A Trotskist socialism from below requires the oppressed classes to be very informed?

[TheOther]

I have a question about socialism from below, and socialism from above? Do you think that because the majority of american workers, poor people and the oppressed in general victims of the USA capitalist government are so un-informed and so far away from political science, political systems, and so far away from what capitalism, socialism and imperialism are. Do you think that because of only a minority of poor americans are informed about the socialism-solution for USA. Do you think that maybe the best kind of revolution and socialism in the USA is revolution from above and socialism from above like the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Stalin and Mao way? Instead of the other type of revolution from below, socialism from below which is the orthodox, Luxemburg, Trotskist, Hal Draper way?

So having said all this, what do you think would work better at destroying capitalism and replacing it with a socialist government in USA: Socialism from above or Socialism from below?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I think the dichotomy you are using is highly problematic. Do I think US workers today are less informed than say the proletariat in Petrograd in 1916? Probably not. Class consciousness will explode when the conditions are ripe. Staying within your paradigm, the idea of a peasant based guerilla army coming to power in the US is silly. In almost no way does the contemporary US resemble China before 1949 or Cuba before 1959. I am taking Chavez out of the mix, because capitalism has not been overturned in Venezuela, and Hugo is simply a left-talking bonapartist nationalist. Quite different from Mao and Fidel, although Fidel started out there and was pushed hard to the left by the logic of events. I'm not sure where Stalin fits in. If the USSR invaded the US and imposed its system here -- uh, yeah, I guess that would be a huge victory for the international working class -- but, um, that ship has already sailed -- and the USSR under Stalin and his spawn were never interested in that.

I guess that leaves us with socialism from below. While it is hard to be optimistic at this point in history, things can change very quickly. The issue from a Trotskyist perspective is whether or not revolutionary leadership will emerge that can lead a successful revolution here.

[The Idler]

Socialism from below but more Occupy than Trotsky/Draper etc.

[Art Vandelay]

Is this the latest TrotskistMarx sock? :laugh: I have never heard anyone else use the word "trotskist" before, which is apparently Norwegian for trotskyist or something.

[Grenzer]

Class consciousness will explode when the conditions are ripe.

This is a very problematic statement, one which abandons the very leninism you claim to espouse. Class consciousness will not spontaneously arise "when the conditions are right"; this can only happen when the most advanced section of the working class compose themselves as a revolutionary party based in the working class movement itself, and not before.

Your statement is a classical economistic/bakuninist one, and is essentially used to justify shitty sectarian politics(IE "We don't have to work with anyone who doesn't share our particular views down to the last issue, since if we sit around long enough our politics will magically work and we'll become THE VANGUARD OF THE PROLETARIAT!!!!").

"Uh guys, your politics don't work."

"They will! We just have to wait around for the conditions to become right."

That's not how it works. You adjust your political strategy in accordance with the conditions, not wait for the conditions to adjust to your strategy. "Bolshevik-Leninism" has always had a very serious problem with economism, but some strains of it are particularly more afflicted with this than others.

Class consciousness will not "explode" until the left gets its head out of its ass and stops selling out to capital and engaging in childish sectarianism.



Is this the latest TrotskistMarx sock? :laugh: I have never heard anyone else use the word "trotskist" before, which is apparently Norwegian for trotskyist or something.

Yup, it's *another* sock of his. Just take a look at his previous posts.

Troll harder next time.

[l'Enfermé]

Who is this TrotskistMarx and why do I keep on hearing about him all the time?

[Grenzer]

Who is this TrotskistMarx and why do I keep on hearing about him all the time?

He's just some troll who uses bad grammar, and a pretty shitty troll at that. Imposter Marxist was way better.

TrotskistMarx's greatest hits (http://www.revleft.com/vb/think-trotskists-ultra-t173082/index.html?t=173082). Look at it, he's even going on about Hal Draper and "Socialism from below" just like he is here. Same deliberate misspellings, and just wait until he quotes someone and puts the quote at the bottom of the post again.

[l'Enfermé]

He's just some troll who uses bad grammar, and a pretty shitty troll at that. Imposter Marxist was way better.

TrotskistMarx's greatest hits (http://www.revleft.com/vb/think-trotskists-ultra-t173082/index.html?t=173082). Look at it, he's even going on about Hal Draper and "Socialism from below" just like he is here. Same deliberate misspellings, and just wait until he quotes someone and puts the quote at the bottom of the post again.
"trotskists and ultra-dogmatic ultra-orthodox marxist organizations." This man(or teenager) is brilliant.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Originally posted by TrotskistMarx:
A trotskist is a person who says that only the working class, united into a labor party can overthrow capitalist governments. They are in favor of revolution from below.

That's funny, I was always an advocate of revolution from the side...

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Socialism from below but more Occupy than Trotsky/Draper etc.

So Occupy will bring us real Socialism? Well, in that case, I guess we should stop building parties and start waiting for the next big historical cycle of Socialism "from below". . .

[Avanti]

the more informed people are, the less radical they are.

because they spend too much time discussing, to try to think instead of feeling the raw love, lust, hate and anger, the calls of the urban dystopia, of the rain-drenched asphalt and the glowing ghastly orange lights of abandoned industrial warzones.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Socialism from below but more Occupy than Trotsky/Draper etc.What does that mean? One was a movement from below that radicalized, the others are revolutionaries who studied and looked to this dynamic.

That's like saying: gravity, but more like a ton of bricks than Newton.

Do you mean purely spontaneous rather than a combination of spontaneous revolt in a dynamic with organization?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This is a very problematic statement, one which abandons the very leninism you claim to espouse. Class consciousness will not spontaneously arise "when the conditions are right"; this can only happen when the most advanced section of the working class compose themselves as a revolutionary party based in the working class movement itself, and not before.

Your statement is a classical economistic/bakuninist one, and is essentially used to justify shitty sectarian politics(IE "We don't have to work with anyone who doesn't share our particular views down to the last issue, since if we sit around long enough our politics will magically work and we'll become THE VANGUARD OF THE PROLETARIAT!!!!").

"Uh guys, your politics don't work."

"They will! We just have to wait around for the conditions to become right."

That's not how it works. You adjust your political strategy in accordance with the conditions, not wait for the conditions to adjust to your strategy. "Bolshevik-Leninism" has always had a very serious problem with economism, but some strains of it are particularly more afflicted with this than others.

Class consciousness will not "explode" until the left gets its head out of its ass and stops selling out to capital and engaging in childish sectarianism.




Yup, it's *another* sock of his. Just take a look at his previous posts.

Troll harder next time.
I said class consciousness, comrade, not Marxist or Leninist consciousness. So the left should stop being sectarian and reformist. That's great. But you miss a point. You can't pull revolution out of your ass. We are not exactly in a period with great prospects for the development of mass revolutionary parties, esp. in the US. Elsewhere, perhaps. Humans make history, but not under the conditions of their own choosing. So if you are a communist, you do you work, you produce your propaganda, you develop membership as best you can and recruit when and where you can. But no amount of activism can overcome actual historical circumstances -- it's the dialectic, remember? Nobody on the left has politics that work in the US right now. Is that because they are all reformist/sectarian swine, or because historical circumstances are not so good?

[Let's Get Free]

I wouldn't say "very informed," but before the working class can be emancipated, every member of the revolutionary working class organization, and a majority of the working class generally, must know the fundamentals.

* The capitalist system isn't a failure due to bad leaders or bad policies, but because the very system itself.

* The goal of social ownership and democratic control of the industries has to be articulated directly. It is not advisable to recruit members because they are "angry at the fat cats", or similar protestations that lack depth of analysis.

* To seek political improvements to the capitalist system is a distraction from what really needs to be done.

This is not intended to be a complete list.

[helot]

Your statement is a classical economistic/bakuninist one, and is essentially used to justify shitty sectarian politics(IE "We don't have to work with anyone who doesn't share our particular views down to the last issue, since if we sit around long enough our politics will magically work and we'll become THE VANGUARD OF THE PROLETARIAT!!!!").


What does that have to do with Bakunin? It's been a while since i read any of Bakunin's stuff but iirc he didn't advocate sitting on your arse away from people with different politics but instead was a comitted militant despite his flaws. In fact, Bakunin emphasised that the collective struggle against the bosses as well as experiences within the International will ensure that the workers will come to realise the irreconcilable antagonisms between their own interests and that of the ruling class. Far from advocating a passive approach he advocated education and collective action.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Is this the latest TrotskistMarx sock? :laugh: I have never heard anyone else use the word "trotskist" before, which is apparently Norwegian for trotskyist or something.

There are two things in this discussion that I know a little bit about:

"Trotskyist" in Russian is precisely "trotskíst" is Cyrillic letters. That said, the thread does sound like TrotskistMarx.

I seem to remember dimly that the Sparts, decades ago, writing in Workers Vanguard, I think, were able to adduce a fairly impressive quotation from Lenin, when he was in power, in opposition to "socialism from below." Isn't that whole concept, the property of the state caps? It certainly does not come from Leninism, as far as I know, or from Trotsky.

[GoddessCleoLover]

"Socialism from below" as formulated by Hal Draper seems to have a rather Luxemburgian or even leftcom flavor to it, and it doesn't surprise me that the Sparts were able to dig up some quote from Lenin in opposition to to that concept. Some of us, though, do not regard Lenin as some infallible godlike figure whose quotations are Holy Writ. Come to think of it, Lenin did not regard himself as a godlike figure dispensing Holy Writ. Those who have elevated Lenin to this status that he never sought nor desired do our cause the greatest disservice, whether they are dogmatic Marxist-Leninists or dogmatic Trots like the SL. The sad fact is that for all of their differences, the various sects like the SL, RCP, WWP, PSL, and SWP that have treated Lenin like an infallible god have in common a dogmatic approach to theory that repels real workers.

[TheOther]

I am an advocate of socialism from below. But from my own opinion the workers of USA are too individualists. And they don't talk at all. Not communicating their needs is a problem. I mean I've noticed that the workers of USA have a sort of inflated ego, maybe because they compare USA with workers from Nigeria, Panama and so on.

There are many things that are an impediment for workers of Mcdonalds, Wal Marts and many other worker to take the iniciative and to join marxist parties. Around where I live people are poor, but it is weird how they behave like upper middle class american yuppy psychoes.

Some times i entertain the idea that what will happen in the USA is a division of the USA into 4 to 6 countries, because of the extreme narcissism and inflated egoes of most poor americans






So Occupy will bring us real Socialism? Well, in that case, I guess we should stop building parties and start waiting for the next big historical cycle of Socialism "from below". . .

[TheOther]

ha, big deal like if Trotsky was a god or something, that writing Trotskist is a big crime, haha humans are pathetic


This is a very problematic statement, one which abandons the very leninism you claim to espouse. Class consciousness will not spontaneously arise "when the conditions are right"; this can only happen when the most advanced section of the working class compose themselves as a revolutionary party based in the working class movement itself, and not before.

Your statement is a classical economistic/bakuninist one, and is essentially used to justify shitty sectarian politics(IE "We don't have to work with anyone who doesn't share our particular views down to the last issue, since if we sit around long enough our politics will magically work and we'll become THE VANGUARD OF THE PROLETARIAT!!!!").

"Uh guys, your politics don't work."

"They will! We just have to wait around for the conditions to become right."

That's not how it works. You adjust your political strategy in accordance with the conditions, not wait for the conditions to adjust to your strategy. "Bolshevik-Leninism" has always had a very serious problem with economism, but some strains of it are particularly more afflicted with this than others.

Class consciousness will not "explode" until the left gets its head out of its ass and stops selling out to capital and engaging in childish sectarianism.




Yup, it's *another* sock of his. Just take a look at his previous posts.

Troll harder next time.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I can't wait till the American working class is class conscious enough for me to make a Trotskist-Jeffersonian revolution.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am holding out for a Luxembergian-Gramscian revolution.

[TheOther]

Yeah you are right. Many people in this forum are neurotic, to the point of being obssesive about arguing, instead of planning to unite against the oligarchic ruling class. Look at how much time they spend on irrelevant things like the name of Trotsky, labels and categories. In a way they are a little bit like peope of FOX news and many right-wingers who get emotional, and call Obama a socialist. Many americans are too psycho-rigid and too pragmatic.

Somebody in another forum told me that americans are very argumentative, too psychorigid and too pragmatic. That's why like you said there is too much time spent in theories and not enough time spent in party-building, in building a big socialist party for poor people





the more informed people are, the less radical they are.

because they spend too much time discussing, to try to think instead of feeling the raw love, lust, hate and anger, the calls of the urban dystopia, of the rain-drenched asphalt and the glowing ghastly orange lights of abandoned industrial warzones.

[TheOther]

I can't wait for the neurotic orthodox dogmatic socialist from below TROTSKISTS to overthrow the US capitalist government, and install free medical services for me, my family and poor people my friend.

WE WILL ALL CELEBRATE TROTSKY, HAL DRAPER AND ROSA LUXEMBURG PERFECT SOCIALIST REVOLUTION FROM BELOW, BY WAITING FOR THE WORKERS OF MCDONALDS, TACO BELL, WAL MART, GENERAL MOTORS AND ALL THE OTHER PRIVATE CORPORATIONS TO OVERTHROW THE US CAPITALIST SYSTEM WITHOUT THE NEED OF AN AMERICAN HUGO CHAVEZ, AN AMERICAN FIDEL CASTRO AND AN AMERICAN MAO TSE TUNG !!




I can't wait till the American working class is class conscious enough for me to make a Trotskist-Jeffersonian revolution.

[GoddessCleoLover]

My post was facetious. Seriously, it is usually a mistake to go outside one's national-popular culture in search of heroes. That is quite a collection, from Rosa Luxemberg whom I greatly admire to Mao Tsetung, whom I regard a largely a failure, a Stalin with personal charisma.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I can't wait for the neurotic orthodox dogmatic socialist from below TROTSKISTS to overthrow the US capitalist government, and install free medical services for me, my family and poor people my friend.

WE WILL ALL CELEBRATE TROTSKY, HAL DRAPER AND ROSA LUXEMBURG PERFECT SOCIALIST REVOLUTION FROM BELOW, BY WAITING FOR THE WORKERS OF MCDONALDS, TACO BELL, WAL MART, GENERAL MOTORS AND ALL THE OTHER PRIVATE CORPORATIONS TO OVERTHROW THE US CAPITALIST SYSTEM WITHOUT THE NEED OF AN AMERICAN HUGO CHAVEZ, AN AMERICAN FIDEL CASTRO AND AN AMERICAN MAO TSE TUNG !!

:laugh:Trotskist:laugh:Marx !!!

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can't wait for the neurotic orthodox dogmatic socialist from below TROTSKISTS to overthrow the US capitalist government, and install free medical services for me, my family and poor people my friend.

WE WILL ALL CELEBRATE TROTSKY, HAL DRAPER AND ROSA LUXEMBURG PERFECT SOCIALIST REVOLUTION FROM BELOW, BY WAITING FOR THE WORKERS OF MCDONALDS, TACO BELL, WAL MART, GENERAL MOTORS AND ALL THE OTHER PRIVATE CORPORATIONS TO OVERTHROW THE US CAPITALIST SYSTEM WITHOUT THE NEED OF AN AMERICAN HUGO CHAVEZ, AN AMERICAN FIDEL CASTRO AND AN AMERICAN MAO TSE TUNG !!Wow, you're like a double-troll or something: you actually believe in socialism from below so you are acting like a Stalinist who is then trolling as a fake trotskyist. Well done - good job at making "socialism from above" seem as elitist as it is.

I mean seriously, your mockery of "McDonald's employees" bringing the revolution is EXACTLY what anti-communist propaganda in 1917 said about Russia: "who will be minister of foreign affairs, a mechanic!?"

You do realize that Wal-Mart workers have been organizing a series of strike actions, right?

And not only that, but as a current low-level employee in a hotel, past employee as a store clerk, deli cook, at a call center, liquor store, delivery driver, and various paper-pushing jobs temping in offices: fuck you. Yes we will be the people who make the revolution and remake society. Future revolutionary leaders will emerge from within us and along-side us, never come to lead us from above.[/feeding the trolls]

[Yuppie Grinder]

Wow, you're like a double-troll or something: you actually believe in socialism from below so you are acting like a Stalinist who is then trolling as a fake trotskyist. Well done - good job at making "socialism from above" seem as elitist as it is.

I mean seriously, your mockery of "McDonald's employees" bringing the revolution is EXACTLY what anti-communist propaganda in 1917 said about Russia: "who will be minister of foreign affairs, a mechanic!?"

You do realize that Wal-Mart workers have been organizing a series of strike actions, right?

And not only that, but as a current low-level employee in a hotel, past employee as a store clerk, deli cook, at a call center, liquor store, delivery driver, and various paper-pushing jobs temping in offices: fuck you. Yes we will be the people who make the revolution and remake society. Future revolutionary leaders will emerge from within us and along-side us, never come to lead us from above.[/feeding the trolls]
No he actually believes all these things, he isn't just pretending to get kicks.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Could we please let TrotskitMarx back? Don't ban this account, we need him to lighten things up.
Find me a funnier sentence than "LIEBERMAN, MCCAIN AND BUSH AND THE SATANIC JEWS ARE THE REAL ANTI-CHRISTIAN MAFIA CARTEL THAT WANT TO STEAL LIBYA'S OIL". You can't.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Did TrotskistMarx really post that anti-Semitic "Satanic Jews" stuff?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Yea I don't think he likes Jews much. Funny since both of the people in his name where Jews.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No he actually believes all these things, he isn't just pretending to get kicks.Just fucking great. Now I hafta go somewhere and weep.

[Prometeo liberado]

Could we please let TrotskitMarx back? Don't ban this account, we need him to lighten things up.
Find me a funnier sentence than "LIEBERMAN, MCCAIN AND BUSH AND THE SATANIC JEWS ARE THE REAL ANTI-CHRISTIAN MAFIA CARTEL THAT WANT TO STEAL LIBYA'S OIL". You can't.

I don't know what frightens me more. The blatant anti-semitism, the besmirching of the jewish name with links to the Bush family or The Mafea having anything to do with any of this.:confused: Stay classy Libya!

[Avanti]

Yeah you are right. Many people in this forum are neurotic, to the point of being obssesive about arguing, instead of planning to unite against the oligarchic ruling class. Look at how much time they spend on irrelevant things like the name of Trotsky, labels and categories. In a way they are a little bit like peope of FOX news and many right-wingers who get emotional, and call Obama a socialist. Many americans are too psycho-rigid and too pragmatic.

Somebody in another forum told me that americans are very argumentative, too psychorigid and too pragmatic. That's why like you said there is too much time spent in theories and not enough time spent in party-building, in building a big socialist party for poor people

parties are a road towards failure.

either they become too popular and therefore too adjusted, or they degenerate down to narrow sects.

we need a culture, not a party.

[red flag over teeside]

For any socialist revolution to take place then this needs to be the conscious activity of the working class globally. This should be the starting point for anyone who calls themselves a marxist.

The problem arises in how does this consciousness develop. How does the working class in the countries of Britain, USA, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Poland etc break from both nationalism as well as reformism. As of yet this has never been acheived. Germany 1919 the workers still remained loyal to the SPD through to Chile 1972 the workers remained loyal to the socialists reformist all.

For me the task can only be done through an organisation/party that isin it for the long haul and can both work in short term campaigns while always putting forward the need for workers to be actively involved in the campaign. There is no easy solution but one start could be by taking the advice Gorter gave Lenin.

[robbo203]

For any socialist revolution to take place then this needs to be the conscious activity of the working class globally. This should be the starting point for anyone who calls themselves a marxist.

The problem arises in how does this consciousness develop. How does the working class in the countries of Britain, USA, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Poland etc break from both nationalism as well as reformism. As of yet this has never been acheived. Germany 1919 the workers still remained loyal to the SPD through to Chile 1972 the workers remained loyal to the socialists reformist all.

For me the task can only be done through an organisation/party that isin it for the long haul and can both work in short term campaigns while always putting forward the need for workers to be actively involved in the campaign. There is no easy solution but one start could be by taking the advice Gorter gave Lenin.

A good analysis. The great difficulty - or dilemma, if you like - is how such an organisation/party can "work in short term campaigns while always putting forward the need for workers to be actively involved in the campaign" without succumbing to the quicksand of reformism and ipso facto the abandonment of social revolution. It may be that we may have to rethink radically how we can strive to meet our short term needs while holding true to the long term vision of a communist society. As you say there is no easy solution.

[Avanti]

parties are just a reflection of the culture where they exist.

party politics are impossible in fragmented societies, because all different tribes will just form smaller one-party societies within wider society to bring forth their own interests.

party politics is a rpg game, to role-play "civil society". and trotskyism is the ultimate rpg, at least for sociology students.

it is more of a political action to crush a window than to join a party.

and parties automatically create "from above" solutions, because parties are the wank fantasies of people who dream of leading you.

if anybody wants to start a party, let's give him a good beating! :D

[Art Vandelay]

Common mods let us keep him. :D

Please?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Revleft.com should have its name changed to TrotskistMarx.gov.
Or at least make the man an admin.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh, so that's why TrotskistMarx is so famous.

[blake 3:17]

I was a member of a socialism-from-below group for many years and even when I was on leading committees I had serious reservations about a simple "from below" perspective. I thought this thread might be a serious discussion of this.

Our current did have some interesting discussions about supporting social democratic parties/candidates and how to relate to the labour bureaucracy. I ended up leaving the group when I thought it was pandering to unhealthy ultra-leftism. I started contributing more to its publications while becoming an independent. I think some from the SFB tradition have an overly simplistic view of bourgeois and representative democracy.

I think the IS line on Cuba is BS, but a few of my favourite people subscribe to it.

I am less concerned with theory

[GoddessCleoLover]

SFB seems reminiscent of the strategy of entryism that proved a dead end in the UK and elsewhere.

[Ostrinski]

If he hates Trotsky so much why did he have his name in his username.

[blake 3:17]

SFB seems reminiscent of the strategy of entryism that proved a dead end in the UK and elsewhere.

No, I was more of an entryist. Maybe.

When I resigned membership in the New Socialist Group, its orientation was towards a "no compromises" left communism. This was part of the intellectual milieu of the academic radical Left post- 9/11.

I was doing stewardship in my union and trying to find some political engagement at a skills/training based community college and fancy pants talk about why the labour/NGO bureaucracy were total sellouts didn't fly with young largely immigrant women who were trying to find a job with a living wage. Some of that had happened earlier at Days of Action here where grad students were putting forward "Combat Reification" as a slogan to workers who were being laid off. Didn't seem like such a big deal in midst of an upsurge of class struggle...

I came close to joining the social democratic party here, but quit any active support after it endorsed mandatory minimum sentencing laws for teenagers in "gun related" crimes ie. you shoplift or sell some pot, get busted, and your friend has a gun you don't even know about, and you're fucking fucked, tried as an adult even though you're 15.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Why would anyone think that laid-off workers would relate to the slogan "Combat Reification"? :confused: One has to connect with workers' struggles in order to advance our cause, not go out of one's way to promote a slogan that is both intellectually a bit pretentious and not really pertinent to the issue at hand, eg. unemployment.

[Avanti]

Why would anyone think that laid-off workers would relate to the slogan "Combat Reification"? :confused: One has to connect with workers' struggles in order to advance our cause, not go out of one's way to promote a slogan that is both intellectually a bit pretentious and not really pertinent to the issue at hand, eg. unemployment.

it sounds like a particularly nasty form of constipation.

but there's probably no slogan that works on all kinds of workers today. there's so many forms of workers today, so many identities, languages and norms. society is rapidly atomizing.

that's why we need to diversify.

one more thing about workers. in 1930, the struggle was about creating humane living conditions for workers. i'm telling you the secret now. the struggle today is for the workers to find a job or keep their jobs.

hush! i said it.

no matter how much the economy grows, 8% unemployment is here to stay. at least until the next recession. then 12% unemployment will be here to stay. then 16%, then 20%, then 30%...

[blake 3:17]

Why would anyone think that laid-off workers would relate to the slogan "Combat Reification"? :confused: One has to connect with workers' struggles in order to advance our cause, not go out of one's way to promote a slogan that is both intellectually a bit pretentious and not really pertinent to the issue at hand, eg. unemployment.


They're working on their PhDs and being teaching assistants and work about 12 hours a week and think they're the working class. It was totally insignificant in the class struggle, except that it was insignificant.

My biggest beef with the SFB group I was in was that it had a very complex (but mostly negative) take on the labour bureaucracy but absolutely no substantive critique of academia or Leftism within academia. There it was a simple clash of ideas...

[Sea]

If only we could make the recessions come in a little faster, we wouldn't have to worry about this whole "mass strike" thing!
no matter how much the economy grows, 8% unemployment is here to stay. at least until the next recession. then 12% unemployment will be here to stay. then 16%, then 20%, then 30%...

[red flag over teeside]

In the UK it seems to me that the greatest success that the bourgeoise has had is to have marginalised the very perspective of socialism/communism. The previous networks of militants have been disrupted abd even dispersed which leaves the younger generation without a memory of struggle.

This problem of course can be addressed and a new younger networkof militants can emerge but this will take time and hoping for spontaneity will not be the answer.

[hetz]

Just, since when is Trotskysm about "socialist from below"?

[Grenzer]

If he hates Trotsky so much why did he have his name in his username.

Entryism.

[red flag over teeside]

Trotsky socialism from below? Maybe the 1905 Soviet? Problem with Trotsky post 1923 was that he was caught between seeing the Bolshevik/Communist party as somehow being a workers party which it was not and not or refusing to recognise the counter revolution that was taking place before his eyes with the establishment of the burearocracy. There are I think strong elements of workers power from below in Trotsky's writings the probelm is mixing up his writings with the various Trotskyist groups in existence today.

[Geiseric]

I have a question about socialism from below, and socialism from above? Do you think that because the majority of american workers, poor people and the oppressed in general victims of the USA capitalist government are so un-informed and so far away from political science, political systems, and so far away from what capitalism, socialism and imperialism are. Do you think that because of only a minority of poor americans are informed about the socialism-solution for USA. Do you think that maybe the best kind of revolution and socialism in the USA is revolution from above and socialism from above like the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Stalin and Mao way? Instead of the other type of revolution from below, socialism from below which is the orthodox, Luxemburg, Trotskist, Hal Draper way?

So having said all this, what do you think would work better at destroying capitalism and replacing it with a socialist government in USA: Socialism from above or Socialism from below?

The solely possible way for it to happen would be from a mass movement that encompases more than half of the working class. The petit bourgeoisie don't really factor into the equation, seeing as the ones remaining are more and more becoming working class or lumpen due to the depression. However Blanquism is what "socialism from above," is, and it's been a failure. We need to utilize the legal methods that we are presented with in an attempt to bring revolutionary politics to the masses, and that means forming a party to participate in elections on a revolutionary program, with demands that actually are important to the working class that might at first sight not seem revolutionary.

For example a marxist workers party today would be fighting for universal healthcare, higher wages to match with inflation, an end to the wars, the struggles of oppressed nationalities, environmental reform, and everything else that the working class is demanding.

[blake 3:17]

Just, since when is Trotskysm about "socialist from below"?


The formulation of SFB comes very directly from particular currents within the Trotskyist movement.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_main.htm

[TheOther]

hi, thanks for your answer. I am not a pessimist person. But however, I just would like to say that the extreme lack of communication, the avoidant attitudes, the unwillingness of poor people, and of low-wage workers in America to expose and dig out of their souls and minds their needs, desires and complains is a real impediment for marxist activists in USA to break the ice with them, in order to strike a conversation with them by telling them that socialism is their only solution for their limited incomes, and their lack of self-realization and progress. Every thing in America is built to divide people, to cause anger and loneliness between people. The only people in USA who gather and join together into groups on a regular basis are religious people who meet on weekdays and on weekends. But proposing a marxist government as the solution for the average joes and janes of America is real hard. You would need the outgoing and extroverted behaviour of Hugo Chavez in order to spread socialism propaganda in USA, and not many of us are extroverted and so communicative like Hugo Chavez.

But you are right, the only solution for the poor people of USA is a big labor marxist party, which would be able to join together all progressives and leftists and poor people of the country for the 2016 presidential elections

Thanks





The solely possible way for it to happen would be from a mass movement that encompases more than half of the working class. The petit bourgeoisie don't really factor into the equation, seeing as the ones remaining are more and more becoming working class or lumpen due to the depression. However Blanquism is what "socialism from above," is, and it's been a failure. We need to utilize the legal methods that we are presented with in an attempt to bring revolutionary politics to the masses, and that means forming a party to participate in elections on a revolutionary program, with demands that actually are important to the working class that might at first sight not seem revolutionary.

For example a marxist workers party today would be fighting for universal healthcare, higher wages to match with inflation, an end to the wars, the struggles of oppressed nationalities, environmental reform, and everything else that the working class is demanding.

[Geiseric]

Well the point would be to combat, not manage the bourgeois state. Chavez isn't an ideal model for US marxists, since he isn't socialist.

[Grenzer]

Hello my little friend .

The real question here is whether Hugo Chavez would be able to be considered a superman of the Friedrich Nietzsche fame.


You would need the outgoing and extroverted behaviour of Hugo Chavez in order to spread socialism propaganda in USA, and not many of us are extroverted and so communicative like Hugo Chavez.

[GoddessCleoLover]

If being and extroverted and outgoing communicator were outcome-determinative, then Bob Avakian might be the guy. Seriously, what is lacking in America is not a great leader, rather it is the fact the we have no connection to the workers. The American Left began a frenzy of sectarianism in the 70s, the M-Ls seemed to form a new vanguard party every year. The Trots split into as many factions and leagues as did the Maoists. By the early 80s many cadres simply burned out. The various Trot groups limped along. Two of the main Maoist groups organizationally imploded. Those of us who remained organizationally independent watched this fiasco and we are still suffering from its ramifications.

[Geiseric]

You can't just form a vanguard party every year... It doesn't work like that haha, however I agree that the sect disfunction is a big problem. See this is why united fronts are a big deal haha, let's find what we agree on and work on that.

[TheOther]

Well, I actually meant that workers and poor people themselves. I mean real poor americans who eat from food-banks, homeless people, and low-wage workers need to be a little more extroverted, a little more communicative, and dig out and expose their needs, feelings and pains, among themselves. Because without speaking, mute, silent, the great majority of poor might never be able to organize and join together into a big socialist labor party. But I don't blame them, many people here depend on their full time jobs to feed their families. And you know that in this country there is not so much freedom of ideas, freedom of speech like other nations. Maybe poor people, poor low-wage workers are scared of being kicked out of their jobs if they talk about marxism and politics at work.

.



If being and extroverted and outgoing communicator were outcome-determinative, then Bob Avakian might be the guy. Seriously, what is lacking in America is not a great leader, rather it is the fact the we have no connection to the workers. The American Left began a frenzy of sectarianism in the 70s, the M-Ls seemed to form a new vanguard party every year. The Trots split into as many factions and leagues as did the Maoists. By the early 80s many cadres simply burned out. The various Trot groups limped along. Two of the main Maoist groups organizationally imploded. Those of us who remained organizationally independent watched this fiasco and we are still suffering from its ramifications.

[Chrome_Fist]

Socialism from above as modeled after comrade stalin and hoxha are the only possible options