukharin group’s true role as abettors of the worst and most harmful sort of factionalism. But I ask any Party member: Don’t you find this attack and insistence upon choosing” between two trends in the trade union movement rather sudden? What is there for us to do but stare in astonishment at the fact that after three years of the proletarian dictatorship even one Party member can be found to “attack” the two trends issue in this way?

Nor is that all. Look at the factional attacks in which this pamphlet abounds. In the very first thesis we find a threatening “gesture” at “certain workers in the trade union movement” who are thrown “back to trade-unionism, pure and simple, which the Party repudiated in principle long ago “ (evidently the Party is represented by only one member of the Central Committee’s nineteen). Thesis 8 grandiloquently condemns “the craft conservatism prevalent among the top trade union functionaries” (note the truly bureaucratic concentration of attention on the “top”!). Thesis 11 opens with the astonishingly tactful, conclusive and business-like (what is the most polite word for it?) “hint” that the “majority of the trade unionists … give only formal, that is, verbal, recognition” to the resolutions of the Party’s Ninth Congress.

We find that we have some very authoritative judges before us who say the majority(!) of the trade unionists give only verbal recognition to the Party’s decisions.

Thesis 12 reads:

“… many trade unionists take an ever more aggressive and uncompromising stand against the prospect of ‘coalescence’… . Among them we find Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky.

“What is more, many trade unionists, balking at the new tasks, and methods, tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of corporative exclusiveness and hostility for the new men who are being drawn into the given branch of the economy, thereby actually fostering the survivals of craft-unionism among the organised workers.”

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (γ΄ μέρος)

Let the reader go over these arguments carefully and ponder them. They simply abound in “gems”. Firstly, the pronouncement must be assessed from the standpoint of factionalism! Imagine what Trotsky would have said, and how he would have said it, if Tomsky had published a platform accusing Trotsky and “many” military workers of cultivating the spirit of bureaucracy, fostering the survivals of savagery, etc. What is the “role” of Bukharin, Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov and the others who fail to see—positively fail to note, utterly fail to note—the aggressiveness and factionalism of all this, and refuse to see how much more factional it is than the pronouncement of the Petrograd comrades?

Secondly, take a closer look at the approach to the subject: many trade unionists “tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit”… . This is an out-and-out bureaucratic approach. The whole point, you see, is not the level of development and living conditions of the masses in their millions, but the “spirit” which Tomsky and Lozovsky tend to cultivate “in their midst”.

Thirdly, Comrade Trotsky has unwittingly revealed the essence of the whole controversy which he and the Bukharin and Co. “buffer” have been evading and camouflaging with such care.

What is the point at issue? Is it the fact that many trade unionists are balking at the new tasks and methods and tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new officials?

Or is it that the masses of organised workers are legitimately protesting and inevitably showing readiness to throw out the new officials who refuse to rectify the useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy?

Is it that someone has refused to understand the “new tasks and methods”?

Or is it that someone is making a clumsy attempt to cover up his defence of certain useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy with a lot of talk about new tasks and methods?

It is this essence of the dispute that the reader should bear in mind.

Formal Democracy and the Revolutionary Interest

“Workers’ democracy is free from fetishes”, Comrade Trotsky writes in his theses, which are the “fruit of collective work”. “Its sole consideration is the revolutionary interest” (thesis 23).

Comrade Trotsky’s theses have landed him in a mess. That part of them which is correct is not new and, what is more, turns against him. That which is new is all wrong.

I have written out Comrade Trotsky’s correct propositions. They turn against him not only on the point in thesis 23 (Glavpolitput) but on the others as well.

Under the rules of formal democracy, Trotsky had a right to come out with a factional platform even against the whole of the Central Committee. That is indisputable. What is also indisputable is that the Central Committee had endorsed this formal right by its decision on freedom of discussion adopted on December 24, 1920. Bukharin, the buffer, recognises this formal right for Trotsky, but not for the Petrograd organisation, probably because on December 30, 1920, he talked himself into “the sacred slogan of workers’ democracy” (verbatim report, p. 45)… .

Well, and what about the revolutionary interest?

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (δ΄ μέρος)

Will any serious-minded person who is not blinded by the factional egotism of Tsektran” or of the “buffer” faction, will anyone in his right mind say that such a pronouncement on the trade union issue by such a prominent leader as Trotsky does promote the revolutionary interest?

Can it be denied that, even if Trotsky’s “new tasks and methods” were as sound as they are in fact unsound (of which later), his very approach would be damaging to himself, the Party, the trade union movement, the training of millions of trade union members and the Republic?

It looks as if the kind Bukharin and his group call them selves a “buffer” because they have firmly decided not to think about the obligations this title imposes upon them.

The Political Danger Of Splits In The Trade Union Movement

Everyone knows that big disagreements sometimes grow out of minute differences, which may at first appear to be altogether insignificant. A slight cut or scratch, of the kind everyone has had scores of in the course of his life, may become very dangerous and even fatal if it festers and if blood poisoning sets in. This may happen in any kind of conflict, even a purely personal one. This also happens in politics.

Any difference, even an insignificant one, may become politically dangerous if it has a chance to grow into a split, and I mean the kind of split that will shake and destroy the whole political edifice, or lead, to use Comrade Bukharin’s simile, to a crash.

Clearly, in a country under the dictatorship of the proletariat, a split in the ranks of the proletariat, or between the proletarian party and the mass of the proletariat, is not just dangerous; it is extremely dangerous, especially when the proletariat constitutes a small minority of the population. And splits in the trade union movement (which, as I tried hard to emphasise in my speech on December 30, 1920, is a movement of the almost completely organised proletariat) mean precisely splits in the mass of the proletariat.

That is why, when the whole thing started at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions on November 2–6, 1920 (and that is exactly where it did start), and when right after the Conference—no, I am mistaken, during that Conference—Comrade Tomsky appeared before the Political Bureau in high dudgeon and, fully supported by Comrade Rudzutak, the most even-tempered of men, began to relate that at the Conference Comrade Trotsky had talked about “shaking up” the trade unions and that he, Tomsky, had opposed this—when that happened, I decided there and then that policy (i.e., the Party’s trade union policy) lay at the root of the controversy, and that Comrade Trotsky, with his “shake-up” policy against Comrade Tomsky, was entirely in the wrong. For, even if the “shake-up” policy were partly justified by the “new tasks and methods” (Trotsky’s thesis 12), it cannot be tolerated at the present time, and in the present situation, because it threatens a split.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ε΄ μέρος)

It now seems to Comrade Trotsky that it is “an utter travesty” to ascribe the “shake-up-from-above” policy to him (L. Trotsky, “A Reply to the Petrograd Comrades”, Pravda No. 9, January 15, 1921). But “shake-up” is a real “catchword”, not only in the sense that after being uttered by Comrade Trotsky at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions it has, you might say, “caught on” throughout the Party and the trade unions. Unfortunately, it remains true even today in the much more profound sense that it alone epitomises the whole spirit, the whole trend of the platform pamphlet entitled The Role and Tactics of the Trade Unions. Comrade Trotsky’s platform pamphlet is shot through with the spirit of the “shake-up-from-above” policy. Just recall the accusation made against Comrade Tomsky, or “many trade unionists”, that they “tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men”!

But whereas the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions (November 2–6, 1920) only saw the makings of the atmosphere fraught with splits, the split within Tsektran became a fact in early December 1920.

This event is basic and essential to an understanding of the political essence of our controversies; and Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin are mistaken if they think hushing it up will help matters. A hush-up in this case does not produce a “buffer” effect but rouses passions; for the question has not only been placed on the agenda by developments, but has been emphasised by Comrade Trotsky in his platform pamphlet. It is this pamphlet that repeatedly, in the passages I have quoted, particularly in thesis 12, raises the question of whether the essence of the matter is that “many trade unionists tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men”, or that the “hostility” of the masses is legitimate in view of certain useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, for example, in Tsektran.

The issue was bluntly and properly stated by Comrade Zinoviev in his very first speech on December 30, 1920, when he said that it was “Comrade Trotsky’s immoderate adherents” who had brought about a split. Perhaps that is why Comrade Bukharin abusively described Comrade Zinoviev’s speech as “a lot of hot air”? But every Party member who reads the verbatim report of the December 30, 1920 discussion will see that that is not true. He will find that it is Comrade Zinoviev who quotes and operates with the facts, and that it is Trotsky and Bukharin who indulge most in intellectualist verbosity minus the facts.

When Comrade Zinoviev said, “Tsektran stands on feet of clay and has already split into three parts”, Comrade Sosnovsky interrupted and said:

“That is something you have encouraged” (verbatim report, p. 15).

Now this is a serious charge. If it were proved, there would, of course, be no place on the Central Committee, in the R.C.P., or in the trade unions of our Republic for those who were guilty of encouraging a split even in one of the trade unions. Happily, this serious charge was advanced in a thoughtless manner by a comrade who, I regret to say, has now and again been “carried away” by thoughtless polemics before this. Comrade Sosnovsky has even managed to insert “a fly in the ointment” of his otherwise excellent articles, say, on production propaganda, and this has tended to negate all its pluses. Some people (like Comrade Bukharin) are so happily constituted that they are incapable of injecting venom into their attacks even when the fight is bitterest; others, less happily constituted, are liable to do so, and do this all too often. Comrade Sosnovsky would do well to watch his step in this respect, and perhaps even ask his friends to help out.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ϛ΄ μέρος)

But, some will say, the charge is there, even if it has been made in a thoughtless, unfortunate and patently “factional” form. In a serious matter, the badly worded truth is preferable to the hush-up.

That the matter is serious is beyond doubt, for, let me say this again, the crux of the issue lies in this area to a greater extent than is generally suspected. Fortunately, we are in possession of sufficiently objective and conclusive facts to provide an answer in substance to Comrade Sosnovsky’s point.

First of all, there is on the same page of the verbatim report Comrade Zinoviev’s statement denying Comrade Sosnovsky’s allegation and making precise references to conclusive facts. Comrade Zinoviev showed that Comrade Trotsky’s accusation (made obviously, let me add, in an outburst of factional zeal) was quite a different one from Comrade Sosnovsky’s; Comrade Trotsky’s accusation was that Comrade Zinoviev’s speech at the September All-Russia Conference of the R.C.P. had helped to bring about or had brought about the split. (This charge, let me say in parenthesis, is quite untenable, if only because Zinoviev’s September speech was approved in substance by the Central Committee and the Party, and there has been no formal protest against it since.)

Comrade Zinoviev replied that at the Central Committee meeting Comrade Rudzutak had used the minutes to prove that “long before any of my [Zinoviev’s] speeches and the All-Russia Conference the question [concerning certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy in Tsektran] had been examined in Siberia, on the Volga, in the North and in the South”.

That is an absolutely precise and clear-cut statement of fact. It was made by Comrade Zinoviev in his first speech before thousands of the most responsible Party members, and his facts were not refuted either by Comrade Trotsky, who spoke twice later, or by Comrade Bukharin, who also spoke later.

Secondly, the December 7, 1920 resolution of the Central Committee’s Plenary Meeting concerning the dispute between the Communists working in water transport and the Communist group at the Tsektran Conference, given in the same verbatim report, was an even more definite and official refutation of Comrade Sosnovsky’s charges. The part of the resolution dealing with Tsektran says:

“In connection with the dispute between Tsektran and the water transport workers, the Central Committee resolves: 1) To set up a Water Transport Section within the amalgamated Tsektran; 2) To convene a congress of railwaymen and water transport workers in February to hold normal elections to a new Tsektran; 3) To authorise the old Tsektran to function until then; 4) To abolish Glavpolitvod and Glavpolitput immediately and to transfer all their funds and resources to the trade union on normal democratic lines.”

This shows that the water transport workers, far from being censured, are deemed to be right in every essential. Yet none of the C.C. members who had signed the common platform of January 14, 1921 (except Kamenev) voted for the resolution. (The platform referred to is the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions. Draft Decision of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P., submitted to the Central Committee by a group of members of the Central Committee and the trade union commission. Among those who signed it was Lozovsky, a member of the trade union commission but not of the Central Committee. The others were Tomsky, Kalinin, Rudzutak, Zinoviev, Stalin, Lenin, Kamenev, Petrovsky and Artyom Sergeyev.)

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ζ΄ μέρος)

This resolution was carried against the C.C. members listed above, that is, against our group, for we would have voted against allowing the old Tsektran to continue temporarily. Because we were sure to win, Trotsky was forced to vote for Bukharin’s resolution, as otherwise our resolution would have been carried. Comrade Rykov, who had been for Trotsky in November, took part in the trade union commission’s examination of the dispute between Tsektran and the water transport workers in December, and saw that the latter were right.

To sum up: the December 7 majority in the Central Committee consisted of Comrades Trotsky, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov and other C.C. members who are above suspicion of being biased against Tsektran. Yet the substance of their resolution did not censure the water transport workers but Tsektran, which they just stopped short of dissolving there and then. This proves Sosnovsky’s charge to be quite groundless.

There is one other point to be dealt with, if we are to leave no room for ambiguity. What were these “certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy” to which I have repeatedly referred? Isn’t this last charge unsupported or exaggerated?

Once again it was Comrade Zinoviev who, in his very first speech on December 30, 1920, provided the answer which was as precise as one could wish. He quoted from Comrade Zoff’s water transport circular of May 3, 1920: “Committee treadmill abolished.”[3] Comrade Zinoviev was quite right in saying this was a fundamental error. It exemplified the unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy and the “appointments system”. But he said there and then that some appointees were “not half as experienced or as tried” as Comrade Zoff. I have heard Comrade Zoff referred to in the Central Committee as a most valuable worker, and this is fully borne out by my own observations in the Council of Defence. It has not entered anyone’s mind either to make scapegoats of such comrades or to undermine their authority (as Comrade Trotsky suggests, without the least justification, on page 25 of his report). Their authority is not being undermined by those who try to correct the “appointees’” mistakes, but by those who would defend them even when they are wrong.

We see, therefore, that the danger of splits within the trade union movement was not imaginary but real. And we find that the actual disagreements really boiled down to a demand that certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, and the appointments system should not be justified or defended, but corrected. That is all there is to it.

Disagreements On Principle

There being deep and basic disagreements on principle—we may well be asked—do they not serve as vindication for the sharpest and most factional pronouncements? Is it possible to vindicate such a thing as a split, provided there is need to drive home some entirely new idea?

I believe it is, provided of course the disagreements are truly very deep and there is no other way to rectify a wrong trend in the policy of the Party or of the working class.

But the whole point is that there are no such disagreements. Comrade Trotsky has tried to point them out, and failed. A tentative or conciliatory approach had been possible—and necessary—before the publication of his pamphlet (December 25) (“such an approach is ruled out even in the case of disagreements and vague new tasks”); but after its publication we had to say: Comrade Trotsky is essentially wrong on all his new points.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (η΄ μέρος)

This is most evident from a comparison of his theses with Rudzutak’s which were adopted by the Fifth All Russia Conference of Trade Unions (November 2–6). I quoted the latter in my December 30 speech and in the January 21 issue of Pravda. They are fuller and more correct than Trotsky’s, and wherever the latter differs from Rudzutak, he is wrong.

Take this famous “industrial democracy”, which Comrade Bukharin hastened to insert in the Central Committee’s resolution of December 7. It would, of course, be ridiculous to quibble about this ill-conceived brainchild (“tricky flourishes”), if it merely occurred in an article or speech. But, after all, it was Trotsky and Bukharin who put themselves into the ridiculous position by insisting in their theses on this very term, which is the one feature that distinguishes their “platforms” from Rudzutak’s theses adopted by the trade unions.

The term is theoretically wrong. In the final analysis, every kind of democracy, as political superstructure in general (which must exist until classes have been abolished and a classless society established), serves production and is ultimately determined by the relations of production in a given society. It is, therefore, meaningless to single out “industrial democracy”, for this leads to confusion, and the result is a dummy. That is the first point.

The second is that if you look at Bukharin’s own explanation given in the resolution of the C.C. Plenary Meeting on December 7, which he drafted, you will find that he says: “Accordingly, the methods of workers’ democracy must be those of industrial democracy, which means… .” Note the “which means”! The fact is that Bukharin opens his appeal to the masses with such an outlandish term that he must give a gloss on it. This, I think, is undemocratic from the democratic standpoint. You must write for the masses without using terms that require a glossary. This is bad from the “production” standpoint because time is wasted in explaining unnecessary terms. “Which means,” he says, “that nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc., must proceed with an eye not only to their political staunchness, but also business efficiency, administrative experience, leadership, and proved concern for the working people’s material and spiritual interests.”

The reasoning there is obviously artificial and incorrect. For one thing, democracy is more than “nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc.” Then, again, not all elections should be held with an eye to political staunchness and business efficiency. Comrade Trotsky notwithstanding, an organisation of many millions must have a certain percentage of canvassers and bureaucrats (we shall not be able to make do without good bureaucrats for many years to come). But we do not speak of “canvassing” or “bureaucratic” democracy.

The third point is that it is wrong to consider only the elected, the organisers, the administrators, etc. After all, they constitute a minority of outstanding men. It is the mass, the rank and file that we must consider. Rudzutak has it in simpler, more intelligible and theoretically more correct terms (thesis 6):

“… it must be brought home to each participant in production that his production tasks are appropriate and important; that each must not only take a hand in fulfilling his assignments, but also play an intelligent part in correcting any technical and organisational defects in the sphere of production.”

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (θ΄ μέρος)

The fourth point is that “industrial democracy” is a term that lends itself to misinterpretation. It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship and individual authority. It may be read as a suspension of ordinary democracy or a pretext for evading it. Both readings are harmful, and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries.

Rudzutak’s plain statement of the same ideas is more correct and more handy. This is indirectly confirmed by Trotsky’s parallel of “war democracy” which he draws with his own term in an article, “Industrial Democracy”, in Pravda of January 11, and which fails to refute that his term is inaccurate and inconvenient (for he side-steps the whole issue and fails to compare his theses with Rudzutak’s). Happily, as far as I can recall, we have never had any factional controversy over that kind of term.

Trotsky’s “production atmosphere” is even wider of the mark, and Zinoviev had good reason to laugh at it. This made Trotsky very angry, and he came out with this argument: “We once had a war atmosphere… . We must now have a production atmosphere and not only on the surface but deep down in the workers’ mass. This must be as intense and practical an interest in production as was earlier displayed in the fronts….” Well, there you are: the message must be carried “deep down into the workers’ mass” in the language of Rudzutak’s theses, because “production atmosphere” will only earn you a smile or a shrug. Comrade Trotsky’s “production atmosphere” has essentially the same meaning as production propaganda, but such expressions must be avoided when production propaganda is addressed to the workers at large. The term is an example of how not to carry it on among the masses.

Politics And Economics. Dialectics And Eclecticism

It is strange that we should have to return to such elementary questions, but we are unfortunately forced to do so by Trotsky and Bukharin. They have both reproached me for “switching” the issue, or for taking a “political” approach, while theirs is an “economic” one. Bukharin even put that in his theses and tried to “rise above” either side, as if to say that he was combining the two.

This is a glaring theoretical error. I said again in my speech that politics is a concentrated expression of economics, because I had earlier heard my “political” approach rebuked in a manner which is inconsistent and inadmissible for a Marxist. Politics must take precedence over economics. To argue otherwise is to forget the ABC of Marxism.

Am I wrong in my political appraisal? If you think so, say it and prove it. But you forget the ABC of Marxism when you say (or imply) that the political approach is equivalent to the “economic”, and that you can take “the one and the other”.

What the political approach means, in other words, is that the wrong attitude to the trade unions will ruin the Soviet power and topple the dictatorship of the proletariat. (In a peasant country like Russia, the Soviet power would surely go down in the event of a split between the trade unions and a Party in the wrong.) This proposition can (and must) be tested in substance, which means looking into the rights and wrongs of the approach and taking a decision. To say: I “appreciate” your political, approach, “but” it is only a political one and we “also need an economic one”, is tantamount to saying: I “appreciate” your point that in taking that particular step you are liable to break your neck, but you must also take into consideration that it is better to be clothed and well-fed than to go naked and hungry.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ι΄ μέρος)

Bukharin’s insistence on combining the political and the economic approach has landed him in theoretical eclecticism.

Trotsky and Bukharin make as though they are concerned for the growth of production whereas we have nothing but formal democracy in mind. This picture is wrong, because the only formulation of the issue (which the Marxist standpoint allows) is: without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either.

Let us take a concrete example. Zinoviev says: “By carrying things to a split within the trade unions, you are making a political mistake. I spoke and wrote about the growth of production back in January 1920, citing the construction of the public baths as an example.” Trotsky replies: “What a thing to boast of: a pamphlet with the public baths as an example (p. 29),’and not a single word’ about the tasks of the trade unions” (p. 22).

This is wrong. The example of the public baths is worth, you will pardon the pun, a dozen “production atmospheres”, with a handful of “industrial democracies” thrown in. It tells the masses, the whole bulk of them, what the trade unions are to do, and does this in plain and intelligible terms, whereas all these “production atmospheres” and “democracies” are so much murk blurring the vision of the workers’ masses, and dimming their understanding.

Comrade Trotsky also rebuked me for not “saying a word” (p. 66) about “the role that has to be played—and is being played—by the levers known as the trade union apparatus”.

I beg to differ, Comrade Trotsky. By reading out Rudzutak’s theses in toto and endorsing them, I made a statement on the question that was fuller, plainer, clearer and more correct than all your theses, your report or co-report, and speech in reply to the debate. I insist that bonuses in kind and disciplinary comrades’ courts mean a great deal more to economic development, industrial management, and wider trade union participation in production than the absolutely abstract (and therefore empty) talk about “industrial democracy”, “coalescence”, etc.

Behind the effort to present the “production” standpoint (Trotsky) or to overcome a one-sided political approach and combine it with an economic approach (Bukharin) we find:

1) Neglect of Marxism, as expressed in the theoretically incorrect, eclectic definition of the relation between politics and economics;

2) Defence or camouflage of the political mistake expressed in the shake-up policy, which runs through the whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, and which, unless it is admitted and corrected, leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat;

3) A step back in purely economic and production matters, and the question of how to increase production; it is, in fact, a step back from Rudzutak’s practical theses, with their concrete, vital and urgent tasks (develop production propaganda; learn proper distribution of bonuses in kind and correct use of coercion through disciplinary comrades’ courts), to the highbrow, abstract, “empty” and theoretically incorrect general theses which ignore all that is most practical and business-like.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ια΄ μέρος)

That is where Zinoviev and myself, on the one hand, and Trotsky and Bukharin, on the other, actually stand on this question of politics and economics.

I could not help smiling, therefore, when I read Comrade Trotsky’s objection in his speech of December 30: “In his summing-up at the Eighth Congress of Soviets of the debate on the situation, Comrade Lenin said we ought to have less politics and more economics, but when he got to the trade union question he laid emphasis on the political aspect of the matter” (p. 65). Comrade Trotsky thought these words were “very much to the point”. Actually, however, they reveal a terrible confusion of ideas, a truly hopeless “ideological confusion”. Of course, I have always said, and will continue to say, that we need more economics and less politics, but if we are to have this we must clearly be rid of political dangers and political mistakes. Comrade Trotsky’s political mistakes, aggravated by Comrade Bukharin, distract our Party’s attention from economic tasks and “production” work, and, unfortunately, make us waste time on correcting them and arguing it out with the syndicalist deviation (which leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat), objecting to the incorrect approach to the trade union movement (which leads to the collapse of the Soviet power), and debating general “theses”, instead of having a practical and business-like “economic” discussion as to whether it was the Saratov millers, the Donbas miners, the Petrograd metalworkers or some other group that had the best results in coalescing, distributing bonuses in kind, and organising comrades’ courts, on the basis of Rudzutak’s theses, adopted by the Fifth All-Russia-Trade Union Conference on November 2–6.

Let us now consider what good there is in a “broad discussion”. Once again we find political mistakes distracting attention from economic tasks. I was against this “broad” discussion, and I believed, and still do, that it was a mistake—a political mistake—on Comrade Trotsky’s part to disrupt the work of the trade union commission, which ought to have held a business-like discussion. I believe Bukharin’s buffer group made the political mistake of misunderstanding the tasks of the buffer (in which case they had once again substituted eclecticism for dialectics), for from the “buffer” standpoint they should have vigorously opposed any broad discussion and demanded that the matter should be taken up by the trade union commission. Here is what came of this.

On December 30, Bukharin went so far as to say that “we have proclaimed the new and sacred slogan of workers’ democracy, which means that questions are no longer to be discussed in the board-room within the corporation or at small meetings but are to be placed before big meetings. I insist that by taking the trade union issue before such a large meeting as this one we are not taking a step backward but forward” (p. 45). And this man has accused Zinoviev of spouting “hot air” and overdoing the democracy! I say that he himself has given us a lot of hot air and has shown some unexampled bungling; he has completely failed to understand that formal democracy must be subordinate to the revolutionary interest.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιβ΄ μέρος)

Trotsky is in the same boat. His charge is that “Lenin wants at all costs to disrupt or shelve the discussion of the matter in essence” (p. 65). He declares: “My reasons for refusing to serve on the commission were clearly stated in the Central Committee: until such time as I am permitted, on a par with all other comrades, to air these questions fully in the Party press, I do not expect any good to come of any cloistered examination of these matters, and, consequently, of work on the commission” (p. 69).

What is the result? Less than a month has passed since Trotsky started his “broad discussion” on December 25, and you will be hard put to find one responsible Party worker in a hundred who is not fed up with the discussion and has not realised its futility (to say no worse). For Trotsky has made the Party waste time on a discussion of words and bad theses, and has ridiculed as “cloistered” the business-like economic discussion in the commission, which was to have studied and verified practical experience and projected its lessons for progress in real “production” work, in place of the regress from vibrant activity to scholastic exercises in all sorts of “production atmospheres”.

Take this famous “coalescence”. My advice on December 30 was that we should keep mum on this point, because we had not studied our own practical experience, and without that any discussion was bound to degenerate into “hot air” and draw off the Party’s forces from economic work. I said it was bureaucratic projecteering for Trotsky to propose in his theses that from one-third to one-half and from one-half to two-thirds of the economic councils should consist of trade unionists.

For this I was upbraided by Bukharin who, I see from p. 49 of the report, made a point of proving to me at length and in great detail that “when people meet to discuss something, they should not act as deaf-mutes” (sic). Trotsky was also angry and exclaimed:

“Will every one of you please make a note that on this particular date Comrade Lenin described this as a bureaucratic evil. I take the liberty to predict that within a few months we shall have accepted for our guidance and consideration that the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions and the Supreme Economic Council, the Central Committee of the Metalworkers’ Union and the Metals Department, etc., are to have from one-third to one-half of their members in common” (p. 68).

When I read that I asked Comrade Milyutin (Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Economic Council) to let me have the available printed reports on coalescence. I said to myself: why not make a small start on the study of our practical experience; it’s so dull engaging in “general Party talk” (Bukharin’s expression, p. 47, which has every chance of becoming a catchword like “shake-up”) to no useful purpose, without the facts, and inventing disagreements, definitions and “industrial democracies”.

Comrade Milyutin sent me several books, including The Report of the Supreme Economic Council to the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets (Moscow, 1920; preface dated December 19, 1920). On its p. 14 is a table showing workers’ participation in administrative bodies. Here is the table (covering only part of the gubernia economic councils and factories):

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιγ΄ μέρος)


Administrative
Body Total members Workers Specialists Office workers
and others

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Presidium
of Supreme Economic
Council and gubernia
economic councils 187 107 57.2 22 11.8 58 31.0

Collegiums of
chief administrations,
departments,
central boards
and head offices 140 72 51.4 31 22.2 37 26.4

Corporate and 1,143 726 63.5 398 34.8 19 1.7
one-man management
of factories

Total 1,470 905 61.6 451 30.7 114 7.7

It will be seen that 61.6 per cent, that is, closer to two-thirds than to one-half, of the staff of administrative bodies now consists of workers. And this already proves that what Trotsky wrote on this matter in his theses was an exercise in bureaucratic projecteering. To talk, argue and write platforms about “one-third to one-half” and “one-half to two-thirds” is the most useless sort of “general Party talk”, which diverts time, attention and resources from production work. It is empty politicking. All this while, a great deal of good could have been done in the commission, where men of experience would have refused to write any theses without a study of the facts, say, by polling a dozen or so “common functionaries” (out of the thousand), by comparing their impressions and conclusions with objective statistical data, and by making an attempt to obtain practical guidance for the future: that being our experience, do we go straight on, or do we make some change in our course, methods and approach, and how; or do we call a halt, for the good of the cause, and check things over and over again, make a few changes here and there, and so on and so forth.

Comrades, a real “executive” (let me also have a go at “production propaganda”) is well aware that even in the most advanced countries, the capitalists and their executives take years—sometimes ten and more—to study and test their own (and others’) practical experience, making innumerable starts and corrections to tailor a system of management, select senior and junior executives, etc., fit for their particular business. That was the rule under capitalism, which throughout the civilised world based its business practices on the experience and habits of centuries. We who are breaking new ground must put in a long, persistent and patient effort to retrain men and change the old habits which have come down to us from capitalism, but this can only be done little by little. Trotsky’s approach is quite wrong. In his December 30 speech he exclaimed: “Do or do not our workers, Party and trade union functionaries have any production training? Yes or no? I say: No” (p. 29). This is a ridiculous approach. It is like asking whether a division has enough felt boots: Yes or no?

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιδ΄ μέρος)

It is safe to say that even ten years from now we shall have to admit that all our Party and trade union functionaries do not have enough production training, in much the same way as the workers of the Military Department, the trade unions and the Party will not have had enough military experience. But we have made a start on production training by having about a thousand workers, and trade union members and delegates take part in management and run factories, head offices and other bodies higher up the scale. The basic principle underlying “production training”—which is the training of our own selves, of the old underground workers and professional journalists—is that we should start a painstaking and detailed study of our own practical experience, and teach others to do so, according to the rule: Look before you leap. The fundamental and absolute rule behind “production training” is systematic, circumspect, practical and business like verification of what this one thousand have done, and even more efficient and careful correction of their work, taking a step forward only when there is ample proof of the usefulness of a given method, system of management, proportion, selection of men, etc. And it is this rule that Comrade Trotsky has broken by his theses and approach. All his theses, his entire platform pamphlet, are so wrong that they have diverted the Party’s attention and resources from practical “production” work to a lot of empty talk.

Dialectics and Eclecticism
“School” and “Apparatus”

Among Comrade Bukharin’s many excellent traits are his theoretical ability and keen interest in getting at the theoretical roots of every question. That is a very valuable trait because you cannot have a proper understanding of any mistake, let alone a political one, unless you dig down to its theoretical roots among the basic premises of the one who makes it.

Responding to this urge, Comrade Bukharin tended to shift the controversy into the theoretical sphere, beginning from December 30, if not earlier.

In his speech on that day he said: “That neither the political nor the economic factor can be ignored is, I believe, absolutely incontrovertible—and that is the theoretical essence of what is here known as the ‘buffer group’ or its ideology” (p. 47).

The gist of his theoretical mistake in this case is substitution of eclecticism for the dialectical interplay of politics and economics (which we find in Marxism). His theoretical attitude is: “on the one hand, and on the other”, “the one and the other”. That is eclecticism. Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development but not a patchwork of bits and pieces. I have shown this to be so on the example of politics and economics.

That of the “buffer” has gone to reinforce the point. You need a buffer, and it is useful when the Party train is heading for a crash. No question about that at all. Bukharin has built up his “buffer” problem eclectically, by collecting odd pieces from Zinoviev and Trotsky. As a “buffer”, Bukharin should have decided for himself just where, when and how each individual or group had made their mistake, whether it was a theoretical mistake, one of political tact, factional pronouncement, or exaggeration, etc. He should have done that and gone hammer and tongs at every such mistake. But he has failed to understand his task of “buffer”, and here is good proof of it.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιε΄ μέρος)

The Communist group of Tsektran’s Petrograd Bureau (the C.C. of the Railwaymen’s and Water Transport Workers’ Union), an organisation sympathising with Trotsky, has stated its opinion that, “on the main issue of the trade unions’ role in production, Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin hold views which are variations of one and the same standpoint”. It has issued Comrade Bukharin’s report in Petrograd on January 3, 1921, in pamphlet form (N. Bukharin, The Tasks of the Trade Unions, Petrograd, 1921). It says:

“Comrade Trotsky’s original formulation was that the trade union leadership should be removed and suitable comrades found to take their place, etc. He had earlier advocated a ‘shake-up’, but he has now abandoned the idea, and it is therefore quite absurd to use it as an argument against him” (p. 5).

I will let pass the numerous factual inaccuracies in this statement. (Trotsky used the term “shake-up” at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, November 2–6. He mentions “selection of leadership” in Paragraph 5 of his theses which he submitted to the Central Committee on November 8, and which, incidentally, some of his supporters have published as a leaflet. The whole of Trotsky’s pamphlet, The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions, December 25, reveals the same kind of mentality, the same spirit as I have pointed out before. When and how he “abandoned” this attitude remains a mystery.) I am now dealing with a different matter. When the “buffer” is an eclectic, he passes over some mistakes and brings up others; he says nothing of them in Moscow on December 30, 1920, when addressing thousands of R.C.P. functionaries from all over Russia; but he brings them up in Petrograd on January 3, 1921. When the “buffer” is a dialectician, he directs the full brunt of his attack at every mistake he sees on either side, or on all sides. And that is something Bukharin does not do. He does not even try to examine Trotsky’s pamphlet in the light of the “shake-up” policy. He simply says nothing about it. No wonder his buffer performance has made everyone laugh.

To proceed. In that same Petrograd speech he says (p. 7):

“Comrade Trotsky’s mistake is insufficient support for the school-of-communism idea.”

During the December 30 discussion, Bukharin reasoned as follows:

“Comrade Zinoviev has said that the trade unions are a school of communism, and Trotsky has said that they are a technical and administrative apparatus for industrial management. I see no logical grounds for proof that either proposition is wrong; both, and a combination of both, are right” (p. 48).

Bukharin and his “group” or “faction” make the same point in their thesis 6: “On the one hand, they [the trade unions] are a school of communism … and on the other, they are—increasingly—a component part of the economic apparatus and of state administration in general” (Pravda, January 16).

That is where we find Comrade Bukharin’s fundamental theoretical mistake, which is substitution of eclecticism (especially popular with the authors of diverse “fashionable” and reactionary philosophical systems) for Marxist dialectics.

When Comrade Bukharin speaks of “logical” grounds, his whole reasoning shows that he takes—unconsciously, perhaps—the standpoint of formal or scholastic logic, and not of dialectical or Marxist logic. Let me explain this by taking the simple example which Comrade Bukharin himself gives. In the December 30 discussion he said:

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιϛ΄ μέρος)

“Comrades, many of you may find that the current controversy suggests something like this: two men come in and invite each other to define the tumbler on the lectern. One says: ‘It is a glass cylinder, and a curse on anyone who says different.’ The other one says: ‘A tumbler is a drinking vessel, and a curse on anyone who says different’” (p. 46).

The reader will see that Bukharin’s example was meant to give me a popular explanation of the harm of one-track thinking. I accept it with gratitude, and in the one-good turn-deserves-another spirit offer a popular explanation of the difference between dialectics and eclecticism.

A tumbler is assuredly both a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel. But there are more than these two properties, qualities or facets to it; there are an infinite number of them, an infinite number of “mediacies” and inter-relationships with the rest of the world. A tumbler is a heavy object which can be used as a missile; it can serve as a paper weight, a receptacle for a captive butterfly, or a valuable object with an artistic engraving or design, and this has nothing at all to do with whether or not it can be used for drinking, is made of glass, is cylindrical or not quite, and so on and so forth.

Moreover, if I needed a tumbler just now for drinking, it would not in the least matter how cylindrical it was, and whether it was actually made of glass; what would matter though would be whether it had any holes in the bottom, or anything that would cut my lips when I drank, etc. But if I did not need a tumbler for drinking but for a purpose that could be served by any glass cylinder, a tumbler with a cracked bottom or without one at all would do just as well, etc.

Formal logic, which is as far as schools go (and should go, with suitable abridgements for the lower forms), deals with formal definitions, draws on what is most common, or glaring, and stops there. When two or more different definitions are taken and combined at random (a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel), the result is an eclectic definition which is indicative of different facets of the object, and nothing more.

Dialectical logic demands that we should go further. Firstly, if we are to have a true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and “mediacies”. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity. Secondly, dialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in “self-movement” (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world. Thirdly, a full “definition” of an object must include the whole of human experience, both as a criterion of truth and a practical indicator of its connection with human wants. Fourthly, dialectical logic holds that “truth is always concrete, never abstract”, as the late Plekhanov liked to say after Hegel. (Let me add in parenthesis for the benefit of young Party members that you cannot hope to become a real, intelligent Communist without making a study—and I mean study—of all of Plekhanov’s philosophical writings, because nothing better has been written on Marxism anywhere in the world.[3b])

I have not, of course, run through the whole notion of dialectical logic, but what I have said will do for the present. I think we can return from the tumbler to the trade unions and Trotsky’s platform.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιζ΄ μέρος)

“A school, on the one hand, and an apparatus on the other”, says Bukharin, and writes as much in his theses. Trotsky’s mistake is “insufficient support for the school-of-communism idea”; Zinoviev errs by being lukewarm on the apparatus “factor”.

Why is Bukharin’s reasoning no more than inert and empty eclecticism? It is because he does not even try to make an independent analysis, from his own standpoint, either of the whole course of the current controversy (as Marxism, that is, dialectical logic, unconditionally demands) or of the whole approach to the question, the whole presentation—the whole trend of the presentation, if you will—of the question at the present time and in these concrete circumstances. You do not see Bukharin doing that at all! His approach is one of pure abstraction: he makes no attempt at concrete study, and takes bits and pieces from Zinoviev and Trotsky. That is eclecticism.

Here is another example to clarify the picture. I know next to nothing about the insurgents and revolutionaries of South China (apart from the two or three articles by Sun Yat-sen, and a few books and newspaper articles I read many years ago). Since there are these uprisings, it is not too far-fetched to assume a controversy going on between Chinese No. 1, who says that the insurrection is the product of a most acute nation-wide class struggle, and Chinese No. 2, who says that insurrection is an art. That is all I need to know in order to write theses à la Bukharin: “On the one hand, … on the other hand”. The one has failed to reckon with the art “factor”, and the other, with the “acuteness factor”, etc. Because no concrete study is made of this particular controversy, question, approach, etc., the result is a dead and empty eclecticism.

On the one hand, the trade unions are a school, and on the other, an apparatus; but they also happen to be an organisation of working people, an almost exclusive organisation of industrial workers, an organisation by industry, etc.[3c] Bukharin does not make any analysis for himself, nor does he produce a shred of evidence to prove why it is that we should consider the first two “facets” of the question or object, instead of the third, the fourth, the fifth, etc. That is why his group’s theses are an eclectic soap bubble. His presentation of the “school-apparatus” relationship is fundamentally eclectic and wrong.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιη΄ μέρος)

The only way to view this question in the right light is to descend from empty abstractions to the concrete, that is, the present issue. Whether you take it in the form it assumed at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, or as it was presented and slanted by Trotsky himself in his platform pamphlet of December 25, you will find that his whole approach is quite wrong and that he has gone off at a tangent. He has failed to understand that the trade unions can and must be viewed as a school both when raising the question of “Soviet trade-unionism”, and when speaking of production propaganda in general, and even when considering “coalescence” and trade union participation in industrial management, as Trotsky does. On this last point, as it is presented in Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, the mistake lies in his failure to grasp that the trade unions are a school of technical and administrative management of production. In the context of the controversy, you cannot say: “a school, on the one hand, and something else on the other”; given Trotsky’s approach, the trade unions, whichever way you look at them, are a school. They are a school of unity, solidarity, management and administration, where you learn how to protect your interests. Instead of making an effort to comprehend and correct Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake, Comrade Bukharin has produced a funny little amendment: “On the one hand, and on the other.”

Let us go deeper into the question. Let us see what the present trade unions are, as an “apparatus” of industrial management. We have seen from the incomplete returns that about 900 workers—trade union members and delegates—are engaged in industrial management. If you multiply this number by 10 or even by 100—if it helps to clarify your fundamental mistake let us assume this incredible speed of “advance” in the immediate future—you still have an insignificant proportion of those directly engaged in management, as compared with the mass of six million trade union members. This makes it even clearer that it is quite wrong to look to the “leading stratum”, and talk about the trade unions’ role in production and industrial management, as Trotsky does, forgetting that 98.5 per cent (6 million minus 90,000 equals 5,910,000 or 98.5 per cent of the total) are learning, and will have to continue to do so for a long time to come. Don’t say school and management, say school of management.

In his December 30 argument against Zinoviev, whom he accused, quite groundlessly and incorrectly, of denying the “appointments system”, that is, the Central Committee’s right and duty to make appointments, Comrade Trotsky inadvertently drew the following telltale comparison:

“Zinoviev tends to overdo the propaganda angle on every practical matter, forgetting that it is not only a source of material for agitation, but also a problem requiring an administrative solution” (p. 27).

Before I explain in detail the potential administrative approach to the issue, let me say that Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake is that he treats (rather, maltreats) the questions he himself had brought up in his platform pamphlet as administrative ones, whereas they could be and ought to be viewed only from the propaganda angle.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (ιθ΄ μέρος)

In effect, what are Trotsky’s good points? One undoubtedly good and useful point is his production propaganda, but that is not in his theses, but in his speeches, especially when he forgets about his unfortunate polemics with the allegedly “conservative” wing of the trade-unionists. He would undoubtedly have done (and I believe he will do) a great deal of good in the trade union commission’s practical business, as speaker and writer, and as a member of the All-Russia Production Propaganda Bureau. His platform theses were a mistake, for through them, like a scarlet thread, runs the administrative approach to the “crisis” and the “two trends” within the trade unions, the interpretation of the R.C.P. Programme, “Soviet trade-unionism”, “production training” and “coalescence”. I have listed all the main points of Trotsky’s “platform” and they all happen to be topics which, considering the material at Trotsky’s disposal, can be correctly approached at the present time only from the propaganda angle.

The state is a sphere of coercion. It would be madness to renounce coercion, especially in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat, so that the administrative approach and “steerage” are indispensable. The Party is the leader, the vanguard of the proletariat, which rules directly. It is not coercion but expulsion from the Party that is the specific means of influence and the means of purging and steeling the vanguard. The trade unions are a reservoir of the state power, a school of communism and a school of management. The specific and cardinal thing in this sphere is not administration but the “ties” “between the central state administration” (and, of course, the local as well), “the national economy and the broad masses of the working people” (see Party Programme, economic section, §5, dealing with the trade unions).

The whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet betrays an incorrect approach to the problem and a misunderstanding of this relationship.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κ΄ μέρος)

Let us assume that Trotsky had taken a different approach to this famous question of “coalescence” in connection with the other topics of his platform, and that his pamphlet was entirely devoted to a detailed investigation of, say, 90 of the 900 cases of “coalescence” where trade union officials and members concurrently held elective trade union posts and Supreme Economic Council posts in industrial management. Let us say these 90 cases had been analysed together with the returns of a selective statistical survey, the reports of inspectors and instructors of Rabkrin and the People’s Commissariats concerned: let us say they had been analysed in the light of the data supplied by the administrative bodies, the results of the work, the headway in production, etc. That would have been a correct administrative approach, and would have fully indicated the “shake-up” line, which implies concentrating attention on removals, transfers, appointments and the immediate demands to be made on the “leading stratum”. When Bukharin said in his January 3 speech, published by the Tsektran people in Petrograd, that Trotsky had at first wanted a “shake-up” but had now abandoned the idea, he made another one of his eclectical mistakes, which is ridiculous from the practical standpoint and theoretically inadmissible for a Marxist. He takes the question in the abstract, being unable (or unwilling) to get down to brass tacks. So long as we, the Party’s Central Committee and the whole Party, continue to run things, that is, govern, we shall never—we cannot—dispense with the “shake-up”, that is, removals, transfers, appointments, dismissals, etc. But Trotsky’s platform pamphlet deals with something else, and does not raise the “question of practical business” at all. It is not this but the “trends within the trade union movement” (Trotsky’s thesis 4, end) that was being debated by Zinoviev and Trotsky, Bukharin and myself, and in fact the whole Party.

This is essentially a political question. Because of the substance of the case—this concrete, particular “case “—it is impossible to correct Trotsky’s mistake by means of eclectic little amendments and addenda, as Bukharin has been trying to do, being moved undoubted]y by the most humane sentiments and intensions.

There is only one answer.

First, there must be a correct solution of the political question of the “trends within the trade union movement”, the relationship between classes, between politics and economics, the specific role of the state, the Party, the trade unions, as “school” and apparatus, etc.

Second, once the correct political decision has been adopted, a diversified nation-wide production propaganda campaign must be carried through, or, rather, systematically carried forward with persistence and patience over a long term, under the sponsorship and direction of a state agency. It should be conducted in such a way as to cover the same ground over and over again.

Third, the “questions of practical business” must not be confused with trend issues which properly belong to the sphere of general Party talk” and broad discussions; they must be dealt with as practical matters in the working commissions, with a hearing of witnesses and a study of memoranda, reports and statistics. And any necessary “shake-up” must be carried out only on that basis and in those circumstances: only under a decision of the competent Soviet or Party organ, or of both.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κα΄ μέρος)

Trotsky and Bukharin have produced a hodgepodge of political mistakes in approach, breaks in the middle of the transmission belts, and unwarranted and futile attacks on “administrative steerage”. It is now clear where the “theoretical” source of the mistake lies, since Bukharin has taken up that aspect of it with his example of the tumbler. His theoretical—in this case, gnosiological— mistake lies in his substitution of eclecticism for dialectics. His eclectic approach has confused him and has landed him in syndicalism. Trotsky’s mistake is one-track thinking, compulsiveness, exaggeration and obstinacy. His platform says that a tumbler is a drinking vessel, but this particular tumbler happens to have no bottom.

Conclusion

It remains for me to go over a few more points which must be dealt with to prevent misunderstanding.

Thesis 6 of Trotsky’s platform quotes Paragraph 5 of the economic section of the R.C.P. Programme, which deals with the trade unions. Two pages later, his thesis 8 says:

“Having lost the old basis of their existence, the class economic struggle, the trade unions… “ (that is wrong, and is a hasty exaggeration: the trade unions no longer have to face the class economic struggle but the non-class “economic struggle”, which means combating bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet apparatus, safeguarding the working people’s material and spiritual interests in ways and means inaccessible to this apparatus, etc. This is a struggle they will unfortunately have to face for many more years to come). “The trade unions,” says Trotsky, “have, for various reasons, not yet succeeded in mustering the necessary forces and working out the necessary methods enabling them to solve the new task, that of organising production” (Trotsky’s italics, p. 9, thesis 8), “set before them by the proletarian revolution and formulated in our Programme.”

That is yet another hasty exaggeration which is pregnant with grave error. The Programme does not contain any such formulation nor does it set the trade unions the task of “organising production”. Let us go over the propositions in the Party’s Programme as they unfold in the text:

(1) “The organisational apparatus” (but not the others) “of socialised industry should rely chiefly” (but not exclusively) “on the trade unions.” (2) “They must to an ever increasing degree divest themselves of the narrow craft-union spirit” (how? under the leadership of the Party and through the proletariat’s educational and other influence on the non-proletarian mass of working people) “and become large industrial associations, embracing the majority, and eventually all of the workers in the given industry.”

That is the first part of the section of the Party Programme dealing with the trade unions. You will have noted that it starts by laying down very “strict conditions” demanding a long sustained effort for what is to follow. And what follows is this:

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κβ΄ μέρος)

“The trade unions being, on the strength of the laws of the Soviet Republic and established practice, participants” (note the cautious statement: participants only) “in all the local and central organs of industrial management, should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration in their hands of the whole administration of the whole national economy, as a single economic entity” (note this: should arrive at a de facto concentration of management not of branches of industry and not of industry as a whole, but of the whole national economy, and moreover, as an economic entity. In economic terms, this condition may be considered fulfilled only when the petty producers both in industry and agriculture account for less than one-half of the population and the national economy). “The trade unions ensuring in this way” (the way which helps to realise all the conditions listed earlier) “indissoluble ties between the central state administration, the national economy and the broad masses of working people, should draw the latter” (that is, the masses, the majority of the population) “into direct economic management on the widest possible scale. At the same time, the participation of the trade unions in economic management and their activity in drawing the broad masses into this work are the principal means of combating the bureaucratisation of the economic apparatus of the Soviet power and making possible the establishment of truly popular control over the results of production.”

There again, in that last sentence, we find a very cautious phrase: “participation in economic management”; and another reference to the recruitment of the broad masses as the chief (but not the only) means of combating bureaucratic practices; finally, we find a highly cautious statement: “making possible” the establishment of “popular”—that is, workers’ and peasants’, and not just purely proletarian—“control”.

It is obviously wrong to boil this down to the Party Programme “formulating” the trade unions’ task as “organisation of production”. And if you insist on this error, and write it into your platform theses, you will get nothing but an anti-communist, syndicalist deviation.

Incidentally, Comrade Trotsky says in his theses that “over the last period we have not made any headway towards the goal set forth in the Programme but have in fact retreated from it” (p. 7, thesis 6). That statement is unsupported, and, I think, wrong. It is no proof to say, as Trotsky did in the discussions, that the trade unions “themselves” admit this. That is not the last resort, as far as the Party is concerned, and, generally speaking, the proof lies only in a serious and objective study of a great number of facts. Moreover, even if such proof were forthcoming, there would remain this question: Why have we retreated? Is it because “many trade-unionists” are “balking at the new tasks and methods”, as Trotsky believes, or because “we have not yet succeeded in mustering the necessary forces and working out the necessary methods” to cut short and correct certain unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy?

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κγ΄ μέρος)

Which brings me to Bukharin’s rebuke of December 30 (repeated by Trotsky yesterday, January 24, during our discussion in the Communist group of the Second Miners’ Congress) that we have “dropped the line laid down by the Ninth Party Congress” (p. 46 of the report on the December 30 discussion). He alleged that at that Congress I had defended the militarisation of labour and had jeered at references to democracy, all of which I now “repudiate”. In his reply to the debate on December 30, Comrade Trotsky added this barb: “Lenin takes account of the fact that … there is a grouping of opposition-minded comrades within the trade unions” (p. 65); that I view it from the “diplomatic angle” (p. 69), and that there is “manoeuvring inside the Party groups” (p. 70), etc. Putting such a complexion on the case is, of course, highly flattering for Trotsky, and worse than unflattering for me. But let us look at the facts.

In that same discussion on December 30, Trotsky and Krestinsky established the fact that “as long ago as July (1920), Comrade Preobrazhensky had proposed to the Central Committee that we should switch to a new track in respect of the internal life of our workers’ organisations” (p. 25). In August, Comrade Zinoviev drafted a letter, and the Central Committee approved a C.C. Letter on combating red-tape and extending democracy. In September, the question was brought up at a Party conference whose decisions were endorsed by the Central Committee. In December, the question of combating red-tape was laid before the Eighth Congress of Soviets. Consequently, the whole Central Committee, the whole Party and the whole workers’ and peasants’ Republic had recognised that the question of the bureaucracy and ways of combating its evils was high on the agenda. Does any “repudiation” of the Ninth Congress of the R.C.P. follow from all this? Of course, not. The decisions on the militarisation of labour, etc., are incontestable, and there is no need for me at all to withdraw any of my jibes at the references to democracy by those who challenged these decisions. What does follow is that we shall be extending democracy in the workers’ organisations, without turning it into a fetish; that we shall redouble our attention to the struggle against bureaucratic practices; and that we shall take special care to rectify any unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, no matter who points them out.

One final remark on the minor question of priority and equalisation. I said during the December 30 discussion that Trotsky’s formulation of thesis 41 on this point was theoretically wrong, because it implied priority in production and equalisation in consumption. I replied that priority implied preference and that that was nothing unless you also had it in consumption. Comrade Trotsky reproached me for “extraordinary forgetfulness” and “intimidation” (pp. 67 and 68), and I am surprised to find that he has not accused me also of manoeuvring, diplomatic moves, etc. He has made “concessions” to my equalitarian line, but I have attacked him.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κδ΄ μέρος)

Actually, however, anyone who takes an interest in Party affairs, can turn to indisputable Party documents: the November resolution of the C.C. Plenum, point 4, and Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, thesis 41. However “forgetful” I may be, and however excellent Comrade Trotsky’s memory, it is still a fact that thesis 41 contains a theoretical error, which the C.C. resolution of November 9 does not. The resolution says: “While recognising the necessity of keeping to the principle of priority in carrying out the economic plan, the Central Committee, in complete solidarity with the decisions of the last All-Russia Conference (September), deems it necessary to effect a gradual but steady transition to equality in the status of various groups of workers and their respective trade unions, all the while building up the organisation on the scale of the union as a whole.” That is clearly aimed against Tsektran, and it is quite impossible to put any other construction on the exact meaning of the resolution. Priority is here to stay. Preference is still to be given to enterprises, trade unions, trusts and departments on the priority list (in regard to fulfilment of the economic plan), but at the same time, the “equalitarian line”—which was supported not by “Comrade Lenin alone”, but was approved by the Party Conference and the Central Committee, that is, the entire Party—makes this clear-cut demand: get on with the gradual but steady transition to equalisation. That Tsektran failed to carry out this C.C. resolution (November) is evident from the Central Committee’s December resolution (on Trotsky and Bukharin’s motion), which contains another reminder of the “principles of ordinary democracy”. The theoretical error in thesis 41 is that it says: equalisation in consumption, priority in production. That is an economic absurdity because it implies a gap between production and consumption. I did not say—and could never have said—anything of the sort. If you don’t need a factory, close it down. Close down all the factories that are not absolutely essential, and give preference to those that are. Give preference to, say, transport. Most certainly. But the preference must not be overdone, as it was in Tsektran’s case, which was why the Party (and not just Lenin) issued this directive: get on with the gradual but steady transition to equality. And Trotsky has no one but himself to blame for having come out—after the November Plenary Meeting, which gave a clear-cut and theoretically correct solution—with a factional pamphlet on “the two trends” and proposed a formulation in his thesis 41 which is wrong in economic terms.

* * *

Today, January 25, it is exactly one month since Comrade Trotsky’s factional statement. It is now patent that this pronouncement, inappropriate in form and wrong in essence, has diverted the Party from its practical economic and production effort into rectifying political and theoretical mistakes. But, it’s an ill wind, as the old saying goes.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κε΄ μέρος)

Rumour has it that some terrible things have been said about the disagreements on the Central Committee. Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries undoubtedly shelter (and have sheltered) behind the opposition, and it is they who are spreading the rumours, incredibly malicious formulations, and inventions of all sorts to malign the Party, put vile interpretations on its decisions, aggravate conflicts and ruin its work. That is a political trick used by the bourgeoisie, including the petty-bourgeois democrats, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who, for very obvious reasons, hate—and cannot help hating—the Bolsheviks’ guts. Every intelligent member of the Party is familiar with this political trick, and knows its worth.

Because of the disagreements on the Central Committee, it had to appeal to the Party, and the discussions that followed clearly revealed the essence and scope of these disagreements. That killed the rumours and the slander. The Party learns its lessons and is tempered in the struggle against factionalism, a new malaise (it is new in the sense that after the October Revolution we had forgotten all about it). Actually, it is an old malaise, with relapses apparently bound to occur over the next few years, but with an easier cure now well in sight.

The Party is learning not to blow up its disagreements. Let me quote at this point Comrade Trotsky’s correct remark about Comrade Tomsky: “I have always said —even when the polemic against Comrade Tomsky was at its bitterest—that it is quite clear to me that only men with his experience and authority ought to be our trade union leaders. I told this to the Party group of the Fifth Conference of the Trade Unions, and repeated it at the Zimin theatre a few days ago. Ideological struggle within the Party does not mean mutual ostracism but mutual influence”[4] (p. 34 of the report on the December 30 discussion). The Party will naturally apply this correct approach to Comrade Trotsky himself.

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κϛ΄ μέρος)

During the discussion it was Comrade Shlyapnikov and his group, the so-called Workers’ Opposition, who showed the most pronounced syndicalist trend. This being an obvious deviation from communism and the Party, we shall have to reckon with it, talk it over, and make a special propaganda effort to explain the error of these views and the danger of making such mistakes. Comrade Bukharin, who actually coined the syndicalist phrase “mandatory nominations” (by trade unions to management bodies) tries to vindicate himself in today’s issue of Pravda, but I’m afraid his line of defence is highly ineffective and quite wrong. He wants us to know, you see, that he deals with the role of the Party in his other points. I should think so! If it were otherwise it would have been more than just a mistake, requiring correction and allowing some slight rectification: it would have been withdrawal from the Party. When you say “mandatory nominations” but neglect to add, there and then, that they are not mandatory for the Party, you have a syndicalist deviation, and that is incompatible with communism and the Party Programme If you add: “mandatory but not for the Party” you are giving the non-Party workers a false sense of having some increase in their rights, whereas in fact there will be no change at all. The longer Comrade Bukharin persists in his deviation from communism—a deviation that is wrong theoretically and deceptive politically—the more deplorable will be the fruits of his obstinacy. You cannot maintain an untenable proposition. The Party does not object to the extension of the rights of the non-Party workers in general, but a little reflection will show what can and what cannot be done in this respect.

In the discussion by the Communist group of the Second All-Russia Miners’ Congress, Shlyapnikov’s platform was defeated despite the backing it got from Comrade Kiselyov, who commands special prestige in that union: our platform won 137 votes, Shlyapnikov’s, 62, and Trotsky’s, 8. The syndicalist malaise must and will be cured.

In this one month, Petrograd, Moscow and a number of provincial towns have shown that the Party responded to the discussion and has rejected Comrade Trotsky’s wrong line by an overwhelming majority. While there may have been some vacillation “at the top” and “in the provinces”, in the committees and in the offices, the rank-and-file membership—the mass of Party workers—came out solidly against this wrong line.

Comrade Kamenev informed me of Comrade Trotsky’s announcement, during the discussion in the Zamoskvorechye District of Moscow on January 23, that he was withdrawing his platform and joining up with the Bukharin group on a new platform. Unfortunately, I heard nothing of this from Comrade Trotsky either on January 23 or 24, when he spoke against me in the Communist group of the Miners’ Congress. I don’t know whether this is due to another change in Comrade Trotsky’s platform and intentions, or to some other reason. In any case, his January 23 announcement shows that the Party, without so much as mustering all its forces, and with only Petrograd, Moscow and a minority of the provincial towns going on record, has corrected Comrade Trotsky’s mistake promptly and with determination.

The Party’s enemies had rejoiced too soon. They have not been able—and will never be able—to take advantage of some of the inevitable disagreements within the Party to inflict harm on it and on the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.

January 25, 1921

Delivered: 25 January, 1921

First Published: January 1921 by the Press Department of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’ and Red Army Deputies; Published according to the pamphlet text collated with the manuscript

(Συνεχίζεται)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κζ΄ μέρος — τελευταίο)

Endnotes

[1] Lenin began writing the pamphlet on January 21 or 22, 1921, in Gorki where he was taking a rest. Upon his return to Moscow on January 22, he handed the greater part of the pamphlet to his secretary for typing. He finished the work on January 25 and had it sent to the printer’s. Late on January 26, C.C. members who were going to attend local discussions of the trade unions’ role and tasks were given copies of the printed pamphlet, while the rest of the copies were ready on January 27.

[2] Petrogradskaya Pravda (Petrograd Truth)—a daily published from April 2, 1918, as the organ of the Bolshevik Central and Petrograd Party Committees. Since January 1924, it has been appearing as Leningradskaya Pravda.

[3] V. I. Zoff’s circular of May 3, 1920, was published in the Bulleten Mariinskogo Oblastnogo Upravlenia Vodnogo Transporta (Bulletin of the Mariinsky Regional Water Transport Administration) No. 5, 1920. It ran: “A great change is about to occur in the life of water transport: primitive methods, committee treadmill, haphazard work and anarchy are on the way out. Water transport is becoming a state enterprise, headed by political commissars with appropriate powers. Committees, trade unions and elected delegates will no longer have the power to interfere in technical and administrative matters.”

[3b] By the way, it would be a good thing, first, if the current edition of Plekhanov’s works contained a special volume or volumes of all his philosophical articles, with detailed indexes, etc., to be included in a series of standard textbooks on communism; secondly I think the workers’ state must demand that professors of philosophy should have a knowledge of Plekhanov’s exposition of Marxist philosophy and ability to impart it to their students. But all that is a digression from “propaganda” to “administration”—Lenin.

[3c] Incidentally, here again Trotsky makes a mistake. He thinks that an industrial union is designed to control industry. That is wrong. When you say that a union is an industrial one you mean that it admits to membership workers in one industry, which is inevitable at the present level of technology and culture (in Russia and elsewhere).—Lenin.

The order was an example of administration by injunction and bureaucratic practices, which Tsektran’s leadership was introducing, and was evidence of their misunderstanding of the trade unions’ role in getting transport back on its feet. The trade unions were equated with outdated army committees, and barred by order from taking part in improving water transport operations.

[4] On December 24, 1920, in what used to be the Zimin theatre, Trotsky gave a report on the trade unions tasks in production at a joint meeting of trade union activists and delegates to the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets, called by the Central Committee of the Joint Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers. It started the open Party discussion on the trade unions.

V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 70–107

(Τέλος)

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

Λάθος

Φίλε Βασίλη,

Με δική μου ευθύνη τα μέρη β΄ έως και κζ΄ ταχυδρομήθηκαν δυο φορές.

Μπορείς να σβήσεις τα επαναλαμβανόμενα ώστε να μην επιβαρύνεται άσκοπα το ιστολόγιο.

Συγνώμη για το λάθος,

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής

Ανώνυμος είπε...

ΤΡΕΙΣ ΔΙΟΡΘΩΣΕΙΣ

Και οι απαραίτητες διορθώσεις.

Δυο μικρές, μια στο δέκατο (ι΄) μέρος: αντί in toto να διαβαστεί in toto (λατινική έκφραση που στα ελληνικά θα πει «καθ’ ολοκληρίαν») και μια στο εικοστό έκτο (κϛ΄) μέρος: στο τέλος το Delivered: 25 January, 1921 να απαλειφθεί.

Και μια μεγάλη δηλαδή ακολουθεί το εικοστό έβδομο (κζ΄) μέρος διορθωμένο:

Β. Ι. Λένιν: Άλλη μια φορά για τα συνδικάτα, για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση και για τα λάθη των σσ. Τρότσκι και Μπουχάριν (κζ΄ μέρος — τελευταίο)

Endnotes

[1] Lenin began writing the pamphlet on January 21 or 22, 1921, in Gorki where he was taking a rest. Upon his return to Moscow on January 22, he handed the greater part of the pamphlet to his secretary for typing. He finished the work on January 25 and had it sent to the printer’s. Late on January 26, C.C. members who were going to attend local discussions of the trade unions’ role and tasks were given copies of the printed pamphlet, while the rest of the copies were ready on January 27.

[2] Petrogradskaya Pravda (Petrograd Truth)—a daily published from April 2, 1918, as the organ of the Bolshevik Central and Petrograd Party Committees. Since January 1924, it has been appearing as Leningradskaya Pravda.

[3] V. I. Zoff’s circular of May 3, 1920, was published in the Bulleten Mariinskogo Oblastnogo Upravlenia Vodnogo Transporta (Bulletin of the Mariinsky Regional Water Transport Administration) No. 5, 1920. It ran: “A great change is about to occur in the life of water transport: primitive methods, committee treadmill, haphazard work and anarchy are on the way out. Water transport is becoming a state enterprise, headed by political commissars with appropriate powers. Committees, trade unions and elected delegates will no longer have the power to interfere in technical and administrative matters.”

The order was an example of administration by injunction and bureaucratic practices, which Tsektran’s leadership was introducing, and was evidence of their misunderstanding of the trade unions’ role in getting transport back on its feet. The trade unions were equated with outdated army committees, and barred by order from taking part in improving water transport operations.

[3b] By the way, it would be a good thing, first, if the current edition of Plekhanov’s works contained a special volume or volumes of all his philosophical articles, with detailed indexes, etc., to be included in a series of standard textbooks on communism; secondly I think the workers’ state must demand that professors of philosophy should have a knowledge of Plekhanov’s exposition of Marxist philosophy and ability to impart it to their students. But all that is a digression from “propaganda” to “administration”—Lenin.

[3c] Incidentally, here again Trotsky makes a mistake. He thinks that an industrial union is designed to control industry. That is wrong. When you say that a union is an industrial one you mean that it admits to membership workers in one industry, which is inevitable at the present level of technology and culture (in Russia and elsewhere).—Lenin.

[4] On December 24, 1920, in what used to be the Zimin theatre, Trotsky gave a report on the trade unions tasks in production at a joint meeting of trade union activists and delegates to the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets, called by the Central Committee of the Joint Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers. It started the open Party discussion on the trade unions.

V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 70–107

(Τέλος)

Και πάλι συγνώμη από τους/τις αναγνώστες/στριες.

Μη απολιθωμένος (ακόμα!) από τις ακτές της Ανατολικής Βαλτικής