What do pepole have against Trotskyism?

[howblackisyourflag]

There seems to be a lot of hate here for Trotskyist parties.

I ask because in Ireland where I am, the CWI is the biggest revolutionary left group, so if I was to join a group it would probably be them.

I agree with their basic ideas although Im more of an anarchist type personnally, the main negative thing I can see about them is they use democratic centralism, so new members might not really have a say in how things are run?

So why the sectarianism? Is it that people are against electoralism in general, or is there something specific about them I'm missing?

[red cat]

There seems to be a lot of hate here for Trotskyist parties.


Whoever could be so heartless ? :crying:

Personally (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cwi-gets-wrong-t133955/index.html?t=133955) I love (http://www.revleft.com/vb/news-nepal-t114558/index.html) Trotskyism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/spring-thunder-indias-t132890/index.html?p=1735414#post1735414). :wub:

[Palingenisis]

I ask because in Ireland where I am, the CWI is the biggest revolutionary left group, so if I was to join a group it would probably be them.

I agree with their basic ideas although Im more of an anarchist type personnally, the main negative thing I can see about them is they use democratic centralism, so new members might not really have a say in how things are run?


New member or indeed any members in Ireland dont have any say in how its run...Thats all decided over in old bilthy. Read up (and dont take their word for anything) on their record during the last serious phase of armed struggle against the invader in the occupied six counties. Thats just for starters.

[mikelepore]

I only saw how it played out in the US, and I'm less familiar with the world scene. Going back several decades, there was an old argument with the Communist Party USA, because the Trotskyists said that the Soviet Union was "deformed" and "degenerated", while the CPUSA believed that the Soviet Union was perfect in every way.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Some people are just stuck in the past, eager to relive and recreate division where there ought not be. Essentially, "Trotskyist" is used as a pejorative term by some on the left for those who don't fetishize the USSR enough.

[flobdob]

A number of things; disagreement with Trotsky's specific theory of revolution ("permanent revolution"), certain positions Trotsky took, certain things Trotsky did or said, Trotsky's analysis of the soviet union, certain positions/actions/statements of groups claiming to act in his legacy. I think those are most of the things people have against Trotskyism. Contrary to what the people posting here have said, by and large certain people oppose Trotskyism for principled reasons, not because of soviet fetishism or whatever other crap they want to throw up.

[Red Commissar]

Welcome to the wonders of sectarianism. People attack fellow revolutionaries worse than capitalists at time.

There are trotskyists on this forum however. If the group size doesn't lie there are a number of them.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=13

[Spawn of Stalin]

Comrade if you're an anarchist or have anarchist sympathies you probably shouldn't be joining a "vanguard" party. Especially one which takes such a horrible line on the Irish national question. As far as I'm concerned ANY right-minded Irish socialist should join a proper republican group, RSF, IRSP, even the Provos would be better than CWI.

My main gripe with Trotskyism is not the theory itself, it's not even so much about Trotsky the man, my problem is with Trotskyites who have never achieved anything and refuse to show any kind of support for socialist gains made in Russia, Germany, Belarus, Poland, et al, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, Venezuela, India, Nepal, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicuragua. It seems to me that if you're not going to actually do anything, the least you could do is cheer on your comrades overseas. It's not sectarianism if there are genuine issues which need to be criticised or preferably ironed out.

[howblackisyourflag]

Comrade if you're an anarchist or have anarchist sympathies you probably shouldn't be joining a "vanguard" party. Especially one which takes such a horrible line on the Irish national question. As far as I'm concerned ANY right-minded Irish socialist should join a proper republican group, RSF, IRSP, even the Provos would be better than CWI.

My main gripe with Trotskyism is not the theory itself, it's not even so much about Trotsky the man, my problem is with Trotskyites who have never achieved anything and refuse to show any kind of support for socialist gains made in Russia, Germany, Belarus, Poland, et al, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, Venezuela, India, Nepal, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicuragua. It seems to me that if you're not going to actually do anything, the least you could do is cheer on your comrades overseas. It's not sectarianism if there are genuine issues which need to be criticised or preferably ironed out.


The idea of a vangaurd does seem very authoritarian to me, at the same time Im interested in what works, if it achieves 75% of what I want rather than zero.

That would mean I join Eirigi over WSM?

Its really hard to know, I just want to get more involved and do something useful rather than debating the merits of all 87 left groups.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Some people are just stuck in the past, eager to relive and recreate division where there ought not be. Essentially, "Trotskyist" is used as a pejorative term by some on the left for those who don't fetishize the USSR enough.

That is exactly what I was going to say. Some people are stuck in the 1940's, in the USSR, in Stalin's office.

[The Grey Blur]

RSF...the Provos would be better than CWI.
Goodbye credibility.

@ OP:
For me, to be a 'Trotskyist' is really just orthodox marxism applied to such questions as national liberation, building our forces and stalinism.

Trotsky put forward a theory of 'Permanent Revolution' as opposed to the socialism in one country of Stalin and showed that the bourgeoisie of the neo-colonial nations (in the Indian sub-continent, in Africa, in Latin America) is so tied to international capital that they are incapable of leading a national liberation struggle and that instead the working class should be at the fore for a struggle for national self-determination and socialism.

Trotsky also put forward the idea of the 'Transitional Programme', this is the idea of making transitional demands for a higher minimum wage, reforms of labour laws, nationalisation of industry, improvements in the welfare state etc and linking these up to the need for socialism as opposed to the ideas of reformism or directly calling for revolution.

Trotsky also analysed the old stalinist states and viewed them as 'deformed worker's states' rather than a regurgitated capitalism or true socialism.

When certain members of this board attack 'Trotskyism' what they are really attacking is maybe one group which claims his legacy (for example the CWI), or the man himself, or certain charicatures of 'trots'. Others have principled objections to the above ideas and these are the people worth listening to, though in the end I personally agree with a 'Trotskyist' marxist analysis.

On what you should do with regards to activity - if you consider yourself an anarchist then I recommend you join some sort of anarchist group. I warn you though that for all your rejection of 'democratic centralism' what happens is that the same hierarchy arises, just on an informal basis. The CWI are a good group and do good work in the Free State, if you want to get active and educated then I'd recommend you join or at least attend some meetings/events. You could always argue for 'anarchist' political lines!

I hope this was helpful.

[Glenn Beck]

Trotskyism has a little bit of everything: something for everyone to love and something for everyone to hate.

The problem is that hate is stronger than love.

[RadioRaheem84]

I've never personally given Trotskyism a chance for fear that it might lead me back to liberalism. When I think of Trots, I think of George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens. I hope I am dead wrong though.

[Devrim]

I've never personally given Trotskyism a chance for fear that it might lead me back to liberalism. When I think of Trots, I think of George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens. I hope I am dead wrong though.

George Orwell was never a Trotskyist nor a member of a Trotskyist organisation.

Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I've never personally given Trotskyism a chance for fear that it might lead me back to liberalism. When I think of Trots, I think of George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens. I hope I am dead wrong though.

what did George Orwell do wrong?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I dunno his collaboration with the British authorities was pretty inexcusable

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I dunno his collaboration with the British authorities was pretty inexcusable

What was this, what happened?

[S.Artesian]

[QUOTE=flobdob;1735528]A number of things; disagreement with Trotsky's specific theory of revolution ("permanent revolution"), certain positions Trotsky took, certain things Trotsky did or said, Trotsky's analysis of the soviet union, certain positions/actions/statements of groups claiming to act in his legacy. I think those are most of the things people have against Trotskyism. Contrary to what the people posting here have said, by and large certain people oppose Trotskyism for principled reasons, not because of soviet fetishism or whatever other crap they want to throw up.[/QUaOTE]


And those principled reasons include: the fact that Trotsky opposed the policy of the Comintern in Spain, China, Germany, France-- the oscillations from "social democracy and fascism are twins" and to class-collaboration with a "liberal, enlightened" bourgeoisie in the popular front; that Trotskyists opposed the restoration of colonialism in IndoChina at the close of WW2; that Trotskyists opposed abandoning the anti-colonial struggle, again for example in IndoChina, when France had its popular front government; that Trotskyists opposed the trial and execution of 90% of the members of the 1917 central committee of the Bolshevik Party on charges of sabotage, terrorism and collaboration with Nazi Germany; that those who call themselves Trotskyists, but not only those, oppose the recent class-collaboration of the official CPs in Portuguese Revolution of 1974; in Spain with the death of Franco; in France 1968 and afterwards; in Italy etc. etc.

Those are very principled reasons to oppose "Trotskyism," with the core principle being, of course, the lack of principles.

[Spawn of Stalin]

What was this, what happened?

Surely you've heard of "Orwell's List". The list of suspected communists, pinkos and fellow travellers which he drafted for the Foreign Office and the IRD. The list was to aid the government's anti-communist propaganda campaign at the beginning of the Cold War, basically the people Orwell named were people deemed unsuitable for the writing of anti-communist propaganda. Granted there were only a few people who were actually communists on the list, it was of course mostly left-wing Labourites, including Kingsley Martin, editor of the New Statesman which was at the time a radical socialist magazine. But the fact that he even did this, actively worked with imperialism against the Soviet Union, it makes me sick tbh.

[Lyev]

My main gripe with Trotskyism is not the theory itself, it's not even so much about Trotsky the man, my problem is with Trotskyites who have never achieved anything and refuse to show any kind of support for socialist gains made in Russia, Germany, Belarus, Poland, et al, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, Venezuela, India, Nepal, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicuragua. It seems to me that if you're not going to actually do anything, the least you could do is cheer on your comrades overseas. It's not sectarianism if there are genuine issues which need to be criticised or preferably ironed out.
Trotskyists aren't supportive of other ideological trends or movements? Here's a little excerpt from Marxism in today's world, published by the CWI:
There are many good revolutionary forces worldwide who are not CWI members or, in some cases, do not even know about the CWI. We would collaborate with all these forces on concrete issues and seek to open up a discussion, debate and dialogue, which is absolutely essential in this for period for clarifying the tasks for a workers' movement internationally. It is not possible to lay down in advance and in every circumstances the conditions for fusion or unification with other groups or parties. Where we can arrive at ideological agreement on the main issues, then the CWI would be open and welcoming to all those who wish to join our ranks.... At present we are discussing with important organisations such as the Socialist Party of Malaysia.... even if a fusion or unification is not possible with some groups, there is no reason why collaboration would not be possible.And on Trotskyists not doing anything, what about the work of Militant tendency (the precursor to SPEW) in Liverpool, under Thatcher? It should also be noted that Militant were always a minority on the council, but with the right maneuvering and strategy, they managed to produce a number of noteworthy victories. Labour (who obviously Militant was part of) won control of the city council in 1983 with a huge majority. This majority increased in 1984. Two general strikes were organised in that year.

Thatcher didn't intervene until '85, until she had sorted out the miner's strikes. The government was defeated in Liverpool by 1984, but a witch-hunt had already started; an attack backed by the bourgeoisie, media and the right-wing of Labour. Clare Doyle, Peter Taafe, Ted Grant, Keith Dickinson and Lynn Walsh, who were on the Militant Editoral Board -- the "official" leadership of Militant -- were expelled.

Neil Kinnock, the then leader of Labour, attacked the Liverpool councillors from 1985-86. He vilified Militant, whilst not actually directly naming their name, in a speech to the Labour Party Congress in October '85. He talked of "the grotesque chaos of a Labour council", i.e. Taafe, Doyle et al. In this period, and later too, more members of the council in Liverpool plus Militant members of Labour, were expelled, all in a shitstorm of press, publicity and headlines. Anyway, thanks to Thatcher, Labour became pretty much empty in Liverpool. But for Conservatism it was too late: by the time Militant were kicked out of the city, they had already built something like 30,000 council houses.

To cut a long story short: it's sectarian and just plain unfair to say Trotskyists (or "Trotskyites" as you like to call them) "have never achieved anything" or "do nothing". Militant also helped, later in the 80s and early 90s, in organising the vast anti-poll tax campaign; 18 million people in Britain refused to pay it. And the anti-poll tax campaign was a huge catalyst for Thatcher's removal as prime minister. Also Militant had a membership of something like 8,000 with up to 15,000-20,000 people reading the newspaper per weekly issue, at one stage.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Militant were pretty good considering they were a sect within an imperialist party, other than that, I can't really call myself a fan. In terms of small scale work, antifascism, etc. Trots can be alright, it's their lack of national work which gets me, that is, the fact that they have never done anything to really push for revolution.

[Lyev]

Militant were pretty good considering they were a sect within an imperialist party, other than that, I can't really call myself a fan. In terms of small scale work, antifascism, etc. Trots can be alright, it's their lack of national work which gets me, that is, the fact that they have never done anything to really push for revolution.Apart from a "push for revolution", (I'll ignore that part ;)) that's fair enough comrade. At the end of the day, we'll all under the banner of anti-capitalism, anti-fascism and communism. I've spent enough time on revleft to be absolutely fed up with sectarianism on the left; there comes a point where it would seem people are too busy insulting [insert dead guy here] that they forget about the Marxism and anti-capitalism in general.

[Jazzhands]

It should be noted that the POUM in Spain was on the front lines of the war against fascism and was the most committed Communist Party in the Spanish Civil War, except then it was banned by the government and its members were hunted down by the GPU. Trotsky was also agitating for no compromises with fascism while Stalin and Hitler were signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and invading Poland together and shooting anti-fascist soldiers by the tens of thousands (see the Katyn massacre). Also, the reason the Trotskyists have failed to accomplish much in the way of revolution is that it was necessary to ally with the Stalinists' superior numbers. As we know from the Barcelona May Days, Stalin's murder of 2/3rds of the original politburo, and the brutal murder of Trotsky, every time the Trotskyists try to ally with the Stalinists, the Stalinists kill them all.

Also, the reason anti-Stalinist communists don't support regimes like North Korea is that they are not "socialist achievements" like you said. I actually support Yugoslavia and Russia, since Yugoslavia initiated democratic self-management and Russia was where the first revolution was. Also, North Korea is unquestionably an empire and the exact opposite of a socialist state. It is sort of like the Russian Empire. Kim Jong Il makes six figures and lives in a palace while the average North Korean lives on 900-1000 USD a year. The ruling ideologies are Juche (autarky and nationalism) and Songun. Songun designates the military as the driving force in the revolution, not the proletariat or even the peasants, so it is not in any way a socialist revolutionary theory. It also is a theoretical justification for the military to steal any piece of personal property from any peasant or worker at any time. As a final insult, the 2009 DPRK constitution removes all communist and socialist jargon and replaces it with Songun. The writings of Marx and Engels are actually FORBIDDEN in North Korea.

[red cat]

As we know from the Barcelona May Days, Stalin's murder of 2/3rds of the original politburo, and the brutal murder of Trotsky, every time the Trotskyists try to ally with the Stalinists, the Stalinists kill them all.


Now I know why Trots aren't allying with Maoists in India or Nepal. :)

[RadioRaheem84]

George Orwell was never a Trotskyist nor a member of a Trotskyist organisation.

Devrim

I thought he fought with the POUM during the Spanish Civil War, granted he wasn't a member though so fair enough. What about Hitchens?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There seems to be a lot of hate here for Trotskyist parties.

I ask because in Ireland where I am, the CWI is the biggest revolutionary left group, so if I was to join a group it would probably be them.

I agree with their basic ideas although Im more of an anarchist type personnally, the main negative thing I can see about them is they use democratic centralism, so new members might not really have a say in how things are run?

So why the sectarianism? Is it that people are against electoralism in general, or is there something specific about them I'm missing?

I am in the CWI. I think its a very good organization. I went though a long anarchist stage and I am strongly anti-authoritarian. I have thought about this myself but i don't see DC as being undemocratic. Organizations have their own ideas, bodies of theory, and activist approaches. They want to preserve their "heritage" while also training new members.This is true for all socialist groups.

Organizations have been destroyed or deteriorated by not fully integrating newbies. This seems to be happening w/the CPUS and has happened w/others.

You can vote and participate in decision making. There are some amazing CWI Irish activists-Joe Higgins, Clare Doyle and others You may want to PM CWI members here.

There's an enormous amount of sectarianism on revleft. Its both funny and sad. S. Artesian, as usual, has the best post here and he's not even a Trot.

[S.Artesian]

There's an enormous amount of sectarianism on revleft. Its both funny and sad. S. Artesian, as usual, has the best post here and he's not even a Trot.

Thanks for that. Nope, not a Trotskyist, but you, or I, have to recognize the seminal contribution of the theory of permanent revolution, which articulated the class struggle embedded in uneven and combined development.

These days, I'm just a Marxist, with an abiding passion for actual economic, historical analysis.

[Proletarian Ultra]

You can vote and participate in decision making. There are some amazing CWI Irish activists-Joe Higgins, Clare Doyle and others You may want to PM CWI members here.

What's the CWI's position on the Republican question?

[el_chavista]

I think there are so many Marxist-Leninist tendencies as there are different Marxist analysis of the concrete reality, of a revolutionary situation. Marxism is only a guide to action.
What I am interested in is in those may-be-fragmented good tactics that are conceived by different tendencies at the same time and that these tactics may possibly help me grasp what is to be done.

[Madvillainy]

I thought he fought with the POUM during the Spanish Civil War, granted he wasn't a member though so fair enough.

The POUM weren't trotskyist.

[Comrade B]

Now I know why Trots aren't allying with Maoists in India or Nepal. Congrats, you are traitors.
Also, I argue in defense of the Maoists when someone complains about a group like that, I just don't think they can create a revolutionary society.

On George Orwell, many believe that he went senile later in his life, and his mind had started to leave him, a large number of the people on his list weren't even communists. He was dying at the time of the list. Article by one of the people he reported on this here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jun/24/highereducation.books)http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What's the CWI's position on the Republican question?

http://www.socialistworld.net/m/pdf250201.pdf

The CWI's predeccesor, Militant put out pamphlets in the 80s explaining how the partition of Ireland was used as a tool by the British ruling class in a strategy going back over 100 years. Other comrades could provide more details.

[Jazzhands]

Congrats, you are traitors.
Also, I argue in defense of the Maoists when someone complains about a group like that, I just don't think they can create a revolutionary society.

On George Orwell, many believe that he went senile later in his life, and his mind had started to leave him, a large number of the people on his list weren't even communists. He was dying at the time of the list. Article by one of the people he reported on this here.

So because they don't ally with a leader who spent his first 10 or 20 years killing them, they are traitors. The only Stalinist argument is to make false accusations and call people traitors.

I suppose a huge amount of the people on Revleft are also traitors, since they don't support Our Great Eternal Shiny Happy Glorious Benevolent Democratic People's Leader Comrade Stalin. It's extremely ironic that you call us traitors since you were the ones who helped the Nazis invade Poland and even used concentration camps as "NKVD Special Camps" after the war.

[S.Artesian]

I think you have misunderstood Comrade B's post.

[The Grey Blur]

I don't understand the criticism of 'Trotskyists' that they have 'acheived nothing' - of course they didn't, not when the Stalinists were concentrating all their formidable powers on avoiding revolution & hounding their organisations worse than they ever did any fascist. You can't compare like-for-like the achievements of a massive alliance of Stalinist states and all their accompanying military, intelligence and propaganda agencies with that of a small globally scattered & constantly persecuted group of genuine revolutionaries.

[RadioRaheem84]

The POUM weren't trotskyist.

I thought it was formed after the merging of one Trotskyite group with another communist group or at least heavily influenced by Trotskyism? I guess I must have misread what I read on the subject.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPpoum.htm

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There seems to be a lot of hate here for Trotskyist parties.

... is there something specific about them I'm missing?

for starters, the term "Trotskyist" sounds like a code word for diarrhea

[The Grey Blur]

I thought it was formed after the merging of one Trotskyite group with another communist group or at least heavily influenced by Trotskyism? I guess I must have misread what I read on the subject.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPpoum.htm
They weren't 'Trotskyist', Nin's biggest failure was his ultra-leftism. The inability of the POUM or anarchists to engage with the young Socialists as Trotsky advised resulted in these hundreds of thousands of young revolutionaries ending up in the ranks of the stalinists.

[Comrade B]

So because they don't ally with a leader who spent his first 10 or 20 years killing them, they are traitors. The only Stalinist argument is to make false accusations and call people traitors.I was responding to this post by Red Cat

Quote: http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1735773#post1735773)

As we know from the Barcelona May Days, Stalin's murder of 2/3rds of the original politburo, and the brutal murder of Trotsky, every time the Trotskyists try to ally with the Stalinists, the Stalinists kill them all.
Now I know why Trots aren't allying with Maoists in India or Nepal. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

[scarletghoul]

Without wanting to get involved in all the trotskyism stuff, I would like to point out that Orwell's 2 most celebrated books, 1984 and Animal Farm, are based entirely around counterrevolutionary ideology. I'm not saying this from a sectarian stalinist position; the ideology of these books is entirely opposed to any revolution, which is portrayed as hopeless and doomed to authoritarian terror.
RedStar2000 wrote some cool stuff on Orwell - http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory9880.html http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theoryea1d.html
This is aside from his less obvious imperialism etc..

[Chambered Word]

Now I know why Trots aren't allying with Maoists in India or Nepal. :)

If I recall correctly, Mao's lot in China did some of the same.


Without wanting to get involved in all the trotskyism stuff, I would like to point out that Orwell's 2 most celebrated books, 1984 and Animal Farm, are based entirely on antirevolutionary ideology. I'm not saying this from a sectarian stalinist position; the ideology of these books is entirely opposed to any revolution, which is portrayed as hopeless and doomed to authoritarian terror.

Sounds more like a conservative capitalist position to me.

[Comrade B]

1984 is a fascist society
Animal Farm is about Stalinism, and if we get into that.... we will find some differences...

[S.Artesian]

I thought it was formed after the merging of one Trotskyite group with another communist group or at least heavily influenced by Trotskyism? I guess I must have misread what I read on the subject.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPpoum.htm

The POUM was not a Trotskyist group-- for one the POUM did not join or seek membership in the 4th International. For another the POUM participated in the loyalist government in Catalonia, and signed off, endorsing a "common program"-- essentially a popular front with the Socialist Party, the UGT, the CP, and the Syndicalist Party.

The POUM excluded Trotskyists from membership in its organization.

You might want to read Trotsky's The Spanish Revolution 1931-1939; Felix Morrow's Revolution and Counterrevolution in Spain. On the "non-ideological " side, Jackson's The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931-1939 is pretty good.

[Jazzhands]

Animal Farm is an allegory to what actually happened in Russia, not a pessimistic prediction. As for 1984, that was totally NOT the point of the book. It was a warning against totalitarianism; Oceania was based on a mix of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Orwell is pessimistic, but consider that he was constantly fighting dictators his entire life. Not much to look forward to since at that point, the world was looking like it would inevitably be crushed by either Hitler or Stalin.

[Chambered Word]

Animal Farm is an allegory to what actually happened in Russia, not a pessimistic prediction. As for 1984, that was totally NOT the point of the book. It was a warning against totalitarianism; Oceania was based on a mix of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Orwell is pessimistic, but consider that he was constantly fighting dictators his entire life. Not much to look forward to since at that point, the world was looking like it would inevitably be crushed by either Hitler or Stalin.

Weren't there other countries in 1984? Or were they fabrications of the Party?

I haven't read the whole book. :crying:

[Devrim]

Surely you've heard of "Orwell's List".

I don't really like the tone of this. Why should he have surely heard of it? I am sure lots of people haven't. I think the task of communists is not to look down on people who don't know something they do.

Maybe I am reading too much into one comment, but the whole dialogue seemed like that.

Devrim

[Devrim]

1984 is a fascist society


As for 1984, that was totally NOT the point of the book. It was a warning against totalitarianism; Oceania was based on a mix of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.

I think that 1984 was written as a parody of Britain after the war. He originally wanted to call the book 1948, but the publisher wouldn't allow him to and he changed the numbers around. All of the clues are there, Victory gin and cigarettes for instance.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I thought he fought with the POUM during the Spanish Civil War, granted he wasn't a member though so fair enough.

As people have pointed out, nor was the POUM Trotskyist.

So he wasn't a member of a party that wasn't Trotskyist.

Devrim

[Devrim]

They weren't 'Trotskyist', Nin's biggest failure was his ultra-leftism. The inability of the POUM or anarchists to engage with the young Socialists as Trotsky advised resulted in these hundreds of thousands of young revolutionaries ending up in the ranks of the stalinists.

I have never heard Nin called a ultra-leftist before.

Devrim

[The Grey Blur]

Well his refusal to work the Socialist Party especially their very large and militant youth wing was a bad mistake and a result of an ultra-left/left-sectarian attitude.

[flobdob]

[QUOTE=flobdob;1735528]A number of things; disagreement with Trotsky's specific theory of revolution ("permanent revolution"), certain positions Trotsky took, certain things Trotsky did or said, Trotsky's analysis of the soviet union, certain positions/actions/statements of groups claiming to act in his legacy. I think those are most of the things people have against Trotskyism. Contrary to what the people posting here have said, by and large certain people oppose Trotskyism for principled reasons, not because of soviet fetishism or whatever other crap they want to throw up.[/QUaOTE]


And those principled reasons include: the fact that Trotsky opposed the policy of the Comintern in Spain, China, Germany, France-- the oscillations from "social democracy and fascism are twins" and to class-collaboration with a "liberal, enlightened" bourgeoisie in the popular front; that Trotskyists opposed the restoration of colonialism in IndoChina at the close of WW2; that Trotskyists opposed abandoning the anti-colonial struggle, again for example in IndoChina, when France had its popular front government; that Trotskyists opposed the trial and execution of 90% of the members of the 1917 central committee of the Bolshevik Party on charges of sabotage, terrorism and collaboration with Nazi Germany; that those who call themselves Trotskyists, but not only those, oppose the recent class-collaboration of the official CPs in Portuguese Revolution of 1974; in Spain with the death of Franco; in France 1968 and afterwards; in Italy etc. etc.

Those are very principled reasons to oppose "Trotskyism," with the core principle being, of course, the lack of principles.

And other ones like the scandalous positions of Trotsky and his modern day followers on the Irish question (and the national question generally), their attitude to the Cuban and Chinese revolutions, their actions regarding the national liberation movements worldwide, the way the modern day trots try to banish the theory of imperialism and negate the split in socialism, the continual reference to Trotsky as Lenin's heir, etc. The question asked was "What do people have against trotskyism". Opposing Trotskyism doesn't mean you grovel at the feet of Stalin/Mao/Hoxha/Castro/whoever else who isn't a Trotskyist. It's quite telling of revleft that the most sectarian statement here was applauded as "the best post here"!

[Palingenisis]

Comrade if you're an anarchist or have anarchist sympathies you probably shouldn't be joining a "vanguard" party. Especially one which takes such a horrible line on the Irish national question. As far as I'm concerned ANY right-minded Irish socialist should join a proper republican group, RSF, IRSP, even the Provos would be better than CWI.
.

Republican Sinn Fein are proudonists at best and distributists at worse. They have some very progressive members and supporters (actually one of their supporters on politics.ie is pretty close to Left Communism in many ways) however they also have some very reactionary elements who are close to fascism (Roman Catholic integralists, "neo-pagans", etc). I think the Republican Network for Unity which actually does activism around "social issues" and is out spokenly on the side of the working class are much, much better.

[Palingenisis]

That would mean I join Eirigi over WSM?

.

They dont have an official line on this question but Eirigi take a much more realistic stand on the Trade Unions here as opposed to the WSM whos stance on this question is little different from the idealist view of the Trots which is a very good reason for considering Eirigi above the WSM.

[Hoggy_RS]

I have more of a problem with the CWI than with the ideology of trotskyism in general(I think Workers Power/LF5I are a grand group).

The CWI in Ireland seek to ignore imperialism in their own backyard. If you're not fundamentally anti-republican I wouldn't recommend joining.

[Fietsketting]

I think that 1984 was written as a parody of Britain after the war. He originally wanted to call the book 1948, but the publisher wouldn't allow him to and he changed the numbers around. All of the clues are there, Victory gin and cigarettes for instance.

Devrim


And half way with all the CCTV on the streets too :(

[red cat]

If I recall correctly, Mao's lot in China did some of the same.


Right. That is why Indian and Nepalese Trots aren't seen much in workers' struggles.

[Chambered Word]

Right. That is why Indian and Nepalese Trots aren't seen much in workers' struggles.

Could have something to do with it. I'm merely speculating.

[red cat]

Could have something to do with it. I'm merely speculating.

Then Mao must have used some kind of biological weapon on South Asian Trots which makes them incapable of organizing any revolutionary activity even today.

[Chambered Word]

Then Mao must have used some kind of biological weapon on South Asian Trots which makes them incapable of organizing any revolutionary activity even today.

Could be that Maoists and authoritarian communists in general have a reputation for shooting Trots. I couldn't care less to be honest, you've been pushing the same bullshit arguments over and over again.

[red cat]

Could be that Maoists and authoritarian communists in general have a reputation for shooting Trots. I couldn't care less to be honest, you've been pushing the same bullshit arguments over and over again.

What kind of bullets did Chinese Maoists shoot decades ago that prevented Trots from carrying out even any separate revolutionary program in Nepal so far ?

[Palingenisis]

Could be that Maoists and authoritarian communists in general have a reputation for shooting Trots. I couldn't care less to be honest, you've been pushing the same bullshit arguments over and over again.

You realise that Trotsky represented the ultra-authoritarian faction of the Bolsheviks? Have you never heard of the militarization of labour he promoted (which involved actually shooting people for throwing sickies?)? I mean if he hadnt of been there the tragedy of Kronsdadht might have been avoided...

[S.Artesian]

You realise that Trotsky represented the ultra-authoritarian faction of the Bolsheviks? Have you never heard of the militarization of labour he promoted (which involved actually shooting people for throwing sickies?)? I mean if he hadnt of been there the tragedy of Kronsdadht might have been avoided...

The militarization of labor was part of the overall program of war communism imposed, more or less, on the Bolsheviks by the demands of fighting a civil war. That the Bolsheviks, and not just Trotsky but Lenin also, made a virtue out of this necessity, is an object lesson in the importance of distinguishing the civil war from the purpose of the proletarian dictatorship.

Militarization of labour had almost nothing to do with the Kronstadt revolt. A much bigger precipitating action was the seizures of grain and agricultural produce from the peasants with the peasants resistance that took the shape of reduce plantings, reduced production, hoarding, etc.

Kronstadt was indeed a tragedy; the response of the Bolsheviks which demanded not just cessation of the rebellion but also the slaughter of the rebels was more than horrible, more than a mistake, more than a horrible mistake. However, it was not a tragedy produced out of Trotsky or Lenin's love for authority.

[red cat]

Here is Lenin's opinion:


ON THE KRONSTADT REVOLT

SUMMARY OF A TALK WITH A CORRESPONDENT of THE NEW YORK HERALD

I believe that there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia—a Government by the Soviets or a Government headed by a tsar. Some fools or traitors in Kronstadt talked of a Constituent Assembly, but does any man in his senses believe for a moment that a Constituent Assembly at this critical abnormal stage would be anything but a bear garden. This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire.


Some people in America have come to think of the Bolsheviks as a small clique of very bad men who are tyrannizing over a vast number of highly intellectual people who would form an admirable Government among themselves the moment the Bolshevik regime was overthrown. This is a mistake, for there is nobody to take our place save butcher Generals and helpless bureaucrats who have already displayed their total incapacity for rule.


If people abroad exaggerate the importance of the rising in Kronstadt and give it support, it is because the world has broken up into two camps: capitalism abroad and Communist Russia.


-Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/15.htm

[Jazzhands]

For the same reason there is no Communist Party in America capable of revolution. NUMBERS. There are no Trotskyists in Nepal, and it's kinda hard to carry out a revolution when you don't exist.

[red cat]

For the same reason there is no Communist Party in America capable of revolution. NUMBERS. There are no Trotskyists in Nepal, and it's kinda hard to carry out a revolution when you don't exist.

Why are there only Maoists and no Trots in Nepal ?

[S.Artesian]

Why are there only Maoists and no Trots in Nepal ?

What's the size of the industrial working class in Nepal? How much of the GDP is based in manufacturing and industrial output?

That might help us understand the material conditions.

[Barry Lyndon]

This argument is so petty its unbelievable. I admire Trotsky and think that Stalin was a counter-revolutionary mass murdering piece of shit who I have denounced at length on other threads, but I also think this insistence by some Trotskyists that Trotsky was a 'rightful' successor is 1)stupid, because socialism is not supposed to be a monarchy, even if Lenin favored Trotsky, that doesn't mean he 'should have' succeeded him 2)WHO GIVES A SHIT, much less workers???? This was, what, 85 years ago? Sometimes I wonder whether some Marxist groups are political organizations and not history clubs.

I support the Maoists in Nepal and in India against all their reactionary opponents.

As for Orwell, what really gets Stalinists mad is that 'Animal Farm' and '1984' make Stalin look really bad, but they twist it around to make it seem that Orwell opposed revolution, period. Explain to me then, why the pigs Old Major(Marx/Lenin), and Snowball(Trotsky), are portrayed in a positive light, if the goal of the book is to demonize all revolution. The revolution in 'Animal Farm' is celebrated, its its degeneration and betrayal that is portrayed negatively, as it should be. Maybe that's because Orwell saw first hand a promising revolution in Spain being backstabbed by Stalinists.
It's not Orwell's fault that the bourgeoisie took his work and used it for their own reactionary ends.

[S.Artesian]

You might as well ask: is Nepal in Europe? Because you're looking for Europe in the middle of the Third World which has been kept in a state of utter mal-development and poverty by imperialism since the past few hundred years. For example, the British colonialists who carried out a program of deindustrialization in India and things have not changed much after that due to neo-colonialism. Are the Nepalese peasants and workers to blame for the lack of development in their country? Only an idiot would say so. This is the reason why under such conditions of a semi-feudal semi-colony, Maoists see the need to carry out the New Democratic revolution under the worker-peasant alliance.


You need to calm down. Nobody's blaming anybody. I asked for some simple information on the economic conditions in Nepal. You reply with knee-jerk remarks about "mal-development" without providing a bit of material analysis.

De-Industrialization of India? When did industrialization take place in India prior to 1750. We're talking about industrialization not handicraft production, not communal production, not home- work production, but industrialization, so when did that occur in India and what were its characteristics?

As for Nepal, you might want to look at the history of Nepal, its relations of land, landed labor, and agricultural production before jerking your knee and foaming on about the mal-development produced by imperialism. You might want to provide some analysis of the actual penetration by imperialism and the results thereof.... or again, maybe you would rather not and just go on and on repeating ideological cant and pretending that that's an adequate substitute for Marxism.

You make the call.

As for me, I'd welcome any concrete analysis of the actual material history of conditions of production in Nepal. If you can't provide it, then just go back to reading your little red book, the Dr. Seuss version I'm sure.

[S.Artesian]

Whatever that is, it's not evidence. Britain certainly destroyed India's indigenous economic networks, its handicraft production, its agricultural production providing for the sustenance of the population-- imposing instead demands for production for the world market and consumption of the commodities produced by British industry.

That's not the same as de-industrialization, no more than the French deindustrialized IndoChina, than the US deindustrialized Cuba, the Philippines, or the Atlantic slave trade deindustrialized Africa.

If you actually read the MR article rather than just cite it, you would realize the author is discussing, primarily, agricultural development and the British destruction of the Indian agricultural relations. There is no disputing that. This process and its horrible results continued through the 20th century and produced famine among its other "benefits." India still suffers from the legacy of this destruction in agriculture, with agricultural productivity continuing to decline over the last few years and that legacy will never be overcome without a socialist revolution.

The issue however is de-industrialization.

Industrialization has a specific, historical, class, content. That shouldn't be news to anyone who claims to be a materialist.

[red cat]

What's the size of the industrial working class in Nepal? How much of the GDP is based in manufacturing and industrial output?

That might help us understand the material conditions.

You have asked a very important question, but it is somewhat unrelated to what I asked. Whatever be the size of the industrial working class in Nepal, it is not outside the intense class struggle, and no other leftist tendency seems to have attracted it.

[red cat]

Whatever that is, it's not evidence. Britain certainly destroyed India's indigenous economic networks, its handicraft production, its agricultural production providing for the sustenance of the population-- imposing instead demands for production for the world market and consumption of the commodities produced by British industry.

That's not the same as de-industrialization, no more than the French deindustrialized IndoChina, than the US deindustrialized Cuba, the Philippines, or the Atlantic slave trade deindustrialized Africa.

If you actually read the MR article rather than just cite it, you would realize the author is discussing, primarily, agricultural development and the British destruction of the Indian agricultural relations. There is no disputing that. This process and its horrible results continued through the 20th century and produced famine among its other "benefits." India still suffers from the legacy of this destruction in agriculture, with agricultural productivity continuing to decline over the last few years and that legacy will never be overcome without a socialist revolution.

The issue however is de-industrialization.

Industrialization has a specific, historical, class, content. That shouldn't be news to anyone who claims to be a materialist.

The handicraftsmen, rich traders etc are the ones from which the national bourgeoisie would have consolidated in the form of big capitalists in future. Imperialists destroyed the embryo of the natural capitalist development in their colonies.

[S.Artesian]

You have asked a very important question, but it is somewhat unrelated to what I asked. Whatever be the size of the industrial working class in Nepal, it is not outside the intense class struggle, and no other leftist tendency seems to have attracted it.

We need to know the substance of that class struggle. Peasant wars erupt throughout history. The results of those wars depend on the leadership. The leadership depends on the specifics of the material reproduction of the economy, on the class relations. That's what we need to get to, to understand.

The victory of the struggle in Nepal is by no means assured. The upsurge can be defeated and to prevent that defeat we need to know what the material relations are so that the weaknesses and strengths of the revolutionary program of that leadership can be assessed and understood.

To simply apply a template to the struggle-- a template of "deindustrialization" of "semi-feudalism" gets us, in the long run, exactly nowhere, or worse than nowhere-- to a place where the Russian Revolution collapses, China becomes aggressively capitalist, etc.

[S.Artesian]

The handicraftsmen, rich traders etc are the ones from which the national bourgeoisie would have consolidated in the form of big capitalists in future. Imperialists destroyed the embryo of the natural capitalist development in their colonies.

Maybe and maybe not. We've had this discussion before. The above, as you describe it, is certainly not what took place in Latin America, nor in Africa, and from my studies of China's agricultural relations is not an accurate description of what took place there either.

This argument that there is an "embryo" of natural capitalist development in the colonies, the argument of "incipient capitalism" assumes what first must be proven-- that there was indeed an incipient capitalism, that indeed, capitalism is the "natural" course of development in all societies.

Brenner pretty well demolished that concept in his work contra "neo-Smithian Marxism."

The issue here, however, is the claim that "de-industrialization" occurred. Rich traders, handicraft workers-- in short a mercantile based system is not industry. Destruction of that indigenous mercantile system does not amount to de-industrialization.

Precision, comrade. You know better than many that revolution is a precise science, not a grab bag of catch-all terms.

[red cat]

Maybe and maybe not. We've had this discussion before. The above, as you describe it, is certainly not what took place in Latin America, nor in Africa, and from my studies of China's agricultural relations is not an accurate description of what took place there either.

This argument that there is an "embryo" of natural capitalist development in the colonies, the argument of "incipient capitalism" assumes what first must be proven-- that there was indeed an incipient capitalism, that indeed, capitalism is the "natural" course of development in all societies.

I will have to verify China's case. South Asia was much more developed with respect to the African or American civilizations. The feudal lords were already in contradiction with an emerging class of merchants. In fact, these contradictions were exploited by imperialists to defeat the ruling classes. The nature of the changing relations of production, merchants effectively "employing" whole villages of handicraftsmen at a time does indicate growth of capitalism.

Another example is probably Japan. It is the only Asian country which remained largely untouched by western capital. As a result it became capitalist itself.



Brenner pretty well demolished that concept in his work contra "neo-Smithian Marxism."

The issue here, however, is the claim that "de-industrialization" occurred. Rich traders, handicraft workers-- in short a mercantile based system is not industry. Destruction of that indigenous mercantile system does not amount to de-industrialization.

Precision, comrade. You know better than many that revolution is a precise science, not a grab bag of catch-all terms.

In general, the collective production of handicraftsmen is also referred to as "industry". However, if you are looking for big factories and their demolition by imperialists, then I must say that it did not happen. Capitalism had not developed to that stage in South Asia.

[red cat]

We need to know the substance of that class struggle. Peasant wars erupt throughout history. The results of those wars depend on the leadership. The leadership depends on the specifics of the material reproduction of the economy, on the class relations. That's what we need to get to, to understand.

The victory of the struggle in Nepal is by no means assured. The upsurge can be defeated and to prevent that defeat we need to know what the material relations are so that the weaknesses and strengths of the revolutionary program of that leadership can be assessed and understood.

To simply apply a template to the struggle-- a template of "deindustrialization" of "semi-feudalism" gets us, in the long run, exactly nowhere, or worse than nowhere-- to a place where the Russian Revolution collapses, China becomes aggressively capitalist, etc.

I agree, but it is also a fact that whatever be the material conditions in Nepal, Maoists have successfully been able to exploit them to cause huge gains for the peasantry and proletariat. This indicates that though all this was possible in Nepal, no other tendency could do anything for the masses. This only proves that Maoists are relatively much stronger than all other tendencies when it comes to actual revolutionary practice.

[S.Artesian]

I agree, but it is also a fact that whatever be the material conditions in Nepal, Maoists have successfully been able to exploit them to cause huge gains for the peasantry and proletariat. This indicates that though all this was possible in Nepal, no other tendency could do anything for the masses. This only proves that Maoists are relatively much stronger than all other tendencies when it comes to actual revolutionary practice.

No it doesn't prove that any tendency, including the Maoists, when it comes to revolutionary practice, since revolutionary is a qualitative, not quantitative characteristic.

It does prove that the Maoists are more numerous, more popular, etc. but history is filled with quantitatively larger, more popular, "radical" formations that fail to achieve and maintain actual social revolution-- the popular front being the one the leaps to mind.

Be that as it may, I would appreciate it if someone would provide some actual material analysis of the relations of production in Nepal-- something that might go beyond the info I've already gleaned from the various websites devoted to the current struggle in Nepal, and the World Bank, UN sites on the social indicators.

As for Japan and the Meiji Reformation-- the actual development of capitalism under the Meiji period is a lot more complex than the simple-- "they locked out imperialism, ergo were able to become capitalist" but that's a whole separate discussion.

None of this is to say that imperialism's toll on the physical well-being of the inhabitants of colonial countries was anything less than horrific; did not involve brutal exploitation; slavery; debt peonage, etc. That's not disputed. The "naturalness" of capitalist development in those countries if advanced capitalism had not penetrated is something else altogether, and the pre-existing relations of land and labor do not support this notion of incipient capitalism.

[red cat]

No it doesn't prove that any tendency, including the Maoists when it comes to revolutionary practice, since revolutionary is a qualitative, not quantitative characteristic.

It does prove that the Maoists are more numerous, more popular, etc. but history is filled with quantitatively larger, more popular, "radical" formations that fail to achieve and maintain actual social revolution-- the popular front being the one the leaps to mind.


The revolution might not be spread throughout the whole country at once. For example, in the Maoist bases in Bastar, where the peoples' democratic government has come into existence, a qualitative change has been achieved. In Rolpa, the old feudal relations of production have been abolished. These are qualitative, revolutionary changes. So other than proving that Maoists are numerous, popular etc. it also proves the strength of Maoist revolutionary practice.

[S.Artesian]

The revolution might not be spread throughout the whole country at once. For example, in the Maoist bases in Bastar, where the peoples' democratic government has come into existence, a qualitative change has been achieved. In Rolpa, the old feudal relations of production have been abolished. These are qualitative, revolutionary changes. So other than proving that Maoists are numerous, popular etc. it also proves the strength of Maoist revolutionary practice.

Hope you're right-- but revolutions have gone half-way before, in time, space, and social relations and you know what Saint-Just said about revolutions that only go half-way?-- they dig their own graves.

[red cat]

Hope you're right-- but revolutions have gone half-way before, in time, space, and social relations and you know what Saint-Just said about revolutions that only go half-way?-- they dig their own graves.

True, but they have gone half-way at least. And all such revolutions that continue today, with the exception of the Colombian one, are Maoist. I think this is enough to prove the clear superiority of Maoism over all other leftist tendencies.

[bricolage]

And all such revolutions that continue today, with the exception of the Colombian one, are Maoist. I think this is enough to prove the clear superiority of Maoism over all other leftist tendencies.

All states that continue today are capitalist. I think this is enough to prove the clear superiority of capitalism over all other economic tendencies.

[S.Artesian]

True, but they have gone half-way at least. And all such revolutions that continue today, with the exception of the Colombian one, are Maoist. I think this is enough to prove the clear superiority of Maoism over all other leftist tendencies.


What does that make Cuba? Capitalist? Counter-revolutionary?

What does that make what's going on in Bolivia, not Morales and the MAS, but the underlying struggle in Bolivia.... and in Venezuela as separate and apart from Chavez? Counter-revolutionary?

[red cat]

All states that continue today are capitalist. I think this is enough to prove the clear superiority of capitalism over all other economic tendencies.

No, all states today are not capitalist. Therefore your argument collapses.

[red cat]

What does that make Cuba? Capitalist? Counter-revolutionary?

What does that make what's going on in Bolivia, not Morales and the MAS, but the underlying struggle in Bolivia.... and in Venezuela as separate and apart from Chavez? Counter-revolutionary?

Both Castro and Chavez, have opposed guerrilla warfare in Latin America. Both of them have visited India and cheered the ruling class when full-fledged revolutionary wars were going on against it. Both of them never mention any ongoing Maoist revolution anywhere. I don't think any socialist would do this.

I am not aware of any ongoing struggle in Venezuela and Bolivia that has produced qualitative change.

[S.Artesian]

Both Castro and Chavez, have opposed guerrilla warfare in Latin America. Both of them have visited India and cheered the ruling class when full-fledged revolutionary wars were going on against it. Both of them never mention any ongoing Maoist revolution anywhere. I don't think any socialist would do this.

I am not aware of any ongoing struggle in Venezuela and Bolivia that has produced qualitative change.

And China bloced with the US and the apartheid Union of South Africa in providing armaments to Savimbi in Angola; and China maintained relations with Pinochet; and China fought battles with Vietnam.

Not supporting a particular tactic is not identical to opposing a revolution; the statements of a leader or not identical with the social relations at the basis of a mode of production.

Are you arguing that a revolution did not occur in Cuba? That the bourgeoisie were not expropriated and expelled? Or are you arguing that capitalism has been restored?

As for qualitative change-- you allow qualitative change, as you describe it, in a limited geographical, and social area, as sufficient to qualify the overall struggle in Nepal revolutionary, and the overall program of the Maoists revolutionary, but when it comes to Bolivia or Venezuela are you going to discount the material, qualitative change, sectors of the economy-- particularly hydrocarbons, or the water utility and deny the revolutionary character of the struggle, the process in those countries?

Are you going to dismiss the mass demonstrations from 2003-2005 that forced 2 governments to flee, because guerrilla warfare is most definitely not appropriate? What kind of materialism, recognition of actual social correlations of forces, is that?



I think it's funny, funny odd, funny sad, that you say you are unaware of any revolutionary struggle in Bolivia since it's exactly that line that the "stagists" and "left-nationalists" parrot when they claim, as they have ever since 2000, and again in 2003, and again in 2005 and to this day, that there is no possibility of a socialist revolution in Bolivia.

You're argument takes you directly to the position they would like everyone to hold-- that the revolutionary process doesn't exist, and if it does it's a mistake; that the creation of the strike committees, the FEJUVE councils in El Alto, the militias to block the movement of troops is not a struggle for power as only "state capitalism" is possible in Bolivia.

[S.Artesian]

All states that continue today are capitalist. I think this is enough to prove the clear superiority of capitalism over all other economic tendencies.

See...? You should have said almost all, which would have been enough to prove superiority, just as the abolition of feudal relations in one sector is enough to qualify a revolution as successful.

[S.Artesian]

Then Mao must have used some kind of biological weapon on South Asian Trots which makes them incapable of organizing any revolutionary activity even today.

Well, the official CPs certainly had a biological weapon against Trotskyists in Southeast Asia in 1937, and again in 1945 when the Trotskyists led the struggle against the restoration of French colonialism in Vietnam-- it's the biological weapon called execution.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't really like the tone of this. Why should he have surely heard of it? I am sure lots of people haven't. I think the task of communists is not to look down on people who don't know something they do.

Maybe I am reading too much into one comment, but the whole dialogue seemed like that.

Devrim

You're reading into it too much. Admittedly I often come across as an obnoxious prick but it's the internets, I'm actually a really nice guy. Sorry for the confusion.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Republican Sinn Fein are proudonists at best and distributists at worse. They have some very progressive members and supporters (actually one of their supporters on politics.ie is pretty close to Left Communism in many ways) however they also have some very reactionary elements who are close to fascism (Roman Catholic integralists, "neo-pagans", etc). I think the Republican Network for Unity which actually does activism around "social issues" and is out spokenly on the side of the working class are much, much better.

Yeah I agree, the RNU are excellent as is their work. In my opinion the IRSP are the best party in all of Ireland. The reason I favour RSF and PSF over CWI Ireland is because I think the Irish question is more important than the socialist question. I do subscribe the the idea that a socialist republic is the only way Ireland can be free, but I don't see any point in campaigning for socialism if you're going to be useless on the issue of republicanism. It doesn't mean I particularly like Sinn Fein in any of its forms, it just means I can't for the life of me understand why CWI don't take a better position on Irish unity.

[S.Artesian]

And other ones like the scandalous positions of Trotsky and his modern day followers on the Irish question (and the national question generally), their attitude to the Cuban and Chinese revolutions, their actions regarding the national liberation movements worldwide, the way the modern day trots try to banish the theory of imperialism and negate the split in socialism, the continual reference to Trotsky as Lenin's heir, etc. The question asked was "What do people have against trotskyism". Opposing Trotskyism doesn't mean you grovel at the feet of Stalin/Mao/Hoxha/Castro/whoever else who isn't a Trotskyist. It's quite telling of revleft that the most sectarian statement here was applauded as "the best post here"!

Except there is no unified homogeneous "position" on the Cuban and Chinese revolutionists among those who call themselves Trotskyists; no unitary position on all national liberation movements worldwide; no unitary position refuting Lenin's theory of imperialism [which theory is inadequate to analyzing modern capitalism and simply wrong in much of its empirical claims as well as theoretical conclusions-- and has been stated earlier I am not a Trotskyist].

Yeah the question was what do people have against Trotskyism-- you said it was a question of principle-- and I pointed out the actual concrete issues that the opposition to Trotsky claimed as its "principles," proof that Trotsky was a "renegade," a "counterrevolutionary." You want to regard that as accusations of grovelling at the feet of Stalin or Mao or Hoxha?-- that's your problem-- just one of many it appears.

[S.Artesian]

No, all states today are not capitalist. Therefore your argument collapses.

Too many espressos for me, just can't let this go.

How about this: the productivity of labor in capitalism is higher than the productivity of labor anywhere, past or present, under socialism. Therefore capitalism is clearly "superior."

That's it. Time to go run 6 miles and bike 10.

[Palingenisis]

It doesn't mean I particularly like Sinn Fein in any of its forms, it just means I can't for the life of me understand why CWI don't take a better position on Irish unity.

Its easy to understand...Wanting to avoid Police harressment and being slandered in the capitalist press are pretty easy reasons to understand. I think it comes down to cowardice.

The English working class can be very proud of organizations like Class War, Red Action and the Revolutionary Communist Group who took a principled stand during the troubles which must have been very difficult for them. Red salute!

[red cat]

And China bloced with the US and the apartheid Union of South Africa in providing armaments to Savimbi in Angola; and China maintained relations with Pinochet; and China fought battles with Vietnam.

China's position on the Angolan question has been discussed and justified in other threads, so I am not touching it. As for Vietnam, we claim that the Maoists had been completely thrown out of power by 1976.

China's relation with Pinochet was definitely a blunder. But all of China's negative roles are eclipsed by its positive roles in upholding many revolutions in various countries.


Not supporting a particular tactic is not identical to opposing a revolution; the statements of a leader or not identical with the social relations at the basis of a mode of production.

True, but they failed to provide an effective alternative tactic and advised the FARC to surrender with the help of the mediation of France.


Are you arguing that a revolution did not occur in Cuba? That the bourgeoisie were not expropriated and expelled? Or are you arguing that capitalism has been restored?

I think that Cuba never completed its anti-imperialist revolution.


As for qualitative change-- you allow qualitative change, as you describe it, in a limited geographical, and social area, as sufficient to qualify the overall struggle in Nepal revolutionary, and the overall program of the Maoists revolutionary, but when it comes to Bolivia or Venezuela are you going to discount the material, qualitative change, sectors of the economy-- particularly hydrocarbons, or the water utility and deny the revolutionary character of the struggle, the process in those countries?

Are you going to dismiss the mass demonstrations from 2003-2005 that forced 2 governments to flee, because guerrilla warfare is most definitely not appropriate? What kind of materialism, recognition of actual social correlations of forces, is that?



I think it's funny, funny odd, funny sad, that you say you are unaware of any revolutionary struggle in Bolivia since it's exactly that line that the "stagists" and "left-nationalists" parrot when they claim, as they have ever since 2000, and again in 2003, and again in 2005 and to this day, that there is no possibility of a socialist revolution in Bolivia.

You're argument takes you directly to the position they would like everyone to hold-- that the revolutionary process doesn't exist, and if it does it's a mistake; that the creation of the strike committees, the FEJUVE councils in El Alto, the militias to block the movement of troops is not a struggle for power as only "state capitalism" is possible in Bolivia.

Did the movements in these countries result in the masses taking decisions for themselves, even in a single geographical pocket ? Either that or a 1917 style total revolution ? I consider nothing less than those as a qualitative change.

[red cat]

Well, the official CPs certainly had a biological weapon against Trotskyists in Southeast Asia in 1937, and again in 1945 when the Trotskyists led the struggle against the restoration of French colonialism in Vietnam-- it's the biological weapon called execution.

Yes, Trotskyites always say things like that. However, we Maoists judge the amount of truth in their words from their actions rather than all the loads of books and documents they provide. At present we have only seen Trotskyites from India trying to slander the Indian revolution and getting thrashed here in this forum, and Nepalese Trotskyites forming a group and whining in the internet about how evil the UCPN(M) is. However none of them have actually shown up in the field of struggle to fight against the feudal lords, capitalists and imperialists anywhere. From this we deduce that their role in South-east Asia might also have been the same, and those who slander revolutionary movements like that deserve to be executed.

[Palingenisis]

However none of them have actually shown up in the field of struggle to fight against the feudal lords, capitalists and imperialists anywhere. From this we deduce that their role in South-east Asia might also have been the same, and those who slander revolutionary movements like that deserve to be executed.

The CWI in their slander of my nation's struggle for self-determination as some act of religious sectarian chauvanism and their offering to rat on English working people who defended themselves against the police during the poll tax riots clearly as far as Im concerned puts them in the camp of the class enemy.

[red cat]

Too many espressos for me, just can't let this go.

How about this: the productivity of labor in capitalism is higher than the productivity of labor anywhere, past or present, under socialism. Therefore capitalism is clearly "superior."

That's it. Time to go run 6 miles and bike 10.

Superior for capitalists, that is.

The difference between our arguments is that when I said "revolutionary movements", it referred to those that have succeeded in empowering the broad masses led by the proletariat. But no matter how high the productivity of labor in capitalism might be, the capitalists are always in power and are the ones who gain from it.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah I agree, the RNU are excellent as is their work. In my opinion the IRSP are the best party in all of Ireland. The reason I favour RSF and PSF over CWI Ireland is because I think the Irish question is more important than the socialist question. I do subscribe the the idea that a socialist republic is the only way Ireland can be free, but I don't see any point in campaigning for socialism if you're going to be useless on the issue of republicanism. It doesn't mean I particularly like Sinn Fein in any of its forms, it just means I can't for the life of me understand why CWI don't take a better position on Irish unity.

I wouldnt agree with that and to my knowledge the IRSP (or at least elements within them) dont either. What we think is that the two cannot be seperated as the greatest enemy of the Irish working class remains the British state. We see national liberation as part of the workers' struggle for socialism.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Indeed, they are one and the same. The CWI claim to represent socialism yet have no desire to destroy British imperialism in the six counties, before building socialism the Irish people must break free from their British chains. Which is why I think republicanism should be on the agenda before the construction of a socialist state.

[S.Artesian]

Indeed, they are one and the same. The CWI claim to represent socialism yet have no desire to destroy British imperialism in the six counties, before building socialism the Irish people must break free from their British chains. Which is why I think republicanism should be on the agenda before the construction of a socialist state.

Except you can't separate the the expulsion of British imperialism from the socialist revolution-- that's what uneven and combined development forces upon the class struggle.

In arguing that "republicanism should be on the agenda before construction of a socialist state," you are simply recapitulating the old, old, old, and incorrect, incorrect, incorrect "stageism" of the 19th and 20th century.

Connolly didn't believe that "republicanism should be on the agenda before the construction of a socialist" revolution [not state]. Connolly had the best grasp on uneven and combined development in Ireland that I've come across.

[A.R.Amistad]

Take a look at the numbers of members in various Trotskyist organizations, and take a look at just how much more active they have been compared to Maoists (at least in the West) and I think you'll find that animosity fot Trotskyism is restricted mainly to talking shops and political forums.

[S.Artesian]

China's position on the Angolan question has been discussed and justified in other threads, so I am not touching it. As for Vietnam, we claim that the Maoists had been completely thrown out of power by 1976.

Good decision, not to touch China's position on Angola, since it was a position that was any which way you cut it, supportive of apartheid counterrevolution. Makes no difference how you justify it

As for Vietnam-- the Maoists were out of power well before 1976, if they had ever been in power-- which is debatable. So what?

This:


I think that Cuba never completed its anti-imperialist revolution.


is bizarre to say the least. What do you call the expropriation of Bacardi, Standard Oil, Hershey, the banks; the seizure of property owned by the US, the UK, etc. if not "anti-imperialist"? Unless of course you have a completely different definition of imperialist allowing you to provide a completely different definition to anti-imperialist.

And if you're going to argue, and I hope you're not, that Cuba then fell into orbit as a colony of Soviet imperialism, a position adopted by numerous "ultra-left, lefter than Trotsky" sects, then you're going to have to detail Soviet control of the economy of Cuba, and how that control actually amount to an export of profits from Cuba to the USSR.



Did the movements in these countries result in the masses taking decisions for themselves, even in a single geographical pocket ? Either that or a 1917 style total revolution ? I consider nothing less than those as a qualitative change.

Wait a minute, the Russian revolution did not consolidate its power all at once; and did not immediately alter the social relations of production. The is is one of process, becoming, overcoming the obstacles, the temporary manifestations that appear revolutionary like Kerensky, or IMO Morales and the MAS, but work necessarily to control, undermine, and dissipate the actual class struggle that seeks to overturn the social relations of production.

So is there a revolutionary process underway, manifesting itself, in the struggle in Bolivia, and Venezuela?

[S.Artesian]

Superior for capitalists, that is.

The difference between our arguments is that when I said "revolutionary movements", it referred to those that have succeeded in empowering the broad masses led by the proletariat. But no matter how high the productivity of labor in capitalism might be, the capitalists are always in power and are the ones who gain from it.

That's not how Marx analyzed it. That's not how Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Preobrazhenskii, Maksakovsky thought socialism would secure itself against the restoration of capitalism.

Marx defined it as expansion of the productivity of labor, which was capitalism's historic task. Marxists know that augmenting, improving, the productivity of labor through abolition of private property in the means of production, through workers' organization and control of production for use.

It's flat out simple plain productivity of labor-- that less and less of labor time would be required for the production of necessities, that more and more labor could be devoted to developing the resources of society to eliminate scarcity, that fewer people would be required to engage in agricultural production.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Except you can't separate the the expulsion of British imperialism from the socialist revolution-- that's what uneven and combined development forces upon the class struggle.

In arguing that "republicanism should be on the agenda before construction of a socialist state," you are simply recapitulating the old, old, old, and incorrect, incorrect, incorrect "stageism" of the 19th and 20th century.

Connolly didn't believe that "republicanism should be on the agenda before the construction of a socialist" revolution [not state]. Connolly had the best grasp on uneven and combined development in Ireland that I've come across.
Like I said, they are one and the same, so in essence I agree, but socialism cannot be achieved under British rule, this does not necessarily constitute stageism, because it is a simple fact that a free republic is a prerequisite for socialism

[Jazzhands]

China also funded Pol Pot, both at the behest of the US and on their own initiative. I'm sure you've all seen the pictures of Mao shaking hands and laughing with Ieng Sary (Pol Pot is the one in the middle in those pictures).

[bricolage]

No, all states today are not capitalist. Therefore your argument collapses.

I don't think so. Capitalism is a world system and all states are integrated into, all states are capitalist states. I accept there may be remnants of previous economic systems existing within them (eg. feudalism) but that does not mean the dominant economic makeup of the state and as such the means by which the state supports itself, is not capitalist.
Although none of this addresses the actual issue I was trying to address.

[scarletghoul]

Take a look at the numbers of members in various Trotskyist organizations, and take a look at just how much more active they have been compared to Maoists (at least in the West) and I think you'll find that animosity fot Trotskyism is restricted mainly to talking shops and political forums.
I like how you just ignore every revolution that exists in the world..

[red cat]

Good decision, not to touch China's position on Angola, since it was a position that was any which way you cut it, supportive of apartheid counterrevolution. Makes no difference how you justify it

Both the UNITA and MPLA had participated earlier in the struggle for liberation. I will place MPLA no higher than UNITA at the time when China supported it. South African intervention does not make the MPLA very special.


As for Vietnam-- the Maoists were out of power well before 1976, if they had ever been in power-- which is debatable. So what?

So that it is capitalist China that you are talking about. Not the Maoist one.


This:



is bizarre to say the least. What do you call the expropriation of Bacardi, Standard Oil, Hershey, the banks; the seizure of property owned by the US, the UK, etc. if not "anti-imperialist"? Unless of course you have a completely different definition of imperialist allowing you to provide a completely different definition to anti-imperialist.

And if you're going to argue, and I hope you're not, that Cuba then fell into orbit as a colony of Soviet imperialism, a position adopted by numerous "ultra-left, lefter than Trotsky" sects, then you're going to have to detail Soviet control of the economy of Cuba, and how that control actually amount to an export of profits from Cuba to the USSR.


Yes, Cuba became a semi-colony of Soviet imperialism. I find no other explanation for their lack of effort in becoming self-sufficient and producing only more and more sugar.

For this reason Cuba's relation with China has been as expected: they denounced China as soon as China had exposed Soviet imperialism. In later years, after the capitalist restoration they invited Chinese leaders and honoured them with the order of Jose Marti or something like that.

For the past few years Castro has been showering the Chinese and North Korean revolutions with praise in his column in Granma. The Sino-Cuban split is nowhere mentioned anymore.



Wait a minute, the Russian revolution did not consolidate its power all at once; and did not immediately alter the social relations of production. The is is one of process, becoming, overcoming the obstacles, the temporary manifestations that appear revolutionary like Kerensky, or IMO Morales and the MAS, but work necessarily to control, undermine, and dissipate the actual class struggle that seeks to overturn the social relations of production.

So is there a revolutionary process underway, manifesting itself, in the struggle in Bolivia, and Venezuela?

I don't recognize anything other than the creation of Maoist type liberated zones or Bolshevik style city insurrections followed by seizure of big factories etc as revolutions. Venezuela and Bolivia have none of these. Therefore, there are no revolutions there.

[red cat]

That's not how Marx analyzed it. That's not how Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Preobrazhenskii, Maksakovsky thought socialism would secure itself against the restoration of capitalism.

Marx defined it as expansion of the productivity of labor, which was capitalism's historic task. Marxists know that augmenting, improving, the productivity of labor through abolition of private property in the means of production, through workers' organization and control of production for use.

It's flat out simple plain productivity of labor-- that less and less of labor time would be required for the production of necessities, that more and more labor could be devoted to developing the resources of society to eliminate scarcity, that fewer people would be required to engage in agricultural production.

Had revolution been only about expansion of productivity of labour, capitalist restorations wouldn't have occured anywhere. It is solely about the class that holds power.

[red cat]

China also funded Pol Pot, both at the behest of the US and on their own initiative. I'm sure you've all seen the pictures of Mao shaking hands and laughing with Ieng Sary (Pol Pot is the one in the middle in those pictures).

A lot of us support Pol Pot.

[red cat]

I don't think so. Capitalism is a world system and all states are integrated into, all states are capitalist states. I accept there may be remnants of previous economic systems existing within them (eg. feudalism) but that does not mean the dominant economic makeup of the state and as such the means by which the state supports itself, is not capitalist.
Although none of this addresses the actual issue I was trying to address.

On the contrary, the Maoist line says that most countries today are not capitalist. I have explained this for South Asia in details. I don't know about the exact forms of semi-feudalism semi-colonialism that work in Latin America, Oceania or Africa.

[S.Artesian]

On the contrary, the Maoist line says that most countries today are not capitalist. I have explained this for South Asia in details. I don't know about the exact forms of semi-feudalism semi-colonialism that work in Latin America, Oceania or Africa.


Most countries in the world are not capitalist? What is the dominant mode of production in the world markets? In fact what are the world markets if not capitalist markets?

What social relations of production, what economic laws determine what will happen in country after country, advanced or less advanced?

The Maoist line, if that is what it claims, is a gigantic step backward from Marx's analysis of 160 years ago.

[S.Artesian]

Had revolution been only about expansion of productivity of labour, capitalist restorations wouldn't have occured anywhere. It is solely about the class that holds power.

But that isn't the issue that was originally raised. Revolution is about the conflict between the means and relations of production; where the relations become a barrier to the expansion of the means, an expansion to human productivity. If the Russian Revolution and the Chinese after it cannot match or exceed the productivity of labor that is produced, and inverted of course, by the bourgeoisie, then in the long run those very revolutions will become yet another manifestation of the conflict between the means and relations of production. Which is kind of what happened in the fSU, and China, no?

You brought a purely "quantitative" measure into the discussion and tried to use it as a qualitative evaluation-- "popularity" of the Maoist line as a measure of the depth, penetration, and accuracy of its revolutionary analysis and practice. The comrade responded by providing a quantitative measure in analogy that illuminated how easily such quantitative measures can be used to distort, or obscure, the actual material processes at work.

[anticap]

I've yet to find even an intelligible definition of "Trotskyism" (beyond the inane, e.g., "Trotskyism is the theories of Trotsky").

I've issued an invitation to try to define it (along with various related/contending terms) in simple summary form that anyone (even, say, Glenn Beck) could grasp, but I've yet to be taken up on it.

The standard response to such requests is to post a link to Wikipedia; but to read those "articles" will do nothing but confuse people further.

I don't take seriously the objections of people to an ideology if they can't even summarize what it is.

[S.Artesian]

Both the UNITA and MPLA had participated earlier in the struggle for liberation. I will place MPLA no higher than UNITA at the time when China supported it. South African intervention does not make the MPLA very special.

The above is called abstentionism. Sorry, or not sorry, UNITA bloced with apartheid South Africa, the US with its war criminal Kissinger, and China. You don't think there was any difference to the people of Angola as to who won, MPLA or UNITA? That's exactly like saying, it didn't matter to the people of Iraq who won, the US or Hussein's Baathists.




Yes, Cuba became a semi-colony of Soviet imperialism. I find no other explanation for their lack of effort in becoming self-sufficient and producing only more and more sugar.

Yeah, have you ever studied the Cuban economy? Have you ever studied the exact economic relations with the fSU. Self-sufficient. What economy ever has been "self-sufficient"? The first 5 year plan relied significantly on foreign trade. The second one less so, but still it was important. And then there's WW2...

China as self-sufficient? When was that? Only when 80% of the population was engaged in agricultural, that is to say, subsistence production?





I don't recognize anything other than the creation of Maoist type liberated zones or Bolshevik style city insurrections followed by seizure of big factories etc as revolutions. Venezuela and Bolivia have none of these. Therefore, there are no revolutions there.


If a Trotskyist or a council communist made your arguments above, many of which actually parallel those council communist arguments... you can bet every CP, every Maoist organization would once again be screaming about Trotskyist "contempt" for the 3rd world; Trotskyist or "ultra-left" sectarianism, blindness etc.

The question re Bolivia and Venezuela was one of process. Is there a revolutionary struggle underway precipitated by a conflict between means and relations of production?

How someone can argue so vociferously for "dialectics," for process with Rosa when it comes to philosophy, and then so blatantly ignore, or abandon, the dialectics of actual revolutionary process when it comes to forcing everything into a "Maoist line," is a bit self-contradictory on your part, comrade.

[red cat]

Most countries in the world are not capitalist? What is the dominant mode of production in the world markets? In fact what are the world markets if not capitalist markets?

What social relations of production, what economic laws determine what will happen in country after country, advanced or less advanced?

The Maoist line, if that is what it claims, is a gigantic step backward from Marx's analysis of 160 years ago.

I have already explained how imperialism acts through feudalism in South Asia. There are similar conditions in other third world countries, although I won't be able to detail their cases.

Did Marx ever say that most of the countries in the world are capitalist ?

[red cat]

The above is called abstentionism. Sorry, or not sorry, UNITA bloced with apartheid South Africa, the US with its war criminal Kissinger, and China. You don't think there was any difference to the people of Angola as to who won, MPLA or UNITA? That's exactly like saying, it didn't matter to the people of Iraq who won, the US or Hussein's Baathists.



A similar argument can be made for the revisionist CPI(M) and the racist party BJP for West Bengal in India. You would prefer CPI(M) because they are officially not racist and claim to be communists. However, those who have studied the recent political phenomena of West Bengal know that at present, even a government by the BJP would serve as a temporary relief for the masses in West Bengal. It is not correct to take sides just depending on the official political banners of groups rather than analyzing the situation in the place deeply.



Yeah, have you ever studied the Cuban economy? Have you ever studied the exact economic relations with the fSU. Self-sufficient. What economy ever has been "self-sufficient"? The first 5 year plan relied significantly on foreign trade. The second one less so, but still it was important. And then there's WW2...Castro himself admitted in 1966 that the Cuban people was not yet self-sufficient.

No other country that claimed to be socialist ever spent so much resource in producing crops for export.


China as self-sufficient? When was that? Only when 80% of the population was engaged in agricultural, that is to say, subsistence production?Which country bought Chinese cash crops and supplied them with cereals ?




If a Trotskyist or a council communist made your arguments above, many of which actually parallel those council communist arguments... you can bet every CP, every Maoist organization would once again be screaming about Trotskyist "contempt" for the 3rd world; Trotskyist or "ultra-left" sectarianism, blindness etc.

The question re Bolivia and Venezuela was one of process. Is there a revolutionary struggle underway precipitated by a conflict between means and relations of production?

How someone can argue so vociferously for "dialectics," for process with Rosa when it comes to philosophy, and then so blatantly ignore, or abandon, the dialectics of actual revolutionary process when it comes to forcing everything into a "Maoist line," is a bit self-contradictory on your part, comrade.All I want to see is a real qualitative change; the masses taking decisions for themselves, or workers taking over big factories, peasants taking over fields and an area being liberated. Whether there is some complex movement on the way is impossible to determine from outside of these countries. So until I see some concrete proof of the type I mentioned, or a revolutionary party stating that there is a revolution going on in these countries, I will not support your claim.

[red cat]

But that isn't the issue that was originally raised. Revolution is about the conflict between the means and relations of production; where the relations become a barrier to the expansion of the means, an expansion to human productivity. If the Russian Revolution and the Chinese after it cannot match or exceed the productivity of labor that is produced, and inverted of course, by the bourgeoisie, then in the long run those very revolutions will become yet another manifestation of the conflict between the means and relations of production. Which is kind of what happened in the fSU, and China, no?

You brought a purely "quantitative" measure into the discussion and tried to use it as a qualitative evaluation-- "popularity" of the Maoist line as a measure of the depth, penetration, and accuracy of its revolutionary analysis and practice. The comrade responded by providing a quantitative measure in analogy that illuminated how easily such quantitative measures can be used to distort, or obscure, the actual material processes at work.

How did the Maoists manage to be so popular and maintain their base areas for so long where every other tendency failed to initiate a revolutionary movement at the first place ?

[S.Artesian]

How did the Maoists manage to be so popular and maintain their base areas for so long where every other tendency failed to initiate a revolutionary movement at the first place ?

The above statement is just not accurate. There have been revolutionary movements, popular revolutionary movements initiated in many places, and times, that weren't Maoist. Of course, since these movements are not themselves Maoist, and do not demand immediate guerrilla war, you therefore exclude from being revolutionary in the first place, which is convenient for you, and gives you the impression of having made an air-tight argument.

Air-tight of course is an indication of sterility and lack of contact with the real world. But that is how you roll.

[red cat]

The above statement is just not accurate. There have been revolutionary movements, popular revolutionary movements initiated in many places, and times, that weren't Maoist. Of course, since these movements are not themselves Maoist, and do not demand immediate guerrilla war, you therefore exclude from being revolutionary in the first place, which is convenient for you, and gives you the impression of having made an air-tight argument.

Air-tight of course is an indication of sterility and lack of contact with the real world. But that is how you roll.

Yes, we see nothing less then an armed struggle as proof of a revolutionary initiative. For this the only Trot groups that we uphold as revolutionaries are the Argentine and Sri Lankan ones and a few more here and there which participated in larger armed resistances.

[danyboy27]

Yes, we see nothing less then an armed struggle as proof of a revolutionary initiative.
Killing people is definitively the only revolutionary way.

[red cat]

Killing people is definitively the only revolutionary way.

No, french-kissing imperialists and their troops is another way out.

[S.Artesian]

Yes, we see nothing less then an armed struggle as proof of a revolutionary initiative. For this the only Trot groups that we uphold as revolutionaries are the Argentine and Sri Lankan ones and a few more here and there which participated in larger armed resistances.


Like I said-- air-tight = empty-headed.

[danyboy27]

No, french-kissing imperialists and their troops is another way out.

there is always 2 unique way in your mind eh?

what kind of limited thinking is that?

[flobdob]

Except there is no unified homogeneous "position" on the Cuban and Chinese revolutionists among those who call themselves Trotskyists; no unitary position on all national liberation movements worldwide; no unitary position refuting Lenin's theory of imperialism [which theory is inadequate to analyzing modern capitalism and simply wrong in much of its empirical claims as well as theoretical conclusions-- and has been stated earlier I am not a Trotskyist].

Yeah the question was what do people have against Trotskyism-- you said it was a question of principle-- and I pointed out the actual concrete issues that the opposition to Trotsky claimed as its "principles," proof that Trotsky was a "renegade," a "counterrevolutionary." You want to regard that as accusations of grovelling at the feet of Stalin or Mao or Hoxha?-- that's your problem-- just one of many it appears.

Congratulations! Likewise there is no homogenous position of "Stalinists" on these things; I am talking of course in generalities. If we for instance assess the lines of the various Trot groups in Britain for instance we see time and time again these bits of shit trotted (excuse the pun) out. We thus can work from a principle of generalities and we see common positions held on a lot of positions. You take this bullshit pedantic argument of "no homogenous position"; talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
Your position on Lenin's theory of imperialism is utter tripe, and I don't see fit to merit you with a response to it; you should maybe read some of Yaffe's writings as a lot of the crap you've come out with was regurgitated by Barratt Brown and others before you.
And please, there's a lot more of an opposition to trotskyism than some allegations of Trotsky's involvement in certain incidents (which has been elsewhere debated here). Christ, read Stalin's Foundations of Leninism, he criticises Trotsky's positions for reasons completely nothing to do with Trotsky's actions, but his theory. But hey ho, nothing to stop you pouring out this inane drivel all over revleft is there.
I think it's apt to quote Che on Trotsky:
"I believe that the fundamental things which Trotsky based himself on were erroneous, and that his later behaviour was wrong and even obscure in the final period. The Trotskyists have contributed nothing to the revolutionary movement anywhere and where they did most, which was in Peru, they ultimately failed because their methods were bad. That comrade Hugo Blanco, personally a man of great sacrifice, based [his position] on a set of erroneous ideas and will necessarily fail."
But hey ho, nothing any non Trot (or even the more principled and revolutionary Trots here, who despite my disagreements with I have respect for) can ever say that will stop the usual "Wahh stalinists" or "They just love the USSR" rubbish that is still being jabbered out, so whatever, history is absolving us who are not academic/online "revolutionaries".

[S.Artesian]

Congratulations! Likewise there is no homogenous position of "Stalinists" on these things; I am talking of course in generalities. If we for instance assess the lines of the various Trot groups in Britain for instance we see time and time again these bits of shit trotted (excuse the pun) out. We thus can work from a principle of generalities and we see common positions held on a lot of positions. You take this bullshit pedantic argument of "no homogenous position"; talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
Your position on Lenin's theory of imperialism is utter tripe, and I don't see fit to merit you with a response to it; you should maybe read some of Yaffe's writings as a lot of the crap you've come out with was regurgitated by Barratt Brown and others before you.
And please, there's a lot more of an opposition to trotskyism than some allegations of Trotsky's involvement in certain incidents (which has been elsewhere debated here). Christ, read Stalin's Foundations of Leninism, he criticises Trotsky's positions for reasons completely nothing to do with Trotsky's actions, but his theory. But hey ho, nothing to stop you pouring out this inane drivel all over revleft is there.
I think it's apt to quote Che on Trotsky:
"I believe that the fundamental things which Trotsky based himself on were erroneous, and that his later behaviour was wrong and even obscure in the final period. The Trotskyists have contributed nothing to the revolutionary movement anywhere and where they did most, which was in Peru, they ultimately failed because their methods were bad. That comrade Hugo Blanco, personally a man of great sacrifice, based [his position] on a set of erroneous ideas and will necessarily fail."
But hey ho, nothing any non Trot (or even the more principled and revolutionary Trots here, who despite my disagreements with I have respect for) can ever say that will stop the usual "Wahh stalinists" or "They just love the USSR" rubbish that is still being jabbered out, so whatever, history is absolving us who are not academic/online "revolutionaries".

Right, whatever you do, don't engage with the real content. Talk instead about how "you won't even respond to it [criticisms of Lenin's Imperialism]" without even knowing what the criticisms are.

Perhaps I could understand you better if you wipe the foam off your mouth. Maybe not.

There's a lot more in opposition to Trotskyism? No shit. Except you haven't provide a bit of that more, a bit of concrete criticism. I could do that, not being a Trotskyist, but that criticism would all be based in concrete historical developments not your knee jerk ideological bullshit.

Right, you talk in generalities, to better obscure your lack of specific knowledge.

Well the devil's in the details, and you're not.

What was that Ripley said in Aliens: "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"-- yeah that's it. Wonder Sigourney Weaver ever met you.

[Chambered Word]

Yes, we see nothing less then an armed struggle as proof of a revolutionary initiative. For this the only Trot groups that we uphold as revolutionaries are the Argentine and Sri Lankan ones and a few more here and there which participated in larger armed resistances.

So we should be carrying knives to protests? :rolleyes:

[flobdob]

Right, whatever you do, don't engage with the real content. Talk instead about how "you won't even respond to it [criticisms of Lenin's Imperialism]" without even knowing what the criticisms are.
lolwut.
As I've said before, I've read the thread you posted in on the topic, and I'm more than familiar with the numerous critics of it, as diverse as David Harvey to Michael Barratt-Brown. And as I said before, I don't feel a need to engage with you on this, precisely because other people have already done the job for me. Much as I said before (note how you refuse to quote where I suggested this!), you should read some of Yaffe's stuff, as it covers these critiques - and the pitiful extensions by people like yourself - pretty extensively.


Perhaps I could understand you better if you wipe the foam off your mouth. Maybe not.

A+ for attempted slur (OMGZOR look at that raving dogmatist!), pity it falls down when you look at how it's you drawing this crap out by dismissing every. single. point. made.


There's a lot more in opposition to Trotskyism? No shit. Except you haven't provide a bit of that more, a bit of concrete criticism. I could do that, not being a Trotskyist, but that criticism would all be based in concrete historical developments not your knee jerk ideological bullshit.

"your knee jerk ideological bullshit"

lol

So I'm not allowed to critique Trotsky's thought because that's "knee jerk ideological bullshit", and not allowed to critique Trotsky's actions because that's "bowing at the altar of Mao/Hoxha". Catch 22 much?

Much as I've always said, you should do well to actually listen to the criticisms of Trotsky's theories (for instance on the permanent revolution), rather than draw us out as if we are stuck in the 1930s. These are all freely available and have been pointed out by other posters in this thread and others. Again I feel no need to point them out as this job has been done for me, but I guess that doesn't fit into your liking, but do what thou wilt as they say.


Right, you talk in generalities, to better obscure your lack of specific knowledge.
No, as I said, I'm talking in generalities because there are, as you said, diverse opinions amongst the Trot left on certain issues. However, if you want concrete examples, let's see some examples of the positions of the 2 major British trot left groups, the SWP and Socialist Party (SPEW) to Cuba. I use these two because they represent the 2 major trends in the Trot left; the Cliffites and the more "orthodox Trotskyists".

The SWP published in Socialist Worker on 13th January 2007 an article by Diane Raby of Liverpool University on Cuba where she praised the Cuban revolution and the socialist construction process. Within a week the general SWP leadership line came to the fore in the replies from SWP members; the allegation that "Cuba is not a socialist country. It is a dictatorship run by Castro and his party", "Raby is wrong to imply that socialism exists or is being created in Cuba", and then finally Chris Harman came in with a page long article dismissing the Cuban revolutionary system. The same is seen repeatedly through the writings of SWP, as demonstrated by Mike Gonzalez's book on Che and the Cuban Revolution.

The Socialist Party (SPEW) have a very similar position, albeit not as outright offensive as some of the afforementioned SWP stuff, but still just as similar in content. Amongst other things, they have alleged (this stuff I'm drawing from the article on Che in issue 271 of The Socialist) that "Che's socialism was flawed because of his underestimation of the role of the working class in changing society", that Cuba was "run by a bureaucratic caste as in the Soviet Union", lacks "worker's democracy", etc. The lines are the 2 major lines in the British (and worldwide) Trot left, a fact that is so painfully clear to anyone who has ever been politically involved in left wing politics that it becomes almost offensive to have to reiterate them.



Well the devil's in the details, and you're not.

What was that Ripley said in Aliens: "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"-- yeah that's it. Wonder Sigourney Weaver ever met you.

Well that's totally relevant to your argument or the thread in general. But don't let that get in the way of some more inanity. :thumbup1:

[RED DAVE]

Che's socialism was flawed because of his underestimation of the role of the working class in changing society.Considering that the workers have never controlled industry in Cuba and were consistently undervalued by Castro and Co., that's a fair criticism.


Cuba was "run by a bureaucratic caste as in the Soviet Union"Fair criticism, especially since it's true.


lacks "worker's democracy"It lacks it.


The lines are the 2 major lines in the British (and worldwide) Trot left, a fact that is so painfully clear to anyone who has ever been politically involved in left wing politics that it becomes almost offensive to have to reiterate them.But it's really offensive to state that they aren't true when they are.

[:D]ducks and waits for shit to fly[/:D]

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

lolwut.
As I've said before, I've read the thread you posted in on the topic, and I'm more than familiar with the numerous critics of it, as diverse as David Harvey to Michael Barratt-Brown. And as I said before, I don't feel a need to engage with you on this, precisely because other people have already done the job for me. Much as I said before (note how you refuse to quote where I suggested this!), you should read some of Yaffe's stuff, as it covers these critiques - and the pitiful extensions by people like yourself - pretty extensively.



A+ for attempted slur (OMGZOR look at that raving dogmatist!), pity it falls down when you look at how it's you drawing this crap out by dismissing every. single. point. made.



"your knee jerk ideological bullshit"

lol

So I'm not allowed to critique Trotsky's thought because that's "knee jerk ideological bullshit", and not allowed to critique Trotsky's actions because that's "bowing at the altar of Mao/Hoxha". Catch 22 much?

Much as I've always said, you should do well to actually listen to the criticisms of Trotsky's theories (for instance on the permanent revolution), rather than draw us out as if we are stuck in the 1930s. These are all freely available and have been pointed out by other posters in this thread and others. Again I feel no need to point them out as this job has been done for me, but I guess that doesn't fit into your liking, but do what thou wilt as they say.


No, as I said, I'm talking in generalities because there are, as you said, diverse opinions amongst the Trot left on certain issues. However, if you want concrete examples, let's see some examples of the positions of the 2 major British trot left groups, the SWP and Socialist Party (SPEW) to Cuba. I use these two because they represent the 2 major trends in the Trot left; the Cliffites and the more "orthodox Trotskyists".

The SWP published in Socialist Worker on 13th January 2007 an article by Diane Raby of Liverpool University on Cuba where she praised the Cuban revolution and the socialist construction process. Within a week the general SWP leadership line came to the fore in the replies from SWP members; the allegation that "Cuba is not a socialist country. It is a dictatorship run by Castro and his party", "Raby is wrong to imply that socialism exists or is being created in Cuba", and then finally Chris Harman came in with a page long article dismissing the Cuban revolutionary system. The same is seen repeatedly through the writings of SWP, as demonstrated by Mike Gonzalez's book on Che and the Cuban Revolution.

The Socialist Party (SPEW) have a very similar position, albeit not as outright offensive as some of the afforementioned SWP stuff, but still just as similar in content. Amongst other things, they have alleged (this stuff I'm drawing from the article on Che in issue 271 of The Socialist) that "Che's socialism was flawed because of his underestimation of the role of the working class in changing society", that Cuba was "run by a bureaucratic caste as in the Soviet Union", lacks "worker's democracy", etc. The lines are the 2 major lines in the British (and worldwide) Trot left, a fact that is so painfully clear to anyone who has ever been politically involved in left wing politics that it becomes almost offensive to have to reiterate them.

Well that's totally relevant to your argument or the thread in general. But don't let that get in the way of some more inanity. :thumbup1:

Except I didn't post a thread on the topic of imperialism... I've written about Lenin's Imperialism but never started a thread on the topic. Don't think I've done more than provide a link to a blog, one of which is a critique of Lenin's Imperialism.

Gee, what a faux-pas on my part, not quoting you referring to Yaffe. Holy fuck there go my academic credentials. Really, lose some of the narcissism. You're too old to pout.

Never read Yaffe, never heard of him but will look him up. The question of imperialism turns on the empirical data that Lenin used to draw his theoretical characterization and conclusions, and the existence of confirming empirical data in the current era. I'd be more than happy to go over "export of capital" vs. export of commodities, "greater returns in colonized countries" than in advanced countries, "super-profits," "bribery of the working class" -- all those first principles of "Imperialism" which don't actually appear in the world of capitalist accumulation.

Concrete issues have developed in this thread-- regarding revolutionary process-- with Red Cat arguing that exists only in armed struggle or full blow soviets, so consequently only, or near only, Maoists are revolutionists; regarding uneven and combined development and the prospects for "stagist" revolutions of the "national democratic," or "republican" type, separate and distinct from the proletariat's taking of power, but somehow being socialist in character, and more than that, being able to pass over into socialism without a corresponding international, reciprocating revolution; on Cuba never having, according to Red Cat, completed an "anti-imperial" revolution, and even supporting Pol Pot, which doesn't defy comprehension but does make one wonder about how you characterize a political "leadership" that depopulates the cities among other wonderful programs. Maybe a variation on the old Trotskyist "deformed worker state"? calling it perhaps a really, really deformed worker state? Or even better, a demented worker state?; claims that because most countries in the world are NOT capitalist [you wanna bet?], then... yeah then what? I guess a bourgeois revolution is still on the agenda? [No response though to the question as to what is the dominant mode of production in the world markets, what economic social relations determine the time, place, and nature of class struggle.]

And your contribution to those discussions? Zero. From the person who said it, the antipathy to Trotskyism, was based on principles. Nothing concrete. Clearly then your "principles" are the principles of "liberalism," principles in the abstract that collapse before the world of the concrete. Not even on Cuba, where Red Cat takes a position infinitely more, IMO, right wing, than even the "state-caps," OK maybe not infinitely more to the right, but equally anti-materialist. Curious, no?

Keep on keepin' on though.

[RED DAVE]

maybe a variation on the old trotskyist "deformed worker state"? Calling it perhaps a really, really deformed worker state? Or even better, a demented worker state?:d

red dave

[Jazzhands]

List of non-Maoist revolutions

1. Zapatistas

2. Russian Revolution

3. Seattle general strike

4. Anarchist Catalonia

5. Spanish Civil War

6. Yugoslav Partisans

7. Paris Commune

Your argument has failed.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Who is this directed at? Nobody thinks that there has never been a non-Maoist revolution because Maoists uphold the October revolution.


2. Russian Revolution
Of course, since October predates Maoism

3. Seattle general strike
Uh, not a revolution, just a strike that lasted a week and was accused of being communistic in nature by the government.

4. Anarchist Catalonia

5. Spanish Civil War
Ultimately failed, unfortunately

7. Paris Commune
Lasted about 45 minutes before being crushed.

[Lyev]

Who is this directed at? Nobody thinks that there has never been a non-Maoist revolution because Maoists uphold the October revolution.


Of course, since October predates Maoism

Uh, not a revolution, just a strike that lasted a week and was accused of being communistic in nature by the government.

Ultimately failed, unfortunately

Lasted about 45 minutes before being crushed.The number of revolutions that a certain ideology purports to be the impetus behind is not an indication of how successful said ideology is. Or at least it's not the only indication. To say -- or perhaps imply -- that every other revolutionary tendency is or was a failure because they've failed to produce any revolution is simply misleading. Counter-revolutionary opposition, material conditions, numerical strength, type of capitalism, % of proletariat, class consciousness etc etc. vary greatly from region to region. There are certain externalities and many different parameters that revolutionaries have no or little control over. And a lot of the time, people just get fed up with things, and revolt without any external vanguard, influence or party telling them what to do, and how to do it. Half of what it is to be a "revolutionary" is simply being in the right place at the right time, in my opinion. That is not to say a good revolutionary shouldn't be working their ass off, agitating, organising and educating.

[Crux]

New member or indeed any members in Ireland dont have any say in how its run...Thats all decided over in old bilthy. Read up (and dont take their word for anything) on their record during the last serious phase of armed struggle against the invader in the occupied six counties. Thats just for starters.
Hahaha. Yes, yes. Have you also heard that all the world is ruled by the brittish royal family who are secretly lizardpeople from outer space?
But please do read up our record. Then compare it too the nonsense this guy is spouting about us.

[infraxotl]

Has there ever been a revleft thread on Trotskyism that didn't degenerate into stalinism stalinism stalinism stalinism STALINISM STALINISM? Because these threads always are such an eyesore.

[Qayin]

Because I'm not into old ideologies that are meaningless for my conditions here in Arizona.

[Q]

There seems to be a lot of hate here for Trotskyist parties.

I ask because in Ireland where I am, the CWI is the biggest revolutionary left group, so if I was to join a group it would probably be them.

I agree with their basic ideas although Im more of an anarchist type personnally, the main negative thing I can see about them is they use democratic centralism, so new members might not really have a say in how things are run?

So why the sectarianism? Is it that people are against electoralism in general, or is there something specific about them I'm missing?

When you join any group, do ask yourself a simple question: Is this group going to help me develop myself or my work in the movement? If you can answer that positively, it is great. As a CWI member myself, I do think there is an "added value" in that sense as the organisation has a healthy focus on the working class movement itself. That said; stay critical, ask questions, formulate your thoughts, defend what you think is right and offer constructive criticism where you deem is needed. If this is done consistently throughout the organisation, it only helps to educate members, refine our positions, rethink where needed.

I hope this helps.

[bricolage]

On the contrary, the Maoist line says that most countries today are not capitalist. I have explained this for South Asia in details. I don't know about the exact forms of semi-feudalism semi-colonialism that work in Latin America, Oceania or Africa.

I have heard the Maoist semi-feudal, semi-colonial line before and I am not interested in debating it here what I do think those is that boldest text is just a flagrant lie. Since 2006/2007 the majority of the worlds population is urban furthermore adding to that the high numbers of rural areas operating fully on capitalist lines and the fact that, even in states where feudal relations may exist in parts, capitalism is the dominant force by which the states support themselves and their position in the world system, I simply cannot believe 'most countries today are not capitalist'.

[flobdob]

Except I didn't post a thread on the topic of imperialism... I've written about Lenin's Imperialism but never started a thread on the topic. Don't think I've done more than provide a link to a blog, one of which is a critique of Lenin's Imperialism.

Gee, which might be to do with why I said "I've read the thread you posted in on the topic". Not "the thread you posted", "the thread you posted in".

Which leads on to...

Gee, what a faux-pas on my part, not quoting you referring to Yaffe. Holy fuck there go my academic credentials. Really, lose some of the narcissism. You're too old to pout.

..the basic fact that you literally have misrepresented me throughout this entirely. A large plank of what I said relied on the very fact that I asked you to look at people who have made the arguments before, and to omit this is to utterly misrepresent what I have said. I'm unconcerned about your self perceived academic credentials, I simply don't want what I'm saying to be misrepresented - which is precisely what you have done and persist in doing. It's doing precisely that which would damage your so vaunted academic credentials...


Never read Yaffe, never heard of him but will look him up.

Yaffe participated in a bunch of debates in the 70s and onwards on various strains in Marxian economic theory. A particularly notable intervention was that published in New Left Review, with a critique of Glyn and Sutcliffe's thesis in their book British Capitalism, Workers and the Profits Squeeze. As far as I know from his other stuff he deals mostly now with defending Lenin's thesis of Imperialism, and his contemporary writings are particularly good in this respect.


The question of imperialism turns on the empirical data that Lenin used to draw his theoretical characterization and conclusions, and the existence of confirming empirical data in the current era. I'd be more than happy to go over "export of capital" vs. export of commodities, "greater returns in colonized countries" than in advanced countries, "super-profits," "bribery of the working class" -- all those first principles of "Imperialism" which don't actually appear in the world of capitalist accumulation.

All of which are arguments which, as I have said, have previously been advanced by the likes of Barratt-Brown, and continue to be as false as they were then. This is why my central argument on this strain requires you to look at Yaffe because this is precisely the issue he deals with so much!

To cavalierly attribute my position to a foaming dogmatism is erroneous and lies ultimately on your process of selectively reading what I've said, and then having the audacity to attack me - for things which you intentionally misrepresent!


Concrete issues have developed in this thread-- regarding revolutionary process-- with Red Cat arguing that exists only in armed struggle or full blow soviets, so consequently only, or near only, Maoists are revolutionists; regarding uneven and combined development and the prospects for "stagist" revolutions of the "national democratic," or "republican" type, separate and distinct from the proletariat's taking of power, but somehow being socialist in character, and more than that, being able to pass over into socialism without a corresponding international, reciprocating revolution; on Cuba never having, according to Red Cat, completed an "anti-imperial" revolution, and even supporting Pol Pot, which doesn't defy comprehension but does make one wonder about how you characterize a political "leadership" that depopulates the cities among other wonderful programs. Maybe a variation on the old Trotskyist "deformed worker state"? calling it perhaps a really, really deformed worker state? Or even better, a demented worker state?; claims that because most countries in the world are NOT capitalist [you wanna bet?], then... yeah then what? I guess a bourgeois revolution is still on the agenda? [No response though to the question as to what is the dominant mode of production in the world markets, what economic social relations determine the time, place, and nature of class struggle.]

And your contribution to those discussions? Zero.

That's because these issues are largely ephemeral to anything I've actually said. Feel free to participate in the discussion - I agree neither with Red Cat nor you, but bizarrely enough I don't feel the need to engage with it, as it's an issue which is a) largely (not totally, I'm inserting this here so you don't intentionally misrepresent me again) unrelated to the point I was making - a quick summary of some of the objections people have with Trotskyism and b) largely a massive detour from the OP. If it's somehow narcissistic to not jam a post in every five minutes on a subject I don't need or want to comment on then slap me up with a pond and call me Narcissus.


From the person who said it, the antipathy to Trotskyism, was based on principles.
No, I said an opposition to Trotskyism has come from principles. To prove this I have earlier mentioned that advanced by Stalin in Foundations of Leninism. For more writings on it I could give a whole list of books covering the topic, but I'm yet to be pressed on doing so.


Nothing concrete. Clearly then your "principles" are the principles of "liberalism," principles in the abstract that collapse before the world of the concrete.

I've raised a concrete criticism of some Trotskyist positions on Cuba in the very post you quote, yet you mysteriously totally ignore that. And you have the audacity to allege I'm somehow a fucking liberal?


Not even on Cuba, where Red Cat takes a position infinitely more, IMO, right wing, than even the "state-caps," OK maybe not infinitely more to the right, but equally anti-materialist. Curious, no?
See above. In the very post you just quoted I raised a concrete criticism of some Trot positions to Cuba. In another thread I have raised criticisms of Red Cat's positions. That I haven't bothered to do that here is indicative less of "Liberalism" or some other throwaway slur you want to chuck, but more that I actually have a lot of other things to do that do not consist of writing lengthy retorts to the mistaken views of a handful of posters on an internet forum, particularly in the current months. That i've even replied to this one is indicative of a break in my workload more than anything else.

@ Red Dave: You raised exactly the same nonsense in another thread, I don't need to repeat again quite why you're talking out of your ass. However you do intentionally make the point at the end of your post that you intend to "wait for the shit to fly"; as such you can sit waiting all you like 'cuz I'm not gonna get baited by such tripe.

[Crux]

Perhaps you should try aksing in the Trot group. Stalinists are capable only of creating degenerated worker states.:(
You're not too shabby at creating degenerated and deformed threads either. Oh snap!

[S.Artesian]

No, I said an opposition to Trotskyism has come from principles. To prove this I have earlier mentioned that advanced by Stalin in Foundations of Leninism. For more writings on it I could give a whole list of books covering the topic, but I'm yet to be pressed on doing so.



I've raised a concrete criticism of some Trotskyist positions on Cuba in the very post you quote, yet you mysteriously totally ignore that. And you have the audacity to allege I'm somehow a fucking liberal?


See above. In the very post you just quoted I raised a concrete criticism of some Trot positions to Cuba. In another thread I have raised criticisms of Red Cat's positions. That I haven't bothered to do that here is indicative less of "Liberalism" or some other throwaway slur you want to chuck, but more that I actually have a lot of other things to do that do not consist of writing lengthy retorts to the mistaken views of a handful of posters on an internet forum, particularly in the current months. That i've even replied to this one is indicative of a break in my workload more than anything else.



You must be a Olga Korbut class gymnast to be able to cram that many contortions into so small a space.

First , you said opposition, I said antipathy. One of the definitions of antipathy is "standing in contrary to" or opposition, check the OED.

You start out by giving the list of principled reasons for the antipathy, or opposition, of dislike, or whatever for Trotskyism and follow up with this:

"And other ones like the scandalous positions of Trotsky and his modern day followers on the Irish question (and the national question generally), their attitude to the Cuban and Chinese revolutions, their actions regarding the national liberation movements worldwide, the way the modern day trots try to banish the theory of imperialism and negate the split in socialism,"

scandalous? Love it. If the positions are indeed scandalous, then more power to them. But when permanent revolution, uneven and combined development, the national questions are concretely discussed on the thread, you offer nothing-- not a a word. And when Red Cat gives us his-- "Cuba never completed its anti-imperial revolution" schtick, again not a word in this thread. No characterizations of "scandalous," of distortions of the material reality and theory of imperialism, nothing about this supposed "split in socialism," nothing. Or perhaps it's hidden somewhere in your posts and I just missed it? .

I've read plenty of criticisms of the "theory of permanent revolution," and found all of them to be pretty lame; based either on ignorance of what Trotsky had actually written and acted upon, or flat out distortion. More than that, the issue is to determine if Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution correlates with the material reality, the legacy, of uneven and combined development of capitalism. That's where the discussion takes a concrete existence. But in that discussion, again you are absent.

My views on Lenin's [I]Imperialism are most certainly not the views of the official Trotskyists, who by and large subscribe completely to Lenin's analysis. I know I'm getting older, but I don't recall any thread where I posted in detail my criticisms of Lenin's analysis-- other than to state that the empirical data then, and the empirical data now, do not support Lenin's, or his followers, theoretical constructions. I'll read Yaffe at some point, and maybe start a thread, and I did provide a link, I think, to a location where I had written a longer piece.

As for the contributions of Trotskyists-- you're apparent advocacy of "guerrilla warfare" as the seemingly only revolutionary strategy makes you a bit blind to the revolutionary work of remarkable strength and integrity that the Trotskyists developed with and within the Bolivian miners-- and the battles those Trotskyist miners had to fight with the "national democratic bourgeoisie" of the MNR [the MNR supported of course in this battle against the Trotskyist miners by the much less powerful supporters of the fSU]; you ignore the contributions of the Trotskyist in Asia, who, at the end of WW2 organized, participated in, and helped lead struggles against the re-imposition of colonial rule [such re-imposition being compromised with, and accepted by official CPs].

And so where are the contributions of the anti-Trotskyists to "national self-determination," of "anti-imperialism," of class struggle in these events in history? On the other side of the class line, that's where they are.

And your outrage? Your denunciation of the "scandalous" class collaboration of the CPs with French colonialism, with the bourgeoisie of Latin America did I miss those, too?

Nope, I didn't say you were a liberal, I said your principles are "liberalism"-- as Hegel defined it liberalism is a philosophy of the abstract that capitulates before the world of the concrete. Sorry you missed the reference. I'll try and be more obvious next time.

And thanks for taking time out from your busy work schedule to provide this information. I definitely think an "Order of Lenin" award is in your future.

[The Grey Blur]

Because I'm not into old ideologies that are meaningless for my conditions here in Arizona.
Oh cool bro I didn't realise capitalism and all the ideas of 'Trotskyism' which relate to it had disappeared in Arizona.

[The Grey Blur]

flobdob - would you mind telling us what 'Yaffe' and 'Barret-Brown' said, who they were, and what relation it has to the discussion? Rather than "haha I refuse to answer your legitimate points and questions, Yaffe has already done this!"

Like Einstein said unless you can explain something simply you don't understand it well enough.

[Devrim]

flobdob - would you mind telling us what 'Yaffe' and 'Barret-Brown' said, who they were, and what relation it has to the discussion? Rather than "haha I refuse to answer your legitimate points and questions, Yaffe has already done this!"

I have never heard of the second person, but Yaffe was/is the leader of an English leftist group called the RCG (Revolutionary Communist Group). They split from the SWP in the early 1970 and were originally called the RCT (Tendency).

He was very into calculating the falling rate of profit, and supporting nationalist movements even more 'uncritically' than many of there own members.

Devrim

[Jazzhands]

True, but they have gone half-way at least. And all such revolutions that continue today, with the exception of the Colombian one, are Maoist. I think this is enough to prove the clear superiority of Maoism over all other leftist tendencies.

This is what I was referring to. I probably should have made that clear. sorry. :blushing: