Thoughts on Shachtmanism

[JTB]

Your thoughts on Shachtmanism?

[Bud Struggle]

OK here goes. There is a "third way." Not Schachtman's of course, but here on RevLeft Communism comes in two flavors--the "True Believers" that think that everything Marx and Mao and Stalin and Kim and all the rest were good and holy and pointing in the right direction. They say nice things about North Korea.

Then there's the "It's gunna be better next time" crowd. The NEXT Revolution is going to be the one--and everything will be nice and fair and equal and wonderful and flowers will grow and all will be well. We'll get rid of the rich, the owners, the this and the that and we'll have it all. Drugs Sex and Rock and Roll. Well, OK.

But Shachtman point to something else--a rethinking of Communism. I don't think his particular thirdwayism was the one--but I've been reading that Platypus website--and while a lot of the stuff is racist and ugly--they aren't afraid to explore a bit.

Maybe Communism needs a bit of a rethinking, maybe there is a reason that "Tendencies" are all of long dead Communists. I don't think we need at this point a new Marx. But I think we need a new understanding of him in the modern world. A RADICAL new understanding.

[RGacky3]

OK here goes. There is a "third way." Not Schachtman's of course, but here on RevLeft Communism comes in two flavors--the "True Believers" that think that everything Marx and Mao and Stalin and Kim and all the rest were good and holy and pointing in the right direction. They say nice things about North Korea.

Then there's the "It's gunna be better next time" crowd. The NEXT Revolution is going to be the one--and everything will be nice and fair and equal and wonderful and flowers will grow and all will be well. We'll get rid of the rich, the owners, the this and the that and we'll have it all. Drugs Sex and Rock and Roll. Well, OK.

Your missing about 80% of revleft.


Maybe Communism needs a bit of a rethinking, maybe there is a reason that "Tendencies" are all of long dead Communists. I don't think we need at this point a new Marx. But I think we need a new understanding of him in the modern world. A RADICAL new understanding.

Ok whats your idea.

[Bud Struggle]

Your missing about 80% of revleft. Ok whats your idea. I got no idea. But Communism as it's situated is all dead in the water. From ancient historyians to Mexican bean pickers to South American drug cartels to huge nationalist corporations pretending to be Socialist to glorious god-leaders from hell, to hard core believers of all this crap. Capitalism is making a fool out of you. Capitalism is eating Communism alive.

I have no idea--but my point is that you guys don't either. Time to rethink Communism. I's a shambles. Reboot and try again.

[RGacky3]

Reboot and try again.

Thats whats been happening since the 90s, organized immigrant movements, service worker unions, guys like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales in South America, the Zapatista movement, the Shack dwellers movements in Africa, the labor organizing in the third world, in the United States the comeback of the progressive movement, Anarchism in southern europe, and the such.

The fact is now the Left IS reinventing itself, and its different for different parts of the world, for different situations, you mock "bean pickers" in mexico, but guess what, thats THEIR revolution, if your looking for a universal face of socialism your not gonna find it, because socialism is a set of principles that can be applied to different situations, and thats whats happening.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats whats been happening since the 90s, organized immigrant movements, service worker unions, guys like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales in South America, the Zapatista movement, the Shack dwellers movements in Africa, the labor organizing in the third world, in the United States the comeback of the progressive movement, Anarchism in southern europe, and the such.

The fact is now the Left IS reinventing itself, and its different for different parts of the world, for different situations, you mock "bean pickers" in mexico, but guess what, thats THEIR revolution, if your looking for a universal face of socialism your not gonna find it, because socialism is a set of principles that can be applied to different situations, and thats whats happening.

Well if that's what Communism looks like--as a Bourgeois Capitalist, I have no problem. As long as it remains "small change" in vastly rural and in out of the way parts of the world--it will never bother the real workings of capital. Further these little bubbles of Communism may provide a relief valve to keep things from getting too serious.

As long as the Marxist notion of industrial workers becomming radicalized Communism never happens then Communwill never be a threat to the current political and economic order.

As long as Communism remains fragmented, localized, regionalized, or nationalized it will never be a world movement.

[RGacky3]

As long as Communism remains fragmented, localized, regionalized, or nationalized it will never be a world movement.

As of now it is localized and regionalized and nationalized, but its not at all fragmented, infact socialists today have more solidarity than I'd say they ever had.


Well if that's what Communism looks like--as a Bourgeois Capitalist, I have no problem. As long as it remains "small change" in vastly rural and in out of the way parts of the world--it will never bother the real workings of capital. Further these little bubbles of Communism may provide a relief valve to keep things from getting too serious.


Right now communism is not a MAJOR threat to capitalism worldwide. However the capitalist class does make HUGE efforts to crush it, even small bubbles of it, the reason for that is because it encourages more rebellion. Look at Mexico, that little Zapatista rebellion led to huge other revolts. Hugo Chaves and Evo Morales led to an upsurge of support for the Latin AMerican left.

[Bud Struggle]

As of now it is localized and regionalized and nationalized, but its not at all fragmented, infact socialists today have more solidarity than I'd say they ever had. Brother Gacky--Communists don't even have Solidarity here on RevLeft. You yourself being here in OI are a prime example of that.




Right now communism is not a MAJOR threat to capitalism worldwide. However the capitalist class does make HUGE efforts to crush it, even small bubbles of it, the reason for that is because it encourages more rebellion. Look at Mexico, that little Zapatista rebellion led to huge other revolts. Hugo Chaves and Evo Morales led to an upsurge of support for the Latin AMerican left. In a way that's all the residual effects of Cold War anti-Stalinism. I believe that will die down after a time.

[IcarusAngel]

What is "the left" really about though?

[quote]In politics, left-wing, leftist and the Left are generally used to describe support for social change with a view towards creating a more egalitarian society.[1][2] The terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization.[3] The concept of a political Left became more prominent after the June Days Uprising of 1848.

The term was applied to a number of revolutionary movements in Europe, especially socialism, anarchism[4] and communism. The term is also used to describe social democracy.[5] Roderick Long, an anarcho-capitalist professor, summarises left-wing politics as “concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality”.[6][quote]

So there you have it – born in revolution and radicalism, behind the great political alternatives, cooling into mere social democracy, and finally, in the words of something called an “anarcho-capitalist professor,” devolving into a set of “concerns” and an element of “worry” associated with a special interest issue agenda. It’s like the scene in Casablanca, when the assorted freedom-lovers sing their hearts out against the Nazis, except it’s “La Marseillaise” vs the Spongebob Squarepants theme song, and Spongebob wins.

http://ckmac.com/thewholething/2010/03/12/things-i-learned-from-wikipedia-defining-the-left/

Maybe it's not capitalism that's embarrassing us, we are embarrassing ourselves.

[Ele'ill]

I read this thread title as 'thoughts on shamanism' so I will post accordingly. My mother was a shape shifting wolverine that shook my father's spirit free from his body- being as spirits can't remain unembodied (duh) so it settled in a forest brook but a winter one and he has become the ice and the sound of wind.

Don't ask what I am.



What was it that you'd like to know? Your future? We do tellings in the purple tent at 3am-

On second viewing I see that this thread is actually about 'Scat-Manisms' so I did a quick look on youtube and found this:

--I1v8K9zxw





(I'm not drunk or anything I just got off a series of hour long phone calls that took me away from my writing that I wanted/needed to get done and had me listening to lead-laden boring ass bullshits of useless information that I didn't want to hear right now so I'm a bit sarcastically ticked and a whole lot of manic)

[RGacky3]

Brother Gacky--Communists don't even have Solidarity here on RevLeft. You yourself being here in OI are a prime example of that.


Thats because we're discussing theory and the such, but if we were at a picketline or a protest its different, and you know that.


In a way that's all the residual effects of Cold War anti-Stalinism. I believe that will die down after a time.

No, its not, because it happens to movements that don't put themself under a red flag (but are socialist in nature).

[Bud Struggle]

Thats because we're discussing theory and the such, but if we were at a picketline or a protest its different, and you

You'll all march together until you gain some power--then the differences will come out.

Do you really think the Leninists and the Marxists and the Trotskyists, etc are going to tolerate Anarchism?

[RGacky3]

You'll all march together until you gain some power--then the differences will come out.

Do you really think the Leninists and the Marxists and the Trotskyists, etc are going to tolerate Anarchism?

First of all, our goal is'nt to "come into power," our goal is to diminish corporate capitalist power, and increase public social power. Second, Leninists and Trotskyists and the such are on the downward swing and are not really part of the socialists that are in the modern world.

BTW, its almost impossible to have a discussion with you becuase you never actually address points, you just change the subject.

You: You need to rethink socialism
Me: We are
You: But your fragmented
Me: Not really
You: But you will be

You see? You gotta stick to an issue, this is'nt girl phone talk.

[Bud Struggle]

OK Gack, you are so smart and everyone else is so dumb. If that's the way you want it--fine.

[RGacky3]

OK Gack, you are so smart and everyone else is so dumb. If that's the way you want it--fine.

awwwww.

[danyboy27]

First of all, our goal is'nt to "come into power," our goal is to diminish corporate capitalist power, and increase public social power. Second, Leninists and Trotskyists and the such are on the downward swing and are not really part of the socialists that are in the modern world.
.
beside anarchist and leninists, i dont know much real leftist that want to end capitalism.

and unfortunatly, the odds are against us in that run my friend, leninist and trots are dominating that field, even tho their number is insufficent right now to do anything meaningful.

call me pessimistic but if the trots and the leninist seize power anytime soon, we are gonna be forced to fight for our lives.

Hell, many poster on this forum dont even hide their fucking enthusiasm about cracking anarchist head open in the future when its gonna be all over.

maybe i am just paranoid, or maybe its beccause someone actually threatened me indirrectly on that website months ago impling that if i dont fallow the maoist and the leninist in the coming revolution, i am gonna be killed.

eh

[RED DAVE]

Anyone here actually want to talk about Schactman?

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

Anyone here actually want to talk about Schactman?
Sure. For those keeping score: Shachtman broke with Trotsky over a difference between Trotsky's "degenerated workers state" theory and the "bureaucratic collectivism" theory (as well as other points, such as James Burnham's rejection of dialectics). The former held that the nationalized character of property (along with central planning of industry and state monopoly of foreign trade) in the USSR was decisive and that the gains should be defended against imperialism, but that the bureaucracy had politically expropriated the workers and needed to be overthrown in a political revolution. Bureaucratic collectivism held that there was a new, bureaucratic-managerial class in the USSR and Nazi Germany, that it was completely reactionary and that in war the Trotskyists could not afford to defend it. They split from the Socialist Workers Party in 1940, taking with them over 40% of the party, including most of the young Jewish intellectuals who had been won from the Young People's Socialist League.

The Shachtmanites organized in the Workers Party until 1947 when they re-organized as a propaganda group called the Independent Socialist League. The ISL merged with the Socialist Party - Social Democratic Federation in 1957, by which point Shachtman had come over to the position that the USSR was a greater threat than US imperialism, and supported the US in its invasion of Cuba, and in the Vietnam War. A number of the ISL's youth group merged with the SWP, most of them getting kicked out in short order (including Tim Wohlforth of the Workers League, and James Robertson of the Spartacist League). The right wing of the old Shachtmanites grouped around Dissent and the SP, which became Social Democrats, USA; the left wing stuck around New Politics, and under Hal Draper started a group called International Socialists that is mostly notable for its rank & file labor work (Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Labor Notes, New Directions in the UAW) that is continued by Solidarity. Aside from bureaucratic collectivism, the major theoretical contributions of the Shachtmanite tradition are T.N. Vance's "permanent war economy" and Hal Draper's "socialism from below," both of which are embraced by the Cliffite tradition as well as the Shachtmanites.

To be honest, I have never had much of a problem with Trotsky's summation of bureaucratic collectivism in "The USSR and War" (the main essay dealing with the subject in In Defense of Marxism); it is an error to consider a caste as a class, and the fundamental property relations remained proletarian in form but politically dominated by Stalinism.

Feel free to correct any of the above; I could add more detail but I think it's pretty much accurate. Also, if you'd like to go into details of the theory of bureaucratic collectivism (I'd actually be really interested in this, as I've read a good deal of Shachtmanite literature, including the articles Draper archived back when they were forming the IS, and a lot of the details remain sketchy for me) or your problems with Trotsky's critique, I'd be happy to have an exchange.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm not super knowledgable about Schactman but as I understand he had an interesting trajectory. He went from being one of the founder/leaders of the CL/SWP to being a supporter of the Bay of Pigs invasion, Nixon and the Vietnam War, while still regarding himself as an orthodox Marxist.He and his wife, Yetta Barsh, remained friends w/Trotsky's widow, Natalya Sedovna and they went on holiday together in Europe.As I understand Yetta Barsh worked as Albert Shankar's secretary and essentially ran the NYCity teacher's union while Shankar was off politicing.

The "left Schactmanites" gave rise to some interesting people and groups. The right Schachtmanites are or were "State Department" socialists. There was the social democratic group in NY led by Penn Kemble which folded a few years ago (fortunately!)

What was going on w/Schactman and some of his followers? Also, is Schactman worth reading?

[graymouser]

What was going on w/Schactman and some of his followers? Also, is Schactman worth reading?
Max Shachtman (not to be too pedantic but there was only one "c" in his name) was a good writer, but a lot of his material is no longer in print. There was a single volume called Neither Capitalism nor Socialism put out by the Center for Socialist History a couple years ago, edited by E. Haberkern, that puts together a good selection of the classic Shachtmanite writings, and his 1935 pamphlet on African-American liberation (then called "the Negro question") was reprinted a few years ago in a book called Race and Revolution (Verso). I can't remember whether the essay was actually longer than its preface, though. Beyond that, there is some long out-of-print stuff. Hal Draper was a fine writer as well, and a collection called Socialism From Below (Center for Socialist History) is available as well as his five-volume magnum opus Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution (Monthly Review released volumes 1-4, and Center for Socialist History released volume 5). I'd recommend the Neither Capitalism nor Socialism volume if you're interested in Shachtmanism, although (as an orthodox Trotskyist) I'd advise reading it in tandem with Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism.

Socially, Shachtman represented a relatively specific type. His followers included a lot of intellectuals, many of them secular Jews, and it would be wrong to say that the right turn of a lot of the Shachtmanites was unrelated to Israel. But a lot of it is simply the fact that anti-Stalinism, if it is allowed to become one's main guiding star, can lead to anti-Communism in general. Draper tried to counterbalance this with a strong working-class orientation, which sort of worked (the IS/Solidarity has never really recruited through the rank & file strategy but they have made some real political contributions), but he wound up getting tired of the sheer level of sectarianism in the IS and gave up organized work in favor of theory.

International Socialists scorecard: The IS split five times in the 1970s - the group around Eric Chester in Massachusetts (Eric's now in the SPUSA), a small grouping around Draper in Michigan, the Revolutionary Socialist League (which became the libertarian socialist group Love & Rage and is now defunct but was also the precursor of the LRP) in New York and Chicago, Workers Power which I think was largely in California, and the ISO also in Chicago. In the mid-1980s, a bunch of ex-SWP members became close to Workers Power and organized a fusion which brought them, along with the IS, into what is now Solidarity. A number of very small groups have since fused with Solidarity.

[Zanthorus]

But a lot of it is simply the fact that anti-Stalinism, if it is allowed to become one's main guiding star, can lead to anti-Communism in general.

Quoted for serious truth (Although favouring Bordiga over Trotsky I wouldn't really say there was all too much difference between the USA and the USSR).

[Bud Struggle]

Shachtman might have been Trotskyist, he might have been Communisnt, he might have been the ptototype of Bozo the Clown.

He went no where. He was a sideshow of Trotsky who was a side show of Stalin. He was a product of WWII when the Axis powers fought the Allies--he took some sort of a "middle position." He looked very stern but also laughed at both sides from the beginning--whatever.

He was like the bean pickers of Mexico--a spirit of the moment. Of no consequence other than a foot note of history.

[graymouser]

Shachtman might have been Trotskyist, he might have been Communisnt, he might have been the ptototype of Bozo the Clown.

He went no where. He was a sideshow of Trotsky who was a side show of Stalin. He was a product of WWII when the Axis powers fought the Allies--he took some sort of a "middle position." He looked very stern but also laughed at both sides from the beginning--whatever.

He was like the bean pickers of Mexico--a spirit of the moment. Of no consequence other than a foot note of history.
Well, that's not really true. I mean, Lane Kirkland was president of the AFL-CIO in a decisive period, and Jeane Kirkpatrick was a foreign policy adviser to Reagan, and they both came out of the right-Shachtmanites of the 60s. The drift to the right of Irving Kristol is generally considered to have created neoconservatism in the US. There are actually a number of key institutions of the right that were created by the Shachtmanites. And on the far left, I'm not a fan of the Cliffites but they are significant in the US and Britain as far as the left goes, and it's hard to deny that Shachtman, Vance and Draper had a huge influence on them.

You might say it's not a good influence, and I'd generally agree, but I do think that Shachtman had some lasting impact.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Greymouser,

Thanks for the info and insight. A few questions if I may. My understanding is that NYC at least up into its fiscal crisis of the mid 70s could be regarded as a social democratic state, a mini Europe in the US. Did the right Shachtmanites, though the SP or related groups, or unions play a role in this? Also , as bizarre as it might seem, was there an organized group around Jeane Fitzpatrick in the Reagan Administration who regarded themselves as socialist or was it more amorphous?

Is there info on the bureaucratic collectivism theory and how it differed from state capitalism on one hand and the deformed workers state on the other?

[Zanthorus]

Is there info on the bureaucratic collectivism theory and how it differed from state capitalism on one hand and the deformed workers state on the other?

I'll let the orthodox Trotskyists speak for themselves but the main difference between state-capitalism and beuracratic collectivism is that state-capitalism is merely considered to be a form of capitalism administered by the state and subject to all the same laws and tendencies. Beuracratic collectivism on the other hand was always considered to be some kind of third form of society which was neither capitalist nor socialist. The main problem was that Schactman made it an issue of beuracracy vs democracy and turned the whole essence of socialism into one of form and not content. Just making socialism an issue of "democracy" is a massive error and can end up in positions like mutualism where the proletariat manages it's own exploitation. Socialism is a specific political program to be realised, and it was not realised in any way whatsoever in the soviet union. The content of soviet society remained capitalistic.

[Barry Lyndon]

State-capper Cliffites are traitors, potential rightists, and should be shot by the revolutionary vanguard.

[Zanthorus]

State-capper Cliffites are traitors, potential rightists, and should be shot by the revolutionary vanguard.

As long as the bolded part is kept in mind you may continue in your trolling undisturbed by me good sir.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

State-capper Cliffites are traitors, potential rightists, and should be shot by the revolutionary vanguard.

Okay, but what shall we do with the deformies and bureau-collies? "fraid we won't have enuf bullets or everyone, comrade.

[graymouser]

Thanks for the info and insight. A few questions if I may. My understanding is that NYC at least up into its fiscal crisis of the mid 70s could be regarded as a social democratic state, a mini Europe in the US. Did the right Shachtmanites, though the SP or related groups, or unions play a role in this?
I know the social history that you're talking about, unfortunately I don't know enough of the details to say either way. I don't believe this was particularly a right-Shachtmanite project, of course the unions played a role but by this point both the Shachtmanites and the unions were so far into the Democratic Party that you honestly couldn't tell if they were involved heavily.


Also , as bizarre as it might seem, was there an organized group around Jeane Fitzpatrick in the Reagan Administration who regarded themselves as socialist or was it more amorphous?
Well, there was still a group calling itself Social Democrats, USA up until a few years ago, but it was basically an office and a mailing list for a while before it ceased to be. The individuals were influential but the group really had no mass base, it just sort of kept going until there weren't really enough people left to say it was an organization. Not sure if Fitzpatrick was a member or not at that time.


Is there info on the bureaucratic collectivism theory and how it differed from state capitalism on one hand and the deformed workers state on the other?
Trotsky gave an overview in In Defense of Marxism, and the print only Neither Capitalism nor Socialism has a few of the Shachtmanite articles, but to be honest there was never really an equivalent of Marx's Capital written about the economy of the states that were supposed to be bureaucratic collectivist.

To give a short synopsis: in bureaucratic collectivism as the Workers Party and the Independent Socialist League put it forward, property is collectivized but under the control of a bureaucratic class. This was a new exploiting class and did not rule on capitalist production but based on collectivized production. This was a growth of the increasing power of management, and could develop out of a capitalist state, a workers state or a fascist state. Essentially the Shachtmanites viewed it as a state toward which the USA, Nazi Germany and the USSR were all developing toward. It was a "third thing," neither a return to capitalism and free competition, nor a movement toward socialism, and there would need to be a social revolution in order to overthrow the bureaucratic class in the USSR. If this theory seems a bit vague to you, at some level that's because it lacked a complete and thorough theoretical expression.

State capitalism, at least in most variants, holds that the entire state basically becomes one gigantic capitalist corporation, owned by the state capitalist bureaucracy, which exploits workers for their own benefit and priveleges. The difference here is that the state capitalists view the existence of an exploiting class as a return to what is fundamentally capitalism, while the bureaucratic collectivists recognize that the continuing collectivization of property has meant that the law of value no longer operates in these states. Both agree that the bureaucratic collectivist or state capitalist state is in no way progressive and needs to be overturned in a social revolution.

The degenerated workers state theory is based on Trotsky's observation that the bureaucracy is fundamentally reliant on what he saw as proletarian property norms. The Comintern recognized four criteria of a workers' state: nationalization of the means of production, centralized planning, state monopoly on foreign trade, and workers' democracy. Trotsky saw the bureaucracy as acting fundamentally like a Bonapartist state in capitalism, which does not represent capitalists democratically but nonetheless continues to uphold the capitalist nature of the state. He analogized that the USSR had a Bonapartist government in a workers state, resting upon progressive property forms that must be defended. So the orthodox Trotskyists defended the USSR in war, to the limited extent that was physically possible, and in propaganda, while calling for the overthrow of the bureaucratic regime.

Hopefully that helps clarify some things; Tony Cliff's book State Capitalism in Russia outlines what is probably the most thorough state-cap theory, although I'd argue that it is critically flawed in places, and also has a critique of bureaucratic collectivism toward the end.

[graymouser]

Just to not leave anyone hanging... Cliff's critique of bureaucratic collectivism is essentially that it doesn't mean anything, it's sort of an empty shell into which content can be pushed. Trotsky alluded to this in "The USSR and War" as well, saying that at some level the label "bureaucratic collectivism" was like a mechanic trying to diagnose a car by cursing at it. I'd be genuinely interested to read a rebuttal to this criticism by a defender of the theory.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, that's not really true. I mean, Lane Kirkland was president of the AFL-CIO in a decisive period, and Jeane Kirkpatrick was a foreign policy adviser to Reagan, and they both came out of the right-Shachtmanites of the 60s. The drift to the right of Irving Kristol is generally considered to have created neoconservatism in the US. There are actually a number of key institutions of the right that were created by the Shachtmanites. And on the far left, I'm not a fan of the Cliffites but they are significant in the US and Britain as far as the left goes, and it's hard to deny that Shachtman, Vance and Draper had a huge influence on them.

You might say it's not a good influence, and I'd generally agree, but I do think that Shachtman had some lasting impact.

Good answer--a lot better than my post your were responding to. You seem to know your stuff--glad you are here. Welcome to RevLeft.

[black magick hustla]

i've met quite a few of sachmanites because i've met tons of people associated with the democratic socialists of america, which was borne from a split within the sachmanites. i fucking hate sachmanites they are the worst of all "socialist types". i think what made me explode was the "socialist" zionism they have and the lack of spine to take unpopular positions. maybe its the zionism that makes me go nuts because these people try to find socialist justification for it, and praise labor zionism which was a crock of shit and was a leader in the ethnic cleansing of palestinians in the 40s ugh

[9]

I like the LRP-COFI a lot, which came out of the Revolutionary Socialist League, and which most StalinoTrots like to smear as "left Shachtmanites".

[black magick hustla]

yehuda stern's firey third camp trotskyism

[9]

Sort of. Yehuda's organization is not actually part of COFI, though, as far as I know, but they work together. It is sort of a confusing arrangement.

[Barry Lyndon]

Christopher Hitchens seems to be the latest scumbag to come out of the Shachtmanite movement.

A non-sectarian question: To what extent are "mainstream" Trotskyists are sympathetic to Shachtmanism as it seems to be the ultimate fulfillment of Trotsky's anti-Stalinist mission?

Not at all. Trotsky himself denounced Max Shachtman's theories before he died, and the orthodox Trotskyists went to their graves as communist revolutionaries, not as neo-conservative/neo-liberal imperialists like the Shachitmanites did.

The ultimate fulfillment of the Trotskyist mission was a workers revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy that would establish the rule of the soviets. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the total restoration of capitalism is therefore seen as a huge setback by orthodox Trotskyists while it was cheered by Cliffites/Shachtmanites, who had already written off the USSR to begin with and saw no need to defend its progressive gains.

[syndicat]

Revolutionary Socialist League (which became the libertarian socialist group Love & Rage and is now defunct

RSL was dissolved in 1989, after it had developed a critique of Leninism. some (but only a minority) of its members went into Love & Rage when the latter was formed in 1989. but L&R had other tendencies in it, and some of them evolved in a Maoist direction and ended up in Freedom Road Socialist Organization. another segment of L&R became Bring the Ruckus. Ex-members of RSL have ended up in some present Platformist anarchist groups.

[graymouser]

A non-sectarian question: To what extent are "mainstream" Trotskyists are sympathetic to Shachtmanism as it seems to be the ultimate fulfillment of Trotsky's anti-Stalinist mission?
Well, there have been fusions - Solidarity is the most obvious example, the left-Shachtmanite International Socialists and Workers Power went into a single common organization with people expelled from the Socialist Workers Party. That was out of a convergence of perspective from the three groups that the Russian question was no longer of the importance it had been. And there are still diverse views in Solidarity. And the Cliffites have a certain degree of affinity for Shachtmanism, although they've embraced Draper and Vance more than Shachtman himself.

But for the most part there is no "sympathy" for Shachtman among those of us who stuck to the line Trotsky had laid out. The idea that it's the "ultimate fulfillment" of Trotsky in some way is a gross distortion of what he actually stood for. The difference lies in the question of defense, which was the one he put front and center during the debate with Shachtman, and the key question that led to all of Shachtman's later degeneration. (The degeneration of the other Trotskyist groups is a quite different thing, and unrelated to the question of Soviet defencism.)

[Bud Struggle]

A question.

Would Shachtmanism be considered a form of Social Democracy?

[RED DAVE]

A question.

Would Shachtmanism be considered a form of Social Democracy?You can't really refer to "Shactmanism" as a unified point of view. Certainly the ideas he promulgated during the 60s until he died were social democratic. However, earlier (Schactman's political career went back to the 1920s) he was a revolutionary. The turning point for Schactman came when he decided that Stalinism was more dangerous to the working class than capitalism and he cast his lot, politically, with liberal capitalism.

This took the strategic form of calling for socialists and the labor movement to take over the Democratic Party. This strategy was called "political realignment"? Every time some part of the left or some radicals call for "taking over" the Democratic Party, they are echoing the strategy developed by Schactman. It should be noted that an entire wing of the organization that Schactman built, the ISL and its youth group the SYL, opposed the "turn" into the Democratic Party and Schactman's stance towards Stalinism.

However, it should be noticed that the CPUSA was basically pursuing the same strategy from the mid-1930s onward.

Perhaps Shactman at his best:

The Fight for Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1946/ffs/index.htm)

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

A question.

Would Shachtmanism be considered a form of Social Democracy?
Well, there's right-Shachtmanism and left-Shachtmanism. From any perspective, Shachtman ended up his life as a social democrat, and an aggressively anticommunist one at that. So right-Shachtmanism would be social democracy. Left-Shachtmanism is a different story; subjectively the left-Shachtmanite groups do consider themselves to be revolutionary socialists, so from an orthodox Trotskyist position I would label them as left-centrists. [Centrism is a term used in the Trotskyist movement to describe those groups that move in the space between reformism and revolutionary Marxism, and does not place them on a left-right spectrum.] This certainly would be my characterization of Solidarity. They would of course consider themselves to be revolutionary socialists, and me a sectarian for using the label "centrist." But that's politics.

[RED DAVE]

Well, there's right-Shachtmanism and left-Shachtmanism. From any perspective, Shachtman ended up his life as a social democrat, and an aggressively anticommunist one at that.And he could be a really nasty opponent in a debate/discussion. I know this from personal experice when I crossed swords with him when I was about 17. (Couldn't resist the personal note. :D)


So right-Shachtmanism would be social democracy.This is correct and interesting. It means that the likes of Al Shanker, the late and unlamented head of the AFT, and his ilk, represented, basically, a distinct social-drmocratic strain in the US labor leadership/bureaucracy.


Left-Shachtmanism is a different story;Here it comes! :D


subjectively the left-Shachtmanite groups do consider themselves to be revolutionary socialistsSure do.


so from an orthodox Trotskyist position I would label them as left-centrists.Orthodox Trotskyiusm aside, what is your justification for this characterization?


[Centrism is a term used in the Trotskyist movement to describe those groups that move in the space between reformism and revolutionary Marxism, and does not place them on a left-right spectrum.]This is a little confusing, especially when the Old Man himself characterized all deviations as, at root, class deviations.


This certainly would be my characterization of Solidarity. They would of course consider themselves to be revolutionary socialists, and me a sectarian for using the label "centrist." But that's politics.Well, Comrade, how about justifying your label of "left centrist" based on Solidarity's (and the ISO's) practice and program?

RED DAVE

[JTB]

He was like the bean pickers of Mexico--a spirit of the moment. Of no consequence other than a foot note of history.
So people who pick beans in mexico don't matter?

[JTB]

it is an error to consider a caste as a class
So a caste system is not a class system? The domination of one caste by another is not the domination of one class over another?

[Skooma Addict]

This is more confusing than figuring out who believes what regarding various religions and their subgroups. Pretty soon there will be left-Gulagists and right-Gulagists.

[Bud Struggle]

So people who pick beans in mexico don't matter?

As people, of course they matter, but politically they are kind of like Shachtman. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

And he could be a really nasty opponent in a debate/discussion. I know this from personal experice when I crossed swords with him when I was about 17. (Couldn't resist the personal note. :D)

You are an interesting guy, Comrade.:thumbup:

[RGacky3]

As people, of course they matter, but politically they are kind of like Shachtman.

THe "Bean Pickers" had HUGE political significance within Mexico, especially for how small they are.

Shachtman, had some political influence, within the New Left in the United States, which was a big influence on the progressive movement (which in the house is the biggest democratic block), and which is also the most popular political leaning in the US. He also had (strangely enough), influence on a lot of NeoCons.

But heres the thing, as far as the Zapatistas, they are not looking for worldwide revolution, and why should they? I don't see why thats a bad thing.

[RED DAVE]

Shachtman, had some political influence, within the New Left in the United StatesPlease explain this.


which was a big influence on the progressive movementPlease explain this.


(which in the house is the biggest democratic block)Please explain this.


and which is also the most popular political leaning in the US.


He also had (strangely enough), influence on a lot of NeoCons.True. Worth explaining.

RED DAVE

[RGacky3]

Shachtman, had some political influence, within the New Left in the United States

In the 1960s and 1970s, what was called the new left was essencially a break from the old worker style socialist movements into working with more specific issues such as civil rights, womans rights, the peace movement and such, Shachtman was one of those that started with that when he wanted the socialist party to work with the democratic party on those issues, he was one of those that broke with the old style socialism, he also had ties to many student organizations, civil rights organizations and the such.


which was a big influence on the progressive movement

Progressivism in America was highly influenced by the new left, the anti-war movements, civil rights and the such, also the social-democratic aspects of progressivism comes very much from the American labor movements such as the ALF-CIO, which Schachtman allied himself with.


(which in the house is the biggest democratic block)

The progressive caucus is numerically the largest in the democratic party, thats pretty self explanitory.


and which is also the most popular political leaning in the US.

I don't know waht I need to explain about this, but just look at statistics.


He also had (strangely enough), influence on a lot of NeoCons.

He was EXTREAMLY anti-USSR and anti-leninism, to the point to where he supported US imperialism against it, his rational was that spreading democracy was a goal of socialism and that US style democracy was preferable to leninst style tyranny, a lot of his follwers ended up working with Neo-cons and actually being neo-cons.

[RedKnight]

i've met quite a few of sachmanites because i've met tons of people associated with the democratic socialists of america, which was borne from a split within the sachmanites. i fucking hate sachmanites they are the worst of all "socialist types". i think what made me explode was the "socialist" zionism they have and the lack of spine to take unpopular positions. maybe its the zionism that makes me go nuts because these people try to find socialist justification for it, and praise labor zionism which was a crock of shit and was a leader in the ethnic cleansing of palestinians in the 40s ugh
No, the Democratic Socialists of America followed the example set by Michael Harrington, not Schactman. Schactman's right-Socialist faction became Social Democrats U.S.A.; and yes they are left-zionist. It's as if they consider Israel to be there motherland, instead of the old U.S.S.R. I consider the Democratic Socialists to be little different from the Communist Party U.S.A.; except that the Communists still make reference to Lenin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America#History In case anyone here wants to see for themselves what the Schactmanite Social Democrats are like, here is there website. http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/ As you can see, they are pro-zionist, and anti-communist.