International Revolution

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It will be interesting to see how the revolutions spreading across N.Afica and the Middle East (and perhaps into the Far East and S.Europe as some reports suggest), and feeding into the mood in certain parts of the USA, will affect the politics of those who criticise us Trotskyists for believing that revolutions can, will and must be international.

[Widerstand]

What revolution?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Have you not read what is happening in Egypt and Libya, etc?

[zimmerwald1915]

What we're seeing now could possibly be the revolution in the same sense that the strike waves in Russia in the 1890s were the revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, but they set a precedent, which is all I need.

They seriously undermine the Stalinist argument that it is utopian to suppose the revolution will take place in many countries all at once, or soon after one another.

So, even if these aren't revolutions (but they look like it), the more serious crises that lead to a genuine revolution will spread it even wider.

[Tim Finnegan]

I would be careful about over-stating the potential of these movements. While they're certainly popular, they have not established for themselves a truly proletarian character. Without a class conciousness, something which I'm not at all sure is present to any overwhelming degree, all that they can achieve is capitalist liberal democracy.

(Which, of course, is not intended to be pessimistic, but merely cautious. Liberal democracy, while not ideal, is certainly an improvement, and a far better staging-post for further progress.)

[Reznov]

What exactly do you mean they must and will be International?

They can't be from a Capitalist country like America or what?

[scarletghoul]

Rosa - No one is doubting that mass uprising can spread across regions and even across the world. History has shown that clearly, from the post-ww1 european uprisings to the 1960s to the current events.

However, history has also clearly shown that we can't rely on a revolution spreading across the world (well, we have to in the long run obviously, but not in the short term). To use the classic example, all the European revolutions failed at the time except for Russia. What could the Bolsheviks do ? They had no choice but to ensure the survival of socialism by strengthening it in their liberated territory. This is where most of us take issue with the Trotskyist idea.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tim Finnegan:


I would be careful about over-stating the potential of these movements. While they're certainly popular, they have not established for themselves a truly proletarian character. Without a class conciousness, something which I'm not at all sure is present to any overwhelming degree, all that they can achieve is capitalist liberal democracy.

(Which, of course, is not intended to be pessimistic, but merely cautious. Liberal democracy, while not ideal, is certainly an improvement, and a far better staging-post for further progress.)

I agree, there is this danger, but such events have a logic of their own, as this report illustrates:


Egypt: Strike wave deepens the revolution and threatens the power of capital

by Simon Assaf

Egypt is in the grip of a huge strike wave that marks a sudden and dramatic deepening of the revolution. Tens of thousands of workers have walked out of offices, factories, textile mills, ports, hospitals, schools and universities across the country. Even police officers are demonstrating.

These strikes erupted in direct defiance of the army’s call for workers to end strikes, sit-ins and demonstrations.

They have the potential not only to transform Egyptian society, but also to threaten capitalism itself.

Hosni Mubarak dreamed of transforming Egypt’s economy into “the Tiger on the Nile”.

His government privatised state industries, kept wages low and slashed meagre social security provision in a drive to make Egypt a prime spot for global investment.

Foreign and Egyptian companies made huge fortunes on the back of low wages, terrible working conditions and the suppression of trade unions.

All the world’s economic powers bought a stake in Mubarak’s Egypt. Now their interests are under threat.

Egyptian workers have huge potential power. Some 8 percent of the world’s seaborne trade passes through the Suez Canal.

The two cities at each end of the vital waterway, Suez and Port Said, were key centres of the uprising.

US interests are directly under threat. The largest chunk of US investment in Egypt is tied up in the petro-chemical industry, including the strategically vital SuMed pipeline that runs along the banks of the Suez Canal.

This pipeline carries 2.5 million barrels of oil a day.

It is part of a network that links Saudi Arabia’s new Red Sea oil terminals, built to bypass the unstable Persian Gulf.

The potential power of this movement also has a direct impact on Israel—which depends on Egypt for one quarter of its natural gas.

This gas is pumped to Israel along a pipeline that crosses the northern Sinai coast and

El-Arish, the biggest Egyptian city close to the Gaza Strip. It was here that rebels fought armed battles to drive out state security troops on the eve of Mubarak’s departure.

This strike wave drew its momentum from the decisive role played by organised workers.

The mass insurrectionary strikes which first erupted on Sunday 30 January—the so-called “day of normality”—were in direct response to attempts by regime thugs to crush the revolution in Tahrir Square.

Workers who walked out in solidarity with the “youth of Tahrir” also issued economic demands, many of them long-standing disputes over pay, conditions and bonuses.

Now they are demanding the sacking of bullying foremen, corrupt managers and bosses with ties to Mubarak’s ruling party.

This workers’ movement reaches into the heart of Egyptian society. The new working class organisations that have sprung up to represent tax collectors, bus workers, railway workers, teachers, airport staff, cabin crews, textile workers, street cleaners, hotel workers and so on, have the potential to change social relations in Egypt.

They could also transform the role of women.

Tens of thousands of women work in the giant textile mills in the Nile Delta. They live on poverty wages—despite operating advanced and modern mills that produce much prized luxury cotton for the US market.

These women were key to the dramatic wave of strikes and occupations in 2007. Now they are raising equal pay.

This strike wave is a deepening of a revolutionary process. The insurrectionary mass demonstrations destroyed the physical control of the state. Now the rule of capital itself is being challenged.

How these strikes will develop is uncertain, but the Egyptian revolution is full of surprises. It can go beyond simply deposing a tyrant to deposing a tyrannical system itself.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23942

Moreover, as I have already noted out, I added this thread to point out that this sets a precedent. If these revolutions/non-revolutions can take on such an international character so quickly, across an entire region, that puts paid to the Stalinst argument that this can't happen.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Reznov:


What exactly do you mean they must and will be International?

They can't be from a Capitalist country like America or what?

Sure, but as I also pointed out:


So, even if these aren't revolutions (but they look like it), the more serious crises that lead to a genuine revolution will spread it even wider.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Rosa - No one is doubting that mass uprising can spread across regions and even across the world. History has shown that clearly, from the post-ww1 european uprisings to the 1960s to the current events.

Well, it's intertesting to see that it takes such events to motivate you into becoming a genuine internationalist.:)


However, history has also clearly shown that we can't rely on a revolution spreading across the world (well, we have to in the long run obviously, but not in the short term). To use the classic example, all the European revolutions failed at the time except for Russia. What could the Bolsheviks do ? They had no choice but to ensure the survival of socialism by strengthening it in their liberated territory. This is where most of us take issue with the Trotskyist idea.

But, as Lenin and Stalin argued (before the latter changed his mind (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2022373&postcount=4)), unless the revolution spreads, it will fail.

And that is exactly what happened to the fSU.

[BIG BROTHER]

Rosa - No one is doubting that mass uprising can spread across regions and even across the world. History has shown that clearly, from the post-ww1 european uprisings to the 1960s to the current events.

However, history has also clearly shown that we can't rely on a revolution spreading across the world (well, we have to in the long run obviously, but not in the short term). To use the classic example, all the European revolutions failed at the time except for Russia. What could the Bolsheviks do ? They had no choice but to ensure the survival of socialism by strengthening it in their liberated territory. This is where most of us take issue with the Trotskyist idea.

Actually this shows that without international support a Revolution is doomed. Socialism rather than being streinghted in the Soviet Union was undermined and degenarated due to the SU isolation under Imperialism.

This was of course not the fault of the Bolsheviks but due to the lack of Boshevik like parties in other countries.

[Widerstand]

Have you not read what is happening in Egypt and Libya, etc?

From what I've heard and seen it seems that these uprisings are far from demanding a system change away from capitalism, much less towards socialism. Some of them like in Egypt seem to not demand a system change at all, but just a new government. I say at this point, all the talk about revolutions is just wishful thinking.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Maybe not, but as I have already pointed out, and as history has taught us, things can shift. Look how far they have moved in just 4 weeks.

Check this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2027968&postcount=9) out, and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2028094&postcount=129).

Again, the only thing I wished to raise here was the international nature of these protests (if you prefer that word), which gives the lie to the Stalinists.

[S.Artesian]

Rosa - No one is doubting that mass uprising can spread across regions and even across the world. History has shown that clearly, from the post-ww1 european uprisings to the 1960s to the current events.

However, history has also clearly shown that we can't rely on a revolution spreading across the world (well, we have to in the long run obviously, but not in the short term). To use the classic example, all the European revolutions failed at the time except for Russia. What could the Bolsheviks do ? They had no choice but to ensure the survival of socialism by strengthening it in their liberated territory. This is where most of us take issue with the Trotskyist idea.

Except... if you actually look at the history, instead of the ideology, the "Bolsheviks" or the initial Bukharin-Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev did not "strengthen socialism" nationally or internationally.

And when Stalin split with Bukharin, again there was no strengthening of socialism nationally or internationally.

And further splits succeeded in destroying almost all the old Bolsheviks, and paving the way for fascism to launch its bloody attacks on the fSU... so tell me again, exactly where is there a strengthening of socialism, rather than a net loss for the prospects of socialist revolution? Only, I guess if you consider "electrification without soviets" socialism. Only if you regard 30 million or so dead strengthening.

My views a bit different than most others, I know, since I think that almost from the getgo the Bolsheviks did almost everything wrong- [except insist on making peace, no matter what, with Germany, and fighting the civil war], but that's not at issue here. This mythology that after the defeat of the revolution, not only in the advanced countries, but also in the less advanced countries, somehow the Bolsheviks strengthened socialism, is counter-factual.

[Rafiq]

From what I've heard and seen it seems that these uprisings are far from demanding a system change away from capitalism, much less towards socialism. Some of them like in Egypt seem to not demand a system change at all, but just a new government. I say at this point, all the talk about revolutions is just wishful thinking.

No. Majority of the reason for protest was due to the poor economic conditions. They want a system change, back to the way Nasser ran the country. But they probably don't want all of his non-economic policy's.

Majority of the Egyptians want Nasser's political and economic policy's.

After the death of Nasser, almost all of the egyptians were crying. Some even committed suicide.

It may be because Nasser, (Although not nearly a Socialist, not nearly a Socialist system either, and actually was an anti worker Nationalist) nationalized a bunch of Shit and had somewhat of a planned economy that some people might call semi-Socialism. (not me). But Private Capitalism was much smaller than Nasser's state capitalism.

[S.Artesian]

No. Majority of the reason for protest was due to the poor economic conditions. They want a system change, back to the way Nasser ran the country. But they probably don't want all of his non-economic policy's.

Majority of the Egyptians want Nasser's political and economic policy's.

After the death of Nasser, almost all of the egyptians were crying. Some even committed suicide.

It may be because Nasser, (Although not nearly a Socialist, not nearly a Socialist system either, and actually was an anti worker Nationalist) nationalized a bunch of Shit and had somewhat of a planned economy that some people might call semi-Socialism. (not me). But Private Capitalism was much smaller than Nasser's state capitalism.

"The legacy of all dead generations sits upon the brain of the living with the weight of an Alp....or a nightmare." Some famous guy said that once, or was it twice-- first as tragedy, second as farce? I forget.

Nostalgia is an indication that the current order is cracking, and the old order can never be restored.

Imagination comes next, replacing nostalgia, and Nasser won't then be regarded as quite the hero

[Jose Gracchus]

EDIT: Rosa's right, somehow I messed this up.

[Rafiq]

I'm not saying that I want nasser or agree with the nasserists.I'm juststating the situations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades, can you begin your own thread on Hungary? Thanks!

Anyway, 'Inform Candidate', Panda Tse Tung has not contributed to this thread, so where are you getting his quotes from?

The thread you want is in Learning.

[Omsk]

Source? Evidence? And this goes for the DDR just as well. Huge numbers of Nazis were scrubbed even there an passed seamlessly into the state apparatus.
Actualy,the West had alot of nazi's too,maybe even more.
The highest number of prosecutions and sentences (most were sentences for life) for war criminals in Germany as a whole (including the death penalty)was in the GDR (the GDR also had a strong anti-fascist movement) While in West Germany unrepentant Nazis all seemed to easily crawl back into the bourgeois parties set up in the British, American and French zones that became the West's German Federal Republic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Look, The Inform Candidate posted 'his/her' reply here by mistake, so if you want to debate Hungary, please do so in the thread in Learning already devoted to this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hungary-1956-t150414/index.html

[Paulappaul]

Trotskyists for believing that revolutions can, will and must be international.

Urgh. This reeks of Trotskyist vs. Stalinist bullshit. You know, there were communists advocating Internationalism far more rigidly then Trotsky, before and after him. Frankly, I see alot of Trotskyists, for lack of anything actually new to bring to the table jump on anything that sounds radical and cool and then lay claim to it and completely trash it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paulappaul:


This reeks of Trotskyist vs. Stalinist bullshit.

No need for abusive language P.


You know, there were communists advocating Internationalism far more rigidly then Trotsky, before and after him.

So, start a thread on them.


Frankly, I see alot of Trotskyists, for lack of anything actually new to bring to the table jump on anything that sounds radical and cool and then lay claim to it and completely trash it.

And I have seen the opposite -- so what?

[Paulappaul]

So, start a thread on them.

Then I would never have an argument with you on the subject.


No need for abusive language P.

It is shit.


And I have seen the opposite -- so what?

Your original post was supposed to be testament of that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

P:


Then I would never have an argument with you on the subject.

So what is so special about me?

Anyway, you aren't arguing, you are mainly shouting.

Exhibit B:


It is shit.

You:


Your original post was supposed to be testament of that.

Er..., I don't think so.

[Paulappaul]

So what is so special about me?

That's what happens in arguments. One person takes up a position, another person counters it.


Anyway, you aren't arguing, you are mainly shouting.

I don't see an exclamation mark. It is a statement.


Er..., I don't think so.

That's what they all say. Natural part of arguing.

Internationalism isn't a keen too just Trotskyism. You've managed to lay claim to an idea, transform it into Trotskyism and further decrease it into furthering your side of a dichotomy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the other hand, Trotskyists neglect the need for tighter organization on at least the continental level. Instead, they've got "international" fan clubs of some national party, and Trotsky's limitation was the insistence of a chain of national revolutions.

[S.Artesian]

Look who's shown up? And with his standard distorted attacks, while not a world offered about the actual history of international revolutions, the actual undermining of those struggles by those he would love to attach his tattered, square-wheeled Caesarean chariot to.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Look who's shown up? And with his standard distorted attacks, while not a word offered about the actual history of international revolutions, the actual undermining of those struggles by those he would love to attach his tattered, square-wheeled Caesarean chariot to.

That wasn't me. That was Mike Macnair's own evaluation of the Trotskyist deficiency on "internationalism." A Communist Party of the European Union stands in stark contrast to the UK-based Trotskyist "international" fan clubs.

And I was making a remark on political developments in the most developed countries. Learn that crucial difference: Caesar off, Kautsky on. You know, going back to the PCF discussion. :D

[S.Artesian]

That wasn't me. That was Mike Macnair's own evaluation of the Trotskyist deficiency on "internationalism." A Communist Party of the European Union stands in stark contrast to the UK-based Trotskyist "international" fan clubs.

And I was making a remark on political developments in the most developed countries. Learn that crucial difference: Caesar off, Kautsky on.

You might learn to cite those whose words you are using, otherwise some might wind up thinking less of you than they already do, if such a thing is even possible -- that you are a plagiarist on top of it all.

Besides, who cares what Macnair says?

You may not realize this but the topic is international revolution-- kind of means global, worldwide, that kind of stuff, and last time I checked the less developed countries were part of that globe, intimately connected to the developed ones, and manifested similar class relations, with allowances for individual uneven and combined development.

But please, don't let a little thing like historical accuracy stop you. Not now, when it's never been a concern of yours in the past.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You might learn to cite those whose words you are using, otherwise some might wind up thinking less of you than they already do, if such a thing is even possible -- that you are a plagiarist on top of it all.

Besides, who cares what Macnair says?

It's all in this board's Revolutionary Strategy usergroup. :rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think a true struggling organization of communist workers of the European Union is a bad idea at all.

[S.Artesian]

It's all in this board's Revolutionary Strategy usergroup. :rolleyes:


Shame on me for not keeping up with that. How will the wolf survive?

[Amphictyonis]

As the economy worsens the people will take to the streets. Some one should tell Stalinists the economy is now global and we're seeing potential for some very interesting stuff to happen even in advanced capitalist nations. Next up, Europe (not a socialist revolution but MASS unrest). My empty prediction. In the USA there's too many prisons to house the unemployed, either that or military service get's them.

http://www.militaryboots.com/blog/recession-boosts-military-enrollment/

Unemployed/poor people in the streets is the last thing 'the system' wants. Anyway, back to my point- in Stalins and especially Lenins time the capitalist system had yet to become totally globally intertwined. A global socialist revolution at that time was indeed almost impossible and it's the whole reason Stalin had to develop the "socialism In One Country" bunkum. I don't think this will be the crisis that sparks a global socialist revolution but there actual potntial today that didnt exist in Lenin or Stalins time.

[S.Artesian]

As the economy worsens the people will take to the streets. Some one should tell Stalinists the economy is now global and we're seeing potential for some very interesting stuff to happen even in advanced capitalist nations. Next up, Europe (not a socialist revolution but MASS unrest). My empty prediction. In the USA there's too many prisons to house the unemployed, either that or military service get's them.

http://www.militaryboots.com/blog/recession-boosts-military-enrollment/

Unemployed/poor people in the streets is the last thing 'the system' wants.


Next up? Europe's been at it for over a year now-- Spain, France, Britain, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Turkey

[Amphictyonis]

Next up? Europe's been at it for over a year now-- Spain, France, Britain, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Turkey

Europe has been (especially Greece) way more active than the US but there should be more activity. I don't think you can compare ongoings in Europe to Egypt or Libya. When the capitalists come for more, and they will, we'll see Europe ignite like we've never seen.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


On the other hand, Trotskyists neglect the need for tighter organization on at least the continental level. Instead, they've got "international" fan clubs of some national party, and Trotsky's limitation was the insistence of a chain of national revolutions.

Long on allegation, short on proof.

0/10 for effort and content. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The IST is an SWP fan club. The CWI is a SPEW fan club.

Trotsky was in no way transnational like Bordiga, who had the guts to be part of an International Communist Party in the post-WWII period.

Regarding European continental organization, I would suggest that each national organization call itself the (National) Section of the Communist Party of the European Union, just like the old French Section of the Workers International (SFIO) back in the early 20th century.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


The IST is an SWP fan club. The CWI is a SPEW fan club.

Trotsky was in no way transnational like Bordiga, who had the guts to be part of an International Communist Party in the post-WWII period.

Oh dear, my score of 0/10 for your last post was far too generous, I fear.:(

[Die Neue Zeit]

What the hell are you talking about? :confused:

Each fan club has the main national organization in control over the goings-on of international affairs. The ISO were expelled from the IST. The Iranian Grantites were expelled from the IMT.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


What the hell are you talking about?

Your posts.

A clue might be gleaned from the following:


Oh dear, my score of 0/10 for your last post was far too generous, I fear.

I've highlighted the relevant phrase to help you out.:)


Each fan club has the main national organization in control over the goings-on of international affairs. The ISO were expelled from the IST. The Iranian Grantites were expelled from the IMT.

Even if that were true, that does not sound like a fan club to me.

But, you do not even gesture at showing it is true, hence you now score -5/10 for effort and content.:cool:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whatever:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=456


I was for nearly 20 years a member of the British section of the Mandelite Fourth International (Unified Secretariat), and while I was I would have made claims very similar to comrade Craig's: there can be no national road to socialism; therefore there can be no national revolutionary party; therefore there is no really revolutionary politics outside the Fourth International as it exists: ie, the Usec. Of course, the Healyite International Committee, the Lambertist Fourth International (International Centre for Reconstruction), the Spartacists and more recently the International Socialist Tendency, Committee for a Workers' International and so on would all make the same claim for their 'internationals'.

At least coming from the Usec such claims had a certain limited plausibility, since with all its bad politics and pseudo-democratic parliamentary-bureaucratic functioning, the Usec was a genuine international organisation. They have always had less plausibility coming from the Healyite ICFI, FI(ICR), LIT, IST, CWI, Spartacists and so on, since these 'internationals' are plainly merely not international organisations at all, but fan clubs for their leading national groups.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=661


nternational organisation (the same cannot be said for its politics). The current Mandelite FI has become unequivocally an organisation like the Second International. That is, it is a loose coordination of national parties (in this case, mostly grouplets), whose leaders meet periodically and pass diplomatic resolutions.

The ICFI 'tradition' has given rise to a bewildering range of 'internationals' - Healyite and sub-Healyite variants, Lambertiste and sub-Lam- bertiste, Lorista and sub-Lorista, Morenista and sub-Morenista, Spartacist and sub-Spartacist, and so on. Almost all of these 'internationals' are the international fan clubs of national organisations in the main historic centres of Trotskyism: France, the US, Britain and Argentina.

Meanwhile, Trotskyist organisations that were originally purely national in character, such as the French Lutte Ouvrière, the British Militant (both Grantite and Taaffeite wings) and the British Socialist Workers Party and Workers Power, have created their own 'internationals' or 'international tendencies'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I see you are determined to keep going until we run out of negative numbers.:lol:

Alas, quoting McNair is not proof -- impressive though his fantasies are.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speak for yourself. Look who's logically out to lunch here. :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


Look who's logically out to lunch here.

I know, and you are both an example and a warning to us all.:)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Logically, I can't see a "negative" or "zero" quantity for effort (citation takes effort) or content (citation takes content). It looks like you are turning to the very dialectics you've strived to avoid all these years, dumping your logic circuits. :closedeyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

How can anyone really question that the Trotskyist "internationals" are almost invariably some global fan club of a particularly successful sect and its leadership? His examples were pretty solid methinks.

[Widerstand]

As the economy worsens the people will take to the streets. Some one should tell Stalinists the economy is now global and we're seeing potential for some very interesting stuff to happen even in advanced capitalist nations. Next up, Europe (not a socialist revolution but MASS unrest). My empty prediction. In the USA there's too many prisons to house the unemployed, either that or military service get's them..

Oh Europe will go apeshit when then the PIIGS collapse finally. But for now, Germany for example seems on the way to an economical boom, the Ifo Business Climate Index has reached the highest point since reunification! Also I'm not so sure if the "going apeshit" will be a good thing, it could lead to increased nationalism, too.

[S.Artesian]

The IST is an SWP fan club. The CWI is a SPEW fan club.

Trotsky was in no way transnational like Bordiga, who had the guts to be part of an International Communist Party in the post-WWII period.

Regarding European continental organization, I would suggest that each national organization call itself the (National) Section of the Communist Party of the European Union, just like the old French Section of the Workers International (SFIO) back in the early 20th century.


Unlike Trotsky, coward that he was, who refused to be part of an International Communist Party post WW2.

[Devrim]

Unlike Trotsky, coward that he was, who refused to be part of an International Communist Party post WW2.

One can understand how his medical problems might have made it a little more difficult than it could have been, but it is still really no excuse.

Devrim

[Zanthorus]

Trotsky was in no way transnational like Bordiga, who had the guts to be part of an International Communist Party in the post-WWII period.

You will note several things:

1. Bordiga never referred to himself as a 'transnationalist', it was not the 'Transnational Communist Party'. He was an internationalist and it was the International Communist Party.

2. The Internationalist Communist Party which the ICP split from had a presence in something like four countries. The ICP's presence can hardly have been international when Bordiga joined it.

3. Trotsky has the small problem of being somewhat, er, dead after the Second World War... that might have influenced his inability to join in any international organisation efforts just a tad.

[Mr.Awesome]

3. Trotsky has the small problem of being somewhat, er, dead after the Second World War... that might have influenced his inability to join in any international organisation efforts just a tad.

That's a pretty good point :p

[Die Neue Zeit]

You will note several things:

1. Bordiga never referred to himself as a 'transnationalist', it was not the 'Transnational Communist Party'. He was an internationalist and it was the International Communist Party.

2. The Internationalist Communist Party which the ICP split from had a presence in something like four countries. The ICP's presence can hardly have been international when Bordiga joined it.

3. Trotsky has the small problem of being somewhat, er, dead after the Second World War... that might have influenced his inability to join in any international organisation efforts just a tad.

Comrades (plural for those earlier who wanted to overstress his assassination), it should be noted that I already took his assassination into account. The Fourth International, despite the official name, was not really an "international communist party" per se.

Bordiga didn't refer to himself as a transnationalist because the term didn't crop up until the era of the "multinational corporation" (at best as early as the 1970s).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


Logically, I can't see a "negative" or "zero" quantity for effort (citation takes effort) or content (citation takes content). It looks like you are turning to the very dialectics you've strived to avoid all these years, dumping your logic circuits.

You clearly have a rather defective concept of irony, one which perhaps also affects your notion of proof.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TIC:


How can anyone really question that the Trotskyist "internationals" are almost invariably some global fan club of a particularly successful sect and its leadership? His examples were pretty solid methinks.

Well, I can't speak about the other Trotskyist 'internationals', but since I used to be in the IST, and am still closely associated with it, it is certainly not true of them.

And although the IST is internationally orientated, it is not an 'international' in the Trotskyist sense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You clearly have a rather defective concept of irony, one which perhaps also affects your notion of proof.

And you, on the other hand, have an even more defective concept of sarcasm.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think there is any doubt that revolutions generally come in waves, affecting many countries. 1848 saw revolutions and revolts throughout Europe. So did 1917-18. And even if falling short of revolution, so did 1968. Each time saw wider spread of the revolutionary situation. So there is nothing really new with the fact that so many countries are experiencing revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations at once (a different discussion would be whether those movements constitute one international movement, or merely the mechanic sum of several simultaneous national movements).

Nor is the idea that simultaneous revolutions in several countries are impossible the contention of Stalinists (well, at least of real life Stalinists; one wonders what can we find in revleft...) Their thesis is that if revolution is victorious in only one country, and defeated elsewhere, it is still possible to "build socialism" in that isolated country. It is another debate, one that I think they lost long ago, regardless of the fact that more-than-half of the "Arab World" is undergoing political change right now.

Luís Henrique

[Kléber]

The Fourth International, despite the official name, was not really an "international communist party" per se.
The Fourth International was also known as the World Party of Socialist Revolution.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The CWI (which I am a member of) is far more than a "fan club" of SPEW (the preferred term for that organization is the Socialist Party). The CWI originated as an entryist faction of the British Labour Party.Miltant helped bring down Maggie Thatcher. Today the CWI is made of political co-thinkers who have been and are very active in the class struggle in Nigeria, Ireland, Kazakhstan, the US, the UK, Sri Lanka, Bolivia and many other countries.

I am not as familiar with the IST but it also appears to be far more than a fan club of the SWP.

Trotsky was a victim of his own historical circumstance. As a heroic leader in the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions liberals, conservatives, and social democratics hated him. World wide Stalinists mounted an increasingly viscious campaign against. Most of his family was murdered. He was literally on a "planet without a visa".

The Fourth International degenerated and made huge blunders. This degeneration however was not nearly as thorough and absolute as that of the SI or the Comintern.

The world may be entering a period similar to that of 1917-1923.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My views a bit different than most others, I know, since I think that almost from the getgo the Bolsheviks did almost everything wrong- [except insist on making peace, no matter what, with Germany, and fighting the civil war], but that's not at issue here. This mythology that after the defeat of the revolution, not only in the advanced countries, but also in the less advanced countries, somehow the Bolsheviks strengthened socialism, is counter-factual.

I would be interested in your elaboration on this, although it may make for a whole other thread (sorry if this is off topic).War communism,the banning of other worker's factions, and Goldner talked about Lenin and Trotsky allowing Ataturk to smash the Turkish communists.

Most socialists would regard these are serious mistakes. Can they be understand in light of the horrible situation prevailing in Russia?Could this have resulted primarily from the failure of the revolution to spread and the nessicity of Russia having to act like a bourgeoise state? Could it be the result of mistaken views inherited from the Second International, including statism and maybe even LaSalleism?

[S.Artesian]

I would be interested in your elaboration on this, although it may make for a whole other thread (sorry if this is off topic).War communism,the banning of other worker's factions, and Goldner talked about Lenin and Trotsky allowing Ataturk to smash the Turkish communists.

Most socialists would regard these are serious mistakes. Can they be understand in light of the horrible situation prevailing in Russia?Could this have resulted primarily from the failure of the revolution to spread and the nessicity of Russia having to act like a bourgeoise state? Could it be the result of mistaken views inherited from the Second International, including statism and maybe even LaSalleism?

Well, indeed it is a whole other thread. Hell it's a whole other curriculum. Mistakes, yes; understandable, I suppose; but understandable in the sense that the Bolsheviks were completely unprepared for the responsibility of actually administering a social revolution.

Compounded by the fact that the revolution did not receive its reciprocation in the advanced countries? No doubt.

Of equal importance, IMO, was the willingness, desire, need of the Bolsheviks to substitute the Sovnarkom for the CEC of the soviets, and from that it wasn't that big a step to reducing party work among the workers, and simply staffing position after position with the best of the Bolshevik cadre, rather than with the best of the workers; meanwhile recruiting those workers for the military or forced requisitioning teams, or the various red guards, and Cheka type organizations. From that... well it doesn't take much chutzpah to jettison the soviets altogether in favor of the party apparatus.

My personal opinion is that the Bolsheviks supremely fucked up in the treatment of the left SRs-- although the left SRs with their insistence on fighting a "revolutionary war" against Germany certainly didn't help matters, or help the revolution with that.

Still by the 2nd half of 1918, the Bolshevik have rolled their dice, betting on the snake eyes, and up they came.

Tough to say this, but the Bolsheviks should have been willing to lose the contests with the left SRs in the name of adhering to soviet democracy, even if that meant engaging Germany in armed conflict. Petrograd would never have fallen to Germany, although that's a judgment based on hindsight.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


And you, on the other hand, have an even more defective concept of sarcasm

At least I have some concepts...:)

[Tim Finnegan]

How can anyone really question that the Trotskyist "internationals" are almost invariably some global fan club of a particularly successful sect and its leadership? His examples were pretty solid methinks.
Yeah, I'm not sure that I've ever even heard somebody mention the IST without also mentioning the SWP in the same sentence. (And I don't know much about the CWI, but up here they seem to spend most of their time acting as "Socialist Party of England & Wales, Glasgow branch".)

[Devrim]

At least I have some concepts...:)

Whatever he can be accused of I don't think that Jacob can really be accused of not having any concepts. He has dozens of them all of which he has invented bizarre terms for, and which are certainly his because nobody else in the world shares them.

Devrim

[blake 3:17]

The Fourth International was also known as the World Party of Socialist Revolution.

This was based on a very sincere hope of the founders of the FI. Clearly it wasn`t successful, but as a supporter of the USFI it was pretty good. On average I`m quite impressed with affiliates and individual comrades connected to the USFI.

I don`t think any of the Internationals have held a monopoly on revolutionary praxis or analysis. Generally the truer people hold their ideas to be, the wronger they are...

[S.Artesian]

Whatever he can be accused of I don't think that Jacob can really be accused of not having any concepts. He has dozens of them all of which he has invented bizarre terms for, and which are certainly his because nobody else in the world shares them.

Devrim


That's quite true. Even someone who thinks of himself as Caesar has a concept of the world; it's just a concept that has nothing to do with the material world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Fourth International was also known as the World Party of Socialist Revolution.


This was based on a very sincere hope of the founders of the FI. Clearly it wasn`t successful, but as a supporter of the USFI it was pretty good. On average I`m quite impressed with affiliates and individual comrades connected to the USFI.

I don`t think any of the Internationals have held a monopoly on revolutionary praxis or analysis. Generally the truer people hold their ideas to be, the wronger they are...

I like Lenin's earlier idea of an international Communist Party, before it got watered down to a mere Comintern.

Then again, the Second International itself should have been a party capable of enforcing Amsterdam and Basel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Whatever he can be accused of I don't think that Jacob can really be accused of not having any concepts. He has dozens of them all of which he has invented bizarre terms for, and which are certainly his because nobody else in the world shares them.

Devrim

Thank you for that, Devrim -- I am happy to be corrected by you.:)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nor is the idea that simultaneous revolutions in several countries are impossible the contention of Stalinists (well, at least of real life Stalinists; one wonders what can we find in revleft...) Their thesis is that if revolution is victorious in only one country, and defeated elsewhere, it is still possible to "build socialism" in that isolated country. It is another debate, one that I think they lost long ago, regardless of the fact that more-than-half of the "Arab World" is undergoing political change right now.

They didn't lose the argument. It is possible to build, just not possible to complete. Trotsky's monumental slip-up of an "alternative" was to let in foreign companies for rapid development, which goes against the notion of building socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whatever he can be accused of I don't think that Jacob can really be accused of not having any concepts. He has dozens of them all of which he has invented bizarre terms for, and which are certainly his because nobody else in the world shares them.

Devrim


That's quite true. Even someone who thinks of himself as Caesar has a concept of the world; it's just a concept that has nothing to do with the material world.

It's the difference between comprehensive solutions and mere "analysis" and critique, the former of which both of you can't seem to offer.

[S.Artesian]

Listen to this moron, DNZ, Der Alte Bullshitter, who doesn't even recognize that critique, merciless criticism was Marx's comprehensive solution.

Troll. Stone cold troll. Makes shit up; completely ignorant of the actual course of class struggle in the very "3rd world" countries he claims are so perfect for his personal brand of "left-Peronism;" and let's not forget his evaluation of slave labor under Stalin as being a plus in the ledger of debits and assets he calls socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I remember when I first met the ISO and I was asking about Palestine and comrades were saying that basically it would take a revolution throught the middle east (not necessarily a proletarian one, but it could be an anti-imperialist struggle) to topple the dictators and shake the imperialist order enough to make it even a possibility. I didn't believe it was possible at the time.

I hope the international events will help shake up the left and reorient people towards a much more optimistic and cooperative stance, so I hate to say something now that sounds a little like gloating and sectarian cheerleading.... but! Frankly, for me, these events have been a big vindication of (going from the more general to specific) the ideas of solidarity, working class power, revolution from below, trotskyism, and specifically what we've been talking about within the ISO for as long as I have been a member and specifically our ideas about the trajectory of politics over the last two years.

Between Egypt and Wisconsin, two of the arguments that are generally hardest to win US lefties on (Revolution and Class) are essentially common-sense. I'm just being totally frank, I don't mean to slight other groups or tendencies, but I hope we can all go out there are win people to radical working class politics so we can actually build a left because really for radicals, this is our time. It's going to be tough and awful, but it's also going to potentially be beautiful IMO.

I think this is the revolutionary period most of us have been waiting for our entire radical-lives. It doesn't mean it will lead to working class revolutions anywhere let alone socialism everywhere, but it could be like the end of the 1800s when radical politics began to become much more rooted among working class people, laying the groundwork for the revolutionary period of the following generation.

But since we're in the "beautiful revolution" phase for the moment and I'm kinda high off of international and domestic events, I'll just be romantic and predict: proletarian revolution before the Russian Revolution centennial! :D

[Tim Finnegan]

But since we're in the "beautiful revolution" phase for the moment and I'm kinda high off of international and domestic events, I'll just be romantic and predict: proletarian revolution before the Russian Revolution centennial! :D
Storming Westminster Palace in October 2017: sounds like a plan! :D

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also on a side note, yes trotsky did not "invent" internationalism and there are others who share this view - good, more the merrier and better than the alternative. The same with people who are not part of my traddition that have ideas that approximate state-capitalism or socialism from below.

I don't care who originates ideas, just if they are useful or not. I'm not a trotskyist because I think everything the man said or did was fantastic and great, I am a trotskyist because I think it makes the most sense and represents the best synthesis of the revolutionary tradition of the Bolsheviks and Marx: internationalism, centrality of the working class, proletarian democracy etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Storming Westminster Palace in October 2017: sounds like a plan! :D

Love to see it. Occupying the Tories office, burning of dictators palaces... nice little appetizers for now.

I'd love to see the Wisconsin state-house protest... better yet, Tahrir square inside the NY Stock Exchange. Before it's demolished by the New York Demolition-Workers council.:laugh:

[Paulappaul]

Listen to this moron, DNZ, Der Alte Bullshitter, who doesn't even recognize that critique, merciless criticism was Marx's comprehensive solution.

Troll. Stone cold troll. Makes shit up; completely ignorant of the actual course of class struggle in the very "3rd world" countries he claims are so perfect for his personal brand of "left-Peronism;" and let's not forget his evaluation of slave labor under Stalin as being a plus in the ledger of debits and assets he calls socialism.

I don't agree with half the shit DNZ says, but frankly, he has a point. The vast majority of Revleft, myself included, has never done anything truly towards the development of solutions out of old time problems. Revleft is really a board for critique and analysis, never anything constructive. The same shit. Over and over again. At least DNZ lightens up my day with something fresh and new, however dumb I may think it is. Whereas, say you, contribute nothing and eat up reputation points all the while I get more pissed off.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Listen to this moron, DNZ, Der Alte Bullshitter, who doesn't even recognize that critique, merciless criticism was Marx's comprehensive solution.

Troll. Stone cold troll. Makes shit up; completely ignorant of the actual course of class struggle in the very "3rd world" countries he claims are so perfect for his personal brand of "left-Peronism;" and let's not forget his evaluation of slave labor under Stalin as being a plus in the ledger of debits and assets he calls socialism.

Look in the mirror and see who's obsessed with Juan Peron! :lol: :laugh:

:rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Between Egypt and Wisconsin, two of the arguments that are generally hardest to win US lefties on (Revolution and Class) are essentially common-sense. I'm just being totally frank, I don't mean to slight other groups or tendencies, but I hope we can all go out there are win people to radical working class politics so we can actually build a left because really for radicals, this is our time. It's going to be tough and awful, but it's also going to potentially be beautiful IMO.

I think this is the revolutionary period most of us have been waiting for our entire radical-lives. It doesn't mean it will lead to working class revolutions anywhere let alone socialism everywhere, but it could be like the end of the 1800s when radical politics began to become much more rooted among working class people, laying the groundwork for the revolutionary period of the following generation.

But since we're in the "beautiful revolution" phase for the moment and I'm kinda high off of international and domestic events, I'll just be romantic and predict: proletarian revolution before the Russian Revolution centennial! :D

I think that people are losing a grip on reality. Maybe it is just the optimism of youth, but it lacks any understanding of the nature of the period.

I think that the events in America are very important. To put them in perspective though, one of the reasons that they are so important is not the nature of the things in themselves, but the fact that they are happening in the US which has been devoid of open major struggles for so long.

I think it is very very positive, the fact that workers are unwilling to accept attacks, went on an unofficial strike, and the general solidarity from other sectors. If it was in Europe though something of this size and scope would be just another major strike.

I commented on the events in Egypt on Libcom:


They should be put it perspective though. The strikes today in Egypt are not as big as those of a few years ago. For a country the size of Egypt relatively few workers seem to be involved, somewhere around 50,000. I read somewhere that there hasn't been a day without strikes in Egypt in the past three years.

To draw a direct comparison that people might relate to more easily, although the idea of not being a day without strikes for three years sounds very impressive, when I worked as a postman in London in the 1980s, we had two years when there wasn't a day without strikes in the Post Office. With regards to the numbers, the amount of strikers in all of Egypt is about the same as the London Post Office going on strike.

The events in North Africa and the Middle East are important, but it is also important to try to understand what is going on, not just in one country, but also internationally.

The struggles going on at the moment across the world are a long way from the level of the struggles of the 1980s, let alone the 1970s. There is a long way to go. Predicting proletarian revolution in the next five years seems to me to lack this understanding.

Devrim

[S.Artesian]

I don't agree with half the shit DNZ says, but frankly, he has a point. The vast majority of Revleft, myself included, has never done anything truly towards the development of solutions out of old time problems. Revleft is really a board for critique and analysis, never anything constructive. The same shit. Over and over again. At least DNZ lightens up my day with something fresh and new, however dumb I may think it is. Whereas, say you, contribute nothing and eat up reputation points all the while I get more pissed off.


We don't know that DNZ has ever done anything towards the development of solutions other than write that he has done something about developing solutions by writing about the need to develop solutions. So I'm not so impressed.

Moreover, "solutions" has a content to it, a substance that can be evaluated. If you read what DNZ offers as "solutions"-- Caesarism, that pastiche of Bismarck, Putin, Lassalle, all hitched up with some variants of Maoism-- then it's patently clear that the solutions are not solutions.

And thank you for your opinion. I could care less about rep points, but I'm gratified that I manage to piss you off more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We don't know that DNZ has ever done anything towards the development of solutions other than write that he has done something about developing solutions by writing about the need to develop solutions. So I'm not so impressed.

That's because you haven't read my other Theory threads. :rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

Right. I rest my case. I, on the other hand, have assisted, and gratis, the Cuban railroads in developing solutions to their problems. Does that count as offering a solution?

[Paulappaul]

We don't know that DNZ has ever done anything towards the development of solutions other than write that he has done something about developing solutions by writing about the need to develop solutions. So I'm not so impressed.

Moreover, "solutions" has a content to it, a substance that can be evaluated. If you read what DNZ offers as "solutions"-- Caesarism, that pastiche of Bismarck, Putin, Lassalle, all hitched up with some variants of Maoism-- then it's patently clear that the solutions are not solutions.

It's funny, cause it in spite of all of that, it's still more then anything I have ever seen you do. Which must say something about the man in his high horse.

Again, same old shit.

[S.Artesian]

Would you like the phone number of the director of Cuban Railways?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think that people are losing a grip on reality. Maybe it is just the optimism of youth, but it lacks any understanding of the nature of the period.Thank you for the condescension, I'll chalk that up to the sectarianism and pessimism of the aged. And why not explain the "nature" of this period to us ignorant folk? I think the nature of this period is increased imperialism, increased fight-back, increased polarization, and increased potential to rebuild the left.

I'm in my 30s which is young, but failure to jump on the chance to actually rebuild a radical movement with an organic connection to the working class for me as an organizer in America is a much greater sin than being overly optimistic. I can change my perspective and lower my cautious optimism if things on the ground don't pan out that way... but I can't turn back the clock if I lower my expectations now and see a wave of radicalism pass me by. I'm not willing to miss the opportunities being presented just because events are not playing out according to specific historical analogues or theoretical assumptions.


I think that the events in America are very important. To put them in perspective though, one of the reasons that they are so important is not the nature of the things in themselves, but the fact that they are happening in the US which has been devoid of open major struggles for so long.Exactly, this is a potential beginning of being able to rebuild things in places like the US where radical politics have been repressed, co-opted by the CPs etc or removed from their organic connections to the working class in some other way.


I think it is very very positive, the fact that workers are unwilling to accept attacks, went on an unofficial strike, and the general solidarity from other sectors. If it was in Europe though something of this size and scope would be just another major strike. Um, that's totally meaningless. You are basically saying: it's meaningful because of the specific conditions, but if the specific conditions were different, it wouldn't be meaningful.

Yes, I'm not saying that Wisconsin is more significant than other events, I'm saying it's significant because we in the US now can potentially have more opportunities to build a more militant labor movement and build up class consciousness and self-leadership.


The events in North Africa and the Middle East are important, but it is also important to try to understand what is going on, not just in one country, but also internationally.

The struggles going on at the moment across the world are a long way from the level of the struggles of the 1980s, let alone the 1970s. There is a long way to go. Predicting proletarian revolution in the next five years seems to me to lack this understanding.

DevrimI was quite clear that I was just saying something romantic, not a real prediction. I am talking among my fellow radicals here, I would not go out to a strike and argue for worker's councils and so on. Of course it is important to be realistic and measured and have a political perspective, but it is also important to recognize significant turning points as Egypt is internationally and Wisconsin is in the US. These things alone are not enough, but without these initial struggles, it will not be possible for US workers to actually confront the real nature of the union bureaucracy and the Democratic party... a working class that is fighting will have to confront these questions. Without a larger struggle for democracy, it would be more difficult for the Egyptian working class to organize itself and to create its own organic leadership and differentiate its class interests.

This is just a beginning, the first ripple from the crisis in capitalism - it will get more complicated - as Italy and the UN's calls for "peacekeeping" in Libya show. The uprisings are happening at the same time that imperialist rivalry are heating up due to the crash and so things are going to get really ugly because suddenly the heart of world-imperialism has shaken and become uncertain. The US will drop a-bombs before letting go of that region, so it's important for US comrades to seize on the opportunities presented to us to organize things like a renewed anti-imperialist movement with solidarity with Arabs and other people being oppressed at its center.

On the domestic front, I kept argueing that the tea-party is not fascist because there is no real movements for them to oppose and become fascists in a real way... well, that's changing and I think we will see increased polarization, increased protests of workers (both labor, anti-war and probably against racism/sexism) and some US-style Mubarak thugs from the tea-party milieu that come to beat us on picket lines and so on.

[Paulappaul]

Would you like the phone number of the director of Cuban Railways?

I would love to give my buddy a call :thumbup1:

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm in my 30s which is young, but failure to jump on the chance to actually rebuild a radical movement with an organic connection to the working class for me as an organizer in America is a much greater sin than being overly optimistic. I can change my perspective and lower my cautious optimism if things on the ground don't pan out that way... but I can't turn back the clock if I lower my expectations now and see a wave of radicalism pass me by. I'm not willing to miss the opportunities being presented just because events are not playing out according to specific historical analogues or theoretical assumptions.
I agree. Failure isn't any better just because you decide to make it a foregone conclusion.

[S.Artesian]

I would love to give my buddy a call :thumbup1:

I didn't know Ricardo Aguilar was your good buddy. Damn, that changes everything. Last number I have for him is (53-7) 81 3531. Give him my regards.

How about Leonel Cortes? Is he a friend of yours too?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Cool it, comrades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right. I rest my case. I, on the other hand, have assisted, and gratis, the Cuban railroads in developing solutions to their problems. Does that count as offering a solution?

See a Learning thread by another poster:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/building-pan-left-t150572/index.html

A lot of his points were actually first raised by me. This is just a taste of my many immediate and further-out programmatic solutions apart from the more contentious Third World Caesarean Socialism.

[S.Artesian]

Well, look, I'm a co-editor of Insurgent Notes. Loren Goldner, John Garvey and I have an agreement regarding "our program." Doesn't mean any individual agrees with every element of it, rather means no individual finds any element in the program an obstacle to further elaboration, improvement, communication of a program by those who will hopefully supersede us, and hopefully help us reach our goal, which is to make what we do, how we do it, why we do it historically obsolete.

So here's that program:



implementation of a program of technology export to equalize upward the Third World.
creation of a minimum threshold of world income.
dismantling of the oil-auto-steel complex, shifting to mass transport and trains.
abolish the bloated sector of the military; police; state bureaucracy; corporate bureaucracy; prisons; FIRE; (finance- insurance- real estate); security guards; intelligence services; cashiers and toll takers.
taking the huge mass of labor power freed by this to radically shortening of the work week
crash programs around alternative energy: (in the long run, if possible) nuclear fusion power, solar, wind, etc.
application of the “more is less” principle to as much as possible (examples: satellite phones supersede land-line technology in the Third World, cheap CDs supersede expensive stereo systems, etc.).
a concerted world agrarian program aimed at using food resources of North America and Europe and developing Third World agriculture.
integration of industrial and agricultural production, and the breakup of megalopolitan concentration of population. This implies the abolition of suburbia and exurbia, and radical transformation of cities. The implications of this for energy consumption are profound.
automation of all drudgery that can be automated.
generalization of access to computers and education for full global and regional planning by the associated producers
free health and dental care.
integration of education with production and reproduction.
the shift of R&D currently connected with the unproductive sector into productive use
the great increase in productivity of labor will as make as many basic goods free as quickly as possible, thereby freeing all workers involved in collecting money and accounting for it.
a global shortening of the work week.
centralization of everything that must be centralized (e.g use of world resources) and decentralization of everything that can be decentralized (e.g control of the labor process within the general framework)
measures to deal with the atmosphere, most importantly the phasing out of fossil fuel use by 3 and 6


And it's all very nice, even the parts I think that are the weakest, but what counts is what gets done in the midst of a conflict-- like Egypt, where the critical program still begins with a negative; where negation is the most positive thing you can come up with: No Support to the Military/Caretaker Government.

In, for example, Madison, the critical step is to propose, develop, some form of organization that cuts across and goes way beyond the union fragments of the working class-- some form that includes and articulates the needs of pensioners, unemployed, working women head of household families were poverty is so endemic, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mods should move the appropriate posts into another thread.

That sounds well and good, but what's the underlying method behind the program?


free health and dental care

It needs to be more radical and more about identifying the first scattered pieces of the puzzle to put things together:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-democratization-health-t144740/index.html

Speaking of contacts, ask RED DAVE for a copy of my stuff. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to feed it to your attempt at a shark's feast for a critique.

[S.Artesian]

Really not interested in going through your "stuff." We have serious, I would say class-line differences, so I'll take it on as it comes.

Yes, indeed the program needs to be a bit more radical, but like I said, more than anything it needs not to be an obstacle to the development of a revolutionary program by the class that actually struggles to take .

[Paulappaul]

I didn't know Ricardo Aguilar was your good buddy. Damn, that changes everything. Last number I have for him is (53-7) 81 3531. Give him my regards.

How about Leonel Cortes? Is he a friend of yours too?

Sarcasm, but you knew that. I just didn't want to get into a debate over whose got the big dicker between us and DNZ. Judging by your previous posts, I am sure your next post will probably be about how it's you. Perhaps you can get somebody to sign off on that too?

[MarxistMan]

Indeed, you are right. You know how many dumb people thought that Karl Marx's predictions were crazy about capitalists creating their own grave-diggers? I think that's what we will see in the near future in the whole world. Thanks

.



It will be interesting to see how the revolutions spreading across N.Afica and the Middle East (and perhaps into the Far East and S.Europe as some reports suggest), and feeding into the mood in certain parts of the USA, will affect the politics of those who criticise us Trotskyists for believing that revolutions can, will and must be international.

[MarxistMan]

Hey my friend, Nietzsche said that the child is the last stage of the 3 metamorphosis toward a greater individual in the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". I think that what he meant was that children are more optimists and dreamers than adults who are too rational and too legalists.

I think that some times it is good to be less rational and more dreamers, like children. Because if we become too rational, too legalists, and think about all the impediments that there are for socialism in USA we end up losing motivation and really become pessimists and too scared.

Che Guevara also said that we can do any thing we desire in this world

thanx


I agree. Failure isn't any better just because you decide to make it a foregone conclusion.

[Devrim]

Thank you for the condescension, I'll chalk that up to the sectarianism and pessimism of the aged.

I am sorry if I can across that way. The point about 'young people' was quite wrong. Of course many older people are falling into the same sort of fallacy. It doesn't mean that what has to be said doesn't need to be said though.

I don't understand at all where the remark about sectarianism comes from.


And why not explain the "nature" of this period to us ignorant folk? I think the nature of this period is increased imperialism, increased fight-back, increased polarization, and increased potential to rebuild the left.

If we look at working class struggles and don't focus on the imperialist situation for now I think it is clear that there is an increased fight-back. However, what is also very clear is that the working class is only just beginning to reassert itself, and the recovery from the dreadful years that were the nineties has been slow. We are not in the period of the mass strike yet.


I'm in my 30s which is young, but failure to jump on the chance to actually rebuild a radical movement with an organic connection to the working class for me as an organizer in America is a much greater sin than being overly optimistic. I can change my perspective and lower my cautious optimism if things on the ground don't pan out that way... but I can't turn back the clock if I lower my expectations now and see a wave of radicalism pass me by. I'm not willing to miss the opportunities being presented just because events are not playing out according to specific historical analogues or theoretical assumptions.

I don't see why making an actual sober assessment of what is going on means that you will miss an opportunity. Of course it is a time when socialists should be intervening in the class struggle.

The problem with being 'over optimistic' is that it not something that you can just brush aside, and 'lower your expectations'.

I think it is fundamentally connected to the way that much of the left operates. Every struggle is turned into the most crucial struggle. It is vita that people get involved in their organisation because this particular struggle at the moment is so vitally important. What it leads to is burnout and disillusionment, and really high membership turnover for the groups involved.


Um, that's totally meaningless. You are basically saying: it's meaningful because of the specific conditions, but if the specific conditions were different, it wouldn't be meaningful.

Yes, I'm not saying that Wisconsin is more significant than other events, I'm saying it's significant because we in the US now can potentially have more opportunities to build a more militant labor movement and build up class consciousness and self-leadership.

Yes, it's significant. It is not a particularly big struggle though, and wouldn't be that significant in other countries. I think that the fact that it is being made such a big thing of goes to show how far the US is behind other countries when it comes to the revitalization of class struggle. It is not a sign that shows that a massive movement is about to break out, but one that shows how far there is to go.

Devrim