Trots

[Johnny Kerosene]

So lemme make sure I got this right. My understanding, based on my limited research, is that the main difference between Trots and M-Ls is their belief in international revolution and their belief in socialism in one country, respectively. Yes? No?

[red cat]

So lemme make sure I got this right. My understanding, based on my limited research, is that the main difference between Trots and M-Ls is their belief in international revolution and their belief in socialism in one country, respectively. Yes? No?

MLs acknowledge Lenin's definition of socialism. It is possible to maintain that in a single country or even a region, provided that it can survive without trading with capitalist countries, for a long time.

MLs also believe that due to uneven development caused by capitalism, revolutions will take place in some countries much earlier than in others, and then gradually spread to the whole world. So yes, MLs too believe in international revolution, just not in the impossible dream of it magically happening simultaneously in all countries or spreading all over the world within a few weeks.

[Astarte]

The biggest difference between Trots and ML's is the idea of the "deformed" or "degenerated" workers' state. Trotsky, in "The Revolution Betrayed", among other works kind of went on about how he thought that in the USSR the bureaucracy had taken control of state power, not as a new ruling class like other have said, but as a ruling "clique" - this meant that the proletariat was still the official ruling class of the USSR, it only had a parasitic bureaucratic ruling clique degenerating it which could only be removed by way of a political revolution with the aims of restoring workers' democracy.

[red cat]

That is not the biggest difference. Opinions on whether a socialist state decades ago was degenerated or not do not affect the activities of MLs and Trots of today much. The differences in practical lines are much more important.

[Astarte]

That is not the biggest difference. Opinions on whether a socialist state decades ago was degenerated or not do not affect the activities of MLs and Trots of today much. The differences in practical lines are much more important.

Actually, it does. It puts into question many things, especially when you take into account that this mode may actually be better described as bureaucratic collectivist and not so much a degenerated workers state. To say the past has no bearing on the future is ridiculous. If the vanguard inevitably has always shown itself after leading a workers' and peasants' revolution to convert itself into at best a parasitic "ruling clique" and at worst a new ruling class, then that has huge implications for Marxism-Leninism altogether, not just Trotskyism vs. ML, but orthodox Leninist vanguardism which both allegedly seem to think they practice.

It is also the case that ML has only come to state power in semi-feudal and ex-colonial nations - it is just my hunch, but I think new strategies need to be devised, or at least Leninism and vanguardism needs to be re-examined very closely and altered to efficiency standards that can affectively meet the problems of the early 21st century rather than the early 20th.

[Omsk]

It is also the case that ML has only come to state power in semi-feudal and ex-colonial nations
What does that have to do with anything?(plus its partially true)


it is just my hunch, but I think new strategies need to be devised, or at least Leninism and vanguardism needs to be re-examined very closely and altered to efficiency standards that can affectively meet the problems of the early 21st century rather than the early 20th.

I am against revisionism,but modern day parties must keep up with the time,but they also must learn from the mistakes and successes of former regimes and leftist leaders.We should not bury ourselves in the ashes of former revolutionaries,and constantly look at the past,but we should not forget the past.

[red cat]

Actually, it does. It puts into question many things, especially when you take into account that this mode may actually be better described as bureaucratic collectivist and not so much a degenerated workers state. To say the past has no bearing on the future is ridiculous. If the vanguard inevitably has always shown itself after leading a workers' and peasants' revolution to convert itself into at best a parasitic "ruling clique" and at worst a new ruling class, then that has huge implications for Marxism-Leninism altogether, not just Trotskyism vs. ML, but orthodox Leninist vanguardism which both allegedly seem to think they practice.

There are several problems with this. Firstly, all Trotskyites do not consider the USSR under Stalin to be a degenerated workers' state. Some consider it to have been state capitalist as well. Secondly, emphasizing more on historical lines on which both tendencies disagree severely tends to deteriorate discussions to the level of producing documents and assertions, instead of debating the logical validity of each line with reference to their present practice. So if historical experience leads to different conclusions that are relevant to the struggles of today and hence are verifiable experimentally, then it is always better to discuss the conclusions directly.

Also, pointing out that ML regimes have always ended in capitalist restoration does not provide much validity to Trotskyism, as it can be pointed out similarly that Trotskyism too has a record of always either being defeated by the ruling classes or participating in imperialist state machineries without effectively practicing an independent revolutionary programme.


It is also the case that ML has only come to state power in semi-feudal and ex-colonial nations - it is just my hunch, but I think new strategies need to be devised, or at least Leninism and vanguardism needs to be re-examined very closely and altered to efficiency standards that can affectively meet the problems of the early 21st century rather than the early 20th.Russia was a capitalist imperialist power when the revolution happened there.

Lenin's theory of imperialism and labour aristocracy indicates that normally the first revolutions are supposed to occur in the most underdeveloped parts of the world. Hence it is not at all surprising that the MLs, leading the only successful revolutions, had come to power in colonial and neo-colonial countries.

Classical Leninist vanguardism is not insufficient because we are a century ahead; the 20th and 21st century belong to the same qualitative era. Leninist vanguardism was always insufficient to protect a proletarian dictatorship over a long time, which is why the capitalist restorations of the previous century happened. Maoists claim to have solved this problem by implementing certain modern organizational methods and structures and by advancing class struggle within the CP and in all fronts in the society, thereby upholding the idea of revolutions within revolutions until communism is reached.

[Astarte]

What does that have to do with anything?(plus its partially true)



I am against revisionism,but modern day parties must keep up with the time,but they also must learn from the mistakes and successes of former regimes and leftist leaders.We should not bury ourselves in the ashes of former revolutionaries,and constantly look at the past,but we should not forget the past.

ML has never come to power in an advanced capitalist nation without being installed, as in the case of Eastern Germany. This seems to have everything to do with the notion that societal controls in the advanced capitalist nations, at least for a long time (throughout the Cold War and up until now), have been too high and finely tuned in the West for people to even care enough to organize into vanguards. Marcuse wrote a book called "The One Dimensional Man" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Dimensional_Man . Essentially, he says that the modern capitalist state (mind you, the book is almost 50 years old by now) has made organizing against it seem ridiculous to the mainstream - though this mentality is rapidly fading away as living standards deteriorate amongst working people in the USA, the only problem, besides deteriorating living standards, is that due to the "one-dimensionalization" of society (that is, only the bourgeois "dimension" or realm of thought exists anywhere but the fringe) during the USA's ideological battle with ML during the Cold War, ML and even Trotskyism too, have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the oppressed classes, thus a vacuous ideological void remains to be filled on the Left in the USA.

[Astarte]

There are several problems with this. Firstly, all Trotskyites do not consider the USSR under Stalin to be a degenerated workers' state. Some consider it to have been state capitalist as well.

Uhh... yeah... and..?


Secondly, emphasizing more on historical lines on which both tendencies disagree severely tends to deteriorate discussions to the level of producing documents and assertions, instead of debating the logical validity of each line with reference to their present practice. So if historical experience leads to different conclusions that are relevant to the struggles of today and hence are verifiable experimentally, then it is always better to discuss the conclusions directly.

What is the point of reference for the present practice of both ML and Trotskyism i.e. orthodox Leninist vanguardism in the USA as a real physical or at least ideological force with more than fringe influence right now? Nil. All I did was bring up what has been historically the biggest issue between Trots and ML's and said that it all boils down to the vanguard party stepping into the role of state power as a new ruling class. I think this observation about Leninist vanguardism may be a relevant observation for those who do not want to repeat the past.


Also, pointing out that ML regimes have always ended in capitalist restoration does not provide much validity to Trotskyism, as it can be pointed out similarly that Trotskyism too has a record of always either being defeated by the ruling classes or participating in imperialist state machineries without effectively practicing an independent revolutionary programme.

Do you think I am a Trotskyite? I am not trying to validate Trotskyism, I am just telling it how it has gone. You seem to think that by my saying the vanguard stepping into the role of a new ruling class means capitalist restoration, which I definitely never said, because its not even true. Yes, I know, Trotskyism sucks too. This is an early post I wrote describing my position on the USSR. http://www.revleft.com/vb/bureaucracy-socialist-statei-t154413/index.html?p=2109465#post2109465


Russia was a capitalist imperialist power when the revolution happened there.

Something like 10 to 20% of the population were actual wage earning proletarians. Not exactly a ship-shape "capitalist imperialist power", they couldn't win against even Japan in 1905, and they suffered terribly in the Great Imperialist war owing to so many remnants of feudal society, which only ended in 1861, being left over.


Lenin's theory of imperialism and labour aristocracy indicates that normally the first revolutions are supposed to occur in the most underdeveloped parts of the world. Hence it is not at all surprising that the MLs, leading the only successful revolutions, had come to power in colonial and neo-colonial countries.

Classical Leninist vanguardism is not insufficient because we are a century ahead; the 20th and 21st century belong to the same qualitative era. Leninist vanguardism was always insufficient to protect a proletarian dictatorship over a long time, which is why the capitalist restorations of the previous century happened. Maoists claim to have solved this problem by implementing certain modern organizational methods and structures and by advancing class struggle within the CP and in all fronts in the society, thereby upholding the idea of revolutions within revolutions until communism is reached.

According to who does Leninism, which arose from Narodnism and Social Democracy belong to the same "qualitative era" as 21st century "War of Terror" USA? Sure, there is still imperialism, the state, classes, wage labor, alienation, etc, but the mechanisms of control by the ruling class, both overtly coercive and subtly appeasing (as in Marcuse's false needs) have been greatly expanded and actually brought to a qualitatively new level since the Russian revolution with the amount of all manner of technological sophistication at the disposal of the ruling class, a bunch of ML and Trot sects selling papers, I am afraid, just ain't gonna cut it, because unless economic conditions AND the psychological outlook of the working class towards Marxism-Leninism make a historically astonishing reversal, then it is, and will continue to be outmoded in the USA.

[Omsk]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bureaucracy-socialist-statei-t154413/index.html?p=2109465#post2109465

I stopped reading when you mentioned Milovan.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

ML has never come to power in an advanced capitalist nation without being installed, as in the case of Eastern Germany. This seems to have everything to do with the notion that societal controls in the advanced capitalist nations, at least for a long time (throughout the Cold War and up until now), have been too high and finely tuned in the West for people to even care enough to organize into vanguards. Marcuse wrote a book called "The One Dimensional Man" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Dimensional_Man . Essentially, he says that the modern capitalist state (mind you, the book is almost 50 years old by now) has made organizing against it seem ridiculous to the mainstream - though this mentality is rapidly fading away as living standards deteriorate amongst working people in the USA, the only problem, besides deteriorating living standards, is that due to the "one-dimensionalization" of society (that is, only the bourgeois "dimension" or realm of thought exists anywhere but the fringe) during the USA's ideological battle with ML during the Cold War, ML and even Trotskyism too, have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the oppressed classes, thus a vacuous ideological void remains to be filled on the Left in the USA.

Here's your answer - Long Live the Victory of People's War! (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/index.htm). Revolution in the first world will come once the third world has liberated itself.

[Astarte]

I stopped reading when you mentioned Milovan.

I am sure Erich Honecker too did not consider the bureaucracy to be a New Class. :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes: ... Or maybe he had achieved class consciousness and knew he would be unable to successfully convert himself into a capitalist...?

[RED DAVE]

MLs acknowledge Lenin's definition of socialism. It is possible to maintain that in a single country or even a region, provided that it can survive without trading with capitalist countries, for a long time.Yeah, about 15 minutes.


MLs also believe that due to uneven development caused by capitalism, revolutions will take place in some countries much earlier than in others, and then gradually spread to the whole world. So yes, MLs too believe in international revolution, just not in the impossible dream of it magically happening simultaneously in all countries or spreading all over the world within a few weeks.No one believes in such an impossible dream.

The main differences are, in practice, that M-Lism, as it is currently practiced, leads to capitalism and MLs are willing to enter capitalist governments to smooth this process along. Trots are nots.

RED DAVE

[Thirsty Crow]

MLs acknowledge Lenin's definition of socialism.
In other words, Marxists-Leninists acknowledge revisionism of a specific aspect of Marxism.


It is possible to maintain that in a single country or even a region, provided that it can survive without trading with capitalist countries, for a long time.

And here we have a latent rejection of another aspect of Marxism: its scientific analysis of the capitalist global market, which implies a social project totally alien to socialists of the First International: autarky or semi-autarky (call it what you will).


Revolution in the first world will come once the third world has liberated itself.

Nice to see you peddling the line represented, for instance, by Marcuse in One Dimensional Man (that the "western" working class has been integrated into the capitalist system and no longer represents a revolutionary class), albeit in a modified version.
Seriously, why are thirdworldists not monitored more closely? Surely every OI is deemed reactionary enough to be confined to the specific subforum.

[red cat]

Yeah, about 15 minutes.
Good. Let your inner anarchist out. :)


No one believes in such an impossible dream.

Many of you do.


The main differences are, in practice, that M-Lism, as it is currently practiced, leads to capitalism and MLs are willing to enter capitalist governments to smooth this process along.

At least MLs do not enter imperialist parties and take part in colonial oppression.



Trots are nots.

RED DAVE

As far as organizing a revolutionary movement is concerned. :D


In other words, Marxists-Leninists acknowledge revisionism of a specific aspect of Marxism.

In practice we associate the word revisionism with types of opportunism that have led to overall losses for the working class. As of today, the dogmatists who use classical Marxism to oppose Leninist movements are the real revisionists.


And here we have a latent rejection of another aspect of Marxism: its scientific analysis of the capitalist global market, which implies a social project totally alien to socialists of the First International: autarky or semi-autarky (call it what you will).

Please provide a proof of your claims, instead of referring to analyses by Marx. If an analysis is scientific and you have understood it correctly, you should be able to produce its underlying logic.

[Sir Comradical]

At least MLs do not enter imperialist parties and take part in colonial oppression.

Referring to?

[Rooster]

just not in the impossible dream of it magically happening simultaneously in all countries or spreading all over the world within a few weeks.

You've either not read Trotsky or you're purposely distorting his ideas. Hmm, I wonder why a Maoist of all people would distort the theory of permanent revolution, hmmm....

[Thirsty Crow]

In practice we associate the word revisionism with types of opportunism that have led to overall losses for the working class. As of today, the dogmatists who use classical Marxism to oppose Leninist movements are the real revisionists.In practice, we (me and a couple of my mates) associate the term "Marxism-Leninism" with counter-revolution. But that does not say much about Marxism-Leninism, does it?

In other words: you're mudding the waters here since you've emptied the term ("revisionism") of any concrete meaning (revisionism is associated with a type of opportunism...okay, but provide a definition, or even an superficial historical analysis of concrete manifestations of this "opportunism"; since you failed to do so, I cannot but conclude that you're defining a political term solely in reference to another, non-defined, political term).

You can turn a human being upside down and make him/her walk on his(her hands, but that wouldn't be enough for you to conclude that all humans walk on their hands.

I, on the other hand, cosider "revisionism" a very simple phenomenon: a change, far-reaching, in theoretical aspects of a body of thought which deals with the workings of capitalism and means to ending that system. So you have an example of revisionism in claiming that "socialism" is a separate form of society, a transitional society in which antagonistic classes do not exist, but still separate from "communism" as an altogether separate "mode of production".


Please provide a proof of your claims, instead of referring to analyses by Marx. If an analysis is scientific and you have understood it correctly, you should be able to produce its underlying logic.
With capitalism, humans have been able to create, for the first time in their history, a world market, and a system of production which corresponds to this fact (production for sale instead of for use). With "revolutions" in productive technologies, human needs are also revolutionized, brought up to a higher degree so to speak. To satisfy this structure of needs and wants, a given country must engage in trade. In other words, what i at stake here is global social labour, which cannot be effectively changed by autarky, which places severe restrictions on the development of means of production, and by extension also on the political and social processes in "liberated areas".

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Nice to see you peddling the line represented, for instance, by Marcuse in One Dimensional Man (that the "western" working class has been integrated into the capitalist system and no longer represents a revolutionary class), albeit in a modified version.
Seriously, why are thirdworldists not monitored more closely? Surely every OI is deemed reactionary enough to be confined to the specific subforum.

I don't see myself as a "Third-Worldist", I just accept reality.

[red cat]

I don't see myself as a "Third-Worldist", I just accept reality.

Your line is not third worldist. Third worldism of groups like MSH etc. rejects the whole working class of imperialist countries as reactionary. All Maoists agree with what you stated.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see myself as a "Third-Worldist", I just accept reality.
Yeah, I accept reality as well. And wouldn't agree with your proposition.
Oh and by the way, the proposition in question represents a core tenet of thirdworldism, as far as my knowledge is concerned.
But maybe an admin should be the judge of that.

EDIT:


. Third worldism of groups like MSH etc. rejects the whole working class of imperialist countries as reactionary. All Maoists agree with what you stated.

Oh, okay, is this is the criterion then I guess I was wrong.
Though I'd like to know what this kind of groups think of a hypothetical scenarion which Marxach-Léinínach puts forward with regard to the role of the "western" working class.

[red cat]

Uhh... yeah... and..?

I meant that Trotskyite line on the USSR is not consistent.


What is the point of reference for the present practice of both ML and Trotskyism i.e. orthodox Leninist vanguardism in the USA as a real physical or at least ideological force with more than fringe influence right now? Nil. All I did was bring up what has been historically the biggest issue between Trots and ML's and said that it all boils down to the vanguard party stepping into the role of state power as a new ruling class. I think this observation about Leninist vanguardism may be a relevant observation for those who do not want to repeat the past.I was referring to ML parties worldwide, not only in the USA. Both historically and at present, the biggest differences between Trotskyites and MLs revolved around some other lines. If you look at the Trotskyite criticisms of the ongoing revolutions in the tird world, you will understand this.



Do you think I am a Trotskyite? I am not trying to validate Trotskyism, I am just telling it how it has gone. You seem to think that by my saying the vanguard stepping into the role of a new ruling class means capitalist restoration, which I definitely never said, because its not even true. Yes, I know, Trotskyism sucks too. This is an early post I wrote describing my position on the USSR. http://www.revleft.com/vb/bureaucracy-socialist-statei-t154413/index.html?p=2109465#post2109465Good post, but the point is that the Soviet vanguard during Stalin's time cannot be described as a new class. The new class seized power only after Stalin and had visible class contradictions with the international proletariat. As a result the USSR gradually became state-capitalist.


Something like 10 to 20% of the population were actual wage earning proletarians. Not exactly a ship-shape "capitalist imperialist power", they couldn't win against even Japan in 1905, and they suffered terribly in the Great Imperialist war owing to so many remnants of feudal society, which only ended in 1861, being left over. Russia was the most backward of capitalist countries when it had the revolution. The Russian proletariat was mainly concentrated in heavy industries under Russian capital. Also, had Russia not been capitalist, it would have lost its colonies to other imperialist powers long ago, as feudal imperialism cannot compete with capitalist imperialism.


According to who does Leninism, which arose from Narodnism and Social Democracy belong to the same "qualitative era" as 21st century "War of Terror" USA? Sure, there is still imperialism, the state, classes, wage labor, alienation, etc, but the mechanisms of control by the ruling class, both overtly coercive and subtly appeasing (as in Marcuse's false needs) have been greatly expanded and actually brought to a qualitatively new level since the Russian revolution with the amount of all manner of technological sophistication at the disposal of the ruling class, a bunch of ML and Trot sects selling papers, I am afraid, just ain't gonna cut it, because unless economic conditions AND the psychological outlook of the working class towards Marxism-Leninism make a historically astonishing reversal, then it is, and will continue to be outmoded in the USA.The present era is said to have started from sometime around the Russian revolution. It is characterized by the proletariat being the only class that can lead a successful revolution resulting in a qualitative change of any kind in the society. In other words, today there cannot be a successful revolution of any kind without having the proletariat as the leading class. This era is called the era of Leninism or proletarian revolutions. This era also has many other characteristics, which are being continuously explored by communists, and there have always been quantitative changes in the international situation, but not a qualitative one that will change its fundamental nature.

Also, if you look at the situation in the third world, you will see that all MLs are not exactly sects selling papers. :)

[flobdob]

The main differences are, in practice, that M-Lism, as it is currently practiced, leads to capitalism and MLs are willing to enter capitalist governments to smooth this process along. Trots are nots.

RED DAVE

If we are going to engage in pointless rhetoric, I could just as easily say that *most* Trots are more than willing to tell you to vote for (and even join) capitalist parties.

If you want to engage in debate about Leninism or Trotskyism, be my guest (because clearly thats what this forum needs more of...), but lets at least have a recognition that your side is far from being the wonderful flawless angels that you make them out to be.

[graymouser]

This is one of those threads that you just can't do well without tendency wars.

Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution didn't call for the international revolution within weeks; that's clearly a distortion. He saw the unfolding of a series of international revolutions over a whole epoch, and saw Stalinism becoming a hindrance to this revolution in his analysis of China, Germany, France and Spain.

During this period, Trotsky saw that transitional forms - workers' states - would exist, but he didn't see these as either capitalism or socialism, nor as a new form of class society. He saw - correctly - that they were only early transitional forms, which could only grow into healthy and democratic, socialist countries in the context of a broader international revolution. Their attempt to survive as isolated states in this form meant increasing bureaucratic degeneration and eventually the restoration of capitalism.

State capitalist theories like the one Red Dave puts forward are coming out of heterodox Trotskyist formations that broke with Trotsky's late analysis after World War II. The orthodox Trotskyist view for instance on China is that a new deformed workers' state was created, but that the bureaucracy has converted itself and its hangers-on into a new capitalist class in the post-Mao era. It's disingenuous to try and lump together orthodox Trotskyism with the Cliff or Shachtman traditions, and therefore claim "inconsistency."

There's no country that currently has what any of us would consider socialism, so I think contests about who has led more successful revolutions are a diversion. (My party, Socialist Action, looks favorably on Cuba but considers it a workers' state with some deformities rather than socialism as such.) I think it would be more edifying to talk about what Trotskyist and Maoist strategies would mean for the revolutions in Africa and the Middle East today than point-scoring on China or Nepal.

[red cat]

Referring to?

Entryism in the Labour Party of the UK.


You've either not read Trotsky or you're purposely distorting his ideas.

Exactly where did I mention Trotsky in my post? I do not care about what he wrote, I only refer to facts obvious from some of his supporters that I encounter.


Hmm, I wonder why a Maoist of all people would distort the theory of permanent revolution, hmmm....Hmm ... I wonder why Rooster out of all people would respond with a pointless one-liner, hmmm ...

[Die Rote Fahne]

Trotsky is my favourite ML. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Mostly because he seems more along the lines of early Lenin, and held anti-totalitarian views.

Can't say I know an overly large amount about him, I've only read some speeches and letters written by him.

[red cat]

In practice, we (me and a couple of my mates) associate the term "Marxism-Leninism" with counter-revolution. But that does not say much about Marxism-Leninism, does it?

No, given that you or other people who do this don't really matter much to the international communist movement as of now. Not claiming that I matter as much as you do, or that I matter even a bit, but you know, there are some groups that are quite relevant :)


In other words: you're mudding the waters here since you've emptied the term ("revisionism") of any concrete meaning (revisionism is associated with a type of opportunism...okay, but provide a definition, or even an superficial historical analysis of concrete manifestations of this "opportunism"; since you failed to do so, I cannot but conclude that you're defining a political term solely in reference to another, non-defined, political term).

You can turn a human being upside down and make him/her walk on his(her hands, but that wouldn't be enough for you to conclude that all humans walk on their hands.

I, on the other hand, cosider "revisionism" a very simple phenomenon: a change, far-reaching, in theoretical aspects of a body of thought which deals with the workings of capitalism and means to ending that system. So you have an example of revisionism in claiming that "socialism" is a separate form of society, a transitional society in which antagonistic classes do not exist, but still separate from "communism" as an altogether separate "mode of production".
Anything that opposes or undermines a workers' revolutionary movement is essentially revisionism, because it opposes the core Marxist task of analyzing and transforming the society in favour of the working class. Marx provided a very basic analysis and terminology which were the state of the art during his time. Mechanically extending his works to oppose those of Lenin is dogmatism on the outside, but revisionism in essence.


With capitalism, humans have been able to create, for the first time in their history, a world market, and a system of production which corresponds to this fact (production for sale instead of for use). Does production for sale correspond only to the world market ?


With "revolutions" in productive technologies, human needs are also revolutionized, brought up to a higher degree so to speak. What do you mean by this? Even with very developed technology available to those who can afford it, a large portion of the population might not even know its existence.


To satisfy this structure of needs and wants, a given country must engage in trade. Why?


In other words, what i at stake here is global social labour, which cannot be effectively changed by autarky, which places severe restrictions on the development of means of production, and by extension also on the political and social processes in "liberated areas".

Not clear at all.

[Tim Finnegan]

Entryism in the Labour Party of the UK.
Right, it's much more honourable to participate in an "imperialist party" indirectly, through the elevation of Communist Party members to senior trade union posts. Keeps the hands clean, doncha know! :rolleyes:

[red cat]

Right, it's much more honourable to participate in an "imperialist party" indirectly, through the elevation of Communist Party members to senior trade union posts. Keeps the hands clean, doncha know! :rolleyes:

What are you referring to ?

[Tim Finnegan]

What are you referring to ?
The understood methods of the Communist Party of Great Britain from around the late 1920s onwards was to influence the Labour Party through the elevation of party members to senior trade union posts, and that only after known Communists had been expelled from the Labour Party and repeated attempts by the CPGB to affiliate with the LP had been rejected. If there's some great sin in dealing with the Labour Party, then it's not one which can be laid solely at the door of Militant Tendency.

[red cat]

The understood methods of the Communist Party of Great Britain from around the late 1920s onwards was to influence the Labour Party through the elevation of party members to senior trade union posts, and that only after known Communists had been expelled from the Labour Party and repeated attempts by the CPGB to affiliate with the LP had been rejected. If there's some great sin in dealing with the Labour Party, then it's not one which can be laid solely at the door of Militant Tendency.

The biggest and most active groups in the ML camp consider the CPGB and its likes to have been revisionist. There are many groups and parties that have claimed to adhere to Marxism-Leninism. Of these I defend primarily the ones that are Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

[Tim Finnegan]

The biggest and most active groups in the ML camp consider the CPGB and its likes to have been revisionist. There are many groups and parties that have claimed to adhere to Marxism-Leninism. Of these I defend primarily the ones that are Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.
Yes, but as I said, this was going on from the late 1920s, well before the onset of "revisionism". Stalin understood it full well, which is most likely why he signed off in the tactic in- famously- issuing personal approval of the CPGB's 1951 program, Britain's Road to Socialism.

Edit: Although it should be noted that it took them a rather long time to actually get any good at it. The relationship between the CPGB and the labour movement was heavily strained during the former's awkward, flailing attempts to impose Cominternt-dictated policies, devised with the mass parties of France and Germany in mind, onto unsuitable terrain. The tactic was developed out of an eventual recognition that screaming at the Labour Party, however loud, wasn't going to get them anywhere, and took a number of decades to be properly advanced.
Edit2: And, come to think of it, that should probably be "early 30s", rather than "late 20s". The latter would imply that this was still in the era of the party's Third Period tantrum. My mistake.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The understood methods of the Communist Party of Great Britain from around the late 1920s onwards was to influence the Labour Party through the elevation of party members to senior trade union posts, and that only after known Communists had been expelled from the Labour Party and repeated attempts by the CPGB to affiliate with the LP had been rejected. If there's some great sin in dealing with the Labour Party, then it's not one which can be laid solely at the door of Militant Tendency.

Why was there no attempt to build a (neo-)Chartist Party of Great Britain?

[Tim Finnegan]

Why was there no attempt to build a (neo-)Chartist Party of Great Britain?
I think that a lot of it comes down to the overwhelming influence of trade unionism on the British left, with the result that the Labour Party, being in a certain sense the electoral wing of the Trades Union Congress, almost inevitably dominated working class politics. There was no tradition of a mass party in the European sense, the party being comprised primarily of affiliated unions and a few political groups- the Fabian Society, the Independent Labour Party, and so forth- and so no real room to create a rival without somehow usurping the unions. The the ILP and CPGB both attempted this, with certain localised successes- both returned a handful of MPs, mostly Scottish, during the 1930s and '40s- but but neither could make serious dents in the Labour Party, particularly after the right-lead victory in the 1945 elections and the construction of the corporatist "post-war consensus".

Edit: Noting that the relationship between the TUC and the Labour Party mentioned above hasn't been the case since the late '80s, of course. The party and the TUC are very much separate entities these days.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Despite current CPGB defencism in the Weekly Worker, I think the waning of the British Labour Party and it being squeezed between the Lib Dems and Greens is a good thing. It might yield that (neo-)Chartist opportunity.

[Sir Comradical]

Entryism in the Labour Party of the UK.

You do know how many ML parties have become a part of the bourgeois political mainstream in so many countries, right?

[red cat]

Yes, but as I said, this was going on from the late 1920s, well before the onset of "revisionism". Stalin understood it full well, which is most likely why he signed off in the tactic in- famously- issuing personal approval of the CPGB's 1951 program, Britain's Road to Socialism.

Edit: Although it should be noted that it took them a rather long time to actually get any good at it. The relationship between the CPGB and the labour movement was heavily strained during the former's awkward, flailing attempts to impose Cominternt-dictated policies, devised with the mass parties of France and Germany in mind, onto unsuitable terrain. The tactic was developed out of an eventual recognition that screaming at the Labour Party, however loud, wasn't going to get them anywhere, and took a number of decades to be properly advanced.
Edit2: And, come to think of it, that should probably be "early 30s", rather than "late 20s". The latter would imply that this was still in the era of the party's Third Period tantrum. My mistake.

Stalin's consent does not imply that most MLs support the then line of the CPGB, specially when it had become a training center for Indian revisionists who would later sabotage Stalin's line on India.

[red cat]

You do know how many ML parties have become a part of the bourgeois political mainstream in so many countries, right?

Yes, but there is a distinct ML revolutionary stand against that. How often do you see Trotskyite groups condemning other Trotskyite groups for opportunism or inaction and actually implementing a revolutionary programme against them ?

[28350]

Trotsky [...] held anti-totalitarian views

...not really?

[Thirsty Crow]

No, given that you or other people who do this don't really matter much to the international communist movement as of now. Not claiming that I matter as much as you do, or that I matter even a bit, but you know, there are some groups that are quite relevant :)Yes, there are groups that are relevant. For instance, socialdemocrats here where I live, or "socialists" in France who will advance the candidacy of the chairman of IMF. However, them being relevant says nothing about the character of their ideas and practice.
So much for this relevancy crap.



Anything that opposes or undermines a workers' revolutionary movement is essentially revisionism, because it opposes the core Marxist task of analyzing and transforming the society in favour of the working class.So, liberalism represents a revisionism of Marxism?
Your definition of revisionism is severly flawed.


Marx provided a very basic analysis and terminology which were the state of the art during his time. Mechanically extending his works to oppose those of Lenin is dogmatism on the outside, but revisionism in essence.First of all, Marx's analysis of capital is basic in that it elaborated on and explained fundamental processes which are at work in any kind of society which might be called "capitalist".
Secondly, I did not mechanically extend anything. I rather pointed out a simple fact that not one faction of the First International did regard "socialism" as an altogether different kind of society in relation to both capitalism and communism. Moreover, I would claim that such a conceptualization is much more sound than Lenin's intervention, along with its results (the proclamation of achieved "socialism" in 1936).

And third, nowhere is it clearer that you have no idea what you're talking about (or rather, that you don't know how to use the term "revisionism" in a clear and meaningful manner) than in your little comments on the eternal philosophical problem of the relationship between the external and the internal (appearances and essences). It's a fairly pompous way to throw meaningless rhetoric around.


Does production for sale correspond only to the world market ?Capitalism is characterized by a dominant, hegemonic structure of production, and that structure correponds to the realization of surplus value in exchange. In other words, capitalist production produces for sale on the world market.

Production for sale, or rather exchange, is not only a characteristic of capitalism. The so called petty commodity production probably appeared with the first class society (or at least with established money). But nowhere did it dominate as a hegemonic way of organizing the fulfillment of human needs (in feudalism, for instance, petty commodity production functioned as a motor for productive growth thorugh productivity gains, by means of technological development; as such, it served as the basis for the rise of the bourgeoisie).


What do you mean by this? Even with very developed technology available to those who can afford it, a large portion of the population might not even know its existence.Historically, capitalism enhanced the ability of human beings to satisfy their basic needs. But it also enabled the creation of new wants (it's not really important if we call them "wants" or "needs") and a structural rise in the level of consumption.


Why? To satisfy the given strcture of needs and wants.

But seriously, do you want me to explain a very basic fact of daily life as if you were a 5 year old child?



Not clear at all.
Not my fault, though.

[red cat]

Yes, there are groups that are relevant. For instance, socialdemocrats here where I live, or "socialists" in France who will advance the candidacy of the chairman of IMF. However, them being relevant says nothing about the character of their ideas and practice.
So much for this relevancy crap.

Relevant to the international communist movement, I meant.



So, liberalism represents a revisionism of Marxism?
Your definition of revisionism is severly flawed.

I thought it was assumed that the tendencies being discussed at least claimed to be leftist or Marxist.


First of all, Marx's analysis of capital is basic in that it elaborated on and explained fundamental processes which are at work in any kind of society which might be called "capitalist".
Secondly, I did not mechanically extend anything. I rather pointed out a simple fact that not one faction of the First International did regard "socialism" as an altogether different kind of society in relation to both capitalism and communism. Moreover, I would claim that such a conceptualization is much more sound than Lenin's intervention, along with its results (the proclamation of achieved "socialism" in 1936).

Marx's analysis did not comprise of many important topics, such as detailed descriptions of dealing with a society after the revolution or handling a civil war. Lenin summed up his concrete practice in his theory, which Marx could not. So, to denounce Leninism, one has to refer to an extension, possibly a wrong one, of Marx's works.


And third, nowhere is it clearer that you have no idea what you're talking about (or rather, that you don't know how to use the term "revisionism" in a clear and meaningful manner) than in your little comments on the eternal philosophical problem of the relationship between the external and the internal (appearances and essences). It's a fairly pompous way to throw meaningless rhetoric around.

It should be clear by now that by revisionists I refer to those who claim to be leftists but in practice act as tools of the ruling class in attacking real communist movements.


Capitalism is characterized by a dominant, hegemonic structure of production, and that structure correponds to the realization of surplus value in exchange. In other words, capitalist production produces for sale on the world market.

Production for sale, or rather exchange, is not only a characteristic of capitalism. The so called petty commodity production probably appeared with the first class society (or at least with established money). But nowhere did it dominate as a hegemonic way of organizing the fulfillment of human needs (in feudalism, for instance, petty commodity production functioned as a motor for productive growth thorugh productivity gains, by means of technological development; as such, it served as the basis for the rise of the bourgeoisie).

But how does all this logically imply a correspondence solely to a world market ? Please explain in details.


Historically, capitalism enhanced the ability of human beings to satisfy their basic needs. But it also enabled the creation of new wants (it's not really important if we call them "wants" or "needs") and a structural rise in the level of consumption.

1) How is it capitalism and not technological advancements alone ?

2) How does this explain the existence of populations deprived of modern technology that were labouring for extracting raw materials for imperialism ?


To satisfy the given strcture of needs and wants.

Why does it always have to engage in trade instead of producing the required commodities by itself ?


But seriously, do you want me to explain a very basic fact of daily life as if you were a 5 year old child?

Doesn't at all seem to be a "basic fact" to me.




Not my fault, though.

No, it is the fault of your theory.

[Tim Finnegan]

Stalin's consent does not imply that most MLs support the then line of the CPGB, specially when it had become a training center for Indian revisionists who would later sabotage Stalin's line on India.
And the entryism of one Trotskist sect doesn't imply that all Trotskyists support entryism into bourgeois parties, especially given that many Trotskyists openly opposed the move at the time. Again, my point is that you can't lay your allegations of class-treason at the feet of a whole tendency without accepting very similar allegations yourself.

[Rooster]

Exactly where did I mention Trotsky in my post? I do not care about what he wrote, I only refer to facts obvious from some of his supporters that I encounter.

Some? So what you're saying here is that you made up some claim based on your experience with some supporters of Trotsky. So you've never read anything of Trotsky? If you've never read any Trotsky's literature then how can you argue with him? You're deliberately distorting the views held by Trotskyists. Pray tell why it is then that you've screed large amounts of text in this thread?

[red cat]

Some? So what you're saying here is that you made up some claim based on your experience with some supporters of Trotsky. So you've never read anything of Trotsky? If you've never read any Trotsky's literature then how can you argue with him? You're deliberately distorting the views held by Trotskyists. Pray tell why it is then that you've screed large amounts of text in this thread?

When and where did I argue with Trotsky? Wouldn't have done that even if he resurrected as a zombie to argue with me ! All I did was refer to a wrong conception that MLs oppose and some Trots believe in. My post was primarily concerned with what the MLs believe in. I didn't comment about Trotskyite theory and I don't care how millions of Trotskyite sects interpret him, let alone distorting their views.

[red cat]

And the entryism of one Trotskist sect doesn't imply that all Trotskyists support entryism into bourgeois parties, especially given that many Trotskyists openly opposed the move at the time. Again, my point is that you can't lay your allegations of class-treason at the feet of a whole tendency without accepting very similar allegations yourself.

There is a little difference. See, here I have already stated that the CPGB was revisionist. Find out a few Trotskyites who will admit that the Indian Trotskyites are engaging in the reactionary activity of spreading half truths and lies about Maoists while ignoring their achievements. It is a point to be noted that we find plenty of Trots to attack the Maoist movements in Nepal and India without any verifiable practical evidence of their claims, while they never speak a word about their comrades in these countries whose dishonesty is readily verifiable.

There are revolutionary Trot groups, of course, but they are probably the minority, while among those claiming to be MLM, the revolutionaries are clearly the majority.

[Tim Finnegan]

There is a little difference. See, here I have already stated that the CPGB was revisionist.
And I have observed that the tactics you dismiss as "revisionist" were conducted under Stalin's own watchful eyes, thereby suggesting that either your beloved Secretary was himself either a "revisionist" or complicit in the active propagation of "revisionism", or that your claims have no bearing on that point.


Find out a few Trotskyites who will admit that the Indian Trotskyites are engaging in the reactionary activity of spreading half truths and lies about Maoists while ignoring their achievements. It is a point to be noted that we find plenty of Trots to attack the Maoist movements in Nepal and India without any verifiable practical evidence of their claims, while they never speak a word about their comrades in these countries whose dishonesty is readily verifiable.

There are revolutionary Trot groups, of course, but they are probably the minority, while among those claiming to be MLM, the revolutionaries are clearly the majority.
What does this have to do with your original allegations, exactly?

[red cat]

And I have observed that the tactics you dismiss as "revisionist" were conducted under Stalin's own watchful eyes, thereby suggesting that either your beloved Secretary was himself either a "revisionist" or complicit in the active propagation of "revisionism", or that your claims have no bearing on that point.

Stalin was principally a revolutionary, though he made mistakes. His support for revisionists in a small struggle is overshadowed by his support for revolutionaries in bigger struggles.



What does this have to do with your original allegations, exactly?Nothing, but my original allegation wasn't directed at all Trotskyites either.

[Tim Finnegan]

Stalin was principally a revolutionary, though he made mistakes. His support for revisionists in a small struggle is overshadowed by his support for revolutionaries in bigger struggles.
So when Stalin strays from the straight and narrow path, it's a mere "mistake", but when others do it, it's "revisionism"? It seems to me that you offer Saint Josef liberties not extended to other Marxist-Leninists.


Nothing, but my original allegation wasn't directed at all Trotskyites either.
It certainly seemed that way. Perhaps you should list which groups and individuals are guilty of the crimes you declare and which are not.

[red cat]

So when Stalin strays from the straight and narrow path, it's a mere "mistake", but when others do it, it's "revisionism"? It seems to me that you offer Saint Josef liberties not extended to other Marxist-Leninists.

Depends on how much they strayed, how much they contributed towards a revolution etc.



It certainly seemed that way. Perhaps you should list which groups and individuals are guilty of the crimes you declare and which are not.

Sorry. Too many groups, too little time.

[Tim Finnegan]

Depends on how much they strayed, how much they contributed towards a revolution etc.
Surely revisionism is an intellectual deviation, and so only the former is relevant? It doesn't matter how enthusiastic or productive a revolutionary you are, if you're wrong you're wrong. If Stalin allowed "revisionists" to operate not merely under his nose, but under his personal patronage- and, remembered, he offered personal approval for the apparently "revisionist" manifesto, "Britain's Road to Socialism", not merely some distant thumbs-up for the CPGB- would he himself tainted with the intellectual stain of "revisionism"? It sounds to me like the man was either a revisionist or a dimwit.


Sorry. Too many groups, too little time.So are you going to maintain your universal slur, or withdraw it? You certainly can't leave it in the ambiguous state you first offered it in.

[red cat]

Surely revisionism is an intellectual deviation, and so only the former is relevant? It doesn't matter how enthusiastic or productive a revolutionary you are, if you're wrong you're wrong. If Stalin allowed "revisionists" to operate not merely under his nose, but under his personal patronage- and, remembered, he offered personal approval for the apparently "revisionist" manifesto, "Britain's Road to Socialism", not merely some distant thumbs-up for the CPGB- would he himself tainted with the intellectual stain of "revisionism"? It sounds to me like the man was either a revisionist or a dimwit.

If you're wrong at what? In how many places? No one is denying that Stalin was wrong regarding the CPGB. But that doesn't make him wrong on much bigger issues.


So are you going to maintain your universal slur, or withdraw it? You certainly can't leave it in the ambiguous state you first offered it in.

There was no universal slur from me in the first place. I never said anything about all Trotskyite groups or individuals being reactionary.

[Tim Finnegan]

If you're wrong at what? In how many places? No one is denying that Stalin was wrong regarding the CPGB. But that doesn't make him wrong on much bigger issues.
How do you know that the CPGB were wrong on "bigger issues"? That they followed a particular line in regards to the British situation would not appear to suggest that they were any more necessarily "revisionist" than Stalin himself. I'm fairly sure that they supported the Kremlin's line elsewhere in the world.

Point being, even good little Marxist-Leninists can find themselves pandering to the establishment, which rather deflates your bold claims about righteous aloofness. Trotskyists are not unique in their participation in bourgeoisified organisations.


There was no universal slur from me in the first place. I never said anything about all Trotskyite groups or individuals being reactionary.

At least MLs do not enter imperialist parties and take part in colonial oppression.
That strikes me as a fairly general comparison.

[red cat]

How do you know that the CPGB were wrong on "bigger issues"? That they followed a particular line in regards to the British situation would not appear to suggest that they were any more necessarily "revisionist" than Stalin himself. I'm fairly sure that they supported the Kremlin's line elsewhere in the world.

Point being, even good little Marxist-Leninists can find themselves pandering to the establishment, which rather deflates your bold claims about righteous aloofness. Trotskyists are not unique in their participation in bourgeoisified organisations.

What can be a bigger issue to one than such a huge colonial population being exploited by his own country? Those who entered the governments of their own imperialist countries in the name of advancing workers' struggles while not taking a single step towards revolution are the biggest enemies of the international working class.


That strikes me as a fairly general comparison.

It really wasn't.

[Tim Finnegan]

What can be a bigger issue to one than such a huge colonial population being exploited by his own country? Those who entered the governments of their own imperialist countries in the name of advancing workers' struggles while not taking a single step towards revolution are the biggest enemies of the international working class.
And if Stalin gives such schemes his personal stamp of approval, then what does that say about him? It can't be a simple "mistake" for him and a grievous sin for the CPGB, when their political line was near-identical, and they were differentiated by location rather than by politics.


It really wasn't.Then what did you intend to suggest?

[RED DAVE]

By the way, the same was true for the CPUSA. From 1936 till the end of WWII, it was de facto the left wing of the Roosevelt Administration.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Stalin was principally a revolutionaryCarrying out the role of party bureaucrat.


though he made mistakes.The transformation of a workers state into: (a) a deformed workers state; (b) state capitalism; (c) bureaucratic collectivism (choose a, b or c) was scarcely a mistake. And the failure of the German CP to effectively fight the nazis wasn't exactly a faux pas.


His support for revisionists in a small struggle is overshadowed by his support for revolutionaries in bigger struggles.So the struggle for socialism in the UK and the USA were small struggles.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

And if Stalin gives such schemes his personal stamp of approval, then what does that say about him? It can't be a simple "mistake" for him and a grievous sin for the CPGB, when their political line was near-identical, and they were differentiated by location rather than by politics.

The decision for Britain was a minor part of Stalin's programme, but it was a major one for the CPGB. Hence Stalin is not expected to know every detail of it and the CPGB is mainly to blame.


Then what did you intend to suggest?It was a response to this statement which ignores the fact that the biggest ML parties wage armed revolutionary struggles against the bourgeois state and enter into parliamentary politics as a tactic while retaining the revolutionary units, whereas Trotskyism mainly revolves around parties that are practically always at peace with the ruling classes and indirectly help in maintaining the state :


The main differences are, in practice, that M-Lism, as it is currently practiced, leads to capitalism and MLs are willing to enter capitalist governments to smooth this process along.

[red cat]

Carrying out the role of party bureaucrat.

The transformation of a workers state into: (a) a deformed workers state; (b) state capitalism; (c) bureaucratic collectivism (choose a, b or c) was scarcely a mistake. And the failure of the German CP to effectively fight the nazis wasn't exactly a faux pas.

The usual Trot stuff. :lol:


So the struggle for socialism in the UK and the USA were small struggles.

RED DAVE Yes, when compared to later struggles in India or China.

[Tim Finnegan]

The decision for Britain was a minor part of Stalin's programme, but it was a major one for the CPGB. Hence Stalin is not expected to know every detail of it and the CPGB is mainly to blame.
Again, Stalin gave personal approval to the party's 1951 program, which was largely written based on Moscow diktats and ties in pretty neatly with the other Western European programs of the era, so it's fairly clear he knew much as everybody else did about their long term schemes. You can't wave this stuff away, so stop trying and learn to deal with it.


It was a response to this statement which ignores the fact that the biggest ML parties wage armed revolutionary struggles against the bourgeois state and enter into parliamentary politics as a tactic while retaining the revolutionary units, whereas Trotskyism mainly revolves around parties that are practically always at peace with the ruling classes and indirectly help in maintaining the state :
Ah, so it was sheer masturbation on your part. Good, good.

[red cat]

Again, Stalin gave personal approval to the party's 1951 program, which was largely written based on Moscow diktats and ties in pretty neatly with the other Western European programs of the era, so it's fairly clear he knew much as everybody else did about their long term schemes. You can't wave this stuff away, so stop trying and learn to deal with it.

You fail to understand my argument. We decide whether a person was a revolutionary or not based on the sum total of his actions. Moreover, Stalin's personal approval does not make him chiefly responsible for the actions of the CPGB and nor does it prove that he had nearly as much knowledge about it as activists in Britain itself. The CPGB or any other communist party was free to analyze the circumstances and take its own decisions irrespective of Stalin's approvals.



Ah, so it was sheer masturbation on your part. Good, good. Those of us who are serious and knowledgeable enough to defend the historical struggles of the proletariat, do not tolerate slandering from ultra-abstract tendencies. Call that whatever you will.

[RedSunRising]

Again, Stalin gave personal approval to the party's 1951 program, which was largely written based on Moscow diktats and ties in pretty neatly with the other Western European programs of the era, so it's fairly clear he knew much as everybody else did about their long term schemes. You can't wave this stuff away, so stop trying and learn to deal with it..

The program that Stalin went along with was dangerously ambigious as opposed to out and out revisionist. Also something that Trots dont seem to be able to grasp is that Stalin did not have absolute control over the International Communist movement in the same way that Trotsky and the various cult figures that came after him had and have over their organizations.

[thälmann]

stalins approval of the cpgb program was a mistake, and i guess it was because of the experiences with peoples democracy in eastern europe. it wasnt exactly a parlamentary, peaceful way to socialism, but to use the parlamentary system to achieve peoples democracy, with violence if necessary.

but, as red cat mentioned, it is only a small part in stalins work. in my opinion, most of this was positive. especially the line of the 20s for the CPs in western europe. it is not stalins failure that the german communists didnt defeat the fascists. it has different reasons. before 33, they fought them very militant.

the same after 45, a lot of europe CPs had a very revolutionary programm and parctice, including the german and greece one.

[Tim Finnegan]

You fail to understand my argument. We decide whether a person was a revolutionary or not based on the sum total of his actions.
That's a bit silly. A person exists at a point in time, not an accumulation of deeds; it's entirely possible for a person to be a revolutionary at one point and a "revisionist" later.

Besides, given that many of the leadership of the CPGB at that point have strong credentials as loyal communists- some had experience dating back to the before the October Revolution, others had fought in the Spanish Civil War- so why are they thrown under the bus for a single faulty program? Because they didn't have as many medals on their chests as Saint Josef?


Moreover, Stalin's personal approval does not make him chiefly responsible for the actions of the CPGB and nor does it prove that he had nearly as much knowledge about it as activists in Britain itself. The CPGB or any other communist party was free to analyze the circumstances and take its own decisions irrespective of Stalin's approvals.
But those approvals were none the less forthcoming. Why is that?


The program that Stalin went along with was dangerously ambigious as opposed to out and out revisionist.
So why did he extend his approval? Surely, he had enough wits in his head to note when something departed from his own line.


Also something that Trots dont seem to be able to grasp is that Stalin did not have absolute control over the International Communist movement in the same way that Trotsky and the various cult figures that came after him had and have over their organizations.
It's not about whether or not Stalin was all-powerful- could you perhaps point me to where I suggested as much? :confused:- but that he gave explicit personal approval the aforementioned program.

[RedSunRising]

It's not about whether or not Stalin was all-powerful- could you perhaps point me to where I suggested as much? :confused:- but that he gave explicit personal approval the aforementioned program.

He approved a dangerously ambigious program in order to keep unity perhaps? In the hopes that all was not lost?

[Tim Finnegan]

He approved a dangerously ambigious program in order to keep unity perhaps?
Unity of what? The CPGB didn't face serious internal divisions after the split of the Left Opposition and before the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. The late 1940s, when the mainstream credibility of the USSR and its sympathisers was at its very peak, was not a time of discord within the party ranks.


In the hopes that all was not lost?I'm not sure what this means- are you suggesting that the lack of a British mass-party would suggest that all was lost?

It seems to me that the reason he approved of the program is because it was the simply the most intelligent path for the CPGB to take. The British left was dominated by the trade unions and the Labour Party, so it was far more of an uphill struggle to fight against them than to win them over from the inside. That's a perfectly sensible plan of action, "revisionist" or not.

[RedTrackWorker]

Also something that Trots dont seem to be able to grasp is that Stalin did not have absolute control over the International Communist movement in the same way that Trotsky and the various cult figures that came after him had and have over their organizations.

I find it hard to understand how this sentence could make sense. Stalin could kill people that disagreed with him, lots and lots of them, plus give those that agreed with him lots of money, prestige, positions and the hope for such. Workers in Russia could be fired for agreeing with Trotsky, etc.

On the other hand, Trotsky could write a sharply worded letter or at worst, "break relations" with someone, i.e. stop affiliating with them organizationally.

And it's Trotsky who had "absolute control" but I cannot grasp Stalin "did not have absolute control"?

Of course, "absolute control" is a red herring-straw man combo. But in terms of comparison over who had more control, how can anyone suggest Trotsky had more control than Stalin did?

In one distorted sense, Trotsky did have more "control." A revolutionary workers' party is based on a common understanding of events, a voluntary cohesion based on ideas--and his ideas were clearly the most powerful. As Trepper said:

Today, the Trotskyites have a right to accuse those who once howled along with the wolves. Let them not forget, however, that they had the enormous advantage over us of having a coherent political system capable of replacing Stalinism. They had something to cling to in the midst of their profound distress at seeing the revolution betrayed.

So yes, the ideas of Trotsky had enormous "control," such that his "followers" would forsake the comforts of life for a clear conscious, whereas the followers of Stalin in 1930's Russia felt no such "control" that could keep them loyal in the absence of the comforts of life.