Trotskyism and M-Lism

[The Man]

Can you be both? If not, why not? Wasn't Trotsky like Lenin's BFF? :lol:

[Rafiq]

Marxism-Leninism is not just agreeing with the works of both Marx and Lenin, it's a specific Idealogy that was developed by Stalin around the 1920's. A good number of Marxists Leninists on this forum, however, call themselves Marxist Leninists, because they uphold both the works of Marx and Lenin. Trotskyism already includes the works of Marx and Lenin, I don't see why one would call oneself both a Trotskyist, and a Marxist Leninist.

Anyway, hope that helped.

P.s. Weren't you an Anarchist?

[The Man]

P.s. Weren't you an Anarchist?

I had a revolution of the mind ;).

[Robespierre Richard]

How exactly could you be both? I think only the PSL comes close because they used to be Trots and their ideological paradigms are still Trotskyist but their political/economic alignment is Brezhnevite with a rehabilitation of Stalin. But really Trotskyism is just "War Communism Forever" with some other stuff added on by British academics until it caught on in the 70s, with the general decline of Marxism-Leninism, when a bunch of middle-class twits decided they wanted to march around with red flags and call themselves revolutionaries but didn't like any of the actually active communist movements (but wanted to defend them nonetheless.)

[Rooster]

I believe both Trotsky and Stalin claimed to be adherents of Leninism. Stalin though made a cult out of Lenin. Trotsky makes frequent claims that the left opposition against Stalin was really Leninism against Stalin.


By tearing quotations from their context, by a crude and dishonest misuse of partially-selected old polemical statements of Lenin’s, and by hiding from the party other far more recent statements, by a direct falsification of party history and facts of yesterday, and still more important, by distorting and directly altering all the questions at present in dispute, the group of Stalin and Bukharin, departing farther and farther from the principles of Lenin, are trying to deceive the party into believing that this is a struggle between Leninism and Trotskyism. The struggle is, in actual fact, between Leninism and the opportunism of Stalin. In exactly the same way the revisionists, under pretence of a struggle against “Blanquism”, waged their battle against Marxism. Our whole-hearted joint struggle against the Stalin course has been possible only because we are all completely united in the desire and determination to defend the real Leninist proletarian course.

source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch11.htm

[The Man]

So, from what I see, Stalinism and Trotskyism are basically two little kids fighting over "He's on my side!", using quotations that he said to prove their point?

[Rooster]

So, from what I see, Stalinism and Trotskyism are basically two little kids fighting over "He's on my side!", using quotations that he said to prove their point?

That's a fair assessment. Stalin though made a cult out of Lenin. You know, embalming his body, erecting statues, sticking his own face over that picture you see with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

[Q]

So, from what I see, Stalinism and Trotskyism are basically two little kids fighting over "He's on my side!", using quotations that he said to prove their point?

From the position of the Trotskyists (and most other revolutionary currents for that matter) Stalinism is the embodiment of the counterrevolution within the revolution. Rarely do counterrevolutions announce themselves as such, much more common is to (mis)use the colors of the revolution. Lenin died at exactly the right time for the counterrevolution to be used as their idol, so they did and hence they call themselves "Marxist-Leninists".

[Robespierre Richard]

So, from what I see, Stalinism and Trotskyism are basically two little kids fighting over "He's on my side!", using quotations that he said to prove their point?

Not really in the case of Marxism-Leninism, it's more about using theory for analysis and decision-making, and not using it as dogma that decides everything from how the movement is organized to how everything should be done post-revolution. If you look at Trotskyism, their basic reasoning is "Is this what Trotsky would have done?" while in the case of Marxism-Leninism it's "What is the best way to do this, validated in terms of theory?"

[Bright Banana Beard]

That's a fair assessment. Stalin though made a cult out of Lenin.
Please, prove this assessment. The artists' work of theorists tell that it wasn't only STALIN doing.
You are painting him as boogeyman, cause you know, he is STALIN and all people suffer some kind of pain when they see him, cause STALIN is there.

[Sixiang]

The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.


Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned


It is an adventure in the ideological sense. Trotsky groups all the enemies of Marxism, he unites Potresov and Maximov, who detest the 'Lenin-Plekhanov' bloc, as they like to call it. TROTSKY UNITES ALL THOSE TO WHOM IDEOLOGICAL DECAY IS DEAR; ALL WHO ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE DEFENCE OF MARXISM, all philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the 'hero of the hour' and gather all the shabby elements around himself. The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat.

source: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm

[Per Levy]

@patbuck: just so, shall i post quotes of trotzky and lenin in wich they praise each other? or lenins political last will in wich he supports trotzky instead of stalin? quotemining is so much fun isnt it?

[Robespierre Richard]

[quotes]

source: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm

This really doesn't help show the quantifiable differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism...

[Crux]

So, from what I see, Stalinism and Trotskyism are basically two little kids fighting over "He's on my side!", using quotations that he said to prove their point?
No, but I am tempted to use a Lenin quote to prove my point.
Oh and a shame to see you going to the PSL given their political record on international politics. Their organizational break from Trotskyism was caused by them defending the massacre of workers in Hungary in 1956 by soviet troops. Just to give you an idea.

[Geiseric]

Trotskyism equals perminant revolution, all the power to the soviets, internationalism

Stalinism equals a beurecratic caste who controls everything in the country, uses propaganda and intimidation to maintain power, and would rather side with liberals than other radical leftists. See: P.S.U.C. In the spanish civil war. They sided with the liberal republic over the anarcho syndicallists and other radical leftist parties, and ended up killing or imprisoning most of the semi-trotskyist P.O.U.M.

[Chimurenga.]

Oh and a shame to see you going to the PSL given their political record on international politics. Their organizational break from Trotskyism was caused by them defending the massacre of workers in Hungary in 1956 by soviet troops. Just to give you an idea.

Oh shut up. Manicexpression and a few others have put this to rest over two years ago. It's not our fault you and the rest of Trotskyists everywhere, fifty years later, can't get it through your skulls. Perhaps that's why your tendency's tradition is a giant historical failure.

So keep doing this for another fifty:
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/4/lalalalalalala128596859111527431.jpg

[RedTrackWorker]

So, from what I see, Stalinism and Trotskyism are basically two little kids fighting over "He's on my side!", using quotations that he said to prove their point?

The battle between Stalinists and Trotskyists was fought over over some of the most important class struggles of the twentieth century, involving differences of tactics, strategy, principles, theory and worldview. The battle over which of them was the genuine heir of Lenin's political thought and work is just a subset of that greater struggle.

It is not just a question of quotations from Lenin or what have you. One of the most important documents of this fight is The Third International After Lenin: The Draft Program of the Communist International 1928 (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm) and one of its most important sections is on what was on ongoing revolution in China. Harold Isaacs' book on the Chinese revolution does a great job of putting the "quotes" from Trotsky and Stalin into context.

To evaluate the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin means to evaluate the class struggle, especially from 1923-40, but since 1940 as well. The political trends they represent both have political records. I know where my sympathies lie.

[Tim Finnegan]

Perhaps that's why your tendency's tradition is a giant historical failure.
Oh, yes, the Trotskyists are quite unique in that regard, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

[Geiseric]

[QUOTE=proletarianrevolution;2056795]Oh shut up. Manicexpression and a few others have put this to rest over two years ago. It's not our fault you and the rest of Trotskyists everywhere, fifty years later, can't get it through your skulls. Perhaps that's why your tendency's tradition is a giant historical failure.

So keep doing this for another fifty:
[IMG]

Wait, so present day china, present day north korea and the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Aren't considered failures? How about the revolution in Iran? How'd that end up for the Stalinists? I hope you guys learn that killing all of the Trotskyists won't help the revolutions, inductive reasoning states that your pattern of betrayal isn't really working out, with the endgame neing a deformed workers state, a totalitarian dictatorship, or the people you allied with who border on fascist or radical islamist turned on you and took political control.

Yes, very successful indeed.

[Chimurenga.]

Wait, so present day china, present day north korea and the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Aren't considered failures?

Well, no, because, you see, actual succeeding revolutions took place under the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. North Korea is still a functioning workers state and the "collapse" of the Soviet Union was more like a overthrow.


How about the revolution in Iran? How'd that end up for the Stalinists?

Well, that was a bourgeois nationalist revolution. Clearly you know nothing about the '79 revolution in Iran.

Getting back to the point of this thread, I'd recommend the OP check out the works of Sam Marcy (http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/). He was formerly with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party and left (along with some others) over the SWP's positions on the Hungarian Uprising and China. He basically broke with most positions that Trotskyists took but upheld permanent revolution.

[RED DAVE]

From Lenin's Testament.


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky*, on the other hand, as his struggles against the C.C. on the question of the People.s Commissariat for Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the workhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lenin-testament.html

RED DAVE

[Rooster]

the "collapse" of the Soviet Union was more like a overthrow.

An overthrow? It was a popular uprising. Have you not seen the footage of the people out on the streets? You then have to ask yourself, why did this occur? "Oh no! It was the revisionism of such and such!".

[Crux]

Oh shut up. Manicexpression and a few others have put this to rest over two years ago. It's not our fault you and the rest of Trotskyists everywhere, fifty years later, can't get it through your skulls. Perhaps that's why your tendency's tradition is a giant historical failure.

So keep doing this for another fifty:
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/4/lalalalalalala128596859111527431.jpg
Yes, your sucess in backing regimes that murder socialists is almost unparralelled. I understand why you want to "put it to rest". After all you must have at least a shred of shame in your body.

[Sixiang]

@patbuck: just so, shall i post quotes of trotzky and lenin in wich they praise each other? or lenins political last will in wich he supports trotzky instead of stalin? quotemining is so much fun isnt it?
Sure about that one?

http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/node13.html#SECTION00400400000000000000

Funny that the self proclaimed "anti-authoritarian" communists legitimize a leader's alleged "will" concerning his "successors" who are to lead a revolutionary party. Do Trotskyites regard the Soviet CP as Lenin's personal property that Trotsky was supposed to inherit ?
Credit goes to durdles and red cat for those.


This really doesn't help show the quantifiable differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism...

I realize that. I apologize for sidetracking a bit. I made that post in response to this part:


Wasn't Trotsky like Lenin's BFF? :lol:

[RED DAVE]

Sure about that one?Sure about it:

From Lenin's Testament.


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky*, on the other hand, as his struggles against the C.C. on the question of the People.s Commissariat for Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the workhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lenin-testament.html

RED DAVE

[DaringMehring]

As regards the relationship between Lenin and Trotsky they went back and forth for the decades before the revolution. They were initially allied at Iskra but they went their separate ways. At times there were vicious polemics exchanged (Trotsky called Lenin "a cheap lawyer," and at times they were relatively close, Trotsky for instance taught at the Bolshevik School in Italy.

Lenin respected work, so even though Trotsky was a rival, Lenin praised his work during 1905 at the St. Petersburg Soviet. During the revolution something similar happened, especially as Trotsky & Lenin reached a consensus (Trotsky that he was wrong on the question of the Party, Lenin that he was wrong on the question of a bourgeois-democratic versus an immediate socialist revolution). It was not for nothing that Lenin eventually referred to Trotsky as "the best Bolshevik."

Stalin on the other hand was well-liked by Lenin during the pre-revolution decades. Stalin organized robberies and provided the Party significant funds, which Lenin appreciated as a daring action. Lenin worked with Stalin on the "National Question" work, basically ghost-writing it for him, which is why it reflects what was later Lenin's side of the National Question debate (which was opposed by Stalin & Dzerzhinsky). However, Stalin was not too important and documents reveal that in 1915 Lenin didn't even remember Stalin's name. During the revolution, Lenin used Stalin as a reliable henchman and as a counter to Trotsky, to prevent Trotsky from becoming totally dominant. After the revolution, they increasingly came into conflict. With Lenin's illness there wasn't much he could do; indications are that he wanted to seriously curtail Stalin's growing influence in the Party. After he died, Lenin's widow Krupskaya said that she thought, it was probable that had Lenin lived, he would have struggled against Stalin and lost, as Stalin was already very strong.

The point is --
People change, contexts change, politics change. That is basic dialectics. Plucking quotations out of context is a crime against reasoned thought. So is substituting personal relationships for politics. That is why these sectarian arguments can become stupid fast. They lose all material and dialectical content and end up as back-and-forths between static & idealized personal profiles.

[The Red Next Door]

Yes, your sucess in backing regimes that murder socialists is almost unparralelled. I understand why you want to "put it to rest". After all you must have at least a shred of shame in your body.

you just think that, but ya wrong
now run along and sell papers.

[ChrisK]

you just think that, but ya wrong
now run along and sell papers.

Amazing post! Full of information about how wrong he was. Sources were cited; the argument was articulate! Bravo, bravo indeed.

[The Red Next Door]

Amazing post! Full of information about how wrong he was. Sources were cited; the argument was articulate! Bravo, bravo indeed.


no, that we have shame or guilt, you silly ufa

[MarxSchmarx]

red next door,

in re:


Originally Posted by The Red Next Door
you just think that, but ya wrong
now run along and sell papers.


Knock it off. This is a verbal warning and if you carry on mocking each other with irrelevant snides then infractions will follow.