What is Trotskyism? [Archive]

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 06:56

I sort of just answered a similar question here (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=129504). Basically we sympathize with the analysis of Soviet and Comintern policy made by Trotsky and his supporters in the (International) Left Opposition who were expelled from Communist Parties around the world in 1927 and afterward, and attempted to found a Fourth International after the Third International was turned into an organ of Soviet foreign policy (and eventually disbanded in 1943). Trotsky's main contributions to Marxism were his theory of the Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm), the Transitional Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm), and of course his analysis of the USSR and its leadership (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm).

FSL

19th February 2010, 07:01

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 07:05

No; I can't think of a single Trotskyist organization that would support privatizations. In fact, we are against the "reforms" being undertaken by the government over the last couple years (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/cuba-a17.shtml), namely the abolition of the maximum wage. If anything we would want to strengthen the public sector and stem or root out the pernicious influence of tourism.

The fact is that Cuba is still functioning on a capitalist model, whether you like it not, it's impossible to change that fact through wordplay. Trotskyists don't claim that we could make socialism come out of thin air simply by having Trotskyists in charge. We simply criticize the mislabeling of that society as "socialist." The party must be honest and socialist construction must be the conscious and democratic work of the entire proletariat. It's not that it is impossible, it's that it is impossible without democracy. Otherwise you will have revisionist gangsters take advantage of the situation, and worm their way into power while the principled elements are purged and wiped out.

The "retreat" you speak of (NEP) was agreed with by Lenin as well. But Lenin and Trotsky did not pretend socialism had been constructed when it hadn't.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 07:20

Trotskyists don't fully agree on everything. For example Kleber supports the Transition Program and I do not. However, we do seem to all agree about the Theory of Permenant Revolution.

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 07:24

Yeah, I should have clarified that. Also I don't obsess over the Transitional Program, it was just an encapsulation of his positions at that point, and I think that global structural economic changes have made his theory of Permanent Revolution somewhat outdated, although the basic conclusion that the proletariat of the oppressed countries will lead the revolution seems more true than ever today.

FSL

19th February 2010, 07:27

FSL

19th February 2010, 07:28

Trotskyists don't fully agree on everything. For example Kleber supports the Transition Program and I do not. However, we do seem to all agree about the Theory of Permenant Revolution.

So trying to build socialism in the USSR or Cuba was in fact wrong when no revolutions had happened in capitalist states?

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 07:40

He called for a retreat in the 30s, even using the phrase "peace with the peasants".
If Trotsky's call for collectivization had been implemented before the agricultural crisis hit, there would not have had to be an ugly war against the middle peasantry.

And when the party democratically decided against the opposition platform, he decided to organize separate protests because of his love for democracy?
How can you justify there being a ban on free speech in "socialism?"

So trying to build socialism in the USSR or Cuba was in fact wrong when no revolutions had happened in capitalist states?
If you are asking all of us, I already explained how that is not our position.

19th February 2010, 07:47

A matter of complication is that there are many organisations that have splitted over and over again on all kinds of dubious political grounds which in reality were more often based in clashes of ego's. This resulted in so many organisations that claim to be "Trotskyist" that it is impossible to really give a very clear definition. I for one follow the definition on MIA (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/t/r.htm#trotskyism), which is pretty objective.

Also, I dropped the label "Trotskyist" myself, a major reason is that such personified labels are part of a cult of personality, implying that the person was somewhat akin to a deity, which writings cannot therefore be questioned or really discussed. Historically "Trotskyist" was invented by his opponents to slander him, "Marxists" similarly was invented by Bakunin and "Leninist" became only fashionable after Lenin died. Why should we want to use these terms?

I've adopted "Revolutionary Marxist" as my Revleft tendency for now, but like I say above this is also imperfect.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 07:57

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 07:59

So trying to build socialism in the USSR or Cuba was in fact wrong when no revolutions had happened in capitalist states?

Yes. It would have been far more successful if the German Revolution had succeeded as this would have allowed for the German's to help industrialize Russia's agricultural sector, as well as been a further impetus for World Revolution.

FSL

19th February 2010, 08:06

If Trotsky's call for collectivization had been implemented before the agricultural crisis hit, there would not have had to be an ugly war against the middle peasantry.

There was a crisis in 1928?

How can you justify there being a ban on free speech in "socialism?"

There was a ban on party members working against party decisions.

If you are asking all of us, I already explained how that is not our position.

So building socialism in the USSR and Cuba was the right thing to do? Ok, I can agree on that.

FSL

19th February 2010, 08:08

Yes. It would have been far more successful if the German Revolution had succeeded as this would have allowed for the German's to help industrialize Russia's agricultural sector, as well as been a further impetus for World Revolution.

Of course it would be far more successful. That is probably an understatement, german industry and russian natural resourses would probably bring global revolution in a heartbeat. The thing is the german revolution failed. After that was made clear, shouldn't USSR go on and build socialism but wait for another german revolution, hoping this time it succeeds?

black magick hustla

19th February 2010, 08:13

Of course it would be far more successful. That is probably an understatement, german industry and russian natural resourses would probably bring global revolution in a heartbeat. The thing is the german revolution failed. After that was made clear, shouldn't USSR go on and build socialism but wait for another german revolution, hoping this time it succeeds?
I don't think that is the point though. A lot of marxists look for a solution for everything. The fact was that after the worldwive revolutionary wave was crushed, the USSR was doomed for counterrevolution. The "oughts" extracted from this fact are a different matter.

FSL

19th February 2010, 08:21

I don't think that is the point though. A lot of marxists look for a solution for everything. The fact was that after the worldwive revolutionary wave was crushed, the USSR was doomed for counterrevolution. The "oughts" extracted from this fact are a different matter.

And this is precisely the "revolutionary Trotskyism" I detest.

The USSR was "doomed"? "Doomed"? So the workers should just lay their guns down, make peace with the kulaks and forget about socialism?

Well, the workers disagreed. You can't really blame them.

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 08:22

There was a crisis in 1928?
It became impossible to avoid the problem anymore, as grain quotas were not met, yes.

So building socialism in the USSR and Cuba was the right thing to do? Ok, I can agree on that.
Yes, but declaring socialism to already exist in 1936 was wrong.

After that was made clear, shouldn't USSR go on and build socialism but wait for another german revolution, hoping this time it succeeds?
Yes, but the Comintern abandoned socialist revolution in 1934 and was scrapped altogether in 1943.

black magick hustla

19th February 2010, 08:25

And this is precisely the "revolutionary Trotskyism" I detest.

The USSR was "doomed"? "Doomed"? So the workers should just lay their guns down, make peace with the kulaks and forget about socialism?

Well, the workers disagreed. You can't really blame them.
By the time the kulaks where murdered, I think the USSR was thouroughly capitalist. The soviet state started to show its true colors in 1921, when they massacred the Kronstadt sailors, which years before where hailed as the stormtroopers of the revolution.

FSL

19th February 2010, 08:44

By the time the kulaks where murdered, I think the USSR was thouroughly capitalist. The soviet state started to show its true colors in 1921, when they massacred the Kronstadt sailors, which years before where hailed as the stormtroopers of the revolution.

They massacred people that called for the right of ownership and market access.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 08:48

Of course it would be far more successful. That is probably an understatement, german industry and russian natural resourses would probably bring global revolution in a heartbeat. The thing is the german revolution failed. After that was made clear, shouldn't USSR go on and build socialism but wait for another german revolution, hoping this time it succeeds?

No, thats a very poor idea. They had lost, the best thing to do would be to try to maintain a workers state while working to organize worldwide revolution. The fact of the matter is that socialism in one country necessarily leads to state capitalism, which is exactly what happened in the USSR.

FSL

19th February 2010, 08:54

No, thats a very poor idea. They had lost, the best thing to do would be to try to maintain a workers state while working to organize worldwide revolution. The fact of the matter is that socialism in one country necessarily leads to state capitalism, which is exactly what happened in the USSR.

So the state would belong to the workers but the economy to whom exactly?

black magick hustla

19th February 2010, 08:58

They massacred people that called for the right of ownership and market access.
The Kronstadt sailors?

FSL

19th February 2010, 08:59

The Kronstadt sailors?

Whoever was doing the Kronstadt uprising. Or were you unaware of its demands?

black magick hustla

19th February 2010, 09:09

Whoever was doing the Kronstadt uprising. Or were you unaware of its demands?

Immediate new elections (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Elections) to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Political_campaign).
Freedom of speech (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Anarchism), and for the Left Socialist parties.
The right of assembly (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly), and freedom for trade union (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Trade_union) and peasant organisations.
The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Prison) workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Concentration_camp).
The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.
The only ones that could be construed as "market" arguments are 11 and 15. Hardly signs of massive counterrevolution.

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 09:10

The Kronstadt mutiny shows how low morale had gotten, but once they had taken up arms it was necessary to suppress them as a war was underway and the revolt could easily have developed into a beachhead for an Allied attack on Petrograd. Their demands apparently flowed from legitimate working-class principles but a mutiny was not the solution. Also, they forcibly requisitioned food from the local people, which led the Kronstadt town soviet to reject the domination of the soldiers' soviet and they instead voted to rejoin the RSFSR after the mutineers had left the town to futilely engage the Red Army.

The mass killings of prisoners from 1937-38 on the other hand were neither of rebels or mutineers, nor was there a war going on at the time.

black magick hustla

19th February 2010, 09:14

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 09:16

So the state would belong to the workers but the economy to whom exactly?

An extension of the NEP. A partial market.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 09:19

I don't think it is a question of what should the state had done. THis is history after all. It did signal however, the dawn of capitalist relations and the sign that the defeat of the world working class was sowing the seeds for capitalist counterrevolution in the USSR.

How so?

FSL

19th February 2010, 09:28

An extension of the NEP. A partial market.

Yeah, I'd be against that then and I still am now.

black magick hustla

19th February 2010, 09:32

How so?

The supposed working class state gunned down the supposed stormtroopers of the revolution? Imperialist entrenchment and the defeat of workers in other countries lead to the state to act like this.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 09:37

The supposed working class state gunned down the supposed stormtroopers of the revolution? Imperialist entrenchment and the defeat of workers in other countries lead to the state to act like this.

Well, Paul Avrich in his book Kronstadt, was able to show that they were different men than the men during the revolution. I tend to support his view that it was a travesty, but due to the circumstances it had to happen. Evidence points to White agents agitating and helping to start this dissent that could have created a perfect military opening for a new invasion in the Spring.

However, I must also admit that it was 100% avoidable, as agitators alone could not have done this. There were clearly economic issues that had been raised before in various strikes. The NEP properly responded to these, but the Bolsheviks responded too late. If they had listened to the workers during the strikes and launched the NEP they could have prevented Kronstadt. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure the Bolsheviks saw it differently at the time.

FSL

19th February 2010, 09:39

The supposed working class state gunned down the supposed stormtroopers of the revolution? Imperialist entrenchment and the defeat of workers in other countries lead to the state to act like this.

Maybe the
"market" arguments 11 and 15. Hardly signs of massive counterrevolution were the reason. Because they weren't going to wait for a massive counter-revolution to react.

black magick hustla

19th February 2010, 09:47

Maybe the were the reason. Because they weren't going to wait for a massive counter-revolution to react.
yea lets just hang everybody from the trees with "bad ideas". hail stalin

FSL

19th February 2010, 09:52

yea lets just hang everybody from the trees with "bad ideas". hail stalin

You're overreacting. Tons of people survived, many with bad ideas. Just no one who'd want the immediate overthrow of worker's power.

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 10:09

You're overreacting. Tons of people survived, many with bad ideas. Just no one who'd want the immediate overthrow of worker's power.
The only competent Party leaders who survived were marketeering revisionists.

FSL

19th February 2010, 10:30

The only competent Party leaders who survived were marketeering revisionists.

Molotov was competent. Kaganovich was competent. I'm sure there were millions of good, hard-working communists around. Many years had to pass before some of the most important reforms were enacted, like giving priority to production of means of consumption that only happened in 1971. Even after 1956 the "anti-party group" was tied with the marketeers in the bureau and only lost a vote on the recall of Krushchev in the commitee.

redwog

19th February 2010, 10:59

Comrades,

2 genuine questions:

So it seems that Trotskyists don't view actual socialism to have ever developed, anywhere?

How would socialism differ from state-capitalism?

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 11:05

Something I was thinking about lately. If there was a trotskyist revolution in Cuba now, would it privatise companies? Since socialism is impossible in one country and all?

That was certainly Trotsky's goal in the Soviet Union when he was calling for a "retreat".
A so called Trotskyist revolution would simply nationalize the industry but wouldn't be so arrogant to call it socialism. Because there's a difference between proletarian property forms and proletarian property relations! This counts for you too Redwog. A nationalized economy does not equal socialism, even when the state is ruled by a communist vanguard party, even when soviets are set up. But that does not mean that a society that is not yet socialist should not have "collective" property forms.

Equally, soviets don't give us sufficient grounds for assuming that there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. When the German räter first met Karl Liebknecht faced fierce opposition. That's because - even though Germany was practically overwelmed by soviets - it was the SPD that effectively controled both these soviets and the then still legal government. A country full of soviets and occupied factories still had bourgeois social relations. This is what we saw between february and october 1917: Russian soviets were mostly committees controled by the worker's and peasant's parties (Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks). And the majority of them supported and joined a bourgeois government. I could also address the problem of scale, but this would take me to far.

The point is that, if we want to understand why various communist currents oppose the Soviet Regime from roughly 1920-24 on, we should look at the principles that guided it, that gave shape and contents to its property relations, and not solely its form. In "Stalinist" Russia and in "Menshevik" Russia (1917) there were soviets and collectivized means of production; but the principles that guided these regimes were not that of the democratic republic (i.e. a commune state) but that of respectively a bureaucracy and a bourgeois government.

FSL

19th February 2010, 11:24

A so called Trotskyist revolution would simply nationalize the industry but wouldn't be so arrogant to call it socialism. Because there's a difference between proletarian property forms and proletarian property relations! This counts for you too Redwog. A nationalized economy does not equal socialism, even when the state is ruled by a communist vanguard party, even when soviets are set up. But that does not mean that a society that is not yet socialist should not have "collective" property forms.

Equally, soviets don't give us sufficient grounds for assuming that there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. When the German räter first met Karl Liebknecht faced fierce opposition because - even though Germany was practically overwelmed by soviets - it was the SPD which effectively controled both these soviets and the then still legal government. Similarly Russian soviets were mostly committees controled by the worker's and peasant's parties (Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks). I could also address the problem of scale, but this would take me to far.

The point is that, if we want to understand why various communist currents oppose the Soviet Regime from roughly 1920-24 on, we should look at the principles that guided it, that gave shape and contents to its property relations, and not solely its form.

So why didn't Trotsky support the colectivization, the central planning and the liquidation of the Kulaks as a class but he instead said that the conditions hadn't matured yet and this would be worth considering only many years ahead?
Because from what I gather, Trotsky should have agreed with everything the Soviet Union had done until 1936 and only disagree then on whether that is socialism or an advanced form of the dictatorship of the proletariat or something in between. But his disagreements came much earlier on and involved other things as well.

Who was the exploiting class in 1936? Who owned the means of production, who extracted profit from them? If there wasn't such a class, then how was it not socialism? It was not communism so production relations wouldn't have developed in the highest degree in the same way productive forces weren't as developed. But the class of small owners, traders and others who had enriched themselves during NEP was done away with along with landowners. There existed the workers and the peasantry that hadn't risen yet to the point of being "toilers of the land" but where neither a hostile, nor an exploiting class against the workers.

Dimentio

19th February 2010, 11:27

What is Trotskyism? I'm looking for someone who is a Trotskyist, im not looking for some text on it i want it from someone who supports it. How does it differ from other forms of Communism? Few people here seem to look down on Trots, but i don't seem to get a straight answer on what makes them different.

-Wn.M

From my point of view, trotskyism sometimes appears as the communist version of shi'ite islam. It is a movement which bases its legitimacy on the adherents of one leader which disagreed with another leader and got murdered because of that.

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 11:37

So why didn't Trotsky support the colectivization, the central planning and the liquidation of the Kulaks as a class but he instead said that the conditions hadn't matured yet and this would be worth considering only many years ahead?
Because from what I gather, Trotsky should have agreed with everything the Soviet Union had done until 1936 and only disagree then on whether that is socialism or an advanced form of the dictatorship of the proletariat or something in between. But his disagreements came much earlier on and involved other things as well.
So according to you, nobody should ever criticize anything that the government does? There should just be one leader who has ideas, and everyone else should be executed if they think otherwise? But if it's your people (Anti Party Group) getting purged, we're supposed to cry you a river? Really makes a lot of sense.

If you actually read some of what Trotsky wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm) you would see where he was coming from. Many of his policies (like the five year plan) were eventually adopted by Stalin.

Who was the exploiting class in 1936? Who owned the means of production, who extracted profit from them?
There were still people making 20 or 40 times as much money as the poorest workers, Lenin called this state capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm), their privileges and luxuries increased in the 1930's.

From my point of view, trotskyism sometimes appears as the communist version of shi'ite islam. It is a movement which bases its legitimacy on the adherents of one leader which disagreed with another leader and got murdered because of that.
Well, Trotsky actually had a materialist analysis that analyzed the contradictions within Soviet society. The view that says everything changed when Stalin/Mao died and were succeeded by heretics seems more like Twelverism.

revolution inaction

19th February 2010, 12:09

Well, Paul Avrich in his book Kronstadt, was able to show that they were different men than the men during the revolution.

This wouldn't matter even if it where true, but its not, and this was acknoleged by Paul Avrich.

"Getzler draws attention to the continuity in institutions, ideology, and personnel linking 1921 with 1917. In doing so he demolishes the allegation of Trotsky and other Bolshevik leaders that the majority of veteran Red sailors had, in the course of the Civil War, been replaced by politically retarded peasant recruits from the Ukraine and Western borderlands, thereby diluting the revolutionary character of the Baltic fleet. He shows, on the contrary, that no significant change had taken place in the fleet's political and social composition, that at least three-quarters of the sailors on active duty in 1921 had been drafted before 1918 and were drawn predominantly from Great Russian areas."

http://libcom.org/library/the-kronstadt-uprising-of-1921-by-lynne-thorndycraft

Evidence points to White agents agitating and helping to start this dissent that could have created a perfect military opening for a new invasion in the Spring.

I think this was a lie made up by the bolsheviks to justify there attack

However, I must also admit that it was 100% avoidable, as agitators alone could not have done this. There were clearly economic issues that had been raised before in various strikes. The NEP properly responded to these, but the Bolsheviks responded too late. If they had listened to the workers during the strikes and launched the NEP they could have prevented Kronstadt. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure the Bolsheviks saw it differently at the time.

the NEP was planed well before the Kronstadt uprising.

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th February 2010, 12:50

Who was the exploiting class in 1936? Who owned the means of production, who extracted profit from them? If there wasn't such a class, then how was it not socialism?

If the state, divorced from any sort of democratic control, owned the means of production and administered the surplus, how can you possibly deny that it was the exploiting class?

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 12:58

The working class is defined by its separation from the means of production (and not by being at any particular moment employed, or employed in industry). I think that the rise of so called revisionism shows how much property forms (collectivisation f.e.) and property relations differed. It takes time for a new class to form (c.f. the formation of capital), and in the USSR it took (only?) several decades.

But FSL, I must look it up because I'm not that much familiar with Trotsky's post-1924 critique of the USSR.

RED DAVE

19th February 2010, 13:18

Who was the exploiting class in 1936? Who owned the means of production, who extracted profit from them? If there wasn't such a class, then how was it not socialism?[/quote}Quite simply, the bureaucracy itself constituted such a class.

They, not the working class, controlled the means of production, decided on the employment of surplus value, etc.

RED DAVE

FSL

19th February 2010, 13:24

They, not the working class, controlled the means of production, decided on the employment of surplus value, etc.

[B]RED DAVE

Yes and they became the first ruling class to rule without owning the means of production, the first rulling class to give away their power, the first rulling class that got its privileges without a revolutionary change etc.

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 13:30

Yes and they became the first ruling class to rule without owning the means of production, the first rulling class to give away their power, the first rulling class that got its privileges without a revolutionary change etc.
So if there was no parasitic caste, who was Khrushchev representing with market reforms? Who was Gorbachev representing when he restored market capitalism? History is made by material forces, not kings and generals acting in a vacuum.

red cat

19th February 2010, 13:38

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 13:50

FSL is talking of the USSR prior to the counter-revolution.
But according to your claim that the USSR was socialist and democratic, that counter-revolution should not have been possible without a foreign invasion!

I am merely pointing out the contradiction in this view that the counter-revolution came out of nowhere, or the subjective influence of a single person acting without class interests.

red cat

19th February 2010, 14:41

But according to your claim that the USSR was socialist and democratic, that counter-revolution should not have been possible without a foreign invasion!

I am merely pointing out the contradiction in this view that the counter-revolution came out of nowhere, or the subjective influence of a single person acting without class interests.

Do you Trots hold that the USSR was socialist and democratic till around 1924 ?

Muzk

19th February 2010, 14:43

Do you Trots hold that the USSR was socialist and democratic till around 1924 ?

No

red cat

19th February 2010, 14:44

No

Then when did it cease to be so ?

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 14:48

It never was socialist. It had the political form of a proletarian dictatorship until 1991, although the proletariat had its political freedom severely limited, but the economy was only ever state capitalist at best.

red cat

19th February 2010, 14:56

Muzk

19th February 2010, 15:06

No, it was a revolution supposed to give the political power to the party, not to establish (socialism) in a country where it is impossible to declare socialism without the means to give every citizen a high standard of living, the revolution can't nationalize something that isn't there. Socialism had to be built, yet the almighty Stalin only succeeded in building capitalism.

Actually it was. Carried out by socialists and it was supposed to bring socialism, some day. But it degenerated. Was from the very beginning. Once the party was equal to the bureaocracy, it couldn't turn back into a healthy worker's state without another revolution.

Ah I fail at thinking

I edit my posts like 30 times before I'm happy with them

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 15:10

Bonapartist Philosophy of the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/05/bonapartism.htm)

red cat

19th February 2010, 15:13

No, it was a revolution supposed to give the political power to the party, not to establish in a country where it is impossible to declare socialism without the means to give every citizen a high living standard, the revolution can't nationalize something that isn't there. Socialism had to be built, yet the almighty Stalin only succeeded in building capitalism.

Actually it was. Carried out by socialists and it was supposed to bring socialism, some day. But it degenerated.

Kléber :

It was a seizure of political power by the proletariat but they could not establish socialism due to the backwardness of conditions in Russia.
What exactly is the economic consequence of a proletarian revolution ?

EDIT: 1) Define a high living standard.

2) If there was no industry ( I will assume that you meant this by "nothing"), then how did the proletariat come into existence? If there were only a small number of industries, then the proletariat must have been a small minority? This necessarily implies that the proletarian dictatorship was also a dictatorship by a small minority of the population, right?

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 15:24

That means the Russian revolution was not socialist, doesn't it ?
Both revolution and socialism are broad concepts. The question whether socialist political revolution was possible in Russia depended upon the peasant majority. If the working class would remain isolated the revolution would not go further than bourgeois rule (whether through the tsarist empire or the bourgeois democratic republic). There was also the possibility of a revolution led by the working class (but isolated internationally) that would bring about the (proletarian) democratic republic (a commune state), but such an isolated revolution would be crushed like the Paris Commune.

Since the Bolsheviks theorized that (1) the peasants would stand up with the working class against the bourgeoisie, and since such a revolution would trigger (2) revolution in Europe, prospects for socialist democratic revolution seemed founded. Lenin went even further by (3) stressing the need to nationalize the banks. Those were needed to bring about the planned economy.

Then of course there's Trotsky who had his own similar ideas:

(1) international revolution triggered in the weakest chain of imperialist domination
(2) the weakness of the bourgeoisie to lead the peasants would force the peasants to look for the worker's party
(3) the struggle of the working class for its minimum programme will force them to take socialist measures where possible.

All this however depends on the balance of forces between different classes. The working class in Europe was defeated and eventually there was a growing divergence between the weakened Russian working class and the peasant masses. Such isolation undermined Trotsky's and Lenin's prospects, and it was believed that the USSR would go under (hence protective measures like the Red Army that ran counter to minimum programme which (f.e.) stated that the standing army should be abolished). So the USSR was forced to strenghten its state apparatus turning the early revolutionary workers state from a state that would wither away into a parasitic state based on agriculture and a primitive accumulation of goods needed to industrialize.

Muzk

19th February 2010, 15:24

EDIT: 1) Define a high living standard.
High enough for people not to starve, or work for others, or steal other people's property. Someone said, if this is the case, "the whole shit will start again" (I guess it was Marx)
Durr, if there isn't enough for everyone, some will take more...

2) blaThe party was a "small minority" YESSIR, but the bureaocracy was even smaller, and ontop of that, corrupt. As we've said before, the party became the bureaocracy over time... when it was supposed to control the bureaocracy. But that wasn't what I meant, I meant the lack of the means to produce goods for everyone

red cat

19th February 2010, 15:27

High enough for people not to starve, or work for others, or steal other people's property. Someone said, if this is the case, "the whole shit will start again" (I guess it was Marx)

The party was a "small minority" YESSIR, but the bureaocracy was even smaller, and ontop of that, corrupt. As we've said before, the party became the bureaocracy over time... when it was supposed to control the bureaocracy.

Was this bureaucracy loyal to Lenin and Trotsky ?

Muzk

19th February 2010, 15:29

Was this bureaucracy loyal to Lenin and Trotsky ?

No
What are you trying to do??? The answers were quite obvious....

red cat

19th February 2010, 15:35

No
What are you trying to do??? The answers were quite obvious....

Why did Lenin and Trotsky not get rid of this bureaucracy?

Muzk

19th February 2010, 15:36

Why did Lenin and Trotsky not get rid of this bureaucracy?

Lenin died before he could fight the state capitalist system(he planned to), as for Trotsky, the left opposition got expelled and executed or were driven into exile...

Once again, why the obvious questions?

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 15:41

What exactly is the economic consequence of a proletarian revolution ?
What was achieved was a transitional stage between socialism and capitalism and could have gone either way, although after the purges of the late 1930's the Party had ceased to exist as a democratic organization and little hope remained.

I get where you're going with this. After WWII the production relations in the USSR were expanded West and East. In China, a politically similar society (although less industrialized) was set up with Russian advisors, after a political takeover of China ending in 1949 that was accomplished with Russian weapons and with the aid of 1.5 million Russian troops invading Manchuria. Even though its seizure of power had not been accomplished by the Chinese proletariat, the Chinese Communist Party set up, after nationalizations in the 1950's, a deformed workers' state similar to the USSR, which had the vestigial form of a proletarian democratic political system, but the economy of which was based on capitalist forms of exploitation. Whereas in the USSR, the working class which had set up the deformed workers' state was politically silenced through murderous purges of hundreds of thousands of Communists in the 1930's, in the PRC, since the working class had not actually set up the state, suppressing it was much easier and relatively fewer purges and executions were necessary to maintain the bureaucracy's hold on power. Nevertheless, there were some flare-ups of working class dissent, particularly in 1957 and 1967, that represented the cloying political independence of the Chinese proletariat, but the central Party clique around Mao suppressed them.

red cat

19th February 2010, 15:44

sorry but they died...

So, it wasn't possible for Lenin to deal with the bureaucracy over a period of seven years, and Trotsky himself was ousted by them. Our conclusion from this, assuming that Trotsky was a communist, is that there can be a bureaucratic takeover even after a proletarian revolution, which can overthrow even the greatest of leaders. Also, a dictatorship exercised by a class that is a minority of the population can be considered revolutionary, right?

red cat

19th February 2010, 15:46

What was achieved was a transitional stage between socialism and capitalism and could have gone either way, although after the purges of the late 1930's the Party had ceased to exist as a democratic organization and little hope remained.

I get where you're going with this. After WWII the production relations in the USSR were expanded West and East. In China, a politically similar society (although less industrialized) was set up with Russian advisors, after a political takeover of China ending in 1949 that was accomplished with Russian weapons and with the aid of 1.5 million Russian troops invading Manchuria. Even though its seizure of power had not been accomplished by the Chinese proletariat, the Chinese Communist Party set up, after nationalizations in the 1950's, a deformed workers' state similar to the USSR, which had the vestigial form of a proletarian democratic political system, but the economy of which was based on capitalist forms of exploitation. Whereas in the USSR, the working class which had set up the deformed workers' state was politically silenced through murderous purges of hundreds of thousands of Communists in the 1930's, in the PRC, since the working class had not actually set up the state, suppressing it was much easier and relatively fewer purges and executions were necessary to maintain the bureaucracy's hold on power. Nevertheless, there were some flare-ups of working class dissent, particularly in 1957 and 1967, that represented the cloying political independence of the Chinese proletariat, but the central Party clique around Mao suppressed them.

Can you please explain this "transitional stage"? Also, how is a proletarian dictatorship supposed to be maintained till 1991 without having workers' control over the means of production, or socialism in short ?

Muzk

19th February 2010, 15:55

red cat

19th February 2010, 15:56

The point is they didn't have a dictatorship of the proletariat, so your whole conclussion is worthless

Then what was the political system under Lenin's leadership? Please explain clearly.

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 15:57

Why did Lenin and Trotsky not get rid of this bureaucracy?
The bureaucracy was an urgent measure to regulate a dying economy and "anarchist" militarism. Lenin tried to get "rid" of it by:

(1) propagating the minimum programme of political democracy against those on the left (Bucharin) who believed that the USSR only needed a maximum programme of socialism.
(2) arguing for the involvement of more workers in higher echelons of the state: "The enlistment of many workers to the C.C. will help the workers to improve our administrative machinery, which is pretty bad. We inherited it, in effect, for the old regime, for it was absolutely impossible to reorganise it in such a short time, especially in conditions of war, famine, etc. That is why those "critics" who point to the defects of our administrative machinery out of mockery or malice may be calmly answered that they do not in the least understand the conditions of the revolution today. It is altogether impossible in five years to reorganise the machinery adequately, especially in the conditions in which our revolution took place. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm)"
(3) arguing against the incorporation of trade unions in the state.

And I believe that Trotsky made some mistakes. Lenin wrote that Trotsky was "personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm)" Hence the denial of bureaucratism before 1924 in critique of the Stalinist USSR.

Muzk

19th February 2010, 15:59

Then what was the political system under Lenin's leadership? Please explain clearly.

can't someone else do it... I'm like the weakest Trot here!

Let me tell you it was state capitalism, Lenin thought it was needed, but he saw where it was going, so he wanted to fight it on the "next" congress. He died before, though...

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 16:01

Can you please explain this "transitional stage"? Also, how is a proletarian dictatorship supposed to be maintained till 1991 without having workers' control over the means of production, or socialism in short ?
If the workers were really running things, then who was behind the privatizations? The USSR was officially a proletarian state since all industry technically belonged to the public, but the government that administered the economy was far from democratic, it was taken over by a clique of gangsters who ran it for their own benefit and murdered their opponents, before finally transforming themselves into a full-fledged capitalist class.

So, it wasn't possible for Lenin to deal with the bureaucracy over a period of seven years, and Trotsky himself was ousted by them.
Lenin didn't claim that socialism existed, nor did Trotsky. Lenin was mentally debilitated from 1922 until his death so he was unable to put up much of a fight. Trotsky, like him, realized that real socialism would be unachievable without democratization, ie the withering away of the state. Instead, the state became even less democratic after Lenin, and farther away from any hope of building socialism, even after Stalin declared socialism to be accomplished in 1936.

Our conclusion from this, assuming that Trotsky was a communist, is that there can be a bureaucratic takeover even after a proletarian revolution, which can overthrow even the greatest of leaders.
Yes, and it is necessary to struggle against the entire bureaucracy, a task which is impossible without a democratization of political life and the enlistment of the entire proletariat in the task. If Mao had wanted to wage that struggle, he would not have ended the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

RED DAVE

19th February 2010, 16:02

Yes and they became the first ruling class to rule without owning the means of production, the first rulling class to give away their power, the first rulling class that got its privileges without a revolutionary change etc.No, they held power collectively, through the state apparatus. They did not "give away" their power: they morphed into private capitalism and they, by and large, held on to their privileges.

You need to study history and see, concretely, how economic power was wielded in the USSR under state capitalism and how it transformed itself into private capitalism.

Remember, there was no revolution change, as you said. Therefore, either:

(a) the working class ruled and gave up power without a struggle; or

(b) the bureaucracy, the state capitalist ruling class, ruled and transformed itself into a capitalist ruling class.

RED DAVE

19th February 2010, 18:25

Then what was the political system under Lenin's leadership? Please explain clearly.

The proper functioning of the soviets, a vital part of workers democracy, was ceased from 1918 on. Due to pressures of civil war and isolation the revolution made way for its counter-revolution which Stalin & co acted upon. And yes, I'm willing to admit Lenin and Trotsky made some grave errors in their time on this question.

All in all a dictatorship of the party seems a correct classification of the political system from 1918 on.

red cat

19th February 2010, 18:43

The proper functioning of the soviets, a vital part of workers democracy, was ceased from 1918 on. Due to pressures of civil war and isolation the revolution made way for its counter-revolution which Stalin & co acted upon. And yes, I'm willing to admit Lenin and Trotsky made some grave errors in their time on this question.

All in all a dictatorship of the party seems a correct classification of the political system from 1918 on.

Why did the working class let Lenin and Trotsky impose a dictatorship?

19th February 2010, 18:48

Why did the working class let Lenin and Trotsky impose a dictatorship?

Why would you think so? Or are you of the opinion there was no dictatorship and the soviets worked fine?

red cat

19th February 2010, 18:52

Why would you think so? Or are you of the opinion there was no dictatorship and the soviets worked fine?

I am just curious. Did Lenin and Trotsky act against the will of the working class then ? Did they forcefully impose the party's dictatorship on the working class?

Muzk

19th February 2010, 19:03

I am just curious. Did Lenin and Trotsky act against the will of the working class then ? Did they forcefully impose the party's dictatorship on the working class?

How could they possibly have done this if they have either died or were powerless before leaving the country before the party became the bureaocracy and therefore a totalitarian government?

And no, you're not curious, you're trying to say that it was all Lenin's and Trotsky's fault. You are an anti-Leninist.

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 19:07

No, because the Bolshevik party was still a working class (vanguard) party at the time. This made it almost impossible to impose a party dictatorship. The seeds for such a regime were already sown in 1917 when most soviets were dominated by party members. To make things worse, the soviets did not meet as regularly as the Bolshevik party did. But what tipped the balance was the effective demise of the soviet system. This came about because of several measures:

The red army (if the ABC of communism is right most officers were not elected)
The high court (independent from the all russian soviet)
The ban on opposition parties (from then on mostly Bolsheviks dominated soviets)
The ban on opposition papers and other forms of communication not controled by the party
The secret police (secret means workers wont know about its actions and wont be able to control it)
etc.

All were supposed to be temporary measures of emergency but became part of the soviet rule-of-law state after the civil war. This effectively undermined worker's control over their party. When this control ended the party was able to impose itself (or its dictatorship) on the class it supposedly represents. This was a process that took many year and you can hardly say it was the mistake or fault of one man. What characterized Lenin in this proces was how conscious he was. He tried to struggle for counter-measures, but such measures eventually failed. Lenin f.e. wanted more workers in the CC, but what use is it when the party oversees their election?

red cat

19th February 2010, 19:09

How could they possibly have done this if they have either died or have left the country before the party became the bureaocracy and therefore a totalitarian government?

Q says the dictatorship started from 1918. So I suspect that Lenin and Trotsky must have master-minded imposing this dictatorship.

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 19:13

I think Q forgot about the proces (the gradual transition) that lays inbetween the downfall of the "soviet system" and the rise of a proper dot-party. And I also think you should stop acting RC.

FSL

19th February 2010, 19:22

So if there was no parasitic caste, who was Khrushchev representing with market reforms? Who was Gorbachev representing when he restored market capitalism? History is made by material forces, not kings and generals acting in a vacuum.

Sections of the working class and of the kolkhoz peasantry. Neither of which was an exploiting, dominant class.There was in fact no bourgoisie of any kind he could have represented at that time.

USSR was socialist in the sense that no class exploited another class. Still, elements of capitalistic production hadn't all been completely erased. The greatest part of one's salary came from "labor-credits" as people had free access to many goods and services. Still, the peculiar conditions in agriculture with collective and social propery coexisting and a market functioning to some degree meant money were also playing a part in the economy.
As long as these elements persist -as long as the production relations are allowed to lag behind production forces- there remains a window of opprtunity for the formation of capital. In the latter years some people were able to accumulate a certain amount of capital in its money form. They could use that to illegally import goods and sell them for a profit. Looting of state property became another way to find products you could sell. So, there rose small property. Of course, these people were considered criminals and alien to socialism. But as their strength grew -in numbers and in financial importance- their political representation had to follow. Their operations were legalised in 1987. Roman Abramovic started out like that.

red cat

19th February 2010, 19:22

Muzk:

Read Rakunins post, it's much better

But Q's posts sound more sensible to me.

I think Q forgot about the proces (the gradual transition) that lays inbetween the downfall of the "soviet system" and the rise of a proper dot-party. And I also think you should stop acting RC.

So what is your final line? You Trot lot are confusing me !!

Muzk

19th February 2010, 19:25

I removed my post when Rakunin replied again. I was pointing at the one on page 4, which you might not have seen because it was at the bottom.

USSR was socialist in the sense that no class exploited another class.
Every serious communist is going to facepalm to this. And the rest of your bullshit

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 19:27

So what is your final line? You Trot lot are confusing me !!Sorry for that, but a Hegelian unity of the will isn't really our style :thumbup1:.

StoneFrog

19th February 2010, 19:28

WoW didn't realize i was poking a bee hive 0.0
Still reading my way through all the comments, but there is some nice information about.

-Wn.M

FSL

19th February 2010, 19:29

No, they held power collectively, through the state apparatus. They did not "give away" their power: they morphed into private capitalism and they, by and large, held on to their privileges.

You need to study history and see, concretely, how economic power was wielded in the USSR under state capitalism and how it transformed itself into private capitalism.

Remember, there was no revolution change, as you said. Therefore, either:

(a) the working class ruled and gave up power without a struggle; or

(b) the bureaucracy, the state capitalist ruling class, ruled and transformed itself into a capitalist ruling class.

RED DAVE

Thw working class ruled and lost its power after a series of struggles.

FSL

19th February 2010, 19:30

Every serious communist is going to facepalm to this. And the rest of your bullshit

Every serious communist would be wrong then.

Muzk

19th February 2010, 19:31

Every serious communist would be wrong then.

now who else said that...

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 19:32

Thw working class ruled and lost its power after a series of struggles.
Sorry, but what struggles? I only know of the Kronstadt rising and the "illegal" may-day marches organized by Zinoviev in 1928(?). After that the only risings or actions I heard about are from the 50's and 60's (Eastern Europe).

red cat

19th February 2010, 19:33

Sorry for that, but a Hegelian unity of the will isn't really our style :thumbup1:.

But if your historical line differs, then at least one of you must be lying ?

Muzk

19th February 2010, 19:34

Muzk:

But Q's posts sound more sensible to me.

I was pointing at my own post and Rakunin's, not Q

But if your historical line differs, then at least one of you must be lying ?
Rakunin already pointed that out.

FSL

19th February 2010, 19:36

Sorry, but what struggles? I only know of the Kronstadt rising and the "illegal" may-day marches organized by Zinoviev in 1928(?). After that the only risings or actions I heard about are from the 50's and 60's (Eastern Europe).

True. Like the expulsion of 85% of the membership in KKE's Taskent organization which amounted to more than 5000 people out of 7000 civil war refugees. The following arrests and exiles etc. But maybe you were referring to counter-revolutions like in Hungary? I wonder why you'd only be informed of the latter.

red cat

19th February 2010, 19:39

I was pointing at my own post and Rakunin's, not Q

Rakunin already pointed that out.

Sorry, I did not get it. Who among you all Trotskyites do you say are lying?

Tower of Bebel

19th February 2010, 19:41

But if your historical line differs, then at least one of you must be lying ?
When 'lines' differ there are several causes: misinformation and disinformation. You can choose whether Q was intentional or not.

All kind of things can go wrong. There's:

forgetfulness
lies
bad communication
different sources
etc.

What matters is that Q and I are driven by the same concern or goal. And even if one of us is wrong, we don't need "unity of the will" (Hegelian speaking) to reach that (even though being of the same opinion helps).

I should have kept my word and stayed more off this place :(.

And FSL, I'm not a know-it-all! I just want to understand. I'm not impeccable. Are you?

Muzk

19th February 2010, 19:43

Sorry, I did not get it. Who among you all Trotskyites do you say are lying?

this is such an obvious provocation^^

Kitty, now that Rowsa is gone you have to annoy us? XD

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 19:45

Sections of the working class and of the kolkhoz peasantry. Neither of which was an exploiting, dominant class.There was in fact no bourgoisie of any kind he could have represented at that time.
So the workers and farmers restored capitalism?

I'd say there was a parasitic caste that were only workers in a technical sense, but lived richly at the expense of the politically disenfranchised proletariat, and themselves constituted bourgeois restorationist elements in embryonic form.

USSR was socialist in the sense that no class exploited another class. Still, elements of capitalistic production hadn't all been completely erased. The greatest part of one's salary came from "labor-credits" as people had free access to many goods and services. Still, the peculiar conditions in agriculture with collective and social propery coexisting and a market functioning to some degree meant money were also playing a part in the economy.
Workers were paid in rubles, bureaucrats were paid many times more than workers, and the "social wage" for low earners was matched by special privileges for the bureaucratic elite like their own lane on roads, their own shops and stores, and luxury goods and services only available to people with their level of income. The most powerful bureaucrats were also known to take secret salaries from local state and Party treasuries. These facets of Soviet life developed not in the 1980's but during the "socialist construction" of Stalin.

The Soviet government deliberately didn't publish information about wage differences and the privileges and high salaries of its elites, so it is impossible to exactly measure the degree of corruption and exploitation, but it's safe to say that social inequality generally widened from the 1930's until restoration. The ridiculous heights of corruption under Brezhnev didn't come out of the blue because of the failings of a single leader, they were the result of a long historical process which people like Trotsky had unsuccessfully tried to prevent and turn the other direction.

As long as these elements persist -as long as the production relations are allowed to lag behind production forces- there remains a window of opprtunity for the formation of capital. In the latter years some people were able to accumulate a certain amount of capital in its money form. They could use that to illegally import goods and sell them for a profit. Looting of state property became another way to find products you could sell. So, there rose small property. Of course, these people were considered criminals and alien to socialism. But as their strength grew -in numbers and in financial importance- their political representation had to follow. Their operations were legalised in 1987. Roman Abramovic started out like that.
So you agree that a parasitic, exploitative caste grew within the CPSU and took it over. Where was the principled socialist opposition to that caste's rise to power, if not in the Left Opposition?

FSL

19th February 2010, 19:55

So the workers and farmers restored capitalism?

So you agree that a parasitic, exploitative caste grew within the CPSU and took it over. Where was the principled socialist opposition to that caste's rise to power, if not in the Left Opposition?

From the start to the end you'll only ever understand what you want. I'm bored. I was quite specific in what I said, I'm not your ideological nanny.

KlÃ©ber

19th February 2010, 20:09

Apparently that's all you read, the start and the end!

red cat

19th February 2010, 20:12

When 'lines' differ there are several causes: misinformation and disinformation. You can choose whether Q was intentional or not.

All kind of things can go wrong. There's:

forgetfulness
lies
bad communication
different sources
etc.

What matters is that Q and I are driven by the same concern or goal. And even if one of us is wrong, we don't need "unity of the will" (Hegelian speaking) to reach that (even though being of the same opinion helps).

I should have kept my word and stayed more off this place :(.

And FSL, I'm not a know-it-all! I just want to understand. I'm not impeccable. Are you?

But I am so thoroughly confused! Should I believe both of you then? I mean a probabilistic approach to history or something like that, is that okay with you?

this is such an obvious provocation^^

Kitty, now that Rowsa is gone you have to annoy us? XD

She is not gone! She is a constant quantity in Revleft. She will wait until I ruin my weekends for a month or so in refuting the worthless arguments of her favourite mathematicians, then she will ask me to find out a mathematician who agrees with me etc etc, and whenever I ask her for a proof she will start calling me names. :(

Muzk

19th February 2010, 20:14

With gone I meant offline.

and whenever I ask her for a proof You're trying, just like in this thread, to change the topic or try to win through word-games.

red cat

19th February 2010, 20:20

With gone I meant offline.

You never do; you're trying, just like in this thread, to change the topic or try to win through word-games.

See? Whenever a person comes to learn from you, you say things like these instead of rectifying his theoretical and practical mistakes. This is why Maoists massacre you lot every time by mistake.

Oh and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-dialectics-and-t128235/index.html) is the thread which was meant for discussing proofs. Look at the kind of replies I got.

Muzk

19th February 2010, 20:24

See? Whenever a person comes to learn from you, you say things like these instead of rectifying his theoretical and practical mistakes.

This is why Maoists massacre you lot Fucking word games. Your bomb exploded. Damn your acting, you aren't trying to learn, this is exactly what you wanted, trying to get "me" to become hostile to your dirty acting!

By the way, I'm not Trotskyists. The grammar is intentional. I'm just a simple person - will you ever understand this?
massacre
Oh wow

fatboy

19th February 2010, 20:26

This guy just wanted an explanation of Trotskyism. He did not want this to become a tendency war thread. I may be a Maoist but this is just. crazy.

red cat

19th February 2010, 20:26

To Rakunin:

It would be a little convenient for all Maoists to follow your advice if you reply here instead of writing neg-rep comments.

Rakunin:

(1) Think for yourself! Test ideas, compare, etc.I do all these things, but every time I do it without the guidance of experienced Trotskyite revolutionaries, the conclusions turn out to be in favour of Maoists. :(

So it would be quite against your revolutionary conscience to stay off this place.

red cat

19th February 2010, 20:35

Fucking word games. Your bomb exploded. Damn your acting, you aren't trying to learn, this is exactly what you wanted, trying to get "me" to become hostile to your dirty acting!

By the way, I'm not Trotskyists. The grammar is intentional. I'm just a simple person - will you ever understand this?
Oh wow

Is this how you behave with someone who has come to learn from you?

At one point I disagree with you. You cannot be a simple person. I can feel the aura of knowledge around you. At times even the Trotsky in your avatar seems to be smiling proudly due to your wisdom.

19th February 2010, 20:40

This guy just wanted an explanation of Trotskyism. He did not want this to become a tendency war thread. I may be a Maoist but this is just. crazy.

This. As of late many Maoists and "Anti-Revisionists" are using just about any opportunity to derail, troll and denounce stuff in Trotskyist threads. It is sad that no action is taken against this by staff members, because it is getting out of hand.

Muzk

19th February 2010, 20:43

At one point I disagree with you. You cannot be a simple person. I can feel the aura of knowledge around you. At times even the Trotsky in your avatar seems to be smiling proudly due to your wisdom.
Sometimes I just hate sarcasm...

red cat

19th February 2010, 20:47

Sometimes I just hate sarcasm...

I am serious.

red cat

19th February 2010, 20:51

This. As of late many Maoists and "Anti-Revisionists" are using just about any opportunity to derail, troll and denounce stuff in Trotskyist threads. It is sad that no action is taken against this by staff members, because it is getting out of hand.

Agreed. Strict action should be taken against these trolls, so that learners like myself can fulfill their goals. Trolling by Maoists and "Anti-Revisionists" is not only derailing the threads, but also making Trotskyites suspicious and hostile towards anyone who comes to learn.

19th February 2010, 20:55

Agreed. Strict action should be taken against these trolls, so that learners like myself can fulfill their goals. Trolling by Maoists and "Anti-Revisionists" is not only derailing the threads, but also making Trotskyites suspicious and hostile towards anyone who comes to learn.

You have learned well from Rosa's tactics of "arguing", I must say. But you're just as annoying.

red cat

19th February 2010, 20:56

You have learned well from Rosa's tactics of "arguing", I must say. But you're just as annoying.

What are you talking about? :confused:

StoneFrog

19th February 2010, 21:24

This has gotten a little out of hand, all i was asking is information from the trotskyists. This is exactly why i couldn't get a straight answer, too many people wanting to debunk other tendencies.

Maybe a few Trots can answer me a few questions:

-What exactly is meant by permanent revolution and how will that play out in modern times?
-What is the reasoning for a Vanguard party?
-Why do some Trotskyists support the transitional program and others dont, kinda looking for some reasoning, form both sides.

Thank you,
-Wn.M

Girl A

19th February 2010, 21:37

Argh, come on, I'm not a Trotskyist but this is the Learning forum. Can't the tendency wars stay off? Debates and discussions aren't necessarily bad but this isn't the place for an argument, just information... =\

Muzk

19th February 2010, 21:39

He started (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1676097&postcount=3)

back to topic..

-What exactly is meant by permanent revolution and how will that play out in modern times?
-What is the reasoning for a Vanguard party?
-Why do some Trotskyists support the transitional program and others dont, kinda looking for some reasoning, form both sides.

red cat

19th February 2010, 21:44

He started (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1676097&postcount=3)

back to topic..

No he didn't. Apparently he was also confused, like myself, by the existence of multiple historical lines. Trotskyites should make things clearer to those who want to learn.

The Ben G

19th February 2010, 22:38

Its awesome, thats what!

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 23:17

This wouldn't matter even if it where true, but its not, and this was acknoleged by Paul Avrich.

http://libcom.org/library/the-kronstadt-uprising-of-1921-by-lynne-thorndycraft

You didn't read what I said. I said that there were different people, not a change from workers to peasants. That part of the book is him showing that they were peasants both at the time of revolution and during the rebellion. Just different peasants.

I think this was a lie made up by the bolsheviks to justify there attack

There are documents to back this up. I've got to go to work soon, but I'll post them tonight.

the NEP was planed well before the Kronstadt uprising.

But it could have been implemented and planned well before things reached the boiling point.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 23:22

Q says the dictatorship started from 1918. So I suspect that Lenin and Trotsky must have master-minded imposing this dictatorship.

Muzk isn't Q, their opinions differ. And no, the dictatorship started around 1924 with Stalin beginning his consolidation of power and reached fruition around 1928.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 23:33

-What exactly is meant by permanent revolution and how will that play out in modern times?

A permanent revolution is an argument that underdeveloped countries can start a communist revolution, that will spark a world wide revolution. It agrues that the revolution in the underdeveloped country won't create socialism until industrialized nations have a revolution and help industrialize the underdeveloped one.

In today's world this is less likely due to the spread of industry, I think that now it would be more along the lines that more exploited countries would be the starting place for revolution.

-What is the reasoning for a Vanguard party?

The vanguard is simply those workers who are already revolutionized who will form the party and help revolutionize other workers. This is the more modern form of the vanguard party. Its main difference with other party forms is its desire for most revolutionaries to be full time members.

-Why do some Trotskyists support the transitional program and others dont, kinda looking for some reasoning, form both sides.

Because it was Trotsky's desperate attempt to build a party in reactionary times, but it simply failed.

ChrisK

19th February 2010, 23:35

Sorry, I did not get it. Who among you all Trotskyites do you say are lying?

None are lying, we disagree with each other and you know that. Now stop trying to derail this thread.

The Red Next Door

20th February 2010, 03:10

I'm also interested in knowing what exactly Trotskyism is and what kind of revolutionary theory and practice they adhere to. Noone seems to know what it is exactly.
Hush

StoneFrog

20th February 2010, 07:28

20th February 2010, 07:33

What I said is that the soviets stopped functioning properly from 1918 on, they were suspended as a "temporary measure" in the civil war. Technically this could be described as a party dictatorship, but this may be a bit too simplistic as Rakunin pointed out. What is evident though is that these concessions towards democracy were used in full by the counter-revolution by Stalin & co that consolidated the rule of a bureaucratic elite. This process accelerated after Lenin died and I would place this consolidation between 1924 to '27.

20th February 2010, 07:41

Do trots look to work within the election system established within capitalism?
I came across this site, as an official Trotskyist group in canada.
http://www.marxist.ca/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

I just don't get why they support the NDP, to me they don't seem very Marxist in the least.

The IMT, of which this group is a part of, has made a dogma out of the entryist tactic and as such has moved to the right as the social-democratic parties moved to the right as well. They have no clear ideas of how to work inside mass parties and it is arguable that the NDP is a viable mass party anyhow.

Note however that working in workers parties who are not Marxist itself is not necessarily an issue. Denouncing working in mass parties by definition is a sectarian mistake. What we should strive is to build revolutionary wings inside mass parties, not as an entryist tactic (a revolutionary group that can split away at any given opportune moment) but as a permanent work, striving to become the leadership of that party. This is how Lenin built his mass revolutionary party: a revolutionary permanent wing inside the RSDLP which only saw a split in 1917 where the rightwing (Minority/Mensheviks) splitted away but the masses stayed behind in what they saw as their workers party: The RSDLP (Majority/Bolsheviks).

ChrisK

20th February 2010, 07:59

Do trots look to work within the election system established within capitalism?

To a degree, yes. The purpose is not to create socialism, but to try to weaken the capitalists power through taking away some of their state power and to help radicalize the people.

ChrisK

20th February 2010, 08:13

There are documents to back this up. I've got to go to work soon, but I'll post them tonight.

Nevermind, the documents I was thinking about don't conclude that the Whites had anything to do with rebellion, but were asked for supplies (which makes sense that people rebelling would do, where else could they get supplies from). The exception is the Secret Referendum, which is questionable.

The only thing thats certain is that the Bolsheviks did fear a White invasion if Kronstadt fell.

FSL

20th February 2010, 08:35

Note however that working in workers parties who are not Marxist itself is not necessarily an issue. Denouncing working in mass parties by definition is a sectarian mistake. What we should strive is to build revolutionary wings inside mass parties, not as an entryist tactic (a revolutionary group that can split away at any given opportune moment) but as a permanent work, striving to become the leadership of that party. This is how Lenin built his mass revolutionary party: a revolutionary permanent wing inside the RSDLP which only saw a split in 1917 where the rightwing (Minority/Mensheviks) splitted away but the masses stayed behind in what they saw as their workers party: The RSDLP (Majority/Bolsheviks).

The Second Congress of the Communist International lays down the following conditions of membership of the Communist International:

All propaganda and agitation must bear a really communist character

Every organisation that wishes to affiliate to the Communist International must regularly and methodically remove reformists and centrists from every responsible post

The parties that wish to belong to the Communist International have the obligation of recognising the necessity of a complete break with reformism and ‘centrist’ politics

The communist parties of those countries in which the communists can carry out their work legally must from time to time undertake purges (re-registration) of the membership of their party organisations in order to cleanse the party systematically of the petty-bourgeois elements within it.

Parties that have still retained their old social democratic programmes have the obligation of changing those programmes as quickly as possible and working out a new communist programme corresponding to the particular conditions in the country and in accordance with the decisions of the Communist International

Those party members who fundamentally reject the conditions and Theses laid down by the Communist International are to be expelled from the party

KlÃ©ber

20th February 2010, 08:55

Key words, expelled from the party, not recalled back to Moscow and murdered.

FSL

20th February 2010, 09:03

Key words, expelled from the party, not recalled back to Moscow and murdered.

In case you missed it, it was an answer to Q regarding the leninist stance on organizational matters. It had little to do with your answer.

KlÃ©ber

20th February 2010, 09:21

The situation today is very different than in 1920. Conditional statements made by Lenin or the Comintern aren't religious law.

Tower of Bebel

20th February 2010, 09:30

Permanent Revolution is a theory first developed by Marx ("their battle cry must be: the permanent revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)"). Back in 1850 it claimed that workers of underdeveloped countries (then Germany) should not stop at the bourgeois revolution. This idea wasn't radically new because it was the "logical" conclusion of the hypothesis that workers needed to create their own independent party. What was new however was the notion that in a certain stage of capitalist development the bourgeoisie of underdeveloped countries plays a reactionary role (they support the pre-capitalist status quo), forcing the workers to become the vanguard of revolutionary change.

The idea of permanent revolution was later on developed by other Marxists. When around 1900 Russia was the scene of profound changes (not the least the creation of a working class party out of various sects) a debate was sparked in the West. Could Russia become the scene of a proletarian revolution? Marxists claimed Russia could become the scene of such a revolution. The variable in the equasion was the peasantry. Would it support the workers or would it betray them? In 1905 the prospect of socialist revolution seemed founded when the peasantry started to move against the bourgeoisie (tied to the Tsarist empire) and was moving in the direction of the proletariat.

Lenin and Trotsky supported the idea of permanent revolution (both had based their ideas on that of Kautsky), yet because of sectarian divisions between them they polemicized against each other. The role of imperialism cannot be underestimated. When Russians debated about imperialism some, like Lenin and Trotsky, came to the conclusion that imperialism created a global chain of oppression. Russia was its weakest link and if it would break it could help free other countries and peoples, igniting the socialist revolution in other regions (where proletarian movements exist and the bourgeoisie was weak).

Eventually there were some differences, but they were not of strategic proportions. What separated Trotsky from Lenin was Trotsky's failure to aknowledge the role of the vanguard party.

The vanguard party is simply the party of those who aknowledge the class struggle. Because Marxism tries to build a labour movement capable of posing the question of power it urges us to form a political party. The CM f.e. claims that the proles need to win the battle for democracy (pose the question of power in society). Another reason for a vanguard party build around a common programme of immediate struggle and the propaganda for socialism is the fact that you wont reach something by merely advocating it. There's no successful formula though.

No he didn't. Apparently he was also confused, like myself, by the existence of multiple historical lines. Trotskyites should make things clearer to those who want to learn.
:rolleyes: Dates are details. Of course we could force each other to accept a certain (party) line. But that would be too bureaucratic. I'm more inclined to see what comes out of a future marxist raprochement and democratic debate. Even if a rather orthodox view would win the debate, I would still be happy on the condition that the debate was democratic and that the raprochement of Marxists (and workers) fights for a common programme.

Ideological vanguards, the adoration of ideas invented by this or that would-be universal revolutionary, and the declaration of the only correct revolutionary theory. Every post I make shows how much I don't like these concepts.

Regarding dates: one says 1918 the other 1924. In any case these dates are only for reference because you cannot pinpoint a transition between dotprol and dotparty.