- Ashish Devrari, Anurag Pathak, Sourav Bhattacharya/ 15.10.2018
An Appeal is issued to the WSP supporters in the name of Revolutionary Regroupment, Brazil that apparently is a smudge campaign against the leadership of the WSP, based upon totally false facts. In doing this, RR has made derisory attempt to set agenda of discussion for WSP members.
We take this opportunity to expose the fakers of Trotskyism who resort to such grubby and reprehensible maneuvers to disrupt and prevent the resurgence of a new International, with WSP at its center.
The Appeal, after giving a brief introduction of RR in a para, opens with these words about WSP, “We persistently tried to contact the WSP leadership in the interest of exchanging political views after reading the Program of WSP and other of your documents”.
An Appeal is issued to the WSP supporters in the name of Revolutionary Regroupment, Brazil that apparently is a smudge campaign against the leadership of the WSP, based upon totally false facts. In doing this, RR has made derisory attempt to set agenda of discussion for WSP members.
We take this opportunity to expose the fakers of Trotskyism who resort to such grubby and reprehensible maneuvers to disrupt and prevent the resurgence of a new International, with WSP at its center.
The Appeal, after giving a brief introduction of RR in a para, opens with these words about WSP, “We persistently tried to contact the WSP leadership in the interest of exchanging political views after reading the Program of WSP and other of your documents”.
In the first instance, the claim that RR has ever made any effort, leave aside persistent efforts, to contact the WSP leadership, is false and false to the core. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Let the signatory of the open letter, RR, present a single letter they had ever written to the WSP inviting us to open any discussions with it!
In the open letter, they have addressed us as ‘WSP of India’, that speaks a lot about their ignorance of the very character and politics of WSP. Had they really cared to know us, they would have forthwith learnt in the first instance and had they contacted us we would have corrected them at the outset, that we are not ‘WSP of India’ but the core of an International. Our program is more than clear on this aspect. It is clear that the signatory is lying to itself that it ever has undertaken a serious exercise to understand WSP and its program. WSP has consciously not added India to its program.
RR says that it intends to be part of the efforts for creation of an International. But instead of joining efforts to create such International, it is issuing appeals based on utter falsehood to disrupt this mobilization already undertaken by the WSP. If it was really serious about it, it should have issued a critique of the program of WSP where is disagrees with it and we would have definitely responded to it. Did it do any critique? No!
Without a single effort in this direction, RR explains the reason for being interested in WSP, “The reason for this was that we found your program, despite some minor differences, to be quite orthodox, a creative implementation of the method of Permanent Revolution in the Indian sub-continent and generally politically principled. So far, we have been ignored by the leadership of your group, which does not seem to have informed the membership about us either. We are writing this open letter to the members of WSP in the interest of demonstrating our willingness to conduct discussions about the construction of the international Marxist party – a rebuilt Fourth International.”
Amazing! Only you knew till date on what points of WSP program you agree and on what you not! What prevented you really from drawing an account of these agreements and disagreements? It is beyond any doubt that till date you never ever speak on any point of agreement and disagreement.
You say that you “persistently tried to contact the WSP leadership”. But WSP leaders are unaware of it! WSP leaders are all present on social forums, continuously engaged in war upon world capitalism. There is no trace of your ‘persistent struggle’ to contact them!
Instead of opening any dialogue with WSP leaders on any issue, you resorted to the foul play of issuing an open letter to the WSP members against leadership. This depicts your intention of not being serious about any dialogue but resorting to tricks that we must deprecate.
Under the heading ‘Internationalism’ you wrote this, “We strongly believe there is no other way of re-building the Fourth International other than engaging in serious programmatic discussions with other groups claiming or moving to the genuine Trotskyist tradition and program. That is even truer internationally than it is on a national level. There is no “revolutionary party in one country”. While it is possible to transfer comrades to several other countries after growing in just one, it would be easier and more viable to fuse with comrades from other nations on the basis of a consistent program and methodology.”
In our view, this is nationalist approach to the reorganisation of the Fourth International. As we pointed out earlier, we don’t claim ourselves to be Indian, neither we stand for India. No international can be built by national sections as International is not a conglomeration of nationals. International can be built only on concrete internationalist foundations. Where it is being built, in how may countries, is immaterial. Crucial aspect is the program upon which it is being built. You claim yourself to be ‘Revolutionary Regroupment, Brazil’ but we don’t claim ourselves either to be Brazil or US or Nepal. WSP is the International, the core of the international. All those who claim themselves to be associated with this or that national, we find them outside the framework of the struggle for internationalism. We don’t want to open any negotiations where we are identified or invited as a national party. We distance ourselves from all who claim themselves to be representing a country. To build an international, we invite all Marxist internationalists to join hands!
You say, “Internationalism means both solidarity with the struggles of the workers and the oppressed in other countries”. No, Sorry! This is no internationalism but nationalism! In fact nationalism laced with internationalism! In our age whoever thinks in terms of ‘other’, is no internationalist. Internationalism does not permit this ‘my’ and ‘other’.
Next you talk of ‘Democratic Centralism’! We ask you: Do your cadres know that their leaders are playing deception while basing an appeal on all falsehood? For Lenin and Trotsky, this democracy was never a fetish. Yet we claim with all pride that WSP is the party where all discussions take place with full freedom of expression. Any member of WSP can demand a discussion and have it there. There is hardly any important issue that is not debated inside WSP and on which comrades have not expressed their opinions. We involve even supporters to discuss.
On Trade Union question, you claim that WSP is rejecting the work inside Trade Unions. You wrote: “While we agree with the Program of WSP that broader and more democratic organizations (such as factory committees, soviets, etc.) would be required in more acute moments of class struggle, revolutionaries must not dismiss the unions”. From where did you get this dismissal in our program? On the contrary, we call for most fervent activity inside the Trade Unions and all workers organisations however sectarian they may be. We have called upon the workers everywhere to fight against TU bosses and form struggle committees to carry forward the struggles over the heads of the TU bureaucrats. Is it dismissal of the TUs or animation of a passionate struggle inside them?
Your comments upon WSP program and political orientation show beyond all pale of doubt that you took no pains to study and understand the program of WSP and have shown undue haste only to fool yourself, none else.
Next, you call China or Cuba for that matter, deformed workers’ states. We seriously dispute it. Neither China nor Cuba were or are workers state, deformed or reformed. Did 1949 of China or 1960 of Cuba produced “Workers’ States”? It’s real parody, rather travesty of Trotsky’s characterisation of USSR of his times when Stalinist regime rested upon socialised property that the bureaucracy under him was forced to leave untouched. Today, an imperialist oligarchy reigns in USSR. China or Cuba were never workers’ state ever since from their birth but were bureaucratically organised states in the image of degenerated USSR. While USSR had born out of a genuine working-class led revolution of October 1917, China, East European states, Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea all were born as deformed bureaucratic regimes under the patronage of decaying USSR. The regimes that rode to power in these countries, upon the back of the revolution, put brakes upon the revolution and deformed it into channels of bureaucracy.
While you sit to wait for a ‘bourgeois counter-revolution’ in these countries, they have silently passed over to world capitalism and today constitute its backyard. A deformed workers state, that USSR really was under Stalin’s days, especially before the WWII could not have remained so forever. Not only a socialist anti-bureaucratic revolution or bourgeois counter-revolution would have stripped it off that character but the long decay of Stalinism would have transformed it peacefully to a state under domination of capitalist oligarchy. These states need not pass through the free market to become capitalist. They would leap over and form themselves into crony states led by an autarky. It is immaterial is the new oligarchy still holds the red banner over its capitalist head.
The discussion as to how much capitalist restoration has taken place in these countries is obtuse as they never were socialist workers’ states. To search for relics of their Stalinist past, in these countries, is in fact an apology for their capitalist present. No counter-revolution led by bourgeoisie in these countries is really necessary as the Stalinists-led counter-revolution is sufficient to destroy all fruits of the revolution. Only those who do not recognise this counter-revolutionary character of Stalinist regimes, idly sit to wait for bourgeois counter-revolution in these countries. The property we find still socialised in these countries is the economic brace of the parasitic bureaucracy. Bureaucracy did preserve it for itself as it draws its lifeblood from it.
On homosexuality, your views are not the views of a Marxist. In fact you agree with apologists of bourgeois society that it is not the social perversions and alienations that are generated by all degenerated systems in the history including capitalism in our times, but are genetic in nature something embedded in biology of man. We reject all such propositions advanced by the bourgeois ideologues and the false lefties. Though not holding those who practice them as guilty for it, but a victim of the operation of capitalism around them over which they hardly have any control.
As a Marxist, we believe that all habits, including sexual preferences, are the reflections of definite social relations that are ossified into ‘habits’ that appear to casual mind as ‘natural’. All behavioral patterns of human beings can be traced back to this or that definite social system that in turn emanates from this or that mode of production. The illusions in this regard are the product of highly differing tempos of the development of the two. While modes of production and the social relations change feverishly, the behavioral patterns seasoned into hard habits change too slow.
Thus even after revolution and even alongside rapid emergence of revolutionary society, there survive and not on small scale, the die-hard habits for example of stealing, addiction to drugs and various sexual deviations. Apologists for bourgeoisie claim that these are embedded in genes of the man, but Marxist knows they are not. Your approach on homosexuality is influenced not by the direction of Marxism but by your flawed concern for and fear of the probable isolation of those from us who indulge in such deviations. These are the assumed pressures, submission to which is the sure shot and shortest path to unbridled opportunism.
To the last para of your appeal, our answer is that the new International cannot be built outside of the program proposed by the WSP that you have attempted to hit and discredit without success. Let us join hands to rebuild the Fourth International around the program of WSP that is nothing but an updated restatement of the program put forwarded by Trotsky, the Transitional Program of the Fourth International, in turn founded upon the theory of Permanent Revolution as ratified by Red October.
While rejecting the clumsy 'open letter' of RR, Brazil, we, instead invite and appeal to its members and supporters to acquaint themselves with the program and perspective of WSP and associate themselves with it. They must turn their back upon the nationally rooted and oriented RR and its treachrous leadership to close their ranks with WSP and its program en-route to resurrecting the Fourth International organised in the last century by Trotsky.
In the open letter, they have addressed us as ‘WSP of India’, that speaks a lot about their ignorance of the very character and politics of WSP. Had they really cared to know us, they would have forthwith learnt in the first instance and had they contacted us we would have corrected them at the outset, that we are not ‘WSP of India’ but the core of an International. Our program is more than clear on this aspect. It is clear that the signatory is lying to itself that it ever has undertaken a serious exercise to understand WSP and its program. WSP has consciously not added India to its program.
RR says that it intends to be part of the efforts for creation of an International. But instead of joining efforts to create such International, it is issuing appeals based on utter falsehood to disrupt this mobilization already undertaken by the WSP. If it was really serious about it, it should have issued a critique of the program of WSP where is disagrees with it and we would have definitely responded to it. Did it do any critique? No!
Without a single effort in this direction, RR explains the reason for being interested in WSP, “The reason for this was that we found your program, despite some minor differences, to be quite orthodox, a creative implementation of the method of Permanent Revolution in the Indian sub-continent and generally politically principled. So far, we have been ignored by the leadership of your group, which does not seem to have informed the membership about us either. We are writing this open letter to the members of WSP in the interest of demonstrating our willingness to conduct discussions about the construction of the international Marxist party – a rebuilt Fourth International.”
Amazing! Only you knew till date on what points of WSP program you agree and on what you not! What prevented you really from drawing an account of these agreements and disagreements? It is beyond any doubt that till date you never ever speak on any point of agreement and disagreement.
You say that you “persistently tried to contact the WSP leadership”. But WSP leaders are unaware of it! WSP leaders are all present on social forums, continuously engaged in war upon world capitalism. There is no trace of your ‘persistent struggle’ to contact them!
Instead of opening any dialogue with WSP leaders on any issue, you resorted to the foul play of issuing an open letter to the WSP members against leadership. This depicts your intention of not being serious about any dialogue but resorting to tricks that we must deprecate.
Under the heading ‘Internationalism’ you wrote this, “We strongly believe there is no other way of re-building the Fourth International other than engaging in serious programmatic discussions with other groups claiming or moving to the genuine Trotskyist tradition and program. That is even truer internationally than it is on a national level. There is no “revolutionary party in one country”. While it is possible to transfer comrades to several other countries after growing in just one, it would be easier and more viable to fuse with comrades from other nations on the basis of a consistent program and methodology.”
In our view, this is nationalist approach to the reorganisation of the Fourth International. As we pointed out earlier, we don’t claim ourselves to be Indian, neither we stand for India. No international can be built by national sections as International is not a conglomeration of nationals. International can be built only on concrete internationalist foundations. Where it is being built, in how may countries, is immaterial. Crucial aspect is the program upon which it is being built. You claim yourself to be ‘Revolutionary Regroupment, Brazil’ but we don’t claim ourselves either to be Brazil or US or Nepal. WSP is the International, the core of the international. All those who claim themselves to be associated with this or that national, we find them outside the framework of the struggle for internationalism. We don’t want to open any negotiations where we are identified or invited as a national party. We distance ourselves from all who claim themselves to be representing a country. To build an international, we invite all Marxist internationalists to join hands!
You say, “Internationalism means both solidarity with the struggles of the workers and the oppressed in other countries”. No, Sorry! This is no internationalism but nationalism! In fact nationalism laced with internationalism! In our age whoever thinks in terms of ‘other’, is no internationalist. Internationalism does not permit this ‘my’ and ‘other’.
Next you talk of ‘Democratic Centralism’! We ask you: Do your cadres know that their leaders are playing deception while basing an appeal on all falsehood? For Lenin and Trotsky, this democracy was never a fetish. Yet we claim with all pride that WSP is the party where all discussions take place with full freedom of expression. Any member of WSP can demand a discussion and have it there. There is hardly any important issue that is not debated inside WSP and on which comrades have not expressed their opinions. We involve even supporters to discuss.
On Trade Union question, you claim that WSP is rejecting the work inside Trade Unions. You wrote: “While we agree with the Program of WSP that broader and more democratic organizations (such as factory committees, soviets, etc.) would be required in more acute moments of class struggle, revolutionaries must not dismiss the unions”. From where did you get this dismissal in our program? On the contrary, we call for most fervent activity inside the Trade Unions and all workers organisations however sectarian they may be. We have called upon the workers everywhere to fight against TU bosses and form struggle committees to carry forward the struggles over the heads of the TU bureaucrats. Is it dismissal of the TUs or animation of a passionate struggle inside them?
Your comments upon WSP program and political orientation show beyond all pale of doubt that you took no pains to study and understand the program of WSP and have shown undue haste only to fool yourself, none else.
Next, you call China or Cuba for that matter, deformed workers’ states. We seriously dispute it. Neither China nor Cuba were or are workers state, deformed or reformed. Did 1949 of China or 1960 of Cuba produced “Workers’ States”? It’s real parody, rather travesty of Trotsky’s characterisation of USSR of his times when Stalinist regime rested upon socialised property that the bureaucracy under him was forced to leave untouched. Today, an imperialist oligarchy reigns in USSR. China or Cuba were never workers’ state ever since from their birth but were bureaucratically organised states in the image of degenerated USSR. While USSR had born out of a genuine working-class led revolution of October 1917, China, East European states, Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea all were born as deformed bureaucratic regimes under the patronage of decaying USSR. The regimes that rode to power in these countries, upon the back of the revolution, put brakes upon the revolution and deformed it into channels of bureaucracy.
While you sit to wait for a ‘bourgeois counter-revolution’ in these countries, they have silently passed over to world capitalism and today constitute its backyard. A deformed workers state, that USSR really was under Stalin’s days, especially before the WWII could not have remained so forever. Not only a socialist anti-bureaucratic revolution or bourgeois counter-revolution would have stripped it off that character but the long decay of Stalinism would have transformed it peacefully to a state under domination of capitalist oligarchy. These states need not pass through the free market to become capitalist. They would leap over and form themselves into crony states led by an autarky. It is immaterial is the new oligarchy still holds the red banner over its capitalist head.
The discussion as to how much capitalist restoration has taken place in these countries is obtuse as they never were socialist workers’ states. To search for relics of their Stalinist past, in these countries, is in fact an apology for their capitalist present. No counter-revolution led by bourgeoisie in these countries is really necessary as the Stalinists-led counter-revolution is sufficient to destroy all fruits of the revolution. Only those who do not recognise this counter-revolutionary character of Stalinist regimes, idly sit to wait for bourgeois counter-revolution in these countries. The property we find still socialised in these countries is the economic brace of the parasitic bureaucracy. Bureaucracy did preserve it for itself as it draws its lifeblood from it.
On homosexuality, your views are not the views of a Marxist. In fact you agree with apologists of bourgeois society that it is not the social perversions and alienations that are generated by all degenerated systems in the history including capitalism in our times, but are genetic in nature something embedded in biology of man. We reject all such propositions advanced by the bourgeois ideologues and the false lefties. Though not holding those who practice them as guilty for it, but a victim of the operation of capitalism around them over which they hardly have any control.
As a Marxist, we believe that all habits, including sexual preferences, are the reflections of definite social relations that are ossified into ‘habits’ that appear to casual mind as ‘natural’. All behavioral patterns of human beings can be traced back to this or that definite social system that in turn emanates from this or that mode of production. The illusions in this regard are the product of highly differing tempos of the development of the two. While modes of production and the social relations change feverishly, the behavioral patterns seasoned into hard habits change too slow.
Thus even after revolution and even alongside rapid emergence of revolutionary society, there survive and not on small scale, the die-hard habits for example of stealing, addiction to drugs and various sexual deviations. Apologists for bourgeoisie claim that these are embedded in genes of the man, but Marxist knows they are not. Your approach on homosexuality is influenced not by the direction of Marxism but by your flawed concern for and fear of the probable isolation of those from us who indulge in such deviations. These are the assumed pressures, submission to which is the sure shot and shortest path to unbridled opportunism.
To the last para of your appeal, our answer is that the new International cannot be built outside of the program proposed by the WSP that you have attempted to hit and discredit without success. Let us join hands to rebuild the Fourth International around the program of WSP that is nothing but an updated restatement of the program put forwarded by Trotsky, the Transitional Program of the Fourth International, in turn founded upon the theory of Permanent Revolution as ratified by Red October.
While rejecting the clumsy 'open letter' of RR, Brazil, we, instead invite and appeal to its members and supporters to acquaint themselves with the program and perspective of WSP and associate themselves with it. They must turn their back upon the nationally rooted and oriented RR and its treachrous leadership to close their ranks with WSP and its program en-route to resurrecting the Fourth International organised in the last century by Trotsky.
No comments:
Post a Comment