Ashish Deorari & Anurag Pathak/ 19.10.2018
After rebuttal from WSP of its ‘Open Letter’ addressed to WSP cadres, RR has resorted to further lies and fabrications.
After rebuttal from WSP of its ‘Open Letter’ addressed to WSP cadres, RR has resorted to further lies and fabrications.
(For our rebuttal check: http://workersocialist.blogspot.com/2018/10/our-answer-to-frantic-and-spurious-open.html)
In its rejoinder, RR Brazil, refers to some Comrade ‘V’ of WSP who was in touch with RR. It says, “RR kept in touch with comrade V. who later informed us he would continue in contact with us as he was “Put in charge of international relations” (Someone who is not in the leadership being “put in charge of international relations”!?) and that allowed us to continue studying WSP’s program and politics, and to continue trying to contact and arrange a meeting with it’s leadership.”
Can there be something more irrational and untrue? If a person authorized by WSP for international relations was in contact of RR, then whom else they wanted to discuss with?
The fact goes that neither any Comrade ‘V’ has ever been a member of WSP, not to mention its leadership, nor the WSP has ever ‘put anyone in charge of international relations’. This is plain concoction of RR!
RR claims to have sent e-mails to WSP.The fact goes that RR was having many other means to contact WSP. They could have contacted us on party’s fb page or even on our phone number given on the blogsite itself. It does not suit to any reason as to why they sent a mails if they genuinely believed that they were already in contact of a WSP ‘leader’ of a stature to be ‘put in charge of international relations’?
RR would find itself at loss in answering these questions. What they don’t want to admit is that they imagined and attempted a breach inside the WSP through Comrade ‘V’ and they crashed their heads on its wall!
RR accuses us of expelling Comrade ‘V’ and few others with him, out of the ranks of WSP and demands that WSP must take them back. It is seriously funny to us. We never expelled any Comrade ‘V’ or anyone else from WSP. We keep such V’s at arm’s distance. There are hundreds of sympathizers and supporters of WSP organized in various groups. Best of them continue to get closer to the Party, while others fall apart in the process. You may keep these ‘V’s with you. These ‘V’s will continue to show you the way ahead. This is the best gift WSP can offer to you in response to your accusations against the WSP.
Let us come to the e-mails allegedly sent by RR to WSP, that it has quoted in its reply and has attached to it separately, dealing with the two issues, that RR has raised against the program of WSP. These two issues, touch upon our perspective to the Trade Union and the National Question.
While referring to its mail dated 4.12.2017, RR quotes a section from our program on Trade Unions, where criticizing the TUs we have called upon the workers to break with these props of bureaucracy. This, RR sees in opposition of our clarification that we do not ‘boycott’ the TUs.
Had they more seriously examined this question, they would have found that the two far from contrary to each other, are in perfect conformity not only with each other but with our overall policy on TUs and the national state with which they remain bound up more than ever and equally share its decay. What are the means to execute our TU policy, if not the participation inside these TUs? Only through this participation, can we ensure that the workers see through their own eyes while listening to us that these TUs are rotting to the hilt. Go inside TUs not to strengthen the props of bureaucracy, but to politicize and radicalize the working class against TU bosses. This apparently means ripping apart the old shell to take out the york, to mobilize the working class for struggle committees inside and outside the TUs and in direct opposition to their degenerated leadership. If RR is not able to see this unity of the purpose, this is for no fault of WSP.
RR says, “We have no difference with most of your analysis of the objective situation. But we are not in favor of a one-sided non-participation/break with trade-unions, since they are still working class organizations and can play a defensive role against attacks by the ruling class, as well as provide revolutionaries with access to organized sections of the working class.”
In the first part, where RR agrees with our analysis of the objective situation, nothing remains to be said. In the second part where RR talks about our non-participation in TUs, is a gross misconception to it. We don’t preach boycott of TUs or any working class organization. The task is not to turn our back upon TUs but to work inside them most enthusiastically to convince the workers that they must en-masse turn their backs upon the props of bureaucracy. In the third part, we completely disagree with you and reject the sermon that the TUs can play any ‘defensive role against the attacks by the ruling class’. On the contrary, these TUs under the bosses have become the shackles to hold back the workers not only from mounting a determined offensive against capitalism, but even from defending their most basic and primary rights and living standards.
Unable to comprehend the real tasks of Marxist revolutionaries inside TUs, as underscored by the WSP, RR continues with its rhetoric, “We would like the WSP leadership to explain to us how exactly can one call so passionately for workers to break from unions, and then turn around and declare that you passionately defend the expansion of the activity of the party inside said organizations. This is a full 180º turn on this question.”
Is it a turn around or an uninterrupted continuity of the revolutionary policy that we apply to TUs and Bourgeois Legislatures equally? We go to the TUs to take the workers out of the pernicious influence of TU bureaucracy and mobilize them for struggle committees. Is it some rocket science that ordinary worker would not listen to and would not understand? RR has to learn a lot from WSP!
Again referring to its mail, RR addresses WSP on the National question, “On the issue of national oppression, your program has some contradictory statements and we would be very interested in a clarification. We too defend the “right of self-determination, including secession”. And while we would give no political support to nationalist movements nor defend “balkanization” of any country, we would defend the right to independence of an oppressed nation that has already decided so, at the same time we would defend working class unity against all sections of the bourgeoisie.”
If that is so, where does RR differs from us? In its program, WSP has proclaimed it aloud that it stands for the ‘right of the nationalities to self-determination’ and that upto secession”. This implies that we support the right of every nationality to decide for itself. We do not support the degenerated bourgeois slogans of ‘national unity’. Instead of any support to the slogans of ‘national unity’ advanced by the oppressor bourgeoisie, we demand immediate and unconditional stoppage of all hostilities and military repression. However, it does not prevent us from telling the working class that the secession is not its class agenda, but the agenda of the local/national bourgeoisie. It does not prevent us from advancing our program for ‘Socialist Unions’ under working class instead of national states under bourgeoisie. We must advance our independent program with centrality of the working class in all struggles be it national or racial. These struggles to us are the thresholds of the class struggle. We really fail to understand where RR sees through our program on national question, a ‘self-contradiction’!
What more proof one needs of political and intellectual bankruptcy of the Revolutionary Regroupment, Brazil?
In its rejoinder, RR Brazil, refers to some Comrade ‘V’ of WSP who was in touch with RR. It says, “RR kept in touch with comrade V. who later informed us he would continue in contact with us as he was “Put in charge of international relations” (Someone who is not in the leadership being “put in charge of international relations”!?) and that allowed us to continue studying WSP’s program and politics, and to continue trying to contact and arrange a meeting with it’s leadership.”
Can there be something more irrational and untrue? If a person authorized by WSP for international relations was in contact of RR, then whom else they wanted to discuss with?
The fact goes that neither any Comrade ‘V’ has ever been a member of WSP, not to mention its leadership, nor the WSP has ever ‘put anyone in charge of international relations’. This is plain concoction of RR!
RR claims to have sent e-mails to WSP.The fact goes that RR was having many other means to contact WSP. They could have contacted us on party’s fb page or even on our phone number given on the blogsite itself. It does not suit to any reason as to why they sent a mails if they genuinely believed that they were already in contact of a WSP ‘leader’ of a stature to be ‘put in charge of international relations’?
RR would find itself at loss in answering these questions. What they don’t want to admit is that they imagined and attempted a breach inside the WSP through Comrade ‘V’ and they crashed their heads on its wall!
RR accuses us of expelling Comrade ‘V’ and few others with him, out of the ranks of WSP and demands that WSP must take them back. It is seriously funny to us. We never expelled any Comrade ‘V’ or anyone else from WSP. We keep such V’s at arm’s distance. There are hundreds of sympathizers and supporters of WSP organized in various groups. Best of them continue to get closer to the Party, while others fall apart in the process. You may keep these ‘V’s with you. These ‘V’s will continue to show you the way ahead. This is the best gift WSP can offer to you in response to your accusations against the WSP.
Let us come to the e-mails allegedly sent by RR to WSP, that it has quoted in its reply and has attached to it separately, dealing with the two issues, that RR has raised against the program of WSP. These two issues, touch upon our perspective to the Trade Union and the National Question.
While referring to its mail dated 4.12.2017, RR quotes a section from our program on Trade Unions, where criticizing the TUs we have called upon the workers to break with these props of bureaucracy. This, RR sees in opposition of our clarification that we do not ‘boycott’ the TUs.
Had they more seriously examined this question, they would have found that the two far from contrary to each other, are in perfect conformity not only with each other but with our overall policy on TUs and the national state with which they remain bound up more than ever and equally share its decay. What are the means to execute our TU policy, if not the participation inside these TUs? Only through this participation, can we ensure that the workers see through their own eyes while listening to us that these TUs are rotting to the hilt. Go inside TUs not to strengthen the props of bureaucracy, but to politicize and radicalize the working class against TU bosses. This apparently means ripping apart the old shell to take out the york, to mobilize the working class for struggle committees inside and outside the TUs and in direct opposition to their degenerated leadership. If RR is not able to see this unity of the purpose, this is for no fault of WSP.
RR says, “We have no difference with most of your analysis of the objective situation. But we are not in favor of a one-sided non-participation/break with trade-unions, since they are still working class organizations and can play a defensive role against attacks by the ruling class, as well as provide revolutionaries with access to organized sections of the working class.”
In the first part, where RR agrees with our analysis of the objective situation, nothing remains to be said. In the second part where RR talks about our non-participation in TUs, is a gross misconception to it. We don’t preach boycott of TUs or any working class organization. The task is not to turn our back upon TUs but to work inside them most enthusiastically to convince the workers that they must en-masse turn their backs upon the props of bureaucracy. In the third part, we completely disagree with you and reject the sermon that the TUs can play any ‘defensive role against the attacks by the ruling class’. On the contrary, these TUs under the bosses have become the shackles to hold back the workers not only from mounting a determined offensive against capitalism, but even from defending their most basic and primary rights and living standards.
Unable to comprehend the real tasks of Marxist revolutionaries inside TUs, as underscored by the WSP, RR continues with its rhetoric, “We would like the WSP leadership to explain to us how exactly can one call so passionately for workers to break from unions, and then turn around and declare that you passionately defend the expansion of the activity of the party inside said organizations. This is a full 180º turn on this question.”
Is it a turn around or an uninterrupted continuity of the revolutionary policy that we apply to TUs and Bourgeois Legislatures equally? We go to the TUs to take the workers out of the pernicious influence of TU bureaucracy and mobilize them for struggle committees. Is it some rocket science that ordinary worker would not listen to and would not understand? RR has to learn a lot from WSP!
Again referring to its mail, RR addresses WSP on the National question, “On the issue of national oppression, your program has some contradictory statements and we would be very interested in a clarification. We too defend the “right of self-determination, including secession”. And while we would give no political support to nationalist movements nor defend “balkanization” of any country, we would defend the right to independence of an oppressed nation that has already decided so, at the same time we would defend working class unity against all sections of the bourgeoisie.”
If that is so, where does RR differs from us? In its program, WSP has proclaimed it aloud that it stands for the ‘right of the nationalities to self-determination’ and that upto secession”. This implies that we support the right of every nationality to decide for itself. We do not support the degenerated bourgeois slogans of ‘national unity’. Instead of any support to the slogans of ‘national unity’ advanced by the oppressor bourgeoisie, we demand immediate and unconditional stoppage of all hostilities and military repression. However, it does not prevent us from telling the working class that the secession is not its class agenda, but the agenda of the local/national bourgeoisie. It does not prevent us from advancing our program for ‘Socialist Unions’ under working class instead of national states under bourgeoisie. We must advance our independent program with centrality of the working class in all struggles be it national or racial. These struggles to us are the thresholds of the class struggle. We really fail to understand where RR sees through our program on national question, a ‘self-contradiction’!
What more proof one needs of political and intellectual bankruptcy of the Revolutionary Regroupment, Brazil?
No comments:
Post a Comment