The Marxist Internet Archives' Editorial Line

[fa2991]

I always had the site operators pegged as left-leaning Trotskyists, partially because of who the featured authors on the front page are. Is this an inaccurate assessment?

[9]

I always assumed they were ortho-trots, although I'm not really sure why.

[the last donut of the night]

yeah dude, just like revleft is an anarcho-trot conspiracy to secretly brainwash us leninists

:rolleyes:

[the last donut of the night]

I always assumed they were ortho-trots, although I'm not really sure why.

are ortho-trots orthodontists in their spare time?

zing

[9]

are ortho-trots orthodontists in their spare time?


probably.


zzzing.

[ContrarianLemming]

yeah dude, just like revleft is an anarcho-trot conspiracy to secretly brainwash us leninists

:rolleyes:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5XvBYfxU_dM/SqhggIty9aI/AAAAAAAACKU/QcmNF1dyqvk/X-files%20-%20The%20Truth%20Is%20Out%20There%5B2%5D.png?imgma x=800

[9]

I don't think it's an illegitimate question, though, before people start shitting all over the thread.

[fa2991]

before people start shitting all over the thread.

Well, it's a bit late for that, now isn't it?

[scarletghoul]

I would say so. Looking deeper into it you can see all of their handpicked 'selected marxists' are either pre-trotsky or trotskyists.. there are 2 non-whites :lol:. Consider the history of Marxism in the third world and that should strike you as a little strange... Anyone 'stalinist' (ie, a successful revolutionary not just some lame theorowankerist) is put as a 'reference archive', which is obviously completely ridiculous.
They only regard as truly 'marxist' those who confine themselves to stupid irrelevent tortskyist theory rather than participating in real struggle. Apart from Che .. anyway yeah.. so typical 'im a stupid annoying nobhead' eurocentrist trotskyist editorial slant.

However MIA remains a rich and invaluable resource and nontrots have contributed a lot to it, its just a shame there is such petty and annoying management

[Red Commissar]

The most obvious sign of it is within Trotsky's description on the selected Marxists'


First Menshevik, later Bolshevik Revolutionary. As commissar of war led the Red Army to defeat the Entente in their invasion of Soviet Russia. Helped create the Left Opposition to overthrow Stalin and stop the monstrous attrocities he'd soon commit. Created the theory of the Permanent Revolution, and the Fourth International. Assassinated by the Soviet government.

Though thankfully that doesn't prevent them from putting up pages for anyone related to Marxism regardless of their views. Though copyright is another matter.

[Ismail]

Yes, Marxists.org is essentially run by Trotskyists. It does try to "orient" people towards a pro-Trotskyist position, but anyone is free to submit whatever they'd like in regards to reference works, etc. (For example, every work I've sent to them from Hoxha, they've uploaded) But for most of the rest of the site there are subtle Trotskyist viewpoints. Also most contributors to the Encyclopedia of Marxism, for instance, are pretty obviously Trotskyists.

[Lyev]

I would say so. Looking deeper into it you can see all of their handpicked 'selected marxists' are either pre-trotsky or trotskyists.. there are 2 non-whites :lol:. Consider the history of Marxism in the third world and that should strike you as a little strange... Anyone 'stalinist' (ie, a successful revolutionary not just some lame theorowankerist) is put as a 'reference archive', which is obviously completely ridiculous.
They only regard as truly 'marxist' those who confine themselves to stupid irrelevent tortskyist theory rather than participating in real struggle. Apart from Che .. anyway yeah.. so typical 'im a stupid annoying nobhead' eurocentrist trotskyist editorial slant.

However MIA remains a rich and invaluable resource and nontrots have contributed a lot to it, its just a shame there is such petty and annoying managementWell yes, but don't get irate about: the whole collected works of Stalin is up there you know. It's funny that you're not part of an organisation at all, nor do you claim to be a Trotskyist in any way, shape or form yet you seem to no more about Trotskyism than most people here. I for sure didn't know Trotskyism was about "stupid annoying nobheads", irrelevancy and eurocentrism. Thanks! Also, could you please elaborate on this concept of "theorowankerism"? I've never come across this term before. I will add though that I find the exclusion of non-whites from MIA quite disgusting! It must difficult for all the other sects when the Trotskyists that have hegemony over MIA are always shitting on them and whatnot.

[Queercommie Girl]

Many Trots do have somewhat of an "Eurocentric" or "Western-centric" (probably a more precise term) slant, even if it is not deliberate or conscious. Partly it originates from the Trotskyist idea that revolutions in the Third World cannot ultimately become successful until they are combined with the "advanced culture and technique" of the West. This idea is losing its relevance though since much of the developing world is now industrialised, while in the West traditional industries are in decline and more and more population are moving into the service sector.

Most Trotskyist organisations in the world today are based in the West, and most of them don't even have much of a presence in the Third World at all. The CWI is one of the only Trotskyist organisations with a significant presence in Asian countries like China and Sri Lanka, and the CWI is, by its own admission, not a "mainstream" Western Trot organisation. It quit from the Fourth International many decades ago. The majority of Western Trotskyist organisations, to be frank, are only good at abstract theoretical debates and throwing around slogans, but have yet to really achieve much concrete result on the ground.

For me the only overall positive aspect of Western Trotskyist organisations is that generally they seem to be more pro-LGBT than many Third World based Marxist organisations. This is not to say that every Trot in the West is LGBT-friendly, which is not the case, as there have been Western Trots who called the struggle for gay rights a kind of "petit-bourgeois nonsense". But generally, it has been the case for quite a few decades that at least the official political line of Trotskyist parties in the West is in principle pro-LGBT, even if people aren't always sincere about it. But with Third World parties it is another matter. The MCPC for instance is not pro-LGBT as far as I know and I can't even tell them I'm queer because I don't want to risk rejection and the termination of our co-operative relationship.

I think one strategy for Western Trots to gain more of a foothold in the Third World is to mobilise Third World LGBT people, and concentrate more on attacking the homophobic policies that Stalin created.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well yes, but don't get irate about: the whole collected works of Stalin is up there you know. It's funny that you're not part of an organisation at all, nor do you claim to be a Trotskyist in any way, shape or form yet you seem to no more about Trotskyism than most people here. I for sure didn't know Trotskyism was about "stupid annoying nobheads", irrelevancy and eurocentrism. Thanks! Also, could you please elaborate on this concept of "theorowankerism"? I've never come across this term before. I will add though that I find the exclusion of non-whites from MIA quite disgusting! It must difficult for all the other sects when the Trotskyists that have hegemony over MIA are always shitting on them and whatnot.

It is disgusting especially if you consider the fact that some of the greatest Trotskyists in history have being non-whites, including Chen Duxiu, who was one of the two founding members of the Chinese Communist Party and the First General Secretary of the CCP from 1921 to 1927, when after the defeat of the Chinese 1925-1927 Revolution, Stalin forced Chen to resign.

However, I think it is more of a sign of ignorance and lack of knowledge rather than conscious racism on the part of the MIA.

[Queercommie Girl]

yeah dude, just like revleft is an anarcho-trot conspiracy to secretly brainwash us leninists

:rolleyes:

Technically Trotskyists are Leninists.

[ComradeOm]

I always had the site operators pegged as left-leaning Trotskyists, partially because of who the featured authors on the front page are. Is this an inaccurate assessment?Question is whether its a relevant assessment. There's no real 'editorial line' on MIA - give them stuff (that's not copyrighted) and they'll generally stick it up there. For example, the Stalin Collected Works is up in its entirety while there are still large gaps in the Lenin and Trotsky archives

[M-26-7]

Yes, Marxists.org is essentially run by Trotskyists. It does try to "orient" people towards a pro-Trotskyist position, but anyone is free to submit whatever they'd like in regards to reference works, etc. (For example, every work I've sent to them from Hoxha, they've uploaded) But for most of the rest of the site there are subtle Trotskyist viewpoints. Also most contributors to the Encyclopedia of Marxism, for instance, are pretty obviously Trotskyists.

This is true, but it may be getting less so. They used to be much more explicit about it: they relegated Stalin to a "Historical Reference" section of the site, rather than putting him in the "Marxist Authors" section (I could be slightly off on what the names of these sections were, but the distinction was in any case extremely clear). That was back when they separated all writers into either Marxists or Non-Marxists who were simply there for historical reference. However, it appears they've stopped that practice, and Stalin is now under "Comintern Writers", whatever that means.

[Q]

... I will add though that I find the exclusion of non-whites from MIA quite disgusting! ...


It is disgusting especially if you consider the fact that some of the greatest Trotskyists in history have being non-whites, including Chen Duxiu, who was one of the two founding members of the Chinese Communist Party and the First General Secretary of the CCP from 1921 to 1927, when after the defeat of the Chinese 1925-1927 Revolution, Stalin forced Chen to resign.

However, I think it is more of a sign of ignorance and lack of knowledge rather than conscious racism on the part of the MIA.
I agree with the last sentence of Iseul and will add to it that it most likely has more to do with lack of resources than anything else. MIA is not backed by some party but is an independent website run by volunteers. Perhaps some people here should whine less about it being run by the evil trots and contribute themselves.

MIA is the singlemost extensive resource on the web (and possibly on the planet) regarding Marxism and it is still far from complete. This only shows how few things have actually been translated throughout the 20th century, despite the USSR spending much resources to popularize their canon. I mean, Capital volumes 2 and 3 haven't even been translated to Dutch before (although MIA is thankfully rectifying this gap as we speak, better late as never). There is such a vast area of Marxist thinkers left to be worked upon.

[RadioRaheem84]

Does one have to be doctrinaire in this fashion? I am not a Trot, but I am certainly not an apologist for Stalin, and at the same time do not think he was this evil, evil, dictatorial monster akin to Hitler. I look at the historical record of the past and present regimes to evaluate them individually, not fully write them off if certain liberal bourgeoisie universals were upheld.

Where would I stand? I mean I didn't even notice that MIA was a Trot website.

[Queercommie Girl]

Does one have to be doctrinaire in this fashion? I am not a Trot, but I am certainly not an apologist for Stalin, and at the same time do not think he was this evil, evil, dictatorial monster akin to Hitler. I look at the historical record of the past and present regimes to evaluate them individually, not fully write them off if certain liberal bourgeoisie universals were upheld.

Where would I stand? I mean I didn't even notice that MIA was a Trot website.

I'm also very critical of Stalin but I don't completely write him off. Stalin was a dictator but he was not evil like Hitler. In fact, Stalin wasn't even like Bush. Stalin was still a subjectively genuine socialist (he thought of himself as a socialist), he just took the Leninist idea of vanguardism too far and believed in himself too much, and became detached from ordinary workers and party members. He thought that only himself was correct when it comes to applying socialist politics, which is why he concentrated all political power into his own hands and purged many people. But he wasn't a hypocrite because from his own point of view, he really thought of all those people as counter-revolutionaries. He was just objectively wrong.

Stalin actually led a relatively frugal lifestyle despite all the political power he had. This is one reason why the Stalinist bureaucracy was not state-capitalist, for although the bureaucratic caste had de facto (not de jure) ownership of the means of production, it was not directed towards private ends, but towards developing the Soviet economy, albeit in a somewhat distorted way. Stalin was nothing like the ultra-corrupt bureaucrats in the Chinese Communist Party today, who literally directs public money for their own purely private consumption.