Trotskyism ideologically convenient for western students

[Althusser]

Is it because the western students are able to call themselves "communists" without defending Stalin? Is it because of some lenient stance on imperialism western students are able to have as a "Trotskyite"? What is the implication here?

I saw a couple Marxist-Leninist-Maoists laughing at this "meme".
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30133943.jpg

Edit- put this thread wherever it belongs

[Art Vandelay]

Why the fuck is this in theory?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Is it because the western students are able to call themselves "communists" without defending Stalin? Is it because of some lenient stance on imperialism western students are able to have as a "Trotskyite"? What is the implication here?

I saw a couple Marxist-Leninist-Maoists laughing at this "meme".
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30133943.jpg

Edit- put this thread wherever it belongs

This is a terrible troll. Care to back up these viciously sectarian, aerated claims? Why is it 'ideologically convenient' to defend a georgian nationalist? Are western students supposed to be looked down upon now?

'Fuck me, my first world privilege is getting at my brain again. Better cut my wrists so that I can feel in tune with the naxalites in India.'

[ind_com]

Is it because the western students are able to call themselves "communists" without defending Stalin? Is it because of some lenient stance on imperialism western students are able to have as a "Trotskyite"? What is the implication here?

I saw a couple Marxist-Leninist-Maoists laughing at this "meme".
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30133943.jpg

Edit- put this thread wherever it belongs

They can also claim the exact conditions of Russia in 1917 as the necessary material conditions for revolution. Since those conditions never come, they can brag about being communists and keep doing nothing forever. This applies to certain other tendencies too. Of course, there are good Trots too, but they are very few.

[Let's Get Free]

I love Trotsky!:wub:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2458157463_40ba131c7b.jpg

[Yuppie Grinder]

They can also claim the exact conditions of Russia in 1917 as the necessary material conditions for revolution. Since those conditions never come, they can brag about being communists and keep doing nothing forever. This applies to certain other tendencies too. Of course, there are good Trots too, but they are very few.

9/10 trots are good dudes and have a good understanding of Marxism. Maoists on the other hand...

[o well this is ok I guess]

I've never seen a student trotskyist.
If I ever see a trot in skinny jeans I'll probably drop left politics entirely.

[Zeus the Moose]

Wat.

Wat.

Okay, seriously. Wat.

Okay, more seriously...

Which "western students" are you referring to? Certainly not the students in West Germany, which were influenced more by Maoism (both of the "Old-Left" and "New-Left" varieties.) Certainly not students in Scandinavia, which were influenced in similar ways, with the groups emerging in Sweden and Norway being mostly "Marxist-Leninist" such as the Workers Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Communist_Party_%28Norway%29). Certainly not students in Italy, who in addition to Maoism went towards tendencies like Lotta Continua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotta_Continua) and Autonomia Operaia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomia_Operaia)

Even in the United States, I think it's safe to say that more students were influenced by Maoist or "Guevaraist" politics than Trotskyism. This tended to happen because the early Maoist currents in the US oriented towards the left wing of the radicalising student movements, whereas the Socialist Workers Party, which was the largest Trotskyist group in the US at the time, tended to place their politics between the CPUSA "official peace movement" and the left wing of the student movement. While there were Trotskyist groups in the US that emerged in many respects from the 1960s, with the International Socialists and to a lesser extent the Spartacist League being the main two from what I can see, Maoism was on the whole more attractive throughout the late 60s into the early 70s, with groups like the Revolutionary Union (later RCP), October League (later Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)), Communist Labor Party (a bit more pro-Soviet than the others, but still coming out of this period), groups like I Wor Kuen and the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization (PRRWO), and to some extent people around the Guardian newspaper organising more people among them than the contemporary Trotskyist groups did at the time.

However, Maoism in the US took a rather different direction than Trotskyism did. While Trotskyist groups split and reconfigured (mostly split), most of them clung onto broadly conceived Trotskyist politics and organised into grouplets that, for better or for worse, still exist today. Most Maoist groups, on the other hand, just completely fucking collapsed. Out of the Maoist groups I mentioned above, only the RCP remains in existence in any meaningful connection with its 1970s form, and the other primary Maoist groups in the US (both of the "Freedom Road Socialist Organization"s) came from a split with the RCP that collected some of the fragments of the other Maoist groups that disappeared. Most of the others either officially wound themselves up sometime in the early 1980s, or they re-oriented their work towards building within Democratic Party-oriented campaigns like Jessie Jackson's Rainbow Coalition (it's my understanding that some Maoist-influenced groups or individuals played a role in the founding of the Green Party in the US, kind of paralleling how the descendants of German Maoists were among the forces that founded Die Grüne, though I don't have much info on that, unfortunately.)

So while the political landscape in the US, at least, today may suggest that it's Trotskyism that has dominance among the ideas of radical students (probably true in terms of organised parties, but probably not true in general), history suggests a much more complicated picture.

[Zeus the Moose]

EDIT: I was having connection problems and it appears I doubleposted my response. Mods, feel free to delete this post, as it was in error.

[Rugged Collectivist]

They can also claim the exact conditions of Russia in 1917 as the necessary material conditions for revolution.

Except literally no one has ever claimed that.


I've never seen a student trotskyist.
If I ever see a trot in skinny jeans I'll probably drop left politics entirely.

I used to consider myself a Trotskyist and I still wear skinny jeans, come at me.

[l'Enfermé]

Kind of like Maoism is ideologically convenient for Western students suffering from white guilt.

Zing!

Yes, I can post stupid things too, mate.

[ind_com]

9/10 trots are good dudes and have a good understanding of Marxism.
9/10 Trots don't fall into a single group and they call each other Stalinists.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I used to consider myself a Trotskyist and I still wear skinny jeans, come at me. At the same time?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I've never seen a student trotskyist.
If I ever see a trot in skinny jeans I'll probably drop left politics entirely.

What have you gott against tiny pants? They're comfy and look good.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

9/10 trots are good dudes and have a good understanding of Marxism. Maoists on the other hand...

10/10 trots don't think the other 9/10 are marxists though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

LOL in the 1960s and 1970s, Maoism was the main trend among students and non-students, but since at that point students were radicalizing ahead of the rest of the population, it was largely students. So really for any western Moaists, this meme comes off as sour grapes since anarchist and trotskyist trends have overtaken Maoism on the radical left.

A middle-aged RCP member once attacked me and said: "What can an organization of children accomplish?" - and yet they constantly try and poach our youngest student members, they set up right outsied UC Berkley campus and bullhorn their political soapboxing to students, don't participate in local labor struggles, try and recruit from the Anarchist Book-fair, and they have their offices across the street from UC Berklely.:lol: Sound like sour grapes.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There are quite a few trots in UK universities but that's more because of the SWP and similar trot parties usually have societies etc influencing student radicals rather than any 'convenience'.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't know. The Trotskyist groups that I like don't have such an easy time. Defending China, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos against imperialism. Taking a side against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not exactly popular liberal positions. As for taking the easy way out vis a vis Stalin, Trotskyists have a history of giving up their lives to fight Stalin and Stalinism. Why anyone continues to support the "gravedigger of the revolution," escapes me.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

LOL in the 1960s and 1970s, Maoism was the main trend among students and non-students, but since at that point students were radicalizing ahead of the rest of the population, it was largely students. So really for any western Moaists, this meme comes off as sour grapes since anarchist and trotskyist trends have overtaken Maoism on the radical left.

A middle-aged RCP member once attacked me and said: "What can an organization of children accomplish?" - and yet they constantly try and poach our youngest student members, they set up right outsied UC Berkley campus and bullhorn their political soapboxing to students, don't participate in local labor struggles, try and recruit from the Anarchist Book-fair, and they have their offices across the street from UC Berklely.:lol: Sound like sour grapes.
In the US, which was particularly anti-Soviet, it made sense that China would be attractive to youth in the 60s. The CCP also seemed to be more radical than the stodgy bureaucrats of the Kremlin. After 1972 when Mao was clinking toasts with Nixon while Hanoi was being bombed, and especially after Mao's death and the defeat of the Gang of Four (a really great band, btw), Maoism lost it's raison d'etre in industrialized nations. In the US Maoists kept on splintering. I know their remain a few Maoists out there -- but the Chinese nationalist, peasant-based, version of Stalinism just doesn't have much appeal here. Not that Trotskyism is exactly catching on like wildfire.

[ind_com]

I know their remain a few Maoists out there -- but the Chinese nationalist, peasant-based, version of Stalinism just doesn't have much appeal here.

That is an extremely uneducated statement about Maoism. I suggest reading some Maoist works.

[human strike]

I've never seen a student trotskyist.
If I ever see a trot in skinny jeans I'll probably drop left politics entirely.

I wish I'd never seen a student trot.

[Art Vandelay]

That is an extremely uneducated statement about Maoism. I suggest reading some Maoist works.

I think I speak for both of us, when I say we'd rather gauge out our eyes with searing hot picks.

[ind_com]

Kind of like Maoism is ideologically convenient for Western students suffering from white guilt.

Zing!

Yes, I can post stupid things too, mate.

Till now I had never seen the white-guilt argument used by anyone but white-nationalists.

[ind_com]

I think I speak for both of us, when I say we'd rather gauge out our eyes with searing hot picks.

That was typical of medieval cult-members.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

10/10 trots don't think the other 9/10 are marxists though.

This.

Seriously, the whole "not real marxist" bull needs to stop. We all want revolution and we all have different ideas about how to achieve it. So the whole whining about "Stalinists" really isn't helpful at all, it's just an excuse to be sectarian. Though Trots aren't the only ones that do this, Left communists, vulgar Hoxhists (not all of them) and even some Maoists do this occasionally.

The point shouldn't be to have the purest line or the best theory, it should be to win. That's right, to win, and to do what ever it takes to achieve this. If that means that we have to have start fucking cows then I'm game. What we need right now is to put aside all of our bull shit and engage in a serious debate on whose tactics are the most capable of winning, we can worry about which theory is the best after our victory. And we also need to learn to cooperate. I'm a Marxist Leninist Maoist so I don't believe in the validity of elections, but I'd be more than willing to form a united front with electoral parties as long as this means that we are allowed to abstain from their electoral tactics and that they remain devoted to actual revolution.

And come on you guys with the Mao bashing, Maoists are the only communists relevant in the third world today that are taking part in armed rebellions. This doesn't mean that you have to conform to our line, because quite frankly it could hypothetically be wrong, but just denouncing it because it's not "real Marxism" makes you no better than Kaufsky.

Though admittedly this thread has no real content, I got a giggle out of it but it'll do nothing but start a flame war, so I for one vote for it to be deleted.

[bcbm]

man i wish people being like 'ha, trotskyists?! i am a maoist which is better because blah blah blah' and saying it like it matters in any way shape or form could see what they look like from the outside where most people have no idea what the difference is nor do they give one shit at all

[Quail]

There are quite a few trots in UK universities but that's more because of the SWP and similar trot parties usually have societies etc influencing student radicals rather than any 'convenience'.
Yeah I think this is true. The SWP and SPEW have such a presence on campus that most students with vaguely socialist ideas probably come across them first and they seem like the most active local group to join.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

man i wish people being like 'ha, trotskyists?! i am a maoist which is better because blah blah blah' and saying it like it matters in any way shape or form could see what they look like from the outside where most people have no idea what the difference is nor do they give one shit at all

And will they find it any less amusing when the trots do the same to us?

[Rafiq]

Trotsky was a bourgeois liberal romantic, but maoists are a different case of fuck ups. It is true "Trotskyism" is soft communism, the revolution without all the baddys that came with it, the "Hey! If only trotsky was in power" idealism... Few of those "Trotskyists" will defend Trotsky's early work defending revolutionary terror. Seriously bourgeois romanticization of the bolshevik revolution is disgusting.

[doesn't even make sense]

I think it should be obvious to any honest observer that part of Trotskyism's appeal is that it provides a narrative that is easier to swallow for people living in the West. That doesn't invalidate the claims and theoretical content of Trotskyism, just explains part of its appeal.

That said, this thread is a shitpost and the OP should feel bad.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the US, which was particularly anti-Soviet, it made sense that China would be attractive to youth in the 60s. The CCP also seemed to be more radical than the stodgy bureaucrats of the Kremlin. After 1972 when Mao was clinking toasts with Nixon while Hanoi was being bombed, and especially after Mao's death and the defeat of the Gang of Four (a really great band, btw), Maoism lost it's raison d'etre in industrialized nations. In the US Maoists kept on splintering. I know their remain a few Maoists out there -- but the Chinese nationalist, peasant-based, version of Stalinism just doesn't have much appeal here. Not that Trotskyism is exactly catching on like wildfire.I'd thank this if we weren't in chit-chat.

I think probably the types of national liberation revolutions at that time helped give these ideas a lot of credibility too. On top of that a perception of a working class disinterested in struggle in the west, and it would be a very attractive set of ideas for a student radicalizing at that time.

[Rugged Collectivist]

At the same time?

Yep. Give up leftism.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Trotsky was a bourgeois liberal romantic, but maoists are a different case of fuck ups. It is true "Trotskyism" is soft communism, the revolution without all the baddys that came with it, the "Hey! If only trotsky was in power" idealism... Few of those "Trotskyists" will defend Trotsky's early work defending revolutionary terror. Seriously bourgeois romanticization of the bolshevik revolution is disgusting.

I obviously can't speak for Trotskyists, but I don't think they criticize Stalin because he used terror. I think they criticize Stalin because he used terror against genuine communists.

[Althusser]

I only sought clarification about why this meme is supposedly funny to ML's and MLM's.

In no way was I trying to pass this off as an argument, as I don't know what they mean by "convenient." I was just looking for an opinion.


this thread is a shitpost and the OP should feel bad. :thumbup1:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I only sought clarification about why this meme is supposedly funny to ML's and MLM's.

In no way was I trying to pass this off as an argument, as I don't know what they mean by "convenient." I was just looking for an opinion.

:thumbup1:

Well I can answer that, It's funny because the crux of Trot theory is hating something they call "stalinism", which doesn't actually exist, for reasons that are quite frankly absurd. While the rest of the left has moved on from the 30's they still pretend that the mighty hand of Stalin is still crushing the righteous and noble trot-led proletarian revolution. At this point why else would they still go on about Stalin other than the fact that it appeals to angsty white middle class teenage boys whose only knowledge of history comes from browsing wikipedia, and the fact that without the so called "Stalinism", they'res no such thing as Trotskyism.

And the fact that their self-righteousness about having never made any mistakes only comes from the fact that their movement has never been relevant enough to make mistakes. I admit that sometimes I think Left Communism is just a parody of Trotskism. "They're all just a bunch of dirty capitalists" Says five left communists of the millions of brave men and women who have given their lives to establish a socialist state while they are meeting in a Hilton Hotel to formalize their one thousandth split over differing interpretations of Borgia (or however the fuck you spell his name, and yes I did read "Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party). At least I can respect Trots since many of them have decent parties that are actually becoming more relevant in the post-cold war world, but I fail to see how left-communists manage to take their own idelology seriously

Edit: Yes this is a sectarian post, but he asked why we find it funny and the answer is for sectarian reasons.

[Ostrinski]

There are plenty of non student Trotskyists on this board.

[Sentinel]

I got out of ninth grade with 2,1 as an average rate, out of 5. Concentration issues when younger. No higher education, been a worker ever since.

Trotskyist (CWI) because it just makes sense for the working class. Enough said.

[Rugged Collectivist]

"stalinism", which doesn't actually exist,

:laugh:


While the rest of the left has moved on from the 30's they still pretend that the mighty hand of Stalin is still crushing the righteous and noble trot-led proletarian revolution.

Well, considering the fact that the most prominent communist parties are shitty Stalinist holdovers from the cold war, it seems the left hasn't moved on from the thirties. So I guess you were right in that regard.


And the fact that their self-righteousness about having never made any mistakes only comes from the fact that their movement has never been relevant enough to make mistakes.

I actually agree with you on this.


I admit that sometimes I think Left Communism is just a parody of Trotskism. "They're all just a bunch of dirty capitalists" Says five left communists of the millions of brave men and women who have given their lives to establish a socialist state

How are things in the glorious socialist state?

[Art Vandelay]

Trotsky was a bourgeois liberal romantic, but maoists are a different case of fuck ups. It is true "Trotskyism" is soft communism, the revolution without all the baddys that came with it, the "Hey! If only trotsky was in power" idealism... Few of those "Trotskyists" will defend Trotsky's early work defending revolutionary terror. Seriously bourgeois romanticization of the bolshevik revolution is disgusting.


Really rafiq? I mean I agree with most of what you say, but the claim that Trotsky was a "bourgeois-liberal" is bullshit. Trust me I'm no trot, and there are faults in his theory, but that claim is simply ridiculous.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The sad fact is that all three trends of 1920s Russian Communist Party, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Bukharinism, were fatally flawed. Bukharinism never really gott off the ground, Trotskyism has spawned a series of sects that are not grounded in the working class, and Stalinism led to a hideous dictatorship of a single party that oppressed the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union. Neither do I buy into a revival of Kautskyism, as he betrayed the German working class and its revolution. To my mind it would be better to seek theoretical answers from genuine revolutionaries such as Rosa Luxemberg and Antonio Gramsci than to attempt to resurrect the theories of Kautsky, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Trotsky or Bukharin, all of whom have led to a theoretical dead end.

[ind_com]

The sad fact is that all three trends of 1920s Russian Communist Party, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Bukharinism, were fatally flawed. Bukharinism never really gott off the ground, Trotskyism has spawned a series of sects that are not grounded in the working class, and Stalinism led to a hideous dictatorship of a single party that oppressed the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union. Neither do I buy into a revival of Kautskyism, as he betrayed the German working class and its revolution. To my mind it would be better to seek theoretical answers from genuine revolutionaries such as Rosa Luxemberg and Antonio Gramsci than to attempt to resurrect the theories of Kautsky, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Trotsky or Bukharin, all of whom have led to a theoretical dead end.

There is no doubt that Luxemburg and Gramsci were among the greatest communists of all times, but Maoism is the only theory so far that has not reached any dead-end. In general, dismissal of Maoism by other communists is mostly due to ignorance, regional chauvinism, or wrong pre-conceived notions and lack of exposure to practice.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The disasters of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution demonstrated that Mao Tsetung Thought (Maoism) provided no theoretical advancement of Marxism. In the late 1950s Mao repeated many of Stalin's errors with respect to industrialization and agricultural collectivization. The Cultural Revolution led to mindless violence and chaos to such an extent that Mao called out the PLA to restore order. Following Mao's death, his policies were repudiated by the CCP without any significant resistance from the Chinese proletariat. Had Mao Tsetung Thought (Maoism) advanced the cause of Chinese workers and peasants there would have been a mass base in support of the continuation of Mao's policies. Unfortunately, by the end of the Cultural Revolution there was no longer a mass base for Mao Tsetung Thought and Mao's successors faced no barriers when they instituted quasi-capitalistic policies that have led to the China of today, which stands in stark contrast to Mao's China.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The disasters of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution demonstrated that Mao Tsetung Thought (Maoism) provided no theoretical advancement of Marxism.

Yes the great leap foward led to a famine, but did you know that due to poor infunstructure and the natural cycles of the Chinese economy that China had a famine once every 20 years? Heck, there were famines before Mao that were much worse, the only difference being that it was the last famine because the progress made by the great leap forward improved food distribution so much that the life expectancy of the average Chinese went up from 35 years in 1948 to 69 years in 1972. Sure there were some mistakes, but here's a quote that puts it in context from Mobo Gao's The Battle for China's Past :

"India had suffered an excess of 4 million deaths over China a year during the same period...Thus in this geographic area alone more deaths resulted from "this failed capitalist experement" (over 100 million by 1980) than can be attributed to the "failed communist experiment" all over the world since 1917"



In the late 1950s Mao repeated many of Stalin's errors with respect to industrialization and agricultural collectivization.

Mao's method of industrialization was far less brutal to the peasants than Stalin's. The people's communes, unlike forced collectivization, arose from a grassroots movement.


The Cultural Revolution led to mindless violence and chaos to such an extent that Mao called out the PLA to restore order. Following Mao's death, his policies were repudiated by the CCP without any significant resistance from the Chinese proletariat. During the 60's Deng and his crowd tried to pull this capitalist crap and Mao managed to restore socialism during the cultural revolution. Sure all of you talk about how cool it would be to have a socialist revolution against a revisionist leadership, but how many other countries have actually attempted this and succeeded for a time? The answer is one, Mao's China, and for that reason Maoism can be upheld as the only path that is capable of furthering the revolutionary process through a grass-roots movement of the people. I need to go tend to my father, but about the whole mindless violence accusation I'd recommend that you read the MLM Revolutionary Study Group's paper on the cultural revolution. And to say that there has been no resistance would be a lie, last year there were over 180 "recorded" instances of riots and revolts in China. The working class is having it's say and the victory of the proletariat is inevitable.

I'll try to provide a longer rebuttal eventually, but for now, I'll just tell you that you don't seem to know much about Mao's China, Please read the China Study Group's site and The Battle for China's Past

[MarxSchmarx]

The point shouldn't be to have the purest line or the best theory, it should be to win. That's right, to win, and to do what ever it takes to achieve this. If that means that we have to have start fucking cows then I'm game.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=8961&stc=1&d=1353125533

[black magick hustla]

almost all the left wing "theorists" have been students one way or the other.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

This.

Seriously, the whole "not real marxist" bull needs to stop. We all want revolution and we all have different ideas about how to achieve it. So the whole whining about "Stalinists" really isn't helpful at all, it's just an excuse to be sectarian. Though Trots aren't the only ones that do this, Left communists, vulgar Hoxhists (not all of them) and even some Maoists do this occasionally.
Well ain't that a bit of hypocrisy. You complain about how the true communism myth needs to be stopped, and then blanket the accusation of such an outlook on an enormous category of tendencies each with their own internal disagreements.


The point shouldn't be to have the purest line or the best theory, it should be to win. That's right, to win, and to do what ever it takes to achieve this. If that means that we have to have start fucking cows then I'm game.

The Khmer Rouge won, whatever it took! Praise Pol-Pot! Yay! Let's not give a fuck about theory and win, even if we've degenerated into a pit of right-winged scum and villiany that can't even be recognised as pro-working class, let alone communist!

And to think! - just a page ago everyone was peddling on about Trot romanticism! The irony!


just denouncing it because it's not "real Marxism" makes you no better than Kaufsky.

What's yer beef with Kautsky? If I recall correctly, Lenin practically mirrored many of his pre-reformist writings.

[RedHal]

a lot of kids were first introduced to communism in the early grades in school with Animal Farm, and if only Trot errr...Snowball had lead the revolution instead of Napoleon we'd all be living in utopia.

[Ravachol]

Ideology, isn't that that colossal wreck that weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Ideology can be compared to the traditions of generations past. The weight of past ideological traditions often seem to weigh like a nightmare on our brains. IMO the weight of the Soviet/Stalin past weighs heavier than that of Trotsky.