ISO response to PSL on Tiananmen Square

[OriginalGumby]

http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/21/tiananmen-square-debate

I'd love to debate this.

[PRC-UTE]

That's a pretty fair assessment of what's wrong with the PSL's position. I'm surprised there's not mroe debate here on this.

[JimmyJazz]

Becker and the PSL have two feet firmly planted in the "socialism from above" camp. Their identification of China with socialism depends, above all else, on the fact that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remains in charge. To the PSL, the CCP is, ultimately, the embodiment of socialism, rather than anything to do with the Chinese working class.


It is necessary to create among us the awareness of the revolutionary historical birthright of the party. The party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering in the spontaneous moods of the masses, regardless of the temporary vacillations even in the working class.

:ohmy:

[Kassad]

I spent a lot of time debating this with Bonkindles and a few others on the Tiananmen Square demonstrations anniversary and frankly, I don't plan on doing so again. The first and last thing I will say in this thread is that when your organization winds up on the same side of an issue as the imperialists and their agenda, you might want to address your ideology.

[JimmyJazz]

the imperialists and their agenda

There is no monolithic imperialist bloc and no monolithic imperalist agenda. Imperialists fight each other all the time. So if your organization is built around "opposing imperialists", you might want to examine your ideology.

My previous post got thanked by two PSL members, and that's fine, because contrasting the two quotes was just a matter of exposing an inconsistency. But as for my own opinion, Trotsky's 1921 quote is clearly anti-socialist claptrap, as is the PSL's line on most things.

Since I've posted twice and not yet commented on the OP's article as a whole, I will say that I thought it was rather good, aside from the fact that it was published by self-proclaimed Trotskyists and therefore criticizes the PSL from what seems to me to be an entirely inconsistent basis.

[Kassad]

There is no monolithic imperialist bloc and no monolithic impieralist agenda. See: WWI, WWII. So if your organization is built around "opposing imperialists", you might want to examine your ideology.

My previous post got thanked by two PSL members, and that's fine, because contrasting the two quotes was just a matter of exposing an inconsistency. But as for my own opinion, Trotsky's 1921 quote is clearly anti-socialist claptrap, as is the PSL's line on most things.

Don't be obtuse. There was a point in which imperialist powers were in an incredible power struggle, as shown by the examples you cited. However, at the current time, the United States is an example of a massive imperialist power that actually controls the general agenda of other imperialist nations. Nations such as France, Japan and England could never actually impede the United States' quest for hegemonic control and if you think international bodies can, you need to examine the United Nations and observe how the United States is in complete control. As such, there is a significant 'bloc', with its predominant figurehead being the United States. To some extent, imperialist nations collaborate for their own ends, which is why the current imperial and colonial threats are even more vast than ever before, as without the opposition from anti-Western imperialists such as the Soviet Union, the imperialist agenda is quite clear and unopposed. It isn't difficult to oppose the imperialist agenda because it is quite clear.

[JimmyJazz]

Don't be obtuse. There was a point in which imperialist powers were in an incredible power struggle, as shown by the examples you cited. However, at the current time, the United States is an example of a massive imperialist power that actually controls the general agenda of other imperialist nations. Nations such as France, Japan and England could never actually impede the United States' quest for hegemonic control and if you think international bodies can, you need to examine the United Nations and observe how the United States is in complete control. As such, there is a significant 'bloc', with its predominant figurehead being the United States. To some extent, imperialist nations collaborate for their own ends, which is why the current imperial and colonial threats are even more vast than ever before, as without the opposition from anti-Western imperialists such as the Soviet Union, the imperialist agenda is quite clear and unopposed. It isn't difficult to oppose the imperialist agenda because it is quite clear.

Don't worry, I understand the PSL's thinking quite well, I have a lot of experience interacting with their members. As far as they are concerned, the working class is just a pawn in the struggles between capitalist and ostensibly "socialist" governments. Their outlook is, at bottom, the near-opposite of the Marxist view which sees the working class is a powerful historical force in its own right. And insofar as the PSL acknowledges the power of the working class, they are terrified of it.

[Communist]

Comrades, I think it comes down to a misunderstanding of the general Marxist-Leninist line as regards counterrevolution. Draper wrote a classic revisionist treatise (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/twosouls/twosouls.htm#Chap1), certainly, but in the end it's way too simplistic, and the "above" and "below" classifications never really caught on in any meaningful way (that I'm aware of, anyhow) due to this. The debates on counterrevolution seem to go on endlessly in the Left, and I can't say anything that hasn't been said countless different ways. But if anyone's interested and hasn't already read it, Sam Marcy wrote a classic pamphlet here (http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samczech/index.htm) which does a good job explaining the Czech situation.
.

[Random Precision]

JJ, being Trotskyists (more correctly, in the tradition of Trotsky) does not mean the ISO is obliged to uphold everything Trotsky said about this or that. That's Marxism 101. Indeed, Trotsky's conclusions on the Party post-Civil War have been criticized by those who followed him, such as Tony Cliff who is also in the ISO's tradition:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Cliffites have little/nothing to do with Trotsky or the revolutionary movement in general.

The origins of their tendency lie in Tony Cliff's break with "Trotskyism" over his cowardly refusal to call for the victory of Korea over the imperialists that invaded it.

[OriginalGumby]

Jimmy I just think its absurd to say that something Trotsky said to describe a very specific time in Russia is similar to what the PSL is saying now about China. Sure the words may sound the same but I think the content is MUCH different. Really starting with the fact that workers actually controlled industry in Russia for awhile and elected the Bolsheviks. Quite different from what happened in China.

NHIA- I really have no idea what Cliffs line on Korea was. Maybe he was saying not to support the Soviet bloc against the West because it was also an imperialist force at that time.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

NHIA- I really have no idea what Cliffs line on Korea was. I'm not surprised.

But aren't you at all curious about the origins of your own tendency?


Maybe he was saying not to support the Soviet bloc against the West because it was also an imperialist force at that time.That was indeed the rationale for his break from the "Trotskyist" movement (read: he was expelled). But it doesn't make it any better.

The truth is he succumbed to the pressures of a hostile capitalist world then sought ideological cover for his move like Max Shachtman before him.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why the focus on Cliff, Trotsky, and Draper while no one has taken up the actual issues raised in the debate between the PSL and ISO?

I know, I know, it's pretty hard to defend "Communist" China as some kind of worker's state these days.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A better question is why you want to detour the discussion away from Cliff and the origins of your tendency.

The question of the nature of China has been discussed here before numerous times.

I don't find it incredibly difficult to define the nature of the state in China or defend my position. It's just that I don't see any advantage in doing it over and over again.

Here's a post in which I already did it. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-china-against-t94896/index.html?p=1290303)

[Jimmie Higgins]

A better question is why you want to detour the discussion away from Cliff and the origins of your tendency.A detour... to the subject of the thread?


The question of the nature of China has been discussed here before numerous times.Then why bother to read this thread and post on it?


I don't find it incredibly difficult to define the nature of the state in China or defend my position. It's just that I don't see any advantage in doing it over and over again.

Here's a post in which I already did it. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-china-against-t94896/index.html?p=1290303)

And I have no problem talking about state-capitalism or socialism from below. I think the ideas about state-capitalism have been pretty vindicated through historical experience since the post-war period. China is a pretty good example of where the logic of these regimes has taken them.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Discussion of the Cliffite position on China should involve discussion of the origins of the tendency and Cliff's state capitalist "theory."

(Note: I don't think the PSL's position on China is correct either).

Besides, discussions on boards like these progress from one thing to another. If you try to stifle that, you will lower the quality of discussion and debate here.

[JimmyJazz]

JJ, being Trotskyists (more correctly, in the tradition of Trotsky) does not mean the ISO is obliged to uphold everything Trotsky said about this or that. That's Marxism 101. Indeed, Trotsky's conclusions on the Party post-Civil War have been criticized by those who followed him, such as Tony Cliff who is also in the ISO's tradition:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm

I understand that Cliffites, and more generally all those who use a "state capitalist" analysis of the USSR, are not orthodox Trotskyists. But don't Cliffites even uphold Trotsky's actions for the first four years of the revolution? Certainly the impression I've gotten from posting on Revleft is that they do. Regardless, I've seen clear evidence that they support the idea of the party having a "birthright", as opposed to the class having it.

And to say that Trotskyists don't uphold everything Trotsky said or did is kind of a sidestep; we're talking about a fundamental part of his contribution to world history. The Tenth Party Congress was a turning point.


Jimmy I just think its absurd to say that something Trotsky said to describe a very specific time in Russia is similar to what the PSL is saying now about China. Sure the words may sound the same but I think the content is MUCH different. Really starting with the fact that workers actually controlled industry in Russia for awhile and elected the Bolsheviks. Quite different from what happened in China.

I fully agree that for Trotsky to have said it was more understandable than for the PSL to say it about China today. Coming off of four years of civil war, and the first attempt to establish a "workers' state" in history, is not the conditions under which Tiananmen took place.

But for Trotskyists (and I am still assuming that the ISO would identify as such, despite following Tony Cliff) to act like it is a matter of principle is disingenuous. Trotsky did support a dictatorship of the party over the working class, under certain conditions.

And frankly, I suspect that if he were alive today, Trotsky himself would be more forthright about the direct line from his and his fellow Bolsheviks' actions in 1921 to the actions of the CPC in the last few decades (including all the reforms, and including Tiananmen), than many of his followers today tend to be. After all, Trotsky was a rather honest guy in this regard, and admitted in the 30's that his support for the banning of factions had been a major mistake. (Of course it's possible he was only willing to admit his error on this point because it was in his present-day self interest to do so, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt).


workers actually controlled industry in Russia for awhile and elected the Bolsheviks.

To the bolded part: what?

[blake 3:17]

Good discussion.

[OriginalGumby]

Honestly this is silly. While I think I agree with supporting neither the Soviet Bloc(not socialists) nor the West, maybe I'm wrong, but this debate took place before the ISO existed and is quite frankly one of the least relevant things to discuss today in my opinion. I'm going to do something more useful which is recruit people to the ISO.

Note on JJs post. No one is advocating dogmatic adherence to a position Trotsky had quite some time ago. I hope that nothing like the collapse of the Russian Revolution happens again but if it does we will have to figure something out.

The bold point was to emphasize that the workers were won to the position of Bolsheviks and elected them into the soviets in contrast to the Chinese Revolution which did no such thing.

Hmm I am actually wondering what you are getting at. Do you think that it is a contradiction for Trotsky to have tried fighting for a workers state and then later supported the party control? This all requires a deeper understand of Russian history but I don't really know what to tell you. I would fight for workers control and if it fell apart and you were there trying to hold the broken peices together what would you do. I think that it could have gone better perhaps and myself and the ISO is not holding whatever decisions were made in incredibly difficult circumstances to the level of a principal. That would be stupid and un-marxist. If you want to make a comparison to china now is the time because that is what Maoism comes from.

[Random Precision]

I understand that Cliffites, and more generally all those who use a "state capitalist" analysis of the USSR, are not orthodox Trotskyists. But don't Cliffites even uphold Trotsky's actions for the first four years of the revolution? Certainly the impression I've gotten from posting on Revleft is that they do. Regardless, I've seen clear evidence that they support the idea of the party having a "birthright", as opposed to the class having it.

And to say that Trotskyists don't uphold everything Trotsky said or did is kind of a sidestep; we're talking about a fundamental part of his contribution to world history. The Tenth Party Congress was a turning point.

The difference is that a person in the ISO's tradition, Trotsky, at a certain point and under extreme conditions advocated the dictatorship of the professional party rather than the dictatorship of the proletariat. As you have pointed out, Trotsky later criticized this error and was followed by many of the subsequent leaders in his tradition.

The tradition of the PSL, on the other hand, started in a break with Trotskyism out of its open embracing of the dictatorship of the professional party when Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian workers in 1956. Since then they have consistently embraced party and state bureaucracies against the workers, they did it during Prague Spring in 1968, Tienanmen Square in 1989 and they're doing it today for Chávez and Ahmadinejad.

[blake 3:17]

So it seems the PSL are a little strange. Do they do good work? Would it be a left split from the WWP?

[Communist]

So it seems the PSL are a little strange. Do they do good work? Would it be a left split from the WWP?

Strange only if you believe solid Marxism-Leninism is strange, I suppose.
They do good work, are quite active and quite high-profile for a young party. PSL wasn't a "Left" split from WWP although I have seen similar suggestions elsewhere. There are several theories for the split floating around but neither party has publicly given a reason.
I'm not *endorsing* PSL - obviously.
But Marxism-Leninism needs defended by those of us who adhere to the tendency. :-)

[JimmyJazz]

As you have pointed out, Trotsky later criticized this error and was followed by many of the subsequent leaders in his tradition.

To be accurate, I said that Trotsky regretted his position on banning factions within the party. I have no idea if or how his views ever changed on the relationship between party and class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So it seems the PSL are a little strange. Do they do good work?

Criticisms of the PSL. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/there-any-members-t110647/index.html?p=1466804#post1466804)


Would it be a left split from the WWP?

More like a horizontal split.

[Random Precision]

The Cliffites have little/nothing to do with Trotsky or the revolutionary movement in general.

The origins of their tendency lie in Tony Cliff's break with "Trotskyism" over his cowardly refusal to call for the victory of Korea over the imperialists that invaded it.

State capitalism was before Korea. Cliff went to research a rebuttal to Ted Grant (who originally put it forth) and became convinced of its truth after thorough research.

And I think that Cliff and the SRG were wrong on Korea. It was hard to get information on the conflict and thus they didn't know about the revolutionary upsurge in Korea, the drive to create a Korean People's Republic etc. Nor did they have information on the extent of American provocation toward the civil war.

So yeah. They made a mistake. Big fucking deal.

[Random Precision]

I said the origins of the tendency. I didn't say the origins of the bogus theory of its founder.

Well, Cliff and his supporters were expelled from the RCP and founded the Socialist Review Group after they promoted state capitalism within the party, before the Korean conflict. I would consider that to be the beginning of the tendency.


I doubt that it would have mattered. The origins of your tendency have much more to do with Cliff's collapse in the face of hostile pressures from the bourgeoisie than the amount of information he had access to.

So did he get tired of the capitalists shaking him down for money and throwing rocks through his window, and came up with state-capitalism to make them go away? It all sounds pretty vague.


It's good to see that you personally admit that it was a mistake. The question now is what you'll do with that. For example, will you promote that position in your organization?

Sure, if it's ever brought up at a branch meeting or something. But certain positions on events in 1950 aren't exactly at the fore of our internal questions and debates. Don't think it has a place in the program either.


Actually it is. Your tendency has never backed down from the position and in fact continues to uphold it. It maintains the exact same outlook that it did then. That's why it has continually thrown its full support behind imperialist counterrevolutionary forces (eg. Solidarnosc & the mujahedin in Afghanistan) while continuing to heap more criticism on people like Fidel Castro than Barrack Obama.

Well, this is just my organization, but from looking at the online version of our newspaper, I'm finding 15 total results for "Fidel Castro", of which 4 directly criticize Castro and Cuba. Here are the search results for "Obama":

http://socialistworker.org/search/node/Obama

So next time you're constructing a strawman, be sure not to name it directly. :)