Is there a Trotskyist party that is actually Trotskyist?

[CesareBorgia]

I don't want to go through party by party list of why they arnt but lets just say that if you look at any of them then you see that their programme, party, action, etc is in direct conflict with the theories, works, and actions of Leon Trotsky.

Alan Woods is a prime example:

1. He calls the Chinese revolution the second greatest event in all of human history, but because it wasn't a workers revolution it lead to a 'deformed workers state' Is this guy serious? If a workers state, 'deformed' but a workers state none the less, can come into being without a workers revolution, or without a workers party, then Trotskyism needs to be thrown out the window. Many Trotskyist parties are filled with these kind of 'theorists'

2. He tries to appropriate Che Guevara, a petty-bourgeois radical whose ideas and work had nothing at all to do with the life, work and ideas of Leon Trotsky. To think that Trotsky would have anything but contempt for a Che Guevara and his milieu is absurd. Many other Trotskyist groups try to appropriate Che and his legacy.

3. He has no principled opposition to imperialism. He supports openly reactionary movements against regimes he doesn't like; in Iran, Libya, etc but opposes them in regimes he does like; Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc. This goes for many other ostensibly Trotskyist groups who are always looking for some third world satrap to drop a few left phrases so they can throw their unconditional support behind him.

The Party itself:

Identity politics; groups that chase anyone who is a woman, gay, or a minority for recruitment. There doesn't seem to be any serious demands for joining a 'Trotskyist' party, for example there was an 18 year old muslim girl who was a member of the SWP in Britain and joined some government advisory group. She said something about being a muslim first and being attracted more to liberalism than socialism, her party had no problem with this.

LCR (now NPA) in France completely abandoned Trotskyism, Olivier Besancenot a few years ago said "I was never a Trotskyist" but their international publications for some reason continue to pay lip service to Trotskyism.

We also have; Parties that have abandoned the theory of permanent revolution, have perverted Trotsky's analysis of the soviet union, claiming it to be 'state capitalist,' unable to answer the simplest questions. I dont want to belabour the point, I think you understand what I mean.




There are obviously class roots to explain this phenomenon but this thread wasn't made to discuss them although of course you are more than free to. The point of the thread is for someone to aware me of any party that appears to truly be a Trotskyist party. Maybe an obscure party in Japan or something? In a country that doesn't have ties to groups in the US or western Europe or publications in English. Or people who like me have a serious attitude toward theory, search for objective truth, respect the tradition of Trotskyism, and are confident in its ideas.

One thing I will not believe for a single second is that any of this degeneration, opportunism, revisionism and betrayal has anything to do with Trotsky himself. A man I consider to be the foremost revolutionary strategist and greatest figure in the history of the struggle for the emancipation of man.

Sorry if I was all over the place, English is not my first language.


Thank you.

[Revolutionair]

At least there is one true Trotskyist left:

http://liveforfilms.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trotsky-3.jpg

[RedTrackWorker]

Or people who like me have a serious attitude toward theory, search for objective truth, respect the tradition of Trotskyism, and are confident in its ideas.

One thing I will not believe for a single second is that any of this degeneration, opportunism, revisionism and betrayal has anything to do with Trotsky himself. A man I consider to be the foremost revolutionary strategist and greatest figure in the history of the struggle for the emancipation of man.

I agree with you that "Trotskyism" as it exists today is fucked up and that it's degeneration is not because of the ideas Trotsky fought for but in contradiction to them.

I would be interested to hear your criticisms of the League for the Revolutionary Party. You make a reference to state capitalist theories: "have perverted Trotsky's analysis of the soviet union, claiming it to be 'state capitalist.'" While we have a theory akin to the various state capitalist theories, we see it as fundamentally different and in continuity with Trotsky's method. I know that's easy to say but we did write many articles and a book (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/index.html)investigating the topic. The introduction (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/intro.html) is also a summary of sorts dealing with the various theories.

The question of state capitalism aside, I do hope it's clear to those familiar with our work that we have a "serious attitude toward theory, search for objective truth, respect the tradition of Trotskyism, and are confident in its ideas". I think you can find several on the left who have fundamental political disagreements with us but would back that up.

If you're not familiar with the LRP's work at all, while the question of what happened to the Russian revolution is still important, I'd suggest you check out our open letter to the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt (Cliffities): http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/letter_rse_020911.html. That would be a good test case to judge whether we appear to be taking up Trotsky's principles and strategies for revolution in a living revolution today (as argued against a group that claims to be Trotskyist as well).

On the question of the class basis for the degeneration, we take that up in Stalinist Expansion, the Fourth International and the Working Class (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/FIPR64.html) (and I think in the book as well)--I'd be interested in various people's feedback on that as well.

I particularly agreed with your first point:

He calls the Chinese revolution the second greatest event in all of human history, but because it wasn't a workers revolution it lead to a 'deformed workers state' Is this guy serious? If a workers state, 'deformed' but a workers state none the less, can come into being without a workers revolution, or without a workers party, then Trotskyism needs to be thrown out the window. Many Trotskyist parties are filled with these kind of 'theorists'

From the Stalinist Expansion article:

Cannon had been right in pointing to the extensive revisionist consequences of the new "deformed workers' state" theory. Among those Marxist fundamentals which had been necessary to revise were:

1. That only the working class can make the socialist revolution, i.e., establish a proletarian dictatorship, a workers' state.
2. That socialist revolution can only occur when the proletariat is led by its most conscious advanced sector, organized into a Bolshevik-Leninist vanguard party. Proletarian class consciousness is the key element.

And your point on a principled opposition to imperialism: "This goes for many other ostensibly Trotskyist groups who are always looking for some third world satrap to drop a few left phrases so they can throw their unconditional support behind him." A clear sign of the Fourth International's degeneration was when it invited Tito to join it--that was a sign they were looking to forces outside the working class to make a revolution.

[Q]

I don't think that there are any "truly" Trotskyist formations left, in the sense as if this was 1938. Why? Because this isn't 1938. The world has changed dramatically since and if there really would be groups left holding the literal positions of Trotsky, they would be hopelesly out of touch with reality.

Furthermore, while Trotsky surely did important work in his day in both a theoretical and practical sense, I don't think communists should be in the business of "great (wo)men", "great teachers" and the like. Such onesided view will inevitably lead to misunderstanding the context these people worked in and therefore becoming a caricature. Indeed, such a cult of personality has more to do with religion than communist politics.

But if you fancy your "trotskyer than thou" attitude, have a pick in this extensive list for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trotskyist_internationals).

[wunderbar]

I'm not particularly enamored with this group and wouldn't really recommend them, but since you asked, the Socialist Equality Party seems to fit most of your specifications. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about them, but they're the party behind World Socialist Web Site and their overall views (especially regarding identity politics and China/Che Guevara/imperialism) seem to line up with yours. Keep in mind this is also a party that has been accused of being a political cult. That said, WSWS does have some good news articles and analysis if you look past the fierce sectarianism.

[graymouser]

The premises of this question are false. Trotskyism isn't a series of ossified positions, taking the analysis Trotsky did in the '30s and stopping there - because it would be impossible to go forward at all. The perspective he developed before World War II was one explicitly for the war, and the world has changed beyond recognition in the 70 years since his death.

Historically the "deformed workers state" position was developed by the Fourth International in the years after World War II. The main currents that rejected it were the Cliff tendency, which developed the theory of state capitalism in response, and the French Lutte Ouvrière, which considered all of these states capitalist but kept to Trotsky's degenerated workers state analysis of the USSR. Pretty much all of the other orthodox tendencies consider the Eastern European states, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and maybe one or two others to have been workers states at some point. The tiny League for the Fifth International uses the term "degenerated workers state" for them, for some historical reasons. Some currents, such as the one I belong to, don't consider Cuba to be deformed in the same sense as Yugoslavia, China et al, never having had a Stalinist bureaucracy in the same sense that the USSR did.

For what it's worth, the deformed workers state position is built solidly off of Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism. Trotsky saw it as possible that the USSR would do away with capitalism in Poland and that this would be historically progressive even though the working class did not do it themselves. The analysis of eastern Europe, China and so on was based on this position.

The politics you're talking about are probably closest to those of LO. The so-called "orthotrot" groups - the Northites of the SEP, the Spartacists and their like - all come fairly close but they consider Mao's China to have been a deformed workers state. All these groups are rabidly against "identity politics," meaning that they are downright awful on questions of special oppression - but that seems to be what you're looking for.

[CesareBorgia]

I agree with you that "Trotskyism" as it exists today is fucked up and that it's degeneration is not because of the ideas Trotsky fought for but in contradiction to them.

I would be interested to hear your criticisms of the League for the Revolutionary Party. You make a reference to state capitalist theories: "have perverted Trotsky's analysis of the soviet union, claiming it to be 'state capitalist.'" While we have a theory akin to the various state capitalist theories, we see it as fundamentally different and in continuity with Trotsky's method. I know that's easy to say but we did write many articles and a book (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/index.html)investigating the topic. The introduction (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/intro.html) is also a summary of sorts dealing with the various theories.

The question of state capitalism aside, I do hope it's clear to those familiar with our work that we have a "serious attitude toward theory, search for objective truth, respect the tradition of Trotskyism, and are confident in its ideas". I think you can find several on the left who have fundamental political disagreements with us but would back that up.

If you're not familiar with the LRP's work at all, while the question of what happened to the Russian revolution is still important, I'd suggest you check out our open letter to the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt (Cliffities): http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/letter_rse_020911.html. That would be a good test case to judge whether we appear to be taking up Trotsky's principles and strategies for revolution in a living revolution today (as argued against a group that claims to be Trotskyist as well).

On the question of the class basis for the degeneration, we take that up in Stalinist Expansion, the Fourth International and the Working Class (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/FIPR64.html) (and I think in the book as well)--I'd be interested in various people's feedback on that as well.

I particularly agreed with your first point:


From the Stalinist Expansion article:


And your point on a principled opposition to imperialism: "This goes for many other ostensibly Trotskyist groups who are always looking for some third world satrap to drop a few left phrases so they can throw their unconditional support behind him." A clear sign of the Fourth International's degeneration was when it invited Tito to join it--that was a sign they were looking to forces outside the working class to make a revolution.


Thanks, I will try to read this today and get back to you.


I'm not particularly enamored with this group and wouldn't really recommend them, but since you asked, the Socialist Equality Party seems to fit most of your specifications. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about them, but they're the party behind World Socialist Web Site and their overall views (especially regarding identity politics and China/Che Guevara/imperialism) seem to line up with yours. Keep in mind this is also a party that has been accused of being a political cult. That said, WSWS does have some good news articles and analysis if you look past the fierce sectarianism.

Yes, I am aware of this group and have some problems with it.


The premises of this question are false. Trotskyism isn't a series of ossified positions, taking the analysis Trotsky did in the '30s and stopping there - because it would be impossible to go forward at all. The perspective he developed before World War II was one explicitly for the war, and the world has changed beyond recognition in the 70 years since his death.

Historically the "deformed workers state" position was developed by the Fourth International in the years after World War II. The main currents that rejected it were the Cliff tendency, which developed the theory of state capitalism in response, and the French Lutte Ouvrière, which considered all of these states capitalist but kept to Trotsky's degenerated workers state analysis of the USSR. Pretty much all of the other orthodox tendencies consider the Eastern European states, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and maybe one or two others to have been workers states at some point. The tiny League for the Fifth International uses the term "degenerated workers state" for them, for some historical reasons. Some currents, such as the one I belong to, don't consider Cuba to be deformed in the same sense as Yugoslavia, China et al, never having had a Stalinist bureaucracy in the same sense that the USSR did.

For what it's worth, the deformed workers state position is built solidly off of Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism. Trotsky saw it as possible that the USSR would do away with capitalism in Poland and that this would be historically progressive even though the working class did not do it themselves. The analysis of eastern Europe, China and so on was based on this position.

The politics you're talking about are probably closest to those of LO. The so-called "orthotrot" groups - the Northites of the SEP, the Spartacists and their like - all come fairly close but they consider Mao's China to have been a deformed workers state. All these groups are rabidly against "identity politics," meaning that they are downright awful on questions of special oppression - but that seems to be what you're looking for.

Interesting post, thank you for contributing.

[Kassad]

Spartacist League for sure. Trotsky loved little boys, thus why they're fans of NAMBLA. Get with it.

[Property Is Robbery]

Trotsky loved little boys, thus why they're fans of NAMBLA.
Seriously? :blushing:

[Q]

Seriously? :blushing:

No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)).

[graymouser]

Spartacist League for sure. Trotsky loved little boys, thus why they're fans of NAMBLA. Get with it.
Meh. The Sparts were the only Trots who were with you guys supporting the attacks against Solidarność in the early '80s - one of their many steps away from authentic Trotskyism. While it's the most sensationalistic of their ridiculous positions, there are a lot of other reasons why you can't consider them to be Trotskyist in any meaningful way. For the Sparts, Trotsky only matters when they can quote-mine him against other leftists.

[RED DAVE]

For what it's worth, the deformed workers state position is built solidly off of Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism. Trotsky saw it as possible that the USSR would do away with capitalism in Poland and that this would be historically progressive even though the working class did not do it themselves. The analysis of eastern Europe, China and so on was based on this position.And it was dead wrong from the beginning.

RED DAVE

[caramelpence]

Spartacist League for sure. Trotsky loved little boys, thus why they're fans of NAMBLA. Get with it.

Defending NAMBLA against the state strikes me as a progressive and legitimate position compared to cheering the Tiananmen crackdown on the grounds that China is socialist. Also, judging by their publications alone, the average Spartacist cadre is miles above the PSL in theoretical terms, given the quality of the PSL's analysis.

[Book O'Dead]

The question ought to be, I think, do we really need a Trotskyist party?

[Geiseric]

Wow I never noticed how many Trotskyist internationals there were. I'm in ICR, and so far I agree with their theory. Check it out if you want, this is my branch's website. http://www.socialistorganizer.org

[KC]

Spartacist League for sure. Trotsky loved little boys, thus why they're fans of NAMBLA. Get with it.

This is the most indepth, cogent analysis I have ever seen from you. I wish I could kiss you.

BTW, the question the OP should really be asking is, "What is Trotskyism today, and how does it differ from other Marxian 'strains'?" The answer generally comes out to be its interpretation of Marxian imperialism theory and its answers on organizational questions.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

@Red Track Worker

I have read "The Life and Death of Stalinism and The Rebirth of Marxism" by Walter Daum. Its extremely good and I recommend it. Although I do not believe in a state capitalist theory, Daum's view is the most interesting and sophisticated version of SC that I've seen.I've thumbed though his other stuff on the LRP site, it looks interesting.

A few questions-is it true that LRP is confined to the NYC area? As I understand LRP evolved out of one of Hal Draper's Socialist Clubs? How and when did it diverge from what became ISO/Solidarity? How would LRP see themselves in relation to other Trotskyist organizations? I have heard LRP accused of being "ultra-left" but I am not very knowledgeable (outside of the Daum books) of their politics.

[Android]

RedTrackWorker will no doubt be able to add more:


A few questions-is it true that LRP is confined to the NYC area? As I understand LRP evolved out of one of Hal Draper's Socialist Clubs? How and when did it diverge from what became ISO/Solidarity? How would LRP see themselves in relation to other Trotskyist organizations? I have heard LRP accused of being "ultra-left" but I am not very knowledgeable (outside of the Daum books) of their politics.

I think the LRP also has a branch in Chicago. They have been covering the going-ons in the Teachers union there, challenging the role of the ISO it seems from the reports.

Not sure of the LRP history before the Revolutionary Socialist League, which they were in briefly. I think they left over the issue of advocacy of a Labour Party versus a Revolutionary Party. In fact, I think there faction was called the Revolutionary Party Tendency or something similar.

'The Struggle for the Revolutionary Party' (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/party.html) that appeared in the first issue of their then magazine Socialist Voice, describes from their perspective the origins of the split with the RSL and their emergence as the LRP

[RED DAVE]

A few questions-is it true that LRP is confined to the NYC area?Largely.


As I understand LRP evolved out of one of Hal Draper's Socialist Clubs?There were no "Hal Draper Socialist Clubs." There was the IS (International Socialists) from which Draper split to the right in, as I recall, 1971. Draper split just as the IS was beginning its program of "industrialization," which meant that the IS's largely middle-class membership "went into the shops."


How and when did it diverge from what became ISO/Solidarity?What is now the LRP split from the IS several years before the split that eventually produced the IS and Solidarity. I don't remember the exact year.

RED DAVE

[Dave B]

I think Trotsky’s idea was, in effect, to introduce state capitalism after the overthrow of feudalism in a backward country.

Although because in his;


“own opinion this term is neither exact nor happy”


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/20.htm


He preferred to call it a permanent revolution, or a workers state.

Calling a spade a spade, like Mao did, the ‘permanent revolution’ was in fact the permanent evolutionary reform of state capitalism to socialism.

So much so that a Bernsteinist in state capitalism was a Trotskyist, and a Maoist.

And a Trotskyist and Maoist in state capitalism was a Bernsteinist.

Or in other words a Blanquist in power, starting off from the “unhappy” position of state capitalism, or the happy one as Mao would have it, would be initially a Bernsteinist with the noble objective to reform state capitalism.

But we all know what happens when reformists enter into the ‘marble halls of power’ to reform (state) capitalism.


From the missing and last chapter of ‘Our Political Tasks’ by Leon from 1904

A Dictatorship Over The Proletariat



In our party the opinion prevails that on this question as well as on the other questions of socialism, there exists, in addition to the Marxian (“orthodox”) point of view, only the point of view of reformist opportunism (or Bernsteinism). This is not true. There is also a third point of view: Blanquist opportunism. Our “orthodoxians” do not suspect or fear this latter heresy. Yet it stands in many respects nearer to us than Bernsteinism…

And from the same with Leon the Menshevik accusing Bolsheviks of Blanquism;


Thus we have charged our Ural Comrades with Blanquism. And we recalled at once that it is Bernstein who also charges the revolutionary social democrats with Blanquism. This is entirely sufficient to get the people from the Urals classed as revolutionary social democrats, and ourselves as Bernsteinians.

That is why we consider it highly useful to quote Engels on the question of the role which the Blanquists ascribe to themselves at the moment of the socialist revolution.

“Trained in the conspiratorial school, accustomed to the strict discipline required in a conspiracy, they acted on the view that a relatively small number of determined and well organised people may, under favourable circumstances, not only capture the power, but through the application of powerful merciless energy maintain it until they succeed in rallying to the revolution the masses of the people and grouping them around the small handful of leaders. This requires, above all, the strictest dictatorial centralization of power in the hands of the new government.”

(Marx “The Civil War in France”, Engels’ Preface to the third German Edition).

[Chimurenga.]

Meh. The Sparts were the only Trots who were with you guys supporting the attacks against Solidarność in the early '80s

Oh really? Along with the Sparts open support for the PDPA, this makes me have a little more respect for them. Not too much though.


Defending NAMBLA against the state strikes me as a progressive and legitimate position compared to cheering the Tiananmen crackdown on the grounds that China is socialist.

Openly supporting pedophiles is more progressive than having an objective analysis of an event that is widely sensationalized? Really?


Also, judging by their publications alone, the average Spartacist cadre is miles above the PSL in theoretical terms, given the quality of the PSL's analysis.

You mean, aside from their sectarian polemics against other organizations, right?

[Ned Kelly]

Since when is supporting kiddie-fiddlers correct leninism?

[caramelpence]

Openly supporting pedophiles is more progressive than having an objective analysis of an event that is widely sensationalized? Really?

The ICL-FI don't "openly" support pedophiles except insofar as call for sexual relations to be conducted on the basis of mutual consent rather than on the basis of what the capitalist state finds compatible with its puritanical moral standards - maybe you'd disagree about whether inter-generational sex can ever occur on a genuinely consensual basis and what the exact definition of pedophilia is, but the premise of the ICL-FI, namely that we should fight against the repressive anti-sex legislation of bourgeois states, is an entirely correct one, and in that context it makes sense that they would also support the right of organizations like NAMBLA to explore issues of sexuality and sexual consent as long as they do not threaten the autonomy of other individuals (especially minors) in the course of doing so. I find their concrete demand - for the abolition of laws that enforce an age of consent - to also be an entirely correct demand. As for Tiananmen, there have already been several threads recently and you are welcome to pick up on the points I've raised there, as they were not meaningfully responded to by any PSL members or other supporters of the Chinese government. For now I'll simply make clear that your organization hasn't put forward an analysis, let alone an objective one, because your articles on Tiananmen consist of attempts to point to a small amount of evidence (i.e. a few choice quotes from a couple of alleged student leaders) in the hope that the evidence will speak for itself and provide a sufficient basis for dismissing a complex and evolving protest movement.


You mean, aside from their sectarian polemics against other organizations, right?

This is a perfect example of how most people on this site don't understand the meaning of sectarianism. It is not sectarian to pose sharp criticisms of other organizations. Quite the opposite, it is the duty of communists to expose other political forces. I don't agree with the entire substance of the ICL-FI's polemics because I'm not an orthodox Trotskyist and I don't always appreciate their tone either, but there is nothing wrong about vigorous critique, and, in any case, the PSL's tone is a lot worse or just as bad, in that it consists of shouting "reactionary!" over and over again in the absence of an actual argument, whereas the ICL-FI at least support their condemnations with evidence and analysis.

[RedTrackWorker]

I have read "The Life and Death of Stalinism and The Rebirth of Marxism" by Walter Daum. Its extremely good and I recommend it. Although I do not believe in a state capitalist theory, Daum's view is the most interesting and sophisticated version of SC that I've seen.I've thumbed though his other stuff on the LRP site, it looks interesting.

Glad to hear you liked it. At another point, I'd like to hear what wasn't convincing. I've thought for a while revleft could use some more focused discussions/debates on particular issues.


A few questions-is it true that LRP is confined to the NYC area? As I understand LRP evolved out of one of Hal Draper's Socialist Clubs? How and when did it diverge from what became ISO/Solidarity? How would LRP see themselves in relation to other Trotskyist organizations? I have heard LRP accused of being "ultra-left" but I am not very knowledgeable (outside of the Daum books) of their politics.

Our largest group is in NYC. We have comrades in Chicago. We're working closely with the ISL in Israel/Occupied Palestine and are on the road to joining in a common organization (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/lrp-isl_100809.html). If you look at letters from readers (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/index.html), you'll see letters from Ireland, Britain and Spain that reflect comrades coming to our politics in different ways. But on the whole we're organizationally tiny.

Briefly on our organizational history, the RSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Socialist_League_(US)) and LRP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_the_Revolutionary_Party) wiki articles have a decent historical description. But of course what they don't get at is the political core that relates to your question on relation to other Trotskyist organizations: we don't claim the heritage of the IS. We see the split into the RSL as a class break (not the typical "majority organization was good but now the minority split carries on that good work") and we see virtually all the existing Trotskyist organizations as coming from a different class--see Twenty Years of the LRP (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/20YRS.html) for more on both splits and that concept. "Middle-class Marxism" is a political characterization, not merely sociological (see Middle-class Marxism (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/intro.html#g)).

On the "ultra-left", whether you disagree or not with our politics, I find it hard to see how any one could use that term as other than a slur when referring to our group. For instance, we run in union elections (and sometimes win (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/TWU100/trackdiv_election.html)) and have called for votes for union formations we don't control under specific conditions (see Put New Directions to the Test (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/TWU100/TWUcampaign.html)), things that I cannot imagine any actual "ultra-left" doing. There isn't a single protest or class-struggle event someone can point to that we stood aside from based on "leftist" criticisms of its impurity. Etc. But for groups that don't want to debate political differences to their left, it's a handy slur to throw around.

[RedSunRising]

Interesting stuff about middle class "Marxism"! Good stuff in the letters page also exposing the CWI!

[graymouser]

Oh really? Along with the Sparts open support for the PDPA, this makes me have a little more respect for them. Not too much though.
Yeah, the first time I ever ran into a Spart (they come down to Philly for anything related to Mumia) I spent about half an hour getting chewed out up and down because Socialist Action newspaper's banner was based on Solidarność's logo at the time. (It segued into a wide-ranging bashing of our politics, from Poland to Cuba.)


This is a perfect example of how most people on this site don't understand the meaning of sectarianism. It is not sectarian to pose sharp criticisms of other organizations. Quite the opposite, it is the duty of communists to expose other political forces. I don't agree with the entire substance of the ICL-FI's polemics because I'm not an orthodox Trotskyist and I don't always appreciate their tone either, but there is nothing wrong about vigorous critique, and, in any case, the PSL's tone is a lot worse or just as bad, in that it consists of shouting "reactionary!" over and over again in the absence of an actual argument, whereas the ICL-FI at least support their condemnations with evidence and analysis.
I would actually agree with you to some extent if the Spartacists were more honest and less disingenuous in their polemics. They distort opponent groups' positions to the point of dishonesty, for instance I remember clearly an article on the Venezuelan constitutional referendum a few years back that contained an extended rant that basically accused the Internationalist Group of Chavismo, when in fact their position was fairly principled. They can never have honest, principled polemics with other groups. It is generally one-sided trash talking, really.

But the Spartacists are really sectarian, in that they elevate a shibboleth ("defense" of Russia - through appropriate slogans of course - during the 1980s) as an absolute litmus test of all forces. And they act in an outright hostile way toward other groups, provoking confrontations and disrupting meetings, as well as trying to fish for their members. That is sectarianism, and frankly the Sparts thrive on it.

[graymouser]

On the "ultra-left", whether you disagree or not with our politics, I find it hard to see how any one could use that term as other than a slur when referring to our group. For instance, we run in union elections (and sometimes win (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/TWU100/trackdiv_election.html)) and have called for votes for union formations we don't control under specific conditions (see Put New Directions to the Test (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/TWU100/TWUcampaign.html)), things that I cannot imagine any actual "ultra-left" doing. There isn't a single protest or class-struggle event someone can point to that we stood aside from based on "leftist" criticisms of its impurity. Etc. But for groups that don't want to debate political differences to their left, it's a handy slur to throw around.
Personally I think the LRP's opposition to a Labor Party is the main position that skews toward the ultra-left. It's an attempt to jump over the whole concept of the workers needing to first break from the Democrats in a class-independent direction. And in previous debates we've had, you've gone back to the 1932 arguments Trotsky made - which were premised on the idea that the revolutionary party already existed in distorted form as the Communist Party.

But you do come off as sectarians, to be honest with you. Not nearly as bad as the Spartacists - who really are just trying to provoke people - but I was at an educational conference held by Solidarity last December, and a couple of your comrades were there and asked questions that were basically denunciations of Solidarity in the trade unions. Now, look - I've been in Soli, and left because it was an economist dead end. But I don't find it most helpful to go to their conference and denounce them over it. It's this "style" of politics, most associated with the Workers League/Socialist Equality Party and the Spartacist League, that gets people filed in the "ultra-left" category and ignored right quick. I'm sure you consider your position principled, and I understand that, but it doesn't create a space where you can have open, honest polemics on the left.

[RedTrackWorker]

Personally I think the LRP's opposition to a Labor Party is the main position that skews toward the ultra-left. It's an attempt to jump over the whole concept of the workers needing to first break from the Democrats in a class-independent direction.

Just to clarify, I was responding to the idea that our group is "ultra-left" in some general way--which I have never seen an argument that I consider honest. While I disagree on the labor party question in the U.S., I would not consider it dishonest if you said you considered it an ultra-left position. If you tried to say it meant our tendency was ultra-left, I would need to see much more argumentation.


But you do come off as sectarians, to be honest with you. Not nearly as bad as the Spartacists - who really are just trying to provoke people - but I was at an educational conference held by Solidarity last December, and a couple of your comrades were there and asked questions that were basically denunciations of Solidarity in the trade unions. Now, look - I've been in Soli, and left because it was an economist dead end. But I don't find it most helpful to go to their conference and denounce them over it. It's this "style" of politics, most associated with the Workers League/Socialist Equality Party and the Spartacist League, that gets people filed in the "ultra-left" category and ignored right quick. I'm sure you consider your position principled, and I understand that, but it doesn't create a space where you can have open, honest polemics on the left.

I want to separate two issues here:
1. Tone and means of expression.
2. "doesn't create a space where you can have open, honest polemics on the left".

On the first point: "you do come off as sectarians". What you present as evidence seems to me to be basically what I would call tone and means of expression (you use the term "style"). I would be surprised if myself and other LRP comrades never "came off" as sectarians--in good ways and in bad ways. In good ways because like all socialist groups now (even really crap ones), we're standing against a really strong current that has only started to change this year, and because within those socialist groups, we defend what we see as important principles against the current within the socialist movement. And in bad ways because confined to mostly literary work due to the low level of class struggle of the past decades, this "period of existence as a Marxist circle ingrafts, invariably, habits of an abstract approach to the problems of the workers’ movement" (Trotsky).

Let's grant that at the conference the LRP comrades' tone and means of expression denoted a certain "abstract approach." I don't see the jump to a lack of "open, honest polemics on the left." Perhaps this question should be a separate thread but let's look at the picture:
Solidarity has a prominent member well-placed in TWU Local 100. He is defending the union leadership who had just presided over a 1000 layoffs with only the barest attempt at "struggle" (months went by suppressing protests because they might upset "negotiations" and then protests were organized under the slogan "transit jobs are green jobs"--not "stop layoffs"--but more important they were for show--there was no serious mobilization). The union leadership is now asking people to rank stuff like "healthcare now, healthcare when you're retired, or wage increases" as part of its "contract survey." The Solidarity comrade--Steve Downs--is supporting this and saying he thinks the leadership wants to and will lead a good contract fight.

What attitude toward that is appropriate other than denunciation? How can one be an "open, honest" revolutionist--committed to the liberation of humanity and the advancement of the workers' interests--and not condemn such politics at the group's conference?

I want to see more "open, honest polemics on the left" but fail to see that the LRP's style--however problematic--is even worth a mention. When have we run from debate or censored anyone? When have we distorted an opponent's position? If a too-sectarian "style" from a tiny group is able to obstruct healthy debate, I think some subjective revolutionists need to grow a thicker skin--we're dealing with the overthrow of the most powerful ruling class in history and I for one am not going to stand aside from important debates because of a sectarian style on the part of others--which is virtually all that I encounter. I'm sure you saw the CTU/ISO thread for instance. Who is standing in the way of debate there?

So on the first point, I'd like to hear from you more concretely how you think the LRP could debate such politics in a way that doesn't appear as sectarian--perhaps PM would be best for that or perhaps another thread.

On the second point of obstructing "open, honest polemics," well, obviously I strongly disagree but want to learn and so want to push you to convince me.

[red flag over teeside]

While I think that Trotsky was one of the leading marxist theoretricians/activist of the Twentieth Century I do also think that his work especially post 1927 is riddled with inconsistencies. The tragedy of Trotsky is that for whatever reason he did not recognise the capitalist counter revolution that was taking place in the soviet union led by the Stalinist clique and as a result insisted upon defending the soviet union by developing the mistaken theory of degenerated workers state. This is one of the central theories that many trotskyist parties still adhere to and leads then into a whole series of mistaken judgements but also poor socialist politics.


Apart from the degenerated workers state theory trotsky also refused to see the counter revolution that was developing during the 1930's throughout the world. Revolution was never on the agenda yet trotsky and his supporters attempted to build an organisation based on a mistaken assumption. The best approach would have been to take a step back and learn the lessons of the post 1917 situation it's positive as well as negative features and use this as a tool in helping to develop a Marxist organisation once the counter revolutionary passed. For me the Italian Left was the only grouping who did this. This organisation building again is something that has passed to the myriad trotskyist groups with the outcome of burning out many young militants.


I think the way forward for many young and not so young militants who are interested in the writings of Trotsky and there are is still much to learn from Trotsky such as the theory of permanent revolution in the context of todays uprisings in the middle east also his writings on Britain during the late 1920's and through the 1930's is worth reading is to look for organisations that are prepared to discuss Trotsky not as a virtual saint but as a person of his times who made some serious and some not so serious blunders. One organisation I have come across is the CWO and is worth having a look on their webpage.

[graymouser]

Apart from the degenerated workers state theory trotsky also refused to see the counter revolution that was developing during the 1930's throughout the world. Revolution was never on the agenda yet trotsky and his supporters attempted to build an organisation based on a mistaken assumption. The best approach would have been to take a step back and learn the lessons of the post 1917 situation it's positive as well as negative features and use this as a tool in helping to develop a Marxist organisation once the counter revolutionary passed. For me the Italian Left was the only grouping who did this. This organisation building again is something that has passed to the myriad trotskyist groups with the outcome of burning out many young militants.
This is a bewilderingly wrong statement. There was dual power in Spain between July 1936 and May 1937, and several times in 1936-38 power lay in the streets of France. In both cases the Popular Front strategy meant stopping the European revolution cold in its tracks. After the war, pre-revolutionary situations existed in Greece, Italy and France that were turned down by the respective Stalinized Communist Parties. Things didn't deteriorate until after 1948 or so, and the ensuing lull only lasted until 1968.

For the most part, Trotskyist groups did have unrealistic viewpoints going into the 1950s, not seeing the scale of things having ended. However, many of them positioned themselves very well to grow in the late 60s and early 70s, and leave behind a layer of cadre who were trained in that period's radicalization. Since then it's been difficult to grow, but not so much because of ridiculous optimism as because the objective situations have been hard. This burns people out - Cannon talked about it in his History of American Trotskyism. Having a less "catastrophic" viewpoint doesn't change it much, honestly, you just get people who are very cynical.

[red flag over teeside]

The problem with greymousers interpretation of history it ignores that Stalinism by this period was counter revolutionary and was intent of defending the borders of the state capitalist regime that had been built on the bones of the russian working class.

[graymouser]

The problem with greymousers interpretation of history it ignores that Stalinism by this period was counter revolutionary and was intent of defending the borders of the state capitalist regime that had been built on the bones of the russian working class.
My interpretation of history denies that theories of "state capitalism" have any validity. But that's a quite different question.

But your complaint is wrong because Trotskyism considers that Stalinism was counter-revolutionary in Spain and France. Point blank. In Spain, the Stalinists and social democrats propped up the Republic which meant ending the dual power situation that arose after July 17, 1936 in favor of the bourgeoisie. Similarly, during mass anti-fascist demonstrations in France in the late '30s, the power was really in the streets at key moments but Stalinists and social democrats did not grab it. Trotsky wrote extensively on these, and on Spain, Felix Morrow wrote Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain which makes all of this quite clear.

[red flag over teeside]

Problem was that Trotsky while seeing Stalinism as counter revolutionary did not, for whatever reason, draw the conclusion that the situation itself was counter revolutionary. The working class across Europe had since the mid 1920's experienced a series of defeats from the 1926 general strike in Britain to China 1927 to Germany 1933 each of these defeats had an impact on not only the class confidence oof Europaen workers but also the working class in Russia. These material conditions combined with the low llevel of class coonfidence meant that it was impossiblle for workers to seize power as the first step to building a socialist world. In fact at the time Victor Serge pointed out to Trotsky that the events in France during 1935 did not mean that French workers were revolutionary rather Serge saw these events as the first step in workers becoming more class confidant.

The counter revolutionary nature of the period can also be seen in the marginalisation of the fourth international. If it was a revolutionary period then workers would have joined the fourth more readily rather than remain in either the social democratic orgaiisations or the Stalinist organisations. In fact the French turn was a desperate gamble, which failed, by Trotsky to grow the fourth international.

[graymouser]

Trotsky's analysis was that in 1938 the crisis was of leadership. The Trotskyists had just seen the workers rise up and expropriate factories in Barcelona, only to be let down by their leaderships, whether social democratic, Stalinist, centrist or anarchist. The Spanish revolution had a dynamic that could have led to a full-blown socialist revolution, and France sat in a pre-revolutionary situation multiple times, but the leadership failed them.

As for the French Turn, it was based on the fact that the SFIO was recruiting workers in mass numbers and the Trotskyists were marginal. It was a correct policy given the section's position - and remains a correct and useful way to build a party. (The French Turn ironically ran into problems in France but was a major success in the United States.)

[red flag over teeside]

The problem for Trotsky and all Trotskyist parties that have emerged since the 1930's is that to argue that the reason the working class has never taken political power is due to a crisis of leadership is that it does not really explain anything. The reason why the working class has never developed a revolutionary leadership apart from Russia in 1917 is due I think to the difficulty of there not existing a revolutionary situation. From 1923 onwards the working class across the globe were defeated which did have an impact on the most class conscious workers. These defeats led to the class conscious workers becoming marginalised from the rest of the class and led to a certain level of demoralisation. Those who remained active became increasingly absorbed into the Stalinist beaurocracy of their respective CP's. Such a process can be seen in James Cannons book on American Trotskyism where he managed to get out of his swivel chair.

I do think Trotsky was a great leader both theoretically as well as practically but I also think his reasoning was flawed the longer the international revolution was delayed.

[Coach Trotsky]

I think the chief problem has been the crisis of leadership, and that is even be expressed right here in this thread, where red flag over teeside basically argues that the conscious subjective forces factor for barely anything and the objective conditions are our masters and the course of history are headed along is almost like Calvinist predestination.

What's up with so much of the Left using objective conditions as and EXCUSE for their sellouts, for their cowardice, for their lacking in confidence in the ability of the working class to resolve society's problems? You know what I really think it came down to? The big Left misleaderships in the workers' movement didn't want a revolution. And the character, composition, outlook, policies, and practices of most of the Left reflect the fact that the misleaderships at the head of the working class didn't want the workers and oppressed making socialist revolutions! It's those goddamn Left misleadership which weren't ripe, and yet they turn and "blame the people" whom they are supposed to be advancing and leading, and they blame "objective conditions" as if they don't have any earthly means of changing objective circumstances in this world in the 20th and 21st Centuries! Somebody call Penn and Teller, because this bullshit needs to be called out!

From the 11th Thesis on Feuerbach through to Trotsky's Transitional Program (1938), clearly it has been understood in Marxism that the subjective forces matter, that the decisions and actions of the leaders matter. But there has also, unfortunately, been an interpretation of Marxism that treats it as if objective conditions was akin to some sort of unchangeable Calvinist predestination as determined by some mysterious force above that must be pretty angry with the proletariat at this point. 'Oh whoa is us, we can do nothing but wait, get up close to the big Left misleaderships, hold their hands and play see-no-evil/hear-no-evil/speak-no-evil unprincipled uncritical political games with them, kiss their buttocks, blame the workers for their backwardness and cowardice, and stand on the sidelines like a bunch of frustrated chump losers peddling pathetic propaganda which actually shows that we have no friggin idea how to use the general strategy and tactical approaches and method of the Transitional Program as a revolutionary socialist in real life (and if we do know, we damn sure don't want to bring the heat down upon us for attempting it...better to be middle class Leftist careerists who accept these terrible objective conditions and makes do in the most comfortable manner possibl for ourselves, the needs of the working class be damned'. You know that's basically the state of the vast majority of the Left today! Are you really powerless to do anything about it? Or is it more that you don't dare actually do the things necessary to effectively intervene and change the objective conditions (including the great problem we face in the crisis of leadership)? 'But we are small...' And thus the beginning of the resolution of the crisis of proletarian revolutionary socialist leadership falls on those of you who do grasp the need (ahem, that means you, 'Trotskyists'). There isn't a God above going to save you and there isn't a Devil below holding you back. Get that sort of "we can't" mentality out of your heads! Part of the needed regeneration of revolutionary socialists is a "yes we fuckin can" bold optimistic subjective interventionist outlook. Want to stop losing? Then stop thinking and acting like losers! Stop wanting to remain tiny fringe cult-sects, because that's what you're used to and because nobody feels threatened enough by such irrelevant sects to actually put up a real fight against you there. Nobody cares about your little fringe cult-sects, except other cannabilistic Left fringe cult-sects (who are probably the bulk of the folks who purchase your propaganda offerings!) Do you see this pathetic "boo hoo, we can't" loser attitude and outlook in Trotsky's early Forth International Transitional Program? Do you really understand what you have right in your hands with that Transitional Program? If so, then stop acting like you've been 'left behind'. And if you know of others who also realize what they have in the Transitional Program, and who seriously want to advance the struggle for a proletarian revolution to overthrow capitalism and build socialist society, then you need to start working with those people and start regrouping such forces on THAT basis!

[Tower of Bebel]

I think the chief problem has been the crisis of leadership, and that is even be expressed right here in this thread, where red flag over teeside basically argues that the conscious subjective forces factor for barely anything and the objective conditions are our masters and the course of history are headed along is almost like Calvinist predestination.

[...] You know what I really think it came down to? The big Left misleaderships in the workers' movement didn't want a revolution. And the character, composition, outlook, policies, and practices of most of the Left reflect the fact that the misleaderships at the head of the working class didn't want the workers and oppressed making socialist revolutions! It's those goddamn Left misleadership which weren't ripe, and yet they turn and "blame the people" whom they are supposed to be advancing and leading, and they blame "objective conditions" as if they don't have any earthly means of changing objective circumstances in this world in the 20th and 21st Centuries! Somebody call Penn and Teller, because this bullshit needs to be called out!

From the 11th Thesis on Feuerbach through to Trotsky's Transitional Program (1938), clearly it has been understood in Marxism that the subjective forces matter, that the decisions and actions of the leaders matter. But there has also, unfortunately, been an interpretation of Marxism that treats it as if objective conditions was akin to some sort of unchangeable Calvinist predestination as determined by some mysterious force above that must be pretty angry with the proletariat at this point.You know, there is no clear distinction between the objective and the subjective. (I'm partially quoting gilhyle here, who made some clarifying contributions in the past.) Trotsky's method and reasoning arose at a point in time when it was possible, in the short term, to characterise the gap to be leaped as a subjective one, as a failure of leadership. At the time, such was "the balance of objective and subjective forces" that this was true - conjuncturally. But it ceased to be true as the series of defeats of the 1930s and 1940s accumulated.

The gap to be passed over became again over time both an objective and a subjective gap. As this difference accumulated, the political situation ceased to be a matter of seizing the leadership of a class which was on the verge of revolution - as it had been in the 1920s. In the wake of the major defeats of the working class between 1978 and 1991 under the leadership of Thatcher and Reagan the objective reality changed its constitution. In particular, the return of prosperity to western europe reinstated objective material interests in the avoidance of revolution.

Characterising the current situation (or any situation since Trotsky's "Transitional Programme" 73 years ago) as one in which there is a crisis of leadership seems a bit out of place. There are a thousand or more "leaderships" on the globe - i.e. there are thousands of sects, "independent socialists" (like so many on revleft), and bureaucrats. And the working class is still in a stage of a patient search for "alternatives". Not alternative leaders but things that would help change the way of life of the working class in the immediate future (not the communist future nor the seizure of power by the working class i.e. socialism). Some resist, others try to flee.

[Coach Trotsky]

Yes, there are thousands of leaderships of various flavors, and damn near all of them are directly or indirectly serving the interests of the ruling class. Hardly any of them even try to advance anything akin to Trotsky's Transitional Program or apply the transitional method within it. I will agree that much of that has to do with the objective conditions (including the fact the much of the Left leaderships are from the petty bourgeoisie and 'labor aristocracy' layers of the working class). But, can we please admit the fact that most of these Leftist folks 'gave up' , adapted to the objective conditions, and basically settled for functioning as self-seeking misleader servants of the ruling class in the workers' movement because 'there is nothing we can do' and 'conditions aren't ripe'?

There are workers' rising up to fight back in many places in the world today, and what I seem to notice is that the problem is---just like Trotsky said---the crisis of leadership! Example: Egypt---obvious crisis of leadership! What happened: Misleaders of various sorts come in to lead and misdirect the fighting working people of Egypt! It ain't because these people didn't want to fight! They came out to fight! Where was their revolutionary leadership?

[DaringMehring]

I believe the most orthodox Trotskyist group and one that is deeply connected to the working class is the French Lutte Ouvriere http://www.lutte-ouvriere.org/?lang=fr

[Tower of Bebel]

Hardly any of them even try to advance anything akin to Trotsky's Transitional Program or apply the transitional method within it.

I will agree that much of that has to do with the objective conditions (including the fact the much of the Left leaderships are from the petty bourgeoisie and 'labor aristocracy' layers of the working class).

But, can we please admit the fact that most of these Leftist folks 'gave up' , adapted to the objective conditions, and basically settled for functioning as self-seeking misleader servants of the ruling class in the workers' movement because 'there is nothing we can do' and 'conditions aren't ripe'?

There are workers' rising up to fight back in many places in the world today, and what I seem to notice is that the problem is---just like Trotsky said---the crisis of leadership! Example:
You don't try to think outside the box comrade. You keep on referring back to Trotsky's analysis of 1938.


Egypt---obvious crisis of leadership! What happened: Misleaders of various sorts come in to lead and misdirect the fighting working people of Egypt! It ain't because these people didn't want to fight! They came out to fight! Where was their revolutionary leadership?
One of the problems is the lack of genuine, national workers' organisations. Isolated and small organisations create the kind of leadership that makes sectarian and utopian mistakes. The Egyptian workers' movement just had its first glimps of dailight after years of underground work. It is not simply a question of leadership, but also of experience and of typical Egyptian conditions.

The lack of political freedom and rights of association has weakened the workers' movement. But when workers' and youth revolted they were able to set up temporary organs in which, and with which, they start to propagate new ideas. Copies of Marx and other texts and pamphlets are now distributed freely for the first time. People are now collectively discussing politics. A few months earlier people thought society would never change.

You need to understand that such conditions should be dealt with in any marxist analysis. Simply repeating Trotsky's words does not bring you any closer to the revolution. I think there are Trotskyists in Egypt who distribute pamphlets that contain Trotsky's original method. Maybe even with specific programmatic ideas. But that does not mean the masses will rise up and join those revolutionary elements.

There are indeed misleaders and bureaucrats within and outside of the workers' movement. But its not a question of capturing leaderships nor of setting up an alternative "leadership" (whose leadership?). We should ask ourselves the question how to advance the elementary, spontanious organs of the working class and how to connect them in one national movement.

Only such a movement could provide the leadership Egyptian workers' need. Because it would represent the interest of the whole working class, and it could combine the experience of the best militant fighters. Indeed, this process and approach would be more frutefull than a dozen transtional programmes and a dozen do-gooders who think they are the real Trotskyist(s) (leaders).

[Coach Trotsky]

Excellent to hear what you've said about the Egyptian struggle. The ones who are going out the intervene in this struggle, and to engage and mobilize the masses for the conquest of power into the hands of the working people ARE providing leadership. Do they take active steps to:
"...help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat."?
Are they advancing mass action initiatives to the working class in that manner toward that revolutionary aim? If so, then they're providing a necessary revolutionary leadership in Egypt, and I want to get to know them! And the same goes for any revolutionary activists providing leadership in this manner anywhere else in the world.

I'm thinking outside the box: fuck the dead-end fake Left... all their trickery, all their betraying of the working class, all their unprincipled deals, all their maneuvers to get to be bureaucrats and bourgeois state politicians. I look at the dead-end fake Left today, and I see a bunch of assholes who are rationalizing and performing much the same basic services that fascism provided (and may indeed provide once again, thanks to these fake Left fuckwads failures and betrayals) to the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie plays both wings of the spectrum, both Left and Right, for the same aim...how can revolutionary socialists today not admit and come to terms and the logically necessary conclusions regarding this truth about the modern world?

How can misleaders posturing on the Left be "progressive"? I'm sick of hearing excuses about them and for them and what they have done. I'm sick of the working class getting betrayed again and again, and then all we hear is "well, guess we just have to suck it up and go with the lesser evil". HELL NO! Why is it that the people who say such bullshit almost always are the same ones trying to get in good with bourgeois liberals, with sellout union bureaucrats, and who are trying to get elected in bourgeois state elections?
Quo bono? Yes, this counter-revolutionary BS on the Left needs to get called out in front of the working people who are trying to fight back against the system. Who's doing it in a serious dynamic way to win the masses and mobilize a real mass militant working-class fightback against capitalism all the way to the necessary revolutionary conclusions?

[Coach Trotsky]

Can we get out of the business of tailing the enemy leaderships at the head of of almost all mass workers' organizations today?
No, why should we "go with the flow" with sellout misleaders in the unions? Why should we settle for enemy misleaderships at the head of the workers who misleading them at all times in damn near every way conceiveable? Why the hell doesn't hardly anyone anywhere speak up and make a freaking fight for consistently revolutionary socialist positions inside mass workers organizations and struggles?
Aren't you freaking sick of having no genuine consistent revolutionary socialist alternative that is working amongst the masses of workers and advancing their struggle action and consciousness nowadays?

And people say that the Transitional Program is old-time stuff. Well, where the hell is offered and applied an up-to-date developed advancement of that revolutionary socialist program with the whole of its general strategy, tactics, method and proletarian revolutionary essence still intact therein?
Don't dismiss the Transitional Program until you got something better to offer and apply...and forget trying to pimp some weak half-assed sellout defeatist reformist no-mass-militant-proletarian-struggle nonsense that might appeal to 'middle class' progressive trendies but needs to get a big middle finger of rejection from the 'nothing to lose' conscious fighting proletarians on the Revolutionary Left. If "strike" is a bad word in your eyes, screw you and the union bosses that you are sucking up to. Don't dare come to the workers looking to fight back and for solutions and tell them to "chill out, wait, vote in the elections, time's not right". Our class has been there and done that, how many times now? It's insane to keep doing the same shit with the same people leading and expect to get different results!
Guess what has hardly ever ACTUALLY been tried? Oh yeah, using the Transitional Program in a serious dynamic way! I wonder why?:rolleyes:
Read it (again), and you'll see why the dead-end fake-Left doesn't suggest such a program. It would mess up their uppity games, and rock the boat on their comfy status quo inside this system..it might even really ruin their careers! OMG! :mad:

[RedTrackWorker]

We should ask ourselves the question how to advance the elementary, spontanious organs of the working class and how to connect them in one national movement.

Only such a movement could provide the leadership Egyptian workers' need. Because it would represent the interest of the whole working class, and it could combine the experience of the best militant fighters. Indeed, this process and approach would be more frutefull than a dozen transtional programmes and a dozen do-gooders who think they are the real Trotskyist(s) (leaders).

No.

Organization without program is just that--an organization...which will loose. We're debating Trotsky's writings on the Spanish revolution on another thread. The workers of Catalonia went further than in perhaps any other revolution in making "organs of the working class and how to connect them in one national movement."

But in the absence of constructing a revolutionary party--an organization that fought for the historic interests of the working class in its liberation--they lost...despite this awesome movement that "combined the experience of the best militant fighters."

Your perspective for bigger and better organization is a trade union perspective, not a revolutionary perspective of how to change society. It's a shame such can be mentioned in the same breath with Trotsky.

The workers of Egypt and Tunisia need to extend their self-organization, yes. But they're also facing life-and-death questions of how to fight in the current struggle. The most far left parties in both countries are hamstringing that struggle, as I think the articles on the LRP website clearly show. Or do you think questions like how to deal with the army are not important in preventing a bloody counterrevolution? That they can just keep building organization and organization without regard to program and "do-gooders"?

When has that ever worked out for the struggle?

[Tower of Bebel]

As if what I said about Egypt would apply to any other situation (in history). That was the whole point of my previous posts: context. And you tell me where I wrote that programme and party can be overlooked. On top of that, the Spanish Revolution did not create genuine soviets. Which is, in the context of Spain, exactly the problem I have touched upon in my post on Egypt.

If I had the time I would have expanded my post to include a part on the need for a genuine democratic programme (the programme for the prepartion for power). A programme with principles and aims for both (inner) party organisation and the rest of society. But I don't have the time right now.


In 1931, at the beginning of the revolution, I wrote that I believed that it would not be advisable to begin with the slogan for soviets. During massive strikes, as in Russia in 1905, strike committees were built, but the workers didn't understand at that time this was the beginning of soviets. At present the word "soviet" signifies the Soviet government. The worker who is involved in a strike cannot understand what connection that has with a soviet. The Socialists and Anarchists would oppose it as the dictatorship of the proletariat. My opinion, therefore, was that it was necessary to create mass organizations but not to give them the name of "soviets", rather to name them "juntas", a traditional Spanish name, and not so concrete as "soviet". But instead an artificial organization was created, not representative of the wide masses, with delegates from the old organizations: Anarchists, three members, Socialists, three; and delegates from the CP and the POUM. And they imposed the same relationship in every town.

...

The revolution in its development sweeps away the old organizations, the old conservative partiesn and the trade unions. The new leadership in every plant, in every factory, is younger, more active, more couragious. The old organization becomes the greatest brake upon the revolution. It was absolutely necessary to build juntas - or we can call them soviets; we know what we mean - that's the only way to give the revolution a unified expression.

...

How can they [POUM] say that the workers didn't build soviets? They build committees everywhere and these committees took over industry. It was only a question of unifying these committees, of developing them, and that would have been the Soviet of Barcelona.
Note, I underlined "new leadership" because that the idea my posts were trying to touch upon.


Your perspective for bigger and better organization is a trade union perspective, not a revolutionary perspective of how to change society. "Your" cannot ignore that you don't know anything about my "perspective". I haven't developped it because that was not my intension. Someone who would agree with my "perspective" would know that by "bigger and better organization" I include the communist party.


Or do you think questions like how to deal with the army are not important in preventing a bloody counterrevolution?Rethorical questions are not my fancy. Again, If you knew me (instead of making inaccurate presumtions) you would have known how much I stress this vital question in any debate on the current revolts.


t's a shame such can be mentioned in the same breath with Trotsky.Your moral and mine.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think some people on the Left need to stop masturbating to the thought of old dead men and women and realize that not 1 person had every single answer.

[RedTrackWorker]

And you tell me where I wrote that programme and party can be overlooked.


Indeed, this process and approach would be more frutefull than a dozen transtional programmes and a dozen do-gooders who think they are the real Trotskyist(s) (leaders).

You try to alibi your position with Trotsky's writing on soviets in Spain. Tell me where Trotsky said that was the key problem and I'll eat my words. He said the key obstacle to the revolution was the centrist POUM. Politics first. The lack of soviets flowed from the problem of centrism. Not the other way around.

You have it: soviets then program and quote Trotsky agreeing on the need for soviets to back you up.

Perhaps you misspoke--say that then, not that I don't know you or the context or whatever. It's true I don't know you--so I'm going based on what you wrote in this thread--which is how these forums work.

[Tower of Bebel]

I know the centrist POUM (and the reformist socialists and the betrayal of the Stalinists, and the inertia of anarchists when confronted with the question of the DOTP) was key to Trotsky. It's also the central theme of the Transitional Programme. My first post also elaborates this: Trotsky charachterised the leap to be taken as mainly a subjective one. How and what kind of programme do we put forward to the masses?

Again, I write that conditions have changed since then. That's way I replied to Coach Trotsky. You may turn to the Spanish Revolution again, but it won't help us settle the discussion. Except if you think the situation is the same, of course.


It's true I don't know you--so I'm going based on what you wrote in this thread--which is how these forums work.
The thing is: what I wrote was not a perspective. It was not a genuine theoretical analysis out of which I could have drawn a genuine political conclusion. I don't think I'm in the right position to do that. I just don't like people using Trotsky words or his programme as if it is still 1938 (or 1937 for that matter). It doesn't add much to any discussion on the so called perspectives, nor is it something that could distinguish the real Trotskyist from the fake ones.

I wrote that people in Egypt are trying to develop and distribute a programme or anything of the same sort. And there are people who try to develop alternative centres of power - parties too. Not just old (semi-) maoist formations but also knew ones that have come mainly frome abroad, and that for the first time in ages.

But the Egyptian working class also needs to experience and test its powers. I referred to a general principle: the development of a workers' organisation on a national scale. I quoted Trotsky, not because of the soviets but because what he wrote about the development of an organisation of the class (and not just sections of the workers). Such an alternative centre of power could help the formation of new leaders. (Though I also agree that a party and its programme can have the same aim.)

Other general principles are f.e. the need for self-organisation and political organisation (with a political programme). This periode of experience can really be more important than a dozen transitional programmes written by people who repeat - again and again - that there is a crisis of leadership, or any other concepts they have borrowed from 1938.

Marx f.e. didn't write about the crisis of leadership. He wrote or participated in the writing of programmes for the working class. And even though he knew some programmes and some actions were riddled with the sectarian principles of self-proclaimed (bourgeois) leaders or radical sects, he not only used different words but also characterised the situation differently from the characterisation of the situation in 1938 (I know, he could hardly have done otherwise because you cannot copy the future).

Yet today many tend not to do that. They repeat and repeat as if there was nothing else than the old transitional programme. Anything they come across is characterised as a problem of "the subjective" factor - a crisis of leadership.

[Coach Trotsky]

Crisis of leadership---those who KNOW BETTER and COULD ACT TO ADVANCE STRUGGLE/CONSCIOUSNESS/ORGANIZING don't.

Hey, if you are merely a small bunch of revolutionary socialists, of course nobody expects you to lead the workers' revolution to victory in a day. But you ain't off the hook entirely, just on account of small size. There is no easy effective magic pill to make you get bigger (certainly not in a meaningful way over the long term). Just because you can't directly immediately recruit to a revolutionary vanguard org a mass of fighting workers engaged in struggle doesn't mean you can't do anything with them and that you have to 'wait' until objective conditions have beaten them to a pulp and thus sent SOME our way (they could indeed just as easily go the other way as a result, especially if they don't a serious rev Left activist leadership force unwaveringly fighting to win in the struggles that do occur).

What is the point of growing an ostensibly revolutionary vanguard org, and why should working people join it? Why would they join it? Because your org IS intervening with forces, mobilizing forces, providing the necessary leadership that's advancing workers' struggle, workers' consciousness, workers' organization, increases workers' actual power, and then points to the remaining course across a bridge to a needed workers' revolution and then draws all who will come across that bridge as far as they will go. Rinse and repeat till ya win.

If your group isn't doing that, it has nothing to do with size. It has to do instead with the dominant perspectives and reigning priorities and aspirations within these groups. You'll notice that the groups which don't do what I assert above tend to have the worst internal life, the most vulgar bureaucratic distortions of democratic centralism, and the largest gap between a few sect clique 'leaders' and their underdeveloped neglected rank-and-file membership...these groups resemble cults essentially. That is not Leninist democratic centralism, and surely it isn't being used in the service of actually advancing the aims of Leninism and Trotskyism. Don't forget what this is all about, comrades.

[Leftsolidarity]

There is no easy effective magic pill to make you get bigger

:laugh:

[bezdomni]

Is there a Trotskyist party that is actually Trotskyist?

There was one, but it split. ;)