Who's bourgeois? Sparts & Trots vs. M-Ls & Maoists

[Althusser]

So basically I've heard the claim from Spartacists and Trotskyists that Maoists and Marxist-Leninists are bourgeois because of Stalin's 2-stage theory, and supporting guerilla revolutionaries in the third world to create a democratic state before socialism.

On the other hand, Maoists have made the argument that the Transitional Program and other Trotskyist 4th International literature is bourgeois because it's supposedly reformist and would constitute "working within the system." Also for not supporting national self-determination (though Trotskyists probably should since they're Leninists..... confusing)

Please elaborate on this. My understanding of this is pretty shit.

EDIT: I'm not trying to stir shit up, I honestly want to know how two communist strands can call each other bourgeois... What has more weight?

[Art Vandelay]

Read the literature of both tendencies for yourself and then decide for yourself. You're answers aren't going to come from a message board. Having said that, this will indeed stir shit up.

[Hit The North]

What does the term 'bourgeois' even mean in this context? It isn't very useful.

Maybe one tendency or the other is just plain 'wrong'.

The transitional program has the value of attempting to draw in the broadest layer possible of workers into struggle and, therefore, has fidelity to the Marxist principle that the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the workers themselves. But it has the danger that the struggle never breaks out from the system and ends in a left-wing reformism.

The Maoist strategy of supporting bands of armed insurgents has the virtue of emphasising the Marxist principle that the existing state needs to be smashed, but runs the risk of being elitist and substitionist and bypassing the revolutionary activity of the working class.

For me, the former position wins because it necessarily seeks to recruit workers to revolution whereas the Maoist strategy does not require this rapprochement except, perhaps, rhetorically.

[ind_com]

The Maoist strategy of supporting bands of armed insurgents has the virtue of emphasising the Marxist principle that the existing state needs to be smashed, but runs the risk of being elitist and substitionist and bypassing the revolutionary activity of the working class.

We seek to arm the working classes. The mass militia is the base force for people's war.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I thought Trotskyists did support national self-determination:confused:? I was always taught they did. Oh well. There's about over 9,000 different sects of Trotskyism so it's hard to know what each one believes.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

That I know of, it is communist tradition to call other communists ugly names like: bourgeois, revisionist, sectarian, etc.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

To add to what 9mm wrote, I would advise you to look into the basis for each separate claim of class colaborationism, reformism etc. of each tendency or organisation by reading their own literature and judge for yourself. Claims like these are often slanders and strawmen made by rivals rather than fair evaluations.

[ind_com]

I thought Trotskyists did support national self-determination:confused:? I was always taught they did. Oh well. There's about over 9,000 different sects of Trotskyism so it's hard to know what each one believes.

Orthodox Trots do. Trotsky himself supported national liberation movements.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Orthodox Trots do. Trotsky himself supported national liberation movements.

Well the non-orthodox Trots are hardly Trots. They seem more like social democrats to me.

[ind_com]

Well the non-orthodox Trots are hardly Trots. They seem more like social democrats to me.

Some of them are worse. They don't defend any workers' states and even claim that the USSR and PRC were worse than imperialist powers like the USA or UK. Putting this analysis forward, they don't oppose any imperialist invasion, because they say that those are just wars between capitalists. In essence this is a left-communist position that Trotsky categorically opposed while opposing imperialist aggression. It's almost as if they are apologizing for imperialism.

[Hit The North]

Some of them are worse.

Who of them is worse?


They don't defend any workers' statesWhich workers' states do you have in mind?


and even claim that the USSR and PRC were worse than imperialist powers like the USA or UK.
Which of them argue this?


We seek to arm the working classes. The mass militia is the base force for people's war.When has that happened? Even Mao didn't arm the working class. He created a mainly peasant army, marched into cities and told the workers to be calm and carry on as normal. His attachment to the working class was rhetorical not practical.

[ind_com]

Who of them is worse?

Which workers' states do you have in mind?

Which of them argue this?

The USSR and PRC. And Cliffites argue that.


When has that happened? Even Mao didn't arm the working class. He created a mainly peasant army, marched into cities and told the workers to be calm and carry on as normal. His attachment to the working class was rhetorical not practical.

The peasantry is not a single class. There are several working classes. Slaves, landless labourers, poor peasants etc are all working classes, and exist in neo-colonial countries. The most modern of them is the proletariat, whose class character and nature of contradiction with its oppressors enable it put forward the programme for communism. The base force of people's war is the mass militia which contains all of these working classes and is led by the class programme of the proletariat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The USSR and PRC. And Cliffites argue that.No we don't. "Neither Washington Nor Moscow" was the slogan. We think both the US and USSR were exploiting powers, we don't favor "one over the other" we favor working class revolution from below.

In fact we argue that in the Cold War, the US was much more aggressive, but that also doesn't matter because it's like saying that Germany was more aggressive in WWI or something. The aggression wasn't based on "capitalism" vs. "socialism" but on rivalry between powers. Your misconception is based on the idea that not supporting exploiters in defending their rule from internal challenges from below in the East that we must be supporting the exploiters of the West.

Frankly it's problematic if you think the only options for workers were one cold war regime or the other. It like lesser-evilism on a global scale... you have to vote for the USSR otherwise Romney will win! Defending these regimes doesn't stop the capitalists... as China shows.

We also support national liberation struggles and support Cuba and other so-called socialist states on that basis, just not on the basis of being "worker states".

[Althusser]

Many Trotskyist groups and the Transitional Program just rub me the wrong way. 1.) Because the theory itself can easily become reformist social-democratic crap and 2.) because the groups that have pushed it have all been rather bourgeois in terms of trying to get people elected in office. They say that "one day the workers will demand something, and the capitalists won't be able to concede this time." That's all well and good, but do they think it will ever reach that point? It just appears like a big reformist concept that is masked by rhetoric about revolution. I can see why the Maoists I know call them bourgeois.

Then I have the Trots saying the Maoists are bourgeois because they "support democratic revolution before a socialist one." They don't get the workers involved and support guerrillas in the jungles in areas that "aren't ready."

Trots (If they're Leninists) should support national-liberation, but I think a lot of the groups, prevalent in my parts, are a mix of some kind of Trot-Spartacist Luxemburgism, hence, them not supporting national liberation.

Also, in my question, I less wanted your opinions on which is bourgeois (creating a flame war) but the conceived basis in which people label each other bourgeois, ridiculous or not in your own opinion.

[Hit The North]

Many Trotskyist groups and the Transitional Program just rub me the wrong way. 1.) Because the theory itself can easily become reformist social-democratic crap and 2.) because the groups that have pushed it have all been rather bourgeois in terms of trying to get people elected in office.

You mean like the Comintern (Marxist-Leninist) Communist Parties who all stood candidates in bourgeois elections?



They say that "one day the workers will demand something, and the capitalists won't be able to concede this time." That's all well and good, but do they think it will ever reach that point? It just appears like a big reformist concept that is masked by rhetoric about revolution. I can see why the Maoists I know call them bourgeois.
Bit of an oversimplification. But how do you think that the working class can build up its power if it doesn't fight for its immediate interests? Lenin argued that as long as the Bourgeoisie can force the workers to pay for their crises then the system can survive. Only a militant labour movement, built on the mobilisation of class conscious workers, can even begin to pose the question of resistance and workers' power and a force of such magnitude cannot be built out of thin air.

[ind_com]

You mean like the Comintern (Marxist-Leninist) Communist Parties who all stood candidates in bourgeois elections?

That was opportunism on their part, and it doesn't justify participation in a bourgeois parliament.



Bit of an oversimplification. But how do you think that the working class can build up its power if it doesn't fight for its immediate interests? Lenin argued that as long as the Bourgeoisie can force the workers to pay for their crises then the system can survive. Only a militant labour movement, built on the mobilisation of class conscious workers, can even begin to pose the question of resistance and workers' power and a force of such magnitude cannot be built out of thin air.

How is this militant labour movement going to be built through parliamentary tactics, and not by arming and politicizing the working class?

[kasama-rl]

Even Mao didn't arm the working class. He created a mainly peasant army, marched into cities and told the workers to be calm and carry on as normal. His attachment to the working class was rhetorical not practical.

This is uninformed on many levels.

Mao's Autumn Harvest uprising had a base among coal miners -- so that mine workers and railroad workers were part of the core that created the base areas.

The war came out of the countryside because the urban areas were locked down by Japanese occupation. But there was a huge underground in urban areas among workers and other progressive strata -- that waged an important part of the war.

After the victory, the Maoist formed urban working class militias. There are major examples of how workers came to play a key leading role during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution -- intervening when students spun off into super-hostile infighting, forming mass organizations in Shanghai and elswhere to tople the capitalist roaders.

In the end, as Deng came to power with a capitalist agenda, the main resistance was rooted in working class mlitias that were formed precisely to fight (and if possible prevent) such a rightwing coup.

If you want to discuss these things, then lets discuss them. But the idea that the workers were left out of Chinese socialism is just, well, uninformed.

[slum]

re: trotskyism


the theory itself can easily become reformist social-democratic crap

I keep hearing this and I don't really understand what it means, since all of the Trotskyists I know (admittedly a small number) are very clear that there is no substitute for a revolutionary worker's movement and that bourgeois democracy will never solve the problems inherent in capitalism.

What part of the theory are you referring to?

[Hit The North]

That was opportunism on their part, and it doesn't justify participation in a bourgeois parliament.


Well, given that Marx & Engels supported the demand for working class suffrage; that the entire 2nd International parties contested elections (where they were allowed); that the Comintern CP's participated in elections; this would mean that only the Maoists are not opportunists.

But, wait... This is not even true of the Maoists is it? The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Nepal_%28Maoist%29), the so-called principled split from the ruling The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Communist_Party_of_Nepal_%28Maoist%29) is a registered electoral party in Nepal.

The truth is that throughout the history of Marxism, bourgeois elections have been considered as sometimes tactically useful in the class struggle.


How is this militant labour movement going to be built through parliamentary tactics, and not by arming and politicizing the working class?

Your problem is that you think the transitional program is an electoral manifesto aimed at Parliamentary representation. It is not. This is how Trotsky depicts it: The Transitional Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#op). You should read it and you'll find it is a program for how revolutionaries should carry out their work in the mass movements of labour. It is far more about revolutionary work than it is about contesting elections. It is principally an activists' guide geared toward politicising the working class and breaking it from reformist conclusions.