Springtime for Trotsky?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Many years ago I read a libertarian article of the same title (minus the question mark) that aptly traced neoconservatism to American Trotskyism. That is why, until now, I was reluctant to read what I thought was a reproduction of that same article on Moscow News. It turns out the content is significantly different:

http://www.mn.ru/news/20100820/187994246.html



By Anna Arutunyan

Seventy years after getting bludgeoned to death by an ice pick-wielding Stalinist assassin, Leon Trotsky, the original Che Guevara, still adorns the T-shirts and bedroom posters of Western revolutionary youth.

Left-wing intellectuals still uphold him as one of the most intriguing “what-ifs” in communist history, rueing Josef Stalin’s “betrayal” of the internationalist cause.

Even Hollywood can’t lay him to rest, with a recent film comedy called “The Trotsky” featuring a Canadian high-school student who thinks he’s the Russian revolutionary reincarnated and organises a class walkout.

Trotsky as bogeyman

The irony is that in Russia, “Trotsky” remains a curse word among the established left – with the Communists still throwing the name around against party renegades who have fallen out of favour with the leadership.

“It is in the image of most people here that Trotsky was an evil genius who destroyed everything,” said Rob Jones, a supporter of the Committee for a Workers’ International who has lived in Russia for the last two decades. “Trotsky has become a swear-word from both sides – people who support capitalism against Trotsky and people who support Stalinism against Trotsky.”

While Trotsky’s supporters enjoy a constituency in the thousands in European countries such as Britain, France, Ireland and Greece, and farther afield in Brazil, Nigeria and Pakistan, internationalist socialist groups in Russia are rare and number just a few hundred, activists here say.

Split over internationalism

Many of Russia’s more vocal leftists still insist that Trotsky made a fatal mistake when he insisted on socialist revolution abroad. Trotsky thus parted ways with the ruthless bureaucrat that Stalin was already becoming by 1924, the year of Lenin’s death when Stalin first advocated his controversial theory of “Socialism in One Country”.

“Trotsky was important until the mid 1920s,” said Sergei Malinkovich, the leader of the Communists of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, a left-wing faction that split away from Gennady Zyuganov’s Communist Party. “Then he lost touch with the general masses, who were more interested in strengthening the national state.”

Time for a revival?

Malinkovich concedes, however, that Trotsky’s ideas had a delayed effect – today, they are once more in demand.

“Of course we understand that he was not a German agent, and we can give a more balanced assessment now. Trotskyism as a label is a very dangerous thing,” he said, urging rank-and-file communists to stop throwing the name around like an insult.

Among left-minded activists, could it be springtime for Trotsky? Could Soviet Russia’s most reviled traitor enjoy a revival?

The Russian Communist Youth – possibly the largest internationalist-leaning organisation in the country – has certain reservations, but is ready for a posthumous reconciliation between Trotsky and Stalin.

“It is my dream to once see a memorial in a quiet part of Moscow, depicting Trotsky and Stalin sitting across from each other,” Darya Mitina, one of the leaders of the Russian Communist Youth and a former State Duma deputy, told The Moscow News.

“Trotsky was unlucky twice – first from 1924, when he was defeated, then killed and subsequently damned by Stalin’s supporters. And then once again now, because we live in a capitalist state.”

Stalin’s legacy

Amid a massive rethinking of Stalin’s legacy – from widespread criticism in the 1990s, when the atrocities of his terror were uncovered, to the partial rehabilitation today, Mitina believes that Trotsky’s absence is a glaring omission in the conversation. Historically, she says, it’s not fair, and it’s time to move on.

But even Mitina believes that Trotsky made a mistake that cost him his life. “He insisted on socialist revolution abroad, but history was making completely different demands at that time,” she said. “Before World War II, we needed to rally together against fascism, and we needed to raise the economy. It turned out that you could build socialism in one country. The question was what kind of socialism it would become.”

So, why the reservation? After the falsifications of the Moscow show trials against the Trotskyist left opposition were uncovered, why isn’t there more support for Vladimir Lenin’s second-in-command?

Precisely because there was so little post-Soviet debate, experts and historians say.

Trotsky not rehabilitated

“Trotsky was the most high-profile figure not to undergo a public moral rehabilitation,” Boris Kagarlitsky, director of the Institute for Globalisation, told The Moscow News. Old Bolsheviks such as Nikolai Bukharin were rehabilitated, but in the case of Trotsky – who was never technically named as a defendant in the show trials – there was essentially nothing to formally rehabilitate. “Others were tried. He was just killed,” said Kagarlitsky.

The reason is ideological, according to Kagarlitsky. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was room to criticise the Soviet system from the right, but not from the left, he said. And that left no room for Trotsky’s supporters.

“Bukharin was in demand as a transition figure who argued in favor of a market system,” Kagarlitsky said.

Debate suppressed

As for socialism, post-Soviet Russia didn’t really see a strong enough revival of left-wing movements to rally behind Trotsky. Russia’s left wing movements are very weak, Kagarlitsky believes.

As an anathema to the official Soviet doctrine, Trotsky is struggling to get back into the picture – because in Russia there was simply nothing to read by him or about him.

That may start to change as some of the debate seeps back into Russia, and as the Trotskyist movement starts to grow again internationally, say activists.

Jones, of the Committee for a Workers’ International, believes Trotsky’s ideas will be more in demand as the effects of the global crisis are more strongly felt. “When people start to understand what they are fighting for, internationalist groups here will start getting more support,” he says.

[DaringMehring]

I think that it is "springtime for Trotsky" in that, in many European countries, Trotskyist groups are doing well --- haven't gone to hell with the "socialist" states. The French LO for instance. That is a party capable of taking the lead if a general strike goes militant.

I think Trotsky is a valuable historical asset, in that one can point out using him as a polemical referent, that socialism does not have to mean bureaucratic dictatorship. Trotsky represents the possibility for a belief that socialism can be better --- and will be better. Trotsky the man is dead but Trotsky the idea lives.

[Revy]

The people they quoted (except for the Trotskyist CWI supporter) as sympathetic to Trotsky still come off as delusional Stalinists. Not too surprising since they both appear to originate politically in the notoriously reactionary Communist Party of the Russian Federation, a pro-capitalist and right-wing party. Malinkovich belongs to a "left-wing" split of this party, but it's probably not that left-wing at all.

[The Idler]

On leftist trainspotters they mentioned arch-Trot Gerry Downing's suggestion that Permanent Revolution are abandoning Trotskyism and drifting towards the Commune.

[blake 3:17]

The Revolution Betrayed is a fabulous book and I find it no surprise that Russians would find the analysis useful for what's happened over the last 50 years.

[zimmerwald1915]

Better "pushing for revolution abroad" than by "raising the economy" by selling arms to the German army, arms it used against the German working class in 1923 and after.

[Delenda Carthago]

Left's hope in "Trotskys" and "Stalins" is the reason why in the middle of the crisis,the revolution is still on its knees...

[DaringMehring]

Left's hope in "Trotskys" and "Stalins" is the reason why in the middle of the crisis,the revolution is still on its knees...

Or maybe its because there aren't militant socialist Parties connected with the broad masses of workers.

[Adi Shankara]

Or maybe its because there aren't militant socialist Parties connected with the broad masses of workers.

Or maybe it's because most Communist "leaders" don't care about actually reaching out to workers and the downtrodden, rather, they're happy with their posh offices and paychecks, pontificating and posturing, a la Bob Avakian...

[Delenda Carthago]

Or maybe its because there aren't militant socialist Parties connected with the broad masses of workers.

that's not a "or maybe".

We are living in the post modern era,where the politics and the ideologies are dead.what matters now is the society to make steps.the left keeps guarding itself in forms of the past. "trotskyists","leninists","anarchists".

We need to realise that ideologies are dead and to start reshape ourselfs and our struggles.Nowbody out there gives a fuck about a Lenin.Its time to start the social fight and leave the ideological politiical one on the past.

[Palingenisis]

that's not a "or maybe".

We are living in the post modern era,where the politics and the ideologies are dead.what matters now is the society to make steps.the left keeps guarding itself in forms of the past. "trotskyists","leninists","anarchists".

We need to realise that ideologies are dead and to start reshape ourselfs and our struggles.Nowbody out there gives a fuck about a Lenin.Its time to start the social fight and leave the ideological politiical one on the past.

You have a valid point but dont throw the baby out with bath water...We have to learn from the past which is different from getting stuck in it...To often though the left gets stuck in idealogical responses to past conditions and cant see whats infront of it.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

One relevant point along this line is that nowadays LGBT politics has become more prominent than several decades ago, but many old-style socialists do not respect the intrinsic importance of LGBT politics enough, some are openly homophobic and transphobic, some are in principle "supportive" but skeptical in reality and don't really do much positive work, some are more supportive but still intrinsically see LGBT politics as a petit-bourgeois issue based on generic ethical considerations and human rights, rather than something that is intrinsic to socialism itself, like the struggle against racism and sexism.

[Delenda Carthago]

I m not gonna go to LGBT either.I m gonna say this:the class war dont know about ideologies,dont know about a party or a team.The class war only knows sides.Their side and our side.

Our times are to complicated to be analysed into sertain ideological prototypes.And where ideology begins,critical thinking ends...

So stop taking Trotskyism as your guide.Study Trotsky,study Stalin,study everything you feel like its gonna give you something.But act as your mind tells you,not as your fuckin ideology commands you to.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, and my mind tells me to see every socialist who is not pro-LGBT as essentially reactionary in this respect, and I will never trust a socialist who is not pro-LGBT. I draw a line between pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT. Don't just tell me it's a minor issue.

Class isn't everything in a dogmatic sense. A classless society only provides the objective conditions for the removal of homophobia and transphobia, but oppression and discrimination will not fade away automatically without the subjective factor.

In any kind of society that is objectively anti-LGBT, I will fight against it, even if such a society is self-proclaimed "socialist". So don't always count me to be on the same side as you are. Sometimes the struggles within the socialist camp can be even more brutal than the struggle between socialists and capitalists.

[Delenda Carthago]

Yes, and my mind tells me to see every socialist who is not pro-LGBT as essentially reactionary in this respect, and I will never trust a socialist who is not pro-LGBT. I draw a line between pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT. Don't just tell me it's a minor issue.

Class isn't everything in a dogmatic sense. A classless society only provides the objective conditions for the removal of homophobia and transphobia, but oppression and discrimination will not fade away automatically without the subjective factor.

In any kind of society that is objectively anti-LGBT, I will fight against it, even if such a society is self-proclaimed "socialist". So don't always count me to be on the same side as you are. Sometimes the struggles within the socialist camp can be even more brutal than the struggle between socialists and capitalists.


well,me personally,i could give a fuck on LGBT,but you have a point there...


don't always count me to be on the same side as you are

"revolution" is not so common issue...

[Queercommie Girl]

well,me personally,i could give a fuck on LGBT


Since you believe in "studying" without being ideological, maybe you should study some LGBT politics too.

I recommend a book: The Red in the Rainbow

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11338

It's from a Trotskyist perspective, but you don't have to be a Trotskyist to read and absorb it.

[Delenda Carthago]

Since you believe in "studying" without being ideological, maybe you should study some LGBT politics too.

I recommend a book: The Red in the Rainbow

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11338

It's from a Trotskyist perspective, but you don't have to be a Trotskyist to read and absorb it.

dude,trust me.i have read dozens of interviews,broshures even communiques about LGBT.I even have been in queer parties(hard thing for a straight guy,buhlieve me).

I know,I am not ignorant.I just dont care to spent time and energy on it.Its not I am against it,or I would stop people from doing something about it.Thanks anyway...

[Rusty Shackleford]

the thing is. its not the leaders, its the procedures. the way the ideology operates.

leninists arent all lenin worshippers.
anarchists arent all bakunin(or any other anarchist ideologue) worshippers.


you cant just build a new theory and say "its new, it has to work better than those old ones"

you just adapt tried principles to the current struggle.

capitalism doesnt reinvent itself, it just reasserts itself in different ways depending on conditions. its still about exploitation.

[Delenda Carthago]

the thing is. its not the leaders, its the procedures. the way the ideology operates.

leninists arent all lenin worshippers.
anarchists arent all bakunin(or any other anarchist ideologue) worshippers.


you cant just build a new theory and say "its new, it has to work better than those old ones"

you just adapt tried principles to the current struggle.

capitalism doesnt reinvent itself, it just reasserts itself in different ways depending on conditions. its still about exploitation.
Actually,thats the deal:if you are a leninst,you use Lenin's ideas and quotes to verify your truth.Nobody is right today because he is a leninist or an anarchist or whatever.And nobody is going to take a step closer to revolution because of something that Bakunin or Lenin said.

Ideology is to adapt the reality into your own way of thinking.Even more,if thats not the case,thats realitys problem...So,actually,the best way to be a revolutionary today is to free your mind of that chains and start to use it freely.

Formation of the past is the best recipy to be irrelevant today.

[zimmerwald1915]

Actually,thats the deal:if you are a leninst,you use Lenin's ideas and quotes to verify your truth.Nobody is right today because he is a leninist or an anarchist or whatever.And nobody is going to take a step closer to revolution because of something that Bakunin or Lenin said.

Ideology is to adapt the reality into your own way of thinking.Even more,if thats not the case,thats realitys problem...So,actually,the best way to be a revolutionary today is to free your mind of that chains and start to use it freely.

Formation of the past is the best recipy to be irrelevant today.
And yet, the whole ideology of "post-modernism" (in the sense you're using the term, as in the "death of ideology", not necessarily in the sense that my signature might suggest I might use such a term) seems to me an extremely good way to keep reality itself tied to the social forms of "the past". That is, proclaiming the death of ideology is really proclaiming the death of principled political struggle against capitalism organized around a written political program, and can lead to the rather uncritical embrace of whatever self-proclaimed movement seems biggest and most influential at the time, no matter its politics. After all, the old forms have clearly failed, but here's this new beastie, not made up in a lab by thinkers but by real people...perhaps this is the form of socialism for the new century. And so criticism leads to the death of criticism.

I agree that turning revolutionaries into martyrs and their words into mantras doesn't help anybody get anywhere. But the problem lies not with rank-and-file leninists or anarchists or whomever; it was not them who turned historical figures into Historical Figures. The ideological mummification of Lenin was the work of the Russian which used the mummy to cement its hold over the western european, east and south asian, and american working classes, the better to maneuver them in their own interests. It [i]was, and still is, an ideological mystification, but the blame for creating it, and perpetuating it today, lies with those who perpetuate it for their own cynical interests. So yes, question, but just because people have had the wool pulled over their eyes, and need to remove it, does not mean that they put it there themselves, historically speaking.

[Queercommie Girl]

dude,trust me.i have read dozens of interviews,broshures even communiques about LGBT.I even have been in queer parties(hard thing for a straight guy,buhlieve me).

I know,I am not ignorant.I just dont care to spent time and energy on it.Its not I am against it,or I would stop people from doing something about it.Thanks anyway...

You should at least in principle explicitly support LGBT rights clearly even if you don't really spend much time and energy in this cause.

[DaringMehring]

Nowbody out there gives a fuck about a Lenin.

The Lenin maybe --- but I think many people are desperate for a Lenin. Just look at the hope people attached to Obama.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The people they quoted (except for the Trotskyist CWI supporter) as sympathetic to Trotsky still come off as delusional Stalinists. Not too surprising since they both appear to originate politically in the notoriously reactionary Communist Party of the Russian Federation, a pro-capitalist and right-wing party. Malinkovich belongs to a "left-wing" split of this party, but it's probably not that left-wing at all.

I do suppose the splinter's politics must be compared to the politics of, say, the RCWP-RPC.


Better "pushing for revolution abroad" than by "raising the economy" by selling arms to the German army, arms it used against the German working class in 1923 and after.

I'd like to know more about what exactly the Soviet Union exported, and to whom, in order to import much-needed capital equipment.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Actually,thats the deal:if you are a leninst,you use Lenin's ideas and quotes to verify your truth.Nobody is right today because he is a leninist or an anarchist or whatever.And nobody is going to take a step closer to revolution because of something that Bakunin or Lenin said.

Ideology is to adapt the reality into your own way of thinking.Even more,if thats not the case,thats realitys problem...So,actually,the best way to be a revolutionary today is to free your mind of that chains and start to use it freely.

Formation of the past is the best recipy to be irrelevant today.
you dont have to directly quote marx, lenin, bakunin or whomever to convey a point made by the theory. if you had to quote it word for word to make it exact, it would die as an ideology in a week. certain tendencies have stayed alive so long because they are applicable in many ways.

[Delenda Carthago]

And yet, the whole ideology of "post-modernism" (in the sense you're using the term, as in the "death of ideology", not necessarily in the sense that my signature might suggest I might use such a term) seems to me an extremely good way to keep reality itself tied to the social forms of "the past". That is, proclaiming the death of ideology is really proclaiming the death of principled political struggle against capitalism organized around a written political program, and can lead to the rather uncritical embrace of whatever self-proclaimed movement seems biggest and most influential at the time, no matter its politics. After all, the old forms have clearly failed, but here's this new beastie, not made up in a lab by thinkers but by real people...perhaps this is the form of socialism for the new century. And so criticism leads to the death of criticism.

I agree that turning revolutionaries into martyrs and their words into mantras doesn't help anybody get anywhere. But the problem lies not with rank-and-file leninists or anarchists or whomever; it was not them who turned historical figures into Historical Figures. The ideological mummification of Lenin was the work of the Russian which used the mummy to cement its hold over the western european, east and south asian, and american working classes, the better to maneuver them in their own interests. It [I]was, and still is, an ideological mystification, but the blame for creating it, and perpetuating it today, lies with those who perpetuate it for their own cynical interests. So yes, question, but just because people have had the wool pulled over their eyes, and need to remove it, does not mean that they put it there themselves, historically speaking.


IMO,politics are dead.Politics only made the revolutionary movements safe for the system.Lets say,you see today one of the biggest international tendecies of the Left,CWI,to consider "victory" to elect a EMP.In the same time,they are no movements to back them.They play the role of co-organise the system.

Ideologies are making historical figures into Historical Figures.Its the idea that reality can fit into the ideas of someone that makes them suddenly something more than what they already are.Trotskyism says "we go by the word of Marx-Lenin-Trotsky.Whatever seems against their ideas,is wrong".

[Delenda Carthago]

you dont have to directly quote marx, lenin, bakunin or whomever to convey a point made by the theory. if you had to quote it word for word to make it exact, it would die as an ideology in a week. certain tendencies have stayed alive so long because they are applicable in many ways.


Ideologies are not still alive because of their relevance:the biggest proof of that is that the Left cannot capitalise the system crisis.More over,the system is giving us reasons for a revolution every two months(economicaly,enviromentaly,democraticaly) and the left is still on its worse situation ever.This needs to tell us something,doesnt it?Ideologies are kept "alive" by the obduracy of some people who refuse to let go...

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ideologies are not still alive because of their relevance:the biggest proof of that is that the Left cannot capitalise the system crisis.More over,the system is giving us reasons for a revolution every two months(economicaly,enviromentaly,democraticaly) and the left is still on its worse situation ever.This needs to tell us something,doesnt it?Ideologies are kept "alive" by the obduracy of some people who refuse to let go...
just because these ideologies have proven their resilience doesnt mean they have free will to operate. 9-11 caused a huge nationalist awakening in the US completely dominating the left. In europe, socialist parties have taken right-wing measures and policies, and in china, well... reforms gone wild.

(im only going to be able to explain the situation in the US because i have no experience elsewhere)
the left cant capitalist on the crisis because
1: we were damaged post-911
2: we are still small(but growing)
3: nationalism is starting to peak with this obama/beck frenzy of american exceptionalism.

[M-26-7]

How many people started humming a song from The Producers when they saw the thread title?

[zimmerwald1915]

How many people started humming a song from The Producers when they saw the thread title?
/me raises hand.

[zimmerwald1915]

IMO,politics are dead.Politics only made the revolutionary movements safe for the system.Lets say,you see today one of the biggest international tendecies of the Left,CWI,to consider "victory" to elect a EMP.In the same time,they are no movements to back them.They play the role of co-organise the system.
You are right in that the role played by Leftist groups does not contribute to working class consciousness and that in fact their politics tends towards the opposite. However, this is not because they hold to an ideology: it is because the historical experiences of Trostkyism and that branch of Trotskyism, have led to the absorption of the CWI into the left of capitalist politics. Honestly, this sort of argument reminds me of the "technology is bad!" arguments of the primmies: it is aggressively antihistorical.


Ideologies are making historical figures into Historical Figures.Its the idea that reality can fit into the ideas of someone that makes them suddenly something more than what they already are.Trotskyism says "we go by the word of Marx-Lenin-Trotsky.Whatever seems against their ideas,is wrong".
Why are you assigning ideology some kind of agency? People make historical figures into Historical Figures. In the times where this has happened in the workers' movement, it has almost always been to justify the real exit of an organization from the workers' movement. The Second International invoked Marx and Engels to support their side of the First World War. The Communists invoked Lenin and/or Trotsky in order to support their side of the Second World War. The CWI invoked Trotsky in order to support one side of the Falklands War. What should be abandoned are the politics of the betrayer organizations, the ideologies of the left of capital, not the notion of politics or ideology itself. Unless you're arguing that all ideology is bourgeois ideology, in which case you'll really have to prove that.

[Delenda Carthago]

You are right in that the role played by Leftist groups does not contribute to working class consciousness and that in fact their politics tends towards the opposite. However, this is not because they hold to an ideology: it is because the historical experiences of Trostkyism and that branch of Trotskyism, have led to the absorption of the CWI into the left of capitalist politics. Honestly, this sort of argument reminds me of the "technology is bad!" arguments of the primmies: it is aggressively antihistorical.


Why are you assigning ideology some kind of agency? People make historical figures into Historical Figures. In the times where this has happened in the workers' movement, it has almost always been to justify the real exit of an organization from the workers' movement. The Second International invoked Marx and Engels to support their side of the First World War. The Communists invoked Lenin and/or Trotsky in order to support their side of the Second World War. The CWI invoked Trotsky in order to support one side of the Falklands War. What should be abandoned are the politics of the betrayer organizations, the ideologies of the left of capital, not the notion of politics or ideology itself. Unless you're arguing that all ideology is bourgeois ideology, in which case you'll really have to prove that.
Dude,I really dont get what you talking about.I am talkin on the nature of ideology and politics,and you are talkin about Falklands?WTF?

And,to mimic your ways,this argument reminds me of the cops comvertation,where many reformists say "well,not all cops are bad,just some of them"-refusing to see the natureof the cops job!

I dont think all ideology is bourgeois ideology.I am saying that all ideologies and their rules,theirs codes are killing the critical thinking,something that true revolutionaries should be against.Its a cliche,but true:within 24hours of living there is more truth than all the ideologies of the world.

[Delenda Carthago]

BTW,its a trip seeing marxists defending ideology...for many reasons!

A.Marx was against ideology
B.marxism is not an ideology,its a tool of analysing for the capitalist system

when marxism becomes an ideology,it loses its esence.And on reverse,when it loses its esence,it becomes an ideology.Leninism for example...

[Delenda Carthago]

just because these ideologies have proven their resilience doesnt mean they have free will to operate. 9-11 caused a huge nationalist awakening in the US completely dominating the left. In europe, socialist parties have taken right-wing measures and policies, and in china, well... reforms gone wild.

(im only going to be able to explain the situation in the US because i have no experience elsewhere)
the left cant capitalist on the crisis because
1: we were damaged post-911
2: we are still small(but growing)
3: nationalism is starting to peak with this obama/beck frenzy of american exceptionalism.
dude,seriously,all that that you are saying is irrelevant.I ma tell you like this:there where no serious impact in Europe,there was no nationalism rise after 9/11,it wasnt no marshall law.Still,the left cant seem to grab the chance of the crisis.You know why?because we dont have the right tools to analyse the situation.We keep making things like its 1930s.Its no wonder every serious revolt in Eurpe the last 50 years had begun from fresh ideas:
May 68-Cornelious Castoriades,Guy Debord,even maoism(as the westerns thought of it at least) etc
Bologna 77- Workers Autonomy
December 08- nihilism

They all have one common:denying of ideologies,promoting the social over the political.Plus,that the main constribution was done by social,not political groups.Students,workers,immigrants,outcasted etc.

In all revolts of the above,anarchism had a smaller or bigger role because of its freely nature:it is the most "antiideological" ideology.Still,very "few" for our times...

What the political has done for those situations?

In all three cases,the communist parties where against those revolts.(because they couldnt control it)
the ideological leftism kept its formation and brought nothing actually to the table.(because they couldnt adapt to the situations)
socialdemocrats tryed to capitalise the situations in some cases...(because they are pricks)

Ideologies,like maoism,can only offer to different type of societies,like Nepal,India etc where the social conditions are totaly different.the western world in 2010 is far far away from that situations.

[Saorsa]

Ideologies,like maoism,can only offer to different type of societies,like Nepal,India etc where the social conditions are totaly different.the western world in 2010 is far far away from that situations.

You can't just throw a statement like that out and expect everyone to believe it. In my opinion, Maoism and the political contributions of Mao and the Maoist movement have far more relevance to workers struggles in the West than anarchism has or ever will.

That's not to say I dismiss anarchism and anarchist groups - on the contrary, I have more in common with class war anarchist groups in my country like AWSM (http://awsm.org.nz/) and Beyond Resistance (http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/) than I do with groups like ISO (http://iso.org.nz/), which call for a vote for Labour, or groups like SW (http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/) which water their politics down to liberal reformism and tail-end the union bureaucracy.

I'm not going to say anarchism is only relevant to countries like Spain or Greece. And I'm in the process of training myself out of saying sectarian shit about how all anarchists are hippy lifestylist chicken thieves. A sizeable minority of NZ anarchists aren't ;-)

Make more detailed and concrete criticisms than that. Throwaway statements like the one you just made add nothing to the discussion.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think his criticisms are rather simple, and poignant.

The western 'ideological left' of MLs or Maoists or Trotskyists has for, if not the last 50 years, then certainly the younger generations lifetime, done little but wait for October 1917 to come along. Furthermore, it's frustrating as hell to see these groups argue with one another over the writings of dead men like christians arguing over interpretations of the sermon on the mount. (of course there are exceptions, I sincerely hope in the US the sp-usa and psl gain more traction in their efforts).

[Delenda Carthago]

You can't just throw a statement like that out and expect everyone to believe it. In my opinion, Maoism and the political contributions of Mao and the Maoist movement have far more relevance to workers struggles in the West than anarchism has or ever will.

That's not to say I dismiss anarchism and anarchist groups - on the contrary, I have more in common with class war anarchist groups in my country like AWSM (http://awsm.org.nz/) and Beyond Resistance (http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/) than I do with groups like ISO (http://iso.org.nz/), which call for a vote for Labour, or groups like SW (http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/) which water their politics down to liberal reformism and tail-end the union bureaucracy.

I'm not going to say anarchism is only relevant to countries like Spain or Greece. And I'm in the process of training myself out of saying sectarian shit about how all anarchists are hippy lifestylist chicken thieves. A sizeable minority of NZ anarchists aren't ;-)

Make more detailed and concrete criticisms than that. Throwaway statements like the one you just made add nothing to the discussion.
Maoism has a lot to offer.I never said it didnt.But as a case study,not as an ideology.I dont know the condition in NZ,but here in Europe to be following step-by-step the followings of a revolutionary in a not-even-capitalist country of the East decades ago is not gonna work.Proof of that,that maoism hasnt create a serious situation maybe ever(when Mao did his thing,Europe was already an industrialised area).Dude we live in times where transportation is easy an quick-how could the guerilla ideas of his be relevant?We live in a post-industrialised society,how his theories who where based on a pre-industialised still contribute something?We have been in decades of (even bourgeois)democracy,how can "New Democracy" be liberating?The last time we heard something big about maoists in Europe,was in May 68,when chinese revolution was still fresh and inspired people.Mao was great on what he did,but the framework was total different.Now we have to analyse the situations on a new basis.


PS.Dont get me wrong,I m not comparing anarchism with maoism.I disagree with both when it comes to ideological level,I am intrested in both as cse studies and food for thought.