Question on Trotskyism

[Ocean Seal]

Exactly how is it anti-authoritarian? I know Trotsky spoke of building a revolution from below, but what does this mean in the context of reality. In terms of authoritarianism where are the important differences between Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism. Do Trotskyists consider Soviet Russia/Union authoritarian under Lenin? What changed that made it authoritarian under Stalin? And what democratic control existed under Lenin, and under Stalin, and the subsequent Soviet leaders. Everyone feel free to comment on this issue please.

[graymouser]

Trotskyism is not "anti-authoritarian" in the sense of anarchism. It believes that a bureaucratic caste (this term is used distinct from the term "class") was generated in the USSR under Lenin, and in the political struggles that followed Lenin's death was represented primarily by Stalin. The objection to the actions of Stalin and the bureaucracy was not rooted in its "authoritarian" nature but rather the fact that it represented the interests of a special group rather than the interests of the working class.

For Trotsky, working-class democracy was rooted in the Soviets. If you read what he wrote at the time (much of it is available in the three-volume series Challenge of the Left Opposition), he was realistic about the degree to which this was no longer the case after the brutal civil war. But Trotsky's political strategy was based primarily upon the European revolution, because he knew that simply restoring power to the Soviets without aid coming to Russia from a successful German revolution would simply not last. This was in direct contrast to Stalin's concept of "socialism in one country" - the idea that Russia could develop industry on its own to the point where it would have established socialism without the international revolution.

In Lenin's period, the Comintern had recognized that the USSR was in a transitional form, and Lenin characterized it as having "bureaucratic deformations" in his last years. Trotsky extended this concept in The Revolution Betrayed, and described Russia as having been stuck in the form of a workers' state, but having degenerated along bureaucratic lines. In one of his last works, the group of essays that are collected as In Defense of Marxism, Trotsky defined the workers' state as having four characteristics: nationalized property, central planning, monopoly on foreign trade, and workers' democracy. He said that Russia had the first three, and only the fourth was lacking. The upshot for Trotsky was that a proletarian political revolution was needed where the workers would overthrow the bureaucracy and return to the old slogan of "All Power to the Soviets." He was careful not to call the bureaucracy a "class," because it only resembled one superficially (in terms of control) and not actually (in terms of ownership).

Democratic control, as I implied earlier, had eroded fairly quickly due to the exigencies of the Civil War. But the Stalinists were past masters at making a virtue of necessity, and all the measures put into place to keep the fledgling workers' state alive until a European revolution broke out became instead tools to oppress the workers' movement, for the privileged caste of bureaucrats who managed the economy. Trotsky thought that the problems of the Russian revolution could have been solved if only the German revolution had succeeded - and he was more than likely right.

[theblackmask]

Exactly how is it anti-authoritarian?
-It's not. Any claim to the term lies in Trotsky's conflict with Stalin, who is deemed to be more authoritarian.

I know Trotsky spoke of building a revolution from below, but what does this mean in the context of reality.
- Nothing. Pretty much all the Bolsheviks used rhetoric claiming to want revolution from below(sometimes even "borrowing" anarchist slogans), while instituting completely opposite practices.

In terms of authoritarianism where are the important differences between Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism. Do Trotskyists consider Soviet Russia/Union authoritarian under Lenin?
- MLs support the Soviet Union under Stalin, Trots don't. In most cases, the only difference between the two is how states like the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. are viewed. Both tendencies still uphold very similar values, such as belief in the necessity of the state and the practice of democratic centralism (which are both pretty authoritarian).

What changed that made it authoritarian under Stalin? And what democratic control existed under Lenin, and under Stalin, and the subsequent Soviet leaders.
- Again, nothing, really. Stalin's camp wanted to turn inwards and focus on "socialism in one country," while Trotsky's wanted to continue with plans for a world revolution. Trots like to paint Stalin as an authoritarian figure, but based on Trotsky's actions, I doubt he would have done things very much differently or more democratically. As for democratic control, I would argue that any real worker's power was already pretty much dead even before Lenin's death.

I don't think there is much of a difference at all between how Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin ran things. At the end of the day, all three come from the same party and all held very rigid ideas of what revolution is. All three were statists first and revolutionaries second. In any case, I believe that all three would put the survival of the state before the voice of the workers, and there is nothing anti-authoritarian about that.

[Ocean Seal]

Ahh thank you graymouser for the informative post but if you don't mind I'm interested in learning a bit more about the parts in bold.

Trotskyism is not "anti-authoritarian" in the sense of anarchism. It believes that a bureaucratic caste (this term is used distinct from the term "class") was generated in the USSR under Lenin, and in the political struggles that followed Lenin's death was represented primarily by Stalin. The objection to the actions of Stalin and the bureaucracy was not rooted in its "authoritarian" nature but rather the fact that it represented the interests of a special group rather than the interests of the working class.

For Trotsky, working-class democracy was rooted in the Soviets. If you read what he wrote at the time (much of it is available in the three-volume series Challenge of the Left Opposition), he was realistic about the degree to which this was no longer the case after the brutal civil war. But Trotsky's political strategy was based primarily upon the European revolution, because he knew that simply restoring power to the Soviets without aid coming to Russia from a successful German revolution would simply not last. This was in direct contrast to Stalin's concept of "socialism in one country" - the idea that Russia could develop industry on its own to the point where it would have established socialism without the international revolution.

In Lenin's period, the Comintern had recognized that the USSR was in a transitional form, and Lenin characterized it as having "bureaucratic deformations" in his last years. Trotsky extended this concept in The Revolution Betrayed, and described Russia as having been stuck in the form of a workers' state, but having degenerated along bureaucratic lines. In one of his last works, the group of essays that are collected as In Defense of Marxism, Trotsky defined the workers' state as having four characteristics: nationalized property, central planning, monopoly on foreign trade, and workers' democracy. He said that Russia had the first three, and only the fourth was lacking. The upshot for Trotsky was that a proletarian political revolution was needed where the workers would overthrow the bureaucracy and return to the old slogan of "All Power to the Soviets." He was careful not to call the bureaucracy a "class," because it only resembled one superficially (in terms of control) and not actually (in terms of ownership).

What is worker's democracy? What do the workers actually control from the Soviets? Where did Stalin take away worker's democracy, and what would Trotsky have done differently to maintain worker's democracy? Are there any specific parts of the bureaucracy that Trotsky criticized under Stalin for not following the interests of the workers?

[Lyev]

I know Trotsky spoke of building a revolution from below, but what does this mean in the context of reality.
- Nothing. Pretty much all the Bolsheviks used rhetoric claiming to want revolution from below(sometimes even "borrowing" anarchist slogans), while instituting completely opposite practices.Actually this does have specific ideological connotations with Trotskyism. I think what this might 'revolution-from-below' thing might be alluding to -- consciously or not; it's a principle that Trotskyists generally stand for in one way or another -- is the well-known Hal Draper essay, The Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Souls_of_Socialism). The basis of such a position has its root in Marx's adage claim that "the emancipation of the working class must be act of the workers themselves". Of course, this is contentious because many different interpretations of Marx have appropriated this and used it in their various ways. I have seen an anarchist use it, obviously Trotskyist use it, and just googling it now, it is prevalent in many SPGB (impossibilsm) documents. Anyway, Trotsky's advocation of this line of arguments comes from the lack of genuine worker and soviet democracy in the Stalinist Soviet Union. I made a post about this quite a while ago in another similar thread in the Learning forum. This is all to do with the very fundamental concept of proletarian democracy. Lenin said (think it was Lenin): "socialism needs democracy like the body needs oxygen to breath".
No one can rule on behalf of the proletariat. It's the extension of proletarian-based, particpatory democracy to all aspects of our daily lives. And just as the bourgeoisie ruled with capital, and on their right-hand side "bodies of armed men", and just as in a feudal system nobility ruled with "divine rights" etc. and the mystification of the church, the proletariat will rule with this proletarian democracy. This is a dynamic, moving process, as democratic rights and decision-making are gradually extended and furthered into society's every little nook-and-cranny. Luxemburg talked of the subject of self-rule of the proletariat, and abolition of class-rule in it's hitherto-known sense, as a precursor to a fully-fledged communist society. Notice her emphasis on an opposition to Blanquism, i.e., or a small minority ruling on behalf of the proletariat - socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, severed from "direct participation of the masses" will degenerate into what we have seen in some of the failed movements of the past 20th century. Anyway, here's the quote:
Socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.(http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1803351&postcount=10)

[Olentzero]

A lot of good questions in RedBrother's last post!

Worker's democracy, in short, is the working class running society in its own interest, with full control over its leadership (which is fully accountable to the workers as a whole). Through the soviets the workers control every aspect of production and distribution - not only what gets made and how much, but how it's made, the technology used to make it, and so on and so forth. Stalin took that control over production away from the soviets and placed it more fully in the hands of the bureaucrats - as noted, this was a trend that had begun prior to Lenin's death but was consciously resisted by Lenin and the Bolshevik party. Two good books that give a picture of this period in Soviet history are Lenin's Final Fight (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Lenins-Final-Fight-Speeches-and-Writings-1922-23) by Moshe Lewin and Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Revolution-and-Counterrevolution-Class-Struggle-in-a-Moscow-Metal-Factory) by Kevin Murphy. The latter book is a study based on recently released archival materials of how worker's democracy was eliminated in one specific Moscow factory from the mid- to late 1920s and, I think, is an excellent detailed illustration of exactly what happened.

One of the main debates in the CPSU after Lenin's death was the course the country was to take. Stalin, as we know, favored heavy industrialization and 'socialism in one country', which came at the cost of workers' democracy, human rights, the environment, and so on. Trotsky and the Left Opposition favored lighter industrialization aimed at improving workers' living standards and preserving workers' democracy as best they could in order to keep Russia a living example of socialism and as a pole of attraction until the next revolutionary upsurge came.

As for what Trotsky criticized under Stalin, Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/The-Revolution-Betrayed) is a good start. I confess to not yet having read In Defense of Marxism, but if greymouser's quick summary above is at all accurate (and I honestly believe it is because it corresponds to my understanding of Trotsky's arguments) then it's also worth a read.

Oh, and props to Lyev for mentioning Hal Draper's Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pr/The-Two-Souls-of-Socialism). Doesn't address issues of Trotskyism directly but is definitely a good introduction to the comparison between the genuine socialist tradition and what passed for socialism under Stalin.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Trotskyism was the opportunist, somewhat populist Leninism that being in exile/opposition afforded him, much as neo-liberal opposition politicians make outrageous claims and promises that they cannot deliver in government.

I realise some will scold me for saying that, but it's quite true. I do not believe for one minute that, Yezhovschina aside, Trotsky would have done anything different in power than any of the other Leninists.

[graymouser]

What is worker's democracy? What do the workers actually control from the Soviets? Where did Stalin take away worker's democracy, and what would Trotsky have done differently to maintain worker's democracy? Are there any specific parts of the bureaucracy that Trotsky criticized under Stalin for not following the interests of the workers?
Workers' democracy is just what it says on the label - the working class manages production and social life in general through its democratic organs, the Soviets. This was not "taken away" by Stalin, there was significant erosion of workers' democracy already during the Civil War but Stalin finished off any semblance of Soviet independence or guidance of production and distribution. Trotsky did not think that this democracy could flourish outside of the international revolution, which is why internationalism was always at the center of his politics.

If you want to understand Trotsky's rather thorough critique of how the bureaucracy affected the working class, you really should read The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm). I particularly think the chapter "Thermidor in the Family" is an excellent critique of Stalin's social policy. Much of his criticism is of the Stakhanov movement ("voluntary" overwork) and the privileges of the bureaucrats, but he goes into considerable detail. But given the fact that so much of later politics has dealt with the question of the family and women's rights, I think the critique of the policy on women is quite relevant to modern politics.

[MarxSchmarx]

Stalin, as we know, favored heavy industrialization and 'socialism in one country', which came at the cost of workers' democracy, human rights, the environment, and so on. Trotsky and the Left Opposition favored lighter industrialization aimed at improving workers' living standards and preserving workers' democracy as best they could in order to keep Russia a living example of socialism and as a pole of attraction until the next revolutionary upsurge came.


The ENVIRONMENT? Are you sure Stalin and or Trotsky ever brought this up seriously if at all?

[Kléber]

One of the main debates in the CPSU after Lenin's death was the course the country was to take. Stalin, as we know, favored heavy industrialization and 'socialism in one country', which came at the cost of workers' democracy, human rights, the environment, and so on. Trotsky and the Left Opposition favored lighter industrialization aimed at improving workers' living standards and preserving workers' democracy as best they could in order to keep Russia a living example of socialism and as a pole of attraction until the next revolutionary upsurge came.
The Left Opposition was the most democratic and internationalist of the three major factions, but actually, during the debates of the 1920's, the Left supported heavy industrialization and an early start to collectivization. The Right (Bukharin) and center (Stalin) argued that too much industrialization would be like "a peasant buying a gramophone instead of a cow," they wanted to continue NEP until the crisis of 1928 forced the state to collectivize and begin the first five-year plan.


The ENVIRONMENT? Are you sure Stalin and or Trotsky ever brought this up seriously if at all?
Not really. In the 20's and 30's, the USSR was a world leader in environmental conservation. From the late 1940's it began closing down state parks and forcing the rest to turn a profit. The final decades of the USSR saw some human-made ecological disasters like the desiccation of the Aral Sea.

[black magick hustla]

Trotskyism sometimes is somewhat of a useless term. It is sometimes useful when talking about groups like CWI or IMT, but groups like the SWP call themselves trotskyist but I would rather call them a split from trotskyism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do Trotskyists consider Soviet Russia/Union authoritarian under Lenin? What changed that made it authoritarian under Stalin? And what democratic control existed under Lenin, and under Stalin, and the subsequent Soviet leaders. Everyone feel free to comment on this issue please.The revolution was already in trouble early on IMO and worker's democracy was not able to be maintained. People argue that the state-capitalism and war-communism that developed in the early years was all part of some plan or the natural consequence of bolshevik ideology or practice, but this belief ignores all historical context and is a sloppy backwards reading of history. It's also idealist - as if to say that someone with better politics could have made the white army disappear and could have made the working class suddenly not disintegrating. Many people point to Makhno, and yet despite his "anti-authoritarian" politics, when conditions turned against that rebellion, they began to forcibly conscript people, take grain to feed their troops and became more like warlords than a liberation army. This is due more to the conditions of peasant armies and the historical conditions of Russia at that time than some flaw in ideology that made them "authoritarian". It was similar for the bolsheviks and with any revolution, things are fluid and dynamic and can push ahead or stagnate and fall back or be pushed back outright by repression.

So in one sense, the war-powers and the lack of worker's democracy did pave the way to Stalinism IMO, but that was one of any number of outcomes. The major difference observable difference between the revolutionary bolshevik tradition and the later Stalinism is that the early bolsheviks actually saw the disintegration of working class power, war-communism, substitutionism by the party, and everything else as problems and detours... Stalinism did not see these things as problems and actually presented them as opportunities or virtues. The horrors of Russia under Stalin has nothing to do with bolshevik ideology in 1917, they come from the material and concrete need for "the nation" to "build socialism" which really mean trying to catch up to capitalist countries and that meant that the primitive accumulation of capitalism was reproduced - work camps used to generate a lot of surplus, crack-downs on dissent to keep people from organizing strikes or uprisings, and the re-writing of history to minimize the role of regular workers in the Revolution and make it all about some genius ideas of "great man" Lenin.

[Olentzero]

The ENVIRONMENT? Are you sure Stalin and or Trotsky ever brought this up seriously if at all?Here's a good article (http://www.isreview.org/issues/72/feat-marxenviro.shtml) by Chris Williams on that very subject. Check out the section entitled "Socialist ecological thought since Marx".

[theblackmask]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1940/trotsky.htm

Also, here's a sweet article on Trotsky by Paul Mattick in 1940. I like this quote from it...


Coming to power with the help of a russified Marxian ideology, Trotsky, after he lost power, had no choice but to maintain the revolutionary ideology in its original form against the degeneration of Marxism indulged in by the Stalinists. He could afford this luxury, for he had escaped the iron consequences of the social system he had helped to bring about. Now he could lead a life of dignity, that is, a life of opposition. But had he suddenly been brought back to power, his actions could have been none other than those of Stalin’s which he so despised. After all, the latter is himself no more than the creature of Lenin’s and Trotsky’s policies.

Also this...


That he had other arguments, such as that of the “permanent revolution” against the slogan of “socialism in one country,” etc., is rather meaningless, because the permanence of the revolution as well as the isolation of Russia, is dependent not upon slogans and political decisions, but on realities over which even the most powerful party has no control. Such arguments serve only to disguise the quite ordinary interests for which political parties struggle.

[graymouser]

Coming to power with the help of a russified Marxian ideology, Trotsky, after he lost power, had no choice but to maintain the revolutionary ideology in its original form against the degeneration of Marxism indulged in by the Stalinists. He could afford this luxury, for he had escaped the iron consequences of the social system he had helped to bring about. Now he could lead a life of dignity, that is, a life of opposition. But had he suddenly been brought back to power, his actions could have been none other than those of Stalin’s which he so despised. After all, the latter is himself no more than the creature of Lenin’s and Trotsky’s policies.
This bit of nonsense gets thrown around an awful lot, but Trotsky had specific points where he argued for a different course than Stalin. The Revolution Betrayed is extremely specific on policy details, not a sort of general listing of everything Stalin did that was negative. Trotsky's anti-bureaucratism would have likely led to a pitched internal struggle in the USSR, and things would have been considerably different on that basis alone.

But for Trotskyists the important fact is always the international revolution, not the progress of the Russian revolution on its own to socialism. If there couldn't have been a socialist revolution in another European country, a hypothetical USSR under Trotsky probably would have fallen rather than continued as it did under Stalin.

[Gorilla]

If there couldn't have been a socialist revolution in another European country, a hypothetical USSR under Trotsky probably would have fallen rather than continued as it did under Stalin.

Sorry, am I reading this party correctly?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotsky believed a revolutionary foreign policy was vital in maintaining worker's democracy in the USSR.A Trotskyist SU would have aided and indeed been embedded in worker's struggles elsewhere in Europe and the rest of the world.Popular front strategies and later Stalin's alliance with Hitler would have been unimaginable.

The Soviet Union, based on the working class instead of a bureaucratic elite, would have been fully committed to a war against capitalism. This would have been, by necessity, a war to to the death.

[graymouser]

Sorry, am I reading this party correctly?
Yes. Trotsky - like Lenin - had no confidence in the ability of the USSR to carry on in autarky, and would not have tried to force this as Stalin did. However, conditions became ripe for international revolution in the '30s and a Trotskyist leadership of the Comintern would have given it a fighting chance.

[chegitz guevara]

Sorry, am I reading this party correctly?

This is not to say that the USSR would have surrendered under Trotsky. Rather, the point is that the USSR would have been much like a liberated zone from which to conduct war against the capitalist world. Sooner or later, without the workers of other countries coming to their aid, the capitalists would have had enough and started another capitalist crusade, and dog-piled the soviet workers. WWII would have been a global war against the USSR instead against Germany.

[graymouser]

This is not to say that the USSR would have surrendered under Trotsky. Rather, the point is that the USSR would have been much like a liberated zone from which to conduct war against the capitalist world. Sooner or later, without the workers of other countries coming to their aid, the capitalists would have had enough and started another capitalist crusade, and dog-piled the soviet workers. WWII would have been a global war against the USSR instead against Germany.
That's correct: Trotsky's stance was to bank it all on internationalism. This stayed true to his perspective of the regeneration of the USSR, which is why he wrote so extensively about political problems in France and Spain, and took such a hard line (which I think is antithetical to the idea that he was an opportunist exile) particularly with his cothinkers who entered the POUM. Opposition to "socialism in one country" meant just that.

[theblackmask]

The posts above me are nothing but speculation based on the myth of an anti-authoritarian Trotsky. Yes, Trotsky did argue for a more international struggle and spoke out against the bureaucracy, but he was only able to do this because he was marginalized to a position outside of the new ruling class.

As I stated earlier, based on his actions, I see no real reason to believe that Trotsky would have carried things on in much the same way as Stalin did. You all are speaking of history in a very dangerous way, acting as if you know what would have happened if things had been different. There is no way to know for sure if the USSR under Trotsky would have been better or worse, and to simply state your speculations as fact is to simply regurgitate Trotskyist dogma.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but outside of select quotes from Trotsky, I see no factual basis in his actions that would lead me to believe he would have been very different from Stalin.

[graymouser]

The posts above me are nothing but speculation based on the myth of an anti-authoritarian Trotsky. Yes, Trotsky did argue for a more international struggle and spoke out against the bureaucracy, but he was only able to do this because he was marginalized to a position outside of the new ruling class.

As I stated earlier, based on his actions, I see no real reason to believe that Trotsky would have carried things on in much the same way as Stalin did. You all are speaking of history in a very dangerous way, acting as if you know what would have happened if things had been different. There is no way to know for sure if the USSR under Trotsky would have been better or worse, and to simply state your speculations as fact is to simply regurgitate Trotskyist dogma.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but outside of select quotes from Trotsky, I see no factual basis in his actions that would lead me to believe he would have been very different from Stalin.
All this amounts to a rather pompous "I don't believe you." I am talking about the actual strategic course that Trotsky and the Left Opposition put forward, not speculations based on his personal motives. Trotsky's actions in his life were to continue to put forward the same internationalist course, from his time as a leader of the Comintern, to the Left Opposition, to his expulsion. He devoted his entire life in exile to propagandizing for it, and we are trying to draw out what the actual course he put forward would have meant.

What's interesting, and where you're quite clearly wrong, is that no one here has said that Trotsky would've been a perfect or "anti-authoritarian" leader of the USSR. To a large degree this simply was not possible. It is however correct to say that Trotsky believed that the international revolution would vindicate the attempts of the Bolshevik party to hang on to power, if Russia could be - as chegitz called it - a "liberated zone" for other revolutions. This couldn't have led to what we would call socialism, until after the victory on an international scale. That is all inherent in the theory of permanent revolution, and to sit there and say Trotsky wouldn't have been able to run an autarkic USSR as a paradise is irrelevant to the subject.

[DaringMehring]

The posts above me are nothing but speculation based on the myth of an anti-authoritarian Trotsky. Yes, Trotsky did argue for a more international struggle and spoke out against the bureaucracy, but he was only able to do this because he was marginalized to a position outside of the new ruling class.

As I stated earlier, based on his actions, I see no real reason to believe that Trotsky would have carried things on in much the same way as Stalin did. You all are speaking of history in a very dangerous way, acting as if you know what would have happened if things had been different. There is no way to know for sure if the USSR under Trotsky would have been better or worse, and to simply state your speculations as fact is to simply regurgitate Trotskyist dogma.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but outside of select quotes from Trotsky, I see no factual basis in his actions that would lead me to believe he would have been very different from Stalin.

How about the action of Trotsky's fight against the troika, and then the Left Opposition's struggle against Stalin/Bukharin?

If Trotsky wanted to be a servant of the bureaucracy, he could have played that role, and even brought it revolutionary credibility, based on his work during the revolution. He himself said as much. But he chose to fight instead.

Just look at the piece on Trotsky in Lunacharsky's 1923 "Revolutionary Silhouettes" (the book was banned by the Stalin regime): "Trotsky treasures his historical role and would probably be ready to make any personal sacrifice, not excluding the greatest sacrifice of all -- that of his life -- in order to go down in human memory surrounded by the aureole of a genuine revolutionary leader."

[DaringMehring]

It is true that "anti-authoritarian" is not really something that applies to Trotsky. "Anti-authoritarian" is a modern catchphrase of anarchism and other petit-bourgeois ideologies.

"Democracy" and "anti-authoritarianism" are different, Trotsky fought for the former, anarchists claim the latter.

[red cat]

How about the action of Trotsky's fight against the troika, and then the Left Opposition's struggle against Stalin/Bukharin?

If Trotsky wanted to be a servant of the bureaucracy, he could have played that role, and even brought it revolutionary credibility, based on his work during the revolution. He himself said as much. But he chose to fight instead.

Just look at the piece on Trotsky in Lunacharsky's 1923 "Revolutionary Silhouettes" (the book was banned by the Stalin regime): "Trotsky treasures his historical role and would probably be ready to make any personal sacrifice, not excluding the greatest sacrifice of all -- that of his life -- in order to go down in human memory surrounded by the aureole of a genuine revolutionary leader."

That fight could have been just because Trotsky himself wanted to lead the USSR instead of Stalin. I think what theblackmask wants is an example of Trotsky or some Trotskyite group that led a state in situations similar to the USSR and did things differently. Trotsky's actions during the revolution, specially in Kronstadt, don't at all indicate that he was any less authoritarian or bureaucratic in practice.

[red cat]

The Soviet Union, based on the working class instead of a bureaucratic elite, would have been fully committed to a war against capitalism. This would have been, by necessity, a war to to the death.

Thanks for admitting this. This is very apparent from Trotskyite stances on the ongoing revolutions. They advocate this "war to the death" kind of lines for almost everything when they are not in the front-lines taking the bullets. Historically in certain imperialist countries where Trots did exist substantially, this same line was somehow morphed into adopting entryism into "mass workers' parties" which were really nothing but political tools of imperialism for exploiting the colonies, as the main form of struggle. Very interesting indeed.

[graymouser]

That fight could have been just because Trotsky himself wanted to lead the USSR instead of Stalin.
If Trotsky had wanted that, he probably could have arranged a coup d'etat using the loyalty of the Red Army who had fought under him in the Civil War to overthrow Stalin and rule the USSR. However Trotsky was haunted by the specter of Bonapartism (he would later use the concept to analyze the role of Stalin and the bureaucracy) and he chose instead to fight within the Communist Party instead of outside of it.

Speculation as to "what would Trotsky have really done" is empty; you either base yourself on what the man said, or on what you would like the answer to have been. To put it a completely different way: if Trotsky was right even though he subjectively wanted to lead the USSR, would that make him wrong? Are his theories actually dependent upon his own subjective intention? And even if you discounted him on those grounds, what difference would it make for a Trotskyist party today?

[red cat]

If Trotsky had wanted that, he probably could have arranged a coup d'etat using the loyalty of the Red Army who had fought under him in the Civil War to overthrow Stalin and rule the USSR. However Trotsky was haunted by the specter of Bonapartism (he would later use the concept to analyze the role of Stalin and the bureaucracy) and he chose instead to fight within the Communist Party instead of outside of it.

Was Trotsky powerful enough to stage a coup ? How many leaders supported him ? He didn't stage the coup probably because he knew that he would be militarily defeated if he did.


Speculation as to "what would Trotsky have really done" is empty; you either base yourself on what the man said, or on what you would like the answer to have been. To put it a completely different way: if Trotsky was right even though he subjectively wanted to lead the USSR, would that make him wrong? Are his theories actually dependent upon his own subjective intention? And even if you discounted him on those grounds, what difference would it make for a Trotskyist party today?But his words should always be proved through his practice. If you don't consider his practice at all then why not choose to be an anarchist in the first place ? From anarchist theories it seems that USSR would have been a thousand times better than both Stalinist or Trotskyite leaderships under anarchism, until you take into account anarchist practice, that is.

[graymouser]

But his words should always be proved through his practice. If you don't consider his practice at all then why not choose to be an anarchist in the first place ? From anarchist theories it seems that USSR would have been a thousand times better than both Stalinist or Trotskyite leaderships under anarchism, until you take into account anarchist practice, that is.
As far as I'm concerned, his practice - building an international revolutionary movement - was the correct one. But I'm pointing out the flaw of the people whose sole disproof of Trotskyism necessary is to say "would he have done better in power?" as if that invalidates his actual line.

To put things another way, did Stalinism stop the revolution from degenerating and eventually falling? Or Maoism?

[red cat]

As far as I'm concerned, his practice - building an international revolutionary movement - was the correct one. But I'm pointing out the flaw of the people whose sole disproof of Trotskyism necessary is to say "would he have done better in power?" as if that invalidates his actual line.

Sorry, but these examples are not satisfactory, until you show a single instance of any member groups of that international movement that actually performed better that Stalin in similar situations. There are anarchist groups in many countries and they can claim to be an international revolutionary movement too. Until you provide some concrete example I see no reason why anarchism shouldn't be the only legitimate leftist tendency in this way.


To put things another way, did Stalinism stop the revolution from degenerating and eventually falling? Or Maoism?I will speak only for Maoism. You see, when Maoists put forward their line, they have something other than century-old stories to point at. The first thing they speak of are the ongoing revolutions, which have small states where mainly the working class and peasantry act as allies to use their military power and numerical superiority to exercise class dictatorship over all other classes. This way Maoism is far ahead of all other tendencies.

[graymouser]

Sorry, but these examples are not satisfactory, until you show a single instance of any member groups of that international movement that actually performed better that Stalin in similar situations. There are anarchist groups in many countries and they can claim to be an international revolutionary movement too. Until you provide some concrete example I see no reason why anarchism shouldn't be the only legitimate leftist tendency in this way.
I could raise the same kind of question engineered to undermine your Maoism: namely, can you show me a Maoist revolution that has ended with the working class in power? No.

The Bolivian Trotskyists could've made the revolution in 1953 or so, but because of some deviations from Trotskyist strategy - basically allowing the MNR to come to power and not challenging it from the left - they didn't succeed. But they proved that Trots are very far from being all talk, and most of today's Bolivian radical tradition can trace its roots back to the POR (the Trotskyist party there). For the most part of course Trotskyism has been an opposition current in the far left. But your line about anarchism makes no sense - Trotskyism rests its revolutionary strategy on the success of the Bolshevik revolution as much as Stalinism does.

[red cat]

I could raise the same kind of question engineered to undermine your Maoism: namely, can you show me a Maoist revolution that has ended with the working class in power? No.

The Bolivian Trotskyists could've made the revolution in 1953 or so, but because of some deviations from Trotskyist strategy - basically allowing the MNR to come to power and not challenging it from the left - they didn't succeed. But they proved that Trots are very far from being all talk, and most of today's Bolivian radical tradition can trace its roots back to the POR (the Trotskyist party there). For the most part of course Trotskyism has been an opposition current in the far left. But your line about anarchism makes no sense - Trotskyism rests its revolutionary strategy on the success of the Bolshevik revolution as much as Stalinism does.

But I (and others) never demanded such absolute examples; what we want to see is a single practical example of Trots running a state better than Stalinists. That is all. Your logic is flawed because one could extend it and ask which tendency has brought the working class in power internationally or completed world revolution. This ignores partial practice and equates all tendencies.

And no, the Bolshevik revolution was Leninist, not Trotskyite. Trotskyism as a tendency cannot claim to be more practical than anarchism until you give an example of a Trotskyite state that lasted a few years.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Thanks for admitting this. This is very apparent from Trotskyite stances on the ongoing revolutions. They advocate this "war to the death" kind of lines for almost everything when they are not in the front-lines taking the bullets. Historically in certain imperialist countries where Trots did exist substantially, this same line was somehow morphed into adopting entryism into "mass workers' parties" which were really nothing but political tools of imperialism for exploiting the colonies, as the main form of struggle. Very interesting indeed.

I didn't express this as well as I might have. Greymouser and others are doing a better job in explaining the Trotskyist approach. Of course there's a time to fight and a time to compromise. Trotskyists aren't Blanquists.The Trotskyist approach is the continuation of revolutionary Bolshevism as opposed to the Thermidorean reaction which hijacked the revolution.

The important thing is that the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin wasn't just a power struggle between two individuals but represented social forces. Trotsky represented a portion of the working class and the original Bolshevik Party, the people who led and carried out the Revolution, while Stalin personified the bureaucratic layer which came to power following the defeat of the revolution in the West.

The idea that Maoists have been "taking the bullets" while Trotskyists haven't is ahistorical. While obviously strongly opposing imperialism, I would question the line of"faux anti-imperialism" leading to support of capitalist states merely because the US (for now) opposes them.

[graymouser]

But I (and others) never demanded such absolute examples; what we want to see is a single practical example of Trots running a state better than Stalinists. That is all. Your logic is flawed because one could extend it and ask which tendency has brought the working class in power internationally or completed world revolution. This ignores partial practice and equates all tendencies.

And no, the Bolshevik revolution was Leninist, not Trotskyite. Trotskyism as a tendency cannot claim to be more practical than anarchism until you give an example of a Trotskyite state that lasted a few years.
And here's where this exchange will have to end. Trotskyists are Leninists, and stand on the Bolshevik Revolution and the first four congresses of the Communist International. Your attempts to deny this mean that you have no basis for discussion of Trotskyism.

[Queercommie Girl]

My personal opinion is that of all the tendencies within the Marxist-Leninist framework, Maoism and Trotskyism are the ones that are generally the best. If one can combine the ideas of anti-imperialism, third worldism, strategic pragmatism and mass democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Maoism with the ideas of worker's democracy and cultural freedom in Trotskyism then one would end up with a Marxist-Leninist system that's better than most others.

I used to fantasise about combining Trotskyism with Maoism, that's probably before I realised how much fundamental disagreements there are between the two tendencies. I once thought parties like PSL are the closest to a kind of "Trotskyism-Maoism", but PSL isn't really critical enough regarding post-Stalin revisionism.

[red cat]

I didn't express this as well as I might have. Greymouser and others are doing a better job in explaining the Trotskyist approach. Of course there's a time to fight and a time to compromise. Trotskyists aren't Blanquists.The Trotskyist approach is the continuation of revolutionary Bolshevism as opposed to the Thermidorean reaction which hijacked the revolution.

Then why do you talk of fight to the death for the working class of a whole country ? What is your object, to make a successful revolution or to get the whole working class killed while pursuing your utopian fantasies ?


The important thing is that the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin wasn't just a power struggle between two individuals but represented social forces. Trotsky represented a portion of the working class and the original Bolshevik Party, the people who led and carried out the Revolution, while Stalin personified the bureaucratic layer which came to power following the defeat of the revolution in the West.

No proof.


The idea that Maoists have been "taking the bullets" while Trotskyists haven't is ahistorical. While obviously strongly opposing imperialism, I would question the line of"faux anti-imperialism" leading to support of capitalist states merely because the US (for now) opposes them.

So in how many movements have Trots taken the bullets? In how many places have they taken up arms to oppose imperialism ?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

But I (and others) never demanded such absolute examples; what we want to see is a single practical example of Trots running a state better than Stalinists. That is all. Your logic is flawed because one could extend it and ask which tendency has brought the working class in power internationally or completed world revolution. This ignores partial practice and equates all tendencies.

Trotskyite state that lasted a few years.

When are communists interested in running a bourgeois state? As far as " proof" that the Trotsky/Stalin struggle was a struggle of social forces rather than that of individuals all I can offer is classic Marxism. The struggle was huge. The shadow of Trotsky was behind every major show trial, every trumped up charge. Marxists don't believe in a "great man" theory of history. A materialist analysis would indicate that a struggle this large had to be an expression of social/class forces.

Some sources though

Memoirs of a Revolutionist Victor Serge
Revolution Betrayed Leon Trotsky
The Stalin School of Falsification
anything by the Russian history Dimitri Rogovin. He's one of the few contempory historians to have access to the Soviet archives who isn't a right winger.

Graymouser should be made a Hero of Socialist Explanation for his efforts on this thread and others.

[red cat]

When are communists interested in running a bourgeois state?

I didn't specify anything about the class nature of the state. Just show us any Trotskyite state that has functioned better than a Stalinist state. And please don't point at USSR under Lenin and say that Trotskyism is Leninism.



As far as " proof" that the Trotsky/Stalin struggle was a struggle of social forces rather than that of individuals all I can offer is classic Marxism. The struggle was huge. The shadow of Trotsky was behind every major show trial, every trumped up charge. Marxists don't believe in a "great man" theory of history. A materialist analysis would indicate that a struggle this large had to be an expression of social/class forces.

Some sources though

Memoirs of a Revolutionist Victor Serge
Revolution Betrayed Leon Trotsky
The Stalin School of Falsification
anything by the Russian history Dimitri Rogovin. He's one of the few contempory historians to have access to the Soviet archives who isn't a right winger.
Books by Trotsky and Trotskyites to legitimize Trotskyism ? Good enough.:rolleyes:

Here is a Trotskyite source to demonstrate the role of Trots in third world politics. For starters, the CPI(M) is a fascist party that silences all opposition militarily and regularly massacres workers and peasants. The CPI(Maoist) has entered into intensified military conflict with the state in Lalgarh, West Bengal. The people's movement in Lalgarh had resulted in the militarization of the masses over a large area there and an unofficial people's government had come into existence. Later state forces entered and the war has been continuing till today. The TMC is the main opposition party in West Bengal. So, a strategy of the CPI(M) to stay in power has been to conduct terrorist acts like derailing trains etc. blaming it on Maoists and then alleging that Maoists are allying with the TMC. This would mark both the proletarian and bourgeois oppositions as terrorist. Till now there hasn't been a single report on the NSA's part on the Lalgarh movement or the fake terrorist attacks. See how it repeats the lies by the state to indicate that Maoists are allying with the ruling classes. Also notice that they don't mention once that the "workers' opposition" that Siddhartha Shankar Ray crushed was led by Maoists.

http://socialism.in/?p=853

There are more gems by the Indian Trots which can be produced on request. ;)

[Crux]

Thanks for admitting this. This is very apparent from Trotskyite stances on the ongoing revolutions. They advocate this "war to the death" kind of lines for almost everything when they are not in the front-lines taking the bullets..
Really now? There were armed trotskyist groups in china during the first recolutionary uprising and in the war against the japanese, as well as in the vietnamese war for liberation against the french, in the cuban revolution and many many other examples. Strangely this is ignored by stalinist historians.

[chegitz guevara]

Thanks for admitting this. This is very apparent from Trotskyite stances on the ongoing revolutions. They advocate this "war to the death" kind of lines for almost everything when they are not in the front-lines taking the bullets. Historically in certain imperialist countries where Trots did exist substantially, this same line was somehow morphed into adopting entryism into "mass workers' parties" which were really nothing but political tools of imperialism for exploiting the colonies, as the main form of struggle. Very interesting indeed.

Trotskyists have never been afraid of taking bullets for the cause. Trotsky led the Red Army's civil war efforts from the front lines. Trotskyists were massacred en masse in Stalin's gulags. Trotskyists fought as partisans against the Nazis in every country. Trotskyists fought along side people they knew would kill them if they got a chance, and who were killed by them when the got that chance. Trotskyists historically, put everything on the line for the movement.

You post is simply a base slander.

It's not a cavalier attitude that says the workers must fight to the death. It's the truth. Every . single . Stalinist . revolution . has . ended . in . capitalism. Not some bullshit state capitalism, which is nothing more than a cop-out for separating yourself from some attempt at socialism you don't like, but capitalism, with a market, with commodity production. If the revolution doesn't spread, it falls. It may take decades, but the moment that the workers turn their back on revolution they are doomed.

The only chance of victory is to keep attacking capitalism until it's dead. Maybe we lose, but if we don't, defeat is guaranteed.

[red cat]

Really now? There were armed trotskyist groups in china during the first recolutionary uprising and in the war against the japanese, as well as in the vietnamese war for liberation against the french, in the cuban revolution and many many other examples. Strangely this is ignored by stalinist historians.

And they advocated that "fight to the death" line and won the revolutions ? Or were they slaughtered by baby-eating Stalinists ? The latter happens to be the standard outcome of almost every Trotskyite armed-struggle I have ever heard of. From Trotskyites of course. :lol:

[red cat]

Trotskyists have never been afraid of taking bullets for the cause. Trotsky led the Red Army's civil war efforts from the front lines. Trotskyists were massacred en masse in Stalin's gulags. Trotskyists fought as partisans against the Nazis in every country. Trotskyists fought along side people they knew would kill them if they got a chance, and who were killed by them when the got that chance. Trotskyists historically, put everything on the line for the movement.

You post is simply a base slander.

Really? So why don't they take the bullets in India? I will not fall for these stories until I see them reflected in the Indian Trotskyite movement. There is enough class-struggle going on in India; any group that does not manage to elevate this to armed struggle is completely worthless.


It's not a cavalier attitude that says the workers must fight to the death. It's the truth. Every . single . Stalinist . revolution . has . ended . in . capitalism.

What about Trotskyite revolutions ? What did those end in ? :)


Not some bullshit state capitalism, which is nothing more than a cop-out for separating yourself from some attempt at socialism you don't like, but capitalism, with a market, with commodity production. If the revolution doesn't spread, it falls. It may take decades, but the moment that the workers turn their back on revolution they are doomed.

The only chance of victory is to keep attacking capitalism until it's dead. Maybe we lose, but if we don't, defeat is guaranteed.I agree with this statement. But a war has periods of peace. An army must retreat when it is in danger. Sometimes it must even compromise and ally with some of its enemies. Sometimes it must lose a few battles to win a war. You ignore these ground realities; you die for nothing.

[Kléber]

You aren't involved in armed struggle, red cat. Doubt you could shoot a gun let alone clean it. Take your narodnik posturing back to the 1800s.

If there were Trotskyist guerrillas in India, apparently you would want them to be kidnapped and murdered as quickly as possible, like Mao's party did to the Chinese Trotskyist fighters in Shandong during the Sino-Japanese War.

[chegitz guevara]

Really? So why don't they take the bullets in India? I will not fall for these stories until I see them reflected in the Indian Trotskyite movement. There is enough class-struggle going on in India; any group that does not manage to elevate this to armed struggle is completely worthless.

If the worker class were engaged in civil war with the Indian state, no doubt they would. No slight against the adavasi, but they aren't capable of defeating the Indian imperialist state. Only the Indian proletariat can do that, and to do that, they must first be organized ... in the cities.


What about Trotskyite revolutions ? What did those end in ? :)

The first one ended in Stalin. :p


I agree with this statement. But a war has periods of peace. An army must retreat when it is in danger. Sometimes it must even compromise and ally with some of its enemies. Sometimes it must lose a few battles to win a war. You ignore these ground realities; you die for nothing.

Absolutely, there are times when you need to retreat, but if you simply put down your arms and go home, you lose. Period.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

And they advocated that "fight to the death" line and won the revolutions ? Or were they slaughtered by baby-eating Stalinists ? The latter happens to be the standard outcome of almost every Trotskyite armed-struggle I have ever heard of. From Trotskyites of course. :lol:

The forgotten massacre of the Vietnamese Trotskyists

Submitted on 12 September, 2005 - 11:47 http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/category_pictures/88_summ.jpg On demonstrations in the 1960s, it was common to hear marchers chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, we will fight and we will win”, in honour of the Vietnamese Stalinist who led the fight against US occupation. The best sections of the left replied with their own rhyme — Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh — how many Trots did you do in?” They were referring to the mass murder of the Vietnamese Trotskyists by Stalinist forces in 1945. Sixty years on, the massacre has largely been forgotten.
The Vietnamese Trotskyists stood for independent working class politics against French and Japanese imperialists, the Stalinists and other nationalist forces. The butchering of these working class socialists, which paved the way for Ho Chi Minh’s rule, underlined the nature of Stalinist revolution in Vietnam which put a new ruling elite in power. The example of Vietnam shows why we must remain critical of even the most successful nationalist movements.
Background


http://www.workersliberty.org/node/4774


Trotskyists have series issues w/Worker's Liberty but they have some excellent history articles

BTW Your "fight to the death" mantra is based on a misinterpretation of a point which I failed to make properly. A better way of phrasing it would be that the Trotskyist tradition avoids class collaborationist and alliances with the bourgoise in any "bloc of four classes" or poipular frontism. This is completely different from Blanqism.

[Gorilla]

Stalinists have done a lot of hella brave shit in the past too.

We, all of us on this thread, are people who post on the internet and maybe sell newspapers or something.

It's a bad idea for Trots to grievance-monger since there's no telling if you'd have been brave enough to get martyred.

It's a bad idea for MLs to gloat since there's no telling if you'd have been clever enough to avoid Koba's displeasure.

[Weezer]

For the last time,

Trotsky wasn't responsible for Krosntadt. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Stalinists have done a lot of hella brave shit in the past too.

We, all of us on this thread, are people who post on the internet and maybe protest or sell newspapers.

Except of course for Red Cat, who is out fighting in the jungles of Uttar Pradesh, that is, when he/she isn't making misinformed rants and slanders on a computer in a Starbucks in Delhi or Mumbai about political traditions he/she knows nothing about.

There is a large body of theory outside the Short Course. One doesn't have to follow Trotskyism or left communism but every Marxist should understand what these traditions are about. Red Cat does not but is filled with venom and hatred anyway.

There have certainly been brave and courageous people from all Marxist revolutionary tendencies. I have personal friends who are Maoists and MLs .Here we are talking about strategy, tactics and how they have played out in fostering greater class consciousness and working class emancipation.

What conclusion can we draw from the tragedy of Chile?The Spanish Civil War? The defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927? France 1968? The Carnation Revolution? The fSU, the Eastern Bloc, China, and Cuba restoring capitalism? I think history strongly points in the direction of Trotskyist theory.

[Gorilla]

What conclusion can we draw from the tragedy of Chile?The Spanish Civil War? The defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927? France 1968? The Carnation Revolution? The fSU, the Eastern Bloc, China, and Cuba restoring capitalism? I think history strongly points in the direction of Trotskyist theory.

I think betting on the long-term success of any revolution is a mug's game. It is not positive evidence that Trotsk strategy is any better.

[Geiseric]

If they weren't all killed by the Stalinists, maybe we would have seen if it would have worked.

[Gorilla]

If they weren't all killed by the Stalinists, maybe we would have seen if it would have worked.

They weren't, and we did. Trotskyists had completely free rein in Chile, Paris '68, and Portugal. They were subject to some harassment and arrest during the Cuban revolution but to my knowledge never killed. In fact, Che Guevara was personally responsible for springing a bunch of them from prison, and he used to sign his name "Stalin II" and put roses on Uncle Joe's grave in Moscow in defiance of Khruschov. Trots were also active in the Bolivian revolution in the 50s and the overthrow of Brazilian dictatorship in the 80s.

In none of those cases did we see that it would have worked.

[MarxSchmarx]

Here's a good article (http://www.isreview.org/issues/72/feat-marxenviro.shtml) by Chris Williams on that very subject. Check out the section entitled "Socialist ecological thought since Marx".

That's an interesting article but it has almost nothing on what Trotsky would have or even thought about doing differently, except that ecology suffered the same fate as the other natural sciences during Stalin (and here I think the authors conflate ecology the science with ecology the movement), and to the extent that Trotsky criticized Stalin's science policy ecology would be included. But it doesn't suggest Trotsky and Stalin were ever much at odds about environmental issues specifically.

[Olentzero]

Wasn't my original point. Your question was if Lenin and/or Stalin had ever seriously taken the issue up, and I provided evidence thereof. And it's absurd to separate ecology the science from ecology the movement; the latter is action based on the knowledge obtained by the former.

[red cat]

You aren't involved in armed struggle, red cat. Doubt you could shoot a gun let alone clean it. Take your narodnik posturing back to the 1800s.

I love everyone who has thanked this post :wub: A slightly more openly bourgeois variation of the argument : U LIKE THE NAXALS ? GO TAKE A GUN AND JOIN THEM HURR DURR !! Happens everytime they lose arguments :D


If there were Trotskyist guerrillas in India, apparently you would want them to be kidnapped and murdered as quickly as possible, like Mao's party did to the Chinese Trotskyist fighters in Shandong during the Sino-Japanese War.

Okay, so they are not taking up arms because if they did, then Maoists would murder them ? :lol:

[red cat]

If the worker class were engaged in civil war with the Indian state, no doubt they would. No slight against the adavasi, but they aren't capable of defeating the Indian imperialist state. Only the Indian proletariat can do that, and to do that, they must first be organized ... in the cities.

What kind of class analysis is this ? :lol: Adivasis have a big working class too. When you see adivasis taking up arms against the state it is actually a substantial portion of the Indian proletariat and peasantry that you're watching.



The first one ended in Stalin. :p


:lol:


Absolutely, there are times when you need to retreat, but if you simply put down your arms and go home, you lose. Period. Agreed.

[red cat]

Except of course for Red Cat, who is out fighting in the jungles of Uttar Pradesh, that is, when he/she isn't making misinformed rants and slanders on a computer in a Starbucks in Delhi or Mumbai about political traditions he/she knows nothing about.

Aaah the freshwater springs of Uttar Pradesh ! I love to shower in those whenever I join my herd.




http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/54/546/687/546872_370.jpg

:D :D :D



Never been to Starbucks though. Honest :)


There is a large body of theory outside the Short Course. One doesn't have to follow Trotskyism or left communism but every Marxist should understand what these traditions are about. Red Cat does not but is filled with venom and hatred anyway.

There have certainly been brave and courageous people from all Marxist revolutionary tendencies. I have personal friends who are Maoists and MLs .Here we are talking about strategy, tactics and how they have played out in fostering greater class consciousness and working class emancipation.I am not interested in discussing strategy and tactics with those who knowingly distort facts about the Indian revolution. First teach your Indian comrades that Marxist tradition is about struggle, not spreading lies.



What conclusion can we draw from the tragedy of Chile?The Spanish Civil War? The defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927? France 1968? The Carnation Revolution? The fSU, the Eastern Bloc, China, and Cuba restoring capitalism? I think history strongly points in the direction of Trotskyist theory.Rather in the direction of anarchist theory, if your logic is to be followed.

EDIT: And we still see don't see any valid answer to what the OP asked.

[S.Artesian]

They weren't, and we did. Trotskyists had completely free rein in Chile, Paris '68, and Portugal. They were subject to some harassment and arrest during the Cuban revolution but to my knowledge never killed. In fact, Che Guevara was personally responsible for springing a bunch of them from prison, and he used to sign his name "Stalin II" and put roses on Uncle Joe's grave in Moscow in defiance of Khruschov. Trots were also active in the Bolivian revolution in the 50s and the overthrow of Brazilian dictatorship in the 80s.

In none of those cases did we see that it would have worked.


No doubt. Except.. it was the CPs who joined the bourgeois popular fronts in Portugal, Chile, etc. and through those fronts worked so tirelessly to chain the workers struggles to the dead weight of capitalism.

So right, it takes more than a ¨free hand¨ for Trotskyism, revolution requires workers opposition to the existing Communist parties

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotskyists and other revolutionaries were attempting to create a political direction different from that of the class collaborationist CPs and social democrats holding back revolution. Revolutionary Marxists can't be blamed if their forces on the ground were not large enough to do the task. We can and must learn from the past though.

Last summer France was perhaps on the brink.If revolutionary Marxism had been larger and more focused, the protests, amounting to civil unrest in places, could have developed into a situation posing the question of a realignment of class hegemony.

[chegitz guevara]

What kind of class analysis is this ? :lol: Adivasis have a big working class too. When you see adivasis taking up arms against the state it is actually a substantial portion of the Indian proletariat and peasantry that you're watching.

Peasantry does not equal proletariat, RC. The adavasi are overwhelmingly subsistence farmers or hunter/gatherers. Their relationship to capital is not being hired by it, but trying to keep it from stealing their land. I absolutely think all communists should support their struggle, but communism in India will only happen when the urban working class seizes control of the cities, and abolishes the wage system.

[red cat]

Peasantry does not equal proletariat, RC. The adavasi are overwhelmingly subsistence farmers or hunter/gatherers. Their relationship to capital is not being hired by it, but trying to keep it from stealing their land. I absolutely think all communists should support their struggle, but communism in India will only happen when the urban working class seizes control of the cities, and abolishes the wage system.

I said proletariat and peasantry. In modern semi-feudal societies you will always find a rural working class besides the peasantry. The presence of this rural working class partly ensures that the revolution does not turn into a peasant war but progresses towards socialism even while cities remain inside white areas.

EDIT: I partly agree with what you said. Even the new democratic stage of the revolution cannot be complete without the workers seizing power in the cities, but in India things are much more complicated than adivasis being peasants or hunter/gatherers. Semi-feudal societies are penetrated by imperialist and comprador capital, which is why a new-democratic revolution against the ruling classes shows socialist characteristics in some areas even before it spreads throughout the country.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

For Trotsky, working-class democracy was rooted in the Soviets.

"The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers." - Trotsky

"Deserters from labor ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps." - Trotsky

"As if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers democracy." - Trotsky

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The ENVIRONMENT? Are you sure Stalin and or Trotsky ever brought this up seriously if at all?

"The present distribution of mountains and rivers, of fields, of meadows, of steppes, of forests, and of seashores, cannot be considered final. Man has already made changes in the map of nature that are not few nor insignificant. But they are mere pupils’ practice in comparison with what is coming. Faith merely promises to move mountains; but technology, which takes nothing ‘on faith’, is actually able to cut down mountains and move them. Up to now this was done for industrial purposes (mines) or for railways (tunnels); in the future this will be done on an immeasurably larger scale, according to a general industrial and artistic plan. Man will occupy himself with re-registering mountains and rivers, and will earnestly and repeatedly make improvements in nature. In the end, he will have rebuilt the earth, if not in his own image, at least according to his own taste. We have not the slightest fear that this taste will be bad…." - Trotsky

[DaringMehring]

"The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers." - Trotsky

"Deserters from labor ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps." - Trotsky

"As if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers democracy." - Trotsky

In what context are these quotes? The 1919-1920 militarization of labor debate, I'd wager. That is to say, the late Civil War choice between the NEP and proceeding on a "super-industrialization" course. We are dealing with a context of war, and of the possibility of a retreat from socialism cloaked under the logic of "the people aren't ready for it; don't want it."

As Trotsky himself said: "There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens."

However if you look at his life's work, from his writings and activity around 1905, through the 20s and on into the 30s, you'll find his strong support of proletarian democracy. "Socialism needs democracy like a human body needs oxygen" -- Trotsky

[MarxSchmarx]

Wasn't my original point. Your question was if Lenin and/or Stalin had ever seriously taken the issue up, and I provided evidence thereof.

No, I was asking about Trotsky and/or Stalin (you know, in the context of this thread). And the article talks about Stalin's broader policies and how some of those had some impact on the natural world and the soviet conservation movement as well as academic ecology in the USSR (it would be strange if something as far-reaching as Stalin's bureaucratization didn't have an impact), but it doesn't quote anything Stalin said about the environment specifically, much less any evidence that he personally gave it much of any thought.

[Queercommie Girl]

"The present distribution of mountains and rivers, of fields, of meadows, of steppes, of forests, and of seashores, cannot be considered final. Man has already made changes in the map of nature that are not few nor insignificant. But they are mere pupils’ practice in comparison with what is coming. Faith merely promises to move mountains; but technology, which takes nothing ‘on faith’, is actually able to cut down mountains and move them. Up to now this was done for industrial purposes (mines) or for railways (tunnels); in the future this will be done on an immeasurably larger scale, according to a general industrial and artistic plan. Man will occupy himself with re-registering mountains and rivers, and will earnestly and repeatedly make improvements in nature. In the end, he will have rebuilt the earth, if not in his own image, at least according to his own taste. We have not the slightest fear that this taste will be bad…." - Trotsky

As someone who is influenced by technocracy, (though not explicitly a technocrat) I don't see this as a negative quote.

Marxism believes humans are fundamentally different from animals due to our labour power. Animals can only passively adapt to the natural environment, humanity can make the environment adapt to us.

I don't agree with primitivism, and I don't want to have a communism that is like a return to the conditions of the pre-class tribal era. Wild animals also have no class, but that's not communism.

Though of course what I believe is the dialectical fusion of advanced industrial technology and environmental naturalism, rather than technology that destroys nature like we have today under profit-driven capitalism. Only with a socialist planned economy can humanity have continuous technological and industrial growth and at the same time do not damage the natural environment - in other words, a growth that is sustainable.

[Queercommie Girl]

As Trotsky himself said: "There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens."


Yes, Trotsky himself was a lot wiser than some of the ultra-leftists today who always like to throw around absolutist metaphysical-style "black-and-white" arguments.

Worker's democracy - either all or nothing!

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Socialism can only be built on the struggle of the working class. That is the central political aspect of Marx's teaching.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't see this as a negative quote.

Me either.

[Chambered Word]

I love everyone who has thanked this post :wub: A slightly more openly bourgeois variation of the argument : U LIKE THE NAXALS ? GO TAKE A GUN AND JOIN THEM HURR DURR !! Happens everytime they lose arguments :D

Coming from the one who implied that Trotskyists weren't involved in serious class struggle and then had numerous examples shoved under his nose. Shouldn't you be outside shooting policemen instead of trolling threads about Trotsky? :rolleyes:

[Die Rote Fahne]

It is anti-totalitarian for sure.

Anti-authoritarian, I can't be so sure of.

[Gorilla]

It is anti-totalitarian for sure.

Hey- how would a Trotstskyist leadership have convinced the Soviet working class to make a suicidal, unilateral first strike on Nazi Germany in 1938 or before - that seems to be what ya'll were driving at earlier in the thread - without resorting to totalitarian means?

[Olentzero]

A Trotskyist leadership would have appealed to the German working class to unite and fight against the Nazis before they even took power. They wouldn't have sat back and let the KPD and the Social Democrats squabble amongst themselves over who was a 'social fascist' or come up with criminally insane ideas like "Let Hitler take power and show how bad he is, then we'll have it easy".

[Gorilla]

This is what I'm referring to.


the point is that the USSR would have been much like a liberated zone from which to conduct war against the capitalist world. Sooner or later, without the workers of other countries coming to their aid, the capitalists would have had enough and started another capitalist crusade, and dog-piled the soviet workers. WWII would have been a global war against the USSR instead against Germany.


The Soviet Union, based on the working class instead of a bureaucratic elite, would have been fully committed to a war against capitalism. This would have been, by necessity, a war to to the death.

How on earth would ordinary workers consent to such a policy without totalitarian measures?

And let's not fall back on "posit a successful revolution in Germany and/or Spain." Trot strategy might have fared a little better than Comintern's, but in no wise would it have raised victory to a matter of certitude.

[red cat]

Coming from the one who implied that Trotskyists weren't involved in serious class struggle and then had numerous examples shoved under his nose.

I really didn't want to point this out, but your "numerous" examples of class struggle compared with those of MLs are like a grain of sand kept beside a boulder.


Shouldn't you be outside shooting policemen instead of trolling threads about Trotsky? :rolleyes:Shouldn't you be reporting to policemen instead of replying here ? :rolleyes:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is what I'm referring to.





How on earth would ordinary workers consent to such a policy without totalitarian measures?

And let's not fall back on "posit a successful revolution in Germany and/or Spain." Trot strategy might have fared a little better than Comintern's, but in no wise would it have raised victory to a matter of certitude.

I overstated my remark about a "fight to the death". a better way of putting this would be that "the best defense is a good offense". A defense strategy embedded within the working class, within a system of worker's democracy would have been far more effective. The French Popular Front and similar versions of this in Spain and elsewhere damped down class struggle.The contradictions which led to WWII could have gone in an entirely different direction.

How on earth would ordinary workers consent to such a policy without totalitarian measures?

I would turn this around.How could ordinary worker's consent to the diminution or destruction of their power in favor of "popular front" unions with the bourgeois without totalitarianism?

The only way to have worker's power is to have worker's power. The CPs subverted this.

[Chambered Word]

I really didn't want to point this out, but your "numerous" examples of class struggle compared with those of MLs are like a grain of sand kept beside a boulder.

Really? As others have already described to you, Trotskyists have fought in the class struggle while not ending up presiding over or defending failures such as the Stalinist USSR, China, Vietnam etc that have only resulted in capitalism in some form.


Shouldn't you be reporting to policemen instead of replying here ? :rolleyes:

No. I'm not from the same tradition with an extensive history of murdering other communist militants in cold blood, you are. Cut this 'TROTS WERE R U REVERLUTONS' bullshit out, you seem to do this in every thread where Trotskyism is mentioned. I'm surprised that the mods haven't told you to knock it off already.

[Omsk]

A Trotskyist leadership would have appealed to the German working class to unite and fight against the Nazis before they even took power. They wouldn't have sat back and let the KPD and the Social Democrats squabble amongst themselves over who was a 'social fascist' or come up with criminally insane ideas like "Let Hitler take power and show how bad he is, then we'll have it easy".

Can you in any way prove that something like that would,or could happen?Or is it just a hypothetical,baseless claim like i believe it is.


Really? As others have already described to you, Trotskyists have fought in the class struggle while not ending up presiding over or defending failures such as the Stalinist USSR, China, Vietnam etc that have only resulted in capitalism in some form.

Stalins USSR was a failure?The latter revisionist USSR was a failure.(although,it should not be spat on)

[Olentzero]

Can you in any way prove that something like that would,or could happen?Or is it just a hypothetical,baseless claim like i believe it is.I'm quite sure Trotsky's Fascism, Stalinism, and the United Front has the answers we're both looking for on that one, but I'm currently not in the best position to read through it again. Perhaps other comrades who have and can remember the contents better might be able to speak to this.

[red cat]

Really? As others have already described to you, Trotskyists have fought in the class struggle while not ending up presiding over or defending failures such as the Stalinist USSR, China, Vietnam etc that have only resulted in capitalism in some form.

Which revolution has ultimately led to communism till now? However, the point to be noted is that Trotskyite struggles have failed so far to successfully lead even one revolution.


No. I'm not from the same tradition with an extensive history of murdering other communist militants in cold blood, you are.

Why commit murder yourself when you can report it to state authorities and have them do it for you?

Also, these stories of Trots getting murdered by Stalinists don't really hold much water when we see that the Indian Trots despite continuously bullshitting about Maoists are being left alone. I mean, if the Indian CP went on a Trot-murdering rampage as alleged by you, how many of your Indian comrades would last beyond a few hours?


Cut this 'TROTS WERE R U REVERLUTONS' bullshit out, you seem to do this in every thread where Trotskyism is mentioned. I'm surprised that the mods haven't told you to knock it off already.

Marxism is all about revolutionary practice guided by revolutionary theory. I just remind this to Trots when they seem to forget it. Otherwise I support whatever militant struggles they conduct.

[Chambered Word]

Which revolution has ultimately led to communism till now? However, the point to be noted is that Trotskyite struggles have failed so far to successfully lead even one revolution.

For the record Leon Trotsky was head of the Red Army and Lenin's right hand man. Still, this is nothing but the kind of sectarian dick-waving that you do in every thread, so I'd rather not continue it.


Why commit murder yourself when you can report it to state authorities and have them do it for you?

Also, these stories of Trots getting murdered by Stalinists don't really hold much water when we see that the Indian Trots despite continuously bullshitting about Maoists are being left alone. I mean, if the Indian CP went on a Trot-murdering rampage as alleged by you, how many of your Indian comrades would last beyond a few hours?

Other posters already gave you examples. Start with the Vietnamese Trotskyists. You can ramble on about how much you hate the Indian Trots but at the end of the day there are other places in the world where Trotskyists exist.


Marxism is all about revolutionary practice guided by revolutionary theory. I just remind this to Trots when they seem to forget it. Otherwise I support whatever militant struggles they conduct.

That's a pity when the only thing you recognize as a militant struggle is 'get my SKS go inna woods'.


Stalins USSR was a failure?The latter revisionist USSR was a failure.(although,it should not be spat on)

Considering that any real vestige of soviet power left over from the Civil War was further destroyed, the gains for women's rights and gay rights were rolled back and millions were shot in the Purge, yes, I'd say that Stalin's government was a failure for the workers.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Trotskyism is basically Marxist leninism. Trotsky was pro Lenin and was his second in command. The only real reason it's considered its own ideology is because of Stalin. It still bases democracy on dictatorship of the proletariat. It's considered anti authoritarian because he opposed Stalin

Stalinism/soviet communism is state capitalism

Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninism is communism

[red cat]

For the record Leon Trotsky was head of the Red Army and Lenin's right hand man. Still, this is nothing but the kind of sectarian dick-waving that you do in every thread, so I'd rather not continue it.

It seems that Lenin was not in very good terms with his right-hand, then.



Other posters already gave you examples. Start with the Vietnamese Trotskyists. You can ramble on about how much you hate the Indian Trots but at the end of the day there are other places in the world where Trotskyists exist.

Don't try to divert the argument. We have only heard stories about how Stalinists allegedly butchered non-existent Trots. You have the biggest Stalinist CP ever conducting a revolution now, so show us where and how it is murdering Trots.



That's a pity when the only thing you recognize as a militant struggle is 'get my SKS go inna woods'.

Why are you using strawman arguments ? To cover up the cowardice of your Indian comrades who have never dared to organize workers even for a union-struggle, let alone an armed one?

[red cat]

Trotskyism is basically Marxist leninism. Trotsky was pro Lenin and was his second in command. The only real reason it's considered its own ideology is because of Stalin.

So, Stalin alone was enough to make an allegedly revolutionary tendency change its logical name ?


It still bases democracy on dictatorship of the proletariat.It's considered anti authoritarian because he opposed Stalin

Not because he massacred anarchists in Kronstadt ?


Stalinism/soviet communism is state capitalismYes, state capitalism of a specific kind.

"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. "

-Lenin
Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninism is communismNot.

[DaringMehring]

I think redcat's views stem in the first instance, from his belief that if you aren't organizing an immediate armed insurrection, then you aren't a revolutionary*. Secondary factors include fanatical Stalinist beliefs, like that the Moscow trials were real and legitimate.

Re: Trotskyism -- like all currents, today it is relatively fragmented, dominated by Party dictator-leaders, and disconnected from the working class. However, at least, many of the Trotskyist groups I've seen have consistently been struggling to engage with workers.

Theoretically speaking, going back to the critique of Stalin's regime in the USSR & the Comintern made by Trotsky based on classical Marxism, "Trotskyism" (to whatever degree it still reflects this outlook) has been proved correct.

(* - special exemptions given to Maoists, eg CPN(M)'s parliamentary-coalitionist last several years)

[red cat]

I think redcat's views stem in the first instance, from his belief that if you aren't organizing an immediate armed insurrection, then you aren't a revolutionary*.

You went a bit wrong here, it all depends on the situation. For example, I have no doubt that the Trotskyites who were attacked in Kazakhstan recently had revolutionary intentions, despite them not having started armed struggles. In Kazakhstan the workers' movement is not yet that developed, and no one has put forward such an option by starting an armed struggle there. However, in India, highly developed class struggle exists, and the Trots are only spreading lies about it instead of joining it. So they are reactionary. Same goes for Trots in imperialist countries who serve imperialism by "entering" reactionary parties, but are never tired of slandering the armed revolutionary movements of the third world.


Secondary factors include fanatical Stalinist beliefs, like that the Moscow trials were real and legitimate.
:blushing:


Re: Trotskyism -- like all currents, today it is relatively fragmented, dominated by Party dictator-leaders, and disconnected from the working class.

Thanks for admitting this.



However, at least, many of the Trotskyist groups I've seen have consistently been struggling to engage with workers.

Theoretically speaking, going back to the critique of Stalin's regime in the USSR & the Comintern made by Trotsky based on classical Marxism, "Trotskyism" (to whatever degree it still reflects this outlook) has been proved correct.

I agree that there are Trotskyites who are revolutionary, but this does not prove the validity of Trotskyism itself as a revolutionary line. Consider for example the Trotskyite insurrections in Sri Lanka (I don't know why I don't find much mention of it here). There is no doubt that those who martyred themselves in that struggle were revolutionaries, but the fact remains that it was a military disaster followed by a mass slaughtering of the working class. For reasons similar to its failure, every Trotskyite movement is bound to fail because of its inherently suicidal line concerning practice. It is because of this flawed nature of Trotskyism that it is a very valued tool in the hands of a bourgeoisie. On one hand, its self proclaimed communist followers who are actually reactionary spread lies about revolutionary movements, thereby facilitating military actions against them, on the other hand, truly communist Trotskyites try to make revolution using their highly flawed lines and are killed by state forces in the process.

This is why the history of Trotskyism is one of failures, and most Trotskyites have to defend their position by calling the highly successful Marxist-Leninist revolutions failures as well, just because they could not go all the way up to communism. Other popular but childish tactics include claiming the Russian revolution as a Trotskyite one, or that Lenin "willed his party" to Trotsky etc.



(* - special exemptions given to Maoists, eg CPN(M)'s parliamentary-coalitionist last several years)

Yes, because it is a temporary phase following a decade long people's war, characterized by intensifying workers' and peasants' movement, and the CP trying to liquidate the state forces. Even then there is fierce two-line struggle headed by a more militant faction. When was the last time that you heard of a difference of opinion regarding militant action in, say, the Indian Trot groups? Agents of imperialism are always together when slandering revolutionaries.

[Die Rote Fahne]

ITT trotskyist stalinist tendency war.

Inb4 ice pick

[RED DAVE]

It is because of this flawed nature of Trotskyism that it is a very valued tool in the hands of a bourgeoisie.So says a spokesperson for the tendency that created the largest capitalist country in history.

RED DAVE

[Omsk]

A Trotskyist leadership would have appealed to the German working class to unite and fight against the Nazis before they even took power. They wouldn't have sat back and let the KPD and the Social Democrats squabble amongst themselves over who was a 'social fascist' or come up with criminally insane ideas like "Let Hitler take power and show how bad he is, then we'll have it easy".

Can you in any way prove that something like that would,or could happen?Or is it just a hypothetical,baseless claim like i believe it is.

Still waiting for someone to answer this one,with a citation from the mentioned book,or some other source.


Inb4 ice pick


Actually,you won't find that here,although you may stumble on baseless arguments and hypothetical questions and believes.


ITT trotskyist stalinist tendency war.

The discussion was all right so far,no need to label it.

[red cat]

So says a spokesperson for the tendency that created the largest capitalist country in history.

RED DAVE

^^ Totally capitalist post. No mention of the working class.

[Chambered Word]

Don't try to divert the argument. We have only heard stories about how Stalinists allegedly butchered non-existent Trots. You have the biggest Stalinist CP ever conducting a revolution now, so show us where and how it is murdering Trots.

Where have I tried to divert the argument? And are you implying that the murder of Vietnamese Trotskyists is just hearsay? Where is a Stalinist CP conducting a revolution? I thought the working class had to conduct revolutions in order to emancipate itself, but maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:


Why are you using strawman arguments ? To cover up the cowardice of your Indian comrades who have never dared to organize workers even for a union-struggle, let alone an armed one?

It's not a strawman, I used to have these arguments with you months ago and you only considered tendencies engaging in armed people's war to be revolutionary. I know very little about the Indian Trotskyists and thus nowhere have I defended them. Frankly I couldn't give a shit if you think they're cowards or not, I can do my own research and I'm not about to take lessons in bravery from the same troll who derides anyone who doesn't shoot at cops on a regular basis.

[red cat]

Where have I tried to divert the argument? And are you implying that the murder of Vietnamese Trotskyists is just hearsay? Where is a Stalinist CP conducting a revolution? I thought the working class had to conduct revolutions in order to emancipate itself, but maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:

Seems like the concept of a proletarian vanguard is alien to you. Not a surprise. :rolleyes:



It's not a strawman, I used to have these arguments with you months ago and you only considered tendencies engaging in armed people's war to be revolutionary.Tendencies, not groups or individuals. Revolutionary groups or individuals might support a reactionary tendency due to lack of experience.


I know very little about the Indian Trotskyists and thus nowhere have I defended them. Then at least study some of their documents and either denounce them or uphold them.


Frankly I couldn't give a shit if you think they're cowards or not, I can do my own research and I'm not about to take lessons in bravery from the same troll who derides anyone who doesn't shoot at cops on a regular basis.Why are you pursuing this strawman argument of shooting cops for so long? Do you love cops ?

[RedSunRising]

Where have I tried to divert the argument? And are you implying that the murder of Vietnamese Trotskyists is just hearsay? Where is a Stalinist CP conducting a revolution? I thought the working class had to conduct revolutions in order to emancipate itself, but maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:


There is the class in themselves and than there is the class for itself, when it ceases to be just another economic and sociological strata within capitalist society and starts to persue its own historical destiny for itself, a genuine Communist Party is the highest expression of the working class for itself within the realm of history, it manifests the political will to power of the class for itself....So creating a division between the party and class really isnt going to get us anywhere. I thought Trots claimed to Leninists anyway? :rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

^^ Totally capitalist post. No mention of the working class.The working class will kick your ass! :D

Happy now?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

The working class will kick your ass! :D

Happy now?

RED DAVE

Too late. Your anti working class stand has been exposed. :(

[RED DAVE]

Too late. Your anti working class stand has been exposed. :(I could say something about part of someone's anatomy being exposed, but I don't want to get an infraction. :D

RED DAVE

[red cat]

I could say something about part of someone's anatomy being exposed, but I don't want to get an infraction. :D

RED DAVE

I was also thinking of referring to a certain mountaineering instrument and some of its uses. Didn't for the same reason.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You went a bit wrong here, it all depends on the situation. For example, I have no doubt that the Trotskyites who were attacked in Kazakhstan recently had revolutionary intentions, despite them not having started armed struggles. In Kazakhstan the workers' movement is not yet that developed, and no one has put forward such an option by starting an armed struggle there. However, in India, highly developed class struggle exists, and the Trots are only spreading lies about it instead of joining it. So they are reactionary. Same goes for Trots in imperialist countries who serve imperialism by "entering" reactionary parties, but are never tired of slandering the armed revolutionary movements of the third world.


:blushing:


Thanks for admitting this.



I agree that there are Trotskyites who are revolutionary, but this does not prove the validity of Trotskyism itself as a revolutionary line. Consider for example the Trotskyite insurrections in Sri Lanka (I don't know why I don't find much mention of it here). There is no doubt that those who martyred themselves in that struggle were revolutionaries, but the fact remains that it was a military disaster followed by a mass slaughtering of the working class. For reasons similar to its failure, every Trotskyite movement is bound to fail because of its inherently suicidal line concerning practice. It is because of this flawed nature of Trotskyism that it is a very valued tool in the hands of a bourgeoisie. On one hand, its self proclaimed communist followers who are actually reactionary spread lies about revolutionary movements, thereby facilitating military actions against them, on the other hand, truly communist Trotskyites try to make revolution using their highly flawed lines and are killed by state forces in the process.

This is why the history of Trotskyism is one of failures, and most Trotskyites have to defend their position by calling the highly successful Marxist-Leninist revolutions failures as well, just because they could not go all the way up to communism. Other popular but childish tactics include claiming the Russian revolution as a Trotskyite one, or that Lenin "willed his party" to Trotsky etc.





Okay, at lastyou finally admit that Trotskyists are revolutionaries! In addition to the CWI in Kazakhstan I could also mention Nigeria and Zimbabwe as places where Trotskyists revolutionaries have been suppressed/persecuted.

The problems of the Sri Lankan Trotskyists occurred when they departed from Trotskyism and allowed their rightist faction to cooperate with the state

Trotskyists don't "spread slander" about the valiant Maoist guerrillas. we simply point out that rural peasant based insurrections can no longer work. The world has changed a lot since 1949. Guerrilla movements are based on a military command structure, not on the democracy of the working class. This fatally crippled the Cuban Revolution.


Yes, because it is a temporary phase following a decade long people's war, characterized by intensifying workers' and peasants' movement, and the CP trying to liquidate the state forces. Even then there is fierce two-line struggle headed by a more militant faction. When was the last time that you heard of a difference of opinion regarding militant action in, say, the Indian Trot groups? Agents of imperialism are always together when slandering revolutionaries.

Translation: Prachanda is sucking his thumb.

Prachanda clearly isn't going anywhere. Nepal is a bourgeois state on its way to becoming a bourgeois state, despite his cheering section on this forum.

[Volcanicity]

Trotsky was pro Lenin and was his second in command.

Trotsky was pretty much in opposition to Lenin and the Bolshevik's until opportunity came knocking in 1917 which is when he decided he was in agreement with them after all.


Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninism is communism

Until there's been a successful revolution of the proletariat led by a Trotskyist party then this kind of remark is just pointless and unproven.The only thing it's good for is starting another tendency shit-fest.

[red cat]

Okay, at lastyou finally admit that Trotskyists are revolutionaries!

Some Trotskyites are revolutionaries.


In addition to the CWI in Kazakhstan I could also mention Nigeria and Zimbabwe as places where Trotskyists revolutionaries have been suppressed/persecuted.

The problems of the Sri Lankan Trotskyists occurred when they departed from Trotskyism and allowed their rightist faction to cooperate with the stateVery convenient. What about the Indian Trotskyites? Have they departed from Trotskyism too ?


Trotskyists don't "spread slander" about the valiant Maoist guerrillas.Thank you.


we simply point out that rural peasant based insurrections can no longer work. The world has changed a lot since 1949. Guerrilla movements are based on a military command structure, not on the democracy of the working class. This fatally crippled the Cuban Revolution.Your understanding of a Maoist people's war is flawed. Maoist military structure consists of the base, secondary and primary forces. The base force is the people's militia, which is under direct control of the working class and lower peasantry. The base force supplies fighters to the secondary force, which is the guerrilla army, and experienced members from this force are nominated or selected for the primary force, which is the mobile army meant for fighting long battles. The base force and the PRCs(People's Revolutionary Committees), wherever they exist, can deploy local or even higher units of the other two forces for a particular task. The central organization of the primary force is under the control of the CP. In fact, by the time someone joins the primary force he is usually equally experienced in politics and hence becomes a member of the CP. So the members of the primary force itself are accountable for their actions to the lower committees of the CP and the PRCs which are nothing but organs of class-power of the working class and lower peasantry.

Ths Cuban revolution did not have this kind of bottom-up control exercised by the masses. So it was easily subordinated to social imperialism when a portion of the petit bourgeois leadership betrayed it.


Translation: Prachanda is sucking his thumb.

Prachanda clearly isn't going anywhere.I didn't refer to Prachanda anywhere in my post. Yet your tendency is so authoritarian that you always identify any movement with a single leader. And you accuse others of authoritarianism. :lol:


Nepal is a bourgeois state on its way to becoming a bourgeois state, despite his cheering section on this forum.How did Nepal change from a monarchy to a bourgeois state, if it became bourgeois at all? Which class brought about the revolution?

[Omsk]

A Trotskyist leadership would have appealed to the German working class to unite and fight against the Nazis before they even took power. They wouldn't have sat back and let the KPD and the Social Democrats squabble amongst themselves over who was a 'social fascist' or come up with criminally insane ideas like "Let Hitler take power and show how bad he is, then we'll have it easy".



Can you in any way prove that something like that would,or could happen?Or is it just a hypothetical,baseless claim like i believe it is.

Would you Trot's care to answer my question?Or do you wish to pursue your ways of selectively answering questions?

[CesareBorgia]

Until there's been a successful revolution of the proletariat led by a Trotskyist party then this kind of remark is just pointless and unproven.The only thing it's good for is starting another tendency shit-fest.

How is the remark "Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninism is communism" "pointless and unproven?" I would recommend you do some serious study starting with the ABC's of Marxism and the basic history of the 20th century.

As for leading a revolution, this is the something I see written about Trotskyists a lot around here. Should this same criteria have been applied to Marx and Engles in the 19th century? "They are no communists until they lead a revolution" If Lenin had died in 1916 would he not be considered communist enough for you until he or his disciplines lead a revolution?

And Trotsky did lead a revolution, the Russian Revolution.

[Omsk]

And Trotsky did lead a revolution, the Russian Revolution.

Lenin led the revolution.If we are going to be precise.

[Gorilla]

I overstated my remark about a "fight to the death". a better way of putting this would be that "the best defense is a good offense". A defense strategy embedded within the working class, within a system of worker's democracy would have been far more effective. The French Popular Front and similar versions of this in Spain and elsewhere damped down class struggle.The contradictions which led to WWII could have gone in an entirely different direction.

Lots of things could have happened. As I said previously "Trot strategy might have fared a little better [in Germany, Spain etc.] than Comintern's, but in no wise would it have raised victory to a matter of certitude." The fact is, a Trotskyist USSR would still have likely found itself alone. So then what?

[RedSunRising]

Lots of things could have happened. As I said previously "Trot strategy might have fared a little better [in Germany, Spain etc.] than Comintern's, but in no wise would it have raised victory to a matter of certitude." The fact is, a Trotskyist USSR would still more than likely have found itself alone. So then what?

Trotsky was foremost in attacking the Workers' Opposition led by Alexandra Kollantai, who remained a loyal Communist to the day of her death. Yet if you read Trotskyite propaganda you would think that he would have been solidly behind the Workers' Opposition. Also under Lenin decisions were made for geo-political reasons, that were approved by Trotsky, which back fired horribly... http://libcom.org/history/socialism-one-country-stalin-origins-reactionary-anti-imperialism-case-turkey-1917 . Trotskyism has been characterized outside of its cult of personality, by contrayism and opportunism. In all likelihood a USSR under Trotsky would have made uncle Koba look like a flower eating stoner liberal in comparison.

[Crux]

Lenin led the revolution.If we are going to be precise.
The bolshevik party did. But, as you will see if you check any contemporary sources, Trotsky was widely reckognized as one of the most leading figures, indeed Trotsky and Lenin were usually referenced at the same time. And let's not forget who founded the Red Army. If we are going to be precise.

[Crux]

So, Stalin alone was enough to make an allegedly revolutionary tendency change its logical name ?
So Bakunin alone was enough for Marx to change from "Scientific Socialism" to "Marxism"? Names stick. FYI Bolshevik-Leninists was the term used in th 20's. Also "marxism-leninism", as a term, has it's origin in stalinist russia.

[RedSunRising]

The bolshevik party did. But, as you will see if you check any contemporary sources, Trotsky was widely reckognized as one of the most leading figures, indeed Trotsky and Lenin were usually referenced at the same time. And let's not forget who founded the Red Army. If we are going to be precise.

Which Trotsky opposed until he saw which way the wind was blowing. :rolleyes:

[Rooster]

Which Trotsky opposed until he saw which way the wind was blowing. :rolleyes:

Was that really the case?

[Gorilla]

Pretty much all foreign accounts of the Russian revolution talk about 'Lenin and Trotsky' like you'd talk about 'peanut butter and jelly' or 'Fidel and Che'. It's quite clear that Trotsky was the #2 public face of the revolution and fer foock's sake he was the founding commander of the Red Army.

Even though his followers are evil robots who yell slogans at everyone instead of critically thinking about concrete historical circumstances - even still, we should give Comrade Trotsky due credit. He was one of the Soviet revolution's most important and able leaders.

[Crux]

Which Trotsky opposed until he saw which way the wind was blowing. :rolleyes:
*yawn* The 1930's soviet bureacracy just called, they want their slander back.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Pretty much all foreign accounts of the Russian revolution talk about 'Lenin and Trotsky' like you'd talk about 'peanut butter and jelly' or 'Fidel and Che'. It's quite clear that Trotsky was the #2 public face of the revolution and fer foock's sake he was the founding commander of the Red Army.

Even though his followers are evil robots who yell slogans at everyone instead of critically thinking about concrete historical circumstances - even still, we should give Comrade Trotsky due credit. He was one of the Soviet revolution's most important and able leaders.

The first paragraph is very good.I would question the second paragraph. The Trotskyist movement did experience degeneration. Trotskyism "fell down on the job". A major part of this occurred when the movement tried to compromise with Stalinism. The view of Tito (or Mao) as "unconscious Trotskyists" was a major mistake. The US SWP blew important opportunities to play a leading role in the civil rights movement.The Pabloites, Mandelites, Morenoites etc. in moving away from the traditional Trotskyist approach all played a negative role. This was of course largely the result of the low level of class struggle post-war, Stalinist and government repression and subversion of organisations and the fact that much of the leadership simply got old.

The US SWP in its heyday was one of the most important revolutionary organisations in US history. There are those who continue this tradition.

[Gorilla]

The US SWP in its heyday was one of the most important revolutionary organisations in US history.

US SWP used to be awesome.

[RedSunRising]

*yawn* The 1930's soviet bureacracy just called, they want their slander back.

Why did Trotsky join the Bolsheviks so late?

[RedSunRising]

US SWP used to be awesome.

Were they though? Where was their Harry Haywood? Where was even their Angela Davis?

Trotskyism is for labour aristocrats and middle class radicals who want some pure hero and will never change the world.

[RedSunRising]

*yawn* The 1930's soviet bureacracy just called, they want their slander back.

"It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre." (Trotsky's Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform, Collected Works, Vol. 17 pp. 360362).

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Were they though? Where was their Harry Haywood? Where was even their Angela Davis?

Trotskyism is for labour aristocrats and middle class radicals who want some pure hero and will never change the world.

Looks like somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. You might want to check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Fraser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_integrationism

and this is quite interesting, Trotsky's view on the African-American struggle. Its different from what most people might think and definitely worth a read.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/negro1.htm

[Gorilla]

Were they though? Where was their Harry Haywood? Where was even their Angela Davis?

C.L.R. James. Black Jacobins is a classic of both Marxism and African diaspora theory, by any standards.

Also, Malcolm X used to cooperate with the SWP, starting even before he left the Nation up until his execution.

Trotskyists haven't always been useless on national oppression. And some of them e.g. the Sparts aren't even that bad today.

[Volcanicity]

How is the remark "Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninism is communism" "pointless and unproven?"

Because Trotskyism is a Marxist theory it does'nt automatically equal Communism or that Trotsky would've made a better job of things than Stalin did.

I would recommend you do some serious study starting with the ABC's of Marxism and the basic history of the 20th century.

:rolleyes:


As for leading a revolution, this is the something I see written about Trotskyists a lot around here. Should this same criteria have been applied to Marx and Engles in the 19th century? "They are no communists until they lead a revolution" If Lenin had died in 1916 would he not be considered communist enough for you until he or his disciplines lead a revolution?

I never said Trotsky or Trotskyists were'nt communists or revolutionaries and I don't think otherwise.


And Trotsky did lead a revolution, the Russian Revolution.

I suggest you read the ABC of Marxism if you seriously believe that.

[Olentzero]

"It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre." (Trotsky's Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform, Collected Works, Vol. 17 pp. 360362).Who are you quoting here? Lenin, or someone else? If it is Lenin, allow me to provide you with a quote from 1923 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/12/lenin.htm):
...Comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People’s Commissariat of Ways and Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities – personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee – but also by his too far-reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs."Trotsky has his faults, but even with them he's damned good." This from Lenin himself. What more needs to be said?

[red cat]

Who are you quoting here? Lenin, or someone else? If it is Lenin, allow me to provide you with a quote from 1923 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/12/lenin.htm):"Trotsky has his faults, but even with them he's damned good." This from Lenin himself. What more needs to be said?

The proposal or view of a single person was subordinated to the decision of the majority?

It is called democratic centralism.

[Volcanicity]

Was that really the case?
Yes it was,even at the beginning of 1917 Trotsky joined the Interdistrict party which was affilliated with the Social Democratic Party.

The Interdistrict's were a party whose position was in the middle-ground between the Bolshevik's and the Menshevik's whose goal was to bring them together they were'nt really pro either group at the time and did'nt merge with the Bolsheviks until later.

Why did'nt Trotsky join the Bolshevik's until later in 1917?

[Olentzero]

The proposal or view of a single person was subordinated to the decision of the majority?

It is called democratic centralism.Yeah, I'm aware of that. Been steeped in that tradition for over 20 years. The same experience also tells me that the form of democratic centralism does not automatically make the content of a decision correct. The document I linked to in my last post - Lenin's Testament - also said "Get Stalin out of the General Secretaryship". It was decided to suppress that document with little discussion. I don't doubt the history of the Soviet Union would have been quite different had Lenin's Testament been published and openly discussed in the real tradition of democratic centralism.

durdles - because he finally realized they were right. I'm not sure if it's in My Life or elsewhere in his writings, but Trotsky frankly admitted that not joining the Bolsheviks earlier was one of the greatest mistakes of his life, alongside not fighting harder against Stalin.

[Olentzero]

Oh and another thing... Lenin did indeed lead the revolution (and Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution, wrote that he didn't think the revolution would have been possible without Lenin) but Trotsky led the army that defended it. Lenin's trust in Trotsky was such that on at least one occasion he gave Trotsky a blank signed military order over text that said roughly "What Trotsky says here is completely correct. I approve of it in every respect."

[Chambered Word]

Seems like the concept of a proletarian vanguard is alien to you. Not a surprise. :rolleyes:

No, it seems much more like the concept of proletarian revolution is alien to you. I'm aware of the function of a vanguard, and it doesn't 'conduct' revolutions. The class itself does that (unless you see substitutionism as a valid mindset).


Then at least study some of their documents and either denounce them or uphold them.

When I get the time.


Why are you pursuing this strawman argument of shooting cops for so long? Do you love cops ?

Nope, fucking hate them. :)


There is the class in themselves and than there is the class for itself, when it ceases to be just another economic and sociological strata within capitalist society and starts to persue its own historical destiny for itself, a genuine Communist Party is the highest expression of the working class for itself within the realm of history, it manifests the political will to power of the class for itself....So creating a division between the party and class really isnt going to get us anywhere. I thought Trots claimed to Leninists anyway? :rolleyes:

There is a difference between the working class organized as the party and the working class organized as its own political power, i.e as a worker's state.


Yes it was,even at the beginning of 1917 Trotsky joined the Interdistrict party which was affilliated with the Social Democratic Party.

The Interdistrict's were a party whose position was in the middle-ground between the Bolshevik's and the Menshevik's whose goal was to bring them together they were'nt really pro either group at the time and did'nt merge with the Bolsheviks until later.

Why did'nt Trotsky join the Bolshevik's until later in 1917?

Someone more well versed in the history of the Russian Revolution can answer this in more detail, but Trotsky made a fundamental break with Menshevism when he outlined permanent revolution in Results and Prospects in 1906. The Mensheviks continued to maintain that a worker's revolution could not be successful in Russia while the Bolsheviks soon ditched that analysis and led the fight against White reaction, which IIRC the Mensheviks were loathe to support.

[Volcanicity]

Someone more well versed in the history of the Russian Revolution can answer this in more detail, but Trotsky made a fundamental break with Menshevism when he outlined permanent revolution in Results and Prospects in 1906. The Mensheviks continued to maintain that a worker's revolution could not be successful in Russia while the Bolsheviks soon ditched that analysis and led the fight against White reaction, which IIRC the Mensheviks were loathe to support.

Yeah I understand Trotsky having broken relations with the Menshevik's ,what I don't understand is why on returning from living in the US after the overthrow of the Tsar he would then join a party whose aim was to bring the Bolshevik's and Menshevik's together.

What was it that made him decide to join the Bolsheviks a few months later rather than sooner?

[Rooster]

Yes it was,even at the beginning of 1917 Trotsky joined the Interdistrict party which was affilliated with the Social Democratic Party.

The Interdistrict's were a party whose position was in the middle-ground between the Bolshevik's and the Menshevik's whose goal was to bring them together they were'nt really pro either group at the time and did'nt merge with the Bolsheviks until later.

Why did'nt Trotsky join the Bolshevik's until later in 1917?

So what were the Bolsheviks doing at that time?

[Volcanicity]

So what were the Bolsheviks doing at that time?
At the time Trotsky joined the Interdistricts he had just come back from living comfortably in New York giving speech's and generally being lauded.Lenin and some of his fellow Bolshevik's had just arrived back from Switzerland on the "sealed train".

Lenin while in Zurich had written" Imperialism the higest stage of capitalism" and his" April thesis" which among other things denounces Social-Democrats.Which begs the question that i'm asking of why would Trotsky join a Social democratic party that seeked to bring together two parties one of which he had already completly broken off with?

I'm just looking for a civil answer to the question.

[Olentzero]

I'm going off Chapter 36 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch36.htm) of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution here in an attempt to answer durdles.

Trotsky's joining the Bolsheviks was not an immediate change in opinion, nor was it just him. The Interdistricts and the Bolsheviks were planning a joint conference for July 26, 1917 at which the IDs intended to join the Bolsheviks en masse, as I understand it. This was the issue of the day at an ID conference on July 2. I'm not sure who was asking the question "What is the difference between you and the Bolsheviks, and why are you not with them?" that Sukhanov reports, but given the picture painted by Trotsky earlier in the chapter regarding the success with which the meager Bolshevik press met among the soldiers and workers, I'd be very surprised if it didn't come from the ID rank and file themselves.

At the congress on July 26, an election for the Central Committee was held. The top results, as reported in the History:
Lenin – 133 votes out of 134. Zinoviev 132, Kamenev 131, and Trotsky 131 (None of the four were actually present at the congress, it should be noted.) To further illustrate the point, Trotsky quotes Sverdlov, the organizer of the congress, on the matter:
Trotsky had already before the congress joined the editorial staff of our paper, but his imprisonment prevented his actual participation.So we have an idea of what Trotsky was up to on his return from New York. Lenin, of course, was off in hiding in Finland. The spectacular result Trotsky received as a newly joined member of the Bolsheviks is further explained by a man named Raskolnikov, who came with Trotsky from Canada and who was in jail with him around this time:
Trotsky’s attitude to [Lenin] was one of enormous esteem. He placed him higher than any contemporary he had met with, either in Russia or abroad. In the tone in which Trotsky spoke of Lenin you felt the devotion of a disciple. In those times Lenin had behind him thirty years’ service to the proletariat, and Trotsky twenty. The echoes of their disagreements during the pre-war period were completely gone. No difference existed between the tactical line of Lenin and Trotsky. Their rapprochement, already noticeable during the war, was completely and unquestionably determined, from the moment of [Trotsky's] return to Russia. After his very first speeches all of us old Leninists felt that he was ours.I unfortunately don't have time at the moment to further research Trotsky's break with the Mensheviks or his full history with the Interdistricts. What I seem to remember, though, is that he was with the IDs for several years because he was convinced that the break between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was completely unnecessary and, like many others, wanted to see the split healed. His break with the Mensheviks came probably no later than early 1917 when attitudes to the overthrow of the Tsar cleared up and the Mensheviks fell firmly on the side of a bourgeious revolution in Russia instead of a workers' revolution - which of course clashed with his theory of permanent revolution already previously established.

[red cat]

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Been steeped in that tradition for over 20 years. The same experience also tells me that the form of democratic centralism does not automatically make the content of a decision correct.

True, but until we get some proof or evidence of the decision of the minority being better than that of the majority, we generally give the benefit of doubt to the majority.



The document I linked to in my last post - Lenin's Testament - also said "Get Stalin out of the General Secretaryship". It was decided to suppress that document with little discussion. I don't doubt the history of the Soviet Union would have been quite different had Lenin's Testament been published and openly discussed in the real tradition of democratic centralism.

So the Bolsheviks did not practice real democratic centralism ?

[red cat]

No, it seems much more like the concept of proletarian revolution is alien to you. I'm aware of the function of a vanguard, and it doesn't 'conduct' revolutions. The class itself does that (unless you see substitutionism as a valid mindset).

The proletariat as of now is not developed uniformly enough to conduct a revolution without a central organization. Therefore the claim that a class conducts revolution, when made without reference to the decisive role of the vanguard is essentially an anarchist one.




When I get the time.Sure.




Nope, fucking hate them. :)

Then stop stereotyping proletarian revolutionary movements with shooting cops. These cheap tricks are mostly used by right-wingers.

[Olentzero]

So the Bolsheviks did not practice real democratic centralism?I have very little patience for people who deliberately twist my words to get something out of it that I didn't actually say. You've just wasted your allotment.

[chegitz guevara]

So the Bolsheviks did not practice real democratic centralism ?

They did. Self-proclaimed Leninists don't. They practice bureaucratic centralism. All the centralism, none of the democracy. Seriously, no ML organization would tolerate a leader who acted like Lenin did, attacking the decisions of his own party from other papers, threats to split, etc. Doesn't matter whether you're a Maoist, a Trotskyist, or some variant of ML. You're all wrong.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Trotskyist movement did experience degeneration. Trotskyism "fell down on the job". A major part of this occurred when the movement tried to compromise with Stalinism. The view of Tito (or Mao) as "unconscious Trotskyists" was a major mistake.


Actually your words here pretty much affirms what Gorilla was saying - many Trots being slogan-slinging "dogmatic robots". :lol:



The US SWP blew important opportunities to play a leading role in the civil rights movement.
Funny you should so downplay the civil rights movement as "petit-bourgeois" even though you are a trans-woman yourself, Lenina.



The Pabloites, Mandelites, Morenoites etc. in moving away from the traditional Trotskyist approach
Not saying I agree with these people, but I like what the Trotskyist Tony Cliff once said (even though I strongly disagree with his theories of "state-capitalism"): If Marxism doesn't move forward, then it's dead.

"Traditional" isn't always "right".

[RedSunRising]

Iseul Maoists see Trotskyites as enemies. They spread propaganda against armed struggle. They rat to the police. They condemn popular violence.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sorry, but as I said, both dogmatic Trots and dogmatic Maoists kind of annoy me. I'm more of a non-sectarian Marxist-Leninist who prefer synthesis among the various tendencies. So generally I don't condemn all Trots or all Maoists in an intrinsic sense.

[RedSunRising]

Sorry, but as I said, both dogmatic Trots and dogmatic Maoists kind of annoy me. I'm more of a non-sectarian Marxist-Leninist who prefer synthesis among the various tendencies. So generally I don't condemn all Trots or all Maoists in an intrinsic sense.

Im not talking about historical issues, Im talking about issues in the present or near past. Trots are counter-revolutionary, they are carrying out propaganda against the People's War in India as we speak.

Yes Trots vary...But the CWI are utter scum and the SWP arent much better.

[Crux]

Iseul Maoists see Trotskyites as enemies. They spread propaganda against armed struggle. They rat to the police. They condemn popular violence.
Yes, undoubtly we find some of your positions diagreeable, so much apprently that you move directly to slander. How typical.

[red cat]

Yes Trots vary...But the CWI are utter scum and the SWP arent much better.

I won't comment about the whole CWI, but their Indian section is definitely far from being revolutionary.

[Crux]

I won't comment about the whole CWI, but their Indian section is definitely far from being revolutionary.
Because they don't carry guns? What do you actually know of the indian CWI (http://socialism.in/)?

[red cat]

Because they don't carry guns? What do you actually know of the indian CWI (http://socialism.in/)?

Carrying guns is not what I am looking for right now from the NSA. Actually participating in any workers' movement and implementing a programme separate from parliamentary leftists will do. Also, they should stop writing deceiving reports on Maoists.

[Crux]

Carrying guns is not what I am looking for right now from the NSA. Actually participating in any workers' movement and implementing a programme separate from parliamentary leftists will do. Also, they should stop writing deceiving reports on Maoists.
West Bengal Elections: Changelessness for a Change!! (http://socialism.in/?p=853)


REJECT THEM ALL: Say No To Scamsters, Looters and Corporate Brokers (http://socialism.in/?p=848)

Just a recent pick of articles agaionst the parliamentary so called "left".
There you go again, what "decieving" reports on Maoists.
I did a quick search of the site and this is what I turned up regarding the indian maoists:
Naxalite/Maoist

Usually one does not consider the Naxalite groupings when it comes to electoral politics as they always advocate a boycott which is far removed from the consciousness of the masses in general. The recent events in the region of South Asia especially Nepal has put many Maoist outfits in disarray. It is welcoming that some of the former groups of Naxalite movement in Karnataka have had a rethink on the methods and strategies as for as the “power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, the famous dictum of Mao. While many on the left are trying to father the “Nepal Revolution” it was the mass class action that brought Gyanendra (Once the King) to his knees. The success of the April revolution was a classic refutation of the theories of guerillarism as the only method to fight landlordism & capitalism in the under developed countries. It was only the spontaneous response and bravery of the Nepalese working class youth who sieged the royal palace which forced the Maoists of Nepal led by Prachanda to overhaul their strategy in relation to seizing power. If the gunshot happy Maoists had armed youth then, it would have been a different course of history altogether. Indian bourgeois and the western imperialists should be extremely thankful for the role of CPI (M) in derailing a revolution next door. The declaration of Prachanda, that it would be a capitalist Nepal and he would implement a West Bengal model has reassured both New Delhi and the White House. While it is not appropriate here to detailly analyse the events in Nepal, yet it is very important to draw the lessons from it. The newly coined word “Prachandism” is no new theory as such, it is the same old Menshevist theory now perfected by the Stalinists and Maoists of India and Nepal.

http://socialism.in/?p=275

[red cat]

West Bengal Elections: Changelessness for a Change!! (http://socialism.in/?p=853)


REJECT THEM ALL: Say No To Scamsters, Looters and Corporate Brokers (http://socialism.in/?p=848)

Just a recent pick of articles agaionst the parliamentary so called "left".
There you go again, what "decieving" reports on Maoists.
I did a quick search of the site and this is what I turned up regarding the indian maoists:
Naxalite/Maoist

Usually one does not consider the Naxalite groupings when it comes to electoral politics as they always advocate a boycott which is far removed from the consciousness of the masses in general. The recent events in the region of South Asia especially Nepal has put many Maoist outfits in disarray. It is welcoming that some of the former groups of Naxalite movement in Karnataka have had a rethink on the methods and strategies as for as the “power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, the famous dictum of Mao. While many on the left are trying to father the “Nepal Revolution” it was the mass class action that brought Gyanendra (Once the King) to his knees. The success of the April revolution was a classic refutation of the theories of guerillarism as the only method to fight landlordism & capitalism in the under developed countries. It was only the spontaneous response and bravery of the Nepalese working class youth who sieged the royal palace which forced the Maoists of Nepal led by Prachanda to overhaul their strategy in relation to seizing power. If the gunshot happy Maoists had armed youth then, it would have been a different course of history altogether. Indian bourgeois and the western imperialists should be extremely thankful for the role of CPI (M) in derailing a revolution next door. The declaration of Prachanda, that it would be a capitalist Nepal and he would implement a West Bengal model has reassured both New Delhi and the White House. While it is not appropriate here to detailly analyse the events in Nepal, yet it is very important to draw the lessons from it. The newly coined word “Prachandism” is no new theory as such, it is the same old Menshevist theory now perfected by the Stalinists and Maoists of India and Nepal.

http://socialism.in/?p=275


I didn't have this article in mind when I mentioned deceiving reports, but this one too contains something very surprising. See these parts :


Usually one does not consider the Naxalite groupings when it comes to electoral politics as they always advocate a boycott which is far removed from the consciousness of the masses in general.This is an insult to the Indian masses. In many places the vote-boycott line has become a mass stand. Inspired by Maoists, sometimes there are smaller actions of vote boycotts inside the big cities in protest of corruption.



The recent events in the region of South Asia especially Nepal has put many Maoist outfits in disarray. It is welcoming that some of the former groups of Naxalite movement in Karnataka have had a rethink on the methods and strategies as for as the “power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, the famous dictum of Mao.A few years back the ruling classes orchestrated a countrywide split in the Maoist CP combined with military actions, most notably in the provinces of West Bengal, Orissa and Karnataka. In Karnataka the breakaway groups teamed up with some splinter revisionist groups and called for an end to armed struggle, right when the state retaliation was intensifying. This is most probably a reference to that.

I am not commenting on how the "April Revolution" was hardly a revolution when considered separately from the people's war, and how it only strengthened the Maoist theory of people's war, because that was mainly about Nepal.

Now see this article:

http://socialism.in/?p=853

They mention :


The TMC on the other hand had been exploiting the political instability of the CPI(M) government in Bengal. While CPI(M) was struggling hard to answer these questions, Mamata Banerjee was looking forward to capitalise by bolstering her party with further alliances with all sorts of groups. These groups have been varied since the inception of the TMC. While on one hand it has managed alliance locally with a few of the Stalinist variants of the CP’s like the SUCI, it has mainly been shifting loyalty between the communal BJP and the ruling Congress party. But the latest addition to this list has been the ultra left Maoist groups present around the tribal belts of West Bengal (Lalgarh).


This utterly unstable & suicidal alliance of the TMC & the Maoist will prove costly for both sides & the society at large in the long run. If anything, this alliance of the Maoist with a pro capitalist party like TMC, has once again proved that the Maoist have learned nothing from their past experience & if experience of the Maoist in Nepal & elsewhere is anything to go by, the same ideological confusion arising out of the stages theory of revolution seems to condemned them to the mistakes of their predecessors.
What kind of "alliance" are the CPI(Maoist) and TMC in ? Is it just that some grass-root level workers of the TMC were involved in common struggles with the Maoists? If people who come from the working class and lower peasantry but are deluded by parliamentary parties genuinely want to work for a progressive cause in a common platform, is the CP supposed to refuse them or try to convert them? Does this amount to an alliance with that parliamentary party? Also, if the parliamentary party actually takes a progressive theoretical or practical stand in some matter in order to beat its even more reactionary opponent, are communists supposed to oppose that stand altogether or are they supposed to support the stand while exposing both parties? Lastly, there are some parties that are worse than others. The TMC getting elected will provide a brief relief for the masses while they prepare for class struggle. Does recognizing this amount to an alliance within the two groups; an alliance any way further than tactics ?

Also, the NSA writes huge inspiring reports on show-strikes led by parliamentary parties that are used to deceive the participating workers and the working class in general. But there is no mention about the class struggles led by Maoists which are much bigger and far more advanced than these. What is the reason behind being so selective ?

[red cat]

An interesting observation :

http://socialism.in/?p=265

The NSA mentions capitalism and landlordism multiple times. Apparently it is something other than capitalism, since it is being mentioned separately, next to capitalism. What is this landlordism? As far as I know Trotskyites deny that there can be any system other than a capitalist one since the colonization of the world by imperialist powers.

[black magick hustla]

Iseul Maoists see Trotskyites as enemies. They spread propaganda against armed struggle. They rat to the police. They condemn popular violence.
maoists are the police in some places