Log in

View Full Version : An Anarchist or a Trotskyist



Ilyich
5th August 2011, 22:47
I have also posted the following as a blog entry:
As the title of this thread would suggest, I find myself in a difficult position. I strongly admire certain aspects of two conflicting socialist tendencies, anarchism and Trotskyism. Before I get into that though, let me tell you about the tendencies which I identified with in the past. Before I was a socialist, I was a right libertarian. Soon, however, I began to see laissez-faire capitalism as something that needed to be restrained for the sake of humanity. I became a bleeding-heart liberal. I remained a sturdy liberal until one day in high school when we read about the great American socialist Eugene Debs. As a young and naïve liberal, I was naturally fascinated by this crusader for social justice. As I began to read the works of Debs and other socialists, I started to identify as a democratic socialist. I was really more of a social democrat by that point as I favor reform over revolution, had little interest in abolishing capitalism, and was opposed to communism as an impractical system. This soon changed, however, after I read The Communist Manifesto and a short biography of Karl Marx. I started calling myself a revolutionary Marxist and I never question my faith in the theories of Marx and Engels until now. As many young Marxists do, I turned to Trotsky. At the time I thought Trotsky represented a more democratic and libertarian side of Marxism-Leninism. I questioned my Trotskyism more and more as I discovered the authoritarianism present in Bolshevik-Leninism. I discover Rosa Luxemburg and decided to become a Luxemburgist. I have also called myself various things like Marxist-DeLeonist, libertarian Marxist, and left communist, but they ultimately led back to Luxemburgism. Recently I have decided that there is no future in non-Leninist Marxism. And so, I have decided to either return to my Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist roots or leave Marxism altogether. What is to be done?
Trotskyist Leninism attracts me for several reasons:

1. I like the idea of a vanguard party organized through democratic centralism. The idea of a party made of class conscious workers which debate freely but act united may not be ideal, but it appeals to me as a practical socialist. It clearly would make short-term success in a revolution much easier to attain.
2. I am an internationalist. A workers’ state will be under constant siege unless socialism is spread across the world.
3. Trotsky was an authoritarian figure, but many Trotskyists, especially third camp Trotskyist, have been far more democratic, i.e. Hal Draper, the early Max Shachtman, Tony Cliff, etc.
4. I would not consider myself an orthodox Trotskyist, but rather a third camp Trotskyist. This allows me to avoid some of the more authoritarian stances taken by Trotsky and to consider the USSR state capitalist rather than a degenerated workers’ state.
5. There are other reasons. I will put them in as I think of them.

There are, however, reasons why I would rather consider myself an anarchist than a Trotskyist:

1. Although the Red Terror and the Kronstadt affair do not bother me as much as they used to bother me, I am against the death penalty and hope to avoid any misconceptions about that stance
2. I support workers’ councils (so do some third camp Trotskyists like the ISO) over a centrally planned economy.
3. If I were a Trotskyist (or an anarchist for that matter) I would have to hate other leftists because of the rampant sectarianism on the left. I currently have friends ranging from anarchist to Trotskyist to Castroist and I have no interest in hating them.
4. The organization to which I belong, the Socialist Party of the USA, does not allow Leninists.

What does everyone here think I should do?

Weezer
5th August 2011, 22:50
The organization to which I belong, the Socialist Party of the USA, does not allow Leninists.

What does everyone here think I should do?

:lol: I know of Trots in the SPUSA.

Why are you so concerned with labels and tendencies?

AnonymousOne
5th August 2011, 22:51
There are only two labels you should concern yourself with as a revolutionary leftist comrade, bourgeoise and proleteriat.

Ilyich
5th August 2011, 22:53
:lol: I know of Trots in the SPUSA.

Why are you so concerned with labels and tendencies?

Because of the intense sectarianism on the left.

Weezer
5th August 2011, 23:00
Because of the intense sectarianism on the left.

The best way to counter that sectarianism is not to label yourself.

maskerade
5th August 2011, 23:04
don't put yourself in an ideological box. otherwise, why not be an anarcho-trot conspirator

syndicat
5th August 2011, 23:10
the intense sectarianism is partly a reflection of isolation from actual mass social and labor movements and struggles. and partly a reflection of real differences of opinion. and partly a reflection of vanguardist (Leninist) notions of the importance of one particular party being in command of the revolution and its outcome. and it is on this last point that libertarian socialism/anarchism is incompatible with Trotskyism or any form of Leninism.

the groups in the International Socialist tradition...what you call 3rd camp trotskyists (tho not all of them would call themselves "trotskyists" these days) are admittedly the closest to anarchism because of their notion of "socialism from below." but their commitment to Leninism still poses problems even from the point of view of the most pro-organizational socialist anarchist.

but you don't need to rush into any decision. I'd say study some more about history and actual viewpoints and be involved in struggle and organizing where you can.

Zeus the Moose
5th August 2011, 23:11
I have also posted the following as a blog entry:
As the title of this thread would suggest, I find myself in a difficult position. I strongly admire certain aspects of two conflicting socialist tendencies, anarchism and Trotskyism. Before I get into that though, let me tell you about the tendencies which I identified with in the past. Before I was a socialist, I was a right libertarian. Soon, however, I began to see laissez-faire capitalism as something that needed to be restrained for the sake of humanity. I became a bleeding-heart liberal. I remained a sturdy liberal until one day in high school when we read about the great American socialist Eugene Debs. As a young and naïve liberal, I was naturally fascinated by this crusader for social justice. As I began to read the works of Debs and other socialists, I started to identify as a democratic socialist. I was really more of a social democrat by that point as I favor reform over revolution, had little interest in abolishing capitalism, and was opposed to communism as an impractical system. This soon changed, however, after I read The Communist Manifesto and a short biography of Karl Marx. I started calling myself a revolutionary Marxist and I never question my faith in the theories of Marx and Engels until now. As many young Marxists do, I turned to Trotsky. At the time I thought Trotsky represented a more democratic and libertarian side of Marxism-Leninism. I questioned my Trotskyism more and more as I discovered the authoritarianism present in Bolshevik-Leninism. I discover Rosa Luxemburg and decided to become a Luxemburgist. I have also called myself various things like Marxist-DeLeonist, libertarian Marxist, and left communist, but they ultimately led back to Luxemburgism. Recently I have decided that there is no future in non-Leninist Marxism. And so, I have decided to either return to my Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist roots or leave Marxism altogether. What is to be done?
Trotskyist Leninism attracts me for several reasons:

1. I like the idea of a vanguard party organized through democratic centralism. The idea of a party made of class conscious workers which debate freely but act united may not be ideal, but it appeals to me as a practical socialist. It clearly would make short-term success in a revolution much easier to attain.
2. I am an internationalist. A workers’ state will be under constant siege unless socialism is spread across the world.
3. Trotsky was an authoritarian figure, but many Trotskyists, especially third camp Trotskyist, have been far more democratic, i.e. Hal Draper, the early Max Shachtman, Tony Cliff, etc.
4. I would not consider myself an orthodox Trotskyist, but rather a third camp Trotskyist. This allows me to avoid some of the more authoritarian stances taken by Trotsky and to consider the USSR state capitalist rather than a degenerated workers’ state.
5. There are other reasons. I will put them in as I think of them.

There are, however, reasons why I would rather consider myself an anarchist than a Trotskyist:

1. Although the Red Terror and the Kronstadt affair do not bother me as much as they used to bother me, I am against the death penalty and hope to avoid any misconceptions about that stance
2. I support workers’ councils (so do some third camp Trotskyists like the ISO) over a centrally planned economy.
3. If I were a Trotskyist (or an anarchist for that matter) I would have to hate other leftists because of the rampant sectarianism on the left. I currently have friends ranging from anarchist to Trotskyist to Castroist and I have no interest in hating them.
4. The organization to which I belong, the Socialist Party of the USA, does not allow Leninists.

What does everyone here think I should do?

Addressing your points in reverse order-

4) That's not technically true. What the SP-USA doesn't allow is dual membership in the SP and a "democratic centralist" organisation. This does rule out all Leninist groups, but an individual can hold Leninist politics and still be a member. Speaking personally, I've gone from vague "democratic socialist" to Trotskyist to semi-Leninist Marxist during my time in the SP-USA, and it hasn't been a problem.

3) Why do you think you'd have to hate these people. You many think they're wrong politically, and maybe debate them on the issue, but hate is a strong word. If you're worried about sectarianism, don't be sectarian, and don't feel like you need to conform to the sectarianism because other people are doing it.

2) Workers councils and a centrally-planned economy aren't mutually exclusive. Workers councils are simply a means of organising sections of society, and a hierarchy of elected councils could carry out the higher-level planning that needs to be done on a regional, national, or supra-national level.

1) So be conflicted about Kronstadt. It happens, and is certainly a difficult mess to untangle.


Sorry if I'm sounding somewhat blunt, but I think you're making this into a bigger deal than it needs to be. If you stay in the SP-USA, at least, I'll welcome you as a comrade no matter if you become an anarchist or a Trotskyist, or something else entirely.

Dogs On Acid
6th August 2011, 00:52
Fuck labels.

Seresan
6th August 2011, 02:27
Just do what I do.

Call yourself a non-doctrine extreme leftist, and believe what YOU believe.

Ilyich
6th August 2011, 02:41
Fuck labels.

You are right, I probably should not concern mysellf with labels. Still, I am going to try calling myself a Trotskyist experimentally. I will still remain friendly with anarchism and most other tendencies. I am not ignoring your advice. I am only trying to find my own solution to my confusion.

Susurrus
6th August 2011, 02:47
You don't have to hate other tendencies. Look at revleft, people get along fairly well, and would probably get along even better face-to-face. Even I, an anarchist, admire some aspects of Trotsky, and somewhat forgive him for Kronstadt due to the fact that he was as taken in by the Bolshevik propaganda as anyone.

As for your support for a party, that doesn't contradict anarchism so long as the party does not rule over the masses, and merely acts to aid the working class and spur on the revolution.

Magón
6th August 2011, 02:47
snip


why not be an anarcho-trot conspirator

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=728

Join the Conspiracy!

Geiseric
6th August 2011, 02:51
If you believe in using state authority (an army, some gov't control over the economy) as a temporary measure to build communism, you're a socialist. If you don't agree in using a state, you're an anarchist. Anarchists who say they believe in having an army, or who say they support oppression of the bourgeois are actually socialists in my opinion, however my idea of a state, and the marxist definition, doesn't necessarily mean a gov't like in the U.S. It can be a workers government, a soviet, a confederation of radical unions who have a central appendige where national issues are concerned, a state is a group of people who control an army.

Leftsolidarity
6th August 2011, 02:52
4. The organization to which I belong, the Socialist Party of the USA, does not allow Leninists.



I am also in the SPUSA. I am not a self-described Leninist but I am a Marxist with strong Leninist leanings. I have never had a problem.

CHE with an AK
6th August 2011, 06:52
the Socialist Party of the USA, does not allow Leninists.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/641241785_s.gif
"ебать их!"
(Fuck them!)

Leftsolidarity
6th August 2011, 09:02
Also, can you show where it is stated that Leninists are not allowed?

Dogs On Acid
6th August 2011, 09:06
...

Bullshit.

So Anarchists aren't Socialists now, because they don't use the State to opress people? :rolleyes:

Leftsolidarity
6th August 2011, 09:14
because they don't use the State to opress people? :rolleyes:

Shut up. Not tendency war time.

#FF0000
6th August 2011, 09:23
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/641241785_s.gif
"ебать их!"
(Fuck them!)

I laughed but no actually the SPUSA does allow leninists.

Dogs On Acid
6th August 2011, 09:34
Shut up. Not tendency war time.

Fuck off, I didn't start this, Trotsky did up there.