Add new comment

Submitted by Jason on Sun, 21/09/2008 - 17:58

I wrote:
"if Iran was attacked by the US we would be for the defeat of the US and the victory of Iran- but this emphatically DOES NOT mean suspending class struggle against the bourgeois but fighting for arming the working class, for participation in the army but using the situation to argue for socialist politics and the necessity of the working class controlling society and the war effort."

For Daniel this means: "it's a whole tradition of politics that have poisoned - and continue to poison - labour movements and lefts throughout the world. A whole number of positions that are "common sense" on the left today are borrowed more or less wholesale from Stalinism."

This seriously misunderstands Stalinism. Stalinism is NOT a politics arguing for the 'working class controlling society' as Daniel suggests. It is a counter-revolutionary dictatorship of a bureacratic caste over the working class, destroying workers' power.

Stalinism has indeed infected parts of the left but it is somehwat perverse to argue that workers' resistance and workers' control of society- precisely the things Stalinism smashed- are part of that.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.