[In January, 1998, after Marxism Space splintered into moderated groups with no militant proletarian leadership and after a 10,000 character limit was set contrary to "Marxism Space"'s charter, MIM proposed a new "Marxism Space" group. Trotskyists replied with stereotypical bureaucracy-baiting rhetoric. Below is a MIM reply to critics of our idea of "Marxism-Commit." MIM had proposed it as an alternative to what was wrong with "Marxism Space." In the end "Marxism Space" dissolved into private mailing lists. The participants of the "Marxism Space" did not trust the idea of "Marxism-Commit" and the Virginia state government in effect selectively censored the "Marxism Space" out of all its cyberspace discussion groups. The Trotskyist criticism of MIM as "bureaucratic" is an historical echo of Trotsky's criticism of Stalin.]
From mim3@mim.org Mon Jan 19 00:37:04 1998
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:37:02 -0500 (EST)
From:
With regard to Hugh's comments, I agree that in effect people who carry out ad hominem attacks should be able to return to the group. Whether we call it suspension or expulsion followed by re-admittance seems semantic.
"Marxism-Commit" should be different though in its emphasis on written and public self- criticism. The moderator will make heavy use of the idea of criticism and self-criticism in public to solve problems.
Expelled people will not just be allowed back in with vague Liberal statements. At least this much emphasis on taking sides and putting things in to practice can be enforced by a moderator. In fact, people who oppose expulsions on these grounds will also be expelled.
I also agree with Hugh that there is going to be bureaucratic "hassle" from the rules I proposed. Where we disagree is that we of MIM are not such great fans of the "Invisible Hand." The Visible Hand is much to be preferred. Where there is no conscious structure there is unconscious class, gender and national structure. There is going to be such bureaucratic hassle, because our problems do not resolve themselves spontaneously.
For those who are FOR a program, line and theory worked out in details and covering as many subjects that a participant wants to comment on and for those who work FOR an organization with demonstrated commitment, the burdens of "Marxism-Commit" may seem like none at all. It may seem like an "open list," especially the first year.
In the first year, we will weed out the incorrigible anti-party intellectuals who criticize and stand for nothing, thereby poisoning the youth with ideas opposed to commitment. From experience on M-G, we will also have problems with people who become emotional and can't admit it when they have made a mistake letting off steam that ends with ad hominem attacks. "M-C" will seem onerous to those people as well. MIM's participation will also attract a certain cadre of non-intellectuals who insist on Archie Bunker imitations; their slurs will be dealt with; although we will prefer the defects of the non-intellectuals to the p.c. table manners of the intellectuals. I suspect we may have to appear lenient on such types compared with intellectuals.
After a year, we will have built up our proletarian muscles and be ready for the next challenge of requiring concrete and historical reference in our discussions. This may cut back conversation considerably, but it is something we must do to emerge as a butterfly from the cocoon.
The demands of the list will also be somewhat onerous on the youth who have yet to commit. That is a good burden we wish to carry.
Numbers will not be a concern on the list. People will be expected to commit to investigating or not speak. If they want to knock down some party, they will have to read that party's lit or defer to those who have. We will think nothing of requiring people to study what they are talking about. People who want a relaxed atmosphere will go elsewhere.
As for Hugh's saying that Stalinist moderatorship will be "macabre," I don't know if Hugh has any proof that his organization is more committed to open polemic than MIM. We at MIM have dedicated considerable money to printing the opinions of other people in order to rebut them. I'll stack my organization's letters from the masses replied to against his or anyone's.
In reality, it is the true history of Trotsky that he was such a dictator with regard to the membership of the party that he could not bear to be a member of the same party without being its leader. Ever since that time pissant Trotskyists have been in the minority that abandon the international communist movement. They are little different from Liberal bourgeois intellectuals who also cannot stand parties.
In 1926, Trotsky admitted to breaking the centralism of the party. This is according to Trotskyist Isaac Deutscher: "On 4 October Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Piatakov, Sokolnikov, and others signed a statement admitting that they were guilty of offences against the statutes of the party and pledged themselves to disband their party within the party." (Stalin: A Political Biography (NY: Vintage Books, 1960), p. 309.)
In 1927, Trotsky and Zinoviev led separate demonstrations against the party. Then they were expelled. That is also admitted by Deutscher. (p. 311)
Trotsky-sympathizer turned World War II fascist Boris Bazhanov also admitted that Trotsky promised to shoot all his opponents in the room in 1927. Despite this and years of other bullshit including calls on the army to back his minority view, Trotsky was not expelled from the party until months later. He was coddled by a party that hated him in the 90% or more.
So spare me your ignorant Liberal version of Trotskyism and opposition to "Stalinism."