On Jul 18, 8:55=A0am, John Holmes <jhol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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 =A0a 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-
I will be away for a while but will try to respond once I am near a
connection...
vngelis
|
