Are Cliffites real Trotskyites?

[promethean]

From what I have read, most Trotskyites do not consider Cliffites to be real Trotskyites as Cliffites did not support the USSR. Is this what Trotsky would have wanted?

[Who?]

What do mean by real?

They're not traditional or Orthodox Trotskyists but they are indeed Trotskyists.

[RedHal]

they are angry liberals

[9]

actually I don't think even think cliffites consider themselves trotskyists anymore, so there's not really much to debate

[9]

I sort of think the OP just made this thread so that he could practice saying "trotskyites!!!1", though.

[Homo Songun]

I find myself agreeing with Lenin, who famously noted that no specific political position exists that can effectively define Trotskyism. Therefore, yes, they are Trotskyists.


actually I don't think even think cliffites consider themselves trotskyists anymore, so there's not really much to debate
Yeah, just like everyone in the US considers themselves middle class, therefore class struggle doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

[9]

cool story, brah.

[Sir Comradical]

Not supporting the USSR is fine, but cheering its overthrow is unacceptable. During the 80's Cliffites supported the CIA's mujaheddin forces against the DRA claiming it was a legitimate "anti-imperialist" resistance movement against Soviet imperialism. lol.

[freepalestine]

what's all this - cliffites????
is it about palestinian tony cliff?

[Kléber]

In reference to an American leader of the Fourth International who abandoned the principle of unconditional defense of the USSR, Trotsky said "Only the other day Shachtman referred to himself in the press as a 'Trotskyist.' If this be Trotskyism then I at least am no Trotskyist" (source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/30-pbmoral.htm)). His line on the Soviet question was virtually identical to that on defending China or any other colonized country against imperialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm).


Not supporting the USSR is fine, but cheering its overthrow is unacceptable. During the 80's Cliffites supported the CIA's mujaheddin forces against the DRA claiming it was a legitimate "anti-imperialist" resistance movement against Soviet imperialism. lol.
Yes, that was even worse than the Spartacist position ("Hail Red Army!"). Also, Afghan Maoists actually fought against the DRA, sometimes in cooperation with reactionaries, but in their defense they were forced underground by the PDPA in 1978, before the Soviet invasion.

[blake 3:17]

The USSR is a dead issue.


what's all this - cliffites????
is it about palestinian tony cliff?


That's him.

[Kléber]

The USSR is a dead issue.
The USSR is dead but the discussion over defencism and defeatism is quite relevant for working-class politics in countries that still have Stalinist dictatorships, like Cuba and the DPRK, or bourgeois nationalist regimes currently at odds with imperialism, like Iran and Venezuela.

[DaringMehring]

Not supporting the USSR is fine, but cheering its overthrow is unacceptable.

History has yet to judge on that.

The USSR suppressed its share of workers, including in its own country.

The final abolition of the suppressive bureaucracy may pave the way for a real workers state, not Stalinoid parodies.

The fall of the USSR was undoubtedly a holocaust for the people of the former USSR. But then again so was WWI. Perhaps, both will create the possibility of a better future for all humanity.

[The Grey Blur]

it's also important because it basically demarcates the line between a marxist and a liberal. a liberal ignores the economic factors, sees the lack of democracy in a deformed worker's state and suddenly it's just as bad as a capitalist country where no revolution and change of the modes of production has taken place. so yes, cliffites and anarchists are just angry liberals, in effect. state capitalism is one of the most flawed theories ever developed. it doesn't mean i won't work with them, i just sigh inwardly at their childishness. it's a copout, because it's a lot harder to defend the good things the soviet union, china, cuba etc achieved than just to say, "i don't support them either!"

[freepalestine]

That's him.one or 2 of my family who know him will find it funny when i tell them of this title'cliffites'.
good man

[Q]

one or 2 of my family who know him will find it funny when i tell them of this title'cliffites'.
good man

It's a common term for leftists to describe SWP members (and their direct offshoots, such as the American ISO) of which Tony Cliff was the historical founder and leader.

[Devrim]

what's all this - cliffites????
is it about palestinian tony cliff?
That's him.

I would hardly use the term Palestinian to characterise Tony Cliff. He was, of course, born there, but he came from a Zionist family, and was active in Zionist movements himself as a youth. I think the term 'Palestinian' is a little misleading.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

it's a copout, because it's a lot harder to defend the good things the soviet union, china, cuba etc achieved than just to say, "i don't support them either!"

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[ChrisK]

it's also important because it basically demarcates the line between a marxist and a liberal. a liberal ignores the economic factors, sees the lack of democracy in a deformed worker's state and suddenly it's just as bad as a capitalist country where no revolution and change of the modes of production has taken place. so yes, cliffites and anarchists are just angry liberals, in effect. state capitalism is one of the most flawed theories ever developed. it doesn't mean i won't work with them, i just sigh inwardly at their childishness. it's a copout, because it's a lot harder to defend the good things the soviet union, china, cuba etc achieved than just to say, "i don't support them either!"

When did Cliff ignore the economic factors in his determination that the USSR was State-Capitalist? In fact here's a link to his book State Capitalism in Russia:
http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

Now don't be shy, please, show me where he ignores the economic factors. For someone who has such intimate knowledge about this issue you should have no trouble doing that.

And please, show me the flaws! So easy for one as knowledgable as you.

[freepalestine]

I would hardly use the term Palestinian to characterise Tony Cliff.oh, right
He was, of course, born there, but he came from a Zionist family, and was active in Zionist movements himself as a youth. I think the term 'Palestinian' is a little misleading.

Devrimtony cliff classed himself as a palestinian.

[Hit The North]

they are angry liberals

Better than being a sanctimonious state capitalist.

[graymouser]

The Cliffites stick by the theory of Permanent Revolution, but that's a fundamental Marxist principle and not a clearly Trotskyist one, regardless of how the Stalinists put it. They do not stand by Trotsky's analysis of the USSR or the method of his Transitional Program. They don't use the term Trotskyist to describe themselves, and realistically quite a good deal of their politics are social democratic (looking back to the pre-WWI divide between a minimum program and a maximum program), although their subjective classification is as "revolutionary socialists." In terms of genealogy, sure, but by that reckoning the Marcyites are also Trots. If the term's going to mean anything else it can't cover the Cliffites.

[Devrim]

oh, right tony cliff classed himself as a palestinian.

I have never heard anyone refer to him as a Palestinian before. Yes he was from Palestine, but he was from a Jewish Zionist background, whereas Palestinian means something else.

I certainly never heard him use it himself when speaking or in the few times we met personally.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Palestinian used to mean a citizen of the state of Palestine. Which is what Cliff was for a time. Not that it matters at all. He was an internationalist.

[freepalestine]

I have never heard anyone refer to him as a Palestinian before. Yes he was from Palestine, .. whereas Palestinian means something else. palestinian means someone being from palestine.


I certainly never heard him use it himself when speaking or in the few times we met personally.

Devrim
he said it at meetings i went to.and to family members of mine who know him.

[The Grey Blur]

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
sam, the swp in the south east of england is the most reactionary left grouping i have ever encountered. i was told that the rmt is full of bnp-sympathisers and that when canvassing against the bnp we shouldn't make political arguments just say "but they're nazis..." one member even saying, "listen, it's okay if you don't like immigrants, just don't vote bnp!"

pathetic, and i had to explain to them what tony cliff's theories were...so yes, i know better than the average swp member what state capitalism and it's political implications are.

[Devrim]

Not that it matters at all. He was an internationalist.

I don't think he was. He defended support for the imperialists in the Second World War throughout his life, the position of social-chauvinists, not internationalists. It is another topic though.


Not that it matters at all.

No, it doesn't. That doesn't mean that we can't discuss it though.


Palestinian used to mean a citizen of the state of Palestine. Which is what Cliff was for a time.

Well yes it did, and I presume that he was, but that was at a time when the term Palestinian was rejected as a Zionist invention by those who we know call Palestinians today.

He would also have been born an Ottoman citizen.

My point was that Palestinian means something completely different today. Cliff wasn't one of them, and in fact spoke very poor Arabic.

Using this definition we would also classify Ariel Sharon as a 'Palestinian'.


he said it at meetings i went to.and to family members of mine who knew him.

I heard him say he was from Palestine, but never a Palestinian. Of course, I could be wrong, and if you know of one place in an article or book where he says it, it would show it. He does talk about 'identifying with Palestinians in his autobiography, but not of being one:


Another factor that spurred me to identify with the Palestinians was the name my parents gave me – Ygael (Gluckstein). This was taken from a John Wayne type Zionist hero who murdered a number of Arabs. At the age of 13 I changed my name from Ygael to Ygal. Seeing that in Hebrew there are no vowels but only consonants the two names are spelt in exactly the same way, so it was easy to do. The root of the name Ygal is this: Moses sent 12 spies from the 12 tribes of Israel to go to Canaan to spy out the land. Two said they would like to settle there; ten said they would not. The first of those who did not want to settle was called Ygal.

Devrim

[freepalestine]

Well yes it did, and I presume that he was, but that was at a time when the term Palestinian was rejected as a Zionist invention by those who we know call Palestinians today.

He would also have been born an Ottoman citizen.

My point was that Palestinian means something completely different today. Cliff wasn't one of them, and in fact spoke very poor Arabic.

Using this definition we would also classify Ariel Sharon as a 'Palestinian'.

a facist like aerial sharon would probably believe "palestinians" didnt 'exist'.
if he wasn't a cabbage,he'd classify himself as an israeli i would have thought.

tony cliff didnt classify himself as an israeli.he said he was from palestine,a palestinian

[graymouser]

You are wrong. Trotskyite means Trotskyist. Its the same thing.
We never use the term "Trotskyite" to describe ourselves; it is always a term used by outsiders at best, and generally by opponents. Trotsky preferred "Bolshevik-Leninists."


However, the Marcyites do not refer to Trotsky at all in any of the present day writings, whereas the Cliffites do.
Writings are not politics. Cliff and his followers broke with Trotskyism in a number of important ways, embracing the concept of state capitalism that Trotsky considered unsound in the 1930s, abandoning the transitional method, and developing other theoretical positions - such as permanent arms economy - that generally do not fit into a Marxist framework at all. If they're Trotskyists then they are also Luxemburgists, as they treat both theorists with roughly the same regard. I consider them neither.

As for the Marcyites, they are sort of Maoisant (that is, Mao-ish rather than Maoist) so they don't mention Trotsky, but their ideas have as much of a Trotskyist pedigree, building out of the abuse and distortion of Trotsky's defensism of the USSR by Pablo and the Fourth International after 1948. But this pedigree does not make them Trotskyist any more than Tony Cliff's past changes the basic trajectory of the groups around his legacy.


How did Cliff justify this? Did he not consider the USSR to be state capitalist by 1928? If so, why did he support them in the Second World War? It seems a bit strange.
Cliff was an orthodox Trotskyist in the 1940s and joined the Revolutionary Communist Party, where some members (most notably Grant, later the founder of the CWI and IMT) were debating state capitalism but turned against the idea. Cliff took it up and ran with it in the 1950s, going through a quite strong "Luxemburgist" phase before rediscovering Leninism and transforming his group, first into the IS and later re-transforming it into the SWP.

[Soviet dude]

Trotskyism is essentially a combination of two completely incompatible things: Marxism and raw anti-communism. I long ago came to this conclusion, but was surprised even sympathetic scholars of Trotskyite history like Alan Wald say the same thing. This combination of dialectically opposed trends explains not only why there are so many different Trotskyite groups, but the sheer diversity of attitudes within Trotsyism. The spectrum goes from people who are essentially Marxist-Leninist (WWP, PSL), to neocons (Hitchens, Hook, Shachtman, etc). Most trends gravitate to one end or the other (Spartacists gravitate toward the Marxist pole, ISO and other Cliffites gravitate toward anti-communism).

[graymouser]

Trotskyism is essentially a combination of two completely incompatible things: Marxism and raw anti-communism. I long ago came to this conclusion, but was surprised even sympathetic scholars of Trotskyite history like Alan Wald say the same thing. This combination of dialectically opposed trends explains not only why there are so many different Trotskyite groups, but the sheer diversity of attitudes within Trotsyism. The spectrum goes from people who are essentially Marxist-Leninist (WWP, PSL), to neocons (Hitchens, Hook, Shachtman, etc). Most trends gravitate to one end or the other (Spartacists gravitate toward the Marxist pole, ISO and other Cliffites gravitate toward anti-communism).
This is a lie, both when it's told by you and by a third campist trying to legitimize himself like Alan Wald. Trotskyism is a form of orthodox Leninism, which is notable for its anti-Stalinism. This is and always has been how Trotskyism has been defined, and it is not coincidental that the "Trotskyists" like Shachtman who crossed the line and became anti-communist split from the Fourth International in short order. Trotskyists have always taken a position of critical defense of the degenerated workers' states, even though we call for political revolution to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracies. It's true that all anti-communists are anti-Stalinists, but it's false to say that all anti-Stalinists are anti-communists.

[red cat]

Trotskyism is a form of orthodox Leninism, which is notable for its anti-Stalinism.

Orthodox Leninism is something which Trotskyism can never claim to be.


Hobson, the social-liberal, fails to see that this “counteraction” can be offered only by the revolutionary proletariat and only in the form of a social revolution. But then he is a social-liberal! Nevertheless, as early as 1902 he had an excellent insight into the meaning and significance of a “United States of Europe” (be it said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyite!) and of all that is now being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskyites of various countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are working hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa, and that objectively the opportunists are a section of the petty bourgeoisie and of a certain strata of the working class who have been bribed out of imperialist superprofits and converted to watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement.

-Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

Did Trotsky, in any later stage, uphold the above Leninist theory of labour aristocracy ?

[Devrim]

How did Cliff justify this? Did he not consider the USSR to be state capitalist by 1928? If so, why did he support them in the Second World War? It seems a bit strange.


It was not possible to simply call for the defeat of one’s ruling class ... It was necessary to defend democracy against fascism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

a facist like aerial sharon would probably believe "palestinians" didnt 'exist'.
if he wasn't a cabbage,he'd classify himself as an israeli i would have thought.

Well yes he would, but like Cliff he was born in Ottoman Palestine, and lived there under the mandate when Zionists did style themselves as 'Palestinians'.

Of course, it is absurd to say he was a fascist.


tony cliff didnt classify himself as an israeli.he said he was from palestine,a palestinian

I never heard him refer to himself as an Israeli, but nor did I hear or read him refer to himself as a Palestinian. One example, from a man who wrote prolifically would suffice to prove your point.

Devrim

[scarletghoul]

It's useless and pointless to try and define leftist organisations/movements by whether or not they fit into certain isms named after historical people. It gets silly because these isms never have a clear definition (what is trotskyism ? Is it the agreement with everything trotsky said, the upholding of a few key ideas of his ? A generally positive opinion of him ?). It also prevents a good discussion of individual ideas, instead having the discussion revolve around comparisons with the ideas of Trotsky/Lenin/whoever, as if that will determine their correctness.

Anyway, Cliffites take the most 'attractive' and easy elements from Trotsky (criticising Stalinism and the bureaucracy, insistence on 'permanent revolution', etc), but leaving behind the more difficult things (support for the USSR as a socialist state, even if degenerated). In this way, by rejecting everything as 'state capitalist', they withdraw objectively from the revolutionary socialist movement and take on a primarily anticommunist role. They want socialism but only in a very idealist sense and refuse to accept any of our successful historical movements as socialist because it's so challenging to endorse them when 'they killed millions of people', its much easier to just call them 'state capitalists'. As Robespierre would say, the want revolution without revolution. They are subjectively socialists, but because they reject almost every socialist movement and refuse to align themselves with the objective movement of the working class, they can only be classed as objectively reactionary. Most Trotskyists (despite their faults) at least will acknowledge certain countries as socialist, rather than taking the easy way out which is to adopt the liberal criticism of these states and cover it up with a pseudo-Marxist term..

[Soviet dude]

This is a lie, both when it's told by you and by a third campist trying to legitimize himself like Alan Wald. Trotskyism is a form of orthodox Leninism, which is notable for its anti-Stalinism. This is and always has been how Trotskyism has been defined, and it is not coincidental that the "Trotskyists" like Shachtman who crossed the line and became anti-communist split from the Fourth International in short order. Trotskyists have always taken a position of critical defense of the degenerated workers' states, even though we call for political revolution to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracies. It's true that all anti-communists are anti-Stalinists, but it's false to say that all anti-Stalinists are anti-communists.

Strange, I usually take you for one of the more sane Trotsyites on this forum. Did you find a group to join? That might explain this...

It would be trivial to show just how Trotsky is not an "Orthodox Leninist" by any stretch of the imagination. Just quoting what Lenin actually thought of Trotsky should be enough to dissuade any rational reader from that thought, but Trotskyites aren't rational creatures.

In any case, the dual nature of Trotskyism owes largely to Trotsky's role after 1928. Trotsky basically attempted to circle around himself every worthless dreg who despised the USSR, and made a living by writing anti-communist crap for the bourgeois media. It is no wonder Trotsky attracted many a 'revolutionary' who defined themselves far, far more by their hatred of the USSR than anything having to do with Marxism. Hence why, especially in American Trotskyism, you find droves of Trotskyites who eventually just turned into straight-up shills for the most reactionary side of the bourgeoisie.

[graymouser]

Strange, I usually take you for one of the more sane Trotsyites on this forum. Did you find a group to join? That might explain this...
I have been in Workers Power for months now, if you look at either my user info or my sig that should be pretty clear.


It would be trivial to show just how Trotsky is not an "Orthodox Leninist" by any stretch of the imagination. Just quoting what Lenin actually thought of Trotsky should be enough to dissuade any rational reader from that thought, but Trotskyites aren't rational creatures.
Trotsky became a Bolshevik in 1917, and until the Stalinists began their campaign of lies and distortions in 1924 no one doubted the veracity of that decision. For the rest of his life, Trotsky upheld Lenin and the Bolsheviks, not the pre-1917 politics he had been engaged with. Lenin's polemics against Trotsky from before 1917 are the result of disagreements where Trotsky admitted he was wrong, except on the question of permanent revolution where Trotsky and Lenin had come to basic agreement as of the April Theses. It is therefore a distortion of the first order to claim that these somehow prove anything against Trotsky. Lenin and Trotsky disagreed after 1917 but mostly over internal debates in the party and Lenin never hung any of those polemics over Trotsky's head - so we cannot claim that these were critical in the period.


In any case, the dual nature of Trotskyism owes largely to Trotsky's role after 1928. Trotsky basically attempted to circle around himself every worthless dreg who despised the USSR, and made a living by writing anti-communist crap for the bourgeois media. It is no wonder Trotsky attracted many a 'revolutionary' who defined themselves far, far more by their hatred of the USSR than anything having to do with Marxism. Hence why, especially in American Trotskyism, you find droves of Trotskyites who eventually just turned into straight-up shills for the most reactionary side of the bourgeoisie.
Lies and half-truths. No, Trotsky didn't look for everyone who "despised the USSR," he was quite harsh on his would-be supporters that they remain consistent Leninists and support the USSR, albeit critically. He wrote articles but not for a "living," and never wrote a word that wasn't fundamentally Bolshevik in tendency. And those who went to Trotskyism to be anti-communists soon found themselves outside the movement. The Shachtmanites were separate from the Fourth International before Trotsky was murdered by the Stalinists. Stop telling these damn lies.

[Homo Songun]

It is totally unfair to describe the Cliffists as being more favorable to the overthrow of the Soviet Union than other Trotskyists.
The only thing the Cliffists are guilty of in relation to other Trotskyists is consistency or following a line of thinking all the way through.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We can't be Trotskyists since we aren't sectarians like most 'fellow' Trots posting here...:lol:

[graymouser]

It is totally unfair to describe the Cliffists as being more favorable to the overthrow of the Soviet Union than other Trotskyists.
The only thing the Cliffists are guilty of in relation to other Trotskyists is consistency or following a line of thinking all the way through.
Tony Cliff considered it a good thing when the USSR fell in the early 1990s, that it would remove an obstacle to world socialism. Trotskyists thought it was an awful tragedy, and understood that the movement would be set back decades at least by the fall.

What is "consistent" about abandoning Trotsky's critical defense of the Soviet Union? Do you think that any kind of critical defense is tantamount for wishing / organizing against a country? This kind of hogwash is not real political discourse.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

In any case, the dual nature of Trotskyism owes largely to Trotsky's role after 1928. Trotsky basically attempted to circle around himself every worthless dreg who despised the USSR, and made a living by writing anti-communist crap for the bourgeois media. It is no wonder Trotsky attracted many a 'revolutionary' who defined themselves far, far more by their hatred of the USSR than anything having to do with Marxism. Hence why, especially in American Trotskyism, you find droves of Trotskyites who eventually just turned into straight-up shills for the most reactionary side of the bourgeoisie.

Considering that you think most of the old Bolsheviks became "worthless dregs who despised the USSR" I don't see how we couldn't apply this same argument to Bolshevism itself, or with a little modification, Marxism in general.

[gorillafuck]

they are angry liberals
Way to make an ass out of yourself.

I don't think it's really trustworthy to debate whether Tony Cliff identified himself as Palestinian when both sides are just basing it on things that he allegedly said off the record.

Also, Tony cliffs argument that the fall of the USSR was positive for the world socialist movement is really ridiculous, even if the USSR could be classified as state capitalist, it's in no way advancing the class struggle to replace a left wing state capitalist government with a right wing government.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't really think you can say Cliffites hold to permanent revolution either. They claim that Trotsky was wrong about the incapacity of the bourgeoisie(through the intellegentsia) to complete the democratic revolution in backwards countries.

[Lyev]

This thread is awful. Why did the OP bother? Marxism is not a rigid dogma. Just because Cliff formulated a theory contrary to Trotsky's original thesis on the "degenerated workers' state" doesn't mean he's not a "real" Trotskyist, whatever the hell real is supposed to mean (he certainly wasn't an apparition). Personally, I disagree with ISO's conception of state capitalism, but I also disagree with the idea of "workers' state", at least as formulated by Lenin et al. I think his and Trotsky's definition of the bourgeois state apparatus to start with was somewhat erroneous. I think I uphold state capitalism, as an analysis of Cuba, DPRK, PRC, fSU etc. etc., but not of the Cliffist kind. We need to review the Marxist concept of capital, and also look at, in detail, how surplus value is actually extracted.

[graymouser]

I don't really think you can say Cliffites hold to permanent revolution either. They claim that Trotsky was wrong about the incapacity of the bourgeoisie(through the intellegentsia) to complete the democratic revolution in backwards countries.
Can you give a source for that? Not hostile, just AFAIK the ISO at least does claim the theory of permanent revolution as part of its ideas and I have never read anything in Cliff, Hallas or Callinicos to dispute it.

[RED DAVE]

Tony Cliff, whose birth name was Yigael Gluckstein, referred to himself as a Jewish Palestinian.

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

This thread is shit. Why did the OP bother? Marxism is not a rigid dogma. Just because Cliff formulated a theory contrary to Trotsky's original thesis on the "degenerated workers' state" doesn't mean he's not a "real" Trotskyist, whatever the hell real is supposed to mean (he certainly wasn't an apparition). Personally, I disagree with ISO's conception of state capitalism, but I also disagree with the idea of "workers' state", at least as formulated by Lenin et al. I think his and Trotsky's definition of the bourgeois state apparatus to start with was somewhat erroneous. I think I uphold state capitalism, as an analysis of Cuba, DPRK, PRC, fSU etc. etc., but not of the Cliffist kind. We need to review the Marxist concept of capital, and also look at, in detail, how surplus value is actually extracted.
Don't get into this conversation with the CWI, they may not be hardliners about it but they do hold to fairly orthodox positions on things.

But to take up your question, what about the extraction of surplus-value do you think is wrong? The idea that wages are extracted based on markets? If you want to get rid of it, what do you propose as an alternative?

(FWIW, I think "state capitalism" is a pretty good description of China now, although this is qualitatively different from China 50 years ago.)

[Lucretia]

What sectarian oversimplification I see here by a bunch of self-proclaimed Trotskyist ayatollahs. Cliff was not the first person to propose a theory of "state capitalism" to describe the Soviet Union. Grandizo, CLR James, Dunayevskaya, and others have all broached differing perspectives on the nature of the Soviet Union as a class society similar to Western capitalist ones. This is not to mention others who did not "unconditionally defend" the Soviet Union and saw it as a bureaucratic collectivist state, or some other form of class society.

Why the hell would anybody want to "unconditionally" defend anything anyway? That sounds more like a cult than a critical political movement for the international working classes.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Can you give a source for that? Not hostile, just AFAIK the ISO at least does claim the theory of permanent revolution as part of its ideas and I have never read anything in Cliff, Hallas or Callinicos to dispute it.

Well here's what Cliff had to say on Permanent Revolution:


Once the constantly revolutionary nature of the working class, the central pillar of Trotsky’s theory, becomes suspect, the whole structure falls to pieces.Hence this role can even fall to the peasantry lead by the intelligentsia:


Peasant rebellions take on a deeper, broader sweep than ever before. In them is rooted also national rebellion against the economic ruin brought by imperialism and for the higher living standards which it as surely demonstrated.He wrote this glowing review of the capacities of bourgeois nationalist governments three decades before the national reformist projects in the third world began to collapse due to "the supra-national character of the world economy":


It is one of the tricks of history that when an historical task faces society, and the class that traditionally carries it out is absent, some other group of people, quite often a state power. implements it. State power, under such conditions, plays a very important role. It reflects not only, or even mainly, the national economic base on which it rises, but the supra-national character of the world economy today.He claimed that the intelligentsia was above classes and could express the interests of some abstract "nation," rather than, as Trotsky said, usually providing the bridge to bourgeois rule:


As the only non-specialised section of society, the intelligentsia is the obvious source of a “professional revolutionary elite” which appears to represent the interests of the “nation” as against conflicting sectional and class interests.Not only this, they could achieve, through capitalism, more precisely "state capitalism" all the achievements of the USSR without the proletariat ever entering the equation, rather than, as Trotsky would assert, "half way reforms."

[graymouser]

What sectarian oversimplification I see here by a bunch of self-proclaimed Trotskyist ayatollahs. Cliff was not the first person to propose a theory of "state capitalism" to describe the Soviet Union. Grandizo, CLR James, Dunayevskaya, and others have all broached differing perspectives on the nature of the Soviet Union as a class society similar to Western capitalist ones. This is not to mention others who did not "unconditionally defend" the Soviet Union and saw it as a bureaucratic collectivist state, or some other form of class society.

Why the hell would anybody want to "unconditionally" defend anything anyway? That sounds more like a cult than a critical political movement for the international working classes.
This is politics. We are talking about the unconditional defense of the USSR in time of war and against capitalist counter-revolution.. This meant that the Trotskyists took the position that they would stand against their own countries if those countries went to war with the Soviet Union - and not see themselves as part of a fictional "third camp" that exists only in their fantasies. It meant that they continued to uphold and defend the gains of the October Revolution, gains which had been paid for in blood. It does not mean that they never criticized the Stalinists. Trotsky was unrelentingly harsh on the Stalinists but never gave up and created an ad hoc social system to fit the USSR like the theorists of "bureaucratic collectivism" and "state capitalism" did.

A lot of people were politically disoriented in the 1940s and 1950s, and there are few places where it shows better than in the "state capitalism" of James and Dunayevskaya. But the truth is that the Cliffites are quite far from Trotsky and the Fourth International, and would be so even if they abandoned "state capitalism" in favor of the orthodox view on Russia tomorrow. Their views on program, the permanent arms economy, the permanent revolution and many other points separate them from Trotskyism by a wide gulf. That's what this thread is supposed to be about. If you don't think that discussion is important, well, there are plenty of other threads.

[Lucretia]

This is politics. We are talking about the unconditional defense of the USSR in time of war and against capitalist counter-revolution

You claim the defense is unconditional, then you bring up certain historical conditions. What you're calling for then is an unconditional defense of the Soviet Union within certain conditions? You sound confused.


This meant that the Trotskyists took the position that they would stand against their own countries if those countries went to war with the Soviet Union - and not see themselves as part of a fictional "third camp" that exists only in their fantasies. It meant that they continued to uphold and defend the gains of the October Revolution, gains which had been paid for in blood.

Yes, the gains of being compelled to perform labor on behalf of a murderous and unaccountable bureacracy rather than greedy capitalists. What tremendous gains. In any event, what "Trotskyists" in the past did or believed was not infallible, nor was it evidence of some fixed ahistorical ideology called "Trotksyism" that needs to be slavishly and uncritically followed.


It does not mean that they never criticized the Stalinists. Trotsky was unrelentingly harsh on the Stalinists but never gave up and created an ad hoc social system to fit the USSR like the theorists of "bureaucratic collectivism" and "state capitalism" did.

It's better than making an elementary error in logic that defies what Marx wrote about the distinction between juridical property relations and effective possession of the means of production. Just because "the people" in theory own the means of production does not mean they effectively control it through democratic mechanisms. I am stunned people still think try to argue that the Soviet Union was not a class society. The only interesting question in my mind is what kind of class society the Soviet Union constituted. State capitalism is a plausible theory, but not one I accept as gospel.

[Devrim]

This thread is shit. Why did the OP bother? Marxism is not a rigid dogma. Just because Cliff formulated a theory contrary to Trotsky's original thesis on the "degenerated workers' state" doesn't mean he's not a "real" Trotskyist, whatever the hell real is supposed to mean (he certainly wasn't an apparition).

I think that it does mean that he wasn't a 'real' Trotskyists. The roots of Cliff's thought lie in the post WWII crisis of Trotskyism, and the SRG was one of the things that came out of that. I would say they had the most superficial break though.


Tony Cliff considered it a good thing when the USSR fell in the early 1990s, that it would remove an obstacle to world socialism. Trotskyists thought it was an awful tragedy, and understood that the movement would be set back decades at least by the fall.

I do remember that the Cliff groups were cheering on the fall of the USSR, which is really not even consistent with their own theory. If capitalism changed to capitalism why should they have been cheering?


Tony Cliff, whose birth name was Yigael Gluckstein, referred to himself as a Jewish Palestinian.


Do you have a link to that please, Dave?

Devrim

[graymouser]

You claim the defense is unconditional, then you bring up certain historical conditions. What you're calling for then is an unconditional defense of the Soviet Union within certain conditions? You sound confused.
No. The defense of the USSR in war and against capitalist counter-revolution by Trotsky and the FI was unconditional, that is there were no conditions under which it would be dropped, but it was not uncritical. It is elementary for adherents to the theory of "state capitalism" that they do not comprehend this point.


Yes, the gains of being compelled to perform labor on behalf of a murderous and unaccountable bureacracy rather than greedy capitalists. What tremendous gains.
A collectivized economy where workers are guaranteed employment, health care and are free from the vicissitudes of the cycles of capitalist production - albeit lorded over by a bureaucratic caste, which ruled in classical bonapartist fashion over the workers. The USSR was the one country that grew through the 30s as a result of the tremendous gains of October. You can scoff at it all you like, it doesn't make you right.


In any event, what "Trotskyists" in the past did or believed was not infallible, nor was it evidence of some fixed ahistorical ideology called "Trotksyism" that needs to be slavishly and uncritically followed.
It's a legacy that is worth defending. This is the kind of thing that "state capitalist" theorists never grasp: if you cannot defend what you have already conquered, you cannot move forward. Hell, third-campism has no room to brag over Trotskyist orthodoxy on this point, the SWP and ISO are practically social-democratic, and the Shachtmanites went as far as they could to the right.


It's better than making an elementary error in logic that defies what Marx wrote about the distinction between juridical property relations and effective possession of the means of production. Just because "the people" in theory own the means of production does not mean they effectively control it through democratic mechanisms. I am stunned people still think try to argue that the Soviet Union was not a class society. The only interesting question in my mind is what kind of class society the Soviet Union constituted. State capitalism is a plausible theory, but not one I accept as gospel.
If the bureaucracy was a class, then there is no reason to struggle for socialism, as the new class society must be inevitable from a post-capitalist society. The reality is, the dissolution of the degenerate workers' states has disproven state capitalism - these states had to be dismantled for capitalism to function in them! And the "bureaucratic collectivist" theory is practically a nontheory not even worthy of discussion; it is just a tag for "I don't like it."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just quoting what Lenin actually thought of Trotsky should be enough to dissuade any rational reader from that thought, but Trotskyites aren't rational creatures.



Imagine if we quoted what Lenin actually thought about Stalin.;)

Your ability to doublethink amazes me.

[blake 3:17]

I can't believe I'm getting into State Cap DWS debate...


You claim the defense is unconditional, then you bring up certain historical conditions. What you're calling for then is an unconditional defense of the Soviet Union within certain conditions? You sound confused. I don't think it's really that confused a position. The proper Marxist response to the socialist rebellions in East Germany in 53 and Hungary in 56 ws to support them, and oppose the Soviet suppression of them. If an imperialist country were to attack a country in Soviet bloc we would have supported the USSR in defending itself.

The fact is that it didn't get to that, and we had a big Cold War, and a few hot ones (Korea, Vietnam). There were also anti-socialist wars by proxy like Chile and Nicaragua. I know that some from the IST/SWP played helpful roles in those struggles. I never really understood their poistion on Nicaragua.



Originally Posted by Tony Cliff
As the only non-specialised section of society, the intelligentsia is the obvious source of a “professional revolutionary elite” which appears to represent the interests of the “nation” as against conflicting sectional and class interests.

I've often wondered why friends in the IS tradition thought it OK to be an over paid academic but that it was terrible to be a union staffer. Where's the quote from?


It's a legacy that is worth defending. This is the kind of thing that "state capitalist" theorists never grasp: if you cannot defend what you have already conquered, you cannot move forward. Hell, third-campism has no room to brag over Trotskyist orthodoxy on this point, the SWP and ISO are practically social-democratic, and the Shachtmanites went as far as they could to the right.

Anyone can see that things have really deteriorated in Russia and the former USSR. Almost all of the far left is on the verge of social democracy when reformist goals seem utopian.

I was going to make some claims about some statistics that are useful in understanding how humane a society is and got a few surprises.

Here's life expectancy over several decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_male_and_female_life_expectancy.PNG

More from the wikipedia entry on Russian demographics:

The number of Russians living in poverty has halved since the economic crisis following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the improving economy had a positive impact on the country's low birth rate. The birth rate of Russia rose from its lowest point of 8.27 births per 1000 people in 1999 to 12.4 per 1000 in 2009. Likewise, the fertility rate rose from its lowest point of 1.16 in 1999 to 1.54 in 2009. 2007 marked the highest growth in birth rates that the country had seen in 25 years, and 2009 marked the highest total birth rate since 1991.[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-in-11) For comparison, the US (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_States_of_America)[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-USCIA-12) birth rate in 2009 were 13.8 per 1000 . While the Russian birth rate is comparable to that of other developed countries, its death rate is much higher, especially among working-age males due to a comparatively high rate of fatalities caused by heart disease and other external causes such as accidents. The Russian death rate in 2009 was 14.2 per 1000 citizens. For comparison, the US[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-USCIA-12) death rates in 2009 were 8.4 per 1000 .
The causes for this sharp increase in mortality are widely debated, with some academics citing alcohol abuse as the main culprit,[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-13) and others citing the drastic and widely negative changes in lifestyle caused by economic reforms that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to a 2009 report by The Lancet (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Lancet),[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-14) a British (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_Kingdom) medical journal, mass privatization (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Privatization), an element of the economic-reform package nicknamed shock therapy (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)), clearly correlates with higher mortality rates. The report argues that the advocates of the economic reforms ignored the human cost of the policies they were promoting, such as unemployment and human suffering, leading to an early death. These conclusions were criticized by The Economist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Economist).[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-economist-15) According to the Russian demographic publication Demoscope (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=Demoscope&action=edit&redlink=1),[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-demoscope-16) the rising male death rate was a long-term trend from 1960 to 2005. The only significant reversion of the trend was caused by Mikhail Gorbachev (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev)'s anti-alcohol campaign, but its effect was only temporary. According to the publication, the sharp rise of death rates in the early 1990s was caused by the exhaustion of the effect of the anti-alcohol campaign, while the market reforms were of only secondary importance. The authors also claimed the Lancet's study is flawed because it used 1985 death rate as the base, while that was in fact the very maximum of the effect of the anti-alcohol campaign.[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-demoscope-16)

It seems that literacy rate has continued to be very close to 100%. I'm not sure how those stats are collected.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Grandizo, CLR James, Dunayevskaya, and others have all broached differing perspectives on the nature of the Soviet Union as a class society similar to Western capitalist ones.

Munis, Stinas, James and Dunayevskaya etc. all broke with Trotskyism though.

On the original question, the politics of the 'International Socialists' are obviously not those of Orthodox Trotskyism. Whether they can be called Trotskyists in an 'unorthodox' sense is purely an acedemic question. The IS are descended from Trotskyism but I think it's irrelevant whether they can still be called Trotskyists. As others have said though, the IS don't even call themselves Trotskyists any more, so I don't see the issue.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I do remember that the Cliff groups were cheering on the fall of the USSR, which is really not even consistent with their own theory. If capitalism changed to capitalism why should they have been cheering?

They saw it as a positive shift in the balance of class struggle internationally. It's not inconsistent at all, just wrong.

Nic.

[DaringMehring]

Assorted "Marxist-Leninists" and Maoists accuse Trotskyism of being counter-revolutionary etc. based on criticism of the USSR. And yet --- so many of them are critical of the USSR post-Stalin / post-Sino-Soviet split.

In fact, some of these critics have deployed the term "state capitalist" themselves, to describe the USSR post-Stalin.

I guess that makes them Trotskyite wreckers who deserve the firing squad.

Fact is, the USSR went down to a relatively bloodless counter-revolution, and the best analyses of its degeneration and fall that are sympathetic to the revolutionary Bolsheviks come from the Trotskyist tradition.

[DaringMehring]

As for Tony Cliff, he was a revolutionary Marxist who succeeded in playing a part in building a Party that now stands as the largest revolutionary formation in the UK. He has been far more worth to the socialist movement than most of the sectarian flotsam and jetsam who are critical of him.

Call back when you've actually succeeded in practice in building a fighting revolutionary socialist Party.

[Lucretia]

No. The defense of the USSR in war and against capitalist counter-revolution by Trotsky and the FI was unconditional, that is there were no conditions under which it would be dropped, but it was not uncritical. It is elementary for adherents to the theory of "state capitalism" that they do not comprehend this point.

Sorry, but you don't seem to be know what conditional and unconditional mean. To support the Soviet Union unconditionally means to support it absolutely no matter what circumstances may arise. To call for the 'unconditional' support of the Soviet Union, but stipulating that support is necessary because of certain historical or political conditions, is by definition to call for conditional support of the Soviet Union. By the way, your claim about "adherents of state capitalism," which presumably was an offhand reference to my supposed inability to perceive the brilliance in your contradictory and garbled logic, is silly. I am by no means an adherent to any proposition besides the one that says that the Soviet Union was some form of class society in which a non-producing minority extracted surplus from the direct producers.



A collectivized economy where workers are guaranteed employment, health care and are free from the vicissitudes of the cycles of capitalist production - albeit lorded over by a bureaucratic caste, which ruled in classical bonapartist fashion over the workers. The USSR was the one country that grew through the 30s as a result of the tremendous gains of October. You can scoff at it all you like, it doesn't make you right.What is incorrect about what I said? I said that workers were compelled to labor on behalf of an unaccountable and murderous groups of corrupt bureaucrats, and that this is not much of an improvement over having to labor on behalf of greedy capitalists. In defense of the Soviet dictatorship you mention guaranteed healthcare, which many Western capitalist societies had when Stalin was committing his worst atrocities. And you mention guaranteed employment -- which slaves in the antebellum South had. Again, forgive me for not getting goosebumps from the excitement of having to defend such a progressive society if it's bombing Afghan civilians even further into the Stone Age.


It's a legacy that is worth defending.Which legacy? The legacy of full employment (also present in the antebellum South)? The legacy of universal health care (present throughout much of Europe)? The legacy of toiling for bureaucratic overlords? You reify the Soviet Union as some mythical worker's paradise, and whine when people don't defend Stalinist atrocities as part of defending "legacies." Get real.


This is the kind of thing that "state capitalist" theorists never grasp: if you cannot defend what you have already conquered, you cannot move forward.But this just begs the historical question: was the Stalinist-era Soviet Union one in which it is fair to say that it "conquered" any of the ills not already conquered by many capitalist societies, but without even maintaining the facade of bourgeois democracy? Defending the Soviet Union when the soviets had effective control, and the white armies were invading, is one proposition. Defending it when it's firmly under the control of a blood-thirsty, exploitative elite, under the laughable euphemism of defending a legacy, is another proposition entirely.


Hell, third-campism has no room to brag over Trotskyist orthodoxy on this point, the SWP and ISO are practically social-democratic, and the Shachtmanites went as far as they could to the right.You seem to think you're debating some sort of ism. You're not. You're debating me, and unlike you, I have not committed myself to any sort of -ism.


If the bureaucracy was a class, then there is no reason to struggle for socialism, as the new class society must be inevitable from a post-capitalist society.The bureaucracy was a class, but the fact that it was one does not mean that all post-capitalist societies are bound to be one. What kind of ridiculous tortured logic is this?


The reality is, the dissolution of the degenerate workers' states has disproven state capitalism - these states had to be dismantled for capitalism to function in them! And the "bureaucratic collectivist" theory is practically a nontheory not even worthy of discussion; it is just a tag for "I don't like it."More sloppy and circular thinking. The very conclusion you state there presupposes the very thing you need to prove: that the Soviet Union was not capitalist. There is not just one kind of capitalism, and there is no capitalism in a "pure form." Capitalism as analyzed by Marx in Das Kapital was an abstraction he developed through examination of concrete societies as they developed historically.

[Kassad]

I don't really hold this massive level of animosity towards those who uphold Tony Cliff's theoretical contributions like others seem to. At the end of the day, I just think they don't have the capacity to learn as Marxists. A lot of socialists cheered the collapse of the Soviet Union as a victory for workers democracy, since it was the destruction of the "Stalinist bureaucracy." Yet, what did it lead to? Rampant alcoholism, disease and poverty. Healthcare is not virtually unavailable to the masses, as is quality education. Life expectancy has plummeted at a rate not seen in recent history and infant mortality has risen dramatically.

Yet, many people still call for counterrevolution in Cuba, China, Korea, Vietnam and such. It's like people didn't pay attention. No one who defends these countries is revering them as heaven on earth, but it is glaringly obvious that the destruction of these revolutions would lead to the same thing we saw in the Soviet Union and no one should advocate that. And also, I apologize to those who I guarantee will throw the theory of "we don't call for counterrevolution, we call for internal political revolution." Sorry, but you're not that stupid. You know any kind of opposition to the revolutionary governments in those countries are going to be hijacked by the United States, the CIA and other imperialist interests before you can even get your cheeks to the seat.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. I don't have a problem with them at all, except as of late members of the International Socialist Organization have been attacking our members in public over our line on China, which is counterproductive and it winds up making them look stupid. That's pretty much the reason I stopped working with them in my area, along with their veiled sectarianism towards us lately, but hey, shit happens I suppose.

[Lucretia]

Yet, many people still call for counterrevolution in Cuba, China, Korea, Vietnam and such.

Really? Which Marxists are calling for Cuba, China, Korea, and Vietnam to become free-market capitalist societies? Can you name anybody specific or provide any citations to online sources?

I think the criticism of those societies, like that of the Soviet Union, is that they are not classless societies and therefore do not automatically enjoy some kind of a privileged claim to the esteem of people struggling for actual democracy and actual socialism.

[graymouser]

Sorry, but you don't seem to be know what conditional and unconditional mean. To support the Soviet Union unconditionally means to support it absolutely no matter what circumstances may arise. To call for the 'unconditional' support of the Soviet Union, but stipulating that support is necessary because of certain historical or political conditions, is by definition to call for conditional support of the Soviet Union. By the way, your claim about "adherents of state capitalism," which presumably was an offhand reference to my supposed inability to perceive the brilliance in your contradictory and garbled logic, is silly. I am by no means an adherent to any proposition besides the one that says that the Soviet Union was some form of class society in which a non-producing minority extracted surplus from the direct producers.
Trotsky called for the unconditional defense of the USSR in war and against capitalist counter-revolution. This doesn't mean unconditional defense in every circumstance, it means that the defense against imperialism and counter-revolution was not conditional on the actions of the bureaucracy. You are hanging on a ridiculous interpretation of the slogan, and it's making you look rather silly.


What is incorrect about what I said? I said that workers were compelled to labor on behalf of an unaccountable and murderous groups of corrupt bureaucrats, and that this is not much of an improvement over having to labor on behalf of greedy capitalists. In defense of the Soviet dictatorship you mention guaranteed healthcare, which many Western capitalist societies had when Stalin was committing his worst atrocities. And you mention guaranteed employment -- which slaves in the antebellum South had.
Yet the property forms were progressive - unlike the property forms of capitalism, which orient all production to profit, or slavery where the property forms are human, they worked in a society where the bureaucrats actually had to do a few things for their benefits, by the internal logic of the system. The Soviet Union had proven that we could do without capitalists, and the Trotskyist position was always that the workers should have control over what they had fought for and many had died for in the October Revolution. We could not throw those hard-won victories away, but petty-bourgeois idealists can.


Again, forgive me for not getting goosebumps from the excitement of having to defend such a progressive society if it's bombing Afghan civilians even further into the Stone Age.
The pro-Soviet government was just about the only breathing room that country had in decades of oppression and backwardness. It figures that you'd be a die-hard in supporting the mujahideen who opposed it.


Which legacy? The legacy of full employment (also present in the antebellum South)? The legacy of universal health care (present throughout much of Europe)? The legacy of toiling for bureaucratic overlords? You reify the Soviet Union as some mythical worker's paradise, and whine when people don't defend Stalinist atrocities as part of defending "legacies." Get real.
Actually I meant the legacy of Trotsky and the Fourth International, which was destroyed by his epigones.


But this just begs the historical question: was the Stalinist-era Soviet Union one in which it is fair to say that it "conquered" any of the ills not already conquered by many capitalist societies, but without even maintaining the facade of bourgeois democracy? Defending the Soviet Union when the soviets had effective control, and the white armies were invading, is one proposition. Defending it when it's firmly under the control of a blood-thirsty, exploitative elite, under the laughable euphemism of defending a legacy, is another proposition entirely.
The conquests of revolution need to be defended, or there could not be another one. Revolutionaries are not dilettantes who flit away from a revolution when something doesn't go their way. No one could seriously trust a revolutionary party that sulks in a corner and says "It isn't real socialism anyway" when confronted with Stalinism.


You seem to think you're debating some sort of ism. You're not. You're debating me, and unlike you, I have not committed myself to any sort of -ism.
No, this is a debate on Cliffism. You're some person on the internet who is trying to use sheer Stalinophobia to win an argument about it. If you don't understand why that makes this debate about Cliffism, your loss.


The bureaucracy was a class, but the fact that it was one does not mean that all post-capitalist societies are bound to be one. What kind of ridiculous tortured logic is this?
If we took all the bureaucratic collectivist and state capitalist theories seriously, we would have to figure out what this class was and where it came from. Unless you are an idealist who says that it was the evils of Stalinism that made them do it, you have to conclude that having a group of people who are in control of the distribution (which was the main job of the bureaucracy) will tend to become a class. The fact that there is no such analysis from any third camp theorists convinces me that they aren't very serious about the whole enterprise.


More sloppy and circular thinking. The very conclusion you state there presupposes the very thing you need to prove: that the Soviet Union was not capitalist. There is not just one kind of capitalism, and there is no capitalism in a "pure form." Capitalism as analyzed by Marx in Das Kapital was an abstraction he developed through examination of concrete societies as they developed historically.
No, actually, I'm just providing a short version because otherwise these posts would get to be book length. Seriously though, if you look at what actually happened in the USSR leading up to 1991, there was a second economy that existed. It was a sort of combination of corruption and the black market combined with low-level private production. This caused serious wealth imbalances, but the means of production being nationalized were a roadblock - the bureaucrats, who you suppose to have been capitalist or something else, could not use money as capital. I do not think you could have clearer evidence that this was not a capitalist society.

[Kassad]

Really? Which Marxists are calling for Cuba, China, Korea, and Vietnam to become free-market capitalist societies? Can you name anybody specific or provide any citations to online sources?

I think the criticism of those societies, like that of the Soviet Union, is that they are not classless societies and therefore do not automatically enjoy some kind of a privileged claim to the esteem of people struggling for actual democracy and actual socialism.

You obviously didn't read my post. I elaborated later on that many call for "political revolution" or "internal revolution" and the like, which at the end of the day is a pretty surreal idea on a lot of levels. Also, I don't have time to look up a bunch of sources, but I recall someone from the Socialist Workers Party (UK) saying that they applauded the collapse of the Soviet Union as a victory for socialism. I think personal statements from members mean a lot more than theoretical articles.

[Lucretia]

Trotsky called for the unconditional defense of the USSR in war and against capitalist counter-revolution. This doesn't mean unconditional defense in every circumstance, it means that the defense against imperialism and counter-revolution was not conditional on the actions of the bureaucracy. You are hanging on a ridiculous interpretation of the slogan, and it's making you look rather silly.

I'm not debating Trotsky or what he said. I am debating you, so stop hiding behind Trotsky's skirt everytime I say something you don't like. What you're now saying (though were not saying before in the original post I was criticizing) is that the defense of the Soviet Union should not have been conditioned on the actions of the bureaucracy, but should have been conditioned on whether the Soviet Union was at war or was under threat of 'counter-revolution.' So it's conditioned on certain factors but not others. Which means, of course, that defense of the Soviet Union was conditional. That's my point. Since it seems we have cleared this up, perhaps we can move on.


Yet the property forms were progressive - unlike the property forms of capitalism, which orient all production to profit, or slavery where the property forms are human, they worked in a society where the bureaucrats actually had to do a few things for their benefits, by the internal logic of the system.The leeching bureaucracy in the Soviet Union was about as necessary for socialism as health insurance executives are for the provision of health care to sick people. You are again mistaking the juridical forms of proletarian power with its actual existence. Legal entitlement to property is one, but certainly not the only way of ensuring effective control over the means of production. Another way is through coercive control over the decision-making processes determining how to employ productive property. In other words, just because property is "collectivized" legally does not mean that workers have any greater say in how the economy is planned or run. I am not about to spend hours of my life convening a 'Marxism for Beginners' course on the revleft forum.


The Soviet Union had proven that we could do without capitalists,Yet here again you are assuming that the Soviet Union was not a state capitalist society.


We could not throw those hard-won victories away, but petty-bourgeois idealists can.Meaningless and vapid sloganeering bereft of any analysis.


The pro-Soviet government was just about the only breathing room that country had in decades of oppression and backwardness.Define "pro-Soviet government." Do we mean the Soviet Union under Lenin? Stalin? Brezhnev?


It figures that you'd be a die-hard in supporting the mujahideen who opposed it.When did I ever say I was in favor of the mujahideen? Are you capable of making a single post without putting words in my mouth or constructing strawmen?



The conquests of revolution need to be defended, or there could not be another one.But this is still more empty sloganeering. What are these "conquests" of which you speak? A property form? I already explained how collective property forms were a necessary but not sufficient condition for a socialist society. Then again, also necessary but not sufficient is a functioning democracy, which the Soviet Union did not have.



Revolutionaries are not dilettantes who flit away from a revolution when something doesn't go their way. No one could seriously trust a revolutionary party that sulks in a corner and says "It isn't real socialism anyway" when confronted with Stalinism.I could.



No, this is a debate on Cliffism. You're some person on the internet who is trying to use sheer Stalinophobia to win an argument about it. If you don't understand why that makes this debate about Cliffism, your loss.It's a debate about a wider subject, one related to what you call "Cliffism," about whether the Soviet Union was worthy of 'unconditional' defense. I say no, it was not. And I don't consider myself either a state capitalist or a 'Cliffist.'


If we took all the bureaucratic collectivist and state capitalist theories seriously, we would have to figure out what this class was and where it came from.We know very well where it came from. It came from the institutionalization of a bureaucratic class in control of the means of production. You seem to have some overly schematic (dare I call it "idealist") understanding of Marx's writings about class and class society.


Unless you are an idealist who says that it was the evils of Stalinism that made them do it, you have to conclude that having a group of people who are in control of the distribution (which was the main job of the bureaucracy) will tend to become a class.I am not a believer in Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy," and don't believe that people have a natural desire to dominate and conquer others. I think it's perfectly plausible to conclude that the bureaucracy assumed class powers in response to the setbacks inflicted of the workers movement and the Soviet economy as a result of WWI followed by a lengthy civil war.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I elaborated later on that many call for "political revolution" or "internal revolution" and the like, which at the end of the day is a pretty surreal idea on a lot of levels.

I suppose the idea of proletarian revolution is pretty surreal for most people.

Nic.

[penguinfoot]

I don't have a problem with them at all, except as of late members of the International Socialist Organization have been attacking our members in public over our line on China, which is counterproductive and it winds up making them look stupid.

I'm not a member of the ISO, but what kind of an argument is this? If the PSL is so opposed to having public discussions about important theoretical and political issues (which would be pretty standard practice for a Stalinist organization like the PSL) then they shouldn't have responded to the ISO when it put forward a criticism of the PSL's pro-bureaucracy stance in Socialist Worker, around the twenty-year anniversary of the Tiananmen protests. Talking of which, you still haven't come back to be on that issue, which I raised in the thread on the RCP and Avakain.


Yet, many people still call for counterrevolution in Cuba, China, Korea, Vietnam and such.

Even if this were true (which it's not) and even if the Soviet Union did experience a counter-revolution in the sense of a reversion to a less advanced mode of production in 1991 (which it didn't) the thing which you ignore is who the leaders of the counter-revolution were - the bureaucrats who you champion and admire!

[Soviet dude]

Considering that you think most of the old Bolsheviks became "worthless dregs who despised the USSR" I don't see how we couldn't apply this same argument to Bolshevism itself, or with a little modification, Marxism in general.


It's interesting Trotskyites think the title "Old Bolshevik" applies to Trotsky at all, and then only a handful of other people.

But in any case, I have never said anything even close to the effect that "most of the old Bolsheviks" were "worthless dregs who despised the USSR." This is your own imagination at work.

[Soviet dude]

Imagine if we quoted what Lenin actually thought about Stalin.;)

Feel free to quote Lenin's "Last Testament" or telegrams about Georgia, the contents of which do not even begin to compare to the criticism directed at Trotsky, before and after 1917.


Your ability to doublethink amazes me.

You don't think at all.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I've found myself "Thanking" pretty much all of Lucretia's posts.

In particular, this needs repeating:
In any event, what "Trotskyists" in the past did or believed was not infallible, nor was it evidence of some fixed ahistorical ideology called "Trotksyism" that needs to be slavishly and uncritically followed.

[Kassad]

I'm not a member of the ISO, but what kind of an argument is this? If the PSL is so opposed to having public discussions about important theoretical and political issues (which would be pretty standard practice for a Stalinist organization like the PSL) then they shouldn't have responded to the ISO when it put forward a criticism of the PSL's pro-bureaucracy stance in Socialist Worker, around the twenty-year anniversary of the Tiananmen protests. Talking of which, you still haven't come back to be on that issue, which I raised in the thread on the RCP and Avakain.

It's just a relevant point. We did respond back: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12341&news_iv_ctrl=1261

We also realize that there is no reason for a back-and-forth that will never end. We responded and believe our response is sufficient on the topic. I apologize that I don't have hours and hours to spend discussing these issues with you. I'm a full-time student working a minimum wage job, so sorry I don't have all the time in the world to sit back with a cup of tea and debate you.

Anyway, my point still stands. I've debated with ISO members dozens of times in person regarding China, the Soviet Union and other issues. I do not find it helpful, however, when we're both at a protest and they are barking at us about China when we're all trying to do outreach to workers regarding socialism. Honestly, in Chicago, they were nearly as bad as the Spartacist League. That's a sad reflection on them. Feel free to contact the Columbus branch of the ISO and discuss our multiple discussions on China, since that seems to be your only relevant point.

[Ocean Seal]

People, we're all closer in opinion than we pretend, please let's stopping debating about the differences of subsubsections and other subsubsections. Whether Cliffites are Trotskyistsis up to the individual Cliffite and what s\he proclaims to be.

[graymouser]

You are again mistaking the juridical forms of proletarian power with its actual existence.
Actually, no, quite ironically the "state capitalist" theorists are the ones who fail to differentiate the forms of proletarian property from the reality of proletarian power. It is the former that we defended in the USSR and that we still defend in the degenerated workers' states.


Yet here again you are assuming that the Soviet Union was not a state capitalist society.
For at least some period of time, yes. The theories developed by Cliff, and the others you mentioned, do hold that there was a period in which the USSR was in fact a workers' state. If you do not recognize that, your vision of socialism effectively remains utopian.


Meaningless and vapid sloganeering bereft of any analysis.


Define "pro-Soviet government." Do we mean the Soviet Union under Lenin? Stalin? Brezhnev?
What? I was referring to the government of Najibullah in Afghanistan, which you were talking about the USSR bombing, not to a Soviet government.


But this is still more empty sloganeering. What are these "conquests" of which you speak? A property form? I already explained how collective property forms were a necessary but not sufficient condition for a socialist society. Then again, also necessary but not sufficient is a functioning democracy, which the Soviet Union did not have.
That's actually pretty much what Trotsky actually stood for - the property forms in the USSR plus soviet democracy. But state capitalism holds that a new social revolution would be necessary, which if it means anything would mean tearing up these property forms. If you don't hold to that, you do not hold to a variant of state capitalist theory.


I am not a believer in Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy," and don't believe that people have a natural desire to dominate and conquer others. I think it's perfectly plausible to conclude that the bureaucracy assumed class powers in response to the setbacks inflicted of the workers movement and the Soviet economy as a result of WWI followed by a lengthy civil war.
Again, if you seriously believe that this is how a class forms, that is a group with definite relations to the means of production, then revolutions have no chance. Any revolution is going to suffer setbacks and require temporary solutions - if that alone can create a new class then you might as well give up because we're fucked.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Feel free to quote Lenin's "Last Testament" or telegrams about Georgia, the contents of which do not even begin to compare to the criticism directed at Trotsky, before and after 1917.



You don't think at all.

Is it not correct that, whilst Lenin and Trotsky did indeed argue, that this was a relatively well-known thing within the Bolshevik Party, that their criticisms of each other was often stern and harsh, by most peoples' standards?

In any case, do you have any defence for Lenin's damning indictment of Stalin in his Testament? I'm guessing not.

[Lucretia]

That's actually pretty much what Trotsky actually stood for - the property forms in the USSR plus soviet democracy. But state capitalism holds that a new social revolution would be necessary, which if it means anything would mean tearing up these property forms. If you don't hold to that, you do not hold to a variant of state capitalist theory.

I believe I have sufficiently made my views known about the issues touched on in the rest of your response, but this requires further exploration. Where have you ever seen Cliff or any state capitalist argue that the "property form" in the Soviet Union needed to be torn up? Or are you just making this stuff up as you go along? I ask because, as I said, in my understanding of state capitalism, the argument is that the collective property form is necessary but not sufficient to the establishment of a classless society, not that it is incompatible.

[Kléber]

Stalinists fuck off. Mao and Hoxha believed the USSR was not just capitalist but fascist and imperialist; their followers waged actual "people's war" against the Soviet Red Army, so folks claiming that tradition are the last ones who should be pointing any fingers at Cliffites.

[Soviet dude]

Is it not correct that, whilst Lenin and Trotsky did indeed argue, that this was a relatively well-known thing within the Bolshevik Party, that their criticisms of each other was often stern and harsh, by most peoples' standards?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you trying to suggest that this was some kind of game between the two? That is most certainly not the case. Trotsky was not a Bolshevik before 1917, and afterwards, he was bitterly criticized numerous times. Lenin even purposefully excluded Trotsky from the decision making processes.


In any case, do you have any defence for Lenin's damning indictment of Stalin in his Testament? I'm guessing not.

What is there to defend? Stalin is the only one who is not criticized in the letter, except in a post-script, after Stalin was rude to his wife over the phone. The post-script says to get someone to replace Stalin, that is exactly like him, except less rude. Stalin offered his resignation at the 13th Party Congress, and everyone, including Trotsky, refused it.

[Kassad]

Also, apparently I am a "petty-bourgeois workerist" because I don't have hours on end to make long, drawn-out posts anymore. I love this place.

[jsov]

The original question is "are Cliffites real Trotskyites?" The question seems to hinge on the issue of whether or not Trotsky's view of the Soviet Union as a degenerated worker's state or Tony Cliff's view of the Soviet Union as an example of state capitalism is correct.

Both views are theories (albeit well-crafted theories) and it is important to remember what Lucretia stated and Le Corsaire Rouge reiterated: what "Trotskyists" in the past did or believed was not infallible, nor was it evidence of some fixed ahistorical ideology called "Trotksyism" that needs to be slavishly and uncritically followed.

Personally, I believe that there was something important in the Russian Revolution of 1917. Historically, I find that Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks created a workers' state - though how long it existed as such is debatable - perhaps only a few short years before degenerating.

Yet, Tony Cliff, CLR James, Duncan Hallas, and many others have provided us - radical leftists - with brilliant, modern, various views of Marxism and how to take Marxism into the 21st Century.

On a personal note, I am perhaps a bit older than some of the folks in here (perhaps not). I remember much of the Cold War through the 1980's. I've been to East Germany and I watched Aktuelle Kamera and DDR-1. At times it is difficult for me not to have Ostalgie, but this is a century where we have to understand that the experiments of the CCCP and the Eastern Bloc were not successful. We need to learn what worked from Lenin, but also what failed. That is where the works of Tony Cliff, Howard Zinn, Chris Harman, Paul Foot, and others help us.

[Kiev Communard]

The question of someone "being real" is quite dogmatic under these circumstances. As for me, Cliffism is not rather original doctrine; Marxism-Humanism, autonomist Marxism, Council Communism did much better than it in the sense of formulating new approaches and its "state-capitalist" analysis of the Eastern Bloc is rife with internal problems. But for "being real Trotskyists"? Does it have any relevance today?

[RED DAVE]

Tony Cliff, whose birth name was Yigael Gluckstein, referred to himself as a Jewish Palestinian.

Do you have a link to that please, Dave?Here's a source as to his actual name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Cliff#Life

As to what term he actually used for his ethnicity, I'll have to fallback on "personal communication." I spent a lot of time with some Cliffite friends/comrades in London in the 60s and 70s (although I never met Cliff), and they told me this. I could give you their names, but it wouldn't mean anything to you although one of them just celebrated 50 years in the tendency.

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

Here's a source as to his actual name.

Yes, I knew his name.


As to what term he actually used for his ethnicity, I'll have to fallback on "personal communication." I spent a lot of time with some Cliffite friends/comrades in London in the 60s and 70s (although I never met Cliff), and they told me this.

Somebody pmed me and said they had heard him use it too. I was just a bit surprised as I never heard him, and I did vaguely know him, refer to his ethnicity. I heard him say he came from Palestine from a Zionist family, but never that he was a 'Palestinian'.

Whatever if two people are saying it they are quite probably right.


I could give you their names, but it wouldn't mean anything to you although one of them just celebrated 50 years in the tendency.

It might actually, but it isn't necessary.

Devrim

[graymouser]

The question of someone "being real" is quite dogmatic under these circumstances. As for me, Cliffism is not rather original doctrine; Marxism-Humanism, autonomist Marxism, Council Communism did much better than it in the sense of formulating new approaches and its "state-capitalist" analysis of the Eastern Bloc is rife with internal problems. But for "being real Trotskyists"? Does it have any relevance today?
Sure. The crisis of leadership of the proletariat that Trotsky describes in the preface to the Transitional Program is more acute than ever - the Stalinists and Social Democrats have failed on an epic scale over the last 70 years. Trotsky's analysis of the USSR is still necessary for historical discussion of the Stalin question, and for determining the current orientation toward Cuba and the DPRK (China and Vietnam are no longer anything that can be considered "workers' states"). Trotsky's theory of the Permanent Revolution and his critique of the Popular Front are relevant from Venezuela to Nepal. How much of the 20th century was a proof of the negative branch of the Permanent Revolution, that the democratic tasks could not be completed by the national bourgeoisie in former colonial countries that switched to being semi-colonial underdeveloped (in terms of combined & uneven development) countries? And the Cliffites hold distorted positions on most or all of this. So what's not relevant here?

[RED DAVE]

[IMG ALIGN=center ALT="Tony Cliff" SRC="./img/gr000014.jpg" WIDTH="521" HEIGHT="507"]

[RED DAVE]

Yigael Gluckstein, aka Tony Cliff:

http://i54.tinypic.com/bdjwx0.jpg

RED DAVE

[Crux]

Funky hair.

[Crux]

1. Claiming the USSR was state capitalist imperialist and yet supporting them in World War 2
2. Using the rampant anti-Russian sentiment in the West in the form of extreme "anti-Stalinism" to recruit people
3. Joining with imperialists in cheering on the collapse of the USSR

Add to this their apparent social democratic politics, these seem to be more indicative of the Cliffites' bankrupt politics than mere mistakes.
1. I understand it confuses you if you have no understanding of the issue. As has been noted the state-capitalism theory was always far more widespread in the stalinist, particularly the maoist camp. In fact the social-imperialists were declared the main enemy, leading to some very interesting alliances on both sides. China's support for Pinochet, for one.
2. Nonsense.
3. See point one.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes, that was even worse than the Spartacist position ("Hail Red Army!"). Also, Afghan Maoists actually fought against the DRA, sometimes in cooperation with reactionaries, but in their defense they were forced underground by the PDPA in 1978, before the Soviet invasion.

There were two sides in that war, the CIA's islamic fundamentalists and the most progressive government in Afghan history. When you look at it like that the Spartacist position doesn't seem ridiculous. It's better than the Cliffite position of supporting the mujahideen as "anti-imperialists" even if they shoot women for reading, take money from Reagan and kill communists for US capital. Yeah and those Afghan Maoists were probably the first to be slaughtered once the DRA was overthrown.

[Lucretia]

I don't see what this has to do with anything. If Cliff knew that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist imperialist state, what could make him support it in WW2 except as a cheerer of imperialism? Also, what do you the reason for the high number of people in Cliffite parties is?

Maybe he supported it in WWII for the very good reason that Hitler needed to be stopped. Just guessing, though.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It's better than the Cliffite position of supporting the mujahideen as "anti-imperialists" even if they shoot women for reading, take money from Reagan and kill communists for US capital.

This sentiment has been seen from quite a few posters in this thread and on the wider board. It is something I completely disagree with, ironic I suppose coming from a Euro-centric liberal ultra-leftist.

The line taken by the IS during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is the logic conclusion of their politics. Since they saw the USSR as capitalist and imperialist, aswell as defending the line that in a predatory war between an imperialist power and an oppressed nation, support must be given to the anti-imperialist forces, it was perfectly principled for the IS to give 'unconditional, military support' to the Mujahadeen.

This is what it means to be a principled 'anti-imperialist' within the framework of Trotskyism.

The difference between the Spartacist League and the IS is that the SL upheld the orthodox trotskyist conception of the USSR as a degenerated workers state and took the equally principled line 'Hail Red Army', 'Extend the gains of October to the Afghan Peoples'.

Whatever can be said about the implications of either line, the groups were politically principled. Unfortunately political principle has no value on revleft and for the vast majority of leftist political groups today. The same people that claim to defend the line of Lenin on the national question retreat to the most cowardly opportunism when it comes to supporting anti-imperialist forces that find themselves at odds with the aims of communists (or worse still 'progressives')*.

Grow a (political) spine.

Nic.

*A good example for both Trotskyists and so-called 'Marxist-Leninists' is the current in the War in Iraq and Afghanistan where groups consistently fail to give military support to the resistance movements, most controversially the Taliban, and instead opt for pacifist slogans.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If Cliff knew that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist imperialist state, what could make him support it in WW2 except as a cheerer of imperialism?

(My emphasis added)

Because he didn't. Cliff only had the epiphany in 1947.

Nic.

[Homo Songun]

Right, except it wasn't an epiphany due to the fact that Tony Cliff's theory didn't get him any closer to the essential reality of class relations in the USSR.

[Marion]

This is what it means to be a principled 'anti-imperialist' within the framework of Trotskyism.
Ah, but you're totally misunderstanding the extreme subtleties of Cliffite politics. In perhaps the best quote I've seen in ages Ian Birchall (of the SWP) says:

The late Tony Cliff often used to remind us that "tactics contradict principles". The formulation is not without problems [!!!!], but it is a useful reminder that the concrete application of principles is a complex matter".

Of course, "tactics contradict principles" is also a "useful reminder" that you can just do what the hell you like an tail any bourgeoise sentiments you fancy...

[Niccolò Rossi]

Good point. But Cliff continued to justify his support for the supposed state capitalism and the bourgeoisie till his death.

What do you mean by this?

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Though Cliff later saw the Soviet Union as state capitalist, he continued to justify his support for what he saw as state capitalism till his death. In doing so, he was basically going against his own supposed principles.

Are you referring to the line taken during WWII? Where did he defend this later in life? Could you refer me to a source?

Nic.

[Devrim]

Are you referring to the line taken during WWII? Where did he defend this later in life? Could you refer me to a source?

Nic.

On this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1928636&postcount=34) :)

Devrim

[Lucretia]

On this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1928636&postcount=34) :)

Devrim

Right. So as I said, it was not so much support for the Soviet Union, state capitalist or otherwise, but support for any countries which were opposed to and actively fighting fascism. What's so surprising about this?

[Zanthorus]

Maybe he supported it in WWII for the very good reason that Hitler needed to be stopped. Just guessing, though.


Right. So as I said, it was not so much support for the Soviet Union, state capitalist or otherwise, but support for any countries which were opposed to and actively fighting fascism. What's so surprising about this?

Because supporting any and every group fighting fascism is a total abandonment of class politics which is low even for Trotskyists. Orthodox Trotskyists had the excuse that they saw the Soviet Union as a workers' state, so defencism in that instance wasn't class-collaborationist. In Cliff's case, he saw the Soviet Union as bourgeois. That would make supporting it in a war against Fascism an essentially Popular Frontist maneuver. The Communist Left also took up the idea that Russia was state-capitalist. But unlike the Cliffites they called for revolutionary defeatism and the transformation of the world imperialist war into a revolutionary civil war. This is the revolutionary Bolshevik position on inter-imperialist war. This is what Cliff should've called for if he had even an ounce of Leninism left in him.

[Niccolò Rossi]

On this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1928636&postcount=34) :)

Ok right, the standard defence of democracy against fascism. No surprises there I suppose. Thanks.

Nic.

[Devrim]

Right. So as I said, it was not so much support for the Soviet Union, state capitalist or otherwise, but support for any countries which were opposed to and actively fighting fascism. What's so surprising about this?

Nothing, but siding with either side in an imperialist war is a betrayal of internationalism.

Devrim

[Kléber]

Because supporting any and every group fighting fascism is a total abandonment of class politics which is low even for Trotskyists.
Trotsky never supported Stalin, he was defending the Soviet people while preparing for Stalin's overthrow.


Orthodox Trotskyists had the excuse that they saw the Soviet Union as a workers' state, so defencism in that instance wasn't class-collaborationist. In Cliff's case, he saw the Soviet Union as bourgeois.Actually Trotsky had the same "defencist" position on China: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/10/sino.htm


That would make supporting it in a war against Fascism an essentially Popular Frontist maneuver. Nonsense. Was the defense of Petrograd against Kornilov popular frontist too? Fighting alongside others against fascism is not the same as giving them your political support. It's not capitulation to a popular front unless the proletariat renounces its political independence to participate in a bourgeois government, like the CNT/FAI and POUM did.


The Communist Left also took up the idea that Russia was state-capitalist. But unlike the Cliffites they called for revolutionary defeatism and the transformation of the world imperialist war into a revolutionary civil war. This is the revolutionary Bolshevik position on inter-imperialist war.Defeatism was correct in the Allied imperialist countries and their colonies, but nothing could be worse than calling for the defeat of the Soviet and Chinese peoples.

[Crux]

I don't see what this has to do with anything. If Cliff knew that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist imperialist state, what could make him support it in WW2 except as a cheerer of imperialism? Also, what do you the reason for the high number of people in Cliffite parties is?
Well, I was under the impression you were referring to trotskyism more generally. Indeed, that is one of the contradictions state-capitalism creates, in fact Trotsky addressed it in some his articles and letters collected in In Defense of Marxism.

[9]

Originally Posted by marxistn00b http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1930172#post1930172)
I don't see what this has to do with anything. If Cliff knew that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist imperialist state, what could make him support it in WW2 except as a cheerer of imperialism? Also, what do you the reason for the high number of people in Cliffite parties is?Well, I was under the impression you were referring to trotskyism more generally. Indeed, that is one of the contradictions state-capitalism creates, in fact Trotsky addressed it in some his articles and letters collected in In Defense of Marxism.

What "contradiction" are you referring to? That Tony Cliff justified his support for WWII in spite of having an analysis of the Soviet Union as 'state capitalist'? Because in that regard, Cliff is the exception; most of the communists who had a 'state capitalist' analysis didn't support either side in WWII.

[Kiev Communard]

Taking into account the exceptionally murderous tendencies of Nazi Germany toward the population of occupied countries of East Europe and the USSR, WW II was the only case when the cooperation with "lesser evil" was justified.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nothing, but siding with either side in an imperialist war is a betrayal of internationalism.

Devrim

That's too much of a blanket statement. It applies only in a revolutionary period, and otherwise one has to determine if it's imperialist aggression or an inter-imperialist conflict, progressive or reactionary "anti-imperialism" in the former, and which imperialist power stifles worker struggles more in the latter.


The Communist Left also took up the idea that Russia was state-capitalist. But unlike the Cliffites they called for revolutionary defeatism and the transformation of the world imperialist war into a revolutionary civil war. This is the revolutionary Bolshevik position on inter-imperialist war. This is what Cliff should've called for if he had even an ounce of Leninism left in him.

What was the left-com position on the Afghanistan war in the 1980s? It was not a revolutionary period, and neither in fact was WWII (the slightest ounce of a revolutionary period came immediately after the war).

[Devrim]

That's too much of a blanket statement. It applies only in a revolutionary period, and otherwise one has to determine if it's imperialist aggression or an inter-imperialist conflict, progressive or reactionary "anti-imperialism" in the former, and which imperialist power stifles worker struggles more in the latter.

No, it doesn't apply only in a revolutionary period, nor was 1914 a revolutionary period.


What was the left-com position on the Afghanistan war in the 1980s? It was not a revolutionary period, and neither in fact was WWII (the slightest ounce of a revolutionary period came immediately after the war).

Obviously support for neither side unlike the rest of the left most of which supported one side or the other.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, it doesn't apply only in a revolutionary period, nor was 1914 a revolutionary period.

1914 was well into a revolutionary period. The consensus of the Marxist center of the Second International was that the late 1900s was a new revolutionary period, and that there should be no left or right deviations from the road to power.


Obviously support for neither side unlike the rest of the left most of which supported one side or the other.

Devrim

We may agree to disagree, but at least you're not calling for a very, very unrealistic "revolutionary" defeatism of imperialist powers outside a revolutionary period.

"Peace without annexations of indemnifications" seems to be your line, despite the rhetoric.

[Devrim]

1914 was well into a revolutionary period. The consensus of the Marxist center of the Second International was that the late 1900s was a new revolutionary period, and that there should be no left or right deviations from the road to power.

!914 was the point where the working class abandoned its own class interests and went of to kill and be killed on behalf of the nation.


We may agree to disagree, but at least you're not calling for a very, very unrealistic "revolutionary" defeatism of imperialist powers outside a revolutionary period.

Of course we are for 'revolutionary defeatism' and the epoch is one of war and revolutions. It doesn't mean that we raise an empty slogan slogan of revolution now though.


Peace without annexations of indemnifications" seems to be your line, despite the rhetoric.

No, it is not, nothing at all like it. I would be 'interested' to hear how you even imagine that slogan could apply to the situation in Afghanistan in 1979 though.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

1914 was the point where the working class abandoned its own class interests and went of to kill and be killed on behalf of the nation.

You conveniently forget the fourth criterion of a revolutionary situation: breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, police, bureaucracy, etc.). War presents the opportunity for this breakdown.


Of course we are for 'revolutionary defeatism' and the epoch is one of war and revolutions. It doesn't mean that we raise an empty slogan slogan of revolution now though.

I think you've made a contradictory statement. The slogan is empty because the epoch isn't a revolutionary period, and because the decadence thing is hogwash.


No, it is not, nothing at all like it. I would be 'interested' to hear how you even imagine that slogan could apply to the situation in Afghanistan in 1979 though.

Devrim

In 1979: It would apply once the Soviets successfully install a friendlier head of state. Go in, kill the CIA bastard, then pull out while leaving behind KGB operatives to train the Afghan security forces. Because of the hypothetical pullout, the US might not have intervened like it did. The mujahedeen and the "anti-revisionists" might have gone up against a stronger Afghan security apparatus.

Now: It's so obvious that the center line of the Second International applies. The occupation is seen as a failure, up to the point where there's consideration of including the Taliban in the peace process.

[Devrim]

You conveniently forget the fourth criterion of a revolutionary situation: breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, police, bureaucracy, etc.). War presents the opportunity for this breakdown.



I think you've made a contradictory statement. The slogan is empty because the epoch isn't a revolutionary period, and because the decadence thing is hogwash.



In 1979: It would apply once the Soviets successfully install a friendlier head of state. Go in, kill the CIA bastard, then pull out while leaving behind KGB operatives to train the Afghan security forces. Because of the hypothetical pullout, the US might not have intervened like it did. The mujahedeen and the "anti-revisionists" might have gone up against a stronger Afghan security apparatus.

Now: It's so obvious that the center line of the Second International applies. The occupation is seen as a failure, up to the point where there's consideration of including the Taliban in the peace process.

I'm sorry, I was treating you like somebody it was possible to have a reasonable conversation with, not somebody who just spouts absurd dogma. It is my mistake.

Memory does tend to fade a little when you get to my age. Once again, apologies.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just think that class-struggle defencism is more appropriate outside revolutionary periods.

[Kléber]

I just think that class-struggle defencism is more appropriate outside revolutionary periods.
Nice way of saying you're a pro-war social-chauvinist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't be ridiculous. Engels was a class-struggle defencist, and an application of this would be a hypothetical war between a declining and still-reactionary USA and an ascending China (over, say, Taiwan). Another example is the advocacy by Gerhard Schroeder of replacing NATO with an exclusively European collective security treaty that includes Russia, something which even Die Linke advocates openly.

Again, "outside revolutionary periods" is the key.

[Kléber]

Don't be ridiculous. Engels was a class-struggle defencist, and an application of this would be a hypothetical war between a declining and still-reactionary USA and an ascending China (over, say, Taiwan).
I'll tell you what is ridiculous, turning Engels' position on the Franco-Prussian War into a religious precedent that justifies support for the US and/or Chinese bourgeoisie in the next imperialist war. If you're against turning a war into a revolution, if you retreat before the onslaught of bourgeois militarism, then you are no Leninist.


Another example is the advocacy by Gerhard Schroeder of replacing NATO with an exclusively European collective security treaty that includes Russia, something which even Die Linke advocates openly."Even" Die Linke? You serious? Actual revolutionaries oppose all imperialist alliances.


Again, "outside revolutionary periods" is the key.It is one thing to be opposed to military adventurism and premature seizure of political power by the proletariat. It is another to use theory for the sole purpose of arguing why reformism, class treason and collaboration with imperialism are justifiable 99% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if when the next revolutionary overturn happens, you follow your idol Kautsky and denounce it because the revolution isn't happening when and how you want it to.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll tell you what is ridiculous, turning Engels' position on the Franco-Prussian War into a religious precedent that justifies support for the US and/or Chinese bourgeoisie in the next imperialist war.

Now why would I support in any way, shape, or form, the imperialism of the US?

1) Greatest deteriment to worker struggles globally
2) Naked economic imperialism
3) Lack of progressive spine re. lumpen-rentier client states (proletarianizing Saudi Arabia's lumpen-ized indigenous population, for example, the exact opposite of Maoism-Third Worldism)


If you're against turning a war into a revolution, if you retreat before the onslaught of bourgeois militarism, then you are no Leninist.

Turning a war into a revolution is applicable only in revolutionary periods. Turning anti-war opposition into more initial class struggle outside revolutionary periods is a bigger priority. "Peace without annexations or indemnifications" does this.


"Even" Die Linke? You serious? Revolutionaries should oppose all imperialist alliances.

That would include, oh, um, the alliance in WWII. :lol:


It is one thing to be opposed to premature seizure of political power by the proletariat, it is another to use theory solely for the purpose of explaining why reformism and class treason is justifiable 99% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if when the next revolution happens, you act like your idol Kautsky and denounce it because this revolution isn't happening when you want it to.

Premature seizure of political power also involves a low level of institutional worker-class organization. Go check out my History thread on May 1968 in France and my comments on the PCF: wrong orientation and program, correct actions.

[Kléber]

Now why would I support in any way, shape, or form, the imperialism of the US?
You were very vague, but implied that you would support "defencism" in either the US or the PRC if the other aggressed against it. Makes sense given your shady position on Social-Democracy and WWI.


Turning a war into a revolution is applicable only in revolutionary periods. Turning anti-war opposition into more initial class struggle outside revolutionary periods is a bigger priority. "Peace without annexations or indemnifications" does this.That isn't defencism.


That would include, oh, um, the alliance in WWII. :lol:Support for the Chinese and Soviet peoples against the genocidal fascist imperialists does not equal support for the genocidal "Allied" imperialists against the world's workers and peoples. Trotsky always defended the right of colonized people to rebel (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/india.htm); the Sri Lankan comrades effectively put this into practice by helping instigate the only mutiny among Allied forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos_Islands_Mutiny)during the war.


Premature seizure of political power also involves a low level of institutionalized worker-class organization. Go check out my History thread on May 1968 in France and my comments on the PCF: wrong orientation and program, correct actions.Absolutely surreal. The PCF in 1968 did "correct actions?" What actions? Saying "Fucking students go back to class!" and backing away from the seizure of power in favor of an attempt to grab seats in government during an actual revolutionary situation, when factory workers were taking bosses hostage and hoisting the red flag, when De Gaulle had fled the country - at the closest moment to a socialist revolution in Europe since the war? The PCF in '68 is a great example of how a "revolutionary" party can betray a revolution using the excuse that it isn't the right time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You were very vague, but implied that you would support "defencism" in either the US or the PRC if the other aggressed against it. Makes sense given your shady position on Social-Democracy and WWI.

If the PRC were attacked, the aggressor should be opposed. Military opposition to reunification with Taiwan on the PRC's terms should itself be opposed (in other words, one can support an "invasion" of Taiwan by the mainland).


That isn't defencism.

Defencism isn't "offencism," and not all defencism is class-strugglist or revolutionary (but some forms are).

It is defencism if there is agitation for the centrist slogan in the aggressor country and agitation for defencism in the attacked country.


Support for the Chinese and Soviet peoples against the genocidal fascist imperialists does not equal support for the genocidal "Allied" imperialists against the world's workers and peoples. Trotsky always defended the right of colonized people to rebel (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/india.htm); the Sri Lankan comrades effectively put this into practice by helping instigate the only mutiny among Allied forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos_Islands_Mutiny)during the war.

I applaud this, but I was referring to the defense of the British Isles proper, not to the British Empire's colonial holdings.


Absolutely surreal. The PCF in 1968 did "correct actions?" What actions? Saying "Fucking students go back to class!" and backing away from the seizure of power in favor of an attempt to grab seats in government during an actual revolutionary situation, when factory workers were taking bosses hostage and hoisting the red flag, when De Gaulle had fled the country - at the closest moment to a socialist revolution in Europe since the war? The PCF in '68 is a great example of how a "revolutionary" party can betray a revolution using the excuse that it isn't the right time.

If you understood the crux of the center strategy, the emphasize on "Organize" in "Educate, Agitate, Organize," you would not rush to that ultra-left conclusion. There was hostility between the state and the masses, and there may have been a breakdown in the state apparatus, but there was no longstanding mass revolutionary party-movement - let alone one commanding majority political support from the working class. The presence of all four features defines a revolutionary period for the working class (The Road to Power).

[bricolage]

Nobody cares about Kautsky.

[blake 3:17]

Nobody cares about Kautsky.


Not useful.

[bricolage]

Well it's true though... or rather it should be, much as these new Kautskyians try to dress up their politics in a positive mask separating his 'good' bits from his 'bad' bits, they all end up making the same capitulations to capital that he did. Theres a reason everyone else ditched his ideas nearly a century ago.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To the detriment of institutional worker-class organization and to the delight of those favouring collaboration with bourgeois labour parties, those who are spontaneists, and those who can spout slogans but can't cough up decent strategic programs.

But back on topic with your beloved Cliff.

[bricolage]

But back on topic with your beloved Cliff.
Cliff can go the same way as Kautsky.