Trotskyite

[willdw79]

I am by no means a person who tends to agree with revolutionaries who consider themselves (or other people consider) Trotskyist. However, I do believe that the man Leon Trotsky was an incredible revolutionary.

I think that using that word is divisive and I believe that the word has no real meaning outside of a very broad description and I urge all people who are serious about revolution to either explain why the word should be used or stop using it.

It denotes very little but the connotation is harmful and counterrevolutionary. I respect Trotskyists and I ally with them on common ground (about 99% of things) and I believe that their ideology is light years ahead of the bulk of the working class, let alone the bourgeoisie. If they had a revolution, I would definitely fall in line and support them wholeheartedly and follow their line.

What do you think?

[scarletghoul]

I partially agree. "Trotskyism" in itself doesn't constitute a seperate branch of Marxist theory, as Trotsky didn't have any radically differant and groundbreaking ideas. There are of course some ideas worth considering, like permanent revolution (the only one I can think of, and the only one most Trots seem to be able to think of :lol:) but it's hardly enough to justify the seperation between Trotskyists and other leftists. Mostly their beef with the Marxist-Leninists seems to be based on historical disputes between the personalities of Stalin and Trotsky, rather than actual real ideas and theoretical lines. People forget that Stalin and Trotsky were both Bolsheviks who contributed a great deal to the October Revolution. Unfortunately organisations place a great deal of imaginary importance on the fact that Stalin and Trotsky hated eachother, when in fact there is no serious differance between their two versions of Marxism, just a conflict of personalities. There is seriously no need for organisations to drift so far apart on this. Both of these people are long dead, and we should not still be upholding their hollow egoes, let alone using them as puppets to fight eachother

However, Trotskyists do exist, even if Trotskyism doesn't. They have defined themselves as a seperate bunch of organisations and personalities, they have developed as a movement seperate from the M-Ls. So Trotskyists are very real (despite being built on a flimsy excuse for an ideological line :lol:). Its like race. Race is a social construct that doesnt exist biologically. But it still exists, as a social construct. So Trotskyists do exist, as a construct of their own seperation and dead-man-egowankery.

[willdw79]

I partially agree. "Trotskyism" in itself doesn't constitute a seperate branch of Marxist theory, as Trotsky didn't have any radically differant and groundbreaking ideas. There are of course some ideas worth considering, like permanent revolution (the only one I can think of, and the only one most Trots seem to be able to think of :lol:) but it's hardly enough to justify the seperation between Trotskyists and other leftists. Mostly their beef with the Marxist-Leninists seems to be based on historical disputes between the personalities of Stalin and Trotsky, rather than actual real ideas and theoretical lines. People forget that Stalin and Trotsky were both Bolsheviks who contributed a great deal to the October Revolution. Unfortunately organisations place a great deal of imaginary importance on the fact that Stalin and Trotsky hated eachother, when in fact there is no serious differance between their two versions of Marxism, just a conflict of personalities. There is seriously no need for organisations to drift so far apart on this. Both of these people are long dead, and we should not still be upholding their hollow egoes, let alone using them as puppets to fight eachother

However, Trotskyists do exist, even if Trotskyism doesn't. They have defined themselves as a seperate bunch of organisations and personalities, they have developed as a movement seperate from the M-Ls. So Trotskyists are very real (despite being built on a flimsy excuse for an ideological line :lol:). Its like race. Race is a social construct that doesnt exist biologically. But it still exists, as a social construct. So Trotskyists do exist, as a construct of their own seperation and dead-man-egowankery.
I liked what you said and I could see the race analogy coming, and I think it fits. But it fits both ways.

I would say furthermore we should not use the word "trots" either.

scarletghoul, are you willing to set aside differences with other "true communists" (because they are true communists) in order to make revolution?

Good points and I hope that people who are considered or consider themselves Trotskyists would respond too.

[scarletghoul]

scarletghoul, are you willing to set aside differences with other "true communists" (because they are true communists) in order to make revolution?Haha, of course. I've mentioned numerous times that we should all be cooperating together at this stage. To "set aside differences" in this case is to set aside abstract historical disputes that are irrelevent right now. It is to return to Earth.

I do make a lot of anti-Trot remarks though, but this is just poking fun at what tend to be uptight annoying people, I don't have any genuine beef with Trotskyism in itself.

[willdw79]

Haha, of course. I've mentioned numerous times that we should all be cooperating together at this stage. To "set aside differences" in this case is to set aside abstract historical disputes that are irrelevent right now. It is to return to Earth.
I am 100% with you, "I've mentioned numerous times that we should all be cooperating together at this stage. To "set aside differences" in this case is to set aside abstract historical disputes that are irrelevent right now."

[Mephisto]

First I have to say: I don't like the term "Trotskyist", too, just because it indicates that Trotsky would have designed his own ideology in contrast to revolutionary marxism. In fact, Trotsky defended revolutionary marxism against it's degeneration and revision by petty bourgeois forces and enhanced it by new insights.

What belongs to him and Stalin: Yes, both were members of the Bolshevik Party, but that does not mean, they both stood for the same ideas. The historical dispute between them and those who fight in their tradition is not about those two persons but about certain and deep ideological differences.

I'll try to outline the most important of them here:

I. Trotsky developed the theory of permanent revolution by means of the insight, that the russian bourgeoisie can't be a revolutionary progressive force anymore, which derives from their weakness in russia and it's global reactionary character. Stalin however always rejected this theory and still in summer 1917 belonged to the forces within the Bolshevik Party, who argued for support of the Kerensky gouvernment under control of the soviets instead of a proletarian revolution. Lenin and Trotsky however explained, that the only hope for the working class would lie with the socialist world revolution, which brings me directly to the next point.

I. As Lenin did, Trotsky and those who stand in their tradition up to today uphold the principles of a world revolution, which means, that no revolution on national level can be successive if it is not conceived as only one stage of the world revolutionary process. Stalin and his followers however rejected this necessary base principle of marxism to justify their bureauocratic system by the "Theory of Socialism in one country", which is a deep revision of marxist theory.

III. According to the fact, that the Soviet Union abandoned the world revolutionary course it developed a stalinist leadership of petty bourgeois bureaurocrats who not only oppressed their own working class but betrayed international revolutions for the sake of their own interests as well. The most prominent examples are China (1927), Spain (1936-1939) and Greece (1945). Trotsky analysed that in his famous work "A Revolution Betrayed". Regarding that Marxists-Lenists today still are in favour of this state model, it is hardly only a "historical dispute" but a dispute of concrete and very necessary questions about the revolutionary process.




By the way, scarletghoul, you said that both Trotsky and Stalin "contributed a great deal to the October Revolution". I'm wondering what Stalins "great deal" was? In fact, Stalins contribution to the Octobre Revolution is absolutely neglectable, his rise to power came later, when the bureaucratisation process rose up.

[scarletghoul]

What belongs to him and Stalin: Yes, both were members of the Bolshevik Party, but that does not mean, they both stood for the same ideas. The historical dispute between them and those who fight in their tradition is not about those two persons but about certain and deep ideological differences. So what scarletghoul says about their conflict, claiming there would be no serious differences, only personal hate, is absolutely nonsense.

I'll try to outline the most important differences here:

I. Trotsky developed the theory of permanent revolution by means of the insight, that the russian bourgeoisie can't be a revolutionary progressive force anymore, which derives from their weakness in russia and it's global reactionary character. Stalin however always rejected this theory and still in summer 1917 belonged to the forces within the Bolshevik Party, who argued for support of the Kerensky gouvernment under control of the soviets instead of a proletarian revolution. Lenin and Trotsky however explained, that the only hope for the working class would lie with the socialist world revolution, which brings me directly to the next point.

I. As Lenin did, Trotsky and those who stand in their tradition up to today uphold the principles of a world revolution, which means, that no revolution on national level can be successive if it is not conceived as only one stage of the world revolutionary process. Stalin and his followers however rejected this necessary base principle of marxism to justify their bureauocratic system by the "Theory of Socialism in one country", which is a deep revision of marxist theory.

III. According to the fact, that the Soviet Union abandoned the world revolutionary course it developed a stalinist leadership of petty bourgeois bureaurocrats who not only oppressed their own working class but betrayed international revolutions for the sake of their own interests as well. The most prominent examples are China (1927), Spain (1936-1939) and Greece (1945). Trotsky analysed that in his famous work "A Revolution Betrayed". Regarding that Marxists-Lenists today still are in favour of this state model, it is hardly only a "historical dispute" but a dispute of concrete and very necessary questions about the revolutionary process.
This could be relevent if we were actually anywhere near capable of setting up a state, but we are not. We have not even started the revolution. You can't betray a revolution that doesn't exist. Starting the revolution is an elementary step that is obviously vital, and that all of us agree on, so why don't we work together to do this?


By the way, scarletghoul, you said that both Trotsky and Stalin "contributed a great deal to the October Revolution". I'm wondering what Stalins "great deal" was? In fact, Stalins contribution to the Octobre Revolution is absolutely neglectable, his rise to power came later, when the bureaucratisation process rose up.Stalin played a leading role in the Bolshevik propaganda effort, as editor of Pravda. More importantly, he was very active in the criminal underworld of the Russian Empire for years, raising funds for the Bolsheviks and organising the underground communists. This was while Trotsky and Lenin were living comfortably abroad, just writing and stuff. Of course, this is important too, but it would be nothing without the revolutionary actions of people like Stalin. He wasn't in the spotlight in 1917 like Trotsky, as that wasn't his method as a revolutionary, he was best working in the shadows, but he still was very important.
Anyway let's try not to derail the thread with this >_>

[Mephisto]

You're right, the roles of Trotsky and Stalin should be discussed elsewhere for not to get beyond the scope of the actual discussion.

To the point: I know what you mean but I think it would be a very big mistake to disregard those important theoretical questions just until the revolution and then deal later with them. To build up a revolutionary communist party in my eyes is not possible without a clear revolutionary programme which by any means can not ignore these questions. I don't make a call for separation and dividing the political left but we must accept that some differences are deep to a degree that we can't simply overlook them.


And I have to add that these things are not so far from our time as we think. They have a heavy influence on questions like:
How do we stand to countries like China and North Korea?
How do we stand exactly to Cuba or to the Bolivarian Process in Venezuela and countries alike?


And of course, the answers to these questions influence our political strategies and tactics very much. E.g. many people here in Germany think that communists want to rebuild the GDR and the Soviet Union as they know it from post-war-times. So when people ask us what marxist theory or at least our interpretation of marxist theory says about this states we must be able to give a clear answer.



I even forgot one very important point in my post before. The stalinist parties in the 30s supported peoples fronts together with the liberal bourgeoisie while resigned from revolutionary actions. Marxists in the tradition of Trotsky rejected this strategy. This is still a very important question in national liberation struggles, e.g. in Palestine.

[red cat]

What is the stand of Trotskyists regarding the ongoing people's wars at Philippines, Turkey, India, Peru etc?
And what is their stand on the Maoist theories of protracted people's war, mass line and new-democracy ?

[Mephisto]

What is the stand of Trotskyists regarding the ongoing people's wars at Philippines, Turkey, India, Peru etc?
And what is their stand on the Maoist theories of protracted people's war, mass line and new-democracy ?

I would say that this is a very interesting subject but it would be better discussed elsewhere because we'd get far behind the scope this time. Why don't you open a new thread for this?

[Revy]

Trotsky called himself a Bolshevik-Leninist, not a Trotskyist. But Marx also said that he didn't like the term Marxist. Did Lenin like the term Leninist? Probably not...

[kharacter]

I'd say a lot of friction between leftists comes from history. There's opinions on Stalin's leadership of the CCCP, Mao's salvation of, or suppression of lives, silencing of anarchists under Lenin and persecution of them by Trotsky, the Black Army against the Red Army, Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman's discontent with the Soviet Union, etc.

Most of us, however,were not even alive when these things happened, and to sacrifice our revolutionary potential over these is severely misguided. It'd be a little like Jews holding prejudice against modern Germans over atrocities committed in World War II, 70 years ago; every single person responsible is long gone.

[Mephisto]

I know what you mean but the important questions are not only about some doing of Stalin or Mao, Lenin or Trotsky, but about very deep distinctions in questions about how a revolution must look like, how we need to build up revolutionary organizations and things like that.

You can't simply deny that all these things determine our political work essentially.

[n0thing]

I thought trotskyism was just anti-stalin/soviet leninism.

[Mephisto]

Some think so, but this is dumbed down and doesn't hit the core of the subject. What do you exactly mean by the term "soviet leninism"?

[kharacter]

I know what you mean but the important questions are not only about some doing of Stalin or Mao, Lenin or Trotsky, but about very deep distinctions in questions about how a revolution must look like, how we need to build up revolutionary organizations and things like that.

You can't simply deny that all these things determine our political work essentially.
I was simply commenting on the backwardness of sectarianism. I recognize that there are indeed arguments between ideologies about approach that are worth having, but I am not for sacrificing togetherness either. I was remarking on the fact that it is silly to look at history only to argue about who had a bigger dick.

[Random Precision]

It's a mistake to think that the dispute between Trotskyism and Stalinism is only over what happened in the Soviet Union 80 or 90 years ago.

When we talk about "Stalinism", we don't usually refer to what the man himself did (although that can have something to do with it), we're talking about the policies adopted by the Comintern after about 1923. We're talking about class collaboration, which spelled the end of workers' revolution in China. We're talking about the "social fascism" policy, and the KPD embracing Nazi attempts to topple a Social-Democratic government. We're talking about the Popular Front, for which more class-collaboration spelled the end of workers' revolution in Spain. We're talking about the CPUSA support of the no-strike pledge during WW2, which gave the US labor movement a blow it has arguably still not recovered from. We're talking about the CPI abandoning the Indian independence movement to support its colonial power during the same war.

And we can go on to other things too. We're talking about the crushing of workers' movements in East Germany (1953), Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Poland (1980), and those who supported that action from afar. We're talking about class collaboration that helped dig the grave of revolutionaries in places like Indonesia (1965) and Iran (1979). This is all Stalinism, no matter whether the power behind the throne was Stalin, Khrushchev, or Mao.

So, is the dispute historical? Of course it is, but it would be dangerous from a revolutionary perspective to assume that at any point we have a "clean slate", so to speak. The historical behavior of Stalinists, I'm afraid, more often than not corresponds to their present behavior to. Revolutionaries in the United States see nothing surprising about the CPUSA supporting the Democratic Party- they first did that as a member of the Stalinist Comintern, way back in 1936, and have been doing it intermittently ever since. Similarly, we see nothing surprising in the WWP/PSL supporting state repression of the anti-electoral movement in Iran today, since their party line has always been full support to the action of Stalinist bureaucracy against working people- the only thing that's changed is Ahmadinejad hasn't painted himself red in this case.

This is what Stalinism means, and has meant for decades: it means class collaboration, and defusing the revolutionary instinct of the workers, even through violence in many cases. Where that is impossible to defuse, it means a bureaucracy takes power over the workers and strives to isolate them from the international class. This is not something revolutionaries will ever unite with.

[red cat]

This is why I am asking for the Trotskyist stand on various ongoing revolutions. Even if we try to forget our differences regarding historical line, given the common Trotskyist negative propaganda on the ongoing revolutions, struggling for unity would also mean attempting to destroy these revolutions.

[Random Precision]

This is why I am asking for the Trotskyist stand on various ongoing revolutions. Even if we try to forget our differences regarding historical line, given the common Trotskyist negative propaganda on the ongoing revolutions, struggling for unity would also mean attempting to destroy these revolutions.

What revolutions are you talking about?

[chegitz guevara]

This was while Trotsky and Lenin were living comfortably abroad, just writing and stuff.

The conditions under which they lived could hardly be called comfortable. Lenin lived in abject poverty. I don't know about Trostky's living conditions, but given that his group was considerably smaller than either the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks, it's unlikely he lived well. When he emigrated to the United States, he lived in New York's Lower East Side, which at the time, was a Jewish hell hole.

Stalin's contribution to the actual October revolution was negligible. He did a lot of work for the Bolsheviks in the decade before the revolution, and we know what came after, but in the actual organizing for and carrying out of the event itself, Stalin played virtually no role.


Trotsky called himself a Bolshevik-Leninist, not a Trotskyist. But Marx also said that he didn't like the term Marxist. Did Lenin like the term Leninist? Probably not...

The reason for that is when the French socialist party split, a group of anarchists were labeled the Marxists by the other side. Hence Marx's comment.

Trotsky made his comment about Trotskyists because of a group that either called themselves or were called by others, Trotskyists, and the old man didn't agree with them.



I. Trotsky developed the theory of permanent revolution by means of the insight, that the russian bourgeoisie can't be a revolutionary progressive force anymore, which derives from their weakness in russia and it's global reactionary character. Stalin however always rejected this theory and still in summer 1917 belonged to the forces within the Bolshevik Party, who argued for support of the Kerensky gouvernment under control of the soviets instead of a proletarian revolution. Lenin and Trotsky however explained, that the only hope for the working class would lie with the socialist world revolution, which brings me directly to the next point.

To be fair, Lenin also rejected permanent revolution, up until his April Theses. In fact, Trotsky's theory was a radical departure from the orthodox theory of the Second International, which held that Russia needed to go through a bourgeois revolution and period of development before the workers could seize power and build socialism.

Lenin already understood that Russia was going through a period of capitalist development. He was just one of the first to see that the February revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Trotsky's theory had said that the workers would need to make the bourgeoisie revolution, because the bourgeoisie would be too weak to carry it out on its own, and would shrink back from carrying it out because of fear of the workers.

In fact, in nearly all "bourgeois" revolutions, it was the workers who made the revolutions, and the bourgeoisie who seized the reigns (Great Britain, America, France, Germany, France, France, etc.). So Russia really wasn't special, but Trotsky was the first to see something even Marx had missed.

The second part of Trotsky's theory was that, the workers, having seized power for themselves, would not turn around and hand it over to their masters, the bourgeoisie. Yet, that is exactly what happened.

So the theory of Permanent Revolution, while grasping at something essential in the character of bourgeoisie revolutions, did not realize what it had actually pointed out, nor did it predict the future. For the most part, the bourgeois revolution has been carried out world wide. Only a few isolated pockets of feudalism still remain, so the TPR isn't really a necessary guide anymore.


II. As Lenin did, Trotsky and those who stand in their tradition up to today uphold the principles of a world revolution, which means, that no revolution on national level can be successive if it is not conceived as only one stage of the world revolutionary process. Stalin and his followers however rejected this necessary base principle of marxism to justify their bureauocratic system by the "Theory of Socialism in one country", which is a deep revision of marxist theory.This is incorrect on both counts. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky imagined that a revolution would ever be anything but part of an international revolution. In fact, the purpose of the Russian Revolution was not itself, but to serve as the spark to light the flames of German revolution. Orthodox Second International theory, on which point all were agreed, from 1901 onward, was that a revolutionary Russia (and they were all, at that time, thinking of a bourgeois revolution) would rouse the German working class to seize power and lead the way forward to socialism. Lenin thought this to the day he died.

By 1924, however, it was obvious that the revolution was not going to spread, and the Communists found themselves in an unforeseen situation, a workers party in charge of a state without a worker class, surrounded by hostile enemies. This first split between Trotsky, on the one hand, and Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev on the other, was over how to deal with this fact. Both were right and both were wrong, in that they were two side of the same answer, and not exclusive of one another. The Soviets did need to try and build socialism in one country and the only long term solution was to spread revolution. But, without one, the other would fail.


III. According to the fact, that the Soviet Union abandoned the world revolutionary course it developed a stalinist leadership of petty bourgeois bureaurocrats who not only oppressed their own working class but betrayed international revolutions for the sake of their own interests as well.This is backwards. It was because the bureaucrats became indispensable to the running of the country that they were able to take power, after a prolonged struggle. "Socialism in One Country," was an ideology expressing the interests of the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats brought about the theory, not the other way around.

[willdw79]

It's a mistake to think that the dispute between Trotskyism and Stalinism is only over what happened in the Soviet Union 80 or 90 years ago.

When we talk about "Stalinism", we don't usually refer to what the man himself did (although that can have something to do with it), we're talking about the policies adopted by the Comintern after about 1923. We're talking about class collaboration, which spelled the end of workers' revolution in China. We're talking about the "social fascism" policy, and the KPD embracing Nazi attempts to topple a Social-Democratic government. We're talking about the Popular Front, for which more class-collaboration spelled the end of workers' revolution in Spain. We're talking about the CPUSA support of the no-strike pledge during WW2, which gave the US labor movement a blow it has arguably still not recovered from. We're talking about the CPI abandoning the Indian independence movement to support its colonial power during the same war.

And we can go on to other things too. We're talking about the crushing of workers' movements in East Germany (1953), Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Poland (1980), and those who supported that action from afar. We're talking about class collaboration that helped dig the grave of revolutionaries in places like Indonesia (1965) and Iran (1979). This is all Stalinism, no matter whether the power behind the throne was Stalin, Khrushchev, or Mao.

So, is the dispute historical? Of course it is, but it would be dangerous from a revolutionary perspective to assume that at any point we have a "clean slate", so to speak. The historical behavior of Stalinists, I'm afraid, more often than not corresponds to their present behavior to. Revolutionaries in the United States see nothing surprising about the CPUSA supporting the Democratic Party- they first did that as a member of the Stalinist Comintern, way back in 1936, and have been doing it intermittently ever since. Similarly, we see nothing surprising in the WWP/PSL supporting state repression of the anti-electoral movement in Iran today, since their party line has always been full support to the action of Stalinist bureaucracy against working people- the only thing that's changed is Ahmadinejad hasn't painted himself red in this case.

This is what Stalinism means, and has meant for decades: it means class collaboration, and defusing the revolutionary instinct of the workers, even through violence in many cases. Where that is impossible to defuse, it means a bureaucracy takes power over the workers and strives to isolate them from the international class. This is not something revolutionaries will ever unite with.
I understand this rationale. But these items:
And we can go on to other things too. We're talking about the crushing of workers' movements in East Germany (1953), Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Poland (1980), and those who supported that action from afar. We're talking about class collaboration that helped dig the grave of revolutionaries in places like Indonesia (1965) and Iran (1979). This is all Stalinism, no matter whether the power behind the throne was Stalin, Khrushchev, or Mao"
these items can not so simply be boiled down to "Stalinism". I think this is part of our divide. It is a label being applied to the other side that stifles debate. In order to overcome the basic wall that is set up, one must meticulously document and argue point-by-point through a gambit of contentious issues. You can see the digression on many threads to Trotsky v. Stalin.

This to me is not a real fight. If we look at the people who defend Trotskyism and attack Stalinism some make sense and some don't. The same is true in reverse, some people holding the anti-trotskyist position make sense and some don't. This is a propoerty of revolution being a non-testable science. Each side argues in earnest and each side scores points but neither side can ever say enough to totally unseat the other side.

This type of wrankling has been going on for 90 years and its still going strong.

Let me give a rationale for why we should not continue this fight:
1. Trotskists and "so-called" Stalinists (who deny this label) should look deeper than the label. What we will find are groups that are from Camp Trotsky that span from reactionary fascistic assholes to model revolutionaries.
2. Trotskists and "so-called" Stalinists (who deny this label) should look deeper than the label. What we will find are groups that are from Camp Stalin that span from reactionary fascistic assholes to model revolutionaries.
3. The labels/categorizations only give us an idea of possible problems within an organization/party. A modern revolutionary must look for evidence of these problems within these groups and ally or merge with the ones that do not actually support whatever it is that the label (Trotskyist/Stalinist) implies. If the problem is not there, then what is the use of having the label?
4. Mergers and alliances of revolutionary communist groups makes us stronger. What we have in common far exceeds our differences.
5. Revolution is not near for most of us. Parties have internal disagreements. The differences between our groups, I believe, will prove to be no more or no less deep than the differences within any party. Revolutionaries tend to be strong-minded free-thinkers who are capable of coming to the conclusion of revolution in the face of the status-quo. This essential nature of radicals must not be our dividing point, it should be a strength of ours.

Before, during, and after a revolution, we need all types of revolutionary communist thinkers and doers (we should all strive to be both). There is no harm in having diverse ideologies as long as there is an agreement on some fundamental issues (which I believe has already been 99% achieved).

I believe that history has taught all revolutionaries that sectarianism and factionalization is not useful in achieving our common goals.

[chegitz guevara]

Given that Trotskyism spans from social democratic groups like Solidarity to cults like the Socialist Equality Party to near anarchist groups to full blown nuts like Posada, I think we can agree that the term is nearly devoid of meaning.

The above is true for Stalinists.

The above is true for Maoists.

The above is true for anarchists.

Those of us who are committed to proletarian revolution have more in common with other comrades despite our labels than we have with people who share our labels, but who have given up on such.

This is one of the reasons I decided to abandon the label Trotskyist (which precipitated my getting thrown out of the Trotskyism group here--idiot sectarians). I have as much in common with revolutionary Maoists as I do with revolutionary Trotskyists as I do with revolutionary Stalinists. We're all revolutionary Marxists!

[red cat]

What revolutions are you talking about?

I am talking about the people's wars in various third world countries.

[red cat]

Given that Trotskyism spans from social democratic groups like Solidarity to cults like the Socialist Equality Party to near anarchist groups to full blown nuts like Posada, I think we can agree that the term is nearly devoid of meaning.

The above is true for Stalinists.

The above is true for Maoists.

The above is true for anarchists.

Those of us who are committed to proletarian revolution have more in common with other comrades despite our labels than we have with people who share our labels, but who have given up on such.

This is one of the reasons I decided to abandon the label Trotskyist (which precipitated my getting thrown out of the Trotskyism group here--idiot sectarians). I have as much in common with revolutionary Maoists as I do with revolutionary Trotskyists as I do with revolutionary Stalinists. We're all revolutionary Marxists!

One big difference that revolutionary Maoists have with all so called other "revolutionary" Marxists is that all the other tendencies have utterly failed to provide any leadership to the revolutionary masses in the third world, which is now the epicentre of revolution.

[Mephisto]

This big difference includes unfortunately that maoists tend strongly to focus on peasantry movements and diffuse class collaboration concepts like "New-Democracy" and lose sight of the proletarian class, the actual only force capable of leading the socialist revolution.

[Q]

One big difference that revolutionary Maoists have with all so called other "revolutionary" Marxists is that all the other tendencies have utterly failed to provide any leadership to the revolutionary masses in the third world, which is now the epicentre of revolution.
Just to bounce that ball back: what have these socalled "peoples wars" effectively given us so far? Would you defend China as the epicenter of socialism?

[scarletghoul]

Just to bounce that ball back: what have these socalled "peoples wars" effectively given us so far?
They established socialist China, and the probably soon to be socialist Nepal, and they've made a vanguard for the oppressed peoples' struggles in various countries. The revolutionary rage of the peasants would otherwise be left to die out, but the maoists are channeling this rage.

Modern capitalist China is not a result of the initial revolutionary strategy of the Maoists, and you should know that. Much of the Maoists' time during the PRC was devoted to fighting the capitalistic tendencies.

[red cat]

Plus the zones of influence and guerrila zones created in other countries.

[n0thing]

Some think so, but this is dumbed down and doesn't hit the core of the subject. What do you exactly mean by the term "soviet leninism"?
I meant the post-stalin soviet ideologies.

[red cat]

This big difference includes unfortunately that maoists tend strongly to focus on peasantry movements and diffuse class collaboration concepts like "New-Democracy" and lose sight of the proletarian class, the actual only force capable of leading the socialist revolution.

Not really. The rural peasant movements are accompanied by urban proletarian movements. Due to the relatively huge size of the peasantry and weakness of government forces in the villages most initial military actions are carried out in the villages, and thus by the peasantry.

[chegitz guevara]

One big difference that revolutionary Maoists have with all so called other "revolutionary" Marxists is that all the other tendencies have utterly failed to provide any leadership to the revolutionary masses in the third world, which is now the epicentre of revolution.

Well, I don't live in the Third World. I live in the Empire, so I have to work with who's here. Nor do I think it's clear that the 3rd World is the epicenter of revolution. Nearly every revolutionary movement has either betrayed the people or utterly failed. We're left with a few examples to the contrary, scattered and disparate: Nepal, Cuba, Venezuela, India, the Philippines, and that's pretty much it. It would be rather difficult to draw universal lessons from that. Meanwhile, some pretty exciting stuff was just happening in Europe: Greece, France, etc.

Let's face it, we are adrift, without rudder, sail, or oar. We have to make our own future and our own revolution, not ape the revolutions of other countries. In order to do that, we need to get rid of our self-inflicted handicaps, like dogmatism and sectarianism. We have control over our own actions, so let's start figuring out how to work together, instead of scrapping over when the USSR became capitalist or whether China was ever socialist. Those revolutions are gone. It's just us now.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would identify myself as a trotskyist, even though I am not an "orthodox trotskyist" because I see "socialism in one country" as a road away from socialism. I equate socialism with the DOP and working class democracy and so I do not support the USSR as "socialist" because Russia was something else after the first few year or two after the revolution. To me, natioanlized industry or a welfare state do not equal socialism, worker's power does.

Really I would consider myself a bolshevik, but I accept the term Trotskyist because it identifies me as someone who supports the Russain Revolution, but not "socialsim in one country" and all the politics associalted with Stalinism.

I could understand how someone might convince themselves to be a stalinist in the 80s and earlier - but now with Capitalist China, and the eastern european CPs happily converting to social-democratic parties, I don't know how anyone could see Stalinism as a viable path to socialism. Stalinism is like social-democracy with a gun in my view. This is not to say that anyone here is incensere or not dedicated to revolution - I just think that the Stalinist path is a dead-end.

[red cat]

Well, I don't live in the Third World. I live in the Empire, so I have to work with who's here. Nor do I think it's clear that the 3rd World is the epicenter of revolution. Nearly every revolutionary movement has either betrayed the people or utterly failed. We're left with a few examples to the contrary, scattered and disparate: Nepal, Cuba, Venezuela, India, the Philippines, and that's pretty much it. It would be rather difficult to draw universal lessons from that. Meanwhile, some pretty exciting stuff was just happening in Europe: Greece, France, etc.

Well, actually the question of a revolutionary movement "betraying" the people or "failing" arises only when there IS a revolutionary movement at the first place. I differ significantly from you in opinion concerning Cuba and Venezuela, but the revolutionary forces at the other places you mentioned are quite powerful, while weaker movements are fighting against the ruling classes in almost every country of South Asia and Latin America.

The reason for the third world being the epicenter of revolution is objective; the economy being forced to starve a large section of its population. This combined with correct subjective conditions; i.e. communists following a correct political line has caused these movements we seee at present.

In some European countries, especially in Greece, the communist elements(KOG in Greece) probably did have a ready plan for revolution but they seem to have pulled out of it now, the reason being objective again in my opinion. After all, Greece is a capitalist country and a weak partner of imperialism.



Let's face it, we are adrift, without rudder, sail, or oar. We have to make our own future and our own revolution, not ape the revolutions of other countries. In order to do that, we need to get rid of our self-inflicted handicaps, like dogmatism and sectarianism. We have control over our own actions, so let's start figuring out how to work together, instead of scrapping over when the USSR became capitalist or whether China was ever socialist. Those revolutions are gone. It's just us now.

If you refuse to learn from past mistakes in any previously socialist country, you risk repeating them. Making a revolution may not be that easy. So, instead of uniting for the sake of(counter revolutionary?) unity, it is better to have a determined, small and compact political structure in the initial stage of the revolution.

[willdw79]

I would identify myself as a trotskyist, even though I am not an "orthodox trotskyist" because I see "socialism in one country" as a road away from socialism. I equate socialism with the DOP and working class democracy and so I do not support the USSR as "socialist" because Russia was something else after the first few year or two after the revolution. To me, natioanlized industry or a welfare state do not equal socialism, worker's power does.

Really I would consider myself a bolshevik, but I accept the term Trotskyist because it identifies me as someone who supports the Russain Revolution, but not "socialsim in one country" and all the politics associalted with Stalinism.

I could understand how someone might convince themselves to be a stalinist in the 80s and earlier - but now with Capitalist China, and the eastern european CPs happily converting to social-democratic parties, I don't know how anyone could see Stalinism as a viable path to socialism. Stalinism is like social-democracy with a gun in my view. This is not to say that anyone here is incensere or not dedicated to revolution - I just think that the Stalinist path is a dead-end.
I agree with your rejection of copying the Chinese or Soviets models. I disagree with the Soviet policies of "Peaceful Co-existence" and of nationalism (one country revolution). I agree that Russia made advancements and it was in the right direction for a while. I agree that the Russians never succeeded in achieving communism.

Methods of communication are available for revolutionaries to communicate easier than ever before. That's why, now, we don't need to differentiate between "peasant revolutions" and "proletarian revolution". There needs to be peasant, proletarian, service sector, domestic workers, etc we need all of these revolutions need to happen, this type of unity makes us the "class-for-itself".

The capitalists have no borders. They travel to and from whichever places they want in order to collude about how they can best exploit us. Although we cannot go everywhere they go, we can communicate with like minded people accross the world in order to resist them everywhere.

[willdw79]

If you refuse to learn from past mistakes in any previously socialist country, you risk repeating them. Making a revolution may not be that easy. So, instead of uniting for the sake of(counter revolutionary?) unity, it is better to have a determined, small and compact political structure in the initial stage of the revolution.

I agree in part, we definitaly should not repeat the mistakes. However, I think that you are failing to see that we don't really disagree too much.

Much of the disagreement is an issue of historic interpretation. There are not many differences going forward, which is the important part.

I think that you may find deviations in opinion within groups about what a future revolution should look like that are very similar to the differences that you would find between groups.