Can a Trotskyist help me on this one?

[The Man]

Now, this isn't a blanketed attack of anything at all. I am honestly asking a Trotskyist if Lenin was talking about something else, and if this does not give any ground for Marxism-Leninism. This is from his essay called 'On Trotsky'.



“The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him. [….] Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as 'Lenin’s cudgel'. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that 'between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf'. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left 'permanent revolution' theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg. In the period of disintegration, after long 'non-factional' vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas” (CW 20, 346-7).

[RedTrackWorker]

Now, this isn't a blanketed attack of anything at all. I am honestly asking a Trotskyist if Lenin was talking about something else, and if this does not give any ground for Marxism-Leninism. This is from his essay called 'On Trotsky'.

Trotsky admitted he was wrong on the Bolshevik-Menshevik split and after he did, Lenin said (in 1917), "from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik". (See http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf08.htm). So unless you think what Lenin said in 1914 applies for all time as an infallible, eternally true statement and cannot be updated based on changes in reality, no--it does not given any ground for Stalinism.

[The Man]

Trotsky admitted he was wrong on the Bolshevik-Menshevik split and after he did, Lenin said (in 1917), "from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik". (See http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf08.htm). So unless you think what Lenin said in 1914 applies for all time as an infallible, eternally true statement and cannot be updated based on changes in reality, no--it does not given any ground for Stalinism.

I am specifically talking about he called permanent revolution an absurdly left theory. Also, He might have said that in 1914, but he said this in 1919:


"The capitalists, the bourgeoisie, can at 'best' put off the victory of socialism in one country or another at the cost of slaughtering further hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants. But they cannot save capitalism..."

[Dumb]

How do we know Lenin means Socialism in One Country, rather than "a victory for socialism that took place in one country"? The semantics are pretty vague.

[thesadmafioso]

I am specifically talking about he called permanent revolution an absurdly left theory. Also, He might have said that in 1914, but he said this in 1919:

You do realize that he said that in the midst of a period marked by massive amounts of sectarian infighting among the Russian emigre party in Europe, right? You should really take this quote into the proper context before you try to pass it off as the silver bullet against Trotsky and his theories.

Lenin also endorsed the necessity of internationalism and the concept of continuing the revolutionary class struggle beyond the point of bourgeois revolution, so I would hardly say he is against the theory behind it. At the time, there was obviously a political motivation to oppose it as put forth by Trotsky, but in practice he applied its principles. So it is really beyond doubt that he was clearly in agreement with this aspect of Trotsky's theory. But to deal with the situation of this particular conflict and the accusations of far leftism, Lenin and Trotsky both agreed for a revolution that would utilize the forces of the peasantry and the proletariat, it was more or less a matter of them projecting political issues onto theory for the sake of show than anything else.

From Robert Segal's "Leon Trotsky"


Much of Trotsky's ideological renown rested on the doctrine of permanent revolution, which he had enunciated eighteen years before. And his enemies could scarcely avoid dealing with it. Yet the ground floor of this doctrine, that a bourgeois revolution in Russia would necessarily give way almost at once to a regime of the proletariat, which would go beyond bourgeois objectives, had the policies of Lenin in 1917, and the subsequent career of the Bolshevik government, to support it

So in short, context matters.

[The Man]

I'm on a phone at the moment so I can't quote. But thesadmafioso, Stalin also expressed the need for internationalism, just as Lenin did. While maintaining SIOC.

[thesadmafioso]

I'm on a phone at the moment so I can't quote. But thesadmafioso, Stalin also expressed the need for internationalism.

HA! Yes, internationalism when it meant the expansion of Russian nationalism across the globe.

Also, there is a serious difference from throwing around some hollow rhetoric and actually backing it up with practice.

And I meant to post this excerpt as well, to further show the grave errors you made in taking this quote beyond its original intent and fabricating it into something entirely other.

From Leon Trotsky's "My Life"


At the congress I had occasion to set forth again my view of the proletariat’s part in the bourgeois revolution, and, in particular, of its relationship to the peasantry. In concluding the debate, Lenin said in reference to this: “Trotsky holds the view that the proletariat and the peasantry have common interests in the revolution of to-day.” Consequently: “We have solidarity of views here as regards the fundamentals of our attitude toward the bourgeois parties.” How little does this resemble the legend that in 1905 I ignored the peasantry! I need only add that my London programme speech in 1907, which to this day I think is absolutely right, was reprinted separately after the October revolution as an example of the Bolshevik attitude toward the peasantry and the bourgeoisie.

Here we see Trotsky directly quote Lenin and his mood towards the content of his theory of permanent revolution in the sense to which it was being referred to in your much abused selection of Lenin.

I don't care if Stalin made a half hearted and insincere speech on internationalism, I'd like to see you defend your fraudulent skewering of Lenin in the name of nationalism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm on a phone at the moment so I can't quote. But thesadmafioso, Stalin also expressed the need for internationalism, just as Lenin did. While maintaining SIOC.
Yeah man, Ayn Rand expressed how taking welfare was bad, just like Friedman did. Whilst still taking social security cheques.

[DaringMehring]

You do realize what "permanent revolution" is right? It is the theory that the Russian revolution would not just be a bourgeois revolution to end Tsarism, but also a proletarian revolution.

And in 1917, this was proved correct.

Lenin admitted he was wrong and admitted Trotsky to the Party.

Do you really think Trotsky would have been admitted to the Party if Lenin thought he was a vacillator obsessed with a wrong theory? Much less put on the Central Committee? Much less called by Lenin, "the best Bolshevik?"

The question of permanent revolution, is different than Socialism in One Country versus World Revolution.

Although, on the latter, I don't see how anybody with half a brain, can say that the socialism in one country had been a success anywhere. Socialism in One country ---> socialism in no countries.

[KC]

You do realize what "permanent revolution" is right? It is the theory that the Russian revolution would not just be a bourgeois revolution to end Tsarism, but also a proletarian revolution.

And in 1917, this was proved correct.

Except the 1917 revolution wasn't a "proletarian revolution" in the strict sense, which is why both Trotsky and Stalin were wrong.

[The Man]

Yeah man, Ayn Rand expressed how taking welfare was bad, just like Friedman did. Whilst still taking social security cheques.

That's illogical. Lenin support Socialism in a single nation alone as well. Read my post below.

[The Man]

How do we know Lenin means Socialism in One Country, rather than "a victory for socialism that took place in one country"? The semantics are pretty vague.


Well, because of various other quotes supporting that the victory of socialism begins in a single nation. He clearly mean't SIOC, because he said this the same year:


"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense."

There are these from 1917:


Thirdly, the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars. The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie. Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries.


"If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously."
Then these two from 1915:


A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.


Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

Unfortunately, all we have is quotes today. So I am sorry if I am being sort-of repetitive.

[thesadmafioso]

Well, because of various other quotes supporting that the victory of socialism begins in a single nation. He clearly mean't SIOC, because he said this the same year:



There are these from 1917:




Then these two from 1915:





Unfortunately, all we have is quotes today. So I am sorry if I am being sort-of repetitive.

None of these actually show support of the theory behind the concept of socialism in one country, you are just taking anything said by Lenin on this matter and automatically assuming it to of be made in reference to the manifestation of this notion as it emerged under Stalinism.

Lenin is more or less speaking to the concept of conditions allowing for revolution to occur in a non simultaneous manner and in support of immediate revolutionary action in Russia in these excerpts, none of this can seriously be read as support for the nationalism of Stalin and his socialism in one country. Not a single line of what you provided brings legitimacy to Stalin's bourgeois approach to foreign policy, it more or less just stood to explain the situation of revolutionary Russia in the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik's seizure of power.

You are also ignoring every quote which could be provided that contradicts what you are trying to argue from this misleading and deceptive collection of out of context excerpts. I believe Kleber post about 20 quotes from Lenin on internationalism, true internationalism as it is upheld by Trotskyism, on your blog not too long ago. Where is the reference to this massive cognitive dissidence which you seem to think Lenin experienced?

Honestly, this is just a horribly infantile analysis of Lenin and his thought, I don't know how you truly believe this to be in support of Stalin's vulgar deviation away from internationalism.

[The Man]

None of these actually show support of the theory behind the concept of socialism in one country, you are just taking anything said by Lenin on this matter and automatically assuming it to of be made in reference to the manifestation of this notion as it emerged under Stalinism.

Lenin is more or less speaking to the concept of conditions allowing for revolution to occur in a non simultaneous manner and in support of immediate revolutionary action in Russia in these excerpts, none of this can seriously be read as support for the nationalism of Stalin and his socialism in one country. Not a single line of what you provided brings legitimacy to Stalin's bourgeois approach to foreign policy, it more or less just stood to explain the situation of revolutionary Russia in the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik's seizure of power.

You are also ignoring every quote which could be provided that contradicts what you are trying to argue from this misleading and deceptive collection of out of context excerpts. I believe Kleber post about 20 quotes from Lenin on internationalism, true internationalism as it is upheld by Trotskyism, on your blog not too long ago. Where is the reference to this massive cognitive dissidence which you seem to think Lenin experienced?

Honestly, this is just a horribly infantile analysis of Lenin and his thought, I don't know how you truly believe this to be in support of Stalin's vulgar deviation away from internationalism.

Most of those quotes that Kleber posted, we actually support.

[thesadmafioso]

Most of those quotes that Kleber posted, we actually support.

Yeah, you say you support them.

Then before you know it, you have workers in China being told to work hand in hand with nationalists set on completely dismantling crushing their movement.

You have Stalin advising communists in Germany to work with the fascists against the SDP.

You begin to see Stalinist's purging leftist popular fronts in Spain for not towing the line of Moscow to Stalin's liking.

Then you go on to sign a nice non-aggression pact with the leaders of Nazism while at the same time accusing your adversaries of working as agents of fascism.

Some showing of international support, eh?