Marxist support for bourgeois politicians?

Chris Burford cburford at gn.apc.org
Wed Nov 11 15:36:12 PST 1998


Apart from the misleading slanting of the debate as far as my position is concerned, as expressed in the thread title, what is really valuable about this contribution from Louis Proyect is that it makes a number of lines of demarcation clear.

It reveals the basic secret of his revolutionary passion. None other than the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution.

Secondly, and centrally to his political position, Louis Proyect has reaffirmed his opposition to the 1935 change of line in the international communist movement to one of a united front against fascism. This is consistent with his position that between 1941 to 1945 the true marxists in the USA and the UK should have been calling for the revolutionary overthrow of their bourgeoisie, and denouncing the revisionists who were calling for a second front to be opened to aid the Soviet Union, as well, revisionists.

It is therefore not surprising that LP has only grudgingly accepted as a "platitude"

"the childish nature of not drawing distinctions between different groups of capitalists or their parties."

Neither of us will be fooled into lowering our guard towards such a dubious opponent as the other, but I do actually come close to him in agreeing that the two party bourgeois democratic system is an enormous handicap to a mass progressive movement in which marxists can play an influential part.


>The most urgent task facing radicals and Marxists today is to find a way to
>advance the class struggle independently of the Democrats and Republicans.

Lest we get too friendly, and since Louis copied this to both LBO and to marxism, and he especially dislikes quotes from Lenin on the marxism list, possibly because he likes to be more Catholic than the Pope,

let me quote Lenin again in connection with the thread title he chose.

Lenin argued (On Slogans) against "philistine conceptions of morality" on these questions, and that " *for the good of the cause* the proletariat will always support not only the vacillating petty bourgeoisie but even the big bourgeoisie."

The fact that this does not sound very much like the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution, I suggest is LP's problem, not mine.

If he finds this thread he so unwisely started, to be tiresome, he could always call in the assistance of Bob Malecki, who would agree with him 100% on these issues. I am not sure that Doug though would welcome Bob on LBO-talk.

Chris Burford

London.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list