Neither Washington...nor Moscow?

[globalska]

Hello to everybody, it is the first time that I participate in the forum.

Before nothing thanks The Redskins because you have been inspiration for many redskins of nowadays, between which I include myself.

I have arrived until this forum looking for information because I am elaborating a text in Spanish on The Redskins and the policy inside the skinhead movement.

It can be by ignorance and it is possible that this question you has done it more times, but I believe that I must ask you something that calls my attention powerfully: Why neither Washington nor Moscow? Washington is obvious, but you reject all the Soviet policy from the death of Lenin, from the death of Stalin? that rejection to the USSR comes from your admiration by Trotski?

Here in Madrid, the red ones do not have too much enthusiasm by Trotski and however they/we have it by the USSR and will be a little difficult to explain why of a so impressive title (a title thus is appropriate here for a non-political skinhead band, a right-wing band or even for a anarchist band, but it does not for one of reds)

In spite of the ideas of Trotski always seemed to me less Bolsheviks and less firm than those of Stalin, it is certain that I do not share many aspects of the behavior of Stalin, others yes. When imperialism makes an effort so much in criminalizing as much to the figure of Stalin must be for something...

Even so I share the idea of Lenin, the great teacher, the Revolution will not be Trotski or Stalin, the Revolution must be Trotski and Stalin. History shows to us that it was not thus, but why to equal the post-Lenin USSR with imperialist yankee system?

I wait for your answer.
A revolutionary greeting comrades,

Global Ska,
RASH Madrid.
www.nodo50.org/rashmadrid

P.D.:Sorry for my bad english.

[rotefront]

Global Ska;

Welcome to the forum and many thanks for your informative post. Your English is far better than my Spanish so no apologies are necessary!

I am not a scholar of leftist philosophy/politics, although I feel I know enough to call myself a left-winger, if that makes sense, so please take that into consideration as you read this.

I think that many people feel that essentially Stalin betrayed the ultimate goals of the Russian Revolution and what the Russians ended up with was more or less "State Capitalism" rather than a genuine Socialist Society. Like so many other places power and wealth ended up in the hands of a very few rather than the people. Stalin also enacted genocidal policies against a number of different ethnic groups both within and outside of Russia (such as my Ukrainian and Polish ancestors) and of course he signed a non-agression pact with Hitler and denied many Eastern countries their own autonomy after WWII in the name of Communism.

Ultimately, as radical as they were, The Redskins were a band who wanted to appeal to a broad audience and I have always believed that their choice of album title reflected a version of Left Wing thought that would be appealing to folks who knew Capitalism didn't work, but were afraid that alternative was a totalitarian state such as Russia under Stalin.

As for Trotsky, I will leave that to people who know more about his theories than me, as I am still educating myself in this regard.

I don't know if this clarifies anything but I appreciated the thought you put into your post. Let's hear from others on this board!

In Comradeship

Rotefront

[strike]

The title of the Redskins album is taken from the slogan of the Socialist Workers Party which appears as a subheading on their weekly newspaper,'Socialist Worker'. Two of the band were members of the SWP. The full quote is; 'Neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism'. What kind of band doesn't want to appeal to 'a broad audience'? The band 'walked like The Clash and sang like the Supremes' allegedly. All I know is they were a great, vastly underrated band and the world is a poorer place without them.They walked the walk and talked the talk.

[rotefront]

Well said Strike.

Perhaps my comment about a "broad audience" was a little vague. Let me clarify...it's sadly been my experience that some bands--while complaining about the state of the world--also want to stay in a safe litttle niche where they can point fingers and not actually be constructive. Or there are other politically minded bands that are drawn and quartered by their so-called fans for experimenting and trying to reach larger audiences. These are syndromes I saw a lot coming of age in the U.S. punk and hardcore scene. That's why the Redskins are refreshing to this day, they had a sound that would appeal to lots of people who might not normally listen to a political band, or attend an SWP meeting, but the message was still there.

If it sounded like I was castingating Dean and Co. that certainly wasn't my intention. Cheers!!!

[strike]

No problem my friend. By the way, the band were so committed they would get up early to sell 'Socialist Worker' at the local Tube station, even after a gig the night before.

[globalska]

Thanks rotefront and strike for your answers.

Greetings from Madrid comrades.

¡NO PASARÁN!