What do Trotskyists do politically?

[I Can Has Communism]

I'm curious to know.

[Muzk]

The same things you do, preparing for revolution

[Kléber]

Form cults, split to form more cults, argue over which side of the toast to butter, and pass out newspapers. Last I checked, factionalism is not a Trotskyist problem. Maoists and Stalinists split too.. in fact you guys sometimes stab each other to death on college campuses when you split..

If you want to know what a particular Trotskyist group is doing check out their website. Most are probably running in elections or calling for united front campaigns. www.wsws.org (http://www.wsws.org) is a good Trotskyist site for exposing the bourgeoisie and their agents.

[Dimentio]

We have a local trotskyist party here. They are working quite hard and actually have a few seats in the municipal council. They are generally very friendly types.

[RED DAVE]

While Orthodox Trots may argue if these are actually Trotskyist groups, here are my favorite US Trot organizations, both of which are engaged in active organizing inside the labor movement.

Solidarity (http://www.solidarity-us.org/)

ISO (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/)

RED DAVE

[I Can Has Communism]

But what do you do specifically? I'm interested in knowing if Trotskyists have achieved anything significant at all or if they are in the process of doing anything. From what I have read, their parties in the imperialist countries have spent the past several decades trying to infiltrate the imperialist social democratic parties, but apart from this, I have heard precious little. Can any Trotskyist enlighten me on this?

[Intelligitimate]

While Orthodox Trots may argue if these are actually Trotskyist groups, here are my favorite US Trot organizations, both of which are engaged in active organizing inside the labor movement.

Solidarity (http://www.solidarity-us.org/)

ISO (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/)

RED DAVE

lol, neither of these groups is doing a god damn thing worth mentioning in the labor movement. ISO is the Amway of the Left, a cult devoted to a handful of people on the steering committee who get students to sell their books. Solidarity is a useless Refo-group that literally doesn't do anything, except the occasional wrecking and trying to get together with other idiotic Refo groups.

[RED DAVE]

But what do you do specifically? I'm interested in knowing if Trotskyists have achieved anything significant at all or if they are in the process of doing anything. From what I have read, their parties in the imperialist countries have spent the past several decades trying to infiltrate the imperialist social democratic parties, but apart from this, I have heard precious little. Can any Trotskyist enlighten me on this?Sigh.

As an American in the Trotskyist tradition, the answer in the US is something like this (this is not precise or a complete program, so please don't nit pick):

The primary strategy is to work inside the working class, especially inside the organized section of the class, to build rank and file movements to challenge the existing leadership and thus to build up the fighting strength of the working class. Outside of the organized parts of the working class, we fight for unionization. We also participate in all popular movements, such as the movements of various immigrant groups, the antiwar movement, the movement protesting the effects of globalization, ecology, etc.

Here are the websites and programs of two groups that I support.

Solidarity (http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/about)

International Socialist Organization (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/what_we_stand_for.html)

RED DAVE

[Rjevan]

I was really having a hard time deciding what to do with this thread, for now I deleted the spam posts and moved it to Learning since the OP's question seems to be serious but if the thread goes on this way it will end right in the Trashcan.
Everybody stop the spam and the flamebait, if you have nothing worthy to add besides of "Trots suck, lolz!" and "No, Stalinistz suck much more!" then don't post. The next one who will come up with troll posts which contribute nothing to a serious debate on the actions of Trotskyists will recieve a warning.

[I Can Has Communism]

The primary strategy is to work inside the working class, especially inside the organized section of the class, to build rank and file movements to challenge the existing leadership and thus to build up the fighting strength of the working class. Outside of the organized parts of the working class, we fight for unionization. We also participate in all popular movements, such as the movements of various immigrant groups, the antiwar movement, the movement protesting the effects of globalization, ecology, etc.

Thanks. I probably could have gotten that from those websites, but can you also elaborate on the significant achievements of Trotskyists in the past? What makes you proud of being a Trotskyist and what makes people become Trotskyists?

Note to the moderator: please note I want this to be a Trotskyist history thread, not a troll thread.

[Decommissioner]

The question to me is, what does any leftist political party do, politically? I think the lack of activity can't just be penned on Trotskyists.

Personally, I don't think any political party that exists in america right now will matter when the revolution comes. They are pretty much useless. Maybe I am being too harsh, but it just seems obvious to me that all these factions of factions of parties, all opposed to each other, are rigged to fail. I envision the socialist party of the future to be born from the working masses themselves. The formation of a revoultionary party will be an organic process. The working class will see the necessity of exerting their presence politically as well as economically.

But maybe thats just me. I can see the worth of parties as organizers, and educators, and in that sense all of these trotskyist "cults" are of as much worth as any other leninist party. Maybe if all political parties in america worked together, and focused solely on getting anti-capitalist and pro-communist messages on the airwaves and in the open, free from any recruitment incentive and solely for the purpose opening peoples eyes, something can be accomplished. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the motivation of any party out there at the moment.

[whore]

trots probably do more than stalinists politically. in my experience they organise protests (10-30 people tops), attend protests (organised by other people), try to take over protests (rarely successful, but sometimes they say a lot of shit to the media), stand for various governmental positions, sell shit like papers, and attack other groups.

whether any of what they do is useful is a different question. but then again, i don't know of any maoist or stalinist group anywhere i've lived that has done more than the trots (if there has even been a maoist or stalinist group in that area).

[RED DAVE]

Let me say this re Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Anarchists, etc.:

TIME WILL TELL.

As the global struggle heats up, and the various groups put forth their programs and engage in action, the working class and oppressed peoples will decide who is red and who is brown (full of shit).

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

[C]an you also elaborate on the significant achievements of Trotskyists in the past? What makes you proud of being a Trotskyist and what makes people become Trotskyists?Let me start by saying that since the late 1970s, when the working class began to began to move into a period of defeat and relative inactivity, no left-wing political tendency, especially in the US, has had much presence. Splits, tiny new groups, etc., fraternal rivalry, etc., has kept political groups marginalized.

Now, let me give an example.

During the 1970s, I was a member of the International Socialists (which Orthodox Trotskyists might argue was not a Trot group, but that's another discussion). We engaged in an active program of sending our largely white, middle-class comrades, myself included, veterans of various struggles (including union activity) in the 60s, into various unionized industries. These included Teamsters, auto, telephone, teachers and post office (me). Our efforts began to bear fruit just as the wave of working class militancy of the mid-70s reached its peak, and we worked in and/or organized rank-and-file groups that ranged in influence from the local level up to the national level.

Our major success was in the Teamsters Union, where we helped build a group called, eventually, Teamsters for a Decent Union (TDU). This group, based most strongly in UPS, still exists, and has engaged in Teamster struggles up to this day, including the recent victory of an opposition group in a large Chicago local.

http://transportworkers.org/node/1285

This is the kind of work I'm talking about. I believe that this kind of work has been the hallmark of the kind of Trotskyism I support there are other varieties), and the struggle goes on.

RED DAVE

[Jimmie Higgins]

But what do you do specifically? I'm interested in knowing if Trotskyists have achieved anything significant at all or if they are in the process of doing anything. From what I have read, their parties in the imperialist countries have spent the past several decades trying to infiltrate the imperialist social democratic parties, but apart from this, I have heard precious little. Can any Trotskyist enlighten me on this?

Ok I guess I can be "the trotskyist". To be frank Trotskyists have not accomplished much, but neither has the left over the last 30 years. Until recently, trots and anarchists have been much smaller in numbers compared to Marxist-Lenninist and Maoist groups. So the comrade who said "the same thing other revolutionaries do" is largely correct. Trotskyists have been trying to build union militancy and radical alternatives in the US since the 30s... read any of the Farrell Dobbs' first-hand accounts of trotskyists trying to build militancy in the teamsters during the depression. The main difference is when the US CP had members as the leadership of the CIO, the trotskysits were small and often (sometimes violently) prevented from having any interactions in CP dominated unions. In the 760s, it was the Maoist groups who largely dominated the radical left but groups like the US SWP were involved in civil rights organizing and the rank and file radicalism within the unions that began to develop at the end of the 60s.

Well I'm in the ISO, so of course I am partial to what we have been doing to help try and rebuild working class radicalism, independent mass movements, the borad left in general, and hopfully laying the groundwork for future vanguard party that can rally working class militants and argue for worker's power.

I feel that for the most part we have the most realistic assessment of the limitations as well as the potential for a strong new left (with radical politics being the core that holds it together) in the US. Our commitment to building grassroots coalitions and struggles that can stand on their own (while also trying to build our organization as well as promote a revolutionary marxist, anti-stalinist politics to wider numbers of people) is also something that attracted me to the ISO when I was trying to figure out if I was a socialist or syndicalist or whatnot.

I also have a lot of respect for organizers and members of Solidarity, and Socialist Alternative even though politically we are closer to Solidarity than SA. I haven't had much interaction with other US trotskyist groups (other than bad interactions with the Sparts) so I can really speak to what other groups are doing.


parties in the imperialist countries have spent the past several decades trying to infiltrate the imperialist social democratic parties
In regards to the "infiltrating" dem-soc parties: This is a strange way to present the ups and downs and long history of radicals trying to figure out how to work with or against reformist groups at different times under a variety of circumstances. I think among US trots you can find the whole range of attitudes regarding radical groups and their relation to reformist groups. There are trots who believe that a Labor party in the US is needed, trots who reject any electoral involvement as a principle and groups like the ISO who try and decide this strategically based on the balance of class forces and the wider political situation.

The ISO worked with the Green Party and Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo - far from infiltrating it, we argued support for the left-wing (anti-Democratic Party) section within the party, but the left ultimately lost. We were open about being revolutionaries who were working with the electoral campaigns in order to try and organize a left-alternative to the Democrats that could then help break the hold of the Dems on left-leaning politics.

Internally we have had a lot of reflection and debate on our first foray into supporting an electoral candidate and I think the organization learned a lot (both positive and negative lessons). I think we were wrong to work with Nader in 2004 (but I think that was a misreading of the political mood at the time and a kind of mechanical view that the anti-war movement and people who were questioning the Democratic party in 2000 would not be swayed by the anybody but Bush sentiment). I think we were right to support the campaign in 2000 because we were able to meet a lot of activists and present a revolutionary and class analysis of the Democratic party rather than the main "progressive" view that somehow the Democratic party is just run by "blue dog" and we need "better Democrats".


ISO is the Amway of the Left, a cult devoted to a handful of people on the steering committee who get students to sell their books.I'll take that as a backhanded sectarian way of saying that we are the largest revolutionary organization in the US. Since your politics don't appeal to anyone, we must be so large and appealing because we somehow "brainwash" our members. How political your analysis is:rolleyes:. By the way, we are small - we are the biggest, but we are still small and this is a problem... it's like being the biggest gnat: not much to brag about.

So, what power does this "cult" have over members? Could it be that our members actually support and are involved in what our organization is doing? I'm proud that we are helping to create a radical left book distributor because the US needs many more of them. Also Haymarket books was designed not to be solely a party press (we use the ISR and our website and paper to present our organization's arguments) Mike Davis is on the editorial board, and we have published books by him as well as other Marxists who are not members or even part of the International Socialist tradition.

Like I said we, and the rest of the US left, is too small for the tasks ahead of us. An organization of "followers" is the exact opposite of what we are trying to do - we think that if there is someday going to be a vanguard party in the US, there needs to be a lot more people who know how to organize, and fight and lead rank and file struggles. We hope our organization can take part in building that vanguard party one day and so we place a high priority on building of leadership within the organization as well as with activists we meet in movements.


neither of these groups is doing a god damn thing worth mentioning in the labor movement.Aside from the sectarian bile, this is unfortunately correct. Our organized presence in the labor movement is small right now and we are doing all we can to change that subjective situation as well as change the objective situation of weak unions in the US. Our organized participation in labor something that will develop as our organization does as well as with a new upsurge in the labor movement. Right now mostly our involvement is on an individual level (one or two members of the ISO working at a job-site trying to organize their fellow rank and file members in the union and provide radical arguments to other workers about what the union should be doing or what the bosses are trying to do and how this fits into a bigger picture of capitalism). Where we do have a presence and have been able to win allies or recruit some co-workers we are very active: we had members inside the Republic Door and Windows shop occupation (not working there, but with organic connections to the fight) and members in the Teamsters who were involved in the big strike in the 1990s and members central to a democratic opposition group inside the LA teacher's union who are involved in fighting the cutbacks there. The ISO has only existed in a time of union decline so if you can point to an organization that is actually achieving headway within the labor movement at a time when the winds are blowing the the opposite direction, I'd love to know the secret and share it with my comrades as well as the rest of the left.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let me say this re Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Anarchists, etc.:

TIME WILL TELL.

As the global struggle heats up, and the various groups put forth their programs and engage in action, the working class and oppressed peoples will decide who is red and who is brown (full of shit).

RED DAVE
I think this is the best attitude to have regarding tendency arguments today. With no confident working class movements to test or various theories against, we might as well be arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

If workers are leading wildcats and radicalizing and joining radical groups then there is a fairly obvious way to see what politics are making the most sense to people at that time... also being able to put the ideas into practice exposes who has the right ideas and who is jumping the gun or being overly conservative and so on.

[Intelligitimate]

Let me start by saying that since the late 1970s, when the working class began to began to move into a period of defeat and relative inactivity, no left-wing political tendency, especially in the US, has had much presence. Splits, tiny new groups, etc., fraternal rivalry, etc., has kept political groups marginalized.

Now, let me give an example.

During the 1970s, I was a member of the International Socialists (which Orthodox Trotskyists might argue was not a Trot group, but that's another discussion). We engaged in an active program of sending our largely white, middle-class comrades, myself included, veterans of various struggles (including union activity) in the 60s, into various unionized industries. These included Teamsters, auto, telephone, teachers and post office (me). Our efforts began to bear fruit just as the wave of working class militancy of the mid-70s reached its peak, and we worked in and/or organized rank-and-file groups that ranged in influence from the local level up to the national level.

Our major success was in the Teamsters Union, where we helped build a group called, eventually, Teamsters for a Decent Union (TDU). This group, based most strongly in UPS, still exists, and has engaged in Teamster struggles up to this day, including the recent victory of an opposition group in a large Chicago local.

http://transportworkers.org/node/1285

This is the kind of work I'm talking about. I believe that this kind of work has been the hallmark of the kind of Trotskyism I support there are other varieties), and the struggle goes on.

RED DAVE

lol, Jesus Christ, ISO taking credit for Local 743, lol.

You are so unbelievably full of shit.

[I Can Has Communism]

Let me start by saying that since the late 1970s, How about pre-70's? What are the significant points about Trotksyist history from the 30's to the 70's? For some reason, you seem to be intent on focusing purely on the events of the past 30 years.


We engaged in an active program of sending our largely white, middle-class comrades, myself included, veterans of various struggles (including union activity) in the 60s, into various unionized industries. These included Teamsters, auto, telephone, teachers and post office (me). Our efforts began to bear fruit just as the wave of working class militancy of the mid-70s reached its peak, and we worked in and/or organized rank-and-file groups that ranged in influence from the local level up to the national level. I may be mistaken but from this, am I to understand that you excluded Blacks and other minorities from your activism?


Ok I guess I can be "the trotskyist". To be frank Trotskyists have not accomplished much, but neither has the left over the last 30 years. How about before the last 30 years? I understand your particular Trotskyist tendency is a recent one but I don't understand why you ignore the pre-70's history.


In regards to the "infiltrating" dem-soc parties: This is a strange way to present the ups and downs and long history of radicals trying to figure out how to work with or against reformist groups at different times under a variety of circumstances. Its accurate nevertheless. The UK Labour Party has always been an imperialist party.

Though I want to thank the people who responded with their organizations' activities, I have to ask in what way are any of these revolutionary or Marxist at all? Forgive me if I'm mistaken. but they seem more social democratic or liberal in nature.

[Intelligitimate]

I'll take that as a backhanded sectarian way of saying that we are the largest revolutionary organization in the US.It is well known ISO is the largest group on the Left, with roughly 1,000 members. Groups a quarter of your size do much, much more relevant work though.


Since your politics don't appeal to anyoneMarxism-Leninism appeals to literally millions more people than your shit little Cliffite ideology.


we must be so large and appealing because we somehow "brainwash" our members.You're not large or appealing to anyone but petty-bourgeois anti-communist white college liberals.


So, what power does this "cult" have over members? Could it be that our members actually support and are involved in what our organization is doing?No. Your members drop off like flies, as people learn what your Amway cult is about (or they graduate from college and move on to other petty-bourgeois pursuits). If you had any ability (or even concern for) retention, you'd be 5 times larger than you are.


An organization of "followers" is the exact opposite of what we are trying to do - we think that if there is someday going to be a vanguard party in the US, there needs to be a lot more people who know how to organize, and fight and lead rank and file struggles.LOL, what a crock of shit. Your organization doesn't tolerate dissent. Your "steering committee" people call people Stalinists for disagreeing over minor shit. You lead workshops on how to sell more papers and books, not how to lead the masses in struggle.


Our organized presence in the labor movement is small right now and we are doing all we can to change that subjective situation as well as change the objective situation of weak unions in the US.No the fuck you're not. You organize students to the exclusion of all else. The people on your steering committee have admitted to this over and over again. You consciously choose not to do a fucking thing in the labor movement as an organization. Several ISO members I know describe it as downright anti-working class.


Where we do have a presence and have been able to win allies or recruit some co-workers we are very active: we had members inside the Republic Door and Windows shop occupationlol, to someone who actually knows these people, this is a blatant load of shit. What person in UE local 1110 is an ISO member?

[Jimmie Higgins]

lol, Jesus Christ, ISO taking credit for Local 743, lol.

Our organized presence in the labor movement is small right now and we are doing all we can to change that subjective situation as well as change the objective situation of weak unions in the US...we had members inside the Republic Door and Windows shop occupation (not working there, but with organic connections to the fight) and members in the Teamsters who were involved in the big strike in the 1990s and members central to a democratic opposition group inside the LA teacher's union who are involved in fighting the cutbacks there.Does that sound like taking credit?


You are so unbelievably full of shit.
Seriously, do you know how to read or has your sectarianism caused your eyes to develop cataracts? Where in that Socialist Worker article did it say that the ISO was solely responsible?


http://transportworkers.org/node/1285The article doesn't even mention the ISO's participation or the strike much at all, it's an editorial about what was going on in the union.

Ok, so let me get the gist of this thread:

People accuse Trotskyist groups of not being involved in the labor movement, some Trots list some things and then get accused of "taking credit" for victories in the labor movement. :rolleyes:

...Comrade Stalinist, how do we know if he really is a trotskyist?

Hmmm... throw him in the water and if he floats, he's a Trotskyist and should be killed. If he drowns, I guess he was innocent.

[Intelligitimate]

Does that sound like taking credit?

Was my post directed at you? Is your name RED DAVE?


The article doesn't even mention the ISO's participation or the strike much at all, it's an editorial about what was going on in the union.

No fucking shit. RED DAVE was trying to claim that fucking Trotskyites are somehow responsible for the success of Local 743. This is completely outlandish, especially if you know literally anything about the struggle in the Teamster Local 743.


People accuse Trotskyist groups of not being involved in the labor movement, some Trots list some things and then get accused of "taking credit" for victories in the labor movement.

It is simply the height of dishonesty to claim Trotskyism had a god damn thing to do with Local 743. I know for a fact it doesn't.

[The Red Next Door]

They fight for the common joe and jane, but they just do not to turn the whole program into Stalinist USSR unlike you authoritarians.

[Kléber]

What are the significant points about Trotksyist history from the 30's to the 70's?
I Can Has Communism, you should know that the sort of criticisms you imply are almost identical with those to which Lenin was constantly subjected by some anarchists who said "what are you guys doing for revolution? booo! we're doing assassinations and peasant rebellions! you guys are just organizing workers like a bunch of liberal trade unionists, our ideology is more down to earth and will always appeal to the masses bla bla bla." But in the end, the strategy advocated by Lenin and Trotsky triumphed over the adventurist violence and peasant war strategy of the adventurists. The Bolsheviks organized the working class for a democratic seizure of power and then defended those gains.

Glorifying immediate armed struggle is adventurism. But you seem to be insinuating that Trotskyists do not believe in, or are incapable of armed struggle in the defense of workers' power. That is definitely not the truth. At the risk of nurturing an unhealthy fetish for armed adventurism I will provide examples of Trotskyists with guns. Leon Trotsky, against the objections of less militant Communists, founded the Red Army which won the Civil War against the Whites and 14 intervening imperialist nations. Trotsky said that all revolutionaries should be trained in martial arts and the use of firearms. There have been Trotskyist militias in Greece, Vietnam, China that were seen as a threat, betrayed and wiped out by Stalinists in the 1930's and 40's. There were Trotskyist fighters in the Cuban revolution and Trotskyists in Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Revolutionary_Army_%28Argentina%29) fought a guerrilla war alongside the left-wing Peronists based on Guevarist military doctrine, which failed and most of them were killed.

The most successful example of Trotskyism as a mass movement to my knowledge was the Revolutionary Workers' Party (POR) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Workers%27_Party_%28Bolivia%29) in Bolivia in the 1950's but the leadership embraced revisionist alliances with the social democratic and liberal left and effectively sold out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, I'll bite even though trying to have a reasonable debate with you is obviously useless and you'll only respond with more unsubstantiated sectarian trollness.


It is well known ISO is the largest group on the Left, with roughly 1,000 members. Groups a quarter of your size do much, much more relevant work though.Yes, the Sparts would claim what they are doing is more relevant and they would be wrong just as you are in my opinion. I guess the disagreement on priorities is why we are not in the same group.


Marxism-Leninism appeals to literally millions more people than your shit little Cliffite ideology.Yes and look how it's been pissed away. Maybe if Stalinist spent more time learning how to talk with people and learning how to make a reasoned and POLITICAL argument, they would still have some credibility. Nah, their the slavish tailing of the Democrats in the US, the betrayals on behalf of the USSR's national interests and neo-liberal post USSR betrayals in Europe would have left you guys in the same place you are today even if you could muster a rational political argument.
You're not large or appealing to anyone but petty-bourgeois anti-communist white college liberals.Yes like me who's been in the ISO for 10 years and also a rank and file member in SEIU and UNTIE HERE:rolleyes:.


No. Your members drop off like flies, as people learn what your Amway cult is about (or they graduate from college and move on to other petty-bourgeois pursuits). If you had any ability (or even concern for) retention, you'd be 5 times larger than you are.Yes, as opposed to all the other groups who have (what's "quadrupled" but for 5... "pentdrupled") grown 5x in the last 10 years. Maybe if you left your sectarian fog for a minute, you'd see that this decade has been hard for most left groups and actually the ISO has done well in comparison by maintaining our size rather than shrinking like many other groups have done.

We see the size and health of our organization as tied to the growth and health of the left in general and so this is why we place a lot of importance on helping to build a left that can stand on its own two feet and where radicals can participate and earn leadership through practice, not by setting up front groups or trying to win the leadership of an existing group.

Since we were kicked out of the IST (international socialist tendency) trying to figure out a way to build for the long term has been a major source of internal debate and discussion. I think we have come out of this period with a better way to look at building long-term leadership within our group.


LOL, what a crock of shit. Your organization doesn't tolerate dissent. Your "steering committee" people call people Stalinists for disagreeing over minor shit.Stop pulling information from your ass. The only major expulsions that happened were when the ISO left the IST and some members were trying to get people to join "Left Turn". You obviously weren't around when we were deciding on supporting or not supporting Nader in 2004 or any of the other major contentious debates over the last few years. I'd like to see more internal debate, but really because we are small and because the level of struggle is low, there aren't too many huge questions being thrown to us right now and so usually debates are about topical issues like the nature of the Taliban or whatnot or internal issues about how to best organize or assess and correct mistakes.


You lead workshops on how to sell more papers and books, not how to lead the masses in struggle.I've been a member for about 10 years now and I have never seen or heard of a "paper-selling workshop" at any of our conferences or events. At the start of the Iraq War I remember there was one internal meeting that we had that delt with how to use the paper better and how to talk to people at large demonstrations - this was because a lot of new members had joined around the same time, not because this was some systematic thing we did. I've been in 4 different branches in 3 different cities, so I can't speak for what ever individual branch has done.


No the fuck you're not. You organize students to the exclusion of all else.Yes, this is why I spent the last 4 years organizing immigrants in Oakland and counter-protesting the minutemen.:rolleyes: This is why I spent a month doing picket duty with garbage workers at Waste Management in Oakland, this is why my Oakland comrades were involved in the anti-police brutality coalition that formed after Oscar Grant III was murdered at the BART station in my neighborhood. This is why some white ISO members were the only white people doing security alongside the Nation of Islam's fruit of Islam during the Tookie Williams protests. This is why when I lived in LA we had immigrant monolingual Spanish speakers in our membership and debated forming a Spanish-language branch.

Don't speak about shit if you don't know shit.

Again, why are you singling out the ISO for problems with the left in general? Most of the left is white, hetero, and male right now and it needs to change - especially when most workers are women and a sizable minority are people of color. I would love to see more Blacks and Latinos leading in our organization but I am proud that my branch is composed 50% straight and 50% gay members (obviously more than the population at large), has slightly more female members than male (including our local and national leadership which is more women than men), while mostly white also has Asian, Arab, Indian and African American members.


The people on your steering committee have admitted to this over and over again. You consciously choose not to do a fucking thing in the labor movement as an organization. Several ISO members I know describe it as downright anti-working class.After the period that Red Dave was talking about, the ISO was formed. There were many questions in the movement at that time - should student radicals "proletaritize" should radicals try and build a left-wing party in opposition to the democrats. The ISO in the early 80s decided to focus on campuses because they saw it as a tactical retreat in a hostile time. keep in mind the ISO was probably 100 people at this time. Well I think history has shown that the ISO was correct back then and was able to maintain and slowly grow and then when the objective situation had changed, we were able to turn outward and be able to participate in other areas of the struggle. I would love nothing more if it was more than just me at my workplace (even if they were in a different political group), but so far I am the only self-conscious radical. This is the reality for not only our comrades, but for most radicals... so those of us not blinded by sectarian idiocy recognize the objective conditions while working on what we can to make conditions more favorable.

Where the radical left does have some influence in the unions right now it is mostly generals without armies left over and institutionalized from the 70s.


lol, to someone who actually knows these people, this is a blatant load of shit. What person in UE local 1110 is an ISO member?Who said anyone was an ISO member - I explicitly said they were not working at Republic, but had made connections there before the strike? Your thought-process is impaired by your sectarianism.

[RED DAVE]

Does that sound like taking credit [for the victory in Local 743]?
Was my post directed at you? Is your name RED DAVE?You're really terrific, Intel. You show the standard brand of stalinist thuggishness for all to see, and the class struggle has barely begun to heat up. I can't wait to see the bullshit you post when things really get going.


The article doesn't even mention the ISO's participation or the strike much at all, it's an editorial about what was going on in the union.
No fucking shit. RED DAVE was trying to claim that fucking TrotskyitesThat claim is true. Trotskyists have definitely been known to fuck. Sorry to disillusion you about that, Intel.


are somehow responsible for the success of Local 743. This is completely outlandish, especially if you know literally anything about the struggle in the Teamster Local 743.Actually, I posted the link to show that TDU was involved. This was part of a discussion of what Trots do in the labor movement as TDU was formed in the 1970s by a group of rank-and-file teamsters working with members of the IS.


People accuse Trotskyist groups of not being involved in the labor movement, some Trots list some things and then get accused of "taking credit" for victories in the labor movement.
It is simply the height of dishonesty to claim Trotskyism had a god damn thing to do with Local 743. I know for a fact it doesn't.As I said above, no one said that any Trot group was so involved, but that TDU, which Trots definitely have had involvement with, was involved.

RED DAVE

[Intelligitimate]

Yes like me who's been in the ISO for 10 years and also a rank and file member in SEIU and UNTIE HEREThen you're one of the very few.


Yes, as opposed to all the other groups who have (what's "quadrupled" but for 5... "pentdrupled") grown 5x in the last 10 years. Maybe if you left your sectarian fog for a minute, you'd see that this decade has been hard for most left groups and actually the ISO has done well in comparison by maintaining our size rather than shrinking like many other groups have done.This is simply not true. The previous decade ushered in a wave of radicals trying to grasp the nature of US imperialism under Bush. Most groups experienced quite a bit of growth in this decade.


We see the size and health of our organization as tied to the growth and health of the left in general and so this is why we place a lot of importance on helping to build a left that can stand on its own two feet and where radicals can participate and earn leadership through practice, not by setting up front groups or trying to win the leadership of an existing group.Again, this is simply a lie. Your group exists to make money for a handful of people who dominate your organization (who are paid about half a million dollars a year, $470,700 in 2006, probably substantially more today). All activities of the ISO center around paying money to the organization in the form of dues, price of conferences, newspaper and book sales, etc.


Stop pulling information from your ass.Not my problem. I've seen this stuff with my own eyes, and have current and former ISO people tell me this stuff.


I've been a member for about 10 years now and I have never seen or heard of a "paper-selling workshop" at any of our conferences or events.LOL, then you must not attend ISO events much.


I've been in 4 different branches in 3 different cities, so I can't speak for what ever individual branch has done.I've been to 3 different branches in 3 different cities. Never met someone who wasn't a student or a paid organizer for the ISO.


Don't speak about shit if you don't know shit.You're a ridiculous twit. You admit exactly what I say just a few paragraphs later.


Who said anyone was an ISO member? Your thought-process is impared by your sectarianismYou implied ISO had something to do with Republic Windows and Doors, and I just called your ass out on it. I know for a fact they didn't. I've met these people. They're not ISO jackass clowns.


Actually, I posted the link to show that TDU was involved.TDU isn't a Trot group. Whether or not people who liked Trotsky help start it has nothing to do with the success of Local 743.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Then you're one of the very few.Actually we have a number of students at in the UC Berkeley branch but in Oakland all of our members are full-time workers.


This is simply not true. The previous decade ushered in a wave of radicals trying to grasp the nature of US imperialism under Bush. Most groups experienced quite a bit of growth in this decade.

Ok, then answer my question from before: what pre-existing group increased in size by 5 times over the last decade? What group did not loose members? What group found the last decade fruitful for sustained working class movements?

My experience were sharp increased in mass movements followed by a liberal take-over and then just as sharp decline: the anti-war marches, the immigrant rights marches, etc.

Compared to other groups, I think we came out of the ups and downs of the last decade more focused and with a higher-level of leadership and politics among our members.


Again, this is simply a lie. Your group exists to make money for a handful of people who dominate your organization (who are paid about half a million dollars a year, $470,700 in 2001, probably substantially more today).We have half a million dollars? Cool! Seriously, enough with your unsubstantiated sectarian lies already. So a group of people thought how can we make $500,000 a year? Why not form an organization, be politically marginalized, get hated and harassed by the police, the media, Stalinists, liberals, and anarchists, dedicate 20 years of our lives pretending to go along with this whole IST traddition and the SWP - biding our time until they throw us out - then let the cash roll on in! Woo-hoo.


All activities of the ISO center around paying money to the organization in the form of dues, price of conferences, newspaper and book sales, etc.Yes, because radical books just FLY off the bookshelves, because every corporate chain in the country can't get enough books about the CP in Iraq or Palestinian Poetry or about GI resitance during Vietnam or about Eugene **** or about Socialism and the fight for LGBT liberation or about Malcolm X.:lol:

Actually our newspaper has always run at a loss, but the books are doing OK thanks to Dave Zirin and that big big "The Nation" audience of liberals he brings.



I've been to 3 different branches in 3 different cities. Never met someone who wasn't a student or a paid organizer for the ISO.

We seriously don't have regional organizers anymore and when we did I don't think it was more than 5. I think we got rid of this position in 2002 because we wanted to use the $20,000 a year salary to go towards founding our book publisher.

If we had the money, then I would gladly vote to pay some full-time organizers to go to Texas and other places where we have a few members so that we can build full branches in new cities.



You're a ridiculous twit. You admit exactly what I say just a few paragraphs later.

This is what you said:

You organize students to the exclusion of all else. As I explained, we did turn to organizing on campuses during the 80s as a "tactical retreat" because the organization felt that its small size in a hostile environment would destroy the organization - as it did or nearly did for many organizations at that time. So we have a heavy base of students but that is not to the exclusion of other things and it is not anti-worker because this (working class communities and workers at the point of production) is obviously where we want to be organizing and what we have been trying to do. If we had gone the US SWP route we might have more of an established based in a few industries or work-sites, but we would also be small and have hardly any new members - if we had survived at all. In a bad situation, either route has its trade-offs and I think the "tactical retreat" put us in a better position for when rank and file radicalism does begin to return. Thanks to being able to grow and build a cadre we have able to intervene in the hotel strikes, the campus occupations, the Justice for Oscar Grant movement... all of these things in one city at the same time. I wish more of the left had been able to grow as we did because we need more radicals.


You implied ISO had something to do with Republic Windows and Doors, and I just called your ass out on it. I know for a fact they didn't. I've met these people. They're not ISO jackass clowns.Where... quote me in context.

[Devrim]

We engaged in an active program of sending our largely white, middle-class comrades, myself included, veterans of various struggles (including union activity) in the 60s, into various unionized industries. These included Teamsters, auto, telephone, teachers and post office (me).

This has always seemed a really bizarre thing to me. We had one of these sort of leftists at my post office. He never really fitted in with anyone, he was the only person who had been to university, and everybody wondered how somebody could be intelligent enough to get a university degree, and then stupid enough not to use it to get a good job, but to come and work at the Post Office. Oh, and he was useless in our national strike anyway.

Devrim

[Chambered Word]

Has this thread already turned into the usual 'HURR DURR TROTS ARE ALL BOURGEOIS WHITE KIDS THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING' before I got here?

[I Can Has Communism]

I Can Has Communism, you should know that the sort of criticisms you imply are almost identical with those to which Lenin was constantly subjected by some anarchists who said "what are you guys doing for revolution? booo! we're doing assassinations and peasant rebellions! you guys are just organizing workers like a bunch of liberal trade unionists, our ideology is more down to earth and will always appeal to the masses bla bla bla." But in the end, the strategy advocated by Lenin and Trotsky triumphed over the adventurist violence and peasant war strategy of the adventurists. The Bolsheviks organized the working class for a democratic seizure of power and then defended those gains.Do you think western countries have similar conditions as that in Czarist Russia? In that case, why would one continue to dogmatically follow Lenin word for word and action for action for? It sounds like you're using "non-adventurism" and Lenin's words as an excuse for your social democratic practices. Nevertheless Trotskyists are nowhere close to gaining any seats in bourgeois parliaments, let alone form majorities in spite of your attempts to do so for eighty years.


They fight for the common joe and jane, but they just do not to turn the whole program into Stalinist USSR unlike you authoritarians.:lol: Are you quite sure of this? Since when did Trots become anti-authoritarians?

[RED DAVE]

We engaged in an active program of sending our largely white, middle-class comrades, myself included, veterans of various struggles (including union activity) in the 60s, into various unionized industries. These included Teamsters, auto, telephone, teachers and post office (me).
This has always seemed a really bizarre thing to me.To you.


We had one of these sort of leftists at my post office."These sort of leftists ... ." Are you excluding yourself from the Left? Or are you a different "sort of leftist"?


He never really fitted in with anyoneWow. What a trenchant criticism. A middle-class leftist in a working class arena had some problems adjusting. Wow. Did you work with him, maybe help him along? Or did you just make things rougher for the comrade?


he was the only person who had been to university, and everybody wondered how somebody could be intelligent enough to get a university degree, and then stupid enough not to use it to get a good job, but to come and work at the Post Office.Now that's a really great point during the decline of capitalism when the middle-class was and is getting squeezed more and more. Did you come to his defense?


Oh, and he was useless in our national strike anyway.Well, what can I say? What did you do in contrast to him? Did you help him, mentor him? Was he too arrogant to accept help? Were you too busy snickering to help him?

I am quite clearly of middle-class origin. I was "industrialized" in the post office in the US for nearly seven years. During that time, I was twice a delegate to the letter carriers' national convention, where the second time, IS comrades were able to develop and opposition convention caucus. I was the chairperson of one of the committees attached to the delegate assembly. And I was elected a shop steward at my post office for two two-year terms. So go figure.

This was accomplished largely because I was not alone. I was constantly backed up by both the local chapter of the IS, in New York, and the national organization. Was the guy you're talking about alone, or did he have an organization behind him?

RED DAVE

[Forward Union]

I'm curious to know.

That's a fairly inflammatory remark. Most Trotskyists I know are actually very active militants in their trade unions and residents associations. In all the recent strikes, pickets, and occupations I've seen trotskyists responding very effectively in terms of finance and manpower.

[Forward Union]

I was "industrialized" in the post office in the US for nearly seven years. During that time, I was twice a delegate to the letter carriers' national convention, where the second time, IS comrades were able to develop and opposition convention caucus. I was the chairperson of one of the committees attached to the delegate assembly. And I was elected a shop steward at my post office for two two-year terms. So go figure.

This was accomplished largely because I was not alone. I was constantly backed up by both the local chapter of the IS, in New York, and the national organization. Was the guy you're talking about alone, or did he have an organization behind him?

That's a good story, you should write up on your experiences in another thread or blog post mate.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, to ask what Trotskyists are doing is a bit of an abstract question. There are many different groups today that claim the banner of Trotskyism, and different groups do different things. I'm a member of a small group in Israel, called the Internationalist Socialist League. We try to intervene in all demos and other events that are of interest to the working class and to those who are working for the liberation of Palestine. This unlike a lot of left groups, which either avoid Palestinian demonstrations.

You ask if Trotskyists had any sort of success recently. But different groups measure their success differently. The SWP thinks the fact that a lot of people used to vote for Respect was a great success. Today, though, Respect has split and the SWP has lost a lot from that disaster. Other groups think that success means getting more votes for their candidates in elections or getting more influence with trade unions tops. This sort of success is also almost always fading. Now many leftists are cheering the creation of a new reformist party, the NPA, in France. Needless to say, creating more reformist parties is not something that revolutionaries should view as a success.

The bottom line is, a revolutionary groups is successful is it builds itself as a vanguard party and comes closer to a position from which it can lead a socialist revolution. That takes a lot of time and effort, and most Trotskyist groups - and Stalinst and Maoist groups as well - have failed in their efforts to do this. But they have failed not because there's something wrong with Marxism, but because their goals are essentially reformist and electoralist and have nothing to do with the revolutionary program of Marxism / Trotskyism.

Oh, and Intelligitimate, quit all your bullshit already. If anything, "Marxist-Leninist" groups (anti-revisionists etc.) are almost everywhere smaller than Trotskyist groups, with the exception of the openly reformist Communist Parties. And don't even get me started on appealing to the petty-bourgeoisie - in the first world, for the most part, Maoism has been an exclusively middle class phenomenon.

[red cat]

Posters are ignoring the success of third-world Maoist parties in waging people's wars.

[khad]

Posters are ignoring the success of third-world Maoist parties in waging people's wars.
Correct. The Nepalese maoists are more relevant than every trotskyist, maoist, and MList microsect in the West put together.

[I Can Has Communism]

Posters are ignoring the success of third-world Maoist parties in waging people's wars.Its called censorship by omission, comrade.

[RED DAVE]

Now that the thread has been hijacked to a discussion of Maoism, courtesy of red cat, khad and I Can Has Communism, can we get back to the topic?

The subject of revolutionary tactics in so-called underdeveloped countries is certainly worth discussion, but I suggest a separate thread.

RED DAVE

[Q]

Can the Maoist wanking please be redirected to here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-maoists-do-t128379/index.html)? Thank you.

[Kléber]

Posters are ignoring the success of third-world Maoist parties in waging people's wars. How many socialist nations have been setup by Maoist-led national revolts? None, "New Democracy" is bourgeois power with a red banner. The People's Republic of China is a capitalist state with imperial ambitions. Mao was a revisionist who entered an alliance with the USA under Richard Nixon while North Vietnam was still being bombed, his regime betrayed the Indian Maoists with the PRC's reactionary line of support for US-backed Pakistani militarism. The working people of the world have no business following an opportunist stooge of Nixon's.


Do you think western countries have similar conditions as that in Czarist Russia? In that case, why would one continue to dogmatically follow Lenin word for word and action for action for? It sounds like you're using "non-adventurism" and Lenin's words as an excuse for your social democratic practices. Nevertheless Trotskyists are nowhere close to gaining any seats in bourgeois parliaments, let alone form majorities in spite of your attempts to do so for eighty years.The fact that conditions are less like Czarist Russia only makes peasant war more obsolete. Do you know how long it took to build the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party? All along, anarchists made fun of them for doing study groups instead of IMMEDIATE ARMED STRUGGLE AGAINST THE STATE!!!

According to you there are only 2 kinds of communists: 1) Dirty Trot intellectuals with glasses who sit around and do nothing and deserve to be shot, and, 2) Heroic anarchist terrorists or Maoist guerrilla fighters who never read a book in their life but were born hating capitalism and have been going around America with a gun in his hand shooting bourgeois officials and capitalists in the face since childhood.

Nothing anyone says will persuade you to give up this fantasy so enjoy your little world. Just know that real Leninists are not adventurists. Marx and Lenin did not believe that a guerrilla army could substitute itself for the mass conscious action of the working class.


Correct. The Nepalese maoists are more relevant than every trotskyist, maoist, and MList microsect in the West put together.
Organizationally, yes, that's true, but that doesn't mean as some people are implying, that all we need to do is directly copy the tactics used in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society and use them in the capitalist imperialist US, and we will be just as successful.

[Uncle Hank]

Posters are ignoring the success of third-world Maoist parties in waging people's wars.
:rolleyes: This is about Trotskyism, not the successes of the Moaists who seem to see fit to fight the peoples' wars for them.

[red cat]

How many socialist nations have been setup by Maoist-led national revolts?

How many Trotskyist parties have ever led any revolts ?


None, "New Democracy" is bourgeois power with a red banner.

Please explain this.


The People's Republic of China is a capitalist state with imperial ambitions.

How does this prove that PRC did not have a socialist past ?


Mao was a revisionist who entered an alliance with the USA under Richard Nixon while North Vietnam was still being bombed, his regime betrayed the Indian Maoists with the PRC's reactionary line of support for US-backed Pakistani militarism.

You are ignoring the help that PRC sent to Vietnam. I have already explained why the CPC's line concerning India was correct. It is also interesting to note that the CPI(Maoist) has never stated that PRC "betrayed" the Indian Maoist movement in any way before the capitalist restoration.


The working people of the world have no business following an opportunist stooge of Nixon's. Why don't your comrades come and spread your wisdom in countries like Nepal or India ?

[red cat]

:rolleyes: This is about Trotskyism, not the successes of the Moaists who seem to see fit to fight the peoples' wars for them.

I made the point because there were comparisons between Maoists and certain other tendencies in the first world. Because of the labor-aristocracy, at this stage it is quite natural that genuine communists will be outnumbered by revisionists in imperialist countries.

[I Can Has Communism]

Kleber, stop trying to slander Maoists when faced with a critique of Trotskyism. Why don't you try to respond to the questions instead of reacting emotionally and attacking Maoists?

[Forward Union]

Correct. The Nepalese maoists are more relevant than every trotskyist, maoist, and MList microsect in the West put together.

depends on your location. For me as someone interested in reconstructing industrial unionism in the UK, Trotskyists are far more relevant a force than Maosists. That's not to compete them, the situations are completely, completely different.

I don't think the "what have you ever done" card is a particularly useful one for us to be playing agaisnt eachother at this time. That is, if you have any serious interest inprogressing our platform.

I am not a Trotskyist. But I can't go around them, or reduce my engagement with them simply to disregarding and slandering them, that is if I want to engage in real world politics. The same is true, though less so here, for Stalinists.

[RotStern]

Trotskyist stuff.

[RED DAVE]

Well, we trots have shown, quite well, what we are doing in, say, the US.

We are engaged in working class organizing on the shop floor level, in the unions, among the unemployed, and we participate actively in the movements of oppressed peoples.

Is there something more you would like in 2010? An order of fries? Desset?

RED DAVE

[black magick hustla]

To you.

"These sort of leftists ... ." Are you excluding yourself from the Left? Or are you a different "sort of leftist"?



i think he meant that the wholei "workerist" fetish is downright silly. its akin to the american swp sending their people to meat packing factories. i think a lot of "old" labor types have the mistake that blue collar jobs are the only "working class" jobs. this is outright wrong - a university graduate worker most of the time is equivalent to a skilled worker. most workers are not union type, manual laborers. Not in the US, nor in Mexico either.

ive been trying to form a left communist group in my university. most of us are students. so what? the grand mayority of the left communists i know in the US are average working class folks. there is no left communist prescence in universities and i am trying to start one.

[gorillafuck]

i think he meant that the wholei "workerist" fetish is downright silly. its akin to the american swp sending their people to meat packing factories.
They do that?

Why?

[Kassad]

Trotskyist stuff.

Consider this a verbal warning for spamming. You've done this more than once.

[comradshaw]

I'm curious to know.

Write papers.:D Just kidding. I got love for my Trot comrades.

[Intelligitimate]

Oh, and Intelligitimate, quit all your bullshit already. If anything, "Marxist-Leninist" groups (anti-revisionists etc.) are almost everywhere smaller than Trotskyist groups, with the exception of the openly reformist Communist Parties. And don't even get me started on appealing to the petty-bourgeoisie - in the first world, for the most part, Maoism has been an exclusively middle class phenomenon.

lol, "everywhere" being first world countries were Trotskyite trash dove-tail bourgeois rhetoric and being a Trot doesn't actually involve anymore work than pushing shitty newspapers. Everywhere the class struggle is sharp, Trotskyism either doesn't exist or plays its usual role of counterrevolution (like the Zimbabwe ISO).

[Uncle Hank]

I made the point because there were comparisons between Maoists and certain other tendencies in the first world.
Then respond to those and make it apparent that that's what you were doing, otherwise it can be quite confusing.


Because of the labor-aristocracy, at this stage it is quite natural that genuine communists will be outnumbered by revisionists in imperialist countries.
Because the only genuine communist is the Maoist, and anyone who isn't one of your genuine communists is a revisionist! Brilliant. If the Maoists wanna write off virtually the whole working class and a large number of countries, that's their problem, but it's not gonna stop other people form trying to organize in those countries and help bring about a revolution. In the so-called developed world we'll deal with the real conditions, you can sit back and give up that part of the working class as a bad job 'at this stage', while others will attempt to make progress.

[RED DAVE]

"These sort of leftists ... ." Are you excluding yourself from the Left? Or are you a different "sort of leftist"?
i think he meant that the wholei "workerist" fetish is downright silly. its akin to the american swp sending their people to meat packing factories.The IS, which I belonged to, "sent" our comrades into telephone, auto, teamster, steel, post office, etc. If the SWP sent its people into meat packing, I salute them.


i think a lot of "old" labor types have the mistake that blue collar jobs are the only "working class" jobs.I think you'll find that this is not true. In New York, for instance, a good deal of the strength of the Left, especially the CP, in unions, was in service jobs and civil service. Poke around and you'll find almost any weird belief in the Left, but what you have to look for is/was predominant ideas. There is no doubt that the Left has traditionally looked to the industrial working class, on the basis that this was the most highly concentrated and potentially conscious part of the class. But this was never a fetish.


this is outright wrong - a university graduate worker most of the time is equivalent to a skilled worker. most workers are not union type, manual laborers. Not in the US, nor in Mexico either.True, and the left in the US had had success uwith university workers, service workers, etc.


ive been trying to form a left communist group in my university. most of us are students. so what? the grand mayority of the left communists i know in the US are average working class folks. there is no left communist prescence in universities and i am trying to start one.Good luck, Comrade. Keep us posted on your success.

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

i think he meant that the wholei "workerist" fetish is downright silly. its akin to the american swp sending their people to meat packing factories. i think a lot of "old" labor types have the mistake that blue collar jobs are the only "working class" jobs. this is outright wrong - a university graduate worker most of the time is equivalent to a skilled worker. most workers are not union type, manual laborers. Not in the US, nor in Mexico either.

ive been trying to form a left communist group in my university. most of us are students. so what? the grand mayority of the left communists i know in the US are average working class folks. there is no left communist prescence in universities and i am trying to start one.

Yes, we don't fetishise manual work. Most of our people are in manual jobs, but we do have people who have been to university, and people who are in university at the moment. We also think that most people who go to university nowadays end up as workers. There is nothing 'unworking class' about being a teacher. There is a sense of ridiculousness though about students who graduate and go into manual jobs because the party sends them and then more often than not quit both the jobs and the politics in less than a year, like the guy in my Post Office did.


"These sort of leftists ... ." Are you excluding yourself from the Left? Or are you a different "sort of leftist"?

I am a left communist. I don't really think that we are a part of the left in the way that it is understood today.


Wow. What a trenchant criticism. A middle-class leftist in a working class arena had some problems adjusting. Wow. Did you work with him, maybe help him along? Or did you just make things rougher for the comrade?

What I said was that he didn't really fit in. He didn't help it by what I consider his arrogant attitude and patronising way of talking to people. He was a member of one of these groups which are enterists in the old 2nd International parties, and a part from some vague feeling that socialism is a good thing, I don't see any reason to regard members of bourgeois parties as my 'comrades'. No, I didn't help him out at all.


Now that's a really great point during the decline of capitalism when the middle-class was and is getting squeezed more and more. Did you come to his defense?

It was over twenty years ago when the decline wasn't quite so bad, but maybe more importantly university access wasn't as wide as it is now. He certainly wasn't the middle class being squeezed. He told us his party had sent him there.


Well, what can I say? What did you do in contrast to him? Did you help him, mentor him? Was he too arrogant to accept help? Were you too busy snickering to help him?

During the 1989 national strike, I was on the strike committee at my office, I organised, and took part in illegal secondary picketing, and through out the entire period, I was a member of a network of postmen that produced a regular magazine with sales of around 6,000 per issue in the Post Office.

During the time that we were holding mass meetings, running a strike committee, and organising flying pickets, he continued to insist that we should have an emergency branch meeting and pass motions.

I didn't snicker. I laughed openly.


I am quite clearly of middle-class origin. I was "industrialized" in the post office in the US for nearly seven years. During that time, I was twice a delegate to the letter carriers' national convention, where the second time, IS comrades were able to develop and opposition convention caucus. I was the chairperson of one of the committees attached to the delegate assembly. And I was elected a shop steward at my post office for two two-year terms. So go figure.

And this proves what? Most union branches are empty shells. Anybody can get themselves elected to positions. Mostly they don't even need to be elected as nobody else is standing. I am sure that even this guy could have got on our branch committee if he had stayed around for long enough. It is a typical leftist thing; Get on a branch committee, pass motions, go to conferences and have leftist caucuses. It doesn't mean much.


This was accomplished largely because I was not alone. I was constantly backed up by both the local chapter of the IS, in New York, and the national organization. Was the guy you're talking about alone, or did he have an organization behind him?

Yes, as I said earlier. I don't thing there are many people out there foolish enough to do that sort of thing off their own backs.

Devrim

[Kléber]

Please explain this.
Bourgeois property rights of "patriotic capitalists" are respected and defended (though regulated) by the Party in the concept of New Democracy.


I have already explained why the CPC's line concerning India was correct.
Sorry, I didn't notice your last post in that thread (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=125621). But come on, saying the CCP had a correct line about India in 1971 is like saying the CPSU had a correct line about China in 1927.


Kleber, stop trying to slander Maoists when faced with a critique of Trotskyism. Why don't you try to respond to the questions instead of reacting emotionally and attacking Maoists?
People answered your question with information, but you seem to ignore facts you don't like and prefer to just cherry-pick peoples posts. Nothing you have posted is anything other than slander and provocations.


How does this prove that PRC did not have a socialist past ?
It doesn't. My point with that particular sentence was not to refute the claim that the PRC was socialist, but rather, the claim that Maoism has successfully established socialism where

That said, neither the PRC nor any other country was never socialist. Socialism means a democratic economy controlled by the working class. Socialism can not be dismantled by a couple "bad apple" revisionists. If a palace revolution can abolish "socialism" with the flick of a switch and privatize everything, then I seriously doubt the working class ever ran things. Socialism is more than state control of industry. There was neither social inequality nor democratic freedom for the proletariat throughout the "socialist" era.

[comradshaw]

I'm curious to know.

Just wanted to clarify what I meant: as the cliche goes, Trotskyists and other Marxist-Leninists sell and publish a great deal of newspapers. I tend not to be so critical of this tactic.

On a serious note, the International Socialist Organization (ISO) is Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist; checking out their website could show you some things Trotskyists do.

[I Can Has Communism]

Though a little dated, this seems to be essential background reading about Trotskyism: marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm :)

[Kléber]

www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm)Well if you aren't going to read what anyone writes in reply to you, you might as well stick to that 75 year old toilet paper.

EDIT: That book is actually pretty good humor value. I woke up my roommates laughing at some of the stuff he said in the part about China. Sometimes he quotes a single sentence from a Trotskyist publication and says "How could the Trotskyites explain this statement? We will never know." and goes onto something else, LOL.

If you want to know Trotsky's actual opinion on anything check out the archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm).

Or his works, such as
Terrorism and Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm)
The Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm)
The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)
The Transitional Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm)

[Jimmie Higgins]

i think he meant that the wholei "workerist" fetish is downright silly. its akin to the american swp sending their people to meat packing factories. i think a lot of "old" labor types have the mistake that blue collar jobs are the only "working class" jobs. this is outright wrong - a university graduate worker most of the time is equivalent to a skilled worker. most workers are not union type, manual laborers. Not in the US, nor in Mexico either.
I think you are correct about conditions as they are right now, but I think for the groups operating in the late 60s and through the 70s in the US, it would be much more of a real debate because: 1) the "new left" was beginning to decline and the spontanious revolution many people had expected did not materialize so groups were trying to figure out where they went wrong and how to change course. 2) Radicalism of the 1960s was beginning to influence industrial workers and rank and file militancy and wildcat strikes were rising.

I don't many radicals back then felt like they were on the edge of a period of reaction and about to face a huge push-back from the employers on all fronts: racism, anti-union attacks, attacks on the social welfare programs and so on.


ive been trying to form a left communist group in my university. most of us are students. so what? the grand mayority of the left communists i know in the US are average working class folks. there is no left communist prescence in universities and i am trying to start one.Great, this is what we should all be doing right now - organizing where we are and where people are looking for the politics and strategies to help them, in this case of a university, fight back against budget-cuts, staff furloughs, increased tuition, and so on. These cuts are attacks on the working class in another form.

[ls]

Maybe the question should be "what don't Trots do politically"? Certainly one couldn't be mistaken for thinking they've tried every tactic under the sun. :p

Anyway, their good work is mostly historical. I can point to examples of the massive Trotskyist organizations that have existed in WWII in Greece and Sri Lanka, also the industrial organising type ones in the USA and there are quite a lot of other places, but you'd probably attack them as revisionist, I don't know, maybe they weren't "orthodox Trots" but they were a lot better than the majority of Trots, that's for sure (the POUM also springs to mind for instance, yeah go ahead and denounce them as "not Trots".. there's more than that but I'll save it :p).

[Forward Union]

plus this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-ZHkfodOY

[RHIZOMES]

Last I checked, factionalism is not a Trotskyist problem. Maoists and Stalinists split too.. in fact you guys sometimes stab each other to death on college campuses when you split..

If you want to know what a particular Trotskyist group is doing check out their website. Most are probably running in elections or calling for united front campaigns. www.wsws.org (http://www.wsws.org) is a good Trotskyist site for exposing the bourgeoisie and their agents.

The WSWS? SERIOUSLY? They're one of the worst cults around, the only redeeming quality about them is their website (which still has a lot of batshit insane articles). They're fucking horrible. Also their token revered Trot sect leader™ is a fucking CEO. Hmm I wonder why they're so against unionization of workplaces. The "union bureaucracy" right? :rolleyes:


trots probably do more than stalinists politically. in my experience they organise protests (10-30 people tops), attend protests (organised by other people), try to take over protests (rarely successful, but sometimes they say a lot of shit to the media), stand for various governmental positions, sell shit like papers, and attack other groups.

whether any of what they do is useful is a different question. but then again, i don't know of any maoist or stalinist group anywhere i've lived that has done more than the trots (if there has even been a maoist or stalinist group in that area).

I also agree with this. In regards to first world activity, Trotskyist groups are usually more active or at least just as active (and as whore mentioned, not really indicative of how useful that activity is), so it's really throwing stones in glass houses. I mean from my impression of far left politics in the UK at least the ML parties seem to be a bit of a joke. This is inverse in the US, where it seems all the Trot groups are a joke and the ML groups are awesome (PSL, Kasama, etc).

Worldwide (both historical and present) however, "Stalinism"/Maoism has been more successful than Trotskyism (people like Rosa L like to just put their fingers in their ears on this fact and go lalalalala). But I don't really take an ultra-sectarian approach off historical divisions like they're cast in stone forever and ever, a lot of "Trot" groups can do decent things. the Socialist Party of Australia (The CWI branch there) is doing some pretty awesome things from what I'm hearing about them (organizing workers, getting a socialist elected to a local council in Australia of all places, etc).


Let me say this re Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Anarchists, etc.:

TIME WILL TELL.

As the global struggle heats up, and the various groups put forth their programs and engage in action, the working class and oppressed peoples will decide who is red and who is brown (full of shit).

RED DAVE

I also agree with this, it's very much how these groups relate to workers that is gonna mark their success, not their adoration towards dead (but still important, just not at the level some people place them) historical figures. I actually think with all the evidence, it means jack shit if a party supports Stalin or Trotsky. I.E. every authoritarian "Trotskyist" group making a complete caricature out of the concept of "democratic centralism" versus the Naxalites criticizing the Nepalese Maoists for being too critical of Stalin, when the Naxalites seem to have a more "libertarian" political structure (and a virulently anti-personality cult culture) than the Nepalese.

[Chambered Word]

The WSWS? SERIOUSLY? They're one of the worst cults around, the only redeeming quality about them is their website (which still has a lot of batshit insane articles). They're fucking horrible. Also their token revered Trot sect leader™ is a fucking CEO. Hmm I wonder why they're so against unionization of workplaces. The "union bureaucracy" right? :rolleyes:

Seriously? :ohmy:


Worldwide (both historical and present) however, "Stalinism"/Maoism has been more successful than Trotskyism (people like Rosa L like to just put their fingers in their ears on this fact and go lalalalala). But I don't really take an ultra-sectarian approach off historical divisions like they're cast in stone forever and ever, a lot of "Trot" groups can do decent things. the Socialist Party of Australia (The CWI branch there) is doing some pretty awesome things from what I'm hearing about them (organizing workers, getting a socialist elected to a local council in Australia of all places, etc).

Apparently they got a bloke called Stephen Jolly elected to the City of Yarra local government in Victoria.

I never seem to hear about them somehow.

[I Can Has Communism]

Though a little dated, this seems to be essential background reading about Trotskyism: marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm :)
I can see this being very popular indeed.:cool:

[Devrim]

Anyway, their good work is mostly historical. I can point to examples of the massive Trotskyist organizations that have existed in WWII in Greece and Sri Lanka, also the industrial organising type ones in the USA and there are quite a lot of other places, but you'd probably attack them as revisionist, I don't know, maybe they weren't "orthodox Trots" but they were a lot better than the majority of Trots, that's for sure (the POUM also springs to mind for instance, yeah go ahead and denounce them as "not Trots".. there's more than that but I'll save it :p).

I suppose it depends what you think Trotskyism is. I don't really think that you can describe the SWP (IST) as Trotskyists in that they reject the whole thing about degenerated workers' states.

I don't think that Sri Lanka is a good example for 'good work' by Trotskyists. Yes, it was the only place where they managed to build a large party, but they did end up joining the government, and playing their role in crushing the JVP insurrection in 1971.

As for the Greeks, I think the best of them (Tamtakos, Stinas, etc) split from Trotskyism in 1947, but the majority of Greek Trotskyists quit the Fourth International after Giotopoulos fell out with Trotsky in 1934, and later they ended up in the '2½ International', or London Bureau.

And as you point out the POUM weren't Trotskyists anyway and were also part of the London Bureau.

Devrim

[Kléber]

Also their token revered Trot sect leader™ is a fucking CEO. Hmm
The SEP runs a print shop which like those of many left-wing organizations also does private work to stay afloat. It isn't that big and it was ranked one of the best places to work in Detroit. The fact that the SEP has a print shop doesn't mean they are corrupt it just means they are more serious and successful than a lot of groups in the US. Every mass workers' party in history has engaged in all sorts of business activity. That is partly what Lenin meant when he said "the capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them." If you want to talk about a party with shady finances you should be criticizing the Bolsheviks. Lenin helped reel in the worst excesses, but they were robbing banks and setting up front businesses to launder money internationally.


I wonder why they're so against unionization of workplaces. The "union bureaucracy" right?
The SEP is not anti-union, they just don't think that the party should orient its national politics to the unions when they represent a tiny minority of the working class.

[RotStern]

They do Trotskyist stuff alright!
They wear glasses eat Danish cheese drive Vespas listen to Owl City you know, Trot stuff!

[ls]

I suppose it depends what you think Trotskyism is. I don't really think that you can describe the SWP (IST) as Trotskyists in that they reject the whole thing about degenerated workers' states.

Very true, a good point to take into consideration certainly.


I don't think that Sri Lanka is a good example for 'good work' by Trotskyists. Yes, it was the only place where they managed to build a large party, but they did end up joining the government, and playing their role in crushing the JVP insurrection in 1971.

Come on now, there was a left faction that did their best to stop that, what else were they supposed to do? Do you think every tendency is perfect and can stop others from tainting it with their politics? That's not fair at all, plus the party in the late 60s and 70s was completely different than from before.

It's a bit like saying the RSDLP was just like the CPSU of the 30s.


As for the Greeks, I think the best of them (Tamtakos, Stinas, etc) split from Trotskyism in 1947, but the majority of Greek Trotskyists quit the Fourth International after Giotopoulos fell out with Trotsky in 1934, and later they ended up in the '2½ International', or London Bureau.

And you missed out the fact that masses of them were murdered, which may have prevented that from happening. It isn't fair if you miss important details out.


And as you point out the POUM weren't Trotskyists anyway and were also part of the London Bureau.

Devrim

Organizational affiliations may not be perfect, but that doesn't make the organizations themselves bastions of reaction. Obviously it's a fair criticism to be raised though.

Your point, which seems to be that Trotskyism as a whole is very questionable is a fair one. I don't reject that at all, I just think it's unfair to say that Trotskyism has never achieved anything at all, which is why I raised the points..

[FSL]

Anyway, their good work is mostly historical. I can point to examples of the massive Trotskyist organizations that have existed in WWII in Greece


"Massive" can only be a gross overstatement?

[ls]

"Massive" can only be a gross overstatement?

Ok, it was a bit of an overstatement, but collectively they did amass a big number of people. I don't think that's an unfair statement.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The WSWS? SERIOUSLY? They're one of the worst cults around, the only redeeming quality about them is their website (which still has a lot of batshit insane articles). They're fucking horrible. Also their token revered Trot sect leader™ is a fucking CEO. Hmm I wonder why they're so against unionization of workplaces. The "union bureaucracy" right? :rolleyes:

Eh, I mean I'm no fan of the ICFI and agree they are a terribly sordid organisation but this a pretty poor criticism. In what way is the ICFI a 'cult'? Could you give some examples of their 'batshit insane articles'? Could you actually give a real criticism their position on the union question instead of making ad hominen arguments?


This is inverse in the US, where it seems all the Trot groups are a joke and the ML groups are awesome (PSL, Kasama, etc).

Ironically the US is probably the formost country in the First World where Trotskyists have historically had the most success. Of course the 'awesomeness' of groups such as the PSL and Kasama is a matter of opinion. It's also quite ironic that the groups you mention (PSL and Kasama) are only a matter of years old.


Worldwide (both historical and present) however, "Stalinism"/Maoism has been more successful than Trotskyism

We agree on this point. However what is always missing from these proclamations is a class perspective. I don't think the success of Stalinist parties is anything to brag about from the perspective of the proletariat.


the Socialist Party of Australia (The CWI branch there) is doing some pretty awesome things from what I'm hearing about them (organizing workers, getting a socialist elected to a local council in Australia of all places, etc).

I don't think this is a good example actually. The SPA is a very insignificant group, their only notably activity as far as I know being their Yarra Local Council election campaign. What examples of the SPA 'organising workers' are you refering to?

[RHIZOMES]

Apparently they got a bloke called Stephen Jolly elected to the City of Yarra local government in Victoria.

I never seem to hear about them somehow.

Stephen Jolly is pretty pro, he was at Tienanmen square in 1989. Also they started their own union, modeled after the predominantly radical-run Unite Union in NZ which has been very successful. So a lot of their party work revolves around organizing that union and from what I'm hearing they're doing a pretty good job of it. So unlike many far left sects, they're actually organizing workers in some way.


The SEP runs a print shop which like those of many left-wing organizations also does private work to stay afloat. It isn't that big and it was ranked one of the best places to work in Detroit. The fact that the SEP has a print shop doesn't mean they are corrupt it just means they are more serious and successful than a lot of groups in the US. Every mass workers' party in history has engaged in all sorts of business activity. That is partly what Lenin meant when he said "the capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them." If you want to talk about a party with shady finances you should be criticizing the Bolsheviks. Lenin helped reel in the worst excesses, but they were robbing banks and setting up front businesses to launder money internationally.


The SEP is not anti-union, they just don't think that the party should orient its national politics to the unions when they represent a tiny minority of the working class.

Okay your first bit I don't know enough about, that is interesting, I'll do more research on that (although I am still extremely doubtful). But they are anti-union in a really sectarian and fucked up way. I.E. The NZ "branch" of the SEP/WSWS going to militant union actions and discouraging the workers from joining the union because "the bureaucracy". I mean seriously.


Eh, I mean I'm no fan of the ICFI and agree they are a terribly sordid organisation but this a pretty poor criticism. In what way is the ICFI a 'cult'? Could you give some examples of their 'batshit insane articles'?

I've seen the sectarian and miniscule way they behave in NZ. To be honest I haven't thought about them in a long time due to their complete irrelevance so I'll e-mail the WP's resident Trotskyite cult watcher about them and get back to you on that one, but I do remember seeing/reading some pretty damning shit about them.


Could you actually give a real criticism their position on the union question instead of making ad hominen arguments?

See above, they actively discourage workers from joining unions and several of my comrades can vouch for this.


Ironically the US is probably the formost country in the First World where Trotskyists have historically had the most success. Of course the 'awesomeness' of groups such as the PSL and Kasama is a matter of opinion. It's also quite ironic that the groups you mention (PSL and Kasama) are only a matter of years old.

I don't think it's ironic. I however don't think it's any coincidence the best groups are the new ones, the entrenched dogmatic orthodoxies of decades old political groups are one of the biggest obstacles the left faces today. And yeah yeah, I'm talking about today, not eons ago. I mean, historically Khruschevism was a very successful tendency, it doesn't really mean anything now.


We agree on this point. However what is always missing from these proclamations is a class perspective. I don't think the success of Stalinist parties is anything to brag about from the perspective of the proletariat.

I do.


I don't think this is a good example actually. The SPA is a very insignificant group, their only notably activity as far as I know being their Yarra Local Council election campaign. What examples of the SPA 'organising workers' are you refering to?

I addressed this earlier. They spend quite a bit of their time organizing workers through the Unite Union off-shot they set up. So therefore I'm impressed with the fact they're actual organizing workers rather than just insigificant protests-of-the-week which it seems the far left has some weird fascination with.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I've seen the sectarian and miniscule way they behave in NZ. To be honest I haven't thought about them in a long time due to their complete irrelevance so I'll e-mail the WP's resident Trotskyite cult watcher about them and get back to you on that one, but I do remember seeing/reading some pretty damning shit about them.

So you admit you don't know what your on about. That's a step forward.


See above, they actively discourage workers from joining unions and several of my comrades can vouch for this.

This doesn't answer my original point. Such a practice is perfectly justifiable given certain positions on the union question. I ask again: Could you actually give a real criticism their position on the union question instead of making ad hominem arguments (against their leadership)?


I addressed this earlier. They spend quite a bit of their time organizing workers through the Unite Union off-shot they set up. So therefore I'm impressed with the fact they're actual organizing workers rather than just insigificant protests-of-the-week which it seems the far left has some weird fascination with.

What has this success amounted to though? As far as I am aware the Unite Union is tiny, covering mainly fast food workers exclusively in Victoria. I am not aware of any struggles waged or won by the union. If you have other information, please let me know.

Once again though this entire point rests on the premise that organising workers into unions is a productive endeavor.

[RHIZOMES]

So you admit you don't know what your on about. That's a step forward.

No, I admitted that I haven't thought about the group in nearly a year (due to their complete and utter irrelevance), so my info on why they suck shit (and they do) is pretty much relying on vague memories, I've sent an e-mail to a more knowledgeable comrade about them and I'll get back on that question shortly. One thing that just came back to me a few moments before I came back to this thread is that the leader of their group being a CEO wasn't for the aforementioned "print shop" that Kleber mentions. He's a CEO of a textiles company, in fact they're the 260th something largest textile company in the United States. Hm.

Also some batshit insane articles I remember from them include their culture articles having quite a bit of high art/low art bourgeois elitism, i.e. they are very critical of the culture of various underclasses such as hip-hop (and not just commercialized hip-hop) while extolling operas and bourgie paintings and so on. But that isn't the only thing and I'll get back on that shortly (and I have read several articles that made me go "...what" by them, but again I don't spend all my time thinking about irrelevant sects).


This doesn't answer my original point. Such a practice is perfectly justifiable given certain positions on the union question. I ask again: Could you actually give a real criticism their position on the union question instead of making ad hominem arguments (against their leadership)?

Oh yes I forgot you were a left communist and actually thought actively discouraging workers from organizing themselves is a perfectly fine practice, especially workers who are actually engaged in militant action against their company. Oh yep cool. Their "union bureaucracy" bs is a total strawman, because they actively discourage workers from participating in unions when they're participating in things the "union bureaucracy" generally does not approve of.


What has this success amounted to though? As far as I am aware the Unite Union is tiny, covering mainly fast food workers exclusively in Victoria. I am not aware of any struggles waged or won by the union. If you have other information, please let me know.

There was this Bakery franchise they've been having a bit of a struggle with, including the boss locking out the workers, and a few others.


Once again though this entire point rests on the premise that organising workers into unions is a productive endeavor.

Into radical run unions, yes it is. I don't know about Australia's Unite Union since I'm not Australian, but the Unite Union in NZ has been running leftist educationals and so on.

But again as you're a left communist I haven't really come to expect any practical or pragmatic solutions to problems from you guys. What are some "productive endeavours" you guys have been engaging in?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Oh yes I forgot you were a left communist and actually thought actively discouraging workers from organizing themselves is a perfectly fine practice, especially workers who are actually engaged in militant action against their company.

This is nothing but baseless slander. Left Communists are most ardent advocates of workers self-organisation outside and against the union machinery.

I think by now most posters including myself are familiar with your method of debate.


Their "union bureaucracy" bs is a total strawman, because they actively discourage workers from participating in unions when they're participating in things the "union bureaucracy" generally does not approve of.

Could you re-phrase this? I'm not sure what you are meant to be saying.

Also, you still haven't offered any critique of the position of the ICFI on the unions.


There was this Bakery franchise they've been having a bit of a struggle with, including the boss locking out the workers, and a few others.

Do you have any references regarding these struggles that I could refer to. I don't know much about Unite so anything you could offer would be appreciated.


What are some "productive endeavours" you guys have been engaging in?

This thread is about the political practice of Trotskyism, not Left Communism. There have been quite a number of thread dealing with this exact topic (what Left Communists do politically) already. I can gladly refer you to them if you want.

To give one example though which I think is particularly relevant we need only look at the intervention of the ICC's Turkish section in the on-going struggle by TEKEL workers in Ankara against both the government and theTürk-İş[/URL] union federation. See Leo's report on the struggle [URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/turkey-solidarity-tekel-t127450/index.html?t=127450"]here (http://www.turkis.org.tr/?wapp=homepage) or the ICC article here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/01/tekel-turkey).

[Devrim]

Come on now, there was a left faction that did their best to stop that, what else were they supposed to do? Do you think every tendency is perfect and can stop others from tainting it with their politics? That's not fair at all, plus the party in the late 60s and 70s was completely different than from before.

It's a bit like saying the RSDLP was just like the CPSU of the 30s.

And you missed out the fact that masses of them were murdered, which may have prevented that from happening. It isn't fair if you miss important details out.

Organizational affiliations may not be perfect, but that doesn't make the organizations themselves bastions of reaction. Obviously it's a fair criticism to be raised though.

Your point, which seems to be that Trotskyism as a whole is very questionable is a fair one. I don't reject that at all, I just think it's unfair to say that Trotskyism has never achieved anything at all, which is why I raised the points..

I am not really sure what your point is here IS. I don't know that much about the Sri Lankan case, and nothing about the left fraction.

I don't subscribe to this Stalinist "Trotskyists have never done anything argument".

I was merely pointing out that the things that you mentioned apart from the Sri Lankan case weren't really Trotskyist.

Trotskyism experienced a major crisis during and just after the Second World War. I think that the currents that came out of it during the crisis were much more healthy that Trotskyism itself.

Devrim

[red cat]

Bourgeois property rights of "patriotic capitalists" are respected and defended (though regulated) by the Party in the concept of New Democracy.

You forget that most of these "patriotic capitalists" are poorer than an average first world worker. When their industries grow, they are nationalized.



Sorry, I didn't notice your last post in that thread (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=125621). But come on, saying the CCP had a correct line about India in 1971 is like saying the CPSU had a correct line about China in 1927. Explained in that thread.



It doesn't. My point with that particular sentence was not to refute the claim that the PRC was socialist, but rather, the claim that Maoism has successfully established socialism where

That said, neither the PRC nor any other country was never socialist. Socialism means a democratic economy controlled by the working class. Socialism can not be dismantled by a couple "bad apple" revisionists. If a palace revolution can abolish "socialism" with the flick of a switch and privatize everything, then I seriously doubt the working class ever ran things. Socialism is more than state control of industry.

We don't make those claims about the counter-revolution.


There was neither social inequality nor democratic freedom for the proletariat throughout the "socialist" era.

I assume that you did not mean what you typed. :lol:

Anyway, assertions are worthless. Let's see some Trotkyites organizing the working class in Nepal or India.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Let's see some Trotkyites organizing the working class in Nepal or India

In view of the fact that there are no 'Trotkyites' (sic) on the planet, you stand in no danger of being proven wrong.

Let's see you 'Maoites' actually run a successful, socialist state (without it lapsing back into some form of capitalism)...

[red cat]

Then respond to those and make it apparent that that's what you were doing, otherwise it can be quite confusing.


Because the only genuine communist is the Maoist, and anyone who isn't one of your genuine communists is a revisionist! Brilliant. If the Maoists wanna write off virtually the whole working class and a large number of countries, that's their problem, but it's not gonna stop other people form trying to organize in those countries and help bring about a revolution. In the so-called developed world we'll deal with the real conditions, you can sit back and give up that part of the working class as a bad job 'at this stage', while others will attempt to make progress.

We Maoists think that an insurrection in the first world is impossible now. For that, the proletariat must be better organized . Because of the existence of the labor aristocracy ( that is, mostly the high ranking members of other self-proclaimed communist parties ) this is a very difficult task. So even if the Maoists in the first world try very hard (which I believe they are doing), revolution will take place there only after several revolutions in the third-world have been completed.

[ls]

We Maoists think that an insurrection in the first world is impossible now. For that, the proletariat must be better organized . Because of the existence of the labor aristocracy ( that is, mostly the high ranking members of other self-proclaimed communist parties ) this is a very difficult task. So even if the Maoists in the first world try very hard (which I believe they are doing), revolution will take place there only after several revolutions in the third-world have been completed.

I'm just lost for words in fairness. Do you think that the reactionary CPI and UML apparatchiks and scoundrels receive more money than first-world workers?

Hold on to that thought.

Actually don't, just keep spouting more useless stuff.

[red cat]

I'm just lost for words in fairness. Do you think that the reactionary CPI and UML apparatchiks and scoundrels receive more money than first-world workers?

Hold on to that thought.

Actually don't, just keep spouting more useless stuff.

They do not belong to the part of the national bourgeoisie which is an ally of the revolution.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



In view of the fact that there are no 'Trotkyites' (sic) on the planet, you stand in no danger of being proven wrong.

Let's see you 'Maoites' actually run a successful, socialist state (without it lapsing back into some form of capitalism)...

Yes we will try to do that. But we have actually overthrown imperialism in several countries, which no Trotskyite party has ever been able to.

[ls]

They do not belong to the part of the national bourgeoisie which is an ally of the revolution.

Genius. Why didn't that occur to me?

Furthermore, do you think an average petit-bourgeois journalist receives more or less money than your average first-world worker? The Nepalese maoists organised among these self-employed journalists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red cat:


But we have actually overthrown imperialism in several countries, which no Trotskyite party has ever been able to.

1) There is no "Trotskyite" party on the planet, any more than there is a Maoite party, so it's impossible to speak for this non-existent group. Perhaps you have confused fantasy with fact here...?

2) And us Trotskyists supported such anti-imperialist struggles. Pity you lot then ignored Trotsky's advice, and screwed up every single one of these struggles.

And you still refuse to learn...

[red cat]

Genius. Why didn't that occur to me?

Furthermore, do you think an average petit-bourgeois journalist receives more or less money than your average first-world worker? The Nepalese maoists organised among these self-employed journalists.

Why are you speaking about different sections of the petite-bourgeoisie ?

Some might be better off. In general they have less involvement in the revolution.

[ls]

Why are you speaking about different sections of the petite-bourgeoisie ?

Here's a more potent question: why do you see revolutionary potential in the petit-bourgeois?

Bhattarai among others have admitted that they want to organize the urban petit-bourgeois to revolt. A crucial mistake if there ever was one.

[red cat]

Red cat:



1) There is no "Trotskyite" party on the planet, any more than there is a Maoite party, so it's impossible to speak for this non-existent group. Perhaps you have confused fantasy with fact here...?



On the other hand, your version of history seems mostly to be fantasy.




2) And us Trotskyists supported such anti-imperialist struggles. Pity you lot then ignored Trotsky's advice, and screwed up every single one of these struggles.

And you still refuse to learn...

Where did Trotskyite parties take up arms and successfully overthrow imperialism ?

[red cat]

Here's a more potent question: why do you see revolutionary potential in the petit-bourgeois?



Have you ever gone through the history of the Naxal movement?




Bhattarai among others have admitted that they want to organize the urban petit-bourgeois to revolt. A crucial mistake if there ever was one.

:rolleyes:

[ls]

Have you ever gone through the history of the Naxal movement?

Do you think they don't intend on organizing the petit-bourgeois now and if so, would you like to prove this. Maoism as an ideology does not pretend to hold the petit-bourgeois as a mostly reactionary class, so why should they?

It's a fair enough assertion even though this portion of my post that you quoted was not really aimed at the Naxals, but so be it as they say.


:rolleyes:

So no reply then. It's not like it's just the petit-bourgeois is it, you think the bourgeoisie proper if it's national enough can be revolutionary too.

Don't worry, many trots think the national bourgeois and petit-bourgeois can be revolutionary too, you're not alone.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red cat:


On the other hand, your version of history seems mostly to be fantasy.

Ok, so where is there a successful Maoist, socialist state?


Where did Trotskyite parties take up arms and successfully overthrow imperialism ?

Where did a Maoite party ever do this?

[red cat]

Red cat:



Ok, so where is there a successful Maoist, socialist state?



Where did a Maoite party ever do this?

This part of your version is fantasy, for example. What do you think happened in China? What happened to imperialism there?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red cat:


This part of your version is fantasy, for example. What do you think happened in China?

China is no longer socialist (if ever it was). Maoism failed ...

As I said, show me a single successful socialist Maoist state.

[red cat]

Do you think they don't intend on organizing the petit-bourgeois now and if so, would you like to prove this. Maoism as an ideology does not pretend to hold the petit-bourgeois as a mostly reactionary class, so why should they?

It's a fair enough assertion even though this portion of my post that you quoted was not really aimed at the Naxals, but so be it as they say.



So no reply then. It's not like it's just the petit-bourgeois is it, you think the bourgeoisie proper if it's national enough can be revolutionary too.

Don't worry, many trots think the national bourgeois and petit-bourgeois can be revolutionary too, you're not alone.

The Naxal movement proved that the petite-bourgeoisie has a partial revolutionary character.

[red cat]

Red cat:



China is no longer socialist (if ever it was). Maoism failed ...

As I said, show me a single successful socialist Maoist state.

You asked where imperialism was overthrown by Maoists . I gave you an example.

[ls]

The Naxal movement proved that the petite-bourgeoisie has a partial revolutionary character.

I have to go now anyway but I'm just genuinely advising you to rethink what you're saying, just give it some real thought. Think about the real class dynamics of the situation in India today and think, can the petit-bourgeois of India really be considered a revolutionary class.

Can you call the managers at sweatshops and call centres our allies? This is in the cities where slumworkers, the "masses" go to work. The restaurant managers who watch on as Indian workers eat shit, are these our allies, do they not exploit workers on a daily basis?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


You asked where imperialism was overthrown by Maoists . I gave you an example

Where did I ask this?

What I asked was this:


show me a single successful socialist Maoist state

[red cat]

I have to go now anyway but I'm just genuinely advising you to rethink what you're saying, just give it some real thought. Think about the real class dynamics of the situation in India today and think, can the petit-bourgeois of India really be considered a revolutionary class.

Can you call the managers at sweatshops and call centres our allies? This is in the cities where slumworkers, the "masses" go to work. The restaurant managers who watch on as Indian workers eat shit, are these our allies, do they not exploit workers on a daily basis?

Partial revolutionary character. Mostly students, teachers etc. from the lower levels.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Where did I ask this?

What I asked was this:

Here:

Me :


Where did Trotskyite parties take up arms and successfully overthrow imperialism ?

You:


Where did a Maoite party ever do this?

[ls]

Partial revolutionary character. Mostly students, teachers etc. from the lower levels.

This is a contradiction in terms, how can the students and teachers from the lower levels be petit-bourgeois? They would be proletarians for sure, it took at least two reads of this to be sure what you had wrote. It seemingly makes no sense, much like your entire position on the matter.

A journalist is not comparable to a public (in this country, "comprehensive") school teacher, the two are not at all the same. How you could draw any kind of comparison is completely beyond me.

[red cat]

This is a contradiction in terms, how can the students and teachers from the lower levels be petit-bourgeois? They would be proletarians for sure, it took at least two reads of this to be sure what you had wrote. It seemingly makes no sense, much like your entire position on the matter.

A journalist is not comparable to a public (in this country, "comprehensive") school teacher, the two are not at all the same. How you could draw any kind of comparison is completely beyond me.

Here in general by the term "proletariat" we refer to those who are generally associated with physical labor.

This is because though students and teachers do not own their means of production, they are mainly better off than laborers and the contradiction between physical and intellectual work comes into play. You will find some of the most reactionary elements in this class and it is also distinguished by its relatively small revolutionary section.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat (quoting me):


Where did a Maoite party ever do this?

Notice, I did not ask for a Maoist, but a Maoite, party. Since there is no Maoite party, there can be no answer.

But what I did ask, and what we are still waiting for, is one example of a successful Maoist socialist state.

We can all see you are avoiding providing one.

If there were one, you'd be rubbing my face in it.

[red cat]

Red Cat (quoting me):



Notice, I did not ask for a Maoist, but a Maoite, party. Since there is no Maoite party, there can be no answer.

You are good in playing with words. :)




But what I did ask, and what we are still waiting for, is one example of a successful Maoist socialist state.

We can all see you are avoiding providing one.

If there were one, you'd be rubbing my face in it.

At present there is none. But at least we are trying. No Trotskyite party is even making an attempt in the third world.

[ls]

Here in general by the term "proletariat" we refer to those who are generally associated with physical labor.

Right, so would you class teachers and callcentre workers as petit-bourgeois because they are not the typical workers. :rolleyes:


This is because though students and teachers do not own their means of production, they are mainly better off than laborers and the contradiction between physical and intellectual work comes into play. You will find some of the most reactionary elements in this class and it is also distinguished by its relatively small revolutionary section.

'This'..'class'? None of what you are talking about is Marxist here, this is all just a load of dribble sorry but it really is. By your definition, call centre workers are not proletarians either, if teachers are just blanketly not so because they do "intellectual" work and it isn't manual labour. There are a LOT of Indian teachers who work in public schools that _do not get paid much_, that is a fact and I dare you to say otherwise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


You are good in playing with words.

Nearly as good as you are at ignoring my question.

But, in fact, that is not correct, for now you are honest (at last!):


At present there is none. But at least we are trying.

Trying to produce yet more capitalist states -- I agree.


No Trotskyite party is even making an attempt in the third world

Again, I agree, since there are no Trotskyite parties on the planet.

[RED DAVE]

Here in general by the term "proletariat" we refer to those who are generally associated with physical labor.

This is because though students and teachers do not own their means of production, they are mainly better off than laborers and the contradiction between physical and intellectual work comes into play. You will find some of the most reactionary elements in this class and it is also distinguished by its relatively small revolutionary section.All of which means that you do not understand the concept of class.

Lenin's concept is very different from yours::


Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/19.htm

RED DAVE

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, Dave, that means that the Maoist regime in China, for example, was State Capitalist!:ohmy:

[RED DAVE]

Oh dear, Dave, that means that the Maoist regime in China, for example, was State Capitalist!:ohmy:NO!

Stop it! You funnin' me. Say it ain't so.

RED DAVE

[AmericanRed]

WAS State Capitalist? Hell, it's state capitalist right now, now more so than ever!

[red cat]

Right, so would you class teachers and callcentre workers as petit-bourgeois because they are not the typical workers. :rolleyes:



'This'..'class'? None of what you are talking about is Marxist here, this is all just a load of dribble sorry but it really is. By your definition, call centre workers are not proletarians either, if teachers are just blanketly not so because they do "intellectual" work and it isn't manual labour. There are a LOT of Indian teachers who work in public schools that _do not get paid much_, that is a fact and I dare you to say otherwise.

Have you compared this salary to that of a factory worker ? Anyway, these teachers generally support the revolution.

[red cat]

All of which means that you do not understand the concept of class.

Lenin's concept is very different from yours::

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/19.htm

RED DAVE

Please highlight the points in which it is different.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Nearly as good as you are at ignoring my question.

But, in fact, that is not correct, for now you are honest (at last!):



Trying to produce yet more capitalist states -- I agree.



Again, I agree, since there are no Trotskyite parties on the planet.

Don't try to play around with words.

Before you slander our movements, please provide an example of a Trotskyite party that is actually making revolution right now.

P.S. In case you really do not understand, all organizations and individuals who hold that Trotsky's theory is a correct continuation of Marxism are being referred to as Trotskyites here.

[OCMO]

The portuguese Left Bloc who is the leftist party with more assembly seats in the moment have many trots including their most charismatic figure. They don't have a bad agenda focusing mostly in human and workers rights, but they don't talk much about the ideology of the party (to embrace more voters, i guess).

[Intelligitimate]

A better question than where have Trotskyite taken up arms and overthrown imperialism (which is nowhere), is where have Trotskyites done a god damn fucking thing besides cheerlead Western imperialism and actively sabotage revolution?

Trotskyites are all counterrevolutionary in the end. They always expose themselves as such. People like Rosa are a perfect example: when push comes to shove, they will always side with the imperialists.

It's just gonna be a matter of winning over the Trots that can be won, and shooting the rest.

[RED DAVE]

Here in general by the term "proletariat" we refer to those who are generally associated with physical labor.
Lenin's concept is very different from yours.


Please highlight the points in which it is different.


This is because though students and teachers do not own their means of production, they are mainly better off than laborers and the contradiction between physical and intellectual work comes into play.You thinking is already muddled: confusing teachers and students. While students are capable of radical action, as a class they are, in general, members of the class from which their families come from. Teachers, to the contrary, are members of the working class. They do not own or profit from the means of production. They engage in intellectual labor rather than physical labor, but they are workers. Teachers are one of the most highly unionized groups in the US.


You will find some of the most reactionary elements in this classWhat class are you talking about? You have mentioned students and teachers, neither of which are a class. In the US, some of the most reactionary members of the working class have been members of the urban construction workers unions.


and it is also distinguished by its relatively small revolutionary section.This is irrelevant. However, in my experience, teachers form a relatively high percentage of the membership of revolutionary organizations in the US in this day and age.


Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it.Notice that Lenin refers, in a nutshell, to the relationship of group to the means of production to determine its class nature. He does not make a distinction between intellectual and physical labor.


Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.Nothing here about physical vs. menal labor or blue color vs. white color, etc.

RED DAVE

[#FF0000]

Guess what. This is a learning thread. So I'm bringing down that hammer and handing out some infractions.

Intelligitimate is first for the outwardly hostile nature of their posts, which are plainly unacceptable.

[RED DAVE]

A better question than where have Trotskyite taken up arms and overthrown imperialism (which is nowhere), is where have Trotskyites done a god damn fucking thing besides cheerlead Western imperialism and actively sabotage revolution?

Trotskyites are all counterrevolutionary in the end. They always expose themselves as such. People like Rosa are a perfect example: when push comes to shove, they will always side with the imperialists.

It's just gonna be a matter of winning over the Trots that can be won, and shooting the rest.A perfect example of stalinist political cursing. Not a single fact but a lot of shrill invective.

Keep up the good work. Maybe some day Stalin will appear in your dreams and give you a job.

By the way, worked in or with any unions or rank-and-file groups lately?

RED DAVE

[I Can Has Communism]

We're seeing more sectarian trolling and less history of Trotskyism here.

Do the Trots accept that they're not involved in anything at all worthwhile apart from internet trolling?

If the trolling continues, this thread needs to be closed.

[fatboy]

Do not get me wrong trots do have a lot of parties. Maybe it's from all that splitting.:lol:

[RHIZOMES]

Further on the WSWS/SEP sucking shit:



Northites Inc.: Toeing the Bottom Line

Being Determines Consciousness

In the spring of 2007, the Socialist Equality Party/Inter-national Committee (SEP/IC) was rocked by a public scandal when Scott Solomon, an embittered former adherent, revealed that David North is not only the leading figure of the SEP and IC, but is also CEO of Grand River Printing & Imaging (GRPI), a multi-million dollar business in Michigan. The SEP leadership would apparently prefer to keep its successful commercial venture secret, but it cannot deny the facts.
The GRPI evolved from the in-house printshop that used to produce the Bulletin, the newspaper of the Workers League (WL—the SEP’s predecessor). When the WL/SEP suspended publication of the Bulletin in favor of producing an online daily on its World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), the party print shop was apparently quietly transformed into a full-blown business.
At about the same time, the SEP/IC leadership discarded the traditional Marxist view of trade unions as defensive organizations of the working class and declared that they had become simple agencies of the capitalists. North wrote a lengthy essay on this theme entitled “Globalization and the Unions,” in which he announced the “objective transformation of the AFL-CIO into an instrument of the corporations and the capitalist state.” We polemicized against this in 1917 No. 29 (see “SEP: Defeatist and Confusionist: The Class Nature of the Unions (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no29/SEP.html)”).
The Northites recently seized upon the squalid deal signed by the United Auto Workers (UAW) in October 2007 with General Motors, which permits the company to offload responsibility for itsretirees’ health-care coverage with a contribution of cash and a $4.4 billion convertible note (based on the value of GM common stock) to a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA). The deal benefited the bossesby massively reducing their liabilities, while giving the UAW bureaucracy, which gets to manage the fund, a major new source of revenue and influence. The only ones to lose out will be retired autoworkers, whose benefits will be reduced when VEBA’s investment portfolio underperforms.
In a 12 October 2007 statement, the SEP wrote:

“The so-called ‘voluntary employees beneficiary association,’ or VEBA, will turn the union into a profit-making enterprise and make the union bureaucracy full-fledged shareholders in the exploitation of the workers. The UAW bureaucracy will get its hands on a massive cash hoard, including shares in GM, which will ensure its income even as it administers ever deeper cuts in the benefits of retired union members.”
—“The middle-class ‘left’ and the UAW-GM contract” Seemingly oblivious to the parallel between the UAW bureaucracy’s relationship to VEBA and the SEP’s to the GRPI, the Northites declared: “The open transformation of the UAW into a business is not a sudden or unexpected development.” But the auto union has not been transformed into a capitalist enterprise; the UAW remains part of the workers’ movement, despite the grotesque, and growing, corruption of its leadership. Leon Trotsky described the tendency of the labor bureaucracy in the imperialist countries to be transformed from mere agents of the bourgeoisie into “stakeholders” in the ventures of the ruling class:

“The intensification of class contradictions within each country, the intensification of antagonisms between one country and another, produce a situation in which imperialist capitalism can tolerate (i.e., up to a certain time) a reformist bureaucracy only if the latter serves directly as a petty but active stockholder of its imperialist enterprises, of its plans and programs within the country as well as on the world arena.”
—“Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay,” 1940 Yet Trotsky concluded:

“in spite of the progressive degeneration of trade unions and their growing together with the imperialist state, the work within the trade unions not only does not lose any of its importance but remains as before and becomes in a certain sense even more important work than ever for every revolutionary party. The matter at issue is essentially the struggle for influence over the working class.” When the IC first announced that it was writing off the unions, our German comrades projected that North & Co. might one day “find themselves in a political bloc with the capitalists in their attack on the institutions of the workers’ movement” (1917 No. 20). The SEP’s October 2007 statement does exactly that, declaring: “The Socialist Equality Party would advise workers, should the UAW come to their plant, to vote to keep it out.”
No doubt GRPI management would give similar advice to any employees thinking about unionizing. Socialists, by contrast, believe that workers should be organized. In a case of vice paying homage to virtue, the SEP’s 12 January 2006 statement for the U.S. mid-term elections advocated “a guaranteed right of workers to join a union and control the union democratically; the outlawing of union-busting tactics and wage-cutting.” This was coupled with a peculiar demand for “government support for small and medium-sized businesses.” Even the reformist left has not historically been in the habit of demanding public funding for private capitalists, but then few of them ever owned “medium-sized businesses.”
Sri Lankan Exceptionalism in the IC

The SEP/IC’s October 2007 statement on the UAW makes it very clear that its anti-union stance is not only applicable in North America:

“Two facts demonstrate that the transformation of the UAW is not simply the product of the subjective characteristics of corrupt leaders or misguided policies, but rather the expression of fundamental objective processes rooted in the nature of trade union organizations and the impact of major changes in the structure of world capitalism. The first is the protracted period, now extending over decades, in which the unions have worked openly to suppress the class struggle and impose cuts in workers’ wages and benefits, along with massive layoffs.”

…
“The second fact is the international scale of the degeneration and transformation of the unions. This is not an American, but rather a world phenomenon, embracing the unions in the advanced capitalist centers of North America, Europe and Asia, as well as those in so-called ‘less developed’ countries. From the American UAW and AFL-CIO, to the British Trades Union Congress, to the German Federation of Unions, to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the unions have adopted a corporatist policy of labor-management ‘partnership’ and worked to drive down labor costs at the expense of the jobs, wages and working conditions of their members.
“The driving force behind this universal process is the globalization of capitalist production, which has eclipsed the former primacy of national markets, including the labor market, and enabled transnational corporations to scour the earth for ever-cheaper sources of labor power. This has rendered the unions, wedded by dint of their historical origins and class-collaborationist tendencies to the national market and the national state, obsolete and impotent.”
It seems, however, that Sri Lanka is an exception to this “world phenomenon.” It is perhaps not a coincidence that this is the one country in which a leading member of an IC section is also a union president. Unlike North’s role as the boss of a capitalist enterprise, the IC seems proud of their Sri Lankan comrade’s activities. The WSWS report on a 13 November 2007 SEP public meeting in Colombo to denounce the ongoing war against Tamil separatists mentioned that one of the main speakers was “K.B. Mavikumbura, an SEP central committee member and president of the Central Bank Employees Union (CBEU).” The article extensively quoted Mavikumbura’s account of his recent union activities:

“We presented a resolution in the CBEU calling on workers to unite on socialist policies to end the war. We pointed out that the campaign for the withdrawal of the military from the north-east, which is under de facto military rule, is a necessary condition to unite workers….
“Recently I attended a trade union meeting to organise a picket in support of teachers. The government had said it could not increase the salaries of teachers as it had to pay for the war. It took out an order in the Supreme Court to intimidate teachers. I explained that workers should take up a political fight against the government. The central question is to oppose the war, but the trade unions leaders rejected that. Instead they said workers should form an alliance with the opposition United National Party (UNP), which is notorious for attacking workers’ rights. Workers need to build an independent political movement based on a socialist perspective.”
—“SEP holds public meeting in Colombo to oppose the war in Sri Lanka”
Anyone in the political orbit of the Northites might wonder how Mavikumbura’s activities can be squared with the view that unions are simply agencies of the bosses.
‘Transformation Into a Business’

Does the IC position on the unions simply reflect a loss of confidence in the capacity of the working class to oust the bureaucrats and gain control of its own mass organizations? Or is it a reflection of the social pressures of running a successful business? As Marx observed, being tends to determine consciousness, and for North & Co., the increasing revenues of the GRPI could certainly provide a material basis for the growth of personal/political corruption within the SEP/IC leadership.
Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, former close associates of North who continue to identify politically with the SEP/IC, hint at this in the conclusion of a lengthy document dated 16 December 2007 which recalls how Gerry Healy (the former head of the IC) accepted large sums of money from various Middle Eastern regimes to act as their left publicist:

“This too was one of the key lessons of the WRP [Workers Revolutionary Party] split—that the ‘unanimity’ of Healy’s leadership group masked all kinds of opportunist relationships based on personal and financial arrangements. We have no doubt that the silence of the rest of the IC leadership is also based, at least in part, on opportunist considerations of a financial and personal nature.”
—“Marxism Without Its Head or Its Heart” The IC’s revisionism did not commence with the transformation of the WL printing plant into a business, nor as Steiner and Brenner argue, when North et al abandoned the struggle against “pragmatism.” Gerry Healy’s political-bandit operation (including its American satellite run initially by Tim Wolhforth and later by North) was very distant programmatically from Trotskyism long before they began promoting Colonel Qaddaffi and other Middle Eastern despots.
Leftist organizations that obtain substantial funding from sources outside their field of political activity will inevitably tend to become depoliticized and subject to alien class forces. Trotsky made this point in an 8 October 1923 letter addressing some of the early symptoms of the growing bureaucratization of the Soviet Communist Party:

“There is without question an inner connection between the separate and self-contained character of the secretarial organization—more and more independent of the party—and the tendency toward setting up a budget as independent as possible of the success or failure of the party’s collective work of construction.”
—The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25) North et al said essentially the same thing in their major 1986 statement renouncing Healy:

“Moreover, elements among the journalists, actors and actresses who passed from Fleet Street and the West End into the Political Committee of the WRP, without any apprenticeship in the class struggle, provided a physical link to material resources such as the Party had never known. Apart from the day-to-day struggle of the Party membership inside the working class, huge amounts of money were raised. The central leadership thus acquired an independence from the rank and file that destroyed the foundations of democratic centralism.”

…
“Healy’s high-flying diplomacy and his sudden access to vast material resources, based largely on his opportunist utilization of Vanessa Redgrave as the WRP’s calling card in the Middle East, had a corrosive effect on the Party’s political line and its relation to the working class. Whatever its original intention, it became part of a process through which the WRP became the political captive of alien class force. At the very moment when it was most in need of a course correction, the ‘success’ of its work in the Middle East, which from the beginning lacked a basic proletarian reference point, made it less and less dependent upon the penetration of the working class in Britain and internationally.”
—“How the Revolutionary Workers Party Betrayed Trotskyism”
The commercial success of the GRPI today gives the SEP leadership far more independence from their ranks than is usually the case in bureaucratized leftist groups where disposable income tends to be closely tied to the size of the dues base. The SEP’s web-centered political activity requires a cadre of talented writers and editors, but the fact that the group conducts very little real public activity means that there are few opportunities for new recruits to develop outside of attending the occasional in-house event. Over time, we would expect the cash flow generated by the GRPI to have much the same effect on the SEP/IC’s upper strata as VEBA will on the occupants of Solidarity House.
The following commentary on the SEP/IC and GRPI originally appeared on the IBT website in May 2007.
In recent weeks reports have surfaced that David North, leader of the ostensibly Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party and its International Committee, also (as David Green) acts as CEO of Grand River Printing & Imaging (GRPI—www.grpinc.com/grandriver-history.html (http://www.grpinc.com/grandriver-history.html)), one of Michigan’s larger printing companies, which reported $25 million in business transactions last year. Like other readers of the SEP’s online daily, we have been waiting to see what the World Socialist Web Site has to say about the flap over the GRPI. It seems that, for the time being at least, North et al have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and are maintaining radio silence.
Most of the comments printed below were written by our comrade Samuel T., who was recruited to the Workers League (predecessor of the SEP) during Fred Mazelis’ 1989 campaign for mayor of New York City. Sam left the WL in 1991 when it refused to call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism in the first Gulf War (see Trotskyist Bulletin No. 8 (http://www.bolshevik.org/TB/tb8contents.html)).
On the weekend of 31 March/1 April [2007] Sam and a couple of other IBT supporters went to Ann Arbor, Michigan to attend an SEP anti-war conference that was advertised as open to “all WSWS readers.” When our comrades arrived, however, they found that supporters of organizations other than the SEP were not really welcome, and the SEP leadership seemed a bit put out by our criticisms of their claim that trade unions are no longer working-class organizations (see 1917 No. 29 (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no29/SEP.html)).
Gerry Healy, the founder-leader of the British Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) who headed the IC until the mid-1980s, had a well-deserved reputation as a cynical political thug with a penchant for pseudo-dialectical gibberish and crisis mongering. In the late 1960s, along with Ernest Mandel and the Pabloist “United Secretariat” (USec), the IC hailed various Middle East bonapartists as manifestations of a trans-class “Arab Revolution.” The IC also shared the Pabloists’ enthusiasm for Mao Zedong’s “Red Guard” faction during the massive intra-bureaucratic wrangle known as the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” Today, in a symmetrical deviation, North’s SEP denies that China was ever any sort of workers’ state.
By the 1980s, the political prostitutes of the IC were acting as paid publicists for Libya’s Muammar el Qaddafi and other Arab despots. The most despicable act of these political gangsters was providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein’s reactionary Baathist regime on émigré members of the Iraqi Communist Party. When the WRP/IC imploded in 1985-86, former members came forward and told of being sent to take photographs of leftist exiles at demonstrations, which the WRP leadership then passed on to the Iraqi embassy.
After Healy’s fall, the current IC leadership, headed by David North, sought to adjust the group’s image to something more closely approximating the “anti-Pabloite Trotskyist” tradition it falsely claims to represent. In their disingenuous account of their belated break with Healy, entitled “How the WRP Betrayed Trotskyism,” the WL leadership downplayed their record of years of slavish obedience to Healy’s every pronouncement. The insistence by North et al that they bear no political responsibility for the IC’s crimes, and that everything was Healy’s fault, recalls Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 attempt to whitewash the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy by blaming everything on Stalin. People who go back and examine issues of the Bulletin will see for themselves that the Workers League’s uncritical adulation of Qaddafi and the rest of the IC’s bonapartist bankrollers was every bit as enthusiastic as the WRP’s. They will also see that the SEP/IC, like the USec and almost every other pseudo-Trotskyist tendency, consistently supported counterrevolution in the former Soviet bloc, from Lech Walesa’s Polish Solidarnosc in 1981 to Boris Yeltsin’s pro-imperialist rabble in Moscow a decade later. With the passage of time, and an influx of politically raw new members, the SEP/IC leadership has tried to distance itself from its inglorious history. The tone of the WSWS today is far less hysterical than the Bulletin used to be, but the program it puts forward is no more revolutionary.
Some have suggested that the SEP leaders’ role in the GRPI may be connected to their repudiation of the Trotskyist analysis of the trade unions. We don’t claim to know for certain. But it was clear in Ann Arbor that there is a great deal of confusion in the ranks of the SEP on their position regarding the unions. Many newer members seem uneasy with the line, while the older cadres adamantly defend it, even if there is little consistency in the arguments they use, and none of them are able to explain how the AFL-CIO today is qualitatively different than it was in the 1960s and 70s. One senior SEP member ventured that perhaps the destruction of the USSR had somehow transformed U.S. unions into simple tools of the bourgeoisie, commenting: “Well, the collapse of the USSR has changed everything, so why wouldn’t it also change the unions?”

* * *
These comments are from internal discussion in the IBT.
Lenin drew a connection between the 4 August 1914 betrayal of the Social Democrats and the privileged social position of the labor aristocrats who constituted their social base. Trotsky made similar observations regarding the Stalinist bureaucracy, and also traced the Shachtmanites’ [a right-wing split from the then-Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP)] abandonment of defense of the USSR in 1940 to their petty-bourgeois social composition. In 1953, James P. Cannon argued that the Cochranites’ [a subsequent right-wing faction in the SWP] liquidationist politics reflected the conservatizing effects of relative economic stability on older workers. In 1983, we pointed out that the SL’s [Spartacist League] dive on saving the Marines in Lebanon, and its offer the next year to provide defense guards for the Democratic Party, were related to the desire of [SL leader James] Robertson to cultivate a “respectable” image with elements of the ruling class.
It can be a dangerous thing for a small group with Potemkin village inclinations, which the Northites have always had throughout their history, to accumulate assets out of proportion to their actual social weight. It would be surprising if running a major commercial enterprise did not affect the political consciousness of the SEP leadership—as Marx remarked, “being determines consciousness.”

…
I was struck by the following passage from the SEP’s 2006 election program:

“To establish the economic foundation for the reorganization of economic life in the interests of the broad mass of the working people, we advocate the transformation of all privately owned industrial, manufacturing and information technology corporations valued at $10 billion or more—companies that, taken together, control the decisive share of the US economy—into publicly owned enterprises, with full compensation for small shareholders and the terms of compensation for large shareholders to be publicly negotiated.”

…
“Property rights must be subordinated to social rights. This does not mean the nationalization of everything, or the abolition of small or medium-sized businesses, which are themselves victimized by giant corporations and banks. Establishing a planned economy will give such businesses ready access to credit and more stable market conditions, so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions.”
—“For a socialist alternative in the 2006 U.S. elections,” 12 January 2006 (emphasis added)
How many printing companies in the U.S. are worth more than $10 billion? I notice that Rupert Murdoch is offering $5 billion for Dow Jones (which includes the Wall Street Journal). Would the SEP consider that a “medium-sized business”?

…
When I was a member, WLers were exhausted by mindless public activity (8-hour shopping mall sales, etc.). I think perhaps the turn away from mass agitation toward a more realistic propaganda perspective where members are not run into the ground accounts for why SEPers now project a more controlled, rational image in public (a high-pressure environment is not good for anyone’s sanity)….
In the old WL there was no escaping getting chewed out at an internal meeting (unless you were in the leadership) for not selling enough papers, doing enough work, contacting enough workers or giving the party enough money—there was no pledge schedule, rather comrades announced how much they were giving that month at a local meeting and then were pressured to give more.
The sense I got from what I was told when I was in, was that the org financed itself almost completely through contributions from members (who were bled dry and encouraged to collect money on the streets, go door to door, borrow from relatives, etc.). The other source was lit sales (which is one reason we’d get screamed at regularly for not selling enough).

…
I remember as a member asking about Cuba and its class character. When not attacked for raising the question to begin with (on the grounds that it reflected a potential desire to accommodate to Castroism), I was offered a wide range of explanations by different senior comrades. Some gave me a version of the ‘phantom capitalist’ theory (a Lambertiste position, that, as I found out later, was never adopted by the Healyites) [Pierre Lambert, leader of the French Organisation Communiste Internationaliste participated with Healy in the IC until they parted ways in 1971]. Other WLers told me that despite what I had read in books and newspapers, there was indeed significant private ownership in Cuba. They were all improvising, because the IC/WL/SEP to my knowledge always avoided any attempt to seriously explain their position in writing. Members who ask too many questions about touchy subjects like Cuba soon learn not to, as it is taken as displaying an appetite to abandon the working class. I suspect that a similar approach is being used today with those deemed too inquisitive about the GPRI.

…
On the myspace [website] discussion of the issue, one neophyte supporter of the SEP summed up the explanation he had been given as follows:


the GRPI does not fund the SEP;
the GRPI provides employment for a number of comrades;
no one is getting rich through their involvement with the GRPI;
the GRPI is a successful company and has won awards for being a quality employer.

If I were a member, I would be wondering what the purpose of the GRPI is, if it neither serves the needs of the SEP, nor makes anyone rich. I’d also be curious about which SEP comrades get jobs there and how they get selected. I suppose it’s nice to win awards, but most people would rather work in places where they have union protection instead of having to rely on management goodwill. (I think it is safe to assume that, since “unions have essentially completed their degeneration” they do not represent GRPI’s workforce.)

…
When the SEP liquidated its printed publications in favor of online publishing, they claimed that doing so was merely recognizing the reality that, in the new age of internet communication, printed matter was becoming obsolete as a way to reach people. It is clear that the SEP has continued to invest tremendous resources to produce its online daily. The WSWS, which is generally pretty well written and covers a wide range of topics from a leftist perspective, possibly has the largest readership of any English-language ostensibly Marxist publication. It gives the SEP a cyberspace presence that far exceeds its weight in the real world.
The existence of the GRPI, and the time and energy that North et al obviously pour into it, makes me wonder if the real motivation for curtailing the production of printed propaganda was to permit the company to reach its full potential. When I was a member we had to buy large numbers of the weekly Bulletin on consignment—each member probably sold around 100 papers a week. The group also printed a monthly Young Socialist, a monthly Spanish publication for immigrants, a monthly or bi-monthly French-language publication sold in Quebec and to Haitian immigrants in New York (amongst whom we had a significant readership), a monthly Canadian newspaper, tons of leaflets, a quarterly theoretical journal, and, most months, a pamphlet or a book. The discovery that paper printing was obsolete (although not for commercial purposes apparently) might also have been a result of a decision that meeting sales quotas by going door-to-door, hanging out at supermarkets, strike chasing and all the other things we used to do, was not an efficient use of members’ political time. It is notable that the change to online from paper publishing, and the transformation of the old party printing plant into a full-blown business enterprise seems to roughly coincide with the change of position on the unions. This may well be a classic case of “program generating theory.”

…
Marxists have generally seen revisionism as an expression of alien class pressures within the workers’ movement. Small propaganda organizations, with little organic connection to the labor movement, experience that pressure in more indirect ways than mass workers’ parties. In a small leftist group the personal qualities and political appetites of leading members are at least as important in determining the line and the character of its internal regime as the blind social forces that shape mass consciousness.
Marx and Engels wrote a fair number of polemics against the development of personality cults within small socialist organizations, whereas Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, who operated in an atmosphere where socialist ideas were part of the mainstream of the labor movement, tended to dismiss the significance of such behavior.
Ignoring historical context and employing a caricature of the Leninist/Trotskyist analysis of trade-union, social-democratic and Stalinist bureaucracies, the IC has long denounced all other left groups as “petty bourgeois” (while their own social composition is no different) and simultaneously demanded that critics of their highly bureaucratic organization demonstrate upon what materially privileged stratum the IC leadership is based. The recent publicity surrounding the GRPI may lead the IC leadership to be a bit more careful about baiting other groups as “petty bourgeois” for a while.

…
A small and rigidly hierarchical ostensibly socialist organization, without significant connections to the labor movement or any other mass social movement, that has a largely literary political existence, with little public activity beyond occasionally running candidates in bourgeois elections, is likely to develop some peculiar political deviations. If the leaders of such an organization are also subjected to the social pressures of running a multi-million dollar business, it is hardly surprising that they may come to exhibit indifference to the actual struggles and needs of the working class, or at least find it difficult to connect the limited immediate struggles of the class to the necessity for socialist revolution (i.e., to find the sort of “bridge” that Trotsky outlined in the Transitional Program).
Trotsky saw it as essential for revolutionaries to struggle for the Marxist program within the existing mass organizations of the proletariat, i.e., the unions. The SEP leadership, by contrast, tends to advance a sort of abstract “Sunday Socialism” in which the key operational proposal is often the call to “build the SEP.”

…
For decades the IC has tended to cater to the backward consciousness of the more privileged sections of the working class and to show little interest in questions of special oppression. Those who insist on the importance of Marxists addressing such questions are attacked for “hating the working class” or being motivated by black-nationalist, bourgeois-feminist or other alien class ideologies. Tim Wohlforth, while still leader of the Workers League, spelled this out with his infamous comment that “The working class hates hippies, faggots and women’s libbers, and so do we!” While far less crude today, the WSWS coverage of the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina, for example, was profoundly flawed by the tendency to ignore the blatant racism that characterized capitalist officialdom’s response to the crisis.

…
The cadres who produce the WSWS can certainly not be faulted for their work ethic—it is an impressive achievement for such a small group to have sustained such a venture for so long. But the value of such a project, from a revolutionary point of view, depends on the political program it advances. The profound revisionism of the SEP on the social revolutions that produced the Cuban and Chinese deformed workers’ states, its support to capitalist restorationists in the Soviet bloc, its defeatist and reactionary position on the trade unions, its historic tendency toward indifference to issues of special oppression and its abandonment of the Bolshevik position of “revolutionary defeatism” in imperialist wars, negates any value the WSWS might have as an instrument for socialist propaganda.


Also further reading:

http://www.internationalist.org/wherewasdavidnorth.html

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/4c525cb9cc8d4ee2/1b413edb98354567?lnk=gst&q=%22grand+river%22&pli=1

[RHIZOMES]

Further on the WSWS/SEP sucking shit:



Northites Inc.: Toeing the Bottom Line

Being Determines Consciousness

In the spring of 2007, the Socialist Equality Party/Inter-national Committee (SEP/IC) was rocked by a public scandal when Scott Solomon, an embittered former adherent, revealed that David North is not only the leading figure of the SEP and IC, but is also CEO of Grand River Printing & Imaging (GRPI), a multi-million dollar business in Michigan. The SEP leadership would apparently prefer to keep its successful commercial venture secret, but it cannot deny the facts.
The GRPI evolved from the in-house printshop that used to produce the Bulletin, the newspaper of the Workers League (WL—the SEP’s predecessor). When the WL/SEP suspended publication of the Bulletin in favor of producing an online daily on its World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), the party print shop was apparently quietly transformed into a full-blown business.
At about the same time, the SEP/IC leadership discarded the traditional Marxist view of trade unions as defensive organizations of the working class and declared that they had become simple agencies of the capitalists. North wrote a lengthy essay on this theme entitled “Globalization and the Unions,” in which he announced the “objective transformation of the AFL-CIO into an instrument of the corporations and the capitalist state.” We polemicized against this in 1917 No. 29 (see “SEP: Defeatist and Confusionist: The Class Nature of the Unions (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no29/SEP.html)”).
The Northites recently seized upon the squalid deal signed by the United Auto Workers (UAW) in October 2007 with General Motors, which permits the company to offload responsibility for itsretirees’ health-care coverage with a contribution of cash and a $4.4 billion convertible note (based on the value of GM common stock) to a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA). The deal benefited the bossesby massively reducing their liabilities, while giving the UAW bureaucracy, which gets to manage the fund, a major new source of revenue and influence. The only ones to lose out will be retired autoworkers, whose benefits will be reduced when VEBA’s investment portfolio underperforms.
In a 12 October 2007 statement, the SEP wrote:

“The so-called ‘voluntary employees beneficiary association,’ or VEBA, will turn the union into a profit-making enterprise and make the union bureaucracy full-fledged shareholders in the exploitation of the workers. The UAW bureaucracy will get its hands on a massive cash hoard, including shares in GM, which will ensure its income even as it administers ever deeper cuts in the benefits of retired union members.”
—“The middle-class ‘left’ and the UAW-GM contract” Seemingly oblivious to the parallel between the UAW bureaucracy’s relationship to VEBA and the SEP’s to the GRPI, the Northites declared: “The open transformation of the UAW into a business is not a sudden or unexpected development.” But the auto union has not been transformed into a capitalist enterprise; the UAW remains part of the workers’ movement, despite the grotesque, and growing, corruption of its leadership. Leon Trotsky described the tendency of the labor bureaucracy in the imperialist countries to be transformed from mere agents of the bourgeoisie into “stakeholders” in the ventures of the ruling class:

“The intensification of class contradictions within each country, the intensification of antagonisms between one country and another, produce a situation in which imperialist capitalism can tolerate (i.e., up to a certain time) a reformist bureaucracy only if the latter serves directly as a petty but active stockholder of its imperialist enterprises, of its plans and programs within the country as well as on the world arena.”
—“Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay,” 1940 Yet Trotsky concluded:

“in spite of the progressive degeneration of trade unions and their growing together with the imperialist state, the work within the trade unions not only does not lose any of its importance but remains as before and becomes in a certain sense even more important work than ever for every revolutionary party. The matter at issue is essentially the struggle for influence over the working class.” When the IC first announced that it was writing off the unions, our German comrades projected that North & Co. might one day “find themselves in a political bloc with the capitalists in their attack on the institutions of the workers’ movement” (1917 No. 20). The SEP’s October 2007 statement does exactly that, declaring: “The Socialist Equality Party would advise workers, should the UAW come to their plant, to vote to keep it out.”
No doubt GRPI management would give similar advice to any employees thinking about unionizing. Socialists, by contrast, believe that workers should be organized. In a case of vice paying homage to virtue, the SEP’s 12 January 2006 statement for the U.S. mid-term elections advocated “a guaranteed right of workers to join a union and control the union democratically; the outlawing of union-busting tactics and wage-cutting.” This was coupled with a peculiar demand for “government support for small and medium-sized businesses.” Even the reformist left has not historically been in the habit of demanding public funding for private capitalists, but then few of them ever owned “medium-sized businesses.”
Sri Lankan Exceptionalism in the IC

The SEP/IC’s October 2007 statement on the UAW makes it very clear that its anti-union stance is not only applicable in North America:

“Two facts demonstrate that the transformation of the UAW is not simply the product of the subjective characteristics of corrupt leaders or misguided policies, but rather the expression of fundamental objective processes rooted in the nature of trade union organizations and the impact of major changes in the structure of world capitalism. The first is the protracted period, now extending over decades, in which the unions have worked openly to suppress the class struggle and impose cuts in workers’ wages and benefits, along with massive layoffs.”

…
“The second fact is the international scale of the degeneration and transformation of the unions. This is not an American, but rather a world phenomenon, embracing the unions in the advanced capitalist centers of North America, Europe and Asia, as well as those in so-called ‘less developed’ countries. From the American UAW and AFL-CIO, to the British Trades Union Congress, to the German Federation of Unions, to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the unions have adopted a corporatist policy of labor-management ‘partnership’ and worked to drive down labor costs at the expense of the jobs, wages and working conditions of their members.
“The driving force behind this universal process is the globalization of capitalist production, which has eclipsed the former primacy of national markets, including the labor market, and enabled transnational corporations to scour the earth for ever-cheaper sources of labor power. This has rendered the unions, wedded by dint of their historical origins and class-collaborationist tendencies to the national market and the national state, obsolete and impotent.”
It seems, however, that Sri Lanka is an exception to this “world phenomenon.” It is perhaps not a coincidence that this is the one country in which a leading member of an IC section is also a union president. Unlike North’s role as the boss of a capitalist enterprise, the IC seems proud of their Sri Lankan comrade’s activities. The WSWS report on a 13 November 2007 SEP public meeting in Colombo to denounce the ongoing war against Tamil separatists mentioned that one of the main speakers was “K.B. Mavikumbura, an SEP central committee member and president of the Central Bank Employees Union (CBEU).” The article extensively quoted Mavikumbura’s account of his recent union activities:

“We presented a resolution in the CBEU calling on workers to unite on socialist policies to end the war. We pointed out that the campaign for the withdrawal of the military from the north-east, which is under de facto military rule, is a necessary condition to unite workers….
“Recently I attended a trade union meeting to organise a picket in support of teachers. The government had said it could not increase the salaries of teachers as it had to pay for the war. It took out an order in the Supreme Court to intimidate teachers. I explained that workers should take up a political fight against the government. The central question is to oppose the war, but the trade unions leaders rejected that. Instead they said workers should form an alliance with the opposition United National Party (UNP), which is notorious for attacking workers’ rights. Workers need to build an independent political movement based on a socialist perspective.”
—“SEP holds public meeting in Colombo to oppose the war in Sri Lanka”
Anyone in the political orbit of the Northites might wonder how Mavikumbura’s activities can be squared with the view that unions are simply agencies of the bosses.
‘Transformation Into a Business’

Does the IC position on the unions simply reflect a loss of confidence in the capacity of the working class to oust the bureaucrats and gain control of its own mass organizations? Or is it a reflection of the social pressures of running a successful business? As Marx observed, being tends to determine consciousness, and for North & Co., the increasing revenues of the GRPI could certainly provide a material basis for the growth of personal/political corruption within the SEP/IC leadership.
Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, former close associates of North who continue to identify politically with the SEP/IC, hint at this in the conclusion of a lengthy document dated 16 December 2007 which recalls how Gerry Healy (the former head of the IC) accepted large sums of money from various Middle Eastern regimes to act as their left publicist:

“This too was one of the key lessons of the WRP [Workers Revolutionary Party] split—that the ‘unanimity’ of Healy’s leadership group masked all kinds of opportunist relationships based on personal and financial arrangements. We have no doubt that the silence of the rest of the IC leadership is also based, at least in part, on opportunist considerations of a financial and personal nature.”
—“Marxism Without Its Head or Its Heart” The IC’s revisionism did not commence with the transformation of the WL printing plant into a business, nor as Steiner and Brenner argue, when North et al abandoned the struggle against “pragmatism.” Gerry Healy’s political-bandit operation (including its American satellite run initially by Tim Wolhforth and later by North) was very distant programmatically from Trotskyism long before they began promoting Colonel Qaddaffi and other Middle Eastern despots.
Leftist organizations that obtain substantial funding from sources outside their field of political activity will inevitably tend to become depoliticized and subject to alien class forces. Trotsky made this point in an 8 October 1923 letter addressing some of the early symptoms of the growing bureaucratization of the Soviet Communist Party:

“There is without question an inner connection between the separate and self-contained character of the secretarial organization—more and more independent of the party—and the tendency toward setting up a budget as independent as possible of the success or failure of the party’s collective work of construction.”
—The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25) North et al said essentially the same thing in their major 1986 statement renouncing Healy:

“Moreover, elements among the journalists, actors and actresses who passed from Fleet Street and the West End into the Political Committee of the WRP, without any apprenticeship in the class struggle, provided a physical link to material resources such as the Party had never known. Apart from the day-to-day struggle of the Party membership inside the working class, huge amounts of money were raised. The central leadership thus acquired an independence from the rank and file that destroyed the foundations of democratic centralism.”

…
“Healy’s high-flying diplomacy and his sudden access to vast material resources, based largely on his opportunist utilization of Vanessa Redgrave as the WRP’s calling card in the Middle East, had a corrosive effect on the Party’s political line and its relation to the working class. Whatever its original intention, it became part of a process through which the WRP became the political captive of alien class force. At the very moment when it was most in need of a course correction, the ‘success’ of its work in the Middle East, which from the beginning lacked a basic proletarian reference point, made it less and less dependent upon the penetration of the working class in Britain and internationally.”
—“How the Revolutionary Workers Party Betrayed Trotskyism”
The commercial success of the GRPI today gives the SEP leadership far more independence from their ranks than is usually the case in bureaucratized leftist groups where disposable income tends to be closely tied to the size of the dues base. The SEP’s web-centered political activity requires a cadre of talented writers and editors, but the fact that the group conducts very little real public activity means that there are few opportunities for new recruits to develop outside of attending the occasional in-house event. Over time, we would expect the cash flow generated by the GRPI to have much the same effect on the SEP/IC’s upper strata as VEBA will on the occupants of Solidarity House.
The following commentary on the SEP/IC and GRPI originally appeared on the IBT website in May 2007.
In recent weeks reports have surfaced that David North, leader of the ostensibly Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party and its International Committee, also (as David Green) acts as CEO of Grand River Printing & Imaging (GRPI—www.grpinc.com/grandriver-history.html (http://www.grpinc.com/grandriver-history.html)), one of Michigan’s larger printing companies, which reported $25 million in business transactions last year. Like other readers of the SEP’s online daily, we have been waiting to see what the World Socialist Web Site has to say about the flap over the GRPI. It seems that, for the time being at least, North et al have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and are maintaining radio silence.
Most of the comments printed below were written by our comrade Samuel T., who was recruited to the Workers League (predecessor of the SEP) during Fred Mazelis’ 1989 campaign for mayor of New York City. Sam left the WL in 1991 when it refused to call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism in the first Gulf War (see Trotskyist Bulletin No. 8 (http://www.bolshevik.org/TB/tb8contents.html)).
On the weekend of 31 March/1 April [2007] Sam and a couple of other IBT supporters went to Ann Arbor, Michigan to attend an SEP anti-war conference that was advertised as open to “all WSWS readers.” When our comrades arrived, however, they found that supporters of organizations other than the SEP were not really welcome, and the SEP leadership seemed a bit put out by our criticisms of their claim that trade unions are no longer working-class organizations (see 1917 No. 29 (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no29/SEP.html)).
Gerry Healy, the founder-leader of the British Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) who headed the IC until the mid-1980s, had a well-deserved reputation as a cynical political thug with a penchant for pseudo-dialectical gibberish and crisis mongering. In the late 1960s, along with Ernest Mandel and the Pabloist “United Secretariat” (USec), the IC hailed various Middle East bonapartists as manifestations of a trans-class “Arab Revolution.” The IC also shared the Pabloists’ enthusiasm for Mao Zedong’s “Red Guard” faction during the massive intra-bureaucratic wrangle known as the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” Today, in a symmetrical deviation, North’s SEP denies that China was ever any sort of workers’ state.
By the 1980s, the political prostitutes of the IC were acting as paid publicists for Libya’s Muammar el Qaddafi and other Arab despots. The most despicable act of these political gangsters was providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein’s reactionary Baathist regime on émigré members of the Iraqi Communist Party. When the WRP/IC imploded in 1985-86, former members came forward and told of being sent to take photographs of leftist exiles at demonstrations, which the WRP leadership then passed on to the Iraqi embassy.
After Healy’s fall, the current IC leadership, headed by David North, sought to adjust the group’s image to something more closely approximating the “anti-Pabloite Trotskyist” tradition it falsely claims to represent. In their disingenuous account of their belated break with Healy, entitled “How the WRP Betrayed Trotskyism,” the WL leadership downplayed their record of years of slavish obedience to Healy’s every pronouncement. The insistence by North et al that they bear no political responsibility for the IC’s crimes, and that everything was Healy’s fault, recalls Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 attempt to whitewash the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy by blaming everything on Stalin. People who go back and examine issues of the Bulletin will see for themselves that the Workers League’s uncritical adulation of Qaddafi and the rest of the IC’s bonapartist bankrollers was every bit as enthusiastic as the WRP’s. They will also see that the SEP/IC, like the USec and almost every other pseudo-Trotskyist tendency, consistently supported counterrevolution in the former Soviet bloc, from Lech Walesa’s Polish Solidarnosc in 1981 to Boris Yeltsin’s pro-imperialist rabble in Moscow a decade later. With the passage of time, and an influx of politically raw new members, the SEP/IC leadership has tried to distance itself from its inglorious history. The tone of the WSWS today is far less hysterical than the Bulletin used to be, but the program it puts forward is no more revolutionary.
Some have suggested that the SEP leaders’ role in the GRPI may be connected to their repudiation of the Trotskyist analysis of the trade unions. We don’t claim to know for certain. But it was clear in Ann Arbor that there is a great deal of confusion in the ranks of the SEP on their position regarding the unions. Many newer members seem uneasy with the line, while the older cadres adamantly defend it, even if there is little consistency in the arguments they use, and none of them are able to explain how the AFL-CIO today is qualitatively different than it was in the 1960s and 70s. One senior SEP member ventured that perhaps the destruction of the USSR had somehow transformed U.S. unions into simple tools of the bourgeoisie, commenting: “Well, the collapse of the USSR has changed everything, so why wouldn’t it also change the unions?”

* * *
These comments are from internal discussion in the IBT.
Lenin drew a connection between the 4 August 1914 betrayal of the Social Democrats and the privileged social position of the labor aristocrats who constituted their social base. Trotsky made similar observations regarding the Stalinist bureaucracy, and also traced the Shachtmanites’ [a right-wing split from the then-Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP)] abandonment of defense of the USSR in 1940 to their petty-bourgeois social composition. In 1953, James P. Cannon argued that the Cochranites’ [a subsequent right-wing faction in the SWP] liquidationist politics reflected the conservatizing effects of relative economic stability on older workers. In 1983, we pointed out that the SL’s [Spartacist League] dive on saving the Marines in Lebanon, and its offer the next year to provide defense guards for the Democratic Party, were related to the desire of [SL leader James] Robertson to cultivate a “respectable” image with elements of the ruling class.
It can be a dangerous thing for a small group with Potemkin village inclinations, which the Northites have always had throughout their history, to accumulate assets out of proportion to their actual social weight. It would be surprising if running a major commercial enterprise did not affect the political consciousness of the SEP leadership—as Marx remarked, “being determines consciousness.”

…
I was struck by the following passage from the SEP’s 2006 election program:

“To establish the economic foundation for the reorganization of economic life in the interests of the broad mass of the working people, we advocate the transformation of all privately owned industrial, manufacturing and information technology corporations valued at $10 billion or more—companies that, taken together, control the decisive share of the US economy—into publicly owned enterprises, with full compensation for small shareholders and the terms of compensation for large shareholders to be publicly negotiated.”

…
“Property rights must be subordinated to social rights. This does not mean the nationalization of everything, or the abolition of small or medium-sized businesses, which are themselves victimized by giant corporations and banks. Establishing a planned economy will give such businesses ready access to credit and more stable market conditions, so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions.”
—“For a socialist alternative in the 2006 U.S. elections,” 12 January 2006 (emphasis added)
How many printing companies in the U.S. are worth more than $10 billion? I notice that Rupert Murdoch is offering $5 billion for Dow Jones (which includes the Wall Street Journal). Would the SEP consider that a “medium-sized business”?

…
When I was a member, WLers were exhausted by mindless public activity (8-hour shopping mall sales, etc.). I think perhaps the turn away from mass agitation toward a more realistic propaganda perspective where members are not run into the ground accounts for why SEPers now project a more controlled, rational image in public (a high-pressure environment is not good for anyone’s sanity)….
In the old WL there was no escaping getting chewed out at an internal meeting (unless you were in the leadership) for not selling enough papers, doing enough work, contacting enough workers or giving the party enough money—there was no pledge schedule, rather comrades announced how much they were giving that month at a local meeting and then were pressured to give more.
The sense I got from what I was told when I was in, was that the org financed itself almost completely through contributions from members (who were bled dry and encouraged to collect money on the streets, go door to door, borrow from relatives, etc.). The other source was lit sales (which is one reason we’d get screamed at regularly for not selling enough).

…
I remember as a member asking about Cuba and its class character. When not attacked for raising the question to begin with (on the grounds that it reflected a potential desire to accommodate to Castroism), I was offered a wide range of explanations by different senior comrades. Some gave me a version of the ‘phantom capitalist’ theory (a Lambertiste position, that, as I found out later, was never adopted by the Healyites) [Pierre Lambert, leader of the French Organisation Communiste Internationaliste participated with Healy in the IC until they parted ways in 1971]. Other WLers told me that despite what I had read in books and newspapers, there was indeed significant private ownership in Cuba. They were all improvising, because the IC/WL/SEP to my knowledge always avoided any attempt to seriously explain their position in writing. Members who ask too many questions about touchy subjects like Cuba soon learn not to, as it is taken as displaying an appetite to abandon the working class. I suspect that a similar approach is being used today with those deemed too inquisitive about the GPRI.

…
On the myspace [website] discussion of the issue, one neophyte supporter of the SEP summed up the explanation he had been given as follows:


the GRPI does not fund the SEP;
the GRPI provides employment for a number of comrades;
no one is getting rich through their involvement with the GRPI;
the GRPI is a successful company and has won awards for being a quality employer.

If I were a member, I would be wondering what the purpose of the GRPI is, if it neither serves the needs of the SEP, nor makes anyone rich. I’d also be curious about which SEP comrades get jobs there and how they get selected. I suppose it’s nice to win awards, but most people would rather work in places where they have union protection instead of having to rely on management goodwill. (I think it is safe to assume that, since “unions have essentially completed their degeneration” they do not represent GRPI’s workforce.)

…
When the SEP liquidated its printed publications in favor of online publishing, they claimed that doing so was merely recognizing the reality that, in the new age of internet communication, printed matter was becoming obsolete as a way to reach people. It is clear that the SEP has continued to invest tremendous resources to produce its online daily. The WSWS, which is generally pretty well written and covers a wide range of topics from a leftist perspective, possibly has the largest readership of any English-language ostensibly Marxist publication. It gives the SEP a cyberspace presence that far exceeds its weight in the real world.
The existence of the GRPI, and the time and energy that North et al obviously pour into it, makes me wonder if the real motivation for curtailing the production of printed propaganda was to permit the company to reach its full potential. When I was a member we had to buy large numbers of the weekly Bulletin on consignment—each member probably sold around 100 papers a week. The group also printed a monthly Young Socialist, a monthly Spanish publication for immigrants, a monthly or bi-monthly French-language publication sold in Quebec and to Haitian immigrants in New York (amongst whom we had a significant readership), a monthly Canadian newspaper, tons of leaflets, a quarterly theoretical journal, and, most months, a pamphlet or a book. The discovery that paper printing was obsolete (although not for commercial purposes apparently) might also have been a result of a decision that meeting sales quotas by going door-to-door, hanging out at supermarkets, strike chasing and all the other things we used to do, was not an efficient use of members’ political time. It is notable that the change to online from paper publishing, and the transformation of the old party printing plant into a full-blown business enterprise seems to roughly coincide with the change of position on the unions. This may well be a classic case of “program generating theory.”

…
Marxists have generally seen revisionism as an expression of alien class pressures within the workers’ movement. Small propaganda organizations, with little organic connection to the labor movement, experience that pressure in more indirect ways than mass workers’ parties. In a small leftist group the personal qualities and political appetites of leading members are at least as important in determining the line and the character of its internal regime as the blind social forces that shape mass consciousness.
Marx and Engels wrote a fair number of polemics against the development of personality cults within small socialist organizations, whereas Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, who operated in an atmosphere where socialist ideas were part of the mainstream of the labor movement, tended to dismiss the significance of such behavior.
Ignoring historical context and employing a caricature of the Leninist/Trotskyist analysis of trade-union, social-democratic and Stalinist bureaucracies, the IC has long denounced all other left groups as “petty bourgeois” (while their own social composition is no different) and simultaneously demanded that critics of their highly bureaucratic organization demonstrate upon what materially privileged stratum the IC leadership is based. The recent publicity surrounding the GRPI may lead the IC leadership to be a bit more careful about baiting other groups as “petty bourgeois” for a while.

…
A small and rigidly hierarchical ostensibly socialist organization, without significant connections to the labor movement or any other mass social movement, that has a largely literary political existence, with little public activity beyond occasionally running candidates in bourgeois elections, is likely to develop some peculiar political deviations. If the leaders of such an organization are also subjected to the social pressures of running a multi-million dollar business, it is hardly surprising that they may come to exhibit indifference to the actual struggles and needs of the working class, or at least find it difficult to connect the limited immediate struggles of the class to the necessity for socialist revolution (i.e., to find the sort of “bridge” that Trotsky outlined in the Transitional Program).
Trotsky saw it as essential for revolutionaries to struggle for the Marxist program within the existing mass organizations of the proletariat, i.e., the unions. The SEP leadership, by contrast, tends to advance a sort of abstract “Sunday Socialism” in which the key operational proposal is often the call to “build the SEP.”

…
For decades the IC has tended to cater to the backward consciousness of the more privileged sections of the working class and to show little interest in questions of special oppression. Those who insist on the importance of Marxists addressing such questions are attacked for “hating the working class” or being motivated by black-nationalist, bourgeois-feminist or other alien class ideologies. Tim Wohlforth, while still leader of the Workers League, spelled this out with his infamous comment that “The working class hates hippies, faggots and women’s libbers, and so do we!” While far less crude today, the WSWS coverage of the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina, for example, was profoundly flawed by the tendency to ignore the blatant racism that characterized capitalist officialdom’s response to the crisis.

…
The cadres who produce the WSWS can certainly not be faulted for their work ethic—it is an impressive achievement for such a small group to have sustained such a venture for so long. But the value of such a project, from a revolutionary point of view, depends on the political program it advances. The profound revisionism of the SEP on the social revolutions that produced the Cuban and Chinese deformed workers’ states, its support to capitalist restorationists in the Soviet bloc, its defeatist and reactionary position on the trade unions, its historic tendency toward indifference to issues of special oppression and its abandonment of the Bolshevik position of “revolutionary defeatism” in imperialist wars, negates any value the WSWS might have as an instrument for socialist propaganda.


Also further reading:

http://www.internationalist.org/wherewasdavidnorth.html

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/4c525cb9cc8d4ee2/1b413edb98354567?lnk=gst&q=%22grand+river%22&pli=1

[RHIZOMES]

Further on the WSWS/SEP sucking shit:



Northites Inc.: Toeing the Bottom Line

Being Determines Consciousness

In the spring of 2007, the Socialist Equality Party/Inter-national Committee (SEP/IC) was rocked by a public scandal when Scott Solomon, an embittered former adherent, revealed that David North is not only the leading figure of the SEP and IC, but is also CEO of Grand River Printing & Imaging (GRPI), a multi-million dollar business in Michigan. The SEP leadership would apparently prefer to keep its successful commercial venture secret, but it cannot deny the facts.
The GRPI evolved from the in-house printshop that used to produce the Bulletin, the newspaper of the Workers League (WL—the SEP’s predecessor). When the WL/SEP suspended publication of the Bulletin in favor of producing an online daily on its World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), the party print shop was apparently quietly transformed into a full-blown business.
At about the same time, the SEP/IC leadership discarded the traditional Marxist view of trade unions as defensive organizations of the working class and declared that they had become simple agencies of the capitalists. North wrote a lengthy essay on this theme entitled “Globalization and the Unions,” in which he announced the “objective transformation of the AFL-CIO into an instrument of the corporations and the capitalist state.” We polemicized against this in 1917 No. 29 (see “SEP: Defeatist and Confusionist: The Class Nature of the Unions (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no29/SEP.html)”).
The Northites recently seized upon the squalid deal signed by the United Auto Workers (UAW) in October 2007 with General Motors, which permits the company to offload responsibility for itsretirees’ health-care coverage with a contribution of cash and a $4.4 billion convertible note (based on the value of GM common stock) to a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA). The deal benefited the bossesby massively reducing their liabilities, while giving the UAW bureaucracy, which gets to manage the fund, a major new source of revenue and influence. The only ones to lose out will be retired autoworkers, whose benefits will be reduced when VEBA’s investment portfolio underperforms.
In a 12 October 2007 statement, the SEP wrote:

“The so-called ‘voluntary employees beneficiary association,’ or VEBA, will turn the union into a profit-making enterprise and make the union bureaucracy full-fledged shareholders in the exploitation of the workers. The UAW bureaucracy will get its hands on a massive cash hoard, including shares in GM, which will ensure its income even as it administers ever deeper cuts in the benefits of retired union members.”
—“The middle-class ‘left’ and the UAW-GM contract” Seemingly oblivious to the parallel between the UAW bureaucracy’s relationship to VEBA and the SEP’s to the GRPI, the Northites declared: “The open transformation of the UAW into a business is not a sudden or unexpected development.” But the auto union has not been transformed into a capitalist enterprise; the UAW remains part of the workers’ movement, despite the grotesque, and growing, corruption of its leadership. Leon Trotsky described the tendency of the labor bureaucracy in the imperialist countries to be transformed from mere agents of the bourgeoisie into “stakeholders” in the ventures of the ruling class:

“The intensification of class contradictions within each country, the intensification of antagonisms between one country and another, produce a situation in which imperialist capitalism can tolerate (i.e., up to a certain time) a reformist bureaucracy only if the latter serves directly as a petty but active stockholder of its imperialist enterprises, of its plans and programs within the country as well as on the world arena.”
—“Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay,” 1940 Yet Trotsky concluded:

“in spite of the progressive degeneration of trade unions and their growing together with the imperialist state, the work within the trade unions not only does not lose any of its importance but remains as before and becomes in a certain sense even more important work than ever for every revolutionary party. The matter at issue is essentially the struggle for influence over the working class.” When the IC first announced that it was writing off the unions, our German comrades projected that North & Co. might one day “find themselves in a political bloc with the capitalists in their attack on the institutions of the workers’ movement” (1917 No. 20). The SEP’s October 2007 statement does exactly that, declaring: “The Socialist Equality Party would advise workers, should the UAW come to their plant, to vote to keep it out.”
No doubt GRPI management would give similar advice to any employees thinking about unionizing. Socialists, by contrast, believe that workers should be organized. In a case of vice paying homage to virtue, the SEP’s 12 January 2006 statement for the U.S. mid-term elections advocated “a guaranteed right of workers to join a union and control the union democratically; the outlawing of union-busting tactics and wage-cutting.” This was coupled with a peculiar demand for “government support for small and medium-sized businesses.” Even the reformist left has not historically been in the habit of demanding public funding for private capitalists, but then few of them ever owned “medium-sized businesses.”
Sri Lankan Exceptionalism in the IC

The SEP/IC’s October 2007 statement on the UAW makes it very clear that its anti-union stance is not only applicable in North America:

“Two facts demonstrate that the transformation of the UAW is not simply the product of the subjective characteristics of corrupt leaders or misguided policies, but rather the expression of fundamental objective processes rooted in the nature of trade union organizations and the impact of major changes in the structure of world capitalism. The first is the protracted period, now extending over decades, in which the unions have worked openly to suppress the class struggle and impose cuts in workers’ wages and benefits, along with massive layoffs.”

…
“The second fact is the international scale of the degeneration and transformation of the unions. This is not an American, but rather a world phenomenon, embracing the unions in the advanced capitalist centers of North America, Europe and Asia, as well as those in so-called ‘less developed’ countries. From the American UAW and AFL-CIO, to the British Trades Union Congress, to the German Federation of Unions, to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the unions have adopted a corporatist policy of labor-management ‘partnership’ and worked to drive down labor costs at the expense of the jobs, wages and working conditions of their members.
“The driving force behind this universal process is the globalization of capitalist production, which has eclipsed the former primacy of national markets, including the labor market, and enabled transnational corporations to scour the earth for ever-cheaper sources of labor power. This has rendered the unions, wedded by dint of their historical origins and class-collaborationist tendencies to the national market and the national state, obsolete and impotent.”
It seems, however, that Sri Lanka is an exception to this “world phenomenon.” It is perhaps not a coincidence that this is the one country in which a leading member of an IC section is also a union president. Unlike North’s role as the boss of a capitalist enterprise, the IC seems proud of their Sri Lankan comrade’s activities. The WSWS report on a 13 November 2007 SEP public meeting in Colombo to denounce the ongoing war against Tamil separatists mentioned that one of the main speakers was “K.B. Mavikumbura, an SEP central committee member and president of the Central Bank Employees Union (CBEU).” The article extensively quoted Mavikumbura’s account of his recent union activities:

“We presented a resolution in the CBEU calling on workers to unite on socialist policies to end the war. We pointed out that the campaign for the withdrawal of the military from the north-east, which is under de facto military rule, is a necessary condition to unite workers….
“Recently I attended a trade union meeting to organise a picket in support of teachers. The government had said it could not increase the salaries of teachers as it had to pay for the war. It took out an order in the Supreme Court to intimidate teachers. I explained that workers should take up a political fight against the government. The central question is to oppose the war, but the trade unions leaders rejected that. Instead they said workers should form an alliance with the opposition United National Party (UNP), which is notorious for attacking workers’ rights. Workers need to build an independent political movement based on a socialist perspective.”
—“SEP holds public meeting in Colombo to oppose the war in Sri Lanka”
Anyone in the political orbit of the Northites might wonder how Mavikumbura’s activities can be squared with the view that unions are simply agencies of the bosses.
‘Transformation Into a Business’

Does the IC position on the unions simply reflect a loss of confidence in the capacity of the working class to oust the bureaucrats and gain control of its own mass organizations? Or is it a reflection of the social pressures of running a successful business? As Marx observed, being tends to determine consciousness, and for North & Co., the increasing revenues of the GRPI could certainly provide a material basis for the growth of personal/political corruption within the SEP/IC leadership.
Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, former close associates of North who continue to identify politically with the SEP/IC, hint at this in the conclusion of a lengthy document dated 16 December 2007 which recalls how Gerry Healy (the former head of the IC) accepted large sums of money from various Middle Eastern regimes to act as their left publicist:

“This too was one of the key lessons of the WRP [Workers Revolutionary Party] split—that the ‘unanimity’ of Healy’s leadership group masked all kinds of opportunist relationships based on personal and financial arrangements. We have no doubt that the silence of the rest of the IC leadership is also based, at least in part, on opportunist considerations of a financial and personal nature.”
—“Marxism Without Its Head or Its Heart” The IC’s revisionism did not commence with the transformation of the WL printing plant into a business, nor as Steiner and Brenner argue, when North et al abandoned the struggle against “pragmatism.” Gerry Healy’s political-bandit operation (including its American satellite run initially by Tim Wolhforth and later by North) was very distant programmatically from Trotskyism long before they began promoting Colonel Qaddaffi and other Middle Eastern despots.
Leftist organizations that obtain substantial funding from sources outside their field of political activity will inevitably tend to become depoliticized and subject to alien class forces. Trotsky made this point in an 8 October 1923 letter addressing some of the early symptoms of the growing bureaucratization of the Soviet Communist Party:

“There is without question an inner connection between the separate and self-contained character of the secretarial organization—more and more independent of the party—and the tendency toward setting up a budget as independent as possible of the success or failure of the party’s collective work of construction.”
—The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25) North et al said essentially the same thing in their major 1986 statement renouncing Healy:

“Moreover, elements among the journalists, actors and actresses who passed from Fleet Street and the West End into the Political Committee of the WRP, without any apprenticeship in the class struggle, provided a physical link to material resources such as the Party had never known. Apart from the day-to-day struggle of the Party membership inside the working class, huge amounts of money were raised. The central leadership thus acquired an independence from the rank and file that destroyed the foundations of democratic centralism.”

…
“Healy’s high-flying diplomacy and his sudden access to vast material resources, based largely on his opportunist utilization of Vanessa Redgrave as the WRP’s calling card in the Middle East, had a corrosive effect on the Party’s political line and its relation to the working class. Whatever its original intention, it became part of a process through which the WRP became the political captive of alien class force. At the very moment when it was most in need of a course correction, the ‘success’ of its work in the Middle East, which from the beginning lacked a basic proletarian reference point, made it less and less dependent upon the penetration of the working class in Britain and internationally.”
—“How the Revolutionary Workers Party Betrayed Trotskyism”
The commercial success of the GRPI today gives the SEP leadership far more independence from their ranks than is usually the case in bureaucratized leftist groups where disposable income tends to be closely tied to the size of the dues base. The SEP’s web-centered political activity requires a cadre of talented writers and editors, but the fact that the group conducts very little real public activity means that there are few opportunities for new recruits to develop outside of attending the occasional in-house event. Over time, we would expect the cash flow generated by the GRPI to have much the same effect on the SEP/IC’s upper strata as VEBA will on the occupants of Solidarity House.
The following commentary on the SEP/IC and GRPI originally appeared on the IBT website in May 2007.
In recent weeks reports have surfaced that David North, leader of the ostensibly Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party and its International Committee, also (as David Green) acts as CEO of Grand River Printing & Imaging (GRPI—www.grpinc.com/grandriver-history.html (http://www.grpinc.com/grandriver-history.html)), one of Michigan’s larger printing companies, which reported $25 million in business transactions last year. Like other readers of the SEP’s online daily, we have been waiting to see what the World Socialist Web Site has to say about the flap over the GRPI. It seems that, for the time being at least, North et al have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and are maintaining radio silence.
Most of the comments printed below were written by our comrade Samuel T., who was recruited to the Workers League (predecessor of the SEP) during Fred Mazelis’ 1989 campaign for mayor of New York City. Sam left the WL in 1991 when it refused to call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism in the first Gulf War (see Trotskyist Bulletin No. 8 (http://www.bolshevik.org/TB/tb8contents.html)).
On the weekend of 31 March/1 April [2007] Sam and a couple of other IBT supporters went to Ann Arbor, Michigan to attend an SEP anti-war conference that was advertised as open to “all WSWS readers.” When our comrades arrived, however, they found that supporters of organizations other than the SEP were not really welcome, and the SEP leadership seemed a bit put out by our criticisms of their claim that trade unions are no longer working-class organizations (see 1917 No. 29 (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no29/SEP.html)).
Gerry Healy, the founder-leader of the British Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) who headed the IC until the mid-1980s, had a well-deserved reputation as a cynical political thug with a penchant for pseudo-dialectical gibberish and crisis mongering. In the late 1960s, along with Ernest Mandel and the Pabloist “United Secretariat” (USec), the IC hailed various Middle East bonapartists as manifestations of a trans-class “Arab Revolution.” The IC also shared the Pabloists’ enthusiasm for Mao Zedong’s “Red Guard” faction during the massive intra-bureaucratic wrangle known as the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” Today, in a symmetrical deviation, North’s SEP denies that China was ever any sort of workers’ state.
By the 1980s, the political prostitutes of the IC were acting as paid publicists for Libya’s Muammar el Qaddafi and other Arab despots. The most despicable act of these political gangsters was providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein’s reactionary Baathist regime on émigré members of the Iraqi Communist Party. When the WRP/IC imploded in 1985-86, former members came forward and told of being sent to take photographs of leftist exiles at demonstrations, which the WRP leadership then passed on to the Iraqi embassy.
After Healy’s fall, the current IC leadership, headed by David North, sought to adjust the group’s image to something more closely approximating the “anti-Pabloite Trotskyist” tradition it falsely claims to represent. In their disingenuous account of their belated break with Healy, entitled “How the WRP Betrayed Trotskyism,” the WL leadership downplayed their record of years of slavish obedience to Healy’s every pronouncement. The insistence by North et al that they bear no political responsibility for the IC’s crimes, and that everything was Healy’s fault, recalls Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 attempt to whitewash the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy by blaming everything on Stalin. People who go back and examine issues of the Bulletin will see for themselves that the Workers League’s uncritical adulation of Qaddafi and the rest of the IC’s bonapartist bankrollers was every bit as enthusiastic as the WRP’s. They will also see that the SEP/IC, like the USec and almost every other pseudo-Trotskyist tendency, consistently supported counterrevolution in the former Soviet bloc, from Lech Walesa’s Polish Solidarnosc in 1981 to Boris Yeltsin’s pro-imperialist rabble in Moscow a decade later. With the passage of time, and an influx of politically raw new members, the SEP/IC leadership has tried to distance itself from its inglorious history. The tone of the WSWS today is far less hysterical than the Bulletin used to be, but the program it puts forward is no more revolutionary.
Some have suggested that the SEP leaders’ role in the GRPI may be connected to their repudiation of the Trotskyist analysis of the trade unions. We don’t claim to know for certain. But it was clear in Ann Arbor that there is a great deal of confusion in the ranks of the SEP on their position regarding the unions. Many newer members seem uneasy with the line, while the older cadres adamantly defend it, even if there is little consistency in the arguments they use, and none of them are able to explain how the AFL-CIO today is qualitatively different than it was in the 1960s and 70s. One senior SEP member ventured that perhaps the destruction of the USSR had somehow transformed U.S. unions into simple tools of the bourgeoisie, commenting: “Well, the collapse of the USSR has changed everything, so why wouldn’t it also change the unions?”

* * *
These comments are from internal discussion in the IBT.
Lenin drew a connection between the 4 August 1914 betrayal of the Social Democrats and the privileged social position of the labor aristocrats who constituted their social base. Trotsky made similar observations regarding the Stalinist bureaucracy, and also traced the Shachtmanites’ [a right-wing split from the then-Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP)] abandonment of defense of the USSR in 1940 to their petty-bourgeois social composition. In 1953, James P. Cannon argued that the Cochranites’ [a subsequent right-wing faction in the SWP] liquidationist politics reflected the conservatizing effects of relative economic stability on older workers. In 1983, we pointed out that the SL’s [Spartacist League] dive on saving the Marines in Lebanon, and its offer the next year to provide defense guards for the Democratic Party, were related to the desire of [SL leader James] Robertson to cultivate a “respectable” image with elements of the ruling class.
It can be a dangerous thing for a small group with Potemkin village inclinations, which the Northites have always had throughout their history, to accumulate assets out of proportion to their actual social weight. It would be surprising if running a major commercial enterprise did not affect the political consciousness of the SEP leadership—as Marx remarked, “being determines consciousness.”

…
I was struck by the following passage from the SEP’s 2006 election program:

“To establish the economic foundation for the reorganization of economic life in the interests of the broad mass of the working people, we advocate the transformation of all privately owned industrial, manufacturing and information technology corporations valued at $10 billion or more—companies that, taken together, control the decisive share of the US economy—into publicly owned enterprises, with full compensation for small shareholders and the terms of compensation for large shareholders to be publicly negotiated.”

…
“Property rights must be subordinated to social rights. This does not mean the nationalization of everything, or the abolition of small or medium-sized businesses, which are themselves victimized by giant corporations and banks. Establishing a planned economy will give such businesses ready access to credit and more stable market conditions, so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions.”
—“For a socialist alternative in the 2006 U.S. elections,” 12 January 2006 (emphasis added)
How many printing companies in the U.S. are worth more than $10 billion? I notice that Rupert Murdoch is offering $5 billion for Dow Jones (which includes the Wall Street Journal). Would the SEP consider that a “medium-sized business”?

…
When I was a member, WLers were exhausted by mindless public activity (8-hour shopping mall sales, etc.). I think perhaps the turn away from mass agitation toward a more realistic propaganda perspective where members are not run into the ground accounts for why SEPers now project a more controlled, rational image in public (a high-pressure environment is not good for anyone’s sanity)….
In the old WL there was no escaping getting chewed out at an internal meeting (unless you were in the leadership) for not selling enough papers, doing enough work, contacting enough workers or giving the party enough money—there was no pledge schedule, rather comrades announced how much they were giving that month at a local meeting and then were pressured to give more.
The sense I got from what I was told when I was in, was that the org financed itself almost completely through contributions from members (who were bled dry and encouraged to collect money on the streets, go door to door, borrow from relatives, etc.). The other source was lit sales (which is one reason we’d get screamed at regularly for not selling enough).

…
I remember as a member asking about Cuba and its class character. When not attacked for raising the question to begin with (on the grounds that it reflected a potential desire to accommodate to Castroism), I was offered a wide range of explanations by different senior comrades. Some gave me a version of the ‘phantom capitalist’ theory (a Lambertiste position, that, as I found out later, was never adopted by the Healyites) [Pierre Lambert, leader of the French Organisation Communiste Internationaliste participated with Healy in the IC until they parted ways in 1971]. Other WLers told me that despite what I had read in books and newspapers, there was indeed significant private ownership in Cuba. They were all improvising, because the IC/WL/SEP to my knowledge always avoided any attempt to seriously explain their position in writing. Members who ask too many questions about touchy subjects like Cuba soon learn not to, as it is taken as displaying an appetite to abandon the working class. I suspect that a similar approach is being used today with those deemed too inquisitive about the GPRI.

…
On the myspace [website] discussion of the issue, one neophyte supporter of the SEP summed up the explanation he had been given as follows:


the GRPI does not fund the SEP;
the GRPI provides employment for a number of comrades;
no one is getting rich through their involvement with the GRPI;
the GRPI is a successful company and has won awards for being a quality employer.

If I were a member, I would be wondering what the purpose of the GRPI is, if it neither serves the needs of the SEP, nor makes anyone rich. I’d also be curious about which SEP comrades get jobs there and how they get selected. I suppose it’s nice to win awards, but most people would rather work in places where they have union protection instead of having to rely on management goodwill. (I think it is safe to assume that, since “unions have essentially completed their degeneration” they do not represent GRPI’s workforce.)

…
When the SEP liquidated its printed publications in favor of online publishing, they claimed that doing so was merely recognizing the reality that, in the new age of internet communication, printed matter was becoming obsolete as a way to reach people. It is clear that the SEP has continued to invest tremendous resources to produce its online daily. The WSWS, which is generally pretty well written and covers a wide range of topics from a leftist perspective, possibly has the largest readership of any English-language ostensibly Marxist publication. It gives the SEP a cyberspace presence that far exceeds its weight in the real world.
The existence of the GRPI, and the time and energy that North et al obviously pour into it, makes me wonder if the real motivation for curtailing the production of printed propaganda was to permit the company to reach its full potential. When I was a member we had to buy large numbers of the weekly Bulletin on consignment—each member probably sold around 100 papers a week. The group also printed a monthly Young Socialist, a monthly Spanish publication for immigrants, a monthly or bi-monthly French-language publication sold in Quebec and to Haitian immigrants in New York (amongst whom we had a significant readership), a monthly Canadian newspaper, tons of leaflets, a quarterly theoretical journal, and, most months, a pamphlet or a book. The discovery that paper printing was obsolete (although not for commercial purposes apparently) might also have been a result of a decision that meeting sales quotas by going door-to-door, hanging out at supermarkets, strike chasing and all the other things we used to do, was not an efficient use of members’ political time. It is notable that the change to online from paper publishing, and the transformation of the old party printing plant into a full-blown business enterprise seems to roughly coincide with the change of position on the unions. This may well be a classic case of “program generating theory.”

…
Marxists have generally seen revisionism as an expression of alien class pressures within the workers’ movement. Small propaganda organizations, with little organic connection to the labor movement, experience that pressure in more indirect ways than mass workers’ parties. In a small leftist group the personal qualities and political appetites of leading members are at least as important in determining the line and the character of its internal regime as the blind social forces that shape mass consciousness.
Marx and Engels wrote a fair number of polemics against the development of personality cults within small socialist organizations, whereas Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, who operated in an atmosphere where socialist ideas were part of the mainstream of the labor movement, tended to dismiss the significance of such behavior.
Ignoring historical context and employing a caricature of the Leninist/Trotskyist analysis of trade-union, social-democratic and Stalinist bureaucracies, the IC has long denounced all other left groups as “petty bourgeois” (while their own social composition is no different) and simultaneously demanded that critics of their highly bureaucratic organization demonstrate upon what materially privileged stratum the IC leadership is based. The recent publicity surrounding the GRPI may lead the IC leadership to be a bit more careful about baiting other groups as “petty bourgeois” for a while.

…
A small and rigidly hierarchical ostensibly socialist organization, without significant connections to the labor movement or any other mass social movement, that has a largely literary political existence, with little public activity beyond occasionally running candidates in bourgeois elections, is likely to develop some peculiar political deviations. If the leaders of such an organization are also subjected to the social pressures of running a multi-million dollar business, it is hardly surprising that they may come to exhibit indifference to the actual struggles and needs of the working class, or at least find it difficult to connect the limited immediate struggles of the class to the necessity for socialist revolution (i.e., to find the sort of “bridge” that Trotsky outlined in the Transitional Program).
Trotsky saw it as essential for revolutionaries to struggle for the Marxist program within the existing mass organizations of the proletariat, i.e., the unions. The SEP leadership, by contrast, tends to advance a sort of abstract “Sunday Socialism” in which the key operational proposal is often the call to “build the SEP.”

…
For decades the IC has tended to cater to the backward consciousness of the more privileged sections of the working class and to show little interest in questions of special oppression. Those who insist on the importance of Marxists addressing such questions are attacked for “hating the working class” or being motivated by black-nationalist, bourgeois-feminist or other alien class ideologies. Tim Wohlforth, while still leader of the Workers League, spelled this out with his infamous comment that “The working class hates hippies, faggots and women’s libbers, and so do we!” While far less crude today, the WSWS coverage of the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina, for example, was profoundly flawed by the tendency to ignore the blatant racism that characterized capitalist officialdom’s response to the crisis.

…
The cadres who produce the WSWS can certainly not be faulted for their work ethic—it is an impressive achievement for such a small group to have sustained such a venture for so long. But the value of such a project, from a revolutionary point of view, depends on the political program it advances. The profound revisionism of the SEP on the social revolutions that produced the Cuban and Chinese deformed workers’ states, its support to capitalist restorationists in the Soviet bloc, its defeatist and reactionary position on the trade unions, its historic tendency toward indifference to issues of special oppression and its abandonment of the Bolshevik position of “revolutionary defeatism” in imperialist wars, negates any value the WSWS might have as an instrument for socialist propaganda.


Also further reading:

http://www.internationalist.org/wherewasdavidnorth.html

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/4c525cb9cc8d4ee2/1b413edb98354567?lnk=gst&q=%22grand+river%22&pli=1

[Weezer]

Red Cat (quoting me):



Notice, I did not ask for a Maoist, but a Maoite, party. Since there is no Maoite party, there can be no answer.

But what I did ask, and what we are still waiting for, is one example of a successful Maoist socialist state.

We can all see you are avoiding providing one.

If there were one, you'd be rubbing my face in it.

...Maoite?

[Intelligitimate]

Guess what. This is a learning thread. So I'm bringing down that hammer and handing out some infractions.

Intelligitimate is first for the outwardly hostile nature of their posts, which are plainly unacceptable.

This is a load of shit and you know it.

[Weezer]

This is a load of shit and you know it.

Give me an I! (I!) Give me an R! (R!) Give me an O! (O!) Give me an N! (N!) Give me an Y(Y!)

What does that spell? I-R-O-N-Y.

[Intelligitimate]

Give me an I! (I!) Give me an R! (R!) Give me an O! (O!) Give me an N! (N!) Give me an Y(Y!)

What does that spell? I-R-O-N-Y.

Besides you not knowing the definition of irony, this is stupid.

It's quite obviously just politically motivated. Any sort of fucking slander against Marxist-Leninists is allowed on this board, but as soon as someone replies in kind, you get an "infraction." Now that there is no commie club to keep the anarcho-Trots and their head pedophile in check, it's just a matter of time before they start banning anyone who call them out on their reactionary shit.

The "cooling" off phase is over: let the bannings begin! Look at the self-described "anti-authoritarians" go!

[Kléber]

Like I said the ICFI isn't opposed to trade unions as such just to politics based around those that are basically company unions and represent very little of the working class. The fact that the Sri Lankan SEP is not criticized for union work demonstrates that the IC is not bureaucratically forcing its analysis of Western unions on comrades working in different situations.

The IC didn't "give up" print media they are actively translating books and publishing new ones.

Also the author of that article goes off the deep end and starts talking like his readers agree with him that Cuba is socialist. Apparently he was never a good Trotskyist to begin with if he thinks that a military dictatorship where homosexual activity, or Trotskyist activity for that matter, can get you jailed and tortured is a "socialist" state.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Don't try to play around with words

It's you who is doing that, with your use of "Trotskyite".


Before you slander our movements, please provide an example of a Trotskyite party that is actually making revolution right now

1) It's not a slander to point out that there are no successful, Maoist socialist states anywhere on the planet.

2) I can't answer your question since there are no Troskyite parties, as I keep telling you.


P.S. In case you really do not understand, all organizations and individuals who hold that Trotsky's theory is a correct continuation of Marxism are being referred to as Trotskyites here.

Even so, there are none of these so named on the planet.

[#FF0000]

Besides you not knowing the definition of irony, this is stupid.

It's quite obviously just politically motivated. Any sort of fucking slander against Marxist-Leninists is allowed on this board, but as soon as someone replies in kind, you get an "infraction." Now that there is no commie club to keep the anarcho-Trots and their head pedophile in check, it's just a matter of time before they start banning anyone who call them out on their reactionary shit.

The "cooling" off phase is over: let the bannings begin! Look at the self-described "anti-authoritarians" go!

Oh fucking cry more you knob. You're the only person in this entire thread, that got an infraction and there's a fucking reason for it. My suggestion is to see if they make some kind of pill for your persecution complex and then take a look at everybody else's posts in comparison to your own, and see if anything jumps out at you.

EDIT: On second thought, carry that out while enjoy your ban for that pedophile comment. I wouldn't have given you an infraction for your hostility had it been posted in any other section of the board, but you've done nothing but show you don't know how to talk to other people with any modicum of respect, and we're not here to teach you manners.

Banned

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoboman:


Maoite?

I am parodying Red Cat's use of "Trotskyite".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona, why have you posted the same thing three times? What is the source of this material?

And why is this a big deal for North, when it wasn't for Engels?

[Uncle Hank]

We're seeing more sectarian trolling and less history of Trotskyism here.

Do the Trots accept that they're not involved in anything at all worthwhile apart from internet trolling?

If the trolling continues, this thread needs to be closed.
Yea, 'cuz everyone else should adhere to your definition of worthwhile. You know at first I thought you might actually be interested in the traditions and activism in Trotskyist parties but it's become more and more clear with every post you intended nothing else but to bait other users with stereotypes and reject any proof given, no matter how real it is.

And I'm not sure that you are, but don't even try to pretend like we're the trolls when you've got Intel doing his thing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not_Very_Intelligitimate:


A better question than where have Trotskyite taken up arms and overthrown imperialism (which is nowhere), is where have Trotskyites done a god damn fucking thing besides cheerlead Western imperialism and actively sabotage revolution?

But there are no Trotskyites on this planet.


Trotskyites are all counterrevolutionary in the end. They always expose themselves as such. People like Rosa are a perfect example: when push comes to shove, they will always side with the imperialists.

Which imperialists have I sided with?


It's just gonna be a matter of winning over the Trots that can be won, and shooting the rest.

Your solution: fail to win an argumnet, and begin blasting away.

No wonder Marxism is held in such low-esteem world-wide with wing nuts like you around.

[Kléber]

A better question than where have Trotskyite taken up arms and overthrown imperialism (which is nowhere), is where have Trotskyites done a god damn fucking thing besides cheerlead Western imperialism and actively sabotage revolution?You just proved that you didn't actually read all the posts in the thread before you replied, maybe you were in such a hurry to call people "-ites." Since an army led by Trotsky defeating 14 nations and a series of imperialist puppet armies isn't enough for you, I provided several examples of explicitly Trotskyist organizations forming guerrilla detachments to fight against Japanese, French, and German imperialism, as well as the Trotskyist guerrillas in Argentina and those who participated in the Cuban revolution. Not to mention in the 1960's there were pseudo-Trotskyists in the Weather Underground who tried to outdo their Maoist counterparts in infantile terrorist attempts to replicate a colonial liberation struggle in the US.

[ls]

Have you compared this salary to that of a factory worker ? Anyway, these teachers generally support the revolution.

Ah yes, most callcentre workers are not exploited just like teachers cuz they do "no real work", just go and tell that to some of them and watch the inevitable response.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^ Is it any wonder that our Maoite friends have no influence among 'western' workers, and therefore dismiss them all the more?

[Q]

We're seeing more sectarian trolling and less history of Trotskyism here.

Do the Trots accept that they're not involved in anything at all worthwhile apart from internet trolling?

If the trolling continues, this thread needs to be closed.
A nice try at projection. This whole thread has been about Maoist trolls attacking Trotskyists and now you're trying to make it as if our defense at these innuendo's were the trolling? Truly amazing.

And yes, this really needs to be closed.

[ls]

^^^ Is it any wonder that our Maoite friends have no influence among 'western' workers, and therefore dismiss them all the more?

In fairness, I wouldn't have a problem with Maoists if they had a complete influence on the bulk of the third-world working-class in reality, but you see strikes that effectively cripple several Indian states at a time, yet none of these are perpetrated by Maoists why? I think the answer is quite obvious. Nepal is the one exception, then again, you have to take into account the fact that a "marxist-leninist" party is already in power there.

[Chambered Word]

Besides you not knowing the definition of irony, this is stupid.

It's quite obviously just politically motivated. Any sort of fucking slander against Marxist-Leninists is allowed on this board, but as soon as someone replies in kind, you get an "infraction." Now that there is no commie club to keep the anarcho-Trots and their head pedophile in check, it's just a matter of time before they start banning anyone who call them out on their reactionary shit.

The "cooling" off phase is over: let the bannings begin! Look at the self-described "anti-authoritarians" go!

Oh no, it's an anarcho-Trot conspiracy! GET THE TINFOIL HAT! :D


Here in general by the term "proletariat" we refer to those who are generally associated with physical labor.

This is because though students and teachers do not own their means of production, they are mainly better off than laborers and the contradiction between physical and intellectual work comes into play. You will find some of the most reactionary elements in this class and it is also distinguished by its relatively small revolutionary section.

Did you read anything Marx or Lenin said before you started worshipping your favourite 'socialist' dictator? :rolleyes:

This is even sillier than the 'lower class, middle class, upper class' analysis.


We're seeing more sectarian trolling and less history of Trotskyism here.

Do the Trots accept that they're not involved in anything at all worthwhile apart from internet trolling?

If the trolling continues, this thread needs to be closed.

We're seeing more narcissistic Maoists who apparently haven't read a thing in the thread here.

Do the Maoists accept that they just came here to troll and slander Trotskyists?

This thread needs to be closed so we can end the discussion with some of their dignity left.


A better question than where have Trotskyite taken up arms and overthrown imperialism (which is nowhere), is where have Trotskyites done a god damn fucking thing besides cheerlead Western imperialism and actively sabotage revolution?

Who led the Red Army against the White reactionaries? Hint: it wasn't Stalin. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Good point IS.:)

[red cat]

Ah yes, most callcentre workers are not exploited just like teachers cuz they do "no real work", just go and tell that to some of them and watch the inevitable response.

Where did I claim that they are not exploited ?

EDIT: You have no idea about these "nationwide strikes". Do find out more before you talk about them. Yes, Indian Maoists are capable of conducting strike actions involving the whole working class in the smaller cities where they have more influence.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Like I said the ICFI isn't opposed to trade unions as such just to politics based around those that are basically company unions and represent very little of the working class.

I think this is somewhat typical of my encounter with the ICFI and the WSWS. So many words that say so little.

It is quite obvious to me that this is not the position of the ICFI. To take just one example, in an article published on the WSWS today Australia: Unions called in to sell-out Pluto construction workers. The article is a very, very good one because of the way it correctly identifies the role of the unions in the struggle. This is alot more than opposition to 'politics based around those that are basically company unions and represent very little of the working class'.

To Arizona Bay; I'm not sure why you've posted these articles. Ironically they are from Trotskyist 'sects' which are just as tiny and insignificant, if not more so than the ICFI!

[red cat]

I will clear some points for some armchair-revolutionaries now, who have made quite stupid claims throughout this thread and even suggested me to "read books".

I expect that most of them, if not all, live in the first or second world. This explains their expectation that whatever they declare sitting in their comfortable burrows is applicable to the whole world outside. It also explains the imperialistic attitude of dismissing any true class-struggle in the third world.

Marxism or Leninism and even Maoism is subject to change according to the new conditions that pop up from time to time. Though I think that my conception of class is nowhere in contradiction to that of Lenin, our Trot friends should always remember this. Science tries to explain phenomena in the real world. So, we develop theory in order to better explain our observations, we do not try to distort our observations so that it exactly fits what is written in some book.

The points which I will address now will refer to the Indian society from time to time. The situation is similar in many third-world countries.

Why do third-world Maoists classify students and teachers as petit-bourgeois?

Consider India, for example. A proletarian there, who engages in physical work, owns almost nothing. He can barely earn enough to feed his family.

Of course, the government claims that it provides free education up to a certain level. But in general the schools concerned are so low-quality, that the students learn practically nothing. There is a scheme under which each student is supposed to be getting a free-meal in school everyday. The money allotted for this scheme is almost fully gobbled up by bureaucrats and other opportunists in various levels. So what reaches the students is generally a handful rejected and rotting foodstuff.

Many dedicated teachers in such schools ( though relatively they are a minority) have explained why the students coming from proletarian families learn nothing. For them, its a bit of work in the factory starting in the early morning ( yes, I am talking about children under sixteen )and no breakfast. As a result, they mostly sleep during the classes before lunch. So even if some teacher tries to teach, the outcome is void. After lunch, the children leave in order to work again.

As they grow up, the mid-day meal(as it is called there) becomes too meagre for their ever growing bodies. So they have to leave school before they complete even the primary level of education. There is another reason to this which I will explain next. Anyway, you will find almost no proletarian student who has crossed the primary level in India.

India, being semi feudal - semi colonial , is probably home to the worst caste -system ever. There is a notion of "the laborer's son becoming nothing but a laborer". So, what a person will become is decided by what "caste" he belongs to. Of course, very few lower caste people do create exceptions by having good luck and fighting viciously all their lives, but mostly the story is very tragic. There are many instances each year were proletarian students who excelled in academics while starving are tortured or sexually abused to such a level by their batch-mates and seniors in college, that they either die or commit suicide. Even in primary-schools, proletarian ( who generally belong to the lower castes and are called "dalits") children are asked to clean toilets ( for no wages, of course), because that is what they are "meant for".

On the other hand, teachers, even those coming from the lowest levels of the petite-bourgeoisie, have a much higher standard of living. Most of them belong to the higher castes. To them, physical labor is a taboo. Of course, some of them are getting so low salaries now that they are turning revolutionary. But in addition to their salary, many of them own some small business or land, and they also teach students from the higher leveles of the petite-bourgeoisie as "private tutors". This often forms a good chunk of their income. In general, they view physical laborers as inferior to them, and till today, most are neutral or oppose the revolution even in areas where Maoists have their influence, as opposed to the participation of the entire proletarian population.

It must be clear by now that almost all the students in high-school and college come from even higher classes. I am not going into further details.

Why do certain parliamentary parties in India call successful nationwide strikes but Maoists do not ?

I remember that I have addressed at least two false reports regarding strikes in India. I do not recall clearly which were the threads and who were involved, but one of these was probably used to attack the Indian Maoist movement by a Trot who got banned later. I had discussed this strike in details and received no proper response. Now I will explain the nature of strikes in India.

I will assume that everyone here is familiar with the general character of evry parliamentary party in India. Then how come their strikes are so effective?

In general these parties each have paid goons of their own. In areas where the have influence ( small pockets all over the country), they forcefully prevent workers from entering factories etc. In mass meetings, the peasants and workers are either brought forcefully ( the alternative to attending these meetings is to leave the area for ever) or provided a meagre amount of money for that. Finally, the whole report regarding the strike is highly exaggerated by the bourgeois media.

On the other hand, any partisan Maoist, or any sympathizer, if exposed, is promptly arrested or murdered. During strikes, government troops and goons are used to herd workers and even passers by into actories. Therefore, only in areas where they have armed squads can Maoists declare that any goons or troops involved in such activities will be taught a lesson. So, in these areas the participation is almost 100%.

For the same reason, in Nepal, where the Maoists maintain armed squads throughout the country, they can call successful nation-wide strikes.

I advise our Trot friends to concentrate on the real world henceforth. Then may be you will realize some day why there are no Trot movements in Nepal or India and no Trot revolutionary parties anywhere.

EDIT:The report by Devrim should not be called "false". It missed some very important points though.BobKKKindle$ used a false report that exaggerated a small strike organized by a very reactionary party so that it would look like a huge spontaneous action, to attack the Maoist line.

[Yehuda Stern]

Kleber, you're wrong about the ICFI. In fact they oppose action in the trade unions, claiming that due to globalization, the reformist program of the trade unions can no longer have any positive effect for the working class (as if passive trade union struggle ever did good to the workers).

Also, red cat, as far as I can tell all your political activity consists of is these boring posts you put up here at RevLeft and passively cheering the misleaders of the Nepali working class. Do you not live in the first world (so stupid to speak today about the "second world")? Are you even a member of any MLM group? The hell do you know about the real world that you feel like it's not completely ridiculous for you to call us, who actually do struggle in the real world, and are concerned with the way your comrades are holding back the struggle to change it, armchair revolutionaries?

[red cat]

Also, red cat, as far as I can tell all your political activity consists of is these boring posts you put up here at RevLeft and passively cheering the misleaders of the Nepali working class. Do you not live in the first world (so stupid to speak today about the "second world")? Are you even a member of any MLM group? The hell do you know about the real world that you feel like it's not completely ridiculous for you to call us, who actually do struggle in the real world, and are concerned with the way your comrades are holding back the struggle to change it, armchair revolutionaries?

I live in the third world.

No, I do not belong to any MLM group. But this is rather a foolish question to ask. Third world Maoist parties, unlike your oh so revolutionary Trot groups, do not have the privilege of being practically legal. So, even if a partisan Maoist were posting here, he would never admit being a part of any group. In fact it is a revolutionary norm not to ask anyone about his possible participation in a revolutionary struggle.It is not very surprising that you are not aware of this.

Surely I am not a part of any MLM group, but the working class of whichever place I go to has an unusual tendency of befriending me. So I do know a little about how workers live here. Also, protesting against any injustice that happens in front of me is a habit of mine.

[Kléber]

I don't like the language the ICFI uses that seems to imply unions are obsolete, I think it is too deterministic and ignores the possibility for traditional revolutionary work in conditions of mass organizing drives and mass union struggles outside of the old imperialist countries where the ICFI is drawing all these "international" conclusions.

They are pretty defensive on the point sometimes and I can see how it might be off-putting to union members, but they also seem to have attracted some unionized workers with that line as well.

That said I think they are right not to focus work on the trade unions in countries where those organizations are declining, small in number and seen as guilds by the rest of the working class.

But they don't "oppose action in the trade unions," if by that you mean either oppose the struggles of unionized workers and/or oppose intervention by Party members who are union workers in union struggles; they always support militant struggles, the "workers' struggles" section of the WSWS publicizes such actions without criticism. IC-affiliated union members are still involved in union struggles in the West (of course when intervening they always point out how actions are carried out against the wishes of the reformist unions etc), the website has published calls for rank-and-file committees from instances of Party work in particular unions/strikes, etc.



Third world Maoist parties, unlike your oh so revolutionary Trot groups, do not have the privilege of being practically legal.That's a woeful generalization which ignores A) all the Maoist groups with legal existence which supposedly makes them bourgeois weaklings and B) all the clandestine work being done by "Trot" comrades around the world.

[red cat]

Tell that to Vietnamese and Chinese Trotskyists.

I will. Give me the name of the Trot parties that are making revolutions in these two countries. I will definitely try to contact them.

EDIt:

Kleber's edited post:


That's a woeful generalization which ignores A) all the Maoist groups with legal existence which supposedly makes them bourgeois weaklings and B) all the clandestine work being done by "Trot" comrades around the world.

A) The self-proclaimed Maoist groups that are practically legal here in the third-world are in fact revisionists.

B) Well, I do not know of any Trot organization that is waging revolutionary war. If they are clandestine and too small, then I am not supposed to know about them. But again, to prove that the Trot line is correct, we require them( if they exist at all) to take their struggle to a higher level in future.

[Kléber]

I will. Give me the name of the Trot parties that are making revolutions in these two countries. I will definitely try to contact them.If by "making revolutions" you mean waging guerrilla war against those countries then I am afraid there are no such Trotskyists. Only people of various organizations doing clandestine work, the Trotskyist organizations based in Vietnam, China and Cuba having been physically destroyed through jailing and executions by the revisionist bureaucracies.


to prove that the Trot line is correct, we require them( if they exist at all) to take their struggle to a higher level in future.No thanks, armed adventurism is just a form of small-scale terrorism, an infantile petty-bourgeois tactic which never helps the working class. When a workers', peasants', or revolutionary organization has to take up arms to defend itself and preserve the existence of its members, it deserves the support of workers everywhere (although political groups can suffer serious isolation from the working class after decades of armed struggle in the countryside). And we should always prepare for the revolutionary overturn, as we build a mass movement. But calling anybody who doesn't have a rifle slung over their shoulder a bourgeois coward is just ridiculous, it shows a petty-bourgeois contempt for the process of building proletarian consciousness and an idealization of the voluntarist terrorism of the Shining Path.

[red cat]

If by "making revolutions" you mean waging guerrilla war against those countries then I am afraid there are no such Trotskyists. Only people of various organizations doing clandestine work, the Trotskyist organizations based in Vietnam, China and Cuba having been physically destroyed through jailing and executions by the revisionist bureaucracies.

No thanks, armed adventurism is just a form of small-scale terrorism, an infantile petty-bourgeois tactic which never helps the working class. When a workers', peasants', or revolutionary organization has to take up arms to defend itself and preserve the existence of its members, it deserves the support of workers everywhere (although political groups can suffer serious isolation from the working class after decades of armed struggle in the countryside). And we should always prepare for the revolutionary overturn, as we build a mass movement. But calling anybody who doesn't have a rifle slung over their shoulder a bourgeois coward is just ridiculous, it shows a petty-bourgeois contempt for the process of building proletarian consciousness and an idealization of the voluntarist terrorism of the Shining Path. These are only your assertions. Armed struggle is the only way to make revolution in the third world.

[Kléber]

Armed struggle is the only way to make revolution anywhere. But just because someone doesn't yet have a gun and isn't yet part of a red militia unit, doesn't mean they are a counter-revolutionary.

[red cat]

Armed struggle is the only way to make revolution anywhere. But just because someone doesn't yet have a gun and isn't yet part of a red militia unit, doesn't mean they are a counter-revolutionary.

True. But how do you claim that they are revolutionary ? In the third-world, a CP organizing in a large area without facing state repression is enough to raise suspicion of communists.

[Kléber]

Yeah, peaceful sorts of work, trade union work, parliamentary work, all that, carries its own risks for corrupting the party and isolating it from the working class, as armed struggle does. No party should ever totally rule out, say, parliamentary activity (aside from special circumstances where the working class as a whole is abstaining from voting as a protest against unfair election conditions), just like no party should abandon the realistic knowledge that the revolution will require armed struggle. But at the same time, parliamentary and military activity can produce elite cliques within the party with enormous political weight that is not necessarily related to how well they are addressing the problems of the working class and the interests of such cliques can conflict with the actual interests of the proletariat. That said, parliamentarism and adventurism aren't Trotskyist or Maoist problems. Both of our tendencies are plagued by these problems. There are Trotskyists and Maoists that have gotten successful in elections, started to enjoy the comforts of bourgeois political life, and completely sold out. And there are Trotskyist and Maoist groups that have bravely but prematurely taken up guns too early and gotten themselves killed without building up the organization and consciousness of the working class.

[red cat]

Yeah, peaceful sorts of work, trade union work, parliamentary work, all that, carries its own risks for corrupting the party and isolating it from the working class, as armed struggle does. No party should ever totally rule out, say, parliamentary activity (aside from special circumstances where the working class as a whole is abstaining from voting as a protest against unfair election conditions), just like no party should abandon the realistic knowledge that the revolution will require armed struggle. But at the same time, parliamentary and military activity can produce elite cliques within the party with enormous political weight that is not necessarily related to how well they are addressing the problems of the working class and the interests of such cliques can conflict with the actual interests of the proletariat. That said, parliamentarism and adventurism aren't Trotskyist or Maoist problems. Both of our tendencies are plagued by these problems. There are Trotskyists and Maoists that have gotten successful in elections, started to enjoy the comforts of bourgeois political life, and completely sold out. And there are Trotskyist and Maoist groups that have bravely but prematurely taken up guns too early and gotten themselves killed without building up the organization and consciousness of the working class.

Almost true. But there are certain problems inherent in Trotskyism, due to which no revolutionary Trotskyist party exists in the third-world today.

For example, you deny the progressive nationalists, for which the people from oppressed minorities support you nowhere. You emphasize on urban insurrections even in countries which are not capitalist. This gives an excuse to ignore the existing conditions for armed struggle in rural areas, and gives way to a strange distorted line that claims that ALL the workers have to be convinced before any sort of armed struggle. You also ignore the peasantry. When a Trotskyist speaks in public about how the peasantry is not a revolutionary class or how "land to the tiller" is not a valid slogan, even the urban working class, most of which has emerged from the peasantry, rejects him immediately.

Also, given the success of the Maoists, when a Trotskyist party tries to denounce Maoist armed struggle, that works in favor of the Maoists as there are many workers whose peasant brothers living in the villages have in someway participated in their struggle. Maoists also expose the false reports which your international organizations publish on their country, which leads to your parties being rejected by the masses.

These many wrong steps have had a serious efffect on Trotskyism in the third-world. Due to fully incorrect handling of contradictions you will find almost no participant from the oppressed masses in your parties. Most of the party members will typically come from the elite petite-bourgeoisie and will do no organizational work. I am very surprised by some Indian Trotskyists' attitude here in Revleft. If they still keep on calling the PPW a "phoney war", then how can they expect to be treated as non-reactionaries after the revolution?

Lastly, in the third world, condition for armed struggle always exist. Maoist organizations which have suffered setback here have done so because of wrong battle-tactics. In general, parliamentary politics is despised by the broad masses. So, going to the parliament is a valid option only when there is danger of direct foreign intervention, the CP has an army big enough to result in a stale-mate with the state and hence is able to continue its own programme in any case.

[ls]

Where did I claim that they are not exploited ?

You have some bizarre fetish for "factory workers".


EDIT: You have no idea about these "nationwide strikes". Do find out more before you talk about them.

Just cuz you say it doesn't make it true. Are you telling me that they don't cripple several Indian states and their economies at a time or what? Go on, take that line and show yourself up to everyone here.

You are accusing others of elitism aimed at you, but you are doing the same. All I did was tell you to rethink your position after all, I didn't say you had to do loads of reading, although now I'm willing to consider that you probably do need to as well if you think the Indian city strikes don't have a massive effect.


Yes, Indian Maoists are capable of conducting strike actions involving the whole working class in the smaller cities where they have more influence.

That needs backing up, also what constitutes this "whole working class" in the cities on strike needs to be clarified, so this should be interesting.

[Kléber]

also ignore the peasantryWe don't ignore the peasantry any more than you ignore the working class.


"land to the tiller" is not a valid sloganI never said that.


how can they expect to be treated as non-reactionaries after the revolution?
I am entirely against the Indian government's repression of Indian Maoists. Anybody who supports the ban on the CPI(M) or the government's fascist crackdown against Maoist-led peasants and indigenous peoples, is not a real Trotskyist.

[Yehuda Stern]

redcat, you're talking nonsense again. In the imperialist states both Trotskyists and Maoist groups are legal; wherever one isn't legal the other isn't either. Still, in Israel all radical left groups learn to be very cautious, including the ISL and including the few Maoists that remain here.

If you want to lecture me about revolutionary norms, you might want to start with a basic one - being honest instead of throwing around stupid third-period style slogans that only show your ignorance of Trotsykism and Trotskyist groups.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kleber:


I am entirely against the Indian government's repression of Indian Maoists. Anybody who supports the ban on the CPI(M) or the government's fascist crackdown against Maoist-led peasants and indigenous peoples, is not a real Trotskyist.

I agree, but they'd not only not defend us if we were in this position, they'd argue for our suppression.

[red cat]

redcat, you're talking nonsense again. In the imperialist states both Trotskyists and Maoist groups are legal; wherever one isn't legal the other isn't either. Still, in Israel all radical left groups learn to be very cautious, including the ISL and including the few Maoists that remain here.

If you had read my post carefully before you replied, you would have known that I was talking about third-world Maoist parties anyway. And in these countries, take India for example, Trotskyist parties are not illegal.



If you want to lecture me about revolutionary norms, you might want to start with a basic one - being honest instead of throwing around stupid third-period style slogans that only show your ignorance of Trotsykism and Trotskyist groups.

Honest about what ? What do you want me to say? That there were Trotskyist revolutionary parties in India and Nepal which were crushed by Maoists ? :lol:

[red cat]

We don't ignore the peasantry any more than you ignore the working class.


Maybe not in theory, but for example, show me any Trotskyist group in India that has organized the peasantry in any movement.




I never said that.


I was talking about Trotskyist and other revisionist groups in general. They claim that this is not any true solution. Even after distributing land thus, there does remain the colossal task of constructing socialism, but ignoring what is the primary task in the countryside in this way only amounts to opposing the revolution. "Land to the tiller" should be one of the most important slogans in the struggle.




I am entirely against the Indian government's repression of Indian Maoists. Anybody who supports the ban on the CPI(M) or the government's fascist crackdown against Maoist-led peasants and indigenous peoples, is not a real Trotskyist.

Then by your definition any self proclaimed Trotskyist in India who affiliates to any Trotskyist party, is really a fake.

However, your duty is not only to oppose such crackdowns but also to recognize the Maoist struggle, and even nationalist struggles, as revolutionary, to learn about the most fundamental contradictions through practice, to actually reach out to the masses in every area and organize them.

[redasheville]

It's not India, but the Labour Party Pakistan has a rather substantial peasant base in Pakistan.

Trotskyists also organize with the landless peasant movement in Brazil. Hugo Blanco, the number 1 peasant activist in Peru, is a Trotskyist. For Trotsky's own defense of his views on the peasantry, and a complete refutation of "Trotsky doesn't care about peasants" lie is in The Permanent Revolution.

[red cat]

It's not India, but the Labour Party Pakistan has a rather substantial peasant base in Pakistan.

Trotskyists also organize with the landless peasant movement in Brazil. Hugo Blanco, the number 1 peasant activist in Peru, is a Trotskyist. For Trotsky's own defense of his views on the peasantry, and a complete refutation of "Trotsky doesn't care about peasants" lie is in The Permanent Revolution.

Even if such a peasant base exists, if Trotskyists are using this to actually make revolution, there should be some kind of armed struggle.

[redasheville]

Even if such a peasant base exists, if Trotskyists are using this to actually make revolution, there should be some kind of armed struggle.

Why?

Not sure where you're from, but why do you feel like you have the authority on what the peasant movement should do in Pakistan? Given that you're arguing they should take up arms (i.e. a lot of people would die) I'd assume that you have a pretty darn good understanding of the situation to advocate such a drastic tactic. Like Mao said "No investigation, no right to speak".

[redasheville]

Oh and Trotskyists don't "make revolution" the working class does.

[Crux]

Speaking only for my own organization, several of our most prominent sections are in the "third world": Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Pakistan.

We also have to have clandestine organizations in some countries where we are active.

[red cat]

Why?

Not sure where you're from, but why do you feel like you have the authority on what the peasant movement should do in Pakistan? Given that you're arguing they should take up arms (i.e. a lot of people would die) I'd assume that you have a pretty darn good understanding of the situation to advocate such a drastic tactic. Like Mao said "No investigation, no right to speak".

Every country in the third world is subject to oppression by imperialism. Hence the conditions for armed struggle exist everywhere here.



Oh and Trotskyists don't "make revolution" the working class does.

True. When I say Trots or any vanguard party making revolution, please interpret that as the vanguard party organizing and educating the working class or the broad masses for making revolution.

[Kléber]

Every country in the third world is subject to oppression by imperialism. Hence the conditions for armed struggle exist everywhere here.Every country is wracked by capitalist oppression, hence the basis for a revolution exists everywhere. That doesn't mean that a policy of immediate armed struggle all the time is always and everywhere correct. The working class needs to be totally disenchanted with the bourgeois political system, the revolutionary party needs mass democratic support from the workers and peasants, and it needs an organization capable of winning an armed struggle and establishing a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat... nobody here is against armed struggle as a necessary component of the historical revolutionary process. But to preach immediate armed struggle, without any of these things, is suicidal madness.

It is the duty of revolutionaries to advance the class consciousness of the proletariat and give them education, organization and leadership, in the fight against the capitalist class. We can only win mass support for a revolutionary program if the masses understand our revolution to be in defense of the people's conscious rights and their democratic ambitions to ownership of the means of production.

The revolution must inevitably be violent but that violence must be well-organized if it is to be successful. Any intellectual can take a gun and kill someone or blow something up to show off to other intellectuals. It takes a much higher theoretical level to build a mass movement, through education and agitation, capable of capturing state power overnight like the Bolshevik Party in 1917.


Then by your definition any self proclaimed Trotskyist in India who affiliates to any Trotskyist party, is really a fake.Well the ICFI which publishes the WSWS (http://www.wsws.org) does not have a well-organized Indian section, but they are opposed to such policies by the Indian government, and they can't be the only Trotskyist group that takes that position. I doubt any Trotskyists here support the Indian government's political and military campaigns against Maoists.


However, your duty is not only to oppose such crackdowns but also to recognize the Maoist struggle, and even nationalist struggles, as revolutionaryRevolutionary against imperialism, yes, we believe in military alliances with all anti-imperialist forces (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm). But remember what happened to the CCP in 1927, the Communists were massacred due to Stalin's ignorance that the nationalists would betray them. In fact it was Trotsky who alone opposed letting Chiang Kai-shek join the Comintern and gain control over the CCP membership lists shortly before the massacre. We should ally with all anti-imperialist forces, but preserve our political independence, even if "only in embryonic form" like Lenin said.

If you mean that Trotskyists must give up their political independence and embrace Maoism in order for us to join forces against imperialism, then that is sectarianism.

[red cat]

Every country is wracked by capitalist oppression, hence the basis for a revolution exists everywhere. That doesn't mean that a policy of immediate armed struggle all the time is always and everywhere correct. The working class needs to be totally disenchanted with the bourgeois political system, the revolutionary party needs mass democratic support from the workers and peasants, and it needs an organization capable of winning an armed struggle and establishing a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat... nobody here is against armed struggle as a necessary component of the historical revolutionary process. But to preach immediate armed struggle, without any of these things, is suicidal madness.

It is the duty of revolutionaries to advance the class consciousness of the proletariat and give them education, organization and leadership, in the fight against the capitalist class. We can only win mass support for a revolutionary program if the masses understand our revolution to be in defense of the people's conscious rights and their democratic ambitions to ownership of the means of production.

The revolution must inevitably be violent but that violence must be well-organized if it is to be successful. Any intellectual can take a gun and kill someone or blow something up to show off to other intellectuals. It takes a much higher theoretical level to build a mass movement, through education and agitation, capable of capturing state power overnight like the Bolshevik Party in 1917.

Capitalist oppression is too simple a word in this case. When third-world countries are concerned, imperialism comes into play. The imperialist capital forcefully maintains semi-feudal relations of production and turns third-world countries to semi-colonies.

This implies that minimal rights are not provided to the vast majority of the citizens and any genuine progressive voice against the system is put down through military means. The situation is worst in the countryside, where exploitation is most ruthless.

Due to this, any organizational work in the countryside very quickly either turns into armed struggle, or vanishes or turns revisionist. It is almost the same if any CP bases its work in the cities, only that armed struggles in this case will fail due to the greater concentration of state machinery in urban areas.

[Kléber]

This implies that minimal rights are not provided to the vast majority of the citizens and any genuine progressive voice against the system is put down through military means.I'm sorry but your "implication" that every semi colonial country is a military dictatorship is wrong. Most of them have parliaments and unfortunately the working class still has a lot of parliamentary illusions that we have to work and talk through with them, not just shoot our way through. The Shining Path who you seem to support, like Italian anarchists 150 years ago, were a total failure because of their rural-adventurist policies. When the Shining Path tried to win over the urban working class by attacking their marches with guns and dynamite and calling them revisionists, that failed too.

[redasheville]

Every country in the third world is subject to oppression by imperialism. Hence the conditions for armed struggle exist everywhere here.

Okay, so you know nothing about the conditions in Pakistan, then.

[red cat]

Well the ICFI which publishes the WSWS (http://www.wsws.org) does not have a well-organized Indian section, but they are opposed to such policies by the Indian government, and they can't be the only Trotskyist group that takes that position. I doubt any Trotskyists here support the Indian government's political and military campaigns against Maoists.

Given the partially successful propaganda against the Indian government's atrocities, they might not do so directly. But calling this a "phoney war", stating that Maoists are not linked with the peasantry or proletariat, making other issues bigger with a brief mention of the Maoists, or even plainly denying the existence of feudal lords in India serves the same purpose.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1566660&postcount=168

http://www.marxist.com/asian-marxist-review-summer-2008-editorial.htm



Revolutionary against imperialism, yes, we believe in military alliances with all anti-imperialist forces (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm). But remember what happened to the CCP in 1927, the Communists were massacred due to Stalin's ignorance that the nationalists would betray them. In fact it was Trotsky who alone opposed letting Chiang Kai-shek join the Comintern and gain control over the CCP membership lists shortly before the massacre. We should ally with all anti-imperialist forces, but preserve our political independence, even if "only in embryonic form" like Lenin said.

If you mean that Trotskyists must give up their political independence and embrace Maoism in order for us to join forces against imperialism, then that is sectarianism.

The USSR's line on China did have major faults, but the CPC also maintains that among its own leaders, Chen Du Xiu was mainly responsible for this.

In countries where Maoists have advanced so far, but your tendency has failed to make even the slightest progress towards revolution, I think that your line should be unconditional support to the Maoists, along with suggestions of what you think would have been better strategy and tactics, based on a precise investigation of the contradictions in these countries.

[red cat]

Okay, so you know nothing about the conditions in Pakistan, then.

What qualitative changes have taken in Pakistan so that the conditions for waging armed struggle disappeared within the last four decades ?

[Kléber]

Given the partially successful propaganda against the Indian government's atrocities, they might not do so directly.Would you stop making unfounded assumptions about people? Any socialist, Trotskyist or otherwise, would oppose any punitive action taken by a bourgeois government against peasants and indigenous peoples, whether they are led by Maoists or anyone else.

BTW, Marxist.com is what many Trotskyists would consider revisionism. There is a Maoist group that supports the referendum against Hugo Chávez, I could quote them and say "all Maoists are comprador anti-Chavistas." Does that mean Maoism would be a counter-revolutionary comprador tendency because of one "Maoist" group?


among its own leaders, Chen Du Xiu was mainly responsible for this.Mainly responsible for nothing other than following Comintern resolutions. He called the orders he was given "like taking a bath in a toilet bowl." Later the CCP leaders blamed everything on Chen because it was politically impossible to blame it on Stalin or the Comintern.


I think that your line should be unconditional support to the MaoistsUnconditional? We already are unconditionally opposed to any police measures taken by the Indian government, or any bourgeois government, against the oppressed.

Or do you mean to say that Trotskyists must politically support Maoists and give up our political independence or else we are counter-revolutionaries? That's sectarianism.


What qualitative changes have taken in Pakistan so that the conditions for waging armed struggle disappeared within the last four decades ?Why are you even here? Why aren't you waging armed struggle right now? Theory and preparation only lead to revisionism, right?

[red cat]

Would you stop making unfounded assumptions about people? Any socialist, Trotskyist or otherwise, would oppose any punitive action taken by a bourgeois government against peasants and indigenous peoples, whether they are led by Maoists or anyone else.



What about the CWI or SWP ?




BTW, Marxist.com is what many Trotskyists would consider revisionism. There is a Maoist group that supports the referendum against Hugo Chávez, I could quote them and say "all Maoists are comprador anti-Chavistas." Does that mean Maoism would be a counter-revolutionary comprador tendency because of one "Maoist" group?
At present we characterize our tendency mainly by the theory and practice of the big five CPs. In India itself there are Maoist groups that have stated that Special Economic Zones are essential for the country to develop.



Mainly responsible for nothing other than following Comintern resolutions. He called the orders he was given "like taking a bath in a toilet bowl." Later the CCP leaders blamed everything on Chen because it was politically impossible to blame it on Stalin or the Comintern.
That is your historical line, again.




Unconditional? We already are unconditionally opposed to any police measures taken by the Indian government, or any bourgeois government, against the oppressed.

Or do you mean to say that Trotskyists must politically support Maoists and give up our political independence or else we are counter-revolutionaries? That's sectarianism.

Where did I say that ?




Why are you even here? Why aren't you waging armed struggle right now? This one is exactly the most common argument hurled by hardcore reactionaries in any argument with anyone supporting the Maoists. I have already mentioned why the question of participation of any individual in a revolutionary organization should not be a part of any debate.

EDIT: Supporting Maoists means that you should recognize their achievements and admit that the movements are revolutionary and base themselves on the peasantry and proletariat.

[Kléber]

What about the CWI or SWP ?No idea.


EDIT: Supporting Maoists means that you should recognize their achievements and admit that the movements are revolutionary and base themselves on the peasantry and proletariat.That's not true. Maoism bases itself on the "Bloc of Four Classes," which includes "patriotic capitalists." In Maoist theory the proletariat is supposed to restrain and lead the capitalists, but in China, the capitalists restrained the proletariat and now rule over the workers. Trotskyists do not believe that socialism can be established by a Bloc of Four Classes, only the working class can establish socialism.

So do you believe Trotskyists and Maoists can fight together against imperialism while keeping our organizational independence? Or do you believe we are counter revolutionaries who do not deserve political independence, whether in a united front or in "New Democracy?"


That is your historical line, again.
We can not learn from history if we pretend mistakes, contradictions, and betrayals didn't happen, and treat anyone who worries about them as a counter-revolutionary.


I have already mentioned why the question of participation of any individual in a revolutionary organization should not be a part of any debate.
Then you should stop making veiled attacks on individuals for not being part of the right organization. If you want to bully people for "not being engaged in armed struggle," don't complain when the same accusation is hurled back at you.

[red cat]

No idea.

That's not true. Maoism bases itself on the "Bloc of Four Classes," which includes "patriotic capitalists." In Maoist theory the proletariat is supposed to restrain and lead the capitalists, but in China, the capitalists restrained the proletariat and now rule over the workers. Trotskyists do not believe that socialism can be established by a Bloc of Four Classes, only the working class can establish socialism.

I have already explained in many posts that why it is natural to deduce that any movement that depends on its own strength and is successful in overthrowing imperialism is led by the proletariat. I have also explained what new-democracy is.

What happened in China differs in your and our versions. We hold your version to be false.



So do you believe Trotskyists and Maoists can fight together against imperialism while keeping our organizational independence? Or do you believe we are counter revolutionaries who do not deserve political independence, whether in a united front or in "New Democracy?"

We can not learn from history if we pretend mistakes, contradictions, and betrayals didn't happen, and treat anyone who worries about them as a counter-revolutionary.

Despite the historically reactionary role of Trotskyism, though we eye every Trotskyist group or individual with suspicion, ultimately whether they are revolutionary or not depends on their own actions. Trotskyist groups in Argentina and Sri Lanka have proved this.

Betrayals did happen in the past, but not from our side. When you make these accusations, your organizations should at least earn some credibility by launching revolutionary struggle somewhere so that we can differentiate between hardcore bourgeois propagandists and you.




Then you should stop making veiled attacks on individuals for not being part of the right organization. If you want to bully people for "not being engaged in armed struggle," don't complain when the same accusation is hurled back at you.

Notice that my point was that no Trotskyist organization engages in armed struggle today. I never asked any individual if he was a part of this or not.

[Q]

What about the CWI or SWP ?
Neither supports bourgeois repression. The mere fact you raise such a point is a clue you're not really interested in discussion but merely in trolling Trotskyists as much as you can get away with.

[red cat]

Neither supports bourgeois repression. The mere fact you raise such a point is a clue you're not really interested in discussion but merely in trolling Trotskyists as much as you can get away with.

Members of these two organizations have tried to indicate that Maoists in general are anti-worker gangs or are fighting a "phoney war". These sort of assertions tend to justify government military operations against Maoists and their mass bases.

[Devrim]

Members of these two organizations have tried to indicate that Maoists in general are anti-worker gangs or are fighting a "phoney war". These sort of assertions tend to justify government military operations against Maoists and their mass bases.

I am not sure if members of those organisations did. We, the ICC, certainly do characterise these sort of groups of Maoist groups as anti-worker gangs, and our sections in India, the Philippines, and Turkey as well as the groups we are working with in Peru maintain that analysis on the ground.

Devrim

[red cat]

I am not sure if members of those organisations did. We, the ICC, certainly do characterise these sort of groups of Maoist groups as anti-worker gangs, and our sections in India, the Philippines, and Turkey as well as the groups we are working with in Peru maintain that analysis on the ground.

Devrim

Yes, we know that.

The ICC also states that all Stalinist, Maoist and Trotskyite parties stem from the groups of reactionaries who abandoned proletarian internationalism and revolutionary line during WW1 and murdered Rosa Luxemburg, and hence are anti-Marxists.

The ICC maintains that "land to the tiller" is no solution to the current crisis and increasing oppression in the Indian countryside, and mention that this creates many small ownerships of the land (as if a big feudal lord is more desirable). They state that this has been proved in reality(where ? :lol: ).

[Devrim]

The ICC also states that all Stalinist, Maoist and Trotskyite parties stem from the groups of reactionaries who abandoned proletarian internationalism and revolutionary line during WW1 and murdered Rosa Luxemburg, and hence are anti-Marxists.

Actually, this is not exactly right. We maintain that the Trotskyists abandoned internationalism when they supported the Second Imperialist war, and the Maoist current was never internationalist in the first place. Certainly its lining up with the US block in WWII shows this.


The ICC maintains that "land to the tiller" is no solution to the current crisis and increasing oppression in the Indian countryside, and mention that this creates many small ownerships of the land (as if a big feudal lord is more desirable). They state that this has been proved in reality(where ? :lol: ).

'Land to the tiller' is no solution to the crisis in the countryside, and the peasantry is not a revolutionary class. That does not mean that a big feudal landlord is 'more desirable'.

Devrim

[Kléber]

I have already explained in many posts that why it is natural to deduce that any movement that depends on its own strength and is successful in overthrowing imperialism is led by the proletariat. I have also explained what new-democracy is.I know what New Democracy and the Bloc of Four Classes are and they aren't proletarian.

Any successful religion depends on a proletarian base. Any successful fascist movement depends on having some proletarian support. The fact that nationalist movements, or any other movement, are largely proletarian in form does not make them proletarian in character.


What happened in China differs in your and our versions. We hold your version to be false.There is only one "version" of what actually happened, unless you're a postmodernist. You can't just rewrite history and pretend that Mao was all-knowing and always correct. Market capitalism has been fully restored in China. Maoism failed to establish socialism in China. A socialist society would be democratically run by workers and peasants, and could not be demolished by a couple revisionist bureaucrats. If a couple old men can turn off socialism with the switch of a button, then there was never socialism.


Betrayals did happen in the past, but not from our side.Actually, we do have reason to fear because the Trotskyists in China were repressed and murdered by Mao's party.

Also, Mao himself betrayed the Indian and Bangladeshi Maoists, not to mention the oppressed nations of the world, when he supported China's alignment on the side of US imperialism against the USSR, equipping the Pakistani army and putting the Maoist fighters in a situation where they had to oppose Chinese foreign policy (thus splitting their organizations) in order to oppose imperialism.


your organizations should at least earn some credibility by launching revolutionary struggle somewhere so that we can differentiate between hardcore bourgeois propagandists and you.You should earn some credibility by launching revolutionary struggle and not just being a bourgeois online propagandist.

[red cat]

Actually, this is not exactly right. We maintain that the Trotskyists abandoned internationalism when they supported the Second Imperialist war, and the Maoist current was never internationalist in the first place. Certainly its lining up with the US block in WWII shows this.

Actually one of the articles of ICC on India says that Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyite parties stem from the social democratic parties which joined the capitalist camp during WW1 by denouncing proletarian internationalism and revolutionary line, destroying the revolution in Germany in 1919 and murdering Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Leo Jogisches.



'Land to the tiller' is no solution to the crisis in the countryside, and the peasantry is not a revolutionary class. That does not mean that a big feudal landlord is 'more desirable'.

Devrim

Openly labeling the vast majority of the third-world population as reactionary tells a lot about your tendency.

[Kléber]

the Trotskyists abandoned internationalism when they supported the Second Imperialist war
WTF? No we didn't. Trotskyist soldiers mutinied against the British army in Sri Lanka and some of them were executed. Trotskyists conducted strikes in Britain and the US while the CP's took a pro-war anti-strike position. Earl Browder and William Z. Foster appeared before HUAC to name the names of Trotskyists and call them "fascist agents" (no Trotskyist ever appeared before HUAC to denounce a Stalinist).

[black magick hustla]

Openly labeling the vast majority of the third-world population as reactionary tells a lot about your tendency.

that the second biggest and most fastest growing icc section is the mexican one? who would have known :(

[red cat]

that the second biggest and most fastest growing icc section is the mexican one? who would have known :(

Second biggest compared to the rest of your organizations . Look at Bastar, you will understand what we call "big". :lol:

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

As far s Belgium is concerned, and I believe this counts for many Trotskyist parties, they work against the other Communist parties, form loose organisations without Party discipline (since they're against it), and try to provoke spontaneous, unorganized actions from the Workers, which are purely ineffective.

[red cat]

I know what New Democracy and the Bloc of Four Classes are and they aren't proletarian.

Any successful religion depends on a proletarian base. Any successful fascist movement depends on having some proletarian support. The fact that nationalist movements, or any other movement, are largely proletarian in form does not make them proletarian in character.

How many of these movements have successfully overthrown imperialism only relying on their mass-bases ?




There is only one "version" of what actually happened, unless you're a postmodernist. You can't just rewrite history and pretend that Mao was all-knowing and always correct. Market capitalism has been fully restored in China. Maoism failed to establish socialism in China. A socialist society would be democratically run by workers and peasants, and could not be demolished by a couple revisionist bureaucrats. If a couple old men can turn off socialism with the switch of a button, then there was never socialism.

Counter-revolution in China was a little more complicated than that.




Actually, we do have reason to fear because the Trotskyists in China were repressed and murdered by Mao's party.

Also, Mao himself betrayed the Indian and Bangladeshi Maoists, not to mention the oppressed nations of the world, when he supported China's alignment on the side of US imperialism against the USSR, equipping the Pakistani army and putting the Maoist fighters in a situation where they had to oppose Chinese foreign policy (thus splitting their organizations) in order to oppose imperialism.It seems you know a lot more than the Indian and Bangladeshi Maoists on who betrayed them. :lol:





Encouraging comrades to wage futile and suicidal struggles before they have sufficient resources and organization is the type of advice typical of police informants and wreckers.When will Trot parties have enough resources? After Maoists complete the revolution? :lol:

EDIT:

Kleber's edit :


You should earn some credibility by launching revolutionary struggle and not just being a bourgeois online propagandist.

The bourgeois tactic of personal attack emerges yet again. Look, the country I live in has a Maoist PW of its own, so maybe we need online propagandists so that your organizations cannot label us as terrorists and justify future imperialist military operations against the broad masses of my country? Where are your armed struggles by the way?

[Devrim]

Actually one of the articles of ICC on India says that Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyite parties stem from the social democratic parties which joined the capitalist camp during WW1 by denouncing proletarian internationalism and revolutionary line, destroying the revolution in Germany in 1919 and murdering Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Leo Jogisches.

I think that you have misread something here.


Openly labeling the vast majority of the third-world population as reactionary tells a lot about your tendency.

First I didn't label the peasantry as reactionary. I said that they were not a revolutionary class.

Second the peasantry is not the vast majority of the 'third world population' If we take India as an example only 52% of the population work in agriculture:


Labor Force - by occupation:
agriculture: 52%
industry: 14%
services: 34%

There is no way that 52% can be described as a vast majority. However, when you consider that included in that are also agricultural labourers, i.e. rural proletarians, it becomes quite clear that the peasantry is actually a minority.

The Idea that the vast majority of the population of the 'third world' is composed of the peasantry is a Western Maoist/third worldist fantasy. I remember when the last war was happening in lebanon, and people were going on about the peasantry on here. Agriculture makes up just over 10% of the Lebanese workforce (and remember this includes rural proletarians too), less than Greece. Similar things were said during the demonstrations last year in Iran, a country with a higher percentage of industrial workers than the UK.

Keep on with your Maoist peasant factories. Meanwhile the five biggest cities in the world (i.e. concentrations of proletarians), Mumbai, Shanghai, Karachi, Delhi, and Istanbul are all in the so-called 'third world'. That is where we will be focusing our work.

Devrim



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/field_listing_on.gif (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2048.html?countryName=India&countryCode=in&regionCode=sas&#in)

[ls]

When will Trot parties have enough resources? After Maoists complete the revolution? :lol:

Well, the Naxalites were brutally suppressed in the 70s which meant a lot of blood. Sendero luminoso have been brutally oppressed too as have other Maoist organisations and guerrilla organisations, often you will find that non-guerrilla ones have had more success.

[Kléber]

How many of these movements have successfully overthrown imperialism only relying on their mass-bases ?The CCP did not successfully take over China "only relying on [its] mass-bases" it received the timely aid of 1.5 million Soviet troops invading Manchuria on its side in 1945, without which Mao's forces would not have acquired so much Japanese materiel (and thus gained the ability to fight mobile warfare on the scale of the Nationalists) or been able to quickly unify Manchuria.


It seems you know a lot more than the Indian and Bangladeshi Maoists on who betrayed them. :lol:Maybe more people would still be in those groups and they would have conquered state power 30 years ago if China had supported them instead of arming the Pakistani army in collusion with a US-backed imperialist genocide.


Counter-revolution in China was a little more complicated than that. Maybe if you believe the Maoist state propaganda about his bureaucratic programs.


When will Trot parties have enough resources? After Maoists complete the revolution?Maoists have never completed any revolution, do you think China is socialist or something? :p


Where are your armed struggles by the way?The bourgeois tactic of personal attack emerges again. Why are you wasting time on a computer? Why aren't you out doing armed struggle?

[red cat]

I think that you have misread something here.

Here:

http://bn.internationalism.org/ci/2007/sigur




সিঙুর , নন্দীগ্রাম - বামপন্থী বর্বরতার সাম্প্রতিকতম উদাহরণ

Submitted by CommunistIntern... on Fri, 2007-04-06 03:14. »

Printer-friendly version (http://bn.internationalism.org/book/export/html/30)
1349 reads


পশ্চিমবঙ্গের বামপন্থী শাসিত পুঁজিবাদী সরকার রাজধানী কলকাতার অনতিদূরের গ্রামীন এলাকা সিঙ্গুর ও নন্দীগ্রামের নিরস্ত্র শোষিত জনতা ও কৃষি শ্রমিকদের ওপর জঘণ্য আক্রমণ নামিয়ে এনেছে। রাজ্যের বতর্মান সরকার গায়ের জোরে কৃষিজমি অধিগ্রহণ করছে তথাকথিত ‘শিল্পায়ন' এবং স্পেশ্যাল ইকোনোমিক জোন গড়ে তোলার জন্য যার প্রধান উদ্দেশ্য হল পুঁজিপতিদের শ্রমিকশ্রেণিকে ইচ্ছামত শোষন করার উপযুক্ত বিশেষ সুবিধা এবং অধিকার সুনিশ্চিত করা। সিঙুর এবং নন্দীগ্রামের মানুষ এই জমি কেড়ে নেওয়ার বিরুদ্ধে সোচ্চার হয়েছেন। এমতাবস্থায় রাজ্যের সশস্ত্র পুলিশ বাহিনী ও সি পি আই (এম) [1]-র ক্যাডার বাহিনীর ‘পবিত্র' জোট আন্দোলনকারীদের ওপর ভয়ংকরভাবে ঝাঁপিয়ে পড়েছে। বিনা প্ররোচনায় গত ১৪ই মার্চ এই পবিত্র জোট নিরস্ত্র শিশু, বৃদ্ধ মহিলা এবং পুরুষের ওপর নিবির্চারে গুলি চালিয়েছে, নারীদের ওপর যৌন নিযার্তন করেছে, শিশুদের পযন্ত রেহাই দেয় নি-খবরে প্রকাশ তাদেরকে নির্মমভাবে ধর থেকে মাথা ছিঁড়ে মেরে ফেলা হয়েছে। শত শত মানুষ আহত, নিহতের সংখ্যা এখনও সঠিক জানা যায় নি কারণ ওই পবিত্র জোট সেসব লাশ গায়েব ক'রে দিয়েছে। এই ভয়ংকর পাশবিক সন্ত্রাস যেকোন সুস্থ স্বাভাবিক অনুভূতিসম্পন্ন মানুষের মনে ভীষণ ঘৃণার উদ্রেক না করেই পারেনা। আসলে এই ঘৃণা প্রকাশের কোন ভাষা আমাদের জানা নেই।
এই সংগ্রামী মানুষজনের মধ্যে এখানকার সবচেয়ে ক্ষমতাশালী বাম দল সি পি আই (এম) তথা বামফ্রন্ট সরকারের প্রতি হয়তো কিছু ভ্রান্ত প্রত্যাশা ছিল যে তারা সংগ্রামী মানুষের কথা শুনবে এবং তাদের দাবী মেনে নেবে। বিশেষত: যখন এই সি পি আই (এম ) দল অবিরাম পশ্চিম বঙ্গের মানুষের গণতান্ত্রিক অধিকার, গ্রামের খেটে খাওয়া মানুষের মর্যাদা তথা জীবনযাপনের মান উন্নয়নের কথা সুনিশ্চিত করার কথা বলে চলে এবং বলতে গর্ব বোধ করে। পাশাপাশি অন্যান্য রাজনৈতিক দল মানে পুঁজির বাম ডান দলগুলোও এই প্রত্যাশাতেই ইন্ধন যুগিয়েছে এবং তাদের এই অস্তিত্ব রক্ষার মরীয়া চেষ্টাকে নিজেদের সংসদীয় ক্ষমতা দখলের এবং রাজনৈতিক আধিপত্য বিস্তারের লক্ষ্যে কাজে লাগাচ্ছে। বিপরীতে বিপ্লবী প্রলেতারিয়েতের কাজ বতর্মান ঐতিহাসিক পরিস্থিতিতে জীবনযাপনের এই ক্রমবধর্মান সংকটের মূল কারণ, পুঁজিবাদী এই ব্যবস্থাটার আসল স্বরূপ উদ্ঘাটিত করা, শ্রমিক শ্রেণি তথা অন্যান্য শোষিত অংশের শ্রেণি-সংগ্রামের গতি-প্রকৃতি এবং লক্ষ্য সম্বন্ধে সঠিক অবস্থান চিহ্নিত করা।
স্ট্যালিনিস্ট বর্বরতার ঘৃণ্য স্বরূপের সুস্পষ্ট প্রকাশ :

সি পি আই এম বলে গ্রামের গরীব মানুষের জন্য তারা যথেষ্ট করেছে, তাদের "অধিকার" দিয়েছে, ভূমিসংস্কারের প্রবর্তক তারাই; হ্যাঁ, তারা কেন্দ্রীয় সরকারের ভূমি সংস্কারের কমর্সুচীকে যথাসম্ভব রূপায়িত করেছে, হয়তো অন্য রাজ্যগুলোর তুলনায় একটু ভালোভাবেই-তবে স্বভাবতই এসব করার কারণ তাদের ক্ষমতায় টিকে থাকার প্রধান ঘাঁটি অর্থাৎ গ্রামের মেহনতী মানুষকে নিজের পক্ষে রাখাই। বলতে গেলে গ্রামের ওপর ভিত্তি করেই এত বছর ধরে এরা সরকারে থাকতে পেরেছে। স্বভাবতই এতকাল ক্ষমতায় থাকার ফলে তাদের স্পর্ধা বা ঔদ্ধত্যও বাড়াবাড়িরকমের সীমা ছাড়িয়ে গেছে।


যাহোক বতর্মানে তারা আবিষ্কার করেছে যে ‘তাদের' সাধের পশ্চিমবঙ্গ নাকি ভারতের অন্যান্য রাজ্যগুলোর থেকে শিল্পায়নের ব্যাপারে বেশ পিছিয়ে পড়েছে! অতএব কোন কিছুর তোয়াক্কা নাকরেই সাত তাড়াতাড়ি ‘দেশি/বিদেশি' পুঁজি টানার তোড়জোর শুরু করে দিয়েছে। বিশেষ অর্থনৈতিক অঞ্চল বা শিল্পকেন্দ্র বা নগরায়ণ যাই হোক তার জন্য লাগে জমি। ফলে তাদের জমি ‘দখলের' নয়া লড়াই ---- সরকারী আইনের মুখে ঝামা ঘষে, রাজনৈতিক মস্তান বাহিনী/ মাফিয়া নামিয়ে, সন্ত্রাস সৃষ্টি ক'রে, একথায় যেনতেনপ্রকারেণ বাম সরকার জমি কেড়ে নেওয়ার প্রয়াসে নেমে পড়েছে। আর তারই ফল হ'ল এই নারকীয় হত্যালীলা-যা গুজরাটে আরএস এসের মুসলিম নিধন যজ্ঞের কথা অথবা কংগ্রেসীদের ১৯৭১-র রাডিক্যাল লেফটিস্টদের খতম করার ইতিহাস বা ১৯৮৪-র শিখ নিধনের কথা মনে করিয়ে দেয়। এব্যাপারে এরা চীনের কমরেড ‘দোসরের' কাছ থেকে প্রেরণা পেয়েছে যারা অনেককাল আগেই চীনের চাষীদের দুদর্শাকে পুঁজি ক'রে রাষ্ট্র ক্ষমতায় এসেছে আর তারপর সেই চাষীদের ওপরই নিপীড়নের স্ট্রীম রোলার চালিয়েছে ‘শিল্পায়নে'র খাতিরে! একটি রিপোর্টে দেখা যাচ্ছে সাম্প্রতিক কালে দ্রুত ‘শিল্পায়ন'-র রাষ্ট্রীয় নীতির ফলে উদ্বাস্তু হয়ে যাওয়া হাজার হাজার কৃষকের সরকার বিরোধী আন্দোলন বর্বরোচিতোভাবে দমন করা হয়েছে। খবরে প্রকাশ, গত কয়েক বছরে চীনে কৃষির সঙ্গে যুক্ত মানুষের প্রায় ৯০,০০০ প্রতিবাদ আন্দোলন হয়েছে। এথেকে বোঝা যায়, রাডিক্যাল, অতিউগ্রসহ সবরকমের বামপন্থীরা পুঁজির দক্ষিণ অংশের মতই পুঁজিবাদকে টিকিয়ে রাখার জন্য সমস্তরকমের অমানবিক কাযর্কলাপ করতে পারে, পারে মানুষের ক্ষোভ বিক্ষোভকে নিজেদের স্বার্থে কাজে লাগাতে।


অনেকেই ভাবেন সিপিএম দীর্ঘকাল সরকারে থাকার জন্যই এমন পচনশীল , দূর্নীতিগ্রস্ত হয়ে পড়েছে। শুধু বতর্মান অভিজ্ঞতার ভিত্তিতেই এটা সত্য মনে হতে পারে। কিন্তু ইতিহাসের আলোয় বিচার করলে ব্যাপারটা অন্যরকম: প্রকৃতপক্ষে সিপিআই (এম), সিপিআইএম (এল), সিপিআই এবং অন্যান্য স্ট্যালিনিস্ট, মাওয়িস্ট ট্রটস্কাইট পার্টিগুলো আসলে দ্বিতীয় আন্তর্জাতিকের সেই সোস্যাল ডেমোক্র্যাটিক পার্টির ধারা যারা প্রথম বিশ্বযুদ্ধের সময় প্রলেতারিয়েতের আন্তর্জাতিকতা এবং বিপ্লবী লাইন বর্জন ক'রে পুঁজিবাদী শিবিরে যোগদান করেছিল, আর জার্মানে ১৯১৯-র বিপ্লবের প্রয়াসকে ধ্বংস করেছিল। এরাই খুন করেছিল বিশ্ব বিপ্লবের গুরুত্বপূর্ণ যোদ্ধা রোজা লুক্সেমবার্গ, কার্ল লিবনেখট্ আর লিও যোগিসেসের মত কম্যুনিস্টদের। যে তৃতীয় আন্তর্জাতিক বিশ্ব বিপ্লবের অগ্রণী নেতৃত্ব দেবার উদ্দেশ্যে প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়েছিল, এরাই স্ট্যালিনের নেতৃত্বে সেই আন্তর্জাতিককে প্রতিবিপ্লবের আখরাতে পরিণত করার কাজে অগ্রণী ভূমিকা পালন করেছিল।

মার্কসবাদের নামে এই গভীরতম প্রতিবিপ্লব বিশ্ব প্রলেতারিয়েতকে শুধুমাত্র শারীরিকভাবে নয়, তাকে পর্যুদস্ত করেছিল রাজনৈতিক ও মতাদর্শগতভাবেও। এই প্রতিবিপ্লব প্রলেতারিয়েতের সংগ্রামের সমস্ত ঐতিহাসিক শিক্ষা, তার তাত্ত্বিক হাতিয়ার, তার সংগঠন সবকিছুকেই লোপাট ক'রে দিয়েছিল। এরা মার্কসবাদের সম্পূর্ণ বিপরীত এবং স্ববিরোধী বিষয়কেই মার্কসবাদ হিসেবে উপস্থিত করেছিল। এককথায়, এরা মার্কসবাদের কবর খনক ছাড়া কিছুই নয়। স্ট্যালিন নিয়ন্ত্রিত বলসেভিক পার্টি বা মাও নিয়ন্ত্রিত সিপিসি বা সারা বিশ্বে ছড়িয়ে থাকা অন্যান্য অফিসিয়্যাল কম্যুনিস্ট পার্টিগুলো আসলে সম্পূর্ণরূপে অধঃপতিত প্রতিবিপ্লবী দল যদিও এরাই প্রলেতারিয়েতের বিপ্লবী পার্টি হিসেবে নিজেদের জাহির করেছে। এই স্ট্যালিনিয় প্রতিবিপ্লবী ধারা সারা বিশ্বে শ্রমিকশ্রেণির কাছে ইতিহাসের সবথেকে বড় এই মিথ্যা প্রচার করেছে যে রাশিয়ায় সমাজতন্ত্র প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়েছে যদিও রাশিয়ায় যা ছিল তা সবথেকে বেশি দমনপীড়ণ এবং শোষনের ওপর প্রতিষ্ঠিত এক বিশেষ ধরণের রাষ্ট্রীয় পুঁজিবাদ ছাড়া কিছুই নয়।


মার্কসীয় তত্ত্ব অনুযায়ী এক দেশে সমাজতন্ত্র কখনোই হতে পারে না।



পরন্তু এই প্রতিবিপ্লবী পার্টিগুলোই দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের সময় শ্রমিকশ্রেণিকে ফ্যাসিবাদ বিরোধিতার শ্লোগান দিয়ে সাম্রাজ্যবাদী যুদ্ধে অংশ নিতে বাধ্য করেছিল। শ্রমিক শ্রেণির আন্তর্জাতিক বিপ্লবী লাইন হ'ল সাম্রাজ্যবাদী যুদ্ধে শ্রমিকশ্রেণি কোন পক্ষেই যোগ দিতে পারেনা, বরং লেনিন যেমন বলেছিলেন তাদের কাজ হ'ল পৃথিবীর প্রতিটি দেশের পুঁজিবাদের আক্রমণের বিরুদ্ধে শ্রেণিসংগ্রামকে তীব্রতর করা। এরা তার সম্পূর্ণ বিপরীতে গিয়ে শ্রমিক শ্রেণির আন্তর্জাতিকতার নীতির বিরুদ্ধে পুঁজিবাদের পক্ষ নিয়েছিল।


ফ্যাসিস্টদের মতই এরা এবং এদের ‘গণতান্ত্রিক' সাম্রাজ্যবাদী জোটসহ সকলেই লক্ষ লক্ষ শ্রমিক তথা শোষিত মানুষের মৃত্যুর জন্য সমান পরিমাণে দায়ী। জন্মের প্রায় শুরু থেকেই উপরোক্ত প্রতিবিপ্লবীধারার অবস্থানগুলোই সিপিআই (যার থেকেই পরে সিপিআই (এম)-র জন্ম)-র ভিত্তি। সেদিক থেকে বলা যায় এদের শ্রমিকশ্রেণির প্রতি বিশ্বাসঘাতকতার ইতিহাস শুরু ১৯৩০-র দশক থেকেই। শ্রমিক শ্রেণির ঐতিহাসিক পরাজয়ের সেই সময় থেকেই এইসব রাজনৈতিক দলগুলো মাকর্সবাদের নামে মাকর্সবাদকে কবরে পাঠানোর কাজই ক'রে চলেছে এবং পুঁজির সবথেকে নির্ভরযোগ্য রক্ষকের ভূমিকা পালন করছে। এদের এই প্রতিবিপ্লবী শ্রমিকশ্রেণি বিরোধী চরিত্র নগ্নভাবে উদ্ঘাটিত হতে অনেক সময় লেগেছে: এর প্রধাণ কারণ ইতিহাসের এক দীর্ঘ সময় জুড়ে এই গভীরতম প্রতিবিপ্লবী ধারার প্রভাব--- ঐতিহাসিক কারণেই শ্রমিকশ্রেণির ওপর এদের নিয়ন্ত্রণ ছিল ---কেননা পরাজয়ের কালে শ্রমিকেরা এদেরকেই তাদের স্বার্থরক্ষাকারী দল হিসেবে মনে করত, তাদের মতাদর্শগতভাবে বন্ধ্যা ক'রে রেখেছিল এইসব দলগুলো। কিন্তু ইতিহাসের নিজস্ব নিয়মে, শ্রমিকশ্রেণির বর্তমান শ্রেণিসংঘর্ষের নতুন পর্যায়ে, যখন তাদের সংগ্রামী মনোভাব এবং শ্রেণি সচেতনতা অর্জনের প্রয়াস ক্রমবর্ধমান এবং ক্ষয়িষ্ণু পুঁজিবাদ যখন সারা পৃথিবীতেই স্থায়ীভাবে তীব্রতর সংকটের মধ্যে দিয়ে চলেছে তখন এই প্রতিবিপ্লবী শক্তি নিজেদের ভেতরকার আসল কুৎসিত, ঘৃণ্য এবং পুতিগন্ধময় চেহারাটা আর আড়াল করতে পারছে না, তাদের নখ দাঁত বেড়িয়ে পড়ছে শোষিত মানুষের , বিশেষতঃ শ্রমিক শ্রেণির মানুষের বিরুদ্ধে, শুধু ভারতেই নয়, সারা পৃথিবীতেই।
অন্যান্য রাজনৈতিক দল বা গ্রুপগুলো কি কৃষিতে যুক্ত মানুষগুলোর প্রকৃত বন্ধু?

সিপি আই এম-র এই দমন-পীড়ণ অতিবাম, দক্ষিণসহ সব বিরোধী রাজনৈতিকদলগুলোর কাছে বিরাট রাজনৈতিক সুযোগ এনে দিয়েছে-এমনকি, ক্ষমতাসীন বামফ্রন্ট্রের অন্যান্য শরিকদলগুলোও এই ফাঁকে তাদের বড় শরিককে সব রকমে একঘরে করা, নস্যাৎ করা এবং তার ভেতর দিয়ে নিজেদের রাজনৈতিক আধিপত্য সুনিশ্চিত করতে চাইছে। এদের মধ্যে কে কত বেশি চাষীভাইদের বন্ধু তা প্রমান করার প্রতিযোগিতা শুরু হয়ে গেছে। সিপিএমকে ভিলেন প্রমাণ করতে এরা মরীয়া। এরা চিৎকার করছে---- সিপিএম চাষীদের ওপর ফ্যাসিবাদী নিপীড়ণ চালিয়েছে। অতএব, ‘ফ্যাসিস্ট' সিপিএমের বিরুদ্ধে এ্যান্টিফ্যাসিস্ট ডেমোক্র্যাটিক ফ্রন্ট গড়ার প্রয়াস! এরা বোঝাতে চাইছে তারাই একমাত্র আগমার্কা গণতান্ত্রিক দল! আর এইভাবে এরা শ্রমিকশ্রেণি তথা শোষিত মানুষকে আগামী নির্বাচনের দিকে তাকিয়ে নিজেদের ‘গণতান্ত্রিক' পতাকাতলে আনতে চাইছে। লেফ্টিস্ট পার্টিগুলোর বিরুদ্ধে বিক্ষোভকে এরা তাদের ক্ষমতায় আসার পুঁজি করতে চাইছে। এরা এই সত্যটাকে আড়াল করতে চাইছে যে সরকারে গেলে এরাও একইরকম বা তার চাইতে বেশি পরিমাণেই দমন-পীড়ণের আশ্রয় নেবে কেননা শোষিত মানুষ, বিশেষতঃ শ্রমিকশ্রেণির জীবন-জীবিকার ওপর ক্রমবর্ধমান পুঁজিবাদী আক্রমণের বিরুদ্ধে লড়াইকে ঠান্ডা করা তাদেরও কাজ। এটা তাদের শুভইচ্ছার ওপর নির্ভর নয়, বরং, যত গণতান্ত্রিক বলেই তারা নিজেদের দাবি করুক, আসলে পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থাকে টিকিয়ে রাখতে এটা তারা করতে বাধ্য কারণ এরা সকলেই পুঁজির বাম কিংবা ডান হাত ছাড়া কিছুই নয়। আমাদের বুঝতে হবে বর্তমানে পুঁজিবাদ টিকে থাকতে পারে শুধুমাত্র শ্রমিকশ্রেণিসহ অন্যান্য শোষিত মানুষের ওপর তার শোষন তীব্র থেকে তীব্রতর করার মধ্যে দিয়েই।



বিরোধীরা বলছে এই বর্বর সিপিআইএমকে গদীচ্যূত করলেই সব সমস্যার সমাধান। পুলিশ-ক্যাডার জোটের হাতে নিহত মানুষগুলোর প্রতি তারা আমাদের দৃষ্টি আবদ্ধ রাখতে চাইছে। এঘটনা সত্যিই অসহনীয়, কিন্তু আমরা কি ভুলে যাব গত দুতিন বছরে এই ভারতেই ২০ থেকে ৩০ হাজার চাষী আত্মহত্যা করেছে- বিশেষ ক'রে সেইসব জায়গায় যেখানে কৃষি অত্যন্ত উন্নত, ফলে বিশ্ব বাজারের সঙ্গে দারুনভাবে অন্বিত। এদের জমি কেড়ে নেওয়া হয় নি, জমির মালিকানা থাকা সত্ত্বেও তারা পৃথিবী ছেড়ে চলে গেছে। বিশ্ব-পুঁজিবাদের কোন্ বস্তুগত পরিস্থিতির চাপে এই অবস্থা হল একথা তারা কেউ বলছে না, বরং তার বিপরীতে একটা ভুল ধারণা মাথায় ঢোকাতে চাইছে যে নন্দীগ্রামের এই ঘটনাটা যেন বা পৃথিবীর পুঁজিবাদের সংকটের বাইরে, এটা শুধুমাত্র কোন্ সরকার ক্ষমতায় আছে তার ওপর নির্ভর; এককথায় যেনতেন প্রকারে, রাজনৈতিক আধিপত্য কায়েম করা, আর সর্বোপরি গদীটি দখল করা এদের মূল লক্ষ্য: এদের কাছে এই বর্বরতা, এই মৃত্যু, শোষিতমানুষের মরীয়া হয়ে বাঁচার চেষ্টা সবই হল সেই লক্ষ্য পূরণের সহায়ক হাতিয়ারমাত্র।
পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থার আক্রমণ:

পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থার জন্ম হয়েছে প্রাক-পুঁজিবাদী পণ্য-উৎপাদন ও বিনীময় ব্যবস্থার গর্ভ থেকে। আর পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থার বিকাশের পথে লক্ষ লক্ষ খুদে উৎপাদক এবং চাষী তাদের জমি অথবা উৎপাদনের উপায় গুলো থেকে উচ্ছেদ হয়েছে। বাস্তবত, পুঁজিবাদ টিকে থাকতে পারে প্রাক-পুঁজিবাদী ধরণের উৎপাদন ক্ষেত্রগুলোকে ক্রমাগত আত্মসাৎ করেই। এইসব খুদে মালিক ও উৎপাদকেরা পুঁজিবাদী উৎপাদিকা শক্তির বিপুল তেজের সামনে খড়কুটোর মত ভেসে যায়: সস্তা পণ্যের বিপরীতে তাদের পুরোণো ধরণের উৎপাদন বাজারে কোন জায়গাই করতে পারে না-ফলে তাদের পুরোণো জীবনযাপনের ধরণ বজায় রাখাও ক্রমাগত অসম্ভব হয়ে পড়ে। তবে ঊনবিংশ শতাব্দীতে পুঁজিবাদী বিকাশের বিপুল জোয়ারের সময় এই সব উচ্ছেদ হয়ে যাওয়া মানুষদের পুঁজিবাদী উৎপাদন ব্যবস্থার অন্তর্ভূক্ত করে নেওয়া সম্ভব ছিল।



কিন্তু বতর্মানে পুঁজিবাদ নিজেই একটা জরাগ্রস্ত, বাতিল ব্যবস্থায় পরিণত হয়েছে। তার সংকট এখন আর আকস্মিক নয়, বরং তা একটা স্থায়ী এবং ক্রমবর্ধমান রূপ লাভ করেছে। এ পর্যায়ে পুঁজিবাদ লক্ষ লক্ষ মানুষকে তার নিজের উৎপাদন ব্যবস্থার বাইরে বের ক'রে দিতে বাধ্য হচ্ছে। ফলে, অসংখ্য মানুষ ক্রমাগত আরো বেশি দুর্দশা, বেকারি, অনিশ্চয়তার দিকে চলে যাচ্ছে। মানুষকে ভবঘুরেতে পরিণত ক'রে দিচ্ছে এই সিস্টেম।


যে কোন উপায়ে লাভের অংক বাড়ানোই পুঁজিবাদের মূলমন্ত্র। পুঁজির ডান বাম সব দল বা গোষ্ঠীর কাজ শেষবিচারে এই প্রচেষ্টাকেই সফল ক'রে তোলা। তবে এই কাজ যত অসম্ভব বা দুঃসাধ্য হয়ে পড়ছে, তত বেশি বেশি ক'রে পুঁজিপতিদের বিভিন্ন অংশের মধ্যে সেইসব সেক্টরগুলো নিয়ে মারমার কাটকাট প্রতিযোগিতা চলছে যেসব সেক্টরে টাকা ঢাললে সবথেকে বেশি এবং সবথেকে তাড়াতাড়ি লাভ হবে। আর একারণেই শিল্প-ক্ষেত্রগুলোর স্থান বদল (relocation) এবং আউটসোর্সিং এত গতি পাচ্ছে। ইউরোপীয় এবং আমেরিকান পুঁজিপতিরা তাদের উৎপাদন পদ্ধতির কিছুটা বা পুরোপুরি স্থানান্তরিত করছে বা তাদের অনেক কাজই আউটসোর্শ করছে সেইখানে যেখানে যথেষ্ট সস্তায় যথেষ্ট দক্ষ শ্রমিক পাওয়া যাবে। এই হল বতর্মানে চীন এবং ভারতের ‘আশ্চর্য্য' উন্নতির ভেতরের কারণ। পচে যাওয়া পুঁজিবাদী এই ব্যবস্থার মধ্যে এই ‘শিল্পায়ন'-র জন্যই এখন জমি দরকার। রিয়েল এস্টেটের বাড় বাড়ন্ত এরই ভিত্তিতে এবং শুধু চীন ভারত নয়, সারা বিশ্বেই এই বিজনেস এখন দ্রুত গতি লাভ করেছে। অতীতের ‘স্বর্ণ-তৃষা'র মত এখন ‘ ভূমি-তৃষা' সারা ভারতে মহামারীর মত ছড়িয়ে পড়েছে-জমির দাম বাড়ছে অবিশ্বাস্য হারে। জমি নিয়ে ফাটকা কারবার চলছে দ্রুততার সঙ্গে প্রচুর লাভ তুলে আনার জন্য। কৃষকদের পক্ষে তাদের জীবিকার ওপর এই আপাত অদৃশ্য পুঁজিবাদী আক্রমণ প্রতিহত করা অসম্ভব। ঐতিহাসিক ভাবে বাতিল হয়ে যাওয়া মৃত্যুপথযাত্রী পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থার চলমান অর্থনৈতিক প্রক্রিয়ার মধ্যে দিয়েই লক্ষ লক্ষ কৃষক জমি হারাচ্ছে এবং হারাবে।



তাছাড়া, গ্রামীন অর্থনীতি পুরোপুরি বিশ্ব পুঁজিবাদী অর্থনৈতিক ব্যবস্থার মধ্যে আত্মীকৃত হয়ে গেছে। বাজার-অক্টোপাশ সমস্ত অর্থনৈতিক ক্ষেত্রকে তার সহস্র পাশে বেঁধে দমবন্ধ ক'রে দিচ্ছে, হাজার হাজার খুদে চাষীর জীবন সম্পূর্ণ অনিশ্চিত, আশাহীন হয়ে পড়ছে এই সুবিপুল এবং মূলত নিয়ন্ত্রণহীন বিশ্ব তথা জাতীয় বাজারের প্রচন্ড চাপের মুখে। এই পরিস্থিতি তাদের আত্মহত্যা অথবা জমি বিক্রির দিকে ঠেলে দিচ্ছে। ফলতঃ যেভাবেই হোক কৃষকদের জীবন জীবিকার চলতি উপায় বজায় রাখার কোন উপায় আজ আর খোলা নেই। যতদিন এই পুঁজিবাদ টিকে আছে ততদিন বুর্জোয়াদের নিজেদের উদ্দেশ্য সাধনের জন্য জমি নেওয়ার এই প্রক্রিয়া রোধ করা সম্ভব নয়। যত ভালো স্বপ্নই তারা দেখাক বা দেখুক না কেন, কোন রাষ্ট্র বা রাজনৈতিক দল একে আটকাতে পারবে না।
ভুয়ো বিকল্প

সরকার এবং বিরোধী দল সকলেই কতকগুলো ভুয়ো বিকল্প হাজির করেছে। বামফ্রন্ট সরকার বলছে ‘শিল্পায়ন'-র মাধ্যমে যারা জমি দিচ্ছে বা যারা জমির ওপর ভিত্তি ক'রে জীবিকা করে তারা সকলেই অন্নসংস্থানের সুযোগ পাবে। এটা নির্জলা মিথ্যা। বেশিদিনের কথা নয়, সিপিআইএম নিজেই বলেছে ভারতের বর্তমান অর্থনৈতিক গ্রোথ আসলে কার্মসংস্থানহীন গ্রোথ। এটা সত্যি। তাহলে পশ্চিমবঙ্গের ক্ষেত্রে এটা উল্টো হবে কোন্ ম্যাজিকে? বিরোধীরা বলছে চাষীদের হাত থেকে জমি কেড়ে না নিলেই প্রবলেম সলভ্*ড্-কিন্তু আমরা আমাদের বিশ্লেষণে দেখিয়েছি পুঁজিবাদের আজকের এই সংকটের মুখে একথা হানড্রেড পারসেন্ট ভাঁওতা ছাড়া কিছুই নয়। এই জঘণ্য মিথ্যাচার ক'রে এরা চাষীদের প্রাকপুঁজিবাদী জীবনধারণের অনিশ্চয়তার গাড্ডাতেই রেখে দিতে চাইছে যাতে ক'রে প্রয়োজন মত তাদের রাজনৈতিক উদ্দেশ্যে বলী দেওয়া যায়। আসলে এই ব্যবস্থার মধ্যে কোন সমাধান আজ আর নেই।
সমাধানের একমাত্র রাস্তা

ওইসব মিথ্যে বিকল্পগুলোর কোনটাই সমস্যার সমাধান করতে পারেনা। বাম সরকার পাল্টে ডান বা অতিবাম তথাকথিত ভীষণ ‘গণতান্ত্রিক' সরকার এনেও কোন সমাধান সম্ভব নয়। ভীষণরকম রাডিক্যাল উপায়ে (যথা মাওয়িস্ট) লাঙল যার জমি তার ক'রে জমিকে হাজার টুকরো ক'রে অসংখ্য ক্ষুদ্র মালিকানা তৈরি করাটাও কোন সমাধান নয়-এটা বাস্তবে প্রমাণিত। আসলে, এই ভয়ংকর অবস্থার জন্য দায়ী যে বিশ্ব পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থা তাকে উচ্ছেদ করাটাই হল আজকের একমাত্র কর্তব্য। এই কাজ করতে না পারলে মানব প্রজাতির অস্তিত্বই আরো বিপন্ন হয়ে পড়বে। তাই আজ যারা পুঁজির বাম ডান সবরকম দলের বাইরে দাঁড়িয়ে, নতুন প্রজন্মের তরুণ-তরুণীরা যাঁরা পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থাটার বিরুদ্ধে প্রশ্ন তুলছেন, যাঁরা নন্দীগ্রামের মত এই নিদারুণ অমানবিক ঘটনায় গভীরভাবে ব্যথিত তাঁদের চিন্তা করা দরকার সঠিক বিকল্পটা অর্থাৎ বিশ্বপুঁজিবাদের ধ্বংস সাধন। আর একমাত্র বিশ্ব-শ্রমিকশ্রেণিই পারে একাজে নেতৃত্ব দিতে এবং এই কাজকে সফলভাবে সমাধা করতে। এখানেই নিহিত আছে শ্রমিকশ্রেণিসহ সমস্ত শোষিত অংশের মুক্তির চাবিকাঠি। অতএব সমস্ত শোষিত মানুষের, বিপ্লবী শ্রমিকশ্রেণির সংগ্রামের সঙ্গে নিজেদের যুক্ত করা ছাড়া আর কোন পথ খোলা নেই, কেননা প্রকৃত সমাধানের পথে একমাত্র শ্রমিকশ্রেণিই তাদের প্রকৃত বন্ধু হতে পারে।


ইন্টারন্যাশনাল কম্যুনিস্ট কারেন্ট (আইসিসি)

২০শে মার্চ, ২০০৭

[1] বতর্মানে ভারতের প্রাধান্য বিস্তারকারী স্ট্যালিনিস্ট পার্টি


Ask some comrade of yours who knows this Indian language to translate this for you.




First I didn't label the peasantry as reactionary. I said that they were not a revolutionary class.



Then what are they? In class-struggle a class as a whole is either revolutionary or reactionary.





Second the peasantry is not the vast majority of the 'third world population' If we take India as an example only 52% of the population work in agriculture:



There is no way that 52% can be described as a vast majority. However, when you consider that included in that are also agricultural labourers, i.e. rural proletarians, it becomes quite clear that the peasantry is actually a minority.



More than 65% of the Indian population is directly involved in agriculture. Due to the absence of bourgeois relations, your "agricultural workers" are actually landless peasants or bonded laborers.




The Idea that the vast majority of the population of the 'third world' is composed of the peasantry is a Western Maoist/third worldist fantasy. I remember when the last war was happening in lebanon, and people were going on about the peasantry on here. Agriculture makes up just over 10% of the Lebanese workforce (and remember this includes rural proletarians too), less than Greece. Similar things were said during the demonstrations last year in Iran, a country with a higher percentage of industrial workers than the UK.

Keep on with your Maoist peasant factories. Meanwhile the five biggest cities in the world (i.e. concentrations of proletarians), Mumbai, Shanghai, Karachi, Delhi, and Istanbul are all in the so-called 'third world'. That is where we will be focusing our work.

Devrim



Then do it. Let us see real workers' movements in these cities organized by left communists. Let us see the working class seizing control of the means of production and hailing the ICC.

[red cat]

Well, the Naxalites were brutally suppressed in the 70s which meant a lot of blood. Sendero luminoso have been brutally oppressed too as have other Maoist organisations and guerrilla organisations, often you will find that non-guerrilla ones have had more success.

And what is the current position of non-guerrilla third world Maoist parties?

We think that the only way to gather resources and learn about making revolution is to start the revolutionary war itself. One cannot learn swimming until he enters the water.

[Kléber]

One cannot learn swimming until he enters the water.
One should also check to see if there is water in the pool before diving in head first. Action without theory is just as bad as theory without action.

[Devrim]

WTF? No we didn't. Trotskyist soldiers mutinied against the British army in Sri Lanka and some of them were executed. Trotskyists conducted strikes in Britain and the US while the CP's took a pro-war anti-strike position. Earl Browder and William Z. Foster appeared before HUAC to name the names of Trotskyists and call them "fascist agents" (no Trotskyist ever appeared before HUAC to denounce a Stalinist).

You are wrong about this. Trotskyism supported the allies in WWII albeit with a few absurd slogans about 'workers' control of the army'.


We fight against sending the worker-soldiers into battle without proper training and equipment. We oppose the military direction of worker-soldiers by bourgeois officers who have no regard for their treatment, their protection and their lives. We demand federal funds for the military training of workers and worker-officers under the control of the trade unions. Military appropriations? Yes—but only for the establishment and equipment of worker training camps! Compulsory military training of workers? Yes—but only under the control of the trade unions!

Of course what these calls mean when stripped of their leftist sloganeering is support for the war:


We didn’t visualize, nobody visualized, a world situation in which whole countries would be conquered by fascist armies. The workers don’t want to be conquered by foreign invaders, above all by fascists. They require a program of military struggle against foreign invaders which assures their class independence. That is the gist of the problem.

Of course, in a period of working class defeat it was absurd to call for a military struggle, which 'maintained class independence'. It just ended up as military struggle for national defence.

This sums up the position clearly:


We are willing to fight Hitler. No worker wants to see that gang of fascist barbarians overrun this country or any country. But we want to fight fascism under a leadership we can trust.

Of course, some Trotskyists did take an internationalist position, such as those in Greece. The thing is that almost all of them believed that they were in line with the rest of the Fourth international. It was impossible for them to maintain contact after under occupation. After the war when the discovered what the FI had actually been arguing, the majority of them quit in disgust at the positions that the FI held on the war, and the nature of the Soviet Union, the defence of so-called 'workers' states' and their attitude to the coming wars, even including Trotsky's wife, who split from Trotskyism in 1951 and moved towards the communist left:


Comrades, You know quite well that I have not been in political agreement with you for the past five or six years, since the end of the war and even earlier.
...
Obsessed by old and outlived formulas, you continue to regard the Stalinist state as a workers’ state. I cannot and will not follow you in this...It should be clear to everyone that the revolution has been completely destroyed by Stalinism. Yet you continue to say that under this unspeakable regime, Russia is still a workers’ state. I consider this a blow at socialism. Stalinism and the Stalinist state have nothing whatever in common with a workers’ state or with socialism. They are the worst and the most dangerous enemies of socialism and the working class.

You now hold that the states of Eastern Europe over which Stalinism established its domination during and after the war, are likewise workers’ states. This is equivalent to saying that Stalinism has carried out a revolutionary socialist role. I cannot and will not follow you in this.
...
Most insupportable of all is the position on the war to which you have committed yourselves. The third world war which threatens humanity confronts the revolutionary movement with the most difficult problems, the most complex situations, the gravest decisions. Our position can be taken only after the most earnest and freest discussions. But in the face of all the events of recent years, you continue to advocate, and to pledge the entire movement, to the defence of the Stalinist state. You are even now supporting the armies of Stalinism in the war which is being endured by the anguished Korean people. I cannot and will not follow you in this.

As far back as 1927, Trotsky, in reply to a disloyal question put to him in the Political Bureau by Stalin, stated his views as follows: “For the socialist fatherland, yes! For the Stalinist regime, no!”. That was in 1927! Now, twenty-three years later Stalin has left nothing of the Socialist fatherland. It has been replaced by the enslavement and degradation of the people by the Stalinist autocracy. This is the state you propose to defend in the war, which you are already defending in Korea.

In the message sent me from the recent convention of the SWP you write that Trotsky’s ideas continue to be your guide. I must tell you that I read these words with great bitterness. As you observe from what I have written above, I do not see his ideas in your politics. I have confidence in these ideas. I remain convinced that the only way out of the present situation is the social revolution, the self-emancipation of the proletariat of the world.

Devrim

[red cat]

The CCP did not successfully take over China "only relying on [its] mass-bases" it received the timely aid of 1.5 million Soviet troops invading Manchuria on its side in 1945, without which Mao's forces would not have acquired so much Japanese materiel (and thus gained the ability to fight mobile warfare on the scale of the Nationalists) or been able to quickly unify Manchuria.

Maybe more people would still be in those groups and they would have conquered state power 30 years ago if China had supported them instead of arming the Pakistani army in collusion with a US-backed imperialist genocide.

They have enough people now and are expanding rapidly. They hold that the CPC during Mao Dze Dong's leadership supported them firmly.




Maybe if you believe the Maoist state propaganda about his bureaucratic programs.

Maoists have never completed any revolution, do you think China is socialist or something?Yes, we believe every word of the historical line of the communist parties that are presently making revolution.



The bourgeois tactic of personal attack emerges again. Why are you wasting time on a computer? Why aren't you out doing armed struggle? That was not a personal attack! You as in all Trots, not you !

EDIT: That the Soviet aid was necessary for completion of the Chinese revolution, is not true. The CPC was already very powerful and controlled a third of China.

[red cat]

One should also check to see if there is water in the pool before diving in head first. Action without theory is just as bad as theory without action.

The revolutionary nature of the oppressed masses is the water for Maoists.

[red cat]

You have some bizarre fetish for "factory workers".


The factory workers cannot be compared to call-centre workers. oppression of the former is many times of that of the latter.



Just cuz you say it doesn't make it true. Are you telling me that they don't cripple several Indian states and their economies at a time or what? Go on, take that line and show yourself up to everyone here.

You are accusing others of elitism aimed at you, but you are doing the same. All I did was tell you to rethink your position after all, I didn't say you had to do loads of reading, although now I'm willing to consider that you probably do need to as well if you think the Indian city strikes don't have a massive effect.



That needs backing up, also what constitutes this "whole working class" in the cities on strike needs to be clarified, so this should be interesting.

I will try to find some detailed reports on Maoist strikes in cities.

Meanwhile, you can provide reports on these "nation-wide" strikes.

[Devrim]

Ask some comrade of yours who knows this Indian language to translate this for you.
I will obviously, I can't comment at the moment on something I can't read.


More than 65% of the Indian population is directly involved in agriculture. Due to the absence of bourgeois relations, your "agricultural workers" are actually landless peasants or bonded laborers.

Can we have some statistics that back this up, please?

The idea of 'landless peasants' is an absurdity today. With the establishment of market relations (i.e. bourgeois relations that do exist in India), the peasantry is a class defined by its ownership of land. Agricultural labourers and bonded labourers are not part of this class by definition in that they do not own land.

But I forget, you think that school teachers are a part of the petit-bourgoisie and have no idea of class beyond a sociological one anyway, certainly no idea of a Marxist one.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Then do it. Let us see real workers' movements in these cities organized by left communists. Let us see the working class seizing control of the means of production and hailing the ICC.

For us it is not about people 'hailing the ICC', or 'organising workers'. We think that the working class has the ability to organise itself. Something that the left mouths as a slogan, but doesn't actual believe.

If you want to look at massive working class struggles im 'third world' countries, you could do worse that look at the massive textile strikes in Bangladesh, the strikes at al-Mahal in Egypt recently, or even the current struggles in Turkey over TEKEL.

Devrim

[red cat]

I will obviously, I can't comment at the moment on something I can't read.



Can we have some statistics that back this up, please?

Actually I suspect that the percentage might be even higher. Here is one source.

http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit/web/dalit-clarion-issue-2



The idea of 'landless peasants' is an absurdity today. With the establishment of market relations (i.e. bourgeois relations that do exist in India), the peasantry is a class defined by its ownership of land. Agricultural labourers and bonded labourers are not part of this class by definition in that they do not own land.

I have already posted a lot about the production relations in India, and why India never turned into a capitalist country. Please read those in the main thread for the Indian Maoists movement.



But I forget, you think that school teachers are a part of the petit-bourgoisie and have no idea of class beyond a sociological one anyway, certainly no idea of a Marxist one.

Devrim

I have written in details about this in this very thread. Where do you contradict that? And if you call them proletarian, then the assertions of many other tendencies that state that most Maoist cadres are petit-bourgeois, become all the more baseless.

[red cat]

For us it is not about people 'hailing the ICC', or 'organising workers'. We think that the working class has the ability to organise itself. Something that the left mouths as a slogan, but doesn't actual believe.

If you want to look at massive working class struggles im 'third world' countries, you could do worse that look at the massive textile strikes in Bangladesh, the strikes at al-Mahal in Egypt recently, or even the current struggles in Turkey over TEKEL.

Devrim

If your parties don't even organize workers, then what are they for?

Show me something in India. Since the Maoist sources from Bangladesh and Turkey are rare, I cannot verify your reports. Also, besides strike actions, arming the working class is necessary.

EDIT: Sorry, for a while I thought that by working class struggle you meant something associated with your tendency. We do acknowledge the struggle of the working class in every country. But we think that to take these struggles to higher dimensions and bringing them together, and to prevent them from getting neutralized by revisionist forces, a vanguard party is necessary at present.

[Kléber]

They hold that the CPC during Mao Dze Dong's leadership supported them firmly. Well, Mao's leadership gave guns to the Pakistani army, that were used to kill them along with a great number of workers, peasants and students. So there's a contradiction in Maoism.


EDIT: That the Soviet aid was necessary for completion of the Chinese revolution, is not true. The CPC was already very powerful and controlled a third of China.Most CCP-held territory in North China came under effective Soviet occupation at the end of WWII so if they had not had Soviet support they would have lost their primary base of operations. Also there is the fact that Chiang had kept his best equipment back from the front so he could fight a modern war against the CCP after Japan had been defeated, but Mao's party was not properly armed until 1945.


Yes, we believe every word of the historical line of the communist parties that are presently making revolution.With this obscurantist logic you assume that the working class is incapable of learning its own history and acting consciously upon it, and must instead be led by heroes who are incapable of making mistakes.

You seem to think it's counter-revolutionary to even admit that a revolutionary could make a mistake, but the opposite is true: without conscious and self critical analysis we will learn nothing from all the failures of the past.

Trying to spark a revolution by immediate armed struggle is not a new idea at all, it was one of the first strategies of revolutionary socialism. 150 years ago, the most well-organized revolutionaries in Europe were anarchists who thought that immediate armed struggle in the countryside was the only way to make revolution, and theory was just a waste of time. When Marxists began to criticize them and call for a turn to the working class, the anarchists tried to intimidate them just like you have been doing. How could Marxism be a revolutionary movement, how could Marxism offer any promise whatsoever, if Marxists weren't doing armed struggles in the countryside like the anarchists?


The revolutionary nature of the oppressed masses is the water for Maoists. If you try to dive into shallow water, you'll crack your head open. Likewise, an armed struggle can not succeed without mass democratic backing. It is a good thing that you understand, unlike many "socialists" and "Marxists" in the world today, that the revolution will have to be violent. However, fetishizing violence is a great mistake.

[Kléber]

You are wrong about this. Trotskyism supported the allies in WWII albeit with a few absurd slogans about 'workers' control of the army'.
Of course, some Trotskyists did take an internationalist position, such as those in Greece. The thing is that almost all of them believed that they were in line with the rest of the Fourth international.Well, I believe Trotsky said that the entry of the USSR into the war would not change its fundamental character as an imperialist war. So those group(s) which bucked his pre-emptive analysis weren't really taking a Marxist approach to the war since they abandoned an independent perspective for the proletariat.

The "American Military Policy" of James P. Cannon was not Trotskyist, it was a petty bourgeois capitulation. The AMP was a retreat from Trotsky's "Proletarian Military Policy."

Even in spite of the AMP and Cannon's insistence against sabotage and draft-dodging, the SWP opposed US entry into WWII when it happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28United_States%29#The_Wo rld_War_II_years) in 1941.

[Hit The North]

I can't see how this thread of inter-red baiting belongs in Learning. Moved to Politics.

[Devrim]

Actually I suspect that the percentage might be even higher. Here is one source.

http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit/web/dalit-clarion-issue-2

Well the quote is from Sharad Pawar, who as Minister of Agriculture should certainly have some idea of what he is talking about. It doesn't seem to fit in with any data I could find though, for example this:


Based on the 1991 census, the government estimated that the labor force had grown by more than 65 million since 1981 and that the total number of "main workers"--the "economically active population"--had reached 285.9 million people. This total did not include Jammu and Kashmir, which was not enumerated in the 1991 census. Labor force statistics for 1991 covered nine main-worker "industrial" categories: cultivators (39 percent of the main-worker force); agricultural laborers (26 percent); livestock, forestry, fishing, hunting, plantations, orchards, and allied activities (2 percent); mining and quarrying (1 percent); manufacturing (household 2 percent, other than household 7 percent); construction (2 percent); trade and commerce (8 percent); transportation, storage, and communications (3 percent); and "other services" (10 percent). Another 28.2 million "marginal workers" were also counted in the census but not tabulated among the nine categories even though unpaid farm and family enterprise workers were counted among the nine categories. Of the total work force--both main and marginal workers--29 percent were women, and nearly 78 percent worked in rural areas.This is more interesting as it breaks it done further. Notice that it puts peasants and land owners(cultivators) at 39%, and separates agricultural workers at 26%, which seems to suggest that even in India the peasantry is not a majority even, let alone a vast one. It does add up to exactly the 65% quoted by Pawar though.


The farming community has been ignored in this country and
especially so over the last eight to 10 years. The total investment
in the agriculture sector is going down... You will be surprised in
the budgetary provision, not more than 2 percent has been allocated
for agriculture, where more than 65 percent of the population
works...

Notice that he just talks about where they work though, and doesn't take into account class divisions in the countryside. Of course in the Maoist view of class that you are putting forward, where everybody who works in agriculture is a peasant, from the big capitalist commercial farmer, through the actual peasant to the rural labourer, is part of the 'peasantry', you could possibly say that the majority of the population are peasants. It isn't a Marxist analysis of class though.


I have already posted a lot about the production relations in India, and why India never turned into a capitalist country. Please read those in the main thread for the Indian Maoists movement.

I am sorry, but I really can't be bothered to read through such an absurd argument as to why India isn't a capitalist country. It obviously is.


Show me something in India. Since the Maoist sources from Bangladesh and Turkey are rare, I cannot verify your reports.

The latest statistics from the Indian Ministry of Labour (from 2005) show that 2,722,784 workers were involved in strikes in that year. (I would suggest that the real number is slightly higher as this doesn't include workplaces with less than 10 workers and, of course, not all strikes are reported). They also show that this is a rising tendency since (at least) 2002, as it has been internationally. If India follows other international trends, and if the reports that we hear from our comrades there are true, I would expect them to be higher today.


The struggles of the diamond workers in Gujrat , the struggles of the Hyundai workers in Chennai, auto part workers in Coimbatore, struggles of the auto and auto parts industry workers very near to the Indian capital region are some of the most important of the lots of massive or not so massive struggles that have taken place in spite of the lofty claims of the Indian bourgeoisie about successfully overcoming the worst effects of the crisis and being well set up on the way to recovery. In Gujrat and Gurgaon the unorganized, contract workers spearheaded the struggle. In Gujrat the diamond workers went on wild cat strike. This strike spread very rapidly to many other cities where diamond polishing is done. All these struggles have been violently crushed by the ‘democratic’ state machinery. Struggles, massive or not so massive, of the working class in various forms are taking place in various parts of India almost daily. Some of these struggles are:
There have been important strikes in public sector – Bank workers strike, Air India pilots strike, all India strike by oil workers in Jan 2009, and strike by Government employees in Jan 2009 in Bihar. Some of these have been the expression of bitter conflicts where the state tried to hit the workers very hard and crush them. This was the case with oil workers strike in Jan 2009 when state used ESMA and other laws to crush the workers and resorted to various repressive actions. This was also the case with strike of Government employees in Bihar where government wanted to teach the employees a lesson. In the case of oil workers’ strike the government later backed off from further repression as there was a threat of the strike spreading to other public sector undertakings.
BSNL employees went on strike on 27th August 2008, on 24th September of the same year bank employees went on strike. On 1st October2008 there was a strike by cine workers. On 7th January 2009 oil workers of IOC, BPCL, HPCL and GAIL went on strike for higher wages. Airport workers went on strike on 30th April ,2009. On May 20/21 there was a strike by mine workers in Bailadilla mines. On 25th May PWD workers in Goa struck for higher wages. On 12th June 2009 bank employees again went on strike. Workers of MRF Tiers and Nokia factories in Tamilnadu were also engaged in struggles on 22 September, 2009 against their bosses around the same time. In addition to these there have been important struggles of the dock workers and jute mill workers in West Bengal. In a suburb of Kolkata jute mill workers were so enraged against the management staff that they pounced upon and killed some of them. Tea garden workers have also gone on strike several times


But I forget, you think that school teachers are a part of the petit-bourgoisie and have no idea of class beyond a sociological one anyway, certainly no idea of a Marxist one.
I have written in details about this in this very thread. Where do you contradict that? And if you call them proletarian, then the assertions of many other tendencies that state that most Maoist cadres are petit-bourgeois, become all the more baseless.

Again, I don't bother to contradict absurd claims. Of course teachers are obviously workers. I don't think that your claim needs to be contradicted.

Nor, do I think that anybody has claimed that most Maoist cadres are petit -bourgeois. I would day that many of them come from the middle class and the intelligentsia, but these are sociological categories, and though they maybe useful sometimes in a descriptive sense, they are certainly not Marxist categories.

Devrim

[Devrim]

If your parties don't even organize workers, then what are they for?

I think the idea that the working class needs the 'party' to organise it is a hangover from Kautsky's social democratic ideas on the development, which were later picked up by Lenin. For us, as for Marx, the working class is capable of organising itself. The task of revolutionaries is to intervene as an organisation in the organs created by the class, e.g. mass meetings, strike committees, and ultimately workers councils, not to substitute themselves for the class.


EDIT: Sorry, for a while I thought that by working class struggle you meant something associated with your tendency.

We really do look at things differently.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Well, I believe Trotsky said that the entry of the USSR into the war would not change its fundamental character as an imperialist war.

We will never know what Trotsky would have done as he was murdered before it came to the crunch. Certainly we can say that Trotsky himself, never supported imperialist wars. What he would have done when Germany attacked the USSR is pure conjuncture though.


So those group(s) which bucked his pre-emptive analysis weren't really taking a Marxist approach to the war since they abandoned an independent perspective for the proletariat.

I don't think that it is 'non-Marxist' to disagree with Trotsky. However, he also said other things in the run up to WWII, which would have been more in line with the position the SWP adopted. They did abandon an independent class position though.


The "American Military Policy" of James P. Cannon was not Trotskyist, it was a petty bourgeois capitulation. The AMP was a retreat from Trotsky's "Proletarian Military Policy."

I have never heard of Cannon's "American Military Policy", and can't find it searching the internet. The quotations I used though come from 1940 before the US had entred the war and refereed to the 'PMP':


Even in spite of the AMP and Cannon's insistence against sabotage and draft-dodging, the SWP opposed US entry into WWII when it happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28United_States%29#The_Wo rld_War_II_years) in 1941.

This is what your link says:


However the party put into practice the so-called Proletarian Military Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_Military_Policy) of opposing the war politically while arguing that their members of military age, which meant most of the membership, should go with their class into the military and attempt to transform the imperialist war into a civil war while fighting the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism). Although the members of the SWP kept a deliberately low profile during the war years the marine fraction of the party lost a number of its members while sailing in the extremely perilous convoys to Murmansk in an attempt to contact revolutionaries in Russia.

The SWP supported the war, and acted as a recruiting sergeant for US imperialism.

Also the US is not the world, and Trotskyists international took a similar line.

Devrim

[Kléber]

We will never know what Trotsky would have done as he was murdered before it came to the crunch. Certainly we can say that Trotsky himself, never supported imperialist wars. What he would have done when Germany attacked the USSR is pure conjuncture though.Actually Trotsky did write about "The USSR in War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm)" where he considers the hypothetical possibility of the USSR joining the war, and he definitely did not think it would change the character of the war.

Trotsky would have maintained the analysis he made of WWII before he died. You are the one conjecturing since you think Trotsky might have been wooed by the Comintern and abandoned all of his principles the same way the CP's did in 1941.


I don't think that it is 'non-Marxist' to disagree with TrotskyYou said something to the effect that "The Trotskyists weren't even behaving like true Trotskyists!" So I replied "No, they weren't being Marxists for that matter either." So, the opportunism of one group has nothing to do with Marxism or Trotskyism.


I have never heard of Cannon's "American Military Policy", and can't find it searching the internet. The quotations I used though come from 1940 before the US had entred the war and refereed to the 'PMP':The "American Military Policy" as a weak revisionist version of the PMP was defined by two SWP statements, the 1940 thing you quoted and Cannon's defense speech in 1941.


The SWP supported the war, and acted as a recruiting sergeant for US imperialism.No it didn't, you are mincing words and also confusing multiple points together. On the question of whether or not a drafted Party member should obey the draft and attempt to "turn the war into civil war," the SWP believed that yes, that would be more effective than draft dodging. The Bolsheviks "acted as recruiting sergeants" for Russian imperialism in WWI it didn't mean they supported the war.


Also the US is not the world, and Trotskyists international took a similar line.I'm sure there were some revisionists elsewhere but so what? If there was so much Trotskyist opportunism in WWII then bring up examples from other countries

[red cat]

Well, Mao's leadership gave guns to the Pakistani army, that were used to kill them along with a great number of workers, peasants and students. So there's a contradiction in Maoism.

It's not. In fact, I think that it would have been favorable for the Maoists if the Pakistani army had won. Most of the damage was done by the Awami League.




Most CCP-held territory in North China came under effective Soviet occupation at the end of WWII so if they had not had Soviet support they would have lost their primary base of operations. Also there is the fact that Chiang had kept his best equipment back from the front so he could fight a modern war against the CCP after Japan had been defeated, but Mao's party was not properly armed until 1945.


With this obscurantist logic you assume that the working class is incapable of learning its own history and acting consciously upon it, and must instead be led by heroes who are incapable of making mistakes. Maoists are nor heroes. They are the working class.



You seem to think it's counter-revolutionary to even admit that a revolutionary could make a mistake, but the opposite is true: without conscious and self critical analysis we will learn nothing from all the failures of the past. My point is that when two parties present two versions of history that contradict each other, we prefer to accept the party which has been more successful in waging revolutionary war



Trying to spark a revolution by immediate armed struggle is not a new idea at all, it was one of the first strategies of revolutionary socialism. 150 years ago, the most well-organized revolutionaries in Europe were anarchists who thought that immediate armed struggle in the countryside was the only way to make revolution, and theory was just a waste of time. When Marxists began to criticize them and call for a turn to the working class, the anarchists tried to intimidate them just like you have been doing. How could Marxism be a revolutionary movement, how could Marxism offer any promise whatsoever, if Marxists weren't doing armed struggles in the countryside like the anarchists?


I don't know exactly about Europe 150 years ago, but it seems that it was already capitalist and so the best (and probably only) option would be to go for city insurrections.

However, today in the third world, the situation is different. Here the most oppressed portion is the countryside, and there is no scope of any democratic movement. Also, the government forces tend to be weak initially in the countryside. So rural guerrilla warfare is the way to start the movement here.



If you try to dive into shallow water, you'll crack your head open. Likewise, an armed struggle can not succeed without mass democratic backing. It is a good thing that you understand, unlike many "socialists" and "Marxists" in the world today, that the revolution will have to be violent. However, fetishizing violence is a great mistake.In fact, Maoist armed struggles involve not only mass-democratic backing, but also mass participation in the armed struggle itself. For us, the masses are always deep water.

[Kléber]

My point is that when two parties present two versions of history that contradict each other, we prefer to accept the party which has been more successful in waging revolutionary warSo if the year was 1910 you would be against Marxism because Marxists hadn't done any successful armed struggles. If you were in China in 1930 you would support the Nationalists because "they had done a revolution and are in armed struggle against imperialist Japan," and you would be against the Communists because they were less "successful in waging revolutionary war." Or right now, Islamist organizations are putting up a more bloody fight against the US in Iraq than the Maoists are against the Indian government, so you should stop being a Maoist and start being an Islamist because they're doing a more serious armed struggle.

Judging parties by how temporarily successful they are, is not a sound basis for choosing sides. You should judge people based on their theory and history.


My point is that when two parties present two versions of history that contradict each other, we prefer to accept the party which has been more successful in waging revolutionary warWhat is the point of taking state power if you set up another capitalist country like China?


Maoist armed struggles involve not only mass-democratic backingSo you agree that mass-democratic backing is needed for an armed struggle to be successful. So stop attacking Trotskyists who are building up their mass-democratic backing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Trotskyism supported the allies in WWII albeit with a few absurd slogans about 'workers' control of the army'.

At least they recognized that they were no longer in a revolutionary period (mass hostility towards regimes, organized party-movements for channelling those hostilities towards, mass support of said party-movements, and lack of confidence in state apparatuses).

Revolutionary defencism was the order of the day.

[red cat]

So if the year was 1910 you would be against Marxism because Marxists hadn't done any successful armed struggles. If you were in China in 1930 you would support the Nationalists because "they had done a revolution and are in armed struggle against imperialist Japan," and you would be against the Communists because they were less "successful in waging revolutionary war." Or right now, Islamist organizations are putting up a more bloody fight against the US in Iraq than the Maoists are against the Indian government, so you should stop being a Maoist and start being an Islamist because they're doing a more serious armed struggle.

Judging parties by how temporarily successful they are, is not a sound basis for choosing sides. You should judge people based on their theory and history.


Did the GMD start struggling against Japan that early? I had the impression that the CPC was conducting armed struggle against the GMD then.

Well, the Islamist struggle isn't happening in India... But I support them nevertheless.




What is the point of taking state power if you set up another capitalist country like China?
I have nothing to say because it is your historical line that claims this.



So you agree that mass-democratic backing is needed for an armed struggle to be successful. So stop attacking Trotskyists who are building up their mass-democratic backing.

The point is that as mass democratic backing is necessary for armed struggle, armed struggle is necessary for mass democratic backing too. Otherwise, without arms, the masses cannot protect themselves. So, in the third world, you cannot really talk of building the mass democratic base and then beginning armed struggle. Both have to be done simultaneously.

[Kléber]

It's not. In fact, I think that it would have been favorable for the Maoists if the Pakistani army had won. Most of the damage was done by the Awami League.Actually, the Pakistani army was engaged in genocide against workers and peasants, they killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. If "it would have been favorable" for that US-backed genocide to succeed then I have serious doubts about your concern for the masses.

By your logic, anyone should have supported the Awami League and not the tiny Maoist sectarians, because the Awami League was waging armed struggle against imperialism while the Maoists were bickering about whether or not Yahya Khan was actually a progressive. So according to you, the Awami League line was correct and Maoist line was wrong. The Awami League won power, so their line was better for making revolution. Maoist line is wrong because Maoist line was not successful in making revolution. Anyone who criticizes Awami League is just a sectarian intellectual crying about people more successful than them (this is your logic!).


Did the GMD start struggling against Japan that early? I had the impression that the CPC was conducting armed struggle against the GMD then.The GMD also claimed to be revolutionary, it fought against the imperialists and the foreign-backed warlords, often fighting Japan and the CCP at the same time. It was bigger and more successful than the CCP, and it described itself as a national revolutionary movement that fought for the people's rights. The Nationalists even nationalized much of the Chinese economy in the 1930's, so Chinese capitalists turned against them and supported Japan! In fact, Stalin supported Chiang Kai-shek joining the Comintern.. don't you agree with Stalin's historical line? Soviet diplomats continued to recognize and aid the GMD even after 1927 purge, up until 1949. Stalin supported Chiang Kai-shek, he was a revolutionary leader with a big revolutionary army, so why wouldn't you support him?

My point here is not to compare the Maoists to the GMD but to point out where your logic of following the strongest person who claims to be "revolutionary" ends up.


Well, the Islamist struggle isn't happening in India... But I support them nevertheless.What kind of support? We already talked about how there is military support and political support. Both of us agree that if our organization had a militia in Iraq, we would not want to fight against the Islamists as long as the country was still occupied. so we both give them military support.

But do you give the Islamist struggle political support? If you were an Iraqi Maoist and the Islamists told you "To fight alongside us you must accept the Islamic line and all achievements of Islam as truly revolutionary" would you agree with them that Maoism is not necessary since Islamism is doing the task of anti-imperialist armed struggle?


I have nothing to say because it is your historical line that claims this.No, it is a plain and accomplished fact that China is a capitalist country and the CCP is a capitalist party. If you absolutely refuse to discuss how that happened, then I have reason to doubt that you can establish socialism with a "bloc of four classes" any better than the CCP. The CCP might have won an armed struggle but there is no socialism in China.


So, in the third world, you cannot really talk of building the mass democratic base and then beginning armed struggle. Both have to be done simultaneously.Not every semi-colonial country is a military dictatorship.

You seem incredibly ignorant about the history of Maoist parties. The CCP was forced into the countryside. They started off doing study groups to build their organization and they were not "simultaneously" making a religious point to kill police, despite operating under serious repression.

[Q]

As far s Belgium is concerned, and I believe this counts for many Trotskyist parties, they work against the other Communist parties, form loose organisations without Party discipline (since they're against it), and try to provoke spontaneous, unorganized actions from the Workers, which are purely ineffective.

This is rather bold coming from a member of a party which is opportunistically moving to the right. In fact, the Belgian PVDA/PTB can no longer really be seen as a revolutionary party due to their reformist crap, which makes the Trotskyist LSP/PSL (Belgian section of the CWI) the biggest revolutionary force.

[Devrim]

Actually Trotsky did write about "The USSR in War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm)" where he considers the hypothetical possibility of the USSR joining the war, and he definitely did not think it would change the character of the war.

Trotsky would have maintained the analysis he made of WWII before he died. You are the one conjecturing since you think Trotsky might have been wooed by the Comintern and abandoned all of his principles the same way the CP's did in 1941.

I wonder if you actually read the things that you link to. In that Article Trotsky argues for defence of the Soviet Union:


But let us suppose that Hitler turns his weapons against the East and invades territories occupied by the Red Army. Under these conditions, partisans of the Fourth International, without changing in any way their attitude toward the Kremlin oligarchy, will advance to the forefront as the most urgent task of the hour, the military resistance against Hitler. The workers will say, “We cannot cede to Hitler the overthrowing of Stalin; that is our own task”. During the military struggle against Hitler, the revolutionary workers will strive to enter into the closest possible comradely relations with the rank and file fighters of the Red Army. While arms in hand they deal blows to Hitler, the Bolshevik-Leninists will at the same time conduct revolutionary propaganda against Stalin preparing his overthrow at the next and perhaps very near stage.
This kind of “defense of the USSR” will naturally differ, as heaven does from earth, from the official defense which is now being conducted under the slogan: “For the Fatherland! For Stalin!” Our defense of the USSR is carried on under the slogan: “For Socialism! For the world revolution! Against Stalin!” In order that these two varieties of “Defense of the USSR” do not become confused in the consciousness of the masses it is necessary to know clearly and precisely how to formulate slogans which correspond to the concrete situation. But above all it is necessary to establish clearly just what we are defending, just how we are defending it, against whom we are defending it. Our slogans will create confusion among the masses only if we ourselves do not have a clear conception of our tasks.


Yes, there is a lot of radical rhetoric there, but basically it is an argument for the defence of the Soviet Union. In general Trotskyism did abandon class politics in 1941 along with the CPs, in the name of defence of the Soviet Union.

Actually, I have never heard a Trotskyist argue that they didn't before though I have heard plenty speak about it with embarrassment.

Devrim

[A.J.]

Mostly, trotskyites are effete middle class arts students who lead hippy bohemian lifestyles and prattle on about how badass "authoritarian stalinism" is 24/7.

[Q]

Mostly, trotskyites are effete middle class arts students who lead hippy bohemian lifestyles and prattle on about how badass "authoritarian stalinism" is 24/7.

You got me nailed down there.

Oh wait, no, you completely made a fool out of yourself with your silly trolling.

[A.J.]

They also have a sneering disdain for ordinary working class folk, I should add.

This snobbishness, I believe, has it's origins in the division of labour. Trotskyites seem to all be the offspring of white-collar professionals such as bankers and school teachers and look down upon manual labour.

[red cat]

Well the quote is from Sharad Pawar, who as Minister of Agriculture should certainly have some idea of what he is talking about. It doesn't seem to fit in with any data I could find though, for example this:

This is more interesting as it breaks it done further. Notice that it puts peasants and land owners(cultivators) at 39%, and separates agricultural workers at 26%, which seems to suggest that even in India the peasantry is not a majority even, let alone a vast one. It does add up to exactly the 65% quoted by Pawar though.

The 26% that you call agricultural workers are actually landless peasants or even worse.



Notice that he just talks about where they work though, and doesn't take into account class divisions in the countryside. Of course in the Maoist view of class that you are putting forward, where everybody who works in agriculture is a peasant, from the big capitalist commercial farmer, through the actual peasant to the rural labourer, is part of the 'peasantry', you could possibly say that the majority of the population are peasants. It isn't a Marxist analysis of class though.

There are middle-peasants, big peasants and feudal lords too. But they are the infinitesimal minority. By peasants I mean small peasants.

Agricultural capital does exist, but that is imperialist, not national. It operates through feudalism to bind the peasant to land.



I am sorry, but I really can't be bothered to read through such an absurd argument as to why India isn't a capitalist country. It obviously is.

Then there should have been some qualitative change through which the bourgeoisie would have overthrown imperialism. Please point out when this happened.



The latest statistics from the Indian Ministry of Labour (from 2005) show that 2,722,784 workers were involved in strikes in that year. (I would suggest that the real number is slightly higher as this doesn't include workplaces with less than 10 workers and, of course, not all strikes are reported). They also show that this is a rising tendency since (at least) 2002, as it has been internationally. If India follows other international trends, and if the reports that we hear from our comrades there are true, I would expect them to be higher today.

Again, I don't bother to contradict absurd claims. Of course teachers are obviously workers. I don't think that your claim needs to be contradicted.

Nor, do I think that anybody has claimed that most Maoist cadres are petit -bourgeois. I would day that many of them come from the middle class and the intelligentsia, but these are sociological categories, and though they maybe useful sometimes in a descriptive sense, they are certainly not Marxist categories.

I think the idea that the working class needs the 'party' to organise it is a hangover from Kautsky's social democratic ideas on the development, which were later picked up by Lenin. For us, as for Marx, the working class is capable of organising itself. The task of revolutionaries is to intervene as an organisation in the organs created by the class, e.g. mass meetings, strike committees, and ultimately workers councils, not to substitute themselves for the class.

We really do look at things differently.

Devrim

Devrim

I agree that there are spontaneous workers' movements, but we cling to Lenin's concept of the vanguard party, and maintain that without such a vanguard party, the proletariat cannot wage revolutionary war successfully.

[RED DAVE]

Mostly, trotskyites are effete middle class arts students who lead hippy bohemian lifestyles and prattle on about how badass "authoritarian stalinism" is 24/7.
They also have a sneering disdain for ordinary working class folk, I should add.

This snobbishness, I believe, has it's origins in the division of labour. Trotskyites seem to all be the offspring of white-collar professionals such as bankers and school teachers and look down upon manual labour.In these two quotes, all you are doing is engaging in political cursing. There is no content worth anything.

Why don''t you go away.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

The GMD also claimed to be revolutionary, it fought against the imperialists and the foreign-backed warlords, often fighting Japan and the CCP at the same time. It was bigger and more successful than the CCP, and it described itself as a national revolutionary movement that fought for the people's rights. The Nationalists even nationalized much of the Chinese economy in the 1930's, so Chinese capitalists turned against them and supported Japan! In fact, Stalin supported Chiang Kai-shek joining the Comintern.. don't you agree with Stalin's historical line? Soviet diplomats continued to recognize and aid the GMD even after 1927 purge, up until 1949. Stalin supported Chiang Kai-shek, he was a revolutionary leader with a big revolutionary army, so why wouldn't you support him?

You have to take into consideration the fact that in 1930 there existed an armed struggle led by the CPC, and it successfully wageed war against the GMD.




My point here is not to compare the Maoists to the GMD but to point out where your logic of following the strongest person who claims to be "revolutionary" ends up.

At least an armed struggle should EXIST.


What kind of support? We already talked about how there is military support and political support. Both of us agree that if our organization had a militia in Iraq, we would not want to fight against the Islamists as long as the country was still occupied. so we both give them military support.

But do you give the Islamist struggle political support? If you were an Iraqi Maoist and the Islamists told you "To fight alongside us you must accept the Islamic line and all achievements of Islam as truly revolutionary" would you agree with them that Maoism is not necessary since Islamism is doing the task of anti-imperialist armed struggle?

At least we wouldn't have called that war a phoney one or alleged that they have no mass-base.


No, it is a plain and accomplished fact that China is a capitalist country and the CCP is a capitalist party. If you absolutely refuse to discuss how that happened, then I have reason to doubt that you can establish socialism with a "bloc of four classes" any better than the CCP. The CCP might have won an armed struggle but there is no socialism in China.


The PRC definitely capitalist now. But that does not mean that it wasn't socialist at some point of time. The "bloc of four classes" is necessary for new-democracy, not socialism.




Not every semi-colonial country is a military dictatorship.



It does not need to be an open military dictatorship. Things work much the same way when the most downtrodden oppressed classes are concerned.




You seem incredibly ignorant about the history of Maoist parties. The CCP was forced into the countryside. They started off doing study groups to build their organization and they were not "simultaneously" making a religious point to kill police, despite operating under serious repression.

The Chinese revolution was the first of its kind. Therefore there could have been some mistakes in the beginning. Any communist study group that tries to organize workers without any military wing in the countryside is neutralized by the ruling class.

[Devrim]

The 26% that you call agricultural workers are actually landless peasants or even worse.

The peasantry is defined by its relationship to its means of production, i.e. land. It is a class of owners. The idea of a landless peasant is a contradiction in terms.


There are middle-peasants, big peasants and feudal lords too. But they are the infinitesimal minority. By peasants I mean small peasants.

So are small peasants, landowners, or agricultural workers? I have no idea what you mean, and I suspect that you are not that clear on it either.


Agricultural capital does exist, but that is imperialist, not national. It operates through feudalism to bind the peasant to land.

This too is meaningless jargon. What on Earth does it mean for agricultural capital to be "imperialist, not national".


Then there should have been some qualitative change through which the bourgeoisie would have overthrown imperialism. Please point out when this happened.

Imperialism is a world system today. It can't be 'overthrown' by the bourgoisie as they are an implicit part of it.

Devrim

[red cat]

The peasantry is defined by its relationship to its means of production, i.e. land. It is a class of owners. The idea of a landless peasant is a contradiction in terms.

A landless peasant, though not owning the land, can be bound to it by feudal relations of production. The notion of an agricultural worker does not arise until the system is capitalist. Wherever there is feudalism, the most oppressed class is the landless peasantry.



So are small peasants, landowners, or agricultural workers? I have no idea what you mean, and I suspect that you are not that clear on it either.

What I meant to say is that, peasants with small holdings and landless peasants form the vast majority of the peasantry.




This too is meaningless jargon. What on Earth does it mean for agricultural capital to be "imperialist, not national".

It means that the ownership of the agricultural capital is foreign with respect to the country in which it is acting.




Imperialism is a world system today. It can't be 'overthrown' by the bourgoisie as they are an implicit part of it.

Devrim

Imperialism cannot afford to let national capital grow more than a certain level. To prevent the growth of national capital, it enforces the feudal system on its colonies.

So, if the bourgeoisie cannot overthrow it (which follows from Leninism), then we can deduce that the colonies do not have a capitalist system.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's a bit absurd. It follows too much Rosa Luxemburg's thinking on imperialism.

[RHIZOMES]

Anyway, further on the discussion of the WSWS being shit, here's some sources.

http://www.internationalist.org/wherewasdavidnorth.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=52251&mesg_id=53451http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=52251&mesg_id=53451

http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no30/no30-GRPI-WSWS.html

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/4c525cb9cc8d4ee2/1b413edb98354567?lnk=gst&q=%22grand+river%22#

As I said, David North is a CEO of his own private textiles company. Okay. And a millionaire to boot.

Ad hominems bro!

[Kléber]

Yes, there is a lot of radical rhetoric there, but basically it is an argument for the defence of the Soviet Union.
Trotsky never said anything that could be construed to mean that the USSR's entry into the war would make it a "people's war." The defense of the USSR was based on the characterization of it as a workers' state and doesn't equate to defencism of the imperialist powers.


In general Trotskyism did abandon class politics in 1941 along with the CPs, in the name of defence of the Soviet Union.
So far you only provided one example, the SWP, whereas Trotskyists in Sri Lanka, Greece, Vietnam among other places took more hardline defeatist positions. Hate to sound like red cat but the Vietnamese Trotskyists actually engaged in armed struggle against the French imperialists.

"Trotskyism" did not abandon class politics, some revisionists abandoned Trotskyism as the Fourth International collapsed.



You have to take into consideration the fact that in 1930 there existed an armed struggle led by the CPC, and it successfully wageed war against the GMD.
How do you know you would have been on the side of CCP? You said yourself you follow whichever party is "most successful at making revolution;" the GMD also claimed to be making a revolution, it was supported by the USSR under Stalin (since he rejected the Trotskyist "one-stage theory (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm)"), and it was more successful than the CCP for most of the civil war.


At least we wouldn't have called that war a phoney one or alleged that they have no mass-base.
Once again, you are taking what one "Trotskyist" group has said and making me defend their position when I don't agree with that position or that group. I can just as easily say "at least we aren't anti-Chávez comprador bourgeois puppets" because of the anti-Chávez "Maoists."


The PRC definitely capitalist now. But that does not mean that it wasn't socialist at some point of time. The "bloc of four classes" is necessary for new-democracy, not socialism.
"New Democracy" is a fraud, it is a fancy excuse for bourgeois power, it has never led to socialism. There were nationalizations in the mid-late 1950's but nationalizations are not socialism. The GMD did many nationalizations in the 1930's, that doesn't make them socialist.


It does not need to be an open military dictatorship. Things work much the same way when the most downtrodden oppressed classes are concerned.If you persist in such reductionist thinking you should know that you are going against Lenin:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm


The Chinese revolution was the first of its kind. Therefore there could have been some mistakes in the beginning. Any communist study group that tries to organize workers without any military wing in the countryside is neutralized by the ruling class.
The Chinese revolution was not the first of its kind. It was a bourgeois revolution. In spite of a 20-year period of centralized state capitalism, the bourgeois mode of production was protected and developed by the Chinese Communist Party. Even at the height of the "Cultural Revolution," the bureaucratic elite continued to live in luxury and seclusion.


Arizona Bay:
That's just Spart crap. The ICFI broke with Healy long ago. Maybe it did take North longer to break with him than it should have, but the break was made 20+ years ago. Also how do you know North is a millionaire? It's not a very large company. It's a printing company not a textiles company and the ICFI is far from the first socialist organization in history to run a print shop.

[red cat]

How do you know you would have been on the side of CCP? You said yourself you follow whichever party is "most successful at making revolution;" the GMD also claimed to be making a revolution, it was supported by the USSR under Stalin (since he rejected the Trotskyist "one-stage theory (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm)"), and it was more successful than the CCP for most of the civil war.

But the GMD was not making revolution. It was helping to consolidate the oppressive system and was anti-people. To follow a correct line in this case, the best option for a party would be to send a team of representatives to China to investigate.

Can you provide any sources to support your claim that USSR supported the GMD at this point of time?





Once again, you are taking what one "Trotskyist" group has said and making me defend their position when I don't agree with that position or that group. I can just as easily say "at least we aren't anti-Chávez comprador bourgeois puppets" because of the anti-Chávez "Maoists."

The line of most, or may be all, of the Maoist parties waging PPW is anti-Chavez. We believe Chavez to be just another lackey of imperialism.



"New Democracy" is a fraud, it is a fancy excuse for bourgeois power, it has never led to socialism. There were nationalizations in the mid-late 1950's but nationalizations are not socialism. The GMD did many nationalizations in the 1930's, that doesn't make them socialist.

We argue that the CPC had established workers' control over the means of production.


If you persist in such reductionist thinking you should know that you are going against Lenin:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

Russia was capitalist during the Bolshevik Revolution. Even before th ebourgeois revolution earlier, it was not a colony.



The Chinese revolution was not the first of its kind. It was a bourgeois revolution. In spite of a 20-year period of centralized state capitalism, the bourgeois mode of production was protected and developed by the Chinese Communist Party. Even at the height of the "Cultural Revolution," the bureaucratic elite continued to live in luxury and seclusion.



A bourgeois revolution was not posssible in any part of the world after the consolidation of the Bolshevik revolution.

[CELMX]

Ban Ghost of Christmas Past (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=27642)

[Kléber]

But the GMD was not making revolution. It was helping to consolidate the oppressive system and was anti-people.The CCP did not make a revolution. It consolidated capitalism and is anti-worker.

The GMD claimed to be making revolution, it was nearly constantly fighting either Japanese imperialists or imperialist-backed warlords (China was not unified until 1949). Since you don't care about theory, you only follow the biggest "revolutionary armed struggle," and the size of the army makes the theory correct, you would probably have supported GMD.


Can you provide any sources to support your claim that USSR supported the GMD at this point of time?Soviet support to the GMD varied, but Soviet diplomats remained with Chiang's entourage and continued to recognize his government until they fled Shanghai in 1949.

Trotsky had been calling for the CCP to break with the GMD from 1925, in order to prepare for an armed workers' revolution. Stalin rejected this in favor of the two-stage theory, and he used his influence to get Chiang Kai-shek appointed as an honorary Comintern representative (Trotsky was the only Comintern executive member to vote against that). Two years later Chiang massacred the CCP, yet Stalin's leadership continued to put faith in the GMD until it was clear the CCP had won the civil war. Why? In Stalin's eyes, the CCP was more successful at making a national revolution than the CCP.

Operation Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zet)
Sino-Soviet Agreement on Mongolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_People%27s_Republic#The_1945_Sino-Soviet_Treaty_and_Mongolia.27s_Independence)
Polikarpov I-16 with ROC markings and Soviet "volunteer" pilot (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Soviet_volunteer.jpg)
Trotsky refused to give his personal blessing to the suicidal alliance with Chiang (http://www.zhongguo.org/trotsky/revbetrayed/images/China/11.htm)
Comintern had been pushing for a Second United Front prior to the Xi'an Incident (http://www.jstor.org/stable/654602)


The line of most, or may be all, of the Maoist parties waging PPW is anti-Chavez. We believe Chavez to be just another lackey of imperialism.So you would not only politically oppose, but wage immediate guerrilla war against Chávez even though the masses support him and still have illusions in the parliamentary system? Even while the imperialists plot to overthrow him? You aren't a Leninist, you're a hopeless sectarian!


We argue that the CPC had established workers' control over the means of production.Workers never gained control over production. Businesses were merely nationalized in the mid-late 1950's. Nationalizations are not socialist. The GMD did many nationalizations in the 1930's.


Russia was capitalist during the Bolshevik Revolution.Only in the sense that China was capitalist (since it was mostly controlled by GMD) before 1949.

Actually Russia was semi-feudal (more industrialized than China, but still). The provisional government did not actually abolish feudalism. Russian society after March 1917 was still at least as feudal as Indian society today.


Even before th ebourgeois revolution earlier, it was not a colony.Only in the sense that China was not a colony before 1949. (The treaty ports and foreign legations were given to the ROC by European powers after WWII)

Actually Russia was semi-colony (less colonial than China, again, but still). Russia was economically and politically beholden to England and France, whose capitalists had huge investments in Russia and great influence over the Russian comprador bourgeoisie. It was precisely because of its subservience to the French and English bourgeoisie that the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of fulfilling a real capitalist revolution, since to do so would require a rupture with the Allies upon whom it depended. Therefore the Bolsheviks gave no support to the bourgeois provisional government (which claimed to be socialistic and popular and above class distinctions, kind of like new democracy).. and they didn't wage immediate armed struggle either, they worked with less radical parties to set up soviets and built up their support in those councils.

Lenin was strongly opposed to the class-collaborationist "New Democracy" of his time. The Mensheviks believed in something very similar to New Democracy, they wanted to join the provisional government. Lenin did not believe in people's war either. The Makhnovists believed in people's war, they failed.

The Russian parliament pre-1917 was an absolute joke, there was nothing democratic about it. All your claims about the ineffectual parliaments in colonial countries, the danger facing revolutionaries, also applied there. Lenin still supported parliamentary action as long as a significant layer of workers and peasants still had illusions in the parliamentary system. The point here is not whether the parliamentary system is representative or not.. obviously it isn't. But if you engage in a voluntarist armed struggle with only your party, and without the support of the broad masses of the working class, this armed struggle will not magically win them to your banner; on the contrary, it will almost certainly fail (provided a foreign government doesn't arm you).


any communist study group that tries to organize workers without any military wing in the countryside is neutralized by the ruling class.We aren't debating whether or not communist parties should have an armed, underground wing. We both agree that any revolutionary party should actually prepare for revolutionary combat.

We were in fact debating whether or not that armed wing should immediately engaged in armed struggle. You are going against Lenin, Mao, and even Gonzalo and the Indian Maoists, by preaching a line of immediate terrorist violence and condemning any group that hasn't shot a police officer recently as "counter-revolutionary."

[red cat]

The CCP did not make a revolution. It consolidated capitalism and is anti-worker.

Your version of history claims that.



The GMD claimed to be making revolution, it was nearly constantly fighting either Japanese imperialists or imperialist-backed warlords (China was not unified until 1949). Since you don't care about theory, you only follow the biggest "revolutionary armed struggle," and the size of the army makes the theory correct, you would probably have supported GMD.The GMD was actually supporting the warlords.



Soviet support to the GMD varied, but Soviet diplomats remained with Chiang's entourage and continued to recognize his government until they fled Shanghai in 1949.

Trotsky had been calling for the CCP to break with the GMD from 1925, in order to prepare for an armed workers' revolution. Stalin rejected this in favor of the two-stage theory, and he used his influence to get Chiang Kai-shek appointed as an honorary Comintern representative (Trotsky was the only Comintern executive member to vote against that). Two years later Chiang massacred the CCP, yet Stalin's leadership continued to put faith in the GMD until it was clear the CCP had won the civil war. Why? In Stalin's eyes, the CCP was more successful at making a national revolution than the CCP.

Operation Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zet)
Sino-Soviet Agreement on Mongolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_People%27s_Republic#The_1945_Sino-Soviet_Treaty_and_Mongolia.27s_Independence)
Polikarpov I-16 with GMD markings and Soviet "volunteer" pilot (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Soviet_volunteer.jpg)
Trotsky refused to give his personal blessing to the suicidal alliance with Chiang (http://www.zhongguo.org/trotsky/revbetrayed/images/China/11.htm)
Comintern had been pushing for a Second United Front prior to the Xi'an Incident (http://www.jstor.org/stable/654602)

Interestingly, Mao's analysis after the defeat in 1927 blames Chen Du Xiu for tailing the GMD.



So you would not only politically oppose, but wage immediate guerrilla war against Chávez even though the masses support him and still have illusions in the parliamentary system? Even while the imperialists plot to overthrow him? You aren't a Leninist, you're a hopeless sectarian!When Latin America is considered, we stick to the analysis of the PCP(SL). The PCP(SL) maintains that Chavez is an anti-mass lackey of imperialists, certain blocs of US-based multinationals included.



Workers never gained control over production. Businesses were merely nationalized in the mid-late 1950's. Nationalizations are not socialist. The GMD did many nationalizations in the 1930's.

Actually it was semi-feudal (more industrialized than China, but still). The provisional government did not actually abolish feudalism. Russian society after March 1917 was still at least as feudal as Indian society today.

Actually it was semi-colony (less colonial than China, again, but still). Russia was economically and politically beholden to England and France, whose capitalists had huge investments in Russia and great influence over the Russian comprador bourgeoisie. It was precisely because of its subservience to the French and English bourgeoisie that the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of fulfilling a real capitalist revolution, since to do so would require a rupture with the Allies upon whom it depended. Therefore the Bolsheviks gave no support to the bourgeois provisional government (which claimed to be socialistic and popular and above class distinctions, kind of like new democracy).. and they didn't wage immediate armed struggle either, they worked with less radical parties to set up soviets and built up their support in those councils.

Lenin was strongly opposed to the class-collaborationist "New Democracy" of his time. The Mensheviks believed in something very similar to New Democracy, they wanted to join the provisional government. Lenin did not believe in people's war either. The Makhnovists believed in people's war, they failed.

The Russian parliament pre-1917 was an absolute joke, there was nothing democratic about it. All your claims about the ineffectual parliaments in colonial countries, the danger facing revolutionaries, also applied there. Lenin still supported parliamentary action as long as a significant layer of workers and peasants still had illusions in the parliamentary system. The point here is not whether the parliamentary system is representative or not.. obviously it isn't. But if you engage in a voluntarist armed struggle with only your party, and without the support of the broad masses of the working class, this armed struggle will not magically win them to your banner; on the contrary, it will almost certainly fail (provided a foreign government doesn't arm you).A character of all colonies and semi-colonies before WW2 was direct control by the imperialist powers, including the presence of imperialist armies. Where and when did this happen in Russia ?




We aren't debating whether or not communist parties should have an armed, underground wing. We both agree that any revolutionary party should actually prepare for revolutionary combat.

We were in fact debating whether or not that armed wing should immediately engaged in armed struggle. You are going against Lenin, Mao, and even Gonzalo and the Indian Maoists, by preaching a line of immediate terrorist violence and condemning any group that hasn't shot a police officer recently as "counter-revolutionary."Lenin organized a socialist revolution, not a new-democratic one.

The Chinese Revolution was the first of its kind. So there could be many mistakes, though I doubt how many years they spent in the cities before 1921.

Consider the case of Indian and Peruvian Maoists. Both had been engaged in breaking with a revisionist party. In case of India, armed struggle actually started before the revolutionary arty was built. In Peru, when Gonzalo proposed the revolutionary line and broke fully with revisionism, they lost almost all the student elections and became much less popular in their previous spheres of influence. Subsequently they started the PPW in the countryside.

By the way, by calling the CPC anti-worker, you are contradicting a portion of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution (as far as I recall) where he states that national liberation can be achieved ( after the Bolshevik Revolution period) only under the leadership of the proletariat.

[Kléber]

Your version of history claims that.You admitted yourself that the CCP is a capitalist party. You refuse to admit how this happened except that "some very bad revisionists came along and ruined everything." In fact, Mao's party preserved a bourgeois social base in the bureaucratic elite, which maintained its privileges even at the height of the "Cultural Revolution;" their huge salaries and entrenched social position represented capitalist exploitation of surplus-value under a state capitalist framework, and the persistence of their privileges was the basis for the restoration of market capitalism.

If China was really socialist, there should be publicly-available data about the wages of bureaucrats, officials, managers etc. You should be able to find such info and cite it to me to prove that China was socialist. In fact, such info doesn't exist, because it would have been a great embarrassment to the "socialist" party-state.


The GMD was actually supporting the warlords.Sometimes GMD fought warlords, sometimes it didn't. Sometimes CCP fought GMD and warlords, sometimes it didn't.


Interestingly, Mao's analysis after the defeat in 1927 blames Chen Du Xiu for tailing the GMD.Interestingly, Mao's "analysis" largely ignores the role of the Comintern. Chen's leadership was ruinous, but that was because Chen was following Comintern instructions. There is some truth to such criticism, in that Chen only stood up and criticized the Comintern line after the disaster, when it was much too late. But Mao never risked his own position by criticizing Comintern policy, he just blamed it all on Chen, kept his real criticisms private, and waited until Stalin died to admit he made a mistake. Not a very honest analysis if you ask me.

Politicians often have a vested interest in distorting history to improve their own reputation, so they aren't always trustworthy for historical analysis about situations in which they were personally involved.


A character of all colonies and semi-colonies before WW2 was direct control by the imperialist powers, including the presence of imperialist armies. Where and when did this happen in Russia ?So China ceased to be a semi-colony in 1945 merely because the port cities and legation areas were officially returned to the ROC?


By the way, by calling the CPC anti-worker, you are contradicting a portion of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution (as far as I recall) where he states that national liberation can be achieved ( after the Bolshevik Revolution period) only under the leadership of the proletariat.The CCP ceased to advocate a proletarian revolution during the Second United Front when it adopted the theory of "New Democracy" and called for a coalition government with the GMD.

[Sendo]

You admitted yourself that the CCP is a capitalist party.

I'm assuming he's referring to its post-1978 degeneration.


If China was really socialist, there should be publicly-available data about the wages of bureaucrats, officials, managers etc. You should be able to find such info and cite it to me to prove that China was socialist. In fact, such info doesn't exist, because it would have been a great embarrassment to the "socialist" party-state.


It does exist, it's just in Chinese. Unfortunately very few honest historians have left China and gone back to do any research. And you're probably limiting yourself to the English language.



Sometimes GMD fought warlords, sometimes it didn't. Sometimes CCP fought GMD and warlords, sometimes it didn't.


The KMT most certainly sided with warlords the majority of the time. They employed a local warlord to fight the Long Marchers at Luding Bridge.



Interestingly, Mao's "analysis" largely ignores the role of the Comintern. Chen's leadership was ruinous, but that was because Chen was following Comintern instructions. There is some truth to such criticism, in that Chen only stood up and criticized the Comintern line after the disaster, when it was much too late. But Mao never risked his own position by criticizing Comintern policy, he just blamed it all on Chen, kept his real criticisms private, and waited until Stalin died to admit he made a mistake. Not a very honest analysis if you ask me.


So the litmus test of socialism is your personal definition of honest and less than honest?



Politicians often have a vested interest in distorting history to improve their own reputation, so they aren't always trustworthy for historical analysis about situations in which they were personally involved.


True. They can't be fully trusted. But like any trial you need at least listen to both sides' personal story alongside 3rd part evidence.



So China ceased to be a semi-colony in 1945 merely because the port cities and legation areas were officially returned to the ROC?


I would place the year at 1949 because foreign multi-nationals were gone, naked European, American, and Japanese ended, and foreign political influence outside of the USSR ended (and even then, China did its own thing). Regardless, the mere removal of extraterritoriality areas and unfair treaties is part of going from semi-colony to independent, yes.



The CCP ceased to advocate a proletarian revolution during the Second United Front when it adopted the theory of "New Democracy" and called for a coalition government with the GMD.

So a tactical alliance that backfired means that the party is forever disqualified from being a workers' party? Sounds ultra-leftist to me.

All in all, I'm afraid you need to be a little more versed in Chinese history. I used to be anti-Maoist myself until I actually studied the history, did independent reading, checked out primary sources, etc.

[Kléber]

It does exist, it's just in Chinese.This is total speculation on your part.

Trotsky demanded that the Soviet bureaucracy provide transparent data about the wages and privileges of officials to disprove his claim that the Soviet elite were living the luxurious lifestyles of Western capitalists. He was assassinated precisely for posing such embarrassing questions about the "socialist" USSR. It would be quite a surprise to me if such information existed about any of the "socialist" states where Trotskyists were tortured and shot.


So the litmus test of socialism is your personal definition of honest and less than honest?What a strange question. Did you even read the follow-up to that post before taking over?

So you think Chen Duxiu acted alone and the Comintern can't be blamed at all for the disaster of 1927?


The KMT most certainly sided with warlords the majority of the time.The Nationalists had a political interest in centralizing power, but yes, they were certainly committed to an alliance with warlords most of the time. My argument was never that the GMD was sincerely opposed to the warlords. With that example, I was merely taking issue with red cat's assertion that the temporary success of a party determines the correctness of its historical line.


So a tactical alliance that backfired means that the party is forever disqualified from being a workers' party? Sounds ultra-leftist to meIt wasn't just a tactical alliance, there was political capitulation as well, in the formulation of "New Democracy" and the call for a coalition government with the GMD.

The CCP did not abandon New Democracy - a capitulation to bourgeois nationalism - after the Second United Front collapsed; nor did it abandon the call for a coalition government with the GMD until the latter was defeated. Therefore the CCP did not merely speak kind words to the GMD during the Second United Front, it made the revision of Leninism and the abandonment of workers' power into permanent party policy.

[Sendo]

This is total speculation on your part.


I wasn't referring to Russia.


So you think Chen Duxiu acted alone and the Comintern can't be blamed at all for the disaster of 1927?

Of course the Comintern is at fault, and was at fault many times. It didn't adapt its strategy to the locales and its repeated mistake was saying "This worked in Russia, so follow steps 1, 2, and 3". This is why I am more than a follower of Stalin and I recognize th uphill battle Mao had to face to get the CPC on the track, a very different track, that led to victory. I'm not searching for mistakes to discredit entire ideologies like Marxism-Leninism or Maoism when they accomplished so much.

I would withhold my critiques of Trotskyist revolutions if one was happening.

[Kléber]

It didn't adapt its strategy to the locales and its repeated mistake was saying "This worked in Russia, so follow steps 1, 2, and 3"Agreed on the over-centralization which removed Communist Parties of their independence and politically gagged them. The problem was however, not so much that the Russian example was over-stressed as that the Comintern abandoned the Leninist analysis which had enabled the 1917 revolution, and turned instead to successive policies of ultra-left adventurism, followed by political capitulation to bourgeois-nationalist movements (this was the phase when CCP membership lists were handed over to the GMD against Trotsky's protests), then another ultra-left kick, then adherence to liberalism with the Popular Front, then a shady period of collaboration with fascism that nobody likes to talk about, followed by more Pop-Frontism and its final dissolution in 1943 to appease the Allies (which wasn't much of a surprise since the Comintern had been on the chopping block for a while and ceased to even have congresses after 1935). None of those opportunist policies, which prostituted the world Communist movement to strange bedfellows of the alien class in the interests of the foreign policy of the revisionist Soviet bureaucracy, had anything in common with Leninism and the Russian Revolution.

[Sendo]

Agreed, as well. I don't think the Comintern was good for much more than spreading ideological seeds. But beyond that, almost nothing, and what it did do was mostly dictating wrong policy to the local cadres. Most good that came out of the USSR was directly solicited from people visiting it.

You can see its failures in that very very few of the Comintern's CP[country name] parties are any good. The only exceptions are post-Comintern CP[Country name]-(Maoist) or whatever. I guess the CPGB is good for fighting back the hypocritical, racist, and often ignorant Western bashing of the PRC. That's all I can think of. The CPC would have never accomplished final victory if Mao didn't buck the foreign advisers and chart out a new course as he did in the Long March at famous meeting somewhere (I forgot the name) where he took charge.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with so-called "Marxist" tendencies in the First World (Trotskyists, Maoists, "Anti-Revisionists," ultra-lefts, and so on) is that they all continue the Comintern's refusal to properly educate and organize the working class... along the mass-political, alternative-culture lines of the "mechanical" Second International.

[cmdrdeathguts]

Arizona Bay:
That's just Spart crap. The ICFI broke with Healy long ago. Maybe it did take North longer to break with him than it should have, but the break was made 20+ years ago. Also how do you know North is a millionaire? It's not a very large company. It's a printing company not a textiles company and the ICFI is far from the first socialist organization in history to run a print shop.

The ICFI as it is today broke with healy 25 years ago, during the split in the WRP. They did not go with Healy, true - but almost nobody did; the only high-profile allies he had left were the Redgraves. Slaughter, Banda and Torrance all went in their own directions. North supported the investigation of Healy's dubious moral practices, but only formally broke from the WRP when one of its principal fragments - which at that point united Slaughter and Mike Banda - started widening the fire to certain unsavoury wrecking operations spearheaded in the American movement, enthusiastically carried out by, among others, one David North.

It was utterly cynical - and the IC still defends Healy's legacy down to the mid-70s or whatever the date is, when his entire political career was marked by persistent and repulsively thuggish sectarianism, manoeuvrist power-mongering and catastrophist idiocy. (He became a Trotskyist after having been dispatched by the Young Communist League to beat up Ted Grant, who managed to talk him round. He certainly didn't talk him round from beating people up, though.) There is nothing valuable in Healy at all - nothing.

The records of Grand River Printing or whatever its called are legally open to the public; its CEO's name corresponds to what we know to be North's real name. A smiling mugshot of GRPI CEO, in a local business periodical, corresponds by all accounts to the appearance of North as well. These were the documents available when the scandal broke - I can find them again if you want - they are genuine, publicly available, and if you read the IBT article rather than dismissing it as "spart crap", there's further substantiation there. The company is not a party print shop, but a private operation that turns over around $25m a year.

David North is entitled to operate a print shop, even a profitable one (Engels, anyone?). What's horrible about it is simply that SEP comrades are always being drilled for cash, and their physical material is of a pretty dire quality on the whole. Not only do few of the profits make it to the revolutionary overthrow of the profit system, but that 'state of the art' $25m printing press appears to be off-limits to the comrades!

The ICFI, I should point out, is not half as bad an operation as it was under Healy's tenure - it is notoriously difficult to replace cult leaders, especially when the apostolic succession is disputed.

[Kléber]

There is nothing valuable in Healy at allSure, agreed; although I have similarly little respect for the other great charlatans of British Trotskyism.


private operation that turns over around $25m a year. That much doesn't mean it makes that much money. Businesses are considered lucky if they turn over a few % of what they invest.


its CEO's name corresponds to what we know to be North's real nameThis is old ad hominem attack news. CEO ≠ Owner. It's a glorified managerial position.

Notice how there is nothing substantial about current ICFI policies or practices in these criticisms, all the incisive claims are about 20-30 years old.


What's horrible about it is simply that SEP comrades are always being drilled for cashReally now. Sounds like more speculation. They're the least cash-hungry group on the left I've ever run into.


if you read the IBT article rather than dismissing it as "spart crap", there's further substantiation thereMore like further ad hominem attacks and decades-old actual material.

[Devrim]

Trotsky never said anything that could be construed to mean that the USSR's entry into the war would make it a "people's war." The defense of the USSR was based on the characterization of it as a workers' state and doesn't equate to defencism of the imperialist powers.

It doesn't matter what language it is dressed up in. By the end of the 1930s the USSR was an imperialist power. ''Defence of the workers' state' meant supporting the war.


So far you only provided one example, the SWP, whereas Trotskyists in Sri Lanka, Greece, Vietnam among other places took more hardline defeatist positions. Hate to sound like red cat but the Vietnamese Trotskyists actually engaged in armed struggle against the French imperialists.

Because virtually all of the Trotskyist parties did support the war. Yes, you are right, lots of the Greeks didn't, but the point is that they broke with Trotskyism immediatly after the war when they found out the positions of the other Trotskyists. You may be right about the Vietnamese and the Sri Lankans. The point is though that they were exceptions completely against the general line; support for the Soviet Union and defencism.


"Trotskyism" did not abandon class politics, some revisionists abandoned Trotskyism as the Fourth International collapsed.

It is a very novel way to look at the vast majority of Trotskyism's support for an imperialist war.

Devrim

[Kléber]

It doesn't matter what language it is dressed up in. By the end of the 1930s the USSR was an imperialist power. ''Defence of the workers' state' meant supporting the war.While Trotsky's advice, absent even a surviving organization in Russia, definitely failed in and of itself to accomplish anything, it could also be said with some certainty that a political strategy of defeatism in reaction to outright genocide and enslavement of the Soviet population would have failed even more miserably. Proposing that Soviet Trotskyists treat Hitler as the primary enemy did not necessarily mean giving up political independence to the Stalinist bureaucracy and copycatting defencist Comintern policies throughout the world.


You may be right about the Vietnamese and the Sri Lankans. The point is though that they were exceptions completely against the general line; support for the Soviet Union and defencism.Well, although you provided scant examples of defencist Trotskyists, let's assume those were the only decent sections. This is merely a repeat of what happened in the first imperialist war, when only the Russian, Serbo-Croatian, and American sections of the Second International stood up to defencist revisionism. The fact that the defeatists were in the minority does not mean that Bernstein and Kautsky were the heirs of Marx and Engels.

[Klashnekov]

Trotskyists spend most of their time being critics of on-going revolutions and celebrating the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, although you provided scant examples of defencist Trotskyists, let's assume those were the only decent sections. This is merely a repeat of what happened in the first imperialist war, when only the Russian, Serbo-Croatian, and American sections of the Second International stood up to defencist revisionism. The fact that the defeatists were in the minority does not mean that Bernstein and Kautsky were the heirs of Marx and Engels.

You really need to distinguish between revolutionary and non-revolutionary periods. In non-revolutionary periods, Kautsky's defencism (not "offencism") and perhaps even Bernstein's "peace without annexations or indemnifications" were continuous with Marx and Engels on revolutionary defencism.

[Crux]

Trotskyists spend most of their time being critics of on-going revolutions and celebrating the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.
I suppose being able to think critically would irk you, comrade.
Fun fact, in case you have forgot: A movement which universally adopted the view of the Soviet Union as state capitalist was the maoist movement.

[RED DAVE]

Trotskyists spend most of their time being critics of on-going revolutions and celebrating the collapse of the Soviet BlocOh shit! Comrades, we're exposed!

Now we'll have to give up our lofts in SoHo and our apartments in Greenwich Village.

We'll have to get bourgeois jobs and not depend on our fathers.

And we'll have to stop doing all those drugs and having kinky sex.

Real revolutionaries live on brown rice and cold water, sleep on the floor and never have sex.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

And we'll have to stop doing all those drugs and having kinky sex.

All positions other than missionary are bourgeois