Why are Trotskyists hated?

[khad]

A friend of mine asked me this the other night, and I didn't really have a good response for him, because I don't have any particular antipathy towards trots. I talked a bit about the nutty sectarianism of the SWP-USA and the Sparts, but I did not exactly have much to say on the "fundamental wrongness" of Trotskyism.

I would be interested in hearing what everyone's perspectives are, especially from the anarchist side, since my friend leans that way. And of course, Trotskyist rebuttals.

[Pogue]

Well for one trotsky was a hypocrit, alot of the things he blamed Stalin for he did himself.

[ls]

Look at my signature!

[redflag32]

Anybody who lets the actions of some trots today get in the way of them understanding what trotsky had to say about society is a fool.

The same can be said about all strands of leftism.

[Agrippa]

Kronstadt. That's why.

[LOLseph Stalin]

For one, I would have to say that the ultra-sectarianism among Trots often contributes to alot of this expressed "hatred" as you called it. I was once in an argument that Democratic Centralism could never work with Trotskyists since the minority would just branch off and form a new group. I don't think this is entirely accurate since in a revolutionary situation most of the Trots would generally want the same thing as the core of their beliefs are similar. The sectarianism mainly revolves around how to get there, which tactics to use, etc. There is also alot around the common State Capitalist Vs. Degenerated Worker's State argument. Of course there is also the hatred centered around them from the supporters of Stalin's theories which are incompatiable with Trotsky's.

[khad]

For one, I would have to say that the ultra-sectarianism among Trots often contributes to alot of this expressed "hatred" as you called it. I was once in an argument that Democratic Centralism could never work with Trotskyists since the minority would just branch off and form a new group. I don't think this is entirely accurate since in a revolutionary situation most of the Trots would generally want the same thing as the core of their beliefs are similar. The sectarianism mainly revolves around how to get there, which tactics to use, etc. There is also alot around the common State Capitalist Vs. Degenerated Worker's State argument. Of course there is also the hatred centered around them from the supporters of Stalin's theories which are incompatiable with Trotsky's.
I for one am always puzzled as to how this ultra-sectarianism ends up doing the work of reactionaries. I remember recently on marxmail, that degenerate Campbell guy was shilling for this Moldovan trot micro-sect working for their twitter campaign against the Communist Party. I can understand demonstrating against governmental corruption, but to partner up with neoliberals screaming "death to communists" is beyond silly.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I for one am always puzzled as to how this ultra-sectarianism ends up doing the work of reactionaries. I remember recently on marxmail, that degenerate Campbell guy was shilling for this Moldovan trot micro-sect working for their twitter campaign against the Communist Party. I can understand demonstrating against governmental corruption, but to partner up with neoliberals screaming "death to communists" is beyond silly.

Yes, that's another problem. Some of the groups seem to spend more time attacking other parties rather than doing actual activism work. Of course these groups are losers and don't accoplish anything except make us Trots look bad. If they get an opportunity to attack the other side they will. I have read articles from various Trotskyist sources and it seems most of them include something along the lines of "Stalinism failed because...". No wonder MLs hate us. :rolleyes:

[el_chavista]

" Why are Trotskyists hated? A friend of mine asked me this.."

It seems odd to me. Your friend may has been misguided by someone's old arguments from the Komintern epoch, when Trotskyite organizations were dwarfed by the mass Euro-Communist Parties.
Now a day I like Viktor Shapinov's idea of the neo-bolshevik, engulfing all Marxist-Leninists at one side and the reformists at the other.

[New Tet]

A friend of mine asked me this the other night, and I didn't really have a good response for him, because I don't have any particular antipathy towards trots. I talked a bit about the nutty sectarianism of the SWP-USA and the Sparts, but I did not exactly have much to say on the "fundamental wrongness" of Trotskyism.

I would be interested in hearing what everyone's perspectives are, especially from the anarchist side, since my friend leans that way. And of course, Trotskyist rebuttals.

I don't hate Trots, I simply disagree with their prescriptions.

I disagree with their proposition that we can establish a political state made up of socialists without it (the party and the state) usurping economic power from the workers.

[New Tet]

Well for one trotsky was a hypocrit, alot of the things he blamed Stalin for he did himself.

Such as?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Such as?

Because he was authoritarian and took power away from the workers while arguing against this? :rolleyes:

[Outinleftfield]

Trotsky tries to portray himself as a "democratic socialist" but let's remember that even Stalin and Kim Jung Il considered their countries to be 'democratic'.

The truth is that Trotsky was brutal before being expelled. Trotsky lead the slaughter at Kronstadt.

Trotsky's politics were actually more authoritarian in some ways that Stalin's. At the Ninth Party Congress he said "such a regime under which each worker feels himself to be a soldier of labor who cannot freely dispose of himself; if he is ordered transferred, he must execute that order; if he does not do so, he will be a deserter who should be punished. Who will execute this? The trade union. It will create a new regime. That is the militarization of the working class." He wanted to enslave the working class and label any workers who refused to change jobs on command as "deserters" and punish them. Stalin didn't do this, although workers were kept obedient since if they were fired for any reason they were likely to be blacklisted and it would be harder for them to find jobs(though sometimes managers were desparate to hire new workers).

Trotsky's socialism is more democratic than Stalin's, but that doesn't mean it would've been better. Majorities can be tyrannical too. Socialism is about the liberation of the working class, not giving the working class a new tyranny (even a democratically elected one). Even though trotskyism would be somewhat democratic due to intraparty democracy as I understand most trotskyists do want a 1-party state. Even if the party offered up more than one candidate its still vetting them. It would be about as democratic as Iran where people have choices but there choices are limited by a small elite.

There will only be real socialism when there is free association (anarchy). Forced associations (states) are inherently hierarchical and allow someone whether it's a dictator, a group, a party, the voters to hold others hostage and make them do what they want no matter what it is.

That's not to say that organizations and democracy aren't good things. We should have organized democratic social organizations that take care of society's needs and protect people from force and exploitation but they should not monopolize this role and they should not extort(tax) money but should be funded on a voluntary, negotiated basis.

[New Tet]

Because he was authoritarian and took power away from the workers while arguing against this? :rolleyes:

True, he was authoritarian. But He was no hypocrite. Trotsky's rhetoric was perfectly in line with his basic hostility to worker control of the economy:


“The Workers’ Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans.They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers’ right to elect representatives above the party, as it were, as if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers’ democracy. . . . 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. This awareness is for us the indispensable unifying element.”Trotsky was convinced that workers were incapable of assuming direct, democratic control of the economy and thus dispense with the need of a political state. He was not only wrong, but his dogmatism in this matter helped weaken the Russian working class and pave the way for Stalinism.

[Q]

Trotsky tries to portray himself as a "democratic socialist" but let's remember that even Stalin and Kim Jung Il considered their countries to be 'democratic'.
So, we're the Stalinists aswell now? Nice.


The truth is that Trotsky was brutal before being expelled. Trotsky lead the slaughter at Kronstadt.Actually, Trotsky was never at Kronstadt, he did take full responsibility for that though. And I think the actions, however a tragedy, were justified (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm).

But yeah, let's still throw bricks at eachother over something that happened 88 years ago at the end of a civil war. It is after all of such importance in today's problems :rolleyes:


Even though trotskyism would be somewhat democratic due to intraparty democracy as I understand most trotskyists do want a 1-party state.Could you give us a few examples of Trotskyist orgnisations that defend this stance? It is completely alien to me at least.

Anyway, I agree that Trotsky only reasserted himself notably after Lenin made the critique against him that he's often too much of a bureaucrat ("Lenin's testament"), but in exile he consistently defended democratic socialism, workers self-emancipation and internationalism and led the left opposition against the rising bureaucratic clique in the soviet union that played a counter-revolutionary role within the USSR and worldwide. For this unrelentless opposition he was despised by Stalin and the apparatus he headed. Eventually he was killed by an agent from Moscow for this.

He was equally despised by the imperialists, because Trotsky was as much a threat to them as the Soviet Union was. Trotsky defended the worldwide revolutionary overthrow of capital and therefore the bourgeoisie had absolutely no interest in supporting him.

He's hated by the anarchists mostly because of the "authoritarian" role he played in the civil war. Yes, he made mistakes, but he was also corrected. The example the previous anarchist poster gives on the "militarisation of the working class" was inspired by his experiences as head of the Red Army he founded, but was never carried out because it wouldn't have worked at all.

Trotskyists today are also hated for their sectarian role they often play. The SWP in the UK comes to my mind, but I can't say that my own organisation is free of blame either. Indeed, the issue of unity and organisation of the working class is perhaps the most important issue today. As Trotsky put it: "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership".

For this we need to rethink the issue of democratic centralism. SolidarityWithIran hit the nail on the head in this; instead of preserving unity and develop disagreement, polemics and discussion within an organisation, Trotskyists (although not only Trotskyists are guilty of this) have the long tradition of simply splitting away and form yet another splinter. This time, so we're always told, with the "real tradition of Trotskyism".

To solve this fundamental problem I see the solution in three areas (yes, I'm going way off topic now, bite me) which share a strong interrelation: 1. preserve unity around principles (as opposed to unity in ideas), let different viewpoints develop freely and give them opportunity to reach a majority. 2. ensure transparancy in the organisation. Ideas should be publically discussed, differences with them published in the party press. Only in this way can we ensure: a. the development of ideas (and therefore the development of the party), b. the democracy of the party, and therefore its unity and c. ensure an education of the working class (or at least a layer of it that follows us) in tactics and strategy. In other words, a political education in the conquest of working class power. 3. the need for a clear program. Most Trotskyists will shout "but we have a program! look at our x point list of stances!" However I think we need to be more clear and explain more then simply defend an program of action. I think there is a need for a "bigger picture" aswell that gives answers to "what is our society? where does it come from? what is the alternative? how do we get there?". This formal program isn't directly used in action, but is used for political education, of party members and of the working class.

Rant done :)

[LOLseph Stalin]

True, he was authoritarian. But He was no hypocrite. Trotsky's rhetoric was perfectly in line with his basic hostility to worker control of the economy:

Most of that post was meant as sarcasm btw, well at least the part about him taking power away from the workers.


So, we're the Stalinists aswell now? Nice.

Apperently so... :rolleyes:

[peaccenicked]

The question of hatred of Trotsky boils down to who hates Trotsky and Why.
Having read just about every word the man wrote. I am biased towards him. My Life, is a great auto biography, one of the best ever written. Whatever Trotsky was, he was a great writer.
The anarchists hate Trotsky over the Kronstadt tragedy. In hindsight, it looks like an over reaction by the Bolsheviks, that needed a diplomatic solution.
The Stalinists hate Trotsky because he was a Bolshevik. Stalin murdered just about all of them.

Another very worthwhile book of Trotsky's is "The history of the Russian Revolution"
My favorite short piece is this http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/02/lenin.htm
The imperialists hate Trotsky.

There is no point in hating Trotsky. He made mistakes sure but he was under great pressure most of his life.
We have to treat the myriad of his pamphlets, books, and letters scientifically.
There is much to be gleamed from them. On the whole, there is much wisdom there,
and much of life itself.

The sects are more hateful. They seem to water-down Trotsky and are obscurantist on his real message. The words Trotsky wrote on Lenin can be said to true for himself.

"Lenin was right: The ruling classes not only persecute great revolutionists during their lifetime but revenge themselves upon them after they are dead by measures even more refined, trying to turn them into icons whose mission is to preserve “law and order.” No one is, of course, under compulsion to take his stand on the ground of Lenin’s teachings. But we, his disciples, will permit no one to make mockery of these teachings and to transform them into their very opposite!"

Nevertheless I do not call myself a Trotskyist. For the same reasons. I am not a Marxist. There are too many misinformers. It is better to find out for yourself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Kronstadt. That's why.

And St Petersburg.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, a lot of nonsense was written about Trotsky here, but I don't think that is really relevant. To be completely honest, even though in the 1930s and 1940s the Trotskyists were especially hated because they represented the true legacy of October which the Stalinists murdered and which the bourgeoisie was still afraid of, I don't think Trotskyists are more hated than any other left group.

Leftists of different political tendencies have acute differences; I think that the main reason why Anarchists are anti-Trotsky - Kronstadt - also makes them hostile towards Stalinists, who I assume would also support Kronstadt. So I believe the question is a tad misinformed.

[Communist Theory]

My problem with Trots is they usually resort to the word Stalinist when they are disagreed with
and you have never seen a Trotskyist revolution anywhere....

[LOLseph Stalin]

My problem with Trots is they usually resort to the word Stalinist when they are disagreed with
and you have never seen a Trotskyist revolution anywhere....

There hasn't been a Trotskyist revolution anywhere because There were already Stalinist revolutions spreading through Comitern which was opposed to Trotskyism. Also, Stalin's regime was already fully established in Russia and Trotsky called for international revolution which would have to be aided by the Soviet Union. It was not in such a position for that to happen. You do also have to keep in mind that the Fourth International was founded later.

[LeninKobaMao]

Here are some REAL quotes against Trotsky:

Lenin letter to Zinoviev:

"Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist. He pays lip service to the party and behaves worse than any of the other factionalists."

Lenin again:

"Trotsky's theses, whatever his intentions, do not tend to play up the best but the worst in military experience."

Che Guevara:

Trotsky, along with Krushchev belongs to the category of great revisionists"

Che Guevara again:

Trotsky was fundamentally worng... Trotskyists ultimately failed because there methods are bad."

Che Guevara AGAIN:

I have sworn before a picture of our old, much lamented Comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."

That's why people hate Trotsky. I don't hate Trotsky but I disagree with his political methods.

[Soviet]

Trotsky's socialism is more democratic than Stalin's

Oh,yes!:laugh:But tell me,please,where have you seen Trot's socialism,in what country?When and where Trots prooved in practice that their socialism is more democratic?
Or you are sure that it is no need in it,it's enough to have long tongues to proove case?
No,my dear,all your chat about "bad" stalinism and "good" trotskism is nothing more but a bullshit,until you'll snow us Trot's socialism.
Go on!
And remember:words are nothing,practice is everything.

[DDR]

Well, I, myself, have Trotskophobia ad that's because:

1.- Trotsky's Acttions: Kronstadt, Ucraine, being a speaker of the contrarevolution for the US.

2.- Trotsky's ideas, especially the so-called Permanent Revolution, the silliest idea I ever heard. And of course entrism, a practice used by almost every trotskiste organization (and the most anoying one)

3.- Trotskistes, good lord, I've never met more anoying, sectarian and assemblies boikoters people.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Che Guevara AGAIN:

I have sworn before a picture of our old, much lamented Comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."

Damn those capitalist octopuses!
I prefer Debord's quote on Trotsky (from Society of the Spectacle 112 (http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/4.htm))


The only current partisans of the Leninist illusion are the various Trotskyist tendencies, which stubbornly persist in identifying the proletarian project with an ideologically based hierarchical organization despite all the historical experiences that have refuted that perspective. The distance that separates Trotskyism from a revolutionary critique of present-day society is related to the deferential distance the Trotskyists maintain regarding positions that were already mistaken when they were acted on in real struggles. Trotsky remained fundamentally loyal to the upper bureaucracy until 1927, while striving to gain control of it so as to make it resume a genuinely Bolshevik foreign policy. (It is well known, for example, that in order to help conceal Lenin’s famous “Testament” he went so far as to slanderously disavow his own supporter Max Eastman, who had made it public.) Trotsky was doomed by his basic perspective, because once the bureaucracy became aware that it had evolved into a counterrevolutionary class on the domestic front, it was bound to opt for a similarly counterrevolutionary role in other countries (though still, of course, in the name of revolution). Trotsky’s subsequent efforts to create a Fourth International reflect the same inconsistency. Once he had become an unconditional partisan of the Bolshevik form of organization (which he did during the second Russian revolution), he refused for the rest of his life to recognize that the bureaucracy was a new ruling class.
The key sentence there is the first one (which is a lot truer today than it was then). The various "Marxist-Leninist" sects of anti-revisionists or whatever are obviously, openly discredited by the collapse of their utopias, which means that Trotskyism is the only remaining form of Leninism with any credibility at all. That's what makes it dangerous.

[bricolage]

I've got no love for Trotskyist theory but to be honest the few Trots that I do hate I don't hate them because of what they believe I hate them because they are really fucking annoying people.

[Hit The North]

2.- Trotsky's ideas, especially the so-called Permanent Revolution, the silliest idea I ever heard.



What is it about the theory of permanent revolution you find silly?


And of course entrism, a practice used by almost every trotskiste organization (and the most anoying one)

Wrong. The majority of Trotskyist organisations are not entryist.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I've got no love for Trotskyist theory but to be honest the few Trots that I do hate I don't hate them because of what they believe I hate them because they are really fucking annoying people.
This. Some trots are fucking annoying; some of them are genuinely lovely people. The problem is that trot organisations lead well-meaning, committed socialists to waste their time building up the power bases of various bureaucrats-in-waiting rather than doing anything vaguely useful. And, when they realise they've been had, quite a few drop out of politics altogether, understandably enough.

[genstrike]

First, there is the whole idea of Trotskyism as a more democratic and humane alternative to Stalinism within a Leninist tradition, which I think is a load of crap.

Second, Kronstadt!

Third, I find a lot of Trots and Trotskyist groups to be annoying sectarian fucks with little grasp of how to do meaningful activism. The International Bolshevik Tendency, International Marxist Tendency, and any entryist group immediately come to mind.

[Pogue]

Such as?

Reintroducing saluting, ranks, seperate conditions for officers/soldiers into the Red Army, and labour camps, both of which Trotsky strongly advocated.

[DDR]

What is it about the theory of permanent revolution you find silly?

The whole idea that for revolution in order to success must be archieved in most of the industrialized countries, and that has preoved wrong, look at Cuba for example.



Wrong. The majority of Trotskyist organisations are not entryist.

I can tell you that here, in Spain most of them are.

[Q]

The whole idea that for revolution in order to success must be archieved in most of the industrialized countries, and that has preoved wrong, look at Cuba for example.
You're quite wrong. The theory of Permanent Revolution (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#permanent-revolution) was developed from the perspective of that of a developing country (Russia at the time) and relies on two basic points: 1. the bourgeois-democratic revolutionary tasks can no longer be carried out by the bourgeoisie, like it happened in 1789 and 1848. This is due to the fact that the bourgeoisie of the developing nations is not able to develop in an independent fashion but relies and is dependent on the international bourgeoisie. Therefore the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution have to be carried out by the working class.

However, the working class will not stop there of course and is inclined to move forward to the socialistic tasks aswell. This brings me to point 2. Only on an international scale can the historic tasks of socialism (that is: a higher mode of production then possible under capitalism in order to create the material basis necessary to genuinely free humanity) be achieved.

Flowing from this, I disagree with you that Cuba is socialist. Sure, it has a progressive economic foundation as compared to capitalism. But this planned economy is malformed due to strong bureaucratic control over it, although perhaps not in the extreme totalitarian way as was the case in the USSR. However, Cuba has not been able to surpass capitalism, indeed the regime has been forced to move more and more back towards it after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the massive aid that came from it. I'm not saying it's capitalist just yet, however it is certainly not socialist either.

I'm of the opinion that this bureaucracy is the singlemost biggest danger for the survival of the gains of the Cuban revolution. What is needed therefore is a political revolution that will oust this bureaucracy and bring to power the working class. This can most likely only be achieved due to the pressures of international developments, for example a successful revolution in Venezuela.

[Idealism]

I think their "hated" because in terms of theory: Left communists, Anarchists, and Reformists all hate Marxist-Leninists, and Marxist-leninists don't like Trotskyists.

[Fishoutofwater]

Stalinism is essentially different than other forms in that it doesnt allow factionilazation, which is basicly counter revolutionary, i myself am a marxist-leninist, which embraces all factions, and tries to bond them together on their hatred of the bourgeiose.

"We must embrace all cultures races and relegions, for all men must make it to heaven somehow" Frederick the Great.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Trotsky tries to portray himself as a "democratic socialist" but let's remember that even Stalin and Kim Jung Il considered their countries to be 'democratic'.

The truth is that Trotsky was brutal before being expelled. Trotsky lead the slaughter at Kronstadt.

Trotsky's politics were actually more authoritarian in some ways that Stalin's. At the Ninth Party Congress he said "such a regime under which each worker feels himself to be a soldier of labor who cannot freely dispose of himself; if he is ordered transferred, he must execute that order; if he does not do so, he will be a deserter who should be punished. Who will execute this? The trade union. It will create a new regime. That is the militarization of the working class." He wanted to enslave the working class and label any workers who refused to change jobs on command as "deserters" and punish them. Stalin didn't do this, although workers were kept obedient since if they were fired for any reason they were likely to be blacklisted and it would be harder for them to find jobs(though sometimes managers were desparate to hire new workers).

It is pretty a-historical and unmaterialistic to compare Trotsky and Stalin in this way. Trotsky did many things that were undemocratic and were not great, but this is in the context of trying to hold the revolution together. Many of the things that the Bolsheviks did in the early years of the revolution that anarchists use to "proove" that the bols were just Stalins in waiting were much like the anti-democratic mesures of Makhno when his group became increasingly isolated and he was trying to hold his movement together.

These early bolshiviks made mistakes, but for the cause of trying to hold the revolution together. Stalin abandoned this aim in attempting to create socialism in one country and tried to create industrialization on the backs of the working class.


Trotsky's socialism is more democratic than Stalin's, but that doesn't mean it would've been better. Majorities can be tyrannical too. Socialism is about the liberation of the working class, not giving the working class a new tyranny (even a democratically elected one).

To me, socialism is about the working class running society for themselves and will necissarily result in the "Tyranny of the Majority" or "Mob rule" that capitalists so fear becasue it is the opposite of their "tyranny of the minority" and "capitalist rule".


Even though trotskyism would be somewhat democratic due to intraparty democracy as I understand most trotskyists do want a 1-party state. Even if the party offered up more than one candidate its still vetting them. It would be about as democratic as Iran where people have choices but there choices are limited by a small elite.I don't want a one party state, the Bols did not want a one party state. If there needs to be a period of working class rule (as I think there will need to be) then workers will probably create various parties advocating various ways to handle distrobution of products or argueing for different ways to build cities or argueing for faster or slower progress towards a stateless society.

Anarchists (as well as some lenninists) tend to confuse bolshevik party-building with the form that the working class state will take after a revolution. I think that parties can not decide this - it needs to be up to the conditions at the time of the revolution and the workers themselves! If the revolution was barely accomplished and the working class is weak, then workers will probably decide that a stronger state with an organized worker's militia need to be formed; if the revolution is overwhelmingly popular and the capitalist state collapses, then workers will probably decide they don't need a militia to protect themselves from outside attacks and internal counter-revolution and so the worker's would probably only need a state for basic administration and coordination between different worker-controlled factories and industries.


There will only be real socialism when there is free association (anarchy). Forced associations (states) are inherently hierarchical and allow someone whether it's a dictator, a group, a party, the voters to hold others hostage and make them do what they want no matter what it is.
In my view, states are automatically the tool of class rule: in capitalist states it is organized for capitalist power, in Stalinist states it's organized to maintain the party in power. A socialist state can not be hirearchical in the way we know hierarchy in capitalism and state-capitalism and feudalism. Since the working class is the majority, we will need to invert the hierarchy so that ouir representatives are answerable to us as workers. Today representatives have to answer to the people who give them money to run campaigns (capital and the party bosses) as well as rules and laws established years ago in the interests of maintaining the capitalist status-quo. Representatives for workers will need to be recallable and imediately answerable to the worker-controlled factories or neighborhoods they represent.


That's not to say that organizations and democracy aren't good things. We should have organized democratic social organizations that take care of society's needs and protect people from force and exploitation but they should not monopolize this role and they should not extort(tax) money but should be funded on a voluntary, negotiated basis.I agree and this is why I am a Trotskist. I think the Russian Revolution was a true worker revolution but it failed and lead to disaster. I want to know why that was - what they did right and how they went wrong

[Pogue]

I don't want a one party state, the Bols did not want a one party state. If there needs to be a period of working class rule (as I think there will need to be) then workers will probably create various parties advocating various ways to handle distrobution of products or argueing for different ways to build cities or argueing for faster or slower progress towards a stateless society.


Of course they wanted a one party state. They said this, and put it into practice.

[Communist Theory]

There hasn't been a Trotskyist revolution anywhere because There were already Stalinist revolutions spreading through Comitern which was opposed to Trotskyism. Also, Stalin's regime was already fully established in Russia and Trotsky called for international revolution which would have to be aided by the Soviet Union. It was not in such a position for that to happen. You do also have to keep in mind that the Fourth International was founded later.
You proved my Stalinist point.

Also these "Stalinist" revolutions wouldn't have stopped revolutionaries from reading Trotsky's works then being inspired by them and overthrowing their government but apparently Trotsky's books were not inspirational...
The SU is gone now and I still don't see a "Trotskyist" government.

[Q]

I didn't want this to go into yet another pointless stalinists vs trotskyists threads, but if you persist...


My problem with Trots is they usually resort to the word Stalinist when they are disagreed with
and you have never seen a Trotskyist revolution anywhere....

There was never a stalinist revolution in history, and you know why? Because every chance they got (and they had many) they actively moved to sabotage it. After all, we don't want any genuine workers control, now do we?

[Pogue]

I didn't want this to go into yet another pointless stalinists vs trotskyists threads, but if you persist...



There was never a stalinist revolution in history, and you know why? Because every chance they got (and they had many) they actively moved to sabotage it. After all, we don't want any genuine workers control, now do we?

Well Trotsky didn't want this either. This is something Trotskyist's ignore.

[Q]

Ok, now that we've thrown the mandatory bricks at one another, let's go back to the topic, shall we?

[Pogue]

Ok, now that we've thrown the mandatory bricks at one another, let's go back to the topic, shall we?

No, I think its important to take note of the fact that Trotsky and Stalin didn't have very different ideas/practises.

[Q]

No, I think its important to take note of the fact that Trotsky and Stalin didn't have very different ideas/practises.
It is not a fact, just your silly opinion. Now can we get back on topic?

[Pogue]

It is not a fact, just your silly opinion. Now can we get back on topic?

But Trotsky advocated one man management and forced labour, did he not?

[Radical]

The majority of Trotskyists I've spoken to are very sectarian. I believe thats one reason why their primarly hated.

[Hit The North]

The whole idea that for revolution in order to success must be archieved in most of the industrialized countries, and that has preoved wrong, look at Cuba for example.


So you find the theory silly because you don't understand it.

Maybe Trotskyists are hated partly because their ideas are misunderstood and misrepresented?

[Communist Theory]

There was never a stalinist revolution in history, and you know why? Because every chance they got (and they had many) they actively moved to sabotage it. After all, we don't want any genuine workers control, now do we?
Well I apologize let me correct myself.

I have never seen the followers of Trotsky give themselves a chance to implement revolution.
Unlike "Stalinists".
I'm not saying Trotsky wasn't a follower of Lenin either.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well I apologize let me correct myself.

I have never seen the followers of Trotsky give themselves a chance to implement revolution.
Unlike "Stalinists".
I'm not saying Trotsky wasn't a follower of Lenin either.

You can't forget that the Stalinist revolutions were indeed Counter-Revolutions which took the power away from the working class and instead focused it on a bureaucratic party.

[LeninKobaMao]

The majority of Trotskyists I've spoken to are very sectarian. I believe thats one reason why their primarly hated.

But you could say that about Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism)

[LOLseph Stalin]

But you could say that about Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism)

Yes you can. I have come across some pretty sectarian Marxist-Leninists.

[Madvillainy]

Because they're bourgeois.

[Hit The North]

Because they're bourgeois.

I've never met one that was an owner of capital. What are you talking about?

[khad]

So far I've been mostly disappointed by the insight or lack thereof contained in the one-line thread craps of certain anarchists.

[Tower of Bebel]

Well Trotsky didn't want this either. This is something Trotskyist's ignore.
Yes, that was Leon Trotsky - during a particular moment in history when he was the agent of a particular trend within the workers movement/Russian Revolution. Once upon a time in the East Trotsky did not "want" what you probably wanted to happen. But there was no reliable alternative at that time. The Menshevik alternative would not have worked, nor did the workers' opposition pose one. In the end it was either the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party or the dictatorship of the white generals. Over the long term both (would have) eventually used the peasantry against the working class. But while the Bolsheviks intended to save the revolution through setting up a coercive force, hoping for some releave within a very short period of time, the white generals would never have had such an intension.

That's why Trotsky clinged to state power - a state which stood above the working class and sometimes against the working class. That's why he had some "distorted" ideas. Trotskyism however is based more on the ideas and fomulations of Trotsky right after his expulsion than on the things he did during the civil war. There are for instance no Trotskyists that fight for the creation of a red army nor do they argue for the surpression of the Zapatistas.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I've never met one that was an owner of capital. What are you talking about?
Because they ultimately serve the interests of the owners of capital by channeling radicalism into futile self-defeating directions?

[Pogue]

Yes, that was Leon Trotsky - during a particular moment in history when he was the agent of a particular trend within the workers movement/Russian Revolution. Once upon a time in the East Trotsky did not "want" what you probably wanted to happen. But there was no reliable alternative at that time. The Menshevik alternative would not have worked, nor did the workers' opposition pose one. In the end it was either the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party or the dictatorship of the white generals. Over the long term both (would have) eventually used the peasantry against the working class. But while the Bolsheviks intended to save the revolution through setting up a coercive force, hoping for some releave within a very short period of time, the white generals would never have had such an intension.

That's why Trotsky clinged to state power - a state which stood above the working class and sometimes against the working class. That's why he had some "distorted" ideas. Trotskyism however is based more on the ideas and fomulations of Trotsky right after his expulsion than on the things he did during the civil war. There are for instance no Trotskyists that fight for the creation of a red army nor do they argue for the surpression of the Zapatistas.

Ah, so you ignore all of his actions while he was high up in the 'workers state'?

[Hit The North]

Because they ultimately serve the interests of the owners of capital by channeling radicalism into futile self-defeating directions?

Well, you anarchists should step in and lead the radical working class to the glorious revolution, seeing as you've got all the answers. :rolleyes:

Or are you just talk?

[Tower of Bebel]

Ah, so you ignore all of his actions while he was high up in the 'workers state'?
No. Of course not. We're not two sides of the same medallion.

Trotsky's actions not only proved that the Bolsheviks were confronted with a serious hostile situation; it also proved that they ignored the potitical content of their (former) programme. The democratic dictatorship of peasants and workers, the goal of that old Bolshevik programme, became an empty slogan. "All power to the soviets" and the slogan for a workers' or socialist(ic) government could not replace that.

The vagueness of the latter slogans or formulas helped to further undermine political clarity among future Marxists. This is a serious problem. Of course, you cannot simply account for these problems without mentioning the circumstances from which everything developed. But explaining the material circumstances is not enough. The actions of the Bolsheviks that were undemocratic cannot be justified by the end. They can only be justified by looking at the circumstances of that time.
The surpression of the Kronstadt rebellion, the dissolution of the constituant assembly, the prohibition of fractions within the party, etc. were all problematic acts against the working class. More problematic for the future was the tendency to theorize these actions and sometimes to justify them (known as "Leninism" or "Marxist-Leninism" or even "Boshevik-Leninism").

Lenin's last struggles and finally Trotsky's expulsion from the Soviet Republic - together with the ability to devote more time to study - made it possible for Trotsky to reassess and analyse what had happened in the past. It was then that Trotsky wrote his most famous works: 'The Revolution Betrayed', 'The History of the Russian Revolution', 'Permanent Revolution', etc. And most of them are devoted to the problem of bureaucratization, overcomming the split within the workers' movement, the idea of workers taking power (as opposed to a mechanical theory of 2 stages), etc. This by itself deserves some appreciation.

Speaking from the point of theory he probably did not succeed at solving all the problems. Maybe he didn't even address all the mistakes of his own - though I haven't read all of his key works. Trotsky's insistance on soviets does not intirely solve the problem of bureaucratization. It happened in Russia and it can occur again, even in France, Indonesia or Mexico. Trotsky's underlying intensions however are the issue here. I think I can illustrate what I mean in another way by borowing from Trotsky himself. Trotsky wrote that the comming to power of Stalin formed Russia's own Thermidorian Reaction. All the USSR needed however was a political or social revolution to turn the tide. Such a revolution would restore power fermly in the hands of the soviets.

I think that this analysis eventually proved to be wrong. I think that the Bolsheviks of 1918-1921 already started the Thermidorian Reaction by themselves. In reality the comming to power of a bureaucratic caste was Russia's 18th Brumaire. From then on there was almost no incentive for a "political" or "social revolution" in the Soviet Union. I think it partially explains why Stalin's followers were eventually unable to stop "Revisionism". But the very idea that it was possible for the workers to fight back; this hope fostered by Trotsky proves that in the end his whole political career did not revolve around the simplistic idea that "he did not want" workers' power.

Admitting his mistakes and the role he played during the Civil War does not prove that Trotsky belongs to the dustbin of History. I have addressed Trotsky's mistakes because ignoring them would give you an opportunity.

Trotsky belongs to that great tradition of revolutionaries great and small who helped to set up a fight against far greater enemies than the early Bolsheviks. Those were not simply enemies who happened to make mistakes. They were scabs and betrayers. I mean the reformists and centrists who drew the plans for the isolation of the Soviet Union, who planned the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl liebknecht and who committed many other crimes against the interests of the working class. Not with the intension of saving the proletarian revolution like the more honest Bolsheviks had. But with the intension to crush the working class directly.

Trotsky was also the one who tried to put up a fight when he was removed from the Soviet Union. It was a fight against the institutions he helped to create. Yes. But this can only serve a one-sided arguement. One equally one-sided as "Kronstadt was reactionary", "liberal" or "bourgeois rebellion". It totally ignores the totallity of the picture we need to see before us.

That he did all this is the least I could say. I should also devote some time to appreciate what Trotsky wrote in some of his most important works. But that's not the purpose of my post, nor this thread. I think it's fair to conclude that after all he has done Trotsky as a revolutionary still belongs to the working class, whatever you may think of him or Trotskyism.

[h9socialist]

In the U.S. at least part of the problem goes back to Max Schachtman, who was Trotsky's main U.S. connection. Schachtman became so anti-Stalin, that he became anti-Soviet and anti-Communist. While Schachtman remained "to the left" on most programmatic issues, many of his followers became very right-wing. The "right-Schactmanites" have been concentrated in the Social Democrats, USA since the early 1970s -- and have notable alums like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Linda Chavez. In 2004 the SD website claimed to be pushing the ideas of Eugene V. Debs, while supporting George W. Bush (I couldn't make this up if I tried!). Since the SDs inherited the old Socialist Party's seat in the Socialist International, they are often called the CIA's delegation to SI. From my perspective, my distrust of Trotskyism is based on how badly wrong it went in the U.S. under the right-Schachtmanites.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Well, you anarchists should step in and lead the radical working class to the glorious revolution, seeing as you've got all the answers...

Well, you anarchists should lead
You definitely understand anarchism.

[Hit The North]

You definitely understand anarchism.

It's certainly comparable to your understanding of Trotskyism.

And whilst you may aver at the thought of leading anyone, it's obvious from your earlier comments, that you believe radical workers are easily led astray (by us powerful Trots).

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It's certainly comparable to your understanding of Trotskyism.
There must be something very wrong with your party if I was able to spend several years in it as an active member (representing my branch at conference, helping steward Marxism, getting quoted in the paper from time to time and so on) without picking up any understanding of Trotskyism. I understand it perfectly well, that's why I dislike it.

And whilst you may aver at the thought of leading anyone, it's obvious from your earlier comments, that you believe radical workers are easily led astray (by us powerful Trots).
Are you going to claim that radical workers are always right and can't be misled? If so, how do you explain the popularity of Stalinism for most of the 20th century?

[Hit The North]

There must be something very wrong with your party if I was able to spend several years in it as an active member (representing my branch at conference, helping steward Marxism, getting quoted in the paper from time to time and so on) without picking up any understanding of Trotskyism. I understand it perfectly well, that's why I dislike it.


And that's why you tell lies about it?


Are you going to claim that radical workers are always right and can't be misled? If so, how do you explain the popularity of Stalinism for most of the 20th century?
Stalinism had a powerful presence in the working class: a superpower and international at its behest. Are you claiming that the ragged, minority clubs of Trotskyism had the presence to divert the radical aspirations of the class?

[Dust Bunnies]

Why are Trots hated? I'm not sure, but either way, I find this feud silly.

Yes, Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists disagree on past actions, but if we stay feuding that is exactly what the ruling class wants to help divide the Marxist successors.

We should abandon both the terms Stalinism and Trotskyism and readopt Marxism or Leninism.

[Bright Banana Beard]

One reason Stalinists hated Trotskyists is because many of them are actually pleased about the destroying of "Stalinism" policy by Khrushchev and Gorbachev, mainly the reason because they against "Stalinism." They just be glad that anything related or made by "Stalinists" is destroyed or dying already. This is one reason I refused to be a Trotskyist, they just don't give a shit anything about "Stalinism."

[Dust Bunnies]

One reason Stalinists hated Trotskyists is because many of them are actually pleased about the destroying of "Stalinism" policy by Khrushchev and Gorbachev, mainly the reason because they against "Stalinism." They just be glad that anything related or made by "Stalinists" is destroyed or dying already. This is one reason I refused to be a Trotskyist, they just don't give a shit anything about "Stalinism."

But wouldn't a degenerated worker's state (according to their terminology) be better than an openly Capitalist Gorbachev USSR?

[Madvillainy]

I've never met one that was an owner of capital. What are you talking about?

Well obviously you're right individual trots might not be members of the bourgeoisie but trotskyism is part of the political left wing of capital and therefore bourgeois.

[Coggeh]

Well obviously you're right individual trots might not be members of the bourgeoisie but trotskyism is part of the political left wing of capital and therefore bourgeois.
That doesn't even make sense .... Explain how exactly trotskyists are bourgeois ? does the CWI/IMT/IST etc own the means of production in some places...If so , why the hell am i paying subs .:(lol

[LOLseph Stalin]

One reason Stalinists hated Trotskyists is because many of them are actually pleased about the destroying of "Stalinism" policy by Khrushchev and Gorbachev, mainly the reason because they against "Stalinism." They just be glad that anything related or made by "Stalinists" is destroyed or dying already. This is one reason I refused to be a Trotskyist, they just don't give a shit anything about "Stalinism."

That's actually not completely accurate. To be honest alot of Trots aren't pleased with Gorbachev's policies. At least I know I'm not. He destroyed chances of establishing Socialism. Sure the USSR was a degenerated worker's state, but it still beats the oppression of Capitalism. Also, I wouldn't say we want to "destroy" Stalinism, but rather that we disagree with Stalin's policies, believing they destroyed true Socialism in the USSR. Also, I don't see why you would refuse to be a Trotskyist because we don't like Stalinism. Stalinists pretty much feel the same way about Trotskyists.

[Radical]

I'm yet to see a Successful Trotskyist Revolution

If Trotsky had been successful in removing Stalin, we would all be speaking German now. Trotsky called on the Red Army to effect a coup against Stalin, while Germany were preparing for War against the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is, Stalin was an Evil Genius. He was Evil, however he was also a great leader.

Trotsky belongs to the category of the great revisionists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm yet to see a Successful Trotskyist Revolution

If Trotsky had been successful in removing Stalin, we would all be speaking German now. Trotsky called on the Red Army to effect a coup against Stalin, while Germany were preparing for War against the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is, Stalin was an Evil Genius. He was Evil, however he was also a great leader.

Trotsky belongs to the category of the great revisionists.

:rolleyes:

[Coggeh]

If Trotsky had been successful in removing Stalin, we would all be speaking German now.
Because he was so terrible at winning wars , fighting and beating 14 different armies is a walk in the park like:rolleyes:

[khad]

Because he was so terrible at winning wars , fighting and beating 14 different armies is a walk in the park like:rolleyes:
It's a bit of a tradeoff. If Stalin hadn't been there, the RKKA would have led the world with military innovation and doctrinal theory, since great theoreticians like Tukhachevsky would not have been killed. At the same time, the USSR might have not enjoyed the massive industrial base grown from Stalin's brutal industrial development programmes.

[Radical]

Because he was so terrible at winning wars , fighting and beating 14 different armies is a walk in the park like:rolleyes:

No because of the fact if Trotsky had outsted Stalin. It would be way to late for Russia to prepare against Nazi Germany. I wouldent have blamed them if they executed Trotsky, let alone exiled him. He became a threat to the Revolutionary process and the saftey of Russia. I am all for Trotsky having his ideas, but I'm not for plotting against Stalin when he needed the utmost loyalty and support to guarantee the saftey of Russia.

[Hit The North]

I wouldent have blamed them if they executed Trotsky, let alone exiled him.

Well, duh! Guess what?


He became a threat to the Revolutionary process and the saftey of Russia. I am all for Trotsky having his ideas, but I'm not for plotting against Stalin when he needed the utmost loyalty and support to guarantee the saftey of Russia.


What revolutionary process? Besides, why do you assume that the entire security of the USSR depended upon the one man? You must think Stalin was as great as Stalin thought he was!

[The Ungovernable Farce]

And that's why you tell lies about it?
What lies? I may have a different subjective opinion to you, but I can't see where I've deliberately distorted the truth.

Stalinism had a powerful presence in the working class: a superpower and international at its behest. Are you claiming that the ragged, minority clubs of Trotskyism had the presence to divert the radical aspirations of the class?
OK, I admit that they're not particularly good at being the left-wing of capital, but it doesn't change what they are. Currently, the SWP is the biggest far-left group in Britain (although that may say more about how tiny the British left is than about how big the SWP is), so it is capable of channelling anti-war and anti-fascist sentiment into futile liberal campaigns like SWT and UAF. It's failed to divert anger at Labour into the dead-end of voting for "nicer" politicians, but not for want of trying.

I'm yet to see a Successful Trotskyist Revolution

And, just to prove how fair-minded I am, I'll point out that this is also untrue. Trotters was president of the Petrograd Soviet and and became head of the Red Army, so if Russia 1917 doesn't count as a Trotskyist revolution, what would?

[Radical]

`
Well, duh! Guess what?


I mean at the time of Trotskyists exile.



What revolutionary process? Besides, why do you assume that the entire security of the USSR depended upon the one man? You must think Stalin was as great as Stalin thought he was!

The Revolutionary process that Stalin initiated in order to turn Russia into a Industrial super power. Trotsky was secretly plotting against the Russian Government at a time when Russia were on the brink of a full-scale war.

One thing I notice about Trotskyists is; They NEVER crititze Trotsky. Trotsky and Stalin were both far from perfect.

[Hit The North]

OK, I admit that they're not particularly good at being the left-wing of capital, but it doesn't change what they are.

What does this empty phrase, "left-wing of capital" even mean?

Are you claiming that Trotskyists don't seek the overthrow of capital, but instead argue for a left-wing version of it, so that all their exhortations to workers revolution is merely a smokescreen masking nefarious designs? Or are you claiming that they are just so bad at opposing capital that they inadvertently somehow become "the left-wing of capital"?


Currently, the SWP is the biggest far-left group in Britain (although that may say more about how tiny the British left is than about how big the SWP is), so it is capable of channelling anti-war and anti-fascist sentiment into futile liberal campaigns like SWT and UAF.
It says a great deal about how small and withered the British left is. The SWP is politically microscopic. Yes, it attempted to draw together the anger over Iraq with STW and it has played a part in building the only visible campaign against the BNP with the UAF. However, if the anger over the Iraq war was anything more than liberal indignation amongst the majority of the millions who attended the anti-war demonstrations, if millions or even a hundred thousand people, had felt compelled to militantly oppose the British state, do you think the four thousand activists of the SWP could have stopped it? I mean, what mercurial powers do you think these people have?


It's failed to divert anger at Labour into the dead-end of voting for "nicer" politicians, but not for want of trying.Got that straight.

What's the AF plan?

[Hit The North]

The Revolutionary process that Stalin initiated in order to turn Russia into a Industrial super power.

Trotsky certainly wasn't opposed to the rapid development of the forces of production of the Soviet Union. Would he have done it differently? Probably. Would it have been kinder? Doubtful. Industrial revolutions are bone-crushing juggernauts, no matter who's behind the wheel. Would it, under Trotsky, have led to socialism? Not unless the Central and Western European workers conquered power for themselves. At least, unlike that opportunist Stalin, Trotsky was clear on that.


Trotsky was secretly plotting against the Russian Government at a time when Russia were on the brink of a full-scale war.If it was a secret, how come you know about it? The truth is that Trotsky was open about it. He was constantly making his appeals in the world press to the world proletariat. And what was he plotting and with whom? It's perhaps convenient for you to conjure up the image of Trotsky doing dirty deals behind closed doors with fat cat capitalists and their fascist cronies (when in fact it was Stalin who was actually doing this). Unfortunately, it doesn't correspond to the truth.


One thing I notice about Trotskyists is; They NEVER crititze Trotsky. What, never?


Trotsky and Stalin were both far from perfect.
Of course. That's not the point. The point is that Trotsky led a revolution whereas Stalin smothered one to death.

[Q]

If Trotsky had been successful in removing Stalin, we would all be speaking German now. Trotsky called on the Red Army to effect a coup against Stalin, while Germany were preparing for War against the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is, Stalin was an Evil Genius. He was Evil, however he was also a great leader.
Could you source this claim of staging a coup? If not, I suggest you do not embarrass yourself much further.


One thing I notice about Trotskyists is; They NEVER crititze Trotsky.
Then you have not been paying much attention to this thread. See for example my original post inhere or Rakunin's post which develops the same point much deeper.

[ArrowLance]

A friend of mine asked me this the other night, and I didn't really have a good response for him, because I don't have any particular antipathy towards trots. I talked a bit about the nutty sectarianism of the SWP-USA and the Sparts, but I did not exactly have much to say on the "fundamental wrongness" of Trotskyism.

I would be interested in hearing what everyone's perspectives are, especially from the anarchist side, since my friend leans that way. And of course, Trotskyist rebuttals.

Because he stole the USSR's secret chicken recipe.

[F9]

I dont hate trotskyists.No, i really dont. The fact that i dislike(really dislike) their ideas dont makes me hate them all.
But yeah why "hate" trotskyism?First of all, of course in one word, Kronstand, and basically the fact that we have been "chased" by the particular guy and those carried his ideas.
Then its our ideological differences, who arent that few..

Fuserg9:star:

[KC]

If Trotsky had been successful in removing Stalin, we would all be speaking German now.

The policy promoted to the German communists by the ComIntern resulted in the virtual destruction of the left, which was a huge blow to opposition to the NAZI's.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

One thing I notice about Trotskyists is; They NEVER crititze Trotsky. Trotsky and Stalin were both far from perfect.
They do admit he was wrong about stuff (he claimed that Stalinism would be overthrown before the end of WWII, which was obviously untrue). I think some of them disagree with him about the Spanish Civil War as well. Obviously they don't particularly publicise the stuff he got wrong, but Stalinists don't go out of their way to emphasise how wrong Stalin was either.


What does this empty phrase, "left-wing of capital" even mean?

Are you claiming that Trotskyists don't seek the overthrow of capital, but instead argue for a left-wing version of it, so that all their exhortations to workers revolution is merely a smokescreen masking nefarious designs? Or are you claiming that they are just so bad at opposing capital that they inadvertently somehow become "the left-wing of capital"?
Stalinists support state capitalism, so (even if it's a phrase you wouldn't use yourself), surely you can see how they'd count as the left-wing of capital. We agree on that, it's just that we see trots as potentially playing the same role where they're able. The role of, f'r instance, the French CP and the CGT leaders in May 68 is a classic example of the left-wing of capital in action - the existing regime was saved not by the actions of conservatives, but by self-proclaimed "communists" and trade union militants. We see trots as potentially playing the same role (if this was May 68, which it's not). Formally, you say you've learned the lessons of Stalinism, but in practice you share the same deep mistrust of any militant autonomous action you don't control.


It says a great deal about how small and withered the British left is. The SWP is politically microscopic. Yes, it attempted to draw together the anger over Iraq with STW and it has played a part in building the only visible campaign against the BNP with the UAF. However, if the anger over the Iraq war was anything more than liberal indignation amongst the majority of the millions who attended the anti-war demonstrations, if millions or even a hundred thousand people, had felt compelled to militantly oppose the British state, do you think the four thousand activists of the SWP could have stopped it?
For one thing, Hope Not Hate is easily as visible as UAF, although their politics are possibly even worse. And in the early days of the anti-war movement, there was a tendency towards direct action, which the SWP/STW could've thrown their weight behind; but they didn't, they did everything they could to channel it into safe, ineffective passive marches. They could've publicised the actions against RAF Fairford, and encouraged more people to get involved; but they didn't.

Got that straight.
Thank you. Trying to to divert anger at Labour into the dead-end of voting for "nicer" politicians is exactly the sort of thing that the left-wing of capital does.

What's the AF plan?
Again, we're not the vanguard, we don't have a perfect blueprint for how the revolution will happen. Our strategy in the here and now involves getting involved with workers and community struggles as and when they happen, agitating for the most militant and effective tactics possible, and putting the needs of the movement ahead of recruiting to our organisation or selling a sodding paper.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Revolutionary process that Stalin initiated in order to turn Russia into a Industrial super power. Trotsky was secretly plotting against the Russian Government at a time when Russia were on the brink of a full-scale war.Yeah, statements like that are why I'm consider myself a Trotskyist. I'm not a Trotskyist because I think everything he did or said was sugar out of a bee's ass, but because to me he represents the tradition of working class socialism, revolution from below, worker's power. (Yes, the Russian Revolution ultimately failed and led to increased power for the party which then allowed the counter-revolution from within represented by Stalin).

As you say, Stalin was trying to build Russia into an industrail super power, stalin was defending the nation... so when did socialism become about nationalism!? "Socialism in one country" is not socialism and so that is why I identify with Trotsky and the early bolsheviks as flawed as they may have been (due to the circumstances of the Russian Revolution and the smallness and weakness of the working class at that time - I would argue).


One thing I notice about Trotskyists is; They NEVER crititze Trotsky. Trotsky and Stalin were both far from perfect.He was worng about many things - including the idea that the USSR only needed internal democratization in the end.

[Pogue]

Yeah, statements like that are why I'm consider myself a Trotskyist. I'm not a Trotskyist because I think everything he did or said was sugar out of a bee's ass, but because to me he represents the tradition of working class socialism, revolution from below, worker's power. (Yes, the Russian Revolution ultimately failed and led to increased power for the party which then allowed the counter-revolution from within represented by Stalin).

As you say, Stalin was trying to build Russia into an industrail super power, stalin was defending the nation... so when did socialism become about nationalism!? "Socialism in one country" is not socialism and so that is why I identify with Trotsky and the early bolsheviks as flawed as they may have been (due to the circumstances of the Russian Revolution and the smallness and weakness of the working class at that time - I would argue).

He was worng about many things - including the idea that the USSR only needed internal democratization in the end.

Its absolutely absurd to refer to Trotsky as a supporter of 'revolution from below'.

[Hit The North]

Trotsky was an orthodox Marxist and therefore believed that revolution could only be enacted by the workers themselves. He never wavered from that belief. So it makes perfect sense to see him as a supporter of 'revolution from below'.

[ComradeOm]

Its absolutely absurd to refer to Trotsky as a supporter of 'revolution from below'.Are we talking about the same Trotsky twice elected Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet?

[Radical]

As you say, Stalin was trying to build Russia into an industrail super power, stalin was defending the nation... so when did socialism become about nationalism!? "Socialism in one country" is not socialism and so that is why I identify with Trotsky and the early bolsheviks as flawed as they may have been (due to the circumstances of the Russian Revolution and the smallness and weakness of the working class at that time - I would argue).


Socialism in what country doesnt mean your a Nationalist. The reason Stalin supported the idea is because the Communist Revolutions had failed. He decided to go with the idea of Socialism in one country because he believed they had to do it in order for the Soviet Union to last.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Its absolutely absurd to refer to Trotsky as a supporter of 'revolution from below'.

The short answer to why Trotskyists are so hated is that we get it from both sides - anarchists and stalinists/maoists.

While the Russian Revolution failed to maintain workers councils, and the Bols tried all sorts of different things to hold the thing together - some good, most horrible - that is fundamentally different than what happened later when "socialism in one country" became the "answer".

Undemocratic measures of the Bols in first few years of the Revolution were for the purpose of holding things together during famine, depopulation in the industrial areas, and civil war. Undemocratic measures later were to build up "national wealth" and create an "industrial super power" as another person said here.

[Tower of Bebel]

Its absolutely absurd to refer to Trotsky as a supporter of 'revolution from below'.
Maybe once you should elaborate?

While Trotsky was part of the Boshevik party's Left Opposition he actually believed that is was possible for "a revolution from below" to end the factional rule of the Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev center and curb the bureaucracy. Zinoviev's early attempts to mobilize the masses against Stalin failed and therefor proved that the hay-days of revolutionary "spontaneity" of the masses were, by 1925-27, finally over.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Socialism in what country doesnt mean your a Nationalist. The reason Stalin supported the idea is because the Communist Revolutions had failed. He decided to go with the idea of Socialism in one country because he believed they had to do it in order for the Soviet Union to last.
Yes and in order to survive against the western powers, they had to compete on a capitalist basis and so under Stalin, Russia went through several hundred years of capitalism in a few decades. As Stalinist point out, this was impressive as far as industry and production and modernization - but in order to reproduce capitalist industry, Russia also had to have slavery, enclosure of peasant lands and all the other horrors of capitalism compressed into a couple of decades.

The early Bols were holding out for revolutions in Europe with much more advanced and larger working classes to "save' their revolution - I think we have to see their mistakes in this light.

[New Tet]

No because of the fact if Trotsky had outsted Stalin. It would be way to late for Russia to prepare against Nazi Germany. I wouldent have blamed them if they executed Trotsky, let alone exiled him. He became a threat to the Revolutionary process and the saftey of Russia. I am all for Trotsky having his ideas, but I'm not for plotting against Stalin when he needed the utmost loyalty and support to guarantee the saftey of Russia.

I'm sorry to say this, but you're talking from ignorance.

I'll overlook the immorality of attempting to justify the assassination of one of the greatest human minds of the early 20th Century to say this:

With his "Hitler-Stalin Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler-Stalin_pact)", Stalin did more to place the Soviet Union in harm's way than Trotsky ever could!

In fact, Trotsky did the opposite, he WARNED The USSR and the world about the pending danger of rising Fascism in Europe and the futility of compromise with it.


Now, assuming that you agree that as long as capitalism continues to exist Fascism is always a danger, who would you say did more to protect his people, Stalin (who compromised with both) or Trotsky (who warned against it)?

[GiantBear91]

Well, I don't hate Trots at all, I just don't care much for Trotsky. From the things I have heard and the information I have been given, Trotsky was a big time traitor. Then again I could be wrong. But yeah, just because a person follows trotskyism does not mean, in any way, shape or form, that they are not a comrade of mine. Ill raise the Red Flag with any of you. :D

“If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.”
-:che:

[khad]

With his "Hitler-Stalin Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler-Stalin_pact)", Stalin did more to place the Soviet Union in harm's way than Trotsky ever could!

In fact, Trotsky did the opposite, he WARNED The USSR and the world about the pending danger of rising Fascism in Europe and the futility of compromise with it.
Incorrect. Stalin was one of the few leaders who was against Hitler from the start. However, by 1939, Hitler had gotten all of central europe (including Poland, which had a non-aggression pact since 1934) to serve as his satellites. The Soviet Union was cornered, and the treaty was one that gave the country some geopolitical maneuvering space.

As far as the western capitalist states are concerned, it's pure hypocrisy to push the Soviet Union into a position where there was little choice but to accept a non-aggression pact and then condemn them for it.

[JimmyJazz]

I have deep respect for several Troskyists and Trotskyish people on this site, and I also respect Trotsky, or at least some of his contributions. But by and large I consider Trotskyism an insult to my intelligence. Mainly because it seems to be built around attempts (varying, of course) to create a litmus test to determine whether societies are "socialist" or "not socialist". What an absurd way to approach history. Of course, any attempt to dichotomize such complex events as go into a single revolution, much less a world revolution, is doomed to utter failure. History is not binary.

For example, here's a section from the ISO response to the PSL article on Tiananmen that was just posted in another thread:


The answer is that what you think about the Tiananmen Square uprising goes to the heart of what you think about socialism.

The American socialist Hal Draper once wrote a brilliant essay titled "The Two Souls of Socialism" that identifies two trends in the socialist movement historically--those who believe socialism can be imposed "from above," in the name of the working class, whether by electing socialists to government office or through a military victory and force of arms; and those who think socialism must be achieved "from below," by the collective action of the working-class majority in overturning capitalism and creating a workers' state based on mass democracy and freedom.
In two sentences, you have two attempts to make binary distinctions between good and bad socialism. And of course the author's preferred litmus test is "brilliant".

It's a constant attempt to reduce people's political outlooks to a single question, which once you have the answer to it, will supposedly tell you everything you need to know. You know what I want to know about a revolution or a person's political outlook, though? Everything that I can. Smart people don't look for ways to stop having to learn, they look for ways to keep learning and deepening their knowledge. Lazy people look for litmus tests.

[Chow Foo]

I think a lot of anarchists hate trotsky for putting the revolution in Ukraine..

[New Tet]

Incorrect. Stalin was one of the few leaders who was against Hitler from the start. However, by 1939, Hitler had gotten all of central europe (including Poland, which had a non-aggression pact since 1934) to serve as his satellites. The Soviet Union was cornered, and the treaty was one that gave the country some geopolitical maneuvering space.

As far as the western capitalist states are concerned, it's pure hypocrisy to push the Soviet Union into a position where there was little choice but to accept a non-aggression pact and then condemn them for it.

The criticism against the Hitler-Stalin pact didn't come exclusively from capitalist states, mind you.

And I'm not directly taking on the Realpolitik aspect of it, either. Nor am I even for a moment denying that there was no love lost between bloody Stalin and bloody Hitler.

The contention I was replying to, if you bother to read it, is the assertion that Stalin did well by Russia and Trotsky didn't.

I gave the example of the Hitler-Stalin pack to illustrate that Stalin was a bungling opportunist, thinking that by signing a piece of paper with the Devil he could buy Russia more time against the inevitable. In the meantime (actually, even before, while Hitler was only an incipient threat to world peace), he got busy purging the best military field commanders only because they had had a brief association with Trotsky, the founder and organizer of the Red Army! Through his bloody purges Stalin was busy weakening the Red Army even before Hitler had compelled him (or Molotov, really) to sit down with Ribbentrop and sign that shameful capitulation.

As a result of Stalin's over-confidence in himself and his cult of personality, he created the conditions that allowed German troops to encamp outside and almost encircle Leningrad and Moscow! Boy, did he underestimate Fascism!

Whereas Trotsky was busy observing it, writing about it, and warning the world against its dangers.

Did you know that millions of Slavs perished in the path of the German juggernaut to Moscow?

Read your history, man!

[LOLseph Stalin]

If Trotsky would have come to power there may have been more Socialist revolutions which would have probably reduced the strength of Fascism and prevented WW II. Sure, the first revolution in Germany failed, but by the 1930's there was more unrest among the workers. The Communists did actually have the most support up until 1933(even though it was the Stalinists. With Trotsky in power it would have likely been Trots). This would have been a good opportunity if only there was support from the Soviet Union. This of course would have been impossible with Stalin's focus on the Soviet economy. Sure, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to make sense to me.

[Q]

I have deep respect for several Troskyists and Trotskyish people on this site, and I also respect Trotsky, or at least some of his contributions. But by and large I consider Trotskyism an insult to my intelligence. Mainly because it seems to be built around attempts (varying, of course) to create a litmus test to determine whether societies are "socialist" or "not socialist". What an absurd way to approach history. Of course, any attempt to dichotomize such complex events as go into a single revolution, much less a world revolution, is doomed to utter failure. History is not binary.

For example, here's a section from the ISO response to the PSL article on Tiananmen that was just posted in another thread:

In two sentences, you have two attempts to make binary distinctions between good and bad socialism. And of course the author's preferred litmus test is "brilliant".

It's a constant attempt to reduce people's political outlooks to a single question, which once you have the answer to it, will supposedly tell you everything you need to know. You know what I want to know about a revolution or a person's political outlook, though? Everything that I can. Smart people don't look for ways to stop having to learn, they look for ways to keep learning and deepening their knowledge. Lazy people look for litmus tests.
While I certainly think you have a good point, I wanted to note that I think you're generalising too much. I disagree that all Trotskyists are more of the same and think there are plenty of critical Trotskyists around, also on this site.


If Trotsky would have come to power there may have been more Socialist revolutions which would have probably reduced the strength of Fascism and prevented WW II. Sure, the first revolution in Germany failed, but by the 1930's there was more unrest among the workers. The Communists did actually have the most support up until 1933(even though it was the Stalinists. With Trotsky in power it would have likely been Trots). This would have been a good opportunity if only there was support from the Soviet Union. This of course would have been impossible with Stalin's focus on the Soviet economy. Sure, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to make sense to me.
Sorry, but by reducing the history of the degeneration of the Russian revolution as one of personal traits in Stalin versus Trotsky, I think you're missing the point completely. The Soviet Union didn't degenerate into a totalitarian regime because of Stalin and likewise if Trotsky would have been in power I doubt much would have been different. The cause of the degeneration is to be found in the fundamental fact that it got isolated in a backward and wartorn that at all wasn't capable to fulfil the historic tasks of socialism. As a result it stagnated and eventually began to drop back very early on (especially after 1924) from a social point of view (not to be mixed up with an economic point of view in which the USSR of course made a lot of progress from the 1930's to the 1960's).

This point is often missed by anarchists, who also reduce the question of the degeneration to "but Trotsky was already a bastard in the civil war! He spreaded the seeds of Stalinism!". That shouldn't be of much surprise because the whole method of materialism (historical and dialectic) is alien to them. But I expect better from self-proclaimed Trotskyists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Sorry, but by reducing the history of the degeneration of the Russian revolution as one of personal traits in Stalin versus Trotsky, I think you're missing the point completely. The Soviet Union didn't degenerate into a totalitarian regime because of Stalin and likewise if Trotsky would have been in power I doubt much would have been different. The cause of the degeneration is to be found in the fundamental fact that it got isolated in a backward and wartorn that at all wasn't capable to fulfil the historic tasks of socialism.

One of the points I was trying to make is that if the revolution was spread the Soviet Union would have not been so isolated. I'm not denying Trotsky would have been authoritarian either, because he would have been. There's evidence to support that such as Kronstadt. However, there still would have been some major differences under him. The revolution probably would have not been so isolated.


This point is often missed by anarchists, who also reduce the question of the degeneration to "but Trotsky was already a bastard in the civil war! He spreaded the seeds of Stalinism!". That shouldn't be of much surprise because the whole method of materialism (historical and dialectic) is alien to them. But I expect better from self-proclaimed Trotskyists.

Trotsky was never Stalinist, which as you said is a misconception by many Anarchists so is this saying I share a view with Anarchists? :confused: If I do it's certainly not intentional. Also, about the whole Dialectic stuff I'll admit it. I don't understand it.

[New Tet]

If Trotsky would have come to power there may have been more Socialist revolutions which would have probably reduced the strength of Fascism and prevented WW II[...]

There is no doubt in my mind that if Trotsky and not Stalin had risen to powerful leadership among the Bolsheviks, the Spanish Republic would never have been betrayed by the Soviets; Guernica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica) would never have occurred and Picasso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_%28painting%29) would have painted about something else.

[Outinleftfield]

I'm yet to see a Successful Trotskyist Revolution

If Trotsky had been successful in removing Stalin, we would all be speaking German now. Trotsky called on the Red Army to effect a coup against Stalin, while Germany were preparing for War against the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is, Stalin was an Evil Genius. He was Evil, however he was also a great leader.

Trotsky belongs to the category of the great revisionists.

I am not a trotskyist but for all his faults I think he would've been more prepared for WWII because of his idea of permanent revolution. He wouldve encouraged a military buildup and to help revolutionaries in other countries. In fact he wanted to militarize the entire economy and make it punishable for workers to quit their job or refuse a transfer, applying the same control of the military to all industry. The USSR probably would've gotten involved in China's revolution on the side of the communists even before the Kuomintang purge of communists. Mao probably wouldn't have become the dictator, it would've been another communist leader, probably one of the ones that got purged and had argued against joining with the Kuomintang because the union wouldve never happened.

Still the kind of repression Trotsky supported would not have been worth it.

The only way I could see Trotsky's USSR losing against Nazi Germany would be if he had socialized Poland by that time. If Poland was part of the USSR or even just another communist country England and France would not have protected Poland and would've kept hoping as they had been that Nazi Germany was going to invade the USSR and overthrow its government. Without the support of other countries against Nazi Germany it is possible he could've lost.


I'm not against trotskyists other than their support for the state and their ignorance of who Trotsky really was. I understand many trotskyists are against the more oppressive policies seen in communist states in spite of Trotsky's support for some very oppressive policies even ones that never came to pass, and many trotskyists oppose 1-party rule in spite of the fact that Trotsky supported the Bolshevik's seizure of power. Of course there are probably trotskyists that do since trotskyists have so many factions its not even funny.

[Radical]

I'm sorry to say this, but you're talking from ignorance.

I'll overlook the immorality of attempting to justify the assassination of one of the greatest human minds of the early 20th Century to say this:

With his "Hitler-Stalin Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler-Stalin_pact)", Stalin did more to place the Soviet Union in harm's way than Trotsky ever could!

In fact, Trotsky did the opposite, he WARNED The USSR and the world about the pending danger of rising Fascism in Europe and the futility of compromise with it.


Now, assuming that you agree that as long as capitalism continues to exist Fascism is always a danger, who would you say did more to protect his people, Stalin (who compromised with both) or Trotsky (who warned against it)?

I wouldent have blamed them for executing Trotsky, just as I dont blame Nat Turner rebeling by killing people. I'm not justifying it. Trotsky was plotting against the Revolution at a time when Russia were at great risk of being annihilated.

[Pogue]

I wouldent have blamed them for executing Trotsky, just as I dont blame Nat Turner for killing innocent people. I'm not justifying it. Trotsky was plotting against the Revolution at a time when Russia were at great risk of being annihilated.

Out of interest, what revolution was Trotsky plotting against and how?

[Radical]

Out of interest, what revolution was Trotsky plotting against and how?

Trotsky was plotting against Stalin and the Revolutionary process of the Soviet Union. This then lead to his expulsion from the party. It was almost inevitable that Trotsky would be expelled because he became a threat to the Soviet Union at a time when Germany posed great danger. Stalin was one of the last people to sign for the expulsion of Trotsky.

I agree with some of the ideas of Trotskyism. But I believe that what Trotsky was doing at the time posed a serious danger to the Soviet Union. Stalin was chosen and Trotsky wasent, that was the decision. Trotsky should have worked on helping the Soviet Union at that time instead of acting against it.

[Devrim]

There is no doubt in my mind that if Trotsky and not Stalin had risen to powerful leadership among the Bolsheviks, the Spanish Republic would never have been betrayed by the Soviets; Guernica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica) would never have occurred and Picasso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_%28painting%29) would have painted about something else.

I think that there is no doubt that if Trotsky had ended up in power in the Soviet Union, he would have been forced to enact very similar policies. It is not a question of great individuals nut of the balance of class forces. The faliure of the revolution in Germany effectivly meant the death of the Russian revolution, a chane in leadership in the late twenties could not have changed the international balance of class forces.
Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I
As far as the western capitalist states are concerned, it's pure hypocrisy to push the Soviet Union into a position where there was little choice but to accept a non-aggression pact and then condemn them for it.
But none of us are western capitalist states, so that's a bit irrelevant.

I wouldent have blamed them for executing Trotsky, just as I dont blame Nat Turner for killing innocent people. I'm not justifying it. Trotsky was plotting against the Revolution at a time when Russia were at great risk of being annihilated.
No, you are justifying it. What else does justifying something mean, if not giving justifications for it? And whatever gains the revolution had made were utterly annihilated by the 30s, so there was nothing left to plot against.

I think that there is no doubt that if Trotsky had ended up in power in the Soviet Union, he would have been forced to enact very similar policies. It is not a question of great individuals nut of the balance of class forces. The faliure of the revolution in Germany effectivly meant the death of the Russian revolution, a chane in leadership in the late twenties could not have changed the international balance of class forces.
Devrim
Thanks. Btw, as a very articulate left-commie, could you give a quick summary of what it means to call the trotskyists part of the left-wing of capital? I attempted to explain it earlier in this thread, but I'm not sure how well I did.

[Leaf]

Kronstadt. That's why.

Not saying I agree, but this is interesting and sure is different to what I got taught in school:
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=106

[Jimmie Higgins]

Trotsky was plotting against the Revolution at a time when Russia were at great risk of being annihilated.In hindsight, if only he had done that very plotting. Unfortunately he believed that Russia could have simply been reformed and democratized from within. Most old-school trots still believe this, but I think this is a mistake.

"Socialism in one country" solidified the detour and emergency measures the Bolsheviks took in the first few years after the revolution and led to the state stepping in and taking the place of the capitalists in building industry and military might to defend it. But far from Bolshevism leading directly to state-capitalism, there was a counter-revolution within Russia to destroy the legacy of the "Revolution from Below" aspects of the Russian Revolution: living revolutionaries were killed and dead ones were turned into deities.

Contrast this to the fall of state-capitalism which was a pretty smooth transition to capitalism with many of the State-Capitalist bosses easily trading their Soviet gear into business suits and changing their parties into social-democratic parties open to neo-liberal ideas.

[n0thing]

I don't hate Trotskyists. I just think they should be in a lot of pain most of the time.

[F9]

I don't hate Trotskyists. I just think they should be in a lot of pain most of the time.

O_o You gotta love such posts!What you tried to add in the thread with that?

[BobKKKindle$]

and you have never seen a Trotskyist revolution anywhere.... Just to pick up on this, there is no such thing as a "Trotskyist revolution". Trotskyists support proletarian revolutions, which means we think that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself", involving workers seizing control of their workplaces, overthrowing the bourgeois state, and managing society through democracy and planning. Under this definition, Trotskyists such as myself (and especially those of us who reject Trotsky's argument that the USSR remained a workers state even under Stalin and subsequent leaders, as well as the argument put forward by post-war Trotskyists such as Mandel, that countries in Eastern Europe such as Poland had also been transformed into workers states by Soviet forces) believe that many of the revolutions that are celebrated by other sections of the left, such as the Cuban Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution, should not really be considered revolutions at all, and certainly not proletarian revolutions, because in each case the working class was not the central agent of change, and power remained in the hands of a small group, generally in the form of a bureuacracy, which, despite the means of production being under state ownership, enriched themselves through the exploitation of the working class. The division that arises from how different ideological groupings analyze events in Cuba and other countries that have characterized themselves as "socialist" is a division between those who envisage socialism being imposed by an elite group acting in isolation from the working class (or "socialism from above") as occurred in Cuba, and those who recognize the necessity of self-emancipation, or "socialism from below". Based on this, the only proletarian revolution that has ever occurred in human history was the October Revolution of 1917, and it is in this tradition that some if not all Trotskyists stand today.


I think that there is no doubt that if Trotsky had ended up in power in the Soviet Union, he would have been forced to enact very similar policies.I agree, and this is a point that needs to be made more. Too many Trotskyists accept a bourgeois understanding of history by arguing that Stalin was some kind of demon who, because of his personal desires, was responsible for the degeneration of Soviet Russia, whereas a materialist analysis informs us that it was the failure of the revolution to spread to more advanced countries that led to the defeat of socialism in Russia. It is strange to speculate over what would have happened if Trotsky had managed to become the leader of the Bolsheviks because he and Stalin were not just individuals; they were the representatives of different sections of Soviet society, with Stalin representing the interests of the party and state bureaucracies, and Trotsky, despite his mistakes on the trade union question, representing the interests of the most advanced section of the working class. Stalin's victory in the leadership contest was not the result of his personality traits (which is something you're often taught when you study these events at school) but the growing strength of his social base, i.e. the balance of class forces in Russia. This is what Trotsky meant in 'Stalinism and Bolshevism' when he noted that "...it is not a question of antagonism between Stalin and Trotsky, but of an antagonism between the bureaucracy and the proletariat".


Mainly because it seems to be built around attempts (varying, of course) to create a litmus test to determine whether societies are "socialist" or "not socialist".When Trotskyists (particularly those in the IST tradition, such as the ISO) ask this question, what we are really considering is which class is the ruling class in the society under consideration, i.e. which class commands state power, which class controls the means of production. This is a key question because if it turns out that the working class is not the ruling class then it necessarily follows that, as revolutionaries, we must seek to overthrow the state apparatus, and effect radical changes to the relations of production, whereas if the working class is the ruling class (putting aside the issue of how this would be possible for an extended period of time, in the absence of international revolution) then whatever flaws might exist could be dealt with through reform and political debate, within the framework of the existing political system. In other words, our position on whether China or Cuba is socialist or not has implications for praxis.

[BobKKKindle$]

One thing I notice about Trotskyists is; They NEVER crititze Trotsky.This just shows an unfortunate degree of ignorance. The whole of the IST is based on a major disagreement with Trotsky - the founder of our tendency, Tony Cliff, argued that the USSR ceased to be a workers state during the 1920s, and was thereafter a state-capitalist regime, whereas Trotsky always believed that the USSR was a degenerated workers state, where capitalist social relations had been abolished, but a bureaucratic stratum (as distinct from a class) had seized political power. The implication of Cliff's stance, which is rooted in the principle of socialism from below, is that Trotskyists should not have taken the side of the USSR in any war, including WW2, but should have called for workers fighting for both imperialist blocs to turn on their officers, and transform the imperialist war into a civil war between classes.

[Devrim]

Thanks. Btw, as a very articulate left-commie, could you give a quick summary of what it means to call the trotskyists part of the left-wing of capital? I attempted to explain it earlier in this thread, but I'm not sure how well I did.

Here is what the platform of the ICC says about it:



13. THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY CHARACTER OF THE 'WORKERS' PARTIES'

All those parties or organisations which today defend, even ‘conditionally’ or ‘critically’, certain states or fractions of the bourgeoisie whether in the name of ‘socialism’, ‘democracy’, ‘anti-fascism’, ‘national independence’, the ‘united front’ or the ‘lesser evil’, which base their politics on the bourgeois electoral game, within the anti-working class activity of trade unionism or in the mystifications of self-management, are agents of capital. In particular, this is true of the Socialist and Communist parties.

These parties, which were once real vanguards of the world proletariat, have since undergone a process of degeneration which has led them into the capitalist camp. After the death as such (despite the formal survival of their structure) of the Internationals to which these parties belonged (2nd International for the socialists, 3rd International for the communists), they themselves survived to be progressively transformed, each one separately, into (often important) cogs in the bourgeois state apparatus in their respective countries, into faithful managers of the national capital.

This was the case with the socialist parties when in a period of subjection to the gangrene of opportunism and reformism, most of the main parties were led, at the outbreak of World War I (which marked the death of the 2nd International) to adopt, under the leadership of the social-chauvinist right which from then on was in the camp of the bourgeoisie, the policy of ‘national defence’, and then to oppose openly the post-war revolutionary wave, to the point of playing the role of the proletariat’s executioners, as in Germany 1919. The final integration of each of these parties into their respective bourgeois states took place at different moments in the period which followed the outbreak of World War I, but this process was definitively closed at the beg definitively closed at the beginning of the 1920s, when the last proletarian currents were eliminated from or left their ranks and joined the Communist International.

In the same way, the Communist Parties in their turn passed into the capitalist camp after a similar process of opportunist degeneration. This process, which had already begun during the early 1920s, continued after the death of the Communist International (marked by the adoption in 1928 of the theory of ‘Socialism in one country’), to conclude, despite bitter struggles by the left fractions and after the latter’s exclusion, in these parties’ complete integration into the capitalist state at the beginning of the 1930s with their participation in their respective bourgeoisie’s armament drives and their entry into the ‘popular fronts’. Their active participation in the ‘Resistance’ in World War II, and in the ‘national reconstruction’ that followed it, has confirmed them as faithful agents of national capital and the purest incarnation of the counter-revolution.

All the so-called ‘revolutionary’ currents – such as Maoism which is simply a variant of parties which had definitively gone over to the bourgeoisie, or Trotskyism which, after constituting a proletarian reaction against the betrayal of the Communist Parties was caught up in a similar process of degeneration, or traditional anarchism, which today places itself in the framework of an identical approach by defending a certain number of positions of the SPs and CPs, such as ‘anti-fascist alliances’ – belong to the same camp: the camp of capital. Their lesser influence or their more radical language changes nothing as to the bourgeois basis of their programme, but makes them useful touts or supplements of these parties

Basically it says that those parties, which defend the capitalist state and mobilise the working class for imperialist wars are bourgeois parties. Trotskyism from its betrayal in the Second World War can be included amongst them.

Devrim

[Devrim]

This just shows an unfortunate degree of ignorance. The whole of the IST is based on a major disagreement with Trotsky - the founder of our tendency, Tony Cliff, argued that the USSR ceased to be a workers state during the 1920s, and was thereafter a state-capitalist regime, whereas Trotsky always believed that the USSR was a degenerated workers state, where capitalist social relations had been abolished, but a bureaucratic stratum (as distinct from a class) had seized political power. The implication of Cliff's stance, which is rooted in the principle of socialism from below, is that Trotskyists should not have taken the side of the USSR in any war, including WW2, but should have called for workers fighting for both imperialist blocs to turn on their officers, and transform the imperialist war into a civil war between classes.

Whether the SWP can be described as Trotskyist is a matter of debate. It does, however, have its roots in Trotskyism, and the crisis of Trotskyism that followed the Second World War.

The implications of Cliff's stance caused the SWP to reject the Korean War as an inter-imperialist war. However, it was unable to apply the same analysis to the Vietnam war ten years later. Nor was it ever applied to a real analysis of the role and activities of communists during the Second World War.

Of all the groups which broke with mainstram Trotskyism after the war, the SWP's break was the most superficial.

Devrim

[Revy]

Oh yeah, I used to hate Trotskyism, because Trots were "evil Bolshie Leninist vanguardists" :)

That's not how I feel anymore. But I think that the Trotskyist movement hasn't represented itself well. I think a lot of people don't like the sectarianism and how Trot groups can often degenerate into insular cults. Authoritarianism is not something the Stalinists have a monopoly on.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Being one of these "Stalinists" (a category Trotskyists use to define any self-described Marxist who doesn't agree with their views), my disagreements with Trotskyist thinking are very basic. The famous 1920s debate among the Bolsheviks revolved around the line question of whether or not you could go forward with the building of a socialist economy under the new conditions or whether you basically just had to give up on that idea now. Bukharin put forward that you couldn't go forward and Trotsky likewise that all you could really do was restructure the economy like a military and hope for the best. Much-detested as Stalin tends to be on the forums, and for as many mistakes as he really did make, he was the only leading figure in this debate proposing a coherent program for building a socialist economy. Thus, for me, the question of Trotskyism is one of 'communism or trade unionism'.

These days, the prevailing versions of Trotskyism are branches of Castroism. (The Socialist Workers Party being just one of many examples of this we could cite.) I believe Hugo Chavez in 2007 also described his "socialist revolution" as Trotskyist. There are, however, still some adherents to the old "permanent revolution" theory. The latter are, as usual, politically relevant nowhere in the world. My point being that it's simply a form of revisionist oppositionism. All Trotskyists really aim to do is relentlessly criticize the actions of genuine Marxists (especially Mao and Stalin). They have no coherent political program of their own to offer.

That's why I'm not a Trotskyist.

[BobKKKindle$]

Being one of these "Stalinists" (a category Trotskyists use to define any self-described Marxist who doesn't agree with their views)This is evidently false. Trotskyists such as myself have a wide range of disagreements with Left-Communists and Anarchists but we would never reject either of these tendencies as "Stalinist", because Stalinism has a definite meaning, just like fascism, and is not a term that can be tossed around, despite the tendency of some on the left to use it (and other terms) as a form of political abuse, without substantive content. As a political phenomenon, which can apply to both governments and political organizations, Stalinism is characterized by the use of bureaucratic measures to limit struggles from below, and a tendency to enter into popular fronts with factions of the bourgeoisie, to the detriment of the working class being political independent. An organization can legitimately be described as Stalinist even if its members and leaders reject Stalinism in their rhetoric. The PCF in the 1960s, for example, is an obvious case of Stalinism, despite having followed Moscow's lead in supporting Khrushchev and his denunciation of Stalin, because it sought to limit the events of May 1968 to a struggle for economic concessions within the framework of capitalism and the bourgeois political system, whilst also condemning the student participants, in much the same way that the PCE sought to make compromises with the "democratic" wing of the bourgeoisie in Spain.


The famous 1920s debate among the Bolsheviks revolved around the line question of whether or not you could go forward with the building of a socialist economy under the new conditions or whether you basically just had to give up on that idea now.It was not about "giving up", rather, Trotsky along with other members of the Left Opposition recognized that the isolation of the revolution had led to Soviet democracy being weakened, as large numbers of workers had either been killed or forced to return to the ranks of the peasantry, and consequently Trotsky called for a renewal of the struggle against capitalism outside Russia, whilst also seeking to limit the extent of bureaucratic degeneration inside the party and the state. In this respect Trotsky shared the same position as Lenin, as both of these leaders recognized that the success of the Russian Revolution, taking place in an underdeveloped country, and aimed at creating a society of material abundance, depended on the struggles of revolutionaries in Germany and other industrialized countries. Trotsky made a mistake, however, in assuming that Russia would be able to remain a "workers state" in the absence of international revolution, because he identified state ownership (regardless of the extent of workers control) as the key criterion in determining whether a state is a workers state or not. The victory of Stalin in the late 1920s signaled the emergence of a state-capitalist regime, orientated towards the primitive accumulation of capital, and based on the exploitation of the working class and peasantry.


These days, the prevailing versions of Trotskyism are branches of CastroismThis may be true in the United States, but in the UK, and in other countries where Trotskyist parties exist, these parties either regard Cuba as a state-capitalist regime, or, in some cases, a state suffering from bureaucratic deformation. They do not regard Cuba as a living example of socialism.


There are, however, still some adherents to the old "permanent revolution" theory. The latter are, as usual, politically relevant nowhere in the worldFirstly, the theory of permanent revolution is a central component of Trotskyism, and so all parties identifying as Trotskyist around the world do uphold the theory, in one form or another, including my own party. More importantly, even if the theory of permanent revolution is not supported by most people who identify as communists, and most workers have not even heard of the theory, or any of the criticisms that have been made of it, this does not mean that it is not politically relevant. Whether something is "relevant" or not surely depends on whether it is true, i.e. whether it is able to effectively explain the current world situation, and serve as a valuable guide for revolutionaries in underdeveloped countries. Maybe you should explain why you disagree with the theory itself. In my view the starting-point of the theory - the notion of "combined and uneven development" - has been vindicated by globalization in the past few decades or so.


They have no coherent political program of their own to offer.Trotskyists stand for proletarian emancipation, which we believe can only come from the working class itself, and not a movement based on the peasantry, or an external military force, or a small group of guerrillas fighting in the mountains. This contrasts with Mao and his legacy, the adherents of which believe that the peasantry can function as the central agent of revolutionary change, and believe that the conquest of power must be followed by a period of compromise between the "national bourgeoisie" and other classes that are deemed progressive, during which capitalism should be tolerated, in the form of "New Democracy". This is what happened in China, and it is reflected in the program of Nepalese Maoists today. It is a justification for class compromise, and not a program I want to be associated with.

[Salabra]

Fine words, Bobkindles, especially for one who claims that the hijab can be "...a symbol of liberation..." (a quote from your contribution to the Islamophobia Thread in Discrimination)

No wonder Trots are hated, when some of them drag the rest through the mud by accommodating themselves to the most backward strands of religious obscurantism. You're supposed to be a MARXIST - doesn't that imply that you pay at least lip-service to the principle of militant atheism?

[BobKKKindle$]

Fine words, Bobkindles, especially for one who claims that the hijab can be "...a symbol of liberation..."I stand by that statement. I've never spoken to any Muslim women about this issue in person, mainly because it would make me uncomfortable, but I do think there's a tendency for many on the left to assume that if someone is wearing the hijab it must be because they are forced to do so by their male relatives, or male community leaders, and not because they have made an independent decision. In my view that's a downright patronizing view and is definitely contradicted by my experiences, as a political activist who's struggled alongside many Muslim women. There's an interesting passage in a book called 'The Other Side of Israel' by Susan Nathan, which is written by a Jewish women who lived for some time in a Palestinian community, as in this passage that author speaks to one of her neighbors about how the Hijab is perceived by Muslim women. I don't have the book to hand so I can't give you an exact page reference, and of course you can't make sweeping judgments about such a controversial subject based on what a single book says in a relatively short passage, but the central message I drew from the Palestinian woman who was giving her opinion was exactly what I argued in that thread - that women often wear the hijab because it forces men to confront them as individuals. I think this aspect of the hijab is further affirmed by the fact that, when the right to wear the hijab has come under attack, as has been the case in many European countries, Muslim women have responded aggressively, asserting themselves as political subjects. For example, when the French government proposed a law to ban the wearing of the hijab in 2004, mass demonstrations occurred, involving women raising slogans like "not our fathers nor our husbands, we chose the headscarf" and "neither forced nor downtrodden", as explained in this (http://www.merip.org/mero/mero013004.html) article. In a climate of widespread hostility towards Muslim communities in European countries, backing these struggles and defending the religious rights of Muslims is a vital necessity for socialists.

This thread, however, is about Trotskyism, so if you want to continue debating this issue, either alert me to the original thread, or contact me individually.


No wonder Trots are hated, when some of them drag the rest through the mud by accommodating themselves to the most backward strands of religious obscurantism.I don't think the hijab is automatically a form of "religious obscurantism", and I think that some of the Muslim comrades I've worked with would be very angry to hear you dismiss their personal choices in that way, and would probably call you out on your sexism and racism. If we're going to identify the forms of oppression that Muslim women are forced to confront on a daily basis then surely racism, abortion restrictions, domestic violence, and discrimination in the workplace are the most important?

Out of interest, are you a member of any organization?


You're supposed to be a MARXIST - doesn't that imply that you pay at least lip-service to the principle of militant atheism? Not really, no. I, like Marx, analyze religion from a materialist standpoint, which means we recognize that whilst religion can and often has played a key role in justifying social oppression, it can also be used to articulate the struggles of the oppressed, which is what Marx meant when he described religion as "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world". For this reason I think that religion will fade away once the material conditions that support its existence - the division of society into classes, and the resulting lack of individual autonomy - have themselves been abolished, and whilst we continue to live under capitalism I don't go out of my way to antagonize people who have religious beliefs, despite my personal lack of religious faith.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Bobkindles: Thank you for what was perhaps the single most intelligent post I have yet seen by a self-described Trotskyist. Allow me to provide a response:


In this respect Trotsky shared the same position as Lenin, as both of these leaders recognized that the success of the Russian Revolution, taking place in an underdeveloped country, and aimed at creating a society of material abundance, depended on the struggles of revolutionaries in Germany and other industrialized countries.This is a spin on Lenin's position. What Lenin actually said in On the Slogan for a United States of Europe was, quote:

(I'll highlight a few key areas.)

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states." [For] "the free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states."

Lenin, of course, rightly understood that the final socialist victory could only be achieved in a socialist world context. Trotsky's version of the law of uneven development, by contrast, insists that you can't really build socialism at all in any country without first awaiting a whole host of revolutions elsewhere (namely the imperialist countries). That's not to understate the degree to which this debate centered around a genuine theoretical crisis. The Bolsheviks, including Lenin, indeed had, in fact, been counting on a revolution in Germany to prop up their own. But Stalin put forward, crucially, that it was not only possible, but necessary, to build a socialist economy in the Soviet Union without waiting around for a more preferable world context because otherwise you would come under increasingly intense pressure from abroad and settle into capitalist economics at home. And they objectively succeeded in building material prosperity, as well as a socialist economy that eliminated starvation, homelessness, unemployment, and illiteracy, while also taking on horrendous forms of oppression of women and going up against and defeating Nazi Germany (which certainly wouldn't have even been possible under Trotskyite economics).

From 1934, however, the leadership of the Communist Party (namely Stalin) came to be overwhelmingly concerned with the looming threat of war with Nazi Germany and, as an understandable but nevertheless inexcusable result of that and other external (as well as some real internal) threats, began to make increasingly serious mistakes in the areas of nationalism (e.g. subjugating the world communist movement to the defense needs of the Soviet Union, framing World War 2 as a "Great Patriotic War", etc.) determinism (e.g. the infamous Theory of Productive Forces), and reification (e.g. the expansion of the wrong-headed concept of "class truth" to get Soviet society generally moving in lock step). These mistakes didn't cause the counterrevolution that took place in the mid-1950s (concentrated in Kruschchev's ascendancy to power), but contributed to its ability to gain a foothold in the halls of power. The counterrevolution arose mainly out of World War 2, with the emergence of an underground capitalist economy (often known as the "black market") that found traction in the one-man management system and was ultimately able to gain political influence in the realm of ideas. Whereas a general atmosphere in which people were afraid to raise dissenting opinions had been created, this prevented the replenishment of the revolutionary ranks by preventing the party from getting at the objective (not "class") truth of things. The qualitative leap to power of the new exploiting class was the rise of Krushchev, with his line of abandoning the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. From that point forward, the USSR was a social-imperialist country: a nation that was socialist in name, but characterized by capitalist imperialism in reality.

(The above is somewhat a simplification of Soviet history, I know. There are further complexities that deserve to be explored, but they don't directly relate to our topic here.)


Trotskyists stand for proletarian emancipation, which we believe can only come from the working class itself, and not a movement based on the peasantry, or an external military force, or a small group of guerrillas fighting in the mountains. This contrasts with Mao and his legacy, the adherents of which believe that the peasantry can function as the central agent of revolutionary change, and believe that the conquest of power must be followed by a period of compromise between the "national bourgeoisie" and other classes that are deemed progressive, during which capitalism should be tolerated, in the form of "New Democracy".Trotsky adherents insist that only revolutions in which the proletariat (or actually, in their 'less pure' version of that, the working class) is the main fighting force are or can be proletarian revolutions. The mere fact that the main fighting force in the Chinese revolution of 1949 were peasants translates, in this way of thinking, to this being a peasant revolution -- that is, a revolution aiming only at the achievement of peasant goals. In the opinion of Trotskyists, you see, peasants are mentally-retarded dirt-suckers who exist to produce food and shirts for urbanites. As such, they are, to quote Trotsky, "absolutely incapable" of being organized independently of bourgeois interests. The tradition of the Soviet Union -- which Trotskyists themselves don't adhere to -- is used as the justification for ruling China's a bourgeois revolution. Whereas Russia's conditions made it both possible and necessary to organize primarily in the cities, among the working class, China's failure to do so under qualitatively different conditions meant that this was a bourgeois revolution, right? The necessary use of different tactics implies different goals, right?

The new democractic transition into socialism is not revisionism. A revisionist line in this sort of area would be characterized by a divided process: the party first aiming to achieve basic democratic goals and then going for revolution. That would be a revisionist position because the revolutionary seizure and consolidation of state power for the proletariat would no longer be the party's immediate objective. The concept of the new democratic transition into socialism, by contrast, is characterized by two distinct stages, but also by a unified process that takes place under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The reason that new democratic revolution was an essential prerequisite to entering into socialism for China was because China was not a capitalist country, but an oppressed feudal nation that lacked the objective, material basis to immediately enter socialism. It is sections of peasants who form the social base of feudal society, not the proletariat; a fact which necessitated, under China's conditions at the time, not only the new democratic stage preceding socialism, but also that the main fighting force consist of peasants. But objective conditions needn't hamper the utopian idealism of Trotskyists, which reasons that you can simply "skip" whole stages of historical development. The facts remain: the immediate goal of the Chinese Communists (while and insofaras they were communists) was revolution and their long-term objective was communism, and both of these facts were backed up by the revolutionary seizure and consolidation of power and by the revolutionary and yes definitely socialist transformations in society that took place in China subsequently over the course of the ensuing 27 years.


This is what happened in China, and it is reflected in the program of Nepalese Maoists today.A nice try, but there are few Maoists who agree with the position the so-called Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is currently taking. The RCP USA, for example, has now gone public with its criticisms of the UCP(M)'s current stances. (http://www.demarcations-journal.org/issue01/nepal_article.html)

I, of course, distance myself from their stance (that of the UCP(M), that is). But it's crucial to understand that the line problems of the UCP(M) are, in fact, line problems, not a matter of "what they've allowed in", as you might suggest. Uniting with sections of the bourgeoisie is not inherently and automatically wrong. It depends on what basis you're uniting -- toward the accomplishment of what goals you're uniting -- and whether it's the enemy you're uniting with. This is complex, not a reductionist matter of allocating a certain number of party slots to people from the working class or what have you.


In my view the starting-point of the theory - the notion of "combined and uneven development" - has been vindicated by globalization in the past few decades or so.The world is indeed more interconnected than ever before today, but capital is still largely aggregated in individual nations. In the U.S. itself, I believe the figure is that approximately 30 percent of corporate profits come from investments overseas. But they are still profits made by U.S. multi-national corporations. There is still very much an American ruling class, etc. Ideas resultingly develop and spread unevenly. Flowing out of that fact is the reality that communist revolutions will tend to take place on a country-by-country basis over the course of an entire historical epoch, not all at once. Arguing for an all-at-once revolution tends to imply waiting around until "everyone's ready", syndicalist-style. And then we have become mere reformists in reality. Communists should seize upon every opportunity for revolution that arises as it arises rather than awaiting some distant "magic moment" that will never occur in a world that isn't, as the Friedmanists contend, "flat".

Point: Trotskyism isn't a serious, sincere school of revolutionary, socialist, or communist thought. It offers only a road to nowhere and that is why it is irrelevant in the world today.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Being one of these "Stalinists" (a category Trotskyists use to define any self-described Marxist who doesn't agree with their views)... Much-detested as Stalin tends to be on the forums, and for as many mistakes as he really did make, he was the only leading figure in this debate proposing a coherent program for building a socialist economy... All Trotskyists really aim to do is relentlessly criticize the actions of genuine Marxists (especially Mao and Stalin).
Lol at how you complain about trots calling people Stalinists, and then go on about how great Stalin was. This thread is really two separate questions: "Why are trots hated (or at least criticised) by anarchists and left-communists", and "Why are trots hated by Stalinists". The two criticisms have nothing to do with each other.


No wonder Trots are hated, when some of them drag the rest through the mud by accommodating themselves to the most backward strands of religious obscurantism.
Yep, which brings us back to Devrim's description of the left-wing of capital: "All those parties or organisations which today defend, even ‘conditionally’ or ‘critically’, certain states or fractions of the bourgeoisie, whether in the name of..."
The SWP defend the Islamic bourgeoisie in the name of opposing Islamophobia. Case closed.

[khad]

The SWP defend the Islamic bourgeoisie in the name of opposing Islamophobia. Case closed.
Marx defended the Indian bourgeois nationalist movement centered around the last Mughal in the name of stopping British imperialism. Case not closed.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Marx defended the Indian bourgeois nationalist movement centered around the last Mughal in the name of stopping British imperialism. Case not closed.
Marx was a very clever man who said a lot of good stuff, but he wasn't a superman who was 100% right about everything ever. Case still closed.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by The Ungovernable Farce:
Lol at how you complain about trots calling people Stalinists, and then go on about how great Stalin was. This thread is really two separate questions: "Why are trots hated (or at least criticised) by anarchists and left-communists", and "Why are trots hated by Stalinists". The two criticisms have nothing to do with each other.There is no inconsistency that I recognize there. Contrary to your suggestion, I don't exactly regard Stalin as the best historical example of a communist leader or theoretician. My position on Stalin is, rather, largely ambivalent. A careful reading of my posts shows that I simply defended Stalin's position on the importance of building of a socialist economy against Trotsky's alternative of not really doing much of anything. That doesn't imply a generalized embrace of everything Stalin did or led forward by any stretch of the imagination. Matter-of-factly, I don't count myself as a Stalinist.

[Niccolò Rossi]

That doesn't even make sense .... Explain how exactly trotskyists are bourgeois ? does the CWI/IMT/IST etc own the means of production in some places...If so , why the hell am i paying subs .:(lol

The only reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you are confusing the class composition of the Trotskyist movement with the class nature of the Trotskyist movement.

On the original topic, personally, I appreciate the contributions of Trotsky to the revolutionary workers movement and respect him for that. I also have a certain appreciation of and respect for select Trotskyists (LRP-COFI, ICL-FI and to a lesser extent the ICFI) despite deep political differences (differences not only of a tactical nature but of a class nature).

[BobKKKindle$]

Trotsky's version of the law of uneven development, by contrast, insists that you can't really build socialism at all in any country without first awaiting a whole host of revolutions elsewhere (namely the imperialist countries)Perhaps we should be clear on what the law of uneven and combined development is first, and how this fits into Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. This law is basically the observation that not all states enter onto the capitalist world stage at the same point in time, and so there will always be differences between states in terms of the level of economic development, the size of internal markets, as well as the size of the working class, relative to the population as a whole, with countries such as Britain - one of the first states to sweep away the remains of the feudal relations of production, primarily as a result of the enclosure acts, which forced people who had previously lived on the land to migrate to urban areas, increasing the ranks of the proletariat - preventing countries such as Russia from reaching the same level of development, through the effects of imperialism. This forms the basis of the "uneven" component of the law. The "combined" component is the observation that countries which became capitalist at a relatively late point in recent history often combine backward economic and political features (such as authoritarian systems of government, the dominant role of religion in public life, restrictions on the ability of workers to move freely within the borders of their country, and a large peasantry) with advanced features, due to the transfer of technology between these countries and the imperialist core. In particular, Trotsky recognized that, despite being an underdeveloped country, Russia contained some of the largest factories in the whole of Europe as the result of the investment she had received from states such as Britain and France, such that, whilst the working class was very small in comparison to the peasantry, and workers often retained strong links with their villages in the countryside, huge numbers of workers were concentrated together in single units of production, creating the basis for a socialist revolution in Russia, even though some Marxists - such as the "legalists" - continued to believe that Russia would have to endure a long period of capitalist development before she would become ready for a socialist revolution, with the role of revolutionaries being limited to supporting a bourgeois revolution.

How does this relate to debates about revolutionary strategy? Trotsky's observations contradict Marxist orthodoxy because he recognized that a revolution was most likely to break out not in the most developed countries as Marx and those who claimed his legacy had previously suggested but rather in what Trotsky described as the "weak links" of imperialism, those countries in which exposure to imperialism had created the objective preconditions for revolution despite the low level of economic development. Furthermore, Trotsky recognized that in these countries, because the bourgeoisie had often emerged with the aid of the state, both in the form of economic assistance, and protection from radical forces through state coercion, and because the same class often retained close links with feudal elites, it would not be possible for the bourgeoisie to carry out the tasks of the democratic revolution, which would therefore fall to the working class. The working class, having carried out a bourgeois-democratic revolution, would find that, in order to implement its democratic tasks successfully, and safeguard against the threat of a return to a pre-democratic era, it would be necessary to go beyond the limited nature of these tasks and threaten the class interests of the bourgeoisie, at which point the revolution would leave behind its democratic character, and become a socialist revolution. In support of this, Trotsky pointed out that, in 1905, the response of the bourgeoisie to calls for an eight-hour day (a bourgeois-democratic demand) was to declare a lock-out, which could only be overcome through the seizure of the means of production and the creation of new organs of power, i.e. Soviets, which is exactly what the workers did in 1917, after a brief period of dual power, characterized by the co-existence of bourgeois and proletarian institutions.

This is relevant to the international aspect of revolution because Trotsky, following the lead of Engels and Marx, was aware that it was impossible to construct socialism on the basis of scarcity. This was the principle that informed the stage-ist position of the Mensheviks and other anti-Bolshevik forces but Trotsky drew a different conclusion by arguing that because revolution was most likely to break out in an underdeveloped country the only way that country would be able to overcome its material backwardness whilst maintaining the immediate gains of the revolution was if the revolution spread to countries such as Britain, capable of rendering material and political support, and ultimately the whole world. Trotsky initially limited this argument to underdeveloped countries but eventually drew a more radical and general conclusion by pointing out that the age of imperialism leads to the integration of the world into a single economic unit, and so no country, not even the most developed countries, are capable of building socialism in their own, for the simple reason that there is no country with all the resources and skills required to eliminate scarcity. This is especially true today in a world where most economies are centered around a small range of industries and rely on other countries for other goods, as in the case of China, which, despite experiencing rapid growth and structural changes in the past three decades, is still orientated towards the assembly of component that have been produced elsewhere, with little industry of its own.

So, to return to the quote I posted above, Trotsky was right in asserting that socialism must be international. This doesn't mean that Trotskyists are oppossed to countries taking measures to defend themselves once the working class has taken power, or that no progressive gains can occur unless revolution spreads throughout the whole world, but it does establish a need to take advantage of revolutionary periods, and the revolutionary waves that always follow from the outbreak of revolution somewhere in the world.


Trotsky adherents insist that only revolutions in which the proletariat (or actually, in their 'less pure' version of that, the working class) is the main fighting force are or can be proletarian revolutions.Indeed, this is based on the principle that the "emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself". If you reject this principle as Maoists are bound to do, given that the events of 1949 in China did not involve workers seizing control of the means of production, but were always driven by the peasantry and the intelligentsia, then what is the point of trying to organize workers at all? Surely this means that socialism can be imposed through the use of military force, regardless of whether workers have been won over to revolution or not?

On the more general question of the role of the peasantry, Trotsky never argued that the peasantry will always side with the bourgeoisie. His argument was that the peasantry cannot act as an independent force and certainly can't serve as an agent of socialist change, and so will either take the side of the bourgeoisie, or, if the working class offers the peasantry concessions, such as land reform, side with the working class, and the overthrow of capitalism. In this respect Trotsky was following the example of Marx who also believed that the peasantry was not capable of being the central agent of socialist change, primarily because it was not spatially concentrated in the same way as the working class, as well as not having the same decisive role in capital accumulation, and in his text 'The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon' identified the peasantry as the support base of the authoritarian regime that took power under the leadership of Louis Napoleon following the partial defeat of the bourgeois revolution. Despite this, Trotsky also believed that gaining the support of the peasantry was a key necessity in Russia precisely because the working class was such a small part of the population and this is why he along with the rest of the Bolshevik leadership agreed with the demand for land reform (hence "bread, peace, and land") despite Luxemburg's argument that only the collectivization of land was consistent with the struggle for socialism. Trotsky's argument was vindicated by the experiences of the civil war, which witnessed large numbers of peasants taking the side of reactionary forces against the Soviet state, including Makhno and the White generals who wanted to restore Tsarist rule. The civil war also involved large numbers of workers being killed or forced to return to the ranks of the peasantry, and it was this process that prevented the Soviets from functioning as effective units of government, and checks on the power of the executive, eventually allowing bureaucratic forces to assert themselves within the party and the state. It was, in other words, the physical disintegration of the working class - which was itself a consequence of the failure of the German revolution, and the ebbing of the revolutionary wave - that led to the defeat of socialism in Russia, vindicating the theory of permanent revolution in its entireity.

I hope you'll forgive me if I address your other arguments another time.

[*Red*Alert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oofTDogU-0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oofTDogU-0)

[Q]

3oofTDogU-0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oofTDogU-0)
It seems that most (if not all) of those out-of-context quotes come from Ludo Martens' "Another View on Stalin". Ludo Martens is an ardent Maoist and Stalinist from Belgium. Just to give some of the context of where this is coming from :rolleyes:

[Salabra]

This just shows an unfortunate degree of ignorance. The whole of the IST is based on a major disagreement with Trotsky - the founder of our tendency, Tony Cliff, argued that the USSR ceased to be a workers state during the 1920s, and was thereafter a state-capitalist regime, whereas Trotsky always believed that the USSR was a degenerated workers state, where capitalist social relations had been abolished, but a bureaucratic stratum (as distinct from a class) had seized political power. The implication of Cliff's stance, which is rooted in the principle of socialism from below, is that Trotskyists should not have taken the side of the USSR in any war, including WW2, but should have called for workers fighting for both imperialist blocs to turn on their officers, and transform the imperialist war into a civil war between classes.
Your abstensionism on the “Russian Question” must endear your tendency to your own bourgeoisie — perhaps we should name it “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (Communist Fraction [sic]).”

And in answer to your earlier question, I’m not a member of any group — just someone who reads my communist library with unclouded eyes.

[Howard509]

Stalin was a red fascist. Stalinism makes me want to vomit. Trotsky was no saint, but it took bravery standing up to Stalin.

[Salabra]

Stalin was a red fascist.

Not even Trotsky would have claimed that!

Perhaps you could read some of Trotsky's own writings on the subject of fascism (there are links in the Bibliography section).

[BobKKKindle$]

Stalin was a red fascist"Fascist" and "fascism" are not just terms that you can throw around and use to refer to any individual or government that you happen to dislike. The Marxist analysis of fascism holds that it originates from the ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie and gains the strength of broader social forces when the bourgeoisie becomes aware that its class rule is being threatened by an increasingly militant and politicized proletariat; it has the effect of protecting capitalism because fascism involves the destruction of democratic gains and the physical eliminating of working-class militants. In this context, Stalin was not a fascist and Stalinism is not the same as fascism, because the emergence of Stalinism in Soviet Russia took place after the proletariat had already taken power, that is, after the bourgeoisie had been expropriated, within the borders of Russia, if not in other countries. The rise of the bureaucracy alongside the disintegration of the proletariat did signal the restoration of capitalism in Russia and in this sense Stalinism can be considered a counter-revolutionary force, but nonetheless it is not the same as fascism.


Your abstensionism on the “Russian Question”The SWP does not abstain on the Russian Question. We merely recognize that the USSR from the late 1920s onwards was not fundamentally different from any other capitalist regime, and on that basis we support workers in their struggles against the bureaucracy, and also gave our support when the inhabitants of oppressed nations faced imperialist aggression from the USSR, as in the case of Afghanistan during the 1980s, even when other leftists had fallen under the impression that Soviet tanks and soldiers were capable of delivering liberation in the absence of struggles from below. It is not us but the official Communist Parties that were always friendly towards the rule of the bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries especially, as is evident from the role of these parties in limiting strike action during WW2, as well as the role played by the PCF in particular during the events of May 1968.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Can class composition and class nature be confused?

I think it is evident from the quote that they can.


Can a petty-bourgeois democratic party have a proletarian "nature"?

No. A 'petty-bourgeois democratic party' is a 'petty-bourgeois democratic party', ie. a bourgeois party.

If you are asking, can an organisation have a proletarian nature and yet have a non-proletarian class composition, then I would say, yes insofar as they uphold and defend proletarian political positions. See Engels, yadda yadda.


How about a bourgeois party?

Can a bourgeois party have a proletarian class composition? Most certainly, just look at most mainstream bourgeois political parties. Just look at the far right. Just look at leftism.


If so than why does class matter at all?

We are talking here about the organisation of communist militants, not the organisation of the working class for the defense of it's immediate interests and to make revolution. Yes class is fundamental, but it can not be schematically reduced to workerism, which seems to me the logical conclusion of what you are suggesting (and the reading of the Marx quote you give).

[RHIZOMES]

Because there are a lot of Trotskyist groups which are sectarian cults, and they give the Trotskyists whom Trotsky would have approved of a bad name.

[Aeval]

Whilst, obviously, other groups have 'proper' reasons to dislike them, I think a lot of the vitriol thrown at trotskyist groups comes from the first impression many of their members make. Before I even had the faintest idea what trotskyism meant all I knew was that, for example, the SWP were those people who always tried to get money from me; tried to sell me their pissing paper (even forcing one of their own members who was a friend of mine to pay for a copy when I explained I had no money on me), whose first topic of conversation with me was to try and sell me tickets to marxism and get me to become a paid up member when I didn't have a clue what their organisation actually did, and who talked to me as if I were a 7 year old.

Since then I've met some who are pretty sound as people, but they are still annoying as hell in meetings. So a hefty amount of this dislike comes from the people in the groups, and their words and actions - I reckon if I'd not met the SWP first of all then I'd have less of a problem with it in general. I still wouldn't agree with them, but they'd be a lot less animosity there. Not the most rational thing in the world, but there you go, first impressions matter.

[leochaos]

hi,
good question.I can only give you my own experience(italy 1968/84).
The trots,as you call them, were always a small minority in italy.Not so in france or England.
The first problem with the trots was their tactic of 'enter', not sure of how you translate this peculiar kind of activity.basically they would try to sort of enter/'infiltrate' groups and coalitions,even parties.
in italy they did it even when they were not wanted.The end game,I guess, was to bring clarity to what they considered misguided comrades.This is not a way to make friends.As you may know,their main goal is to build the correct party which eventually would direct the masses in the next revolution.Something not peculiar to them, but they were really into it,more than anybody else.I was in Autonomia operaia(a semi marxist group with possibly anarcosyndacalist positions,you sort it out I can't).basically we tended to build the whole organization from the bottom to the top.Toni Negri had his own vision,in practice from top to bottom, but he rarely got his way) and we had had enough of never ending discussions about the infights during and post the russian revolution.You never know enough about theory and history, but you also need to do some other things.
So we were not that happy when the trots will show up when we were having some discussions about organizing a demostration.It was quite difficult to find a common front with maoist etc but we were able to do it.After all we were just writing down a leafleft not the program of the communist movement for the next 20 years.
The trots would go at things in a different way(keep in mind, often they were there to try to get somebody to become a member of their group).I remember that at one point all organizations had some not stated agreement not to tell the trots that/where we had meetings.Not out of sectarianism(spelling?),just to be able to get some sleep before the next day demostration.Again, this is a city in italy at one point in time-plus my reading of things.
Still, another things with the trots is their never ending engaging in discussion about theory etc
I remember that,even when we agreed on something, they still had to add things.
We both supported the Democrateic lib front for palestine(hawatmee was the leader),but they will bring in never ending quotations from their defunct leader.As far as i remember their support consisted in long papers,we were a little more active.Check the name of Daniele Pifano( a worker from an hospital in Rome) and you'll see that we were indeed doing things for our palestinian comrades.
back to the trots.My personal tactic to avoid being cornered by any of them was to bring out the not so nice things that T did, according to carr's history of the russian revolution.While they were ready to reply to the Kronstad episode and to a point even to the disgraceful persecution of the anarchisys(Makhno etc),they had no clue('i'll have to check it out') of some less know things that Lenin did concerning the communist party of Persia and Turkey.The usual 'to defend the revolution' thing.Fine, with me,I was off the hook.
Add the fact that T comes out as a pretty arrogant guy,who by the way was not in favour of starting the bolshevik revolution(too complicated to go into it).He did a supposedly great job organizing the REd Army, but-maybe out of necessity- he had to do it in a militaristic way(of course;but many would have liked a different way).Who knows?
Finally,this thing is too long, again i may be wrong but it seems to me that the number of ex trots ending up on the other side is pretty high.I do not think anybody has done a scientific research(who cares?) but ex trots pop up often in position of power on the other side.If this is true,it is indeed bad.traitors of any kind are very dangerous because they know too much.I hope I am wrong on this.
Done,take care/Just thinking about the trots gives me a mild headache.Similar to the one I get when I visit pro palestinian web sites and they have an incredible amount of posts by supposedly antisionist comrades of jewish descent.It should be good(to have jews supporting the Palestinians) but...something is wrong .
Ciao

[Led Zeppelin]

Add the fact that T comes out as a pretty arrogant guy,who by the way was not in favour of starting the bolshevik revolution(too complicated to go into it)

Yes, I'm sure it must be "too complicated" to explain something that only exists in your own head.

I can't for the life of me understand how someone who's supposedly been in the movement for so long can write such utter crap.

This one sentence sums up your whole post; a bad joke based on bad fiction.


Done,take care/Just thinking about the trots gives me a mild headache.Similar to the one I get when I visit pro palestinian web sites and they have an incredible amount of posts by supposedly antisionist comrades of jewish descent.It should be good(to have jews supporting the Palestinians) but...something is wrong .
Ciao

Yeah, it's so bad when anti-Zionists point out that there are people of Jewish descent who also oppose Zionism in order to clarify that the revolutionary anti-Zionist movement is not based on anti-semitism, something which is especially important given the amount of accusations of anti-semitism the Zionists throw out against us.

Such horror!

Ciao indeed.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Another reason is they think "Stalinism" is a coherent ideology term instead of using bureaucracy and revisionism as barely or none has to do anything with Stalin.

Another reason is some think that Trotsky is a rightful heir instead of letting the Soviet Congress elects.

We could a make ton of list why. I only describe few of them.

[Hit The North]

I reckon if I'd not met the SWP first of all then I'd have less of a problem with it in general. I still wouldn't agree with them, but they'd be a lot less animosity there.

What is it you disagree with in the SWP's politics?

[BobKKKindle$]

Another reason is they think "Stalinism" is a coherent ideology term instead of using bureaucracy and revisionism as barely or none has to do anything with Stalin.Actually, Trotskyists who have a sound understanding of our tradition and analysis do not argue that Stalinism represents a coherent ideology because this would infer that Stalin's growing power within the Bolsheviks and the expulsion of comrades like Trotsky in the 1920s was the result of him winning an abstract ideological dispute concerning which road Russia should follow. In our view, Stalin's rise and the strengthening of his allies was a reflection of class dynamics, specifically the disintegration of the proletariat, and the rise of the bureaucracy, which eventually succeeded in establishing itself as a new ruling class. As part of this view, we argue that the ideas associated with Stalin and others who have ruled state-capitalist regimes such as Hoxha and Mao (for example, Mao's "theory" of New Democracy, and Stalin's "theory" of socialism in one country) were developed primarily to rationalize the policies that were pursued by the respective ruling classes of these states, especially their failure to lend support to revolutionaries fighting against capitalism in other countries, and thus cannot be considered genuine theoretical perspectives. This analysis draws on the Marxist conception of ideology, according to which ruling classes rely not merely on the use of coercion to retain their class rule, but also the production and dissemination of ideologies, which function as a means to justify or obscure the prevailing contradictions of class societies, and so can be seen as covering up the truth, whatever that may involve.

As a term, "Stalinism" refers primarily to a political phenomenon involving power being concentrated in the hands of a state bureaucracy, at the head of a state-capitalist economy, with bureaucratic methods being used to exploit the working population in order to forcibly develop the productive forces and maintain the material privileges of the bureaucracy. For that reason we believe that the whole of the USSR's history from the late 1920s onwards can be characterized as Stalinsim, with the same being true of China and the eastern European states, even though Maoists and other sections of the Stalinist left often argue that 1956 (and 1976 in the case of China) marked a change in the mode of production, or a change in political direction, due to the victory of "revisionism".


Another reason is some think that Trotsky is a rightful heir instead of letting the Soviet Congress elects.Firstly, you seem to be confused on historical details - Lenin's testament was concerned with the future leadership of the Bolshevik party, not the leadership of the state. Stalin only assumed the position of Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (known as Sovnarkom prior to 1922) in 1941 and so for most of the time that Stalin was a key figure within Soviet politics it was actually Molotov who technically had the most important governmental position, although by this point any legal division between the party and the state had ceased to be meaningful, as all decisions were made within the party before being passed and implemented by the government. Secondly, as I noted above, no Trotskyist worth their salt treats the leadership contest as a mere personal struggle - rather we view it as the manifestation of a broader social conflict between the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat and the rising bureaucracy, which drew many of its members from those who had previously served as state bureaucrats under the Tsar or the Provisional Government. This social conflict was bound up with the isolation of the revolution, which had become an unavoidable reality once the revolutionary wave had ebbed, and for that reason no Trotskyist seriously believes that if only Trotsky had become leader (an unlikely prospect in any case) everything would have been fine, and the horrors of Stalinism could have been avoided.

[Aeval]

What is it you disagree with in the SWP's politics?


A revolutionary party is necessary to strengthen the movement, organise people within it and aid them in developing the ideas and strategies that can overthrow capitalism entirely.

This bit. And the fact that they seem to really love centralism.

[KC]

This bit. And the fact that they seem to really love centralism.

What about that do you disagree with?

[Bright Banana Beard]

As a term, "Stalinism" refers primarily to a political phenomenon involving power being concentrated in the hands of a state bureaucracy, at the head of a state-capitalist economy, with bureaucratic methods being used to exploit the working population in order to forcibly develop the productive forces and maintain the material privileges of the bureaucracy. Then why not use bureaucracy problem instead of stalinism? Trotsky was involve in this process, even becoming a part of politburo seat, it is naive to say he is not involved at all in this bureaucratic process, but why exclusively Stalinism? It is prefer to see the picture rather than the movement's figure.


For that reason we believe that the whole of the USSR's history from the late 1920s onwards can be characterized as Stalinsim, with the same being true of China and the eastern European states, even though Maoists and other sections of the Stalinist left often argue that 1956 (and 1976 in the case of China) marked a change in the mode of production, or a change in political direction, due to the victory of "revisionism". I call it inner bureaucracy problem and not Stalinism since it clearly was in revolution and not yet in state control. Most party are ignoring the guideline of the Comintern, thus it is incorrect to label them Stalinist as they may look that they are controlled, but in reality the parties around the world are in control themselves. IMO, Trotsky need to stop whining about Stalin and instead focus on the policy of the politburo and call them the problem rather that Stalin was all involve this, that, those, these.


Firstly, you seem to be confused on historical details - Lenin's testament was concerned with the future leadership of the Bolshevik party, not the leadership of the state. Secondly, as I noted above, no Trotskyist worth their salt treats the leadership contest as a mere personal struggle - rather we view it as the manifestation of a broader social conflict between the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat and the rising bureaucracy, which drew many of its members from those who had previously served as state bureaucrats under the Tsar or the Provisional Government. This social conflict was bound up with the isolation of the revolution, which had become an unavoidable reality once the revolutionary wave had ebbed, and for that reason no Trotskyist seriously believes that if only Trotsky had become leader (an unlikely prospect in any case) everything would have been fine, and the horrors of Stalinism could have been avoided. Still, majority of Trotskyist are still going to tell me the horror of "stalinism" will never happen if Trotsky was elected rather than Stalin, and thus accusing me of sectarian when I said it would be a more or less same result. It is no wonder why Trotskyists around the world are not unified. If anything, the term "stalinism" should be stop using as Stalin is not only exclusive figure in the bureaucratic process. To add more, I would also blame on Trotsky for being involve in it and accuse Trotskyist as the same as Stalinist despite the difference of permanent revolution and socialism in one country.

[Aeval]

What about that do you disagree with?

The idea that a revolutionary party, a small group of 'enlightened' people, is needed to organise everyone else, who are presumably just not enlightened enough (otherwise they'd have joined the party already, surely?) in order to overthrow capitalism. I'm neither in favour of a worker's state or a centralised party so even if the SWP suddenly started being the nicest, least annoying group of people on earth I'd still not agree with them.

And as I just had pointed out to me; the fact they didn't even ask if I agreed with them before trying to recruit me and make me buy all their stuff is pretty dodgy, why would they want someone like me, who doesn't agree with them, to join the party? Frankly bizarre, they're like the hare krishnas of the left.

[KC]

The idea that a revolutionary party, a small group of 'enlightened' people, is needed to organise everyone else, who are presumably just not enlightened enough (otherwise they'd have joined the party already, surely?) in order to overthrow capitalism.

Who should be doing the education, agitation and propaganda work, in your opinion?

[Aeval]

Who should be doing the education, agitation and propaganda work, in your opinion?

Well I specifically said about orgainising other people, but ok: I think people are more than capable of organising themselves. As for agitating/educating etc, lots of groups manage to do that without then presuming that they should lead the way.

It's a little bit off topic though, maybe you'd like to start a new thread specifically about why I don't want to join the SWP :lol:

[PRC-UTE]

You're quite wrong. The theory of Permanent Revolution (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#permanent-revolution) was developed from the perspective of that of a developing country (Russia at the time) and relies on two basic points: 1. the bourgeois-democratic revolutionary tasks can no longer be carried out by the bourgeoisie, like it happened in 1789 and 1848. This is due to the fact that the bourgeoisie of the developing nations is not able to develop in an independent fashion but relies and is dependent on the international bourgeoisie. Therefore the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution have to be carried out by the working class.

However, the working class will not stop there of course and is inclined to move forward to the socialistic tasks aswell. This brings me to point 2. Only on an international scale can the historic tasks of socialism (that is: a higher mode of production then possible under capitalism in order to create the material basis necessary to genuinely free humanity) be achieved.

Flowing from this, I disagree with you that Cuba is socialist. Sure, it has a progressive economic foundation as compared to capitalism. But this planned economy is malformed due to strong bureaucratic control over it, although perhaps not in the extreme totalitarian way as was the case in the USSR. However, Cuba has not been able to surpass capitalism, indeed the regime has been forced to move more and more back towards it after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the massive aid that came from it. I'm not saying it's capitalist just yet, however it is certainly not socialist either.

I'm of the opinion that this bureaucracy is the singlemost biggest danger for the survival of the gains of the Cuban revolution. What is needed therefore is a political revolution that will oust this bureaucracy and bring to power the working class. This can most likely only be achieved due to the pressures of international developments, for example a successful revolution in Venezuela.

I think this in one post is a good example of what I agree and disagree with Trotskyists most strongly about: permanent revolution is something I agree strongly with, a similar analysis is what led the IRSP to break with the Officials. however the idea of political revolutions is deeply flawed. What's needed to correct the development of Cuba for example is not political revolution (an unworkable idea, and one that would most likely play into the hands of imperialism, no matter what the intention was) but more revolutions across the globe to lift the siege (which would effectively undermine or reduce the power of the bureaucracy there), and assist Cuba's development.

[KC]

Well I specifically said about orgainising other people, but ok: I think people are more than capable of organising themselves.

Then what is the role of revolutionaries if not to educate, agitate, spread propaganda and organize?

[Aeval]

Then what is the role of revolutionaries if not to educate, agitate, spread propaganda and organize?

I haven't said that it isn't; I said I dislike the way groups like the SWP think that it's their role to 'organise' people into doing what they want and presuming that they are the default leaders. As I already said, there are many other groups out there who manage to educate, agitate and spread propaganda without trying to take over whatever it is that's being done and without throwing a fit when some of the people there go and decide to do something that they haven't organised.
I'll be honest, I don't really get what you're trying to argue about here.

[BobKKKindle$]

Aeval:


Well I specifically said about orgainising other people, but ok: I think people are more than capable of organising themselves. As for agitating/educating etc, lots of groups manage to do that without then presuming that they should lead the way.The basis of the SWP's theory in terms of why it's necessary to have a revolutionary party is that the working class does not have a uniform consciousness. There are some workers who are already committed to the overthrow of capitalism and understand why it is that the current system leads to wealth being concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of those who produce wealth, and at the same time there are also workers who are members of fascist organizations like the BNP, but the majority of the working class exhibits a combination of reactionary and progressive ideas, as a result of being forced to fight alongside other workers when they become involved in struggle and at the same time being subject to the ideas of the ruling class through the media and all the other institutions that are used to maintain bourgeois class rule. The SWP argues that the most politicized and advanced workers (the vanguard, as it were) should organize themselves so that when a broad section of the working class enters struggle, such as a strike, it's possible for the vanguard of the class to intervene, by calling for radical strategies (e.g. arguing that workers should occupy when they are faced with redundancies, instead of allowing trade-union bureaucrats to make concessions to the bosses, which is what happens when people don't intervene, or when the workers at the plant aren't confident enough to defy the law) and combating reactionary ideas like racism and sexism if these ideas are used to create divisions within the class. This process of intervention is what allows the working class to gain victories and develop its consciousness, and doesn't having anything to do with a minority telling everyone else what to do - it is a process based on solidarity because it relies on socialists proving to their fellow workers that they have the right strategies and arguments in the course of struggles. It is important to remember that the revolutionary party is a part of the working class, not an organization that lectures workers on what they should do.

An example of the SWP proving its merit as a fighting organization and affirming the role of the revolutionary party is the wave of university occupations that took place in the UK earlier this year, as in many of these cases SWSS, the SWP's youth section, had a key role in winning people over to that strategy, especially when we faced the opposition of liberals who were afraid of antagonizing the university authorities. In my own university, myself and other SWP comrades had a meeting before a StWC event later on that week to discuss what demands we would raise and how many people were likely to support having an occupation, and for me that experience demonstrated how the revolutionary party should function in relation to people who haven't been won over to socialism and who might otherwise follow the lead of reformist or liberal organizations.


the fact they didn't even ask if I agreed with them before trying to recruit meThe SWP is a broad organization, so we don't think it's necessary that you agree with everything we say in order to become a member, in contrast to other organizations which actually use tests and candidate periods to determine whether someone is "ready" to become a member. I think our approach is a lot more egalitarian and open than other organizations on the left and is based on one of Rosa Luxemburg's observations - that the best way for someone to develop their understanding of the world and the socialist society we work towards is if they are actively engaged in political activity and the company of experienced revolutionaries, who can have discussions with them and answer any questions they may have. I can personally say that whilst I was a Trotsyist before I joined the SWP it was only through becoming involved in political activity as a member of the party that I really understood ideas which I had previously read about in books, like the role of the revolutionary party, the meaning of the united front, and so on.

[Salabra]

The SWP does not abstain on the Russian Question.

Sorry, that should be “your collaborationism with your own bourgeoisie on the Russian Question. ”

I would have thought that, as Trotskyists, you would have denounced the “united front. ”

[BobKKKindle$]

Then why not use bureaucracy problem instead of stalinism? Trotsky was involve in this process, even becoming a part of politburo seat, it is naive to say he is not involved at all in this bureaucratic process, but why exclusively Stalinism? It is prefer to see the picture rather than the movement's figure.Are you criticizing the use of Stalinism as a term? If so, Trotsky generally used the terms "bonapartism" and "Thermidor" in The Revolution Betrayed and other texts concerning the Soviet Union in order to draw a parallel between the process of bureaucratic degeneration of the Russian Revolution and the process of power moving away from the Convention in France following the French Revolution in 1789, as in both cases the gains which had resulted from the revolution came under attack from conservative forces. This comparison was also informed by Trotsky's argument that both processes had not resulted in the restoration of the social relations that had been overthrown, merely the diminishing of certain gains, and so the shifts could be understood as solely political in character, and not social. The SWP disagrees with this aspect of Trotsky's analysis in that we believe the 1920s did involve the restoration of capitalism and not the creation of a "degenerated workers state", and we also argue that post-war changes in other countries such as China and the states of eastern Europe were not socialist revolutions, as in none of these cases did the working class seize power, or play more than a supporting role in the political changes that took place.

I don't think that criticizing the term "Stalinism" is sufficient to dismiss the whole of Trotskyism or justify hatred directed towards Trotskyists because Stalin was the leader of the Soviet bureaucracy, mainly due to his position as leader of the Orgburo, whereas Trotsky, as the leader of the Left Opposition, represented the working class, and so was a prime target for the bureaucracy as the working class was deprived of its gains during the late 1920s. I don't agree that Trotsky being a member of the Politburo shows that he was complicit in the process of bureaucratization, as Trotsky was expelled from the Politburo during the early stages of bureaucratization in 1926 and was expelled from both the Central Committee and the RCP(b) the following year - and so if was complicit to any degree then it was evidently only for a short period of time. As long as he retained influence within the party, Trotsky served as the leader of the Left Opposition, which directed its energies against the growing strength of the bureaucracy mainly through the publication and dissemination of The New Course, in which Trotsky was careful to point out that the disintegration of the working class was such that in 1923 only a sixth of the party members held manual occupations, whilst nearly two-thirds of all party members held administrative posts of one kind or another, and on this basis Trotsky emphasized the need to retain intra-party democracy, and advocated an end to the NEP, which, in Trotsky's view, enhanced the power of the bureaucracy by enabling an increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, and undermining the smychka between the working class and the peasantry. Trotsky also contended that the party could maintain an orientation towards the needs of the proletariat only if Russia succeeded in developing her industries in order to change the demographic balance in favour of the urban population, which had been severely diminished during the civil war, and yet, in contrast to the historic experiences of the countryside during the 1930s, Trotsky explicitly stated that this process of industrial development should not occur through the ruthless exploitation of the peasantry.

In sum, if you think that Trotsky was complicit in the rise of the bureaucracy then you have an obligation to explain why it was that Trotsky went to such lengths to combat the bureaucratic forces and why he was eventually expelled from the party and hounded by Stalinist agents as a result of his involvement in opposition activities.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

An example of the SWP proving its merit as a fighting organization and affirming the role of the revolutionary party is the wave of university occupations that took place in the UK earlier this year, as in many of these cases SWSS, the SWP's youth section, had a key role in winning people over to that strategy, especially when we faced the opposition of liberals who were afraid of antagonizing the university authorities. In my own university, myself and other SWP comrades had a meeting before a StWC event later on that week to discuss what demands we would raise and how many people were likely to support having an occupation, and for me that experience demonstrated how the revolutionary party should function in relation to people who haven't been won over to socialism and who might otherwise follow the lead of reformist or liberal organizations.

In my city, there was a university occupation that was opposed by liberals who were afraid of antagonizing the university authorities. There were at most one or two members of the SWP there, so they were unable to play any real role in giving direction to the movement, but people who favoured the idea of occupation were still able to organise themselves, argue in favour of the tactic, and launch an occupation. How would we have benefited from having a SWP branch there?

The SWP is a broad organization, so we don't think it's necessary that you agree with everything we say in order to become a member, in contrast to other organizations which actually use tests and candidate periods to determine whether someone is "ready" to become a member.This is where that approach gets you (http://www.revleft.com/vb/converse.php?u=23259&u2=11996): a self-proclaimed "Guevarist - Focoist" SWP member who openly disagrees with the party's ideas, boasting that he knows other members who aren't even Communists, and threatening to knock other members of his own party out for arguing the party's line. I don't think this is an isolated incident: see, for example, this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1072612/Teenage-Trotsky-Cabinets-new-adviser-radical-Islam.html) (apologies for linking to the Faily Wail). I'm not sure what the party gains from having religious right-wingers who advise government ministers as members, beyond their subs of course.
I don't think this is an isolated problem, I think it reflects a fundamental flaw in the party's attitude to its members. If they're going to actually have a say in what the organisation thinks and does, then you need to check that all members actually agree with you before they join; if, on the other hand, their role is just to rubber-stamp strategies handed down by the leadership, then it's perfectly fine to have macho Castro-worshippers or religious government advisors as members, because you know they won't have any say over the contents of the papers they're selling.


I think our approach is a lot more egalitarian and open than other organizations on the left and is based on one of Rosa Luxemburg's observations - that the best way for someone to develop their understanding of the world and the socialist society we work towards is if they are actively engaged in political activity and the company of experienced revolutionaries, who can have discussions with them and answer any questions they may have.Why can't the be actively engaged in political activity and have conversations with experienced revolutionaries without joining a party, tho?

[Aeval]

Why can't the be actively engaged in political activity and have conversations with experienced revolutionaries without joining a party, tho?

Exactly this. And I'm not talking about recruiting people who don't agree with everything you say, I'm talking about literally cornering someone, physically blocking their way out, not asking their opinion on anything, going on and on and on about joining and when that person finally escapes even telling their friend who just happens to be a member to continue harassing them on the way home.

And yes, the occupation at my university was good not because a revolutionary party was showing us the way, but because people from all sorts of different groups, and plenty of individuals, were coming together and deciding to do it themselves. The SWP people there didn't even get involved with it until it was already decided - shock horror! People not in a party were able to come up with ideas and decide for themselves!

[KC]

I haven't said that it isn't; I said I dislike the way groups like the SWP think that it's their role to 'organise' people into doing what they want and presuming that they are the default leaders. As I already said, there are many other groups out there who manage to educate, agitate and spread propaganda without trying to take over whatever it is that's being done and without throwing a fit when some of the people there go and decide to do something that they haven't organised.
I'll be honest, I don't really get what you're trying to argue about here.

It sounds like your concerns have more to do with sectism than with the genuine organization of revolutionaries (which don't really exist; the SWP is a sect). I highly suggest you check out Draper's two articles The Alternative To The Micro-Sect (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/draper/1971/alt/index.htm) and Anatomy of the Micro-Sect (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/draper/1973/xx/microsect.htm) for a good outline of sectism, why it's damaging, and how it can be combated.

However, I also think you should study the early days of the Russian Revolution (particularly from 1895 to 1903) to understand the necessity of organizing revolutionaries together into a single revolutionary party. In particular, these works by Lenin are of primary interest in dealing directly with the question of organization. There are other works of his, of course, that deal with this question (most famously is, of course, What Is To Be Done?). I've chosen these, though, because I think they express the necessity in the most frank manner.

Draft of a Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra and Zarya (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/apr/draft.htm)

Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/sep/iskra.htm)

The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/nov/tasks.htm)

Also, Woods in his book on the Russian Revolution (Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism-old/index.html)) summarizes in the first chapter of his book the necessity for organization into a single all-Russian Social-Democratic party.

[Q]

I think this in one post is a good example of what I agree and disagree with Trotskyists most strongly about: permanent revolution is something I agree strongly with, a similar analysis is what led the IRSP to break with the Officials. however the idea of political revolutions is deeply flawed. What's needed to correct the development of Cuba for example is not political revolution (an unworkable idea, and one that would most likely play into the hands of imperialism, no matter what the intention was) but more revolutions across the globe to lift the siege (which would effectively undermine or reduce the power of the bureaucracy there), and assist Cuba's development.
I'll repeat what I've said, with an added emphasis:

I'm of the opinion that this bureaucracy is the singlemost biggest danger for the survival of the gains of the Cuban revolution. What is needed therefore is a political revolution that will oust this bureaucracy and bring to power the working class. This can most likely only be achieved due to the pressures of international developments, for example a successful revolution in Venezuela.How is this effectively different from your "but more revolutions across the globe to lift the siege (which would effectively undermine or reduce the power of the bureaucracy there), and assist Cuba's development."?

Also, exactly how is the idea of a political revolution - that of the working class rising up to oust the bureaucracy - playing in the hands of imperialists? This remains unclear for me.

In fact I would claim the very opposite: the bureaucracy is aided by imperialists to some extent in order to prevent at all cost the working class from rising up. This is what we've seen most recently in Iran for example: at first the western media was willing to report on the alleged fraud, but then, when they realised that the Iranian movement might become a bigger danger for them than the nuisance that is the Iranian regime, they quickly claimed "neutrality" in the matter.

[UlyssesTheRed]

A friend of mine asked me this the other night, and I didn't really have a good response for him, because I don't have any particular antipathy towards trots. I talked a bit about the nutty sectarianism of the SWP-USA and the Sparts, but I did not exactly have much to say on the "fundamental wrongness" of Trotskyism.

I would be interested in hearing what everyone's perspectives are, especially from the anarchist side, since my friend leans that way. And of course, Trotskyist rebuttals.

Honestly?

Trotskyism is the most advanced expression of classical Marxism. Opportunists hate it because it ruins their broad tent, "go team left" happy time and insists on programmatic clarity, and (above all) Bolshevism. Anything that criticizes the near ubiquitous tendency of "the left" to tail after anything that moves ruins the back slapping, feel good party.

What a bunch of jerks for insisting on independent working-class mobilization.

:rolleyes:

[Pavlov's House Party]

A lot of posts in this thread are really sad, they don't give an answer to why they hate Trotskyists, but why they hate Trotsky instead (kind of ironic coming from anarchists, who claim they are all against the "Great Man" theory, but by saying these things they advocate it). I've seldom met Trotskyists who say they agree with every action or theory ever done or thought of by Trotsky; we acknowledge that he was an arrogant, crochety old man, but we also acknowledge that many of his ideas are worth studying.

[Durruti's Ghost]

A lot of posts in this thread are really sad, they don't give an answer to why they hate Trotskyists, but why they hate Trotsky instead (kind of ironic coming from anarchists, who claim they are all against the "Great Man" theory, but by saying these things they advocate it). I've seldom met Trotskyists who say they agree with every action or theory ever done or thought of by Trotsky; we acknowledge that he was an arrogant, crochety old man, but we also acknowledge that many of his ideas are worth studying.

Trotsky killed anarchists during the Kronstadt Rebellion, while Trotskyists helped us during the Spanish Civil War. So, while I have a rather big problem with Trotsky himself, I don't have a problem with Trotskyists other than the ideological differences that separate us.

[Искра]

Trotsky killed anarchists during the Kronstadt Rebellion, while Trotskyists helped us during the Spanish Civil War. So, while I have a rather big problem with Trotsky himself, I don't have a problem with Trotskyists other than the ideological differences that separate us.
1. There were not only anarchist in Kronstandt, above all they were minority. Kronstandt sailors were above all communist, which wanted only one thing - communism.
2. Trotskyists are Bolsheviks. That the biggest problem with them.

Regarding Trotsky as a person, he was a mass murder of working class. From Russia to Ukraine.

[ls]

I think that the best Trotskyist group currently going is probably the Forth International, out of them all. It seems pointless to list now defunct Trotskyist groups as they bear no practical impact on the here and now.

[chegitz guevara]

Why are Trotskyists hated?

Simple, because they know everything. If you ever have a question, there will be a Trot to explain to you what the answer is, and why your question was the wrong one to ask, and then ask you to buy a newspaper. God help you if Trots from competing sects try and answer your question. You may as well just walk away and let them fight it out.

Of course, this separates them from Maoists, Stalinists, left-communists, and anarchists not a bit. But everyone likes to focus on how Trotskyists are assholes and they ignore everyone else.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Trotsky killed anarchists during the Kronstadt Rebellion

Really? Trotsky singlehandedly destroyed an entire insurrection?

The thing that really gets me about these kinds criticisms is that they basically enforce a "Great Man" theory about history; that people like Trotsky, Stalin and whoever else were all-powerful boogeymen who have to be blamed for everything that's ever gone wrong, be it Trotsky destroying Kronstadt, or Stalin betraying the anarchists in Spain.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think that the best Trotskyist group currently going is probably the Forth International, out of them all.
Which one?

[ls]

Which one?

You heard. :glare: Don't make me keep praising Trotskyist groups, people will think I am one.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

You heard. :glare: Don't make me keep praising Trotskyist groups, people will think I am one.
No, it's a srs question. Is the International Committee of the Fourth International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Fourth_Internationa l), the League for the Fourth International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_the_Fourth_International), the Fourth International (ICR) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International_%28ICR%29), or the Fourth International Posadist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International_Posadist) the one true faith? :lol:

[Holden Caulfield]

People don't hate us do they

[Random Precision]

Trotsky killed anarchists during the Kronstadt Rebellion

There were no anarchists involved in Kronstadt. And "Trotsky" did not "kill them", but the revolt was put down by the Red Army, and subsequent executions carried out by the Cheka.

[ls]

the International Committee of the Fourth International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Fourth_Internationa l)

And just a lil bit the Sparts, yes, the Sparts. :ninja:

Other Trotskyist groups tend to do some things right and plenty of things wrong. :p

[The Ungovernable Farce]

People don't hate us do they
We don't hate you, cos everyone knows you're not a trot, you're just a closet anarchist. ;)

There were no anarchists involved in Kronstadt. And "Trotsky" did not "kill them", but the revolt was put down by the Red Army, and subsequent executions carried out by the Cheka.
Yes, it certainly would be inaccurate to hold the Commissar for War responsible for the Red Army's actions, wouldn't it? After all, it's not as if he wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/07/kronstadt2.htm):

I was a member of the government, I considered the quelling of the rebellion necessary and therefore bear responsibility for the suppression... The rebellion broke out during my stay in the Urals. From the Urals I came directly to Moscow for the 10th Congress of the party. The decision to suppress the rebellion by military force, if the fortress could not be induced to surrender, first by peace negotiations, then through an ultimatum – this general decision was adopted with my direct participation...
Idealists and pacifists always accused the revolution of “excesses”. But the main point is that “excesses” flow from the very nature of revolution which in itself is but an “excess” of history. Whoever so desires may on this basis reject (in little articles) revolution in general. I do not reject it. In this sense I carry full and complete responsibility for the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion.
The distinction between "excesses" carried out against reactionaries and against revolutionary workers seems to have escaped him.

[Random Precision]

Yes, it certainly would be inaccurate to hold the Commissar for War responsible for the Red Army's actions, wouldn't it? After all, it's not as if he wrote:

The distinction between "excesses" carried out against reactionaries and against revolutionary workers seems to have escaped him.


I believe the action taken to repress Kronstadt was a mistake. I just was insisting on historical accuracy: there was no anarchist involvement at Kronstadt, and Trotsky himself did not order its repression nor take part in it.

[Q]

Yes, it certainly would be inaccurate to hold the Commissar for War responsible for the Red Army's actions, wouldn't it? After all, it's not as if he wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/07/kronstadt2.htm):
Yet holding someone responsible and saying he killed are two different things. Trotsky took full responsibility, but wasn't even present in St Petersburg at the time.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Yet holding someone responsible and saying he killed are two different things. Trotsky took full responsibility, but wasn't even present in St Petersburg at the time.
Would you get this argumentative, for example, every time someone says Stalin killed Trotsky? Yes, it's the case that they weren't even on the same continent, but it's clear what is meant.