Nepali Maoist's link to Trotskyism

[Lyev]

This link is pretty weak - and perhaps spurious - but interesting nonetheless, considering the constant Mao-Trotsky brawls we have here. I think maybe Whelpton has confused the RIM as a Trotskyist international (?). This is just referring to the support for the people's war. See what you think

"Finally, there was moral support from RIM, an international Trotskyist grouping that Mohan Bikram Singh's Masal had helped establish in London in 1984 and to which Baburam Bhattarai had served as representative." (p. 206, A History of Nepal, 2005, John Whelpton)

[RedHal]

no, the RIM (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) was an org that consisted of MLM groups around the world. Two of the members were Avakian's RCP and the Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path), nothing Trotskyists about RIM

[graymouser]

I read that book in a month of furious reading and writing back when it was brand-new and the 2006 uprising that overthrew the king was going on. (God, was that 5 years ago already?) I don't remember the actual quote myself, probably because I went through three books on Nepal at light-speed back then.

But the RIM is certainly not Trotskyist, although a group like MIM might use the designation purely as an attack. Maoist to the core, even took up the "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" designation that was officially disapproved back in Mao's day.

[red cat]

I don't mean to be sectarian here, but considering the Maoist line on Trotskyism, any link between a revolutionary Maoist CP and Trotskyism is unlikely, until the partisans concerned totally denounce Maoism in practice. Also, IRL third world Maoists use the word Trotskyite to describe an individual or a group that pretends to be communist but is counter-revolutionary in practice.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah RIM is Maoist. The only actual link would have been that one time Bhattarai expressed support for Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution. But Trotsky has not been mentioned positively again since then by any Maoist leader including Bhattarai, so i imagine the others had a word with him.

[RED DAVE]

But Trotsky has not been mentioned positively again since then by any Maoist leader including Bhattarai, so i imagine the others had a word with him.I'll bet they did. :D

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

I'll bet they did. :D

RED DAVE
Yeah I can imagine prachanda with a copy of the article bursting into bhattarai's room like "what the fuck is this shit ?!" then making some revleft-style icepick joke, but with a very serious face.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Funny how many Marxists are more sectarian than christians sometimes ... the idea that even mentioning Trotsky would be taken so seriously is strange ... its like the kind of reaction a Catholic priest would have had to seeing Luther 400 years ago.

I'm better read on Marx himself and early Soviet history than serious Stalinist critiques of Trotskyism ... are there any which justify this vile loathing? I always figured it when back to the fact that Trotsky was kind of a dick to Stalin in their personal relationship (something I remember reading in a bio on stalin)

[red cat]

Funny how many Marxists are more sectarian than christians sometimes ... the idea that even mentioning Trotsky would be taken so seriously is strange ... its like the kind of reaction a Catholic priest would have had to seeing Luther 400 years ago.

I'm better read on Marx himself and early Soviet history than serious Stalinist critiques of Trotskyism ... are there any which justify this vile loathing? I always figured it when back to the fact that Trotsky was kind of a dick to Stalin in their personal relationship (something I remember reading in a bio on stalin)

The question is, despite the possible revolutionary intent of individuals, can all of these tendencies be considered Marxist ? In India alone, you have the CPI(M), the NSA and the CPI(Maoist), along with many others. If you consider one of them Marxist, then you have to say that the others aren't.

As for Trotskyism, you know about the historical conflict within them and MLs. Even now, most Trotskyite individuals and every Trotskyite group considers Maoists to be anti-communists or non-communists, as you may have found from this forum itself. Keeping this in mind, even ignoring the strategic implications of what Laldhwaj had said, can you give one reason for Maoists to allow their senior leaders to rehabilitate Trotsky or his line ?

[RED DAVE]

[C]an you give one reason for Maoists to allow their senior leaders to rehabilitate Trotsky or his line ?:rolleyes:

Of course they can't as Trotskyism is the only consistent revolutionary critique of Maoism/Stalinism. And a little issue like historical truth never bothered Maoist/Stalinist leadership.

Of course, if you want working class revolution leading to socialism, and not petit-bourgeois-led state capitalism leading the private capitalism, Maoism is your system.

RED DAVE

[the last donut of the night]

Of course, if you want working class revolution leading to socialism, and not petit-bourgeois-led state capitalism leading the private capitalism, Maoism is your system.

RED DAVE

lol

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course, if you want working class revolution leading to socialism, and not petit-bourgeois-led state capitalism leading the private capitalism, Maoism is your system.

I think you've lost all of us here.

If you want minoritarian working-class change in the Third World leading to civil war against the peasantry and urban petit bourgeoisie, then Permanent Revolution is your system.

If you want "national bourgeois" state capitalism in the Third World leading to private capitalism because of no independent working-class political organization, then Maoism is your system.

If you want a petit-bourgeois-led mix of democratism, patrimonialism, and state capitalism swelling the ranks of the Third World proletariat and their class struggle, and opening the possibility of proletocratic change and social revolution towards the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production, then Caesarean Socialism is your system, like it is mine. :thumbup1:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The question is, despite the possible revolutionary intent of individuals, can all of these tendencies be considered Marxist ? In India alone, you have the CPI(M), the NSA and the CPI(Maoist), along with many others. If you consider one of them Marxist, then you have to say that the others aren't.

As for Trotskyism, you know about the historical conflict within them and MLs. Even now, most Trotskyite individuals and every Trotskyite group considers Maoists to be anti-communists or non-communists, as you may have found from this forum itself. Keeping this in mind, even ignoring the strategic implications of what Laldhwaj had said, can you give one reason for Maoists to allow their senior leaders to rehabilitate Trotsky or his line ?

Here's my problem; why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Critical analysis should include taking ideas from people and viewing them not based on whether it was written by a trot or a stalinist, but on the rational implications.

Most Trots may think of Stalinists and Maoists as anti-Communists and visa-versa ... but that's merely because they follow the thinking of Trotsky and Mao as if they were a Hebrew prophets walking down from the mountaintop. Getting over sectarianism starts with both sides ... I think if Maoists and Trotskyists didn't reject the ideas of the other out of hand as absolutely reprehensible, then Marxism might make more progress.

Consider this-Marx, a dialectical materialist socialist, took the writings of Hegel, an arch-conservative idealist monarchist as his biggest influence. That was a genius of people in the 1800s ... they could actually work with the ideas of people with views they found to be ppalling.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Of course they can't as Trotskyism is the only consistent revolutionary critique of Maoism/Stalinism.

I must say, your argument of history and "revolutionary critique" are like two-dimensional objects.

[RED DAVE]

Consider this-Marx, a dialectical materialist socialist, took the writings of Hegel, an arch-conservative idealist monarchist as his biggest influence. That was a genius of people in the 1800s ... they could actually work with the ideas of people with views they found to be ppalling.Yeah, but Karl didn't have to work with Georg William in a political movement.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

I must say, your argument of history and "revolutionary critique" are like two-dimensional objects.I must say that what you just posted has no content whatsoever.

RED DAVE

[the last donut of the night]

If you want a petit-bourgeois-led mix of democratism, patrimonialism, and state capitalism swelling the ranks of the Third World proletariat and their class struggle, and opening the possibility of proletocratic change and social revolution towards the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production, then Caesarean Socialism is your system, like it is mine. :thumbup1:

i swear to god, dnz, none of us have no idea what you're talking about

[The Vegan Marxist]

I must say that what you just posted has no content whatsoever.

RED DAVE

It means your arguments held no weight whatsoever.

[red cat]

:rolleyes:

Of course they can't as Trotskyism is the only consistent revolutionary critique of Maoism/Stalinism. And a little issue like historical truth never bothered Maoist/Stalinist leadership.

Do you know how hurt left-coms and anarchists will be when they hear this ? :crying:


Of course, if you want working class revolution leading to socialism, and not petit-bourgeois-led state capitalism leading the private capitalism, Maoism is your system.

RED DAVE

True. :thumbup1:

[red cat]

Here's my problem; why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Critical analysis should include taking ideas from people and viewing them not based on whether it was written by a trot or a stalinist, but on the rational implications.

Most Trots may think of Stalinists and Maoists as anti-Communists and visa-versa ... but that's merely because they follow the thinking of Trotsky and Mao as if they were a Hebrew prophets walking down from the mountaintop. Getting over sectarianism starts with both sides ... I think if Maoists and Trotskyists didn't reject the ideas of the other out of hand as absolutely reprehensible, then Marxism might make more progress.

Consider this-Marx, a dialectical materialist socialist, took the writings of Hegel, an arch-conservative idealist monarchist as his biggest influence. That was a genius of people in the 1800s ... they could actually work with the ideas of people with views they found to be ppalling.

We principally uphold a person or a line depending upon whether most of its/his contribution is revolutionary or not. Besides that, Trotskyism makes no original contribution to Marxism. So there is no reason to uphold it at any level.

The main features of Trotskyism concerning third world countries has been focusing on building revolutionary unions among workers from the start, and basing major revolutionary activities in the cities, instead of villages. Moreover, Trotskyism opposes the stageist theory of revolutions. Maoists correctly state that these theories are wrong and will bring nothing but immediate defeat for the working class. If Trotskyites want to defend their theory then they should implement it in countries like India, because even after chanting all kinds of ultra-leftist revolutionary slogans they are nowhere to be found in real-life revolutionary class struggle among Indian workers.

On the other hand, in spite of Maoists basing the large scale workers union movement on the strength of the people's war, democratic mass movements and a carefully built clandestine party, they have emerged as champions of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, establishing workers control in certain fields, organizing workers into militant groups and raising radical demands, and firmly maintaining the class-leadership of the working class over the new democratic revolution.

[bricolage]

Of course they can't as Trotskyism is the only consistent revolutionary critique of Maoism/Stalinism.
Not really, no.

[RED DAVE]

Of course, if you want working class revolution leading to socialism, and not petit-bourgeois-led state capitalism leading the private capitalism, Maoism is your system.Nothing like my unconscious having fun and games with me. :crying:

Make that "Maoism" is not your system." :D

RED DAVE