On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Vngelis wrote:
s
>
> You have argued on this thread Pablo was a liquidationist genetically
> going back to his birth... or some such nonsence.
Don't know anything about Pablo prior to his role re Greek
resistance.
Was he a "liquidationist" with respect to the Greek resistance?
Well, he liquidated whatever of Greek Trotskyism was listening to him
and the European Trotskyist secretariat he ran into the Stalinist
Greek resistance, as a result of which hundreds of Trotskyists were
liquidated!
If that's not liquidationism I don't know what is.
> Standard Spart school of falsification. What happened in the 1960's
> isn't what happened in the 1950's.
> The French left sup****ted imperialism in Algeria in its totality.
You have asserted this and failed to prove it. Sure, the Stalinists
and Social Democrats sup****ted French imperialism. So what else is
new? You have provided no evidence any French ostensible Trotskyists
sup****ted imperialism in Algeria, not even the Lambertistes. They
screwed up to be sure, but they sup****ted Messali Hadj, not De Gaulle.
> Under Pablos leader****p they orientated from the early 1950' towards
> the colonial revolution. If by Pabloism you imply substituting the
> revolutionary programme for non-working class forces, then I would
> assume the Sparts line on Cuba of non-stalinist forces leading the
> overthrow of class relations is as rightwing as Healy finding the
> permanent revolution in Arafat.
If you can't tell the difference between Castro and Arafat, you are
truly blind, as blind as--Healy.
>
> As for sources I havent seen you produce one, but you argue as always
> in a vacuum of a preset schema,
> a) Pablo bad
> b) Sparts-Healy good
Healy good? Don't think so. I like Cannon, though he was already
starting to go off the beam by the late '50s at latest, and I like the
Sparts. I have no time for Healy, I think one of Cannon's bigger
mistakes was sup****ting him in the 1940s.
Some of the people he recruited from the CP in 1956, like Cliff
Slaughter, wrote some good things. Mostly under their pressure, Healy
left the Labor Party. And when the SWP stopped being revolutionary,
the Healyites wrote some good critiques. In the immediate period of
the break with the SWP, the SLL had some good moments. But I do not
think the Healyite party, even in the early '60s, was really a
revolutionary party. That is why Healy could not abide the
Revolutionary Tendency of the SWP, and broke it up.
>
> Apart from being an anti-dialectical approach to history as if
> positions aren't arrived at through conflict, discussion and
> disagreement but one man is able to dictate to all.Its called the
> straw man theory of history. Find a straw man, beat him to a pulp for
> what happened later on his life and retrospectively prove he was
> nonsense all along. By that analogy Bukharin, Zimoniev and Kamenev
> were always worthless for what position they took during the stalinist
> degeneration of the Russian Revolution.
I do not have a Devil Theory that it was all Pablo. He was the most
active agent of destruction, but not the only one. Mandel basically
wnet along with him, and the way the IC resisted Pabloism was not very
good. They just withdrew into their national holes rather than waging
a real fight in the FI as a whole. And they didn't realize what was
going on until 1953, after Pablo had already done lots of damage.
>
> Without Pablo in France post-war the French trots would have been even
> more liquidationist than they have become today. My personal opinion
> on the matter is precisely what happened to the pre-war intellectuals
> in the USA. They went over to reaction, others at a fast pace others
> at a slow one...
I dunno about that. According to you, the Greek Pablo Pabloites have
actually joined, not the Eurocommunists, but PASOK! That seems to
indicate, even by your criteria, that Pablo was worse than Mandel,
doesn't it?
>
> Deep down you are all Pabloites. Evidence of the fact that your left
> zionism is to the right of Pablo in the 1950's.
I am reluctant to ask in what way. But I suppose I should. I am afraid
that the answer is that, as a "left zionist," I unlike Pablo would not
have sup****ted running all the Jews out of Algeria.
Pablo was ultimately a Deutscherite, and Deutscher really was a left
Zionist in the 1950s.
> Eindes group sup****ted US imperialism in Korea. Yours sup****ted it in
> Iran. Healy there is no point in mentioning everyone knows his
> positions.
> vngelis
>
The Spartacists sup****t the right of Ahmendinajad's government to
acquire nuclear weapons, and even go so far as to say it would be a
good idea.
In principle I agree, in practice, being how expensive they are, and
how they could touch off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, I
think they would be smarter to, like the Germans or the Japanese,
develop the *capability* to create nuclear weapons quickly if needed,
and I suppose rockets to deliver them, but not actually build them
unless it becomes necessary. I don't think either the US or Israel is
in a good position to attack right now, so I don't think a North
Korean-style crash program to actually crank some out is called for.
Either way, if you think that is a position of *sup****ting US
imperialism* re: Iran you truly need your head examined.
-jh-
|
