Is Trotskyism a form of Marxism-Leninism?

[Weezer]

Just as Maoism has different theories, strategies, etc. that other Marxo-Leninists don't agree with, could the same be said for Trotskyism, that's it's a form of Marxism-Leninism that faces opposition from other tendencies of Marxism-Leninism, but still, a form of Marxism-Leninism?

[Blake's Baby]

Whose opinions do you want?

My guess is:

Trotskyists will say no, M-L is a Stalinist distortion of the great theoretical works of Lenin and Trotsky;
M-Ls will say no, Trotskyism is a counter-revolutionary ideology of lies;
Left-Comms and Anarchists will say yes, pretty much Trotskyism is a version of M-L.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Nope


At a time when the Bolsheviks were waging a relentless struggle on two fronts—against the Liquidators and against the Otzovists—defend-ing the consistent line of the proletarian party, Trotsky supported the Menshevik Liquidators. It was at this period that Lenin branded him "Judas Trotsky." Trotsky formed a group of writers in Vienna (Austria) and began to publish an allegedly non-factional, but in reality Menshevik newspaper. "Trotsky behaves like a most despicable careerist and fac-tionalist. . . . He pays lip service to the Party, but behaves worse than any other factionalist," wrote Lenin at the time.

Later, in 1912, Trotsky organized the August Bloc, a bloc of all the anti-Bolshevik groups and trends directed against Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. The Liquidators and the Otzovists united in this anti-Bolshevik bloc, thus demonstrating their kinship. Trotsky and the Trot-skyites took up a liquidationist stand on all fundamental issues. But Trotsky masked his liquidationism under the guise of Centrism, that is, conciliation-ism; he claimed that he belonged to neither the Bolsheviks nor the Men-sheviks and that he was trying to reconcile them. In this connection, Lenin said that Trotsky was more vile and pernicious than the open Liquidators, because he was trying to deceive the workers into believing that he was "above factions," whereas in fact he entirely supported the Menshevik Liquidators. The Trotskyites were the principal group that fostered Centrism.

"Centrism," writes Comrade Stalin, "is a political concept. Its ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie within one common party. This ideology is alien and abhorrent to Leninism." (Stalin, Leninism, Vol. II, "The Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.," p. 97.)

At this period Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov were actually covert agents of Trotsky, for they often helped him against Lenin. With the aid of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov and other covert allies of Trotsky, a Plenum of the Central Committee was convened in January 1910 against Lenin's wishes. By that time the composition of the Central Committee had changed owing to the arrest of a number of Bolsheviks, and the vacillating elements were able to force through anti-Leninist decisions. Thus, it was decided at this plenum to close down the Bolshevik newspaper Proletary and to give financial support to Trotsky's newspaper Pravda, published in Vienna. Kamenev joined the editorial board of Trotsky's newspaper and together with Zinoviev strove to make it the organ of the Central Committee.

It was only on Lenin's insistence that the January Plenum of the Central Committee adopted a resolution condemning liquidationism and otzovism, but here too Zinoviev and Kamenev insisted on Trotsky's proposal that the Liquidators should not be referred to as such.

It turned out as Lenin had foreseen and forewarned: only the Bolsheviks obeyed the decision of the plenum of the Central Committee and closed down their organ, Proletary, whereas the Mensheviks continued to publish their financial liquidationist newspaper Golos Sotsial-Demokrat (Voice of the Social-Democrat).

Lenin's position was fully supported by Comrade Stalin who published a special article in Sotsial-Demokrat, No. ii, in which he condemned the conduct of the accomplices of Trotskyism, and spoke of the necessity of putting an end to the abnormal situation created within the Bolshevik group by the treacherous conduct of Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov. The article advanced as immediate tasks what was later carried into effect at the Prague Party Conference, namely, convocation of a general Party conference, publication of a Party newspaper appearing legally, and creation of an illegal practical Party centre in Russia. Comrade Stalin's article was based on decisions of the Baku Committee, which fully supported Lenin.

To counteract Trotsky's anti-Party August Bloc, which consisted exclusively of anti-Party elements, from the Liquidators and Trotskyites to the Otzovists and "god-builders," a Party bloc was formed consisting of people who wanted to preserve and strengthen the illegal proletarian Party. This bloc consisted of the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, and a small number of pro-Party Mensheviks, headed by Plekhanov. Plekha-nov and his group of pro-Party Mensheviks, while maintaining the Men-shevik position on a number of questions, emphatically dissociated themselves from the August Bloc and the Liquidators and sought to reach agreement with the Bolsheviks. Lenin accepted Plekhanov's proposal and consented to a temporary bloc with him against the anti-Party elements on the ground that such a bloc would be advantageous to the Party and fatal to the Liquidators.

Comrade Stalin fully supported this bloc. He was in exile at the time and from there wrote a letter to Lenin, saying:

"In my opinion the line of the bloc (Lenin-Plekhanov) is the only correct one: i) this line, and it alone, answers to the real interests of the work in Russia, which demands that all Party elements should rally together; 2) this line, and it alone, will expedite the process of emancipation of the legal organizations from the yoke of the Liquidators, by digging a gulf between the Mek 3 workers and the Liquidators, and dispersing and disposing of the latter." (Lenin and Stalin, Russ. ed., Vol. I, pp. 529-30.)

Thanks to a skilful combination of illegal and legal work, the Bolsheviks were able to become a serious force in the legal workers' organizations. This was revealed, incidentally, in the great influence which the Bolsheviks exercised on the workers' groups at four legally held congresses that took place at that period—a congress of people's universities, a women's congress, a congress of factory physicians, and a temperance congress. The speeches of the Bolsheviks at these congresses were of great political value and awakened a response all over the country. For example, at the congress of people's universities, the Bolshevik workers' delegation exposed the policy of tsardom which stifled all cultural activity, and contended that no real cultural progress in the country was conceivable unless tsardom were abolished. The workers' delegation at the congress of factory physicians told of the frightfully unsanitary conditions in which the workers had to live and work, and drew the conclusion that factory hygiene could not be properly ensured until tsardom was overthrown.

The Bolsheviks gradually squeezed the Liquidators out of the various legal organizations that still survived. The peculiar tactics of a united front with the Plekhanov pro-Party group enabled the Bolsheviks to win over a number of Menshevik worker organizations (in the Vyborg district, Ekaterinoslav, etc.).

In this difficult period the Bolsheviks set an example of how legal work should be combined with illegal work

Anti-party = Anti-Bolshevik = Anti-Leninist = Certainly not Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism emphasises continuity, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, with Trotskyism and Leninism, there is no continuity, Trotskyism in fact predates what we know as Leninism, and at the time when Trotskyism was being developed, its main ideologue was devoted to anti-Bolshevik activities.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

"Marxism-Leninism" is usually taken by MLs to mean the method of Marx, as interpreted by Lenin and as applied by Stalin. MLs regard themselves as upholders of the system of Soviet socialism developed under Stalin, although they would argue over how and when things went wrong. Brezhnevites and "anti-revisionists" such as Hoxhaites, Maoists and others are regarded as MLs, although they have fierce disagreements among themselves.

Trotskyists and left communists are not MLs, whom they usually term "Stalinists". The Soviet Union was never socialist; any elements of worker's democracy were gone by the late 20s at the latest.The CPSU was certainly no longer communist by 1927.However there were progressive elements to a collectivized economy.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Nope



Anti-party = Anti-Bolshevik = Anti-Leninist = Certainly not Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism emphasises continuity, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, with Trotskyism and Leninism, there is no continuity, Trotskyism in fact predates what we know as Leninism, and at the time when Trotskyism was being developed, its main ideologue was devoted to anti-Bolshevik activities.

Assistant Professor Furr can be fun to read sometimes. I also enjoy reading Robert Service and Robert Conquest. I like to remain a critical thinker though. You may want to check out this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm

[Lyev]

Whose opinions do you want?

My guess is:

Trotskyists will say no, M-L is a Stalinist distortion of the great theoretical works of Lenin and Trotsky;
M-Ls will say no, Trotskyism is a counter-revolutionary ideology of lies;
Left-Comms and Anarchists will say yes, pretty much Trotskyism is a version of M-L.Urm, no. Trotskyists are Marxists-Leninists - both tendencies base themselves on the vanguard party and a socialist-communist transition, in the Leninist sense, as first espoused in the State and Revolution. A simplified definition is that Trotskyism is just anti-Stalin Marxism-Leninism. But with Trotskyism come the theoretical developments of anti-fascism, the transitional program, permanent revolution and of course anti-Stalinism. A member who sadly doesn't post here anymore has this take on it:
While I know that others are quite comfortable calling themselves Trotskyists, I'm not so content to have my political viewpoint placed into such a neat little box, even though about 90% of the time I agree with Trotsky's views.

[...]

Any self-labelled Trotskyist who does not understand that that also makes them a Leninist should read up more on Trotsky, or start using a different adjective to describe their politics. Although we do have an unnecessary amount of splits, I don't know of any that have occurred because one group didn't see itself as Leninist. If that were the case, they could just become Left Communists or Anarchists.

[...]

Well, I've always understood Trotsky's thought as a continuation and development of Lenin's. But if they do in fact accept Lenin and can call themselves Leninists, then I'm okay with that.Both Lenin and Trotsky were Bolsheviks. For information on his development of the theory of permanent revolution read this (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm), for the transitional program (TP for short) read either Trotsky's words here (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm) or an interesting essay here (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/TPSV8.html). For his analysis of fascism there is Fascism: what it is and how to fight it (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm) and lastly for getting an idea of anti-Stalinism (which entails opposition to his theory of socialism in one country and some of his more authoritarian measures) read the Revolution Betrayed (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm).

[Lyev]

Nope



Anti-party = Anti-Bolshevik = Anti-Leninist = Certainly not Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism emphasises continuity, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, with Trotskyism and Leninism, there is no continuity, Trotskyism in fact predates what we know as Leninism, and at the time when Trotskyism was being developed, its main ideologue was devoted to anti-Bolshevik activities.What? Does that make any sense? Trotsky was against Bolshevism? Please elaborate.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Assistant Professor Furr can be fun to read sometimes. I also enjoy reading Robert Service and Robert Conquest. I like to remain a critical thinker though. You may want to check out this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm
I've read it, there's a copy on my bookshelf, it's an interesting book but it doesn't excuse or account for Trotsky's anti-party positions.

[Lyev]

I've read it, there's a copy on my bookshelf, it's an interesting book but it doesn't excuse or account for Trotsky's anti-party positions.I understand that Trotsky was, at first, a Menshevik, but he then later joined the Bolsheviks, organised the Red Army, and helped lead the 1917 revolution - where on earth are you getting this "anti-party" nonsense from? What on earth do you even mean?

[Spawn of Stalin]

What? Does that make any sense? Trotsky was anti-Bolshevism? Please elaborate.

Opposing Iskra by siding with Martov over Plekhanov, getting cozy with the Mensheviks, organising the August-bloc, all anti-Bolshevik activities. The August bloc being probably the most important

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Trotsky was anti-bureaucracy, but not anti-party or anti-bolshevik. In fact he did a fine job of defending real bolshevism and his writings on the Soviet Union are very helpful when defending socialism to sceptical workers.

[Chimurenga.]

It's subjective, really, and it depends on who you ask. I've met Marxist-Leninists who don't have a good view of Stalin but have a good view of Trotsky and vice versa. Marxism-Leninism is Marx-Engels-Lenin, period.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Say what? Killing the entire Bolshevik leadership except for Kollantai and Molotov wasn't anti-party? Besides being elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky essentially created and trained the Red Army. Trotsky had diisagrements w/Lenin (as well as influencing his thought). So what? No one killed more Bolsheviks than Stalin.

[Lyev]

Opposing Iskra by siding with Martov over Plekhanov
Some of the staff were later involved in the Bolshevik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution) of October 1917.
Initial staff members:


Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov)
Dmitri Ilyich Ulyanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Ilyich_Ulyanov), his younger brother
Georgi Plekhanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Plekhanov)
Vera Zasulich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Zasulich)
Pavel Axelrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Axelrod) (Pinchas Borutsch)
Julius Martov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Martov) (Ilija Cederbaum)
Aleksandr Potresov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Potresov)

Later:


Leon Trotsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky) (Lev Davidovich Bronstein)


getting cozy with the MensheviksYou forget to mention his role within the Bolsheviks - he helped lead that revolution? You know, in 1917?
organising the August-bloc, all anti-Bolshevik activities. The August bloc being probably the most importantAgain, what the fuck is the relevance of the August-bloc? I suppose simply because you read that Lenin, wrote once or twice in 1912 that it was to be opposed, we should all now flock to this view. But it was in 1912 - where's the significance here, especially, since as I have mentioned numerous times, Trotsky and Lenin joined forces? You're nit-picking irrelevancies.

[Zanthorus]

Trotskyism in fact predates what we know as Leninism,

Well if by Trotskyism you mean the permanent revolution then this is perfectly obvious - Permanent revolution was initially developed by Marx and Engels during the 1848 revolution and taken up by Alexander Parvus who became Trotsky's friend when he went to munich in 1904 to get away from the factional fights raging in the RSDLP.

And "Leninism" is a misnomer since Lenin was a Kautskyist.

[Q]

Just as Maoism has different theories, strategies, etc. that other Marxo-Leninists don't agree with, could the same be said for Trotskyism, that's it's a form of Marxism-Leninism that faces opposition from other tendencies of Marxism-Leninism, but still, a form of Marxism-Leninism?

The term "Marxism-Leninism" only arose after Lenin died, at the end of the 1920's and early 1930's and is therefore linked to Stalin and his clique. Trotsky and the Left Opposition originally used the term "Bolsheviki-Leninists" which if I'm not mistaken predates the term "Marxism-Leninism".

This is all wordplay though.

The Bolsheviks stemmed from the Erfurtian party tradition established by the German SPD as a strategy to build a party-movement that strived to organise the whole class. Much of what we now think of the Bolsheviks is based on myths established after the revolution. I'm talking about the ban on factions, "democratic centralism" (which for some reason seems very undemocratic in most organisations), Lenin as the main man behind everything, etc.

[Palingenisis]

Trotsky was anti-bureaucracy, but not anti-party or anti-bolshevik. In fact he did a fine job of defending real bolshevism and his writings on the Soviet Union are very helpful when defending socialism to sceptical workers.

No he wasnt...Trotsky was the bitterest opponent of the workers' opposition. Trotsky came out with ultra-opportunist bullshit after he didnt get to be top dog that doesnt mean that he was "anti-bureaucracy".

Unlike Motionless probably I uphold the Workers' Opposition.

[Zanthorus]

I uphold the Workers' Opposition.

:blink:

How does that work out if you're a Maoist?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

He recognized a dictatorship of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and was against it in his writings, is what I meant. Whether you call that opportunism or not is up to you, but he did say this in his critique of Stalin.

[Palingenisis]

Left-Comms and Anarchists will say yes, pretty much Trotskyism is a version of M-L.

A lot of Left-Coms uphold Lenin...The Left Communists came into existence for good historical reasons and some of their criticisms are valid.

Trotskyism though is just an annoying parasite.

[Hit The North]

Nope

Anti-party = Anti-Bolshevik = Anti-Leninist = Certainly not Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism emphasises continuity, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, with Trotskyism and Leninism, there is no continuity, Trotskyism in fact predates what we know as Leninism, and at the time when Trotskyism was being developed, its main ideologue was devoted to anti-Bolshevik activities.

You sound like some religious fanatic, claiming your sect has a true path to the holy grail. You're funny.

[Zanthorus]

By the way, Left-Communists are not necessarily anti-Lenin. The Dutch-German left were of course, but the Italian left was "ultra-Leninist", and they initially supported Trotsky against Stalin in the comintern (Although later on Bordiga came to view Bukharin as the only one who could've prevented the Bolshevik party from becoming fully integrated into capital).

[Lyev]

No he wasnt...Trotsky was the bitterest opponent of the workers' opposition. Trotsky came out with ultra-opportunist bullshit after he didnt get to be top dog that doesnt mean that he was "anti-bureaucracy".

Unlike Motionless probably I uphold the Workers' Opposition.
Trotskyism though is just an annoying parasite.
Thanks for such a cogent analysis; would you care to actually elaborate and contribute something constructive, rather than trying to spark a tendency war? A comrade wants to learn about the issue at hand. Calling Trotsky an "ultra-opportunist", without even any further elaboration is such a waste of time - if you don't want to post something intelligent then don't bother.

[Kléber]

Since it is based on religious "continuity" with Stalin, Marx and Lenin themselves weren't "Marxist-Leninist," the former never met Stalin and the latter opposed him on the national question and chauvinist actions in Georgia. The scientific theories and political positions which of Marx and Lenin changed over time, and were meant to be adapted to historical experience, but Stalin distorted them as necessary to turn them into an infallible dogma to stand for all time. Hence this or that high priest of "Marxism-Leninism" has had to reconcile the changing world with an unchangeable canon, and thus claimed to represent the only continuation of the faith in the present day whereas everyone else is a "revisionist." Khrushchev and Tito were ardent "Marxist-Leninists" but Trotsky, no, he was Bolshevik-Leninist :P


Trotsky was the bitterest opponent of the workers' opposition. Trotsky came out with ultra-opportunist bullshit after he didnt get to be top dog that doesnt mean that he was "anti-bureaucracy".
Trotsky advocated dictatorial measures during the war and a turn to democracy afterwards. That sounds like common sense, not opportunism. Contrast that with the blunderer Stalin who advocated military amateurism during the Civil War, personally bungled the battle of Tsaritsyn and the Polish campaign, then turned to supporting the military repression of hundreds of thousands of people during peacetime.

[Palingenisis]

:blink:

How does that work out if you're a Maoist?

It fits in perfectly....One of the Trot arguments against the Workers' Opposition is that nearly all of them "went on to become Stalinists".

Trust in the masses, the mass-line, etc.

We dont look upon Lenin, etc as gods who can do no wrong.

Anyway the ICC doesnt uphold the Workers' Opposition.

[Lyev]

Since it is based on religious "continuity" with Stalin, Marx and Lenin themselves weren't "Marxist-Leninist," the former never met Stalin and the latter opposed him on the national question and chauvinist actions in Georgia. The scientific theories and political positions which of Marx and Lenin changed over time, and were meant to be adapted to historical experience, but Stalin distorted them as necessary to turn them into an infallible dogma to stand for all time. Hence this or that high priest of "Marxism-Leninism" has had to reconcile the changing world with an unchangeable canon, and thus claimed to represent the only continuation of the faith in the present day whereas everyone else is a "revisionist." Khrushchev and Tito were ardent "Marxist-Leninists" but Trotsky, no, he was Bolshevik-Leninist :PThat's really just a matter of semantics though. Similarly to how people, such as myself, call themselves socialist, rather than "Communist" (especially with a capital C) because of the negative connotations that it carries for a lot of people.

[Zanthorus]

Thanks for such a cogent analysis; would you care to actually elaborate and contribute something constructive, rather than trying to spark a tendency war? A comrade wants to learn about the issue at hand. Calling Trotsky an "ultra-opportunist", without even further elaboration is such a waste of time - if you don't want to post something intelligent then don't bother.


One must bear in mind that, when Russia together with Germany invaded and partitioned Poland in 1939, Trotsky said this was a positive event, because it would alter Polish social relations in a socialist way!

http://libcom.org/library/notes-trotsky-pannekoek-bordiga-gilles-dauvé

Also does the Militarisation of Labour ring any bells?

[Kléber]

Also does the Militarisation of Labour ring any bells?
When Trotsky and Lenin were in charge, policies weren't meant to be permanent and statements weren't meant to be dogmatic and last forever. Yes, he went too far, but it was during a war with 14 countries and numerous White armies.


One must bear in mind that, when Russia together with Germany invaded and partitioned Poland in 1939, Trotsky said this was a positive event, because it would alter Polish social relations in a socialist way!
That's a gross distortion of his actual position. He actually argued that the fact that Stalin abolished capitalism in Poland didn't make him any more revolutionary than Bonaparte, who abolished feudalism when he conquered that country.

[Zeus the Moose]

Just as Maoism has different theories, strategies, etc. that other Marxo-Leninists don't agree with, could the same be said for Trotskyism, that's it's a form of Marxism-Leninism that faces opposition from other tendencies of Marxism-Leninism, but still, a form of Marxism-Leninism?

Opening up another front in the tendency war here...

As Trotskyism claims to be building upon the theory and practise of Marx and Lenin, I'd say it is technically correct to call Trotskyism "Marxist-Leninist." Considering, however, that "Marxism-Leninism" is mainly used to describe the perspective of currents stemming from the Stalin side of the Trotsky-Stalin schism (traditional Stalinism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc), it's probably not correct to call Trotskyism "Marxist-Leninist." At least, I wouldn't. Some early Trotskyists used the term "Bolshevik-Leninist" to distinguish themselves from Stalinism, but that too seems to have mostly fallen out of use.

Personally, I'd take issue with the whole classification, as both Trotskyism and its derivatives, and Stalin and its derivatives, base themselves on an organisational style that I don't think is derived on the practises of the pre-Russian Revolution Bolshevik party. So while I would consider Trotskyism, Stalninism, Maoism, etc to be all "Marxist-Leninist," I'd question if their collective definitions of Leninism were actually what was borne out by the Bolsheviks that they claim to base themselves on.

[Kléber]

Also does the Militarisation of Labour ring any bells? When Trotsky and Lenin were in charge, policies weren't meant to be permanent and statements weren't meant to be dogmatic and last forever. Yes, he went too far, but it was during a war with 14 countries and numerous White armies.


One must bear in mind that, when Russia together with Germany invaded and partitioned Poland in 1939, Trotsky said this was a positive event, because it would alter Polish social relations in a socialist way! That's a gross distortion of his actual position. He actually argued that the fact that Stalin abolished capitalism in Poland didn't make him any more revolutionary than Bonaparte, who abolished feudalism when he conquered that country.


That's really just a matter of semantics though. Similarly to how people, such as myself, call themselves socialist, rather than "Communist" (especially with a capital C) because of the negative connotations that it carries for a lot of people.If you use a capital C it means of or relating to a party with "Communist" in the title. Jesus Christ, for example, was a communist but not a Communist because he believed in a community of possessions but was not affiliated with any Communist Party. Same with (S/s)ocialist.

"Marxism-Leninism" is redundant phrase because Lenin was a Marxist. "Marxism-Leninism" is a codeword for Stalinism, which was not codified, dogmatized and distorted until Marx and Lenin were cold in the grave.

[Hit The North]

And "Leninism" is a misnomer since Lenin was a Kautskyist.

Ahem. This just goes to illustrate the problem of arguing around these labels. As if Lenin didn't develop ideas in opposition to his erstwhile leader, sometime around the momentous occasion of the outbreak of war in 1914. Likewise, the Stalinists here are presenting Trostkyism and Leninism as doctrines set in stone between 1906-12, as if both Lenin's and Trotsky's ideas didn't change as they went through their experiences as revolutionaries.

Political struggle is dynamic and demands flexibility, not the rigidity of holy writ, as the pathetic Stalinists here like to present things: the perfect, unchanging Lenin and the perfect, unchanging Stalin, forever in accord, and implacably opposed to the imperfect, unchanging Trotsky - the Cain of the revolution.

The manner in which motionless presents history is like a parade of saintly icons, demonstrating that Stalinism is just a political form of Russian Orthodox Christianity. As comrade Kleber so aptly points out.

[Zanthorus]

That's a gross distortion of his actual position. He actually argued that the fact that Stalin abolished capitalism in Poland didn't make him any more revolutionary than Bonaparte, who abolished feudalism when he conquered that country.

It still shows a gross error of analysis on Trotsky's part to believe that Stalinism had actually abolished capitalist social relations. In general Trotsky's perspective was blinkered by his conception of socialism as simply nationalisation under workers control. Instead of going back to Marx and showing how at odds with Marxian socialism stalinism was (Like Bordiga) he retained his belief in the "socialist" nature of the Stalinist regime albeit under a workers state which was "degenerated".


As if Lenin didn't develop ideas in opposition to his erstwhile leader, sometime around the momentous occasion of the outbreak of war in 1914.

He didn't. He was "aggressively unoriginal" after 1914 constantly emphasising that his positions were the positions which the Social-Democrats used to hold to but had abandoned. Even the changing from "social-democrat" to "communist" was based on an old threat Kautsky had made when it looked like the revisionists were in position to take over the SPD.

[Lyev]

http://libcom.org/library/notes-trotsky-pannekoek-bordiga-gilles-dauvé (http://libcom.org/library/notes-trotsky-pannekoek-bordiga-gilles-dauv%C3%A9)

Also does the Militarisation of Labour ring any bells?That link doesn't work. And as regards "militarisation of labour" how else would you have tackled the situation at hand? How the Revolution Armed was written in 1920, whilst the Bolsheviks were still engaged in a crippling war against the whites - some 9 million people died on the side of the reds. 14 separate capitalist powers (incl. USA, French, America etc.) intervened on the side of whites. The Bolsheviks were thin on the ground anyway, having been betrayed by the Mensheviks and SRs, whilst now many of the most dedicated and intelligent party members were being sent to the front-line to die. The revolution needed to be defended, and a substantial defence needed to be mounted. There was also the 1921 famine, which exacerbated the whole situation further. Maybe this policy was a tad over the top, but it's hard to criticise him for it, considering the conditions he was faced with. And it has already been mentioned that Bolshevik policy was not rigid - it changed when the circumstances dictated so. So should the Bolsheviks just have sat around for a while and waited to be overrun by capitalists and counter-revolutionaries? (Sorry I was slow at replying.)

[Palingenisis]

And "Leninism" is a misnomer since Lenin was a Kautskyist.

Pre-WW I Kautsky was a genius.

I agree with DNZ/Jacob Richter on a lot of his views on Kautsky.

[Zanthorus]

That link doesn't work.

That's weird. Well you can just google "Trotsky Bordiga Pannekoek Gilles Dauve" and it should come up anyway.

[Lyev]

That's weird. Well you can just google "Trotsky Bordiga Pannekoek Gilles Dauve" and it should come up anyway.Well it did work, it directed me to Libcom, but there was no article there. I will read it (perhaps this evening) and get back to you, but it might not be right now as I have an English GCSE exam tomorrow. I'll definitely get back to this though. Thanks comrade.

[S.Artesian]

It still shows a gross error of analysis on Trotsky's part to believe that Stalinism had actually abolished capitalist social relations. In general Trotsky's perspective was blinkered by his conception of socialism as simply nationalisation under workers control. Instead of going back to Marx and showing how at odds with Marxian socialism stalinism was (Like Bordiga) he retained his belief in the "socialist" nature of the Stalinist regime albeit under a workers state which was "degenerated".



He didn't. He was "aggressively unoriginal" after 1914 constantly emphasising that his positions were the positions which the Social-Democrats used to hold to but had abandoned. Even the changing from "social-democrat" to "communist" was based on an old threat Kautsky had made when it looked like the revisionists were in position to take over the SPD.


I like Bordiga myself, particularly that part where he calls Stalin "gravedigger of the revolution," and to his face. And we have to give Bordiga the credit of grasping better than anyone else that the relations of agricultural production, of land, labor, and landed labor was the critical problem a proletarian revolution would confront.

I'm not so much a Leninist-- not by a long shot, and you can say he was "aggressively unoriginal after 1914 in his positions" except when push came to shove. And that was when Lenin, in his aggressively unoriginal style, took over, embraced Trotsky's practical analysis of the revolution in Russia and announced "All Power to the Soviets."

You want to call that "unoriginal"? OK, I'm all for that unoriginality. Made all the difference in the world, didn't it?

[Palingenisis]

Well it did work, it directed me to Libcom, but there was no article there. I will read it (perhaps this evening) and get back to you, but it might not be right now as I have an English GCSE exam tomorrow.

Mo chara seriously...Eat some fish, study or get some sleep.

School is important.

Dont get dragged into this when you have an exam looming.

[Lyev]

Mo chara seriously...Eat some fish, study or get some sleep.

School is important.

Dont get dragged into this when you have an exam looming.To be honest, it's fairly easy. It's creative writing (which you can't even revise for anyway) and the exam starts at 2pm so I have time to sleep in. What does "mo chara" mean by the way? Thanks for looking out for me though. Good night chaps.

[Palingenisis]

To be honest, it's fairly easy. It's creative writing (which you can't even revise for anyway) and the exam starts at 2pm so I have time to sleep in. What does "mo chara" mean by the way? Thanks for looking out for me though. Good night chaps.

Mo chara= Irish for "My comrade".

[Spawn of Stalin]

Say what? Killing the entire Bolshevik leadership except for Kollantai and Molotov wasn't anti-party? Besides being elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky essentially created and trained the Red Army. Trotsky had diisagrements w/Lenin (as well as influencing his thought). So what? No one killed more Bolsheviks than Stalin.

I could discuss Stalin with you, but the question put to us by the OP was "is Trotskyism a form of Marxism-Leninism". Stalin being a traitor to Bolshevism (an analysis which I disagree with) doesn't make Trotsky's actions any more excusable. He tried to bring down the party, plain and simple really.

[S.Artesian]

I could discuss Stalin with you, but the question put to us by the OP was "is Trotskyism a form of Marxism-Leninism". Stalin being a traitor to Bolshevism (an analysis which I disagree with) doesn't make Trotsky's actions any more excusable. He tried to bring down the party, plain and simple really.


The OP question was can Trotskyism be a form of M-L? Well since Marxism generally means the analysis of capitalism that leads to action for its overthrow by the working class, and Leninism generally is taken to mean a belief in the necessary role of a party of professional revolutionaries to "lead" the workers in that overthrow, then the answer is a simple unambiguous "yes," for better or worse.

[Spawn of Stalin]

You forget to mention his role within the Bolsheviks - he helped lead that revolution? You know, in 1917?
I'm well aware of Trotsky's role within the Bolsheviks, it isn't something I take lightly either. Don't get me wrong, it was nice of him to turn up to the party, but if anything he was fashionably late.

Again, what the fuck is the relevance of the August-bloc? I suppose simply because you read that Lenin, wrote once or twice in 1912 that it was to be opposed, we should all now flock to this view.
I think the August bloc should have been opposed regardless of Lenin's feelings on the matter. That said he did write some interesting things about it, and of course I would agree with his logical, and correct analysis the the bloc was merely a facade for the liquidators. So yeah, it should have been opposed.

But it was in 1912 - where's the significance here, especially, since as I have mentioned numerous times, Trotsky and Lenin joined forces? You're nit-picking irrelevancies.
But it isn't irrelevant, it's true that some people truly can let bygones be bygones, kiss and make up, etc. but given Trotsky's history - opposing the party before the revolution, having trouble in the party after the revolution, opposing it again after Lenin kicked the bucket, and then getting himself assassinated practically by the party - he is someone we should be suspicious of.

[Spawn of Stalin]

You sound like some religious fanatic, claiming your sect has a true path to the holy grail. You're funny.

I'm not claiming that my sect (not that I consider myself to be part of one) has the true path to anything, and I don't believe there is a holy grail of proletarian revolution, there are many paths to take, any of which can be the correct one for a given situation. What I do claim, however, is that my line of thought is consistent with the history of the Russian revolution, that I am a Leninist.

[Zanthorus]

Well it did work, it directed me to Libcom, but there was no article there. I will read it (perhaps this evening) and get back to you, but it might not be right now as I have an English GCSE exam tomorrow. I'll definitely get back to this though. Thanks comrade.

It doesn't really matter. The only relevant part of the article was the bit on Trotsky and Poland. The rest is fairly terrible material on the Leninist concept of the party plus some Ok stuff on Bordiga.

[28350]

Is Trotskyism a form of Marxism-Leninism?
Unless definitions have changed, no.
Trotskyism is a tendency within Leninism, as is Marxism-Leninism.
They are usually used in contrast with each other.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Simple answer is no.

Its not even socialist, it is the ideaology of the petitt bourgouise.

trotskyism is an enemy of the working class and our emanicpation. it is a hinderence to the succesful advancement of the class struggle.

[28350]

Its not even socialist, it is the ideaology of the petitt bourgouise.

How so?

[vampire squid]

is there something inherently wrong with being petit bourgeois. why does it automatically make a persons judgment incorrect.

[28350]

I'd prefer a party full of proletarians to one full of petty bourgeoisie.
RCP-US is a good example against the latter.

But what I was asking "We Shall Rise Again" in my last post was that she/he substantiate his/her claims.

[vampire squid]

not me! i'd stick out like a sore thumb!

[28350]

not me! i'd stick out like a sore thumb!

Silly middle-classer, revolutions are for proletarians!

[We Shall Rise Again]

How so?

oh were to start,

here is a easy to comprehend basic explanation
Moissaye J. Olgin

Trotskyism

Counter-Revolution in Disguise

The Social Basis of Trotskyism

WE have related in some detail the history of Trotsky’s political life, but Trotskyism is not a one-man affair. It is not a peculiarity of an individual. Trotskyism is a social phenomenon. The fact that Trotsky happened to be in the revolution adds a certain prestige to his utterances in the eyes of the unwary. In this, as in many other instances, the personal element cannot be ignored. But even if Trotsky did not exist, the brand of opposition to the revolution which he represents would find its expression. Trotskyism is being reborn on every stage of the revolutionary movement because it is the expression of the attitude of a certain class, namely, the petty bourgeoisie.
Of this class Karl Marx once said that it is “a transitional class in which the interests of two classes are simultaneously blunted”. The petty bourgeoisie finds itself between the proletariat and the large-scale bourgeoisie. It strives to rise to the position of the large-scale bourgeoisie, but the latter, using the power of concentrated and centralized capital, continuously drives it down to the position of the proletariat. The petty bourgeois, subjectively, wishes to become rich, to attain to the heights of capitalist economic power; objectively, however, his interests lie with the struggle against capitalism because capitalism removes the ground from under his feet and because only under a Socialist system will the petty bourgeois of today become a free member of society, unafraid of the future, since under Socialism he will be transformed into one engaged in useful productive labor. The petty bourgeoisie as a class, therefore, is wavering. The interests of two classes, said Marx, are “simultaneously blunted” in it. That means that the petty bourgeoisie cannot be as consistently counter-revolutionary as the big bourgeoisie, but it cannot be as consistently with the revolution, as is the proletariat. The petty bourgeoisie is afraid of the big bourgeoisie but it is also afraid of the revolution. Some sections of the petty bourgeoisie are attracted to the revolution which represents their future interests, but they shrink before the sharp line of the revolutionary struggle. Fundamentally they would like to have class peace, because nothing is more dear to the heart of the petty bourgeoisie than social peace. However, they feel that social peace means their own doom. Therefore, when the proletariat develops a strong revolutionary movement, many petty-bourgeois elements are irresistibly drawn to the revolutionary camp, only in turn to denounce its “extremes”, and to don “extreme Left” masks itself. They are finding fault with the existing capitalist system, but they are also finding fault with the Revolution and its leaders. Not being truly revolutionary, being able only to be led by the Revolution, they often develop an immense conceit. They think of themselves as the “only” and “real” revolutionists. They denounce the real revolutionist as “dogmatic” and “narrow”.
Trotsky’s approach to the revolution is that of the petty bourgeoisie.
The fact that he is neither a shopkeeper nor a petty artisan must not deter those unfamiliar with the Marxian interpretation of social movements. It must not be supposed, says Marx, that those who represent the petty bourgeoisie “are all shopkeepers, or enthusiastic champions of the small-shopkeeper class”.
“Culturally and by individual status they may be the polar opposites of members of the shopkeeping class. What has made them become the political representatives of the petty bourgeoisie is this. Intellectually they have failed to transcend the limitations which are, materially, imposed upon the petty bourgeois by the conditions of petty-bourgeois existence. Consequently they are, in the theoretical field, impelled towards the same aspirations and solutions as those towards which, in practical life, the petty bourgeois are impelled by material interests and by their social position. Speaking generally, such is always the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent.” (Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, English Edition, pp. 58-59.)
What has been the influence of the petty bourgeoisie in the Russian Revolution?
As early as 1908, Lenin, speaking about the revisionism of Marxism, explained its danger in the following way:
“In every capitalist country there always stand, side by side with the proletariat, broad strata of the petty bourgeoisie, small owners.
. . . It is perfectly natural that the petty-bourgeois world conception should break through, over and over again, in the ranks of the broad workers’ parties. It is perfectly natural that it should be so, and it always will be so even up to the vicissitudes of the proletarian revolution, for it would be a deep error to think that a ‘full’ proletarianization of the majority of the population is necessary for the realization of such a revolution. What we are now experiencing often only in the realm of ideas: arguments against the theoretical amendments to Marx,—what now breaks through in practice only as regards separate particular questions of the labor movement, like the tactical disagreements with the revisionists and the split with them on this basis,—the entire working class will yet have to experience in incomparably greater proportions when the proletarian revolution will sharpen all controversial questions, concentrate all disagreements on points having the most direct bearing upon defining the conduct of the masses, force, in the heat of struggle, to separate the enemies from the friends, to throw out the bad allies in order to deal the enemy decisive blows.” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XII, Russian Edition, p. 189.)
With the clear-sightedness of a genius, Lenin foresaw the coming struggle of the proletarian revolution with its “bad allies” hailing from the petty bourgeoisie.
What is the role of such bad allies? Twenty years later Stalin explained this:
“Since the proletariat does not live in a vacuum, but in actual and real life itself with all its variety, the bourgeois elements which are reborn on the basis of petty production ‘surround the proletariat on every side by a petty-bourgeois element, permeate the proletariat with it, demoralize it with it, call forth continually inside of the proletariat recurrences of petty-bourgeois lack of character, scatteredness, individualism, transitions from enthusiasm to melancholy’ (Lenin, Vol. XXV, p. 190) and thus bring into the proletariat and its Party certain vacillations, certain waverings.
“Here is the root and the foundation of every kind of vacillations and deviations from the Leninist line in the ranks of our Party.” (J. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Tenth Russian Edition, p. 234.)
More specifically, Stalin explains this in his Foundations of Leninism.
“All these petty-bourgeois groups somehow or other penetrate to the Party into which they introduce an element of hesitancy and opportunism; of disintegration and lack of self-confidence. Factionalism and splits, disorganization and the undermining of the Party from within are principally due to them. Fighting imperialism with such ‘allies’ in one’s rear is as bad as being caught between two fires, coming both from the front and rear. Therefore, no quarter should be given in fighting such elements, and their relentless expulsion from the Party is a condition precedent for the successful struggle against imperialism.” (Joseph Stalin, Foundations of LeninismI, English edition, p. 121.)
The understanding of Trotskyism as representing the influence of the petty bourgeoisie on certain elements of the proletariat and of the Communist Party was repeatedly expressed in the resolutions of the Congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Thus the Thirteenth Congress (1924) declared:
“In the person of the present ‘opposition’ we face not only an attempt to revise Bolshevism, not only a direct moving away from Leninism, but also a clearly expressed petty-bourgeois deviation. There is not the slightest doubt that this ‘opposition’ objectively reflects the pressure of the petty bourgeoisie on the positions of the Party of the proletariat and its policies.”
Again in 1927, at the Fifteenth Congress, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union thus characterized the Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamenev opposition:
“The denial of the possibility of a victorious building of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. and consequently the denial of the Socialist character of our revolution; the denial of the Socialist character of state industry; the denial of the Socialist roads of development in the village under conditions of the proletarian dictatorship and of the policy of union of the proletariat with the fundamental masses of the peasantry on the basis of Socialist construction; finally, the actual denial of the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. (‘Thermidor’) and the attitude of capitulation and defeatism connected with it,—all this ideological orientation has transformed the Trotsky opposition into an instrument of petty-bourgeois democracy within the U.S.S.R. and into an auxiliary troop of international Social-Democracy outside of its frontiers.”
Trotsky as an individual is only a representative of a certain social class. He is a petty-bourgeois intellectual. He started with opposition to the Revolution and the Communist Party, and he has finished with heading the counter-revolution. True to type, he was drawn to the revolutionary movement of the working class but he never believed in the ability of the revolutionary forces to carry through the Revolution to a successful conclusion and he always hated the very essence of a proletarian party. He hates the tedious day-by-day activities of building and perfecting a workers’ organization. He hates discipline when applied to himself. But he loves discipline when he applies it to others. When he was War Commissar, he was ruthless towards subordinates. When he was out-voted a thousand to one in the Bolshevik Party, he refused to submit.
During the most revolutionary period of his life he was always full of misgivings. Whenever the Revolution was confronted with a difficulty, he fell into a panic. When patience and endurance were required, he demanded spectacular action. When temporary retreat was the order of the day, he advocated senseless bravado which would have wrecked the Revolution. When the Revolution was gathering momentum for a new advance, he lamented the “collapse” of the Revolution. When a new victory was achieved, he decried it as a defeat.
In this, as in his unwillingness to admit errors, to apply self-criticism to himself, he only expressed his class.
What characterized his opposition when he still was a mere oppositionist was a lack of understanding of the moving forces of the Revolution and a purely rational approach to the solution of problems, an approach that had no relation whatever to the realities of life. What characterizes him now when he is leading the vanguard of counter-revolution is his deliberate invention of ways and means to damage the Revolution, the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist movement throughout the world. This has become his sole aim, the only reason for his existence.
He had a dream once in his life. He believed himself to be able to take the place of Lenin in the Bolshevik Party. Lenin’s Party could not have been led by a man who never was a Bolshevik and always fought Lenin. But he failed to understand this obvious truth. Because he had dramatized himself into believing that he was the driving force of the Revolution he did not deem it possible for him to take a minor post. Because he was a petty-bourgeois intellectual he could not place the interests of the Party above his own personal ambition. He therefore had to dramatize himself into the great intransigeant. From this position he slid down to the hideous gutter in which he finds himself today.
The history of his last ten years is the history of continuous downfall. From a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party down to an opposition within the Communist Party, down to a damages expelled from the Communist Party, down to an enemy expelled from the Soviet Union, down to one supplying the world bourgeoisie with lies about the Soviet Union, down to one who organizes the forces of disruption against the Communist Party and the Communist International, down to one who becomes the inspirer of plots aiming at the assassination of the leaders of the Revolution—aiming at the very heart of the Revolution.
Verily, no man has ever fallen so low.
He had a dream once. He has a dream now. To see the Soviet Union wrecked, to see the Bolshevik Party destroyed, to see the leaders of Bolshevism assassinated, to see the world Communist movement crushed, to see the Communist International wiped off the earth,—how that would gladden his heart! How he gloats over this vision! Of course, he does not say so outright. He cannot expose himself before the world. It is his accursed task to win recruits to counter-revolution by means of radical phrases. He is a master phrase-counterfeiter. But it is to make his dream come true that he directs all his actions.
In this he is a brother-in-arms to Matthew Woll and Randolph Hearst, to Abramovich and Hamilton Fish. Birds of a feather.

[Kléber]

I like Bordiga myself, particularly that part where he calls Stalin "gravedigger of the revolution," and to his face.
I know Trotsky said "Stalin has turned in his application to be the gravedigger of the revolution," an insult for which the shovel-man never forgave him. Was he quoting Bordiga or vice versa?


Stalin being a traitor to Bolshevism (an analysis which I disagree with) doesn't make Trotsky's actions any more excusable. He tried to bring down the party, plain and simple really.
Your only source for that claim, is the slander produced by the Soviet propaganda apparatus. But they also claimed that the Stalinist hardliners, Molotov, Kaganovich et al. constituted an "Anti-Party Group." So apparently you believe that every word of the Soviet government was true until 1953 and ceased to be holy writ afterwards.


It still shows a gross error of analysis on Trotsky's part to believe that Stalinism had actually abolished capitalist social relations. In general Trotsky's perspective was blinkered by his conception of socialism as simply nationalisation under workers control. Instead of going back to Marx and showing how at odds with Marxian socialism stalinism was (Like Bordiga) he retained his belief in the "socialist" nature of the Stalinist regime albeit under a workers state which was "degenerated".
Trotsky never said the USSR was socialist. He also never claimed that the Stalinist regime had completely abolished capitalism, in fact he pointed out that they were holding the revolution back and restoring capitalist privileges and inequality bit by bit. He also never supported the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact; his comments on Poland were in response to Stalinists, to point out that making progressive proclamations and expropriating the local ruling classes in conquered Poland didn't make Stalin any more revolutionary than Napoleon Bonaparte.


The first Bonaparte halted the revolution by means of a military dictatorship. However, when the French troops invaded Poland, Napoleon signed a decree: “Serfdom is abolished.” This measure was dictated not by Napoleon’s sympathies for the peasants, nor by democratic principles but rather by the fact that the Bonapartist dictatorship based itself not on feudal, but on bourgeois property relations. Inasmuch as Stalin’s Bonapartist dictatorship bases itself not on private but on state property, the invasion of Poland by the Red Army should, in the nature of the case, result in the abolition of private capitalist property, so as thus to bring the regime of the occupied territories into accord with the regime of the USSR.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm


In this he is a brother-in-arms to Matthew Woll and Randolph Hearst, to Abramovich and Hamilton Fish. Birds of a feather.
Where have we heard this slander before?
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000693237/polls_marx_bankers_1252_106977_poll_xlarge.jpeg

[We Shall Rise Again]

Is Trotskyism a form of Marxism-Leninism?
Unless definitions have changed, no.
Trotskyism is a tendency within Leninism, as is Marxism-Leninism.
They are usually used in contrast with each other.


How can trotskyism be a tendency within leninism, when for the majority of his political career, trotsky worked against lenin and his teachings?

trots like to be associated with leninism to try and claim succes for the 1917 revolution, whenin reality trotsky played a minor part.

[Kléber]

How can trotskyism be a tendency within leninism, when for the majority of his political career, trotsky worked against lenin and his teachings?

Agreement [with the Mensheviks]? I cannot even speak seriously about that. Trotsky has long ago said that unity is impossible. Trotsky understood this and since then there has been no better Bolshevik.


trots like to be associated with leninism to try and claim succes for the 1917 revolution, whenin reality trotsky played a minor part.

All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/11/06.htm

[Palingenisis]

I'd prefer a party full of proletarians to one full of petty bourgeoisie.
RCP-US is a good example against the latter.

But what I was asking "We Shall Rise Again" in my last post was that she/he substantiate his/her claims.

RCP-USA is a revisionist Party...However in its hey-day it had quite a bit of influence in working class Latina and Black/New Afrikan neighbourhoods.

[Weezer]

Opposing Iskra by siding with Martov over Plekhanov, getting cozy with the Mensheviks, organising the August-bloc, all anti-Bolshevik activities. The August bloc being probably the most important

I love when xXhArDcOrEsTaLiNiStSXx like you bring up Trotsky's pre-Bolshevik politically career.

You think Stalin was born a die-hard communist? Any of this Trotsky=Menshevik nonsense is irrelevant, Trotsky and Trotskyism became Bolshevikified in 1917. And when Trotsky became a Bolshevik, look what he did for them.

[Palingenisis]

Not according to Stalin..

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/11/06.htm

No one is disputing his military capability.

[We Shall Rise Again]

not so,

Stalin does not deny that trotsky did play an imortant role, but not the 'special role' that his followers promote for him as a 'leader' of the revolution, when clearly he was not.

[RED DAVE]

How can trotskyism be a tendency within leninism, when for the majority of his political career, trotsky worked against lenin and his teachings?Because once Trotsky and Lenin became allied, Trotsky was demonstrably the most talented and loyal of Lenin's followers.


trots like to be associated with leninism to try and claim succes for the 1917 revolution, whenin reality trotsky played a minor part.See Kleber's post above. Are you lying, or are you truly ignorant of history?

RED DAVE

[Kléber]

No one is disputing his military capability.
He said Trotsky played a "minor role" in the 1917 revolution. Trotsky was the commander of Petrograd Red Guards and gave the order to seize the power on 25 October.


RCP-USA is a revisionist PartyCompletely meaningless. That's like saying "X is a heretic." Bob Avakian would call you revisionist too. A meaningless curse-word traded for a meaningless curse-word and the whole world is revisionist.


not so, Stalin does not deny that trotsky did play an imortant role, but not the 'special role' that his followers promote for him as a 'leader' of the revolution, when clearly he was not.

Show me another man who could have practically created a model army in a year and won the respect of the military specialist as well.

Let's look at this quote again while we're at it. Apparently it was too big for you to read so the parts you seem to have skipped over have been emphasized for you.

All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Because once Trotsky and Lenin became allied, Trotsky was demonstrably the most talented and loyal of Lenin's followers.

See Kleber's post above. Are you lying, or are you truly ignorant of history?

RED DAVE

Perhaps ypu missed what i said so i will post the most relevant part again, just for you.

During the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in November, 1917, Trotsky played an important role as a member of the Military Revolutionary Committee. But it would be absurd to say that he was the leader of the uprising.
“I am far from denying the undoubtedly important role of Comrade Trotsky in the uprising [says Stalin in his October Revolution, p. 71]. But I must state that Comrade Trotsky did not and could not have played any special role in the October uprising; that, being the president of the Petrograd Soviet, lie only carried into effect the will of the respective Party authorities, which guided every step of Comrade Trotsky.” (Article published November 26, 1924.)
Among the five members appointed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party on October 16 to serve as a center in charge of organizing the uprising, Trotsky’s name does not appear.
“Thus [says Stalin] something ‘terrible’ took place at this meeting of the Central Committee, i.e., ‘in some mysterious way’ the ‘inspirer’, the ‘principal figure’, the ‘only leader’ of the uprising, Comrade Trotsky, did not get on the practical center, which was called upon to lead the uprising. How can this be reconciled with the current notion about Comrade Trotsky’s special role?” (Ibid., pp. 71-72.)
He who knows the ways of the Bolshevik Party will easily understand why Trotsky was not among the leaders appointed by the Central Committee to direct the uprising. He was a new man. He had never helped build the Bolshevik Party. He had been in disagreement with the Bolsheviks up to a very short time before. In reality he was not of the Bolshevik mold. He was a man of influence recognized in Russia, but his influence extended primarily to the petty bourgeoisie. He was something like a connecting link between the Bolshevik Party and the petty-bourgeois masses which the Party wished to lead.
Trotsky’s disagreement with Lenin sprang up immediately after the seizure of power. It was necessary to sign the Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany in order that the proletarian revolution might have a breathing spell to consolidate itself. Trotsky, then Commissar for Foreign Affairs, refused to sign the treaty. Lenin’s stupendous will power, Lenin’s lashing castigation, were required to force Trotsky to abandon his untenable pose, and to acquiesce in a step that spelled the saving of the revolution.
Time passed. Trotsky worked with the Bolsheviks. To all appearances he became one of them. But he was a stranger in the Bolshevik Party. The civil war came and Trotsky was given a high post. He was, so to speak, propagandist-in-chief of the Red Army. He was Military Commissar but he was not a military man. He knew nothing about the organization of an army, he had wrong ideas about revolutionary war strategy. The work of organizing the Red Army was done by the entire country, by millions of the proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party. The actual fighting was done under the supervision of military experts controlled by the Central Committee under the watchful leadership of Lenin. Trotsky traveled up and down the front, issuing crisp orders that can be quoted as examples of military style; he went into the trenches to talk to the Red Army men; he made great public orations—but he never led the civil war. He may have been deluded into believing that he was the whole moving spirit of that tremendous historic combat. He may believe so to the present day. The actual facts are just the reverse.* (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/02.htm#1) The facts are that Stalin and Voroshilov were the great fighters on the various battle fronts—leaders with clear revolutionary vision and strategists of the first order.
Before the thunder of the last battles of the civil war had died down Trotsky developed an open, violent opposition to the policy of Lenin in respect to the tasks of the trade unions. He wanted the unions to be, not organizations representing the workers in the factories and the shops, in the industries, but administrative units appended to the State and carrying out governmental functions. He organized, in opposition to Lenin, a small faction that threatened to disrupt the activities of the Communist Party at a time when unity was a question of life and death. Lenin branded this factionalism as a disruptive act. He said:
“Even if the ‘new tasks and methods’ had been pointed out by Trotsky just as highly correctly as in reality they have been pointed out incorrectly throughout, . . . by such an approach alone Trotsky would have caused injury both to himself, to the Party, to the union movement, to the education of millions of members of the labor unions, and to the Republic.” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XXVI, Russian edition, p. 116.)
Trotsky was defeated. Had his “plan” succeeded, that would have wrecked the entire Soviet system.
In 1923 he again resumes his opposition to the Bolshevik Party. This time it is no more a single question. It is the whole Communist Party, its structure, its activities, its entire line that irk him. At first he was alone among the outstanding leaders. In 1926 he was joined by Zinoviev and Kamenev who, in November, 1917, had distinguished themselves by being opposed to the uprising and to the seizure of power by the Bolshevik Party and were branded by Lenin as “strikebreakers”. They had ideas differing from Trotsky’s in many respects, but they accepted his leadership and the fundamentals of his opposition.
A legend is peddled around to the effect that Trotsky and his associates were “not given a chance” to present their viewpoint to the rank-and-file Party membership. As a matter of fact, the debate between the opposition and the Party leadership was continued from 1924 till 1927. In numerous sessions of the central bodies, in numberless meetings of the lower bodies of the Party, the program of the opposition was threshed out. Scores of books, hundreds of pamphlets dealing with these questions were published and widely distributed. The opposition received a hearing even to the point of exhausting the patience of the Party members.
When the discussion was over these leaders with their group of associates were thoroughly discredited, despised by the masses of the Party and of the proletariat and exposed as plotters.
We are perfectly aware of the gravity of such an accusation. But how else can you term the activities of seemingly responsible Party members who, because the overwhelming majority of the membership disagrees with them and demands their submission, organize a little clique within the Party, with its own clique discipline and clique centers, make an alliance with non-Party petty-bourgeois elements to carry out anti-Party plans, start printing underhand literature against the Party leadership and broadcasting it among the masses and thus take the initial steps toward disrupting and breaking the very backbone of the Revolution, the Communist Party?
This is exactly what Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamenev did in 1927. The Party was forced to expel the clique. Some of them later recanted, as they did even before 1927, only to resume their destructive activities. Trotsky did not recant. He was ordered to leave the capital and was transferred to the city of Alma-Ata in Central Asia. Later he was expelled from the country. Since then he keeps on supplying the world bourgeoisie with ammunition against the Soviet Union. His powder is wet. His cannon roar without actually hurting. But the bourgeoisie pretends to see in him a real source of genuine information. He conducts his counter-revolutionary activity on the score of having been a leader in the Revolution. In his innumerable writings he makes the unwary believe that it was he and not Lenin who led the Revolution.
Such is, briefly, the career of the man. Was he ever a Bolshevik? Out of a period of thirty-three years he was connected with the Bolsheviks for only six years. Even during that time he had a great number of violent disagreements with them. In fact, there was hardly a Leninist policy to which he wholeheartedly agreed. He never became an integral part of the Bolshevik organization. He seems to have been an alien body within the organism of the Bolshevik Party, even when he was a member of its Political Bureau.
Bolsheviks need not mention the non-Bolshevik past of a man who has sincerely and genuinely merged himself with their Party. If we mention Trotsky’s past it is because, as we shall see more clearly anon, it never became his past. It still is his present. He is now just as violently opposed to the Bolshevik Party under Stalin as he was opposed twenty years ago to the Bolshevik Party under Lenin; he slanders Stalin just as viciously as he slandered Lenin—and for the same reasons.
“How could it happen [says Stalin] that Comrade Trotsky, who was carrying such an unpleasant burden [of hatred for the Bolsheviks] on his back, nonetheless turned up in the ranks of the Bolsheviks during the October movement? This happened because Comrade Trotsky threw off (actually threw off) his burden at that time, concealed it in his cupboard. But for this ‘operation’ no serious collaboration with Comrade Trotsky would have been possible. . . .
“Could Comrade Trotsky, in such a state of affairs [when the impracticability of his theory was proven by actual experience] do anything else but conceal his burden in his cupboard and follow the Bolsheviks, he who did not have any more or less serious group behind him, who came to the Bolsheviks as a one-man political organization bereft of its army? Of course he could not.
“. . . The fact is that the old burden of Trotskyism, concealed in the cupboard in the days of the October movement, is now once more hauled into the light of day in the hope of finding a market for it.” (Joseph Stalin, The October Revolution, pp. 89-90.)
When Trotsky concealed his “unpleasant burden” in his cupboard he was a one-man organization. When he took it out again he believed he had a tremendous army back of him. He was mistaken. The rank-and-file membership of the Communist Party and every honest worker in the Soviet Union refused to follow the man with the unpleasant burden. Now he is trying to form such an army on a world scale. Quite unsuccessfully.

[28350]

How can trotskyism be a tendency within leninism, when for the majority of his political career, trotsky worked against lenin and his teachings?

trots like to be associated with leninism to try and claim succes for the 1917 revolution, whenin reality trotsky played a minor part.
First of all, Trotsky was pretty important within the Bolshevik movement. But that isn't even the issue here.

More importantly, what Trotsky did or didn't do has absolutely nothing to do with Trotskyism. That's why the term 'Trotskyite', which MLers use to deny legitimacy as a political tendency to Trotskyists, is incorrect. History matters in terms of the creation of tendencies, yes. But the content of those tendencies has nothing to do with personal biography.

Trotskyists are Leninists because they believe in the formation of a vanguard party, which will lead the masses in revolution, and follows the principle of democratic centralism. Marxist-Leninists are Leninists because they believe in the same, as well.

Would you deny that Luxembourgists are Marxists?

[We Shall Rise Again]

He said Trotsky played a "minor role" in the 1917 revolution. Trotsky was the commander of Petrograd Red Guards and gave the order to seize the power on 25 October.

Completely meaningless. That's like saying "X is a heretic." Bob Avakian would call you revisionist too. A meaningless curse-word traded for a meaningless curse-word and the whole world is revisionist.




Let's look at this quote again while we're at it. Apparently it was too big for you to read so the parts you seem to have skipped over have been emphasized for you.


I am not denying that he played an important role, however it was a minor one, as in he was not the leader of the revolutionary forces, that was obviously lenin.

trotsky supporters like to give him a 'special role' which in reality just was not the case!

[28350]

RCP-USA is a revisionist Party...However in its hey-day it had quite a bit of influence in working class Latina and Black/New Afrikan neighbourhoods.

My point is that they're not a working-class party which contributes to them... not being very good, let's say.

[We Shall Rise Again]

He said Trotsky played a "minor role" in the 1917 revolution. Trotsky was the commander of Petrograd Red Guards and gave the order to seize the power on 25 October.



''He was, so to speak, propagandist-in-chief of the Red Army. He was Military Commissar but he was not a military man. He knew nothing about the organization of an army, he had wrong ideas about revolutionary war strategy.

The work of organizing the Red Army was done by the entire country, by millions of the proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party. The actual fighting was done under the supervision of military experts controlled by the Central Committee under the watchful leadership of Lenin. Trotsky traveled up and down the front, issuing crisp orders that can be quoted as examples of military style; he went into the trenches to talk to the Red Army men; he made great public orations—but he never led the civil war. He may have been deluded into believing that he was the whole moving spirit of that tremendous historic combat. He may believe so to the present day.

The actual facts are just the reverse.* (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/02.htm#1) The facts are that Stalin and Voroshilov were the great fighters on the various battle fronts—leaders with clear revolutionary vision and strategists of the first order''

http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/02.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/02.htm)

[Q]

Are you lying, or are you truly ignorant of history?

Nah, he's just trolling. Repeating old lies and slander yet again. So tiresome.

[Kléber]

you win this one, intelligitimate. my eyes are bleeding

[28350]

I am sometimes so sorry I support revolution.

It's really emotionally taxing.

[RED DAVE]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/02.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/02.htm)
Although a bitter rival of Alexander Bittelman in the heated factional politics of the Jewish Federation in the early 1920s, by the middle of the decade Olgin had emerged as a supporter of the political faction headed by William Z. Foster, Earl Browder, and his former foe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissaye_J._Olgin

Now there's an objective source about Trotsky. :rolleyes:

RED DAVE

[Proletarian Ultra]

''He was, so to speak, propagandist-in-chief of the Red Army. He was Military Commissar but he was not a military man. He knew nothing about the organization of an army, he had wrong ideas about revolutionary war strategy.

The work of organizing the Red Army was done by the entire country, by millions of the proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party. The actual fighting was done under the supervision of military experts controlled by the Central Committee under the watchful leadership of Lenin. Trotsky traveled up and down the front, issuing crisp orders that can be quoted as examples of military style; he went into the trenches to talk to the Red Army men; he made great public orations—but he never led the civil war. He may have been deluded into believing that he was the whole moving spirit of that tremendous historic combat. He may believe so to the present day.


I don't see this as a drawback at all. The workers' army must precisely be a political army - especially when facing counterrevolution. This is one thing that Stalin never understood properly, but Mao did.

I have several problems with Trotsky but this is not one of them. I give him great credit for being propagandist-in-chief to the Red soldiers.

[We Shall Rise Again]

were did I say propagandist in chief was a bad thing?

I said it was an important role.

I was meerly outlining his factual role during thee revolution, and adding countr balance to those on here who hero worship, hold this man on a peadastal, and opperate as a cult of his personality.

[iskrabronstein]

Many of the quotes provided by comrades here are simply repetitions of the same falsehoods written 90 years ago.

The fact is that the principal work of organizing the October insurrection was completed, not by some shadowy Party center, but by the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet - chaired by none other than Trotsky. It was the RMC that organized itself as the representative of the soldiers' soviets, and integrated them into the apparatus of the Bolshevik party. It was the RMC that tested the Soviets' orders within the military cohorts, paving the way for the Bolshevik rising. And it was the RMC that directed the seizure of railways, telegraph and telephone lines, set up roadblocks, and organized the storming of the Winter Palace.

Even the most hostile accounts of the Bolshevik revolution are clear in this respect, as Volkogonov's biography of Lenin demonstrates:



The day before the coup, when he heard from Trotsky that the garrison troops were obeying the orders of the Military-Revolutionary Committee, Lenin "was in ecstasy, laughing and rubbing his hands with joy. Then he fell silent, paused and said: "That's fine, as long as we take power." For Trotsky, this was the moment when Lenin finally accepted that they would seize power not by a conspiracy, but through the ostensibly democratic means of the Congress of Soviets...

At a special session of the Soviet at midday on 26 October (8 November), Trotsky took the chair: "In the name of the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Soviet I announce that the Provisional Government no longer exists. Some ministers are under arrest, the rest will follow in the next days or hours." - Volkogonov, Lenin pg. 159-160

You don't have to support Trotsky's policies or actions, but it is frankly shameful to parrot lies about him rather than argue intelligently in opposition.

[Weezer]

Simple answer is no.

Its not even socialist, it is the ideaology of the petitt bourgouise.

trotskyism is an enemy of the working class and our emanicpation. it is a hinderence to the succesful advancement of the class struggle.

Explain Hugo Chavez.

You know, that Trotskyist in Venezuela? Whatever happened to your Marxist-Leninist friends?

Their regimes collapsed? Why is that? Maybe because Stalinism has failed?

[infraxotl]

So if a populist leader of a capitalist nation pays lip service to trots suddenly he's the ultra leftist's poster child for what real communism should look like?

[Kléber]

So if a populist leader of a capitalist nation pays lip service to trots suddenly he's the ultra leftist's poster child for what real communism should look like?
No, but neither is Maoists briefly running a bourgeois government in Nepal the best thing since sliced bread and everyone has to repent before the manifest supremacy of Mao Zedong Thought.

[Weezer]

So if a populist leader of a capitalist nation pays lip service to trots suddenly he's the ultra leftist's poster child for what real communism should look like?

What have you done for communism recently?

[Q]

Even the changing from "social-democrat" to "communist" was based on an old threat Kautsky had made when it looked like the revisionists were in position to take over the SPD.

That is interesting. Do you have a source for that? I would appreciate it.

[Devrim]

The term "Marxism-Leninism" only arose after Lenin died, at the end of the 1920's and early 1930's and is therefore linked to Stalin and his clique. Trotsky and the Left Opposition originally used the term "Bolsheviki-Leninists" which if I'm not mistaken predates the term "Marxism-Leninism".

Q is right. Generally today 'Marxism-Leninism' means Maoism, in which sense Trotskyists are not 'Marxist Leninists'.

Devrim

[infraxotl]

I think Maoism means Maoism these days.


No, but neither is Maoists briefly running a bourgeois government in Nepal the best thing since sliced bread and everyone has to repent before the manifest supremacy of Mao Zedong Thought.

I agree?

[CommunistRus]

I don't agree with this point of view. Fundamental different Marxism and Maoism is qestion about Property the means of production. Now i explain my idea. Basic contradiction capitalism is: social mode of production and private mode of аppropriation. What is it mean? If you want make some goods you must:take some material from extractive industry convert it and only after this preparing of material you can use it. For example if you want make chair. You must recieve wooden parts of chair and after this you make chair from this parts. I think you know how many industry involved in production of computer. And all elements are very impotatnt. So production is social process. But capitalist approparats all profit. One man but not whole society. But we know that all society is involved in production. Is this organization of society right? No!
And Marxism requires public ownership of the means of production. But modern maoism think that capitalism is good if goverment can take own rules for economic. We see union between state and capital. This organization of society is state-monopolistic capitalism

[CommunistRus]

Short guide to ideas of marxism is Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

[Palingenisis]

Explain Hugo Chavez.

You know, that Trotskyist in Venezuela? Whatever happened to your Marxist-Leninist friends?

Their regimes collapsed? Why is that? Maybe because Stalinism has failed?

Hugo Chavez is a Social Democrat...Do you honestly believe he is a Trotskyite?

[Palingenisis]

Nah, he's just trolling. Repeating old lies and slander yet again. So tiresome.

We find the Trots repeating capitalist propaganda and going along with the demonization of the leaders of the working and oppressed classes tiresome aswell. Ultimately though the divide between "Anti-Revisionism" and Trotskyism is a class one as can be seen in our different attitudes towards Social Democracy.

[CommunistRus]

And if we see on his practice we notify that his course more and more became socialistic. He supported atack on capital from goverment. Nationalization great part of oil industry see us that Chavez come to soviet socialism. But why stalinism defited? No it's temporary victory of liberalism in USSR but soviet people many of them understand that our future only with new socialism based on Lenin and Stalin works. And if you have forgotten is Communist party of USSR were many public disscusion. And пкуфе part of party agree with Stalin. Why? Because they have precise plan of development country but Trotsky have only general words. Also force Trotsky in Soveit goverment at this time is equivalent to Stalin force

[Crux]

We find the Trots repeating capitalist propaganda and going along with the demonization of the leaders of the working and oppressed classes tiresome aswell. Ultimately though the divide between "Anti-Revisionism" and Trotskyism is a class one as can be seen in our different attitudes towards Social Democracy.
Shows what you know, comrade.

As for the topic of the thread, the original concept of "marxism-leninism" as chief ideology of the USSR under stalin had little to do with either marxism or leninism, compare with the "marxists" of the Second International, that does not mean one should disregard the entire present movement claiming the banner of marxism-leninism, certainly there are some commonalities, and throughout history when the dying grip of bureacracy weakened marxist-leninists are fully capable of moving to the left.

[Palingenisis]

Shows what you know, comrade.

As for the topic of the thread, the original concept of "marxism-leninism" as chief ideology of the USSR under stalin had little to do with either marxism or leninism, compare with the "marxists" of the Second International, that does not mean one should disregard the entire present movement claiming the banner of marxism-leninism, certainly there are some commonalities, and throughout history when the dying grip of bureacracy weakened marxist-leninists are fully capable of moving to the left.

The problemn is that Anti-Revisionists are generally to the Left of Trotskyism...Look at the condemnations made by the CWI of rioters in Greece and compare them with what the KKE-ML and Maoists over there for instance.

[S.Artesian]

Don't know who said it first, but Bordiga said it directly to Stalin while attending meetings of the 3rd International.

[Wanted Man]

Just as Maoism has different theories, strategies, etc. that other Marxo-Leninists don't agree with, could the same be said for Trotskyism, that's it's a form of Marxism-Leninism that faces opposition from other tendencies of Marxism-Leninism, but still, a form of Marxism-Leninism?

Someone may have pointed it out already, but I do not think that trotskyists even claim the term "Marxism-Leninism". It only came into existence under Stalin, and trotskyists consider it a Stalinist construction.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The problemn is that Anti-Revisionists are generally to the Left of Trotskyism...Look at the condemnations made by the CWI of rioters in Greece and compare them with what the KKE-ML and Maoists over there for instance.
Says the clown who cheerleads for the Stalinist nutjobs who praised the Ulster Workers Council strike.

[Palingenisis]

Says the clown who cheerleads for the Stalinist nutjobs who praised the Ulster Workers Council strike.

Does repeating slander over and over again convince you thats it true? Or is it a version of troll tourettes?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I could discuss Stalin with you, but the question put to us by the OP was "is Trotskyism a form of Marxism-Leninism". Stalin being a traitor to Bolshevism (an analysis which I disagree with) doesn't make Trotsky's actions any more excusable. He tried to bring down the party, plain and simple really.

Trotsky was a Left Menshevik for a time. He had some disagreements with Lenin.They came to a meeting of the minds and by the time Lenin wrote the "April Thesis" they were on the same page in terms of the necessity of the working class in Russia taking power. Trotsky certainly was closer to Lenin's thinking than were others in the Bolshevik leadership (including Stalin) who's initial impulse it was to cooperate with Kerensky.

The idea that Trotsky ran some subversive anti-Leninist wrecker faction long before the Russian Revolution is absurd.

I would much rather have someone who is intellectually independent and who expresses disagreements honestly and openly as a comrade than a syncophant or a toady.

Anyway the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin is more accurately viewed as a struggle between classes. Stalin repressented the bureaucracy (which he greatly enlarged by the ironically named "Lenin levy" , making the CPSU into a patronage network) which consolidated its control after it became apparent the Revolution would not be bailed out by revolution in the West.

Trotsky and the Left Opposition repressented the core of the Old Bolsheviks who were fighting against the hijacking of the Party.

"Trotskyism" for me isn't fetishising one guy but rather represents the understanding and use of ideas such as the Theory of Permanent Revolution, the laws of combined and uneven development, the Transistional Program, ideas developed by Marx and further developed by Trotsky and others.

There are interesting Marxist-Leninist writers, but overall its a different theoritical orientation.

[CommunistRus]

If we see on Trotsky and other enemys of Stalin,what do we see?Bucharin: he wants to repair market in USSR. He wants get opportunity to trade in markets for individual peasant. But what does it mean for economic? It' s way to capitalsm because individual peasant accumulates capital. After this process USSR will become capitalistic country,because Bucharin get opportunity for capitalists have more force in state. And what does capitalist do with this force? He will destroy Soviet goverment. So Bucharin's way is way of destruction USSR! He thinks that New Economic Politics wich was declared by Lenin on X congress RCP(b) is main and long politics in USSR. But Lenin and Stalin think about NEP how temporary politics.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotsky severely criticized Bukharin's approach, fearing it would lead to a Soviet Thermidor (while still having respect for Bukharin as a revolutionary). Stalin had Bukharin killed, not Trotsky. What I've seen of B's trial makes for disturbing reading.

[CommunistRus]

Ок, but one moment:this book published before first Open Politics Process in Moscow. When OPP started Rikov,Bucharin,Tomski make union and it was called rigthtrotsky block. This name give by СentralСommitet of party and Stalin. And you can say: he told false, but Rikov,Tomski were realy trotskists. After October revolution they were left communists and leader of this community was Trotsky. After this they had own Interest on the power and thwey were became allies of Stalin. When Trotsky defited they want take power in their hand. They were became enemys of Stalin. But Stalin has one serios enemy: Trotsky. And Rikov with Tomski knew this fact. And they were became allies of Trotsky. This union was started in 30th years.

[Kléber]

Ок, but one moment:this book published before first Open Politics Process in Moscow. When OPP started Rikov,Bucharin,Tomski make union and it was called rigthtrotsky block. This name give by СentralСommitet of party and Stalin. And you can say: he told false, but Rikov,Tomski were realy trotskists. After October revolution they were left communists and leader of this community was Trotsky. After this they had own Interest on the power and thwey were became allies of Stalin. When Trotsky defited they want take power in their hand. They were became enemys of Stalin. But Stalin has one serios enemy: Trotsky. And Rikov with Tomski knew this fact. And they were became allies of Trotsky. This union was started in 30th years.
The "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" was a fabrication. The only one who actually made a bloc with Bukharin and the Rights was Stalin and the centrists; the unity of bureaucracy and petty-bourgeoisie defeated the weakened working class forces constituted in the Left Opposition and thus delayed collectivization and industrialization by 5 precious years.

[Weezer]

Hugo Chavez is a Social Democrat...Do you honestly believe he is a Trotskyite?

Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and soiled the name of Marxism forever.

Do you honestly believe he was a decent human being?

[28350]

Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and soiled the name of Marxism forever.

Do you honestly believe he was a decent human being?

Stalin's decency has nothing to do with the validity of Marxism-Leninism.

It's important to filter Stalin's actions on his own behalf (like being a dick about old bolsheviks) from those with theoretical basis (like forced collectivization).

[CommunistRus]

The "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" was a fabrication. The only one who actually made a bloc with Bukharin and the Rights was Stalin and the centrists; the unity of bureaucracy and petty-bourgeoisie defeated the weakened working class forces constituted in the Left Opposition and thus delayed collectivization and industrialization by 5 precious years.
After 1929 year it's valid information. Rikov and Tomsky helped Stalin against Trotsky. They organized with Stalin block against Trotsky. Historics called this block "triumvirate". But Stalin when he was secretary-general of party didn't give his allies power. Why? His allies demanded world revolution, but it's very stupid plan. Country where communist take power has many problem in economic,education,social organization etc. And West have problems after I world war,but he has force(military and economics), wich protect the West from the social revolutions. And new very agressive country--Poland is very reliable defender against USSR. It wants added some territory(west Ukraina,west Belorussia) to itself from us. And this country made this actions during Poland-Soviet war at 20th. When Soviet army attack Poland, all citizens saw this as a threat to themselves.Poland wanted to keep own achievements in this war. Please remind how qickly defited Spartak in Germany. Rigths party have many force in their country. Rapid Revolution at 20th was impossible.Such plan would provoke a war between the USSR and the West.Lenin knew about this and provided policy of peaceful coexistence socialism and capitalism. Lenin and Stalin were realists but Trotsky was dreamer

[CommunistRus]

This is position of Tomsky and Rikov in 1917-20 years. After this time this group was against to rapid industrialization and collectivization. But some qestions^
1) Can we build socialism without power industry? No!
First,power industry is basis for meet people's needs and rapid development of the working class in country
Second: capitalist countries didn't give us many times for development
2) How can you give individual peasant farmer agricultural machinery? He is poor for this and this step non-effective
3) peasant fist(rich peasants)rich peasant subjugates other peasants. So it's way for capitalism. How can you solve this problem without rapid collectivization
4)In USSR we have many peasant (70-80% USSR population ). New machine made many peasant useless for agriculture. And what way can you give for this farmers without power industry? Industry required many workers.
So Stalin's way is valid

[Zanthorus]

That is interesting. Do you have a source for that? I would appreciate it.

Yup:


Indeed, if such “Social-Democrats” wish to be in the majority and to form the official “International”(= an alliance for international justification of national chauvinism), then is it not better to give up the name of “Social-Democrats”, which has been besmirched and degraded by them, and return to the old Marxist name of Communists? Kautsky once threatened to do that when the opportunist Bernsteinians seemed to be close to conquering the German party officially. What was an idle threat from his lips will perhaps become action to others.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/05.htm

[Q]

Yup:



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/05.htm

Thanks. Do you have a direct citation from Kautsky too? :)

Anyway, I think that forcing a leftwing split throughout the comintern sections was a profound mistake. Look at what happened for example in France or Italy. What should have happened in these cases is to look at the concrete national awareness of the workers and see if a split was viable or that instead the left should have fought to claim the name of the social-democracy (which was the case in the majority of the countries I think). In the worst case scenario the left managed to build a splinter and in the best case the newly founded "communists" managed to split the workers movement.

The idle threat should have remained idle.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Anyway, I think that forcing a leftwing split throughout the comintern sections was a profound mistake. Look at what happened for example in France or Italy. What should have happened in these cases is to look at the concrete national awareness of the workers and see if a split was viable or that instead the left should have fought to claim the name of the social-democracy (which was the case in the majority of the countries I think). In the worst case scenario the left managed to build a splinter and in the best case the newly founded "communists" managed to split the workers movement.

The idle threat should have remained idle.

Well in Italy the split was pretty much inevitable, since f'ing Bordiga was in charge of the party. And even the pro-Stalin faction had come up through libertarian syndicalism(!) rather than electoral socialism, so the split was pretty much a fait accompli. Matter of fact I think the Italian delegation was key to putting it through Comintern.

Don't know as much about the French case.

[CommunistRus]

I tell about this for Russia: when M.S. Gorbachev start very bad reforms in USSR,party divided to some fractions. All fractions named themselvs "communist", but in fact great part of them didn't help soviet people when USSR rushed. Also many o them became allies of Rigths in Russia like social-demokrats in the West. So only at this moment many people see true left force in our country. I think that similar process we see on the West. Separeted of Left forces objective process, because some of the parties aren't left at all.

[Zanthorus]

Thanks. Do you have a direct citation from Kautsky too? :)

No, sorry. I got the info from DNZ originally so you might wanna ask him.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Does repeating slander over and over again convince you thats it true?
Would you like me to go back and find your quotes praising the CPI(ML) and then once again reporduce their quotes praising the UWC strike?

And by the way I can produce quotes from you on other forums praising the CPI(ML) as well.

If you want to defend Maoist/Stalinist organisations then you should defend what they do.

I have and will defend the actions of the CWI - you it appears are a fair-weather Maoist/Stalinist who clearly has little ability or understanding of Marxism, except to come out with off the wall, dogmatic drivel than even most Maoists on here would have difficulty stomaching.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Would you like me to go back and find your quotes praising the CPI(ML) and then once again reporduce their quotes praising the UWC strike?

This is some weak sauce. Secondhand nonsense like this, try to do better.

[Jolly Red Giant]

This is some weak sauce. Secondhand nonsense like this, try to do better.

Okay -

In writing about Ulster Workers’ Council Strike in 1974 which the CPI(ML) greeted as a “severe blow to the British monopoly capitalist, as well as to the comprador bourgeoisie north and south”. The CPI(ML) lauded the strike as a sign that “the workers of Ulster are going to participate in proletarian socialist revolution, are going to unite with their fellow Irish workers to settle matters with the British imperialists …”

It appears in a pamphlet entitled “An Analysis of the Significance of the Ulster Workers’ Strike, May 14th – 30th, 1974″. It was produced on 27th August 1974 as “A Series of Articles from RED PATRIOT Editorial Staff”. It was produced by the “Necessity for Change Institute of Anti-Imperialist Studies”, Dublin, a CPI(ML) group; printed by the All-Ireland Publishing House, c/o 10 Upper Exchange Street, Dublin (the CPI(ML) publisher) and distributed in Ireland by “Progressive Books & Periodicals” Dublin and distributed in Britain by the Workers’ Publications Centre, 569 Old Kent Road, London. The quotation appears in a section of the pamphlet entitled: “Strike of Ulster Workers Deals Severe Blow to the British Monopoly Capitalist Class and Marks Growing Revolutionary Trend amongst Ulster Workers”.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Okay -

In writing about Ulster Workers’ Council Strike in 1974 which the CPI(ML) greeted as a “severe blow to the British monopoly capitalist, as well as to the comprador bourgeoisie north and south”. The CPI(ML) lauded the strike as a sign that “the workers of Ulster are going to participate in proletarian socialist revolution, are going to unite with their fellow Irish workers to settle matters with the British imperialists …”

It appears in a pamphlet entitled “An Analysis of the Significance of the Ulster Workers’ Strike, May 14th – 30th, 1974″. It was produced on 27th August 1974 as “A Series of Articles from RED PATRIOT Editorial Staff”. It was produced by the “Necessity for Change Institute of Anti-Imperialist Studies”, Dublin, a CPI(ML) group; printed by the All-Ireland Publishing House, c/o 10 Upper Exchange Street, Dublin (the CPI(ML) publisher) and distributed in Ireland by “Progressive Books & Periodicals” Dublin and distributed in Britain by the Workers’ Publications Centre, 569 Old Kent Road, London. The quotation appears in a section of the pamphlet entitled: “Strike of Ulster Workers Deals Severe Blow to the British Monopoly Capitalist Class and Marks Growing Revolutionary Trend amongst Ulster Workers”.

1. Palingenesis said something nice about an organization.
2. That organization took an incorrect line 36 years ago.

Are you joking?

[Palingenisis]

1. Palingenesis said something nice about an organization.
2. That organization took an incorrect line 36 years ago.

Are you joking?

In general I believe that the line the Communist Party of Ireland Marxist-Leninist took on the "Troubles" and the situation in the six counties is correct. Jolly Red Giant believes if you are supportive of an organization you have to defend everything that they say and do. This isnt Maoism which involves criticism and self-criticism, two line struggles, etc.

[Jolly Red Giant]

1. Palingenesis said something nice about an organization.
Actually it was more like 'adoration'


2. That organization took an incorrect line 36 years ago.
An 'incorrect line' - more like the most seriously stupid political position of any left organisation ever in Ireland - which they further compounded repeatedly afterwards - it was systemic of the organisation.


In general I believe that the line the Communist Party of Ireland Marxist-Leninist took on the "Troubles" and the situation in the six counties is correct.
Yep - a bunch of upper class twats from Trinity College who bounced from praising the reactionary loyalism to praising reactionary nationalism while at the same time sucking on daddy's silver spoon.

Defintitely someone for you to follow Palin....