Whats anarcho-trotskyism?

[StoneFrog]

What is anarcho-trotskyism? Never heard of it before, how does this actually work?

[Broletariat]

joke tendency iirc, the joke was, what do they do at kronstad? shoot themselves?

[Blackscare]

joke tendency iirc, the joke was, what do they do at kronstad? shoot themselves?


It is not a joke at all. This entire board is controlled by a cabal of them.

[Blake's Baby]

This is learning comrades, I believe we're supposed to try to keep it factual.

That Which Isn't is right, it's a joke tendency.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Joke Tendency.

Anarcho-Stalinist would be another example.

[StoneFrog]

lol, i was looking at the groups and saw the Leninist group and it says Anarcho-Trots welcomed, and i was like WTF is that.

[Lyev]

It's a pathetic little jibe used by Stalinists and the like against anyone who even mildly disagrees with them, to lump all naysayers into one "ultra-left" homogeneous group, which creates a kind of "us" and "them" mentality, which is not at all alien to Stalinism. It's similar to the theory of social fascism which concluded that social democracy = fascism. Summarised, it basically tried to get across the idea that there's "us" (the Stalinists etc.), who are the minority group, the only ones true revolutionaries who uphold the right thinkers, and there's all the other "counter-revolutionaries" and "opportunists", who do nothing but stand on the sidelines criticising.

[Wanted Man]

It's a pathetic little jibe used by Stalinists and the like against anyone who even mildly disagrees with them, to lump all naysayers into one "ultra-left" homogeneous group, which creates a kind of "us" and "them" mentality, which is not at all alien to Stalinism. It's similar to the theory of social fascism which concluded that social democracy = fascism. Summarised, it basically tried to get across the idea that there's "us" (the Stalinists etc.), who are the minority group, the only ones true revolutionaries who uphold the right thinkers, and there's all the other "counter-revolutionaries" and "opportunists", who do nothing but stand on the sidelines criticising.

Look at me, I'm making shit up!

[Lyev]

Look at me, I'm making shit up!If I ask I you to elaborate on that a bit, will you just tell me there's no point entertaining such nonsense?

[Wanted Man]

No, but I can tell you that it is indeed a load of nonsense, and ask you where you got this idea.

[Lyev]

No, but I can tell you that it is indeed a load of nonsense, and ask you where you got this idea.I made it up. :lol: Where exactly does your qualm lie with it though? Surely that was the aim of social-fascism, to congeal "counter-revolutionaries" into one homogeneous group? I was reading The Soviet Achievement earlier by J.P Nettl which talked of Stalin creating a simplistic "us and them" outlook, for example, especially in 1930s USSR etc., furthermore it's usually people that uphold Stalin that play the "Anarcho-Trotskyism" card. Having said that, sometimes I say stuff like that to see how valid it becomes under the scrutiny of someone else's thought. I still think it's a cool idea though.

[Blake's Baby]

Not sure it was actually invented by Stalinists.

In 1985, in a TV series called 'Only Fools and Horses', there was a moronic punk band in one episode who claimed to be 'Trotskyite Anarchists' (fronted by Danny Peacock, his character name was 'Mental Micky Magee'). Obviously the joke was that there can be no such thing as a 'Trotskyite Anarchist'; also, no Trotskyist would call themself a 'Trotskyite', that is a term of abuse reserved for use by Stalinists.

Not sure if the writers of 'Only Fools and Horses' were Stalinists. John Sullivan has the beginning of a biog here - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0838153/ - if anyone can be bothered to check it out. Maybe he was. He's got an OBE (Order of the British Empire medal) now, so perhaps he is - the Queen always liked Nikolai Ceacsescu, and gave him several awards, so you never can tell.

[Lyev]

Not sure it was actually invented by Stalinists.

In 1985, in a TV series called 'Only Fools and Horses', there was a moronic punk band in one episode who claimed to be 'Trotskyite Anarchists' (fronted by Danny Peacock, his character name was 'Mental Micky Magee'). Obviously the joke was that there can be no such thing as a 'Trotskyite Anarchist'; also, no Trotskyist would call themself a 'Trotskyite', that is a term of abuse reserved for use by Stalinists.

Not sure if the writers of 'Only Fools and Horses' were Stalinists. John Sullivan has the beginning of a biog here - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0838153/ - if anyone can be bothered to check it out. Maybe he was. He's got an OBE (Order of the British Empire medal) now, so perhaps he is - the Queen always liked Nikolai Ceacsescu, and gave him several awards, so you never can tell.I didn't say I thought it was "invented" by Stalinists, just used by supporters of Stalin and similar leaders.

[Nachie]

Sadly enough there are actually groups who have tried to develop something along these lines, though not necessarily with the actual label "anarcho-trotskyism". Usually this is a North American phenomenon whereby preexisting socialist groups (of all stripes) have tried to cash in on some of the "sexy" image provided by the anarchist revival, as well as its attractiveness to the younger generation; anarchists seen as potential recruits to Party organizations once they have "matured ideologically" (see the Socialist Party's now defunct "Direct Action Tendency"). Maoists have actually been more notorious for it than Trots, with their fetish of the imagery of militancy making the black bloc zeitgeist more attractive to them than it has been to traditional class struggle Trots.

Also, Lyev's post is entirely historically accurate and nobody is under any obligation to try and explain anything to a Stalinist, ever.

[Zanthorus]

Surely that was the aim of social-fascism, to congeal "counter-revolutionaries" into one homogeneous group?

I suppose Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg's denunciation of social-patriotism was aimed at congealing "Imperialists" into one homogenous group insteading of siding with the "lesser evil"?

[Blackscare]

Lyev, it's just a revleft meme.

[Lyev]

I suppose Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg's denunciation of social-patriotism was aimed at congealing "Imperialists" into one homogenous group insteading of siding with the "lesser evil"?I'm not quite sure, what are you getting at here? I think directly equating social democracy with fascism is a bit different to social patriots simply being on the same side as imperialists.

EDIT:
Lyev, it's just a revleft meme.I realise, but it is used seriously by some users. Having said that, the main proponent on here of anti-Anarcho-Trotskyism, Intelligitimate, has been banned now. Recently though there was that "dutch master" guy who quickly got banned.

[Weezer]

Did somebody already make the mandatory Kronstadt reference? Awww. :(

[Wanted Man]

I made it up. :lol: Where exactly does your qualm lie with it though? Surely that was the aim of social-fascism, to congeal "counter-revolutionaries" into one homogeneous group? I was reading The Soviet Achievement earlier by J.P Nettl which talked of Stalin creating a simplistic "us and them" outlook, for example, especially in 1930s USSR etc., furthermore it's usually people that uphold Stalin that play the "Anarcho-Trotskyism" card. Having said that, sometimes I say stuff like that to see how valid it becomes under the scrutiny of someone else's thought. I still think it's a cool idea though.

I don't know the book you refer to, but of course, the accusation of "creating a simplistic us-and-them outlook" is easy to make. In fact, it's one of the things liberals hold against Marxists, that the idea of "bourgeoisie and proletariat" is too simplistic and polarising, which can lead to class conflict (the horror!). So it's not something that I would take at face value.

Anyway, since it's "usual" for us to do as you say, I'm sure you can provide countless examples. That is, besides "Stalin kiddie" trolls who get banned from Revleft within one day, because if we're going down that road, we can attribute all kinds of dumb notions to pretty much every tendency.

As far as I know, the "anarcho-trotskyist" thing was Comintern propaganda from the Spanish Civil War. If you want to blame modern-day MLs for that, that's up to you. It's a bit like calling all Trots paranoid because Trotsky believed that Stalin poisoned Lenin.

The "social-fascism" thing is a completely different subject, and it doesn't seem to bear any relevance to this thread. Unless one wants to present it as further evidence of those damn communists constantly polarising shit.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not quite sure, what are you getting at here? I think directly equating social democracy with fascism is a bit different to social patriots simply being on the same side as imperialists...

I suspect what Zanthorus is getting at is that Social Democracy spent years murdering German revolutionaries (to say nothing of its role in WWI), using the Freikorps and the officer class to do their dirty work for them, 15 years before the Nazis got the chance to do the same thing.

There really isn't that much to choose between them. Rosa Luxemburg was murdererd on the orders of the Social Democrats, all the attempts at revolution in Germany were crushed on the orders of the Social Democrats, the various risings in Berlin, the Bavarian Soviet, the revolutionary workers in the Ruhr.

The German working class was murdered in huge numbers by Social Democracy. Without social democracy's help over a long period, it's doubtful that fascism would have even existed, because the revolution in Germany might very well have succeeded and we'd be in a very different world now.

[BeerShaman]

Anarcho-trotskyism is not only revleft. It generally exists as a "joke tendency", probably created by the stalinists. It exists in my country's stalinists' vocabulary.
:lol:

[Lyev]

Look at me, I'm comparing people to liberals! Seriously though, I never really made that direct, causal link between Ebert's use of the Freikorps and social-democracy's role in crushing German communism at the time. It seems blindingly obvious now. But then, Stalin's social-fascism is slightly different to Lenin's social patriotism, because of course the former allied himself with social-democrats in the Popular Front against fascism. The similarity I see between "anarcho-Trotskyism" and social-fascism is: anarchists and Trotskyists are both in opposition to Stalin, so they're lumped together, and social-democracy and fascism are both opposed to Stalin, so they were lumped together. Although, comparing the two makes me sound a bit like Psy, perhaps.

[Crusade]

Joke Tendency.

Anarcho-Stalinist would be another example.

I invented that one. :thumbup1:

[black magick hustla]

its what wanted man said. today in the forums its used by a lot of angry internet stalinists to lump anarchists and trotskyists together idk i wouldnt give it too much of a thought. its a more vulgar version of the term ultraleftism

[gorillafuck]

It's mainly used as a joke on this forum, but occasionally used as a pejorative towards people deemed "ultraleft" by users who sign up and get banned after a week for being too disruptive.

It's not a real thing.

[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Socialist_League_%28U.S.%29

[IllicitPopsicle]

It's a basket of lol, that's all. Don't worry about it. :lol:

[9]

On a serious note, though, there were actually like 583 threads about this recently. The term has different meanings:

a) on revleft, it is a meme that started for some dumb reason I don't even remember, something to do with the CC
b) it is an insult Stalinotrots use against communists
c) it is an insult certain kinds of anarchists use against platformists

[The Ben G]

Its the Socialist equivalent to Sodomy.

Nah. Its fake.

[Wanted Man]

On a serious note, though, there were actually like 583 threads about this recently. The term has different meanings:

a) on revleft, it is a meme that started for some dumb reason I don't even remember, something to do with the CC

Once in a while, someone would get banned for being anti-abortion, homophobic or something like that, and they would blame the "anarcho-trot" administration.

On the other hand, one trotskyist user (Axel1917 I believe) was convinced that anarchists and MLs were in it together...

[syndicat]

a contradiction in terms.

[Chambered Word]

Once in a while, someone would get banned for being anti-abortion, homophobic or something like that, and they would blame the "anarcho-trot" administration.

On the other hand, one trotskyist user (Axel1917 I believe) was convinced that anarchists and MLs were in it together...

:lol:

I know that when Intelligitimate was banned for being a shithead he complained about an 'anarcho-Trot conspiracy' and there was some other Stalinist who left RevLeft for a while complaining about 'anarcho-Trots' so I suspect that's where the joke came from.

[DaComm]

Seriously, it's fake? Huh. Theres a guy on youtube named AnarchoTrotskist.

[Ismail]

For what it's worth, Hoxha compared Bakunin, Mao, and Trotsky together in 1978 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/07/30.htm):

One must not label Mao Zedong as a "prophet" of the revolution but as a "prophet of the counter-revolution". He represented the type of the Anarchist in whose blood runs confusion, chaos, the undermining of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism, but under the condition that this permanent anarchy was led by him or by his typical Chinese anarchist ideology. Mao Zedong is a Chinese Bakunin. The Cultural Revolution was an expression of the ideas and action of this Chinese Bakunin...

This anarchist revolution saved the Maoist absolute rule but contained the risk of undermining it, too. The "prestige" of the "Steersman" had to be saved, the anarchy was not allowed to topple the myths, therefore military measures were taken. The character of bureaucracy with the courtier Zhou Enlai-Confucius was saved and supposedly "younger" "revolutionary" elements were integrated into the scene of agitation and propaganda, for whom the "Steersman" had intended the role of painting out the anarchy as a "revolution within the revolution" by which the alleged bourgeoisie, which had infiltrated the party, was supposed to be eliminated. But in fact there was no party but only the bourgeoisie, there were clans and fractions which were fighting for power. This was the Trotskyist "permanent revolution", led by Mao Zedong-Trotsky.In seriousness, "Anarcho-Trotskyist" is just a way to describe the overlap between liberalism, most anarchists, and most Trotskyists. It's an insulting word, yes.

"Anarcho-Stalinist" is a term used to describe the (Maoist) Progressive Labor Party (e.g. the party of Grover Furr), who believe that Lenin and Stalin's views on socialism did not get rid of capitalist relations of production, but merely reformed them, and as such had the seeds of capitalist restoration within them from the outset. Ergo the PLP advocates worldwide communism, pretty much without a transitional socialist stage. They are therefore very anti-nationalist and the PLP claims to be an "international" party with sections in the USA, El Salvador, etc. In fact Furr compared the Quebecois nationalist movement of the 1990's with the 1930's Nazi movement. The actual term "Anarcho-Stalinism," though, isn't used by the PLP and is seen as an insulting word à la "Anarcho-Trotskyism."

A recent interview between Furr and Brazilian Hoxhaists (who didn't include the "Anarcho-Stalinist" parts in their Brazilian-language version) has a part (#9) which essentially details the PLP view on socialism: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/averdade0710.html

Socialism as it was understood in the late 19th and 20th centuries led to a return to capitalism. The communist movement – and, in fact, the Second International and even Karl Marx (who called it "the lower stage of communism") believed it would be the transitional period between capitalism and communism. Instead, socialism proved to be "the transition between capitalism and capitalism," as some cynical people have said. In my view this failure of socialism in the 20th century is NOT due to personal failings of leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tsetung. These men, and a great many more communists in the were great, dedicated people who worked all their lives to bring about a communist society of justice and equality. They thought they could do this only by building "socialism" first.

And that’s what they did – build and lead socialist societies as they understood them. These societies all reverted to exploitative capitalism. But that was not because Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others were stupid, ignorant, corrupt, "criminal", "power-hungry", or anything of the kind. These were the best people in the world and they led the greatest movement for liberation in human history.

The reversion to capitalism occurred because "socialism" contained within it the seeds of its own destruction. Socialism preserves too many aspects of exploitative capitalism, such as:


privileges for some at the expense of others;
differential pay;
the contradiction between mental labor more than manual labor, and the tendency to reward the first more than the second;
the contradictions between city and countryside;
capitalist relations of production;

All these contradictions grew up, or were deliberately fostered, within the communist party itself, too.
It’s clear that full-blown communism, with the very idea of class exploitation and inequality, will not come to pass until all vestiges of capitalism have been swept from the earth. That will take a whole historical epoch.

Still, it will never come to pass at all unless the concept of "socialism" is radically altered. If it isn’t, then future revolutions will be doomed to repeat the failure of the revolutions of the past. This would be not just tragic, but criminal – it would mean that our generation of communists had refused to learn the lessons of our forebears.

I think it’s clear that the retention of inequality and its perpetuation and growth through market mechanisms – money – was the central cause of the reversion of socialism to capitalism. After future revolutions inequality, and money, should be abolished. The principle of "to each according to his need" should be instituted immediately.

Some will object that this will decrease incentives for people to work hard. But remember the alternative: the reversion to capitalism.

As for what to call this first stage of communism after the revolution: I’d say we should abandon the term "socialism." Marx never used it. Its use came from the social-democratic parties out of which the Bolsheviks came. Marx referred to the "lower stage of communism." So we could call it that. Communism – a world of equality and solidarity, in which everyone is a worker and no one lives by exploitation – is the age-old goal of the working classes. It’s a good name. So, I propose changing "socialism" for "the lower stage" or "the first stage of communism."