Question for Trotskyites

[Искра]

One group from Croatia which is affiliated with 4th international, even they are not members of it (as far as I know), has really dodgy politics in my opinion. So, I’m interested in what do Trotskyites think of it and do they condemn of support such policy.

So, what is it about? This group is quite small but they publish some kinds of “what it has to be done” articles and usually abolishment of ILLEGAL privatization is key thing. That’s right they are writing about ILLEGAL privatization and they are not condemning privatization as such.

Here’s quote on Croatian:

Bez izuzetka ukinuti svaku privatizaciju kod koje su uočene nepravilnosti, te konfiscirati svu imovinu i zaradu stečenu na taj kriminalni način. Na taj način stečeno financijsko i industrijsko bogatstvo preusmjeriti u pokretanje proizvodnje, te projekte od neposrednog interesa za radnike i siromašne

They are also advocating that [bourgeoisie] state nationalizes fucked up enterpsies and establish some kind of a self-management:


Preuzimanje velikih propalih poduzeća od strane države uz uspostavu radničke kontrole. Tako se može zaštiti na tisuće radnih mjesta, poduzeća spasiti od propasti i rekonstruirati, te putem radničkog nadzora onemogućiti daljnje cvjetanje kriminala i zakulisnih igara.

Tax for rich people:


Uvođenje ekstremno progresivnog poreza za bogate koji omogućuje poboljšanje životnog položaja najsiromašnijih slojeva na temelju opterećivanja najbogatijih.

Nationalization of banks:

stavljanje poslovanja banaka pod demokratsku kontrolu samog naroda putem nacionalizacije

Etc.

Link for whole article: http://www.radnickaborba.org/2011/10/18/prosvjed-15-10-u-zagrebu/

So, what is a difference between such policy and socialdemocracy? Aren’t Trotskyites revolutionary left? I have to say that I’m fond of Leon Trotsky, but not of Trotskyites today, because of such stuff.

[mrmikhail]

The fourth international parties are rather dodgy in general these days, ever since the big conflicts in I believe it was the 80s. Most seem to have became Castroists and the like. The SWI and IMT are not within the fourth international and are in opposition to it.

But from what you have said it really seems as though they may be calling for a Titoist style economy rather than anything like Trotskyism

[Искра]

So, what would be "real Trotskyite" position on these issues?

[Crux]

The fourth international parties are rather dodgy in general these days, ever since the big conflicts in I believe it was the 80s. Most seem to have became Castroists and the like. The SWI and IMT are not within the fourth international and are in opposition to it.

But from what you have said it really seems as though they may be calling for a Titoist style economy rather than anything like Trotskyism
They link both the serbian IMT and the 4th International. To be honest it seems to me they are advocating nationalization under worker's control. These would be transitonal demands, although I can't say whetever their politics are "fucked up" or not. It is true some of the mandelite (that is connected to the 4th International/USFI) have some rather mushy politics.

[Искра]

This is Croatian group not Serbian. In Serbia there are different Trotskyite gorups...

Well, how do you comment these "tranistional demands"? What are usual Trotskyite "transitional demands"? What is a purpose of such demands?

[Crux]

This is Croatian group not Serbian. In Serbia there are different Trotskyite gorups...

Well, how do you comment these "tranistional demands"? What are usual Trotskyite "transitional demands"? What is a purpose of such demands?
Yes I know but they are linking Crvena kritika (http://www.crvenakritika.org/) .

Well, this is a good place to start. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text2.htm#as) But I'll try and write you a more direct response later. I have quite limited internet connection at the moment.

[Искра]

Ahaaa, they are linking.... Sorry I didn't get you :) There are some IMT affiliated Trots in Bosnia also.

[EvilRedGuy]

Why do you spell it with ite at the end?

[OHumanista]

I am not sure since I barely heard about group I'll just agree with mrmikhail and Majakovskij. Nowadays there are a lot of weird groups with the craziest ideas claiming to be trotskyists. If there is more to these demand then they may be serious, but if it stops just with these then it's hardly communist, more like "radical" social democracy. (for SDs that is radical enough)

[Thirsty Crow]

So, what is a difference between such policy and socialdemocracy? Aren’t Trotskyites revolutionary left? I have to say that I’m fond of Leon Trotsky, but not of Trotskyites today, because of such stuff.
I think Majakovskij is right in that these are articulated as transitional demands, which would roughly mean they represent political positions put forward deliberately as to show the inability of the bourgeois state to act in favour of the working class, which then serves as a sort of a connection between the concrete problems and situations of a contemporary society (fraudulent privatization being a great example for post-Yugoslav societies) and the advance towards revolutionary goals.

Building the movement around these demands, which are deemed almost impossible for the bourgeois state to adopt, also means that any adoption of particular propositions, but not the whole, works both favourably for the radicalization of the movement and for the weakening of capitalism.

[Искра]

I know that these are their “transitional demands” (or as I would put it: “short terms demands”) and it’s not the first time that they are advocating such things.

However I think that their strategy is really wrong and bad for development of class struggle and class conscience. Revolutionary party must be more aggressive towards capital, not just because “it’s revolutionary”, but also because of material conditions in present day Croatian were you can only attract people with radical attitude and ideas. I’m saying this from personal experience connected with my previous organization. Also, I find their relationship with SRP (Socialist Labor Party – “Titioist” reactionaries) quite disgusting.

The reason why I opened this thread is because I’m reading some Trotsky right now, so I’m interested in politics and ideas of Trotskyites in today’s world. Not that I’m interested in joining any group, especially not this one, as I don’t share nothing in common with Leninists in general, but to just to discuss....

[Thirsty Crow]

I know that these are their “transitional demands” (or as I would put it: “short terms demands”) and it’s not the first time that they are advocating such things.Well, you did ask for the purpose of these demands, or better yet, of this whole approach.
But it's not the point that these are "short-term" demands. In fact, I don't think it's accurate to call them short-term since the whole thrust behind this approach is to unearth the inability of contemporary capitalism to fulfill any political demands which would strenghten the pisition of the working class generally. They do not represent a minimum programme, nor a maximum programme (that's why it's incorrect to claim that it's obvious that this group upholds "Titoist" politics).


However I think that their strategy is really wrong and bad for development of class struggle and class conscience. Revolutionary party must be more aggressive towards capital, not just because “it’s revolutionary”, but also because of material conditions in present day Croatian were you can only attract people with radical attitude and ideas. I’m saying this from personal experience connected with my previous organization. Also, I find their relationship with SRP (Socialist Labor Party – “Titioist” reactionaries) quite disgusting.That's a whole other discussion, and much more complex one at that, but I'll admit that I'm somewhat surprised that your experience shows that only absolutely radical attitudes and ideas are capable of gathering support in our society (in this sense, I was under the impression that these trasitional demands would be perceived as very much radical).

Also, what is their relation to SRP?

[Искра]

Well, you did ask for the purpose of these demands, or better yet, of this whole approach.
But it's not the point that these are "short-term" demands. In fact, I don't think it's accurate to call them short-term since the whole thrust behind this approach is to unearth the inability of contemporary capitalism to fulfill any political demands which would strenghten the pisition of the working class generally. They do not represent a minimum programme, nor a maximum programme (that's why it's incorrect to claim that it's obvious that this group upholds "Titoist" politics).

My question was more concerned with nature of those demands. Of course, I believe that all movements should have “short-term” goals and revolutionary realization, but in this case I’m talking about demands as such. I have problem with them as shortsighted and almost “sociodemoratic”. They remind me of Keynesian interventions. I didn’t claim that this group upholds Titoist policy – I said that for SRP.


That's a whole other discussion, and much more complex one at that, but I'll admit that I'm somewhat surprised that your experience shows that only absolutely radical attitudes and ideas are capable of gathering support in our society (in this sense, I was under the impression that these trasitional demands would be perceived as very much radical).
Well, I divide people into two groups: those who will support anything which is anti-capitalistic, anti-government or better to say anti-HDZ and those who will like to engage in conversation and who will like to participate in change. This second group will more likely to join rev. organization and they demand more radical approach. First group is ok with everything. But, this discussion is complex as I also met a lot of people who will demand change and find these demands revolutionary etc. Still, to me they are too reformist and too shallow. In their essence they are just populist paroles. But to discuss this we should go one by one.... and blah blah blah.


Also, what is their relation to SRP?
They used to be fraction (or they still are) of SRP. Their leader was SRP candidate on elections. I know that they have really strong connections still, but I’m not sure if they are fraction and members of SRP. I guess that this is all about “entrist” strategy which Trotskyites support.

[Luís Henrique]

One group from Croatia which is affiliated with 4th international, even they are not members of it (as far as I know), has really dodgy politics in my opinion.

As far as I know, there are more than one "4th" International.


So, what is it about? This group is quite small but they publish some kinds of “what it has to be done” articles and usually abolishment of ILLEGAL privatization is key thing. That’s right they are writing about ILLEGAL privatization and they are not condemning privatization as such.

Well, I can't read Croatian, so I have to trust your interpretation of their statements. Are you sure they are saying something such as "illegal privatisations are a problem, but we would have no problems with legal privatisations"? Couldn't it be the case that they are saying something like "privatisations are so uncanny that some of them have to be conducted in clandestine and illegal ways"?


They are also advocating that [bourgeoisie] state nationalizes fucked up enterpsies and establish some kind of a self-management:

Frankly I see no problem with that. Bankrupt companies typically fire their employees, leaving them unemployed. Demanding nationalisation with preservation of jobs is a commonplace working class demand.


Tax for rich people:

Again I see no problem. Progressive tax systems are a traditional working class demand.


Nationalization of banks:

Again, a classic working class demand. Nationalisation and unification of banks.

In Trotskyist terms, those would be transitional demands, ie, they fit a kind of "impossibilist" tactic: you make demands that would be a logical consequence of capitalism, but that you deem the bourgeoisie is unable to concede; this would give you the opportunity to agitate in terms of "the bourgeoisie is unable to deliver even the democratic promises of capitalism, so they are actually undeserving to rule".


So, what is a difference between such policy and socialdemocracy?

Socialdemocrats demand that kind of things if they believe the bourgeoisie can concede them. Otherwise they don't.


Aren’t Trotskyites revolutionary left? I have to say that I’m fond of Leon Trotsky, but not of Trotskyites today, because of such stuff.

There are much more serious problems with contemporary Trotskyists than demands like those. Their vicious fractionalism, sectarianism, and substitutionism, for instance.

Luís Henrique

[mrmikhail]

I talked to a comrade of mine in Slovenia who is firmiliar with the party (and can read Croatian ;) )and from what I have learned from him basically this party is:

Making short term demands of the government for them to stop the privatising of certain vital industries (healthcare/education/strategic resources), the nationalisation of banks and failing industries, heavily taxing the rich and taxing all income that doesn't come from direct work (like making capital gains) to pay for fixing the nation, getting away from foreign capital to finance the Croatian economy, demanding all unpaid workers be paid immediately, demanding that failing state enterprises be given to the workers, and finally that a body be formed of workers to allow the workers to control the economy.

They are also calling for the party to stop these simple occupy/protest movements and begin serious movements directed at government buildings to put pressure on the government.

They are stating that these demands are the first concrete step in the protection of the workers. but it also said that in order to change society, capitalist forms of productionand political institutions need to be dissolved. In other words, a revolution is necessary. And the lack of a concrete political program that would assemble the the unsatisfied masses is evident and that the movement cannot go into a higher phase without the formation of a strong worker party. It finishes with the statement that the latter is the goal of their political movement.

so I wouldn't say they are doing anything wrong, they are just making these demands, knowing they won't be accepted while at the same time calling to unify the workers into a larger party and take the government over, and implement these goals by force,basically.


On the 4th international, there is only *one* but there is another group calling for it's reform, and I believe another calling for it to be disbanded and formed anew, and still another calling for the 5th international. I do not deal too much with these internationals though, aside from being a member of their daily mailing list, as their news is pretty good, aside from that though I am all with the IMT except on certain issues (Such as how they wish the police to be considered workers of the revolution, which they are not)


EDIT: And on a side note please don't use the term "Trotskyite" it is a derogation term for a Trotskyist formed by Stalin, and used by Stalinists to this day in that manner.