Trot - ML reconciliation

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Nolan]

Wow if only...

[Hit The North]

These intellectual squabbles are a pitiful side-show in the class struggle. Who cares?

If we can't transcend our own history then we have no right to call ourselves revolutionaries.

[MELT]

I don't think that it is desirable nor feasible. To my knowledge, it has been done in some countries, in the form of electoral coalitions. Historicaly though the Trotskyists have been murdered and purged by the Stalinists...There are plenty examples in many countries, not only the Soviet Union. I remember my uncle who was a Stalinist in a "Third World" country, talking about how he used to beat up and torture "my kind" with his comrades...But it's not only this and not only wider historical experience.

To the new person to politics, Stalinism seems like a revolutionary ideology... This is true on the surface, regarding the rhetoric. But in reality, Stalinism is a reformist current, that has betrayed time and time again world revolution and is continuing to do so. You see, Stalinists believe in the "two stage theory", meaning that in a backwards country, there can be only a bourgeois revolution and therefore communsits must subordinate themselves to the bourgeois will! This is outright class colaboration and it has cost the life and socialist emancipation of hundreds of millions of workers!

Furthermore we differ in perspective. They have the national perspective, we have the internationalist perspective in our analysis. This is evident with some Stalinists in Europe who advocate the ending of the Maastricht agreement, which limits the possible deficit of a country to 3%. They advocate that we should be able to have more of a deficit so we can...fund social programs (under capitalism always). This is not only reformism, it is outright nationalism, supporting a section of your national bourgeoisie who is against the Maastricht agreement for its own interests. It is a support for having our own national capitalism...Again they advocate that a country leave the EU and that's a solution for many problems.. It is not. What a revolutionary should advocate for is socialist revolution and the creation of the Socialist Republics of Europe and of all the world.

Lastly in my post (and not least as there are many other things I'm not going into due to the lack of time), we have the organizational side of things. I've been a member of a Stalinist organization and I can tell you it's not pretty. From democratic centralism we have only the cetralist part, the democratic is nowhere to be seen. In most stalinists organizations there is no way you can speak your opinion if it goes against the party line (internaly always). You get expelled! Not that you can't find this in some Trotskyist organizations, but in Trotskyism it's the exception and not the rule (plus these organizations hardly qualify as Trotskyist, ie the SWP). Democracy in the organization is not something that we want because it's good and noble. It is something really useful for making the best perspectives and raising the level of the revolutionary vanguard through the democratic debate of ideas. That's all from me.

[scarletghoul]

I'd like to think that a real revolutionary situation would bring together the real revolutionaries of all kinds.

And yes I think that ML-Trot reconciliation is highly desirable. We are all revolutionary communists, we should totally be working together on the huge amount of common ground we share. Especially at this stage in the revolution (the very beginning, we still need to do basic educational work and lay the foundations for a socialist revolution), the trot-ML differances are not that important. I mean, socialism in one country vs permanent revolution is something worth debating about but it's not directly relevent to the revolutionary struggle at this point, and it's pretty crazy for parties to fall out over something that is currently irrelevent. When we seize power maybe, but not right now.

We should be working together to educate the working class and build a revolutionary conciousness as well as an effective vanguard. This is a common aim; why do we not work together to achieve it ? Hell, I think that even Anarchists and Leninists should work together at such a basic stage in the revolution.

Maybe there could be set up some kind of interparty organisation to coordinate things, establishing where organisations have common ground and getting them working together on that ?

[Dimentio]

Judging from the behaviour I have seen by some trotskyists, I wouldn't claim that it is the internationalist perspective which has made trotskyists "better people", but that the trotskyists has been worse at organising themselves and hence that way been prevented to reach power. I hold no doubts, that if trotskyists get the upper hand, that they would start to purge stalinists and other tendencies which disagree with the trotskyists. That would be the case no matter if it was a national or global international revolution.

Internationalism is necessary indeed. Yet, what is more necessary for revolutionary socialists to learn is tolerance against a diversity of ideas within the movement, a division of power within the party, goal-rule instead of party-rule, and term limits for party officials. Otherwise, the only thing which would prevent the party from becoming a dictatorship and eventually establish a dictatorship of the party, is the good intent and the level of non-corruption inside the cadres.

[Lenny Nista]

It's not desirable on the level of parties at all. The Stalinist parties are wedded to the bourgeois regime quite openly, and on principle, and have historically shown their counterrevolutionary nature and irreformability.

However on the level of winning individual Stalinsits to Trotskyism, of course it's desirable. As with reformists, we must differentiate between the leaders and the rank and file.

[Hit The North]

I'd like to think that a real revolutionary situation would bring together the real revolutionaries of all kinds.



I think so to. On the other hand, we'll know when we're in a revolutionary situation because all the existing parties of the left will be pushed aside by millions of militant workers taking control of society; and the doctrinaire questions which fascinate and divide us now will seem like irrelevant trifles compared to the revolutionary tasks that confront us.

[red cat]

Has such a thing ever been attempted? Is it ever desirable or feasible any time in the future?

Reconciliation should be based only on unity of revolutionary practice. So far at least Maoists have not received any cooperation from any Trotskyite party( though you will find a handful of Trots who don't belong to any party but recognize the Maoist CPs as the only true CPs in these countries ) in countries where the PWs are progressing.

[Lenny Nista]

I think so to. On the other hand, we'll know when we're in a revolutionary situation because all the existing parties of the left will be pushed aside by millions of militant workers taking control of society; and the doctrinaire questions which fascinate and divide us now will seem like irrelevant trifles compared to the revolutionary tasks that confront us.

Nice bit of spontaneism there. It's never happened in history though has it?

[MELT]

Lenny Nista and MELT, it helps to talk about real people and situations than stereotypes of "evil Stalinists".

I talked about my uncle (real people)... Real situations where Stalinists betrayed the working class is the Spanish Civil War where they were killing anarchists and trotskyists and joining the bourgeois government, China where they subordinated themselves to the bourgeoisie in '27, Greece where they gave the weapons of the guerillas to the reaction in '44, Brazil where they tried to contain the workers by telling them that Brazil is backwards country and there can't be a revolution there, Nepal where they joined a bourgeois coalition and then left instead of taking power and smashing the bourgeois state, France '68 where they didn't want to upset their imperialist allies by taking power (De Gaule said that that the communists have power but they haven't realized it , I would say that they didn't want it). These are some of the plenty examples in "old" but also more modern history.

[Nolan]

I talked about my uncle (real people)... Real situations where Stalinists betrayed the working class is the Spanish Civil War where they were killing anarchists and trotskyists and joining the bourgeois government, China where they subordinated themselves to the bourgeoisie in '27, Greece where they gave the weapons of the guerillas to the reaction in '44, Brazil where they tried to contain the workers by telling them that Brazil is backwards country and there can't be a revolution there, Nepal where they joined a bourgeois coalition and then left instead of taking power and smashing the bourgeois state, France '68 where they didn't want to upset their imperialist allies by taking power (De Gaule said that that the communists have power but they haven't realized it , I would say that they didn't want it). These are some of the plenty examples in "old" but also more modern history.

Wow, I never knew someone could be this ignorant of history and current revolutions.

[Q]

Wow, I never knew someone could be this ignorant of history and current revolutions.

Or... Instead of a troll post you could actually engage in debate.

[Uppercut]

Stalinists betrayed the working class is the Spanish Civil War where they were killing anarchists and trotskyists and joining the bourgeois government

Umm, I don't think they had much of a choice. They joined the Popular Front for the time being, like any intelligent revolutionary would do. The Trots were unwilling to work with them, and the anarchists were unwilling to fight for anyone else.
Don't get me wrong, Catalonia was a great experiment, but it had a few flaws. The Anarchists were too pacifist, IMO.

[Nolan]

Or... Instead of a troll post you could actually engage in debate.

I'm not wasting my time on someone so ignorant of history and dogmatically anti-ml. There is nothing to debate.

[Nolan]

Umm, I don't think they had much of a choice. They joined the Popular Front for the time being, like any intelligent revolutionary would do. The Trots were unwilling to work with them, and the anarchists were unwilling to fight for anyone else.
Don't get me wrong, Catalonia was a great experiment, but it had a few flaws. The Anarchists were too pacifist, IMO.

this.

[Q]

I'm not wasting my time on someone so ignorant of history and dogmatically anti-ml. There is nothing to debate.

Then you have no place on a forum which has exactly this function: to discuss and debate.

[Lenny Nista]

Lenny Nista and MELT, it helps to talk about real people and situations than stereotypes of "evil Stalinists".

Ok, to kick off the fun and games: how about the rejection by "Marxist Leninists" of such key Leninist principles as the need for an International, class independence, democratic centralism, and the impossibility of "socialism in one country"?

Do you really think that despite those differences, we cann unite in one big party? What kind of unprincipled lash up would such a party be!?

this obsessionw ith left unity has nothing to do with Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks didn't need to unite with the SR's and Mensheviks to lead the 1917 revolution did they? They realized in fact that they were stronger without such "allies". And they recruited much more from the mass of the working class, than they did from the subjectively revolutionary cadres of the Mensheviks and SR's - in fact while the Bolsheviks managed to win the great majority of the W/C to support them before October 1917, they didn't manage to win the majority of the subjectively "revolutionary" Mensheviks and SR's.

so really, this obsession with "left unity", is useless. You don't need unity to lead the working class, you need clarity.

[MELT]

Umm, I don't think they had much of a choice. They joined the Popular Front for the time being, like any intelligent revolutionary would do. The Trots were unwilling to work with them, and the anarchists were unwilling to fight for anyone else.
Don't get me wrong, Catalonia was a great experiment, but it had a few flaws. The Anarchists were too pacifist, IMO.

If intelligent revolutionary meaning opportunist and traitor of the working class then yes. In reality the popular front is a coalition of the bourgeoisie and workers parties, where in reality the workers parties subordinate themselves to the bourgeoisie that in the last analysis prefers fascism instead of a big workers movement and will betray their "partners" as they did in Spain.

Anyways, the POUM was not Trotskyist and they were too in the Popular Front. What communists advocate for is a united front of working class parties and not popular fronts. If Lenin was a popular frontist he would have been in the provisional government with Kerensky. But wait, Lenin wasn't an "intelligent revolutionary".

Last analysis: Kill anyone who doesn't work with you in being buddies with the bourgeoisie. The anarchists were not too pacifist, their leaders were too opportunist, joining the bourgeois government and having anarchist ministers. Only Durutti from the anarchist leaders played a really positive role.

[Nolan]

Then you have no place on a forum which has exactly this function: to discuss and debate.

I'm not the one throwing around baseless accusations of reformism and claiming that the mls are responsible for the bubonic plague. If that's discussion and debate, then revleft is pointless.

[Nolan]

Ok, to kick off the fun and games: how about the rejection by "Marxist Leninists" of such key Leninist principles as the need for an International, class independence, democratic centralism, and the impossibility of "socialism in one country"?

This fucking strawman just won't die, will it? Please read something other than trot sources, they tend to warp reality about "stalinism."

[MELT]

I cringe at the Cold War stereotypes some people still hold on to. Unless some of you have forgotten, the Soviet Union no longer exists for revisionist social-imperialist parties (so called "Stalinists") to betray the working class.

I see you are ignorant about history as well, as most of my example of treasons were from the "non-revisionist" (of course in quotations) parties of the Stalinist era. Also, this is not Cold War "stereotypes". It is something concrete. What do the Stalinists propose for the "Third World" (ie most of the world)? Alliances with the bourgeoisie and subordination of workers parties to the national bourgeoisie. Excuse me but I am a revolutionary socialist and I will not participate in that.

What do Stalinists propose for the first world? Anti-imperialist fronts instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Look at the CPC-ML, the KKE etc...

[bailey_187]

What do the Stalinists propose for the "Third World" (ie most of the world)? Alliances with the bourgeoisie and subordination of workers parties to the national bourgeoisie.

No. This is what you want them to be doing so you can piss your pants about evil Stalinists. If you look at what "Stalinists" are actually doing in the Third World e.g. Maoists in India, they are no subordinating to the bourgeoisie. They may be uniting the national bourgeoisie, but, unlike what you said, the classes that can be united are subordinate to the WORKERS, not vice versa.

I think the question should be what do you Trots offer the Third World? You see, what "Stalinists" offer the Third World is clearly popular, or else there would not be the Peoples War going on in India, Nepal on the brink of insurection, the peoples war in the Philippines growing etc.
What do you offer the Third World? Nothing, you tell them to wait for the all knowing European and North American working class to make revolution first so they can be taught how to overcome their backwardness.

You want to look at what "Stalinists" are actually doing in the Third World and the support they have before you try to mischaracterise "Stalinists" based of some historical mistakes we have made.

Its funny how you blame the failure of '68 on "Stalinists" while ignoring what the actual "Stalinists", the Maoists in France had to say.



Excuse me but I am a revolutionary socialist and I will not participate in that.

Yeah, well, not everyone is such a principled revolutionary as you, sorry.

[Hit The North]

Nice bit of spontaneism there. It's never happened in history though has it?

Well we've never had a popular socialist revolution in a mature capitalist society before have we?

But regardless, you'd be employing a substitutionalist view of history if you denied that the Petrograd workers spontaneously organised themselves as a soviet power in 1905 and 1917, and not through the guidance of professional revolutionaries.

In every revolution the creative force is the working class, not its political representatives.

Don't forget that the revolutionary party is the instrument of the working class. The working class is not the instrument of the party.

[Guerrilla22]

they should get together and mend their differences like crips and the bloods did.

[Q]

I'm not the one throwing around baseless accusations of reformism and claiming that the mls are responsible for the bubonic plague. If that's discussion and debate, then revleft is pointless.

Then attack the arguments or, if you will, logical fallacies.

[Lenny Nista]

I was talking about reconciliation,, meaning ceasing of hostilities, not "left unity".

What? Either there are irreconcilible differences which we therefore msut argue over in order to convince the class of our view and not yours, or we could unite. There's no "in between".

[Lenny Nista]

Well we've never had a popular socialist revolution in a mature capitalist society before have we?

But regardless, you'd be employing a substitutionalist view of history if you denied that the Petrograd workers spontaneously organised themselves as a soviet power in 1905 and 1917, and not through the guidance of professional revolutionaries.

In every revolution the creative force is the working class, not its political representatives.

Don't forget that the revolutionary party is the instrument of the working class. The working class is not the instrument of the party.

But you said the working class could tkae power. The soviets didn't aim to form a workers government until the Bolsheviks wont he leadership of them, did they?

Also the "working class" as a whole is not ismply the "creative force" in every revolution...there are differences within the W/C. There is a revolutionary vanguard, and there is a broader working class vanguard, and then there is the mass of the class. The former two need to "fuse" under a revolutionary program in order to convince the latter to follow them.

Likewise yout alk about us never having ahd a revolution in a mature capitlaist country, but we have had revolutionary situations, and in all cases, in the abscence of a mass revolutionary party, the W/C was unable to take power, despite insurgencies and semi-insurgencies numbering millions.

[Lenny Nista]

This fucking strawman just won't die, will it? Please read something other than trot sources, they tend to warp reality about "stalinism."

So Trots write the programmes and press of the Communist Parties who espouse exactly those views then?:lol:

Give it up, I know plenty of "MLers" IRL and have read their press, and know exactly what they stand for and what their actions in the class struggle are like.

Likewise don't complain about me calling them "Stalinists". If they chose a more realistic name for themselves than "Marxist Leninists", then I could call them that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, Q and Mayakovsky are already cuddling up to Comrade Alastair against fellow Trotskyists; does this suggest that CWI is about to split? http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/Laughing/lol-061.gif

[Lenny Nista]

Where did I mention "left unity" anywhere? Are Trots and MLs the only "left"?

Well where I come from, pretty much. but whatever: whether or not we call it "left unity", the point still stands: there's no possible reconciliation between Trotskyism and "Marxism Leninism" becuase they are diametrically opposed ideologies. :)

[Lenny Nista]

In becoming too abstract and dogmatic, the term "ideology" loses any meaning it once had. There are definite historical grudges in terms of what one side did to the other though.

It's not about "historical grudges". I already said: on concrete issues Trotsykism and Stalinism* are too far apart for any unity to be operable. Stalinism promotes a popular front with the "patriotic" bourgeoisies in the semi-colonies for example. It rejects the need to build a democratic centralist international. It rejects the transitional program. Etc.

I don't even favour unity with "Trotskyists" who deny those principles, so certainly even less with people proud to be Stalinists/Maoists.

*Sorry I refuse to call it 'Marxist-Leninism', it would be like me demanding everyone refer to Trots as 'the true marxists' or something

[Q]

You talk about "it" as if it were a person. Who exactly "rejects" building a democratic centralist international?

"Democratic centralism" is a confusing term as one group focuses more on the centralism, the other group on a different implementation of centralism (a "democratic" one) and a third pushes forward the need for democracy and "bends the stick" that way. So, before we have any useful discussion on whether or not organisation or tendency x follows "democratic centralism", we need a proper definition first.

[Invincible Summer]

Anyone else find it extremely ironic that Lenny Nista and MELT came into a thread about anti-sectarianism to be trolls and sectarian?

Seriously, it's bananas.

[Lenny Nista]

You talk about "it" as if it were a person. Who exactly "rejects" building a democratic centralist international?

The leadership of pretty much every Stalinist party.

Q: how about we simply use the Bolshevik definition?

RiseLikeLions: presumably you think the Bolsheviks were sectarian too then for splitting with the Mensheviks? Because otherwise you'll have to tell me what was sectarian about my arguments. And you don't seem to know what "troll" means: disagreeing with someone respectfully and epxlaining your reasoning, is not the same as trolling.

[Lenny Nista]

Which ones exactly? Provide documentary evidence of at least one specific instance

Well who liquidated the Comintern FFS!?:rolleyes:

But in any case, why don't you find me "documentary evidence" of one that calls to create such a thing, and of concrete steps taken to do so, then?

I don't have to find a link for every widely known fact on a forum, it's also up to you to inform yourself on some things.

[RED DAVE]

As an American, I am looking forward to the heating up of the class struggle in the major industrial countries. It will be ineresting to see how various Stalinist and Maoist groups organize and work in the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, etc.

My direct experience inside the working class with these two groupings is that Maoists have no real programmatic or organizational approach to the working class and will try to organize various groups outside the class as a class: women, gays, etc. While this kind of work is important, it is no substitute for direct work inside the working class, which means, primarily, inside the labor movement. My personal experience with a Maoist-led rank-and-file group in a union was that as soon as I began to gain influence within the group, they expelled me and liquidated the group.

The Stalinists will orient, ultimately, to the trade union bureaucracy and try to become a part of it. My personal experience with Stalinists inside a union was that when a Stalinist-led rank-and-file group actually won a vice-presidency, they were unable to use the opportunity to build their group because they entered into a de facto alliance with the bureaucracy (and lost the position in the next election).

My experience with "orthodox" Trotskyist groups is similar to that of Stalinists. They seem to have difficulty distinguishing themselves from the bureaucracy.

I advocate alliance with political groups, especially within the working class, but I have little expectation that such alliances will be fruitful. Time and the working class will tell.

RED DAVE

[LeninBalls]

AsThe Stalinists will orient, ultimately, to the trade union bureaucracy and try to become a part of it. My personal experience with Stalinists inside a union was that when a Stalinist-led rank-and-file group actually won a vice-presidency, they were unable to use the opportunity to build their group because they entered into a de facto alliance with the bureaucracy (and lost the position in the next election).

Yup, that's us silly Stalinists.

[Lenny Nista]

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one who claimed "all" Stalinist parties without any qualifications are against a democratic centralist international.
Except when its not a widely known fact.

Sorry, just because I say something on a forum doesn't mean I have to provide a link to it.

If you are genuinely interested in the differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism then you'll look them up, I figure. nothing is stopping your from goign to these parties websites and reading them. I thought the purpose of this thread was debate the issue, not to look up articles for Lex Luther.

[Nolan]

Sorry, just because I say something on a forum doesn't mean I have to provide a link to it.

If you are genuinely interested in the differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism then you'll look them up, I figure. nothing is stopping your from goign to these parties websites and reading them. I thought the purpose of this thread was debate the issue, not to look up articles for Lex Luther.

Hey fucktard, when you make stupid claims, the burden is on you to prove it. So instead of insisting that we believe your bullshit generalizations about ML and Trotism, give some evidence. Inquiring minds need to know if you pulled it out of your ass.

EDIT: This isn't a verbal warning, but could you please moderate your language when debating others, comrade? - Bob The Builder

[Lenny Nista]

Hey fucktard, when you make stupid claims, the burden is on you to prove it. So instead of insisting that we believe your bullshit generalizations about ML and Trotism, give some evidence. Inquiring minds need to know if you pulled it out of your ass.

No, there is no "burden of proof", this isn't a law court. I am telling you you won't find any "Marxist Leninists" who are actively trying to build a revolutionary, demcoratic centralist international, and very very few who call for it even in the abstract.

I don't really care if you believe me - you'll find out if you ever get politically active, I guess.

Now, if you disagree, then no-one's stopping you from proving me wrong, are they...

[Bright Banana Beard]

Sorry, just because I say something on a forum doesn't mean I have to provide a link to it. Then it is false as long we do not have the link.


If you are genuinely interested in the differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism then you'll look them up, I figure. nothing is stopping your from going to these parties websites and reading them. I thought the purpose of this thread was debate the issue, not to look up articles for Lex Luther.The MIA's description on Stalinism is terrible.

This is better: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/study-guide/

[Lenny Nista]

Then it is false as long we do not have the link.

Ok then, you can play by this anal-retentive rule set if you like. You're only limtiing your own knowledge and understanding, which is not really my problem.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Ok then, you can play by this anal-retentive rule set if you like. You're only limtiing your own knowledge and understanding, which is not really my problem.
I apologize, but I also want a link. I want to learn about it and you do not want that.

[RED DAVE]

AsThe Stalinists will orient, ultimately, to the trade union bureaucracy and try to become a part of it. My personal experience with Stalinists inside a union was that when a Stalinist-led rank-and-file group actually won a vice-presidency, they were unable to use the opportunity to build their group because they entered into a de facto alliance with the bureaucracy (and lost the position in the next election).
Yup, that's us silly Stalinists.Glad you admit it. :D

But seriously, if you belong to a Stalinist or Maoist group, or it you are functioning in a major industrial country with such politics, could you please describe, concretely, what your group or you yourself are doing.

This is a serious request.

RED DAVE

[Lenny Nista]

I apologize, but I also want a link. I want to learn about it and you do not want that.

Try this for example:

http://www.cpusa.org/party-program/#7

They clearly say that the Communist Party is too small to be part of a democratic centralist international, and that before their taks is ot "build socialism int he USA".

This is incompatible with the genuine Trotskyist position that mass sections ine ach country msut be part of a democratic centralist international from the beginning if they are to lead a successful revolution and not degenerate into "socialism in one country". :)

Also then, maybe this thread should be moved to learning?

[Glenn Beck]

No, there is no "burden of proof", this isn't a law court.

Yeah it's not a law court so nobody is gonna penalize you for talking out of your ass but you may be familiar with the concept of debate, you know, an orderly exchange of ideas where people attempt to demonstrate the validity of their position. You kind of have to worry about proving your assertions if you expect people to take them seriously. Just sayin'.

[Nolan]

Try this for example:

http://www.cpusa.org/party-program/#7

They clearly say that the Communist Party is too small to be part of a democratic centralist international, and that before their taks is ot "build socialism int he USA".

This is incompatible with the genuine Trotskyist position that mass sections ine ach country msut be part of a democratic centralist international from the beginning if they are to lead a successful revolution and not degenerate into "socialism in one country". :)

Also then, maybe this thread should be moved to learning?

Ah, so he links us to the CPUSA. :rolleyes:

[Kléber]

The main problem is that, the battle lines are drawn, we are all in our little camps and have private conversations with our side, we often have avatars and names that link us intimately to our tendency (i'm partly guilty here). Often people seem to have a close attachment to the leader and feel that they have to defend him/her as a matter of pride. And the constant fighting in every thread turns us into sect fighters, ie, trolls. If someone loses an argument, generally they don't switch sides, because it is a personal and humiliating loss, and there's no real side-switching mechanism there. Only a few people actually have the honesty to question their views and consider alternatives. The whole setup just encourages the continuation of a 5000-year old sect war like rival monastic orders until the end of time where we never really get anything accomplished. This is why working class politics really need to be taken out to the masses... because in this vacuum, our little debates could go on FOREVER! Red cat definitely has a good point there (even if his opinion that history is irrelevant is ridiculous). And also why I will stop posting here as much from now on, and try to get back into activism, something I was driven out of by the sectarian bullshit at my school. No offense to everyone here but I miss the days when I could talk about politics with real people who aren't fellow warrior-monks, people who can actually adapt their opinion. This site is also curtailing my ability to complete schoolwork effectively. That's why I want to give props to users like Dimentio, even though he says stupid shit about Trotskyism somes times, he doesn't have a sectarian internet personality going.

If a revolutionary situation comes, we should definitely work together to try and set up workers' councils, and let the workers choose who has the best positions, then it will be less important what passed between us 100-200 years ago. I think that, in spite of our differences, we do all believe in the working class. After the French Restoration, did democrats in Europe sit around and be like "NAPOLEON WAS A GREAT DEMOCRAT! HE BUILT A SUPERPOWER SO UPHOLD NAPOELON!" vs "NOOO! NAPOLEON PURGED THE NEO-JACOBINS & ENDED REPUBLIC! BETRAYER!" No, those issues weren't a big deal to my knowledge. Although I would crack up if I heard that kids in 1820's were beating each up over that. So, given the fact that after stable bourgeois republics were established, many people still considered Napoleon a real democrat, wouldn't it be possible for socialism to happen and people still think of Stalin as a real socialist? Yes, of course. But the revolution would only be successful because it had transcended the backwards conditions which forced it to cling to the undemocratic political culture of the old system, which in turn enabled the rise of the military or bureaucratic caste to usurp state power and turn back the gains of the revolution.

All that said, as a Trotskyist, I am strongly against "reductionism," giving up any of our analysis or positions to try and merge with another group. The struggles of the Left Opposition were essentially a fight to maintain democracy in the USSR and Comintern parties, and keep the working class from being gagged, shackled, and readied for restoration. I would hope that we are all the sort of socialists who want democracy after the revolution, as well as before, and see its temporary suppression during wartime emergencies as something dangerous rather than glorious.

At the least, let me end with this: we all need to read more. some more than others. "go read this book it explains all!" is not an argument, but every tendency has embarrassing moments when its defenders spit out sectarian crap without having read anything about the subject.

Obligatory relevant Trotsky quote:

The creation of the soviets presupposes that the different parties and organizations within the working class, beginning with the factories, become agreed, both as regards the very necessity for the soviets and as regards the time and methods Of their formation. Which means: since the soviets, in themselves, represent the highest form of the united front in the revolutionary epoch, therefore their inception must be preceded by the policy of the united front in the preparatory period.
...
One must begin creating the soviets at the moment when the general condition of the proletariat permits soviets to be created, even against the will of the upper crust of the Social Democracy. But to do so, it is necessary to tear away the Social Democratic mass from the leading clique; and the way to do that is not by pretending it is already done. In order to separate the millions of Social Democratic workers from their reactionary leaders we must begin by showing these workers that we are ready to enter the soviets even with these “leaders.”

[Lenny Nista]

Yeah it's not a law court so nobody is gonna penalize you for talking out of your ass but you may be familiar with the concept of debate, you know, an orderly exchange of ideas where people attempt to demonstrate the validity of their position. You kind of have to worry about proving your assertions if you expect people to take them seriously. Just sayin'.

Well anyone who is politically active know what I am saying is true.

I mean if I aksed you for a link that "Marxist Leninism" believes in a stageist theory of constructing socialism, would you provide it? Really? I'd respect you more if you didn't lower yourself to doing so, but, whatever.

CaptainCuba: I was required to provide an exaple of a Stalinsit Party. Nobody specifried which one. Maybe though, this just demonstrates the ridiculous nature of what was being asked of me: to pcik, at random, one of the countless Stalinist/Maoist Parties which do not call for the creation of a demcoratic centralist international as an essential part of building a revolutionary party.

So like I say then, if you don't like my choice of link, it's really up to you to find one which contradicts my assertion, isn't it. :)

[Q]

Q: how about we simply use the Bolshevik definition?

I was exactly talking about that. You make it seem as if it very clear cut while in fact there is huge confusion on this issue. I would bet most people here have no clue what they're talking about when they talk about "democratic centralism" and in fact use some Zinoviev'ist caricature of a top-down party organisation, disallowing or "discouraging" tendencies and factions and waging all political debates internally.

[red cat]

Well anyone who is politically active know what I am saying is true.

I mean if I aksed you for a link that "Marxist Leninism" believes in a stageist theory of constructing socialism, would you provide it? Really? I'd respect you more if you didn't lower yourself to doing so, but, whatever.

CaptainCuba: I was required to provide an exaple of a Stalinsit Party. Nobody specifried which one. Maybe though, this just demonstrates the ridiculous nature of what was being asked of me: to pcik, at random, one of the countless Stalinist/Maoist Parties which do not call for the creation of a demcoratic centralist international as an essential part of building a revolutionary party.

So like I say then, if you don't like my choice of link, it's really up to you to find one which contradicts my assertion, isn't it. :)

If a party is not strong enough to build up a revolutionary movement in its own country, then how will it build up a revolutionary international? Moreover, how will it prove to revolutionary parties in other countries that it is revolutionary itself ?

[Lenny Nista]

If a party is not strong enough to build up a revolutionary movement in its own country, then how will it build up a revolutionary international? Moreover, how will it prove to revolutionary parties in other countries that it is revolutionary itself ?

Sorry, I am not trying to prove that Trotskyists are rirght and Stalinsits are wrong (history has done that for me).

I am simply demosntrating that Stalinist parties and Trotskyist parties share fundamental programmatic differences and differeces of principle, which won't be overcome through a "reconciliation" - which was what the OP asked. For such purposes it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, I simply have to demonstrate that these differences exist.

[Lenny Nista]

I was exactly talking about that. You make it seem as if it very clear cut while in fact there is huge confusion on this issue. I would bet most people here have no clue what they're talking about when they talk about "democratic centralism" and in fact use some Zinoviev'ist caricature of a top-down party organisation, disallowing or "discouraging" tendencies and factions and waging all political debates internally.

But this wasn't the Bolshevik method. Just because there is confusion about ti today doesn't mean the Bolshevik method was incorrect, it simply shows the inadequacy of groups which couldn;t.refused to implement it properly.

[Q]

But this wasn't the Bolshevik method. Just because there is confusion about ti today doesn't mean the Bolshevik method was incorrect, it simply shows the inadequacy of groups which couldn;t.refused to implement it properly.

I'm sure you are aware of the many falsifications around Bolshevik history and I'm sure there can be many quotes found in Lenin's 50+ part collected works that would defend "democratic centralism" according to its "modern" understanding. One of the well known examples is of course "What is to be done?" that was written in a very specific historical context but is totally useless today and most certainly not a "foundation of Bolshevism" as is often claimed.

So yes, clarification is necessary.

[ChrisK]

After the French Restoration, did democrats in Europe sit around and be like "NAPOLEON WAS A GREAT DEMOCRAT! HE BUILT A SUPERPOWER SO UPHOLD NAPOELON!" vs "NOOO! NAPOLEON PURGED THE NEO-JACOBINS & ENDED REPUBLIC! BETRAYER!" No, those issues weren't a big deal to my knowledge. Although I would crack up if I heard that kids in 1820's were beating each up over that.

Well, Beethoven did take away his dedication to Napoleon for his (i believe) fourth symphony when he felt that Napoleon had destroyed the republic.

[Kléber]

What the hell is with the tags in this post? (Scroll down)?



all places where i said **** i could also have said cock (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=all+places+where+i+said+****+i+could+ also+have+said+cock), *****slapped (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=*****slapped), bourgeois (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=bourgeois), ****s (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=****s), fuck dancing i want a revolution (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=fuck+dancing+i+want+a+revolution), mlm (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=mlm), reconciliation (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=reconciliation), sectarian (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=sectarian), trot (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=trot), trotsky annihilates all! (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=trotsky+annihilates+all%21), trotsky begs for mercy from stalin (http://www.revleft.org/vb/tags.php?tag=trotsky+begs+for+mercy+from+stalin)I was in "reconciliation" mode until I read this.

Actually, Trotsky was the only party leader who DIDN'T publicly humiliate himself and "recant errors" before Stalin.

Obviously you just have a lot of reading to do.

[ChrisK]

What the hell is with the tags in this post? (Scroll down)?

I was in "reconciliation" mode until I read this.

Actually, Trotsky was the only party leader who DIDN'T publicly humiliate himself and "recant errors" before Stalin.

Obviously you just have a lot of reading to do.

I think this exposes Lex for the troll he is and speaks about his/her character.

[Lenny Nista]

What the hell is with the tags in this post? (Scroll down)?

I was in "reconciliation" mode until I read this.

Actually, Trotsky was the only party leader who DIDN'T publicly humiliate himself and "recant errors" before Stalin.

Obviously you just have a lot of reading to do.

Yeah Trotsky had a funny way of begging for mercy:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/stalin.htm

The accidental failure of the assault, so carefully and so ably prepared, is a serious blow to Stalin. The GPU must rehabilitate itself with Stalin. Stalin must demonstrate his power. A repetition of the attempt is inevitable. In what form? Possibly once again in the form of a pure terrorist act where along with machine guns will appear bombers. But it is not at all excluded that they will try to cover up the terrorist act by means of faked “popular indignation.” The slanderous campaign which is being conducted with ever increasing venom by Stalin’s agents in Mexico is aimed precisely for this purpose.

To justify their persecution of me, and to cover up the assaults of the GPU, the agents of the Kremlin talk about my “counter-revolutionary” tendency. It all depends on what one understands as revolution and counter-revolution. The most powerful force of the counter-revolution in our epoch is imperialism, both in its fascist form as well as in its quasidemocratic cover. Not one of the imperialist countries wishes to permit me inside its territories. As regards the oppressed and semi-independent countries, they refuse to accept me under the pressure of imperialist governments or of the Moscow bureaucracy which now plays an extremely reactionary role in the entire world. Mexico extended hospitality to me because Mexico is not an imperialist country; and for this reason its government proved to be, as a rare exception, sufficiently independent of external pressure to guide itself in accordance with its own principles. I can therefore state that I live on this earth not in accordance with the rule but as an exception to the rule. In a reactionary epoch such as ours, a revolutionist is compelled to swim against the stream. I am doing this to the best of my ability. The pressure of world reaction has expressed itself perhaps most implacably in my personal fate and the fate of those close to me. I do not at all see in this any merit of mine: this is the result of the interlacing of historical circumstances. But when people of the type of Toledano, Laborde et al proclaim me to be a “counter-revolutionist,” I can calmly pass them by, leaving the final verdict to history.

[Lenny Nista]

I'm sure you are aware of the many falsifications around Bolshevik history and I'm sure there can be many quotes found in Lenin's 50+ part collected works that would defend "democratic centralism" according to its "modern" understanding. One of the well known examples is of course "What is to be done?" that was written in a very specific historical context but is totally useless today and most certainly not a "foundation of Bolshevism" as is often claimed.


This shouldn't be a problem for Trotskyists though, as we recognize that Trotsky preserved the heritage of Bolshevik practice:



Neither do I think that I can give such a formula on democratic centralism that “once and for all” would eliminate misunderstandings and false interpretations. A party is an active organism. It develops in the struggle with outside obstacles and inner contradictions.

The malignant decomposition of the Second and Third Internationals, under severe conditions of the imperialist epoch, creates for the Fourth International difficulties unprecedented in history. One cannot overcome them with some sort of magic formula. The regime of a party does not fall ready made from the sky but is formed gradually in struggle. A political line predominates over the regime. First of all, it is necessary to define strategic problems and tactical methods correctly in order to solve them. The organisational forms should correspond to the strategy and the tactic.

Only a correct policy can guarantee a healthy party regime. This, it is understood, does not mean that the development of the party does not realise organisational problems as such. But it means that the formula for democratic centralism must inevitably find a different expression in the parties of different countries and in different stages of development of one and the same party.

Democracy and centralism do not at all find themselves in an invariable ratio to one another. Everything depends on the concrete circumstances, on the political situation in the country, on the strength of the party and its experience, on the general level of its members, on the authority the leadership has succeeded in winning. Before a conference, when the problem is one of formulating a political line for the next period, democracy triumphs over centralism.

When the problem is political action, centralism subordinates democracy to itself. Democracy again asserts its rights when the party feels the need to examine critically its own actions. The equilibrium between democracy and centralism establishes itself in the actual struggle, at moments it is violated and then again re-established. The maturity of each member of the party expresses itself particularly in the fact that he does not demand from the party regime more than it can give. The person who defines his attitude to the party by the individual fillips that he gets on the nose is a poor revolutionist.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/xx/democent.htm

[red cat]

Sorry, I am not trying to prove that Trotskyists are rirght and Stalinsits are wrong (history has done that for me).

I am simply demosntrating that Stalinist parties and Trotskyist parties share fundamental programmatic differences and differeces of principle, which won't be overcome through a "reconciliation" - which was what the OP asked. For such purposes it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, I simply have to demonstrate that these differences exist.

I was just questioning this statement of yours:


one of the countless Stalinist/Maoist Parties which do not call for the creation of a demcoratic centralist international as an essential part of building a revolutionary party.

How can a CP create a CI even before it has built a strong revolutionary movement in its own country ?

[Lenny Nista]

How can a CP create a CI even before it has built a strong revolutionary movement in its own country ?

Well, I believe that a propaganda group needs to be built on the basis of international democratic centralism from the beginning, otherwise it will fall prey to national chauvinism whether or not it becomes a mass party.

But that is beyond the bounds of this thread, which simply asked about the possibilities of a "reconciliation" between Trotskyists and "MLists". I am pointing out that the two mvoements differ completely with regards to their understanding of internationalism, democratic centralism, class independence, and other issues, making no unity possible or desirable. Which side of the divide is correct, is another issue.

[JacobVardy]

The main problem is that, the battle lines are drawn, we are all in our little camps and have private conversations with our side, we often have avatars and names that link us intimately to our tendency (i'm partly guilty here). Often people seem to have a close attachment to the leader and feel that they have to defend him/her as a matter of pride. And the constant fighting in every thread turns us into sect fighters, ie, trolls. If someone loses an argument, generally they don't switch sides, because it is a personal and humiliating loss, and there's no real side-switching mechanism there. Only a few people actually have the honesty to question their views and consider alternatives. The whole setup just encourages the continuation of a 5000-year old sect war like rival monastic orders until the end of time where we never really get anything accomplished. This is why working class politics really need to be taken out to the masses... because in this vacuum, our little debates could go on FOREVER! Red cat definitely has a good point there (even if his opinion that history is irrelevant is ridiculous). And also why I will stop posting here as much from now on, and try to get back into activism, something I was driven out of by the sectarian bullshit at my school. No offense to everyone here but I miss the days when I could talk about politics with real people who aren't fellow warrior-monks, people who can actually adapt their opinion. This site is also curtailing my ability to complete schoolwork effectively. That's why I want to give props to users like Dimentio, even though he says stupid shit about Trotskyism somes times, he doesn't have a sectarian internet personality going.

If a revolutionary situation comes, we should definitely work together to try and set up workers' councils, and let the workers choose who has the best positions, then it will be less important what passed between us 100-200 years ago. I think that, in spite of our differences, we do all believe in the working class. After the French Restoration, did democrats in Europe sit around and be like "NAPOLEON WAS A GREAT DEMOCRAT! HE BUILT A SUPERPOWER SO UPHOLD NAPOELON!" vs "NOOO! NAPOLEON PURGED THE NEO-JACOBINS & ENDED REPUBLIC! BETRAYER!" No, those issues weren't a big deal to my knowledge. Although I would crack up if I heard that kids in 1820's were beating each up over that. So, given the fact that after stable bourgeois republics were established, many people still considered Napoleon a real democrat, wouldn't it be possible for socialism to happen and people still think of Stalin as a real socialist? Yes, of course. But the revolution would only be successful because it had transcended the backwards conditions which forced it to cling to the undemocratic political culture of the old system, which in turn enabled the rise of the military or bureaucratic caste to usurp state power and turn back the gains of the revolution.

All that said, as a Trotskyist, I am strongly against "reductionism," giving up any of our analysis or positions to try and merge with another group. The struggles of the Left Opposition were essentially a fight to maintain democracy in the USSR and Comintern parties, and keep the working class from being gagged, shackled, and readied for restoration. I would hope that we are all the sort of socialists who want democracy after the revolution, as well as before, and see its temporary suppression during wartime emergencies as something dangerous rather than glorious.

At the least, let me end with this: we all need to read more. some more than others. "go read this book it explains all!" is not an argument, but every tendency has embarrassing moments when its defenders spit out sectarian crap without having read anything about the subject.

Obligatory relevant Trotsky quote:


Thank you Kléber. This is one of the better posts i've seen on RevLeft. Yes, this website is like a shaolin academy. Novices come here to learn how to fight. Those of us who are older merely sharpen our positions. In the years i have been reading here my anarchism has become more defined. RevLeft does not aid the revolution.

[Robocommie]

Thank you Kléber. This is one of the better posts i've seen on RevLeft. Yes, this website is like a shaolin academy. Novices come here to learn how to fight. Those of us who are older merely sharpen our positions. In the years i have been reading here my anarchism has become more defined. RevLeft does not aid the revolution.

That's a totally awesome description.

And I want you to teach me the Whirling Crane Technique.

[IrishWorker]

Who really gives a fuck anyway?
Nobody.
Get over yourselves.
Egotistical wankers.

[heiss93]

Well there are some points of unity between the anti-revisionist analysis of post-1956 USSR and the Trotskyist doctrines of either the deformed workers state or state capitalism. And even Hoxha himself admitted that the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR began as early as 1945, despite the best efforts of Stalin. This is not totally out of line with Trotsky's own analysis that saw Stalin as a centrist force between the genuine Old Bolsheviks and the bureaucratic opportunists. The line of the Sam Marcyist PSL and WWP certainly reflects this standpoint.

Within the mainline M-L movement that accepts the USSR till 1991, there has been a somewhat reconcilitary view towards Trotksyist, since the main bone of contention has disappeared.

[Kléber]

RevLeft does not aid the revolution.
Thanks; and no, I wouldn't say it does directly, but I guess I was too extreme - as you note, it helps people develop their own politics and figure out where they stand, so it helps prepare the subjective basis for a revolution.


Within the mainline M-L movementThank you for weighing in; contained in that brief phrase are two of the biggest differences between our tendencies.

First, there has not been a proper "mainline M-L movement" since the Comintern was unceremoniously dissolved in 1943. That fact alone vindicates Trotsky's struggle to build a new international.

Second, the very fact that the term "Marxist-Leninist" is claimed by people who take Stalin's side in debates that happened after Marx and Lenin were dead is fundamentally dishonest and prevents reconciliation since we are not included in the term despite being at least as Marxist and Leninist as you! ;P

[Wanted Man]

How would you define "reconciliation"? In the sense that all the ML and Trotskyist parties merge? I can't see that happening.

On the other hand, cooperation already happens in many cases. Certainly, in trade union and student struggle, we work alongside the IS (the SWP here) regularly, and I can't think of any occasion where they said, "Well, first you'll have to explain why you purged us in the 1930s". The reasons for this are obvious: it's not the 1930s, they're not the same people, and this kind of political activity does not give much room for fights over which dead guy was best.

However, what we do see in our activities is that they take quite a different line on union work. They seem to see mass organisations as bureaucratic monoliths, whose only use is to provide some short-term recruitment opportunities for their own organisation (that is, the IS). Their organisational ability and level of activity is impressive, but they don't always use it well.

They have done great work at times, but it has also happened that only a few of them showed up at an action for a short period, and then the next morning, on their website, they published an article where they gave themselves most of the credit.

In the end, these practical differences that you encounter when cooperating in the struggle are more acute than any discussions about whether it's time to "reconcile" decades after some old men died. Practice will show which line is the best.

Edit: I also quite liked Kléber's post.

[black magick hustla]

If there is a revolutionary situation, workers who are stalinists, christians, democrats, and buddhists will struggle together, but as a class. Until now, there are real programmatic issues that divide us.

[Saorsa]

But seriously, if you belong to a Stalinist or Maoist group, or it you are functioning in a major industrial country with such politics, could you please describe, concretely, what your group or you yourself are doing.

The group I belong to bases itself on the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and while we recognise the contributions of many others we have no official party line on the nature of the USSR, China or whatever, and instead unite around our positions that are relevant to making revolution in NZ today - the nature of the Labour party, open borders, opposition to NZ imperialism, and yes we are imperialist, not any kind of 'neo-colony'... that sort of thing. The Workers Party contains everyone from more pro-Mao types to pro-Trotsky people, former AWL members to former Sinn Fein organisers. We have members from across the political tradition, united around common work and mutual agreement on how to concretely relate to the class struggle in our country.

Some of our comrades who are either from Maoistish backgrounds or are currently Maoist-leaning are union organisers for Unite and the NDU, the two most militant unions in the country, leading strike actions and trying to rebuild the abysmally weak trade union movement. The working class in NZ is barely even conscious of it's own existence as a class, let alone organised on that basis. A former member of the party who is still Maoist-leaning was elected president of the bus workers union during a period of negotiations that ended in a lockout and a win for the workers. He was open about his politics before, during and after his election.

I'm not old enough to have been involved in much, but I've been a union member at every job I was ever at, and for two years was a National Distribution Union member at one of it's largest and best organised sites in Dunedin. I attended local organising committee meetings and tried to involve people in the stopworks and union elections etc. However participation was always very low, and while New Zealand remains in a period of downturn in class struggle (albeit with promising signs on the horizon) there's only so much you can do.

The idea that Maoists don't get involved in workers struggles in the first world is a false one. Even in your own country Dave, the Revolutionary Union (forerunner of the RCP) was sending student members into working class areas to integrate with the proletariat, and these Maoists played active and sometimes leading roles in things like the wildcat strike movement (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/26/ambush-at-keystone-1inside-the-coalminers-gas-protest/) in the coal mines of the Appalachias.

And of course, you're well aware of the militancy, organisational strength and general activity of Maoist trade unions in the countries where we have a mass base, like Nepal.

[Saorsa]

How would you define "reconciliation"? In the sense that all the ML and Trotskyist parties merge? I can't see that happening.

Well, it can happen, and it can work very well, as my own group proves. But it should only happen in a situation where Maoists and Trotskyists agree on issues relating to practical revolutionary activities in the here and now - it shouldn't just happen 'cos we're all liek on the same side and sectarianism is bad".

[Sendo]

Well there are some points of unity between the anti-revisionist analysis of post-1956 USSR and the Trotskyist doctrines of either the deformed workers state or state capitalism. And even Hoxha himself admitted that the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR began as early as 1945, despite the best efforts of Stalin. This is not totally out of line with Trotsky's own analysis that saw Stalin as a centrist force between the genuine Old Bolsheviks and the bureaucratic opportunists. The line of the Sam Marcyist PSL and WWP certainly reflects this standpoint.

Within the mainline M-L movement that accepts the USSR till 1991, there has been a somewhat reconcilitary view towards Trotksyist, since the main bone of contention has disappeared.

I guess it depends on people not focusing on individuals, but their unity in defending or denying major socialist states.

Stances on China and Cuba and current Maoist revolutions, being the first in my head. There can be contention, but a basic agreement on stances towards them a forward looking stance on how to form a party and not on personal dramas of the 1920s in Russia.

Sam Marcy's big point was his view on defending socialist states against what he viewed as liberalism and as opportunism.

It all depends on that, and a materialist view of communist leaders, without casually dismissing them, and not allowing differences to split the movement.

PSL seems to have the right idea here, with its defense of socialist states, support for current revolutions, and leaving person vs person struggles.

[Kléber]

Stances on China and Cuba and current Maoist revolutions, being the first in my head. There can be contention, but a basic agreement on stances towards them a forward looking stance on how to form a party and not on personal dramas of the 1920s in Russia.
2/3 of the 17th Congress, and all survivors of Lenin's CC being killed (except for Stalin), is not a personal drama. How to build an opposition party when your starting point is to justify the slaughter of the opposition?


PSL seems to have the right idea here, with its defense of socialist states, support for current revolutions, and leaving person vs person struggles.
The PSL defends the Tiananmen Square Massacre, where workers and students, singing the Internationale, and some even carrying Mao banners, were mowed down by machine-gun fire for demanding democratic reforms (some of the workers were also demanding an end to the market reforms)

How can we build an opposition to rejuvenate proletarian democracy by accepting the PRC's slander of the democratic strivings of the workers as reactionary, imperialist-influenced etc? Or taking at face value that it is "socialist" when the industry is privately owned?

[Saorsa]

The PSL defends the Tiananmen Square Massacre, where workers and students, singing the Internationale, and some even carrying Mao banners, were mowed down by machine-gun fire for demanding democratic reforms (some of the workers were also demanding an end to the market reforms)

How can we build an opposition to rejuvenate proletarian democracy by accepting the PRC's slander of the democratic strivings of the workers as reactionary, imperialist-influenced etc? Or taking at face value that it is "socialist" when the industry is privately owned?

Fair call re the PSL. I wouldn't touch an organisation that defends Deng Xiaoping and Iran's theocrats with a ten foot pole.

[manic expression]

The PSL defends the Tiananmen Square Massacre, where workers and students, singing the Internationale, and some even carrying Mao banners, were mowed down by machine-gun fire for demanding democratic reforms (some of the workers were also demanding an end to the market reforms)
There was no massacre. The picture you're trying to paint is one that has been debunked a thousand times:

On June 13, 1989, the New York Times carried a retraction written by Nicholas Kristof from Beijing: "The central scene in the article is of troops beating and machine-gunning unarmed students in the middle of Tiananmen Square. Several witnesses, both Chinese and foreign, say this did not happen. ... The great majority left unhurt and were not shot at, the witnesses say."

[snip]

Television news footage showed counterrevolutionary demonstrators firebombing trucks and buses with soldiers inside, many of whom were burned to death. The June 12, 1989, edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an article that read in part: "Aerial pictures of the conflagration and columns of smoke have powerfully bolstered the [Chinese] government’s argument that the troops were victims not executioners." Newsweek magazine carried photos of burned bodies of PLA soldiers and vehicles the following week.

The correspondent Richard Roth was reporting live for CBS from Tiananmen Square on the evening of June 4, 1989. His coverage was dramatically suspended that night when his live coverage suddenly ended with the sound of gunfire in the background.

On May 30, 2009, Roth made a report for CBS entitled: Tiananmen Square 20 Years Later. He said that that the gunfire resonating in the background when his live coverage dramatically ended on June 4, 1989, was soldiers shooting in the air. His report includes this important piece of information: Roth said he and his CBS camera crew "were captured and confined while the army took back Tiananmen—not by a massacre of the student protestors still inside the square, it turned out, but by a massive show of force that convinced the demonstrators to move out."

There's more here:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12341&news_iv_ctrl=1261

Furthermore, the PSL is more than critical of Deng's reforms and of the Iranian government. However, the PSL defends both from imperialist slander. In the former case, there are still very progressive and revolutionary elements in the CPC, and they must be defended and promoted as much as possible; any progress that is to be made in the PRC will come from within the CPC, not from without it. In the latter, imperialism launched an all-out rhetorical offensive in order to destabilize Iran, re-subjugate the Iranian workers under imperialist control and greatly aid the cause of Zionism. The defeat of an attempted "color revolution" is no setback for workers, especially when it was a power-play by one of the richest men of Iran, cheered on by the American bourgeoisie.

But on the main topic, it's true that Sam Marcy was one of the strongest voices for genuine communist unity. For instance, went before Marxist-Leninists in Belgium and basically said exactly that, and his words were well-taken. The PSL continues Marcy's line to forge unity between all communists.

[Lenny Nista]

The PSL continues Marcy's line to forge unity between all communists.

What will be the principles and program of this unity?

[Sendo]

Fair call re the PSL. I wouldn't touch an organisation that defends Deng Xiaoping and Iran's theocrats with a ten foot pole.

Given the extremely hostile climate China has suffered for two centuries, supporting the Chinese beats the alternative of opportunism when the weakening of the PRC would likely result in Balkanization, neoliberalization, neo-colonies, etc.

The whole Tiananmen thing..there was a mixture of liberals and workers. And many workers wanted to protect the iron rice bowl. I am very much against the Tiananmen massacre, but I also know it's blown out of proportion and that when you have the movement led by students carrying around a hollow emblem of Western democracy, I can understand why Deng acted harshly.

I'm not saying PSL has the right line on every matter, it just seems from my reading that they are more focused on being "pan-communist". Analyses might be wrong, but the aims are better than the openly sectarian parties and organizations or liberal "leftists" plaguing the scene.

[Crux]

The whole Tiananmen thing..there was a mixture of liberals and workers. And many workers wanted to protect the iron rice bowl. I am very much against the Tiananmen massacre, but I also know it's blown out of proportion and that when you have the movement led by students carrying around a hollow emblem of Western democracy, I can understand why Deng acted harshly.
While I think it might have had more to do with the independent union being formed. Anyone wanting to defend the actions of the regime should remember that the massacre was done only so that the regime could continue it's program of market liberalization. Regardless if there were students having illusions in western democracy (or more commonly "glasnost") taking the side of the regime is not only defending a beureucratic dictatorship against demands for basic democratic rights, but also defending a regime pushing for marketreforms.

[RED DAVE]

[T]here are still very progressive and revolutionary elements in the CPC, and they must be defended and promoted as much as possible; any progress that is to be made in the PRC will come from within the CPC, not from without it.Some people never learn.

China is capitalist. It's governing party is, therefore, a capitalist party. Any "progressive and revolutionary elements in the CPC" are either, (a) in league with nonprogressive and nonrevolutionary elements in that they are in the same party and not carrying out a struggle practically to the death against what, from the Maoist point of view, is the largest sell-out in history; (b) not so progressive and revolutionary; (c) nonexistent; (d) deluded; (e) all of the above.

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

What will be the principles and program of this unity?
Unfortunately I can't find the exact speech I was talking about, so I can't refer you to anything at this point. I'll do my best to answer this myself, however: generally, this isn't about conforming principles and programs, it's about getting rid of useless divisions between revolutionaries. The Sino-Soviet Split? Mostly came down to a personal dispute between Khrushchev and Mao. "Stalinism" vs Trotskyism? Came from disagreements on the Soviet Union, which doesn't even exist anymore. Isn't it reasonable to think that in the most practical, fundamental matters of making a revolution, such disagreements can be overcome? That's how I see it.

[manic expression]

China is capitalist. It's governing party is, therefore, a capitalist party. Any "progressive and revolutionary elements in the CPC" are either, (a) in league with nonprogressive and nonrevolutionary elements in that they are in the same party and not carrying out a struggle practically to the death against what, from the Maoist point of view, is the largest sell-out in history; (b) not so progressive and revolutionary; (c) nonexistent; (d) deluded; (e) all of the above.
Don't be so simplistic. The CPC is not monolithic, there are many elements within it; it is one of the largest political parties in the world after all. It may be called a "sell-out", but that would ignore the big picture in favor of, again, a simplistic idea of what the PRC is today.

On the definition of China, it's important you read this instead of jumping to those conclusions:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12205&news_iv_ctrl=1261
Capitalist private property has been legalized and encouraged. Tens of thousands of privately owned enterprises co-exist along with state-owned enterprises. The official monopoly of foreign trade has been gradually reduced, with many of the largest western transnational capitalist corporations and banks setting up operations in cities throughout China. Large numbers of Chinese workers are employed by these foreign firms, producing vast surplus value for western investors. The Chinese government considers this to be a necessary development strategy.4

That is not to say that private capital—or foreign capital in particular—has the decisive upper hand in the Chinese economy. The gradual dissolution of the monopoly of foreign trade obscures the still-powerful mediating role of the Communist Party-led state that acts to safeguard China’s evolving industrial and scientific apparatus from the encroachments of western imperialist corporations.

There are some recent signs that the Chinese state is increasing restrictions on foreign capital so as to safeguard the position of Chinese enterprises. Each move in this direction sets off alarms among western capitalists.

[RED DAVE]

What will be the principles and program of this unity? [QUOTE=manic expression;1678046]Unfortunately I can't find the exact speech I was talking about, so I can't refer you to anything at this point. I'll do my best to answer this myself, however: generally, this isn't about conforming principles and programs, it's about getting rid of useless divisions between revolutionaries.Okay, useless divisions are useless. Agreed.


The Sino-Soviet Split? Mostly came down to a personal dispute between Khrushchev and Mao.Do you really think, as a Marxist, that the split between the two most powerful "Communist" nations in the world came about because Khruschev liked borscht and Mao liked won-ton soup? How about the severe economic conflict between the two countries?


"Stalinism" vs Trotskyism? Came from disagreements on the Soviet Union, which doesn't even exist anymore.With all due respect, Comrade, it's a little more than that. As you can see, or should be able to see, with the current situation in Nepal, which is the early history of China writ small, there's a lot more to that, including the notion of two-stage revolution vs. permanent revolution, whether or not a left-wing party can enter into a bourgeois government, this New Democracy stuff, etc.


Isn't it reasonable to think that in the most practical, fundamental matters of making a revolution, such disagreements can be overcome? That's how I see it.I think you are overly optimistic with regard to either so-called third world or first world countries. As I've shown above, in the thrid world, the gap is, in my opinion, as wide as the gap between the working class and the peasantry, on the one hand, and the new state capitalist bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie on the other.

In the first world (Can we change these three term: first-, second- and third-world? They're really demeaning and weird and inaccurate.), where I live (USA), I thik that any left-wing group that refuses, on the face of it, to refuse to enter into a rank-and-file group, a union, an anti-war organization, etc., because of the presence of another group or groups is being sectarian. That being said, in my experience, there are usually nontrivial differences with regard to program, strategy, tactics, etc.

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

Do you really think, as a Marxist, that the split between the two most powerful "Communist" nations in the world came about because Khruschev liked borscht and Mao liked won-ton soup? How about the severe economic conflict between the two countries?
Much of it came down to who was supposed to be the new leader of the communist movement. After Stalin, both Khrushchev and Mao thought themselves worthy of taking that role. This played out in a few ways: strong disagreement on Stalin's policies, Khrushchev's unwillingness to give the PRC nuclear capabilities...the final Sino-Soviet Split came over a dispute over joint naval operations, IIRC. It was very much unnecessary.


With all due respect, Comrade, it's a little more than that. As you can see, or should be able to see, with the current situation in Nepal, which is the early history of China writ small, there's a lot more to that, including the notion of two-stage revolution vs. permanent revolution, whether or not a left-wing party can enter into a bourgeois government, this New Democracy stuff, etc.
Sure, granted, there are ideological differences that are oftentimes impossible to avoid (permanent revolution being one of them, most likely). But others need not be so daunting: the place of parliamentary politics has been a sticking point for socialists since Engels' time, so that's not new. The question is whether or not we try to overcome these obstacles. It's worth the effort, IMO.


I think you are overly optimistic with regard to either so-called third world or first world countries. As I've shown above, in the thrid world, the gap is, in my opinion, as wide as the gap between the working class and the peasantry, on the one hand, and the new state capitalist bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie on the other.

In the first world (Can we change these three term: first-, second- and third-world? They're really demeaning and weird and inaccurate.), where I live (USA), I thik that any left-wing group that refuses, on the face of it, to refuse to enter into a rank-and-file group, a union, an anti-war organization, etc., because of the presence of another group or groups is being sectarian. That being said, in my experience, there are usually nontrivial differences with regard to program, strategy, tactics, etc.
I'm not sure what you're driving at. The sectarianism you talk of should be examined, and solutions should be found. In the "developing world", class warfare is usually more open, and therefore it's usually easier to see who is revolutionary and who isn't. That's probably the greatest difference. But nevertheless, the question remains the same, does it not?

[Wanted Man]

Well, it can happen, and it can work very well, as my own group proves. But it should only happen in a situation where Maoists and Trotskyists agree on issues relating to practical revolutionary activities in the here and now - it shouldn't just happen 'cos we're all liek on the same side and sectarianism is bad".

Yes, in that particular case. But it seems that you guys are more outward-looking and pragmatic than many trotskyists and maoists in the first world. Still, it is something that should be considered seriously in this case.

[RED DAVE]

Let me say again, with regard to the subject of this thread, that any Left group that refuses, per se, to work with outer groups in tactical alliances is hopeless secarian. I have, personally, and as a member of a Trot group, the IS(US) worked with Trots, Maoists, Stalinists, social democrats, etc. I've never lost sight of my politics or concealed differences, but neither have I ever joined a split over doctrinal differences. I have been involved in splits involving tactical and strategic differences that, in my opinion, were sufficent to warrant such a split. And I've seen splits develop over the number of hairs in Trotsky's goatee, Stalin's mustache or on Lenin's head :D.

By all means, let's try to work together in a principled manner.

RED DAVE

[Lenny Nista]

Unfortunately I can't find the exact speech I was talking about, so I can't refer you to anything at this point. I'll do my best to answer this myself, however: generally, this isn't about conforming principles and programs, it's about getting rid of useless divisions between revolutionaries. The Sino-Soviet Split? Mostly came down to a personal dispute between Khrushchev and Mao. "Stalinism" vs Trotskyism? Came from disagreements on the Soviet Union, which doesn't even exist anymore. Isn't it reasonable to think that in the most practical, fundamental matters of making a revolution, such disagreements can be overcome? That's how I see it.

I wouldn't say that Stalinism/Maoism/"MLism" vs Trotskyism comes down to thse differences, rather to the udnerstanding of what a revolution is. Trotskyists reject popular fronts and the need for a "capitalist stage of development" for the semicolonies. We reject building national communsit parties outside of a demcoratic centralsit international. We reject giving poltiical support to any bourgeois or petit-bourgeois regimes - for example Morales, Chávez, etc.

Are we supposed to jsut ignore all these questions? These are very relevant and unreconcilible differences on the level of parties. Of course I try to win individual honest people from the "ML" parties over, but that's completely different.

My opinion is that the fault lines are similair tot he ones that divided Menshevism and Bolshevism, and thatthe Bolsheviks would have been unable to win over the masses on the need to overthrow the Provisional Government and install a Soviet Republic, if they had made a lwoest-common denominator "unity" with the Mensheviks - who still clung to the stageist analysis for example.

[Crux]

In the first world (Can we change these three term: first-, second- and third-world? They're really demeaning and weird and inaccurate
Just a quick note on those terms. as far as understand it the original meaning of the term, being popularized by Frantz Fanon, was mroe along the lines of "a third of the world". The idea of a "first" and "second" world came much later.

[Hit The North]

But you said the working class could tkae power. The soviets didn't aim to form a workers government until the Bolsheviks wont he leadership of them, did they?


Actually, I said they'd be "taking control of society" which was meant to have a wider and deeper connotation than "taking power".

I'm in no doubt that the Bolsheviks were necessary to push the soviets into a realization that they already wielded the power. The Bolshevik achievement was to agitate for the overturning of the stalemate of dual power in favour of soviet power; to make the soviets realise that they already held power but needed to declare it in order to push the revolution forward.


Also the "working class" as a whole is not ismply the "creative force" in every revolution...there are differences within the W/C. There is a revolutionary vanguard, and there is a broader working class vanguard, and then there is the mass of the class. The former two need to "fuse" under a revolutionary program in order to convince the latter to follow them.
Again, I wouldn't dispute the observation that the working class necessarily suffers from uneven consciousness. However, it's not always obvious who the vanguard is within the class as this changes over time - even more quickly in revolutionary periods so that the vanguard can spring up in unexpected places. The same is true of the revolutionary vanguard: were the Bolsheviks to the left of the poorest, least organised workers in the summer of 1917? Not according to Lenin!

Let's not make a fetish of the vanguard.

I wouldn't even question your schema, the workers have to organise themselves politically as well as economically. This may lead to the swelling of the ranks of some existing party which is currently obscure and marginal and those comrades can then celebrate the absolute proof of the truth and accuracy of their theory and practice. But it might mean the creation of a completely new form of organisation which is superior to our current notion of the democractic-centralist workers party.

So let's not make a fetish of the party.


Likewise yout alk about us never having ahd a revolution in a mature capitlaist country, but we have had revolutionary situations, and in all cases, in the abscence of a mass revolutionary party, the W/C was unable to take power, despite insurgencies and semi-insurgencies numbering millions.You might also ask what the conditions were which led to there not existing such a party able to play this historic role? I would imagine the answer would lie somewhere in an explanation of the historical and material conditions which led to the development of the Bolsheviks being absent in your other examples.

I also think that by employing these comparisons as somehow equal except in the absence of a mass revolutionary party, you underestimate the absolute decimation of the Russian state. It couldn't even gain control of its own arsenals! Power had evacuated to the countryside long before Kerensky followed it.

I understand, because I've been there, that you are defending the principles of party building and the primitive accumulation of cadre. I actually support the necessity for this, but not because I think my organisation will become the mass revolutionary party. In fact, the SWP is more than twice as old as the Bolsheviki were in 1917 and it shows little sign of comparable progress.

Btw, on page 1 of this thread I wrote that "If we can't transcend our own history then we have no right to call ourselves revolutionaries." Sadly, this thread has been dominated by a historical argument of claim and counter-claim. We're more like a bunch of quarrelsome historians than revolutionists!

[Lenny Nista]

I thanked you for a thoughtful and intelligent response - one of the few in this thread - but I disagree with much of what you said.


Actually, I said they'd be "taking control of society" which was meant to have a wider and deeper connotation than "taking power".

Fair enough.



I'm in no doubt that the Bolsheviks were necessary to push the soviets into a realization that they already wielded the power. The Bolshevik achievement was to agitate for the overturning of the stalemate of dual power in favour of soviet power; to make the soviets realise that they already held power but needed to declare it in order to push the revolution forward.


I don't see how you can say they already held power. :s The Bolsheviks didn't "just agitate for the Soviets to take power", they fought to win over the leadership of the Soviets, through winning over the mass base of them, and to win them as bodies to become a tool for social revolution. Likewise the Soviets could not have taken and held pwoer without the mainly Bolshevik military leadership concentrating their efforts on taking control of the key strategic points necessarry to make the insurrection successful.

If I fetishize the party and the vanguard, then you fetishize the Soviet. ;)


The same is true of the revolutionary vanguard: were the Bolsheviks to the left of the poorest, least organised workers in the summer of 1917? Not according to Lenin!

This is true, the party and the class have a dialectical relationship to one another. However the class doesn't simply "lead" the party", rather the party must lead the class by fusing with its most advanced sectors, and be prepared to learn from its mistakes and from the class as happened with the July Days.


This may lead to the swelling of the ranks of some existing party which is currently obscure and marginal and those comrades can then celebrate the absolute proof of the truth and accuracy of their theory and practice. But it might mean the creation of a completely new form of organisation which is superior to our current notion of the democractic-centralist workers party.

Why are these the only two options? Can't a demcoratic centralist mass party be built out of a series of splits nad fusions between the reovlutionary left in a dialectical relationship with mass class struggle?

You say "demcoratic centralism" as if it is some wierd dogma, but in fact it's just the most logical form of revolutionary organization.



Btw, on page 1 of this thread I wrote that "If we can't transcend our own history then we have no right to call ourselves revolutionaries." Sadly, this thread has been dominated by a historical argument of claim and counter-claim. We're more like a bunch of quarrelsome historians than revolutionists!


Who is this "we"? I don't count myself as one of those. I'm active in the class struggle and without boasting, I'll bet I'm one of the few people here who has been involved in actual miltiant workplace struggle, and seen how opportunist "revolutionary" parties, reformists, and TU bureaucracies, all serve as tools of transmission of borugeois ideology, and eventual defeat, into the working class. I don't think being intransigent over issues like class independence, rank and file democracy, no illusions in the state or any sector of the bosses, counts as "quarrelling". Otherwise the hwole tradition you lay claim to - Leninism and Trotskyism - was just "quarrelsome", and we might as well all just stop moaning and unite round some lowest common denominator.

I am not accusing you of being one of them but this is the kind of thing that only very small irrelevant sects like the CPGB talk about. I can tell you something - there won't ever be "left unity", and anyone who calls for it, knows that, and is cynically trying to swell their own ranks.

All these attempts at "broad left unity" like Die Linke, RESPECT, NPA, Left Bloc, Izquierda Unida, have all turned against the workers whenever they got into power, have all shown their national chauvinism, and have all failed to relate to the rank and file or lead their struggles. These are obstacles to revolution not tools to it, and all they acheive is subordinating our message and identifying "socialism" with middle class traitors.

What we need is a genuinely internationalist, democratic, class-independent left, and if that means "cutting the wheat from the chaff" so be it.

[Saorsa]

As you can see, or should be able to see, with the current situation in Nepal, which is the early history of China writ small, there's a lot more to that, including the notion of two-stage revolution vs. permanent revolution, whether or not a left-wing party can enter into a bourgeois government, this New Democracy stuff, etc.

*sighs*

Dave, you're confirming every stereotype of Trotskyists. This is shit. You're not making a concrete criticism, and I have yet to see a single concrete exposition from you of why you think the Maoist's tactics were wrong, and what you propose as an alternative. All you've been saying so far is "Trotsky did not say this should be done in any book of his I've read! And incidentally, wouldn't near simultaneous international revolution be nice? That'd like solve heaps of problems". You didn't even reply when I made a lengthy critique of your position in the last thread we were discussing this in.

This is why it's so hard to take so many Trotskyists seriously.

[RED DAVE]

As you can see, or should be able to see, with the current situation in Nepal, which is the early history of China writ small, there's a lot more to that, including the notion of two-stage revolution vs. permanent revolution, whether or not a left-wing party can enter into a bourgeois government, this New Democracy stuff, etc.
Dave, you're confirming every stereotype of Trotskyists. This is shit.According, of course, to you.


You're not making a concrete criticism, and I have yet to see a single concrete exposition from you of why you think the Maoist's tactics were wrong, and what you propose as an alternative.The Maois/Stalinist tactics, in China, Vietnam and Nepal are wrong because they have led the working class into an opportunistic bloc with the national bourgeoisie, which is the worst enemy of the working class. Once in such a bloc, the party is unable to demand land to the peasants or to call for the peasants to seize the land or for workers control of industry or for the workers to seize control fo the means of production. The party is in a government with the landlords and the capitalists. It is unable to call for the liquidation of the national army as it is in the government of that army.

The party bureaucracy, in each case, became, instead of the leaders of the working class, the government over the working class. This is clear in the case of China to this day, and it's clear in Nepal.

Why the fuck would the leader of a revolutionary party become the prime minister of a bourgeois state?


All you've been saying so far is "Trotsky did not say this should be done in any book of his I've read! And incidentally, wouldn't near simultaneous international revolution be nice? That'd like solve heaps of problems". You didn't even reply when I made a lengthy critique of your position in the last thread we were discussing this in.I don't genuflect to the Great Old Man. It's not a matter of whatTrotsky said. It's a matter of what you Maoists are doing. You are, in every one of the countries where you take state power, instituting state capitalism and opening the door to private capitalism.

What is the alternative? Of course, permanent revolution. What does that mean, concretely? That the working class should be part of a government composed of revolutionary forces only: no fucking bourgeoisie, with the working class as the leading force: a dictatorship of the proletariat. At one point, Lenin used the formulation "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," but I believe they gave up that formulation after the dominant peasant party, the SRs, tried to stage a coup.

The party must constantly strive to educate the masses that what is taking place is only the earliest stages of socialism and that compromises may be necessary to keep the revolution alive until aid comes from the revolution in the major industrial countries. But above all, the party must never lie to the masses about what is going on. It must not call shit hamburger. it must not go into this crap about people's democracy, New Democracy, socialism in one country, etc.

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

I wouldn't say that Stalinism/Maoism/"MLism" vs Trotskyism comes down to thse differences, rather to the udnerstanding of what a revolution is. Trotskyists reject popular fronts and the need for a "capitalist stage of development" for the semicolonies. We reject building national communsit parties outside of a demcoratic centralsit international. We reject giving poltiical support to any bourgeois or petit-bourgeois regimes - for example Morales, Chávez, etc.
Those are things we can discuss, as fellow communists. We don't have to agree on everything to show solidarity for one another. The problem is that few have held an honest discussion since 1921, it's just animosity and labels. Sure, you can disagree, I'm not asking you to become Marxist-Leninist, I'm simply saying that condemning those you disagree with isn't what Marxists should be doing.


My opinion is that the fault lines are similair tot he ones that divided Menshevism and Bolshevism, and thatthe Bolsheviks would have been unable to win over the masses on the need to overthrow the Provisional Government and install a Soviet Republic, if they had made a lwoest-common denominator "unity" with the Mensheviks - who still clung to the stageist analysis for example.
Unless I'm mistaken, Lenin consistently urged the Mensheviks to re-align with the Bolsheviks, and the two groups worked together a great deal before the February Revolution. That's exactly my point: many divisions within our movement are pointless, counterproductive and usually just petty (and just to clarify, this is stuff that I also need to work on here). Disagreement is good, stubborn division isn't so good.

[Crux]

Unless I'm mistaken, Lenin consistently urged the Mensheviks to re-align with the Bolsheviks, and the two groups worked together a great deal before the February Revolution. That's exactly my point: many divisions within our movement are pointless, counterproductive and usually just petty (and just to clarify, this is stuff that I also need to work on here). Disagreement is good, stubborn division isn't so good.
This is a bit of a cheap score, but it's no suprise that the latter day heirs to menshevism would retroactively favour a union with the mensheviks.

[Lenny Nista]

Those are things we can discuss, as fellow communists. We don't have to agree on everything to show solidarity for one another. The problem is that few have held an honest discussion since 1921, it's just animosity and labels. Sure, you can disagree, I'm not asking you to become Marxist-Leninist, I'm simply saying that condemning those you disagree with isn't what Marxists should be doing.


Unless I'm mistaken, Lenin consistently urged the Mensheviks to re-align with the Bolsheviks, and the two groups worked together a great deal before the February Revolution. That's exactly my point: many divisions within our movement are pointless, counterproductive and usually just petty (and just to clarify, this is stuff that I also need to work on here). Disagreement is good, stubborn division isn't so good.

I'm not sure if this or that call by Lenin outweighs his lifetime of putting programmatic clarity before "unity"...but in any case, I was only asking you, on what basis does the PSL call for unity?

I am sure you are arguing in good faith here but I am not sure if they are...because any serious call for "unity of communists" has to present some programmatic synthesis which they seriously believe overcomes the "old" divisions...otherwise it isn't a serious call, it's just a slogan to help them recruit.

So I still ask, respectfuly: on what basis do they call for unity?

[Kléber]

So manic expression.. how are you going to help workers in the PRC when you think workers protesting the iron rice bowl, or worse yet, students protesting for workers' right to protest the iron rice bowl, are automatically "counter-revolutionary."

Democracy is not an evil western backed conspiracy. Democracy is a historic demand of the Chinese workers!

[Hit The North]

I thanked you for a thoughtful and intelligent response... but I disagree with much of what you said.

I reciprocated and disagreed with little in your reply. :)

[Hit The North]

This is a bit of a cheap score, but it's no suprise that the latter day heirs to menshevism would retroactively favour a union with the mensheviks.

This is less cheap, but your joke betrays the doctrinaire thinking which underpins much of the problem this thread addresses.

Of course it made sense for the Bolsheviks to work with the Mensheviks before February because up to that point they shared similar goals.

We should select our allies according to shared concrete goals; not on the basis of an agreement on questions of theory and, even less, on the basis of historically produced rivalries and prejudices.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^On that basis, one could justify an alliance between the CPC and the Guomindang!

Surely, one has to look at the class forces involved, first.

[manic expression]

This is a bit of a cheap score, but it's no suprise that the latter day heirs to menshevism would retroactively favour a union with the mensheviks.
It's no score at all, because it's not retroactive. The Bolsheviks worked closely with the Mensheviks in many areas prior to the February Revolution, I'm sure of that much. Further, many Mensheviks did heed the call to join the legitimate RSDLP oragnization (the Bolsheviks), including a certain man named Leon Trotsky.

Some cheap score you have there, when your ideology is based on an individual who, as a long-time Menshevik who joined the Bolsheviks relatively late in the game, typified exactly what I'm talking about. Some cheap score, alright, against Trotsky.


I'm not sure if this or that call by Lenin outweighs his lifetime of putting programmatic clarity before "unity"...but in any case, I was only asking you, on what basis does the PSL call for unity?

I am sure you are arguing in good faith here but I am not sure if they are...because any serious call for "unity of communists" has to present some programmatic synthesis which they seriously believe overcomes the "old" divisions...otherwise it isn't a serious call, it's just a slogan to help them recruit.

So I still ask, respectfuly: on what basis do they call for unity?
Again, I wish I could dig up Marcy's speech to the Belgian conference, because it answers the basics of the question you're asking. And it's definitely not just a slogan, because if it was a slogan, Marcy wouldn't have stepped in front of some of the most anti-Trotskyist communists in Europe and made a speech about solidarity with Trotskyists. At the most essential level, the call would have all communists defend all communists from imperialist slander. That's the first thing, IMO. Wouldn't you agree this would be a step forward?


So manic expression.. how are you going to help workers in the PRC when you think workers protesting the iron rice bowl, or worse yet, students protesting for workers' right to protest the iron rice bowl, are automatically "counter-revolutionary."

Democracy is not an evil western backed conspiracy. Democracy is a historic demand of the Chinese workers!
So first, let's just recognize the fact that there is no longer a contention that there was a "massacre", because history clearly shows us there was no such thing. Good.

Second, the avenue for progress in the PRC is through the CPC. The ruling party of the PRC is where many are already promoting a shift away from Deng's market reforms, and those factions have the potential to make lasting, positive changes in China. Not only are the structural means for progress within the party, but the ideological basis is there as well. Outside of the party, in the Tiananmen protesters you're lionizing, we see a variety of opportunists and pro-capitalists:

There were a large number of students involved in the demonstrations, but it is important to note that China’s university students at the time made up only 0.2 percent of the country’s population of 1.1 billion. And while there were many political trends within the student movement, there was a dominant leadership group. The goals of this group had nothing to do with democracy for China’s vast majority of poor and working people.
Some claim that the student protesters had vague demands. But one force that understood the students’ orientation very clearly was U.S. imperialism. Their signs were in English. Their symbol, the so-called “Goddess of Democracy,” bore a striking resemblance to the Statue of Liberty. Many expressed their hope of founding a new student organization on July 4—Independence Day in the United States.

None of the students spoke in the name of internationalism, socialism or communism.

Wang Dan, one of the central leaders of the student movement, was quoted in the June 3 New York Times: “The movement is not ready for worker participation because the principles of democracy must first be absorbed by students and intellectuals before they can be spread to others.” In a June 2, 1993, interview with the Washington Post, Dan goes further to say that “the pursuit of wealth [was] part of the impetus for democracy.”

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12203

Their "movement" is "not ready for worker participation". Interesting.

Remember, this is without discussing the fact that President Bush, the CIA and the imperialist media heaped praise and support upon the Tiananmen protesters.

[Hit The North]

^^^On that basis, one could justify an alliance between the CPC and the Guomindang!

Surely, one has to look at the class forces involved, first.

True. My formulation was hasty. I was thinking of those forces which we consider part of the socialist camp.

[Q]

Some cheap score you have there, when your ideology is based on an individual who, as a long-time Menshevik who joined the Bolsheviks relatively late in the game, typified exactly what I'm talking about. Some cheap score, alright, against Trotsky.
1. Trotskyist ideology is not based on the views of one person, but should be seen as an extension to the Marxist methodology, not a separate school of thought. The label "Trotskyism" was introduced and popularised by the opponents of Trotsky in the 1920's and it was adopted eventually by the Left Opposition as a means to identify against the Stalinist counter-revolution. Perhaps it is time we dropped the label as Stalinism has, overall, become an irrelevance to the working class.
2. Trotsky was not a "long-time" Menshevik. He was briefly on the Menshevik side but broke with it in 1904 and until 1917 held out a relatively independent position, being part of the inter-district group of the RSDLP.
3. These "cheap scores" are rather silly, both of you get a grip.

[manic expression]

1. Trotskyist ideology is not based on the views of one person, but should be seen as an extension to the Marxist methodology, not a separate school of thought. The label "Trotskyism" was introduced and popularised by the opponents of Trotsky in the 1920's and it was adopted eventually by the Left Opposition as a means to identify against the Stalinist counter-revolution. Perhaps it is time we dropped the label as Stalinism has, overall, become an irrelevance to the working class.
2. Trotsky was not a "long-time" Menshevik. He was briefly on the Menshevik side but broke with it in 1904 and until 1917 held out a relatively independent position, being part of the inter-district group of the RSDLP.
3. These "cheap scores" are rather silly, both of you get a grip.
This isn't silly if it sheds light on the issue at hand. The point here is that Trotsky sided with the Menshevik faction in the first break. That he later split with the Mensheviks as well does nothing to change this. Nevertheless, Trotsky was in conflict with Lenin on a number of important issues until much later, which is precisely what I think communists should be trying to achieve today: a dialogue in order to overcome unnecessary divisions. Trotsky's alignment with the Bolsheviks was a step forward for the revolution in Russia, so perhaps we can make similar steps in the future. Is that not a desirable goal? Should we stop throwing up walls, oftentimes purely out of habit, between different revolutionary ideologies?

[ls]

Second, the avenue for progress in the PRC is through the CPC. The ruling party of the PRC is where many are already promoting a shift away from Deng's market reforms, and those factions have the potential to make lasting, positive changes in China. Not only are the structural means for progress within the party, but the ideological basis is there as well.

Please show us these 'factions', what they have achieved, what they hope to achieve and so forth.


Outside of the party, in the Tiananmen protesters you're lionizing, we see a variety of opportunists and pro-capitalists:

There were a large number of students involved in the demonstrations, but it is important to note that China’s university students at the time made up only 0.2 percent of the country’s population of 1.1 billion. And while there were many political trends within the student movement, there was a dominant leadership group. The goals of this group had nothing to do with democracy for China’s vast majority of poor and working people.
Some claim that the student protesters had vague demands. But one force that understood the students’ orientation very clearly was U.S. imperialism. Their signs were in English. Their symbol, the so-called “Goddess of Democracy,” bore a striking resemblance to the Statue of Liberty. Many expressed their hope of founding a new student organization on July 4—Independence Day in the United States.

None of the students spoke in the name of internationalism, socialism or communism.

Wang Dan, one of the central leaders of the student movement, was quoted in the June 3 New York Times: “The movement is not ready for worker participation because the principles of democracy must first be absorbed by students and intellectuals before they can be spread to others.” In a June 2, 1993, interview with the Washington Post, Dan goes further to say that “the pursuit of wealth [was] part of the impetus for democracy.”

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12203

Their "movement" is "not ready for worker participation". Interesting.

Remember, this is without discussing the fact that President Bush, the CIA and the imperialist media heaped praise and support upon the Tiananmen protesters.

That doesn't make the movement "pro-capitalist", of course the news are going to pluck the most pro-capitalist protestors out of the bunch, they would do that here in the flash and have done in the past (see the news-conveyed 'anti-immigrant' dockworker strikes post enoch powell's rivers of blood speech, see the 'anti-immigrant' lindsey oil refinery strikes etc).

[manic expression]

Please show us these 'factions', what they have achieved, what they hope to achieve and so forth.
The fact that the CPC has recently made moves to increase regulation of foreign investment is one example. Here is another development, which has at least been allowed to grow by the CPC:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/18/AR2009041801939.html


That doesn't make the movement "pro-capitalist", of course the news are going to pluck the most pro-capitalist protestors out of the bunch, they would do that here in the flash and have done in the past (see the news-conveyed 'anti-immigrant' dockworker strikes post enoch powell's rivers of blood speech, see the 'anti-immigrant' lindsey oil refinery strikes etc).But I'm not primarily talking about the western media, am I? I'm talking about the words and actions of the demonstration's leaders, which clearly show anti-worker opportunism and pro-western sentiment. When they want to commemorate July 4, build a replica of a central symbol of American capitalism and declare that they don't want workers in their movement, it's not hard to figure out where they stand.

Of course, the support of the imperialist media is itself enough to give us pause, as it was apparently calculated to be in the interests of imperialism for the demonstrators to prevail. It wasn't a case of the media nit-picking, it was an expression of the will of the capitalist class, which was in support of the demonstration itself. Moreover, President Bush and the CIA weren't "plucking" images out of a crowd, so your characterization is wrong in any event.

[ls]

The fact that the CPC has recently made moves to increase regulation of foreign investment is one example. Here is another development, which has at least been allowed to grow by the CPC:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/18/AR2009041801939.html

And if they hadn't of allowed criticism, the west would be jumping on that about how they are evil baby eaters or whatever, you know that as well as I do. It serves in their interest to "tolerate free speech" when it's convenient, in fact this is probably a lesson best learned (by them) from Tiananmen itself.


But I'm not primarily talking about the western media, am I? I'm talking about the words and actions of the demonstration's leaders, which clearly show anti-worker opportunism and pro-western sentiment. When they want to commemorate July 4, build a replica of a central symbol of American capitalism and declare that they don't want workers in their movement, it's not hard to figure out where they stand.

Again, I don't defend the "protest leaders" and I don't even deny that the right-wing of the CPC had a hand in setting the protest up, I don't even defend the slogans raised in support of Zhou by the "CPC like committees of students".

I am however against the simple description of what happened there as black-and-white "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary", it can't nearly be as simple as that when you have people such as Deng himself defending action against the students and comparing it to what happens in America - despite what he later did himself.


Of course, the support of the imperialist media is itself enough to give us pause, as it was apparently calculated to be in the interests of imperialism for the demonstrators to prevail. It wasn't a case of the media nit-picking, it was an expression of the will of the capitalist class, which was in support of the demonstration itself. Moreover, President Bush and the CIA weren't "plucking" images out of a crowd, so your characterization is wrong in any event.

But images weren't just plucked out at random, this shouldn't be doubted for a second, they wanted the most juicy images they could find and they got them. The support of the imperialist media is not always a reason to simply condemn a whole mass of people as 'counterrevolutionary', once again you could draw that parallel with many struggles and strikes across the world, even those with a corrupted leadership.

What communists should have been doing all along, is turning the protest (as it was reported in the beginning, were close to its original intentions) into a demand for a shift way back to the far-left in the party and in life in general; economic demands coupled with mass anguish at conditions, imagine if you had that on that level? The whole thing can't just be condemned as 'reactionary', communists should always seek to intervene, take leadership in and turn these movements the right way round.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

If the trotskyists would ever start a genuine Revolution against capitalism, I woud certainly support it.

[Uppercut]

I would support the Trots joining forces with us. The question is: are they ready for cooperation?

[manic expression]

And if they hadn't of allowed criticism, the west would be jumping on that about how they are evil baby eaters or whatever, you know that as well as I do. It serves in their interest to "tolerate free speech" when it's convenient, in fact this is probably a lesson best learned (by them) from Tiananmen itself.
That's just conjecture. There are plenty of examples of the CPC not allowing criticism from certain quarters, and yes it serves their interests to tolerate other criticism at other times. The difference? Their content and intentions.


Again, I don't defend the "protest leaders" and I don't even deny that the right-wing of the CPC had a hand in setting the protest up, I don't even defend the slogans raised in support of Zhou by the "CPC like committees of students".

I am however against the simple description of what happened there as black-and-white "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary", it can't nearly be as simple as that when you have people such as Deng himself defending action against the students and comparing it to what happens in America - despite what he later did himself.
If it isn't that simple, then what is it?


But images weren't just plucked out at random, this shouldn't be doubted for a second, they wanted the most juicy images they could find and they got them. The support of the imperialist media is not always a reason to simply condemn a whole mass of people as 'counterrevolutionary', once again you could draw that parallel with many struggles and strikes across the world, even those with a corrupted leadership.

What communists should have been doing all along, is turning the protest (as it was reported in the beginning, were close to its original intentions) into a demand for a shift way back to the far-left in the party and in life in general; economic demands coupled with mass anguish at conditions, imagine if you had that on that level? The whole thing can't just be condemned as 'reactionary', communists should always seek to intervene, take leadership in and turn these movements the right way round.
The support of the imperialist media is a secondary reasoning I have given, and it does shed doubt on the nature of the protests to be sure. But more importantly, it was the actions and words of the leaders of the demonstrations that really shows us what was unfolding. I've discussed this previously.

What evidence do you have to suggest it was originally progressive? And anyway, the CPC wasn't dealing with what the demonstration was, it was dealing with it as it played out, and from my above posts it is clear that it became an anti-worker action. If it was a progressive protest, then the entire nature of the thing would be far different. It would have been more like the Cultural Revolution and less like the Orange "Revolution". Nevertheless, there was a dialogue with the demonstrators but no headway was made; the unarmed soldiers sent to the demonstration were attacked and killed. What else could have been done? The leadership was decidedly anti-CPC and clearly opportunist, so there was no leeway to work with them.

[ls]

That's just conjecture. There are plenty of examples of the CPC not allowing criticism from certain quarters, and yes it serves their interests to tolerate other criticism at other times. The difference? Their content and intentions.

Damn right there are, even during Mao's time they rejected anything they didn't like as "economism", in fact they went as far as to use this to suppress whatever they liked.


If it isn't that simple, then what is it?

With that big a mass of people, you can't just suppress them and hope for the best, instead real communists should have been turning the popular resentment around into revolutionary communist demands, against the tide of whatever Western, pro-capitalist right-wing CPC forces and indeed against those who wished to destroy them in their entirety.

Do you support Deng over the Tiananmen square workers (note: workers, not leaders and note, in the capacity of them being workers).


The support of the imperialist media is a secondary reasoning I have given, and it does shed doubt on the nature of the protests to be sure. But more importantly, it was the actions and words of the leaders of the demonstrations that really shows us what was unfolding. I've discussed this previously.

I don't think one or two reports by the capitalist media completely proves your point, nonetheless I've made it clear that you are right that capitalists had been present and to some extent, taken leadership those protests, which is why communists should have attempted to wrestle it back, not side with the 'potentially progressive national bourgeois', even the FRSO admits in its latest revision (albeit implicitly and resentfully) that this was a mistake.


What evidence do you have to suggest it was originally progressive?

Well the FRSO paper even admits this: http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2009/looking-back-at-tiananmen-square.htm


On December 5, the first large-scale demonstration broke out at Hefei's China Science and Technology University, the school where Fang was vice-president. On December 9, Hefei's students staged another demonstration, this time joined by Wuhan students. Within weeks the demonstrations had spread to many other campuses, including Beijing and Shanghai. Most of the concrete demands raised in these demonstrations involved improving the conditions of students. These demands and some of the political themes which emerged deserve some comment.

As far as material conditions go, by U.S. standards Chinese students have it tough. Dorm rooms with six or more people, poor food, inadequate supplies, and crowded classrooms are all a part of the equation. However, there is another side to the coin. In the Chinese context, students are an extremely privileged group of people that many, especially other young people, envy. China is a third-world country where 20 million people depend on grain relief from the state to stave off hunger and starvation. Only a certain amount of the nation's resources can be committed to higher education or even secondary-level education. As a result, only a small number of those who wish to continue their education get the chance to do so in a university setting. Sure, life would be more pleasant on the campuses if the numbers were reduced, but that would also hurt the modernization drive, an effort which holds the promise of improving the quality and quantity of education in the long run.

While the practice of placing graduates in areas where they are the most needed is another source of discontent, from a socialist point of view how can it be said that in a society where only a few are able to receive a higher education, and the society in the main bears the cost of that education, that the graduate should not go to where they will do the greatest good for the greatest numbers?

To put it bluntly, there is more than a little selfish thinking involved in student demands to improve their own material well-being. In a socialist society, the point of universities and colleges is not to serve the personal interests of individual students but to produce trained personnel who are capable and willing to use their knowledge in the people's service.

Why is it so terrible that communists should have furthered and taken leadership in pushing for these demands? Is that so reactionary? This is what started the movement for the most part.


And anyway, the CPC wasn't dealing with what the demonstration was, it was dealing with it as it played out, and from my above posts it is clear that it became an anti-worker action. If it was a progressive protest, then the entire nature of the thing would be far different. It would have been more like the Cultural Revolution and less like the Orange "Revolution". Nevertheless, there was a dialogue with the demonstrators but no headway was made; the unarmed soldiers sent to the demonstration were attacked and killed. What else could have been done? The leadership was decidedly anti-CPC and clearly opportunist, so there was no leeway to work with them.

I don't think it's comparable to the orange revolution tbh, they are just completely different things, anyways, I'm not going to speculate what I'd have done from the position of the CPC because that's not a position I'll ever take, you should try looking at things from the students and workers who clung onto the popular resentment and went out en-masse, probably not fully knowing what was going on or what would happen?

Incidentally, the orange revolution was bloodless and you can see that mr president is back in power much to the dismay of Tymoshenko; even as a political tactic (from the point of view of the CPC) what happened at Tiananmen failed for them.

[Q]

I would support the Trots joining forces with us. The question is: are they ready for cooperation?
Joining what? The mass forces of American Hoxhaism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Many within the left seem to lack an understanding of the concept of a genuine divergence of opinion, and of tolerance.

Both of these currents are steadfast in their opinion that they are, and always have been, wholly correct in their revolutionary outlook, and that because the other holds a different opinon, that they are reformist, bourgeois, spies, capitalist lackeys and other ridiculous accusations.

[Saorsa]

^^^On that basis, one could justify an alliance between the CPC and the Guomindang!

Yes. You could. For example, during the Northern Expedition against the warlords, the communists and the nationalists had every reason to fight together and it advanced the revolutionary struggle in China immensely. And again, during the Japanese invasions, the communists had every reason to ally with the nationalists against the main enemy. And through this alliance, the communists showed the masses that they were by far the more dedicated and effective fighters for national liberation, which exposed the GMD and earned the CPC mass support that was invaluable in seizing state power.

[Saorsa]

Do most Marxist-Leninists think that Trotskyists are also Marxist-Leninists, who just buy into a lot of anti-communist propaganda?

Depends. A lot aren't, but there are still plenty that are. There are plenty of Maoists and a number of Maoist groups I don't think are essentially Marxist-Leninist.

[RED DAVE]

Why can't we all just get along? :D

RED DAVE

[Weezer]

Umm, I don't think they had much of a choice. They joined the Popular Front for the time being, like any intelligent revolutionary would do. The Trots were unwilling to work with them, and the anarchists were unwilling to fight for anyone else.
Don't get me wrong, Catalonia was a great experiment, but it had a few flaws. The Anarchists were too pacifist, IMO.

:confused:

The anarchists were some of the strongest links on the Republican-allied side. They held out the second longest, and then after they were defeated, Madrid was overrun by the Fascists.

[S. Zetor]

Time and the working class will tell.

I think this sums up pretty much all there is to discuss, really. Bob the Builder said it already in #3. Operating on pre-defined, idealist labels like "trotskyist" or "stalinist" is like trying to start a moped without a spark plug.. reminds me of these two quotes:


"What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm


"The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

[Kléber]

So first, let's just recognize the fact that there is no longer a contention that there was a "massacre", because history clearly shows us there was no such thing. Good.The Chinese capitalists and their apologists in the PSL certainly claim that there was no such thing.


Second, the avenue for progress in the PRC is through the CPC. The ruling party of the PRC is where many are already promoting a shift away from Deng's market reforms, and those factions have the potential to make lasting, positive changes in China.The proletariat needs political independence from the bourgeoisie. It will not get that by being chained to a bourgeois party. The CPC has rehabilitated Confucius.. political independence for the workers will not come from a Confucian political party. You would have more luck joining the Democrats and getting Pelosi and Kucinich to put pressure on Obama.


Not only are the structural means for progress within the party, but the ideological basis is there as well.You sound like one of the cheerleaders for perestroika.

The fact that communism is enshrined as an official political religion is irrelevant. That fact meant moot in the USSR in 1991 because the working class had been alienated from the state-owned means of production, thus the only people left to defend public industry were a few anti-Gorbachev tank commanders.

Without political independence the proletariat can not take power and reorganize society, because it can not do those things except through a conscious and democratic process - the proletariat has to do those things itself, as a class, no party or army can do it for them. Since the bourgeoisie already rules the PRC, censorship and military repression only keep the workers down.


Outside of the party, in the Tiananmen protesters you're lionizing, we see a variety of opportunists and pro-capitalists:What do you mean "we see?" You didn't see anything, all you did was copy and paste from a PSL article, and the PSL just reprints the line of the Chinese government, which is a complete and utter lie.


There were a large number of students involved in the demonstrations, but it is important to note that China’s university students at the time made up only 0.2 percent of the country’s population of 1.1 billion.
It is also important to note that the protests acquired a mass dimension after masses of workers joined them and formed an independent union organization with its headquarters within the square. After that point the protests took a decidedly working-class direction and involved the masses of Beijing, not just the students. It was shortly after that that the army moved in to clear the square.


And while there were many political trends within the student movement, there was a dominant leadership group.
It's funny how you ardently defend censorship, but then, when a student protest has muddled and poorly-articulated views, you blame them for their own lack of knowledge.


The goals of this group had nothing to do with democracy for China’s vast majority of poor and working people.
Some claim that the student protesters had vague demands. But one force that understood the students’ orientation very clearly was U.S. imperialism. Their signs were in English. Their symbol, the so-called “Goddess of Democracy,” bore a striking resemblance to the Statue of Liberty. How do you think they knew how to write English? The reason that English was prevalent was because China had close political and economic ties with the United States brought to fruition under Deng Xiaoping, and English was widely taught to students. Therefore it was your beloved Dengist state, and not the Tiananmen protesters, responsible for the cultural Americana which was focused on by US media teams.


Many expressed their hope of founding a new student organization on July 4—Independence Day in the United States.The independent student union was formed - in May. Apparently the PSL is totally ignorant about the May Fourth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_fourth_movement) and May Thirtieth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Thirtieth_Movement) Movements.

The Tiananmen protesters were acting in a tradition which went back 70 years to the student protests of May 4th. Democratic freedom has always been an anti-imperialist demand of Chinese workers and students against foreign invaders and foreign-backed militarists. It was the fight for democracy which led so many student activists to join the Communist Party in the 1930's and 40's. To claim that the call for democracy has anything to do with an "imperialist conspiracy" is absolute rubbish.


None of the students spoke in the name of internationalism, socialism or communism.
Actually, the song that was sung throughout the protest was the Internationale.. the majority of students and workers protesting at Tiananmen proudly proclaimed themselves as a patriotic movement. Quite a few of them carried banners of Mao and other communist leaders and voiced their support for internationalism, socialism, and communism. You can't even produce evidence of any of the protesters calling for an overthrow of the Communist Party, so if anyone did that they must have been a tiny fringe.


Remember, this is without discussing the fact that President Bush, the CIA and the imperialist media heaped praise and support upon the Tiananmen protesters.Yeah, they heaped a great deal of praise on Deng and his market reforms too (which the workers were protesting against).

Note that you and the bourgeois media have something in common here.. you claim that protests were a US-inspired, anti-communist movement. You are content to join with the bourgeois media in writing the working class out of history, because the role of the proletariat shatters your view of China as a "socialist" state where the proletariat is the ruling class. And then, when someone proves you wrong on this point, your only reply boils down to "Well you're against a 'socialist' government therefore you are anti-socialist."

What happened in 1989 was really a reflection of popular dissent with the economic crisis of the late 1980's, which can be blamed entirely on capitalism and US-backed market reforms in China (which you apparently think are perfectly compatible with socialism).


That's just conjecture. There are plenty of examples of the CPC not allowing criticism from certain quarters, and yes it serves their interests to tolerate other criticism at other times. The difference? Their content and intentions.
Yes. When the criticism has a bourgeois content, it sometimes gets incorporated into state policy. When it has a proletarian content, it gets met with tanks and machine-guns. Thus we see the true intentions of the Chinese ruling class, organized in its ruling Party.

Here is a link to a great documentary about the leadup to and events of the Tiananmen Square Massacre (yes it was a massacre of unarmed protesters). It also shows the great confusion and political shortcomings of some of the protesters, which I don't deny, but which like I said are the natural result of an undemocratic political climate with severe censorship, and are certainly not justification for what was done to suppress a fundamentally progressive and democratic movement. This documentary also contains footage of the incident you described where some molotov cocktails were thrown at an APC (which was provocatively driving into the crowd), see it and decide for yourself.

The Gate of Heavenly Peace (Part 1 of 20) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ou2-Kv4UA)

[manic expression]

History actually shows us something very different from what the PSL website would like you to believe.
But you're unwilling to show us anything of the sort, because history provides you with no evidence. Good.


The proletariat needs political independence from the bourgeoisie. It will not get that by being chained to a bourgeois party. The CPC has rehabilitated Confucius.. political independence for the workers will not come from a Confucian political party. You would have more luck joining the Democrats and getting Pelosi and Kucinich to put pressure on Obama.
Having people read Confucius doesn't make them a Confucian political party, just like having people read Rousseau or Tom Paine doesn't make them 18th Century-Republican. So you have no argument here, just biased conjecture.


You sound like one of the cheerleaders for perestroika.
How so?


What do you mean "we see?" You didn't see anything, all you did was copy and paste from a PSL article, and the PSL just reprints the line of the Chinese government, which is a complete and utter lie.
The article quotes leaders of the demonstration directly. Their words and actions condemn them as opportunists and anti-worker ideologues. This is shown from the evidence provided to us by history. So the only lie is the imperialist line you're pushing.


It is also important to note that the protests acquired a mass dimension after masses of workers joined them and formed an independent union organization with its headquarters within the square. After that point the protests took a decidedly working-class direction and involved the masses of Beijing, not just the students. It was shortly after that that the army moved in to clear the square.
Have any evidence for this, or is it just your opinion? The leadership of the protests were clearly anti-worker and pro-western. It's right there in black and white.


It's funny how you ardently defend censorship, but then, when a student protest has muddled and poorly-articulated views, you blame them for their own lack of knowledge.
Misrepresentation. It's not about poorly-articulated views, the students had very clear goals and ideas...they were simply opportunist and pro-capitalist. This isn't about a lack of knowledge, it's about the content of their arguments. Seems you can't comprehend this simple fact.


How do you think they knew how to write English? Once again we see your total ignorance of Chinese history apart from PSL news. The reason that English was prevalent was because China had close political and economic ties with the United States brought to fruition under Deng Xiaoping, and English was widely taught to students. Therefore it was your beloved Dengist state, and not the Tiananmen protesters, responsible for the cultural Americana which was focused on by US media teams.
:lol: The US has close political ties with the PRC and Taiwan today...how many American workers know how to write in simplified or traditional Mandarin? Students made up 0.2% of Chinese society, and you're sitting here calling them the vanguard of some western-backed color revolution.

The US media teams, Kleber, were busy cheerleading your protests.


The independent student union was formed - in May. Apparently the PSL is totally ignorant about the May Fourth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_fourth_movement) and May Thirtieth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Thirtieth_Movement) Movements.
The May Fourth Movement was formed during the Qing Dynasty, and has little to do with this. The May Thirtieth Movement had run out of steam in the 20's. Your demonstrators, however, were trying to commemorate July 4 as a not-so-subtle tribute to their backers.


The Tiananmen protesters were acting in a tradition which went back 70 years to the student protests of May 4th. Democratic freedom has always been an anti-imperialist demand of Chinese workers and students against foreign invaders and foreign-backed militarists. It was the fight for democracy which led so many student activists to join the Communist Party in the 1930's and 40's. To claim that the call for democracy has anything to do with an "imperialist conspiracy" is absolute rubbish.
So July 4 is a Chinese tradition? That's news to me, and China.


Actually, the song that was sung throughout the protest was the Internationale.. the majority of students and workers protesting at Tiananmen proudly proclaimed themselves as a patriotic movement. Quite a few of them carried banners of Mao and other communist leaders and voiced their support for internationalism, socialism, and communism. You can't even produce evidence of any of them calling for a violent overthrow of the Communist Party, so if anyone did that they must have been a tiny fringe.
Of course they did. They were opportunists. It's easy to sing a song and carry a banner, but when you openly reject working-class participation, when you murder unarmed soldiers trying to engage with the crowd, when you cater to the ideological trappings of American capitalism...you're not exactly so socialist, are you?

But keep ignoring the content of the demonstrations, it's far easier to idealize them.


Yeah, they heaped a great deal of praise on Deng and his market reforms too (which the workers were protesting against).
Yet they still wanted the CPC overthrown and the demonstrators to take power. Who's side are you on?


Note that you and the bourgeois media have something in common here.. you claim that protests were a US-inspired, anti-communist movement. You are content to join with the bourgeois media in writing the working class out of history, because the role of the proletariat shatters your view of China as a "socialist" state where the proletariat is the ruling class. And then, when someone proves you wrong on this point, your only reply boils down to "Well you're against a 'socialist' government therefore you are anti-socialist."
The working class wasn't written out of history, it was rejected and despised by your demonstrations. Were there a working-class leadership at Tiananmen, that would be something to analyze quite closely. But there wasn't, and for good reason. That's the point.


What happened in 1989 was really a reflection of popular dissent with the economic crisis of the late 1980's, which can be blamed entirely on capitalism and US-backed market reforms in China (which you apparently think are perfectly compatible with socialism).
Lots of subjective opinion, no evidence. As usual.


Yes. When the criticism has a bourgeois content, it sometimes gets incorporated into state policy. When it has a proletarian content, it gets met with tanks and machine-guns. Thus we see the true intentions of the Chinese ruling class, organized in its ruling Party.
This goes against the facts. I've posted progressive movements that oppose market reforms, and they are tolerated completely. When students build a replica of the statue of liberty and kill unarmed soldiers, that's quite another thing.

And there was no massacre. This is indisputable, and it's something you haven't even tried to dispute because of that fact.


Here is a link to a great documentary about the Tiananmen Square Massacre (yes it was a massacre of students and workers). It also shows the great confusion and political shortcomings of some of the protesters, which I don't deny,
You deny the content of their political character. The words and actions of the demonstrators are enough to prove the materialist analysis here: they were opportunist and anti-socialist.

Post something specific that shows there was a massacre. But remember that unarmed soldiers were sent in first, and only after they were attacked and murdered were armed soldiers sent in. Even then, the gunfire portrayed by the media was actually shot into the air (according to the NYT reporter on scene), and reporters on the ground agreed with the PRC's account of the events. Have fun arguing against history on behalf of the imperialist press.

[Kléber]

The May Fourth Movement was formed during the Qing Dynasty


And there was no massacre. This is indisputable, and it's something you haven't even tried to dispute because of that fact.

http://gadgetsteria.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/facepalm1.jpg

[manic expression]

:lol: How typical.

Anyway, on your last post, ls, it's not about supporting the CPC "over" the workers in the demonstration. The workers were not in control of the protests, and the leadership openly rejected them. The interests of the workers simply did not lie with the demonstrators, that much is clear.

The point is that those journalists' accounts backed the CPC's version of the events; their editors, however, manipulated those reports and tried to turn them into a sensationalist story about mean commie oppression that too many were quick to gobble up.

On the "national bourgeois", I don't agree with that analysis in the first place.

It's not reactionary to try to take leadership of the protests, but at some point it becomes a lost cause. Could communists have "taken leadership" of the Tea Party protests? Theoretically, I suppose, but that's about it. The unarmed soldiers who tried to engage with the students were attacked and murdered...there was little possibility to turn the protests into something other than what they so clearly were.

The comparison to the Orange Revolution is just about western-backed moves to the right, made to look all nice and populist. The color revolutions bear striking resemblance to the Tiananmen protests in many such ways.

[ls]

Anyway, on your last post, ls, it's not about supporting the CPC "over" the workers in the demonstration. The workers were not in control of the protests, and the leadership openly rejected them. The interests of the workers simply did not lie with the demonstrators, that much is clear.

Is it indeed. Even you say "what side do you choose?" but it seems clear what side you'll back in any case, any party with "communist" in its name, any party with "workers" or "liberation" in its name must be for the people to some extent right?

Even if you took the line that the protests were pro-imperialism but that the CPC, of the time, was as well - then I'd understand that more, but your position as it is, is essentially against the workers.


The point is that those journalists' accounts backed the CPC's version of the events; their editors, however, manipulated those reports and tried to turn them into a sensationalist story about mean commie oppression that too many were quick to gobble up.

That's commonplace.


On the "national bourgeois", I don't agree with that analysis in the first place.

Of course not, but what reason do you cite?


It's not reactionary to try to take leadership of the protests, but at some point it becomes a lost cause. Could communists have "taken leadership" of the Tea Party protests? Theoretically, I suppose, but that's about it. The unarmed soldiers who tried to engage with the students were attacked and murdered...there was little possibility to turn the protests into something other than what they so clearly were.

Before the protest itself happened, there was clearly a storm brewing and yes, before Tienanmen there was a good chance of taking over the protest movement. As for your TEA Party example, well it never occurred to me before but actually - yes, before the TEA Party emerged you might have been able to build a broad left movement based against unfair tax, why the hell not? It happened here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation. Even then, the silly CWI Trots in charge of the AB-APTF tried to cooperate with police and make everything a nice cosy peaceful walk in the park, fortunately they were overridden on this.


The comparison to the Orange Revolution is just about western-backed moves to the right, made to look all nice and populist. The color revolutions bear striking resemblance to the Tiananmen protests in many such ways.

I've illustrated the ways that they in fact don't. People who supported Twatmoshenko and the rest of the bloc she joined were drawn out to the streets by Western puppet fail and they weren't even suppressed: "I didn't want mothers to lose their children and wives their husbands. I didn't want dead bodies from Kyiv to flow down the Dnipro. I didn't want to assume power through bloodshed." http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/main/26340/

Now where is he? http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/02/2010214173815345973.html.

Exactly, so even as a political tactic, suppression utterly falls flat on its face. The election results here were even declared a democratic victory by the OSCE.

[dez]

If you start noticing, trotskyists are usually focused on whining and complaining about this or that historical event, foment disunity between the left and throw the first stone on perceived "stalinists".

Trot-ML cooperation is only possible if both sides are politically mature, that is, if trots do not whine constantly about everything and attempt to attack "stalinists" and if ML's do not use of tactics to "emasculate" and or dissuade trots (or perceived political enemies amongst the left) from cooperating.



I was exactly talking about that. You make it seem as if it very clear cut while in fact there is huge confusion on this issue. I would bet most people here have no clue what they're talking about when they talk about "democratic centralism" and in fact use some Zinoviev'ist caricature of a top-down party organisation, disallowing or "discouraging" tendencies and factions and waging all political debates internally.

While others believe that there should be an open party with a "bottom-top" decisionmaking at all times, effectively ruled by a loosely standing oligarchic hierarchy that must purge all forms of dissent constantly in order to preserve "ideological purity", read: not lose political control.


1. Trotskyist ideology is not based on the views of one person, but should be seen as an extension to the Marxist methodology, not a separate school of thought. The label "Trotskyism" was introduced and popularised by the opponents of Trotsky in the 1920's and it was adopted eventually by the Left Opposition as a means to identify against the Stalinist counter-revolution. Perhaps it is time we dropped the label as Stalinism has, overall, become an irrelevance to the working class.
2. Trotsky was not a "long-time" Menshevik. He was briefly on the Menshevik side but broke with it in 1904 and until 1917 held out a relatively independent position, being part of the inter-district group of the RSDLP.
3. These "cheap scores" are rather silly, both of you get a grip.

1 - Its funny that you say that given that trotskyists usually lump stalinists, hoxhaists, maoists, anti revisionists and MLs in general in the "Stalinist" cathegory. Most of those political currents are more relevant to the working class than the self proclaimed trotskyist sects, specifically on third world countries, where they often are major political players.
2 - Independent, that is, not an old bolshevik, not commited with the party discipline, on the contrary of what trotskyists try to portray. He was not the embodiment of the revolution who got betrayed by stalin, he was largely a politician who got owned, and perhaps it is time to put that behind us since trotsky would have done exactly the same to stalin if he came on top of the political disputes in the soviet union, perhaps he'd do it even earlier.
3 - You are all about cheap scores. You've tried to "score one" in point 1.


Joining what? The mass forces of American Hoxhaism?

Easy there, because latin americans consider themselves americans and hoxhaism has massive parties in quite a few countries over here.

[Uppercut]

Joining what? The mass forces of American Hoxhaism?

Maoism works as well :)

[Crux]

From a comrade who was actually present:
Eye witness in China (http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/tiananmen/00.html)
The events in Tianmen Square (http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/tiananmen/00.html)

[Crux]

.
2 - Independent, that is, not an old bolshevik, not commited with the party discipline, on the contrary of what trotskyists try to portray. He was not the embodiment of the revolution who got betrayed by stalin, he was largely a politician who got owned, and perhaps it is time to put that behind us since trotsky would have done exactly the same to stalin if he came on top of the political disputes in the soviet union, perhaps he'd do it even earlier.
Tell that to the tens of thousands russian trotskyists put into labour camps. Tell that to the vietnamese trotskyists who's continous attempts to co-operate with the stalinists earned them a bullet in the back from their "allies".

You may wish to put bolshevik-leninism behind you, but that's not a basis for agreement with those who wish to defend the genuine legacy of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. This is not secterianism, but if you can't even reckognize the ideological differences I have a hard time seeing any reconciliation.

[red cat]

Tell that to the tens of thousands russian trotskyists put into labour camps. Tell that to the vietnamese trotskyists who's continous attempts to co-operate with the stalinists earned them a bullet in the back from their "allies".

You may wish to put bolshevik-leninism behind you, but that's not a basis for agreement with those who wish to defend the genuine legacy of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. This is not secterianism, but if you can't even reckognize the ideological differences I have a hard time seeing any reconciliation.

Why don't we see these "thousands of Trotskyists" in the ongoing revolutions, say, in Nepal and India yet ?

[Crux]

Why don't we see these "thousands of Trotskyists" in the ongoing revolutions, say, in Nepal and India yet ?Historically there have not been any strong trotskyist organizations in India. I know the comrades are working to the best of their ability but presently our forces are very small.

There are groups in Nepal moving towards trotskyism, presently. I knwo we have been contacted by one of those organizations.

When consideirng numbers you should remember that when the Chinese Communist party was founded they had 56 members.

[red cat]

Historically there have not been any strong trotskyist organizations in India. I know the comrades are working to the best of their ability but presently our forces are very small.

There should be a reason to this fact. Why is it that a tendency gains immense strength while another remains next to nothing ?


There are groups in Nepal moving towards trotskyism, presently. I knwo we have been contacted by one of those organizations.


Why did Trotskyists emerge only after the monarchy was ousted and some fundamental democratic rights were won by the Maoist CP ?



When consideirng numbers you should remember that when the Chinese Communist party was founded they had 56 members.

They led a revolutionary war and transofrmed into a huge party. That is not happening with Trots.

[Crux]

There should be a reason to this fact. Why is it that a tendency gains immense strength while another remains next to nothing ?



Why did Trotskyists emerge only after the monarchy was ousted and some fundamental democratic rights were won by the Maoist CP ?



They led a revolutionary war and transofrmed into a huge party. That is not happening with Trots.
The geographical closeness to China menas that the pro-china wing of stalinism has always had pretty solid organizations in India. The political history of India is not explained in a few sentences.

Why do radical organizations emerge at all? As far as I knwo the group we are in contact with has been in existance for several years, most likely long before teh overthrow of the monarchy.

It's worth noting the founder was pro-trotsky as well as all of the chinese exiles in moscow. In any case it seems you fail to see the point.

[red cat]

The geographical closeness to China menas that the pro-china wing of stalinism has always had pretty solid organizations in India. The political history of India is not explained in a few sentences.


The dominant CP opposed the Maoist theory of PPW and was in favour of a Trotskyist-line of socialism in one stage, though they officially upheld Stalin.



Why do radical organizations emerge at all? As far as I knwo the group we are in contact with has been in existance for several years, most likely long before teh overthrow of the monarchy.

Then what were they doing so long ? Why did they fail to organize the working class till now?




It's worth noting the founder was pro-trotsky as well as all of the chinese exiles in moscow. In any case it seems you fail to see the point.

The "founder"'s line failed.

[Crux]

Then what were they doing so long ? Why did they fail to organize the working class till now?
What says they didn't? Being a relatively minor party (they are represented in parliament as far as I remember) does not mean "not organizing the workingclass", you know. But I have to confess I do not know very much about them so far.

[red cat]

What says they didn't? Being a relatively minor party (they are represented in parliament as far as I remember) does not mean "not organizing the workingclass", you know. But I have to confess I do not know very much about them so far.

Organizing the working class would also mean acquiring a huge participation from the working class. Where do we see that with Trots in Nepal ?

[Crux]

Size isn't everything. Which was the point I was trying to get over to you, but you still seem to be unable to grasp that.

[red cat]

Size isn't everything. Which was the point I was trying to get over to you, but you still seem to be unable to grasp that.

A proper CP is bound to have a large size due to mass or proletarian participation.

[Crux]

And you completly missed the example I used just one post ago? Seriously?

So by your logic the CPI(m) having quite a large member base is a proper CP? Don't you see how utterly superficial and meaningless your analysis become?

[red cat]

And you completly missed the example I used just one post ago? Seriously?

So by your logic the CPI(m) having quite a large member base is a proper CP? Don't you see how utterly superficial and meaningless your analysis become?

1) The fact that a proper CP has to be large does not necessarily imply that every large party calling itself a CP has to be a proper one.

2) The CPI(M) has a large member base only on paper. How large is it ? Their own reports of number of members of the party varies from two hundred thousand to close to a million. Who are these members? Many of them are poor peasants and workers who have been forcefully handed over a membership instead of a month's salary or share of produce. In recent years, the CPI(M) and its child-organizations have lost about 20% of their members each year as the anti SEZ activity picked up pace under Maoist leadership.

3) A large member-base is only one character of a proper CP. In the third world, for example, engaging in armed struggle until strategic equilibrium is a necessary condition for us to identify a party as a true CP.

[Valeofruin]

I must admit I lol at those Trots that try to push the problem on the 'Stalinists', I'd actually like to think Marxist-Leninists would be more then happy to work with Trots, If trots were happy to work with them.

Historically, and even today however Trots do not do this...

Take North Korea for example, an anti imperialist progressive state, smiled upon by most Marxist-Leninists... Have not Trots been among the most loyal voices against the DPRK, calling it as corrupt degenerated workers state? Many Marxist-Leninists go as far as to support Iran as an anti imperialist government, I do not think if there was an anti imperialist Trotskyite nation (lol Oxymoron, I know...) they would be treated as poorly by the Marxist-Leninists, as more Leninist leaning nations have been treated by the Trots. Even alot of M-L trends that regard the USSR as Social Imperialist recognized the USA as a bigger enemy and still supported Soviet actions against the American bourgeois.

How can Trots ever speak of reconciliation when they behave like this? When they make literally no effort to reach out to the M-L side. Better yet, is it not hypocrisy to say Marxist-Leninists are at fault for the rift, when clearly Trotskyites find themselves on the offensive. I don't think they can play the victim on this one.

Even the Trot explanation for the fall of the Soviet Union, a CRITICAL question in moving forward, is basically nothing but laying the blame on Marxist-Leninists. Bearing in mind how common the use of the collapse as a tool for anti communist propaganda is, the history of the USSR is one of utmost importance.

I hate to say it but the Trotskyites need to really look in the mirror if they ever want to see any unity with Marxist-Leninists.

[Sendo]

Even the Trot explanation for the fall of the Soviet Union, a CRITICAL question in moving forward, is basically nothing but laying the blame on Marxist-Leninists. Bearing in mind how common the use of the collapse as a tool for anti communist propaganda is, the history of the USSR is one of utmost importance.


This was the breaking point for me with Trotskyism. It simply denied the Soviet Union under Stalin which fought off the Nazis and the Japanese in Manchuria to be socialist, and largely ignored the amazing and ongoing Cuban and Chinese revolutionary governments...why? Because of the Civil War and Stalin. Even in the context of the Civil War, they have the perfect opportunity to unite on an attack on Wilson's legacy, but no, they harped on Stalin, gloss over his fair election to the seat of party secretary and scream red herrings like "bureaucracy!" as if they were libertarians, ignoring the need for management in a planned economy and ignoring the proven efficiency of state bureaucracy over private bureaucracy (look at American healthcare for one).

I can tolerate Trotskyist goals and tactical alliance, but everytime I hear "Stalinist" I have to sigh heavily.

[Crux]

I must admit I lol at those Trots that try to push the problem on the 'Stalinists', I'd actually like to think Marxist-Leninists would be more then happy to work with Trots, If trots were happy to work with them.

Historically, and even today however Trots do not do this...

Take North Korea for example, an anti imperialist progressive state, smiled upon by most Marxist-Leninists... Have not Trots been among the most loyal voices against the DPRK, calling it as corrupt degenerated workers state? Many Marxist-Leninists go as far as to support Iran as an anti imperialist government, I do not think if there was an anti imperialist Trotskyite nation (lol Oxymoron, I know...) they would be treated as poorly by the Marxist-Leninists, as more Leninist leaning nations have been treated by the Trots. Even alot of M-L trends that regard the USSR as Social Imperialist recognized the USA as a bigger enemy and still supported Soviet actions against the American bourgeois.

How can Trots ever speak of reconciliation when they behave like this? When they make literally no effort to reach out to the M-L side. Better yet, is it not hypocrisy to say Marxist-Leninists are at fault for the rift, when clearly Trotskyites find themselves on the offensive. I don't think they can play the victim on this one.

Even the Trot explanation for the fall of the Soviet Union, a CRITICAL question in moving forward, is basically nothing but laying the blame on Marxist-Leninists. Bearing in mind how common the use of the collapse as a tool for anti communist propaganda is, the history of the USSR is one of utmost importance.

I hate to say it but the Trotskyites need to really look in the mirror if they ever want to see any unity with Marxist-Leninists.
I must admit I lol at your post. The genuine M-L-(M)s I know despise DPRK. And you whine about trotskyists "treating" iran a dprk poorly? Clealry you must be quite removed from practical struggle.

and you clealrly don't know about trotskyism. The collapse of the USSR was generally viewed as negative since it meant the final destruction of the, if dictatorically mismaganed, planned economy.

[Crux]

This was the breaking point for me with Trotskyism. It simply denied the Soviet Union under Stalin which fought off the Nazis and the Japanese in Manchuria to be socialist, and largely ignored the amazing and ongoing Cuban and Chinese revolutionary governments...why? Because of the Civil War and Stalin. Even in the context of the Civil War, they have the perfect opportunity to unite on an attack on Wilson's legacy, but no, they harped on Stalin, gloss over his fair election to the seat of party secretary and scream red herrings like "bureaucracy!" as if they were libertarians, ignoring the need for management in a planned economy and ignoring the proven efficiency of state bureaucracy over private bureaucracy (look at American healthcare for one).

I can tolerate Trotskyist goals and tactical alliance, but everytime I hear "Stalinist" I have to sigh heavily.
I find it very, very hard to believe you were ever a trotskyist. I would suggest one of the classics, The Revolution Betrayed, as it refutes everything you say from beginning to end.

Well, not in regards to China and Cuba, but if anything the problem in the totskyist movement was that some groups got *too* carried away in the positive elemnts of the cuban and chinese revolution. In either case accusing trotksyist for not supporting the cuban and chinese revolution is of course nonsense.

Because you do not know what the word means?

[Sendo]

I find it very, very hard to believe you were ever a trotskyist. I would suggest one of the classics, The Revolution Betrayed, as it refutes everything you say from beginning to end.

Well, not in regards to China and Cuba, but if anything the problem in the totskyist movement was that some groups got *too* carried away in the positive elemnts of the cuban and chinese revolution. In either case accusing trotksyist for not supporting the cuban and chinese revolution is of course nonsense.

Because you do not know what the word means?

I don't care what you "believe", by the way.

I didn't finish everything Trotsky wrote because he was long-winded, pointless, and irrelevant. I respect the Trotskyists who can link to independent sources or journalistic pieces to back up history. Instead they just assign people reading lists like some English teacher in high school in preparation for the fall semester.

Trotsky was dead before he could comment on everything, but the movements by and large seem to share a narrow definition of revolution, though I do acknowledge that there are those who partially uphold the gains of China's Cuba's revolutions.

I just never liked their analyses, Trotsky's air of superiority over the peasants (instead of winning them over to proletarianism or treating them as allies, they're simply another enemy to be subjugated), and I don't think his attacks on socialism in one country are applicable because I don't believe world-wide permanent revolution is possible.

I still read articles and books written by Trotskyists while filtering out what I disagree with and also still being affected by some theorist's brilliance in analyzing history. Whenever it comes to the Soviet Union post-Lenin it just devolves in hand-washing and finger-pointing.

Also, the organization of your post befuddles me as to precisely which word it is that I "[don't] know".

And also, your response to Valeofruin, makes me "lol" at the logical fallacy you use. I'm no cheerleader for North Korea and my defense of it is mostly limited to similar anti-imperialist defense of Iran, but saying that the "genuine M-L(-M)s...despise DPRK" is to repeat the tired "No True Scotsman" argument. But you seem very sure that you know what "genuine" MLs and MLMs are, and also what a proper understanding of Trotsky is and who is or was a Trotskyist.

Do I have to talk about all the reading ISO gives out and what I had read? Do I have to bring up how high school history texts conflate Trotsky and Lenin to make people anti-SU? Do I have to read every treatise by Trotsky before I make an opinion? Am I allowed to sample multiple theoretical works, research history and see what I see?

To you, it's apparently impossible to change from Trotskyist to something else, because if I did so it's because I didn't know or understand the "true Trotsky". But regale us with your ideas of what "genuine M-L(-M)s" and ex-Trotskyists are.

[Valeofruin]

I must admit I lol at your post. The genuine M-L-(M)s I know despise DPRK. And you whine about trotskyists "treating" iran a dprk poorly? Clealry you must be quite removed from practical struggle.

and you clealrly don't know about trotskyism. The collapse of the USSR was generally viewed as negative since it meant the final destruction of the, if dictatorically mismaganed, planned economy.

First, you must know some crappy Maoists then.. most, as in the vast majority, speak out against some of the DPRKs policy but support it as a progressive state and viscously defend it against imperialist propaganda.

Secondly, Do Trotskyists not blame the collapse of the USSR on Stalinism, mismanagement, bureaucracy, and it being a degenerated workers state/ state capitalism due to the M-L policy of 'socialism from above'? If I'm misunderstanding anything let me know?

Last I checked I was at least on the right track.. when confronted with capitalist propaganda on the collapse of the USSR the Trots first instinct it to blame it all on M-L...

[Crux]

Yes, the stalinist system was doomed to fail. Without democracy in the party and without worker's democracy you cannot build a healthy socialist state. There is no shame in admitting that.

[Crux]

I don't care what you "believe", by the way.

I didn't finish everything Trotsky wrote because he was long-winded, pointless, and irrelevant. I respect the Trotskyists who can link to independent sources or journalistic pieces to back up history. Instead they just assign people reading lists like some English teacher in high school in preparation for the fall semester.

Trotsky was dead before he could comment on everything, but the movements by and large seem to share a narrow definition of revolution, though I do acknowledge that there are those who partially uphold the gains of China's Cuba's revolutions.

I just never liked their analyses, Trotsky's air of superiority over the peasants (instead of winning them over to proletarianism or treating them as allies, they're simply another enemy to be subjugated), and I don't think his attacks on socialism in one country are applicable because I don't believe world-wide permanent revolution is possible.

I still read articles and books written by Trotskyists while filtering out what I disagree with and also still being affected by some theorist's brilliance in analyzing history. Whenever it comes to the Soviet Union post-Lenin it just devolves in hand-washing and finger-pointing.

Also, the organization of your post befuddles me as to precisely which word it is that I "[don't] know".

And also, your response to Valeofruin, makes me "lol" at the logical fallacy you use. I'm no cheerleader for North Korea and my defense of it is mostly limited to similar anti-imperialist defense of Iran, but saying that the "genuine M-L(-M)s...despise DPRK" is to repeat the tired "No True Scotsman" argument. But you seem very sure that you know what "genuine" MLs and MLMs are, and also what a proper understanding of Trotsky is and who is or was a Trotskyist.

Do I have to talk about all the reading ISO gives out and what I had read? Do I have to bring up how high school history texts conflate Trotsky and Lenin to make people anti-SU? Do I have to read every treatise by Trotsky before I make an opinion? Am I allowed to sample multiple theoretical works, research history and see what I see?

To you, it's apparently impossible to change from Trotskyist to something else, because if I did so it's because I didn't know or understand the "true Trotsky". But regale us with your ideas of what "genuine M-L(-M)s" and ex-Trotskyists are.
E.H Carr History of the Russian Revolution. There an independent, non-socialist, but fairly accurate account of the russian revolution and Stalins rise to power.

But since you were asserting thing's about the trotskyist opinion, I think you'd do well to read The Revolution Betrayed. It is not a homework assignment, any more then any theoretical schooling would be.

We uphold all the revolutions, even those "revolutions" that took place under asupice of the red army after ww2 in eastern europe, as fundamentally progressive, in comparison to the rule of the landowners and capitalists. Trotsky did dress this in several of his final writings at the beginning of the second world war. Incidentally, I think the fact that he could not comment on later events can be squarely blamed on stalinism seeing as they sent an agent to murder him.

Indeed, but none of the self-identified maoists I have met have had anything good to say about the DPRK, of course not going so far as defending imperialist intervention. But that's a bit of fallacy since I think, or hope at least, that no one claiming to be a marxist would defend imperialist intervention anywhere.

Well, again since you were claiming to describe the trotskyist opinion I see no reason why you shouldn't read something by the man himself.

No, of course I believe the trotskyist position to be correct so I have a problem with someone changing from it to a less correct analysis. Marxism is after all not like a brand of soda or a pair pants that you can change just because your taste change, but a tool to analyze the world, and mroe specifically the world of class struggle. I do believe that making a political change of heart lightly implies a lack of political depth.

[vyborg]

I can't understand what's the point in the reconciliation.
In the 70s ML were very strong. In Italy they had tens of thousands of activists.
Now maybe tens...so...good luck to them and let's switch to serious business...

[Crux]

I can't understand what's the point in the reconciliation.
In the 70s ML were very strong. In Italy they had tens of thousands of activists.
Now maybe tens...so...good luck to them and let's switch to serious business...
Hey this is revleft, a discussion forum. Not every discussion here is meant to actually amount to much more than sharpening our arguments.

[vyborg]

I have also to add that in some country ML are not irrelevant (take Nepal or India...).

Anyway what I meant is that in the 70s ML was the dominant force inside the labour movement. Now it is not. So we can discuss the topic very differently. After the collapse of Stalinism, they can only resort to sci-fi to defend their position.

[red cat]

I have also to add that in some country ML are not irrelevant (take Nepal or India...).

Anyway what I meant is that in the 70s ML was the dominant force inside the labour movement. Now it is not. So we can discuss the topic very differently. After the collapse of Stalinism, they can only resort to sci-fi to defend their position.

MLs are still the dominant force everywhere.

Being the dominant force does not mean having more members than other parties. What counts is the action of the CP in question. MLs make revolution. Others don't. In India, for example, the masses are making a revolution organized by hundreds of thousands of Maoist cadres. Name any Trot party that comes even near to this achievement.

[vyborg]

MLs are still the dominant force everywhere.

Being the dominant force does not mean having more members than other parties. What counts is the action of the CP in question. MLs make revolution. Others don't. In India, for example, the masses are making a revolution organized by hundreds of thousands of Maoist cadres. Name any Trot party that comes even near to this achievement.

No, not everywhere. in Europe they are simply no more on the map. In Latin America the same. It is true however that in the indian subcontinent they are strong for a number of reason. I would say, despite themselves.

[RED DAVE]

Let me say this with regard to trots and mls. It's all going to work out in practice.

If, in fact, mls are able to establish some kind of transitional regimes in 3rd world countries, and not just be the midwives for state and private capitalism, that will be significant.

We'll see.

If, in fact, trots are able to build revolutionary parties in 1st world countries to be part of the proletarian vanguard and the upcoming socialist revolution, that will be signficant.

We'll see.

LIKEWISE:

If, in fact, trots are able to establish some kind of transitional regimes in 3rd world countries, and not just be the midwives for state and private capitalism, that will be significant.

We'll see.

If, in fact, mls are able to build revolutionary parties in 1st world countries to be part of the proletarian vanguard and the upcoming socialist revolution, that will be signficant.

We'll see.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

No, not everywhere. in Europe they are simply no more on the map.

KOG in Greece.



In Latin America the same.


FARC in Colombia and PCP in Peru.



It is true however that in the indian subcontinent they are strong for a number of reason. I would say, despite themselves.

Please explain.

[Crux]

PCP in Peru.
:laugh:
This trotskyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Blanco) has more relevance than the thugs in the sendiero luminoso will ever have.And yes, of course he is on their deathlist. I think they had some compettion with the Fujimori regime who could murder most leftists. Objective enemy of the working class, they are.

[Chambered Word]

Ugh, here goes red cat with his usual screams of 'just show us one Trotskyite revolution in history'. If the bourgeois elements led a revolution would that make their theory any more or less valid? :rolleyes:

I don't see anything wrong with Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists working together on leftist issues, by the way.

[Saorsa]

I think they had some compettion with the Fujimori regime who could murder most leftists.

Oh come on, we can discuss the failings of the PCP (and there were many) without resorting to this kind of nonsense. The line and general practice of the party during the People's War was to kill those who collaborated with the state and undermined the war against the ruling class. And people like that don't have any right to be alive.

[Crux]

Oh come on, we can discuss the failings of the PCP (and there were many) without resorting to this kind of nonsense. The line and general practice of the party during the People's War was to kill those who collaborated with the state and undermined the war against the ruling class. And people like that don't have any right to be alive.
Let's just say their definition of collaborator was, "anyone who isn't with us". They are and were murderers, and if you are suggesting that Hugo Blanco, just to take one example, was a "collaborator" you are about as far off as they are. It has nothing to do with MLM, it has more so to do with their horrible political praxis. Thankfully they are very marginalised now. I mean, you can't compare them to the naxalites or the UCPN(m). They are very much their own breed of a fuck up, and let us hope they end up on the dustbin of history where they belong.

[red cat]

Thankfully they are very marginalised now.

Unfortunately for you, they are a strong force again, and not very far from the strategic equilibrium.



I mean, you can't compare them to the naxalites or the UCPN(m).

Every third world Maoist party is built on the line of the PCP. The very term "Maoism" was coined by them.

[red cat]

Ugh, here goes red cat with his usual screams of 'just show us one Trotskyite revolution in history'. If the bourgeois elements led a revolution would that make their theory any more or less valid? :rolleyes:

I don't see anything wrong with Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists working together on leftist issues, by the way.

If you don't wage war against the bourgeoisie how do we know that you are not collaborating with imperialism in the first place ?

[chegitz guevara]

MLs are still the dominant force everywhere.

Being the dominant force does not mean having more members than other parties. What counts is the action of the CP in question. MLs make revolution. Others don't. In India, for example, the masses are making a revolution organized by hundreds of thousands of Maoist cadres. Name any Trot party that comes even near to this achievement.

In the First World, MLs, by which I think you mean anti-revisionists, are not terribly relevant. Trotskyism is the dominant revolutionary Marxist tendency here, for better or for worse.

[red cat]

In the First World, MLs, by which I think you mean anti-revisionists, are not terribly relevant. Trotskyism is the dominant revolutionary Marxist tendency here, for better or for worse.

I agree that they might outnumber MLs in imperialist countries at the moment. However, they haven't proved yet that they are revolutionary or Marxist in any way. Individual Trots might be revolutionaries, but when we talk of whole parties, we need an example of a war against the state.

[chegitz guevara]

First World states tend to be a hell of a lot more stable and powerful and effective than Third World states. It's considerably more complicated than grabbing a gun and running off into the woods.

[red cat]

First World states tend to be a hell of a lot more stable and powerful and effective than Third World states. It's considerably more complicated than grabbing a gun and running off into the woods.

True. The peoples' war in the first world is most likely to consist of quick city insurrections and subsequent seizure of power in the villages. And all that is going to happen only after the governments get considerably weakened by revolutions in the third world.

But that does not justify identifying those who oppose the past and ongoing revolutions as Marxist revolutionaries.

[chegitz guevara]

Where do you stand on the Cuban revolution? If you're a typical MLM, you consider it state capitalist and oppose it. There's a saying in America, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Regardless of whether or not a minority of Trotskyists would not support certain revolutions, they would all oppose imperialist intervention against those revolutions.

You need to get past your sectarianism towards your comrades. So do they. We are only going to build an international revolution with each other.

[red cat]

Where do you stand on the Cuban revolution? If you're a typical MLM, you consider it state capitalist and oppose it. There's a saying in America, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Regardless of whether or not a minority of Trotskyists would not support certain revolutions, they would all oppose imperialist intervention against those revolutions.

You need to get past your sectarianism towards your comrades. So do they. We are only going to build an international revolution with each other.

My line of opposing the Cuban revolution differs distinctly from that of Trots because the parties that are making revolution uphold this line. When studying a revolution in the past, we should give topmost priority to the analysis provided by the revolutionaries of the present.

Maoists recognize the Cuban revolution of 1959 as a national liberation movement, but hold that Castro succumbed to Soviet revisionism later. There is some confusion regarding the position of Che and whether a communist faction led by him was defeated. At present we support Cuba only against American imperialism.

Castro and Chavez both have opposed guerrilla warfare in Latin America, hailed ruling revisionist parties (like the CPI(M)) as communists, not to mention their military action against Maoists and support of Soviet forces crushing Maoist revolutions, like the one in Afghanistan. We identify Cuba as one of the five strongholds of revisionism and oppose their politics at all costs.

[Wanted Man]

not to mention their military action against Maoists and support of Soviet forces crushing Maoist revolutions, like the one in Afghanistan.

What have you been snorting?

[khad]

Castro and Chavez both have opposed guerrilla warfare in Latin America, hailed ruling revisionist parties (like the CPI(M)) as communists, not to mention their military action against Maoists and support of Soviet forces crushing Maoist revolutions, like the one in Afghanistan. We identify Cuba as one of the five strongholds of revisionism and oppose their politics at all costs.
The Maoists were in bed with the ashrar scum. Not surprising, seeing as how China gave 400 million dollars of aid to the mujahideen.

In any case, they took responsibility for their act of standing with the imperialists. Their leader was tortured to death by Hekmatyar's goons themselves in a classic case of shady deal gone bad. There's nothing to whine about here. Move along.

[red cat]

The Maoists were in bed with the ashrar scum. Not surprising, seeing as how China gave 400 million dollars of aid to the mujahideen.

China after the victory of Hua and later Deng was not Maoist anymore. That is when the PRC supported the Mujahideens.





In any case, they took responsibility for their act of standing with the imperialists. Their leader was tortured to death by Hekmatyar's goons themselves in a classic case of shady deal gone bad. There's nothing to whine about here. Move along.The Maoist forces organized around the YPO(Youth Progressive Organization) met many setbacks; including a huge right opportunistic line that would later support the revisionist takeover in China. It was this group of revisionists that had later put forward the Dengist three worlds theory and supported radical Islamism.

On the other hand, Islamic fundamentalists had viewed Maoism as their chief enemy from the start. The Young Muslim Organization was built for the very goal of countering the Maoist youth organizations. Their ferocity towards the Maoists was displayed by the murder of comrade Seidal Sokhandan by Hematyar's goons.

In later years, the Maoist movement suffered severely as various factions fell for Hoxhaism and abandoned the line of the PPW altogether. The Soviet Union supported the coup by the PDP (Khalq) group which oversaw the brutal repression on the remaining Maoist organizations. The process of militarily defeating the Maoists was completed by the ant-Maoist military actions taken by the Soviet forces during their Afghan occupation.

[Crux]

Maybe we should have a ML-MLM reconciliation thread?

[Crux]

I agree that they might outnumber MLs in imperialist countries at the moment. However, they haven't proved yet that they are revolutionary or Marxist in any way. Individual Trots might be revolutionaries, but when we talk of whole parties, we need an example of a war against the state.
Well, we have had to work underground in many countries, building our organization secretly. In South Africa and Nigeria, for example. In way this clandestnely organization of peasants, students and workingclass members constitute, if not a war, diefnietely a direct struggle against the state. In Sri Lanka aswell, we are under death threats from the sinhala chauvunists and the state. The solution to any given situation is not guerilla war.

[red cat]

Maybe we should have a ML-MLM reconciliation thread?

Or a Trot - revolutionary reconciliation thread perhaps. :)

[red cat]

Well, we have had to work underground in many countries, building our organization secretly. In South Africa and Nigeria, for example. In way this clandestnely organization of peasants, students and workingclass members constitute, if not a war, diefnietely a direct struggle against the state. In Sri Lanka aswell, we are under death threats from the sinhala chauvunists and the state. The solution to any given situation is not guerilla war.

You don't need to need a "guerilla" war specifically. Any type of armed struggle will do. Go for a city insurrection if you like.

What distinguishes a revolutionary organization from others is the anti-state, pro-mass war it wages.

[Valeofruin]

Yes, the stalinist system was doomed to fail. Without democracy in the party and without worker's democracy you cannot build a healthy socialist state. There is no shame in admitting that.

There is shame when you view the Stalinists as just another enemy to be fought. Someone has to put their hand out and offer cooperation, and IMO it should be the Trots.

M-L is doing fine with or without you...

[RED DAVE]

True. The peoples' war in the first world is most likely to consist of quick city insurrections and subsequent seizure of power in the villages.(1) And where and how do you think that these "quick city insurrections" will be organized except in the cities?

(2) Hate to tell you this, but villages do not constitute a center of power in the first world.

(3) Where do you live that you have these bizarre concepts of what's going on in, say, the USA?


And all that is going to happen only after the governments get considerably weakened by revolutions in the third world.Well, considering that the major revolution that Maoists have accomplished was the capitalist revolution in China, I guess your strategy is to weaken the first world governments by establishing capitalism in the third world.


But that does not justify identifying those who oppose the past and ongoing revolutions as Marxist revolutionaries.Are you saying that Trotskyists are not Marxist revolutionaries, Comrade?

RED DAVE

[Valeofruin]

Maybe we should have a ML-MLM reconciliation thread?

Equally stupid, the M-L's and M-L-M are in contact and find far more common ground then M-L and Trotskyism.

The rivalry between M-L and M-L-M do not stop us from working together on issues that are mutual, such as dismantling your strawmen in this thread.

[Crux]

You don't need to need a "guerilla" war specifically. Any type of armed struggle will do. Go for a city insurrection if you like.

What distinguishes a revolutionary organization from others is the anti-state, pro-mass war it wages.
Actually I would argue that a general strike is more effective than all out guerilla war. Sure any time you operate clandestinely you risk violent clashes with state forces, however this should not define our strategy away from organizing the working class and the poor peasants. A guerilla war might under certrean circumstances be one component of the revolutionary struggle, but it certainly not the solution to everything, nor th delineating line between revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries. I understand that, say, in India and Nepal it might seem that way given the extremely corrupt nature of the "revisionist" parties.

[red cat]

Actually I would argue that a general strike is more effective than all out guerilla war. Sure any time you operate clandestinely you risk violent clashes with state forces, however this should not define our strategy away from organizing the working class and the poor peasants. A guerilla war might under certrean circumstances be one component of the revolutionary struggle, but it certainly not the solution to everything, nor th delineating line between revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries. I understand that, say, in India and Nepal it might seem that way given the extremely corrupt nature of the "revisionist" parties.

Armed struggle in some form is necessary for making revolution. Do you agree or not ?

[RED DAVE]

Let me get clear on this. Are Maoists on this board advocating the same kind of guerrilla warfare in the United States that they are practicing in India?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

(1) And where and how do you think that these "quick city insurrections" will be organized except in the cities?

That will be decided by the CP that will make revolution in a given imperialist country. I was just generalizing from the historical experiences of the Russian revolution and the Paris commune.


(2) Hate to tell you this, but villages do not constitute a center of power in the first world.

Precisely why the city insurrections, or the seizure of power in the cities, will take place before the seizure of power in villages.


(3) Where do you live that you have these bizarre concepts of what's going on in, say, the USA?

Bizarre concepts about what exactly ?


Well, considering that the major revolution that Maoists have accomplished was the capitalist revolution in China, I guess your strategy is to weaken the first world governments by establishing capitalism in the third world.

No. Our strategy is to first make new democratic revolutions like the one in China. We would have preferred a nice one-stage Trot socialist revolution instead, but in the third world, Trot parties have a tendency to pop up only after the first revolution has progressed considerably, so that we have to do all the dirty work.


Are you saying that Trotskyists are not Marxist revolutionaries, Comrade?


Until some Trot party engages in armed struggle, we cannot call you revolutionaries of any kind.

[red cat]

Let me get clear on this. Are Maoists on this board advocating the same kind of guerrilla warfare in the United States that they are practicing in India?

RED DAVE

I am not.

[Crux]

Armed struggle in some form is necessary for making revolution. Do you agree or not ?
I am not a pacifist, but "making revolution" is not necessarily about getting as many guns as possible. It's about organizing a social class, we may well need to use violent measures to defend the gains we make, but ultimately it is the victories that class struggle makes that are the most important.

[RED DAVE]

Let me get clear on this. Are Maoists on this board advocating the same kind of guerrilla warfare in the United States that they are practicing in India?
I am not.Could you then, briefly, outline the revolutionary strategy of Maoists for the United States.

RED DAVE

[Crux]

Until some Trot party engages in armed struggle, we cannot call you revolutionaries of any kind.
As someone has said before this completely echoes that classical bomb throwing anarchists critique against the Marxists. That they were too concerned with theory and organizing the working class and not enough concerned with throwing bombs.

[red cat]

Could you then, briefly, outline the revolutionary strategy of Maoists for the United States.

RED DAVE

I already did. City insurrections. Seizure of power in the cities followed by the villages.

[red cat]

I am not a pacifist, but "making revolution" is not necessarily about getting as many guns as possible. It's about organizing a social class, we may well need to use violent measures to defend the gains we make, but ultimately it is the victories that class struggle makes that are the most important.

A military victory is not sufficient, but it is definitely a necessary condition.

[red cat]

As someone has said before this completely echoes that classical bomb throwing anarchists critique against the Marxists. That they were too concerned with theory and organizing the working class and not enough concerned with throwing bombs.

Details please.

[Crux]

A military victory is not sufficient, but it is definitely a necessary condition.
It's the other way around, comrade.

[red cat]

It's the other way around, comrade.

You mean that a military victory is sufficient, but not necessary ?

[RED DAVE]

Could you then, briefly, outline the revolutionary strategy of Maoists for the United States.
I already did. City insurrections. Seizure of power in the cities followed by the villages.How do you organize city insurrections? How do you plan to organize the working class?

And what do you mean by "villages"? Are you under the impression that the economy of the US is based in villages?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

How do you organize city insurrections? How do you plan to organize the working class?

Maoists in the first world will figure that out.


And what do you mean by "villages"?

In the first world, there are places other than cities and forests, right? Places where the agricultural industry is based on ? I think those are generally called villages. I mean, we call them villages here.


Are you under the impression that the economy of the US is based in villages?


That is very unlikely.

[Crux]

You mean that a military victory is sufficient, but not necessary ?
Haha. No sorry, what I meant was is that the social struggle is the pre-requisite for any successful military struggle. The Red Guards in russia were merely defensive groups organized by the soviets. The fact that they were organized by the soviets of course gave them extra social weight. And this is the point I am trying to make, first you organize socially, then military.

[RED DAVE]

How do you organize city insurrections? How do you plan to organize the working class?
Maoists in the first world will figure that out.Translation: you haven't got a clue about organizing in first world countries. Considering that you claim to follow the ideology that is a development of Leninism, that is pretty fucking weird.


And what do you mean by "villages"?
In the first world, there are places other than cities and forests, right?Wow. I never knew that.


Places where the agricultural industry is based on ? I think those are generally called villages. I mean, we call them villages here.Less than 1% of the united States in engaged in agriculture. And they do not live in villages.


Are you under the impression that the economy of the US is based in villages?
That is very unlikely.:D

Comrade, before you start writing aoubt the strongest capitalist nation on Earth, I suggest that you do some background reading.

Start here:

A People's History of the United States (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html)

Quiz next Friday.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Translation: you haven't got a clue about organizing in first world countries. Considering that you claim to follow the ideology that is a development of Leninism, that is pretty fucking weird.


The more exact strategies and tactics of the American revolution cannot be understood without engaging in a movement in America itself. We Maoists do not comment from other countries on how the masses of a certain country are supposed to make revolution. That is why I confine my posts to the models of the revolutions in France and Russia.


Wow. I never knew that.

Less than 1% of the united States in engaged in agriculture. And they do not live in villages. Wherever they live, after the proletariat seizes power in the cities, it is necessary to establish workers' control over every place.

Do all the agricultural workers live away from the fields ?



:DWhat is your point ? Do you mean that it is based in the villages ?


Comrade, before you start writing aoubt the strongest capitalist nation on Earth, I suggest that you do some background reading.

Start here:

A People's History of the United States (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html)

Quiz next Friday.

RED DAVEThanks for the link. But I am only making general comments about capitalist countries. Not anything specific to the US. And we are not of the impression that books are sufficient to understand any country.

[RED DAVE]

red cat, such coyness about the US ill behooves a Marxist. If you think that US Maoists have a strategy, please indicate which group you're talking about so we can examine their program and strategy. Surely at least one of them has some kind of notion of how "the revolution" is to be accomplished.

Pick a Maoist group, any Maoist group, any Maoist group at all.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

red cat, such coyness about the US ill behooves a Marxist. If you think that US Maoists have a strategy, please indicate which group you're talking about so we can examine their program and strategy. Surely at least one of them has some kind of notion of how "the revolution" is to be accomplished.

Pick a Maoist group, any Maoist group, any Maoist group at all.

RED DAVE

Presently there is no Maoist group in the US that wages PW. The best they can do now, is to uphold the Maoist revolutions in the third world. Before the conditions for armed struggle in the US arise, we cannot identify any American Maoist CP as revolutionary.

There can be three possibilities concerning the PW in the USA:

1) One or more of the existing organizations move to make revolution.

2) The existing organizations, after huge rectifying movements and being cut in size into compact revolutionary parties, move to make revolution.

3) Genuine revolutionary elements from these organizations break with them to form a new party for making revolution.

Upholding the third world revolutions is a necessary condition for being a revolutionary, but it is not sufficient. All we can tell now is that the vast majority of the future vanguards of the American proletariat will come up from the Maoists of today, and they are the ones who will deduce the precise strategy and tactics of the American revolution.

[Crux]

Not to sound redundant but why? Why would being in armed conflict be a prerequisite for being revolutionary? Again it seems you are standing on your head, in relation to when it is necessary, even possible, to go into armed conflict.

[red cat]

Not to sound redundant but why? Why would being in armed conflict be a prerequisite for being revolutionary? Again it seems you are standing on your head, in relation to when it is necessary, even possible, to go into armed conflict.

To be more precise, being revolutionary can also mean lending other kinds of support to a revolution, but then, a revolutionary organization must view the person or group in question as revolutionary.

But this is merely a recursive definition. The recursion terminates only when we reach a party which engages in armed struggle to overthrow a class and replace it with a qualitatively progressive one. This is essentially because military victory is a necessary condition for revolution; the classes in power won't let go without a fight.

[Crux]

Fundamentally I agree that the revolution cannot go unarmed, but as I said, this is but one aspect, and an aspect that is not something you can generally apply on all conditions at that. There will in all likelihood come a stage when we will be into direct armed conflict with the ruling class, but to be able to win that battle we have to win the working class, we have to struggle together with the working class and more often than not that struggle is not violent. Picking up a gun does not make a revolution. The bolsheviks, just to use one example, were not a guerilla movement.
If someone were to refuse to take up arms at the crucial moment when the struggle had come to that stage you may indeed brand them as counter-revolutionary if you want to, but again even in that situation the military aspect is but one aspect of revolutionary struggle.

[Chambered Word]

If you don't wage war against the bourgeoisie how do we know that you are not collaborating with imperialism in the first place ?

See this? This is exactly why I disregard everything you say as utter bollocks.

Yeah, Trots do nothing at all. Keep up the sectarianism, 'comrade'. :rolleyes:

[red cat]

Yeah, Trots do nothing at all.

Truth is harsh. :)

[Crux]

See this? This is exactly why I disregard everything you say as utter bollocks.

Yeah, Trots do nothing at all. Keep up the sectarianism, 'comrade'. :rolleyes:
I could counter that with, what red cat said I mean, if you take up arms how do we know you are not agent provocateurs out to the destroy the working class movement and alienate the working class from the revolutionaries by a meaningless military adventure?

[red cat]

I could counter that with, what red cat said I mean, if you take up arms how do we know you are not agent provocateurs out to the destroy the working class movement and alienate the working class from the revolutionaries by a meaningless military adventure?

Because in the process of the military adventure, Maoist "agent provocateurs" are very often shot dead by the state forces.

[Chambered Word]

Truth is harsh. :)

Yeah, it sure is. How fucking revolutionary you are, making sectarian comments towards Trots because we aren't taking up arms and getting killed in little battles with the authorities in First World countries. You've already made it clear that you have no idea about organization in the First World even though you claim your ideology stems from Marxism and Leninism. Good work, Comrade Sectarian.

[RED DAVE]

APPETIZER


red cat, such coyness about the US ill behooves a Marxist. If you think that US Maoists have a strategy, please indicate which group you're talking about so we can examine their program and strategy. Surely at least one of them has some kind of notion of how "the revolution" is to be accomplished.

Pick a Maoist group, any Maoist group, any Maoist group at all.
Presently there is no Maoist group in the US that wages PW.I assume that this jargonistic, in-groupy little phrase means "peoples war."

So you are conceiving of revolution in the United States as a peoples war against armed forces of the ruling class. Interesting that you use the term "peoples war" as opposed to "class struggle." Do you mean by this that revolutionary groups that engage in class struggle that is not "peoples war" are not engaging in relevant activity?

MAIN COURSE


The best they can do now, is to uphold the Maoist revolutions in the third world.So the proper role for a revolutionary organization in the United States, the largest and most powerful capitalist nation, with a working class that numbers in the hundreds of millions, is to support the revolution in Nepal or India? That's a pretty telling remark. Apparently, you see no independent role for revolutionary parties or, by extension, the US working class, in socialist revolution.


Before the conditions for armed struggle in the US arise, we cannot identify any American Maoist CP as revolutionary.So, up to the point where a group is engaged in armed struggle it isn't revolutionary. That's an amazing statement. I presume, then, that the RSDLP was not revolutionary prior to 1905 and was not revolutionary in the period 1905-1917 when there was no armed struggle. Lenin would be interested in this assertion.


There can be three possibilities concerning the PW in the USA:Okay, three. Let's check this out. Peoples war, not class struggle or revolution. Peoples war. Cool.


1) One or more of the existing organizations move to make revolution.And how do they do that? Does engaging in day-to-day class struggle, strikes, etc., or extraordinary action, such as a general strike, count as "mak revolution"? And how do they accomplish this "move"? Pass a motion at a national convention? Move to the countryside and begin armed struggle?


2) The existing organizations, after huge rectifying movements and being cut in size into compact revolutionary parties, move to make revolution.So you envision some kind of internal struggle within revolutionary organizations so that they become "compact revolutionary parties." No possibility of a mass revolutionary party that engages in class struggle, huh? And where do they get the experience to know how to do all this?


3) Genuine revolutionary elements from these organizations break with them to form a new party for making revolution.Again, you conceive of the building of a revolutionary party as a process of adjustment within revolutionary organizations.

Let me point out that you have just proposed the building of a revolutionary vanguard party of the working class without even mentioning the working class or class struggle, let alone socialism. That's pretty fucking revealing and weird. This confirms what I already believe: that Maoism is not a working class movement at all.


Upholding the third world revolutions is a necessary condition for being a revolutionary, but it is not sufficient.Oh really? You have failed to come up with a single strategic notion for the United States other than peoples war. So besides selling cupcakes to raise money to send to country X, where the Maoists are engaged in PW, what do revolutionaries or revolutionary organizations do?


All we can tell now is that the vast majority of the future vanguards of the American proletariat will come up from the Maoists of today,And how will the "Maoists of today" become the "future vanguards" (Will there be more than one?) when they don't engage in class struggle? Why should the American proletariat follow such a group?


and they are the ones who will deduce the precise strategy and tactics of the American revolution.In other words, you have nothing to say about strategy and tactics. You profess to have an ideology that believes in the unity of theory and practice but you can't come up with a single concept!

Frankly, this is pretty much what I expected and pretty much what we see with Maoist groups. They do not and cannot relate to the working class in the United States (as an example) because they are not and do not seek to be parties of the working class. They are parties of a future bureaucratic class that, as in China, seeks to rule over the working class.

[I]DESSERT


Not to sound redundant but why? Why would being in armed conflict be a prerequisite for being revolutionary? Again it seems you are standing on your head, in relation to when it is necessary, even possible, to go into armed conflict.
To be more precise, being revolutionary can also mean lending other kinds of support to a revolution,Not quite sure what this means; perhaps lending support to third world revolutions or, perhaps, lending support to a revolution "already in progress." Or whatever. In any event it is anything but precise.


but then, a revolutionary organization must view the person or group in question as revolutionary.What the fuck does this mean?


But this is merely a recursive definition. The recursion terminates only when we reach a party which engages in armed struggle to overthrow a class and replace it with a qualitatively progressive one. This is essentially because military victory is a necessary condition for revolution.Now this is really interesting.

(1) We see a definition of a party that involves a group that "engages in armed struggle." No mention of a vanguard party that engages in class struggle and leads the working class in revolution. The model here, of course, is Maoists in their rural strongholds fighting against the army of the ruling class. No mention at all of the true subject of Marxism: the working class.

(2) The Maoist party is seeking to overthrow "a class." Not the bourgeoisie but "a class."

Once again we see that what this is: a military model for the overthrow of a feudal ruling class instead of revolutionary overthrow by the working class. The party is not conceived of as the party of the working class vanguard struggling to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie. The working class is not even mentioned. Instead, we get "a qualitative more progressive" class.

This is a recipe for exactly what Maoists build: an independent force that carries out the revolution in and of itself in the absence of working class revolution. All this is a cover for the Maoist practice of engaging in class collaboration in third world countries to build state capitalist regimes, not socialism or workers and peasant regimes that are transitional to socialism.

This is some really gamey shit.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Yeah, it sure is. How fucking revolutionary you are, making sectarian comments towards Trots because we aren't taking up arms and getting killed in little battles with the authorities in First World countries. You've already made it clear that you have no idea about organization in the First World even though you claim your ideology stems from Marxism and Leninism. Good work, Comrade Sectarian.

The point is that had Trotskyism truly been a revolutionary theory, then there would certainly be some Trot party in the third world waging peoples' war. But there is none. Moreover, you try to portray genuine communist revolutionaries who are fighting here as anti-worker bourgeois elements. All this only demonstrates the counter revolutionary nature of Trotskyism itself.

[Crux]

Because in the process of the military adventure, Maoist "agent provocateurs" are very often shot dead by the state forces.
I was being serious. A group that would seek to go into armed struggle at present time, and try to bring whatever small maoist organizations with them, would more than likely be provocateurs sent by the state, and would in either case work in the favour of the state, because such a project would not only physically annihilate those organizations taking part but leaving those that make it out alive disillusioned and completly removed from the working class. Being shot is not a badge of honour.

Seemingly you also admit that what you are effectively advocating is military adventurism. I will not repeat the arguments made by dave but i am anxious to see what you respond.

[Crux]

I might add that this not just a question for the countries in the West, but pretty relevant in the so called Third World as well. I have some assertions and questions going with that as well, but I am waiting for you to answer dave first.

[red cat]

APPETIZER

I assume that this jargonistic, in-groupy little phrase means "peoples war."

So you are conceiving of revolution in the United States as a peoples war against armed forces of the ruling class. Interesting that you use the term "peoples war" as opposed to "class struggle." Do you mean by this that revolutionary groups that engage in class struggle that is not "peoples war" are not engaging in relevant activity?


We do not hope to conduct class struggle without a peoples' war. We cannot win over the bourgeoisie to our side, may be you Trots can. We Maoists know only how to violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.



MAIN COURSE

So the proper role for a revolutionary organization in the United States, the largest and most powerful capitalist nation, with a working class that numbers in the hundreds of millions, is to support the revolution in Nepal or India? That's a pretty telling remark. Apparently, you see no independent role for revolutionary parties or, by extension, the US working class, in socialist revolution.


First learn NOT to be a reactionary. Stop slandering the past and ongoing
revolutions. Being a revolutionary is pretty far off from your present condition.



So, up to the point where a group is engaged in armed struggle it isn't revolutionary. That's an amazing statement. I presume, then, that the RSDLP was not revolutionary prior to 1905 and was not revolutionary in the period 1905-1917 when there was no armed struggle. Lenin would be interested in this assertion.

If a party makes revolution, we uphold its historical line. The RSDLP made revolution. So we will uphold its own line on itself.


Okay, three. Let's check this out. Peoples war, not class struggle or revolution. Peoples war. Cool.

Your class struggle without a peoples' war is cooler. :lol:


And how do they do that? Does engaging in day-to-day class struggle, strikes, etc., or extraordinary action, such as a general strike, count as "mak revolution"? And how do they accomplish this "move"? Pass a motion at a national convention? Move to the countryside and begin armed struggle?

Why are you bringing up the topic of rural armed struggle again and again despite me stating that we don't think that to be the correct method for the first world revolutions ?


So you envision some kind of internal struggle within revolutionary organizations so that they become "compact revolutionary parties." No possibility of a mass revolutionary party that engages in class struggle, huh?
Initially the revolutionary parties will be strong. They will gain strength thorough the period of revolution.

Again, you conceive of the building of a revolutionary party as a process of adjustment within revolutionary organizations.


And where do they get the experience to know how to do all this?

In the course of their previous struggle and the process of making revolution.



Let me point out that you have just proposed the building of a revolutionary vanguard party of the working class without even mentioning the working class or class struggle, let alone socialism. That's pretty fucking revealing and weird.

Where in my sentences should I have included these words ?



This confirms what I already believe: that Maoism is not a working class movement at all.

I respect your religious beliefs. You need not take so much pain to "prove" that your bible is true. :lol:



Oh really? You have failed to come up with a single strategic notion for the United States other than peoples war.

We are not armchair revolutionaries. We don't set the strategy and tactics for the revolution in a country hundreds of miles away.


So besides selling cupcakes to raise money to send to country X, where the Maoists are engaged in PW, what do revolutionaries or revolutionary organizations do?

Trot organizations can stop being reactionary for a change.


And how will the "Maoists of today" become the "future vanguards" (Will there be more than one?) when they don't engage in class struggle? Why should the American proletariat follow such a group?

Of course the Maoists will engage in class struggle. The American proletariat will recognize the group by its success in class struggle.


In other words, you have nothing to say about strategy and tactics. You profess to have an ideology that believes in the unity of theory and practice but you can't come up with a single concept!

I don't practice in America. Therefore I have no precise theory for America except from a very general one.


Frankly, this is pretty much what I expected and pretty much what we see with Maoist groups. They do not and cannot relate to the working class in the United States (as an example) because they are not and do not seek to be parties of the working class. They are parties of a future bureaucratic class that, as in China, seeks to rule over the working class.


Trot analysis and Trot history.



[I]DESSERT

Not quite sure what this means; perhaps lending support to third world revolutions or, perhaps, lending support to a revolution "already in progress." Or whatever. In any event it is anything but precise.

What the fuck does this mean?

Not slandering our revolutions will be enough support from Trots.


Now this is really interesting.

(1) We see a definition of a party that involves a group that "engages in armed struggle." No mention of a vanguard party that engages in class struggle and leads the working class in revolution. The model here, of course, is Maoists in their rural strongholds fighting against the army of the ruling class. No mention at all of the true subject of Marxism: the working class.

Only because the general model has been described many times before.


(2) The Maoist party is seeking to overthrow "a class." Not the bourgeoisie but "a class."

The ruling classes are different in different systems, in case you don't know.


Once again we see that what this is: a military model for the overthrow of a feudal ruling class instead of revolutionary overthrow by the working class. The party is not conceived of as the party of the working class vanguard struggling to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie. The working class is not even mentioned. Instead, we get "a qualitative more progressive" class.

That was a more general definition of revolution. It covers all the revolutions in history.


This is a recipe for exactly what Maoists build: an independent force that carries out the revolution in and of itself in the absence of working class revolution. All this is a cover for the Maoist practice of engaging in class collaboration in third world countries to build state capitalist regimes, not socialism or workers and peasant regimes that are transitional to socialism.

This is some really gamey shit.

RED DAVE

You really don't require such a big post to ultimately restate your assertions. :rolleyes:

And once again, why are Trots not doing revolutionary stuff in India and Nepal ? Are they waiting for Maoists to betray the working class ?

[red cat]

I was being serious. A group that would seek to go into armed struggle at present time, and try to bring whatever small maoist organizations with them, would more than likely be provocateurs sent by the state, and would in either case work in the favour of the state, because such a project would not only physically annihilate those organizations taking part but leaving those that make it out alive disillusioned and completly removed from the working class. Being shot is not a badge of honour.

Seemingly you also admit that what you are effectively advocating is military adventurism. I will not repeat the arguments made by dave but i am anxious to see what you respond.

I am also being serious. Why would every provocateur risk his life ?

[red cat]

I might add that this not just a question for the countries in the West, but pretty relevant in the so called Third World as well. I have some assertions and questions going with that as well, but I am waiting for you to answer dave first.

Don't wait for that. I find his posts quite boring and repetitive. I enjoy answering your posts more. :)

[RED DAVE]

I am waiting for you to answer dave first.
Don't wait for that. I find his posts quite boring and repetitive.Too fucking bad, Comrade. I have deconstructed your position on the first world, especially the USA. If you want to be considered a serious political person, you need to reply to my points.

My belief is that you are exposed as someone who is the spokesperson for an ideology that is not capable of developing a strategy for working class revolution in the first world because, fundamentally, you don't believe in it.

Trot-ML reconciliation, if possible, will come from joint action, if possible, and analysis of each other's strategy. I challenge you to reply to my analysis that shows that you have no strategy for the first world.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

You don't need to need a "guerilla" war specifically. Any type of armed struggle will do. Go for a city insurrection if you like.

What distinguishes a revolutionary organization from others is the anti-state, pro-mass war it wages.

Is that what Lenin and Marx did?

[red cat]

Too fucking bad, Comrade. I have deconstructed your position on the first world, especially the USA. If you want to be considered a serious political person, you need to reply to my points.

I have already replied to your post. But it is impossible to reply to your points, as your posts do not contain any valid ones.




My belief is that you are exposed as someone who is the spokesperson for an ideology that is not capable of developing a strategy for working class revolution in the first world because, fundamentally, you don't believe in it.

I know it is your belief. And we don't hurt others' religious beliefs. :)


Trot-ML reconciliation, if possible, will come from joint action, if possible, and analysis of each other's strategy. I challenge you to reply to my analysis that shows that you have no strategy for the first world.

RED DAVE

Before we do all that, stop slandering our revolutions in the third world.

[red cat]

Is that what Lenin and Marx did?

Lenin did it. And as for Marx:


To be more precise, being revolutionary can also mean lending other kinds of support to a revolution, but then, a revolutionary organization must view the person or group in question as revolutionary.

But this is merely a recursive definition. The recursion terminates only when we reach a party which engages in armed struggle to overthrow a class and replace it with a qualitatively progressive one. This is essentially because military victory is a necessary condition for revolution; the classes in power won't let go without a fight.

Marx satisfies the above conditions.

[chegitz guevara]

Lenin did it. And as for Marx:

Always, and at all times, as you seem to claim we ought to be doing? Or, did he only advocate it when the conditions were ripe?


Marx satisfies the above conditions.

Changing the goals posts.

[Saorsa]

Look, if Red Cat uses terms like 'villages' to describe where agricultural labourers in the US live, that doesn't make him an idiot or an uninformed guy. He's from the third world, a very different kind of society, and English isn't his first language, so why should anyone here have the right to be condescending towards him just because he doesn't know off by hear every single English phrase and piece of terminology?

Some people here need to analyse their First Worldist mentalities.

Oh, and as for Dave's request for evidence of how Maoist groups in the USA are organising themselves, he may find this (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/01/discussion-paper-contributing-to-revolutions-long-march/) interesting.

[Crux]

We do not hope to conduct class struggle without a peoples' war. We cannot win over the bourgeoisie to our side, may be you Trots can. We Maoists know only how to violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.
So NO class struggle is possible without an ongoing armed conflict?




First learn NOT to be a reactionary. Stop slandering the past and ongoing
revolutions. Being a revolutionary is pretty far off from your present condition.
You're quite a disappointment.




If a party makes revolution, we uphold its historical line. The RSDLP made revolution. So we will uphold its own line on itself.

So you're only prepared to support revolutionary organizations after they seize power? You're quite the opportunist aren't you? But you would do well, in examining the history of th bolsheviks, if you consider yourself a revolutionary marxist that is.


Your class struggle without a peoples' war is cooler. :lol:
Yes, in fact it is. Do you even know what class struggle means?




Why are you bringing up the topic of rural armed struggle again and again despite me stating that we don't think that to be the correct method for the first world revolutions ?
Well, it is not a correct method to rely solely on an armed group to "bring about" the revolution anywhere. Armed groups do not make revolution, the working class does.


Initially the revolutionary parties will be strong. They will gain strength thorough the period of revolution.
How are they going to be initially strong if they have not gained any confidence from the worker's and peasants through previous struggles? Of course that would be an impossibility with your theory as every struggle presupposes "People's War".


Again, you conceive of the building of a revolutionary party as a process of adjustment within revolutionary organizations.
I percieve the building of a revolutionary party through recruiting most radicalized groups of the exploited masses.




In the course of their previous struggle and the process of making revolution.
Again, with your theory that's an impossibility.




Where in my sentences should I have included these words ?
Gee, I wonder. Perhaps in the part wher you talk about any kind of class struggle at all. Oh right I forgot, class struggle is impossible without an armed group. :rolleyes: So, uhm, what about the working class? they don't seem to fill any function in your military adventure?




I respect your religious beliefs. You need not take so much pain to "prove" that your bible is true. :lol:
You're a real gem aren't you?





We are not armchair revolutionaries. We don't set the strategy and tactics for the revolution in a country hundreds of miles away.
Well, it would be hard to be an armchair revolutionary fi you're not a revolutionary at all. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no theory for class struggle, anywhere. And your only response is about military struggle. So I restate, what about the working class?




Trot organizations can stop being reactionary for a change.
And look to the shining example of China? Or those reactionaries in Sendiero Luminoso?



Of course the Maoists will engage in class struggle. The American proletariat will recognize the group by its success in class struggle.
Oh heavens. So they will be recognized post seizing power in a military coup? Or you think the proletariat will have any reason at all to flock to a group just because it is doing an armed conflict? I may have asked this already, but do you even know what class struggle means?



I don't practice in America. Therefore I have no precise theory for America except from a very general one.
And I would argue that your theory is not applicable anywhere, and where it to succeed it risks putting a small bureaucracy in charge that will in fact subjugate the working class, and more than likely, given your theories of new democracy in fact form a joint government with the "progressive" bourgeoisie. that's not to say your movement doesn't have some contradictions. This is a positive thing. It means it is not completly reactionary.




Trot analysis and Trot history.
So you follow the shining example of Chairman Hu Jintao?




Not slandering our revolutions will be enough support from Trots.
Is any critique slander? And you've spouted some serious bullshit yourself, so you should not be the one to talk.




Only because the general model has been described many times before.
I doubt it. Everything you've said so far gives the clear implication that you have no idea what the general model for builidng a revolutionary party is.




The ruling classes are different in different systems, in case you don't know.

Which is why you will ally with bourgeoisie. Sweet. Too fucking bad we live in capitalism and it is a global system then isn't it?


That was a more general definition of revolution. It covers all the revolutions in history.
Only a relevant aspect is missing from your theory, and indeed maoist theory in general, the working class. I don't know what you are doing but me I am fighting for the emancipation of the working class, not just some simple military struggle against the state.




You really don't require such a big post to ultimately restate your assertions. :rolleyes:
You're right, you're not really worth the time it seems.


And once again, why are Trots not doing revolutionary stuff in India and Nepal ? Are they waiting for Maoists to betray the working class ?
Because your definition of "revolutionary stuff" is faulty and ultimately reactionary?

[red cat]

Always, and at all times, as you seem to claim we ought to be doing? Or, did he only advocate it when the conditions were ripe?



Changing the goals posts.

You don't understand my point. Anyone can claim to be waiting for the conditions to be ripe.

Lenin led the masses into making a revolution. That confirms that he was a revolutionary. How do we know whether the numerous leftist groups who claim to be waiting for the conditions to be ripe will actually use them to make a revolution or not, specially when their attitude to the ongoing revolutions is so hostile ?

[Crux]

Look, if Red Cat uses terms like 'villages' to describe where agricultural labourers in the US live, that doesn't make him an idiot or an informed guy. He's from the third world, a very different kind of society, and English isn't his first language, so why should anyone here have the right to be condescending towards him just because he doesn't know off by hear every single English phrase and piece of terminology?

Some people here need to analyse their First Worldist mentalities.

Oh, and as for Dave's request for evidence of how Maoist groups in the USA are organising themselves, he may find this (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/01/discussion-paper-contributing-to-revolutions-long-march/) interesting.
Comrade, you've always seemed pretty sensible, and I know you consider yourself a maoist, but surely you don't agree with red cat here? By his definition all the great union work and other campaigning work your group do would be non-revolutionary and the only way for you to do any class struggle in NZ would be to start People's War? I mean, you can't seriously agree with this?

You're right, it's not his terminology that is the problem.

[chegitz guevara]

I think that this thread shows that Maoist-Trot reconciliation is possible, once people get over their preconceived dogmas. It's happened in several countries, New Zealand, Norway, the United States on at least two occasions.

It also shows, that among some comrades, there is a long march to be traveled of struggling with themselves before they will be able to put their dogmatic sectarian bullshit aside and struggle against the real enemy ... you know, the capitalist class.

[Crux]

You don't understand my point. Anyone can claim to be waiting for the conditions to be ripe.

Lenin led the masses into making a revolution. That confirms that he was a revolutionary. How do we know whether the numerous leftist groups who claim to be waiting for the conditions to be ripe will actually use them to make a revolution or not, specially when their attitude to the ongoing revolutions is so hostile ?
Your idea of "waiting" for the revolution is nonsensical. Sure, in a way we wait for mass movements and different periods have different consciousness, but it's not like we're rolling our thumbs and waiting for People's War to break out. No, we take part in struggles where the working class are. Strikes, protests you know real issues instead of waiting for your military fantasies to come true. We prove ourselves to the working class because that is the only way to strengthen your base and eventually lead a revolution.

As has been said before you would do well to learn what Lenin did before he "made" revolution. How do we know a group waging armed struggle is really revolutionary?

[chegitz guevara]

You don't understand my point. Anyone can claim to be waiting for the conditions to be ripe.

Lenin led the masses into making a revolution. That confirms that he was a revolutionary. How do we know whether the numerous leftist groups who claim to be waiting for the conditions to be ripe will actually use them to make a revolution or not, specially when their attitude to the ongoing revolutions is so hostile ?

Lenin did not engage in people's war to make the revolution. His group did things the way we do in the First World, i.e., they struggled politically, not militarily. The revolution made leaders of Lenin and Trotsky, and only when the conditions were ripe did they push for a military overthrow of the old government.

Your politics seems much closer to that of the socialist revolutionaries and narodniks than Lenin's. Those groups engaged in armed struggle with Tsarism, while Lenin decried those methods, claiming only by patiently explaining can we make the revolution.

[Crux]

I think that this thread shows that Maoist-Trot reconciliation is possible, once people get over their preconceived dogmas. It's happened in several countries, New Zealand, Norway, the United States on at least two occasions.

It also shows, that among some comrades, there is a long march to be traveled of struggling with themselves before they will be able to put their dogmatic sectarian bullshit aside and struggle against the real enemy ... you know, the capitalist class.
Yes I am open to working with maoists who take part in class struggle. Even working together in a broader political formation. But obviously these would not be people following Red Cat's political line here.

Maoism has it's share of contradictions, but there's certainly some sensible people in there. and in the case of third world countries I am certain there are many who hold genuine illusions in the maoists groups, and if the maoists movements come under enough pressure from below they might well be forced to carry out progressive things.

[RED DAVE]

Look, if Red Cat uses terms like 'villages' to describe where agricultural labourers in the US live, that doesn't make him an idiot or an informed guy.No, but it means that he is spouting off politically about a major capitalist country that he knows virtually nothing about. This information is readily available. I provided a link to a book that would inform him and his response was: "And we are not of the impression that books are sufficient to understand any country," which is arrogant bullshit.


He's from the third world, a very different kind of society, and English isn't his first language, so why should anyone here have the right to be condescending towards him just because he doesn't know off by hear every single English phrase and piece of terminology?If he wants to debate about politics in the first world, let him learn about it. Before I began to discuss Nepal with you I spent days reading the relevant documents, and I still have a long way to go before I feel i'll have a complete grasp of the situation.


Some people here need to analyse their First Worldist mentalities.Knock it off, Comrade. No one denies the importance of revolution in the third world. We can argue to doomsday about strategies, tactics, etc., in the third world (or the first), but that's because we consider all these struggles to be important.


Oh, and as for Dave's request for evidence of how Maoist groups in the USA are organising themselves, he may find this (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/01/discussion-paper-contributing-to-revolutions-long-march/) interesting.Fascinating. Two separate documents from the Kasama project that do not mention the working class even once. You are proving my point about Maoist: it has no concept of struggle in the first world.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

So NO class struggle is possible without an ongoing armed conflict?




You're quite a disappointment.



So you're only prepared to support revolutionary organizations after they seize power? You're quite the opportunist aren't you? But you would do well, in examining the history of th bolsheviks, if you consider yourself a revolutionary marxist that is.


Yes, in fact it is. Do you even know what class struggle means?




Well, it is not a correct method to rely solely on an armed group to "bring about" the revolution anywhere. Armed groups do not make revolution, the working class does.

How are they going to be initially strong if they have not gained any confidence from the worker's and peasants through previous struggles? Of course that would be an impossibility with your theory as every struggle presupposes "People's War".


I percieve the building of a revolutionary party through recruiting most radicalized groups of the exploited masses.



Again, with your theory that's an impossibility.



Gee, I wonder. Perhaps in the part wher you talk about any kind of class struggle at all. Oh right I forgot, class struggle is impossible without an armed group. :rolleyes: So, uhm, what about the working class? they don't seem to fill any function in your military adventure?




You're a real gem aren't you?




Well, it would be hard to be an armchair revolutionary fi you're not a revolutionary at all. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no theory for class struggle, anywhere. And your only response is about military struggle. So I restate, what about the working class?



And look to the shining example of China? Or those reactionaries in Sendiero Luminoso?



Oh heavens. So they will be recognized post seizing power in a military coup? Or you think the proletariat will have any reason at all to flock to a group just because it is doing an armed conflict? I may have asked this already, but do you even know what class struggle means?



And I would argue that your theory is not applicable anywhere, and where it to succeed it risks putting a small bureaucracy in charge that will in fact subjugate the working class, and more than likely, given your theories of new democracy in fact form a joint government with the "progressive" bourgeoisie. that's not to say your movement doesn't have some contradictions. This is a positive thing. It means it is not completly reactionary.



So you follow the shining example of Chairman Hu Jintao?




Is any critique slander? And you've spouted some serious bullshit yourself, so you should not be the one to talk.



I doubt it. Everything you've said so far gives the clear implication that you have no idea what the general model for builidng a revolutionary party is.



Which is why you will ally with bourgeoisie. Sweet. Too fucking bad we live in capitalism and it is a global system then isn't it?


Only a relevant aspect is missing from your theory, and indeed maoist theory in general, the working class. I don't know what you are doing but me I am fighting for the emancipation of the working class, not just some simple military struggle against the state.




You're right, you're not really worth the time it seems.


Because your definition of "revolutionary stuff" is faulty and ultimately reactionary?

Too bored to answer the same questions again and again. :(


Your idea of "waiting" for the revolution is nonsensical. Sure, in a way we wait for mass movements and different periods have different consciousness, but it's not like we're rolling our thumbs and waiting for People's War to break out. No, we take part in struggles where the working class are. Strikes, protests you know real issues instead of waiting for your military fantasies to come true. We prove ourselves to the working class because that is the only way to strengthen your base and eventually lead a revolution.

As has been said before you would do well to learn what Lenin did before he "made" revolution.

Strikes, protests etc. are indeed parts of revolution. But these can also be used to divert and confine the activities of the working class to certain limits. This ultimately aids the bourgeoisie. So, when a party is organizing strikes and protests, concluding that it is revolutionary is impossible until one is an activist belonging to that party, and knows about its past and present struggles in details.

However, when a party engages in military action against the state( which is necessary for a revolution ), and also in involving, organizing and empowering the working class, even outside observers can conclude that it is revolutionary.

This feature is missing from any Trot party. In case of first world Maoist groups, other than their organizational activities, they support our revolutions in the third world, which is an evidence to their revolutionary (at least of certain factions) nature.

From the very fact that Trots attack our ongoing revolutions with utmost ferocity, without any exception, our natural conclusion is that they are trying to liquidate any potential movement against future military actions of imperialist countries in the third world. Moreover, they are providing a wrong line to the proletariat of their own countries. This is why we consider Trot parties to be counter-revolutionary.



How do we know a group waging armed struggle is really revolutionary?Come to the third world and see for yourself.

[Crux]

Fascinating. Two separate documents from the Kasama project that do not mention the working class even once. You are proving my point about Maoist: it has no concept of struggle in the first world.

RED DAVE
I think you have to give the Kasama Project the credit that they at least seem to be looking for a concept.

This specifically I view as rather positive:

Leading up to this conference a number of new suggestions have been raised. In some quarters such ideas would quickly be dismissed as social democratic or social work– including among people trained by the RCP in a negative summation of the Panthers “Serve the People” programs.
Or, another example: There has been a movement to form workers centers of diverse kinds — often centered on organizing undocumented immigrant workers. Some people have simply dismissed that work as economist — without even bothering to learn from the different strategies at play.
Our Kasama approach needs to be an openness to experimentation and fresh thinking. We should look again a forms of developing contact, politicization and alternative institutions among the people — and think afresh about ways such activities can contribute to revolutionary movement.

[Saorsa]

Comrade, you've always seemed pretty sensible, and I know you consider yourself a maoist, but surely you don't agree with red cat here? By his definition all the great union work and other campaigning work your group do would be non-revolutionary and the only way for you to do any class struggle in NZ would be to start People's War? I mean, you can't seriously agree with this?

No, I don't think Peoples War is a strategy that applies to countries like New Zealand. It's a revolutionary strategy unique to the third world, and specifically to semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries.


Fascinating. Two separate documents from the Kasama project that do not mention the working class even once. You are proving my point about Maoist: it has no concept of struggle in the first world.

Whatever man. I've provided you with evidence several times of Maoists, including members of my own group, engaging in the rank and file trade union work and trade union organising work you love, and more besides. You've chosen to ignore these inconvenient facts.

[Crux]

Too bored to answer the same questions again and again. :(
But you have not answered. Is there possible to be any class struggle without People's War?



Strikes, protests etc. are indeed parts of revolution. But these can also be used to divert and confine the activities of the working class to certain limits. This ultimately aids the bourgeoisie. So, when a party is organizing strikes and protests, concluding that it is revolutionary is impossible until one is an activist belonging to that party, and knows about its past and present struggles in details.
No it is not impossible to criticize an organization without being a member. More often than not many organizations take part in strikes and protests. It is during this process, and the longer more tedious work such as theoretical schooling and debating, that you can get a glimpse of in what direction an organization is heading. Protest and so on, only acts as a diversion when we are unable to raise them to become more than that, when we are unable to challenge a union bureaucracy, for example.


However, when a party engages in military action against the state( which is necessary for a revolution ), and also in involving, organizing and empowering the working class, even outside observers can conclude that it is revolutionary.
Not at all. I think, as I said before, you are completly fetischising the military aspect. Consider Chegitz comparison with the Social Revolutionaries in russia.


This feature is missing from any Trot party. In case of first world Maoist groups, other than their organizational activities, they support our revolutions in the third world, which is an evidence to their revolutionary (at least of certain factions) nature.
And quite tellingly the only Maoist group we have here in sweden is a utterly irrelvant little sect and supposedly support group for sendiero luminoso, that to my knowledge do not take part in any progressive struggles at all and who's only known achievement is assaulting it's ex-members and physically fighting among themselfes.


From the very fact that Trots attack our ongoing revolutions with utmost ferocity, without any exception, our natural conclusion is that they are trying to liquidate any potential movement against future military actions of imperialist countries in the third world. Moreover, they are providing a wrong line to the proletariat of their own countries. This is why we consider Trot parties to be counter-revolutionary.
Again, that is because your concept of revolution seems to be lacking.



Come to the third world and see for yourself.
Case in point.
But I am going to ask one of the comrades who was recently in both Nepal and India about his impressions the next time I meet him.

[Crux]

No, I don't think Peoples War is a strategy that applies to countries like New Zealand. It's a revolutionary strategy unique to the third world, and specifically to semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries.
But doesn't that carry with it much of the same problems? I mean as I have implied the theory of People's War, as guerillaist tactics in general, risk cutting you off from the working class? This was one of the great mistakes of Che Guevara, for example. While there was a massive strike wave and class struggle in the mines he and his group were busy doing a guerilla war in the jungle. Had they been able to build links and support among the working class he might not have ended up dead.

[red cat]

No, I don't think Peoples War is a strategy that applies to countries like New Zealand. It's a revolutionary strategy unique to the third world, and specifically to semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries.

Are you equating protracted peoples' war with peoples' war ? My terminology is different.

It is the PPW that is unique to the third world, but the ultimate act of ousting the bourgeoisie in the first world should also be military in nature (urban insurrections), which qualifies as a PW.

[khad]

But doesn't that carry with it much of the same problems? I mean as I have implied the theory of People's War, as guerillaist tactics in general, risk cutting you off from the working class? This was one of the great mistakes of Che Guevara, for example. While there was a massive strike wave and class struggle in the mines he and his group were busy doing a guerilla war in the jungle. Had they been able to build links and support among the working class he might not have ended up dead.
Guevara's Focoism is the antithesis of Maoist people's war. It's based on the notion that a guerrilla struggle can be the focus of a movement and can be used to spontaneously generate class struggle, whereas Mao was more focused on developing a political base among the peasantry BEFORE a military campaign.

[Crux]

Guevara's Focoism is the antithesis of Maoist people's war. It's based on the notion that a guerrilla struggle can be the focus of a movement and can be used to spontaneously generate class struggle, whereas Mao was more focused on developing a political base among the peasantry BEFORE a military campaign.
I think it is safe to say they share some similarities, especially in how they have been practically applied. And Red Cat's presentation here does not seem to make that distinction, rather it seems that the peasants should be won through the People's War. Also as I have noted before you can not organize on the basis of the peasants alone. An armed guerilla in the country side can only work as auxiliary to the organized working class, this is not to in any way denote the peasants, but as all Marxists ought to know you can't build a socialist revolution without the working class.

[RED DAVE]

I'm going to cut this one short for me.

It's obvious that for ML and Trotskyist groups in the first world, if the one grop referenced by Comrade Alistair is any indication, reconciliation is impossible. This group, the Kasama Project, seems to be involved with polemics against the RCP, a crude empiricism that seems to have nothing in common with Marxism, and a community organizing strategy that was discredited in the US 30-40 years ago.and which has little or nothing to do with Marxist strategy.

As for Comrade red cat's approach, I suggest, with all due respect, that before he discusses strategy in the first world, he bone up on some general history and the history of Marxist struggle.

With regard to the thrid world: same old shit. Someone once said that the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The strategies of both the Indian and Nepalese Maoists are copies of the strategy used by the Chinese Maoists around 80 years ago. We know where that led: to state capitalism and then to private capitalism. Both the Nepalese and Indian groups seem to think they can do what the Chinese Communists did and not get the same result.

There seems to be very little grounds for reconciliation. As i've said before, in this thread and others, it will work out in practice, but I hold out little hope.

Just in passing let me note that in those experiences I've had with US Maoists inside the working class (trade union work) and in mass movements with a multi-class character (antiwar work), they operated with a heavy-handed bureaucratic method, which is exactly what I would have expected of them.

RED DAVE

[Crux]

I'm going to cut this one short for me.

It's obvious that for ML and Trotskyist groups in the first world, if the one grop referenced by Comrade Alistair is any indication, reconciliation is impossible. This group, the Kasama Project, seems to be involved with polemics against the RCP, a crude empiricism that seems to have nothing in common with Marxism, and a community organizing strategy that was discredited in the US 3t-40 years ago.and which has little or nothing to do with Marxist strategy.

RED DAVE
Maybe, but they seem far less doctrinaire then any maoists groups I know, that still refer to themselves as such, and at least seems to be looking for a way forward. I don't know how this works out in practice, and maybe I am just inexperienced, but I remain relatively positive at least.

[red cat]

I'm going to cut this one short for me.

It's obvious that for ML and Trotskyist groups in the first world, if the one grop referenced by Comrade Alistair is any indication, reconciliation is impossible. This group, the Kasama Project, seems to be involved with polemics against the RCP, a crude empiricism that seems to have nothing in common with Marxism, and a community organizing strategy that was discredited in the US 30-40 years ago.and which has little or nothing to do with Marxist strategy.

As for Comrade red cat's approach, I suggest, with all due respect, that before he discusses strategy in the first world, he bone up on some general history and the history of Marxist struggle.


Knowing about each imperialist country is not necessary for deducing the real political aims of groups negaying armed struggle.




With regard to the thrid world: same old shit. Someone once said that the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The strategies of both the Indian and Nepalese Maoists are copies of the strategy used by the Chinese Maoists around 80 years ago. We know where that led: to state capitalism and then to private capitalism. Both the Nepalese and Indian groups seem to think they can do what the Chinese Communists did and not get the same result.


This type of slandering is what you Trots do best. You don't have any revolutionary party in India and Nepal to conduct any movement against imperialism. This is because the main aim of your tendency is to serve imperialism, not to oppose it.

[red cat]

But you have not answered. Is there possible to be any class struggle without People's War?


No it is not impossible to criticize an organization without being a member. More often than not many organizations take part in strikes and protests. It is during this process, and the longer more tedious work such as theoretical schooling and debating, that you can get a glimpse of in what direction an organization is heading. Protest and so on, only acts as a diversion when we are unable to raise them to become more than that, when we are unable to challenge a union bureaucracy, for example.


Not at all. I think, as I said before, you are completly fetischising the military aspect. Consider Chegitz comparison with the Social Revolutionaries in russia.


And quite tellingly the only Maoist group we have here in sweden is a utterly irrelvant little sect and supposedly support group for sendiero luminoso, that to my knowledge do not take part in any progressive struggles at all and who's only known achievement is assaulting it's ex-members and physically fighting among themselfes.


Again, that is because your concept of revolution seems to be lacking.



Case in point.
But I am going to ask one of the comrades who was recently in both Nepal and India about his impressions the next time I meet him.

Class struggle is incomplete without the military victories of the working class.


Again, that is because your concept of revolution seems to be lacking.Sure. :rolleyes:Let's see a Trot CP in India achieve a tenth of what the Maoists have achieved.

[red cat]

Guevara's Focoism is the antithesis of Maoist people's war. It's based on the notion that a guerrilla struggle can be the focus of a movement and can be used to spontaneously generate class struggle, whereas Mao was more focused on developing a political base among the peasantry BEFORE a military campaign.

Building the political base among the peasantry is a local activity. It is not that the peoples' war will begin only after whole of the peasantry is won over.

Che's theory neglects the other aspects of class struggle. This results in lack of mass participation in the peoples' war.

[RED DAVE]

I'm going to cut this one short for me.

It's obvious that for ML and Trotskyist groups in the first world, if the one grop referenced by Comrade Alistair is any indication, reconciliation is impossible. This group, the Kasama Project, seems to be involved with polemics against the RCP, a crude empiricism that seems to have nothing in common with Marxism, and a community organizing strategy that was discredited in the US 30-40 years ago.and which has little or nothing to do with Marxist strategy.

As for Comrade red cat's approach, I suggest, with all due respect, that before he discusses strategy in the first world, he bone up on some general history and the history of Marxist struggle.
Knowing about each imperialist country is not necessary for deducing the real political aims of groups negaying armed struggle.(1) I suggest that you learn something about the history of the US and other major industrial powers. And I further suggest that you not make a fetish of your own ignorance.

(2) No one is negating armed struggle or denying that the revolution will come down to armed struggle. But since you can't even suggest a road to armed struggle for revolutionary parties in first world nations, in my opinion, you make a fetish of armed struggle.


With regard to the thrid world: same old shit. Someone once said that the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The strategies of both the Indian and Nepalese Maoists are copies of the strategy used by the Chinese Maoists around 80 years ago. We know where that led: to state capitalism and then to private capitalism. Both the Nepalese and Indian groups seem to think they can do what the Chinese Communists did and not get the same result.
This type of slandering is what you Trots do best.Interesting that call the truth: that the victory of the Chinese Communist paved the way for state and private capitalism in China, a slander.

And you have yet to explain how the Nepalese and/or the Indian Maoists, employing the same strategies, are going to do any different.


You don't have any revolutionary party in India and Nepal to conduct any movement against imperialism.Which doesn't mean that the strategy of the Indian and Nepalese Maoists, which involve forming a political bloc with the national bourgeoisie, will not usher in state and private capitalism.


This is because the main aim of your tendency is to serve imperialism, not to oppose it.That's political slander. Let me know when you buld a party in the US. Maoists have been active here for nearly 50 years, and the sum total, in party building, is nil.

Catch ya later, Comrade.

RED DAVE

[Crux]

Class struggle is incomplete without the military victories of the working class.

Sure. :rolleyes:Let's see a Trot CP in India achieve a tenth of what the Maoists have achieved.
Are you a parrot or something? So you have no real concept of class struggle, or indeed political struggle at all, without fetishistic repeating of the slogan of "people's war"? No one here has rejected armed struggle, you however have nothing more to offer. That's completly politically superficial and has nothing what so ever to do with revolutionary marxism.

Indeed let's, and not only a tenth but more. Maoists have been utterly politically confused, well disregarding the fundamental flaws in their theory, since china became a more pronounced capitalist country. I truely do look forward to the rise of genuine marxist organizations in india and nepal, and hopefully the best of the maoist cadres will come along to these conclusions as well. Because, like in Socialist Revolutionary Party (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#srs) in czarist russia by the way, there certainly are some genuine revolutionaries there that can certainly be won to revolutionary marxism.
And like the Socialist Revolutionary Party you certainly have your Kerensky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky)'s and Right-SR's waiting in the wing. We'll see a couple of years down the road, comrade.

[red cat]

(1) I suggest that you learn something about the history of the US and other major industrial powers. And I further suggest that you not make a fetish of your own ignorance.

(2) No one is negating armed struggle or denying that the revolution will come down to armed struggle. But since you can't even suggest a road to armed struggle for revolutionary parties in first world nations, in my opinion, you make a fetish of armed struggle.

It is good to see that you agree to the need of armed struggle.

I cannot suggest anything for a system that I haven't observed myself.



Interesting that call the truth: that the victory of the Chinese Communist paved the way for state and private capitalism in China, a slander.

If that statement is true for the Chinese revolution, then it is true for the Russian revolution too.



And you have yet to explain how the Nepalese and/or the Indian Maoists, employing the same strategies, are going to do any different.

1) China had experienced socialism.

2) Indian and Nepali Maoists employ more advanced strategies.


Which doesn't mean that the strategy of the Indian and Nepalese Maoists, which involve forming a political bloc with the national bourgeoisie, will not usher in state and private capitalism.

Even if it does, it will be much better than colonial oppression. Why are Trots unable to overthrow even imperialism ?


That's political slander. Let me know when you buld a party in the US. Maoists have been active here for nearly 50 years, and the sum total, in party building, is nil.

Trots might have built parties in the US, but they have not succeeded in contributing anything to the world revolution.

[red cat]

Are you a parrot or something? So you have no real concept of class struggle, or indeed political struggle at all, without fetishistic repeating of the slogan of "people's war"? No one here has rejected armed struggle, you however have nothing more to offer. That's completly politically superficial and has nothing what so ever to do with revolutionary marxism.

Your stand on the ongoing revolutions is enough to deduce how revolutionary you here.


Indeed let's, and not only a tenth but more. Maoists have been utterly politically confused, well disregarding the fundamental flaws in their theory, since china became a more pronounced capitalist country.


Even Russia changed back to capitalism. Does that mean Marxism-Leninism is flawed too ?



I truely do look forward to the rise of genuine marxist organizations in india and nepal, and hopefully the best of the maoist cadres will come along to these conclusions as well. Because, like in Socialist Revolutionary Party (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#srs) in czarist russia by the way, there certainly are some genuine revolutionaries there that can certainly be won to revolutionary marxism.
And like the Socialist Revolutionary Party you certainly have your Kerensky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky)'s and Right-SR's waiting in the wing. We'll see a couple of years down the road, comrade.

Both India and Nepal are bound to disappoint you. :lol:

[Crux]

You're exceedingly superficial as usual, comrade red cat. For one the difference between the chinese and the russian revolution are many, some quite important. Comrade Vincent Kolo, of chinaworker.info, goes into that quite a bit in this article: http://www.socialistworld.net/z/bin/kw.cgi/show?id=3783

[red cat]

You're exceedingly superficial as usual, comrade red cat. For one the difference between the chinese and the russian revolution are many, some quite important. Comrade Vincent Kolo, of chinaworker.info, goes into that quite a bit in this article: http://www.socialistworld.net/z/bin/kw.cgi/show?id=3783

Can't open the link. Can you please copy-paste the article in your post ?

[Crux]

Your stand on the ongoing revolutions is enough to deduce how revolutionary you here.


Even Russia changed back to capitalism. Does that mean Marxism-Leninism is flawed too ?



Both India and Nepal are bound to disappoint you. :lol:
Yes, the sucessful counter-revolution in the USSR was indeed a cause of the so called "Marxism-Leninism" that dictatorially presided in the party and in society. It is not by accident that many of the bureaucrats from USSR time went one to become successful scavenge capitalist after the system collapsed.

It does not, however, as some bourgeoisie historians, and yourself, have implied mean the failure of the theories of the Bolshevik party. A party who's leadership by and large were physically annihilated by the bureacracy that rose under Stalin. Certainly progressive aspects remained, such as the planned economy, but only in a distorted from as of what genuine socialism entails. The Stalinist regimes utter betrayal of the first chinese revolution ought to interest you, for example.

And what is my stance on the on-going revolutions exactly?
I could do no greater disservice to the world revolution than rejecting the revolutionary ideals of Marx, Engels, lenin and Trotsky and favour your "anyone who picks up a gun is a revolutionary" brand of opportunism.
I certainly support what is proegressive about the ongoing process in Nepal. It is for precisely this reason it is my duty to oppose your wrong ideas and practice.

[Crux]

Can't open the link. Can you please copy-paste the article in your post ?

60th anniversary of Chinese Revolution

Capitalism abolished, but power in hands of Stalinist Communist Party
Vincent Kolo, chinaworker.info

http://www.socialistworld.net/pics/2009/10/0101/pic01.pjpegSurvivors of the Long March

It is an especially nervous Communist Party (CCP) regime that presides over the 60th anniversary celebrations of the founding of the People's Republic of China on 1 October. The regime is increasingly dependent on Olympic-style pageantry to shore up its support, and despite decades of record-breaking economic growth now faces mounting discontent from workers, farmers and youth.
Vincent Kolo, of chinaworker.info, looks here at the nature of the 1949 Chinese revolution. A future article in The Socialist, paper of he Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales) will focus on the situation in China today.
Mao Zedong, who led the CCP to power 60 years ago, is hailed as founder of the nation, but today's official view is that his policies were 'ultra left' and needed to be corrected by the pro-market turn of his successor Deng Xiaoping in 1978. To learn China's true revolutionary history we must look elsewhere.
The CCP did not come to power at the head of a working class movement. With its Stalinist outlook and methods it initially stood for a relatively limited agenda to establish a 'new democracy', while keeping a capitalist economy. But almost despite itself, the CCP was thrown forward by one of the mightiest revolutionary waves in world history.
It was this mass revolutionary fervour, within the international framework that emerged following the Second World War, that pushed Mao's regime to introduce changes that fundamentally transformed China.
China had long been known as the 'sick man of Asia' - it was poor even by the standards of Asia at that time. With its huge population (475 million in 1949) China was the world's biggest 'failed state' for almost half a century.
From 1911 to 1949 it was torn between rival warlords, with a corrupt central government, and bullied by foreign powers. Ending the humiliating foreign customs houses and the stationing of imperialist armies on Chinese soil was just one of the many practical gains of the revolution. Mao's regime also introduced one of the most far-reaching land reforms in world history - not as big as Russia's but encompassing a rural population four times as large.
Agrarian revolution

This agrarian revolution, as the historian Maurice Meisner points out, "destroyed China's gentry-landlords as a social class, thus finally eliminating the longest-lived ruling class in world history and one that long had stood as a major impediment to China's resurrection and modernisation".
In 1950, Mao's government enacted a Marriage Law that prohibited arranged marriages, concubinage and bigamy, and made divorce easier for both sexes. This was one of the most dramatic governmental shake-ups in the field of marital and family relationships ever attempted.
When the CCP took power four-fifths of the population were illiterate. This was reduced to less than 10% by 1976, when Mao died. Reflecting its crushing backwardness, there were only 83 public libraries in the whole of China before 1949 and just 80,000 hospital beds. By 1975 there were 1,250 libraries and 1.6 million hospital beds.
Average life expectancy, just 35 years in 1949, was raised to 65 years in the same time-span. Innovations in public healthcare and education, reform (simplification) of the written alphabet, and later the network of 'barefoot doctors' that covered most villages, transformed conditions for the rural poor. These achievements, at a time when China was much poorer than today, are an indictment of the present day crisis in healthcare and education, the result of marketisation and privatisation.
The abolition of feudalism was a crucial precondition for launching China on the path of modern industrial development. At first, Mao's regime hoped for an alliance with sections of the capitalists, and left significant sections of the economy in private hands. By the mid-1950s though, it had been forced to go all the way, expropriating even the 'patriotic capitalists' and incorporating their businesses into a state plan modelled on the bureaucratic system of planning in the Soviet Union.
Compared to a regime of genuine workers' democracy, the Maoist-Stalinist plan was a rather blunt instrument, but it was an instrument all the same, incomparably more vital than enfeebled and corrupt Chinese capitalism.
Given the low base of China's economy at the start of this process, the industrialisation achieved during its planned economy phase was truly astonishing. From 1952 to 1978, industry's share of GDP rose from 10% to 35% (OECD Observer 1999). This is one of the most rapid rates of industrialisation ever achieved, greater than Britain in 1801-41 or Japan in 1882-1927. In this period China created aircraft, nuclear, marine, automotive and heavy machinery industries. GDP measured in purchasing power parities increased 200%, while per capita income rose by 80%.
Comparing revolutions

The two great revolutions of the last century, the Russian (1917) and Chinese (1949), did more to shape the world we live in than any other events in human history. Both were the result of the complete inability of capitalism and imperialism to solve the fundamental problems of humankind. Both were also mass movements on an epic scale, not military coups as many capitalist politicians and historians claim. Having said this, there were fundamental, decisive differences between these revolutions.
The social system established by Mao was one of Stalinism rather than socialism. The isolation of the Russian Revolution following the defeat of revolutionary movements in Europe and elsewhere in the 1920s and 30s, led to the rise of a conservative bureaucracy under Stalin, which rested upon the state-owned economy from which it drew its power and privileges.
All elements of workers' democracy - management and control by elected representatives and the abolition of privileges - were crushed.
Yet, as Leon Trotsky explained, a planned economy needs workers' democratic control like a human body needs oxygen. Without this, under a regime of bureaucratic dictatorship, the potential of a planned economy can be thrown away and ultimately, as was proved two decades ago, the entire edifice is threatened with destruction.
Yet it was this Stalinist model that the CCP adopted when it took power in 1949. While this was a far cry from genuine socialism, the existence of an alternative economic system to capitalism, and the visible gains this entailed for the mass of the population, exercised a powerful radicalising effect on world politics.
China and Russia, by virtue of their state-owned economies, played a role in forcing capitalism and imperialism to make concessions, particularly in Europe and Asia.
The Chinese revolution increased the pressure on the European imperialists to exit their colonies in the southern hemisphere. It also caused US imperialism to sponsor rapid industrialisation in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea and use these states as buffers against the spread of revolution, which it feared following China's example.
While both the Russian and Chinese revolutions were led by mass communist parties, there were fundamental differences between them in terms of programme, methods, and above all their class base. The 1917 Russian Revolution was proletarian in character - a factor of decisive importance.
This invested it with the political independence and historical audacity to launch upon a never-before tried road. The leaders of that revolution, above all Lenin and Trotsky, were internationalists and saw the revolution as the overture to a world socialist revolution.
By contrast, most CCP leaders were in reality nationalists with just a thin laminate of internationalism around this. This corresponded to the peasant base of the Chinese revolution. Lenin commented that the peasantry is the least international of all classes. Its scattered and isolated conditions of life imbue it with a parochial outlook, not even aspiring to a national perspective in many cases.
Rather than a mass workers' movement and elected workers' councils - the motor forces of the Russian revolution - and the existence of a democratic Marxist workers' party, the Bolsheviks, in China it was the peasant-based People's Liberation Army (PLA) that took power. The working class played no role, and even received orders not to strike or demonstrate but to await the arrival of the PLA into the cities.
While the peasantry is capable of great revolutionary heroism, as the history of the Red Army/PLA's struggle against Japan and the dictatorial Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) regime showed, it is incapable of playing an independent role. Just as the villages take their cue from the cities, politically the peasantry supports one or other of the urban classes - the working class or the capitalists.
In China, rather than the cities moving the countryside, the CCP came to power by building a mass following among the peasantry and then occupying the largely passive, war-weary cities. The class base of the revolution meant that it could emulate an existing societal model but not create a new one.
Stages theory

The CCP's peasant orientation developed out of the terrible defeat of the 1925-27 revolution, caused by the 'stages theory' of the Communist International under Stalin's leadership. This held that because China was only at the stage of bourgeois revolution, the communists must be prepared to support and serve Jiang Jieshi's bourgeois Nationalist Party (Guomindang). The CCP's young and impressive working class base was brutally smashed.
But while a significant Trotskyist minority formed shortly after this defeat, drawing correct conclusions that the working class and not the capitalists must lead the Chinese revolution, the majority of CCP leaders held to the Stalinist stages concept, although ironically they broke with it in practice after taking power in 1949.
In the late 1920s therefore, the main group of CCP cadres, drawn mostly from the intelligentsia, went with these mistaken pseudo-Marxist ideas to wage guerrilla struggle in the countryside. Chen Duxiu, the CCP's founder and later a co-thinker and supporter of Trotsky, warned that the CCP risked degenerating into "peasant consciousness" - a prophetic judgement. By 1930, only 1.6% of the party membership were workers compared to 58% in 1927.
This class composition remained almost unchanged up until the party won power in 1949, flowing automatically from the leadership's focus on the peasantry and rejection of the urban centres as the main arena of struggle.
In tandem with this was the increasing bureaucratisation of the party, the replacement of internal debate and democracy by a regime of commands and purges, and the cult of personality around Mao - all copied from Stalin's methods of rule.
A peasant milieu and a mainly military struggle are far more conducive to the growth of bureaucracy than a party immersed in mass workers' struggles. Therefore, whereas the the Russian Revolution degenerated under unfavourable historical conditions, the Chinese Revolution was bureaucratically disfigured from the outset. This explains the contradictory nature of Maoism, of important social gains alongside brutal repression and dictatorial rule.
War of occupation

When the Japanese war of occupation ended in 1945, US imperialism was unable to directly impose its own solution on China. The mood to 'bring the troops home' was too powerful. Therefore the US was left with no other option than to support Jiang Jieshi's corrupt and breathtakingly incompetent regime with massive amounts of aid and weaponry.
That Washington had little confidence in the Guomindang was shown by President Truman remarking some years later: "They're thieves, every damn one of them. They stole $750 million out of the billions we sent to Jiang".
For the masses, the Nationalist regime was unmitigated disaster. This is largely forgotten today and hence we have the grotesque phenomenon in China of the Guomindang regaining mass support especially among youth and the middle classes.
In the last years of Guomindang rule there were reports from several cities of "starving people lying untended and dying in the streets". Factories and workshops closed down due to lack of supplies or because workers were too weakened by hunger to operate them. Summary executions by government agents and rampant crime by triad gangs was the norm in big cities.
Alongside the land reform introduced in areas it liberated, the CCP's biggest asset was the hatred of the Guomindang. This also led to mass desertions of Jiang's troops to the side of the Red Army/PLA. From the autumn of 1948, with some few exceptions, in most cases Mao's armies advanced without serious opposition.
In city after city across the country, Guomindang forces either surrendered, deserted, or staged rebellions to join up with the PLA. In effect, Jiang's regime rotted from within, presenting the CCP with exceptionally favourable circumstances. Subsequent Maoist-guerrilla movements (Malaya, Philippines, Peru, Nepal) that have tried to reproduce Mao's success have not been as fortunate.
Workers' strikes

With A genuine Marxist policy, the overthrow of the Guomindang could almost certainly have been achieved more quickly and less painfully.
From September 1945, following Japan's military collapse, until late 1946, workers in all major cities staged a magnificent strike wave, with 200,000 on strike in Shanghai. Students too poured onto the streets in a nationwide mass movement that reflected the radicalisation of society's middle layers.
The students demanded democracy and opposed the Guomindang's military mobilisation for the civil war against the CCP. The workers demanded trade union rights and an end to wage freezes.
Rather than give a lead to this movement the CCP applied the brakes, urging the masses not to go to 'extremes' in their struggle. At this stage, Mao was still wedded to the perspective of a 'united front' with the 'national bourgeoisie' who should not become agitated by working class militancy.
The students were merely used as a bargaining chip by the CCP to exert pressure on Jiang to enter into peace talks. The CCP did its utmost to keep the students' and workers' struggles separate.
The inevitable laws of class struggle are such that this limitation of the movement produced defeat and demoralisation. Many student and worker activists were swept up in a wave of Guomindang repression that followed. Some were executed.
A historic opportunity was missed, prolonging the life of Jiang's dictatorship and leaving the urban masses largely passive for the remainder of the civil war.
After the revolution

In keeping with the Stalinist stages theory, in 1940 Mao wrote: "The Chinese revolution in its present stage is not yet a socialist revolution for the overthrow of capitalism but a bourgeois-democratic revolution, its central task being mainly that of combating foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism" (Mao Zedong, On New Democracy, January 1940).
In order to achieve a bloc with the 'progressive' or 'patriotic' capitalists, Mao limited the land reform (as late as autumn 1950 this had been carried out in only one-third of China). Also, while the businesses of 'bureaucratic capitalists' - Guomindang officials - were nationalised immediately, private capitalists retained their control and in 1953 accounted for 37% of GDP.
A crucial test came with the Korean War that broke out in June 1950. This brought a massive escalation of US pressure, economic sanctions, and even the threat of a nuclear attack on China.
The war and sharply polarised world situation that accompanied it (the 'cold war' between the Soviet Union and US) meant Mao's regime, in order to stay in power, had no choice but to complete the social transformation, speeding up land reform and extending its control over the whole economy.
The Chinese revolution was therefore a paradoxical, unfinished revolution, that brought monumental social progress but also created a monstrous bureaucratic dictatorship whose power and privileges increasingly undermined the potential of the planned economy.
By the time of Mao's death, the regime was deeply split and in crisis, fearing mass upheavals that could sweep it from power.
Discontent rising against Mao's successors

When China’s present leaders view the huge military parade on 1 October, their thoughts may be on the growing problems they face as the global capitalist crisis bites. The government's top think-tank says 41 million jobs were lost in the last year in China as exports fell (down 23% this year). Labour struggles are up 30% this year.
The regime's jitters are shown by its decision to limit the participants in these National Day celebrations to 200,000 - a million took part 20 years ago. Beijing also banned provincial ceremonies and parades. The reason? It is terrified these events can be exploited or give rise to anti-government protests. It is not just in the Muslim-majority region of Xinjiang where the regime is increasingly running afoul of mass opposition (both Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese, for opposite reasons, have staged angry anti-government protests recently).
Students at two of Beijing's universities have boycotted the rigorous training schedule for the official 1 October ceremony and some have even burned their ceremonial outfits. A popular anti-government comment on internet sites reads: "It's your birthday, what's it to do with me?" Many youth have become hardened anti-communists, supporting global capitalism, believing this is somehow an alternative to the current regime. Others have turned to Mao's legacy, which they feel has been completely betrayed by the present regime. Within this rising social and political turbulence, genuine Marxists are trying, through the website chinaworker.info and other publications, to win support for worldwide democratic socialism as the only way forward.

[red cat]

Yes, the sucessful counter-revolution in the USSR was indeed a cause of the so called "Marxism-Leninism" that dictatorially presided in the party and in society. It is not by accident that many of the bureaucrats from USSR time went one to become successful scavenge capitalist after the system collapsed.

It does not, however, as some bourgeoisie historians, and yourself, have implied mean the failure of the theories of the Bolshevik party. A party who's leadership by and large were physically annihilated by the bureacracy that rose under Stalin. Certainly progressive aspects remained, such as the planned economy, but only in a distorted from as of what genuine socialism entails. The Stalinist regimes utter betrayal of the first chinese revolution ought to interest you, for example.

The CPC never mentioned any Stalinist "betrayal".

Why did Marxism-Leninism allow Stalin and his bureaucracy to take power in the first place ? That surely means that it is flawed, doesn't it ?




And what is my stance on the on-going revolutions exactly?
I could do no greater disservice to the world revolution than rejecting the revolutionary ideals of Marx, Engels, lenin and Trotsky and favour your "anyone who picks up a gun is a revolutionary" brand of opportunism.


In the third world, our logic is rather like "anyone who does not pick up a gun is not a revolutionary".



I certainly support what is proegressive about the ongoing process in Nepal. It is for precisely this reason it is my duty to oppose your wrong ideas and practice.


Indeed, Trots are bound to oppose anything that threatens to overthrow imperialism.

[Crux]

The CPC never mentioned any Stalinist "betrayal".

Why did Marxism-Leninism allow Stalin and his bureaucracy to take power in the first place ? That surely means that it is flawed, doesn't it ?




In the third world, our logic is rather like "anyone who does not pick up a gun is not a revolutionary".




Indeed, Trots are bound to oppose anything that threatens to overthrow imperialism.
That's because, by that time, they were toeing the line of comintern.

I know you're just being facetious and childish. But I am going to assume you are not. The failure of the revolution in Western Europe and in China greatly isolated the revolution, already having suffered much from the imperialist invasion of the 12 armies and the civil war. This isolation made it possible for a bureacratic caste to grow inside the bolshevik party and it's institutions. lenin warned against this by the way. the Civil War also meant a restriction on factions had been put in place, then seen as a temporary measure. under Stalin and his clique this became permanent and worse. With the effective disbanding of the internal democracy, it was not long 'til the party effective exerted a party, not a class-, dictatorship, in society in general. they silenced all the voices of opposition through brute force and deportations. This alone was a demarcation from bolshevik parxis. Further more was developed, as a necessary for the bureaucracy, the theory of "Socialism in One country", and anyone attacking it was accused of opposing the revolution. This theory had disastrous effects in the comintern effectively turning it from an international of fighting revolutionary parties into the foreign bureau of the stalinist bureaucracy, this made the isolation more permanent. Had it not been for soviet victory in the ww2 and subsequent setting of new deformed worker's states the soviet union would have most likely collapsed much sooner.

Of course there is much mroe to it, but I don't really have the time to go into a long historical discussion here. As far as your discussion pertains to tactics, genuine bolshevism is the antithesis of bureacratic dictatorships and "socialism in one country". Vincent Kolo also adresses the two-stage theory, which you so dearly adhere to and it's damaging effects.
I couldn't name one post-17 revolution that has not been greatly damaged by leaderships that held such ideas and the practice that flowed from it.

[red cat]

That's because, by that time, they were toeing the line of comintern.

Still, I would prefer a revolutionary CP's own line on itself. :)


I know you're just being facetious and childish. But I am going to assume you are not. The failure of the revolution in Western Europe and in China greatly isolated the revolution, already having suffered much from the imperialist invasion of the 12 armies and the civil war. This isolation made it possible for a bureacratic caste to grow inside the bolshevik party and it's institutions. lenin warned against this by the way. the Civil War also meant a restriction on factions had been put in place, then seen as a temporary measure. under Stalin and his clique this became permanent and worse. With the effective disbanding of the internal democracy, it was not long 'til the party effective exerted a party, not a class-, dictatorship, in society in general. they silenced all the voices of opposition through brute force and deportations. This alone was a demarcation from bolshevik parxis. Further more was developed, as a necessary for the bureaucracy, the theory of "Socialism in One country", and anyone attacking it was accused of opposing the revolution. This theory had disastrous effects in the comintern effectively turning it from an international of fighting revolutionary parties into the foreign bureau of the stalinist bureaucracy, this made the isolation more permanent. Had it not been for soviet victory in the ww2 and subsequent setting of new deformed worker's states the soviet union would have most likely collapsed much sooner.

Of course there is much mroe to it, but I don't really have the time to go into a long historical discussion here. As far as your discussion pertains to tactics, genuine bolshevism is the antithesis of bureacratic dictatorships and "socialism in one country". Vincent Kolo also adresses the two-stage theory, which you so dearly adhere to and it's damaging effects.
I couldn't name one post-17 revolution that has not been greatly damaged by leaderships that held such ideas and the practice that flowed from it.

Do you mean to say that even if a theory is revolutionary, reactionary bureaucratic takeover can happen due to factors like civil war etc ?

[Saorsa]

Jesus christ, can we please ditch the false argument that because China restored capitalism Maoism is totally discredited? It's not even worth engaging with anymore, it's just too silly. Russia restored capitalism too, which should, according to this logic, discredit the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Trotsky. We'd end up with an anarchist (or perhaps more 'left' communist) approach of denouncing every revolutionary movement that attempts to topple state and build a new society, all from the comfort of our theoretical ivory towers.

I don't believe that the failure of the Russian Revolution, the various terrible political lines of the Militant Tendency, the shitness of the SWP or whatever invalidate Trotskyism. I think Trotskyism is a deeply flawed set of ideas with some mistakes and capitulations to liberalism and determinism at it's core, but I don't just denounce the whole thing as worthless because of it's various failures.

[Saorsa]

Red Dave:
That's political slander. Let me know when you buld a party in the US. Maoists have been active here for nearly 50 years, and the sum total, in party building, is nil.

Erm, what? For all that it's degenerated into a politically fucked up cult, the RCP remains the result of party building efforts initiated by Maoists following the upsurge of the 60s. There also the Freedom Rad Socialist groups. And Maoism was always a prominent and leading force in the new communist movement.

[red cat]

Jesus christ, can we please ditch the false argument that because China restored capitalism Maoism is totally discredited? It's not even worth engaging with anymore, it's just too silly. Russia restored capitalism too, which should, according to this logic, discredit the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Trotsky.

This is what I have been trying to make Mayakovsky realize.

[chegitz guevara]

However, when a party engages in military action against the state( which is necessary for a revolution ), and also in involving, organizing and empowering the working class, even outside observers can conclude that it is revolutionary.

So, UNITA, RENAMO, and The Lord's Resistance Army are all revolutionaries?