How is Trotskyism counter-revolutionary?

[Einkarl]

what makes it so? I'm not saying it is. I just hear this a lot.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It isn't? :confused:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It isn't? :confused:

Many of us believe that it is a theoretical dead end stuck in a twenties, but I don't think any one except for that dumb ass FRSO blog the "Marxist-Leninist" says that it is objectivly counter revolutionary. But that guy is a parody of Marxist-Leninism, not a Representative.

Mind giving us some examples of these claims? It would be good to refute them, and if they are true then I would love to use them to annoy my trot friends.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I have a good guess as to who you spend your time with ...


what makes it so? I'm not saying it is. I just hear this a lot.

[thriller]

what makes it so? I'm not saying it is. I just hear this a lot.

I don't think it is really possible to claim that it is "counter-revolutionary." There are plenty of tendencies that disagree with Trotskyism, but even they don't claim it to be counter-revolutionary, just an alternative revolutionary path that they believe will not work. I, for example, am not that big on Maoism and feel that it was unsuccessful, but I don't think of it as counter-revolutionary.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I, for example, am not that big on Maoism and feel that it was unsuccessful, but I don't think of it as counter-revolutionary.

Not to get off topic, but hey that makes you a friend of mine :P

[Manic Impressive]

I don't use the term counter-revolutionary. But yeah their actions do not progress revolution and only preserve capitalism. So if you want to call that counter-revolutionary, it's up to you.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't use the term counter-revolutionary. But yeah their actions do not progress revolution and only preserve capitalism. So if you want to call that counter-revolutionary, it's up to you.

I disagree, sure there is a such thing as "objectivly counter-revolutionary" as opposed to "subjectivily counter revolutionary" but these terms only bare meaning in a revolutionary context. For example, let's say that some how all of the Trot parties managed to merge into one massive "Mass party of labor" as the IMT likes to put it, and begin a revolution. If all of my Anti-Revisionist comrades take up arms and oppose them then they are "objectively" counter revolutionary and regardless of their subjective political opinions, they would be capitalists. Likewise if all of my comrades somehow manage to put together a non-shitty MLM party in the US and start a protracted people's war, then if the Trots were to oppose this war and take an active role in spreading Anti-Maoist propaganda then they would be "objectively counter revolutionary" and if they were to take arms on this belief then they would be as legitimate targets as the police.

So in these cases "Objectively counter-revolutionary" refers to opposing work that would forward an actual revolution for either sectarian reasons or so they can buddy up with their capitalist friends and make like a "Good, Law Abiding Communist".

But of course, peak out your window and look both ways, do you see a revolution? No? Then there is no basis for this claim

Sorry to be harsh, but the reason why this distinction is important because otherwise you begin to look like the Robert commentor on this blog

http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/bob-avakians-new-synthesis-a-critique-part-4/#comments

http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/bob-avakians-new-synthesis-a-critique-part-5/#comments

[Manic Impressive]

refers to opposing work that would forward an actual revolutionThis^

I believe that the actions of Trotskyist parties DO impede work that could lead to an actual revolution. I see them as no different than any other social democratic parties as that is what they offer.


Sorry to be harsh, but the reason why this distinction is important because otherwise you begin to look like the Robert commentor on this blog

http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/bob-avakians-new-synthesis-a-critique-part-4/#comments

http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/bob-avakians-new-synthesis-a-critique-part-5/#comments
Don't worry you're not being harsh, you're being downright polite.:) And yeah I realize that the OP is asking why Stalinists call them that, given that it's a term that originated from that ideology or is at least most associated with it. The Left communists would call them the left wing of capital or a bourgeois party. I'd say that anything that does not progress revolution is at the least conservative, in that it conserves the present state of things. Or by actively campaigning for capitalist issues, promotes a false consciousness directly working against the revolution.

So yeah I know the OP wants to hear that Trotsky was a secret Nazi or any of the other propaganda, but populism ain't my thing, I leave that to the Trots :lol:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Don't worry you're not being harsh, you're being downright polite.:)
I do try, I'm not perfect, I can me rude some times but I feel that it is important to restrain one's self and engage in debate in a principled manner. I take the lessons of Combat Liberalism and How to Be a Good Communist to heart.

And on an unrelated note, due to exams I haven't been able to read that article you gave me, but I am going in to school early tommorow to get some extra time to study so I'll read it then.



This^

I believe that the actions of Trotskyist parties DO impede work that could lead to an actual revolution. I see them as no different than any other social democratic parties as that is what they offer.


May I ask what you mean by this?

Generally, the reason I think that Trotskyite parties such as the SWP and the IMT aren't revolutionary is their mechanical grasp of the concept of class. the IMT seems to go with a class essentialist definition of "working class parties= parties with working class people in them". By this definition they jump the the conclusion that the class position makes them essentially revolutionary and therefore the parties they inhabit are just degenerated worker's partys in need of internal revolution. This fails to grasp that most of the working class people in partys such as the Labour Party (UK) are members of the most privileged section of the working class, the Labor Aristocracy, which is the most politically backward element of the working class. Secondly by practicing this entryism you are surrendering class interdependence and restraining political action on the behalf of the working class to the consent of the non-proletarian members of the party, which leads to a dead end in actual proletarian action. The SWP and the IST make the correct conclusion when they forego entryist work in these parties but by practicing entryism in non-revolutionary labor unions you end up falling into basically the same trap.

Additionally the fact that the SWP equates Feminism with a form of ultra leftism shows that they fail to grasp what the working class is. Yes the primary contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeois, but with in the working class there are layers of privilege and various factors that divide the working class. In rejecting identity politics as a deviation from working class politics, they forget the fact that this class is not a homogeneous blob but a dynamic set full of internal contradictions. By pandering to the labor aristocracy you're appealing to the element of the working class that will tend to favor capitalism the most while treating the racialized, queer, "lumpen" (which in the modern west basically means proletarian) and female working class which form the party most interested in abolishing capitalism, or in other words the vanguard, while the Labor Aristocracy is the most backward element. Hence neglecting them in favor for the backward element is tantamont to neglecting Marxism it's self. (Not that these things are evident from Trotskyism as an ideology, I am merely talking about the political practice of major Trot partys, though I here that recently the Sparts took a principled stand against the racism of the SEP so I respect them for that)

And I know this isn't an complete critique but I really ought to get back to studying now. So I'll reply more in the morning


Though for the OP, here is an ideological critique of Trotskyism. I hope this provides a better answer to your question
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?g6nsqj65xpzdx5y


And one more thing, I just want to reiterate that I am talking the political practice of high profile Trotskyist groups, none of this applies to, say Socialist Alternative.

[Leftsolidarity]

It just so happens that Ismail just linked me to this criticism of Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution". I only skimmed parts of it so far but he does refer to Trotsky as a counter-revolutionary. Maybe some answers are in here?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rothstein-andrew/1933/12/x01.htm

[MarxSchmarx]

I disagree, sure there is a such thing as "objectivly counter-revolutionary" as opposed to "subjectivily counter revolutionary" but these terms only bare meaning in a revolutionary context. For example, let's say that some how all of the Trot parties managed to merge into one massive "Mass party of labor" as the IMT likes to put it, and begin a revolution. If all of my Anti-Revisionist comrades take up arms and oppose them then they are "objectively" counter revolutionary and regardless of their subjective political opinions, they would be capitalists. Likewise if all of my comrades somehow manage to put together a non-shitty MLM party in the US and start a protracted people's war, then if the Trots were to oppose this war and take an active role in spreading Anti-Maoist propaganda then they would be "objectively counter revolutionary" and if they were to take arms on this belief then they would be as legitimate targets as the police.


I see your point, but then by this accounting was Makhno counter-revolutionary? Or what if people took up arms to further the revolution (e.g., they find the maoists aren't going far enough)? Or suppose the "revolution" took the form of a coup d'etat and this "mass party of labor" or whatever started arresting dissident leftists and going after independent trade unions. Would fighting against that (but also against, say, capitalist restorationists) be counter-revolutionary?



So in these cases "Objectively counter-revolutionary" refers to opposing work that would forward an actual revolution for either sectarian reasons


But one person's "sectarian reasons" are another's struggle to prevent a revolution from degenerating. If say the anti-revisionist revolutionaries wanted to say institute censorship of the press, again, would rebelling against this be counter-revolutionary? Would it be a counter-revolutuionary act to sabotage private production if the prevailing revolutionary org. wants to reinsttate some forms of minor capitalism in what it sees as issues of survival?

I think when both sides can make a plausible case for why the other counter-revolutionary, then it is often only with the luxury of hindsight that we can say who was the counter-revolutionary.

That's why I wonder if counter-revolutionary should only be used when there is a substantive alliance of sorts between some group and the capitalists. But even this I wonder about. If the "revolutionaries" were a bunch of primmies or unapologetic polpotists or something as atrocious, then what?

[Blake's Baby]

Ratty Monster is right that Left Comms would in general see Trotskyist groups as counter-revolutionary in that they work against the interests of the proletariat, whatever it is they think they're doing, by supporting different factions of capital in the bourgeoisie's wars, defending the Soviet Union or nationalised industr,y etc. That's not to say that Trotskyists can't move towards revolutionary positions - anyone can become a revolutionary - but they can only do it by breaking with their previous politics. Until they do, they supporting one fraction of the bourgeoisie against another, which has nothing to do with the self-liberation of the working class.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No, Trotskyist work towards revolution hence they are not counter-revolutionary; this term is something I really only see applicable towards another revolutionary tendency when in a country a specific tendency has maintained the lead and seized power and has to "deal" with other tendencies trying to divert their power-base, otherwise it is nonsense (and is only "Counter-revolutionary) in a very sectarian manner). However, such is the history of the world socialist movement, it is something which is highly unlikely to happen in America or other advanced capitalist countries due to the progression of the movement and extreme stratification. In this regard Trotskyism isn't counter-revolutionary any more than any other tendency is.

[l'Enfermé]

This^

I believe that the actions of Trotskyist parties DO impede work that could lead to an actual revolution. I see them as no different than any other social democratic parties as that is what they offer.


Don't worry you're not being harsh, you're being downright polite.:) And yeah I realize that the OP is asking why Stalinists call them that, given that it's a term that originated from that ideology or is at least most associated with it. The Left communists would call them the left wing of capital or a bourgeois party. I'd say that anything that does not progress revolution is at the least conservative, in that it conserves the present state of things. Or by actively campaigning for capitalist issues, promotes a false consciousness directly working against the revolution.

So yeah I know the OP wants to hear that Trotsky was a secret Nazi or any of the other propaganda, but populism ain't my thing, I leave that to the Trots :lol:
What do they impede? Do they somehow obstruct, hinder, block, or in anyway interfere with the activities of other tendencies?

Nah. Trotskyist sects are as irrelevant as other far-left sects in most countries. They wouldn't be able to impede anything even if they wanted to.

[Forward Union]

Orthodox Trotskyism has attempted to undermine almost every self-declared Socialist country in human history.

[Blake's Baby]

What do they impede? Do they somehow obstruct, hinder, block, or in anyway interfere with the activities of other tendencies? ...

No, they obstruct, hinder, block and interfere with the activities of the working class. That's why they're counter-revolutionary.

[feeLtheLove]

No Trotskyist is not anti-revolutionary

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Orthodox Trotskyism has attempted to undermine almost every self-declared Socialist country in human history.

I'm going to have to defend the trots on this one. The only time this legitamtly happened was in Albania where the Trotskyites tried to get Tito to annex Albania, which was a pretty dick move on their behalf. But otherwise they were more often the ones who were wronged. In Vietnam for example, the Trotskyist movement was extremely powerful and formed a united front with Uncle Ho's group and on Stalin's orders their leaders were executed and the rest of their movement was liquidated into the Vietnamese Worker's Party. The Spanish trots received a similar fate and there was another example but I can't think of it. Though Chen's dogmatic insistance on applying Russia's line on Chinese circumstances resulted in disaster, death, and numbers of defeats of the CCP at the hands of the Nationalists, so he deserved to be removed from his position and in this case it really didn't have much to do with his Trotskyism since Wang Ming was also removed and he was a traditional Marxist-Leninist.

[l'Enfermé]

No, they obstruct, hinder, block and interfere with the activities of the working class. That's why they're counter-revolutionary.
What activities of the working class? :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

Pretty much anything. Strikes. Attempts at organisation. It's almost impossible to start anything - any grass-roots organising at work or in the community - without a bunch of Trots coming to take it over and drive it towards some preconceived agenda.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What activities of the working class? :confused:

Yea, back this stuff up. We know that you Left-Comms put alot of emphasis on the "working class" but the way you use the term it becomes almost an abstraction, as if the working class is a single homogeneous blob who is simply waiting to be led by the "proper" vanguard. Yea yea I know, "it's not socialism if the working class don't seize power themselves" but this is besides the point. What do you mean by activities of the working class and how on earth are the Trotskyist interfering with them.

(You already answered this question so feel free to ignore this)

[Lord Hargreaves]

I wouldn't pay any attention to someone who goes around liberally accusing others of being "counter-revolutionary". What stupid, arcane and divisive terminology.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Pretty much anything. Strikes. Attempts at organisation. It's almost impossible to start anything - any grass-roots organising at work or in the community - without a bunch of Trots coming to take it over and drive it towards some preconceived agenda.

There is a limit to spontaneity. There is no such thing as "activities of the working class". There are only struggles that are taken by certain members and sections of the working class. Heck, for the most part worker's don't see class consiousness as a relation to the mode of production but rather as it manifests in a specific instant. So when union workers are on strike, they aren't thinking "this will benefit my working class brethren and raise class consciousness for the revolution", they are thinking "shit I need that fucking raise or else I won't be able to afford cemo for my son". I have my own objection to their method, but trying to take these material concerns of individual workers and raising them to a consciousness of their class in it's entirety by making wider demands for socialism is one of the tried and true methods of revolutionary work. So I don't see what problem you have with it, because "the working class itself" will never bring the end of capitalism because this abstract version of the working class as one homogeneous blob simply doesn't exist. The only way this would work is if Marx's prediction about the inevitable death of capitalism is correct, but should we really wait till then to start promoting socialism as an alternative?

[Drosophila]

There is a limit to spontaneity. There is no such thing as "activities of the working class". There are only struggles that are taken by certain members and sections of the working class. Heck, for the most part worker's don't see class consiousness as a relation to the mode of production but rather as it manifests in a specific instant. So when union workers are on strike, they aren't thinking "this will benefit my working class brethren and raise class consciousness for the revolution", they are thinking "shit I need that fucking raise or else I won't be able to afford cemo for my son". I have my own objection to their method, but trying to take these material concerns of individual workers and raising them to a consciousness of their class in it's entirety by making wider demands for socialism is one of the tried and true methods of revolutionary work. So I don't see what problem you have with it, because "the working class itself" will never bring the end of capitalism because this abstract version of the working class as one homogeneous blob simply doesn't exist. The only way this would work is if Marx's prediction about the inevitable death of capitalism is correct, but should we really wait till then to start promoting socialism as an alternative?

Those are some nice counter-revolutionary views you have there. Contrary to your stone-age Leninist viewpoint, the working class is entirely capable of organizing on its own and destroying itself, the bourgeoisie, and capitalism. They don't need The Glorious Revolutionary Party to guide them along the way. This is why Trotskyism, Maoism, "Marxism-Leninism", Leninism, etc. are all counter-revolutionary - because they are counter-proletarian.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Those are some nice counter-revolutionary views you have there. Contrary to your stone-age Leninist viewpoint, the working class is entirely capable of organizing on its own and destroying itself, the bourgeoisie, and capitalism. They don't need The Glorious Revolutionary Party to guide them along the way. This is why Trotskyism, Maoism, "Marxism-Leninism", Leninism, etc. are all counter-revolutionary - because they are counter-proletarian.

I'm not saying that it has to be led by a vanguard party in the traditional sense, that is some group of Trots that decides that theirs is the the only tendency capable of guiding the working class and must be spread among the masses so they will line up behind the leader and crush the evil bourgeois so we can nationalize those means of production . Rather, all I am saying is that the term working class does not fully communicate the deep level of contradictions that exist within this class. What is wrong with the approach that assumes the homogeneity of the class is that it assumes that all sections and actions of the working class are equally revolutionary and are in essence the same when this is flatly not true. The Labor Aristocracy, that is the section of the working class which you are referring to, spontaneously rise to defend the standard of living for their individual union members all the time. But of course, considering how common place it is then how come they haven't ended capitalism? It is because that each union is out for it's own interests, not that of the class. That's not to say they are evil, not at all we should support them out of solidarity for our class brothers, but the action of individual unions will never end capitalism.

What I believe in, is the vanguard of the working class. There are contradictions within this class, myriad layers that are isolated and intermingle in different ways, in many cases with one layer benefiting off the oppression of another. The labor aristocracy, while not directly oppressing any other section (unless third worldists are to believed, which in my opinion they shouldn't be), do not exactly fit the mold of "nothing to lose but their chains". What I propose is that the vanguard of the working class emerges from the working class it's self, that is the section of the working class that experiences intersecting layers of oppression is the one that truly has the most vested interest in ending capitalism. These are the non-union workers, the proles that the Trots call "lumpen" and refuse to work with. The proles whose neighborhoods have never seen a trot walk through. The racialized, gendered, queer proletariat that witnesses brutality on a daily basis. This is the most progressive layer of the working class and they will be the ones to lead the backward labor aristocracy to revolution. It's no wonder that the only two Communist parties formed by the actual working class in the 21st century America were formed by ex-criminals. (I'm refering to the New Afrikan Black Panther Party and the Black Rider Liberation Party)

[Art Vandelay]

Those are some nice counter-revolutionary views you have there. Contrary to your stone-age Leninist viewpoint, the working class is entirely capable of organizing on its own and destroying itself, the bourgeoisie, and capitalism. They don't need The Glorious Revolutionary Party to guide them along the way. This is why Trotskyism, Maoism, "Marxism-Leninism", Leninism, etc. are all counter-revolutionary - because they are counter-proletarian.

Wtf is this nonsense. You can disagree with the tendencies all you want, but don't go around regurgitating rhetoric, especially in learning.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Wtf is this nonsense. You can disagree with the tendencies all you want, but don't go around regurgitating rhetoric, especially in learning.

For the sake of being fair, my post did imply that I was taking a subsitutionist position, replacing the proletariat with the party, so to a extent his objections are valid since the idea of vanguardism is often misinterpreted by many individual adherents of these ideologies to mean the vanguard party rather than the vanguard of the working class. Though I should probably clean my post up as well since it contained a sectarian sneer.

[Art Vandelay]

For the sake of being fair, my post did imply that I was taking a subsitutionist position, replacing the proletariat with the party, so to a extent his objections are valid since the idea of vanguardism is often misinterpreted by many individual adherents of these ideologies to mean the vanguard party rather than the vanguard of the working class. Though I should probably clean my post up as well since it contained a sectarian sneer.

Well his post wasn't just addressing your post, he blatantly accused all Marxists other then left-coms of being counter-revolutionary. That's a pretty bold statement. I know we've exchanged words in the past and you know that I don't consider Maoism to be a Marxist ideology, however I've never said anything about it being 'counter-revolutionary.' I have my disagreements, however its a progressive force in the world none the less.

What's funny is that this is coming from someone who adopts tendencies without even understanding them and flip flops as soon as he loses interests. In the last few months he's been a M-L, a 'orthodox Marxist,' and a now a left-com. Which is why I don't take much offense to being labeled a counter-revolutionary by him, however this is learning and new comers might buy into his nonsense.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well his post wasn't just addressing your post, he blatantly accused all Marxists other then left-coms of being counter-revolutionary. That's a pretty bold statement. I know we've exchanged words in the past and you know that I don't consider Maoism to be a Marxist ideology, however I've never said anything about it being 'counter-revolutionary.' I have my disagreements, however its a progressive force in the world none the less.

What's funny is that this is coming from someone who adopts tendencies without even understanding them and flip flops as soon as he loses interests. In the last few months he's been a M-L, a 'orthodox Marxist,' and a now a left-com. Which is why I don't take much offense to being labeled a counter-revolutionary by him, however this is learning and new comers might buy into his nonsense.
Good point, I liked your post because I agreed with it, I just wanted to point one thing out for the sake of fairness, still I agree that he is painting other ideologies in broad strips rather than actually backing up his claims so he deserves to be called out on it.

Edit: Shit I just realized that my last edit didn't remove half of the sectarianism of that post, I'll edit it again and hopefully get it right this time.


This isn't even worth responding to.
I agree, I'm not even going to dignify it with a post to bump the thread. If he wants to talk about the matter at hand then good, otherwise we can simply end the thread here and now.

[Drosophila]

Well his post wasn't just addressing your post, he blatantly accused all Marxists other then left-coms of being counter-revolutionary. That's a pretty bold statement. I know we've exchanged words in the past and you know that I don't consider Maoism to be a Marxist ideology, however I've never said anything about it being 'counter-revolutionary.' I have my disagreements, however its a progressive force in the world none the less.

What's funny is that this is coming from someone who adopts tendencies without even understanding them and flip flops as soon as he loses interests. In the last few months he's been a M-L, a 'orthodox Marxist,' and a now a left-com. Which is why I don't take much offense to being labeled a counter-revolutionary by him, however this is learning and new comers might buy into his nonsense.
lol

you're right I should have just stayed along the same path I was on for 6 months rather than changing. Because this internet board is serious business. We'll be the leaders of the working class someday!



Someday...

[Art Vandelay]

lol

you're right I should have just stayed along the same path I was on for 6 months rather than changing. Because this internet board is serious business. We'll be the leaders of the working class someday!



Someday...

This isn't even worth responding to.

[Geiseric]

Yeah left coms are kinda pricks sometimes. :D trotskyism however is not counter revolutionary, if you read anything by Trotsky or early allies such as James P. Cannon you'll see it's just scientific marxism. in fact the trotskyist parties were some of the only organized revolutionary groups to hold a proletarian policy on imperialist wars consistently during following WW2, during which many were jailed and testified against by the CP USA.

[subcp]

Right now, the textile workers of Mahalla in Egypt are struggling against the state, the bosses of the public and private sector textile factories and mills, and are generally regarded as the vanguard of the Egyptian revolution; the most advanced part of the working-class in that country right now. They've been on an escalating course of more advanced forms of struggle starting with the 2006 strikes over Islamist issues (the Dutch cartoons), but began to take on the state directly (fighting with security forces), have discarded the advice of their union representatives, chased local politicians out of their government offices, were a big motor of the Arab Spring, and have said recently that the revolutionary council they have formed is independent of the Morsi regime and the Muslim Brotherhood state.

Right now, the Egyptian Trotskyists are taking part of the 'political opposition' (non-MB parties in Egypt), support the unions (rather than the workers in them), and are issuing minimum demands on the Morsi state. Here is a recent declaration from the 'Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists' (Trots) from 11/2012:



The Revolutionary Socialists call on the revolutionary people to save the revolution which has been stolen by an alliance between the Brotherhood and the remnants of Mubarak’s regime. We call on people to come out into the streets with the slogans: bread, freedom, social justice.
We demand:


the cancellation of the supplementary constitutional declaration which entrenches tyranny and autocracy
the formation of a new Constituent Assembly which represents all sections of society, including workers, peasants, civil servants, professionals, women, Copts, Nubians, the people of Sinai and Upper Egypt, fishermen and others
the resignation of Qandil’s failed government and the formation of a revolutionary coalition government to take office until the completion of the new constitution and the election of a new parliament
serious steps towards achieving of social justice, such as: implementing a minimum wage of 1,500 Egpytian pounds a month [£150] and a maximum wage; seizing the assets of corrupt companies and Mubarak’s businessmen for the benefit of the people; imposing progressive income taxes; renationalising companies that were sold in corrupt deals and cancelling the privatisation programme

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30081


This is an example, happening right now, in real life, of Trotskyists being counter-revolutionary, and demonstrating why Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary rather than just another revolutionary tendency, or even a part of the revolutionary milieu that is just wrong or misguided.


More news and information on what some are calling 'the Mahalla Soviet':

http://oreaddaily.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-mahalla-soviet.html

[The Red Comet]

From what I've always observed Trotskyist suffer from the same issues that Left-Communist and Anarchist suffer from. Instead of channeling their political fervor and energy into something productive - They instead choose to squander it on crusades against "authoritarianism" and "Stalinism". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trotskyist, Left-Coms and Anarchist seem to put more emphasis on Anti-Stalinism and Anti-"Authoritarianism" than Anti-Capitalism.

[subcp]

From what I've always observed Trotskyist suffer from the same issues that Left-Communist and Anarchist suffer from. Instead of channeling their political fervor and energy into something productive - They instead choose to squander it on crusades against "authoritarianism" and "Stalinism". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trotskyist, Left-Coms and Anarchist seem to put more emphasis on Anti-Stalinism and Anti-"Authoritarianism" than Anti-Capitalism.

That may be true of some individuals, but not overall. I'd say that class struggle anarchists and left communists are busy honing the tools of successful and productive intervention in class struggle, promoting militant forms of class struggle, and developing theory and analysis that makes this possible- not just tearing down false or counter-revolutionary ideologies (even though that is an important activity).

Even though Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary, it can't be said that all they do is bash Stalinism. If that's all they did they wouldn't be counter-revolutionary.

[Leftsolidarity]

I just want to point out that Trotskyism is so counter-revolutionary that Trotsky was one of the main figures in one of the most important revolutions ever....

[Blake's Baby]

Well his post wasn't just addressing your post, he blatantly accused all Marxists other then left-coms of being counter-revolutionary. That's a pretty bold statement. I know we've exchanged words in the past and you know that I don't consider Maoism to be a Marxist ideology, however I've never said anything about it being 'counter-revolutionary.' I have my disagreements, however its a progressive force in the world none the less.

What's funny is that this is coming from someone who adopts tendencies without even understanding them and flip flops as soon as he loses interests. In the last few months he's been a M-L, a 'orthodox Marxist,' and a now a left-com. Which is why I don't take much offense to being labeled a counter-revolutionary by him, however this is learning and new comers might buy into his nonsense.

Does drosophilia identify as a Left Comm? It's not on his info on the right of the post.

But, as Left Comms analyse the role and function (and ideology) of other currents, then yes we regard those who support factions in capitalism's wars, and substitutionist ideas of becoming a new ruling body, and administering state capitalism, and such like, as being 'counter-revolutionary'.

We don't think all Marxist currents other than Left Comms are counter-revolutionary. We don't think Council Communists, or Impossiblists (SPGB or De Leonists) are counter-revolutionary. We just think they're wrong about some things.

We don't think some Anarchists are counter-revolutionary either - again, we think they're wrong about some things.

As this is a thread about why Trotskyism is considereed by other currents to be counter-revolutionary, I don't see what the objection is.



I just want to point out that Trotskyism is so counter-revolutionary that Trotsky was one of the main figures in one of the most important revolutions ever....

However, no 'Trotskyist' is Trotsky, and we aren't in 1917, so what the connection is here is anyone's guess. Many Left Comms admire Trotsky, and more importantly try to learn from his successes and failures. Many Trotskyists, it seems, want to turn his theoretical works and practical lessons (and especially his mistakes, which some of them even refuse to admit exist) into a dogma to be endlessly repeated in unlike circumstances. Which - given that they criticise Stalinists for doing the same with Lenin - is a bit rich really.

[The Red Comet]

That may be true of some individuals, but not overall. I'd say that class struggle anarchists and left communists are busy honing the tools of successful and productive intervention in class struggle, promoting militant forms of class struggle, and developing theory and analysis that makes this possible- not just tearing down false or counter-revolutionary ideologies (even though that is an important activity).

Even though Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary, it can't be said that all they do is bash Stalinism. If that's all they did they wouldn't be counter-revolutionary.

Oh. I wasn't saying they were Counter-Revolutionary, Comrade. Besides I like Leon Trotsky - Just not what Trotskyism has become in my eyes. This is, of course only an opinion of mine. (Meaning the various splits. Not that they're "Counter-revolutionary" or anything silly like that.)

[subcp]

You're not alone there really; a lot of people take from Trotsky's ideas but oppose what became 'Trotskyism' (I agree with you on that). Compare Trotsky's role in 1905 to the role of Trotskyists in Egypt right now, it's a stark contrast.

[Lucretia]

Many Marxist-Leninists think that some of the most abusive and anti-worker states in world history (e.g., North Korea, Cambodia) are socialist because they nationalized productive property. "Orthodox" Trotskyists call for maintaining this form of property, and defending the form of the state apparatus, on the basis that they supposedly indicate workers' class control over states, despite the fact that workers were supposedly "politically" (again, not socially) expropriated by petty bourgeois bureaucracies. Ortho-Trots therefore call for a political, but not a social, revolution in these states. M-Ls see this call as counter-revolutionary because they do not believe the workers have been expropriated politically. They see the states as fully socialist, and as being under the leadership of socialist regimes.

Now I think Ortho-Trots are wrong on the question of nationalized proprety forms necessarily equating with working-class social hegemony, just as I think they are wrong to claim to be appropriating Trotsky's method (I think that Trotsky's method of analysis would have led him to see the USSR as a capitalist state if he had lived to see the aftermath of WWII). But you asked, and that's the gist of the rationale for the "counter-revolutionary" labels.

[Geiseric]

Does drosophilia identify as a Left Comm? It's not on his info on the right of the post.

But, as Left Comms analyse the role and function (and ideology) of other currents, then yes we regard those who support factions in capitalism's wars, and substitutionist ideas of becoming a new ruling body, and administering state capitalism, and such like, as being 'counter-revolutionary'.

We don't think all Marxist currents other than Left Comms are counter-revolutionary. We don't think Council Communists, or Impossiblists (SPGB or De Leonists) are counter-revolutionary. We just think they're wrong about some things.

We don't think some Anarchists are counter-revolutionary either - again, we think they're wrong about some things.

As this is a thread about why Trotskyism is considereed by other currents to be counter-revolutionary, I don't see what the objection is.




However, no 'Trotskyist' is Trotsky, and we aren't in 1917, so what the connection is here is anyone's guess. Many Left Comms admire Trotsky, and more importantly try to learn from his successes and failures. Many Trotskyists, it seems, want to turn his theoretical works and practical lessons (and especially his mistakes, which some of them even refuse to admit exist) into a dogma to be endlessly repeated in unlike circumstances. Which - given that they criticise Stalinists for doing the same with Lenin - is a bit rich really.

See this is getting rediculous. The idea of the lbel "trotskyist," is only important to differentiate ourselves from other ultra lefts and opportunist communists, but that label is only useful around other "leftists," in most cases not usually since most communists have their own ideas about history and theory, which usually are incorrect. All that means is that we think we agree with what trotsky said, as most "marxists" said they believed what marx said, so I wouldn't put to much stress on labels, if it didn't already indicate ones general politics.

[The Feral Underclass]

what makes it so? I'm not saying it is. I just hear this a lot.

Historically, Trotskyist/Leninist organisations and their tradition have claimed to speak on behalf of working class interests. In reality these organisations only present an alternative version of capitalism, in some cases worse than the conditions under which workers currently live. Trotskyist/Leninist ideas and organisations promote the belief that centralised political authority i.e. the state, can be a tool to create communism. This analysis ignores the fundamental nature of capitalist social relations and the role the state has in perpetuating them.

The centralisation of political authority i.e. a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre" (a central committee or central government for example), dominated by a political elite, whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the state’s control (centralised political authority). The Trotskyist/Leninist left will claim that the state’s purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In order to maintain and operate this process a bureaucracy or civil service must emerge. Over a period of time, this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers’ power are recuperated because they cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself. The bureaucracy cannot allow workers’ collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of their centralised political authority; or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army, otherwise the state’s power is undermined. It is therefore not possible to have the emergence of workers’ councils in work places and the creation of workers’ militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists. The two will always come into conflict.

This contradiction will always exist. Real workers’ democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, directly managed horizontally and economic ownership placed into the hands of the working class. This is the point when workers are truly in control. That process has to begin during the development of social struggle, even before the moment of revolution. If we allow the centralisation of political authority and the emergence of a bureaucracy, we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure, the specific role of which is to defend and perpetuate itself

Even in contemporary terms, Trotskyist/Leninist groups and individuals will integrate themselves into existing positions of power, e.g. acting as trade union bureaucrats or running in local elections, stifling the individual initiative of workers, encouraging accommodation and compromise with the state and sowing illusions in liberal capitalism. These activities are often associated with efforts to isolate elements that are critical to them, undermining efforts for direct democracy.

[Neoprime]

If want to understand some the stuff Mr. Kentucky Fried Chicken-man/Trotsky has done look in this link below.:trotski:

MOD EDIT. Images removed.

http://marxistleninist.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=learning&action=display&thread=162

[ellipsis]

Verbal Warning to herr neoprime. Please don't post memes/joke images in the serious forums. Keep it to chit chat.

[hashem]

trotskyism is counter revolutionary because no revolution has been successful without repelling it and no revolution can be successful without doing so.

[Leftsolidarity]

trotskyism is counter revolutionary because no revolution has been successful without repelling it and no revolution can be successful without doing so.


Lmao what the fuck are you talking about?

[Neoprime]

Verbal Warning to herr neoprime. Please don't post memes/joke images in the serious forums. Keep it to chit chat.

Sorry.:crying:

[Red Enemy]

Ratty Monster is right that Left Comms would in general see Trotskyist groups as counter-revolutionary in that they work against the interests of the proletariat, whatever it is they think they're doing, by supporting different factions of capital in the bourgeoisie's wars, defending the Soviet Union or nationalised industr,y etc. That's not to say that Trotskyists can't move towards revolutionary positions - anyone can become a revolutionary - but they can only do it by breaking with their previous politics. Until they do, they supporting one fraction of the bourgeoisie against another, which has nothing to do with the self-liberation of the working class.
I don't think a blanket statement on Trotskyists is appropriate. Yes, we can criticize many groups, the leadership/bureaucracy of other groups.

However, there are Trotskyists not in groups, Trotskyists who are in groups but oppose things the main of the party support, and indeed groups that show no signs of being counter-revolutionary, etc.

[Lucretia]

Historically, Trotskyist/Leninist organisations and their tradition have claimed to speak on behalf of working class interests. In reality these organisations only present an alternative version of capitalism, in some cases worse than the conditions under which workers currently live. Trotskyist/Leninist ideas and organisations promote the belief that centralised political authority i.e. the state, can be a tool to create communism. This analysis ignores the fundamental nature of capitalist social relations and the role the state has in perpetuating them.

The centralisation of political authority i.e. a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre" (a central committee or central government for example), dominated by a political elite, whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the state’s control (centralised political authority). The Trotskyist/Leninist left will claim that the state’s purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In order to maintain and operate this process a bureaucracy or civil service must emerge. Over a period of time, this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers’ power are recuperated because they cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself. The bureaucracy cannot allow workers’ collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of their centralised political authority; or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army, otherwise the state’s power is undermined. It is therefore not possible to have the emergence of workers’ councils in work places and the creation of workers’ militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists. The two will always come into conflict.

This contradiction will always exist. Real workers’ democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, directly managed horizontally and economic ownership placed into the hands of the working class. This is the point when workers are truly in control. That process has to begin during the development of social struggle, even before the moment of revolution. If we allow the centralisation of political authority and the emergence of a bureaucracy, we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure, the specific role of which is to defend and perpetuate itself

Even in contemporary terms, Trotskyist/Leninist groups and individuals will integrate themselves into existing positions of power, e.g. acting as trade union bureaucrats or running in local elections, stifling the individual initiative of workers, encouraging accommodation and compromise with the state and sowing illusions in liberal capitalism. These activities are often associated with efforts to isolate elements that are critical to them, undermining efforts for direct democracy.

By degrading Trotskyism as a substitutionist and anti-democratic dead end, The Anarchist Tension here is claiming to speak on behalf of working class interests, the very thing he faults Trotskyists for supposedly doing. Much like postmodernists, he is most careful to exempt himself from the very "flaws" he claims to locate in others. I don't think it's accidental that anarchists have in the past 20 years or so been very excited about post-structuralist/postmodernist theory, and attempted to appropriate it for their own political purposes.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think a blanket statement on Trotskyists is appropriate. Yes, we can criticize many groups, the leadership/bureaucracy of other groups.

However, there are Trotskyists not in groups, Trotskyists who are in groups but oppose things the main of the party support, and indeed groups that show no signs of being counter-revolutionary, etc.

'A blanket statement on Trotskyists'? No.

I said that Trotskyist groups were counter-revolutionary. What makes them so? The positions of the group. So it's Trotskyism as a political current I'm criticising.

I also said Trotskyists can become revolutionaries - but only by breaking with Trotskyism, as for example the Munis group in Spain and the Stirnas group in Greece did around WWII. Or even the OpOp in Brazil now.

It's not about individuals, it's about positions. Individuals can change their minds. Even groups can, group A can produce split B that takes up revolutionary positions. But there can't be a 'revolutionary Trotskyism' without breaking with the last 80 years of Trotskyist theory and practice.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Orthodox Trotskyism has attempted to undermine almost every self-declared Socialist country in human history.

This.

[Blake's Baby]

Every 'self-declared socialist country in history' needs to be not only undermined but overthrown.

However, Trotskyism's track record is mostly one of abject capitulation to 'every self-declared socialist country in history'. That's one of the reasons it's counter-revolutionary.

[Comrade #138672]

Perhaps the question should not be whether Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary, but whether it is non-revolutionary / reformist.

[Ismail]

However, Trotskyism's track record is mostly one of abject capitulation to 'every self-declared socialist country in history'. That's one of the reasons it's counter-revolutionary.Quite right. From praising Tito as an "unconscious Trotskyist" to endorsing "destalinization."

Take this for instance:

"Regardless of motivation, the Kremlin's exposure and denunciation of the savagely repressive regime in Albania furthers the process of democratization within the Soviet bloc and the Communist parties internationally....

The rapidity and boldness of this trend is dramatically evidenced in the Nov. 11 issue of Nuova Generazione, organ of the Young Communist of Italy. In addition to publishing a photograph of Trotsky beside Lenin, it states that Trotsky is 'one of the most original personalities of the October Revolution, about whose ideas discussion is now reopened. Among other works, he is the author of one of the most interesting Histories of the Revolution and some of the finest pages on Lenin.' Nuova Generazione calls for a critique of the whole history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as well as a new examination of Trotsky's role. Two articles, moreover, discuss some of Trotsky's theses in a serious political manner.

Italy's Young Communists may be a bit more advanced and daring than their counterparts in other countries, but the most militant elements in all Communist parties and youth organizations have already taken the same road." - The Militant, December 18, 1961.

The PCI, of course, was to the right of the Soviet revisionists and criticized the Soviets for their supposed "dogmatism." The PCI became one of the founders of "Eurocommunism."

So many Trotskyists cheer on the Cuban government and praised its neo-colonialist invasion of Angola. Many Trots took either a "neutral" or "critically supportive" stand on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Ernest Mandel praised Gorbachev while the likes of Ted Grant promoted subservience to social-democratic parties, Gerry Healy and Pablo promoted subservience to bourgeois nationalism in the third world (a tradition continued today with praise for Chávez), etc.

In foreign affairs Trotskyists provided cover for social-imperialism and state-capitalism. In domestic affairs Trotskyists called either for tailing the bourgeoisie or in many cases integrating themselves with its apparatuses in labor unions, political parties, etc. and sliding into liberalism altogether (e.g. Christopher Hitchens.)