| Home | International Communist Bulletin 7 | | | |
You
wrote in the presentation of your positions: "Stalinism was not
the product of the Russian revolution, but its gravedigger."
The
October revolution is not the same as the Bolshevik party which had
an aim of building a party state and subordinate the soviets to a
state apparatus. As long as you don't understand this will you too
continue on the path of political elitism as ICC and Leftcom,
former IBRP.
Have you read the analysis of Maurice Brinton in his
"The Bolsheviks and workers' control: the state and
counter-revolution" where it can be proven Lenin and Trotsky not
only integrated the soviets into a party state but also established a
party dictatorship with the point of no return in March 1921 when the
Kronstadt soviet was crushed. The end of this counter-revolution was
that the party elite became collective state-capitalist owners of the
means of production in Soviet Union and established state-capitalism:
-
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
I
had a relationship of debate with ICC in Stockholm but concluded
after some years the organization is sectarian and with a subjective
analysis of capitalism. I have also had a period of debate with
Leftcom, former IBRP, and had to conclude not even they understood
that when the Bolshevik party established a party-dictatorship the
party elite thereby changed its relationship to the working class
population to be owners, i.e. state-capitalists.
I guess by this
that you disagree with http://revsoc.org/english
and http://www.internationalist-perspective.org
Internationalist
greetings,
Bjorn-Olav Kvidal
Paris, October 16th, 2011
The Fraction of the International Communist Left to comrade Bjorn,
Dear comrade,
We send you here – added file – the leaflet we are presently distributing. If you "feel" so, don't hesitate to send us your comments. We are sorry for the delay of our response – as you may suppose, our forces are very few.
We want to thank you for your frankness. Yes, as you supposed, we are in strong disagreement with you on the question of the Russian Revolution, the party and the State. For us, these questions, actually the one of the political attitude of the whole proletariat – not only its political minorities – in regards with the State is at the core of the revolutionary theory and practice. Thus it is the main and priority question to discuss and clarify, also the one where the class confrontations – at all levels – is the more acute and to be led.
We don't know if you want to discuss it with us and confront your point of view with ours. What ever is your purpose, we just want to underline a question of method : you seem to consider that that the bolshevik party had already the willingness to establish a Party dictatorship since the beginning : "The October revolution is not the same as the Bolshevik party which had an aim of building a party state and subordinate the soviets to a state apparatus The October revolution is not the same as the Bolshevik party which had an aim of building a party state and subordinate the soviets to a state apparatus". We don't know what is your position about the proletarian insurrection in the very October. What is a true proletarian insurrection or a bolshevik party "coup d'Etat" ?
What ever is your answer to this last question, to say that there was a plan already set up by the bolshevik is to build up an abstract history and not referring to the very concrete process which developed from February to October. And then it avoids you to defend with some credibility and efficiency your position. What has been the real historical process ? What have been the evolution of the attitude of the workers councils in regards with the State up to October ? What role have played the various parties in this process ? What role the Bolshevik one have been ? What has been the process and the evolution of the relationship of the workers councils and the parties towards the new State issued from October ? Actually, raising the question in this terms, it means in historical terms or concrete terms, makes everyone leave any pre-established and machiavelical plan and take into account the real and concrete difficulties, and even contradictions, the international 1917-1921 revolutionary process or wave have been confronted with.
We think that is the way, or method, you should follow... even for defending your present position on the State.
We have another question to ask you : why and on which basis do you consider the ICC to be sectarian ? What was the content of your discussion with it ? Is there still a real Swedish section of the ICC in the country ? We have heard that comrades have resigned and we see no publication for a long time now. Do you still have contact with them ? Do you have other comrades around you with whom you can discuss and confront your points of view.
We hope this short and very rapid letter is not too much confuse and that it can help you to understand what is the difference between an abstract vision of history and a concrete and historical one.
Communist Greetings.
The FICL.
| Home | International Communist Bulletin 7 | | | |