New article shows Trotsky completely fabricated the "no Hotel Bristol" lie.

[Astinilats]

It has been widely known since the 1980s that Trotsky lied many times to the Dewey Commission about his involvement with the opposition in the USSR.

Trotsky and Trotskyite cultists have always tried to discredit the Moscow Trials with the example of the 'Hotel Bristol' issue. It was alleged that Holtzmann simply made this up, or that the prosecution bungled this detail, or some such nonsense. Now we know for a fact that not only is Holtzmann's testimony completely accurate and Trotsky a liar, but that Trotsky deliberately asked other Trotskyites to lie on his behalf in order to undermine the Moscow Trials on this issue.

The article is on the Cultural Logic website. The 25 post requirement prevents me from directly linking to the pdf file.

edit: http://clogic.eserver.org/2008/Holmstrom.pdf

[S.Artesian]

Trotsky's sons were dead before the Dewey Commission was ever formed.

[Astinilats]

Trotsky's sons were dead before the Dewey Commission was ever formed.

This is false. Lev Sedov died on February 16th, 1938. The Dewey Commission was initiated in March 1937 and the findings published in September of that same year.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, because when I'm organizing in my community, the first thing people ask me about is... 'Hotel Bristol'. Then they say, "you know the only thing preventing me from supporting Stalinism and a system that crushed workers while using the name of socialism to do and built a national empire on the backs of the working class and in the name of anti-imperialism is... the 'Hotel Bristol issue'".:laugh:

Dude, I don't even know what this obscure piece of Stalinalia is. But the fact that we are living at a time when the US bombing all over the world, imperialist competition between the US and up and coming competitors like China and Russia are heating up in the context of a global capitalist crisis... and 'the Hotel Bristol issue' is your big concern.... well, it says a lot.

[S.Artesian]

You are correct. My misread of the dates.

[Astinilats]

Yes, because when I'm organizing in my community, the first thing people ask me about is... 'Hotel Bristol'. Then they say, "you know the only thing preventing me from supporting Stalinism and a system that crushed workers while using the name of socialism to do and built a national empire on the backs of the working class and in the name of anti-imperialism is... the 'Hotel Bristol issue'".

The whole basis of the bullshit ISO spews is their cult of personality centered around Trotsky, who was simply a liar, and guilty as charged by the Soviet government. ISO is a cult, run by a handful of people who basically operate it as a publishing company, actively support US imperialism in Iran and Zimbabwe, and pretty much oppose all the progressive forces in the world today. ISO a disgusting, counter-revolutionary organization, as are most Trotskyite cults. The more information that is revealed to discredit your cult, the better for the world.

[S.Artesian]

T. ISO a disgusting, counter-revolutionary organization, as are most Trotskyite cults.

Does that mean there are some "Trotskyite cults" that aren't counter-revolutionary and disgusting?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The whole basis of the bullshit ISO spews is their cult of personality centered around Trotsky, who was simply a liar, and guilty as charged by the Soviet government. ISO is a cult, run by a handful of people who basically operate it as a publishing company, actively support US imperialism in Iran and Zimbabwe, and pretty much oppose all the progressive forces in the world today. ISO a disgusting, counter-revolutionary organization, as are most Trotskyite cults. The more information that is revealed to discredit your cult, the better for the world.

Cult of personality?:lol: And you are the one trying to refute the political tradition of Trotskyism by calling one person a liar?! Too bad I don't really care about Trotsky the individual, I care about how to build worker's power and revolution.

[Astinilats]

Does that mean there are some "Trotskyite cults" that aren't counter-revolutionary and disgusting?

Yes. Trotskyism has two component parts in dialectic opposition to one another; a more-or-less Marxist component and an unrelenting anti-communist component. Different Trotskyite groups have been attracted more toward one end of the pole than the other over the decades. Most Trotskyite cults, and especially Cliffite groups, occupy the anti-communist pole, while groups like the PSL and WWP have occupied the Marxist pole. Some groups, like the Sparts, are somewhere in the middle.

[red cat]

Does that mean there are some "Trotskyite cults" that aren't counter-revolutionary and disgusting?

Historically there have been Trotskyist parties, though very few in number, that have attempted violent revolutions. The ones in Sri Lanka and Argentina for example.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

On which planet does this tribe live?


Trotskyite

[vyborg]

It has been widely known since the 1980s that Trotsky lied many times to the Dewey Commission about his involvement with the opposition in the USSR.

Trotsky and Trotskyite cultists have always tried to discredit the Moscow Trials with the example of the 'Hotel Bristol' issue. It was alleged that Holtzmann simply made this up, or that the prosecution bungled this detail, or some such nonsense. Now we know for a fact that not only is Holtzmann's testimony completely accurate and Trotsky a liar, but that Trotsky deliberately asked other Trotskyites to lie on his behalf in order to undermine the Moscow Trials on this issue.

The article is on the Cultural Logic website. The 25 post requirement prevents me from directly linking to the pdf file.

Do you imply that you consider the moscow trials a fair game? That you think the conclusions reached by those trials are something connected to reality? I think even the most crazy stalinist should admit that the moscow trials were show to terrorize russian population and especially the bolshevik militants. they are so farcical that seem a creation of McCarthy to discredit Stalin

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Can we now have an article that shows how the Stalinists made an alliance with the Nazis? Or, is that a lie, too?

[vyborg]

It is sufficient a picture I think.... (http://images.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/tmp_assets/ep1a_img1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/episode-1/ep1_stalins_pact.html&usg=__vvG4DS04TUOgzHQDNTs-u6r6aWI=&h=550&w=838&sz=74&hl=it&start=4&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=V9Cdp_jHpe2WXM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmolotov%2Bribbentrop%26um%3D1%26hl%3D it%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:it:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7SMSN_it%26tbs%3Disch:1)

[Q]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Hotel Bristol" anyway?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^It was alleged in the Moscow trials that Trotsky met certain agents in this hotel in Copenhagen.


In the Zinoviev-Kamenev trials, it was claimed by the defendants Holtzman, Berman-Yurin and Fritz David that they visited Trotsky in Copenhagen at the end of November, 1932, and received from him instructions with reference to committing terroristic acts against leading figures in the Soviet Union. It was further claimed by Smirnov, Dreitzer and Olberg that they received similar instructions from Trotsky in writing.

Our evidence will show that Leon Trotsky never met and never heard of Berman-Yurin or Fritz David; that the said Berman-Yurin and Fritz David never met Leon Trotsky at Copenhagen or anywhere else, and that Trotsky never had any correspondence with them.

Holtzman, the most important of the three witnesses who claimed to have visited Trotsky in Copenhagen, testified that he met Trotsky’s son in the vestibule of the Hotel Bristol and that from there he was brought by Sedov to Trotsky’s apartment.

We shall show by written and oral testimony that Trotsky’s son, at the time in question, was not in Copenhagen but in Berlin, and that Trotsky and his wife, Natalia, were able to see their son only in France, on the train returning from Denmark. We shall prove that Sedov made several efforts to reach Copenhagen, but without any success.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session01.htm

The hotel, apparently, did not exist!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The context to this attempt to rehabilitate Stalin is outlined effectively here:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/category/ussr/

[S.Artesian]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Hotel Bristol" anyway?

It's the recording studio where Len Barry [real name Len Borisoff--coincidence? I think not] and the Deauvilles recorded The Bristol Stomp.

"The kids in Bristol
Are sharp as a pistol
When they do
The Bristol Stomp"

[gorillafuck]

Yes. Trotskyism has two component parts in dialectic opposition to one another; a more-or-less Marxist component and an unrelenting anti-communist component. Different Trotskyite groups have been attracted more toward one end of the pole than the other over the decades. Most Trotskyite cults, and especially Cliffite groups, occupy the anti-communist pole, while groups like the PSL and WWP have occupied the Marxist pole. Some groups, like the Sparts, are somewhere in the middle.
The PSL and WWP are "Trotskyite cults"?

At least learn about the parties that you try to talk about.

[red cat]

On which planet does this tribe live?

He probably refers to Trotskyists that way.

[Nolan]

Can we now have an article that shows how the Stalinists made an alliance with the Nazis? Or, is that a lie, too? Lol, we're exposed and cornered so we're gonna change the subject.

[Astinilats]

Do you imply that you consider the moscow trials a fair game?

Anyone who actually bothers to study the issue objectively will come to the same conclusion.


I think even the most crazy stalinist should admit that the moscow trials were show to terrorize russian population and especially the bolshevik militants.

You 'think' wrong. Only anti-communist and Trotskyite cultists believe that.


they are so farcical that seem a creation of McCarthy to discredit Stalin

Feel free to try and prove this then.

[Astinilats]

^^^It was alleged in the Moscow trials that Trotsky met certain agents in this hotel in Copenhagen.

The hotel, apparently, did not exist!

Thanks for attempting to stay on topic with this post, even though it is evident you won't read anything that contradicts Trotskyite mythology.

Now lets go over the facts:

1. New photographic evidence reveals that in 1932, the entrance to the hotel was right beside the entrance to the Bristol cafe, which had a large sign over it and allowed entrance into the hotel itself.

2. The Trotskyites that were with Trotsky in 1932 said they had been to this store then, and it was several doors down, which was the case in 1937, but not 1932, as new photographic evidence indicates.

3. The only possible explanation for this is Trotsky deliberately asked them to lie to the Dewey Commission.

4. We already knew from his son and Trotsky's archives that Trotsky was in contact with Holtzmann anyway, but this just goes to show Holtzmann wasn't making anything up.

Indeed, the original Trotskyite explanation is that his prosecutors simply made it up. Did they just happen to make up a lie about a "Hotel Bristol" about a place where, in 1932, the only entrance to it was right beside a cafe with a large sign that said "BRISTOL" that allowed entrance into the hotel, and was owned in common anyway? No, Holtzmann was telling the truth.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


He probably refers to Trotskyists that way.

He can't be doing so; Trotskyists exist in this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

Now, if you want to say these are identical, then you must be a late convert to the validity of the 'law of identity'.:lol:

On the other hand, if you question to concrete application of this 'law', they can't be identical.

Which is probably part of the reason why they do not inhabit this planet...:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Captain Cuba:


Lol, we're exposed and cornered so we're gonna change the subject.

Where did I say we should change the subject? The point is that Stalin-apologists have no right to point any fingers at Trotsky, even if it turns out that this article is correct.

However, as far as I can see it relies largely on testimony extracted under torture/threats, and is thus no more reliable than similar tesimonty extracted by the US 'security services' at Guantanamo Bay, or Bagram.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



He can't be doing so; Trotskyists exist in this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

Now, if you want to say these are idential, then you must be a late convert to the validity of the 'law of identity'.:lol:

On the other hand, if you question to concrete application of this 'law', they can't be identical.

Which is probably part of the reason why they do not inhabit this planet...:) He calls Trotskyists Trotskyites.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stalinist-Anagram:


Trotskyite

Once more, on which planet does this interesting tribe live?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


He calls Trotskyists Trotskyites

Then he is confiused. Trotskyists certainly exist on this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Then he is confiused. Trotskyists certainly exist on this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

If he calls Trotskyists "Trotskyites", then by definition Trotskyites are Trotskyists and hence exist on this planet.

[Invader Zim]

I have a question, regarding both the OP and Rosa's semantic quibble:

Who cares?

[Astinilats]

However, as far as I can see it relies largely on testimony extracted under torture/threats

1. You can't produce a shred of evidence regarding torture or threats.

2. We already know from Trotsky's archives and his own son that they were in contact with Holtzmann, despite the lies Trotsky told the Dewey Commission.

3. This paper shows Trotsky deliberately set up this fabrication. That is, he deliberately asked his Trotskyite cohorts to lie about their activities at the hotel.

[vyborg]

You 'think' wrong. Only anti-communist and Trotskyite cultists believe that.

Luckily stalinist, once the dominant factor in the labour movement, are irrelevant in most of the world. So a discussion to convince a hard stalinist, that in the 50s would be very important, now is something like weird.

Anyway now we know this guy believes in moscow trial. this means that every single leader of the bolshevik party was an imperialist stooge but stalin...this is what that trial tried to show. of course this is ridicolous. unless you are more stalinist than stalin himself

[Weezer]

The whole basis of the bullshit ISO spews is their cult of personality centered around Trotsky, who was simply a liar,

haha omg

Stalin? Ever heard of the man? You think he told the truth all the times? Oh my god, every one of you Stalinist trolls get funnier everytime.

Why does this matter anyway? Get out of the '40s. Do you honestly think the majority of the proletariat really think this will help them?

[Astinilats]

Luckily stalinist, once the dominant factor in the labour movement, are irrelevant in most of the world. So a discussion to convince a hard stalinist, that in the 50s would be very important, now is something like weird.

This is completely false on many levels. The only groups doing anything of any serious note today are all Marxist-Leninist or Maoist groups that uphold Stalin. In addition, in most countries, the groups that have the largest penetration in the labor movement are Marxist-Leninist. I know this is definitely a fact in the US, where Trotskyite parties are largely divorced from anything except the student movement.


Anyway now we know this guy believes in moscow trial. this means that every single leader of the bolshevik party was an imperialist stooge but stalin...this is what that trial tried to show. of course this is ridicolous. unless you are more stalinist than stalin himself

There were lots of Old Bolsheviks not involved with plotting against the government. It is not an issue of Stalin vs everyone else, but the Party versus those who wanted to destroy it for their own purposes. This involved them making deals with foreign powers that were also interested in the destruction of the government.

[Kassad]

Yes. Trotskyism has two component parts in dialectic opposition to one another; a more-or-less Marxist component and an unrelenting anti-communist component. Different Trotskyite groups have been attracted more toward one end of the pole than the other over the decades. Most Trotskyite cults, and especially Cliffite groups, occupy the anti-communist pole, while groups like the PSL and WWP have occupied the Marxist pole. Some groups, like the Sparts, are somewhere in the middle.

That is... the weirdest way I have ever seen my party (PSL) characterized. Care to elaborate your very malinformed and odd perspective?

[Astinilats]

That is... the weirdest way I have ever seen my party (PSL) characterized. Care to elaborate your very malinformed and odd perspective?

The followers of Marcy discarded the anti-communist component of Trotskyism and are basically Marxist-Leninist groups. Others, like the Shachtmanites, abandoned the the Marxist element completely for the anti-communist one and became neocons.

[gorillafuck]

The followers of Marcy discarded the anti-communist component of Trotskyism and are basically Marxist-Leninist groups. Others, like the Shachtmanites, abandoned the the Marxist element completely for the anti-communist one and became neocons.
What is the perspective of the Astinilites on the cultites in the PSL and WWP's unique brand of Trotskyitism? For Trotskyites, the Marcyites are much less anti-communite than the Cliffites in the International Socialite Organization.

[bailey_187]

Yes, because when I'm organizing in my community, the first thing people ask me about is... 'Hotel Bristol'. Then they say, "you know the only thing preventing me from supporting Stalinism and a system that crushed workers while using the name of socialism to do and built a national empire on the backs of the working class and in the name of anti-imperialism is... the 'Hotel Bristol issue'".:laugh:

Dude, I don't even know what this obscure piece of Stalinalia is. But the fact that we are living at a time when the US bombing all over the world, imperialist competition between the US and up and coming competitors like China and Russia are heating up in the context of a global capitalist crisis... and 'the Hotel Bristol issue' is your big concern.... well, it says a lot.

You may as well post this in every topic outside of the Politics and Workers Struggles forum.
Dialectics? Who cares.
Historical Materialism? Who really gives a fuck?
Depedency theory? Whatever.

This is the history forum on a communist website, if you dont want to hear debates on obscure parts of Communist history, gtfo.

What a stupid post you made.

[Paul Cockshott]

Stalinist-Anagram:



Once more, on which planet does this interesting tribe live?
Surely this is a matter of slightly different translations from the original Russian. The labels that political groups use will vary by the language being spoken, and when translations are made the same group may be refered to by slightly different words in a 2nd language.

[Paul Cockshott]

Luckily stalinist, once the dominant factor in the labour movement, are irrelevant in most of the world. So a discussion to convince a hard stalinist, that in the 50s would be very important, now is something like weird.

Anyway now we know this guy believes in moscow trial. this means that every single leader of the bolshevik party was an imperialist stooge but stalin...this is what that trial tried to show. of course this is ridicolous. unless you are more stalinist than stalin himself
I suspect that this may show a certain Western Hemisphere bias. South and East Asia remain significant parts of the world.

[S.Artesian]

I suspect that this may show a certain Western Hemisphere bias. South and East Asia remain significant parts of the world.


What about you, Paul? What's you bias? Do you think Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Radek, Trotsky, etc.etc.etc. were all plotting in one way or another, at some time or another, against the survival of the proletarian revolution in-- or out-- of the USSR?

[red cat]

I suspect that this may show a certain Western Hemisphere bias. South and East Asia remain significant parts of the world.

Don't forget Latin America. Both PCP(SL) and FARC are Stalinist.

[Weezer]

You may as well post this in every topic outside of the Politics and Workers Struggles forum.
Dialectics? Who cares.
Historical Materialism? Who really gives a fuck?
Depedency theory? Whatever.

This is the history forum on a communist website, if you dont want to hear debates on obscure parts of Communist history, gtfo.

What a stupid post you made.

Isn't theory different from history?

[Paul Cockshott]

What about you, Paul? What's you bias? Do you think Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Radek, Trotsky, etc.etc.etc. were all plotting in one way or another, at some time or another, against the survival of the proletarian revolution in-- or out-- of the USSR?

I would not claim expertise on this never having made a specific study of it. If you are asking for my own judgement based on what I have read, I would say that I would give about 60/40 odds on several of them being involved in plotting against the the Soviet Govt. Whether that was against the survival of the proletarian revolution in the USSR would then be a matter of opinion, which different people could draw different conclusions from.

[bailey_187]

Isn't theory different from history?

Yeah. So?

Its still stuff you could say is of 0 use on a picket line, organising etc.

You can organise a strike without knowing if there is unity in opposites etc

Jimmy tried to pull the "well i am a real activist" card, presumably because he has no argument against the OP.

On a Communist forum, in the history section, is it really that amazing to find us discussing obscure aspects of Communist history?

[Jimmie Higgins]

You may as well post this in every topic outside of the Politics and Workers Struggles forum.
Dialectics? Who cares.
Historical Materialism? Who really gives a fuck?
Depedency theory? Whatever.

This is the history forum on a communist website, if you dont want to hear debates on obscure parts of Communist history, gtfo.

What a stupid post you made.

Dialectics, Historical Materialism and other history and their validity or invalidity do have bearing on how we organize and conceptualize what's going on now as well as in the past. Even if Trotsky lied, how does that impact a critique of the USSR, of "socialism in one country"? It doesn't.

Since Stalinists have no political leg to stand on, since Stalinists betrayed workers in country after country in the interests of USSR foreign policy and ruling class interests, since Stalin made deals with Hitler as well as FDR and Churchill, since Stalinism is essentially Democratic Socialism with a gun, modern Stalinists have no way to make their politics look attractive other than to call all criticism of the USSR "imperialist" not matter what the class politics and anyone who criticized the great leader must be a liar.

I think it's time that the Stalinists go back to their little town of Bedrock, and make some Pterodactyl egg omelets. Enjoy your irrelevance.

[Jimmie Higgins]

On a Communist forum, in the history section, is it really that amazing to find us discussing obscure aspects of Communist history?

Maybe we should have a gossip section of the website. Ooh, look at that smart outfit on Che - what a trend-setter. Ut-oh looks like Mao is having a hard time with those paparazzi. Here's Trotsky, drunk in public again and accidentally exposing his hoo-ha.

Ok, seriously, tell me what POLITICAL point there is in this? The OP's thesis: Trotsky lies and everybody knows this and he instructed others to lie. Even if this is true, this is not political and is not relevant history unless you believe in the great man theory of history, in which case you are not a historical materialist and therefore not a Marxist.

[Kléber]

This is ridiculous. There was no Hotel Bristol, end of story. There was a "Grand Hotel" and a "Konditori (Confectionery) Bristol." The rest is pseudo-academic bullshit.

[vyborg]

I suspect that this may show a certain Western Hemisphere bias. South and East Asia remain significant parts of the world.

Provided that in Europe, Central Asia, Africa Oeania, and America, ML are irrelevant today. We must also note that the CP of China is not even reformist anymore, let alone ML. So we are left with the Indian subcontinent. This is important but 30 years ago ML were dominant in any single country of the world with maybe 3 or 4 exception. Stalinism is dead. USSR as maybe even you have noted, died long ago. If you defend Stalin in Moscow or Rome or Caracas nowadays, people simply laughs at you. Correctely because stalinism in the 30s and 50s was a tragedy. Today, for workers' luck, is only a farce.

[red cat]

This is important but 30 years ago ML were dominant in any single country of the world with maybe 3 or 4 exception.

Actually Maoism is presently at a much better position than it was thirty years ago.



If you defend Stalin in Moscow or Rome or Caracas nowadays, people simply laughs at you.

Not so. Stalin still continues to be very popular among Russians.

[vyborg]

Actually Maoism is presently at a much better position than it was thirty years ago..

Look, in 1972 if you tried to sell a trotskist paper in an Italian university you could last 10 minutes before a ML group would ended your careers of street seller in a bloody mess (literally). Now they are maybe a hundred in all of Italy. The same is true everywhere. Everybody knows now that China is not a socialist alternative of USSR.




Not so. Stalin still continues to be very popular among Russians.

Maybe among pensioners. Have you seen the demos with Stalin pictures? The average age is 80...

[red cat]

Look, in 1972 if you tried to sell a trotskist paper in an Italian university you could last 10 minutes before a ML group would ended your careers of street seller in a bloody mess (literally). Now they are maybe a hundred in all of Italy. The same is true everywhere. Everybody knows now that China is not a socialist alternative of USSR.

Thirty years ago from today was 1980. Most Maoist movements had been crushed and the capitalist restoration in China had taken place. Compare this with the Maoists' position today.






Maybe among pensioners. Have you seen the demos with Stalin pictures? The average age is 80...

Maybe not. Judging from the amount of votes Stalin got in a certain poll organized by a bourgeois organization, even after the results got rigged more than once, Stalin is clearly popular among a fraction of the Russian youth.

[bie]

Can we now have an article that shows how the Stalinists made an alliance with the Nazis? Or, is that a lie, too?
There was no German-Soviet alliance. It is another anticommunist lie (by the way - spread by the "leftists"). On 23.VIII.1939 the non-aggression pact was signed between Soviet and German side as the result of the failure of Moscow negotiations. Let me remind you that the the non-aggression pact between Soviet Russia and Hitler's Germany was the direct consequence of the rejection of the Stalin's initiative of building of the anti-nazi coalition in 1939. It were governments of England and France who rejected the Stalin's proposal - Red Army was ready to fight.

Non-agression pacts were common at those times, eg. there was a non aggression pact between Poland and Germany in 1939. Now bourgeoisie try to discredit practice of communism and to equate it with fascism. And this anti-communist falsification ("alliance" with Germany - an ordinary lie and obvious manipulation) is the part of this project.

[red cat]

This youth?

http://nazbol.cc/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/1965125.jpg

Why specifically them ? Do you love their flag ? If not, I think this qualifies as a spam picture.

[vyborg]

Thirty years ago from today was 1980. Most Maoist movements had been crushed and the capitalist restoration in China had taken place. Compare this with the Maoists' position today.






Maybe not. Judging from the amount of votes Stalin got in a certain poll organized by a bourgeois organization, even after the results got rigged more than once, Stalin is clearly popular among a fraction of the Russian youth.

Look, I understand that many people think ML is a way out from the horrible reformism that rules the workers movement. Unfortunately this is anorther dead end.

In the advanced world (all of Europe, America and even China or Korea or Vietnam) the tactics of maoism are simply a thing of the past, more or less as you proposed to fight against a modern army with rocks and knifes.

Maoism can survive only because most of the "left" tendencies in the labour movement moved so much to the right that activists are searching desperately for a way out.

The problem is ML is no way out. Most of the ML leaders will sell the people for pocket money (as the CPI-M does in India), others will fight useless robin hood style wars againts the state.

If you are ML and you really are interested in revolution, leave Stalin and all the rubbish like him to the failures of history and enter in in the XXI century

[red cat]

Look, I understand that many people think ML is a way out from the horrible reformism that rules the workers movement. Unfortunately this is anorther dead end.

In the advanced world (all of Europe, America and even China or Korea or Vietnam) the tactics of maoism are simply a thing of the past, more or less as you proposed to fight against a modern army with rocks and knifes.

Maoism can survive only because most of the "left" tendencies in the labour movement moved so much to the right that activists are searching desperately for a way out.

The problem is ML is no way out. Most of the ML leaders will sell the people for pocket money (as the CPI-M does in India), others will fight useless robin hood style wars againts the state.

If you are ML and you really are interested in revolution, leave Stalin and all the rubbish like him to the failures of history and enter in in the XXI century

Thank you for your suggestion, but there are some flaws in your analysis.

If you look at the self proclaimed CPs in the third world, you will find that most are corrupt and call themselves MLs. However, it is wrong to judge our tendency by considering them as examples. I am sure that there are examples of super-corrupt Trotskyist parties too.

In the third world, where the peoples' wars are taking place, MLM has proved its validity by creating workers' and peasants' democracies. Take a look at the main thread on Indian Maoists for details. In these countries, rather the people who identify with Trotskyism have only spewed out lies against Maoists. Again, you will find an example of this in the thread on Indian Maoists.

We have our own version of history which contradicts yours. Why should we believe your version when we see that your parties are practically non-existent in our countries? A correct historical line is almost always accompanied by a correct political line, isn't it ?

The lack of success of Maoist parties in the developed world is not because any fault in MLM itself, but due to the lack of the preconditions of revolution there. So far no leftist party in the developed world has made any significant move towards revolution. However, Maoist groups such as the KOG in Greece have tried to organize urban insurrections in recent years.

Not only this, Trotskyist analysis of third world conditions is also flawed. This is why your party in Sri Lanka suffered a defeat when it went for a revolution. On the other hand, the Maoist analysis has so far proved itself to be correct; our parties are present in almost every country in the third world, many have started armed struggle, and some have developed to a great extent and are moving slowly towards the strategic offensive.

[ZeroNowhere]

This is ridiculous. There was no Hotel Bristol, end of story. There was a "Grand Hotel" and a "Konditori (Confectionery) Bristol." The rest is pseudo-academic bullshit.
I think that the quoted post is the last one which had much to do with the subject of the thread.

[S.Artesian]

I would not claim expertise on this never having made a specific study of it. If you are asking for my own judgement based on what I have read, I would say that I would give about 60/40 odds on several of them being involved in plotting against the the Soviet Govt. Whether that was against the survival of the proletarian revolution in the USSR would then be a matter of opinion, which different people could draw different conclusions from.

If this were a gymnastics competition, you'd do very well in the vault, uneven bars, tumbling, and floor exercises.

But it's not.

Exactly what do you mean by "plotting against the Soviet Govt."? Wrecking the economy? Preparing assassinations? Passing information to agents of bourgeois states? Preparing a coup? Mimeographing a leaflet objecting, opposing, disagreeing with some element of policy? Protesting imprisonment and punishment of citizens without evidence? Protesting a lack of internal democracy? Protesting the decline in living standards during the first 5 year plan?

What exactly is the content that allows you to estimate, and with some precision, a 60/40 chance that those accused were actually "plotting" something that warranted arrest, trial, and execution?

[Astinilats]

This is ridiculous. There was no Hotel Bristol, end of story. There was a "Grand Hotel" and a "Konditori (Confectionery) Bristol." The rest is pseudo-academic bullshit.

Typical Trotskyite cultist reply. They simply can not entertain that their cult icon is a liar.

We already knew from Trotsky's Archives and the admission of his own son they were in contact with Holtzmann. We already know this. What we didn't have is clear pictures of the hotel from before 1932, which the article has now. It is clear from the pictures alone how Holtzmann made the confusion. The Danish communists even pointed out that everyone called it the Hotel Bristol, which the owners didn't care, because they owned both the Konditori and the hotel.

[Astinilats]

What exactly is the content that allows you to estimate, and with some precision, a 60/40 chance that those accused were actually "plotting" something that warranted arrest, trial, and execution?

It isn't 60/40. It is 100/0. We have independent admissions from Trotsky's archive about the existence of the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc. We know it existed, despite Trotsky's lies.

[Paul Cockshott]

Exactly what do you mean by "plotting against the Soviet Govt."? Wrecking the economy? Preparing assassinations? Passing information to agents of bourgeois states? Preparing a coup? Mimeographing a leaflet objecting, opposing, disagreeing with some element of policy? Protesting imprisonment and punishment of citizens without evidence? Protesting a lack of internal democracy? Protesting the decline in living standards during the first 5 year plan?

What exactly is the content that allows you to estimate, and with some precision, a 60/40 chance that those accused were actually "plotting" something that warranted arrest, trial, and execution?

I said nothing whatsoever about warranting prosecution or execution.

As I said, I dont claim any special knowledge about what the plot might have consisted in, perhaps some or all of the things you suggest. All that I have seen that seems plausible to me is that significant opposition figures had meetings at which they discussed the need to overthrow the government.

I have not read the trial transcripts so I dont know the details of what came out there nor the extent to which that is backed by data subsequently available to historians.

[RED DAVE]

It isn't 60/40. It is 100/0. We have independent admissions from Trotsky's archive about the existence of the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc. We know it existed, despite Trotsky's lies.And assuming the bloc existed, and Trotsky lied to protect his allies, so what? Stalin lied about practically everything, but you justify that.

And what is your evidence that people in touch with Trotsky, or not in touch with him (including Trotsky and his son) deserved to be murdered.

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

It isn't 60/40. It is 100/0. We have independent admissions from Trotsky's archive about the existence of the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc. We know it existed, despite Trotsky's lies.

You may know that it existed because you have a special interest in this and have made a study of it. I was asked to give an opinion based on relatively limited reading, which was why I am not willing to commit my self with a high degree of certainty.

[Astinilats]

And assuming the bloc existed, and Trotsky lied to protect his allies, so what? Stalin lied about practically everything, but you justify that.

And what is your evidence that people in touch with Trotsky, or not in touch with him (including Trotsky and his son) deserved to be murdered.

RED DAVE

The bloc was organized to overthrow the government. Trotsky was very explicit about the need to overthrow the current government. If you did this in literally any country in a credible fashion (and having people high up in the current government being part of your plot immediately qualifies it as credible), you would likely be killed, if not thrown in prison for a very long time.

The Moscow Trials are the foundational myth of the whole anti-communist paradigm. This being the case, it is extremely difficult to get anti-communists to question anything about it. It is axiomatically taken as true the charges were a frameup, even though in virtually every area that we can independently check, it shows the defendants were guilty as charged, and literally zero-evidence of torture and/or threats has ever been produced.

[S.Artesian]

I said nothing whatsoever about warranting prosecution or execution.

As I said, I dont claim any special knowledge about what the plot might have consisted in, perhaps some or all of the things you suggest. All that I have seen that seems plausible to me is that significant opposition figures had meetings at which they discussed the need to overthrow the government.

I have not read the trial transcripts so I dont know the details of what came out there nor the extent to which that is backed by data subsequently available to historians.
__________________

Well all right then, they were plotting "something," we know not what, and maybe it did, maybe it didn't involve something warranting prosecution, but 60/40 they were plotting something against the Soviet govt, based on the things you've read. OK what things in the things you've read give you the basis for making that estimate? What were those things they were plotting, or is your definition of a plot anything 2 or more people do whenever 2 or more people meet, speak, or even have similar ideas?

You don't know what the details are, you haven't read the transcripts, but you think the plots might have contained all the things I listed. Then again, based on your same lack of details, there might be no plots at all. So what tips the balance, what could make you think that it's 10/90 vs 1/99 vs 60/40?

[S.Artesian]

The bloc was organized to overthrow the government. Trotsky was very explicit about the need to overthrow the current government. If you did this in literally any country in a credible fashion (and having people high up in the current government being part of your plot immediately qualifies it as credible), you would likely be killed, if not thrown in prison for a very long time.


No doubt you would be, thrown in jail or killed in those other countries as people were in the fSU. And in those other countries, evidence would be falsified, witnesses would be forced, bribed, threatened to testify falsely, torture would be used, families would be attacked.. etc. etc. Did those things happen also in the fSU?

The purges were not just the show trials of the former CC of the Bolshevik party. The purges reached down into the ranks of those who were in charge of developing economic programs, those in charge of expanding transportation, those responsible for designing equipment and machinery. The purges reached so far down they actually paralyzed the Soviet economy for a period of time.

All these people, all these managers, engineers, technicians, supervisors-- were they part of these plots?

How could all these people be so organized, so linked into gigantic conspiracies that they were too disorganized to protect themselves?

The development of Russian revolutionary parties and militants does not take place at any moment in Russian history without elaborate underground networks for the protection and sheltering of militants. You think these militants who had grown up in that environment forgot how to do that? Were so overconfident they thought they didn't need to do that?

Bollocks.

[Astinilats]

And in those other countries, evidence would be falsified, witnesses would be forced, bribed, threatened to testify falsely, torture would be used, families would be attacked.. etc. etc. Did those things happen also in the fSU?Anti-communists believe these things happened, but can't produce a shred of evidence for them.


The purges were not just the show trials of the former CC of the Bolshevik party. The purges reached down into the ranks of those who were in charge of developing economic programs, those in charge of expanding transportation, those responsible for designing equipment and machinery. The purges reached so far down they actually paralyzed the Soviet economy for a period of time.

All these people, all these managers, engineers, technicians, supervisors-- were they part of these plots?

How could all these people be so organized, so linked into gigantic conspiracies that they were too disorganized to protect themselves?Who said they were? Most of the people affected by the purges weren't charged with being part of any bloc.


The development of Russian revolutionary parties and militants does not take place at any moment in Russian history without elaborate underground networks for the protection and sheltering of militants. You think these militants who had grown up in that environment forgot how to do that? Were so overconfident they thought they didn't need to do that?

BollocksThis is a good point to bring up, though not for what you think it is. Of course all these people were professional conspirators. It should not be shocking that people like Trotsky, Zinoviev, etc, who helped conspire to overthrow one government, would be capable of doing the samething years later.

But the state security apparatus had already penetrated the Bolsheviks long before 1917. Malinovsky had been operating as an agent of the Okhrana for years. Lenin even defended him against charges of being a government agent in 1913.

The point, of course, is that while all these people were great revolutionaries and conspirators, they weren't able to keep much secret from the government. The conspirators against the government in the 1930s weren't able to keep their conspiracy hidden very long either.

[Kléber]

Typical Trotskyite cultist reply. They simply can not entertain that their cult icon is a liar.

We already knew from Trotsky's Archives and the admission of his own son they were in contact with Holtzmann. We already know this. What we didn't have is clear pictures of the hotel from before 1932, which the article has now. It is clear from the pictures alone how Holtzmann made the confusion. The Danish communists even pointed out that everyone called it the Hotel Bristol, which the owners didn't care, because they owned both the Konditori and the hotel. There's a lot of huffing and puffing and little new evidence. If the picture was really damning, you would post it.

This claim is just a rehash of an old Stalinist hackjob. See here:
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6613/grandhotelandkonditorib.jpg

Note the word "KONDITORI" before "BRISTOL." Apparently it has been darkened in the editing room to make it hard to read (lol), and the word "GRAND" from "GRAND HOTEL" has been cut off the top of the picture, to make it look like this says:

?
...
H
O
T
E
L ...........(??????)........... BRISTOL

Only a revisionist Stalinite like yourself would put these two words together when they aren't even part of the same sign. Danish Stalinites are not exactly unbiased sources btw. The fact remains that there was no Hotel Bristol, there was a Grand Hotel and a Konditori Bristol, no matter how hard you try to evade the fact.

Oh, and I hope that Zinoviev and Kamenev were in contact with Trotsky. Otherwise they would have been clueless dolts who were murdered for nothing. Long live the United Opposition!

At any rate, it's funny how you think the party of Lenin pulled off a workers' revolution when its leaders were all agents of foreign imperialism, with the exception of two god-men.

[Astinilats]

That image is from 1937. Here is an image of the Hotel entrance and the Konditori in 1929.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7263/bristol.jpg

The arrow is pointing to the entrance of the Hotel. Here is another photo from 1929.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1061/bristol2.jpg

[S.Artesian]

It has been widely known since the 1980s that Trotsky lied many times to the Dewey Commission about his involvement with the opposition in the USSR.

Trotsky and Trotskyite cultists have always tried to discredit the Moscow Trials with the example of the 'Hotel Bristol' issue. It was alleged that Holtzmann simply made this up, or that the prosecution bungled this detail, or some such nonsense. Now we know for a fact that not only is Holtzmann's testimony completely accurate and Trotsky a liar, but that Trotsky deliberately asked other Trotskyites to lie on his behalf in order to undermine the Moscow Trials on this issue.

The article is on the Cultural Logic website. The 25 post requirement prevents me from directly linking to the pdf file.

edit: http://clogic.eserver.org/2008/Holmstrom.pdf

Let's go back to the beginning. Widely known? By whom? Who are those widely knowing knowers and what are their sources of information.

You should know that that it is "widely known" according to some that Stalin was an agent of the Okhrana.

It is also widely known that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the record of the Jewish plot to take over the world.

Secondly, has anyone actually read this article in CL? I started to, and got to the point where the author claims he is using the scientific method of Stephen Jay Gould, who to my knowledge was an anti-Stalinist and a standup Yankee fan [two additional points in his favor] and explains his method by stating something like "Bukharin said Radek told him Trotsky said this, and Radek confirms that he told Bukharin that Trotsky said this..." and then I just couldn't go any further, as it struck me that this is exactly the type of argument Holocaust deniers use, McCarthy used in the US in his witch hunts, as a matter of fact witch hunters have always used, and that Swiss banks used after WW 2 in denying survivors and their offspring access to the personal property placed with the banks for protection.

Now, did I misunderstand that part of this guy's presentation. Is there other argument that does not take place in the confines of the Mad Hatter's tea party?

[S.Artesian]

I make out the sign "Cafe" in the window. Nothing says Hotel Bristol. Is that the proof?

Case dismissed. Next.

[Astinilats]

Let's go back to the beginning. Widely known? By whom? Who are those widely knowing knowers and what are their sources of information.

By scholars who actually study the subject. It has been known since the 1980s, when the public first got general access to Trotsky's archives.


You should know that that it is "widely known" according to some that Stalin was an agent of the Okhrana.

No scholar takes this seriously. The Eremin letter was exposed as a forgery decades ago. It is only a question of who forged it. My bet is on Isaac Don Levine himself, but that will probably never be known.


Secondly, has anyone actually read this article in CL?

I did.


I started to, and got to the point where the author claims he is using the scientific method of Stephen Jay Gould, who to my knowledge was an anti-Stalinist and a standup Yankee fan [two additional points in his favor] and explains his method by stating something like "Bukharin said Radek told him Trotsky said this, and Radek confirms that he told Bukharin that Trotsky said this..." and then I just couldn't go any further, as it struck me that this is exactly the type of argument Holocaust deniers use, McCarthy used in the US in his witch hunts, as a matter of fact witch hunters have always used, and that Swiss banks used after WW 2 in denying survivors and their offspring access to the personal property placed with the banks for protection.

In other words, you didn't actually even bother looking at the evidence, but feel you can dismiss it with idiotic references to Holocaust Denial.

[Astinilats]

I make out the sign "Cafe" in the window. Nothing says Hotel Bristol. Is that the proof?

Case dismissed. Next.

What do you mean proof? It is as the Danish communists said, that there are no real identifying marks to the entrance to the Hotel, which you could access through the Konditori at the time, and both establishments were owned by the same person. It is painfully obvious why Holtzmann referred to it as the Hotel Bristol from just looking at the photograph.

The two places even had the same address in the phonebook.

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/5011/streetaddress.jpg

They are both listed as being located at Vesterbrogade 9A.

[S.Artesian]

By scholars who actually study the subject. It has been known since the 1980s, when the public first got general access to Trotsky's archives.

Which scholars, which sections of the archives.?



In other words, you didn't actually even bother looking at the evidence, but feel you can dismiss it with idiotic references to Holocaust Denial.

And you did not answer the question: Is that-- he told me that someone else said.... yes I told him that someone else said-- the methodology of the author.

I dismiss that part I read, that spurious witch hunt methodology for fabrication of "evidence." I asked if there is other evidence; if there is another methodology. Is there? And if so can you please cite it, for those of us who don't want to pore over 130 pages of this.

Thanks. Always a pleasure, never a chore.

PS. So why did the Danish Stalinists make this mistake? Because they were unfamiliar with the fact that the Grand Hotel was the Grand Hotel? Was the Grand Hotel some little obscure SRO fleabag?

[RED DAVE]

The bloc was organized to overthrow the government. Trotsky was very explicit about the need to overthrow the current government. If you did this in literally any country in a credible fashion (and having people high up in the current government being part of your plot immediately qualifies it as credible), you would likely be killed, if not thrown in prison for a very long time.I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility that Trotsky was in touch with members of the opposition to Stalin in the 1930s. And that he lied about it to protect his contact. Now, what you are saying is that it was legitimate for the Stalinists, in order to protect their oligarchy, to extort lies, to kill people, to engage in assassination, and you use a generality to all governments. Then, I assume you agree that the US Government had the right to execute the Rosenbergs.


TThe Moscow Trials are the foundational myth of the whole anti-communist paradigm.Or part of the foundation myth of Stalinism.


TThis being the case, it is extremely difficult to get anti-communists to question anything about it.Or impossible to get Stalinists to admit that their system was a corrupt tyranny.


TIt is axiomatically taken as true the charges were a frameup, even though in virtually every area that we can independently check, it shows the defendants were guilty as charged, and literally zero-evidence of torture and/or threats has ever been produced.Please. I'll let Kleber and others kick your ass. In the meantime, enjoy your nap, and keep your ice axe handy. There might be a Trot under your bed.

And I'm looking forward to meeting you in the US labor movement. Virtually every Stalinist I ever worked with was exactly the kind of slimy hack you would expect.

RED DAVE

[Astinilats]

Which scholars

Any that study Soviet history.


which sections of the archives.?The archival references can be found in J. Arch Getty, 'Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International', Soviet Studies,. XXXVIII, No. 1 (January 1986), pp. 24-35. I believe it is the Exile Correspondence section, papers 13095 and 10107 of the Trotsky Papers at the Houghton Library at Harvard.


And you did not answer the question: Is that-- he told me that someone else said.... yes I told him that someone else said-- the methodology of the author.No. Most of the paper discusses the evidence the author found.


PS. So why did the Danish Stalinists make this mistake? Because they were unfamiliar with the fact that the Grand Hotel was the Grand Hotel? Was the Grand Hotel some little obscure SRO fleabag?This question shows you literally don't even understand the issue.

[Astinilats]

Here is a diagram of what the inside of the Grand Hotel and the Konditori Bristol looked like:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2458/diagramo.jpg

Notice the door allowing entrance into the Grand Hotel from the Konditori (which both had a common owner). Notice also from the previous pictures that the entrance to the Hotel at the time had no identifying markers, and right beside it was displayed prominently the word BRISTOL.

Notice also the previous references indicating we already knew Trotsky had met with Holtzmann before. We know this from Trotsky's own archives and his own son.

Trotsky's story about there being "no Hotel Bristol" was an elaborate fraud meant to cast doubt on the proceedings. He got his own followers to lie to the Dewey Commission regarding the Hotel and the Konditori. We know this from photographic evidence contradicting their affidavits. Trotsky deliberately lied and had others lie to discredit the Moscow Trials.

[The Ben G]

Ugh. Again the 'Trotsky was a liar! Trotskyites are retarded! Rah Rah!'

Again, showing the ignorance of the infighting of the left.

[red cat]

'Trotsky was a liar! Trotskyites are retarded! Rah Rah!'

I must have skipped the portion where that statement was made about Trotskyists in this thread. Please point it out to me.

[Kléber]

Notice also the previous references indicating we already knew Trotsky had met with Holtzmann before. We know this from Trotsky's own archives and his own son.Oh no, Trotsky met with someone! He must have been giving Holtzman super secret evil instructions to destroy the USSR. Talk about feudal-minded.


Trotsky's story about there being "no Hotel Bristol" was an elaborate fraud meant to cast doubt on the proceedings.As your pictures and diagrams show, there was no "Hotel Bristol." The rest is evasion.


Trotsky deliberately liedSo was Stalin accidentally lying when he said the world revolution was a "tragicomic" misunderstanding?

[vyborg]

Thank you for your suggestion, but there are some flaws in your analysis.

If you look at the self proclaimed CPs in the third world, you will find that most are corrupt and call themselves MLs. However, it is wrong to judge our tendency by considering them as examples. I am sure that there are examples of super-corrupt Trotskyist parties too.

In the third world, where the peoples' wars are taking place, MLM has proved its validity by creating workers' and peasants' democracies. Take a look at the main thread on Indian Maoists for details. In these countries, rather the people who identify with Trotskyism have only spewed out lies against Maoists. Again, you will find an example of this in the thread on Indian Maoists.

We have our own version of history which contradicts yours. Why should we believe your version when we see that your parties are practically non-existent in our countries? A correct historical line is almost always accompanied by a correct political line, isn't it ?

The lack of success of Maoist parties in the developed world is not because any fault in MLM itself, but due to the lack of the preconditions of revolution there. So far no leftist party in the developed world has made any significant move towards revolution. However, Maoist groups such as the KOG in Greece have tried to organize urban insurrections in recent years.

Not only this, Trotskyist analysis of third world conditions is also flawed. This is why your party in Sri Lanka suffered a defeat when it went for a revolution. On the other hand, the Maoist analysis has so far proved itself to be correct; our parties are present in almost every country in the third world, many have started armed struggle, and some have developed to a great extent and are moving slowly towards the strategic offensive.

You look a bit more interested to the real world than some crazy stalinist in here so let's go on with the main point that is the analysis of the revolution in the third world. do you know the theory of permanent revolution? do you know that Mao and Castro wereeager to defend capitalism when they took power but were forced to go towards a complete overthrow of capitalism against their programme exactly how permanent revolution theory predicted?

Permanent revolution analysis is the only way to understand why the burgeois class of the backward countries can never be an ally contrary to the menshevik-stalinist-maoist 2 stages theory
I know that the overwhelming majority of the ML groups especially in India are sincere revolutionary. they are a lot better than their ideas

[red cat]

You look a bit more interested to the real world than some crazy stalinist in here so let's go on with the main point that is the analysis of the revolution in the third world. do you know the theory of permanent revolution? do you know that Mao and Castro wereeager to defend capitalism when they took power but were forced to go towards a complete overthrow of capitalism against their programme exactly how permanent revolution theory predicted?

I am interested in discussing this. More details please.



Permanent revolution analysis is the only way to understand why the burgeois class of the backward countries can never be an ally contrary to the menshevik-stalinist-maoist 2 stages theory

We shall see.



I know that the overwhelming majority of the ML groups especially in India are sincere revolutionary. they are a lot better than their ideas

I appreciate your respect for revolutionaries of other countries, but what you think is wrong. In India there are more than forty notable ML groups. Out of these, only two focus on the immediate necessity of a complete seizure of power through revolution. Situations are similar in Nepal, Bangladesh and many other third world countries.

When Maoist posters here refer to revolutionary Maoist CPs in some particular country, they generally talk about only one or two of the parties that call themselves Maoists there.

[vyborg]

I am interested in discussing this. More details please.

In a nutshell, the permanent revolution theory states that as the capitalists of the third world came onto the historical scene too late, they cannot play an independent role they will never do a revolution as in france in US in Uk etc, they will always be slaves of world imperialism with a very limited independence in peculiar situations. this mean the proletariat should never be allied with the national burgeoisie as this cannot play a progressive role.

If you agree on this one, as I think nowadays most of revolutionary do, good...you are leaving stalinism for marxism...

When Mao took the power he spoke about centuries of capitalism in China. But he was forced to expropriate capitalists....why? because they were only stooges of imperialism. The TPR allowed trotskists to predict what Mao was forced to do well in advance...

[red cat]

In a nutshell, the permanent revolution theory states that as the capitalists of the third world came onto the historical scene too late, they cannot play an independent role they will never do a revolution as in france in US in Uk etc, they will always be slaves of world imperialism with a very limited independence in peculiar situations. this mean the proletariat should never be allied with the national burgeoisie as this cannot play a progressive role.

If you agree on this one, as I think nowadays most of revolutionary do, good...you are leaving stalinism for marxism...

When Mao took the power he spoke about centuries of capitalism in China. But he was forced to expropriate capitalists....why? because they were only stooges of imperialism. The TPR allowed trotskists to predict what Mao was forced to do well in advance...

Yes, we agree to something like that, only that we associate the theory with Lenin rather than Trotsky. :)

The national bourgeoisie of any country after the Russian revolution will be unable to overthrow imperialism completely. True.

Furthermore, any movement that had completely overthrown imperialism thereafter must have been led by the proletariat.

China today is capitalist. Before the revolution, it was semi-feudal semi-colonial. We all know that imperialism never allows the national bourgeoisie of a colony to develop. This means, that since China is capitalist today, at some point of time imperialism (and feudalism) must have been completely overthrown by a revolution led by the proletariat.

Before the 1949 revolution, there was the GMD acting as a stooge of imperialism, warlords representing both feudalism and imperialism, accompanied with the direct presence of imperialist powers. This essentially means that the revolution that was completed in 1949 was led by the proletariat, making the CPC a genuine communist party.

[Paul Cockshott]

__________________

Well all right then, they were plotting "something," we know not what, and maybe it did, maybe it didn't involve something warranting prosecution, but 60/40 they were plotting something against the Soviet govt, based on the things you've read. OK what things in the things you've read give you the basis for making that estimate? What were those things they were plotting, or is your definition of a plot anything 2 or more people do whenever 2 or more people meet, speak, or even have similar ideas?

You don't know what the details are, you haven't read the transcripts, but you think the plots might have contained all the things I listed. Then again, based on your same lack of details, there might be no plots at all. So what tips the balance, what could make you think that it's 10/90 vs 1/99 vs 60/40?

You originally asked for my opinion and I gave it you, I was influenced by the Getty article cited lower down.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anyone interested in the background to Getty's (and Furr's) pro-Stalinism, check this out:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/joseph-stalin-nostalgia/

[Paul Cockshott]

Anyone interested in the background to Getty's (and Furr's) pro-Stalinism, check this out:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/joseph-stalin-nostalgia/

It is reasonable to describe Furr as pro-Stalinist, I dont think that applies to Getty.

[RED DAVE]

We all know that imperialism never allows the national bourgeoisie of a colony to develop. This means, that since China is capitalist today, at some point of time imperialism (and feudalism) must have been completely overthrown by a revolution led by the proletariat.In-fucking-credible.

Can you spell S-o-u-t-h K-o-r-e-a or T-a-i-w-a-n?

How do you account for their development. Did the working classes of these countries overthrow imperialism and feudalism?

(By the way, we are straying a bit far from the Hotel Bristol and its environs. I suggest we get back there. Or at least back to Moscow for the frame-up and mass murders.)

RED DAVE

[Jacobinist]

Many people dont understand the term kapitalism; and simply think that it only applies to multi-national corporations or privatized hands. Kapitalism, simply defined, is an economy run on exploitation, hierarchical structure, and driven by fear and corecion.

The communist model of the 20th century was all of those things too ^.

Im positive we can do better.



*On edit: About the Hotel Bristol, meaningless Stalinoid propaganda.

[red cat]

In-fucking-credible.

Can you spell S-o-u-t-h K-o-r-e-a or T-a-i-w-a-n?

How do you account for their development. Did the working classes of these countries overthrow imperialism and feudalism?

(By the way, we are straying a bit far from the Hotel Bristol and its environs. I suggest we get back there. Or at least back to Moscow for the frame-up and mass murders.)

RED DAVE

I will answer your post appropriately as soon as I finish my discussion with vyborg, provided you don't read up more on Leninism and withdraw your post by then.

[red cat]

Many people dont understand the term kapitalism; and simply think that it only applies to multi-national corporations or privatized hands. Kapitalism, simply defined, is an economy run on exploitation, hierarchical structure, and driven by fear and corecion.

The communist model of the 20th century was all of those things too ^.

Im positive we can do better.



*On edit: About the Hotel Bristol, meaningless Stalinoid propaganda.

This "kapitalism" of yours then must be quite different from what we know as capitalism. There are two systems which we call feudalism and slave-system that too are examples of "kapitalism", according to you.

Yes, surely we can at least post better than this. :rolleyes:

[Jacobinist]

This "kapitalism" of yours then must be quite different from what we know as capitalism. There are two systems which we call feudalism and slave-system that too are examples of "kapitalism", according to you.

Yes, surely we can at least post better than this. :rolleyes:

How was the trans Atlantic slave trade not kapitalist according to you? How is any slave system not boil down to kapitalism?(two words; cheap labor)

And about feudalism. Like I said, Kapitalism is not simply privatized ownership. Public 'or socialized' land is not really held by the public, if it is in reality held by the State. For example, look at the South Central farm in LA. It was growing on so-called public, eg land acquired by the state-aparatus (city) of los angeles at some point in the 80's. Yet the public directly involved with the land had no say in how they wanted to utilize the land. That's called state ownership, and it does not usually reflect the wills of the people, but instead, the wills of the state bureaucracy. I dare you to prove me wrong on this point.

Thats why my definition of what kapitalism is, is much more broader than those inexperienced in day-to-day kapialism.

Kapitalism (including the classical def.) is:

1) Exploitation

2) Hierarchical Structure

3) Driven by Fear and Corecion.

[red cat]

How was the trans Atlantic slave trade not kapitalist according to you? How is any slave system not boil down to kapitalism?(two words; cheap labor)

And about feudalism. Like I said, Kapitalism is not simply privatized ownership. Public 'or socialized' land is not really held by the public, if it is in reality held by the State. For example, look at the South Central farm in LA. It was growing on so-called public, eg land acquired by the state-aparatus (city) of los angeles at some point in the 80's. Yet the public directly involved with the land had no say in how they wanted to utilize the land. That's called state ownership, and it does not usually reflect the wills of the people, but instead, the wills of the state bureaucracy. I dare you to prove me wrong on this point.

Thats why my definition of what kapitalism is, is much more broader than those inexperienced in day-to-day kapialism.

Kapitalism (including the classical def.) is:

1) Exploitation

2) Hierarchical Structure

3) Driven by Fear and Corecion.

Do you even know what slave-system and feudalism are ? How can you relate the trans Atlantic slave trade and something in LA with these ??

EDIT: And have you ever heard of anything called relation of production ?

[Jacobinist]

Do you even know what slave-system and feudalism are ? How can you relate the trans Atlantic slave trade and something in LA with these ??

EDIT: And have you ever heard of anything called relation of production ?

Im not relating the slave trade, though part of an overall system, as being relevant to the south central farm. That why it's in a separate paragraph.:tongue_smilie:

[S.Artesian]

So there was no Hotel Bristol, correct? There was a Cafe Bristol connected to the Grand Hotel.

Tell you what there, comrade, I've got just a bit of time here, I'll look through the rest of this startling new evidence on the Hotel non-Bristol, and I'll look through Getty's article-- gee 1 article of 11 pages.... if you give me the names of the Soviet scholars who know widely that Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission, that know Trotsky was an agent of Hitler, of Japan.

[S.Artesian]

How was the trans Atlantic slave trade not kapitalist according to you? How is any slave system not boil down to kapitalism?(two words; cheap labor)

And about feudalism. Like I said, Kapitalism is not simply privatized ownership. Public 'or socialized' land is not really held by the public, if it is in reality held by the State. For example, look at the South Central farm in LA. It was growing on so-called public, eg land acquired by the state-aparatus (city) of los angeles at some point in the 80's. Yet the public directly involved with the land had no say in how they wanted to utilize the land. That's called state ownership, and it does not usually reflect the wills of the people, but instead, the wills of the state bureaucracy. I dare you to prove me wrong on this point.

Thats why my definition of what kapitalism is, is much more broader than those inexperienced in day-to-day kapialism.

Kapitalism (including the classical def.) is:

1) Exploitation

2) Hierarchical Structure

3) Driven by Fear and Corecion.


Little far from the topic, but the classical definition of capitalism is not 1)exploitation, since exploitation predates capitalism 2) hierarchical structure- see answer 1 3)driven be fear and coercion.

The classical definition of capitalism as developed the person who did the most intensive, extensive, and comprehensive analysis is a mode of production based on the organization of labor as wage-labor in order to accumulate the surplus-value thus produced as the private property of those employing such labor.

Slavery existed prior to capitalism, fed the mercantile-monarchist non-capitalist economies of Spain and Portugal as well as feeding into the developing capitalist economies of the US, England, France, Holland, etc. etc.

Slavery in and of itself was not capitalism and was incapable of developing into capitalism.

[Jacobinist]

Little far from the topic, but the classical definition of capitalism is not 1)exploitation, since exploitation predates capitalism 2) hierarchical structure- see answer 1 3)driven be fear and coercion.

The classical definition of capitalism as developed the person who did the most intensive, extensive, and comprehensive analysis is a mode of production based on the organization of labor as wage-labor in order to accumulate the surplus-value thus produced as the private property of those employing such labor.

Slavery existed prior to capitalism, fed the mercantile-monarchist non-capitalist economies of Spain and Portugal as well as feeding into the developing capitalist economies of the US, England, France, Holland, etc. etc.

Slavery in and of itself was not capitalism and was incapable of developing into capitalism.


NOTE: I included that where it says (classical def included).

And yet we have slaves today. The trans Atlantic slave trade is nothing more than kapitalism. And it matters not how you define charcteristics in past economies, substantially, all they were ancient forms of the same probelm. You are referring to industrial kapitalism, which is more less from 1800+.

[S.Artesian]

The trans Atlantic slave trade is nothing more than kapitalism. And it matters not how you define charcteristics in past economies, substantially, all they were ancient forms of the same probelm. You are referring to industrial kapitalism, which is more less from 1800+.

So... Rome was capitalism? The Ottoman's were capitalists? China in the 15 the century was capitalist? Ancient Greece-- capitalist?

Everything's capitalist, all the time. That's helpful isn't it? Gives us a real grip on the specifics of exploitation and what to do about it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think by 'Kapitalism' Jacobinist means 'any form of class society'. Confusing, I know...

[Jacobinist]

So... Rome was capitalism? The Ottoman's were capitalists? China in the 15 the century was capitalist? Ancient Greece-- capitalist?

Everything's capitalist, all the time. That's helpful isn't it? Gives us a real grip on the specifics of exploitation and what to do about it.

In its different forms, and fundamentally, yes. (small clicks own the vast majority of kapital/wealth) And thus, to me being a anti-kapitalist doesnt simply mean I want nationalized bureaucracy every where one looks. I want the abolition of these structures of power and servitude.

What is exploitation? What is coercion? I know what it's not, ideal communism. What to do about it is hard, however. Trial and error, and if it doesn't work, then move on and try something different. Which brings us back to the original point of this thread, Stalinist historical revisionism. And its attempt to pull a new century down a similar failed path, yet again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

But unless you make clear distinctions, you'll end up making mistakes fighting against modern day capitalism (what you call industrial Kapitalism). Lumping all class/exploitative societies together does not help.

[YKTMX]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CSe38dzJYkY/0.jpg

No one expects the Moscow Trials!

[GracchusBabeuf]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CSe38dzJYkY/0.jpg

No one expects the Moscow Trials!


Yes, because when I'm organizing in my community, the first thing people ask me about is... 'Hotel Bristol'. Then they say, "you know the only thing preventing me from supporting Stalinism and a system that crushed workers while using the name of socialism to do and built a national empire on the backs of the working class and in the name of anti-imperialism is... the 'Hotel Bristol issue'".:laugh:

Dude, I don't even know what this obscure piece of Stalinalia is. But the fact that we are living at a time when the US bombing all over the world, imperialist competition between the US and up and coming competitors like China and Russia are heating up in the context of a global capitalist crisis... and 'the Hotel Bristol issue' is your big concern.... well, it says a lot.


haha omg

Stalin? Ever heard of the man? You think he told the truth all the times? Oh my god, every one of you Stalinist trolls get funnier everytime.

Why does this matter anyway? Get out of the '40s. Do you honestly think the majority of the proletariat really think this will help them?


Ugh. Again the 'Trotsky was a liar! Trotskyites are retarded! Rah Rah!'

Again, showing the ignorance of the infighting of the left.
All of the above are troll posts and appropriate moderator actions should be taken.

[S.Artesian]

Any that study Soviet history.

The archival references can be found in J. Arch Getty, 'Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International', Soviet Studies,. XXXVIII, No. 1 (January 1986), pp. 24-35. I believe it is the Exile Correspondence section, papers 13095 and 10107 of the Trotsky Papers at the Houghton Library at Harvard.



Taking the tip from comrade Astinilats, I have now read Getty's paper which is so benign in its conclusions, that it's hard to believe that Astinilats, or any one else convinced of Trotsky's role as "wrecker," plotter of assassinations, agent of Hitler has read the article.

What Getty claims is not news-- Trotsky had contact with oppositionists inside the USSR. Of course he did. He was after all a political man. He was after all twice president of the Petrograd Soviet, member of the military revolutionary committee that actual seized power, the authorized negotiator of the soviet government with Germany on the terms of Russia's exit from the WW 1, organizer of the Red Army, and had conducted an opposition to Bukharin, Stalin, and Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Did Trotsky deny having any contacts with oppositionists in the USSR once he was exiled. I sure as fuck hope so; it's the very minimum that security and survival of any opposition requires.

And what of Trotsky's opposition an his bloc with those opposed to Stalin in the USSR? Conspiracy? To do what? As the author makes clear, and as Trotsky himself made clear in his last ditch effort to secure his return to the USSR in his letter to the politbureau, the opposition was... well, let's quote Getty:

"In Trotsky's opinion the bloc existed for the purpose of communication and from the the evidence, it is clear that Trotsky envisioned no secret 'terrorist' role for the bloc as Moscow would charge four years later."

And this is supposed to be evidence that Trotsky was a plotter, a coupmonger, a wrecker, an agent of Germany...?


So there's 60/40 evidence, as comrade Cockshott likes to call the numbers, that Trotsky and the oppositionists were up to something? No shit? Really? And what were they up to? Communication and exchange of information. They were an opposition, after all, what do opponents do?

They opposed the policies that internationally had led to the destruction of the German proletariat and internally, had financed industrialization through policies that provoked famine, drove levels of consumption down, and that consistently fell short of its own goals as stated in its 5 year plans.

That's some criminal activity we got there, comrades. And some really dangerous criminal minds.

Opposing such policies does not make one, or 35, or 700,000 [the approximate number Getty estimates executed by the security service] counter-revolutionaries, agents of the Mikado, criminals, etc. etc.


I just might take the time to wade through that other article on the Hotel Bristol just to show how wacked that is also, I already know however that I did not misapprehend the author's method-- citing Radek and Bukharin citing each other for example is exactly the way the author constructs, rather fabricates evidence.

[YKTMX]

All of the above are troll posts and appropriate moderator actions should be taken.

This whole topic is a troll-fest. It invites a trollish reaction because the subject matter is demonstrably ludicrous and offensive. The idea that the legal and moral validity of the Moscow Trials is still an open topic for discussion is just a total nonsense.

If the Tankies want to raise this topic as if it deserves our attention, then they have no right to complain when we treat it with the utter contempt and derision it deserves.

Now, stop complaining.

[scarletghoul]

Stalin? Ever heard of the man? You think he told the truth all the times?

Differance is, us 'stalinists' don't base most of our politics around the belief that Stalin was the purifying saviour of the revolution. Everyone knows Stalin wasn't perfect, and ML's accept this as we learn from the practical successes and failures. Trots on the other hand seem to see it as a question of "who was the true saviour" and cling to the ideal of Trotsky as a figure of revolutionary purity, based mostly on his own words. So to soil this purity is something truly terrifying to them.

[Weezer]

All of the above are troll posts and appropriate moderator actions should be taken.

Nice counter argument. :)

[The Ben G]

I must have skipped the portion where that statement was made about Trotskyists in this thread. Please point it out to me.

The word 'Trotskyite' turns up hear and again in the article. Maybe you should re read it.

[The Ben G]

All of the above are troll posts and appropriate moderator actions should be taken because I cant think of a better answer.

Hows that?

[GracchusBabeuf]

The idea that the legal and moral validity of the Moscow Trials is still an open topic for discussion is just a total nonsense.Stop trolling. If you don't have any factual counter arguments, shut up. You're such a worthless anti-communist you don't even have the intellectual integrity to make factual arguments.

[red cat]

The word 'Trotskyite' turns up hear and again in the article. Maybe you should re read it.

I was referring to the part about you lot being retarded.

[RED DAVE]

Differance is, us 'stalinists' don't base most of our politics around the belief that Stalin was the purifying saviour of the revolution.No, actually, he was the gravedigger.


Everyone knows Stalin wasn't perfectNot if you read Stalinist literature prior to his death. Before that you chickenshits though the sun came out of his mouth and set in his asshole.


and ML's accept this as we learn from the practical successes and failures.One "success" one of you seems to have learned about it repression. Atsinilats is aleady calling for the suppression of the Trotskyists, and the revolution hasn't even started. I can't wait to see you once things start to get hot.

One failure you don't seemed to have learned about is how your system "failed" and became one of the nastiest versions of capitalism on the planet.


Trots on the other hand seem to see it as a question of "who was the true saviour"No, we'd just like to demonstrate that our analysis of the USSR and fascism, and a few other topics was far superior to yours.


and cling to the ideal of Trotsky as a figure of revolutionary purity, based mostly on his own words. So to soil this purity is something truly terrifying to them.No, we'll settle for an action criterion. We'll match Trotskyist practice against the Stalinists any day. Especially, we're looking forward to seeing how you act in the working class struggles to come. If the US is any example, you've sold out already.

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

I, for one, am not a "Trotskyist," whatever that means on either side of this issue. I've never belonged to a Trotskyist organization. Never belonged to a Stalinist organization either.

I have read the Holmstrom article which argues that Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission, and that in fact Trotsky had contact with oppositionists in the USSR.

OK, let's accept that. Trotsky, a revolutionist ever since his youth, is expelled from a country where he helped lead a revolution, and where the memory of his role, and the content of his current criticisms, still have some significance.

Others already in opposition, or later who go into opposition, certainly are going to remember that role and the content of his analysis. So they contact him, or seek to contact him. Now from this point on, for those who want to suppress the opposition, it's not an issue of the correctness of Trotsky's analysis of the internal policies of the RCP, nor is it an issue of the correctness analysis of the disastrous international policies of the 3rd International. It is a question of power. Power requires criminalizing any and all contact with Trotsky; of criminalizing opposition itself, regardless of the content.

For the opposition the issue is also power, and being pretty much powerless, the only route is as Getty states, communication and exchange of information; power is possible only through the development and dissemination of criticism.

The issue for those of us who come after the events themselves, who come after the Stalin "center," the blocs of the opposition, on either side of the argument, cannot be examined, explained or understood if the very acts of communication and exchange are criminalized. Historical materialism requires us to explore the social basis for the opposition; and the social basis for the actions of those in power. That actual content of what was being proposed by the opposition requires examination, and I can think of no more clear expression of that proposal than Trotsky's own proposals to the Politbureau for his return. And as Getty shows, Trotsky was prepared to restrain his criticism, to confine his programmatic disagreements within party limits.

What counts are the actual actions taken by the opposition, the actual content of the criticisms. Were the criticisms valid? Were the policies of the 3rd International disastrous for the proletarian revolution? Were the criticisms of internal policies of the RCP, that they weakened the strength of the proletariat; that they provoked a horrible breakdown in agricultural production; that the industrialization in the first 5 year plan in particular was purchase through enforced privation... etc.?

Those are the issues.

To respond to those issues by stating that Trotsky acted as an agent of the bourgeoisie by the very act of criticism and analysis is to abandon Marxism at its roots.

Clearly, Trotsky tried to maintain contacts with oppositionists in the USSR, and they with him. It's the content of that opposition not the mere act of opposing that requires consideration.

For those only to eager to threaten those they label as "Trotskyists" with ice-picks; who dazzle themselves with fantasies of suppressing Trotskyists once again-- stop and look around, where has that gotten the proletariat in the scheme of things? How has that worked out for the workers in Russia, in China, in Vietnam, in the USA, in Mexico, in Bolivia, Chile... what big fat giant steps has the proletariat taken that haven't become big giant steps backwards?

[Chambered Word]

Differance is, us 'stalinists' don't base most of our politics around the belief that Stalin was the purifying saviour of the revolution. Everyone knows Stalin wasn't perfect, and ML's accept this as we learn from the practical successes and failures. Trots on the other hand seem to see it as a question of "who was the true saviour" and cling to the ideal of Trotsky as a figure of revolutionary purity, based mostly on his own words. So to soil this purity is something truly terrifying to them.

This is the best argument you can come up with? Don't you think that revering someone who purged the Bolshevik Party and betrayed the revolution - in spite of his 'practical failures' as you so euphimistically put it - isn't that far off from blind worship?

[ZeroNowhere]

You're such a worthless anti-communist you don't even have the intellectual integrity to make factual arguments.
You may have possibly had a point, but you pretty much disavowed it with this ludicrous bollocks.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that the question of whether the Soviet economy involved generalized commodity production is really all that relevant here, and neither is it relevant whether the substitution of a 'k' into 'capitalism' may transmute it into feudalism, and not much of the discussion presently seems to have much to do with the existence or non-existence of Hotel Bristol. Presumably the different topics should go in different threads.

[vyborg]

Yes, we agree to something like that, only that we associate the theory with Lenin rather than Trotsky. :)

The national bourgeoisie of any country after the Russian revolution will be unable to overthrow imperialism completely. True.

Furthermore, any movement that had completely overthrown imperialism thereafter must have been led by the proletariat.

China today is capitalist. Before the revolution, it was semi-feudal semi-colonial. We all know that imperialism never allows the national bourgeoisie of a colony to develop. This means, that since China is capitalist today, at some point of time imperialism (and feudalism) must have been completely overthrown by a revolution led by the proletariat.

Before the 1949 revolution, there was the GMD acting as a stooge of imperialism, warlords representing both feudalism and imperialism, accompanied with the direct presence of imperialist powers. This essentially means that the revolution that was completed in 1949 was led by the proletariat, making the CPC a genuine communist party.

Ok while some guys is quarreling about the very basic problem of the entrance of Hotel Bristol, we will try to discuss more serious topic.

before 1917 Lenin was not very clear on the problem of who will be in charge of power after the revolution in a backward country. He uses unclear formulas (peasant and workers governement etc) but he doesnt attack directly the idea of Trotsky.

After 1917, Lenin and Trotsky completely agreed in the real exemple of russian revolution: they stood for a workers government that brought about a workers state.

as for china. As you will know very well, in the 20s, Stalin and the stalinists were in favour of an alliance between the CP and GMD because GMD was the party of the nationalist democratic burgeoisie against imperialism. The results of this crazy policy is well known. communist were slaughtered. Even if Mao tried to repeat this policy after 20 years, the situation was so in favour of the proletariat that the GMD was forced to retrench in Taiwan. Still the ideas of Mao were the same of Stalin's in the 20s (all this problem is very well explained, for example, in "The third international after lenin" that I suggest you read, it is available on line).

So, what is the situation now: if we all agree, for instance in India, that we cannot ally with the nationalist capitalists, the CP and CPI-M should avoid any popular front government. In India the aim is to bring about a social revolution that put proletariat in power, not to drive out imperialists from India. No to 2 stages then, yes to revolution!

Who agrees with this aim, is, basically, a trotskyst.

[red cat]

Ok while some guys is quarreling about the very basic problem of the entrance of Hotel Bristol, we will try to discuss more serious topic.

before 1917 Lenin was not very clear on the problem of who will be in charge of power after the revolution in a backward country. He uses unclear formulas (peasant and workers governement etc) but he doesnt attack directly the idea of Trotsky.

After 1917, Lenin and Trotsky completely agreed in the real exemple of russian revolution: they stood for a workers government that brought about a workers state.

I completely agree with the Bolshevik line for countries where the national bourgeoisie is in power. The question as to whether Lenin or Trotsky proposed it is a bit irrelevant here, because our discussion is mainly on the lines themselves, not their proposers.



as for china. As you will know very well, in the 20s, Stalin and the stalinists were in favour of an alliance between the CP and GMD because GMD was the party of the nationalist democratic burgeoisie against imperialism. The results of this crazy policy is well known. communist were slaughtered. Even if Mao tried to repeat this policy after 20 years, the situation was so in favour of the proletariat that the GMD was forced to retrench in Taiwan. Still the ideas of Mao were the same of Stalin's in the 20s (all this problem is very well explained, for example, in "The third international after lenin" that I suggest you read, it is available on line).


Stalin's line on China was wrong. However, I would blame the ultimate consequences on the then central leadership of the CPC, but let us not argue on that.

Can you explain briefly how Mao's ideas were same to those of Stalin in 1949 ?

Also, please take into account the logical deduction in my previous post that establishes the fact that CPC was a proletarian party.



So, what is the situation now: if we all agree, for instance in India, that we cannot ally with the nationalist capitalists, the CP and CPI-M should avoid any popular front government. In India the aim is to bring about a social revolution that put proletariat in power, not to drive out imperialists from India. No to 2 stages then, yes to revolution!

Who agrees with this aim, is, basically, a trotskyst.

India's case requires much deeper analysis. I suggest we start debating on that after we finish the one on China.

[vyborg]

I completely agree with the Bolshevik line for countries where the national bourgeoisie is in power. The question as to whether Lenin or Trotsky proposed it is a bit irrelevant here, because our discussion is mainly on the lines themselves, not their proposers.

I agree, this is something 1 century old after all.


Stalin's line on China was wrong. However, I would blame the ultimate consequences on the then central leadership of the CPC, but let us not argue on that.

Well at that time for a national CC was not easy to disagree with Stalins isnt'it..ayway let's leave it to the history too.


Can you explain briefly how Mao's ideas were same to those of Stalin in 1949 ?

If we read Mao of the 40s what was his position about the revolution? Did he propose a workers revolution? No, he proposed a popular fronto against the Japanese and against imperialism in general. Of course, the country was occupied, so a form of alliance was inevitable. The mistake was the idea that the GMD and the chinese burgeoisie in general could be an ally for the workers. this was the mistake that lost the CPC in 1925-1927. Mao, anyway, was aware of the disaster of the 20s. So even if in theory he wrote a path very similar to that, he was ready to change attitude in practice. When the japanese were defeated and the americans started to help the GMD, still Mao pretended to fight for a democratic capitalist China as a first step for a socialist society. It tactict proved impossible to follow. The merit of Mao, not a small one, was that, due also to the experience of decades of wars against the GMD and japanese imperialism, he went over his own programme. But also after the revolution, the Mao's idea was not a socialist society but a gradual development of China. That is the classical popular front. As the "front" was impossible with the GMD, in the meantime escaped to Taiwan, Mao decided for a soviet solution. The solution was not exactly the same (we will discuss it later on, fi you want), but the general picture was the same: a stalinist dictatorship. capitalists defeated but workers silenced.


Also, please take into account the logical deduction in my previous post that establishes the fact that CPC was a proletarian party.

yes, but also the CPSU was one...

[<Insert Username Here>]

Both men are dead. It doesn't matter. What matters when it comes to our ideology is which one works best, for the largest distribution of workers. Lets worry about that rather than the Moscow trials. There is no use crying over spilt milk. People are starving, dying, living in poverty right now. Fuck the past, the future is in our hands.

[scarletghoul]

No, actually, he was the gravedigger.
:laugh: You just illustrate my point perfectly. That trotskyite paradigm where people are either pure and great like Trotsky or evil like Stalin. Where the revolution's gravedigger is the individual Stalin, rather than the incorrect ideas.


Not if you read Stalinist literature prior to his death. Before that you chickenshits though the sun came out of his mouth and set in his asshole.We could debate that but its really irrelevent as I'm talking about MLs right now, who are much more willing to criticise Stalin than you guys are with Tortsky. I dont remember ever reading a trotskyite criticism of that lying opportunist scumbag :lol:


One "success" one of you seems to have learned about it repression. Atsinilats is aleady calling for the suppression of the Trotskyists, and the revolution hasn't even started. I can't wait to see you once things start to get hot.
Me neither comrade.


One failure you don't seemed to have learned about is how your system "failed" and became one of the nastiest versions of capitalism on the planet.
In contrast to the all those trotskyist states which never existed ?

Seriously I can understand some people at the time thinking trotskyism might work, but after like eighty years of consistent failure, with not a single successful revolution, while meanwhile MLs are tearing up the capitalist world country by country, you'd think people would stop considering trotskyism as a viable set of ideas, as anything more than an irritating historical crap


No, we'll settle for an action criterion. We'll match Trotskyist practice against the Stalinists any day. Especially, we're looking forward to seeing how you act in the working class struggles to come.
You mean like in Nepal ?
Yeah you trots sure are leading the way over there..

[GracchusBabeuf]

You may have possibly had a point, but you pretty much disavowed it with this ludicrous bollocks.Please... even fellow Trotskyists call Cliffites (who have been the major trolls in these types of threads) as "liberal anti-communists". Cliffites have so blindly accepted the Trotsky personality cult that anybody who dares question him is either a fool or a heretic.

[ZeroNowhere]

Tbh, what Trots think is generally not enough to justify anything, let alone a slur like that on a revolutionary leftist forum. So probably it would be useful to see where the individual concerned had opposed the idea of an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single social labour force.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gracchus:


Cliffites have so blindly accepted the Trotsky personality cult that anybody who dares question him is either a fool or a heretic.

Can we see the proof of this?

If not, kindly withdraw it.:)

[S.Artesian]

Seriously I can understand some people at the time thinking trotskyism might work, but after like eighty years of consistent failure, with not a single successful revolution, while meanwhile MLs are tearing up the capitalist world country by country, you'd think people would stop considering trotskyism as a viable set of ideas, as anything more than an irritating historical crap


Just for the hell of it, can you identify the countries where "MLs are tearing up the capitalist world"?

Now considering that the US accounts for what? about 25% of world GDP, are the "MLs" tearing up the US. Nope.

And considering that the European Union accounts for about 35-40% of world GDP, are the "MLs" tearing up the European Union? Nope, not even in Greece, not to mention Hungary, the Ukraine, France, Germany, Lithuania etc.

Russia? The "MLs" kicking the shit out of the oligarchs and the capitalists in Russia?

China? Nope, not unless you consider low-wage policy, dismantling of social welfare structures kicking the ass of capitalism.

Latin America? Please don't tell me that Morales and Chavez are now Marxist-Leninists. They aren't.

Mexico? Nicaragua? Trinidad? Vietnam? South Africa? Sure they are in South Africa, which is why COSATU and the ANC are getting along so wonderfully.

So exactly where, besides the tribal/forest areas in India where the battle has raged for 30 years, bloodily, and inconclusively.

Egypt? Syria? Yemen? Mozambique? Angola? Thailand? Indonesia? Australia?

Where are these countries where the "MLs" are kicking ass, because I want to go there.

[red cat]

Just for the hell of it, can you identify the countries where "MLs are tearing up the capitalist world"?

Now considering that the US accounts for what? about 25% of world GDP, are the "MLs" tearing up the US. Nope.

And considering that the European Union accounts for about 35-40% of world GDP, are the "MLs" tearing up the European Union? Nope, not even in Greece, not to mention Hungary, the Ukraine, France, Germany, Lithuania etc.

Russia? The "MLs" kicking the shit out of the oligarchs and the capitalists in Russia?

China? Nope, not unless you consider low-wage policy, dismantling of social welfare structures kicking the ass of capitalism.

Latin America? Please don't tell me that Morales and Chavez are now Marxist-Leninists. They aren't.

Mexico? Nicaragua? Trinidad? Vietnam? South Africa? Sure they are in South Africa, which is why COSATU and the ANC are getting along so wonderfully.

So exactly where, besides the tribal/forest areas in India where the battle has raged for 30 years, bloodily, and inconclusively.

Egypt? Syria? Yemen? Mozambique? Angola? Thailand? Indonesia? Australia?

Where are these countries where the "MLs" are kicking ass, because I want to go there.

Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Philippines, Turkey, Peru, Colombia are a few of them. In other countries the movements are relatively new.

EDIT1: You should read up more on India before commenting on the movement there.

EDIT2: The KOG took part in the recent movement in Greece to start urban insurrections, but failed. However, they are still there.

[S.Artesian]

Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Philippines, Turkey, Peru, Colombia are a few of them. In other countries the movements are relatively new.

EDIT: You should read up more on India before commenting on the movement there.

Are you kidding me? Have yo been keeping up on current events, because the FARC is just about paralyzed in Colombia. I don't know what specific groups you are referring to in the Philippines, but the guerrilla militias have suffered a series of tactical defeats.

Turkey? What specific instance are you referring to. Has the Tekel strike been resolved? And what are the terms of the resolution?

Peru? What evidence is there of "MLs" tearing up the bourgeoisie in Peru?

But all of this is off topic, which is no big problem. I'm wading through the Furr article, and so far... it's nothing but sophistry, and hearsay. Furr, of course, believes that verbal testimony of multiple "witnesses" is the paradigm for judicial decision, which kind of begs the question of what if the first person to start the rumor is lying...

[red cat]

Are you kidding me? Have yo been keeping up on current events, because the FARC is just about paralyzed in Colombia. I don't know what specific groups you are referring to in the Philippines, but the guerrilla militias have suffered a series of tactical defeats.

Turkey? What specific instance are you referring to. Has the Tekel strike been resolved? And what are the terms of the resolution?

Peru? What evidence is there of "MLs" tearing up the bourgeoisie in Peru?

But all of this is off topic, which is no big problem. I'm wading through the Furr article, and so far... it's nothing but sophistry, and hearsay. Furr, of course, believes that verbal testimony of multiple "witnesses" is the paradigm for judicial decision, which kind of begs the question of what if the first person to start the rumor is lying...

As far as I know, the FARC in Colombia, PCP in Peru, PKP in the Philippines and TKP(ML) and other revolutionary groups in Turkey are doing quite well.

There are ups and downs in every revolutionary war. But remember, these are revolutionary wars, and the bourgeoisie fills up every source of information with false information about them. For example, if what was said about Indian Maoists two years ago was true, then they could not have done what they are doing now. Same with the Nepali Maoists in 2005.

Similarly, today hardly any of us know that the PKP is very close to strategic equilibrium and is fighting US soldiers, or that the PCP too is fighting direct intervention by the US, or that the Indian Maoists have established the embryonic forms of village communes in their strongholds.

So, when it comes to revolutionary warfare, it is not right to jump to conclusions very fast.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh wow. Still at this shit?

Sectarianism ftw.:rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

Update on Furr's "evidence."

1. Trotsky sent a telegram to CEC stating policies of Soviet leadership were leading to ruin of revolution both internally and internationally, proposing radical turn towards soviet democracy as solution, and offering his cooperation.

2. Stalin wrote on this telegram "Ugly spy. Brazen spy of Hitler." Stalin must have believed this. Stalin sent telegram to his closest associates with those comments. They must have believed Trotsky was a spy of Hitler, or else we would have to believe they were pretending to believe. There is no evidence that any of them were pretending to believe. Therefore they did believe. Therefore there must be evidence that Trotsky actually was a spy.

3. Furr keeps claiming that he "now has evidence," "the evidence now suggests," "the new evidence...." and then, [to this point in my reading, about 1/4 through the article] doesn't produce any new evidence.

4. On page 25, Furr discusses Frinovsky's 2006 memoirs where he states that he, along with his subordinates, in his role as #2 in the NKVD did in fact torture defendants, and fabricate confessions. BUT, but Frinovsky claims he did not do these things in the 1938 trial of Bukharin, and the "bloc" of the rightists with Trotsky. Therefore, we should regard Bukharin's confessions as truthful, uncoerced, and....accurate regardless of the surrounding circumstances, Frinovsky's previous work as a torturer and fabricator [because, obviously, if Frinovsky says he didn't do it in this case, then obviously it wasn't done, or of the lack of direct evidence incriminating Trotsky in any cooperative effort with Germany or Japan.

Does this not sound like the reasoning of a Grand Inquisitor, one who just stepped out of the pages of Kafka?

5. Furr continues, introducing no new "evidence," but the old argument that essentially says the very absence of corroborating documentation is evidence of the veracity of the charges against Trotsky. Documentation is being suppressed, archives have been purged, etc.etc. etc. No evidence that you did something, son? No evidence that you robbed that bank? That's because you are so very clever. You covered your trail and as a matter of fact, after you robbed the bank you substituted carefully prepared counterfeit money, so perfect that we can't find any difference between that and the government issued currency circulating, so we wouldn't even notice that you had in fact robbed the bank. No evidence is just the evidence we were looking for.

More to come, until the anti-nausea medication wears off. Once I start puking, I'm done with this toxic waste.

[scarletghoul]

Just for the hell of it, can you identify the countries where "MLs are tearing up the capitalist world"?

Now considering that the US accounts for what? about 25% of world GDP, are the "MLs" tearing up the US. Nope.

And considering that the European Union accounts for about 35-40% of world GDP, are the "MLs" tearing up the European Union? Nope, not even in Greece, not to mention Hungary, the Ukraine, France, Germany, Lithuania etc.

Russia? The "MLs" kicking the shit out of the oligarchs and the capitalists in Russia?

China? Nope, not unless you consider low-wage policy, dismantling of social welfare structures kicking the ass of capitalism.

Latin America? Please don't tell me that Morales and Chavez are now Marxist-Leninists. They aren't.

Mexico? Nicaragua? Trinidad? Vietnam? South Africa? Sure they are in South Africa, which is why COSATU and the ANC are getting along so wonderfully.

So exactly where, besides the tribal/forest areas in India where the battle has raged for 30 years, bloodily, and inconclusively.

Egypt? Syria? Yemen? Mozambique? Angola? Thailand? Indonesia? Australia?

Where are these countries where the "MLs" are kicking ass, because I want to go there.
Apart from the fact that there are no trots parties of any note in any of those places, there are several countries with ongoing revolutions under ML or MLM leadership. As Red Cat has pointed out, there are quite a few Maoist insurgencies going on, the main ones being India and the Phillipines, with Nepal being on the eve of revolution after a successful PPW. Also there are significant ML elements leading the Latin American revolutions. Morales claims to be ML, and Chavez clearly has a lot of MLM influence, aswell as of course the FARC in Colombia and the ML regime in Cuba.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Apart from the fact that there are no trots parties of any note in any of those places, there are several countries with ongoing revolutions under ML or MLM leadership. As Red Cat has pointed out, there are quite a few Maoist insurgencies going on, the main ones being India and the Phillipines, with Nepal being on the eve of revolution after a successful PPW. Also there are significant ML elements leading the Latin American revolutions. Morales claims to be ML, and Chavez clearly has a lot of MLM influence, aswell as of course the FARC in Colombia and the ML regime in Cuba.

You might be right, but as Artesian showed, the claim that "MLs are tearing up the capitalist world" is a huge exaggeration.

Moreover, everything you serial screw-ups have touched has gone down the pan.

Or, is there now a successfull MLM-er, socialist state anywhere on the planet you can name?

And no wonder. As I have shown, your core theory is seriously defective.

So, it's no surprise you have to clutch at straws and claim they are super-tankers!:lol:

[S.Artesian]

Apart from the fact that there are no trots parties of any note in any of those places, there are several countries with ongoing revolutions under ML or MLM leadership. As Red Cat has pointed out, there are quite a few Maoist insurgencies going on, the main ones being India and the Phillipines, with Nepal being on the eve of revolution after a successful PPW. Also there are significant ML elements leading the Latin American revolutions. Morales claims to be ML, and Chavez clearly has a lot of MLM influence, aswell as of course the FARC in Colombia and the ML regime in Cuba.

Baloney. The struggle in India has been ongoing for 30 years, with the "Naxalites" being physically liquidated several times, reemerging when the Indian government pushed forward with its dispossession of the forest/tribal peoples. Nothing indicates that the current rebellion, which all Marxists defend from repression by the Indian government has routed the Indian capitalists, has the government split, divided as to how to handle the situation, or immobilized.

Likewise where is the evidence in any country in Latin America, that "MLs" have the bourgeoisie on the run? In Venezuela, where Chavez is most definitely not a ML, but rather a national/populist along the lines of Peron, the economy is in increasing disorder and the bourgeoisie are preparing yet another coup. And Morales? Exactly what indication is there that he is a "ML"-- other than the fact that his program and government are self-avowedly about creating state capitalism? That the leadership of the MAS is committed to accommodating the bourgeoisie; that the exalted land reform program in Bolivia is actually based on the same program and the same laws that Goni had enacted during his first administration?

Your fantasies about "MLs" having capitalist countries on the run is based on the same sort of self-delusion that has you swallowing, uncritically, Furr's claim to "new evidence."

[S.Artesian]

As far as I know, the FARC in Colombia, PCP in Peru, PKP in the Philippines and TKP(ML) and other revolutionary groups in Turkey are doing quite well.

There are ups and downs in every revolutionary war. But remember, these are revolutionary wars, and the bourgeoisie fills up every source of information with false information about them. For example, if what was said about Indian Maoists two years ago was true, then they could not have done what they are doing now. Same with the Nepali Maoists in 2005.

Similarly, today hardly any of us know that the PKP is very close to strategic equilibrium and is fighting US soldiers, or that the PCP too is fighting direct intervention by the US, or that the Indian Maoists have established the embryonic forms of village communes in their strongholds.

So, when it comes to revolutionary warfare, it is not right to jump to conclusions very fast.

That's quite a change in tone and tune, comrade. The claim, remember was that the MLs are "tearing up" the capitalist countries. That's a lot more than just doing well. That means to me at least, the MLs have the bourgeoisie disorganized, incapable of defending against, containing the current level of struggle; that in fact power is slipping from the hands of the bourgeois class. Can you look at any of the countries you cite and see any evidence of the bourgeoisie, as a class, actually losing power? Certainly not in Colombia or the Philippines.

Factually, the FARC is not doing OK at all. It's hardly doing period.

Doing well in Turkey? Please indicate how, where. Doing well in Peru? How? And what evidence is there that any of this amounts to "tearing up" capitalist countries?

I agree that when it comes to revolutionary warfare, it is not right to jump to conclusions very fast. So how can you justify the jump that says "MLs are tearing up the capitalist countries"?

As I said, this is all off topic. Have you read Furr's article. Can you point to actual objective "new evidence"?

[scarletghoul]

You might be right, but as Artesian showed, the claim that "MLs are tearing up the capitalist world" is a huge exaggeration.
The tearing up is just beginning, but it is clearly there and intensifying by the day. In the past we tore up considerable bits of the capitalist world, unfortunately that ultimately failed but the 21st century communist movement, under ML leadership, is now begging to do it again, having learned many valuble lessons.. and all this time trots have been doin fuck-all.


Moreover, everything you serial screw-ups have touched has gone down the pan.
Bullshit, we've got loads of great movements going on. Anyway at least we actually do touch things and don't just spout opportunistic annoying crap from sidelines

So, it's no surprise you have to clutch at straws and claim they are super-tankers!:lol:
You do not think what's happening in Nepal or anywhere else is significant at all ? thats weird

Anyway, by whatever measure you criticise us, trots are doing far far worse. (not that your criticisms are correct at all tho)

[S.Artesian]

Can I ask you, comrade, have you read the Furr article?

[Kléber]

I'll be honest with you, I've not actually read the Furr article as its not of much interest to me (dont think we need any more evidence that trotsky was an unpleasant scumbag :lol:). I just find it funny to see the shocked reaction of people like youu
http://rahiel.dlnet.org/images/TrollFace.png

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


The tearing up is just beginning, but it is clearly there and intensifying by the day.

Yet more straws I see.:lol:


In the past we tore up considerable bits of the capitalist world, unfortunately that ultimately failed but the 21st century communist movement, under ML leadership, is now begging to do it again, having learned many valuble lessons.. and all this time trots have been doin fuck-all.

Well, we certainly haven't produced over a dozen new capitalist states like you serial screw-ups have.

So far, your "tearing up the capitalist class" has simply added to their ranks! Yet more members of the bourgeoisie, thanks to you MLM-ers.

Good call!:thumbup1:


Bullshit, we've got loads of great movements going on. Anyway at least we actually do touch things and don't just spout opportunistic annoying crap from sidelines

So, you can't name one single successful, MLM-er socialist state. Thought not.

No wonder you get foul-mouthed when reminded of this...:lol:


You do not think what's happening in Nepal or anywhere else is significant at all ? thats weird

You'll screw that up, too.:(


Anyway, by whatever measure you criticise us, trots are doing far far worse. (not that your criticisms are correct at all tho)

Maybe so, maybe not; but one thing we do know for certain, every single 'socialist' state you MLM-ers have set up and run has reverted to some form of capitalism, or is rapidly on the way there...

Calling you "serial screw-ups" is thus to praise you lot too highly.:lol:

[S.Artesian]

The Maoists do have a lot of influence in a lot of territory, and are probably stronger than they have been for decades. Sure they're not exactly marching into New Delhi, but they're certainly headed in the right direction strategically.


urgh im sick of these ignorant twats. read about the peoples councils, worker peasant militia, etc etc.

http://links.org.au/node/996


I'll be honest with you, I've not actually read the Furr article as its not of much interest to me (dont think we need any more evidence that trotsky was an unpleasant scumbag :lol:). I just find it funny to see the shocked reaction of people like youu

Workers councils, militias do not a Marxist-Leninist make. By that definition Allende was a Marxist-Leninist.

What counts is not what Chavez, Morales, says they are, but the actual social programs, the actual direction the class struggle is taking.

Thanks for your honesty. I've been around awhile, I'm shocked by very little these days, least of all people who don't actually know anything but act as if they know something because somebody with equally little knowledge of the development of class struggle, told him or her something.

Nor am I shocked that your "being honest" is an admission of ignorance.

[Barry Lyndon]

I am kind of in the middle here. On one hand, I don't like it that the Trots are belittling genuine revolutionary struggles that are occurring in Nepal, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere. You really have no answer to why there's no effective Trotskyist movement anywhere on earth. Trots seem to forget that Trotsky, in addition to being a theorist, also led an army.
Yet on the other hand, I generally agree with the Trots that Stalin was pretty demonstrably a counter-revolutionary, murdering, lying, genocidal piece of shit, and that his rabid defenders really have to get over that fact and move on, instead of endlessly recycling smear pieces that Stalin put out to defame Trotsky.
If Trotsky was such a slimy, disloyal counterrevolutionary, then I guess Lenin had to be a fucking idiot because he put him in charge of the Red Army when the Soviet Union was fighting for its life in the Russian Civil War.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Barry:


I am kind of in the middle here. On one hand, I don't like it that the Trots are belittling genuine revolutionary struggles that are occurring in Nepal, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere.

We aren't belittling them, we are just not prepared to hale them in the grossly exaggerated way that the MLM-ers here do. If you read Vyborg's posts above, you will see what I mean.


You really have no answer to why there's no effective Trotskyist movement anywhere on earth.

Ah, but I have, but it will be off-topic in this thread.

[Kléber]

On one hand, I don't like it that the Trots are belittling genuine revolutionary struggles that are occurring in Nepal, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere.
There are lots of stupid comments on both sides in the sectarian football teams atmosphere. But let's be clear about something here, what "Trots" are defending is not Trotskyism but Leninism. Trotsky said in his writings on China that the Bolshevik-Leninist attitude towards the peasant movement has nothing in common with abstentionist dilettantism. Nobody here is against the struggles of indigenous peoples and farmers to defend themselves against government attacks. No one here is supporting the Indian bourgeoisie or they should be banned from the website. The Maoist-jihadist "anti-revisionist" analysis is simply bankrupt whereas the theory of permanent revolution explains the failures of "socialism in one country."


You really have no answer to why there's no effective Trotskyist movement anywhere on earth. Trots seem to forget that Trotsky, in addition to being a theorist, also led an army. When Marx and Engels developed their historical materialist analysis there was no Marxist movement anywhere on earth. Should they have become Taiping Christians then since the forces of Hong Xiuquan were engaged in a military conflict against imperialism at the time? Should Plekhanov have stuck with the Narodniks because they were waging a revolutionary armed struggle?

As for how the Fourth International was routed, that's because it came under violent attack from the intelligence agencies of multiple superpowers. GPU leaders had mockingly said "We'll build Trotsky his Fourth International." Sure enough they blanketed it with spies and provocations, assassinated its leaders and repressed the national organizations, namely the Soviet, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban sections, to the ruin of the world revolution.

The First International collapsed in a cloud of sectarian bickering, so it might have looked like Marx "failed," but decades later, Lenin and co. salvaged its revolutionary principles from the revisionist muck of the Second International. Trotsky's theories can't be said to have failed any more than Marx's because history isn't over yet. "Socialism in one country" on the other hand is a proven failure since private accumulation and restoration came from within the Party during "socialism."

[S.Artesian]

I am kind of in the middle here. On one hand, I don't like it that the Trots are belittling genuine revolutionary struggles that are occurring in Nepal, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere. You really have no answer to why there's no effective Trotskyist movement anywhere on earth. Trots seem to forget that Trotsky, in addition to being a theorist, also led an army.
Yet on the other hand, I generally agree with the Trots that Stalin was pretty demonstrably a counter-revolutionary, murdering, lying, genocidal piece of shit, and that his rabid defenders really have to get over that fact and move on, instead of endlessly recycling smear pieces that Stalin put out to defame Trotsky.
If Trotsky was such a slimy, disloyal counterrevolutionary, then I guess Lenin had to be a fucking idiot because he put him in charge of the Red Army when the Soviet Union was fighting for its life in the Russian Civil War.

Nobody, at least not I, is "belittling" the revolutionary "movements" in Bolivia, Venezuela. I disputed, and still dispute, that "MLs are tearing up capitalist countries across the world." There certainly are revolutionary struggles going on in Bolivia and Venezuela, but Chavez is not a Marxist-Leninist, and no ML party is leading that struggle in Venezuela.

Morales... well, pardon me if I point this out once again, but how can anyone call the MAS government of Morales "ML" or even revolutionary when Bolivia provides armed military troops to man the US/UN occupation of Haiti? Is that "Marxism-Leninism" in practice? Is this "ML" self-determination of nations at work? Maybe it is, after all China provided 140 police officers to supplement those UN troops a year ago....

So do me a favor and don't say I'm "dissing" a real revolutionary movement in Bolivia by not jumping on the MAS bandwagon, when Morales is, along with Brazil, Chile, Argentina, supporting pre-emptive counter-revolution in Haiti.

[Jacobinist]

There are lots of stupid comments on both sides in the sectarian football teams atmosphere. But let's be clear about something here, what "Trots" are defending is not Trotskyism but Leninism. Trotsky said in his writings on China that the Bolshevik-Leninist attitude towards the peasant movement has nothing in common with abstentionist dilettantism. Nobody here is against the struggles of indigenous peoples and farmers to defend themselves against government attacks. No one here is supporting the Indian bourgeoisie or they should be banned from the website. The Maoist-jihadist "anti-revisionist" analysis is simply bankrupt whereas the theory of permanent revolution explains the failures of "socialism in one country."

Very true. Lennin himself said the USSR was a workers state with 'bureaucratic deformations.'

[Jimmie Higgins]

Please... even fellow Trotskyists call Cliffites (who have been the major trolls in these types of threads) as "liberal anti-communists". Cliffites have so blindly accepted the Trotsky personality cult that anybody who dares question him is either a fool or a heretic. Anybody who dares question Trotsky... you mean like criticizing his analysis of the USSR which essentially defines what you call the "cliffite" tendency.

Again, for personality cults, please see this thread and all the other threads trying to discredit trotskyist politics by trying to discredit Trotsky the man. Also opposition to Stalinism has nothing to do with Stalin's qualities as an individual - it's the counter-revolution and class and politics that he represents. But since history has so thoroughly shown the failure and bankruptcy of Stalinism to bring about or even care about worker's power and therefore socialism, all that the poor stalinists have left is to try and smear anyone who has criticisms of the USSR and talk about how much Stalin truly loved the workers and peasants.

[Chambered Word]

Please... even fellow Trotskyists call Cliffites (who have been the major trolls in these types of threads) as "liberal anti-communists". Cliffites have so blindly accepted the Trotsky personality cult that anybody who dares question him is either a fool or a heretic.

I am interested as to how 'Cliffite' is defined.


I am kind of in the middle here. On one hand, I don't like it that the Trots are belittling genuine revolutionary struggles that are occurring in Nepal, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere. You really have no answer to why there's no effective Trotskyist movement anywhere on earth. Trots seem to forget that Trotsky, in addition to being a theorist, also led an army.

That's a bit of a silly analogy seeing as they were a worker's army and not peasants. We can have struggle all we like, but if nothing is going to come from it then what is the point? I'm sure the people who are struggling would like to see something come out of the movement they live, fight and even die for, which is why we need criticism. I'm not saying Trotskyists do no work in the actual movements, but that's beside the point.

You seem like a decent fellow, but I was wondering if you were aware of the killings of Trotskyists in North Vietnam, seeing as you have Ho Chi Minh as your avatar.

[red cat]

That's quite a change in tone and tune, comrade. The claim, remember was that the MLs are "tearing up" the capitalist countries. That's a lot more than just doing well. That means to me at least, the MLs have the bourgeoisie disorganized, incapable of defending against, containing the current level of struggle; that in fact power is slipping from the hands of the bourgeois class. Can you look at any of the countries you cite and see any evidence of the bourgeoisie, as a class, actually losing power? Certainly not in Colombia or the Philippines.

Factually, the FARC is not doing OK at all. It's hardly doing period.

Doing well in Turkey? Please indicate how, where. Doing well in Peru? How? And what evidence is there that any of this amounts to "tearing up" capitalist countries?

I agree that when it comes to revolutionary warfare, it is not right to jump to conclusions very fast. So how can you justify the jump that says "MLs are tearing up the capitalist countries"?

As I said, this is all off topic. Have you read Furr's article. Can you point to actual objective "new evidence"?

No I haven't read that article and I am not personally interested in providing any new evidence. Even if it is proved that Trotsky actually infiltrated the Nazi army with his own spies and secretly helped USSR to win the war, that will have no impact on the correctness of The Trotskyist political line, or the activities of the organizations affiliated to it.

The FARC is defending its strongholds successfully against US troops who disguise themselves as forces meant for preventing drug-trafficking.

In Peru, the PCP has escalated both mass and military activities and is once again starting to reemerge in the cities.

In Turkey, the TKP(ML) had lost twelve CC members in 2008. But they have managed to continue military actions against the state.

The situation in Philippines is very close to the strategic equilibrium. The PKP has opened political and military branches in all areas, so that they can match the number of the government troops. In the Philippines, the ruling class is ruling power. In fact, it is so weak now that it has to rely on US forces for protecting it.


Baloney. The struggle in India has been ongoing for 30 years, with the "Naxalites" being physically liquidated several times, reemerging when the Indian government pushed forward with its dispossession of the forest/tribal peoples. Nothing indicates that the current rebellion, which all Marxists defend from repression by the Indian government has routed the Indian capitalists, has the government split, divided as to how to handle the situation, or immobilized.

The struggle in India started in 1967. Due to the line of (stageless) city insurrections and later, individual annihilation, it had suffered a huge setback. However, from 1980, the power of the revolutionary forces has been steadily increasing, and now it has spread to rural areas as well as small towns, the associated democratic and trade union movements gaining pace in big cities as well, as a result.

If, however by "tearing capitalism down" you understand moving towards the strategic offensive, I am sorry to say that it will take at least five more years for Maoists in any country to do so.

[red cat]

I agree, this is something 1 century old after all.



Well at that time for a national CC was not easy to disagree with Stalins isnt'it..ayway let's leave it to the history too.



If we read Mao of the 40s what was his position about the revolution? Did he propose a workers revolution? No, he proposed a popular fronto against the Japanese and against imperialism in general. Of course, the country was occupied, so a form of alliance was inevitable. The mistake was the idea that the GMD and the chinese burgeoisie in general could be an ally for the workers. this was the mistake that lost the CPC in 1925-1927. Mao, anyway, was aware of the disaster of the 20s. So even if in theory he wrote a path very similar to that, he was ready to change attitude in practice. When the japanese were defeated and the americans started to help the GMD, still Mao pretended to fight for a democratic capitalist China as a first step for a socialist society. It tactict proved impossible to follow. The merit of Mao, not a small one, was that, due also to the experience of decades of wars against the GMD and japanese imperialism, he went over his own programme. But also after the revolution, the Mao's idea was not a socialist society but a gradual development of China. That is the classical popular front. As the "front" was impossible with the GMD, in the meantime escaped to Taiwan, Mao decided for a soviet solution. The solution was not exactly the same (we will discuss it later on, fi you want), but the general picture was the same: a stalinist dictatorship. capitalists defeated but workers silenced.



yes, but also the CPSU was one...

Let us not bring our historical lines concerning the CPSU into this, because they will be diametrically opposite.

By a communist party, let us refer to a party that has a mass base, upholds the final programme of transforming the society into a communist one, and whose actions in every way are positive for the working class and the oppressed masses in general. There should also be democratic centralism in the party.

By Leninism, it is only this kind of party that can lead even a successful national liberation movement since the Leninist era of proletarian revolution, or in short, the era of Leninism, has started.

So that fact that the CPC led a successful national movement and completely overthrew feudalism and imperialism automatically makes it a party of this type.

Now you can argue that immediately after the revolution there was a revisionist takeover. But this is contradicted by the fact that the policies of the CPC never changed at that point of time.

The idea of the united front was perfected by Mao, but I think that Trotskyists generally agree with alliance with the peasantry and left-wing of the petite-bourgeoisie. Note that Maoists consider the national bourgeoisie as a vacillating ally. The "new democratic" stage of revolution generally is concerned with fighting imperialism and feudalism. Once it has been completed, class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie intensifies.

[Barry Lyndon]

Artesian-Could you provide evidence that Bolivia is providing military support to the US/UN occupation of Haiti? I know Cuba and Venezuela have doctors there, but this is a new one to me.

[vyborg]

Let us not bring our historical lines concerning the CPSU into this, because they will be diametrically opposite.

By a communist party, let us refer to a party that has a mass base, upholds the final programme of transforming the society into a communist one, and whose actions in every way are positive for the working class and the oppressed masses in general. There should also be democratic centralism in the party.

By Leninism, it is only this kind of party that can lead even a successful national liberation movement since the Leninist era of proletarian revolution, or in short, the era of Leninism, has started.

So that fact that the CPC led a successful national movement and completely overthrew feudalism and imperialism automatically makes it a party of this type.

Now you can argue that immediately after the revolution there was a revisionist takeover. But this is contradicted by the fact that the policies of the CPC never changed at that point of time.

The idea of the united front was perfected by Mao, but I think that Trotskyists generally agree with alliance with the peasantry and left-wing of the petite-bourgeoisie. Note that Maoists consider the national bourgeoisie as a vacillating ally. The "new democratic" stage of revolution generally is concerned with fighting imperialism and feudalism. Once it has been completed, class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie intensifies.

I agree that a communist leninist party should fight along the line you syntetize.

As for the popular front, these are two different things. The alliance between workers and petty burgeoisie is foundamental, I agree, but with popular front the stalinist meant quite a different policy that is an organic subordination of the proletariat party to the national capitalists. They did it every time they could (Spain, France, etc.). This was the original idea also of Mao. But the popular front in China in 1949 was simply impossibile, so Mao went in another direction: he took power and expropriated capitalists and they flew to Taiwan.

In general, I know that most of ML are against popular frontism when they know what really is. Unfortunately the ML leaders are not. So I think every good comrade in a ML group should fight against this policy in his/her group

[S.Artesian]

Artesian-Could you provide evidence that Bolivia is providing military support to the US/UN occupation of Haiti? I know Cuba and Venezuela have doctors there, but this is a new one to me.

Not a problem, check the UN Peacekeeping site:

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minustah/facts.shtml

Here's what they publicize:

Country contributors

Military personnel

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, India, Jordan, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, United States and Uruguay.
Police personnel

Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Columbia, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Grenada, Guinea, India, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Madagascar, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Togo, Turkey, United States, Uruguay and Yemen.


________________


You're tax dollars, and your "ML" capitalist tearer-uppers at work.




Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina have been there since 2005 I believe. 21st Century socialism in practice, I guess....


Just like the suppression in 1945 of the Vietnamese workers' rebellion, against the restoration of French colonialism at the end of WW 2 by the "official" Communists was 20th century socialism at work.


It's a lovely history of stabilizing capitalism the "MLs" have built for themselves.

[Josef Balin]

Red Cat:



He can't be doing so; Trotskyists exist in this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

Now, if you want to say these are identical, then you must be a late convert to the validity of the 'law of identity'.:lol:

On the other hand, if you question to concrete application of this 'law', they can't be identical.

Which is probably part of the reason why they do not inhabit this planet...:)
That was the most pompous way to type "there's a difference between "ists" and "ites'" I've ever seen. Please tell me you don't actually talk like that? You sound like you're trying to impress your middle school friends...


Honestly, I completely agree with you in argument, but the way you typed that means you either need someone else to call you smart so you can think you are or are a sheltered child of a royal family from a thousand years ago.

[red cat]

I agree that a communist leninist party should fight along the line you syntetize.

As for the popular front, these are two different things. The alliance between workers and petty burgeoisie is foundamental, I agree, but with popular front the stalinist meant quite a different policy that is an organic subordination of the proletariat party to the national capitalists. They did it every time they could (Spain, France, etc.). This was the original idea also of Mao. But the popular front in China in 1949 was simply impossibile, so Mao went in another direction: he took power and expropriated capitalists and they flew to Taiwan.

In general, I know that most of ML are against popular frontism when they know what really is. Unfortunately the ML leaders are not. So I think every good comrade in a ML group should fight against this policy in his/her group

Maoism says this nowhere. The national bourgeoisie is by no means considered a motive force of revolution. Only a vacillating ally.

As soon as the GMD fell to the comprador bourgeoisie, they attacked the CPC. Afterwards, a tactical alliance was possible only because the Japanese imperialists were a common foe, and basically Chiang was forced to agree to cooperate at gun point by two of his generals. Quite naturally, as soon as the war against Japan ended, civil war erupted within the CPC and GMD.

And about "Mao taking power", I would like to mention here that the Maoist line always maintains that the proletariat must provide class leadership in the revolution, and the masses must criticize and bring down corrupt or revisionist elements inside the party . There is no place for individualism in a Maoist party.

[Crux]

Just a comment in passing on FARC. Their political wing the PC3 (Partido Communista Clandestino de Colombia "Secret Communist Party of Colombia") work with trotskyists, might even include trotskyists. Given their clandestine nature it's hard to know. My verification for them working with trotskyists is something I know after meeting with a representative of the PC3.

[red cat]

Just a comment in passing on FARC. Their political wing the PC3 (Partido Communista Clandestino de Colombia "Secret Communist Party of Colombia") work with trotskyists, might even include trotskyists. Given their clandestine nature it's hard to know. My verification for them working with trotskyists is something I know after meeting with a representative of the PC3.

If Trotskyists agree with the revolutionary line applicable to Colombia, I see no reason why the FARC should not work with them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Joseph Balin:


That was the most pompous way to type "there's a difference between "ists" and "ites'" I've ever seen. Please tell me you don't actually talk like that? You sound like you're trying to impress your middle school friends...

No, it's a way of making my point (which should be obvious) while exposing the inconsistent way that these dialectical mystics approach the 'law of identity'.


Honestly, I completely agree with you in argument, but the way you typed that means you either need someone else to call you smart so you can think you are or are a sheltered child of a royal family from a thousand years ago.

Well, if ever I need them, it seems I can take lessons from you how not to look 'smart'.

[manic expression]

Not a problem, check the UN Peacekeeping site:That gives us nothing in specific, without any context whatsoever. Saying that Bolivia is in cahoots with American imperialism because they're on that list is simply meaningless.

[S.Artesian]

Bolivia has been supplying military troops to UN missions in the Congo, and in Haiti after the US 2004 coup. In Haiti, they perform the same functions as the US, French, etc. military peacekeepers. When was MINUSTAH deployed to Haiti? After the US had Aristide kidnapped and spirited from the country.

Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia replaced under the UN flag, the US Marines under the US flag. What do you think these troops are doing there? Planting trees, creating democracy?

Supporters of Morales have been quite candid about this, admitting the MAS government is doing this for the revenue stream the UN payments bring to the military. I think the word for that is "mercenary." Check with F. Fuentes of Greenleft, or whatever that group is called, and ardent defender of Morales and the MAS.

What more context do you need? You think the occupation by the UN is a setback for US domination of Haiti?

Or does self-determination not apply to countries like Haiti but only to ones like Bolivia?

Tell you what, comrade, since it is clear that you didn't even know that this was going on, why don't you give us your spin on this occupation, you give us the context; give us the context that justifies UN occupation of a country to maintain the austerity program demanded by the IMF, because that's what got Aristide in trouble--his opposition to IMF stipulations.

[Barry Lyndon]

Wait, Artesian-you are aware that the deployment of Bolivian troops was after the (second)ouster of Aristide in 2004, two years before Evo Morales was even elected? How is that his fault?
I am going to assume that you are misinformed, and not that you are lying in order to score cheap political points.

[S.Artesian]

Wait, Artesian-you are aware that the deployment after the (second)ouster of Aristide was in 2004, two years before Morales was even elected? How is that his fault?
I am going to assume that you are misinformed, and not that you are lying in order to score cheap political points.



I'm not accusing Morales and the MAS of ousting Aristide. I am stating that Morales and the MAS have continued to authorize the participation of the Bolivian military in the occupation of Haiti. That participation is budgeted for in the MAS govt. budget, and the revenues received from the UN for this participation are used to pay and equip the Bolivian military. Very possibly, Morales views the income generated as a way to keep the military "quiet," and "bought off" thus less likely to initiate a coup in Bolivia. I don't know for sure. And I do not care. No "ML" should be supplying troops to the UN occupation of Haiti.

Brazil used to have nominal command over the UN occupation, until the Brazilian commander blew his brains out.

Do you support the US, France, Canada providing troops to the UN force occupying Haiti? If not, why would you excuse Bolivia acting as the mercenary force for the US, France, Canada?

[manic expression]

Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia replaced under the UN flag, the US Marines under the US flag.
So in other words, it's not the same force.


Tell you what, comrade, since it is clear that you didn't even know that this was going on,
No, I didn't know Morales kidnapped Aristide. Quite a revelation, that. What new "revelations" will you provide us with this time?

[S.Artesian]

So in other words, it's not the same force.


No, I didn't know Morales kidnapped Aristide. Quite a revelation, that. What new "revelations" will you provide us with this time?

What's that we say in London, "Don't take the piss, son"? Don't play the fool. No one claimed Morales kidnapped Aristide. After the kidnapping the US occupied Haiti with its military, under its own flag, to suppress resistance and demands for Aristide's return. Remember that? Maybe you were asleep, like Zelaya, when this was going on.

The US, with the ardent support of its allies France and Canada worked diligently to have a UN "peacekeeping force" deployed to cover and obscure its continued control of Haiti. Remember US control of air traffic after the earthquake-- the turning back of the rescue missions from Iceland, and MSF-- or were you asleep during that too?

Since Morales has been in office, authorization for the Bolivian military to maintain its presence in Haiti has been reissued by the Morales government.

You want to excuse that? I'm sure the people of Haiti will love to hear you expound on "national self-determination" and the rights of oppressed people while they deal with the helping hands of the Brazilian, Chilean, Bolivian etc. military.

What was it Ripley said in Aliens? "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"

Party of socialism and liberation? Right. pseudo-ism and misinformation is more like it.

[manic expression]

No one claimed Morales kidnapped Aristide.
Then why in the world are you blabbering on about something Morales had nothing to do with? You're talking about Aristide's kidnapping, which has patently nothing to do with Morales. In short, you're acting the fool.


The US, with the ardent support of its allies France and Canada worked diligently to have a UN "peacekeeping force" deployed to cover and obscure its continued control of Haiti. Remember US control of air traffic after the earthquake-- the turning back of the rescue missions from Iceland, and MSF-- or were you asleep during that too?
And did Bolivian troops take part in that directly? Were Bolivian troops occupying the airport? Why are you trying to make US policies the fault of Morales once again? Have fun trying to form a coherent argument.

[S.Artesian]

Then why in the world are you blabbering on about something Morales had nothing to do with? You're talking about Aristide's kidnapping, which has patently nothing to do with Morales. In short, you're acting the fool.


And did Bolivian troops take part in that directly? Were Bolivian troops occupying the airport? Why are you trying to make US policies the fault of Morales once again? Have fun trying to form a coherent argument.

The UN peace-keeping force, to which Bolivia continues to provide military, armed troops is occupying Haiti as a result of the US coup.

Is that much clear?

The UN peace-keeping force has been involved in firefights, arrests, and suppression of militants in Haiti? Is that clear?

Bolivia continues to provide military troops to that force engaged in suppressing the elements in Haiti who have in the past demanded the return of Aristide, and who have protested the perpetuation of their poverty generated by capitalist policies, and the requirements of international capitalist institutions like the IMF.

Is that much clear?

OK, here's the windup-- Bolivia, under Morales and MAS has NOT broken its alliance with the international capitalist suppression of resistance in Haiti. For money received, the Bolivian military deploys soldiers to enforce the authority of the UN mission.

Last time I checked Morales was the elected, and titular head of the government in Bolivia with the authority, at least in writing, to withhold the deployment of the Bolivian military.

If you have information to the contrary, please share it with us.

[manic expression]

The UN peace-keeping force has been involved in firefights, arrests, and suppression of militants in Haiti? Is that clear?
Well, now we're back to square one. Do you have any evidence that Bolivian troops have directly participated in these activities? By extension, what acts have been carried out by Bolivian troops? That was my original question, if you remember. You see, it's not that I'm defending the Bolivian state in this, I think it deserves criticism for it; what I'm looking for are the specifics of Bolivian participation, that is concrete context, not some list that you got from a UN website. You, however, are either unwilling or unable to provide anything of the sort, which is indicative of your nonexistent arguments.

Now do try to answer my question directly this time, so we don't have to chase your tortured logic in circles through yet another series of posts.

[S.Artesian]

Are you fucking kidding me? Has the UN mission military force been involved in firefights in Haiti? In arrrests of militants? Yes, that has been reported in newspapers. I don't know how many Bolivians were involved in the missions under Brazilian command. I don't know how many US troops, Canadian troops, French troops participated.

Do you support the removal of US troops from Haiti? Canadian? Brazilian? If so why, if not why not? In either case, what makes the Bolivian troops a special case.

They shouldn't be there. They are there at the command of the bourgeoisie. Simple fact.

Should a "real revolutionist" a so-called socialist having power over the deployment of a military allow that military to be utilized to support a multinational capitalist occupation of an oppressed people?

That's the question. These aren't doctors being sent over to Haiti by Cuba under its own flag; these are armed troops under the UN flag. They're not there for any other reason than to enforce the economic domination of the people by US capitalism-- unless of course you think the UN is some sort of "neutral" body.

[S.Artesian]

From the Wiki entry on UN Peacekeeping in Haiti:

Although the United Nations Stabilization Mission (MINUSTAH) has been in Haiti since 2004, as of 2007, it continued to struggle for control over the armed gangs. It maintains an armed checkpoint at the entrance to the shanty town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanty_town) of Cité Soleil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cit%C3%A9_Soleil) and the road is blocked with armed vehicles.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-redcross.int-31) In January 2006, two Jordanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan) peacekeepers were killed in Cité Soleil.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-32) In October 2006 a heavily armed group of the Haitian National Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_National_Police) were able to enter Cité Soleil for the first time in three years and were able to remain one hour as armored UN troops patrolled the area. Since this is where the armed gangs take their kidnap victims, the police's ability to penetrate the area even for such a short time was seen as a sign of progress.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-police-33) The situation of continuing violence is similar in Port-au-Prince (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-au-Prince). Ex-soldiers, supporters of the ex-president, occupied the home of ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide) against the wishes of the Haitian government.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-34) Before Christmas 2006 the UN force announced that it would take a tougher stance against gang members in Port-au-Prince, but since then the atmosphere there has not improved and the armed roadblocks and barbed wire barricades have not been moved. After four people were killed and another six injured in a UN operation exchange of fire with criminals in Cité Soleil in late January 2007, the United States announced that it would contribute $20 million to create jobs in Cité Soleil.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-35)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-36)
In early February 2007, 700 UN troops flooded Cité Soleil resulting in a major gun battle. Although the troops make regular forcible entries into the area, a spokesperson said this one was the largest attempted so far by the UN troops.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-37) On 28 July 2007, Edmond Mulet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Mulet), the UN Special Representative in Haiti and MINUSTAH Mission Chief, warned of a sharp increase in lynchings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching) and other mob attacks in Haiti. He said MINUSTAH, which now has 9,000 troops there, will launch a campaign to remind people lynchings are a crime.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-38)
On 2 August 2007, UN Secretary-General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secretary-General) Ban Ki Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Ki_Moon) arrived in Haiti to assess the role of the UN forces, announcing that he would visit Cité Soleil during his visit. He said that it was Haiti's largest slum and as such was the most important target for U.N. peace keepers in gaining control over the armed gangs. During his visit he announced an extension of the mandate of the UN forces in Haiti.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-39) It took MINUSTAH three months and 800 arrests to deal with the gangs and lessen the number of kidnappings on the streets.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-guidi-40)
President René Préval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Pr%C3%A9val) has expressed ambivalent feelings about the UN security presence, stating “if the Haitian people were asked if they wanted the UN forces to leave they would say yes.”[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-41) Survivors frequently blame the UN peace keepers for deaths of relatives.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-42)
[emphasis added]
In April 2008, Haiti was facing a severe food crisis as well as governmental destabilization to Parliament's failure to ratify the president's choice of a prime minister. There were severe riots and the UN force fired rubber bullets in Port au Prince and the riot calmed.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-43) The head of MINUSTAH has called for a new government to be chosen as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the UN provided emergency food.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-44) Haiti was hit by four consecutive hurricanes between August and September of 2008. These storms cripples coastal regions, requiring humanitarian aid for 800,000.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-andr.C3.A9-45)
Critics of MINUSTAH's goal of providing security say that the provision of increased police presence is coming with the unfortunate consequence of neglecting the vast socioeconomic problems in the area, the lack of effort in addressing infrastructure improvement, the joblessness and the pervasive poverty. In 2009, with the appointment of former President Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Clinton) as the UN Special Envoy, there is hope that the international donor community will provide increased aid. MINUSTAH renewed its commitment to Haiti, and $3 billion for projects has been pledged by the international community, much of this for rebuilding after the hurricanes. However, in Cité Soleil, there are signs of a desire for political independence that the international community would rather ignore.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-guidi-40)

[/URL]

On 6 January 2006, UN mission head Juan Gabriel Valdés announced that MINUSTAH forces would launch another raid on Cité Soleil. Dismissing fears by human rights groups that more civilians will be killed, Valdés said, "We are going to intervene in the coming days. I think there'll be collateral damage but we have to impose our force, there is no other way."[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-guidi-40)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Stabilization_Missi on_in_Haiti&action=edit&section=9)] 18 June 2009 Incident

Fanmi Lavalas, Haiti's largest political party and grassroots movement, laid Catholic priest Father Gerard Jean-Juste to rest on 18 June accompanied by thousands of mourners. The procession and demonstration were suddenly interrupted by gunfire that could be heard from around the corner. Witnesses report that Brazilian soldiers with the United Nations military mission opened fire after attempting to arrest one of the mourners. The UN has since denied the shooting and claim that the victim had been killed by either a rock thrown by the crowd or a blunt instrument. Eyewitnesses on the scene have countered that the UN is trying to cover-up the incident.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-66)
Legal proceedings

A trial involving the Brazilian contingent of the military forces of the MINUSTAH is currently in progress at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights) (IACHR). The case, brought forward by Mario Joseph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Joseph) from the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_des_Avocats_Internationaux) (BAI) and Brian Concannon from the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJDH), concerns Jimmy Charles, a grassroots activist who was arrested by UN troops in 2005, and handed over to the Haitian police. His body was found a few days later in the morgue, filled with bullet holes.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-67) The BAI filed a complaint in Haitian courts, to no avail, and in early 2006 it filed a petition with the IACHR. The IACHR accepted the case regarding the State of Haiti, and rejected the complaint against Brazil,[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti#cite _note-68) showing a legal vacuum in the UN's accountability.


[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti

So tell me again, what kind of ML allows, supports, excuses, equivocates about a military being used in this mission?

[vyborg]

Maoism says this nowhere. The national bourgeoisie is by no means considered a motive force of revolution. Only a vacillating ally.

As soon as the GMD fell to the comprador bourgeoisie, they attacked the CPC. Afterwards, a tactical alliance was possible only because the Japanese imperialists were a common foe, and basically Chiang was forced to agree to cooperate at gun point by two of his generals. Quite naturally, as soon as the war against Japan ended, civil war erupted within the CPC and GMD.

And about "Mao taking power", I would like to mention here that the Maoist line always maintains that the proletariat must provide class leadership in the revolution, and the masses must criticize and bring down corrupt or revisionist elements inside the party . There is no place for individualism in a Maoist party.

We will discuss later on about the rethoric of the "mass line" in the Mao's party.

As for the national capitalists, they are not vacillating ally they are enemies. Period. Working class must not confuse with them

[red cat]

We will discuss later on about the rethoric of the "mass line" in the Mao's party.

As for the national capitalists, they are not vacillating ally they are enemies. Period. Working class must not confuse with them

Imperialism prevents the growth of national capital. So, while only a small portion of the national bourgeoisie is appointed as managers of foreign capital and turn into compradors, the rest of the national bourgeoisie is in contradiction with both imperialism and feudalism.

On the other hand, they know that one of the possible consequences of a new democratic revolution is a socialist revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. Also, due to contradictions within imperialism, the present compradors might be abandoned and a new section of the national bourgeoisie might be chosen. That is why they vacillate, switching between the revolutionary and reactionary forces from time to time, and fully supporting the revolution only when it has become very powerful.

Thus, even though in a socialist revolution the national bourgeoisie is the main enemy, during the new democratic revolution it is a vacillating ally.

[manic expression]

So tell me again, what kind of ML allows, supports, excuses, equivocates about a military being used in this mission?
All I've done is ask you for specific actions of Bolivian troops in Haiti. That's it. Obviously, you are unable to provide such evidence, which shows us that your argument is based on nothing but your own hot air. Until you answer my simple questions, you're just ranting without the slightest shred of validity. Well done.

[vyborg]

the national burgeoisie cannot develop independently because world economy is ruled by the giant firms from imperialist countries. so the problem is not of "contradiction" but of subordinaton.

national capitalists cannot be independent from imperialism and they fear the working class. so they always will side with imperialism. that's why proletariat must not try to win them but to frighten and emarginate then, while winning the small peasants and petty shops and other petty burgeois

[Chambered Word]

All I've done is ask you for specific actions of Bolivian troops in Haiti. That's it. Obviously, you are unable to provide such evidence, which shows us that your argument is based on nothing but your own hot air. Until you answer my simple questions, you're just ranting without the slightest shred of validity. Well done.

Let this be a lesson in life, Artesian. Don't bother arguing with manic expression. :rolleyes:

[red cat]

the national burgeoisie cannot develop independently because world economy is ruled by the giant firms from imperialist countries. so the problem is not of "contradiction" but of subordinaton.

national capitalists cannot be independent from imperialism and they fear the working class. so they always will side with imperialism. that's why proletariat must not try to win them but to frighten and emarginate then, while winning the small peasants and petty shops and other petty burgeois

What you are saying follows from Leninism only when the national bourgeoisie provides class leadership over a revolutionary movement. Indeed, in that case they side with imperialism and never complete the revolution. But in case of a new democratic revolution, things happen a bit differently. The proletariat provides class leadership in the revolution, and hence there are two options in front of the national bourgeoisie when the revolution grows powerful:

1) They can participate in the revolution and survive it.

2) They can oppose the revolution and be crushed by it. This is because they cannot liquidate the revolution which has already grown so powerful, as they are not providing the class leadership.

This is why they support the new democratic revolution at a later stage.

[vyborg]

What you are saying follows from Leninism only when the national bourgeoisie provides class leadership over a revolutionary movement. Indeed, in that case they side with imperialism and never complete the revolution. But in case of a new democratic revolution, things happen a bit differently. The proletariat provides class leadership in the revolution, and hence there are two options in front of the national bourgeoisie when the revolution grows powerful:

1) They can participate in the revolution and survive it.

2) They can oppose the revolution and be crushed by it. This is because they cannot liquidate the revolution which has already grown so powerful, as they are not providing the class leadership.

This is why they support the new democratic revolution at a later stage.

The problem is not what they do but what WE do.
The workers party should never propose an alliance to these people. It must seize the power, push the revolution towards socialist aims and control if the burgeois plans do not interfere with the revolution.

The main point here is, once again, no to popular frontism!

[red cat]

The problem is not what they do but what WE do.
The workers party should never propose an alliance to these people. It must seize the power, push the revolution towards socialist aims and control if the burgeois plans do not interfere with the revolution.

The main point here is, once again, no to popular frontism!

When a class is pushed towards the revolution by its internal and external contradictions, we cannot stop it from participating. The best thing that we can do is to set some measures. For example, all big capitalists must hand over all of their property to the CP for redistribution, if they want to participate in the revolution, smaller bourgeois elements must abide by the labour rules the party sets and eventually leave everything to the workers etc. How else can you practically decide which person is really for or against the revolution ?

[S.Artesian]

All I've done is ask you for specific actions of Bolivian troops in Haiti. That's it. Obviously, you are unable to provide such evidence, which shows us that your argument is based on nothing but your own hot air. Until you answer my simple questions, you're just ranting without the slightest shred of validity. Well done.

Square one is the place where I first thought I was dealing with a dissembler, and an idiot. You have proven yourself to be both and both at once.

I have no specific evidence of individual US troops in Haiti arresting militants in Haiti and personally supporting the kidnapping of Aristide. Obviously, therefore, US troops are there to plant flowers, teach Sunday school, and arrange for Haitian children to find good homes in the state of Arkansas

If you want to discuss something, you're going to have to take your head out of your ass.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ah, the seeds of revolution being sown as usual, I see.

How utterly pathetic. Nobody in the real world gives a shit about Trotsky v Stalin any more.

Trotsky was a Leninist anyway, which makes the whole Trotskyism v 'Marxism-Leninism' wars even more nauseous.

[vyborg]

When a class is pushed towards the revolution by its internal and external contradictions, we cannot stop it from participating. The best thing that we can do is to set some measures. For example, all big capitalists must hand over all of their property to the CP for redistribution, if they want to participate in the revolution, smaller bourgeois elements must abide by the labour rules the party sets and eventually leave everything to the workers etc. How else can you practically decide which person is really for or against the revolution ?

I would say not to the CP but to workers' soviet (the CP is part of the workers' semistate, it is not THE semistate), but this is a detail.

The point is the revolutionary party cannot propose a government of class collaboration. period. It must lead the working class and the poor peasant to the power and start the transition to socialism. It must atract the best elements of the petty burgeoisie and terrorize big capitalists. I think we all agree on that.

Unfortunately for 50 years popular frontism was the main dogma of ML and stalinists...lukily sometimes they went over that dogma for practical reason

[red cat]

I would say not to the CP but to workers' soviet (the CP is part of the workers' semistate, it is not THE semistate), but this is a detail.

The point is the revolutionary party cannot propose a government of class collaboration. period. It must lead the working class and the poor peasant to the power and start the transition to socialism. It must atract the best elements of the petty burgeoisie and terrorize big capitalists. I think we all agree on that.

Unfortunately for 50 years popular frontism was the main dogma of ML and stalinists...lukily sometimes they went over that dogma for practical reason

You don't understand my point. How will you recognize who is against the revolution and who is not? What would your attitude be towards Engels ?

After taking basic precautions, it turns out that a significant portion of the national bourgeoisie joins the revolutionaries at a later stage, and accept the conditions for joining the movement.

[Kassad]

Let this be a lesson in life, Artesian. Don't bother arguing with manic expression. :rolleyes:

Is this really necessary? Consider this a verbal warning for spamming.

[vyborg]

You don't understand my point. How will you recognize who is against the revolution and who is not? What would your attitude be towards Engels ?

After taking basic precautions, it turns out that a significant portion of the national bourgeoisie joins the revolutionaries at a later stage, and accept the conditions for joining the movement.

When the proletariat is in power, no problem at all. Whoever is in favour of the workers power is good to me. Former landlords, former right wing politicians, former manager of big companies, former cricket players, every one is good to build socialism (of course under the very accurate scrutiny of the workers).

But my worries are for BEFORE the revolution...when we still have to conquer power and an alliance with the wrong people could prevent proletariat to take it as in 1926 occurred in China

[S.Artesian]

When the proletariat is in power, no problem at all. Whoever is in favour of the workers power is good to me. Former landlords, former right wing politicians, former manager of big companies, former cricket players, every one is good to build socialism (of course under the very accurate scrutiny of the workers).

But my worries are for BEFORE the revolution...when we still have to conquer power and an alliance with the wrong people could prevent proletariat to take it as in 1926 occurred in China

I think the way we distinguish is on the basis of program, no? Like not participating in provisional governments with the bourgeoisie, but participating in workers' councils. Like developing actions that speak to the unity of the working class as a class exercising its own power, with the soviet itself being the highest expression of a united front. Like linking the workers' efforts at self-defense-- such as the guards groups formed by union members in Honduras to defend the strike leaders in 2009-- with the need to replace the self-defense organizations of the bourgeoisie, like the Cobra squadron, the police etc.

[red cat]

When the proletariat is in power, no problem at all. Whoever is in favour of the workers power is good to me. Former landlords, former right wing politicians, former manager of big companies, former cricket players, every one is good to build socialism (of course under the very accurate scrutiny of the workers).

But my worries are for BEFORE the revolution...when we still have to conquer power and an alliance with the wrong people could prevent proletariat to take it as in 1926 occurred in China

I would attribute the setback in 1926 to a slightly different reason, but let us debate the general case in a new democratic revolution.

Even after the revolution, if the working class relaxes class struggle even the tiniest bit, the bourgeoisie can and will take over. So, our line should be not letting in anybody who does not abide by the laws set up by the working class itself. Determining class is not all about judging people only on the basis of their class origin; the new bourgeoisie might emerge from the proletariat itself.

Once the revolutionary programme has been set, anyone who wants to join may do so provided that he survives public trials for his past crimes and then proves his loyalty to the revolution through his actions. This is what makes unity with a portion of the national bourgeoisie possible.

[Paul Cockshott]

We seem some distance off topic.....


What's that we say in London, "Don't take the piss, son"? Don't play the fool. No one claimed Morales kidnapped Aristide. After the kidnapping the US occupied Haiti with its military, under its own flag, to suppress resistance and demands for Aristide's return. Remember that? Maybe you were asleep, like Zelaya, when this was going on.

The US, with the ardent support of its allies France and Canada worked diligently to have a UN "peacekeeping force" deployed to cover and obscure its continued control of Haiti. Remember US control of air traffic after the earthquake-- the turning back of the rescue missions from Iceland, and MSF-- or were you asleep during that too?

Since Morales has been in office, authorization for the Bolivian military to maintain its presence in Haiti has been reissued by the Morales government.

You want to excuse that? I'm sure the people of Haiti will love to hear you expound on "national self-determination" and the rights of oppressed people while they deal with the helping hands of the Brazilian, Chilean, Bolivian etc. military.

What was it Ripley said in Aliens? "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"

Party of socialism and liberation? Right. pseudo-ism and misinformation is more like it.

[S.Artesian]

Sure have. I posted my take on the first 1/4 of the Furr article, and there were no takers when it came to defending Furr. Somebody did claim however that "Marxist-Leninist were tearing up the capitalist countries," and somebody else took exception to my characterization of Morales and the MAS as being distinctly non-revolutionary.

I suggested to that somebody that he or she revisit the definition of Marxist-Leninist since Morales continued to authorize the Bolivian military to provide troops to the UN occupation of Haiti... and that's how we got to where we are.

Any thoughts on the Furr article?

[The Grey Blur]

Not only this, Trotskyist analysis of third world conditions is also flawed.
You should watch this and understand that the 'third world' does not exist- http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen .html (http://www.ted.com/talk)

Capitalism is a world wide organisation of human production and social relations. The 'third world' does not exist, if it ever did...Russia in 1917 was more backward than your 'third world' countries where you think the peasant revolution will occur. In India the majority of people live in the towns today...in Nepal the chief theorist of the revolution recently recommended to read Trotsky...feudal relations have been destroyed...the FARC and Shining Path etc are another hang over of the cold war...gangsters who probably kill as many workers as state soldiers. You're stuck in a mentality which has no place post-globalisation...as Marx said capitalism continues to destroy the peasantry to destroy feudal relations. The only revolutionary class are the workers.

[red cat]

You should watch this and understand that the 'third world' does not exist- http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen .html (http://www.ted.com/talk)


That link does not link to any video. Please check and resend.



Capitalism is a world wide organisation of human production and social relations.
Capitalism has transformed itself into imperialism. To exploit its colonies and at the same time prevent the growth of national capital there, it must implement itself through feudalism.



The 'third world' does not exist, if it ever did...Russia in 1917 was more backward than your 'third world' countries where you think the peasant revolution will occur.
In Russia the bourgeoisie was developed enough to seize power, and Russia was not a colony but itself emerging as an imperialist power.



In India the majority of people live in the towns today...in Nepal the chief theorist of the revolution recently recommended to read Trotsky...feudal relations have been destroyed...the FARC and Shining Path etc are another hang over of the cold war...gangsters who probably kill as many workers as state soldiers. You're stuck in a mentality which has no place post-globalisation...as Marx said capitalism continues to destroy the peasantry to destroy feudal relations. The only revolutionary class are the workers.
In India 28 percent of the people live in urban areas. This includes workers who go back to work in their fields seasonally.

In Nepal the chief theorist is supposed to be Prachanda. As far as I know he never recommended to read Trotsky. Probably you are referring to a single comment made by Baburam Bhattarai. However, the fact that he hasn't touched the topic ever since probably indicates that his suggestion has been rejected by the party and also by himself.

The FARC is fighting back and the PCP is heading on towards strategic equilibrium. The gangster slur is just another excuse by the bourgeoisie to legitimize US intervention.

In third world countries, the peasantry is the largest revolutionary class, and in many areas the proletariat does not exist.

[Weezer]

What's the difference ideologically between peasants and the proletariat? Don't they both fit under the term 'working class'?

[red cat]

What's the difference ideologically between peasants and the proletariat? Don't they both fit under the term 'working class'?

Depends on the relations of production involved. Peasants are bound by feudal relations of production while proletarians by capitalist ones.

[Mike Russell]

what is it that your trying to achive with this bit of "information". Even if you where to prove your right to the whole world....then what?

your worrying about this so called evidence, while the rest of the left is trying to move forward. get over it.

[S.Artesian]

From Red Cat:

"Capitalism has transformed itself into imperialism. To exploit its colonies and at the same time prevent the growth of national capital there, it must implement itself through feudalism."

This requires much more investigation. Where exactly is capital implementing itself through feudal relations? Is the hacienda, the plantation, the finca, a feudal relation-- I don't mean analagous, or similar, or semi-feudal, I mean actual feudal, with the appropriation of surplus product rather than surplus value?

Was the ejido in Mexico introduced by US capitalism to maintain its domination of the emerging Mexican bourgeoisie and its "national capital?"

Has advanced capitalism introduced "feudal relations" where none existed in order exploit its colonies and prevent the growth of "national capital?"

The history of China of all places shows that no to be the case-- that contrary to Mao there was no great potential "incipient" capitalism emerging in China, throttled by the intrusion of the advanced capitalist countries, since penetration of the countryside in China by either international or national capitalist was so superficial, and was effectively stalled by "agricultural involution" where subsistence was based on greater surpluses of labor being applied to smaller units of agricultural production, thus maintaining the bond of the peasantry to the land, rather than their dispossession and conversion into wage laborers.

Does capitalism ever undermine the tenant-farmer, sharecropper, debt peonage system, in either advanced or underdeveloped countries? Sure did so in the US South, where mechanization of Southern agriculture during and after WW2 made obsolete and untenable the prior tenant-share-cropping relations, precipitating further migrations of black labor to cities and to industrial production, and triggering the US Civil Rights struggle.

Sure did so in the Philippines where in response to the rise of sugar prices after OPEC 1 in 1973, and the loss of the guaranteed US quota, the Philippines sugar planters assumed large quantities of debt to mechanize production, dispossessing much of its former agricultural work force, only to be caught short when prices collapsed, thus dispossessing even more of its work force, driving them into the cities and giving us the Aquino [pseudo]revolution.

This notion of capitalism enforcing, imposing "feudal relations" is not a very accurate representation of how modern capitalism works. It would be more appropriate to say, that despite its need for "free" dispossessed labor in order to generate surplus value, capital finds itself unable to change the already existing relations of land and labor, landed labor in the less developed countries because in so doing it would threaten what both it, capitalism, in its modern form, and the "undeveloped" countries with their "archaic" relations of land and labor have in common. And that in common is called private property.

This has practical significance as in one analysis, the one above, there is no material basis or use for "allying with a national bourgeoisie" and subordinating the class struggle to a "national struggle."

[red cat]

From Red Cat:

"Capitalism has transformed itself into imperialism. To exploit its colonies and at the same time prevent the growth of national capital there, it must implement itself through feudalism."

This requires much more investigation. Where exactly is capital implementing itself through feudal relations? Is the hacienda, the plantation, the finca, a feudal relation-- I don't mean analagous, or similar, or semi-feudal, I mean actual feudal, with the appropriation of surplus product rather than surplus value?

Was the ejido in Mexico introduced by US capitalism to maintain its domination of the emerging Mexican bourgeoisie and its "national capital?"

Has advanced capitalism introduced "feudal relations" where none existed in order exploit its colonies and prevent the growth of "national capital?"

The history of China of all places shows that no to be the case-- that contrary to Mao there was no great potential "incipient" capitalism emerging in China, throttled by the intrusion of the advanced capitalist countries, since penetration of the countryside in China by either international or national capitalist was so superficial, and was effectively stalled by "agricultural involution" where subsistence was based on greater surpluses of labor being applied to smaller units of agricultural production, thus maintaining the bond of the peasantry to the land, rather than their dispossession and conversion into wage laborers.

Does capitalism ever undermine the tenant-farmer, sharecropper, debt peonage system, in either advanced or underdeveloped countries? Sure did so in the US South, where mechanization of Southern agriculture during and after WW2 made obsolete and untenable the prior tenant-share-cropping relations, precipitating further migrations of black labor to cities and to industrial production, and triggering the US Civil Rights struggle.

Sure did so in the Philippines where in response to the rise of sugar prices after OPEC 1 in 1973, and the loss of the guaranteed US quota, the Philippines sugar planters assumed large quantities of debt to mechanize production, dispossessing much of its former agricultural work force, only to be caught short when prices collapsed, thus dispossessing even more of its work force, driving them into the cities and giving us the Aquino [pseudo]revolution.

This notion of capitalism enforcing, imposing "feudal relations" is not a very accurate representation of how modern capitalism works. It would be more appropriate to say, that despite its need for "free" dispossessed labor in order to generate surplus value, capital finds itself unable to change the already existing relations of land and labor, landed labor in the less developed countries because in so doing it would threaten what both it, capitalism, in its modern form, and the "undeveloped" countries with their "archaic" relations of land and labor have in common. And that in common is called private property.

This has practical significance as in one analysis, the one above, there is no material basis or use for "allying with a national bourgeoisie" and subordinating the class struggle to a "national struggle."

True, feudalism does not remain the same when imperialism is implemented through it. Perhaps things will be clearer if I mention some actions of imperialism which in this type of systems. These will indicate the origin of most of the contradictions there, including that between the national bourgeoisie and imperialism:

1) Imperialism can use the social and military power of feudalism to partially or fully disable all craftsmen in a colony, to forcefully create its own market.

2) The big merchants and emerging capitalists can be economically, militarily and politically disabled, and a small section of them can enter into a truce with imperialism and act as its managers (compradors) in the colony.

3) Peasants can be forced to grow commercial crops to serve as raw material for imperialist capital.

4) Most of the earlier tertiary service sector is modified according to the cultural needs of imperialism.

5) The whole of the feudal system, and the very little capital of the compradors is brought under the protection of imperialism. Any big uprising against them is put down by the imperialist armed forces.

The first two points roughly tell us why the national bourgeoisie joins the revolution, even though at a later stage.

[S.Artesian]

Just a point, the peasantry is not a class specific to feudalism. "Free" peasantry existed before, during, in the midst of, and after feudal rule. The economic basis of the peasantry is not in its feudal obligations to lord and manor, as many peasants had no such obligations, but in its practice of agriculture on a subsistence, or "Subsistence plus surplus" basis.

I just don't see capitalism maintaining itself through the introduction and maintenance of feudalism. Certainly isn't/wasn't the case in Central and Latin America-- the haciendas were transformed into units of production for the world market, aggrandizing the land of the villages and the indigenous and reducing them to the status of rural, and in many cases, migrant workers, with just enough connection to land to a) constantly remain in debt peonage and b) reduce the wage bill on the hacendados as the indigenous grew their own food. Certainly this linkage to the land restricts capitalist development, but the restriction is part of the uneven and combined development of capitalism on the world scale, and not a reintroduction, or resurrection of feudal relations.

[red cat]

Just a point, the peasantry is not a class specific to feudalism. "Free" peasantry existed before, during, in the midst of, and after feudal rule. The economic basis of the peasantry is not in its feudal obligations to lord and manor, as many peasants had no such obligations, but in its practice of agriculture on a subsistence, or "Subsistence plus surplus" basis.

I just don't see capitalism maintaining itself through the introduction and maintenance of feudalism. Certainly isn't/wasn't the case in Central and Latin America-- the haciendas were transformed into units of production for the world market, aggrandizing the land of the villages and the indigenous and reducing them to the status of rural, and in many cases, migrant workers, with just enough connection to land to a) constantly remain in debt peonage and b) reduce the wage bill on the hacendados as the indigenous grew their own food. Certainly this linkage to the land restricts capitalist development, but the restriction is part of the uneven and combined development of capitalism on the world scale, and not a reintroduction, or resurrection of feudal relations.

Relating imperialism with feudalism typical to the Americas will be difficult, as much of the local population was wiped out and replaced by European colonizers.

I think that the best examples of the points in my previous posts can be found in Asia.

[S.Artesian]

Any good books on the subject appreciated. I've read Philip CC Huang's books on the Chinese peasantry and found them to be outstanding.

[manic expression]

Square one is the place where I first thought I was dealing with a dissembler, and an idiot. You have proven yourself to be both and both at once.
Square one is where you had no evidence behind your claims. You're still there, and you're not going anywhere soon.


I have no specific evidence of individual US troops in Haiti arresting militants in Haiti and personally supporting the kidnapping of Aristide. Obviously, therefore,
Obviously, therefore, your argument boils down to "I'm not politically mature enough to find evidence that the US was behind Aristide's kidnapping, therefore Evo Morales must be guilty!" :lol:

[S.Artesian]

You truly are an idiot. There never was any claim that Morales was behind the Aristide kidnapping. The only claim made, and proved, is that Morales continues to supply military troops to the US/UN occupation and oppression of the Haitian people.

[S.Artesian]

Is this really necessary? Consider this a verbal warning for spamming.

Actually given the incredible dissembling "manic expression" continues to parade around as "discussion," it's he, "manic expression," who's the spammer, and Comrade Lewis' advice is appropriate, and welcome.

[Weezer]

This thread needs to be split.

[vyborg]

I think the way we distinguish is on the basis of program, no? Like not participating in provisional governments with the bourgeoisie, but participating in workers' councils. Like developing actions that speak to the unity of the working class as a class exercising its own power, with the soviet itself being the highest expression of a united front. Like linking the workers' efforts at self-defense-- such as the guards groups formed by union members in Honduras to defend the strike leaders in 2009-- with the need to replace the self-defense organizations of the bourgeoisie, like the Cobra squadron, the police etc.

Exactly! The revolutionary party must be clear in the programme and in the practice: no to any alliance with the national "democratic" buregoisie. All power to the workers soviet etc

[vyborg]

I would attribute the setback in 1926 to a slightly different reason, but let us debate the general case in a new democratic revolution.

Even after the revolution, if the working class relaxes class struggle even the tiniest bit, the bourgeoisie can and will take over. So, our line should be not letting in anybody who does not abide by the laws set up by the working class itself. Determining class is not all about judging people only on the basis of their class origin; the new bourgeoisie might emerge from the proletariat itself.

Once the revolutionary programme has been set, anyone who wants to join may do so provided that he survives public trials for his past crimes and then proves his loyalty to the revolution through his actions. This is what makes unity with a portion of the national bourgeoisie possible.


I think we agree on the main point: revolutionary supervision on hostile classes also after the revolution but I cannot understand why the "unity with a portion of the national bourgeoisie possible". We try to convince single elements of hostile classes to join the revolution but never as a class

[red cat]

I think we agree on the main point: revolutionary supervision on hostile classes also after the revolution but I cannot understand why the "unity with a portion of the national bourgeoisie possible". We try to convince single elements of hostile classes to join the revolution but never as a class

Maoists focus on the lower peasantry, proletariat, and a part of the left wing of the petite-bourgeoisie for organizing. But due to the social contradictions at a point a portion of the national bourgeoisie also joins the revolution.

Generally Maoists don't "convince" the national bourgeoisie to join the CP or any of the core organizations. The fact that they regard the national bourgeoisie as a vacillating ally and not a motive force of revolution indicates this. However, every person is encouraged to oppose the system.

Denying the presence of the national bourgeoisie as a class in the revolution will only lead to wrong formulation of class struggle in the subsequent stages of the revolution and pave the way for capitalist restoration.

[vyborg]

Denying the presence of the national bourgeoisie as a class in the revolution will only lead to wrong formulation of class struggle in the subsequent stages of the revolution and pave the way for capitalist restoration.

I dont' deny its role!They do participate! The problem is they take the other side in the revolution. History shows beyond any doubt that always and everywhere national capitalists will side AS A CLASS not as John or Peter, former bourgeois, with imperialism.

We must know it and we must point it out beforehands to the workers. So no confidence in national bourgeoisie, rely only on our force, alliance with small peasants yes but never with national capitalism

[S.Artesian]

This thread needs to be split.

Maybe. Funny though, how the originator of the thread, and all the ardent defenders of Furr's "new evidence" have not responded to posts that point out there is not only no new evidence in that article, but no evidence whatsoever.

Actually, not funny at all.

Yes, split the thread....and trash the original.

[Barry Lyndon]

Artesian-

There is actually a whole book on the direct role US imperialism played in ousting Aristide, its called 'An Unbroken Agony: Haiti, from revolution to the ousting of a president' by Randall Robinson. I am unaware of any documentary evidence of Morales's nefarious role, beyond your UN laundry list and the long article with no mention of the actions of Bolivian troops at all.

[S.Artesian]

Artesian-

There is actually a whole book on the direct role US imperialism played in ousting Aristide, its called 'An Unbroken Agony: Haiti, from revolution to the ousting of a president' by Randall Robinson. I am unaware of any documentary evidence of Morales's nefarious role, beyond your UN laundry list and the long article with no mention of the actions of Bolivian troops at all.

I guess IQs really did drop sharply while Ripley was away. You and Mr. Manic must be drinking the same Kool-Aid or taking the same stupid pills, or maybe neither one of you actually pays attention to what you're reading, or maybe you just don't read.

What was the original statement?

It was my statement that I find it incomprehensible how anyone could describe Morales as a "Marxist-Leninist," or describe the Morales-MAS government as "revolutionary" when Bolivia still supplies military troops to the US/UN occupation of Haiti. Remember that? If you don't, go back and check.

You were not aware of that inconvenient fact, and asked for evidence. I referred to the UN inventory of its "peacekeeping" operations, where Bolivia's continued participation is documented.

No claim was ever made that Morales participated in the coup against Aristide. Morales continues to provide military support to the US/UN occupation of Haiti. As does Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. etc. And China provides police support.

If you think that's an "OK" thing to do, just say so. Just say that oppression of black people in Haiti is quite OK when some of the oppressors are Bolivian [or Brazilian, or Chilean, or Chinese], and that self-determination and all that rah-rah pseudo-Leninist tripe about national struggles don't apply when those struggling track their roots back to Africa, slavery... when those struggling conducted the only successful anti-slavery revolution organized, led, and manned by slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries, and have been forced to pay for that victory for the last 200 years.


I read all about the coup against Aristide-- this being the second coup against Aristide. You ought to try reading, period.

[Barry Lyndon]

Artesian: I guess IQs really did drop sharply while Ripley was away. You and Mr. Manic must be drinking the same Kool-Aid or taking the same stupid pills, or maybe neither one of you actually pays attention to what you're reading, or maybe you just don't read.

What was the original statement?

It was my statement that I find it incomprehensible how anyone could describe Morales as a "Marxist-Leninist," or describe the Morales-MAS government as "revolutionary" when Bolivia still supplies military troops to the US/UN occupation of Haiti. Remember that? If you don't, go back and check.

You were not aware of that inconvenient fact, and asked for evidence. I referred to the UN inventory of its "peacekeeping" operations, where Bolivia's continued participation is documented.

No claim was ever made that Morales participated in the coup against Aristide. Morales continues to provide military support to the US/UN occupation of Haiti. As does Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. etc. And China provides police support.

If you think that's an "OK" thing to do, just say so. Just say that oppression of black people in Haiti is quite OK when some of the oppressors are Bolivian [or Brazilian, or Chilean, or Chinese], and that self-determination and all that rah-rah pseudo-Leninist tripe about national struggles don't apply when those struggling track their roots back to Africa, slavery... when those struggling conducted the only successful anti-slavery revolution organized, led, and manned by slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries, and have been forced to pay for that victory for the last 200 years.


I read all about the coup against Aristide-- this being the second coup against Aristide. You ought to try reading, period. Yes, I know what your original statement is, don't lecture me like a child, you pompous twit. And you have still failed to provide evidence, beyond your assertions which I am supposed to take as gospel, that Morales has continued his predecessors policies toward Haiti.

I am fully aware of Haiti's slave revolution and the subsequent history of US imperialism's attacks on that country. I have a picture of Toussaint L'Ouverture on my wall, he's one of my heroes. There is an international conference on labor history where I am giving a talk about Haiti specifically in collaboration with Haitian American solidarity groups. So your assertion that I don't care or are indifferent to this issue is rather insulting.

It's rather rich for ultra-left Trotskyists to lecture other leftists on racism, given that the only revolutions that they see as legit: the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution, were in white countries while they smear and tear down revolutions in non-white countries like China, Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Burkina-Faso, Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Barry, Artesian is not a Trotskyist, and even if he were, us Trotskyists do not hold that the revolutions you mention were not 'legitimate'. We just question their class content, as all Marxists should.

To do otherwise would be to help inflict on the populations of the countries you listed even more misery (since the revolutions you mention have all failed, or are slowly being reversed).

[S.Artesian]

Yes, I know what your original statement is, don't lecture me like a child, you pompous twat. And you have still failed to provide evidence, beyond your assertions which I am supposed to take as gospel, that Morales has continued his predecessors policies toward Haiti.

I am fully aware of Haiti's slave revolution and the subsequent history of US imperialism's attacks on that country. I have a picture of Toussaint L'Ouverture on my wall, he's one of my heroes. There is an international conference on labor history where I am giving a talk about Haiti specifically in collaboration with Haitian American solidarity groups. So your assertion that I don't care or are indifferent to this issue is rather insulting.

It's rather rich for ultra-left Trotskyists to lecture other leftists on racism, given that the only revolutions that they see as legit: the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution, were in white countries while they smear and tear down revolutions in non-white countries like China, Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Burkina-Faso, Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia.
____________

Let's see-- using crude references to female genitals in an attempt to refute an argument-- that sure counts as Marxist-Leninism.

You're a regular Ho Chi Minh, I'm sure.

You have a picture of Toussaint L'Ouverture on your wall. Well that's mighty uplighting, charming, and revolutionary of you. I'm sure those residents in Soleil and everywhere else the UN mission has conducted raids and firefights will be mightily comforted by the fact that you keep a picture of Touissaint L'Ouverture.

Has Morales continued the policies of his predecessors regarding Haiti? Actually, you idiot, he's worsened those policies. In January 2006, Bolivia had a grand total of 4-- that's right 4 military committed to MINUSTAH. As of Dec 2009 that number is 208. Small number, you think? Insignifcant? Well not so small when compared to Canada with 95, or France with 63.

Although it is smaller than Brazil's 1280-- let's go Lula, another fine example of socialists carry the bourgeoisie's water; and smaller than Argentina's 559 or so, let's go Fernandez and "anti-imperialist nationalism"; not to mention leftist Uruguay's 1130, and Nepal's 1070.

You're going to give a talk on Haiti? I'll bet that's going to be real enlightening. Send me the transcript, would you, so I can put it up on my wall. Send me a picture, I'll put that up also.

What a joke, a bad joke, like your leftist heroes, Morales and Mujica.

PS: About those "other" revolutions you claim I tear down? Well, I don't keep a picture of Fidel on my wall, but I actually have done work in Cuba and with the Cubans for their railroad operations, and without charge. Put that on your wall, moron.

[Astinilats]

There isn't much to respond to on the actual topic of this thread. Please someone move the 3-4 pages of off-topic comments somewhere else.


So there was no Hotel Bristol, correct? There was a Cafe Bristol connected to the Grand Hotel.

Holtzman's testimony is this:


. . . In November I again telephoned Sedov and we met once again.
Sedov said to me: “As you are going to the U.S.S.R., it would be a good
thing if you came with me to Copenhagen where my father is.”
Vyshinsky: That is to say?
Holtzman: That is to say, Trotsky.
Vyshinsky: Did you go?
Holtzman: I agreed, but I told him that we could not go together for
reasons of secrecy. I arranged with Sedov to be in Copenhagen within
two or three days, to put up at the Hotel Bristol and meet him there. I
went to the hotel straight from the station and in the lounge met Sedov.
About 10 a.m. we went to Trotsky.

Right near the station was located the Grand Hotel, whose entrance was unmarked, right beside the Konditori Bristol, which was owned by the same people, and allowed entrance into the hotel. This is obviously what Holtzman was referring to in his testimony. In any case, we know these meetings took place because Sedov admitted to them, and we know Trotsky was in contact with Holtzman from his own archives. Trotsky simply lied to the Dewey Commission about it, and had others make false statements on his behalf, statements we know are false from the photographic evidence.

[Paul Cockshott]

Sure have. I posted my take on the first 1/4 of the Furr article, and there were no takers when it came to defending Furr. Somebody did claim however that "Marxist-Leninist were tearing up the capitalist countries," and somebody else took exception to my characterization of Morales and the MAS as being distinctly non-revolutionary.

I suggested to that somebody that he or she revisit the definition of Marxist-Leninist since Morales continued to authorize the Bolivian military to provide troops to the UN occupation of Haiti... and that's how we got to where we are.

Any thoughts on the Furr article?

So far I am only up to the mid 50s in pages, part of what I have read is a repetition of the Hotel Bristol article which I find convincing, but covers what was to me a completely unknown bit of minutia of history.

[Nosotros]

Speaking as an Anarchist this all really boring.

[iskrabronstein]

I have to agree, this sectarian bullshit is a waste of time.

[S.Artesian]

I have to agree, this sectarian bullshit is a waste of time.

The thread started in "History" not "Politics"-- a claim was made about "new evidence," of course the claimants fell into a curious silence when required to actually defend any evidence of new evidence in the article being discussed.

Then the thread went off into various strings, and it seems to me that Vyborg and Red Cat are having a distinctly unsectarian discussion-- my contribution to that discussion on "feudalism" and relations of landed labor in "underdeveloped" countries, too, has nothing to do with sectarian fights about this or that ideology.

Another thread developed after a claim was made that "Marxists-Leninists are 'tearing up' capitalist countries across the globe..." and from that we have degenerated to "yeah I know Morales keeps supplying troops to MINUSTAH, but how do you know they're bad troops? How do you know they really aren't musicians trying to learn Zouk music, and on a field trip from their studies of revolutionary guerrilla warfare?"

The point, that the sectarianism is one-sided, and is used as an evasion of the actual history supposedly being discussed in the History forum.

[iskrabronstein]

I don't disagree comrade, but even as a fellow Trot I am frankly surprised you took so much time responding to what is clearly sectarian provocation. Stalinists have been pushing this nonsense for decades - it is nothing new to hear accusations like this, attempts at historical revisionism and the like.

Trotsky's conduct as a leader of the Bolshevik Revolution and Red Army speaks for itself. I do not feel compelled to defend his person from slander - he's dead, after all.

[Astinilats]

The thread started in "History" not "Politics"-- a claim was made about "new evidence," of course the claimants fell into a curious silence when required to actually defend any evidence of new evidence in the article being discussed.

This is a lie. Immediately after a poster requested to see the new photographic evidence, I posted it.

[S.Artesian]

My error in that I neglected to specify-- I meant to say the new evidence in Furr's article about Trotsky being an agent of Hitler. When asked to provide any evidence of new evidence in that article, no response, to date, has been forthcoming.

[Astinilats]

Furr's article does have new evidence in the form of previously unpublished confessions.

[S.Artesian]

That may be "new" but it sure isn't evidence.

[Astinilats]

That may be "new" but it sure isn't evidence.

Confessions are ipso facto evidence. In the absence of any reason to doubt these confessions, they directly point to the guilt of the confessor. Furr's article shows not only is there no credible reason to doubt the confessions, but everywhere you can independently check the confessions, it only corroborates them, as in the case of Holtzman's testimony in this thread. This corroborates the truth of the confessions tremendously, and lends support to the things said we can't yet test independently.

Furr also does go over the independent evidence of Tukhachevsky's collaboration with the Germans and Japanese, which is very strong indeed. For the Japanese, it is the testimony of General Genrikh Liushkov. To quote Furr:


In February 1937 the Japanese Minister of War, General Hajime Sugiyama, revealed in a meeting that Japan was in touch with oppositionists within the USSR who were providing the Japanese with military intelligence.

Other examples of non-Soviet evidence attest to the real existence of the conspiracies alleged by the Stalin government. There is the “Arao telegram,” extant at least in 1962-63 though never heard from since. We have direct testimony from the German ambassador to Czechoslovakia that Hitler knew that high-ranking military figures in the USSR were preparing a coup d’état. This document, in the Czech national archives, was only discovered in 1987. This document is corroborated by correspondence found in captured German archives disclosed in 1974 but not recognized until 1988.

General of the NKVD Genrikh S. Liushkov defected to the Japanese on June 13, 1938. At a press conference prepared by the Japanese he claimed that the alleged conspiracies in the USSR were faked. But privately Liushkov told the Japanese that Stalin was convinced there were real conspiracies, including the military conspiracy. He also confirmed that the conspirators existed and that they were linked with the Tukhachevsky group through Gamarnik. Liushkov confirmed that the conspirators wanted to join forces with the Japanese to inflict defeat upon the Soviet military, and that some of them had been conspiring directly with the Japanese military (Coox).

Therefore, despite frequent allegations to the contrary, we do possess evidence of the anti-Soviet conspiracies that could not have been fabricated by the Soviets.This is important because Tukhachevsky implicated Trotsky in this conspiracy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As Artesian said, all this is 'evidence' of the form "he says, she says" unsupported by documentary or phsyical evidence.

The fact that the Stalinists here believe this guff is not the least bit surprising, but do they believe the same sort of 'evidence' that comes out of Guantanamo or Bagram?

And, since the Hotel Bristol did not exist, Holtzman's 'testimony' is worthless.

[red cat]

I dont' deny its role!They do participate! The problem is they take the other side in the revolution. History shows beyond any doubt that always and everywhere national capitalists will side AS A CLASS not as John or Peter, former bourgeois, with imperialism.

I disagree. At a certain phase of the revolution, a chunk of the national bourgeoisie actually supports it.

Take for example the big Indian intellectuals who are opposing government military actions against the Maoists. Many of these intellectuals are quite rich, own companies and can certainly be identified as a part of the national bourgeoisie. They are against imperialism.




We must know it and we must point it out beforehands to the workers. So no confidence in national bourgeoisie, rely only on our force, alliance with small peasants yes but never with national capitalismYes, we must point out to the proletariat that most of what remains of the national bourgeoisie after the new democratic revolution will fight to seize power. In fact, the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat becomes the principal contradiction after feudalism and imperialism have been defeated.

But this struggle will intensify only after the new democratic revolution, since the proletariat is already providing class leadership, and the bourgeois elements will be identified by their actions. This does not mean that we should turn away people who are willing to join the struggle now and are proving themselves through their actions.

[S.Artesian]

I disagree. At a certain phase of the revolution, a chunk of the national bourgeoisie actually supports it.

Take for example the big Indian intellectuals who are opposing government military actions against the Maoists. Many of these intellectuals are quite rich, own companies and can certainly be identified as a part of the national bourgeoisie. They are against imperialism.


Yes, we must point out to the proletariat that most of what remains of the national bourgeoisie after the new democratic revolution will fight to seize power. In fact, the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat becomes the principal contradiction after feudalism and imperialism have been defeated.

But this struggle will intensify only after the new democratic revolution, since the proletariat is already providing class leadership, and the bourgeois elements will be identified by their actions. This does not mean that we should turn away people who are willing to join the struggle now and are proving themselves through their actions.


The intellectuals opposing suppression of the Maoists are not 1. "a big chunk" of the bourgeoisie. 2. actually supporting a revolution.

They are a section of the bourgeoisie preferring some other solution. Ask that same chunk if they support expropriation of their companies, seizure of big estates.

A section of the bourgeoisie supports the revolution? Only up until such time as the revolution discards its bourgeois trappings. Happened in Russia that way, remember? The bourgeoisie supported the revolution as long as it confined itself to bourgeois forms, liberal demands, etc. etc. Once the actual revolutionary struggle for working class power became "manifest"-- i.e. the power of the soviets and its organization as the only force capable of ending the war, distributing the land, repelling Kornilow-- becoming manifest in its opposition to Kerensky and the provisional government, the bourgeoisie sought safety in the arms of the former royalists, the officer corps, the landowners.

We find this a pattern-- a pattern facilitated by "Communists"-- turned against the revolution in the organization of popular fronts, "national alliances," etc. where "chunks" [and not too big] support the "revolution" as long as that revolution subordinates the workers to the programs, institutions, rule of capital-- look at Allende's popular unity government in Chile. And look at the result.

But in essence, what comrade Red Cat is offering is nothing but another version of the stages theory of revolution-- first we have the national democratic stage where imperialism [and feudalism] is defeated, and then we have a stage where the proletariat and bourgeoisie fight each other. Regarding the last "stage," looks like in China we know who's winning that fight, no?

The real mythology here is that somehow imperialism is different than capitalism, that imperialism is the "enemy" of "national capital," and that imperialism operates through "feudalism. " The agricultural arrangements of land and labor in the latter 19th century, 20th century and this century which provide for the accumulation of capital on the international scale are not feudal arrangements. That a peasantry exists does not mean the relations of production are feudal.

The relations on the sugar plantations of the Philippines, on the tea plantations of Vietnam, the haciendas of Mexico,the rubber plantations of Malaysia etc. as "backward," as labor intensive, as marked by debt-peonage, and the absolute power of the plantation owner, the "great house," the caudillo are NOT feudal relations of production.

[red cat]

The intellectuals opposing suppression of the Maoists are not 1. "a big chunk" of the bourgeoisie. 2. actually supporting a revolution.

They are a section of the bourgeoisie preferring some other solution. Ask that same chunk if they support expropriation of their companies, seizure of big estates.

A section of the bourgeoisie supports the revolution? Only up until such time as the revolution discards its bourgeois trappings. Happened in Russia that way, remember? The bourgeoisie supported the revolution as long as it confined itself to bourgeois forms, liberal demands, etc. etc. Once the actual revolutionary struggle for working class power became "manifest"-- i.e. the power of the soviets and its organization as the only force capable of ending the war, distributing the land, repelling Kornilow-- becoming manifest in its opposition to Kerensky and the provisional government, the bourgeoisie sought safety in the arms of the former royalists, the officer corps, the landowners.

Those intellectuals form the part of the national bourgeoisie who are highlighted in open movements. Today, opposing government suppression is equivalent to supporting the Maoists, in India at least. By looking at the intellectuals, we can deduce the condition of the rest of the national bourgeoisie.

In Russia, the principal contradiction was between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat. That is why things turned out like that. It is not so in the third world.




We find this a pattern-- a pattern facilitated by "Communists"-- turned against the revolution in the organization of popular fronts, "national alliances," etc. where "chunks" [and not too big] support the "revolution" as long as that revolution subordinates the workers to the programs, institutions, rule of capital-- look at Allende's popular unity government in Chile. And look at the result.

But in essence, what comrade Red Cat is offering is nothing but another version of the stages theory of revolution-- first we have the national democratic stage where imperialism [and feudalism] is defeated, and then we have a stage where the proletariat and bourgeoisie fight each other. Regarding the last "stage," looks like in China we know who's winning that fight, no?

The real mythology here is that somehow imperialism is different than capitalism, that imperialism is the "enemy" of "national capital," and that imperialism operates through "feudalism. " The agricultural arrangements of land and labor in the latter 19th century, 20th century and this century which provide for the accumulation of capital on the international scale are not feudal arrangements. That a peasantry exists does not mean the relations of production are feudal.

The relations on the sugar plantations of the Philippines, on the tea plantations of Vietnam, the haciendas of Mexico,the rubber plantations of Malaysia etc. as "backward," as labor intensive, as marked by debt-peonage, and the absolute power of the plantation owner, the "great house," the caudillo are NOT feudal relations of production.Yes, the stage-theory follows from this. But it is not logical to point out to China to prove that this theory is wrong. China only proves that the proletariat was finally defeated the in class struggle that started after the new democratic revolution and continued for almost the next three decades.

That imperialism is an enemy of national capital follows simply from the fact that if national capital develops, imperialism loses its colony.

I haven't studied about the conditions in the Philippines or Latin America. Can you give an example of any country in South Asia where most of the agricultural production relations are not semi-feudal semi-colonial ?

[Astinilats]

As Artesian said, all this is 'evidence' of the form "he says, she says" unsupported by documentary or phsyical evidence.

The fact that the Stalinists here believe this guff is not the least bit surprising, but do they believe the same sort of 'evidence' that comes out of Guantanamo or Bagram?

And, since the Hotel Bristol did not exist, Holtzman's 'testimony' is worthless.

1. We have admissions from Trotsky's son he met with Holtzmann.

2. Trotsky's own archives confirm it.

3. The testimony from Holtzman indicates he left the train station and immediately when to the "Hotel Bristol." The Grand Hotel is right outside the station, and its only entrance at the time was a door, and the immediate marking around it said "BRISTOL," which was a Konditori owned by the same people who owned the hotel and which allowed entrance into the hotel.

Given 1 and 2, we know this is the place he was referring to. Holtzman was a foreigner, and foreigner's who went to this hotel commonly referred to it as the Hotel Bristol.

Trying to pretend anything else shows the complete and utterly irrationality of Trotskyite cultists.

[S.Artesian]

Wait a minute, comrade, "semi-feudal," "semi-colonial" are not the argument. I believe you have said imperialism maintains, operates through FEUDAL relations. It seemed to me that you were claiming that the very existence of a peasantry proves the existence of feudal relations, when the peasantry has existed in non-feudal societies; and free peasantry, exempt from obligations to manors and lords existed throughout feudalism.

The obligation to show how imperialism then has preserved, restored, and accumulated via these FEUDAL, not semi-feudal relations, and moreso, how national capital has not been a party to these feudal relations, to this accumulation, is yours.

[red cat]

Wait a minute, comrade, "semi-feudal," "semi-colonial" are not the argument. I believe you have said imperialism maintains, operates through FEUDAL relations. It seemed to me that you were claiming that the very existence of a peasantry proves the existence of feudal relations, when the peasantry has existed in non-feudal societies; and free peasantry, exempt from obligations to manors and lords existed throughout feudalism.

The obligation to show how imperialism then has preserved, restored, and accumulated via these FEUDAL, not semi-feudal relations, and moreso, how national capital has not been a party to these feudal relations, to this accumulation, is yours.

Don't worry so much about the terms. I will explain exactly what I mean. Previously I told you that feudalism does not remain the same when imperialism is implemented through it. However, the peasants will be getting a share of crops, not wages. And most, if not all of that, they will use to feed themselves and their families. In some places, the peasants will be forced to grow commercial crops, and the feudal lord or the foreign company which sponsors him will buy all of it at a meagre price. Now the peasant will have to buy grains from the feudal lords at a high price, and more often, by signing a bond by which he "sells" his land to the feudal lord and "agrees" to work on it for the next few years.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stalinist anagram:


1. We have admissions from Trotsky's son he met with Holtzmann.

2. Trotsky's own archives confirm it.

In what way does that prove the Hotel Bristol existed?


3. The testimony from Holtzman indicates he left the train station and immediately when to the "Hotel Bristol." The Grand Hotel is right outside the station, and its only entrance at the time was a door, and the immediate marking around it said "BRISTOL," which was a Konditori owned by the same people who owned the hotel and which allowed entrance into the hotel.

This has already been covered, above. The upshot is that there was no Hotel Bristol.


Given 1 and 2, we know this is the place he was referring to. Holtzman was a foreigner, and foreigner's who went to this hotel commonly referred to it as the Hotel Bristol.

Not so, as the above shows.


Trying to pretend anything else shows the complete and utterly irrationality of Trotskyite cultists

Once more, on which planet does this interesting tribe of 'Trotskyites' live?

No one seems to know.:(

[red cat]

Once more, on which planet does this interesting tribe of 'Trotskyites' live?

No one seems to know.:(

Again, he probably means Trotskyist by Trotskyite.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Again, he probably means Trotskyist by Trotskyite.

And as I responded last time you tried this:

1) He can't mean this since the Trotskyists live on this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

2) But, even supposing you are right, then you must be a late convert to the dread 'law of identity': "Trotskyist" = "Trotskyite".

And that would make you a 'Revisionist'!http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/ugh.gif

[Astinilats]

It seems this Trotskyite cultist has taken the approach of screaming "no Hotel Bristol" while their hands as covering their ears and their eyes closed shut.

But just to further add:

4. Trotsky had two of his followers fill out false affidavits to the Dewey Commission regarding the location of the Konditori in 1932. Not only do we know Trotsky lied about the meeting, he purposefully had others lie about the Konditori. Unlike the cultist Rosa, Trotsky evidently wasn't content with just screeching mindlessly "no Hotel Bristol" when people pointed out the what Holtzman obviously was referring to.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



And as I responded last time you tried this:

1) He can't mean this since the Trotskyists live on this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

2) But, even supposing you are right, then you must be a late convert to the dread 'law of identity': "Trotskyist" = "Trotskyite".

And that would make you a 'Revisionist'!http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/ugh.gif

What does using two different words for the same object have anything to do with your points ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stalinist Cultist:


It seems this Trotskyite cultist has taken the approach of screaming "no Hotel Bristol" while their hands as covering their ears and their eyes closed shut.

But, which 'Trotskyite' is this? They do not reside on this planet.:confused:

Anyway, this Trotskyist is happy to whisper: but there was no Hotel Britsol.:)

You seem to be the one who is doing all the 'screaming'.:(


4. Trotsky had two of his followers fill out false affidavits to the Dewey Commission regarding the location of the Konditori in 1932. Not only do we know Trotsky lied about the meeting, he purposefully had others lie about the Konditori. Unlike the cultist Rosa, Trotsky evidently wasn't content with just screeching mindlessly "no Hotel Bristol" when people pointed out the what Holtzman obviously was referring to.

But, how does this show that the Hotel Bristol existed?

[Astinilats]

The "Hotel Bristol" that Holtzman was referring to does exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


What does using two different words for the same object have anything to do with your points ?

1) It shows you argree with the 'law of identity' for one.:(

2) What 'same object' is this, then? [Be careful before you answer, or you'll fall foul of 1) again.]

[red cat]

Red Cat:



1) It shows you argree with the 'law of identity' for one.:(

2) What 'same object' is this, then? [Be careful before you answer, or you will fall foul of 1) again).

Do you agree that eggplant = aubergine = melongene = brinjal ?

Or does this have something to do with the law of identity ?

[S.Artesian]

Don't worry so much about the terms. I will explain exactly what I mean. Previously I told you that feudalism does not remain the same when imperialism is implemented through it. However, the peasants will be getting a share of crops, not wages. And most, if not all of that, they will use to feed themselves and their families. In some places, the peasants will be forced to grow commercial crops, and the feudal lord or the foreign company which sponsors him will buy all of it at a meagre price. Now the peasant will have to buy grains from the feudal lords at a high price, and more often, by signing a bond by which he "sells" his land to the feudal lord and "agrees" to work on it for the next few years.


I think we do have to worry about the terms when using terms like imperialism, feudalism and trying to establish an opposition of that imperialism to "national capitalism" through feudalism.

The devil and the dialectic are in the details. So did feudalism even exist in China at the time of the imperial penetrations? Were the existing relations of land and labor feudal? Did imperialism penetrate deeply, sufficiently enough to actually change those relations of land and landed labor? Was that penetration the source of the "inhibition" to the growth of a national capital, or on the contrary, was it the pre-existing relations of land and labor in the countryside that thwarted the development of an "incipient capitalism" which in turn made the country so weak before imperialism?

Those are just a few of the questions...

[red cat]

I think we do have to worry about the terms when using terms like imperialism, feudalism and trying to establish an opposition of that imperialism to "national capitalism" through feudalism.

The devil and the dialectic are in the details. So did feudalism even exist in China at the time of the imperial penetrations? Were the existing relations of land and labor feudal? Did imperialism penetrate deeply, sufficiently enough to actually change those relations of land and landed labor? Was that penetration the source of the "inhibition" to the growth of a national capital, or on the contrary, was it the pre-existing relations of land and labor in the countryside that thwarted the development of an "incipient capitalism" which in turn made the country so weak before imperialism?

Those are just a few of the questions...

I think the answers to the first three of your questions is yes.

As for your last question, I think that feudalism only by itself can suppress capitalism only for a limited time. Imperialism definitely has to help feudalism to prevent capitalism from developing at all.

I am looking for a good online source on China.

[S.Artesian]

I think the answers to the first three of your questions is yes.

As for your last question, I think that feudalism only by itself can suppress capitalism only for a limited time. Imperialism definitely has to help feudalism to prevent capitalism from developing at all.

I am looking for a good online source on China.

Again, I cannot recommend highly enough the work by Philip CC Huang:

The Peasant Family and Rural Development in the Yangzi Delta, 1350-1988

The Peasant Economy and Social Change in North China.


From those sources, the answers are much different, much more complex, and much more essential to understanding the actual history of China than 3 simple "yes" answers.

[red cat]

Again, I cannot recommend highly enough the work by Philip CC Huang:

The Peasant Family and Rural Development in the Yangzi Delta, 1350-1988

The Peasant Economy and Social Change in North China.


From those sources, the answers are much different, much more complex, and much more essential to understanding the actual history of China than 3 simple "yes" answers.

Links please ?

[S.Artesian]

I only know of them in print editions, published by the Stanford University Press.

[red cat]

I only know of them in print editions, published by the Stanford University Press.

Then I am in trouble.

[ComradeOm]

Then I am in trouble.If its that important then try Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=KR2fAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Peasant+Economy+and+Social+Change+in+North+ China&ei=EArBS-rDFJ-8zgTbmOX5Dw&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[S.Artesian]

Then I am in trouble.

If you want, PM me with your address... I'll mail one to you.. read it, and when you have, let me know.. we'll swap and I'll send you the other one.

[red cat]

If you want, PM me with your address... I'll mail one to you.. read it, and when you have, let me know.. we'll swap and I'll send you the other one.

Thank you, but I can't do that. Anyway, I found one of the books online and then there is the link by ComradeOm. That will be enough.

[Paul Cockshott]

Red Cat:



And as I responded last time you tried this:

1) He can't mean this since the Trotskyists live on this planet, but these 'Trotskyites' do not.

2) But, even supposing you are right, then you must be a late convert to the dread 'law of identity': "Trotskyist" = "Trotskyite".

And that would make you a 'Revisionist'!http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/ugh.gif


The use of 'ite' for the followers of a politician is not that unsual in the English language consider the recent examples of Thatcherite, Reaganite, so his usage is well within the cannon of normal English.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Do you agree that eggplant = aubergine = melongene = brinjal ?

Or does this have something to do with the law of identity ?

Looks like it to me.

But all these vegetables exist on this planet. The 'Trotskyites' do not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PC:


The use of 'ite' for the followers of a politician is not that unsual in the English language consider the recent examples of Thatcherite, Reaganite, so his usage is well within the cannon of normal English.

Well, Thatcherites and Reaganites exist (or existed) on this planet, but this interesting tribe of 'Trotskyites' does not.

[Saorsa]

I just want to start off by saying that I find the main topic of this thread incredibly boring and don't have any intention of wasting my time discussing it. Who the fuck cares? But there's been a few points made about other subjects that I'd like to respond to.


Are you kidding me? Have yo been keeping up on current events, because the FARC is just about paralyzed in Colombia. I don't know what specific groups you are referring to in the Philippines, but the guerrilla militias have suffered a series of tactical defeats.

The whole point of a guerrilla war is that it can handle a few 'tactical defeats' and the deaths of a few leaders, and keep going. For one thing you are grossly overstating the damage that the Colombian and Phillipino states have done to the guerrillas, and for another you are taking a completely ahistorical and inaccurate view of what this means in practice.

The FARC are not paralysed. They remain a fighting force that the government is unable to eradicate, with serious support amongst the peasants and workers in widespread rural areas, and while I doubt they'll be seizing the capital any time soon there's no way they're going to be eradicated. The bourgeois media have said from day one that the guerrillas are almost defeated, and they've kept saying it up until the present day. I don't think we should take it too seriously.

You're quite simply wrong about the Philippines. The People's War there is doing very well (http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/statements/stmts.pl?date=090329;author=cc;lang=eng), and the New People's Army and the CPP have gone from strength to strength.

To dismiss these armed struggles because they've been going on for a long time is ridiculous. You might as well dismiss Marxism itself, because Marxists have been trying to overthrow capitalism for over a hundred years and we still haven't gotten there! If anything, the fact that the People's Wars in India and the Philippines have succesfully survived the efforts of the state to destroy them for over forty years proves that they have succeeded in integrating the struggle with the masses and are taking a correct approach.


Baloney. The struggle in India has been ongoing for 30 years, with the "Naxalites" being physically liquidated several times, reemerging when the Indian government pushed forward with its dispossession of the forest/tribal peoples.

Proving that the Naxalites have implemented the mass line and built support in their base areas. It is not accurate btw to say that the Indian Maoists only pop up when the adivasis are under attack. While the Maoists have built a strong base of support among the tribal people, their scope of operation is much wider than that, as a brief glimpse at the Red Corridor (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/The_Red_Corridor_ver_1.PNG) will tell you.


Nothing indicates that the current rebellion, which all Marxists defend from repression by the Indian government has routed the Indian capitalists, has the government split, divided as to how to handle the situation, or immobilized.

As usual, those who attack the People's War from the 'left' are hopelessly uninformed. Over the past few years there has been a consistent theme of the Central govt in India and the local state governments blaming each other for the Maoist's success and being sharply divided on how to deal with it. It's only with Green Hunt that the Centre has really committed to fighting the Maoists, whereas previously it had just told the states to deal with it by themselves with their own forces. There was also a sharp debate over whether or not the Central govt in Delhi should ban the CPI (Maoist) across India, and again that only took place quite recently.

I'm not going to go into too much depth here because the facts are quite well established and easy to find out for yourself, but even this most recent attack has led to the government being divided. There is disagreement over whether to engage in dialogue and negotiation with the Maoists. There is disagreement over whether or not to send in the military, the air force and on what kind of scale. The advance of the Maoists has led to divisions emerging within the ranks of the ruling class, this is a simple fact. You don't appear to know what you're talking about.

I found the links below in a two minute google search.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_critics-question-chidambaram-s-tactics-centre-clueless_1368288

http://www.merinews.com/article/now-buck-should-stop-with-chidambaram/15803638.shtml

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article236751.ece

[Saorsa]

And people, surely you know by now that there's no point responding to Rosa. She is a troll. Don't feed her.

[Chambered Word]

The use of 'ite' for the followers of a politician is not that unsual in the English language consider the recent examples of Thatcherite, Reaganite, so his usage is well within the cannon of normal English.

We consider his ideas to be the true continuation of Marx's, Engels' and Lenin's. We aren't Trotsky's 'followers'.