any Youth ML organization I could join in the US? [Archive]

View Full Version : any Youth ML organization I could join in the US?

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 17:10

Is there any youth ML organization I could join here in the United States? Any recommendations? How old do you have to be to join on average?

The Man

8th July 2011, 17:12

I believe the Party for Socialism and Liberation has no age requirement.

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 17:43

what about joining the CPUSA? Is all the stuff about them allying with the democratic party true? are they a good party? what about their youth organization? is it any good?

Ocean Seal

8th July 2011, 17:57

what about joining the CPUSA? Is all the stuff about them allying with the democratic party true? are they a good party? what about their youth organization? is it any good?
Yes, its entirely true. To the extent where Sam Webb called Obama a people's advocate and endorsed him for president. So I would say no they aren't a good party and are almost entirely dominated by defeatists and social-democrats.

AmericanCommie421

8th July 2011, 18:16

what about joining the CPUSA? Is all the stuff about them allying with the democratic party true? are they a good party? what about their youth organization? is it any good?
I'm not a member of the CPUSA or the YCLUSA so it's pretty useless for me to comment and you should do some more research on the CPUSA and listen to other opinions. And you will definitly see them get some negative comments on this site. With that being said the CPUSA for national office for the past several years has supported the Democratic party. From my knowledge they support the Democrats to try and keep the Republicans from taking office. They do run local candidates sometimes and I believe one of there candidates got 48% of the vote in Cleveland in 2008. They also do activist work as well. From what I have heard they're the largest Communist party in the US and are growing. They're pretty good in my personal opinion and so are there youth organization from what I know of them even though they certainly have there problems. There paper and magazine are pretty good and they have interesting stuff by them that you can see on there websites. But, you should definitely listen to other opinions and do some more research on them yourself, as well as look at some other options you're interested in. Good luck and I hope you find a good organization that you like and that is right for you.

Hebrew Hammer

8th July 2011, 18:22

The Kasama project is pretty cool.

bietan jarrai

8th July 2011, 18:25

The CPUSA has aligned with the democrats several times; however I suggest you try to contact them and go to a few meetings/whatever as they seem like excellent people (even though they are pretty reformist, at least it looks like that to me); if you're not satisfied; I believe the RCP has a youth wing too, but they're maoist, the WWP I believe are leaned towards trotskyism; there's the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization, which is more anti-revisionist and Hoxhaist; the Party for Socialism and Liberation; the Socialist Action which is also Trotskyist; the Progressive Labour Party; the Ray O. Light (lol); the Socialist Equality Party, trotskyist; and the Socialist Workers Party, trotskyist.

I suggest you google the ones of your interest, see what they're about, and email them for more information. I feel like the one that attracts more people is the YCL, if you don't mind a bit of reformism, I'd say check it out, they really seem to get stuff done. Oh, and be careful about the maoists. Most of them are more occupied criticizing the left than imperialism and capitalism.

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 18:26

what about the PSL? I have no idea about age restrictions-looks like anyone can join(can someone clarify that?). It doesn't' seem like it has any youth organization though so...

I was thinking of forming a socialist youth organization which has nothing to dowith what I just said above. I was going to gradually introduce communistic ideas, using articles and whatnot to illustrate ideas/points such as walking with the comrades. Good/Bad idea?

Hebrew Hammer

8th July 2011, 18:30

what about the PSL? I have no idea about age restrictions-looks like anyone can join(can someone clarify that?). It doesn't' seem like it has any youth organization though so...

The PSL seems pretty alright, there is a lot of members here that you could PM and ask. I wouldn't figure they would have some age restriction but I'm not 100 on that.

I was thinking of forming a socialist youth organization which has nothing to dowith what I just said above. I was going to gradually introduce communistic ideas, using articles and whatnot to illustrate ideas/points such as walking with the comrades. Good/Bad idea?

You should check out pre-existing organizations first, that'd be cool. A reading circle would be cool but a new party/organization is something the left, doesn't really need, dig.

A Revolutionary Tool

8th July 2011, 18:37

L.A.P.

8th July 2011, 18:48

I'm 16 and I am in the process of joining the PSL right now. It's actually nothing like what a lot of the members on this board make it seem like; a sectarian anti-imperialist fundamentalist group.

A Revolutionary Tool

8th July 2011, 19:02

I'm 16 and I am in the process of joining the PSL right now. It's actually nothing like what a lot of the members on this board make it seem like; a sectarian anti-imperialist fundamentalist group.
That's what they want to believe! Next thing you know people are laughing at you like we do to people in the RCP and you're wondering "But what's wrong with my ridiculous sectarian anti-imperialist fundamentalism"?

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 22:45

I'm 17. Too bad the PSL doesn't have any branches where I live right now. And my bourgeois parents probably would not approve so what should I do? last time I told them I was reading Lenin they Flipped out and were "scared" that their son is a communist.

My mom and pop were like: "well we worked hard to live in a nice house and make lots of greens. Communism wants to take it all away. People in America are 'afraid it will happen again' I/we don't want my/our son to be a communist because it 'seems like a fringe movement'."

ReVoLuTiOnArYbUtGaNgStEr

8th July 2011, 22:49

Do not join a youth wing, they are pointless and the whole idea is patronising as fuck.

Ilyich

8th July 2011, 22:51

what about joining the CPUSA? Is all the stuff about them allying with the democratic party true? are they a good party? what about their youth organization? is it any good?

The CPUSA usually edorses the Democrats in the elections.

Ilyich

8th July 2011, 22:53

I'm 17. Too bad the PSL doesn't have any branches where I live right now. And my bourgeois parents probably would not approve so what should I do?

Hey, my mother is a liberal as well. She keeps trying to get me to join the Democratic Party.

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 23:01

ReVoLuTiOnArYbUtGaNgStEr

8th July 2011, 23:06

when I told my parents I wanted to get involved in politics, they kept trying to get me to join the republican party. When I told them I want to join a local communist party, they freaked the fuck out.

two worst things for your dad to hear.

1. Dad, ive been keeping this burried inside for so long but i need to tell you and be truthfull about myself and who I am, Dad, I am GAY.

2. Dad, ive been keeping this burried inside for so long but i need to tell you and be truthfull about myself and who I am, Dad, i am a COMMUNIST

No matter which one you are, in his eyes, your goin to hell:lol:

Be a gay Communist and He might agree to release you into your own custody . WIN.

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 23:28

That is exactly how it went.

Me: Mom, Dad, I think I'm a communist. I've been reading Marx and Lenin and they really speak to me. I think I want to get involved in the communist movement to liberate the oppressed American proletariat

Parents: What the he-...Son we pray for you. We hope you can turn from communism when you "grow older and realize life doesn't work that way." The worlds a complicated place, and well communism has failed. And hey wasn't Lenin that guy who told people to use violence? that is terrorism right?

bietan jarrai

9th July 2011, 00:03

A Revolutionary Tool

9th July 2011, 00:29

RedMarxist

9th July 2011, 00:33

You should have seen what my mom did when I told her I was an atheist. I got grounded and got everything taken away from me, couldn't even use the interwebz! So I just sat there all day reading communist literature because she doesn't know books like "The German Ideology" are about communism, hell she probably thought I was a fascist when I got it :laugh:

Oh I;ve been there. I told my mom I was an atheist too. She flipped and said she needs something to live for-which I think says something about her. I said how can one believe in something that one has no way of proving is even there?

her response: have faith son.

RedMarxist

9th July 2011, 00:39

Well I see a way around that; form a movement like "Movement for Student Unity", "Students for Palestine/Cuba/Venezuela (one of those or other country, Lybia would be the best right now i guess), "Antifascist Action (Your Town/County/whatever)", something of a leftist tendency, that would meet up like weekly or so at a cafe, the local library or something, because if every parent thinks like yours in your town chances are there aren't many communists around. So, organize and unite, stickers, stencils, spread it, make a blog or a website. This way you'll hopefully find lots of people who maybe are influenced by socialist and leninist ideas, this way you can talk to them and organize your own Socialist group, and who knows contact the PSL or other organisation of your liking and organize a branch for your town.

when i said im against Israel/want a Palestinian state my mom said I support genocide. she also said that God chose them to receive the land and that prophecy came true in 1948

Last time i said i was a communist to the girl who had a crush on me: read my post on terrorism ull know what i mean as mortified, and like 4 people i know got into a heated debate about communism not working blah blah blah!

as u can see, telling a girl your a communist is a great way to pick 'em up. :tt1:

"hey baby, im a communist. Wanna ride in my communistically pimped out sports car?"

bietan jarrai

9th July 2011, 00:50

Yeah well that's exactly why maybe you should start a group, another suggestion is "[Your Town] Against Racism"; I mean if anyone criticises the group they'll be taken as racist. So it's a good way to start. Fortunately no one in my family had problems getting through with the fact that I'm a leninist, they just had to swallow it cause they realized I was serious. :cool:

Yeah, well you could also form an Atheist association or group. Hell there are a lot of things you could use to meet people that may think like you. Good luck! By the way try contacting YCL and see if there is an active group in your town. Have you ever seen any leftist propaganda around? You don't have to join it but you could help them with activism. :)

RedMarxist

9th July 2011, 03:46

I see myself as a Leninist too. however, people tell me it[Leninism] is dead? your opinion?

what I want to do is spread my ideas through the group I'm already in. Bring up awareness of India and the Philippines, Greece, etc. but not be too obvious about it.

A Marxist Historian

9th July 2011, 04:37

Is there any youth ML organization I could join here in the United States? Any recommendations? How old do you have to be to join on average?

There is no shortage of left wing youth organizations in America, though not as many as there used to be giving the advancing age of the Sixties generation.

The question is what your politics are, once you've decided that it should not be difficult to find an organization to join.

If to you "ML" means Stalinism or Maoism as opposed to Trotskyism I have no recommendations for you. If you consider yourself a Trotskyist I certainly do, right there in my sig.

-M.H.-

A Revolutionary Tool

9th July 2011, 04:42

There is no shortage of left wing youth organizations in America, though not as many as there used to be giving the advancing age of the Sixties generation.

The question is what your politics are, once you've decided that it should not be difficult to find an organization to join.

If to you "ML" means Stalinism or Maoism as opposed to Trotskyism I have no recommendations for you. If you consider yourself a Trotskyist I certainly do, right there in my sig.

-M.H.-
M.H.?

bietan jarrai

9th July 2011, 13:49

M.H.?

Marxist Historian lol

I see myself as a Leninist too. however, people tell me it[Leninism] is dead? your opinion?
what I want to do is spread my ideas through the group I'm already in. Bring up awareness of India and the Philippines, Greece, etc. but not be too obvious about it.

Leninism is not dead. It will never be because leninism wasn't what you saw in the USSR, not after Lenin. What group are you already in? That's something you certainly can do.

RedMarxist

9th July 2011, 15:57

Tommy4ever

9th July 2011, 16:29

ML to me is not Stalinism nor Maoism, and it appalls me that people actually support Stalin, but not necessarily Mao.

Look, is ML dead?

secondly, I guess I'd support Trotsky if I knew more about him. What I do know seems pretty appealing. one little question: what was his stance on democracy? :confused:

Its hard to say that Marxist-Leninism is dead. The term is usually used to describe the ideology of the Soviet Union, atleast up to Stalin (if someone says they are 'Anti-Revisionist', they are a hardline Stalinist), sometimes further.

There are still M-L movements, up until 1991 they dwarfed the rest of the Left. Since then they have been in collapse and only in a few places survive with some influence (Greece and Portugal being some examples). So the idea is still alive, but the movement is dead or dying in most places around the world - especially the West and even more so in Eastern Europe.

Trotskism (in its original form) was considered by its adherents to be a 'purer' form of Leninism, uncorrupted by Stalinism. Check out some of Trotsky's writings on the Marxist Internet Archive if you want to disocover his views.

Trotsky called for greater democracy within the party if thats what your bolded question was about.

RedMarxist

9th July 2011, 16:32

so it is possible for the existence of democratic ML party's if what Trotsky said came true?

bietan jarrai

9th July 2011, 17:15

The movement is not dying, in Russia the KPRF still has lots of supporters and there are lots of marxist-leninist organizations. In Portugal (PCP) and Greece (KKE) the communist party resisted as marxist-leninist, while other parties such as in Spain (PCE) or France (PCF) betrayed communism and adhered to the reformist eurocommunist current. Trotskyism is also reformist which is why I reject it and I think Trotsky was a Menchevik. Lenin once said: "Under cover of ‘non-factionalism’ Trotsky is championing the interests of a group abroad which particularly lacks definite principles and has no basis in the working-class movement in Russia. All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless."
I suggest you read Trotsky but also read something on Trotsky and Trotskyism.

Tommy4ever

9th July 2011, 17:44

so it is possible for the existence of democratic ML party's if what Trotsky said came true?

I am not entirely sure what you are asking here. Basically, Trotsky called for the party members to have slightly more power and the party leadership slightly less (whether this matches up with his actual arguments is another story).

Proukunin

9th July 2011, 17:56

I told my parents I was a communist and they didn't really know what it was. When I told my mother what it actually was, she agreed with me. My dad supports unions also, but he's not a communist in any way lol.

A Marxist Historian

9th July 2011, 18:56

M.H.?

Er, no the sig, bu that thing in the upper right hand corner, where I describe myself as a "Spartacist sympathizer." There are the Spartacus Youth Clubs.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

9th July 2011, 19:08

ML to me is not Stalinism nor Maoism, and it appalls me that people actually support Stalin, but not necessarily Mao.

Look, is ML dead?

secondly, I guess I'd support Trotsky if I knew more about him. What I do know seems pretty appealing. one little question: what was his stance on democracy? :confused:

His fundamental criticism of Stalinism was the absence of working class democracy in the Soviet Union. He scientifically categorized the Soviet Union in his famous book The Revolution Betrayed as a bureaucratically-degenerated workers state.

On the other hand, Trotsky is a Leninist, and maintained the Leninist understanding that *bourgeois* democracy is a sham, just the best way for the capitalists to run things and fool the people, with elections determined by money.

Of course, People's China and Cuba and Vietnam came into existence after he died, so the various organizations calling themselves Trotskyist argued over how to characterize them.

The Spartacists, uniquely among all the many such groups (except for a couple of splitoffs from the Spartacists), always characterized all of them as equivalents of the bureaucratically-degenerated former Soviet Union. And still do, including China. But since they had never, in the Spartacist opinion, been democratic in the first place, but bureaucratically deformed from the getgo, the technical term employed is "deformed workers states." (Not original to them, but let's not go there just yet.)

This is the basic original reason why I prefer them to all the others.

-M.H.-

Commie73

9th July 2011, 19:14

what about joining the CPUSA? Is all the stuff about them allying with the democratic party true? are they a good party? what about their youth organization? is it any good?

You might want to check out the history of the CPUSA, especially around its response to WW2 and complete abandonment of class principles. Most notably within the AFofL unions it suspended the class war by having a no strike pact for the duration of the imperialist world war.

Anyway, wernt you a "proud council communist" like a week ago?

A Marxist Historian

9th July 2011, 19:17

I am not entirely sure what you are asking here. Basically, Trotsky called for the party members to have slightly more power and the party leadership slightly less (whether this matches up with his actual arguments is another story).

Not how I'd put it, to be sure.

He didn't limit himself to internal party democracy, he also wanted democracy within the unions, and within the workers' councils or Soviets. This is all in the Platform of the Left Opposition of the year 1927, the actual program of the left wing of the Soviet Communist Party, which included Trotsky and a bunch of other people too far from all of whom considered themselves Trotskyists.

On the party itself, all "ML" groups, Trotskyist or Stalinist or whatever, have a conception of party organization called "democratic centralism." Trotsky's opinion was that this was for real when Lenin and he were in charge, and not after Lenin died and Stalin took over. Stalinists have different opinions on this of course.

This conception was not only for the party, but for other working class organizations too, like unions and workers councils. As anybody who has ever been in an American union knows, democratic centralism would be a tremendous breath of fresh air, as just about all of them practice bureaucratic centralism at its worst.

-M.H.-

Spartacus.

9th July 2011, 19:21

Trotsky called for greater democracy within the party if thats what your bolded question was about.

He also called for massive purges inside the party already in 1921 and has advocated collectivisation and forced industrialisation way before Stalin did it. That certainly fits well in your definition of a "democrat". Trotsky became critical about Stalin's "tyranny" :rolleyes: only when he lost the power struggle inside the party. After that, being the greedy, power-hungry megalomaniac that he was, he set out to "criticise" the Soviet government and build an "alternative" to "Stalinism", founding a movement that at its peak had reportedly some 50 members and whose children even today continue to carry on the glorious legacy of Trotskyism...

Btw; Stalin and Zhdanov also called for greater democracy inside the party, which is nicely described in Getty's and Thurston's books, as well as the corelation between that and massive killings that swept the Soviet society in 1937.

Tommy4ever

9th July 2011, 19:30

He also called for massive purges inside the party already in 1921 and has advocated collectivisation and forced industrialisation way before Stalin did it. That certainly fits well in your definition of a "democrat". Trotsky became critical about Stalin's "tyranny" :rolleyes: only when he lost the power struggle inside the party. After that, being the greedy, power-hungry megalomaniac that he was, he set out to "criticise" the Soviet government and build an "alternative" to "Stalinism", founding a movement that at its peak had reportedly some 50 members and whose children even today continue to carry on the glorious legacy of Trotskyism...

Btw; Stalin and Zhdanov also called for greater democracy inside the party, which is nicely described in Getty's and Thurston's books, as well as the corelation between that and massive killings that swept the Soviet society in 1937.

I am aware of the history Comrade, and I noted that Trotsky's actions didn't necessarily support his calls for party democracy - but he did call for it (especially later).

Even during the 1930s he still supported the Soviet economic policies (he had been advocating them for years after all) so I'm not sure if that point was supposed to be part of your unveiling of the 'Trotskyist monster'. :rolleyes:

A Revolutionary Tool

9th July 2011, 19:32

Spartacus.

9th July 2011, 19:58

On the party itself, all "ML" groups, Trotskyist or Stalinist or whatever, have a conception of party organization called "democratic centralism." Trotsky's opinion was that this was for real when Lenin and he were in charge, and not after Lenin died and Stalin took over. Stalinists have different opinions on this of course.

1. When was Trotsky in charge??????????? He joined the Bolsheviks only in 1917! Before that he was a Menshevik!!!!!!

2. Here is Trotsky's opinion on Lenin before Stalin came and "corrupted" the "original" Lenin's concept of the party, which the Trotsky held in such a high esteem:

In "Our Political Tasks" - Trotsky developed his attack upon "Maximillien Lenin"; whom he described as:
".an adroit statistician and a slovenly attorney" (L. Trotsky: ‘ashi Politicheskie Zadachi’(Our Political Tasks) Geneva; l904; p. 95), with a " . . hideous, dissolute and demagogical . " (L.Trotsky : ibid. ; p. 75),
style, whose
"Evil-minded and morally repulsive suspiciousness, a shallow caricature of tragic Jacobinist intolerance, must be liquidated now at all costs, otherwise the Party is threatened with moral and theoretical decay";
(L. Trotsky: ibid. ; p. 95).
He developed his attack upon Lenin’s principles of Party organisation, claiming that they would lead to the establishment, not of the dictatorship of the working class but of a dictatorship over the working class (a dictatorship that would eventually be one of a single individual), which the working class would find intolerable:
"Lenin’s methods lead to this: the Party organisation at first substitutes itself for the Party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organisation; and finally a single ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee…. A proletariat capable of exercising its dictatorship over society will not tolerate any dictatorship over itself". (L. Trotsky. Ibid.; p. 54, l05)

So basically Trotsky was accusing Lenin for the same faults and vices that he later ascribed to Stalin, making him just a silly and foolish political opportunist whose words were fitted not according to the political reality of his time, but according to his own personal ambitions and grudges. When Lenin was alive, he was spitting on him, when he died, Trotsky started hailing him as a genius, while at the same time accusing Stalin that he betrayed Lenin' "legacy". If Stalin was replaced by, let's say, Bukharin, Trotsky would write a "Revolution again betrayed", again complaining about the imperfections of the "bureucratic" socialism and claiming that "socialism" can only come under the leadership of his cult of 50 followers... :D

Here is what Lenin really thought of Trotsky, considering the fact that you seem totally unaquinted with both the Lenin and Trotsky's writings:

"We were right in referring to Trotsky as the representative of the ‘worst remnants of factionalism’. .
Although Trotsky professes to be non-factional, he is known to all who are in the slightest degree acquainted with the labour movement in Russia as the representative of "Trotsky’s faction" -- there is factionalism here, for both the essential characteristics of it are present: 1) the nominal recognition of unity, and 2) group segregation in reality. This is a remnant of factionalism, for it is impossible to discover in it anything serious in the way of contacts with the mass labour movement in Russia.
Finally it is the worst kind of factionalism, for there is nothing ideologically and politically definite about it."
(V.I.,Lenin: "Violation of Unity under Cover of Cries for Unity", in: "Selected Works"; Volume 4; London; l943; p. 191, 192).

"Trotsky completely lacks a definite ideology and policy, for having the patent, for ‘non-factionalism’, only means . . having a patent granting complete freedom to flit from one faction to another".
(V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 191-92).

"Trotsky, on the other hand; represents only his own personal vacillations and nothing more. In l903 he was a Menshevik; he abandoned Menshevism in l904, returned to the Mensheviks in l905 and merely flaunted ultra-revolutionary phrases; in 1906 he left them again; at the end of 1906 he advocated elect-oral agreements with the Cadets (i.e., was virtually once more with the Mensheviks) ; and in the spring of 1907, at the London Congress, he said that he differed from Rosa Luxemburg on ‘individual shades of ideas rather than on political tendencies’. Trotsky one day plagiarises the ideological stock-in-trade of one faction; next day he plagiarises that of another, and therefore declares himself to be standing above both factions."
(V. I. Lenin: "The Historical Meaning of the Internal Party Struggle in Russia in: 'Selected Works", Volume 3; London; l946; p. 5l7).

"The Trotskys decieve the workers. Whoever supports Trotsky’s puny group supports a policy of lying and deceiving the workers. . . by ‘revolutionary’ phrase-mongering".
(V. I. Lenin: "From the Camp of the Stolypin ‘Labour’ Party", in: "Collected Works"; Volume 17; Moscow; 1963; p. 243).

"Empty exclamations, high-flown words. . and impressively important assurances -- that is Trotsky’s total stock-in-trade".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Question of Unity", in: "Collected Works", Volume 18; Moscow; 1963; p.553) .

"Trotsky is fond of sonorous and empty phrases. . . . Trotsky’s phrases are full of glitter and noise, but they lack content. . . . Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky".
(V. I. Lenin: "Vio1ation of Unity under Cover of Cries for Unity", in: ""Selected Works"; Volume 4; London; 1943; p. 189,192, 194).

Spartacus.

9th July 2011, 20:16

I am aware of the history Comrade, and I noted that Trotsky's actions didn't necessarily support his calls for party democracy - but he did call for it (especially later).

Even during the 1930s he still supported the Soviet economic policies (he had been advocating them for years after all) so I'm not sure if that point was supposed to be part of your unveiling of the 'Trotskyist monster'. :rolleyes:

1. Yes, but for opportunistic reasons. Everyone can call for strenghtening of "democracy". Bush did it. Trotsky did it. Empty phrases were Trotsky speciality, and people unaquinted with history of that time, might presume that, if the Stalin was a "bad guy", than Trotsky, with his hailing of democracy and criticizing of "Stalinism", was a "good guy". Which, of course, was not true.

2. Many people think that purges, collectivization and quite tough industrialisation were exclusively the characteristic of "Stalinism" and they think that Trotsky would have brought some liberal, democratic paradise totally different than their misguided perceptions of the "horrors" of "Stalinism". You can clearly see how our young friend, RedMarxist, started to believe that Trotsky was somehow "different" than Stalin and that he was some kind of a "democrat". If you are really aquinted with history, than you should know how far this is from reality.

That was my point.

Cheers :)

Tommy4ever

9th July 2011, 21:06

Anyways, to put a line under the bit about Trotsky I'll just lay out the key ideological differences between Stalin and himself:

1. Socialism in One Country vs Permanent Revolution - Trotsky believed the Revolution in Russia could only survive if there were revolutions in the advanced countries of Western Europe. The Soviet Union should therefore do everything to encourage revolutions around the world - but especially in Western Europe. Stalin believed that Russia was tired or war and was suffering from isolation whilst (quite rightly as it happens) saw little hope of revolution in the West after the mid 20s or so. He believed the most important thing for the International Revolution was the security and prosperity of the USSR - so the Soviets should focus on that.

2. Economic Policies - Trotsky backed the economic policies that would be implimented in the 1930s to rapidly modernise the Soviet Union. Stalin initially backed the more capitalist NEP, he later adopted the same policies of Trotsky (after Trotsky had been forced into exile and the Left Opposition was dead). So basically, there isn't much difference here.

3. Purges and what not - Trotksy was less into all the killing party members and that. :p

4. Bureacracy - Trotsky hated the Bureacracy, it was the a cruicial base for Stalin and grew immensely in the 30s.

5. Party Unity - now, in the early days Trotsky was quite in favour of party unity. But he seemed to favour a collective leadership that left good room for debate within this leadership - Stalin demanded rigid loyalty to the party line (for the purpose of maintaining unity in the Communist movement - this was indeed successful until roughly 1956 when the movement started to lose unity across the world).

Those are the main differences, make up your own mind OP. :)

A Marxist Historian

9th July 2011, 21:19

He also called for massive purges inside the party already in 1921 and has advocated collectivisation and forced industrialisation way before Stalin did it. That certainly fits well in your definition of a "democrat".

Far from the truth. In fact Trotsky was the *first* Bolshevik leader to advocate the NEP policy of necessary concessions to capitalism adopted in 1921, as early as spring 1920.

I assume by collectivization you mean *forced* collectivization of agriculture, the policy adopted by Stalin in 1929 which absolutely nobody in the party had advocated before that. In fact not even Stalin *advocated* such a policy, rather he claimed that he was simply doing what the peasants wanted, which had the great disadvantage of not being true.

As for industrialization, that's what everybody advocated, the question was how fast, how and so forth. *Forced* industrialization? It was the workers who *wanted* industrialization. Why? Because there was high unemployment in the 1920s and the workers wanted J-O-Bs.

The rest of what you have to say is even further off, but good enough for now.

-M.H.-

Trotsky became critical about Stalin's "tyranny" :rolleyes: only when he lost the power struggle inside the party. After that, being the greedy, power-hungry megalomaniac that he was, he set out to "criticise" the Soviet government and build an "alternative" to "Stalinism", founding a movement that at its peak had reportedly some 50 members and whose children even today continue to carry on the glorious legacy of Trotskyism...

Btw; Stalin and Zhdanov also called for greater democracy inside the party, which is nicely described in Getty's and Thurston's books, as well as the corelation between that and massive killings that swept the Soviet society in 1937.

Rusty Shackleford

9th July 2011, 21:37

Im a member of the PSL and i am a youth, in not even 20 yet (though i will be in a few days :D)

There are plenty of comrades that are younger than me. and not just by a year, i wouldnt be surprised if some branches had 16 year old members too.

The party hasnt developed a youth wing yet though. But, certain branches do have their own youth committees. For example, im on my branches Youth and Student committee.

As for Marxism-Leninism. It is the basis for our organizational structure. We dont really tend to pick sides with either Stalin or Trotsky though. We recognize that some of Stalins actions in the 30s were less than ideal and well, our parties origins are way back in the SWP which was trotskyist. Even then though, we dont dismiss accomplishments made by the Soviet Union when stalin was at "the head."

Also, on the subject of the Sino-Soviet split, we feel that China had the correct line which was more revolutionary and Sam Marcy basically labeled the SU as falling along the lines of revisionism and criticised Kosygin for being an anti-china dude meeting with imperialists denouncing china in the 60s. But, we still uphold the Soviet Union even though it was revisionist because at the very basic level, there was still a socialist mode of production even though there were some capitalist reforms within the party and the economy.

(i havent studied on the PSLs view of china today so i cant help with that yet)

A Revolutionary Tool

10th July 2011, 09:23

Spartacus, it's easy to look at quotes of when Lenin and Trotsky were politically rivals to prove they hated each other isn't it? I mean why would you look at it unbiasedly? Trotsky was the leader of the Petrograd Soviet during the revolution, was leader of the Red Army during the civil war, they worked together on trying to get policies through, etc. And while Lenin was on his death bed who was he praising? Trotsky. Who was he saying should get demoted because of his actions? Stalin.