Trotskyism, Left Communism, and Leninism? [Archive]

View Full Version : Trotskyism, Left Communism, and Leninism?

Streetlight

25th February 2010, 06:26

I have been searching for the differences between Trotskyism, Left Communism, and Leninism but have been unsuccessful at finding clear cut answers. I was wondering if someone would be able to explain the main differences in these three tendencies and why they each get tons of criticism from the others. Thanks !

zimmerwald1915

25th February 2010, 06:58

It might help if you clarified what you meant by "Leninism". It's a rather wider term than either Trotskyism or Left Communism (heck, the Bordigists and most Trotskyists claim to be more Leninist than anyone else), and is used by many people to mean many different things.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th February 2010, 10:21

Trotskyism is (or should be) a Leninist sub-current, since Trotsky was indeed a Bolshevik in the same mould as many others under the leadership of Lenin.

For me, Trotskyism and Leninism, just like Stalinism, are one and the same. Their disagreements are more petty political than ideological, more engineered than organic.

el_chavista

25th February 2010, 11:04

There is no difference between Leninism and Trotskyism as Trotskyists are supposed to be like the original Marxists of the 1917 Russian Revolution.
On the other hand, left communists are not Leninist.

RED DAVE

25th February 2010, 11:05

Trotskyism is (or should be) a Leninist sub-current, since Trotsky was indeed a Bolshevik in the same mould as many others under the leadership of Lenin.Basically correct. Lenin chose Trotsky (not Stalin) to be the leader of the actual overthrow of the February regime.

For me, Trotskyism and Leninism, just like Stalinism, are one and the same. Their disagreements are more petty political than ideological, more engineered than organic.The differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism (let's leave Lenin out of this for a moment) are vast. They include such crucial issues as the class nature of the USSR and China and the role of the native bourgeoisie in third world revolutions.

RED DAVE

Streetlight

25th February 2010, 15:55

What about Trotskyism and Left Communism, what are the major differences in these two tendencies?

Die Rote Fahne

25th February 2010, 15:57

What about Trotskyism and Left Communism, what are the major differences in these two tendencies?

It depends. There are different aspects to "Left Communism" such as Luxemburgism and Council Communism.

25th February 2010, 16:11

The difference between us Trotskyists and the rest are that we are pretty scientific, whilst the left-communists wear pink glasses and the stalino-kiddos are simply blood thirsty.
That is not a very scientific description of Left-Communism or Stalinism, now is it?

Luxemburg was a leninist. Numerous times quotes of her have been taken out of context to show that she was against Lenin. The SPD was the german vanguard party.
Basically I agree, with the key difference that calling the SPD "Leninist" is a bit silly as the SPD predated the RSDLP as a mass party and indeed Lenin's central goal was to establish a Russian variant of the SPD, fitting the conditions of Russia and fighting for more political freedom as a means to further this goal. Lenin was therefore more an "Erfurtian".

zimmerwald1915

25th February 2010, 16:14

What about Trotskyism and Left Communism, what are the major differences in these two tendencies?
The Left Communists split from/were expelled from the Comintern much earlier than were the Trotskyists, and consequently believe that it degenerated as an International much earlier than do the Trotskyists. The major consequenses of this difference are that Left Communists base their analyses on the decisions reached primarily at the first-to-fourth Congresses (groups coming out of the German Left Communist tradition tend to base themselves on only the first two). They reject the United Front, the Popular Front, the alliance with the bourgeoisie in the colonial world, and other such policies. The Trotskyists split from/were expelled from the Comintern in the late twenties/early thirties, whereas the Left Communists split from/were expelled from the Comintern in the early twenties. The Trotskyists therefore carry with them certain baggage that Left Communists reject: for example, Trotskyists are very attached to the United Front as a tactic, and believe there are situations where it is appropriate, whereas Left Communists do not.

Beyond that, there are differences over the social position of the unions (Left Communists see them as cops for the bourgeoisie within the working class, whereas Trotskyists see them as dominated by reactionary leadership but reconquerable), on the nature of the USSR and similar states (Left Communists are rather clearer on state capitalism than Cliffites, for example, and other Trotskyists don't subscribe to such a thesis at all), and on a couple other arcane issues.

Tower of Bebel

25th February 2010, 16:22

I would argue that Leninism - as a spicific ideology and set of organizational principles - arose from the Russian experience, but is still firmly rooted in earlier Marxist traditions. Several new traditions were formed afterwards. Left Communism resulted from a political split when both the Russian soviet system and the Comintern were facing degeneration (c.f. the failure of the German Revolution). Left Communism tries to counter bureaucratism by opposing the principles of the Comintern that were inherently linked to the survival of an isolated Revolution. Trotskyism is the result of a political split (even though the political character of this split was only formed after a sectarian split years earlier) from that same Comintern. Yet this time the principles of the early Comintern are still adhered to. Bureaucratism gets countered differently. The reason why lies with the formation of a new ideology: Stalinism, which grew out of the Soviet Union during the late twenties.

Die Rote Fahne

25th February 2010, 16:41

The difference between us Trotskyists and the rest are that we are pretty scientific, whilst the left-communists wear pink glasses and the stalino-kiddos are simply blood thirsty.

Luxemburg was a leninist. Numerous times quotes of her have been taken out of context to show that she was against Lenin. The SPD was the german vanguard party.

Disagree. Too lazy to argue.

Muzk

25th February 2010, 16:46

Disagree. Too lazy to argue.

same

Luisrah

25th February 2010, 22:33

The difference between us Trotskyists and the rest are that we are pretty scientific, whilst the left-communists wear pink glasses and the stalino-kiddos are simply blood thirsty.

I think you got it all wrong, but I'm not in for a tendency war.

It's really not good to say sectarian shit like that, you're doing no good to the left, as you are helping the right.
Well, I guess some trotskyists end up always doing that.

zimmerwald1915

26th February 2010, 02:02

Disagree. Too lazy to argue.
My feelings about 99% of Revleft:cool:

#FF0000

26th February 2010, 09:27

What horrible answers.

Let me try.

First off, Leninism can be most simply be summarized as the political ideas of Lenin. Pretty simple. But, what I think you may be referring to is Marxism-Leninism which was the official ideology of the Soviet Union. Nowadays, Marxist-Leninists are folks who uphold the opinion that the USSR was genuinely socialist all the way up to and including Stalin's era. Marxist-Leninist parties support the idea of a Vanguard Party, national-liberation and anti-imperialist struggles, and that sort of thing.

Marxist-Leninist parties: Party for Socialism and Liberation (www.pslweb.org (http://www.pslweb.org)), American Party Of Labor (www.americanpartyoflabor.com (http://www.americanpartyoflabor.com))

Left-Communists and Trotskyists can also generally be considered "Leninist" because they do base themselves in Leninist thought (or at least consider themselves to be, if only somewhat in the case of left-communists).

Left-Communism represents a range of ideologies that are all generally disagree with the direction the Bolsheviks went in after 1917. But, like I said, it's a wide range of ideologies, ranging for the more Leninist variety (Bordigism), to the more "libertarian" (Council Communism). Left-Communists generally oppose national liberation movements, as they don't feel they jive with the idea of proletarian internationalism. They also have their own ideas on the role of the party in a revolution.

Left-Communist Organizations: International Communist Current (www.internationalism.org (http://www.internationalism.org)), International Communist Tendency (http://www.leftcom.org/)

And then Trotskyists are another group that aren't fans of Stalin, and are of the opinion that after Lenin died and Stalin took over, that the USSR ceased to be a workers state and instead a degenerated workers state. I'll let a Trotskyist explain the details because, tbh i just realized I never paid any attention to Trotskyism.

Trotskyist parties: International Marxist Tendency (marxist.com), International Socialist Organization (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/)

Kassad

26th February 2010, 19:08

Just a heads up to all posters: one word posts or reponses that quote and just say "I agree" or something along those lines, or comments with absolutely no substance, are spam. Next time, there will be verbal warnings.

The Ungovernable Farce

27th February 2010, 20:46

The Left Communists split from/were expelled from the Comintern much earlier than were the Trotskyists, and consequently believe that it degenerated as an International much earlier than do the Trotskyists. The major consequenses of this difference are that Left Communists base their analyses on the decisions reached primarily at the first-to-fourth Congresses (groups coming out of the German Left Communist tradition tend to base themselves on only the first two). They reject the United Front, the Popular Front, the alliance with the bourgeoisie in the colonial world, and other such policies. The Trotskyists split from/were expelled from the Comintern in the late twenties/early thirties, whereas the Left Communists split from/were expelled from the Comintern in the early twenties. The Trotskyists therefore carry with them certain baggage that Left Communists reject: for example, Trotskyists are very attached to the United Front as a tactic, and believe there are situations where it is appropriate, whereas Left Communists do not.

Beyond that, there are differences over the social position of the unions (Left Communists see them as cops for the bourgeoisie within the working class, whereas Trotskyists see them as dominated by reactionary leadership but reconquerable), on the nature of the USSR and similar states (Left Communists are rather clearer on state capitalism than Cliffites, for example, and other Trotskyists don't subscribe to such a thesis at all), and on a couple other arcane issues.
Is it not also the case that Left Communists see the Trots as being the extreme left wing of capitalism, since they always end up supporting one section or the other of the bourgeoisie? The faction of the bourgeoisie the Trots side with changes (e.g. Labour/Social Democrat parties for IMT types, the Arab bourgeoisie for the "anti-imperialists"), but the side they're fundamentally on doesn't.

Devrim

27th February 2010, 23:27

Crux

28th February 2010, 17:09

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

and yes, unlike most people I have read the "left communist" response by Herman Gorter. He basically concedes on every point.

red cat

28th February 2010, 17:28

Basically yes. I don't like the term 'extreme left wing of capitalism' personally, but it does sum it up. For us the problem with Trotskyism is not that it is 'authoritarian', but that its politics are bourgeois.

Devrim

Personally I find the left-communist line very deceiving. Your official line probably denounces Trotskyists from a later stage, but in other places left communists say that Trots were counter-revolutionary around the time of WW1 itself. You also somehow make Trots and Leninists responsible for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg.

zimmerwald1915

28th February 2010, 17:41

Is it not also the case that Left Communists see the Trots as being the extreme left wing of capitalism, since they always end up supporting one section or the other of the bourgeoisie? The faction of the bourgeoisie the Trots side with changes (e.g. Labour/Social Democrat parties for IMT types, the Arab bourgeoisie for the "anti-imperialists"), but the side they're fundamentally on doesn't.
Devrim outlined the LC position on this with his usual alacrity, but there was a reason I didn't include this in my post. Basically, the OP seems like a decent person who wants to educate himself/herself: arguments over just who is betraying the workers this week, as well as jargon-y phrases like "the left wing of capital" impede such self-education.

Personally I find the left-communist line very deceiving. Your official line probably denounces Trotskyists from a later stage, but in other places left communists say that Trots were counter-revolutionary around the time of WW1 itself. You also somehow make Trots and Leninists responsible for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg.
I'm pretty sure that there were exactly zero Trotskyists in the world in 1914. Same in 1919.:rolleyes:

Crux

28th February 2010, 18:32

Devrim outlined the LC position on this with his usual alacrity, but there was a reason I didn't include this in my post. Basically, the OP seems like a decent person who wants to educate himself/herself: arguments over just who is betraying the workers this week, as well as jargon-y phrases like "the left wing of capital" impede such self-education.

I'm pretty sure that there were exactly zero Trotskyists in the world in 1914. Same in 1919.:rolleyes:
Because the thousands who went on to form the Left Opposition, in the soviet union and in the comintern, only a couple of years later appeared out of thin air?

I think what red cat was hinting at was the ww1 "left communist" line of continuing the first world war as a revolutionary war of the red army.

28th February 2010, 18:50

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

and yes, unlike most people I have read the "left communist" response by Herman Gorter. He basically concedes on every point.

Whereas your strategies of being ultra-opportunistic to the point of selling out every struggle has worked so well, thanks for your input. All the successful mass Trot organisations, revolutions and movements - as has been pointed out before - have either changed their character to the point where they weren't really 'Trotskyist', sold out or failed and become sect-like jokes (for instance the SWP US).

So I don't see what you've got to brag about, you've failed consistently thanks to selling out or been pushed by more militant Trots who broke away from Trotskyism into "ultra-leftism", people in glass houses and all that.

red cat

28th February 2010, 19:04

I'm pretty sure that there were exactly zero Trotskyists in the world in 1914. Same in 1919.:rolleyes:
But there were people who would later claim Trotskyism to be the correct extension of Leninism. Trots who trace their origin to Leninism will want to know how Leninists are responsible for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg.

Streetlight

28th February 2010, 19:15

Crux

28th February 2010, 20:08

Whereas your strategies of being ultra-opportunistic to the point of selling out every struggle has worked so well, thanks for your input. All the successful mass Trot organisations, revolutions and movements - as has been pointed out before - have either changed their character to the point where they weren't really 'Trotskyist', sold out or failed and become sect-like jokes (for instance the SWP US).

So I don't see what you've got to brag about, you've failed consistently thanks to selling out or been pushed by more militant Trots who broke away from Trotskyism into "ultra-leftism", people in glass houses and all that.
I won't dignify that with a response.

Crux

28th February 2010, 20:27

RED DAVE

28th February 2010, 20:31

Thanks for all the responses thus far! I still don't seem to understand too well why Left Communists and Trots get the beating from other groups on the left. I'm starting to find my views are very similar to those of the Trots and LC, but I am just trying to figure out why they get such a bad rep. For instance I agree with the internationalist movement as opposed to national and I also agree with the use of a vanguard party, but I think that any worker who would like to be in the vanguard party should be allowed in and to help spread the word to the workers of the world.The reason is, fundamentally, related to an analysis of global class struggle. Trotskyists, and related groups, and Left Communists, tend to orient towards class struggle in the major industrial countries.

Maoists tend to look towards the struggles in so-called third world countries, where they, at the current time, posit a two-stage revoution: first a bourgeois revolution, where the Maoists collaborate with the national bourgeoisie. Then, allegedly, a socialist revolution.

It is not clear to me what Maoist strategy towards the working class is in first world countries.

Trotskyists, currently, are trying to build working class parties in the so-called first world countries, leading to socialist revolution.

Trotskyist groups in third world countries adhere to the strategy of permanent revolution, where the working class carries out both the bourgeois and socialist revolution, mnore or less simultaneously, expecting, in short order, revolution in major industrial countries.

Maoists allege that Trotskyists ignore struggles in the third world. Most Trotskyists believe that the consequences of Maoist strategy is state capitalism, leading to private capitalism, as happened in China, homeland of the Maoist system.

There are Maoist groups in the first world and Trotskyist groups in the third world. Time will tell which group has the proper global strategy.

RED DAVE

Crux

28th February 2010, 20:53

Maoists allege that Trotskyists ignore struggles in the third world. Most Trotskyists believe that the consequences of Maoist strategy is state capitalism, leading to private capitalism, as happened in China, homeland of the Maoist system.

RED DAVE
Well, I do think it is possible for a maoist or other stalinist oriented movement to set up a deformed worker's state, meaning a state where private property is effectively abolished but control, political and economic, are not in the hands of the worker's but in a bureaucratic elite.
Actually, back in the day, the idea that the soviet union was state capitalist was one of the defining differences between trotskyism and ultraleftism ("left communism"). However, given their two-stage theory it is likely that a stalinist led revolution, unless significant pressure is made from below, won't even go that far, especially now without any major stalinist bloc, like east europe and china once were, to move in and support. On the other hand, the lack of such a bloc might make it easier for a genuine revolutionary tendency to organize and gain support.

And as a final note beyond the IST and ex-IST organization I don't think that you could say that most trotskyists espouse the idea of the former USSR and other stalinist-led countries as state capitalism. This idea that the Eastern Bloc were just another capitalist country made the IST underestimate the ideological effect the collapse of the soviet union had on the working class and most social democratic, ex-Stalinist and other left organizations.

This was actually a debate inside the american section of the fourth international at the time of the beginning of WW2, a debate which, I believe, Trotsky won:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/index.htm

SocialismOrBarbarism

28th February 2010, 21:28

For us the problem with Trotskyism is not that it is 'authoritarian', but that its politics are bourgeois.

Care to elaborate?

zimmerwald1915

1st March 2010, 07:50

Because the thousands who went on to form the Left Opposition, in the soviet union and in the comintern, only a couple of years later appeared out of thin air?
Of course not. But during the period considered (1914-1919) most of them had no separate organizational identity, and were considered by themselves and by their contemporaries to be part of the same, proto-Communist and then Communist, movement. The Left Opposition developed in the mid-1920s.

I think what red cat was hinting at was the ww1 "left communist" line of continuing the first world war as a revolutionary war of the red army.
I'm not entirely sure how you see that in his post. Red Cat accuses Left Communists today of seeing the Bolsheviks (I assume that's what he means when he says "Trots and Leninists") as counter-revolutionary around the time of WWI. To my knowledge, there is no Left Communist organization today that holds that position; at the time of WWI, the Bolsheviks were both internationalist and revolutionary, according to every modern Left Communist text I've read.

But there were people who would later claim Trotskyism to be the correct extension of Leninism. Trots who trace their origin to Leninism will want to know how Leninists are responsible for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg.
Please produce one text claiming that the Bolsheviks were responsible for Luxemburg's murder. I don't believe you can, particularly as we both know that the culprits were the SPD and the Freikorps, the protagonists of the counter-revolution.

The Ungovernable Farce

1st March 2010, 14:18

Sinred

1st March 2010, 15:36

*sigh...*
To avoid a flamewar i will try to give a reasonable answer to the main question of the thread about how council communism, trotskism and marxism-leninism seperates from each other. Instead of (like now) sliding away to thousands of history lessons no one here ever will come to any conclusion with or getting some sort of sense out of. This since we all have different view of what happened in USSR etc etc.
Lets try focus on the ideology's and what they want today.
I myself is a marxist-leninist and i will try to be as unbiased as i can, and if any trot or council communist feel a urge to fill in gaps ive missed or misunderstood you're more than welcome.

Keep in mind:
* every subranch i mentioned has even more subranches. And all branches has everything from cults to big partys.
* Stalinism is mainly a slur against marxist-leninists by other branches of socialists, not an actuall ideology. Stalin was the creator of the concept marxism-leninism and the main view of him is that of a good philosopher, but we do everything from reject him to (most often) have understanding for his actions. Sure there are some misguided people (often pretty secterian) calling themself stalinists, but all major branches goes with just marxist-leninist and try not to look back at russia under the stalin-era since its pretty irrelevant for todays struggle or way for future socialist states.
* every branch and ideology has tendencys not im not going mentioned here, partly beacause that would take forever and also because they are often very smal. There are marxist-leninists who view them self as stalinist, ive meet racial council communists (calling themself "free nationalists") and trotskyts supporting soviet. I will just cover the main branches within every ideology.
What they all got in common: the revolutionary need to owerthrow capitalism and build a socialist world based on the princip of power to the working class and/or peasants.

Council communism: the main tendency (at least from where im from) is that council communism reject the trotskist and marxist-leninist model of a leading or assisting party for the revolution. Instead it focus on the power of many councils for future socialism. They put great weight of the spontaneous struggle of the working class, rather than organized ones.
Branches:
Im pretty sucky as describing the various branches of council communism so i leave that to someone else.

Trotskists: belive, just as the marxist-leninist, they approve Lenins model of building a workers party for the revolutionary movement, a revolution and, in the end, a socialist world. The difference is how it will be done. Trotskists belive in the theory permanent revolution, Trotskys transition program and even more in a revolution who will spread thru the world in basically one wave, while other communists sees the spreading of socialism from country to country to take place after each country's own circumstances. Trotskists believe that it is possible to organize the big revolution in a international way by some of the many internationals (international organization) trotskysts seem to love. The critics trots have against marxist-leninists and council communists is based on how they (the trotskists) generally reject the possibility of building socialism in one country at the time.
Branches
Orthodox Trotskism: "dogmatic" form of trotskism, almost 100% dedicated to trotskys teachings.
Third Camp: a classical, still somewhat adjusted way of trotskism.
Other: around thousands of small partys and internationals arguing who have come up with the ultimate theory for revolution.

Marxism-leninism
Belive just like trotskysm in a vanguard party but with different tactics. It also put great weight in antiimperialism and that every nation always has the right to defend itself against imperialism and its invasions. They belive more in building socialism after each countrys possibility and circumstances rather than working out a program for all nations (like trotskists). In other word "digg where you stand" and build socialism where you live without being nationalist, antimmigration or racist.
Our critic against trotskysm and council communism isnt that we dislike the possibilty of a great permanent revolution or councils running socialism, we just think its unrealistic, deluded and doesn't build on anything but good thoughts of how it should be rather than it actually is.
Branches
Revisionist communism ("communism lite"): belive it may be possible for a peacefull transition from capitalism to socialism. Was faithfull to soviet and has bigger tolerance for invasions of other countrys than other marxist-leninists.
Maoism ("die hard communism"): put big emphasis on third world revolution. Uncompromising people war against any form of capitalism and imperialism. Was faithful to china (thou not after Maos death). Hated soviet after stalin-era.
Third way ("the middle way"): may see maoism as somewhat relevant to the third world but useless to western struggle, and view revisionist communists as disguised social democrats and traitors of communism.

red cat

1st March 2010, 23:07

Of course not. But during the period considered (1914-1919) most of them had no separate organizational identity, and were considered by themselves and by their contemporaries to be part of the same, proto-Communist and then Communist, movement. The Left Opposition developed in the mid-1920s.

I'm not entirely sure how you see that in his post. Red Cat accuses Left Communists today of seeing the Bolsheviks (I assume that's what he means when he says "Trots and Leninists") as counter-revolutionary around the time of WWI. To my knowledge, there is no Left Communist organization today that holds that position; at the time of WWI, the Bolsheviks were both internationalist and revolutionary, according to every modern Left Communist text I've read.

Please produce one text claiming that the Bolsheviks were responsible for Luxemburg's murder. I don't believe you can, particularly as we both know that the culprits were the SPD and the Freikorps, the protagonists of the counter-revolution.

I already showed where the ICC made that claim in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1666846&postcount=191) post.

The article is written in some Indian language.

The part in red says that all Maoist, Trot and Stalinist parties stemmed from social democrats who gave up proletarian politics during WW1, destroyed the revolution in Germany and murdered Luxemburg etc.

zimmerwald1915

2nd March 2010, 00:16

I already showed where the ICC made that claim in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1666846&postcount=191) post.

The article is written in some Indian language.

The part in red says that all Maoist, Trot and Stalinist parties stemmed from social democrats who gave up proletarian politics during WW1, destroyed the revolution in Germany and murdered Luxemburg etc.
Congratulations, you've managed to find one source. Then again, it's hardly fair, citing a source only one of us can read. It's almost like I'd have to trust your translation in order to know what it says. And I totally trust you not to abuse that privilige. Or to make an absolutely correct translation (I think the text you quoted is in Bengali, in case you ever want to name the language).

Then again, it would seem like the text you quoted was an article in "Communist Internationalist". I don't know how they do things in India, but I've written for "Internationalism" and I've got to say, there's no terribly extensive vetting process in the States. For comparison, here is a relevant quote from the ICC platform (in English, so we can both read it), to which every member and section is to adhere:

The International Communist Current affirms its continuity with the contributions made by the Communist League, the First, Second and Third Internationals, and the left fractions which detached themselves from the latter, in particular the German, Dutch, and Italian Left.
If Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists etc. have heritage in the Second International, so does every extant and historical group of the Communist Left. If your reading of the Bengali article is correct, then, logically, the ICC is responsible for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg! Hardly something I think an ICC member or sympathizer would write.

The SPD murdered Luxemburg and the revolution; that does not mean Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Left Communists, etc. did. It means that each of these tendencies has heritage in the same millieu that also spawned the agents of counter-revolution in Germany, and that revolutionaries must fight those positions that led to the SPD becoming counter-revolutionary. In the eyes of the Communist Left, Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists etc...have not been successful.

red cat

2nd March 2010, 04:05

Congratulations, you've managed to find one source. Then again, it's hardly fair, citing a source only one of us can read. It's almost like I'd have to trust your translation in order to know what it says. And I totally trust you not to abuse that privilige. Or to make an absolutely correct translation (I think the text you quoted is in Bengali, in case you ever want to name the language).

Then again, it would seem like the text you quoted was an article in "Communist Internationalist". I don't know how they do things in India, but I've written for "Internationalism" and I've got to say, there's no terribly extensive vetting process in the States. For comparison, here is a relevant quote from the ICC platform (in English, so we can both read it), to which every member and section is to adhere:

If Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists etc. have heritage in the Second International, so does every extant and historical group of the Communist Left. If your reading of the Bengali article is correct, then, logically, the ICC is responsible for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg! Hardly something I think an ICC member or sympathizer would write.

The SPD murdered Luxemburg and the revolution; that does not mean Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Left Communists, etc. did. It means that each of these tendencies has heritage in the same millieu that also spawned the agents of counter-revolution in Germany, and that revolutionaries must fight those positions that led to the SPD becoming counter-revolutionary. In the eyes of the Communist Left, Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists etc...have not been successful.

It means that each of these tendencies has heritage in the same millieu that also spawned the agents of counter-revolution in Germany, and that revolutionaries must fight those positions that led to the SPD becoming counter-revolutionary.

I agree with the above analysis, but the ICC article I linked to hardly says so. Indians are a sixth of the world's population. What could be the reason that Indian left communists try to demonize other leftist groups even at the cost of deviating from their line?

black magick hustla

4th March 2010, 08:23

Care to elaborate?

It has to do with the positions trotskyism has taken historically and takes today. Support for the allies, entryism to the state, defense of imperialist "socialist" states, etc.

Crux

4th March 2010, 08:47

It has to do with the positions trotskyism has taken historically and takes today. Support for the allies, entryism to the state, defense of imperialist "socialist" states, etc.
The 4th international argued for defeatism in regards to the imperialist states, how you can make that "support for the allies" is beyond me. "Entryism to the state"? Do explain. Defence in the face of fascism and in the face of total destruction of all the revolutions gains yes, not in any way shape or form capitulation the the ruling castes of said states. Admittedly there were currents that took an uncritical view in regards to Cuba but they have since removed themself from trotskyism. no political tendency is immune, of course.

chegitz guevara

4th March 2010, 13:35

Most Trotskyists believe that the consequences of Maoist strategy is state capitalism, leading to private capitalism, as happened in China, homeland of the Maoist system.

Most Trots belong to one or another of the USFI groups (or its splits), which hold that the consequence of Maoism is a deformed workers state, not state capitalism.

red cat

4th March 2010, 13:39

Most Trots belong to one or another of the USFI groups (or its splits), which hold that the consequence of Maoism is a deformed workers state, not state capitalism.

What exactly do Trots call deformed workers' state and how does it differ from state capitalism ?

chegitz guevara

4th March 2010, 13:53

Mayakovsky gave a good description.
Well, I do think it is possible for a maoist or other stalinist oriented movement to set up a deformed worker's state, meaning a state where private property is effectively abolished but control, political and economic, are not in the hands of the worker's but in a bureaucratic elite.

In Russia, the proletariat overthrew the nobility and bourgeoisie, but then lost power to a political bureaucracy. So there was a workers state, but it degenerated. Hence the term degenerated workers state when referring to the USSR. In other places, like Eastern Europe, China, etc., the political power of the old ruling classes was overthrown (by the Red Army, etc), but the worker classes never held political power. State power was appropriated from the beginning by a political bureaucracy. They were deformed at birth, rather than degenerating like the USSR.

The distinction is largely an academic one, as in both cases, a political caste forms which takes control of the workers state, operating the state in the overall interest of the workers, but making sure they get the first and best cuts from the pie. They main argument within Trotskyism is whether these political castes form a new ruling class or are simply a ruling layer of the proletariat. While not a Trotskyist anymore, I think the degenerated/deformed workers state theory best explains history.

It's not entirely an academic question, as state cappies would, for example, not defend the Cuban state against American imperialism, though they would oppose American imperialism. I, however, would defend Cuba as a workers state, albeit one that has degenerated, though not as far as the USSR had.