Was Trotsky a revisionist? [Archive]

Dodo

30th March 2014, 19:23

Trotsky's main themes/theories are all compatible with central concepts to Marxism.
Revisionism is things like Bernstein does, or for instance post-Marxists and maybe even analytical Marxists.

The rest of incompatability within Marxism still feeds from "core" themes of Marxism.

" 1) For there to be history, men and women must transform nature into means of their survival, that is they must
produce the means of their existence. "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations
that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite
stage of the development of the productive forces"(p. 4).
2) The "economic base" or mode of production defines the limits of variation of the superstructure. "The sum total
of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which
rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The
mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general"(p. 4)
3) A mode of production develops through the interaction between the forces of production (how we produce the
means of existence) and the relations of production (how the product of labor is appropriated and distributed).
"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the
existing relations of production ....From forms of development of the productive forces these relations tum
into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution" (pp. 4-5).
4) Class struggle is the motor of transition from one mode of production to another. "With the change of the
economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering
such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic
conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal,
political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic -in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of
this conflict and fight it out" (p. 5).
5) A successful transition can only take place when the material conditions are present. "No social order ever
perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations
of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the
old society itself' (p. 5).
6) History is progressive insofar as it follows the expansion of the forces of production. "In broad outlines
Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modem bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in
the economic formation of society" (p. 5).
7) Communism spells the end of social antagonisms and the beginning of the emancipation of individuals. We no
longer make history behind our backs but consciously and collectively. "The bourgeois relations of production
are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production -antagonistic not in the sense of individual
antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the
productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution
of that antagonism. This social formations brings, therefore, the prehistory of human society to a close" (p. 5).
"

These are NOT to be taken as laws of history or anything. But as long as the framework of a theory draws from here without open conflict such as that of Bernstein, calling "revisionist" is an exaggeration.
Concepts of permanent revolution and "combined and uneven development" are actually theories that are "progressive" empirical content expansions to Marxism.
Trotsky's concepts laid the basis for a lot of contemporary Marxists so it was something Marxism "needed" at the time, especially in explaining why revolution happened in a backwards country.

This is not to say his theories are to be taken as "truths" like many Trotskyites here do in a dogmatic fashion.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 20:17

Isn't Leninism itself an pragmatic adaptation and interpretation of Marxism to suit the Russian situation?

As such Trotsky can be seen as revisionist in so far he rejected Leninism (as the pragmatic adaptation of Marxism) and Stalinism (as the practical implementation of Leninism).

And who cares really?

LOLseph Stalin

30th March 2014, 20:52

This is a question that really depends on which tendency of Marxism one follows. From the Marxist-Leninist point of view he was a revisionist. Revisionism itself can be a hard word to define though as different leftists seem to have different definitions. To play a bit of Devil's Advocacy since it's not really a view I hold, I think from the Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist point of view if you reject strict class struggle in favour of closer co-existence than you're a revisionist. One could argue that Trotskyism and perhaps Trotsky himself advocated for that. Entryism and other such tactics are perhaps an example of that.

Art Vandelay

30th March 2014, 20:59

As such Trotsky can be seen as reformist in so far he rejected Leninism (as the pragmatic adaptation of Marxism) and Stalinism (as the practical implementation of Leninism).

What? In what sense was Trotsky a reformist? How did he reject Leninism? The man referred to himself as a Bolshevik-Leninist until his death.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 21:23

The problem is, "Trotsky" is really two or three people. I would say the Trotsky of the August Bloc period was a revisionist, although some important concepts date to this period - the Permanent Revolution etc. (these concepts were elaborated, later, by the mature Trotsky of course). The Trotsky who wrote "In Defense of Marxism" wasn't. I don't think anyone would be able to produce one "revisionist" quote, even taken out of context, from his later works.

Isn't Leninism itself an pragmatic adaptation and interpretation of Marxism to suit the Russian situation?

As such Trotsky can be seen as reformist in so far he rejected Leninism (as the pragmatic adaptation of Marxism) and Stalinism (as the practical implementation of Leninism).

And who cares really?

Trotsky considered himself a Leninist until his death, and his dispute with Stalin and Bukharin was precisely over what he saw as their abandonment of Lenin's internationalism. With all due respect, you appear to be out of your depth here.

This is a question that really depends on which tendency of Marxism one follows. From the Marxist-Leninist point of view he was a revisionist. Revisionism itself can be a hard word to define though as different leftists seem to have different definitions. To play a bit of Devil's Advocacy since it's not really a view I hold, I think from the Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist point of view if you reject strict class struggle in favour of closer co-existence than you're a revisionist. One could argue that Trotskyism and perhaps Trotsky himself advocated for that. Entryism and other such tactics are perhaps an example of that.

Don't you know Hoxha was the Trotsky of the seventies?

Anyway, I don't think you understand what entryism is - which is not that unexpected, since many Trotskyist don't, either. Entryism was a tactic, premised on Trotsky's assessment that there were a lot of radicalised, subjectively revolutionary workers in social-democratic (and Stalinist, but work in such parties wasn't possible for the Fourth International) parties. The purpose of entryism was to get close to those workers and convince them to break from social-democracy (not stay in the social-democratic party as a source of unpaid campaign staff for decades).

As for class collaboration, Trotsky rejected it pretty uncompromisingly - including Lenin's slogan on the "democratic dictatorship of the peasantry and the proletariat" and the later "popular front".

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 21:28

What? In what sense was Trotsky a reformist?

yeah...about that... I meant revisionist but apparently my newly installed word spell nazi program is now censoring me. I'll correct it.

How did he reject Leninism? The man referred to himself as a Bolshevik-Leninist until his death.

By an ice pick. Ironic.

Anyways. I said "in so far"

Although Trotsky's version of permanent revolution springs rapidly to mind in which he differed greatly from Lenin.

Art Vandelay

30th March 2014, 21:33

Although Trotsky's version of permanent revolution springs rapidly to mind in which he differed greatly from Lenin.

This isn't accurate. Lenin rejected his prior stagist views when advocating seizure of state power leading up to October. Its actually an example of Lenin abandoning a prior held conviction and adopting a position in accordance with the thesis Trotsky had been developing for over a decade. October was permanent revolution in practice.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 21:33

Although Trotsky's version of permanent revolution springs rapidly to mind in which he differed greatly from Lenin.

Leninism doesn't mean blindly following whatever Lenin wrote - which is impossible, anyway, since Lenin, like any theoretician, would write contradictory things at different points of his career. But Trotsky, after 1917, accepted the theoretical foundations of Leninism - the theory of imperialism, the resulting stratification of the proletariat, the party as a necessary instrument of revolutionary workers, the party as an organisation of the vanguard of the proletariat, a rejection of the "party of the entire class", the necessity of smashing the state apparatus etc. etc.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 21:46

Trotsky considered himself a Leninist until his death, and his dispute with Stalin and Bukharin was precisely over what he saw as their abandonment of Lenin's internationalism. With all due respect, you appear to be out of your depth here.

Really? I identify as a multi-faceted diamond with wings and called Harry. Doesn't mean I am.

“The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay” – Leon Trotsky, letter to Chkheidze, 1913

"Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point (...) But the achievements of October have not yet been fully consummated. We must continue to work determinedly for their fulfillment. And here it would be dangerous and disastrous to deviate from the historically tested path of Leninism. And when such a comrade as Trotsky treads, even unconsciously, the path of revision of Leninism, then the Party must make a pronouncement." - Nadezhda Krupskaya, The Errors of Trotskyism 1925

You are arguing about the nature of Trotsky with an Anarchist. Maybe it is you who is out of his depth in this debate.

I have very specific and well formulated opinions on Trotsky and his politics. (With the possible exception of his anti-fascism...which I find useful)

I think Trotsky was an opportunistic mass murderer who betrayed the revolution. I reject in its entirety any form of Marxism-Leninism as authoritarian, anti working class drivel and as such any form of argument about how Trotsky identified himself is mood.

Sinister Intents

30th March 2014, 21:50

Couldn't it be argued that people are revisionist in some way, shape, or form?
This is an incomplete thought btw, oh well.
edit: So, depending on one's perception, Trotsky was a revisionist, but to the Trotskyists and other leftists that agree with Trotskyism he wasn't a revisionist. I don't particularly care for his idea of the 'Permanent Revolution' but that's for another thread.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 21:51

Art Vandelay

30th March 2014, 21:55

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 22:15

Good grief, PhA, that post was so bad even the forum software refuses to reproduce it when I hit the quote button. Trotsky's letter to Chkeidze is from 1913. As you might have noticed, a lot had happened in the period from 1913 to 1917. As for Krupskaya, she's about as objective in this matter as Stalin or Zinoviev (whose faction she was part of).

As for the usual anarchist griping about a-a-authoritarianism and mass murder, what more can one say? That's your position, we Leninists reject it.

As I remember Krupskaya was first a member of the United Opposition against Stalin. But I like how you distort this fact...which is a refreshing change from Trotskyists claiming her to be so very supportive of Trotsky and in defying Stalin. :rolleyes:

A lot may have happened in between 1913 and 17 but the fact remains that even Lenin recognized how many times Trotsky changed sides and witched opinions.

You are not a Leninist. You are a Trotskyist. IF you were a Leninist you would not have stated Orthodox Trotskyist as your tendency. Apparently you feel it is very necessary to make the distinction between Leninism and Trotskyism because apparently these are not synonymous.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 22:21

As I remember Krupskaya was first a member of the United Opposition against Stalin. But I like how you distort this fact...which is a refreshing change from Trotskyists claiming her to be so very supportive of Trotsky and in defying Stalin. :rolleyes:

As entertaining as it is to watch you embarrass yourself, I have to inform you that the United Opposition, as the name suggests, was a coalition of two previously existing oppositional groups - the Left Opposition of Trotsky, Preobrazhensky and others, and the New Opposition of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Krupskaya. Krupskaya first attacked Trotsky, along with Zinoviev (in fact Stalin didn't play much of a part in the anti-Trotsky campaign at this point), then reluctantly joined the UO after Stalin had aligned with Bukharin and Rykov against Zinoviev and Kamenev. So get your history straight. She did defy Stalin, in the UO period, but what of it?

A lot may have happened in between 1913 and 17 but the fact remains that even Lenin recognized how many times Trotsky changed sides and witched opinions.

And Trotskyism as the term is used today is based on his work after 1917.

You are not a Leninist. You are a Trotskyist. IF you were a Leninist you would not have stated Orthodox Trotskyist as your tendency. Apparently you feel it is very necessary to make the distinction between Leninism and Trotskyism because apparently these are not synonymous.

Trotskyism is a subset of Leninism - I think every child realises that if A is not identical to B (since there are Leninists who aren't Trotskyists), this doesn't mean B is not a subset of A.

Five Year Plan

30th March 2014, 22:27

You are not a Leninist. You are a Trotskyist. IF you were a Leninist you would not have stated Orthodox Trotskyist as your tendency. Apparently you feel it is very necessary to make the distinction between Leninism and Trotskyism because apparently these are not synonymous.

And if somebody identifies as a Leninist, it means they can't be a Marxist, because why would the person identify as a Leninist in their forum software primary tendency selector instead of, say, Marxist Humanist? And if somebody identifies as a Marxist Humanist, they by definition must oppose revolutionary socialism, because they didn't identify as a "revolutionary socialist," which is another tendency the person could have but did not select in the software. It's difficult to argue with this sterling piece of logic. We are, indeed, way out of our depth here.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 22:33

So these 'well formulated opinions on Trotsky' are based on a couple cherry picked and decontextualized quotes from a politically immature Trotsky and Lenin's widow? Hardly compelling stuff and actually quite on par with what Trotskyists are used to dealing with from M-L's. Regardless I don't care if people wish to call Trotsky a revisionist or not, but the claim that he wasn't a Leninist is just patently absurd.

My well formulated opinions on Trotsky are not based on cherry picked quotes.

Those only serve to showboat your personalisation of the debate towards me when I simply stated that nobody, except of course ML's, cares whether Trotsky was or wasn't revisionist...since ML in its entirety is a revision of Marxism. Therefore the question of whether or not Trotskyism is revisionist matters only in regards to the relative positions within a revisionist tendency tradition.

My opinion on Trotsky isn't even related the question whether or not Trotsky was a Leninist and to what degree. The entire debate about the nature of Trotsky and the resulting Trotskyist over sensitivity to criticism of their dear precious leader and their eternal obsession over who the bigger and better Bolshevist was is all pretty obscene and a sign of political infantilism.

What does matter however is that Trotsky was an authoritarian "socialist" who advocated the repression and suppression of actual revolutionary tendencies and my opinion on Trotsky is entirely based on that.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 22:36

Brotto RÃ¼hle

30th March 2014, 22:45

So in other words you don't have anything to say about the subject of the thread and are acting like a baby that needs its diaper changed because you don't like the mean, mean authoritarian Trotsky.
His post is filled with much more content that whatever you consider this to be. I tell you what I consider it to be; whining. The positions/actions Trotsky took in regards to Kronstadt, the militarisation of labour, property relations, etc. were by no stretch "proletarian". You can complain all you want about those who criticize Trotsky for being a huge piece of shit in these regards, and own your authoritar anti-prole history....or, you can shut up and put up.

Trotsky was wrong on so many accounts, and was not that different from Stalin.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 22:45

And if somebody identifies as a Leninist, it means they can't be a Marxist, because why would the person identify as a Leninist in their forum software primary tendency selector instead of, say, Marxist Humanist? And if somebody identifies as a Marxist Humanist, they by definition must oppose revolutionary socialism, because they didn't identify as a "revolutionary socialist," which is another tendency the person could have but did not select in the software. It's difficult to argue with this sterling piece of logic. We are, indeed, way out of our depth here.

The sterling piece of logic is that identifying as a Trotskyist means this ideology is substantially different from Leninism or the term would be mutually exclusive and the term Trotskyism would be redundant. Or could the existence of the term actually mean that it is a specific interpretation of Marxism not unlike Leninism but deviating from it on certain points and aspects and therefor being something entirely different?

I also like how Trotskyism was kicked out as not being Bolshevist by other self proclaimed Bolshevists. Apparently your status as Leninists is in dispute by other self proclaimed Leninists...who in turn are not considered Leninists by Trotskyists.

The whole situation is so totally pathetic that it is tragically comic. :rolleyes:

Art Vandelay

30th March 2014, 22:47

My well formulated opinions on Trotsky are not based on cherry picked quotes.

Those only serve to showboat your personalisation of the debate towards me when I simply stated that nobody, except of course ML's, cares whether Trotsky was or wasn't revisionist...since ML in its entirety is a revision of Marxism. Therefore the question of whether or not Trotskyism is revisionist matters only in regards to the relative positions within a revisionist tendency tradition.

As I stated before...

Regardless I don't care if people wish to call Trotsky a revisionist or not

I mean the op was in all likelihood a troll and ultimately I don't think it's all that important to really address people who wish to go around claiming Trotsky was a revisionist or whatever. I'm not trying to personalize the debate in any sense and I'm not sure why you even went there, when all I was pointing out was that two quotes taken out of context don't serve to back up the demonstrably false argument that you've put forth, ie: that Trotsky wasn't a Leninist.

My opinion on Trotsky isn't even related the question whether or not Trotsky was a Leninist and to what degree. The entire debate about the nature of Trotsky and the resulting Trotskyist over sensitivity to criticism of their dear precious leader and their eternal obsession over who the bigger and better Bolshevist was is all pretty obscene and a sign of political infantilism.

No one is being overly sensitive? People are simply addressing the claims that you've made in a fairly straight forth and direct way. Why you feel the need to begin going into caricatures of Trotskyists being incapable of handling criticism of the man, is actually quite telling as to your arguments lack of substance. I, and I think most others here, could really care less about whether or not you consider Trotsky a mass murderer or whether or not you view Trotskyism as a political dead end, were simply trying to point out that your claim that Trotsky wasn't a Leninist has no basis in historical fact.

What does matter however is that Trotsky was an authoritarian "socialist" who advocated the repression and suppression of actual revolutionary tendencies and my opinion on Trotsky is entirely based on that.

Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand and unrelated to this tangent we've been discussing.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 22:49

His post is filled with much more content that whatever you consider this to be. I tell you what I consider it to be; whining.

Man, do you even English? I mean, it might be the time, or maybe I'm just stupid, but I genuinely don't understand what the above was supposed to mean. If it was supposed to mean anything at all.

The positions/actions Trotsky took in regards to Kronstadt, the militarisation of labour, property relations, etc. were by no stretch "proletarian". You can complain all you want about those who criticize Trotsky for being a huge piece of shit in these regards, and own your authoritar anti-prole history....or, you can shut up and put up.

Except PhA didn't mention any of that - and it's material for another thread, of which there have been several. If I see another Kronstadt thread I'm going to summarily execute a sailor.

Trotsky was wrong on so many accounts, and was not that different from Stalin.

Of course, from your standpoint he wasn't. That's to be expected. And we don't think Stalin was some ancient arcane evil and that any similarity to Stalin is bad. I mean - Stalin opposed anarchism, should we support anarchism because of that? As if.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

30th March 2014, 22:54

Man, do you even English? I mean, it might be the time, or maybe I'm just stupid, but I genuinely don't understand what the above was supposed to mean. If it was supposed to mean anything at all.Whoa whoa whoa, what in the fuck? Do you think it's okay to say "do you even English?" to people? It has underlying implications which are pretty bad, and you should feel bad.

What did it mean? It means his post had more value, had more pertinent information and points than yours. I am saying you are whining.

Except PhA didn't mention any of that - and it's material for another thread, of which there have been several. If I see another Kronstadt thread I'm going to summarily execute a sailor.It doesn't matter what he said, the rest of the post was my own point.

Of course, from your standpoint he wasn't. That's to be expected. And we don't think Stalin was some ancient arcane evil and that any similarity to Stalin is bad. I mean - Stalin opposed anarchism, should we support anarchism because of that? As if.The strawmanning is unbelievable.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 22:55

So in other words you don't have anything to say about the subject of the thread and are acting like a baby that needs its diaper changed because you don't like the mean, mean authoritarian Trotsky.

I did have something to say about the subject of this thread...and in fact I was taking a position that it doesn't matter whether or not Trotsky was revisionist because Leninism in itself is revisionism of Marxism. I think this is a valid position to take in the context of this thread.

However, as usual, the resident Trots are overly sensitive about the fact that the Bolshivist expelled Trotsky and still feel the need to vindicate and restore Trotsky as the legitimate successor to Leninism and felt the need to start an argument about how "Leninist" Trotsky was with me. Which is kind of...well...stupid...considering my position is: I don't care how Leninist Trotsky is because it won't legitimize him.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 22:58

As I stated before...
I mean the op was in all likelihood a troll and ultimately I don't think it's all that important to really address people who wish to go around claiming Trotsky was a revisionist or whatever. I'm not trying to personalize the debate in any sense and I'm not sure why you even went there, when all I was pointing out was that two quotes taken out of context don't serve to back up the demonstrably false argument that you've put forth, ie: that Trotsky wasn't a Leninist.

OP probably was. But I never claimed Trotsky wasn't a Leninist so the whole debate was focused on something I never argued.

No one is being overly sensitive? People are simply addressing the claims that you've made in a fairly straight forth and direct way. Why you feel the need to begin going into caricatures of Trotskyists being incapable of handling criticism of the man, is actually quite telling as to your arguments lack of substance. I, and I think most others here, could really care less about whether or not you consider Trotsky a mass murderer or whether or not you view Trotskyism as a political dead end, were simply trying to point out that your claim that Trotsky wasn't a Leninist has no basis in historical fact.

I had already pointed out that your claim that I claimed that Trotsky wasn't a Leninist has no basis in historical fact.

Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand and unrelated to this tangent we've been discussing.

It became relevant when it came up.

Five Year Plan

30th March 2014, 22:59

The sterling piece of logic is that identifying as a Trotskyist means this ideology is substantially different from Leninism or the term would be mutually exclusive and the term Trotskyism would be redundant. Or could the existence of the term actually mean that it is a specific interpretation of Marxism not unlike Leninism but deviating from it on certain points and aspects and therefor being something entirely different?

I also like how Trotskyism was kicked out as not being Bolshevist by other self proclaimed Bolshevists. Apparently your status as Leninists is in dispute by other self proclaimed Leninists...who in turn are not considered Leninists by Trotskyists.

The whole situation is so totally pathetic that it is tragically comic. :rolleyes:

Apparently subtlety eludes you, as does history. I identify as a Leninist and a Trotskyist, just as I identify as gay and a human being. Which one I choose to employ as an identity depends upon context. When arguing with left-communists and anarchists on this forum, I espouse my views while openly identifying as a Leninist because the historical questions we tend to debate were central to the contributions Lenin made to Marxist theory. When I debate Stalinists, I openly identify as a Trotskyist, because the issues that are discussed in that context tend to revolve around the historical questions that Trotsky, more than Lenin, devoted his time and energies into studying, debating, and polemicizing about.

As is the case with many labels bandied about by revolutionary leftists, identifying as a Trotskyist (or Leninist or Marxist) is a short-hand expression of solidarity with a particular set of positions staked out in specific historical debates. This is why deploying a particular identity will depend on the questions being debated. With Trotskyism, the questions that tend to elicit my identification revolve around how to define socialism, and what role international revolution must play in establishing socialism. This doesn't mean that Lenin would disagree with these positions, only that he didn't emphasize them to the extent that Trotsky did, which would make identifying as a Leninist in such a context less helpful (which is the opposite of what identities, by the way, are usually intended to be).

Please let me know if any of this is confusing to you, or you need any clarification, before you go back to ham-handedly policing people's identities.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

30th March 2014, 22:59

I did have something to say about the subject of this thread...and in fact I was taking a position that it doesn't matter whether or not Trotsky was revisionist because Leninism in itself is revisionism of Marxism. I think this is a valid position to take in the context of this thread.

However, as usual, the resident Trots are overly sensitive about the fact that the Bolshivist expelled Trotsky and still feel the need to vindicate and restore Trotsky as the legitimate successor to Leninism and felt the need to start an argument about how "Leninist" Trotsky was with me. Which is kind of...well...stupid...considering my position is: I don't care how Leninist Trotsky is because it won't legitimize him.To be clear, Leninism is a post-Lenin ideology based around Lenin's analysis and tactics regarding the Russian Revolution. I like to shit on Lenin as much as the next guy... he was fairly unoriginal (his philosophical stuff was pretty decent though) and his tactics were shit and writing often unclear and contradictory. "Leninism" is merely the perversion of those already shit/meh things to suite the needs of the Trots and Stalinites.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 23:00

Whoa whoa whoa, what in the fuck? Do you think it's okay to say "do you even English?" to people? It has underlying implications which are pretty bad, and you should feel bad.

It was a reference to your user title, and yeah, I think it is fair enough to point out when someone's English is odd to the point that people can't make sense of their posts, particularly if they're from a predominantly English-speaking country and are most likely native speakers.

The strawmanning is unbelievable.

Where was the strawman? You said Trotsky "wasn't that different from Stalin". Well I concede that from your standpoint he wasn't. And I'm saying that doesn't actually mean anything.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 23:02

Except PhA didn't mention any of that - and it's material for another thread, of which there have been several. If I see another Kronstadt thread I'm going to summarily execute a sailor.

It is pretty much what I meant when I said he was authoritarian and a mass murderer..an when I referred to you debating Trotsky with an Anarchist. I think you are pretty much aware on what anarchists think about Trotsky. But since it was indeed not the thread to mention this explicitly I think I shouldn't have to mention it yet again. Also because I have already argued these views extensively since I became a member of this board.

Art Vandelay

30th March 2014, 23:03

OP probably was. But I never claimed Trotsky wasn't a Leninist so the whole debate was focused on something I never argued.

As such Trotsky can be seen as revisionist in so far he rejected Leninism (as the pragmatic adaptation of Marxism) and Stalinism (as the practical implementation of Leninism).

What were folks supposed to infer from this statement other than Trotsky rejected portions of Leninism and by extension wasn't a Leninist? Perhaps you didn't explicitly state Trotsky wasn't a Leninist, but you certainly insinuated it.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

30th March 2014, 23:07

It was a reference to your user title, and yeah, I think it is fair enough to point out when someone's English is odd to the point that people can't make sense of their posts, particularly if they're from a predominantly English-speaking country and are most likely native speakers.For all you know I'm a first generation immigrant to Canada from Sudan. Really, stop trying to cover your ignorance.

Where was the strawman? You said Trotsky "wasn't that different from Stalin". Well I concede that from your standpoint he wasn't. And I'm saying that doesn't actually mean anything.You claim that when I say that, I mean the trivial ideas. "They both partook in the Russian Revolution, therefore that is what Rae Spiegel means!!! HAR HURR HURR"... as opposed to my real point: that they are essentially both the same in terms of their tactics, methods, etc. regarding Bolshevik policies, property relations, etc.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th March 2014, 23:11

For all you know I'm a first generation immigrant to Canada from Sudan. Really, stop trying to cover your ignorance.

Perhaps you are, but thus far - and I have read more than a few of your posts - your posts have been in acceptable, clear English - although that's about as charitable as I'm going to get. You're cracking fleas because you don't have anything worthwhile to say.

You claim that when I say that, I mean the trivial ideas. "They both partook in the Russian Revolution, therefore that is what Rae Spiegel means!!! HAR HURR HURR"... not that they are essentially both the same in terms of their tactics, methods, etc. regarding Bolshevik policies, property relations, etc.

Essentially the same from your standpoint - which is what I said. The rejection of anarchism isn't a trivial point, since many anti-Leninists end up as de facto anarchists or parliamentarians.

Five Year Plan

30th March 2014, 23:11

Where was the strawman? You said Trotsky "wasn't that different from Stalin". Well I concede that from your standpoint he wasn't. And I'm saying that doesn't actually mean anything.

To be fair to them, their criticisms make sense from a particular perspective. The problem is that it's not from a historical-materialist, class-based perspective. Stalin is the same as Lenin, and Lenin is the same as Trotsky, because they were all "authoritarians," which means they believed in maintaining some form of state power. The analysis is foreclosed, though, before the question of the material basis of that state power comes into play. Instead it is all condemned in a highly abstract way, devoid of contextualized concrete analysis. As a result it does, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, have a penchant for coming across as a grating and superficial kind of sermonizing. This is especially the case with that Spiegel character, who tends to pop up unannounced and unexpectedly in various threads like a recurrence of the herpes virus, spreading one-line tendency-baiting pustules almost as if his whole purpose were to irritate and provoke scratching. At least Phoenix Ash seems to have a solid posting history behind him.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 23:15

What were folks supposed to infer from this statement other than Trotsky rejected portions of Leninism and by extension wasn't a Leninist? Perhaps you didn't explicitly state Trotsky wasn't a Leninist, but you certainly insinuated it.

in so far as

Definitions
* to the degree or extent that

Perhaps then you need to ask clarification before you assume.

Dodo

30th March 2014, 23:16

and according to critical Marxists, Lenin himself is a revisionists.
You cannot solve this revisionism from BS tendencies.

What matters are the core themes in Marxism.
Please take a look at this for a "summing-up" of the Marxist doctrine.
http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Marxism/Marxism%20As%20Science.pdf
It is a good way to look at the fragmented set of theoretical frameworks.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 23:18

Apparently subtlety eludes you, as does history. I identify as a Leninist and a Trotskyist, just as I identify as gay and a human being. Which one I choose to employ as an identity depends upon context. When arguing with left-communists and anarchists on this forum, I espouse my views while openly identifying as a Leninist because the historical questions we tend to debate were central to the contributions Lenin made to Marxist theory. When I debate Stalinists, I openly identify as a Trotskyist, because the issues that are discussed in that context tend to revolve around the historical questions that Trotsky, more than Lenin, devoted his time and energies into studying, debating, and polemicizing about.

As is the case with many labels bandied about by revolutionary leftists, identifying as a Trotskyist (or Leninist or Marxist) is a short-hand expression of solidarity with a particular set of positions staked out in specific historical debates. This is why deploying a particular identity will depend on the questions being debated. With Trotskyism, the questions that tend to elicit my identification revolve around how to define socialism, and what role international revolution must play in establishing socialism. This doesn't mean that Lenin would disagree with these positions, only that he didn't emphasize them to the extent that Trotsky did, which would make identifying as a Leninist in such a context less helpful (which is the opposite of what identities, by the way, are usually intended to be).

Please let me know if any of this is confusing to you, or you need any clarification, before you go back to ham-handedly policing people's identities.

No. Actually the subtlety eluded you.. apparently I need to address it in words you actually can understand:

Since I was attacked for something I supposedly said which I didn't actually say but because you assumed that what I said meant what you thought it meant even though I clearly clarified that it didn't mean that; I decided that I would approach the entire debate in a similar fashion as to how you guys (and yes I am totally generalizing all trotskyists here) approached this.

I think this clarifies it.

Art Vandelay

30th March 2014, 23:21

in so far as
Definitions
* to the degree or extent that
Perhaps then you need to ask clarification before you assume.

No I'm well aware what the phrase means. You claimed that Trotsky wasn't a Leninist in as much as he deviated from Leninism, citing his theory of permanent revolution as an example of an instance in which he did, as well as a quote pulled from 1913. Vincent West pointed out the fact that Trotsky upheld all of the central aspects of Leninism (theory of imperialism, party organization, etc) and I made note of the fact that the October revolution was a confirmation of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and that Lenin, subconsciously or not, moved towards the theory from his past stagist views.

Your comment was simply inaccurate and the lengths you're going to defend it is just kinda odd, since it was demonstrably false and you've already admitted you could care less if folks consider Trotsky a Leninist or not, since you consider Leninism itself to be a revision of Marxism.

Five Year Plan

30th March 2014, 23:23

No. Actually the subtlety eluded you.. apparently I need to address it in words you actually can understand:

Since I was attacked for something I supposedly said which I didn't actually say but because you assumed that what I said meant what you thought it meant even though I clearly clarified that it didn't mean that; I decided that I would approach the entire debate in a similar fashion as to how you guys (and yes I am totally generalizing all trotskyists here) approached this.

I think this clarifies it.

Please explain how my response misinterpreted this quote:

You are not a Leninist. You are a Trotskyist. IF you were a Leninist you would not have stated Orthodox Trotskyist as your tendency. Apparently you feel it is very necessary to make the distinction between Leninism and Trotskyism because apparently these are not synonymous.

If you think this is a parody, you should be made aware that it is neither humorous nor useful in capturing the problems (of which there are many) that plague the vast majority of political groups claiming the mantle of Lenin, Trotsky, or both. From a moderator, it actually comes across as trolling.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

30th March 2014, 23:32

Perhaps you are, but thus far - and I have read more than a few of your posts - your posts have been in acceptable, clear English - although that's about as charitable as I'm going to get. You're cracking fleas because you don't have anything worthwhile to say.It's not important whether I am, or I am not. You don't say racially offensive shit like that. Plain and simple. You can call what I said "cracking fleas", but I call what you said it bigotry.

My post in reference, although admittedly not super clear, was in no way undecipherable, or worthy of that sort of comment.

Essentially the same from your standpoint - which is what I said. The rejection of anarchism isn't a trivial point, since many anti-Leninists end up as de facto anarchists or parliamentarians.Why they reject anarchism may be important, but that they rejected it is not.

PhoenixAsh

30th March 2014, 23:51

No I'm well aware what the phrase means. You claimed that Trotsky wasn't a Leninist in as much as he deviated from Leninism, citing his theory of permanent revolution as an example of an instance in which he did, as well as a quote pulled from 1913. Vincent West pointed out the fact that Trotsky upheld all of the central aspects of Leninism (theory of imperialism, party organization, etc) and I made note of the fact that the October revolution was a confirmation of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and that Lenin, subconsciously or not, moved towards the theory from his past stagist views.

Your comment was simply inaccurate and the lengths you're going to defend it is just kinda odd, since it was demonstrably false and you've already admitted you could care less if folks consider Trotsky a Leninist or not, since you consider Leninism itself to be a revision of Marxism.

Actually you are not well aware of what the phrase means as displayed here yet again.

To put it bluntly: where did I write Trotky wasn't a Leninist? Could you please specifically quote me saying that? You can't. Because I never wrote that.

My quotes where perfectly legitimate answer to the asinine statement made by Vincent West that just because somebody claims to be something...somebody is just that....some others may not agree.

And the October revolution being a confirmation of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is saying that the discovery of a pot piece inscribed with the name of Jesus proves he is the Son of God.

The lengths at which I defend what I said is merely a reflection your own lacking abilities to overcome figments of your own imagination and the time necessary for you to finally comprehend that after you refused to accept my initial explanation and after the personal attack made by VW and your incessant refusal to simply acknowledge that I didn't say what you think I said....I am just not taking you guys seriously and simply just try to reiterate my previous statements in different and fun ways until you guys finally manage to get it. .

Five Year Plan

30th March 2014, 23:56

To put it bluntly: where did I write Trotky wasn't a Leninist? Could you please specifically quote me saying that? You can't. Because I never wrote that.

I'm glad we are in agreement, then. You've now successfully resolved your own confusion about somebody being a Leninist, while simultaneously setting their tendency to "Trotskyist": somebody can indeed be a Leninist even while identifying as a Trotskyist in a particular debate, because Trotsky himself was building off of Leninism, not departing from it. The distinction is one of emphasis over certain historically derived positions, not one of logical contradiction or opposition that might entail an either-or choice.

PhoenixAsh

31st March 2014, 00:14

I'm glad we are in agreement, then. You've now successfully resolved your own confusion about somebody being a Leninist, while simultaneously setting their tendency to "Trotskyist": somebody can indeed be a Leninist even while identifying as a Trotskyist in a particular debate, because Trotsky himself was building off of Leninism, not departing from it. The distinction is one of emphasis over certain historically derived positions, not one of logical contradiction or opposition that might entail an either-or choice.

You seem to fail to understand that after post 18...you were all simply serving to prove a point. I even spelled it out.

The whole point is that you are so totally infatuated with the link to Lenin that you seem to be unable to legitimize Trotsky through his own work and ideology. Apparently Trotskyism is totally dependent for legitimacy on its relative position towards Leninism. And you do so much care it is almost cute and endearing. The fact of the matter is however that it doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. Consider it a free lesson. And you are welcome. Next time try to argue your political position in its own right and on the basis of its own content and not in trying to find some form of legitimacy in pinning a Lenin approved sticker (http://s24.postimg.org/6tl4x2oxx/Lenin_Leninist_small.jpg) on it.

Dodo

31st March 2014, 01:22

Both Trotskyists and Stalinists refer to Lenin to legitimize themselves like sunni-shia are referring to Kuran to legitimize their position in Islam.

They debate over 1920s-30s as if it matter right now.
They have to prove they are leninists and stuff....I find it so sad that Marxism is revolving around this among popular Marxist groups.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

31st March 2014, 01:50

Five Year Plan

31st March 2014, 02:24

You seem to fail to understand that after post 18...you were all simply serving to prove a point. I even spelled it out.

The whole point is that you are so totally infatuated with the link to Lenin that you seem to be unable to legitimize Trotsky through his own work and ideology. Apparently Trotskyism is totally dependent for legitimacy on its relative position towards Leninism. And you do so much care it is almost cute and endearing. The fact of the matter is however that it doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. Consider it a free lesson. And you are welcome. Next time try to argue your political position in its own right and on the basis of its own content and not in trying to find some form of legitimacy in pinning a Lenin approved sticker (http://s24.postimg.org/6tl4x2oxx/Lenin_Leninist_small.jpg) on it.

The issue you are latching onto now is a separate issue than your claim, made quite clearly earlier in the thread, that a person cannot be a Leninist if they are a Trotskyist ("You are not a Leninist. You are a Trotskyist."). Instead, you want to pretend that this was the issue all along because, presumably, you've realized how ridiculous the original claim was, whatever point you might really have been intending to make with it.

I don't really care all that much about personalities, which is why I get bored pretty quickly on this forum when the exchanges devolve to tendency-baiting, one-line cheap shots intended to smear specific theorists, and all the other antics that unfortunately take place all too often here.

Why people were contesting your original claim (the one you're trying to erase by pretending it wasn't really your claim) is that Trotksyism and Leninism are not the same things as Leon Trotsky the person or Vladimir Lenin the person. They refer to specific ideas and political positions taken up in historical debates that have occurred at key moments in the twentieth century revolutionary socialist movement. So it's not so much "legitimacy" people were getting peeved about. It's the idea that, by counterposing Leninism to Trotskyism, you were marring the very political ideas you are now complaining aren't the basis of the discussion. They've been the basis of people's criticisms of your argument all along. You are the one getting hung up on policing labels and identities, and you are now projecting that fixation onto your interlocutors and pretending that we are cult followers pining for some unspecified revleft street cred.

Why a Trotskyist would be upset with your clear statement that a person cannot be a Leninist if he is a Trotskyist is that it is basically saying, whether you are aware of this or not, that Lenin believed that socialism was possible in one country, along with a whole host of other inaccuracies pertaining to issues highly relevant to the revolutionary movement today. I don't particularly care if Trotskyists decided to rename Trotskyism "permanent revolutionism" or some other label. It's not the name that is important, it's the political content of the ideas.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

31st March 2014, 11:39

Trotsky was unequivocally, right behind Lenin, one of the most inspiring leaders for the Russian people. I intentionally use "inspiring" because the success and mass acceptance of Revolutions has a lot to do with perceptions. Trotsky was arguably one of the best writers and agitators ever. In my humble opinion, from what I've gathered (and I have not had the time to fully investigate and affirm or dispell this hunch): I don't think that Trotsky, even after officially joining and becoming a loyal fighter for the Bolshevik party 1917, completely took the Kautskyist/Leninist view of party organization as his own. If today's Trotskyists are to have any resemblance to the man, it is their over zealous focus on agitation. If there is any criticism of Trotsky's marxist politics, it probably should be that he did not acknowledge the work of comrades enough who invested most of their energies into repetitive revolutionary education and building the organization of workers as the necessary basis for mass agitation and political flaunting.

Well - read "In Defense of Marxism" if you ever get the chance, and generally Trotsky's later work, as well as the early work of Jim Canon (who was an assistant to Trotsky at that time) on the party question (of course Canon's later work on the party question - especially his "Don't Strangle the Party" letters - is also worthwhile, but Trotsky was pretty dead at this point). Trotsky did accept the Leninist conception of the party.

As for the focus on agitation, you have to understand that Trotsky assumed that the previous revolutionary period had produced a lot of militant, subjectively revolutionary workers, who were stuck without a proper proletarian leadership. And this seems to be the case - the strategy worked, particularly in Vietnam and Sri Lanka, before the beginning of the Stalinist repression. Those "Trotskyist" currents that mechanically transpose the tactics of the Fourth International into the present period are engaging in ancestor-worship rather than Marxist analysis.

PhoenixAsh

31st March 2014, 20:21

The issue you are latching onto now is a separate issue than your claim, made quite clearly earlier in the thread, that a person cannot be a Leninist if they are a Trotskyist ("You are not a Leninist. You are a Trotskyist."). Instead, you want to pretend that this was the issue all along because, presumably, you've realized how ridiculous the original claim was, whatever point you might really have been intending to make with it.

No the issue is something YOU would like to divorce from the main issue. After Vincent Wests ad hominem I was quite frankly done with playing nice with you Trots and since you all refused to listen and decided to play your own game...I refused to play by your rules. You don't seem to want to understand this. I pretty much spelled it out for you and still you have problems wrapping your head around it.

We are reaching the point where I am forced to ask myself whether this failure is linked to your political tendency and the inherent prosecutionist mentality which plagues all authoritarian "socialists" or is simply a personal shortcoming.

IF however you had paid close attention to my posts you would have seen my initial reaction to Ice Pick...in which I clarified: in so far.

PLUS you would have seen my second reply to VW in which my irritation to his ad hominem was quite obvious PLUS you would have read the following statement:

You are arguing about the nature of Trotsky with an Anarchist. Maybe it is you who is out of his depth in this debate.

I have very specific and well formulated opinions on Trotsky and his politics. (With the possible exception of his anti-fascism...which I find useful)

I think Trotsky was an opportunistic mass murderer who betrayed the revolution. I reject in its entirety any form of Marxism-Leninism as authoritarian, anti working class drivel and as such any form of argument about how Trotsky identified himself is mood.

Which should have been a huge hint I see Trotsky as solidly belonging in the Leninist tradition....and that all the rest is simply like for like rebuttal of an ad hominem of your Trotskyist buddy.

Sooooo:

I don't really care all that much about personalities, which is why I get bored pretty quickly on this forum when the exchanges devolve to tendency-baiting, one-line cheap shots intended to smear specific theorists, and all the other antics that unfortunately take place all too often here.

Then you should not get involved in the ad hominem debate your tendency buddy started. So get some backbone...and take responsibility for your own actions rather than placing them on the person you are engaging.

Why people were contesting your original claim (the one you're trying to erase by pretending it wasn't really your claim) is that Trotksyism and Leninism are not the same things as Leon Trotsky the person or Vladimir Lenin the person. They refer to specific ideas and political positions taken up in historical debates that have occurred at key moments in the twentieth century revolutionary socialist movement. So it's not so much "legitimacy" people were getting peeved about. It's the idea that, by counterposing Leninism to Trotskyism, you were marring the very political ideas you are now complaining aren't the basis of the discussion. They've been the basis of people's criticisms of your argument all along. You are the one getting hung up on policing labels and identities, and you are now projecting that fixation onto your interlocutors and pretending that we are cult followers pining for some unspecified revleft street cred.

Yes. I was EXACTLY doing that. You seem to be getting it now. Splendid.
Instead of a low ad hominem I got creative... and since we have now safely established that Trotskyists seem to be unable to read posts and try to understand what happens and what is being said if their dear leader is under criticism...well...we kind of arrived at this point.

But I do like to thank you that you are again proving my point that Trotskyists are still fighting battles that have never mattered and will never matter. And in doing so...whatever the outcome...means you are in fact a cult sect. This is not an insult but something you need to realize. The continuation of the '20's debates about the most legitimate form of Leninism are ENTIRELY useless outside of your little blood feud with Stalinists.

Why a Trotskyist would be upset with your clear statement that a person cannot be a Leninist if he is a Trotskyist is that it is basically saying, whether you are aware of this or not, that Lenin believed that socialism was possible in one country, along with a whole host of other inaccuracies pertaining to issues highly relevant to the revolutionary movement today. I don't particularly care if Trotskyists decided to rename Trotskyism "permanent revolutionism" or some other label. It's not the name that is important, it's the political content of the ideas.

And personally I don't really care about either Lenin or Trotsky...nor about their specific -isms. Something which I made abundantly clear. I do NOT see any of these as true revolutionaries. I see them as proponents of state capitalism and counter revolution who pose a mortal danger to actual working class control.

Because immediately after the Boshevists came to power they enacted a brutal machine of repression against revolutionary forces, installed concentration camps, mass executions of Left-Communists, Bolshevists who did not agree with the leading Bolshevists, Anarchists, Democratic Socialists etc. In doing so they alienated the working class and disassociated them from any form of legitimate power infantilizing revolutionary consciousness and political participation. Whether or not Trotsky was expelled from the Bolshevist faction matters extremely little because he was an active proponent of this policy and actively participated in enacting it. He differs no less in his anti-working class position than Stalin nor does he represent a more humane version of Bolshevism. These tendencies are in my opinion the bane of the revolutionary left and together responsible for the revolutionary lefts marginalization and the complete and utter tarnish on its influence on the working class.

So now that my position on Trotskyism is clear...you still think I give a hoot whether I purposefully misrepresented Trotsky?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

31st March 2014, 20:31

Because immediately after the Boshevists came to power they enacted a brutal machine of repression against revolutionary forces, installed concentration camps, mass executions of Left-Communists, Bolshevists who did not agree with the leading Bolshevists, Anarchists, Democratic Socialists etc.

Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the actual historical facts before you embarrass yourself any further. "Immediately after the Boshevists [sic] came to power", they governed in a coalition with the Party of Left Socialists-Revolutionists. They can't have organised mass executions of Left Communists even if they wanted to, because there were no Left Communists back then - unless you consider the group around the journal Kommunist, who called themselves "Left Communists", to be in continuity with the later Italian and Dutch "Left Communists". And even if you do, not only did no one in the Kommunist group get shot, they were advocates of even greater state repression. Likewise with the Decists, the Military Opposition etc. - none of these groups experienced "mass executions", and many of them took an ever harder line than the Central Committee majority on the question of repression. As for "Democratic Socialists", there were none back them. "Democratic Socialist" is a Harringtonite nonsense term, used by social-democrats who don't want to own up to being social democrats.

So now that my position on Trotskyism is clear...you still think I give a hoot whether I purposefully misrepresented Trotsky?

No, I don't think anyone ever thought that you did. From the beginning, your dishonesty was obvious.

PhoenixAsh

31st March 2014, 21:11

Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the actual historical facts before you embarrass yourself any further. "Immediately after the Boshevists [sic] came to power", they governed in a coalition with the Party of Left Socialists-Revolutionists. They can't have organised mass executions of Left Communists even if they wanted to, because there were no Left Communists back then - unless you consider the group around the journal Kommunist, who called themselves "Left Communists", to be in continuity with the later Italian and Dutch "Left Communists". And even if you do, not only did no one in the Kommunist group get shot, they were advocates of even greater state repression. Likewise with the Decists, the Military Opposition etc. - none of these groups experienced "mass executions", and many of them took an ever harder line than the Central Committee majority on the question of repression. As for "Democratic Socialists", there were none back them. "Democratic Socialist" is a Harringtonite nonsense term, used by social-democrats who don't want to own up to being social democrats.

No, I don't think anyone ever thought that you did. From the beginning, your dishonesty was obvious.

I was never dishonest. In fact I was perfectly honest from the very first post but you chose to ignore it and, in fact, YOU specifically chose to use an ad hominem against me. So don't come crying about honesty to me.

:rolleyes: only a Trotskyist would take what is written as a generalization to be a time line. :rolleyes: I am perfectly aware of these historical facts and which you are not using to white wash the fact that Bolshevism was responsible for one of the most brutal and most repressive regime's in modern history, even if the numbers are exaggerated, which actually killed a revolution, which actively divorced the working class from communism and which infantilized the international working class for decades to come. What is more you are white washing the fact that you and your tendency still advocate exactly this form of "socialism" and would not hesitate to reenact it again in exactly the same way of you had the opportunity.

Speaking of historical facts. As soon as 1917 SR's and other left communists that refused to join with the Bolshevists were arrested by the Bolshivists. Of course the SR's did leave the Bolshevist coalition and were show trialed in 1922. I am glad you forget to mention this because it serves to show your intellectual dishonesty. We also conveniently forget the period we now call "red terror" in which numerous families of red army deserters were taken hostage and were executed...we are talking about innocent families. Innocent people both farmers and working class. Some of which had actively participated in the revolution itself. And we are not talking small numbers...we are talking executions by the thousands. But I am happy to note these are, conveniently, glossed over by you.

And of course lets also not mention starving factory workers going on strike to demand food for their families and to end privileges for Bolshevists these dangerous subversive elements and their families, wives and children, surely deserved the bullets and gallows they got by the hundreds and thousands.

Or lets surely not mention the rapes of wives and daughters performed by the Cheka in return for leniency. Which by the way did happen according to testimonies by Cheka officers. These I gather...were all not important enough for you to remember...or lets just say you won't disagree with these events occurring. After all:

"Comrades, none of us wishes or is able to be right against his party. The party in the last analysis is always right, because the party is the sole historical instrument given to the proletariat for the solution of its basic problems . . . I know that one cannot be right against the party. It is only possible to be right with the party and through the party, for history has not created other ways for the realisation of what is right."

Five Year Plan

31st March 2014, 22:37

No the issue is something YOU would like to divorce from the main issue. After Vincent Wests ad hominem I was quite frankly done with playing nice with you Trots and since you all refused to listen and decided to play your own game...I refused to play by your rules. You don't seem to want to understand this. I pretty much spelled it out for you and still you have problems wrapping your head around it.

I don't know why you keep bringing up that this person or that person was mean to you. I am me. I can't take responsibility for other people's actions or words on this forum, as much as you seem to think we are all cult followers who share the same brain. I also don't know why you keep saying people are refusing to listen to you. I have quoted your own words multiple times and asked how I misinterpreted the clear meaning of those words. All I have received in response is more hand-wringing and vitriol.

Then you should not get involved in the ad hominem debate your tendency buddy started. So get some backbone...and take responsibility for your own actions rather than placing them on the person you are engaging.

So a debate starts about a matter of political ideas and principles, and one of the people attacks you on top of that debate, so I can't comment on the matter of political principle without being heaped in with the ad hominem attack? Where the logic in that?

Yes. I was EXACTLY doing that. You seem to be getting it now. Splendid. Instead of a low ad hominem I got creative... and since we have now safely established that Trotskyists seem to be unable to read posts and try to understand what happens and what is being said if their dear leader is under criticism...well...we kind of arrived at this point.

So you admit you were creatively trolling? Fantastic. That's more than what we can say about your inexplicable interjections in another, completely unrelated thread I've been communicating with another user in. With this kind of approach to forum behavior, you're quickly approach Rae Spiegel herpes territory...

But I do like to thank you that you are again proving my point that Trotskyists are still fighting battles that have never mattered and will never matter. And in doing so...whatever the outcome...means you are in fact a cult sect. This is not an insult but something you need to realize. The continuation of the '20's debates about the most legitimate form of Leninism are ENTIRELY useless outside of your little blood feud with Stalinists.

Ok, so you think I'm in a member of a cult sect. Do you see me wringing my hands, following you around the forum, and trying to disrupt discussions you are having with other forum members? I've been called worse before. *shrug*

And personally I don't really care about either Lenin or Trotsky...nor about their specific -isms. Something which I made abundantly clear. I do NOT see any of these as true revolutionaries. I see them as proponents of state capitalism and counter revolution who pose a mortal danger to actual working class control.

You seem to care enough about them to have spent an awful lot of time the past couple of days posting about how terrible they and their "cult followers" are.

So now that my position on Trotskyism is clear...you still think I give a hoot whether I purposefully misrepresented Trotsky?

No, I think it's obvious you purposefully misrepresented Trotsky, then when people called you on it, you started complaining how the discussion wasn't a principled one focusing on political issues. Maybe somebody can reconcile these seemingly contradictory things to me in a way that makes sense.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

31st March 2014, 22:53

Well - read "In Defense of Marxism" if you ever get the chance, and generally Trotsky's later work, as well as the early work of Jim Canon (who was an assistant to Trotsky at that time) on the party question (of course Canon's later work on the party question - especially his "Don't Strangle the Party" letters - is also worthwhile, but Trotsky was pretty dead at this point). Trotsky did accept the Leninist conception of the party.

Yeah, I have to read some more Trotsky obviously if I want to talk about the subject more. But to be honest I don't. Precisely because of the point I mentioned and you made clear. Say, in ten or twenty years, when our orthodox comrades have succeeded in building solidly revolutionary mass communist parties in the west, I would probably look into Trotsky more.

As for the focus on agitation, you have to understand that Trotsky assumed that the previous revolutionary period had produced a lot of militant, subjectively revolutionary workers, who were stuck without a proper proletarian leadership.

Ha! This is exactly what I have always felt when reading Trotsky. A Trotsky in Context anyone?

And this seems to be the case - the strategy worked, particularly in Vietnam and Sri Lanka, before the beginning of the Stalinist repression. Those "Trotskyist" currents that mechanically transpose the tactics of the Fourth International into the present period are engaging in ancestor-worship rather than Marxist analysis.

Well comrade, there's a synonym for organizations that engage in "ancestor-worship", namely: Sects. The task of the day for any genuine communist revolutionary is hence the ceaseless exposure of these enemies of the free political unity along marxist lines and dynamic of the working class.

PhoenixAsh

31st March 2014, 23:17

I don't know why you keep bringing up that this person or that person was mean to you. I am me. I can't take responsibility for other people's actions or words on this forum, as much as you seem to think we are all cult followers who share the same brain. I also don't know why you keep saying people are refusing to listen to you. I have quoted your own words multiple times and asked how I misinterpreted the clear meaning of those words. All I have received in response is more hand-wringing and vitriol.

No you have selectively quoted my words and should have actually read the posts that lead up to it. As part of any ongoing debate you should be and are responsible to be aware of the discourse leading up to the post you actually decide to quote.

So a debate starts about a matter of political ideas and principles, and one of the people attacks you on top of that debate, so I can't comment on the matter of political principle without being heaped in with the ad hominem attack? Where the logic in that?

See above.

So you admit you were creatively trolling? Fantastic. That's more than what we can say about your inexplicable interjections in another, completely unrelated thread I've been communicating with another user in. With this kind of approach to forum behavior, you're quickly approach Rae Spiegel herpes territory...

Actually I am not a troll. A troll according to the definition is the one who starts arguments with the intent of upsetting people. I did not start the argument. I simply positioned against the VW statement, which even you would admit being shaky reasoning, that somebody is something because somebody claims they are. By that logic the Bible is the word of God because the Bible claims to be the word of God.

Ok, so you think I'm in a member of a cult sect. Do you see me wringing my hands, following you around the forum, and trying to disrupt discussions you are having with other forum members? I've been called worse before. *shrug*

I pretty much am not very concerned about any hand wringing you are or aren't doing. But given the fact that you have been pursuing the issue for three pages I would say you are mildly obsessed.

Actually my attention of this situation was drawn to that debate by other participants of that debate and other members who found the duplicity very odd given their rep comments and PMs received from this debate. I did not know what they were referring to specifically until I read that thread just now.

And of course I am going to make mention of intellectual dishonesty and duplicity....because it is relevant to the conduct of the debate and the trustworthiness of the arguments as this interpretation of the meanings of "in so far" was pretty damned relevant to the basis of the argument posed against synthesis and the interpretation of the quotes.

THAT is not trolling. THAT is calling somebody out on their double standards.

You seem to care enough about them to have spent an awful lot of time the past couple of days posting about how terrible they and their "cult followers" are.

Well if you are going to dissect part of the quote and leave out the conclusion at the end...I think it is pretty much a misrepresentation of what I said.

No, I think it's obvious you purposefully misrepresented Trotsky, then when people called you on it, you started complaining how the discussion wasn't a principled one focusing on political issues. Maybe somebody can reconcile these seemingly contradictory things to me in a way that makes sense.

Ow you think? You aren't entirely sure? I mean...I pretty much spelled it out a ton of posts ago. Sjees the itsy bitsy spider was quicker to the top.

Called me on it? I pretty much said I was exactly doing that. Nancy Drew is sobbing in a corner right now over this sterling detectiving. Don't give up your day job.

I have already explained this to you ad nausea but you seem to be unable to understand this. I even quoted the post and you continue to ignore this. So let me put this in plain and simple text:

IF you read my posts carefully...I continuously stated Trotskyism was a form of Marxism-Leninism.
IF you had actually comprehended what was going on you would have seen that I have pretty much systematically argued the entire debate whether or not Trotsky was revisionist, reformist, Leninist is pretty much a useless rehash outside of ML circles. You performed splendidly in proving my point.

Now...reread my posts. You will find that it was pretty obvious.

Five Year Plan

31st March 2014, 23:37

No you have selectively quoted my words and should have actually read the posts that lead up to it. As part of any ongoing debate you should be and are responsible to be aware of the discourse leading up to the post you actually decide to quote.

See above.

Actually I am not a troll. A troll according to the definition is the one who starts arguments with the intent of upsetting people. I did not start the argument. I simply positioned against the VW statement, which even you would admit being shaky reasoning, that somebody is something because somebody claims they are. By that logic the Bible is the word of God because the Bible claims to be the word of God.

I pretty much am not very concerned about any hand wringing you are or aren't doing. But given the fact that you have been pursuing the issue for three pages I would say you are mildly obsessed.

Actually my attention of this situation was drawn to that debate by other participants of that debate and other members who found the duplicity very odd given their rep comments and PMs received from this debate. I did not know what they were referring to specifically until I read that thread just now.

And of course I am going to make mention of intellectual dishonesty and duplicity....because it is relevant to the conduct of the debate and the trustworthiness of the arguments as this interpretation of the meanings of "in so far" was pretty damned relevant to the basis of the argument posed against synthesis and the interpretation of the quotes.

THAT is not trolling. THAT is calling somebody out on their double standards.

Well if you are going to dissect part of the quote and leave out the conclusion at the end...I think it is pretty much a misrepresentation of what I said.

Ow you think? You aren't entirely sure? I mean...I pretty much spelled it out a ton of posts ago. Sjees the itsy bitsy spider was quicker to the top.

Called me on it? I pretty much said I was exactly doing that. Nancy Drew is sobbing in a corner right now over this sterling detectiving. Don't give up your day job.

I have already explained this to you ad nausea but you seem to be unable to understand this. I even quoted the post and you continue to ignore this. So let me put this in plain and simple text:

IF you read my posts carefully...I continuously stated Trotskyism was a form of Marxism-Leninism.
IF you had actually comprehended what was going on you would have seen that I have pretty much systematically argued the entire debate whether or not Trotsky was revisionist, reformist, Leninist is pretty much a useless rehash outside of ML circles. You performed splendidly in proving my point.

Now...reread my posts. You will find that it was pretty obvious.

You keep going on about "insofaras," and I have no idea why. The statement of yours I initially took issue with, which I have quoted directly multiples times, is your unequivocal claim that a specific person could not be a Leninist because he is a Trotskyist, suggesting that there was a relationship of opposition between the two traditions.

Multiple paragraphs about how other posters are unprincipled because of some fracas to do with "insofaras" has no bearing on the point I made in regards to that one specific claim that you made, and which encompassed the entirety of what I was addressing to you. You keep claiming that I misinterpreted the statement, but haven't explained how. Then in surrounding posts, you make blanket statements about how you have been deliberately misrepresenting Trotskyism, saying you don't care that you have, while criticizing other people for not being principled in their discussions.

As an aside, I thought anarchists generally speaking were about prefigurative politics and living out the principles they are struggling for, and all that well meaning stuff, which is why the Bolsheviks are such wicked cultists? Why then do you tout principles, like adhering to openness and honesty in political discussions, that you then violate flagrantly by (according to your own admission) misrepresenting the ideas of an important figure? Then when this is brought to your attention, you do an online equivalent of spitting.

If you want to tilt at "the Trotskyites" in every thread you go into, and make blanket condemnatory statements about "them," fine. Just try not to pretend you're trying to have a principled political discussion with me.

PhoenixAsh

31st March 2014, 23:49

You keep going on about "insfaras," and I have no idea why. The statement of yours, which I have quoted directly multiples times, is your unequivical claim that a specific person could not be a Leninist because he is a Trotskyist, suggesting that there was a relationship of opposition between the two traditions.

Multiple paragraphs of about how other posters are unprincipled because of something to do with "insofaras" has no bearing on the point I made in regards to that one specific claim that you uttered. You keep claiming that I misinterpreted it, but haven't explained how. Then in surrounding posts, you make blanket statements about how you have been deliberately misrepresented Trotskyism, while criticizing other people for not being principled in their discussions.

As an aside, I thought anarchists were all about prefigurative politics and living out the principles they are struggling for, and all that, which is why the Bolsheviks are such wicked cultists? Why then do you tout principles, like adhering to principles of openness and honesty in political discussions, that you then violate flagrantly by (according to your own admission) misrepresenting the ideas of an important figure?

If you want to tilt at "the Trotskyites" in every thread you go into, and make blanket condemnatory statements about "them," fine. Just try not to pretend you're trying to have a principled political discussion with me.

I am not saying they are unprincipled but I am saying they are politically and intellectually dishonest in applying a double standard in interpretation when it serves their purpose.

I already explained how you misinterpreted it. And basically I plainly stated this was a like for like response. You seem to be unable to fathom it. I would like to point out that it was pretty much obvious that I was in fact not inclined to want to have a principled discussion with you nor did I pretend I did. In fact...it as pretty much obvious I wasn't....which was kind of obvious from the response I gave to VW. This is what I have been telling you in so many words...and pretty much everybody got that except, ironically, for you.

As to my principles...I pretty much stated my intention and approach to your tendency in the first reply to VW. I have never at any time misrepresented my own opinions and have on multiple occasion explicitly stated my intend and purpose in this debate. You however continuously refused to see this.

I like how you try to reduce the fundamental criticism I posed towards Trotskyism about the brutality and total disregard for human lives, the total ignoring of execution of innocent women and children and the blatant ignoring of the perpetuation of rape and rape culture by Bolshevist state apparatus officials as practical implementation of ideology to "living out the principles they are struggling for". Which kind of serves to prove my entire point.

So lets rehash: Trotskyists forced a debate on me about a false interpretation of what I said. I corrected it. End of story.

Five Year Plan

1st April 2014, 00:02

I am not saying they are unprincipled but I am saying they are politically and intellectually dishonest in applying a double standard in interpretation when it serves their purpose.

I already explained how you misinterpreted it. And basically I plainly stated this was a like for like response. You seem to be unable to fathom it. I would like to point out that it was pretty much obvious that I was in fact not inclined to want to have a principled discussion with you nor did I pretend I did. In fact...it as pretty much obvious I wasn't....which was kind of obvious from the response I gave to VW. This is what I have been telling you in so many words...and pretty much everybody got that except, ironically, for you.

I like how you try to reduce the fundamental criticism I posed towards Trotskyism about the brutality and total disregard for human lives, the total ignoring of execution of innocent women and children and the blatant ignoring of the perpetuation of rape and rape culture by Bolshevist state apparatus officials as practical implementation of ideology to "living out the principles they are struggling for". Which kind of serves to prove my entire point.

So lets rehash: Trotskyists forced a debate on me about a false interpretation of what I said. I corrected it. End of story.

Sorry, but amid the walls of text you've been putting out I must have missed the point where you explained how saying somebody can't be a Leninist because they are a Trotskyist doesn't directly imply a relationship of logical opposition between the two. Do you mind repeating this, since it will only require (I am guessing) the copying and pasting of a couple of lines?

I have never at any time misrepresented my own opinions and have on multiple occasion explicitly stated my intend and purpose in this debate. You however continuously refused to see this. You openly admitted you deliberately misrepresented the ideas of the very person whose political tradition was the subject of the debate. You can point to many good principles you have, as you have done above, but it doesn't address my criticism. You can't have open and honest political debates if you misrepresent people's ideas. Do you disagree?

PhoenixAsh

1st April 2014, 00:13

You openly admitted you deliberately misrepresented the ideas of the very person whose political tradition was the subject of the debate. You can point to many good principles you have, as you have done above, but it doesn't address my criticism. You can't have open and honest political debates if you misrepresent people's ideas. Do you disagree?

Since you brought up this line of reasoning you seem to imply that you are of the opinion that misrepresenting my ideas and continuing to argue an already corrected point is contrary to open and honest debate.

Sorry, but amid the walls of text you've been putting out I must have missed the point where you explained how saying somebody can't be a Leninist because they are a Trotskyist doesn't directly imply a relationship of logical opposition between the two. Do you mind repeating this, since it will only require (I am guessing) the copying and pasting of a couple of lines?

Which part of like for like didn't really come across?

Five Year Plan

1st April 2014, 00:22

Since you brought up this line of reasoning you seem to imply that you are of the opinion that misrepresenting my ideas and continuing to argue an already corrected point is contrary to open and honest debate.

Where have I misrepresented your ideas? I keep asking this over and over again, and all I get is evasive responses like this:

Which part of like for like didn't really come across?A statement which does absolutely nothing to explain how I misconstrued your claim that a Trotskyist can't be a Leninist because he's a Trotskyist.

Or are you implying that I am to blame for misconstruing your ideas because I actually took what you said literally, when you were intending it to be a deliberate mischaracterization in order to provoke people?

I don't expect posts on this forum, particularly those of forum moderators or committed users, to contain deliberately and blatantly false comments, whatever a person's rationale might be for making those comments. The reason is, as has been repeatedly brought to your attention, such behavior is trolling and isn't in accordance with the kind of principles the board administrators do their best to promote. I hardly see why it's my fault for not assuming your statement was a deliberate provocation in accordance with some strange "eye for an eye" leftist principle you've concocted for us unfortunate Trotskyite cultists, many of whom have said nothing deceitful about or to you at all in a way that might earn the application of this principle.

PhoenixAsh

1st April 2014, 00:46

Where have I misrepresented your ideas? I keep asking this over and over again, and all I get is evasive responses like this:

A statement which does absolutely nothing to explain how I misconstrued your claim that a Trotskyist can't be a Leninist because he's a Trotskyist.

Or are you implying that I am to blame for misconstruing your ideas because I actually took what you said literally, when you were intending it to be a deliberate mischaracterization in order to provoke people?

And I kept explaining it over and over again but you simply do not seem to be able to grasp it. I can't be expected to keep spelling it out for you as I have repeatedly done. At some point you just have to add one and one together. At this point you simply are being obtuse.

I don't expect posts on this forum, particularly those of forum moderators or committed users, to contain deliberately and blatantly false comments,

Really? So where is your particular outcry of righteous indignation against your fellow Trots?

But about that blatantly false...I think you seem to be forgetting a very poignant point which is that Trotsky was expelled for not being a Leninist from the Bolshevist party. So I would pipe down on the blatantly false part....as this is a matter of content among your fellow ML's.

Now the matter we are debating is if it is my opinion. Don't get the two confused.

whatever a person's rationale might be for making those comments.

Again...where is your outcry of righteous indignation against your fellow Trots?

The reason is, as has been repeatedly brought to your attention, such behavior is trolling and isn't in accordance with the kind of principles the board administrators do their best to promote.

Trolling is, as I once again point out, starting a discussion with the specific intent to upset participants. Seeing as I didn't start this discussion and seeing as I wasn't the one who used language directly intending to upset a participant...I do not conform to this label.

What is however considered trolling is relentlessly pursuing the same issue even after it was clarified ;)

I hardly see why it's my fault for not assuming your statement was a deliberate provocation in accordance with some strange "eye for an eye" leftist principle you've concocted for us unfortunate Trotskyite cultists, many of whom have said nothing deceitful about or to you at all in a way that might earn the application of this principle.

You do operate in packs.

And it is your fault because you did not take the time or interest to actually understand the progression of the discussion, failed to try and comprehend what was actually going on and used selective focus.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

1st April 2014, 01:00

Trolling is, as I once again point out, starting a discussion with the specific intent to upset participants. Seeing as I didn't start this discussion and seeing as I wasn't the one who used language directly intending to upset a participant...I do not conform to this label.

Actually I'm pretty sure it's trolling when you consistently disrupt a conversation someone else has started.

PhoenixAsh

1st April 2014, 01:40

Actually I'm pretty sure it's trolling when you consistently disrupt a conversation someone else has started.

And pray tell where did this consistently happen?

Ele'ill

1st April 2014, 01:43

Just an observation, the last half of this discussion is talking about the discussion and not really talking about a relevant topic. I think this usually happens immediately before point of no return derailment where feelings start to get hurt. It is usually more productive to split this into a PM or profile discussion to work it out.

Five Year Plan

1st April 2014, 01:47

And I kept explaining it over and over again but you simply do not seem to be able to grasp it. I can't be expected to keep spelling it out for you as I have repeatedly done. At some point you just have to add one and one together. At this point you simply are being obtuse.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is as close to an explanation as I have received when I have asked repeatedly for an explanation how I have misconstrued the single statement of PhoenixAsh's that I initially engaged with.

It's obvious at this point that I am not going to get an answer, and could ask a hundred more times, and get a hundred identical responses about how I am being dense and already had it explained to me. I'm not really sure how this is a productive way to have a discussion, but if it provides you with some sad form of entertainment, more power to you. We all need hobbies.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st April 2014, 01:48

Five Year Plan

1st April 2014, 01:49

And pray tell where did this consistently happen?

Maybe if you checked the trashed posts of yours from the other thread you tried to disrupt, you can answer your own question, which is more than you're willing to do for people trying to discuss with you.

Ele'ill

1st April 2014, 01:54

You're not helping the relevance of the thread by contributing to the derailment of it with irrelevant posts.

BIXX

1st April 2014, 01:56

I think revisionism is kinda a pointless term for us to use, in a negative sense at least. If we describe the kind of revisionist the person is then it might be useful. For example, a social democrat revisionist, but then again you could just call them a social democrat. I feel that revisionism isn't a bad thing at all (at least as I see it) as it is just revising (which is adding on, taking away, or editing) a theory.

It would probably be simpler just to get rid of PhoenixAsh's latest attempts at relevancy.

I think you missed the point of Mari3L's post. You might have understood it better than I, but I took it to mean DON'T do this shit.

PhoenixAsh

1st April 2014, 02:00

Maybe if you checked the trashed posts of yours from the other thread you tried to disrupt, you can answer your own question, which is more than you're willing to do for people trying to discuss with you.

Consistently is now defined as 1 thread... :rolleyes:

Bringing this back on topic this totally reminds me of Trotsky's creative definition of workers democracy.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st April 2014, 02:01

I think you missed the point of Mari3L's post. You might have understood it better than I, but I took it to mean DON'T do this shit.
Well, I didn't mean it to come off that way. But I legitimately thought it was a better option than forking the thread because one certain user was trolling. But anyway, won't happen again.

PhoenixAsh

1st April 2014, 02:23

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is as close to an explanation as I have received when I have asked repeatedly for an explanation how I have misconstrued the single statement of PhoenixAsh's that I initially engaged with.

It's obvious at this point that I am not going to get an answer, and could ask a hundred more times, and get a hundred identical responses about how I am being dense and already had it explained to me. I'm not really sure how this is a productive way to have a discussion, but if it provides you with some sad form of entertainment, more power to you. We all need hobbies.

You already had your answer in post 41. I will quote this for your convenience:

Since I was attacked for something I supposedly said which I didn't actually say but because you assumed that what I said meant what you thought it meant even though I clearly clarified that it didn't mean that; I decided that I would approach the entire debate in a similar fashion as to how you guys (and yes I am totally generalizing all trotskyists here) approached this.

and there was this:

You seem to fail to understand that after post 18...you were all simply serving to prove a point. I even spelled it out.

If you had read my posts you would have perhaps noticed that I consistently argued my opinion on Trotsky as:

Those only serve to showboat your personalisation of the debate towards me when I simply stated that nobody, except of course ML's, cares whether Trotsky was or wasn't revisionist...since ML in its entirety is a revision of Marxism. Therefore the question of whether or not Trotskyism is revisionist matters only in regards to the relative positions within a revisionist tendency tradition.

I reject in its entirety any form of Marxism-Leninism as authoritarian, anti working class drivel and as such any form of argument about how Trotsky identified himself is mood.

I would also like to draw your attention to post 52. Which I am not going to quote...since I am all out of cooperation.

PhoenixAsh

1st April 2014, 02:27

It would probably be simpler just to get rid of PhoenixAsh's latest attempts at relevancy.

Well, I didn't mean it to come off that way. But I legitimately thought it was a better option than forking the thread because one certain user was trolling. But anyway, won't happen again.

Actually you did mean to come off that way and you have no idea what is actually going on in this thread and only jump in to support your Trot buddies...who...for the better part of this thread have been engaged in actual trolling.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st April 2014, 02:50

Actually you did mean to come off that way and you have no idea what is actually going on in this thread and only jump in to support your Trot buddies...who...for the better part of this thread have been engaged in actual trolling.
Yes, I did mean for that post to insult you, but I did not intend for it to be an irrelevant comment in the thread, which by that time you single-handedly derailed. And yes, I jumped in to try and defend my "buddies" (whom I don't know at all)...that you were trolling. But I did know what the thread was about, and I followed the responses closely. This is the last thing I'll say to you, because you're honestly not worth my time or trouble. Enjoy your new occupation under the bridge.

Fourth Internationalist

1st April 2014, 03:10

I love this thread. 'Tis a prime example of why I have a love-hate view of RevLeft :wub: - :cursing:

PhoenixAsh

1st April 2014, 03:43

I love this thread. 'Tis a prime example of why I have a love-hate view of RevLeft :wub: - :cursing:

I absolutely agree. It does have the habit of growing on you. ;)

Yes, I did mean for that post to insult you, but I did not intend for it to be an irrelevant comment in the thread, which by that time you single-handedly derailed. And yes, I jumped in to try and defend my "buddies" (whom I don't know at all)...that you were trolling. But I did know what the thread was about, and I followed the responses closely. This is the last thing I'll say to you, because you're honestly not worth my time or trouble. Enjoy your new occupation under the bridge.

I know you did. And I love how you made a troll post after accusing me of trolling...and not see the huge glaring inconsistency in it.

I have no idea what you mean with occupation under the bridge...but I do so hope this is not in some way meant as a slur of impoverished people or the homeless. It would have been a far better insult if you had added "intellectual" in there somewhere.

Either way I do not believe you followed this thread closely. If you had you would not have claimed I derailed it.

In fact...until VW's post I was taking a position which judged Trotskyism in its own right as an ideology based on its own position....which is more recognition that Trotslyism has gotten from many other tendencies....even their own ML's.

This is why I claimed in my initial point that Trotsky can only be considered revisionist in so far as Leninism itself is revisionist or in so far he rejected Lenin...and to clarify what "in so far" actually means and is defined as this translates as: Trotsky is only reformist to the extend that he rejected Leninism. Which in turn means that if you do not think he rejected Leninism then he isn't reformist. But this issue is contended and Trotsky is not unequivocally seen as a Leninist.

The point I do take issue with is the position that Trotsky is a Leninist simply because he claimed to be one. As I stated previously this is the same reasoning in which the Bible claims to be the word of God because it is claimed in the Bible that it is the word of God. And I rightly counter argued that there is dispute over this...

As I said...there is an unfortunate and sadly very pathetic obsession and need to position Trotskyism as close to Leninism as possible and still fight the battles you were fighting some odd 90 years ago and that hardly matter and shouldn't matter. Pretending that Lenin and Trotsky are somehow interchangeable is denying the fact that Trotsky differed greatly on issues and disagreed on others.

Geiseric

2nd April 2014, 20:25

I absolutely agree. It does have the habit of growing on you. ;)

I know you did. And I love how you made a troll post after accusing me of trolling...and not see the huge glaring inconsistency in it.

I have no idea what you mean with occupation under the bridge...but I do so hope this is not in some way meant as a slur of impoverished people or the homeless. It would have been a far better insult if you had added "intellectual" in there somewhere.

Either way I do not believe you followed this thread closely. If you had you would not have claimed I derailed it.

In fact...until VW's post I was taking a position which judged Trotskyism in its own right as an ideology based on its own position....which is more recognition that Trotslyism has gotten from many other tendencies....even their own ML's.

This is why I claimed in my initial point that Trotsky can only be considered revisionist in so far as Leninism itself is revisionist or in so far he rejected Lenin...and to clarify what "in so far" actually means and is defined as this translates as: Trotsky is only reformist to the extend that he rejected Leninism. Which in turn means that if you do not think he rejected Leninism then he isn't reformist. But this issue is contended and Trotsky is not unequivocally seen as a Leninist.

The point I do take issue with is the position that Trotsky is a Leninist simply because he claimed to be one. As I stated previously this is the same reasoning in which the Bible claims to be the word of God because it is claimed in the Bible that it is the word of God. And I rightly counter argued that there is dispute over this...

As I said...there is an unfortunate and sadly very pathetic obsession and need to position Trotskyism as close to Leninism as possible and still fight the battles you were fighting some odd 90 years ago and that hardly matter and shouldn't matter. Pretending that Lenin and Trotsky are somehow interchangeable is denying the fact that Trotsky differed greatly on issues and disagreed on others.

Trotsky, the president of the petrograd Soviet, which had a majority Bolshevik delegation, wasn't a Leninist? If you had examples other than differences of opinion on the tactic of the revolution I might believe your claim but there were no differences on their opinions on perminant revolution nor vanguardism by 1917, which was the defining moment of their political lives. In terms of revolutionary strategy Lenin and Trotsky were interchangable. They had differences during a few times such as brest litovsk, the polish Soviet war, but even at those intense times Lenin was brought to trotskys line.

PhoenixAsh

2nd April 2014, 20:54

Trotsky, the president of the petrograd Soviet, which had a majority Bolshevik delegation, wasn't a Leninist? If you had examples other than differences of opinion on the tactic of the revolution I might believe your claim but there were no differences on their opinions on perminant revolution nor vanguardism by 1917, which was the defining moment of their political lives. In terms of revolutionary strategy Lenin and Trotsky were interchangable. They had differences during a few times such as brest litovsk, the polish Soviet war, but even at those intense times Lenin was brought to trotskys line.

Seriously...you Trotskyists need to work on your reading apprehension

ArisVelouxiotis

2nd April 2014, 21:30

Trotsky, the president of the petrograd Soviet, which had a majority Bolshevik delegation, wasn't a Leninist? If you had examples other than differences of opinion on the tactic of the revolution I might believe your claim but there were no differences on their opinions on perminant revolution nor vanguardism by 1917, which was the defining moment of their political lives. In terms of revolutionary strategy Lenin and Trotsky were interchangable. They had differences during a few times such as brest litovsk, the polish Soviet war, but even at those intense times Lenin was brought to trotskys line.
You understand that this has being the argument on for 2 pages?PhoenixAsh says he didn't say that all the other here(trotskyists basically) say he did.Whether he/she was mishonest or not I'll not judge it but come on man.Why don't you read the whole thread before commenting that?

Geiseric

2nd April 2014, 22:18

You understand that this has being the argument on for 2 pages?PhoenixAsh says he didn't say that all the other here(trotskyists basically) say he did.Whether he/she was mishonest or not I'll not judge it but come on man.Why don't you read the whole thread before commenting that?

Fair enough, for the record I'm not the only person here on this forum who does that.

PhoenixAsh

2nd April 2014, 22:30

Fair enough, for the record I'm not the only person here on this forum who does that.

True...everybody does this. Nothing personal ;)

...But you stepped into this one and it turns out it is a loaded landmine.

Some people took things too literally, didn't carefully read some posts, didn't assess what was happening, made the wrong conclusions and stepped on some toes. And then all the fun started...and three pages later we are at this point and everybody is tense...

;)

Masked

5th April 2014, 23:28

Don't hate me for this, but why is revisionism automatically a dirty word?

Queen Mab

6th April 2014, 23:27

Don't hate me for this, but why is revisionism automatically a dirty word?

It just means the abandoning of fundamental Marxist principles, which self-described Marxists are supposed to adhere to (for reasons of coherence as much as anything else).

ArisVelouxiotis

7th April 2014, 22:42

Don't hate me for this, but why is revisionism automatically a dirty word?

I know what you mean but I don't think we call sth like that"dirty".We can say dirty jokes yeah and dirty words but I think you mean a bad word?Slavic explained it pretty good.

PhoenixAsh

7th April 2014, 23:16

It just means the abandoning of fundamental Marxist principles, which self-described Marxists are supposed to adhere to (for reasons of coherence as much as anything else).

It is endlessly ironic when adapters of Marxism accuse other adapters of Marxism of being adapters of Marxism. :laugh:

This is like a really long and serious and heated debate in cooking classes, I followed several years ago, two pupils had about the exact time the water should boil before inserting the pasta.

That said however, revisionism is not only the abandonment of (various principles of) Marxism but more the reinterpretation of (various principles of) Marxism away from its more traditional and orthodox interpretations. In the case of Trotsky however the interpretation of revisionism is its degree of deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

Which of course led to the denunciation of Stalin(ism) as being revisionism by the LO and of course the eventual expulsion of Trotsky from the party for...tada...being a revisionist.

And this is all very, very, very relevant to the actual class struggle and I am sure scores and scores of workers go to bed every night, lying awake and staring at the ceiling pondering who was the most irrelevant...eh...I mean revisionist...

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 00:25

And this is all very, very, very relevant to the actual class struggle and I am sure scores and scores of workers go to bed every night, lying awake and staring at the ceiling pondering who was the most irrelevant...eh...I mean revisionist...

I think leadership in movements, the relationship between the leadership and the masses, how that leadership is determined, what socialism means, and whether socialism can exist in a single country or only internationally all important issues that shouldn't be dismissed just because they involve *gag* that horrible thing that dares to challenge the infallibility of immediate individual experience: theory.

The label "revisionist" gets lobbed around as an insult precisely because the person either hurling or receiving the insult already presuppose that Marxian theory in its fundamentals sets out the main tasks facing the proletariat in an epoch of decaying capitalism. If you don't give two shits about Marx, and thought he was a stupid old man who was trying to impose on people's interpretations of their own individual experiences, the accusation that you are "revising" him in his politics will hardly bother you all that much. But a lot of people don't take that view, and so the question of whether Trotsky or Stalin or both "revised" Marx or Lenin in fundamental ways is important, even if it's not on the 11 o'clock news, because what is in question is a theory that can inform the revolutionary struggle to defeat capitalism.

I suppose it might not be as sexy and romantic as dashing into the fray of a thousand-person strong demonstration, and cozying up to them by refusing to challenge their existing state of consciousness and by only talking about the things they go to bed at night considering. After all, that is a great way to build a "community," which seems to be the overriding priority of a lot of posters on this forum. But a community of what? There are still some decidedly out of fashion and dowdy types like me who think that revolutionary theory is needed for revolutionary practice, and that Marx provided in broad brushstrokes what that revolutionary theory should consist of. We aren't happy with just community building for the sake of community building. We want to help build a specific type of community with a specific type of political practice that doesn't emerge spontaneously from the daily experiences of the working class.

Geiseric

8th April 2014, 00:36

Calling this argument petty is short sighted because if we can't figure out how the Russian and world revolution failed the first time, we're screwed. Nobody except Trotsky was correct about the failure of Stalinism and the course it would take.

PhoenixAsh

8th April 2014, 08:00

The debate is in essence unsvientific intellectualism that refuses to acknowldge the premisses that Marxism and or Marxism-Leninism could in themselves be flawed.
It departs from the central position that deviation from them are the heart of the problem and therefore doesn't analyze but is looking for arguments and examples to support the thesis rather than accepting evidence to test the thesis.

The debate of who is more revisionist in the Trotsky vs Lenin vs Stalin boils down to a debate which colour marbles are best suited to win a soccer match. To argue its relevancy because it matters to a lot of people ignores the fact that it doesn't even register for the fast majority on their scale of irrelevancy. In otherwords: it actually turns people away from revolutionary struggle and detracts from it.

Now...in my opinion a debate about the question if Marxism-Leninism should even be considered revolutionary instead of the anti-worker ideology they in fact are is far more significant than the degree of deviation of the central position within this flawed and failed counter revolutionary tendency.

On that note...arguing that Trotsky was the only one who saw and predicted the failure of Stalinism is historic revisionism in its finest form.

Thinking he did so from some genuine revolutionary zeal rather than individual interest is another position.

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 08:48

The debate is in essence unsvientific intellectualism that refuses to acknowldge the premisses that Marxism and or Marxism-Leninism could in themselves be flawed.

I am certainly not refusing to acknowledge that Marxism or Leninism might be wrong. I simply ask that you explain how they are wrong and support it with an argument, rather than just moaning and complaining about posters on the forum having certain political convictions you obviously disagree with.

PhoenixAsh

8th April 2014, 09:31

Dodo

8th April 2014, 13:54

I am certainly not refusing to acknowledge that Marxism or Leninism might be wrong. I simply ask that you explain how they are wrong and support it with an argument, rather than just moaning and complaining about posters on the forum having certain political convictions you obviously disagree with.

Marx's theories, or investigations which said that
*revolution will happen in an industrialized country failed
*capitalism will be adopted in the developing world as a rational form(influence of Smithian economics on Marx) failed
*That capitalism's end is inevitable has not been realized yet
*The understanding that each nation has to go through stages of development became highly refuted
*The idea that mode of production defines life and change has found a lot of opposition to it which explains the world perfectly well with their tautologies

With Lenin
*His expectations regarding the party as a tool turned out to be wrong as bureucracy took over
*They could not build socialism through state capitalism and instead got stuck in an inefficient economy which went obsolete each year
*The idea that "socialist" countries will never battle each other turned out to be wrong in Sino-Soviet conflict

-----
That is, if you take everything straightly without considering what other factors came into play.
Essentially, those who decide who is a revisionist must have established a religion of Marxism and its laws.

The thing with Marxism thus needs to be taken with some central themes rather than beliefs. That is why, a few weeks ago I was going nuts on established Marxist "beliefs" that we have to adhere to regardless because that is "how it is supposed to be".
I was called a liberal, bourgeouisie, imperialist and many other things...typical accusations who turn Marxism into a belief system with laws.

Leo

8th April 2014, 15:12

I don't think Trotsky can be considered a revisionist, however his Transitional Program can certainly be considered as reformism.

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 16:11

That is twisting the point of this thread which is about the question whether or not Trotsky was revisionist. The counter question is: why should that question matter outside of sectarian intellectualism.

This is the position I have been trying to convey to you Trotskyists. The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories.

I have explained why the question matters to Trotskyists. I am not sure why you think that it is sectarian to believe that Marx outlined the main ideas that should be incorporated into any aspiring revolutionary practice. Would you care to elaborate on why you think that's the case, and why you think your constant berating of "you Trotskyists" is not sectarian? Do you think having revolutionary principles is sectarian? Or is it only sectarian when they are "intellectual" (that is, carefully considered through a process of abstraction, then debated with others)?

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 16:29

I was called a liberal, bourgeouisie, imperialist and many other things...typical accusations who turn Marxism into a belief system with laws.

No, the reason you were called a liberal imperialist was that you said that capitalism, which you somehow view as separable in the real world from imperialism, had a progressive role to play in what you considered a "feudal" DPRK.

I am curious as to how you explain S.Korean development, a country that was in the same conditions with North in 1950s +they lack all the natural resources the north has(such as coal so crucial to industrialization) becoming a top economy in just 50 years and North not even industrializing, literally remaining in feudalism. Thats so much for claiming that bourgeouisie have "no progressive" role to play in DPRK's -mode of production-.

I am seriously surprised to learn that people who utter such things are allowed free reign to post on a revolutionary anti-capitalist board.

Dodo

8th April 2014, 19:58

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

8th April 2014, 20:08

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/DesuShogun/facepalm.jpg

I remember your mainpulative lies taking things out of their context...you are living a freaking lie in your isolated world, viewing the world with literature of 1920s....
The way I see it, you are more of a damage to Marxism than a contribution.

The debate is back there, I challenged you on every issue you put up. Put up a court if you want. I back everything I said and all of them are elaborated.
Your teenage Marxism is too immature for the real world...but before all of that, you need to learn to become a proper, honest individual.

And here I thought Phoenix Ash's immature crying about the mean, t-t-totalitarian Trotsky was the low point of this thread! No amount of context could possibly justify an alleged "Marxist" shilling for "capitalist development" in the northern part of the peninsula, and in fact the context makes it even worse (your statements about "poverty alleviation" for peasants etc.)

As for aufheben's "teenage" Marxism, you do realise that constant crying about "dogmatic Marxists" (i.e. those Marxists that uphold the revolutionary tradition of Marx, Lenin and others, instead of shilling for the bourgeoisie like the "Marxians" you favour) doesn't make you a cool rebel, it just makes you sound like a teenager.

Dodo

8th April 2014, 20:21

And here I thought Phoenix Ash's immature crying about the mean, t-t-totalitarian Trotsky was the low point of this thread! No amount of context could possibly justify an alleged "Marxist" shilling for "capitalist development" in the northern part of the peninsula, and in fact the context makes it even worse (your statements about "poverty alleviation" for peasants etc.)

As for aufheben's "teenage" Marxism, you do realise that constant crying about "dogmatic Marxists" (i.e. those Marxists that uphold the revolutionary tradition of Marx, Lenin and others, instead of shilling for the bourgeoisie like the "Marxians" you favour) doesn't make you a cool rebel, it just makes you sound like a teenager.

My approach to the issue of N.Korea had been completely "technical". He and you were the ones who viewed things with an "ideological blindness", through an etiquette you have created. It is not a unique phenomena to you, every school of thinking produces these people.

My problem here is not with Trotsky, I hold Trotsky as one of the most valuable Marxists who has seriously expanded its empirical content and explanatory power. My problem is with the people who belong to church of Trotsky. Or Stalin or Marx for that matter.

If you want to re-ignite the debate go ahead. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have no ideological intentions from a debate on internet with people I do not know. I said capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea, I was countered with "in this world capitalism lost its progresive role completely" to which I countered with many examples but primarily S.Korea. I have not yet gotten a satisfactory answer to S.Korean development, its land reforms, rapid allevation of poverty and extreme growth rates where living standards of the working class jumped over the roof in under 50 years where as the only thing that keep N.Korea as a sovereign state is its political prisoner camps.

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 22:36

My approach to the issue of N.Korea had been completely "technical". He and you were the ones who viewed things with an "ideological blindness", through an etiquette you have created. It is not a unique phenomena to you, every school of thinking produces these people.

My problem here is not with Trotsky, I hold Trotsky as one of the most valuable Marxists who has seriously expanded its empirical content and explanatory power. My problem is with the people who belong to church of Trotsky. Or Stalin or Marx for that matter.

If you want to re-ignite the debate go ahead. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have no ideological intentions from a debate on internet with people I do not know. I said capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea, I was countered with "in this world capitalism lost its progresive role completely" to which I countered with many examples but primarily S.Korea. I have not yet gotten a satisfactory answer to S.Korean development, its land reforms, rapid allevation of poverty and extreme growth rates where living standards of the working class jumped over the roof in under 50 years where as the only thing that keep N.Korea as a sovereign state is its political prisoner camps.

Oh, the old "you guys are being political and ideological, while I am being objective" argument. How persuasive.

No amount of wiggling and evading can rewrite the quote I posted, which showed you clearly suggest that capitalism should be supported in North Korea. No proviso, qualification, addendum to an addendum, or any other lawyer's dodge can allow you to square that position with the revolutionary leftism this board upholds.

What I see in this thread is a lot of posturing and hand-wringing about cultism and condemnation of entire groups of people for supposedly blindly following political traditions, but no actual specific examples of where this is happening. What you can see in this thread are instances of people defending the basic tenets of Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism. Apparently this is tantamount to "blind devotion" in the eyes of some. It's time the posturing folks present their "empirical" arguments if they have problems with any of those tenets, or retract their accusations that the people upholding them are doing so "blindly." Is this asking too much?

PhoenixAsh

8th April 2014, 22:40

I have explained why the question matters to Trotskyists. I am not sure why you think that it is sectarian to believe that Marx outlined the main ideas that should be incorporated into any aspiring revolutionary practice. Would you care to elaborate on why you think that's the case, and why you think your constant berating of "you Trotskyists" is not sectarian? Do you think having revolutionary principles is sectarian? Or is it only sectarian when they are "intellectual" (that is, carefully considered through a process of abstraction, then debated with others)?

No. I think the revisionism debate is sectarian and for it to be sectarian it matters little if it matters to Trotskyists, Stalinists or Marxist-Leninists. It is a circle jerk of a failed ideology from the start and doesn't solve any of the issues which were already present before this became an issue.

And intellectualism: “Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost.”

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 22:57

Marx's theories, or investigations which said that
*revolution will happen in an industrialized country failed

Where did Marx say that revolution would definitely happen in any industrialized country?

*capitalism will be adopted in the developing world as a rational form(influence of Smithian economics on Marx) failedWhere did Marx say that capitalism was a "rational" form of economics, much less one that would be adopted in the developing world in a way that was similar to the early developers?

*That capitalism's end is inevitable has not been realized yetWhere does Marx make the claim that the end of capitalism is "inevitable"?

*The understanding that each nation has to go through stages of development became highly refutedOh, Marx's claim that each nation has to go through stages of development? Like when Marx criticized people who "insist on transforming my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general course fatally imposed on all peoples, whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves placed"?

*The idea that mode of production defines life and change has found a lot of opposition to it which explains the world perfectly well with their tautologiesWhere does Marx say that "mode of production defines life and change"?

With Lenin
*His expectations regarding the party as a tool turned out to be wrong as bureucracy took overWhere did Lenin's theory of the party espouse that it could not be transformed into a bureaucratized tool of reaction?

*They could not build socialism through state capitalism and instead got stuck in an inefficient economy which went obsolete each yearHistory shows they didn't, not that they couldn't hypothetically have done so if circumstances had been different.

*The idea that "socialist" countries will never battle each other turned out to be wrong in Sino-Soviet conflictWhere does Lenin ever talk about a "socialist country"? For Lenin, socialism was an international phenomenon that could not exist in single countries.

Your ignorance of basic tenets of Marxism and Leninism is showing clearly. And to be perfectly frank, the way you present ignorant rightwing talking-point caricatures about Marx's body of thought, combined with your advocacy of capitalist development in the DPRK, is highly, highly suspicious. You've obviously not read Marx in any depth. I'll just leave it at that.

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 23:11

No. I think the revisionism debate is sectarian and for it to be sectarian it matters little if it matters to Trotskyists, Stalinists or Marxist-Leninists. It is a circle jerk of a failed ideology from the start and doesn't solve any of the issues which were already present before this became an issue.

Yes, you keep repeating it is sectarian and that Trotskyists are sectarian cultists. You just haven't presented any arguments as to why they should be considered as such, which would require you to define how you are using the term sectarian, a much misused and abused term that often functions as a synonym on this forum for "politics I disagree with."

And intellectualism: “Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost.”

It's nice to know you don't think working-class people are capable of engaging in intellectual debate. Patronize much?

PhoenixAsh

8th April 2014, 23:20

Yes, you keep repeating it is sectarian and that Trotskyists are sectarian cultists. You just haven't presented any arguments as to why they should be considered as such, which would require you to define how you are using the term sectarian, a much misused and abused term that often functions as a synonym on this forum for "politics I disagree with."

It's nice to know you don't think working-class people are capable of engaging in intellectual debate. Patronize much?

I think I quite clearly expressed why it is sectarian.

I also do not need to define it because you know perfectly well what it means....and if not you could gave abstracted it from the explanation I have given.

I never said working class people are not capable of engaging in intellectual debate. I am saying this particular intellectual debate is particularly useless in actually engaging the working class in revolutionary politics.

Also a very nice gloss over of the Lenin quote I gave there...I guess that one must have stung.

I also haven't said Trotskyists are sectarian cultists... I think I quite clearly said Trotskyisms is a counter revolutionary and anti-worker ideology.

Dodo

8th April 2014, 23:35

Oh, the old "you guys are being political and ideological, while I am being objective" argument. How persuasive.

This reminds me of why I asked how old you were earlier....

No amount of wiggling and evading can rewrite the quote I posted, which showed you clearly suggest that capitalism should be supported in North Korea. No proviso, qualification, addendum to an addendum, or any other lawyer's dodge can allow you to square that position with the revolutionary leftism this board upholds.I am not evading anything mate. All debate is still there. Come at me.
I BACK EVERYTHING I said and the way I see it you failed in bringing any counter-argument. Your obliviousness to the economic realities of the world and your mind being stuck with Trotskyists concepts and debates with Stalinists in 1920s fashion gets you nowhere in life.
In the end, you become a cultist speaking anti-stalinist trotskyists cliches, I.E you are not exactly following the world...the new arguments that come up etc...
This lack of adapting to history is one of the major reasons Marxism declined so much.

What I see in this thread is a lot of posturing and hand-wringing about cultism and condemnation of entire groups of people for supposedly blindly following political traditions, but no actual specific examples of where this is happening. What you can see in this thread are instances of people defending the basic tenets of Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism. Apparently this is tantamount to "blind devotion" in the eyes of some. It's time the posturing folks present their "empirical" arguments if they have problems with any of those tenets, or retract their accusations that the people upholding them are doing so "blindly." Is this asking too much?The way you attack me, the attitude you use and the "reasoning" you make all shows signs of sectarian/cultists un-independent critical thinking. The limits of your "critical" capability is drawn by Trotskyists concepts that ethiquettic beliefs that came with it.

Tell me then, what are the tenets of Marxism?

PhoenixAsh

8th April 2014, 23:45

Fourth Internationalist

8th April 2014, 23:46

The way you attack me, the attitude you use and the "reasoning" you make all shows signs of sectarian/cultists un-independent critical thinking.

Doin' the good Lord's work exposing cultists for who they are. Good job. (http://www.jucoolimages.com/images/stfu/stfu_05.gif)

Five Year Plan

8th April 2014, 23:51

I think I quite clearly expressed why it is sectarian.
I also do not need to define it because you know perfectly well what it means....and if not you could gave abstracted it from the explanation I have given.

We're going to go down the "I'm not going to provide an argument because I provided one at some unspecified earlier point in the thread" road again? Really? But wait, you don't need to define it because its meaning is clear? The decisions one must make when trying to choose a way of evading principled debate.

Setting aside your constant evasiveness and tendency-baiting immaturity, I will give you my definition: sectarianism is placing the interests of a specific political organization over and against the interests of the working class as a whole. Notice that this definition doesn't mean anybody who subscribes to a particular tendency, joins a political organization, etc., is sectarian. It is perfectly possible to do all those things on the basis of political principle and believing that a particular working-class revolutionary organization is espousing a politics that all of the working class requires for its self-liberation.

Now the question you must answer, if you want any of us to take anything you have to say seriously, is: where do you see me or Vincent or any other Trotskyist here making unprincipled arguments for the purpose of benefiting some specific political organization?

My contention is that you are using sectarian as a swear word to condemn political principles you disagree with, as a way of having to avoid a serious discussion of differences over principles. I'm sure you'll deny, claim you've provided serious discussion earlier in the thread I'm just too stupid to have seen, etc., but lurkers in this thread can decide whether my assessment is an accurate one, and it is for them that I am writing this post. Not you.

I never said working class people are not capable of engaging in intellectual debate. I am saying this particular intellectual debate is particularly useless in actually engaging the working class in revolutionary politics.
Why do you think that? It's just one sweeping claim after another. No argument to back it up.

Also a very nice gloss over of the Lenin quote I gave there...I guess that one must have stung.
I have no idea what Lenin quote you're talking about, or why what is in all likelihood, judging by your level of political development, a gross misinterpretation of one of his quotes would affect me at all, except as the source of mild annoyance.

I also haven't said Trotskyists are sectarian cultists... I think I quite clearly said Trotskyisms is a counter revolutionary and anti-worker ideology.
Quite clear, as in "I don't want to have to provide any arguments to support my claims." How convenient.

Dodo

9th April 2014, 00:02

Where did Marx say that revolution would definitely happen in any industrialized country?

“No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.”

Referring to development of capitalism. I can't find his letter to Russian Marxists later in his life where he suggests them to develop capitalism and that Russia cannot sustain a socialist transformation. But if you really want to see how little you know of Marxism, I can look more.

Where did Marx say that capitalism was a "rational" form of economics, much less one that would be adopted in the developing world in a way that was similar to the early developers?

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

Communist Manifesto

Where does Marx make the claim that the end of capitalism is "inevitable"?

"What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable"

That and his whole fucking explanation of Capital's contradictions?

Oh, Marx's claim that each nation has to go through stages of development? Like when Marx criticized people who "insist on transforming my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general course fatally imposed on all peoples, whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves placed"?

“No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.”

Where does Marx say that "mode of production defines life and change"?

In the social production of their life, men (3 (http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/historical-materialism-and-the-inevitable-end-of-capitalism/#fn3)) enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

“The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

“At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.

“Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.”

Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Where did Lenin's theory of the party espouse that it could not be transformed into a bureaucratized tool of reaction?

He did not say it could not be...He said it should not be through his program. State and Revolution and What is to be Done

History shows they didn't, not that they couldn't hypothetically have done so if circumstances had been different.

Did I say something else?

Where does Lenin ever talk about a "socialist country"? For Lenin, socialism was an international phenomenon that could not exist in single countries.

Trotskyist religious cliche again...The idea is that if socialism was to spread countries would not have any issues with each other. We are not talking about socialism on the long-run but as revolutions were happening.

On this I was referring to Lakatos's investigation

Has, for instance, Marxism ever predicted a stunning
novel fact successfully? Never! It has some famous
unsuccessful predictions. It predicted the absolute
impoverishment of the working class. It predicted
that the fist socialist revolution would take place
in the industrially most developed society. It
predicted that socialist society would be free of
revolutions. It predicted that there will be no conflict
of interests between socialist countries. Thus the
early predictions of Marxism were bold and
stunning but they failed. Marxists explained all their
failures: they explained the rising living standards
of the working class by devising a theory of
imperialism; they even explained why the first
socialist revolution occurred in industrially
backward Russia. They 'explained' Berlin 1953,
Budapest, 1956, Prague 1968. They 'explained' the
Russian-Chinese conflict. But their auxiliary
hypotheses were all cooked up after the event to
protect Marxian theory from the facts. The
Newtonian program led to novel facts; the Marxian
lagged behind the facts and has been running fast
to catch up with them (Lakatos 1978, pp. 5-6; see
also Worrall 1978, pp. 55-7).

As you can see he was pretty against Marxism and with good reason.

Your ignorance of basic tenets of Marxism and Leninism is showing clearly. And to be perfectly frank, the way you present ignorant rightwing talking-point caricatures about Marx's body of thought, combined with your advocacy of capitalist development in the DPRK, is highly, highly suspicious. You've obviously not read Marx in any depth. I'll just leave it at that.

Uhm.....to be perfectly honest with you, I think you have no idea what Marxism is by now.

Dodo

9th April 2014, 00:03

Can't edit the post above but you don't need to tell me USSR was not "socialist" when referring to criticisms of Lakatos.

Doin' the good Lord's work exposing cultists for who they are. Good job. (http://www.jucoolimages.com/images/stfu/stfu_05.gif)

By now, I am used to circle jerking of the Trotskyists here....

PhoenixAsh

9th April 2014, 00:11

[/LIST]
We're going to go down the "I'm not going to provide an argument because I provided one at some unspecified earlier point in the thread" road again? Really? But wait, you don't need to define it because its meaning is clear? The decisions one must make when trying to choose a way of evading principled debate.

:laugh::rolleyes: Riiiight....so....basically you can use this exact same line. Others can't.

I have explained why the question matters to Trotskyists.

I think I made it abundantly clear what I meant. If you have trouble understanding my explanation just say so. Don't pretend I didn't provide an argument to hide it.

Setting aside your constant evasiveness and tendency-baiting immaturity, I will give you my definition: sectarianism is placing the interests of a specific political organization over and against the interests of the working class as a whole.

Ow how nice. Making up definitions now.

I'll play. I think your definition of sectarianism exactly fits the revisionism debate. And in fact...if you reread my posts it is also part of the explanation I gave why the revisionism debate is sectarian.

However...I...like just about everybody familiar with the definition of the word will use the following definition...which is pretty much self explanatory:

Sectarianism is bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement.

Notice that this definition doesn't mean anybody who subscribes to a particular tendency, joins a political organization, etc., is sectarian. It is perfectly possible to do all those things on the basis of political principle and believing that a particular working-class revolutionary organization is espousing a politics that all of the working class requires for its self-liberation.

How nice.

Now the question you must answer, if you want any of us to take anything you have to say seriously, is: where do you see me or Vincent or any other Trotskyist here making unprincipled arguments for the purpose of benefiting some specific political organization?

I must? Interesting because you seem to be under the impression that you can constantly try to reformulate what has actually been said.

I have not said you make unprincipled arguments. I am saying your entire approach to the revisionism debate and the weight you attach to it is sectarian in nature.

I am not under any kind of illusion you and Vincent are extremely principled in yoru adherence to counter revolutionary ideologies.

My contention is that you are using sectarian as a swear word to condemn political principles you disagree with, as a way of having to avoid a serious discussion of differences over principles. I'm sure you'll deny, claim you've provided serious discussion earlier in the thread I'm just too stupid to have seen, etc., but lurkers in this thread can decide whether my assessment is an accurate one, and it is for them that I am writing this post. Not you.

O my...I am getting predictable. And lo and behold: I am sure this is all because of some considerable incapability of understanding the huge difference of what you are saying here and what I said...which is that the revisionism debate is sectarian.

Your ideology is something I dismiss as counter revolutionary. There is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you paid attention and at least try to get it right.

And I am sure this is exactly what lurkers will indeed see I said previously.

Why do you think that? It's just one sweeping claim after another. No argument to back it up.

Again...this is something I have clearly addressed. Since this forum has a scroll back feature...I see very little reason to restate it.

I have no idea what Lenin quote you're talking about, or why what is in all likelihood, judging by your level of political development, a gross misinterpretation of one of his quotes would affect me at all, except as the source of mild annoyance.

“Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost.”

Quite clear, as in "I don't want to have to provide any arguments to support my claims." How convenient. I actually backed that up too.

But then again...we have already established you don't read posts with the intend to understand.

Fourth Internationalist

9th April 2014, 00:13

By now, I am used to circle jerking of the Trotskyists here....

Clearly that is not the case if you are throwing around the accusation of cultism.

Dodo

9th April 2014, 00:22

Clearly that is not the case if you are throwing around the accusation of cultism.

I have not accused you yet...I am not saying a Trotskyist is a cultist automatically, a Trotskyist is a cultist when he is like aufheben.
I am largely a Trotskyist myself but I do not feel the need to identfiy myself over that. I take what is valuable in Trotsky's theory and move on. World changes.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

9th April 2014, 00:28

My approach to the issue of N.Korea had been completely "technical".

And that's part of the problem. When it comes to analysing society, there are no "completely technical" analysis. Any supposed "neutrality" is a thin veneer over a position that expresses, either the standpoint of the proletariat, the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, or the confusion and disorientation of the middle strata. Your "neutrality", just like Burnham's and Craipeau's, is decidedly a bourgeois "neutrality".

He and you were the ones who viewed things with an "ideological blindness", through an etiquette you have created. It is not a unique phenomena to you, every school of thinking produces these people.

My problem here is not with Trotsky, I hold Trotsky as one of the most valuable Marxists who has seriously expanded its empirical content and explanatory power. My problem is with the people who belong to church of Trotsky. Or Stalin or Marx for that matter.

Here we go again - anyone who upholds revolutionary socialism is in fact religious, a dogmatic, I, I alone (whether the "I" is Tugan-Baranovsky, Bogdanov, or the somewhat less illustrious Dogukan) am the non-dogmatic, the critical theorist, my assertions are neutral, technical, scientific, and so on, and so on. We have heard this refrain a million times, and we will hear it another million. But anyone who has paid the least attention to the history of Marxist thought will recognise it for what it is.

For the record, I don't care if you have a "problem with Trotsky". Subjective revolutionaries can and do have problems with Trotsky - obviously that's something that can be debated in a principled manner. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Shilling for the bourgeoisie is well beyond that line; anyone who does that is not a communist but a renegade, a little De Man with no followers and no imperialist bourgeoisie to sponsor him.

If you want to re-ignite the debate go ahead. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have no ideological intentions from a debate on internet with people I do not know. I said capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea, I was countered with "in this world capitalism lost its progresive role completely" to which I countered with many examples but primarily S.Korea. I have not yet gotten a satisfactory answer to S.Korean development, its land reforms, rapid allevation of poverty and extreme growth rates where living standards of the working class jumped over the roof in under 50 years where as the only thing that keep N.Korea as a sovereign state is its political prisoner camps.

I can't re-ignite the debate even if I had the time, because no debate took place. Me and aufheben, coming from slightly different positions as it happens, explained the apparent "success" of South Korea, several times in fact. Your response was pretty weak hand-waving about the immense economic assistance the DPRK received from... Maoist China. The noted supergiant of financial capitalism. Not at all an equally encircled and ruined state.

cough...NEP...cough.

Right, the NEP, a series of limited concessions, under state supervision, to the capitalist sector that already existed in the Russian economy. The NEP wasn't "capitalist development", and it wasn't meant to be - except in the mind of Bukharin, and perhaps like all liberals you have a special place in your heart for old Bukharin?

Anyways. I did call Trotsky a totalitarian. I also like to reiterate that this was accompanied by the addition of accusing Trotskyism of being counter revolutionary and anti-worker.bourgeois ideology. I posted some evidence as to why this is the case, which you conveniently ignored.

I "ignored the evidence" because I bolted out of the thread. Quite frankly, your antics have derailed what could have been a useful thread about the permanent revolution, the transitional programme etc., and that you were not censured for your childish outbursts is interesting, to say the least. And what evidence? That officers of the Ch-K engaged in rape? I wonder if you even realise that the Ch-K was originally mostly non-Bolshevik, or how rape in the Ch-K, the Red Army, and so on, was dealt with?

As for the institution of hostages, well, sure. The revolution is not a tea party. The revolutionary dictatorship strikes and bloodies its hands, not because of some abstract bourgeois "justice", but to preserve proletarian power. If that takes the death of innocent people, so be it. By the way, you should also condemn the Paris Commune, then. The Commune also instituted hostages, and only made the mistake of not seizing more, and of not shooting them earlier.

Fourth Internationalist

9th April 2014, 00:38

I have not accused you yet ...

Thank you for not accusing me, yet.

I am not saying a Trotskyist is a cultist automatically, a Trotskyist is a cultist when he is like aufheben.

Calling him or anyone else here a cultist is absurd, and that was my point. You're acting like an immature 15 year-old. It is not necessary to call people that. It's rude, stupid, and annoying.

Dodo

9th April 2014, 00:49

Calling him or anyone else here a cultist is absurd, and that was my point. You're acting like an immature 15 year-old. It is not necessary to call people that. It's rude, stupid, and annoying.

If I have to deal with things like

I am seriously surprised to learn that people who utter such things are allowed free reign to post on a revolutionary anti-capitalist board. things change.

Who the hell is he to decide on this? This is a clear example of a mind that is drowning in dogma, unable to see even see what I am proposing because of his centralized church beliefs.

Dodo

9th April 2014, 00:55

And that's part of the problem. When it comes to analysing society, there are no "completely technical" analysis. Any supposed "neutrality" is a thin veneer over a position that expresses, either the standpoint of the proletariat, the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, or the confusion and disorientation of the middle strata. Your "neutrality", just like Burnham's and Craipeau's, is decidedly a bourgeois "neutrality".

Fair point. I do not claim to be objective, I said "technical", or not necessarily from an ideological perspective.
You can view developmentalist thinking as bourgeouisie, as it is indeed. It is also very euro-centric. So was Marx. I approched to issue of Korea from a scholarly point of view, or reconsidered the role of capital.
I don't need dogmatists to tell me hedehödö imperialism evil capitalist pigs cliches.

Here we go again - anyone who upholds revolutionary socialism is in fact religious, a dogmatic, I, I alone (whether the "I" is Tugan-Baranovsky, Bogdanov, or the somewhat less illustrious Dogukan) am the non-dogmatic, the critical theorist, my assertions are neutral, technical, scientific, and so on, and so on. We have heard this refrain a million times, and we will hear it another million. But anyone who has paid the least attention to the history of Marxist thought will recognise it for what it is.

I do not claim to be objective. None can be objective. But being clearly lost in beliefs and its difference to ability to critically think and discuss is something obvious.

For the record, I don't care if you have a "problem with Trotsky". Subjective revolutionaries can and do have problems with Trotsky - obviously that's something that can be debated in a principled manner. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Shilling for the bourgeoisie is well beyond that line; anyone who does that is not a communist but a renegade, a little De Man with no followers and no imperialist bourgeoisie to sponsor him.
If we discuss to learn and improve out intellectual capacity, why should we draw the line somewhere?
Marx himself was praising bourgeouisie in many of his texts in his youth and older days....should we excommunicate him from Marxism?

I can't re-ignite the debate even if I had the time, because no debate took place. Me and aufheben, coming from slightly different positions as it happens, explained the apparent "success" of South Korea, several times in fact. Your response was pretty weak hand-waving about the immense economic assistance the DPRK received from... Maoist China. The noted supergiant of financial capitalism. Not at all an equally encircled and ruined state.

If you believe that is what happened, I am really sad. For the record, I have never hid behind China aiding Korea. I only mentiioned it when the other side said S.Korea was supported by USA.
If you think that was the central point of my argument....there is something VERY WRONG.

Fourth Internationalist

9th April 2014, 01:03

If I have to deal with things like

things change.

So when you think someone is being unfair to you, you respond by calling them silly names?

PhoenixAsh

9th April 2014, 01:07

Right, the NEP, a series of limited concessions, under state supervision, to the capitalist sector that already existed in the Russian economy. The NEP wasn't "capitalist development", and it wasn't meant to be - except in the mind of Bukharin, and perhaps like all liberals you have a special place in your heart for old Bukharin?

So basically you made concessions to the capitalists. I like your sheltering wording to obfuscate this...but that is how it is. And the hypocrisy you display here after deriding Dogukan for "shilling" capitalist development is extremely obvious.

;)

And of course...making concessions to capitalists isn't capitalist development....sure. Because...you know...making concessions because war communism almost bankrupted the country, led to massive starvation, malnutrition, under production and economic stagnation ISN'T developing capitalism.

Or lets say:

“State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic.”

^ with which Trotsky by the way...agreed.

I "ignored the evidence" because I bolted out of the thread. Quite frankly, your antics have derailed what could have been a useful thread about the permanent revolution, the transitional programme etc., and that you were not censured for your childish outbursts is interesting, to say the least. And what evidence? That officers of the Ch-K engaged in rape? I wonder if you even realise that the Ch-K was originally mostly non-Bolshevik, or how rape in the Ch-K, the Red Army, and so on, was dealt with?

Actually...you can thank yourself for that with your vile ad hominem with which you entered the debate. I merely replied like for like and you couldn't hack it.

You can white wash the crimes committed by the Red Army and the Cheka on orders of the Bolshevists by trying to argue that they "didn't consist of Bolsheviks" this may be the case...but they were damned well led and ordered by the Bolshevists and they were perfectly aware of what the Cheka was doing. After all...they ordered it and they damned well supported it. So what are you arguing here?

As for the institution of hostages, well, sure. The revolution is not a tea party. The revolutionary dictatorship strikes and bloodies its hands, not because of some abstract bourgeois "justice", but to preserve proletarian power. If that takes the death of innocent people, so be it. By the way, you should also condemn the Paris Commune, then. The Commune also instituted hostages, and only made the mistake of not seizing more, and of not shooting them earlier.

I don't have to condemn anything that isn't part of this thread. We are not talking about the commune now and my opinion on the commune, which you know nothing about...but seem to be insinuating over, isn't relevant for the fact that we are talking about Trotsky, Marxism-Leninism and their counter revolutionary and anti-worker ideology.

Your precious Bolheviks murdered thousands of workers and their families for striking against Bolshevik privileges and Bolshevik exploitation and forced labour.

That is the grim reality which you try to white wash as "preserve proletarian power"....which actually means: "centralizing the power into the hands of a party elite against and at the expense of the actual workers they pretend to represent while retaining privileges over them."

Brandon's Impotent Rage

9th April 2014, 01:52

The revolutionary dictatorship strikes and bloodies its hands, not because of some abstract bourgeois "justice", but to preserve proletarian power. If that takes the death of innocent people, so be it.

OK, this right here.

I don't normally get involved in these discussions, because I find the whole tankie-trot debate to be completely worthless.....but that's besides the point. This is about the little bit that you stated there.

That is an proverbial line that you do NOT want to cross. That is a very, very dangerous road you are going down. Once you start to make concessions like this, that it's actually OK for innocent workers.....no, innocent people in general to die for the sake of your precious revolution, you've crossed over from militant to psychotic. Yes, it's a fact that in a revolution innocent people will die in the crossfire. That is a thing to be mourned, not to cast off like some casual annoyance.

Geiseric

9th April 2014, 01:55

cough...NEP...cough.

Anyways. I did call Trotsky a totalitarian. I also like to reiterate that this was accompanied by the addition of accusing Trotskyism of being counter revolutionary and anti-worker.bourgeois ideology. I posted some evidence as to why this is the case, which you conveniently ignored.

I guess Russians love these totalitarians, seeing as millions of them died while likely starving in order to support the Bolsheviks against the white army, and to support the collectivized country during WW2.

Five Year Plan

9th April 2014, 04:36

Dokugan, none of those quotes say anything even close to the bullet points you claim they do. As things stand, though, I don't really have any interest in litigating them one by one with you, since it is obvious to me at this point that you are either a troll or a novice who is more interested in "winning" a debate than actually learning. Feel free to claim victory and go about spreading blatant lies and caricatures of Marxism. Before long you will slip up and be restricted or banned. And not a moment too soon.

Five Year Plan

9th April 2014, 04:52

PhoenixAsh

9th April 2014, 09:49

Phoenix,

It really is shocking that you have managed to attain some sort of position of authority on this board in light of your apparent unwillingness to abide by basic canons of civil discussion.

You claim that I am doing what you're doing, and only referring to previous arguments I have made without representing them. If you are referring to my argument that the discussion of "revisionism" (construed in a specific way) is important for Trotskyists, you can refer to the post where I said as follows:

See how easy it was for me to reproduce an argument I had earlier made in light of your confusion about what I was referring to? It took me all of one minute, which isn't much effort in light of its potential for contributing to meaningful back-and-forth.

You claim I am "making up my own definition" of sectarianism. Well, yes, I am wording my own understanding of sectarianism because, well, you asked me to do so! Your definition (Sectarianism is bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement.) once again raises the question I asked earlier: where is any Trotskyist acting in a discriminatory or bigoted way in this thread toward groups of people? In fact, the only person I see in this thread who has come closet to this behavior is ... wait for it ... you, with all your rather pathetic insults about "you Trotskyists" (being a subset, of course, of leftists).

I now understand why you don't make arguments, but instead only pretend you have made the at some unspecified point earlier in the thread (while, of course, refusing to reproduce them by taking less than a minute to copy and paste). Your arguments are absolutely dreadful and betray not the slightest depth of thought or creativity.

My unwillingness to abide by basic canons of civil discussion? Wauw.

Apparently it is not part of the canon of civil discourse to expect you to actually read the posts I make. If you can't be bothered to read them and can't be bothered to move your mouse to scroll back, then why should I take the one easy minute it would indeed take me to reqoute what I have written a post or two before? That was my whole point of quoting you refering to earlier arguments you made...which I, unlike you, indeed addressed by the way.

If you wanted and intended this to be a civil discussion then why did you not engage in one and behave as such?

IF you don't understand my posts or my argumenst than admit this and you are free to ask clarification and I in turn would be very willing to provide the necessary explanation. Instead however you create strawman arguments in order to misrepresent my arguments which indicates that you did actually read my posts, understand them, but refuse to address them honestly.

Which is how the Trotskyists in this thread have been behaving from the start. Which resulted in me saying "you Trotskyists". Had I been slandering you I would have used the derogatory form: "Trotskyites".

Your lates attempt at such a strawman argument is to subtly claim I somehow said Trotskyism is sectarian...rather than, what I actually said: revisionist debate is sectarian and as a result the weight you attach to this debate is sectarian. So kindly address that as part of your precious "civl discussion".

I would also like to point out to you that I am an anarchist which is not a subset of Marxism and most definately NOT a subset of Marxism-Leninism / Authoritarian "Socialism". So your explanation as to why I would fall under the definition of sectarianism as I presented it to you (ie: from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group) kind of shows a complete misunderstanding of the definition I provided. You could possibly argue that we are all part of the revolutionary leftwing tradition...but unfortunately for you I don't see Trotskyism as a leftwing ideology. Which by the way does not mean I do not value some of the theories from Trotsky based on their own merit.

Now...it is indefinately ironic that we are having this debate. Because all my criticism aside...my initial post in this thread and my position on Trotskyism is that I see Trotskyism, perhaps as counter revolutionary and anti-worker ideology...but I do value Trotsky(ism) in his own right as a political thinker, indpendend of Lenin(ism) and I see the revisionism debate as irrelevant to its legitimacy as a political ideology which should be engaged on its totallity and not on any real or perceived deviation from Leninism. Which is kind of a positive attitude.

Your absolute failure to understand this and your (to not say what I actually mean there: you Trotskyists) incessant attacks against me show exactly WHY the revisionism ebate and Trotskyist approach towards it is sectarian. I thank you for continuously proving my point.

Now...IF you are interested in actually living up to these "canons of civil debate" and are in the here and now, or the near future, planning on actually reading my posts and honestly address them...I would be very willing to continue this debate. If however you are going to continue down the road you decided to take...then I don't see much use.

Dodo

9th April 2014, 13:46

Dokugan, none of those quotes say anything even close to the bullet points you claim they do(LOL). As things stand, though, I don't really have any interest in litigating them one by one with you, since it is obvious to me at this point that you are either a troll or a novice who is more interested in "winning" a debate than actually learning. Feel free to claim victory and go about spreading blatant lies and caricatures of Marxism. Before long you will slip up and be restricted or banned. And not a moment too soon.

are you fucking kidding me? It is obvious you have a lot to learn. I don't need you to litigate anything.
From what I have seen, next to the reading I have done on Marxism from its start to contemporary works, you seem light years behind. My point here is not to boast over this or anything, just to point out your limited knowledge which is turning into dogma.

As a student of economic history who is defending Marxism at a level beyond tankie-trots debates, I have read(or at least made myself aware of) most materials on Historical Materialism, the scientific tradition and critical Marxists since Marx&Engels.
The problem is, you think history of Marxism somehow ended in 1930s with Trotsky and the world remains static. You are not even aware of the arguments that were shaped against Marxism.

How the hell do you plan to defend Marxism without knowing shit? All you can do is accuse me of being a liberal-bourgeousie troll...thats the level of your knowledge on the matter. You are not to be taken seriously out in the real world, only in your circle jerking Trotskyist party meetings.

edit: for the record, it is you who attacked me, you who blamed me. I have answered everything you threw at me in the Korea debate. A month later you come with as if that did not happen and blame me with same things. I have delivered all you have asked...The only explanation that remains is that you are 15 year old troll, a liar or have alzheimers.

Five Year Plan

9th April 2014, 16:14

Apparently it is not part of the canon of civil discourse to expect you to actually read the posts I make. If you can't be bothered to read them and can't be bothered to move your mouse to scroll back, then why should I take the one easy minute it would indeed take me to reqoute what I have written a post or two before? That was my whole point of quoting you refering to earlier arguments you made...which I, unlike you, indeed addressed by the way.

Which part of which of your posts do you think I have not read? Hmmm?

If you wanted and intended this to be a civil discussion then why did you not engage in one and behave as such?Where have I not been civil to you?

IF you don't understand my posts or my argumenst than admit this and you are free to ask clarification and I in turn would be very willing to provide the necessary explanation.You'd be perfectly happy to provide clarification and necessary explanation? A couple of pages ago I asked at least four times for you to explain how I was misrepresenting the exact statement of yours I quoted when challenging earlier in the thread. The record indicates that, in response to these requests, you incessantly claimed that you weren't going to explain anything because you had already done so. Does this promise of yours mean you are turning over a new leaf?

Your lates attempt at such a strawman argument is to subtly claim I somehow said Trotskyism is sectarian...rather than, what I actually said: revisionist debate is sectarian and as a result the weight you attach to this debate is sectarian. So kindly address that as part of your precious "civl discussion".I didn't "subtly" claim anything. I stated it clearly and outright, because that's how honest discussions take place. As I have explained once and repeated once, the revisionist debate is about arguing over the political principles of Marxism in order to defend those principles, not because Marx was perfect, but because the principles are understood to be essential to working-class self-emancipation.

It is not clear why you want to paint this as sectarian according to the definition you use, since it doesn't involve "hatred" or "discrimination" against any group, but rather a principled political debate (something you have shown yourself incapable of having thus far in this thread).

I would also like to point out to you that I am an anarchist which is not a subset of Marxism and most definately NOT a subset of Marxism-Leninism / Authoritarian "Socialism". So your explanation as to why I would fall under the definition of sectarianism as I presented it to you (ie: from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group) kind of shows a complete misunderstanding of the definition I provided. You could possibly argue that we are all part of the revolutionary leftwing tradition...but unfortunately for you I don't see Trotskyism as a leftwing ideology. Which by the way does not mean I do not value some of the theories from Trotsky based on their own merit.You complain about people misrepresenting your arguments, but here you clearly misrepresent what I said. Trotskyism and anarchism (and self-described "anti-revionist Marxist-Leninists") are all subsets of revolutionary leftism. According to your definition you are being sectarian by criticizing groups within revolutionary leftism who are interested in arguing against revisionism, and maintaining the theoretical integrity of what they perceive to be Marx's body of thought. Now, I think your definition happens to be ridiculous, and don't think you are being sectarian, though I obviously think your arguments are weak and demonstrated incredible intellectual laziness. But according to your own definition of sectarian, your behavior here is indeed sectartian.

Now...it is indefinately ironic that we are having this debate. Because all my criticism aside...my initial post in this thread and my position on Trotskyism is that I see Trotskyism, perhaps as counter revolutionary and anti-worker ideology...but I do value Trotsky(ism) in his own right as a political thinker, indpendend of Lenin(ism) and I see the revisionism debate as irrelevant to its legitimacy as a political ideology which should be engaged on its totallity and not on any real or perceived deviation from Leninism. Which is kind of a positive attitude.What do you value in the theory developed by a man you described as a totalitarian?

Your absolute failure to understand this and your (to not say what I actually mean there: you Trotskyists) incessant attacks against me show exactly WHY the revisionism ebate and Trotskyist approach towards it is sectarian. I thank you for continuously proving my point."We Trotskyists" disagree with your politics. You will be "attacked" on that basis, obviously. You are aware that you are moderating a web forum, right? Debates happen. The problem with your posts is that you keep trying to evade the political issues in the debate by hiding behind name-calling ("sectarian!"), bogus claims ("I have explained this once before, so I won't be bothered to copy and paste the argument you may have missed, and I won't explain it again!"), and an assortment of other highly questionable tactics.

Five Year Plan

9th April 2014, 16:42

are you fucking kidding me? It is obvious you have a lot to learn. I don't need you to litigate anything.
From what I have seen, next to the reading I have done on Marxism from its start to contemporary works, you seem light years behind. My point here is not to boast over this or anything, just to point out your limited knowledge which is turning into dogma.

As a student of economic history who is defending Marxism at a level beyond tankie-trots debates, I have read(or at least made myself aware of) most materials on Historical Materialism, the scientific tradition and critical Marxists since Marx&Engels.
The problem is, you think history of Marxism somehow ended in 1930s with Trotsky and the world remains static. You are not even aware of the arguments that were shaped against Marxism.

How the hell do you plan to defend Marxism without knowing shit? All you can do is accuse me of being a liberal-bourgeousie troll...thats the level of your knowledge on the matter. You are not to be taken seriously out in the real world, only in your circle jerking Trotskyist party meetings.

edit: for the record, it is you who attacked me, you who blamed me. I have answered everything you threw at me in the Korea debate. A month later you come with as if that did not happen and blame me with same things. I have delivered all you have asked...The only explanation that remains is that you are 15 year old troll, a liar or have alzheimers.

The quotes you provided in the last post were drawn from only two sources, the "Communist Manifesto" and the Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," the two works that somebody with only a passing familiarity with Marxism have probably read or come across. This just validates what I have already openly stated I suspect: you have not read deeply into Marx's works. What is problematic about this is that these two works showcase where Marx was trying to summarize far more complex arguments in a way that was accessible to large audiences. Relying exclusively on them to draw sweeping conclusions on Marx's methodology is highly problematic.

But even if accept those works as mature and developed formulations of Marx's approach, the quotes you draw from them still don't say what you claim. I'll just give you one example. Your initial claim was "*capitalism will be adopted in the developing world as a rational form(influence of Smithian economics on Marx) failed."

Your evidence for this claim?

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

A long quote where Marx explains how bourgeois society advanced the productive forces, and intensified the division of labor through drawing in "all nations" to an increasingly intricate system of production, circulation, and distribution. There is not one word in here that suggests anything about capitalism being "a rational form." Not one.

Maybe your problem is with Marx's claim, borne out by subsequent history, that capitalism would draw in all the nations of the Earth? You do, after all, think that the DPRK is feudal. But even if we accept your bizarre claim, which can only be arrived at by ignoring rather than applying a Marxian mode of inquiry, your own (reactionary) political position actually advocates the very logic of Marx's statement you are challenging. You have advocated for capitalism's expansion into "feudal" North Korea! That, of course, would represent an additional instance of "all nations being compelled to adopt the bourgeois mode of production." Why you would take issue with this claim of Marx's is...well, the stuff of trolls.

Trap Queen Voxxy

9th April 2014, 19:06

In your opinion, was Trotsky a revisionist?

Yes.

Did he distort Marxism and Bolshevism after he joined the Party around 1917?

Yes.

Aside from what Stalin turned him into, what do you make of him?

Looked funny.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

9th April 2014, 20:04

If we discuss to learn and improve out intellectual capacity, why should we draw the line somewhere?

Among other things, there isn't much that socialists can learn from the de Mans and the Noskes, other than how to be renegades. That, however, is of secondary importance at best. Revolutionary socialists don't discuss simply in order to "learn and improve our intellectual capacity", we engage in principled political discussion in order to clarify and develop our ideas as guidelines for revolutionary action in the world. Therefore, ideas on how to best develop capitalism in North Korea are useless to us; and they are alien to what we stand for and what we aim to do.

Marx himself was praising bourgeouisie in many of his texts in his youth and older days....should we excommunicate him from Marxism?

In his youth, Marx was a liberal. As for his "older days", again you show an incredible talent for failing to put things into their proper context. Marx defended the bourgeoisie against the feudal classes. I don't see that many remnants of the feudal classes today - and those that remain are firmly in the camp of the imperialist bourgeoisie - so the analogy fails.

If you believe that is what happened, I am really sad. For the record, I have never hid behind China aiding Korea. I only mentiioned it when the other side said S.Korea was supported by USA.

And apparently, you can't tell the difference between the US and China or the Soviet Union, which is indicative of a schematic approach to historical issues at best.

If you think that was the central point of my argument....there is something VERY WRONG.

No, the central point of your argument was the notion that North Korea is "feudalistic", which you yourself can't make any sense of, apparently.

So basically you made concessions to the capitalists.

And to the small commodity producers to an extent, yes.

I like your sheltering wording to obfuscate this...but that is how it is. And the hypocrisy you display here after deriding Dogukan for "shilling" capitalist development is extremely obvious.

There is simply no analogy between temporary concessions to an existing capitalist and small commodity producer sector, in a region devastated by four years of intervention and civil war to the extent that economic life had nearly stopped altogether, and introducing long-term capitalist relations into a state where, according to the person making the proposal, they had not existed before.

Or lets say:

“State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic.”

^ with which Trotsky by the way...agreed.

Everyone who was in the least familiar with the economic situation in Russia agreed with that assessment, given the widespread economic collapse and the regeneration of petty commodity production.

I actually wondered why an "anarchist" would stand in such solidarity with someone who wants "capitalist development" in North Korea - at first I was inclined to ascribe this to simple odium theologicum. But then I recalled you shilling for the Dutch SP in an earlier thread. Now it all makes sense, I guess.

Actually...you can thank yourself for that with your vile ad hominem with which you entered the debate. I merely replied like for like and you couldn't hack it.

And then you have the gall to accuse other people of not reading the thread! What actually happened was that you replied to the original post with the statement, which is a direct untruth, that Trotsky rejected Leninism. I pointed out how wrong this was. Then an exchange followed in which you didn't engage with Trotsky's ideas at all, instead selectively quoting from Krupskaya, Trotsky's old letters to Chkheidze, Stalin, and so on. In the exchange, you admitted that you don't think the subject of the thread was interesting, and you were trying to denigrate Trotsky because of the usual nonsense about Bolshevik authoritarianism that we've all heard a million times before. That's when I called you out for acting like "a baby that needs its diaper changed", and believe me, I was being kind.

This is not an ad hominem - I didn't say "PhA is an idiot, so their claim is wrong". I said "PhA is acting in a dishonest manner and is disrupting a potentially interesting thread".

Let me put it this way: suppose another member starts a thread titled "Was G. Miasnikov a syndicalist?". Now, if I were to state "it doesn't matter because Miasnikov was objectively counter-revolutionary" and proceed to shit up the rest of thread with semi-literate, dishonest posts when people call me out, what would you think? I might even be correct - that is certainly my assessment of Miasnikov - but I'm not even trying to reply to the original question, I'm derailing the thread for my own petty sectarian reasons.

Quite frankly, this sort of behaviour is one the many reasons you should be cashiered.

You can white wash the crimes committed by the Red Army and the Cheka on orders of the Bolshevists by trying to argue that they "didn't consist of Bolsheviks" this may be the case...but they were damned well led and ordered by the Bolshevists and they were perfectly aware of what the Cheka was doing. After all...they ordered it and they damned well supported it. So what are you arguing here?

I really, really think you should familiarise yourself with the history of the Russian Revolution. CheKa was originally formed as a commission under the SovNarKom, composed exclusively of Bolsheviks. But the authority of this original incarnation of the CheKa was limited to preliminary investigation; in the field it competed with NarKomJust, the commission of Bonch-Bruevich, and later the Bureau of Military Commissars.

During the civil war, the VChK was granted broad, discretionary powers, and the other security agencies mostly faded. But this coincided with a significant influx of PLSR members into the organisation; on the eve of the Left Eser putsch, the central collegium of the VChK in Moscow had a Bolshevik majority, but the provincial organs were in many cases in PLSR hands, and indeed fought the Bolsheviks during the alleged "Third Russian Revolution" (which certain ill-informed anarchists would later baptise as an anarchist rising against the a-a-authoritarian Bolsheviks).

Now, concerning rapes, these did happen. This is hardly surprising, although no less reprehensible for the fact that it is unsurprising, given the context of a drawn-out civil war. Yet for these the penalty was being shot, as for all incidents of official abuse and incidents that threatened morale during wartime.

I don't have to condemn anything that isn't part of this thread. We are not talking about the commune now and my opinion on the commune, which you know nothing about...but seem to be insinuating over, isn't relevant for the fact that we are talking about Trotsky, Marxism-Leninism and their counter revolutionary and anti-worker ideology.

You really don't have a lot of maneuvering space here - either you condemn the Commune and out yourself as a loathsome bourgeois moralist, or you can't condemn the institution of hostages as such.

OK, this right here.

I don't normally get involved in these discussions, because I find the whole tankie-trot debate to be completely worthless.....but that's besides the point. This is about the little bit that you stated there.

That is an proverbial line that you do NOT want to cross. That is a very, very dangerous road you are going down. Once you start to make concessions like this, that it's actually OK for innocent workers.....no, innocent people in general to die for the sake of your precious revolution, you've crossed over from militant to psychotic. Yes, it's a fact that in a revolution innocent people will die in the crossfire. That is a thing to be mourned, not to cast off like some casual annoyance.

Of course it's OK for innocent people to die in order to preserve the revolution - it's the only way the revolution can be preserved. The course of every previous revolution demonstrates this. Is this unfortunate? It is. But our subjective, emotive evaluations are irrelevant when answering the most important question - what is to be done. To the socialist, the revolution is everything - it is the end that justifies all means.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

9th April 2014, 22:12

To the socialist, the revolution is everything - it is the end that justifies all means.

This is an interesting conclusion you draw, if only because Trotsky rejected the notion that "all means are permissible" in his essay "Their Morals and Ours". He said that all means that "unite" the proletariat and teach them contempt for official morality are of course welcomed--contrasting Bolshevism to the behavior of the Stalinists. I don't mean to say that you are completely incorrect here, but in light of the fact that Marxists are typically reproached for the unqualified notion that the end justifies the means, I think your formulation is a little misleading. Trotsky's answer was "and what justifies the end?" Yet your answer seems to embrace the caricature of orthodox Marxism.

PhoenixAsh

9th April 2014, 23:02

You'd be perfectly happy to provide clarification and necessary explanation? A couple of pages ago I asked at least four times for you to explain how I was misrepresenting the exact statement of yours I quoted when challenging earlier in the thread. The record indicates that, in response to these requests, you incessantly claimed that you weren't going to explain anything because you had already done so. Does this promise of yours mean you are turning over a new leaf?

We weren't talking about a couple of pages ago...we have covered that. We were specifically talking about the issue on sectarianism which you claimed I hadn't argued and was just making platitudes. I however DID argue my point. Over and over again in fact.

The definition I provided is the definition which is the common mainstream definition. I will address this more fully below in answer to the quote of your post....but I will have to take an advance here to give a full reply and explain it to you.

I have said the following throughout this thread:

The debate about whether or not Trotskyism is revisionist is a debate between Stalinists and Trotskyists (and to be fair...some other Leninists)
The answer to the question whether or not Trotskyism is revisionist depends on its deviation from Leninism and Stalinism. [this actually means that the debate about which is the better Bolshevik depends on the faction your are supporting]
The revisionism debate in the case of Trotsky is mainly focussed on its (supposed) deviation from Leninism...rather than Marxism.
Leninism is in itself the adaptation of Marxism to fit the reality and praxis of the USSR
The debate whether or not Trotskyism is revisionists only matters inside this tendency. Nobody else really cares.
The debate doesn't really matter outside this tendency...especially not for the working class.
Trostkyism should be valued on its own merit rater than on its (supposed) deviation from Leninism.
Trotskyism doesn't gain legitimacy from its adherence to Leninism but does so on its own. Trotskyists should start to realize this.
Workers do not really care. In fact the entire debate turns people away from revolutionary policy. Nobody cares about what some dude said 90+ years ago. It is not longer relevant outside of the Marxist-Leninist tendency. (seriously...when have you ever taken an Anarchist serious that said Trotskysm was revisionist? O..wait... :rolleyes: Shit. Like Anarchists care.)
Trotskyists care waaaaay to much about how others view them (more often than not this means they are totally obsessed with how Stalinists view them)
Not yet said...but it needs to be said: The revisionism debate is definitely an attempt at bullying. It is NOT discussing the principles of Marxism. It is accusing the interpretation and practical application of these principles in Trotskyism of being a deviation of Leninism. Using the term revisionism is actually a pejorative...and it is the reason why the Left Opposition was expelled and why we have a Fourth International. Suggesting that the debate is somehow carried out on equal terms and suggesting that the debate is an honest discussion about the principles of Marxism is seriously ignoring the origins and history of the debate.
Whether or not Trotskyists find this debate very important has no bearing on its sectarianism.
The debate has no practical application and is purely intellectual nit picking.
The debate is unscientific because it isn't open. The debate is based on the absolute truth of Orthodox Marxism as the basis to which the ideology should be measured. Rather than it being open ended. (and do note...because I saw you argue it...that this doesn't depend on how individual Trotskyists view the world)
The fact however that you still attach...90 years later...so much value to proving how much Trotskyism is like Leninism and that you can actually win this debate or resolve it with your main opponent (ie Stalinists)...well...that's just plain stupidity.

...ergo...the revisionism debate is sectarian.

Look it up. All what I wrote here is in previous posts in one form or another.

What is NOT in previous posts is the claim you willingly and knowingly made (see below...I am sure I will point it out again in this post) that Trotskyism is sectarian. That was a strawman argument.

Which part of which of your posts do you think I have not read? Hmmm?

All of them. Or...you may have read them but purposefully ignored them. Or you have read them but failed to understand them and didn't want to admit it. Take your pick.

Where have I not been civil to you?

I have not claimed you weren't civil. I claimed you were not as squeaky clean when it comes to civil discussion as you may want to appear.

I didn't "subtly" claim anything. I stated it clearly and outright, because that's how honest discussions take place. As I have explained once and repeated once, the revisionist debate is about arguing over the political principles of Marxism in order to defend those principles, not because Marx was perfect, but because the principles are understood to be essential to working-class self-emancipation.

This is not the origins of the revisionism debate when it concerns Trotskyism. The origins of the revisionism debate has a very specific purpose of discrediting or exposing other factions within the ML tendency with the specific intent to overturn them. This is something you should be perfectly aware of because it is the main reason for expelling the LO from the Bolshevik party and for the Fourth International.

You can put nice colorful stickers on it to make it seem nicer and more refined...but that is exactly what it is.

It is not clear why you want to paint this as sectarian according to the definition you use, since it doesn't involve "hatred" or "discrimination" against any group, but rather a principled political debate (something you have shown yourself incapable of having thus far in this thread).

Really? Because I remember the origins of the debate being a faction "war" of dominance within the Bolshevik party where both sides accused the other side of revisionism in order to discredit and overthrow/oust them.

Eventually the LO drew the shortest straw...and Trotsky got stabbed by an ice pick after he had made several attempts at a coup against Stalin in order to rescue the revolution.

Trotsky was also never pardoned...like so many others were after Stalin's death. And until a decade ago members of the fourth international were not welcome as participants of communist youth camps. I am not sure if they are now.

So sure...the debate is...devoid of hatred and discrimination...

You complain about people misrepresenting your arguments, but here you clearly misrepresent what I said. Trotskyism and anarchism (and self-described "anti-revionist Marxist-Leninists") are all subsets of revolutionary leftism.

Misrepresenting? This is what you replied directly to this line I wrote:

You could possibly argue that we are all part of the revolutionary leftwing tradition...but unfortunately for you I don't see Trotskyism as a leftwing ideology.

HOW was I misrepresenting when I clearly predicted how you were going to interpret it?

According to your definition you are being sectarian by criticizing groups within revolutionary leftism who are interested in arguing against revisionism, and maintaining the theoretical integrity of what they perceive to be Marx's body of thought.

The point of this thread may have eluded you. So let me clarify...
The point of OP of the thread was to accuse Trotsky and Trotskyism of revisionism.

So...to explain something more to you...when Trotskyism and revisionism are mentioned in one sentence...that usually means the Trotskyists are being branded as revisionists unless they are talking about the LO specifically accusing Stalin of revisionism. It also usually means that Trotskyists need to defend themselves from the accusation....not the other way around.

Sorry but I have been having the revisionism debate for much much longer than you have. So take it from me...that is how it works. You lost the debate in the 20's...and you are still bearing the burden of proof.

Personally...which was the intend of my first post in this thread...I think this is a ridiculous situation. Personally...I don't legitimize Trotskyism on how Bolshevik it really is and how orthodox its interpretation of Marxism is. I find the ideology legitimate in its own right. And the debate should be about whether Trotskyism actually works...and NOT on how much it does or doesn't deviate from Marxism.

But you know...this apparently isn't enough...instead some of your tendency mates (VW) decided to charge in over something I corrected and start his reply to my initial post and subsequent post with an ad hominem. You then decided to reply to my obvious ironic like for like counter to him and take it overly serious.

Now, I think your definition happens to be ridiculous,

That is your right. My definition however is the mainstream definition of the term sectarianism.

and don't think you are being sectarian,

Well...from your point of view I am

though I obviously think your arguments are weak and demonstrated incredible intellectual laziness. But according to your own definition of sectarian, your behavior here is indeed sectartian.

Yes. I know.

However. Like I argued. I do not see Trotskyism as a leftwing ideology. Nor does Trotsky btw view Anarchism as a leftwing ideology.

In and of itself, this self-justification that “we did not seize power not because we were unable but because we did not wish to, because we were against every kind of dictatorship,” and the like, contains an irrevocable condemnation of anarchism as an utterly anti-revolutionary doctrine. To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class in power, thus enabling it to realize its own program in life. It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the conquest power

To quote a part of a very emphatic denunciation of Anarchism as bourgeois and counter revolutionary by Trotsky in 1937.

What do you value in the theory developed by a man you described as a totalitarian?

I specifically value his position on Fascism and his tactics to organize against them.

"We Trotskyists" disagree with your politics. You will be "attacked" on that basis, obviously.

Ditto. With the historical relevant note that Trotskyism vs Anarchism means that if you guys ever gain power you will kill Anarchists....

You are aware that you are moderating a web forum, right? Debates happen.

I do. Were you?

The problem with your posts is that you keep trying to evade the political issues in the debate by hiding behind name-calling ("sectarian!"),

Actually I called the revisionism debate sectarian. I can understand you misunderstand this as name calling. Because your understanding of the meaning of revisionism in the context of Trotskyism is quite....surprising and...I assume...a lack of political experience and understanding of its (the revisionism debate) historical development and context.

bogus claims ("I have explained this once before, so I won't be bothered to copy and paste the argument you may have missed,

Scroll back and see your obvious lie there.

and I won't explain it again!"), and an assortment of other highly questionable tactics.

Actually they weren't questionable, nor were they tactics. They were simply true. And...fun part is...you know they are. Because otherwise you would not have made these claims.

I guess Russians love these totalitarians, seeing as millions of them died while likely starving in order to support the Bolsheviks against the white army, and to support the collectivized country during WW2.

Really? So...Germans loved Nazism? Workers love imperialism? Whats your point?

Are you aware Bolsheviks had hundreds thousands of soldiers executed for deserting or refusing to fight? Held their families hostage and even raped, tortured and executed their wives and children? Probably not.

Were you also aware that in order to actually gain popular support Stalin had to reintroduce Nationalism and basically welcomed National Bolshevists and their -ism in order to strengthen Soviet Patriotism and Russian Nationalism?

So...again...whats your point? That people are fooled?

Art Vandelay

9th April 2014, 23:33

Your "neutrality", just like Burnham's and Craipeau's, is decidedly a bourgeois "neutrality".

It's actually funny you mention this, since I was reading through Trotsky's open letter to Burnham today and couldn't help but think of this debate, one individual in particular. I'll just leave this quote here:

Accusing your opponents of “bureaucratic conservatism” (a bare psychological abstraction insofar as no specific social interests are shown underlying this “conservatism"), you demand in your document that conservative politics be replaced by “critical and experimental politics – in a word, scientific politics.” (p.32) This statement, at first glance so innocent and meaningless with all its pompousness, is in itself a complete exposure. You don’t speak of Marxist politics. You don’t speal of proletarian politics. You speak of “experimental,” “critical,” “scientific” politics. Why this pretentious and deliberately abstruse terminology so unusual in our ranks? I shall tell you. It is the product of your adaptation, comrade Burnham, to bourgeois public opinion, and the adaptation of Shachtman and Abern to your adaptation. Marxism is no longer fashionable among the broad circles of bourgeois intellectuals. Moreover if one should mention Marxism, God forbid, he might be taken for a dialectic materialist. It is better to avoid this discredited word. What to replace it with? Why, of course, with “science,” even with Science capitalized. And science, as everybody knows, is based on “criticism” and “experiments.” It has its own ring; so solid, so tolerant, so unsectarian, so professorial! With this formula one can enter any democratic salon.

Reread, please, your own statement once again: “In place of conservative politics, we must put bold, flexible, critical and experi mental politics – in a word, scientific politics.” You couldn’t have improved it! But this is precisely the formula which all petty- bourgeois empiricists, all revisionists and, last but not least, all polit ical adventurers have counterpoised to “narrow,” “limited,” “dogmatic” and “conservative” Marxism.

Buffon once said: The style is the man. Political terminology is not only the man but the party. Terminology is one of the elements of the class struggle. Only lifeless pedants can fail to understand this. In your document you painstakingly expunge – yes, no one else but you, comrade Burnham – not only such terms as the dialectic and materialism but also Marxism. You are above all this. You are a man of “critical,” “experimental” science. For exactly the same reason you culled the label “imperialism” to describe the foreign policy of the Kremlin. This innovation differentiates you from the too embarrassing terminology of the Fourth International by creating less “sectarian,” less “religious,” less rigorous formulas, common to you and – oh happy coincidence – bourgeois democracy.

You want to experiment? But permit me to remind you that the workers’ movement possesses a long history with no lack of experience and, if you prefer, experiments. This experience so dearly bought has been crystallized in the shape of a definite doctrine, the very Marxism whose name you so carefully avoid. Before giving you the right to experiment, the party has the right to ask: What method will you use? Henry Ford would scarcely permit a man to experiment in his plant who had not assimilated the requisite conclusions of the past development of industry and the innumerable experiments already carried out. Furthermore experimental laboratories in factories are carefully segregated from mass production. Far more impermissible even are witch doctor experiments in the sphere of the labor movement – even though conducted under the banner of anonymous “science.” For us the science of the workers’ movement is Marxism. Nameless social science, Science with a capital letter, we leave these completely at the disposal of Eastman and his ilk.

That is an proverbial line that you do NOT want to cross. That is a very, very dangerous road you are going down. Once you start to make concessions like this, that it's actually OK for innocent workers.....no, innocent people in general to die for the sake of your precious revolution, you've crossed over from militant to psychotic. Yes, it's a fact that in a revolution innocent people will die in the crossfire. That is a thing to be mourned, not to cast off like some casual annoyance.

Unless you're a clinical psychologist who has sat down with VW, then please, for your own sake, just stop. All this does is make you look silly, as well as firmly shackled to the doctrine of bourgeois moralism.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 00:06

And to the small commodity producers to an extent, yes.

There is simply no analogy between temporary concessions to an existing capitalist and small commodity producer sector, in a region devastated by four years of intervention and civil war to the extent that economic life had nearly stopped altogether, and introducing long-term capitalist relations into a state where, according to the person making the proposal, they had not existed before.

So basically you are backpedaling. Also...the capitalist concessions lasted 70 years. I think that is rather long term.

Everyone who was in the least familiar with the economic situation in Russia agreed with that assessment, given the widespread economic collapse and the regeneration of petty commodity production.

I like how you try to white wash it and prentend how this is in fact any different than Dogukan meant his quote.

In fact...it is eerily similar. In order to revive the country: capitalism.

I actually wondered why an "anarchist" would stand in such solidarity with someone who wants "capitalist development" in North Korea - at first I was inclined to ascribe this to simple odium theologicum. But then I recalled you shilling for the Dutch SP in an earlier thread. Now it all makes sense, I guess.

Well...the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Personally I am not defending his views although...funny enough...they are Marxist in nature.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy in your own arguments and the intellectual dishonesty you display here and around the forum and the pedantic arrogant attitude you think you can afford yourself in approaching people. That is it really.

And then you have the gall to accuse other people of not reading the thread! What actually happened was that you replied to the original post with the statement, which is a direct untruth, that Trotsky rejected Leninism.

Yeah...except actually I didn't. I specifically stated: "in so far". Now I know you have trouble understanding English and comprehending the lingual subtlety of the language...but that doesn't mean what you pretend what it means.

I pointed out how wrong this was.

I remember the ad hominem you made. Which led me to immediately not take you serious as a debating partner.

Then an exchange followed in which you didn't engage with Trotsky's ideas at all, instead selectively quoting from Krupskaya, Trotsky's old letters to Chkheidze, Stalin, and so on.

Why should I engage Trotsky's ideas. I challenged your claim that because somebody says he is something...this doesn't mean he actually is. I posted you evidence that contemporary people who also described themselves as Marxist-Leninist/Bolsheviks rejected Trotsky to be one.

What is your exact issue?

In the exchange, you admitted that you don't think the subject of the thread was interesting, and you were trying to denigrate Trotsky because of the usual nonsense about Bolshevik authoritarianism that we've all heard a million times before.

I think Trotsky is a counter revolutionary and anti-worker. I argued this on the basis of his support of actually killing workers that opposed the Trotsky supported privileges of Bolsheviks over workers. Then of course I could rehash the fact that Trotsky and Stalin are merely two sides of the same coin. Or I could repost Goldman's reply to Trotsky. Whatever.

I don't denigrade Trotsky. Remember... I have argued again and again that it is high time you Trotskyists start to stand on your own two feet as an ideology and Trotskyism doesn't gain legitimacy from Lenin or Marx but as an ideology of its own.

I am however squarely classifying him in the same league as Stalin and other reactionaries.

That's when I called you out for acting like "a baby that needs its diaper changed", and believe me, I was being kind.

I hadn't noticed that one.

This is not an ad hominem - I didn't say "PhA is an idiot, so their claim is wrong". I said "PhA is acting in a dishonest manner and is disrupting a potentially interesting thread".

Actually it is. But it was you who started the disruption of the thread with a totally different ad hominem in your initial post. I was however perfectly honest. You simply didn't understand what part of your post I was engaging. You still don't.

Let me put it this way: suppose another member starts a thread titled "Was G. Miasnikov a syndicalist?". Now, if I were to state "it doesn't matter because Miasnikov was objectively counter-revolutionary" and proceed to shit up the rest of thread with semi-literate, dishonest posts when people call me out, what would you think? I might even be correct - that is certainly my assessment of Miasnikov - but I'm not even trying to reply to the original question, I'm derailing the thread for my own petty sectarian reasons.

Actually you are misrepresenting...and have continued to do so from the start...my initial post. Because you fail to comprehend English.

Quite frankly, this sort of behaviour is one the many reasons you should be cashiered.
I think you should be banned for adhering to a counter revolutionary ideology and are inherrently anti-worker. Doesn't mean it works that way.

But I like ho you use very expensive sounding words in order to hide your own inadequacy and hide your own initial and unwarranted personal attack because you basically can't understand the simpler words.

Let me reiterate....so you may finally understand why I don't take you serious. Let me give you a lesson in English:

I said "in so far". In so far is defined as "to the extent that". To the extent that means "to the degree that" or "as far as".

So my initial post actually read:

As such Trotsky can be seen as revisionist in so far / as far as he rejected Leninism

Do you understand your folly yet?

If not. I quite clearly answered Ice Pick who first pointed out a similar misunderstanding at 22:28 that I meant "in so far" totally assuming you were all familiar with its meaning... apparently I was wrong.

I however have been having the revisionism debate for several decades now. Well...two actually. So I don't feel much inclined to actually repeat myself when I am confronted with attacks about something I didn't actually say by people who refuse to acknowledge they misunderstood me an try to make a point over some futile debate which is tantamount to a circle jerk of accusationism.

I really, really think you should familiarise yourself with the history of the Russian Revolution. CheKa was originally formed as a commission under the SovNarKom, composed exclusively of Bolsheviks. But the authority of this original incarnation of the CheKa was limited to preliminary investigation; in the field it competed with NarKomJust, the commission of Bonch-Bruevich, and later the Bureau of Military Commissars.

I know this. How does this actually contradict the fact that Cheka officers testified they committed the crimes which I named?

Because right now you seem to try to bury this inconvenient fact under an amount of details that have nothing to do with the actual argument.

During the civil war, the VChK was granted broad, discretionary powers, and the other security agencies mostly faded. But this coincided with a significant influx of PLSR members into the organisation; on the eve of the Left Eser putsch, the central collegium of the VChK in Moscow had a Bolshevik majority, but the provincial organs were in many cases in PLSR hands, and indeed fought the Bolsheviks during the alleged "Third Russian Revolution" (which certain ill-informed anarchists would later baptise as an anarchist rising against the a-a-authoritarian Bolsheviks).

see above.

Now, concerning rapes, these did happen. This is hardly surprising, although no less reprehensible for the fact that it is unsurprising, given the context of a drawn-out civil war. Yet for these the penalty was being shot, as for all incidents of official abuse and incidents that threatened morale during wartime.

Including of course women and children which had nothing to do with any crimes because they were family members of soldiers who refused to fight or workers who were being underfed or objected to the privileges Bolsheviks were granted.

Eerily similar actually of the kind of exploitation of the bourgeois. O...but I forgot. We were talking about a workers revolution...for workers...which were shot when they actually wanted to do what they were supposed to do...liberate themselves.

You really don't have a lot of maneuvering space here - either you condemn the Commune and out yourself as a loathsome bourgeois moralist, or you can't condemn the institution of hostages as such.

No...actually you don't have much maneuvering space.

We are not discussing the commune. This issue is irrelevant to the position of Trotsky. And your argument is an attempt of tu quoque...based on the assumption that I would hold another position when it comes to the commune. I am not engaging in this kind of kindergarten mentality.

You are also engaging in a false flag argument in which you allege that somehow taking hostages and executing women and children for perceived crimes by their husbands and fathers is somehow inherent to revolutionary praxis and is irrevocably tied to revolutionary sentiment.

This line of reasoning is dishonest and disgusting.

Of course it's OK for innocent people to die in order to preserve the revolution - it's the only way the revolution can be preserved. The course of every previous revolution demonstrates this.

Really? Which ones of these succeeded?

Is this unfortunate? It is.

Actually. It is reactionary when explicitly targeted with the intend to kill them when it can be avoided and inherently bourgeois. Which is kind of my point.

Actually...it displays an incredibly level of misogyny. Women were targeted because they were basically used as objects and leverage. Of course you are explicitly defending this...and are calling this way of thinking revolutionary and necessary.

Interesting.

But our subjective, emotive evaluations are irrelevant when answering the most important question - what is to be done. To the socialist, the revolution is everything - it is the end that justifies all means.

No. To the authoritarian "socialists" the ends justify the means. Which is a very dishonest representation of Marxism.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 00:17

OK, this right here.

I don't normally get involved in these discussions, because I find the whole tankie-trot debate to be completely worthless.....but that's besides the point. This is about the little bit that you stated there.

That is an proverbial line that you do NOT want to cross. That is a very, very dangerous road you are going down. Once you start to make concessions like this, that it's actually OK for innocent workers.....no, innocent people in general to die for the sake of your precious revolution, you've crossed over from militant to psychotic. Yes, it's a fact that in a revolution innocent people will die in the crossfire. That is a thing to be mourned, not to cast off like some casual annoyance.

Well...to be fair...it did happen in the tens of thousands. So basically:

'A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.'

At least...that's the authoritarian line...and VW is simply displaying how much more Bolshevik he is in respect to the originator of the quote.

;)

Dodo

10th April 2014, 00:53

The quotes you provided in the last post were drawn from only two sources, the "Communist Manifesto" and the Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," the two works that somebody with only a passing familiarity with Marxism have probably read or come across. This just validates what I have already openly stated I suspect: you have not read deeply into Marx's works. What is problematic about this is that these two works showcase where Marx was trying to summarize far more complex arguments in a way that was accessible to large audiences. Relying exclusively on them to draw sweeping conclusions on Marx's methodology is highly problematic.

My native language is not English, but I think the problem here is not that. I have not said ANYTHING about Marxist method. I have said that Marx said some predictions which have failed. For the outside looker, that means Marx FAILED. My understanding of Marxism is deeper than that. I am capable of explaining the failure of predictions with theory that is built in and compatible with Marxism. Because you are obviously not the kind who can connect dots, you are taking what I said out of context. Read why we got to a point I posted those quotes.

But even if accept those works as mature and developed formulations of Marx's approach, the quotes you draw from them still don't say what you claim. I'll just give you one example. Your initial claim was "*capitalism will be adopted in the developing world as a rational form(influence of Smithian economics on Marx) failed."

Your evidence for this claim?Marxism is not Marx's investigations. I stick to G.Lukacs. Marxism is solely the method. Marxism is about finding the future by critique of today. The hell are you trying to tell me things that I do not defend?
At some point in his life, Marx did create a stagist theory of history, at another point in his life he said he is not creating a theory to understand history.
The idea is his methodic approach. Not even methodic approach, his epistomology. If I was to pull Marxism into one thing, I would say it i an epistomology. It is not an ideology, theory or anything. It only becomes those in a given "context", it is essentially a philosophy of knowledge.

Since you are not aware of shit btw, by Smithian tradition I was referring to Sweezy, A.G.Frank, Wallerstein and a whole generation of historical materialist who defined capitalism as rationalization of economic relations. And they did reached that conclusion by reading Marx.
Other people reached other conclusions by reading Marx. I am not siding with one or the other here, I am just making you AWARE of multiplicity of theoretical marxist frameworks.

A long quote where Marx explains how bourgeois society advanced the productive forces, and intensified the division of labor through drawing in "all nations" to an increasingly intricate system of production, circulation, and distribution. There is not one word in here that suggests anything about capitalism being "a rational form." Not one.Capitalism by its inner dynamics is not a rational form. Capitalism is rational in its historical context, i.e when he was analyzing feudal and asiatic societies. Smithian economics, which you are not aware of either, which is quiet important to understand Marxian economics sees the rise of capitalism in division of labor and rationalization of production. Specialization and rise of bourgeouisie led to capitalism, if you put it this way for instance would be a Smithian reading of capitalism. Which Marx actually did a lot.

Maybe your problem is with Marx's claim, borne out by subsequent history, that capitalism would draw in all the nations of the Earth? You do, after all, think that the DPRK is feudal.http://leblogduduff.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/triple-facepalm-picard-812.jpg

I never said Korea is feudal, I said Korea is freaking backwards, so backwards that form of surplus extraction is feudalistic. Feudal is a niche concept that applies only to western Europe, in fact to Anglo-Norman traditions. We define feudalism not by its institutional mechanics but by the similarities of labor-surplus extraction relations.
Don't make me bring here all these stuff I have written in the other thread.....

But even if we accept your bizarre claim, which can only be arrived at by ignoring rather than applying a Marxian mode of inquiry, your own (reactionary) political position actually advocates the very logic of Marx's statement you are challenging. You have advocated for capitalism's expansion into "feudal" North Korea! That, of course, would represent an additional instance of "all nations being compelled to adopt the bourgeois mode of production." Why you would take issue with this claim of Marx's is...well, the stuff of trolls.:laugh: you claim I claim a thing and then you argue with it on your own...with lies...or alzheimers..and circle jerkers are loving it. I am so sad that Marxism is left to the hands of people like you.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/support-north-korea-t187644/index.html?p=2734309#post2734309
Go ahead, read this page.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 01:04

I have said the following throughout this thread:

The debate whether or not Trotskyism is revisionists only matters inside this tendency. Nobody else really cares.

And only anarchists care about debates within anarchism. I mean, really: debates within the revolutionary left are irrelevant to the vast majority of people in the world because the vast majority of the people aren't revolutionary leftists. What a shocker!

The debate doesn't really matter outside this tendency...especially not for the working class.Debates over the relationship between the leadership and rank-and-file of social movements, including working-class labor movements, matter. Debates over how to conceptualize the kind of economy that would allow the free development of all being the foundation for the free development of each person matter. Debates over what to expect when a workers' revolution occurs in a single country, and the tasks it should prioritize on the basis of how that country can relate to the rest of the world, matter.

To the extent that debates about revisionism are substantive debates about these ideas, they matter. Even if 85% of workers don't go to bed at night thinking about them. They matter because the 2% or even .2% who do go to bed thinking about them are the more politically advanced and engaged in the questions that will confront activists seeking the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. It is through their presenting arguments and struggling alongside the vast majority of the rest of the working class that revolutionary consciousness will be built.

To the extent that debates about revision are debates about whether Marx did or didn't dot this 'i,' cross that 't,' or how many freckles Stalin had on his left ass-cheek, they are irrelevant navel-gazing and indeed sectarian. Why would they be sectarian? Not because they involve the delineation of divisions within the working class, but because those divisions would not be based on political principles with practical value to the working-class struggle.

Trostkyism should be valued on its own merit rater than on its (supposed) deviation from Leninism.

Trotskyism doesn't gain legitimacy from its adherence to Leninism but does so on its own. Trotskyists should start to realize this.Within the revolutionary left, the October revolution is understandably important. It was what many people consider to be the one time in history that the working class not only overthrew a capitalist ruling class. They also managed to consolidate that power in a state with some staying power. The question of which ideas and methods and strategies that drove the leadership of the revolution is important precisely because the October Revolution "had merit."

Trotskyists care waaaaay to much about how others view them (more often than not this means they are totally obsessed with how Stalinists view them)I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you implying that "Trotskyists" (which Trotskyists is uncertain, since you've been speaking in grand and sweeping categorical generalizations throughout this entire attempt at discussion) have hurt feelings if Ismail or sosolo say mean things about them on revleft? Speaking for myself, I can say that is completely untrue. I'm sure Vincent West would give you a similar answer.

If, on the other hand, you mean that Trotskyists "care" about the ideas being articulated, defended, and presented by other segments of the revolutionary left, then I am afraid I am going to have to plead guilty as charged. Just as I am sure you care what people on this forum think politically. It matters for the reason I outlined above in this post: leftists spreading a bad line confuse the working class and can inhibit the develop of mass revolutionary consciousness.
Not yet said...but it needs to be said: The revisionism debate is definitely an attempt at bullying. It is NOT discussing the principles of Marxism. It is accusing the interpretation and practical application of these principles in Trotskyism of being a deviation of Leninism. Using the term revisionism is actually a pejorative...and it is the reason why the Left Opposition was expelled and why we have a Fourth International. Suggesting that the debate is somehow carried out on equal terms and suggesting that the debate is an honest discussion about the principles of Marxism is seriously ignoring the origins and history of the debate.And how do people discuss whether one set of ideas or views is a deviation from Marxism or Leninism or not? By comparing political principles and positions!

Whether or not Trotskyists find this debate very important has no bearing on its sectarianism.You still haven't shown where any Trotskyists have been hateful or discriminatory to anybody else in this thread in our discussion about "revisionism." That is your criteria for "sectarianism," and you've failed to demonstrate that anything here (apart, unintentionally, from your own behavior) rises to that level apart from your own behavior and rantings about "you Trotskyists."

Dodo

10th April 2014, 01:27

@ICEPICK you can check here as well as a reply to that quote which I am pretty sure is adressing me

Among other things, there isn't much that socialists can learn from the de Mans and the Noskes, other than how to be renegades. That, however, is of secondary importance at best. Revolutionary socialists don't discuss simply in order to "learn and improve our intellectual capacity", we engage in principled political discussion in order to clarify and develop our ideas as guidelines for revolutionary action in the world. Therefore, ideas on how to best develop capitalism in North Korea are useless to us; and they are alien to what we stand for and what we aim to do.

Which is the reason Marxists have ended up failing in 20th century. As a Trotskyite, blaming stalinism, bureucracy and all that sort of tankie material is only an easy way out. I've been there. You put nothing on the table. If you believe that there is nothing to learn from history, other theoretical frameworks, debates with bourgeouisie...etc you are detached from reality. You assume that your theoretical understanding will sort problems out and establish socialism. You see it in a "formal logical" way which is pretty -clear-. Unfortunantely, it is ALL ABSTRACT, it does not mean anything in the real world unless you can fit it there.
Without a good understanding of capitalism, you cannot understand or even "realize" even socialism. Which essentially turns you into an IDEALIST who is trying to establish an abstractly constructured reality.. And Marx NEVER claimed his understanding of critique of capitalism and realization of socialism as an absolute "method".
Capitalism does always change, different dynamics are always discovered.
If you take things at an established doctrine, you "statitize" the world. Marxism in its earlier form is a very euro-centric, modernist view of the world. Its theoretical framework rested on the bourgeouisie rationality and revolutionizing of productive forces.
Not only this was not the case in the world, it also did end up hitting the superstructure in 1930s in Europe itself, which Gramsci has analyzed so well.

If you cannot take out lessons from that and insist on an abstract set of theories as absolute concepts which we cannot change, you are in for a big dissapointment.

One of the most central aspects of dialectical epistomology is seeing things in motion and change. Read this bit carefully: That DOES NOT MEAN, that the established theories are necessarily wrong. What matters here is HANDLING of those theories in a dialectical manner. I.e, the moment you establish a "practical" concept as an irreversible thing, you are way out of dialectics. Obviously, we are supposed to produce revolutionary practical concepts, but we can NEVER establish anything as the only absolute way to keep with us forever.
If you are incapable of seeing the changing nature of labor and therefore its changing relation to capital and therefore its changing nature of opposition/organizing and therefore the changing nature of socialism and therefore the changing nature of communism, you can stop calling yourself a Marxist.

Wasn't it Lenin himself who created a whole program to develop capitalism in Russia? Isn't the Trotskyist tradition a continuation of Leninism? Development of forces of production through the hands of the state is not something I'm creating in my "bourgeouisie" ways, it had been THE ONLY way Marxists of the 20th century handled their countries.
Why?
Because these abstractions of socialism we talk of do not come out the way you expect on the other side as in 1+1=2. When the Soviets realized that they cannot "realize socialism", they decided to call themselves "real socialism" which became a material of joke in the Marxist circles.
As a Trotskyite, it is easy to blame the Stalinist tradition, degeneration and pull out offering a "better" outcome.
But if you reject reality as "bourgeouisie" and "degenerate", you are a puritan dogmatist. My whole struggle here is to find a better place for Marxism and create a better future based on guidance of Marx.

In his youth, Marx was a liberal. As for his "older days", again you show an incredible talent for failing to put things into their proper context. Marx defended the bourgeoisie against the feudal classes. I don't see that many remnants of the feudal classes today - and those that remain are firmly in the camp of the imperialist bourgeoisie - so the analogy fails.Errrrrrrrrrrr, that is pretty much all I claimed. The problem though, is that you cannot view the world stagistly and sneak out by saying I don't see remnants of feudalism today.
I really doubt you are familiar with the land-property-extraction relations of all the countries in the world. Additionally, sometimes it is not even institutions but even traditions that make feudal-like relations persist. You can sit and read on Africa...my friend just returned from Zambia from a field research and another from Kenya, the world is a whole lot more complex than you think my friend.

And apparently, you can't tell the difference between the US and China or the Soviet Union, which is indicative of a schematic approach to historical issues at best.
Oh yes I can. Its just that it is self-defeating to claim that USA is capable of creating a developed top economy country. Because otherwise, we could all beg for USA to develop all country's capitalism to a level in which we could easily "realize" the means for socialism.

S.Korean development is actually a great product of central planning by a dictatorial regime. It was highly regulated at all its levels and pushed for an export-orientation by coercion of state. From handling of landowners, peasants to capitalism, state smashed everyone until capitalism developed. American aid is nothing next to the forced structural transformation of feudal(yes, this time I use the word feudal, for 50s Korea) Korea into capitalism.

No, the central point of your argument was the notion that North Korea is "feudalistic", which you yourself can't make any sense of, apparently.I am getting tired of dealing with dishonesty. You are not like aufheben, but you are taking an unnecessary attitude here.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 01:36

It is convenient how you simply ignore 80% of my post.

And only anarchists care about debates within anarchism. I mean, really: debates within the revolutionary left are irrelevant to the vast majority of people in the world because the vast majority of the people aren't revolutionary leftists. What a shocker!

No you misunderstand.

The debate about which degree Trotskyism delineates from Leninism and how much degrees of separation there are between Stalinism and Leninism is completely, utterly and totally irrelevant. Period.

If you can't comprehend this...I can't explain it to you because it can't be put in a more simplistic manner.

The revisionism debate is NOT what you think it is. The revisionism debate is not even a debate. It is a series of mutual accusations. There is NO debate in the sense of how normal people understand debate. It is not an exchange of ideas. It is an accusatory shit fest and the positions haven't changed in 70 years...nobody suddenly went "OMG you have been right all along". It isn't that kind of debate.

Now I know you are new to this shit. But this debate has been raging on for about 70 years now.

YES I would be the first one to agree with everything you said here if we were actually talking about a debate. But the revisionism debate between Stalinism and Trotskyism isn´t a debate. It is not an exchange of positions. It is meant and designed as an accusation either way.

This does not mean individual members can´t have civil debates and exchange ideas. It means that the term `revisionism debate` in respect to Trotskyism and Stalinism...doesn't refer to an actual debate.

God it is fucking frustrating that you actually don´t know your shit at all.

Debates over the relationship between the leadership and rank-and-file of social movements, including working-class labor movements, matter. Debates over how to conceptualize the kind of economy that would allow the free development of all being the foundation for the free development of each person matter. Debates over what to expect when a workers' revolution occurs in a single country, and the tasks it should prioritize on the basis of how that country can relate to the rest of the world, matter.

But you don't have a "debate".

To the extent that debates about revisionism are substantive debates about these ideas, they matter.

Yes...but that is the whole point. To the extend that. And with respect to the revisionism debate (you know...Trotskyism vs Stalinism)...they aren't debates.

Even if 85% of workers don't go to bed at night thinking about them. They matter because the 2% or even .2% who do go to bed thinking about them are the more politically advanced and engaged in the questions that will confront activists seeking the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. It is through their presenting arguments and struggling alongside the vast majority of the rest of the working class that revolutionary consciousness will be built.

see above.

To the extent that debates about revision are debates about whether Marx did or didn't dot this 'i,' cross that 't,' or how many freckles Stalin had on his left ass-cheek, they are irrelevant navel-gazing and indeed sectarian. Why would they be sectarian? Not because they involve the delineation of divisions within the working class, but because those divisions would not be based on political principles with practical value to the working-class struggle.

Yeah...here I am going to say: see above.

But I am thinking that neither Trotskyism or Stalinism have practical value to the working-class. But that is another debate.

Within the revolutionary left, the October revolution is understandably important. It was what many people consider to be the one time in history that the working class not only overthrew a capitalist ruling class. They also managed to consolidate that power in a state with some staying power. The question of which ideas and methods and strategies that drove the leadership of the revolution is important precisely because the October Revolution "had merit."

Eh. No...the working class did not overthrow capitalism. The Bolshevik party did that in the name of the working class and usurped power from them....and killed a bunch of them when they actually wanted to take that power back for the working class.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you implying that "Trotskyists" (which Trotskyists is uncertain, since you've been speaking in grand and sweeping categorical generalizations throughout this entire attempt at discussion) have hurt feelings if Ismail or sosolo say mean things about them on revleft? Speaking for myself, I can say that is completely untrue. I'm sure Vincent West would give you a similar answer.

See above

If, on the other hand, you mean that Trotskyists "care" about the ideas being articulated, defended, and presented by other segments of the revolutionary left, then I am afraid I am going to have to plead guilty as charged. Just as I am sure you care what people on this forum think politically. It matters for the reason I outlined above in this post: leftists spreading a bad line confuse the working class and can inhibit the develop of mass revolutionary consciousness.

I agree with the last line. Except well...you know the deal by now on how I interpret it a little different than you do.

But no. That is not what I meant. What I meant is not that every individual Trotskyist suddenly jumps on everything that even resembles criticism of Trotsky or the behaviour of their tendency in some 70 year old accusationist argument.

What I meant is that you get extremely riled when there is even a hint of somebody suggesting that Trotsky might be revisionist....like it Orthodox Authoritarian Marxism is the Holy Grail.

And how do people discuss whether one set of ideas or views is a deviation from Marxism or Leninism or not? By comparing political principles and positions!

Really...they discuss. You actually think the revisionism debate is a discussion? I am seriously worried about your ability to create a fantasy world. News Flash. Stalinist haven't yet reconsidered their position. Why o why do you think that is? Nor have Trotskyists revised their position on Stalinism. Either both groups are very, very ineffective debaters. OR the debate is a dead end, useless and not a debate at all.

You still haven't shown where any Trotskyists have been hateful or discriminatory to anybody else in this thread in our discussion about "revisionism." That is your criteria for "sectarianism," and you've failed to demonstrate that anything here (apart, unintentionally, from your own behavior) rises to that level apart from your own behavior and rantings about "you Trotskyists."

And why was this necessary? Because where did I claim this? Or are you still playing cute and trying to revise my arguments to suit your own purposes?

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 01:52

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 02:01

Dodo

10th April 2014, 02:12

Yeah, that basically says all we need to know about your bona fides as a discussant here. :rolleyes:

you are breaking epochs in dishonesty, here is the whole quote

I was confused because I consider DPRK as feudalistic, incapable of producing a proleteriat due to such low-productivity.
If we are to go by the "classic" concepts in Marxism, such as that of the "scientific" historical materialism, the driving force of history is the transformation of the productive forces, i.e technological improvement which brings the contradictions of a given system out, causing what is called "class conflict".
In the Marxian economic debates, as far as I am aware so far, there are TWO main groups debating over this(The Brenner debate).

That of the 3rd worldist Marxists, such as A.G Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein and various "dependency theory" thinkers mainly from L.America.
Their take on capitalist development is "external". Capitalism was created urban areas by empowerment of the burghers, they claim. There were bourgeouisie in towns and eventually their way of life become more of a necessity to rulers, making the aristocrats go down.
This school of thinking, is also the creator of what is called "development of underdevelopment". There are some very valuable stuff here and I would not say it is true or wrong.

The Brenner stance is more dialectical, they say that capitalism developed from the "inner dynamics" in the rural areas. It had met a bunch of conditions in England(capitalism came as a result of enclosures and commercialization of land by the aristocracy and not the towns-folk). From there on, through a "dialectical" interaction and not some form of "stagist" understanding of history, it created dynamic for transformation. Within the given conditions, the earlier a country got into capitalism the more adventageous it became in the "international imperialist" context.

-------------
so even if I am to go by the "scientific" stagist notion of history that came from Leninist school(and has its roots in Engels and his obsession with "dialectical laws of nature") , DPRK remains a feudal country where bourgeouisie definetly has, imo a progressive role to play.
That is, in a certain framework just like the border country, S.Korea.

I am curious as to how you explain S.Korean development, a country that was in the same conditions with North in 1950s +they lack all the natural resources the north has(such as coal so crucial to industrialization) becoming a top economy in just 50 years and North not even industrializing, literally remaining in feudalism. Thats so much for claiming that bourgeouisie have "no progressive" role to play in DPRK's -mode of production-. __________________I would seriously punch you if you were next to me. Such cheap shots, and stealing things out of their context after a MASSIVE failure to argue, after being clearly destroyed completely, going into this sort of diversion.
this debate we are having here, is not even about the Korean debate. And you are so weak in your argument, so pathetic that you have to bring this to create a distraction to your failure.
Lets fucking ASSUME I said N.Korea is a feudal economy...does that change the fact that you know no shit about Marxism? Could you bring any arguments to things I said here?
In fact, I am READY to claim that N.Korean economy is feudal.

The ony reason I used that word was to break the stagist conception of history. When I say feudal to Korea, I am not referring to European feudalism. Feudalism did not exist in a standard form in ANYWHERE in the world.
You are a pathetic little troll my friend.

Anyone who doubts my honesty, can go and read the debate. I am ready to elaborate.

Art Vandelay

10th April 2014, 02:14

I never said Korea is feudal, I said Korea is freaking backwards, so backwards that form of surplus extraction is feudalistic.

so even if I am to go by the "scientific" stagist notion of history that came from Leninist school(and has its roots in Engels and his obsession with "dialectical laws of nature"), DPRK remains a feudal country where bourgeouisie definetly has, imo a progressive role to play. That is, in a certain framework just like the border country, S.Korea.

Yeah, that basically says all we need to know about your bona fides as a discussant here. :rolleyes:

The irony is palpable...

I have delivered all you have asked...The only explanation that remains is that you are 15 year old troll, a liar or have alzheimers.

you claim I claim a thing and then you argue with it on your own...with lies...or alzheimers..and circle jerkers are loving it. I am so sad that Marxism is left to the hands of people like you.

Dodo

10th April 2014, 02:21

The irony is palpable...

Et tu Brutus
---
That is, funny enough, the only quote where I used the word "feudal" without "istic" in a premise form.
In a quote where I use it with "feudalistic".

I am going to elaborate myself only if you are honest in your dealing with it.
I said I could call Korea, feudal in the context of stagist feudal understanding due to its productivity levels being similar to that of a feudal country, a feudal rural economy with feudal like bounded serfish labor. That is, the development level of productive forces which defines the class struggle and change in modes of production.
And that is all.

If you are going to try to bring this debate in here, by taking things out of their context all I'll see is a bunch of losers who are so pathetic in their argument that they have to distort things here.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 02:22

Phoenix, you are claiming that debates about revision are inherently sectarian. Trotskyists here, when not grappling with your trite criticisms, have been discussing the issue of whether Trotsky was a revisionist. (See the thread title.) So my question is, where specifically do you see topics being discussed in a sectarian way. Give me posts numbers here, along with how the content of those posts qualify as 'sectarian' in the way you characterize the term: being 'hateful' or 'discriminatory' to subgroups within a particular population. You can keep rambling about your views on the Russian Revolution and Trotsky, or how you really really don't like me, or how you think I am deliberately ignoring every brilliant idea that issues from your
keyboard, but they are not relevant to the topic at hand.

Here...you might need this to clear the brick wall in front of your head.

http://www.cafesmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/155564356-283x300.jpg

I will try to say this one more time. YOU are arguing a debate WE are not having on the grounds of arguments I have not made. It is that simple.

1. This threads aim was, as I said previously, meant as a pejorative against Trotsky and Trotskyism. In that respect the question "was Trotsky a revisionist" is not a serious question intended on debate but rather as Q stated...a bait. In that respect also it was not referring to a debate about the nature of Marxism but to the specific debate about revisionism between Trotskyism and Stalinism which has its origins in the argument between Left Opposition vs Stalin & the Bolshevist party and which is not a debate at all.

2. This revisionism debate the thread is therefore actually referring to, of which the OP question is part, is not a debate but a series of accusations left-to-right. It is not an exchange of ideas. It is not an analyzes. Nobody will change their minds. No change in positions at all. Nobody is busy convincing the other party of the errors of their ways and neither is interested in what the other has to say. The revisionism debate is accusation vs defense. Not argument vs argument. It hasn't changed in this respect for the last 70 years.

3. This debate is sectarian only of interest for the Marxist-Leninist tendency of which the vast majority is engaged in either accusing the other side or defending their own side. Waging it or winning it will not hold any impact to the reality of the working class nor will it actually change their situation. Nor will it actually rouse them and nor will it bring any closer the destruction of capitalism. In fact...the continued infighting actually is detrimental to the revolution and its perpetuation has become self gratification and justification.
You can pretend this is all done with honest intentions but after 25 years of this...I have heard it all and I know better.

4.THIS debate is sectarian. And the position of many Trotskyists to this revisionism debate is sectarian. Most of the Trotskyists in this thread, as do huge quantities of them elsewhere, pursue the revisionism position with a relentless tenacity that is worrying. Because the revisionism debate is NOT a debate. It is two entrenched positions opposite to each other lobbing accusations. It is a inter tendency power struggle. Both in its origin as in its historical development.

5.The origins of the revisionism debate is in itself a huge slur. The term itself is pejorative. The debate itself is simply a series of insults, accusations, recriminations in order to oust the other faction in some extreme cases the argument leads to murder, violence and prosecution. THIS is what I meant when I explained sectarianism with the definition I posted.

6.Revisionism debate =/= this thread. It isn't. The debate in this thread is not the revisionism debate I am referring to. It isn't even a revisionism debate. So it kind of alludes me why I should prove that...

Dodo

10th April 2014, 02:27

Because people who are inacaple of arguing are doing cheap trickshots, because I have to deal with teenagers and because my honesty is being attacked by an amount of dishonesty that has no place in not only among Marxists but any decent form of life, for the Korea debate we had, these were my premises where I "collected" my arguments:

Alright lets settle this.
As I was writing to Vincent I realized that you might be thinking that I believe N.Korea's dominating mode of production is the made-up concept of "feudalistic". I'd rather stick with the more classic saying of state-capitalism though I would not have any particular trouble with the concept of "degenerate workers state". The point is, these names do not mean anything as what matters are the relations. The debate over abstracted concepts seems to lead to a lot of trouble.

This confusion is understanable if you did not get my argument that capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea.

The feudalistic relations I refer to are relations that remain in N.Korean capital's backwards structure, i.e "unproductive" . How I got to that?

Korea was a feudal kingdom colonized by Japan which did not bother to "transform" the Korean economy but rather deepen the extractive primary-good sector for imperial expansion.
Korea did not go through a capitalist transformation under Japan. In the post-war period, there was a progressive impulse with the first Kim and his land-reforms. Within the context of war, imperialism, isolated self-sufficieny under economic scarcity led to the totalitarian dictatorship we are faimilair with today.
Does not matter what you name it as long as we agree on the relations that exists. Peasantry is bound to the land by a form of coercive "contract", and surplus is extracted by the ruling class in someway. But not through independent peasant system nor a capitalist landlordism where there is a volutanry contract.
That is what I refer to as feudalistic. You call it tributary. Does not matter.
The fact remains that this is a product of -ruling class production organization- for "industrializing" under low-productivity and ecenomic scarcity. Which is also a failure.

Therefore I argue, capital, NOT IMPERIALISM, has a progressive role to play in N.Korea. And my proof is South Korea which is coming from excatly same conditions and even lacking the natural resource endowment of the North.

So I ask, if it is impossible for capital to play a progressive role in North Korea, what happened in SOuth Korea?
OR, lets say there is a big relativity here, would you rather be a citizen of North Korea of South Korea?

Further attempts to distort is...well, up to your judgement.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 02:38

Phoenix, you can post walls and walls of text explaining a long list of things you don't like, or consider to be sectarian. You have called the debate on revisionism sectarian, and you have called the discussion in this thread sectarian. I am still waiting for an explanation of how anybody in here besides you has made any kind of discriminatory or hateful statements aimed at an entire subset of a population. Listing pages of bullet points about how there is no analysis in this thread, how revisionism is a slur, etc., etc., must be directed at imaginary posters who aren't here, because it's not an argument that directly addresses my question or substantiates your claim about how the posts in this thread are sectarian according to your definition of the term.

You respond to my questions with completely tangential points, then when I re-ask my question(s) accordingly, you start crying out about how I must not read your posts because you've already answered my questions. No, your responses are not answers. They are besides the point.

Dodo

10th April 2014, 02:38

Quiet honestly, I am at awe at the dishonest/manipulative debate style of some posters here. It really is unbelievable. I wish there was a forum court or something.

Fourth Internationalist

10th April 2014, 02:44

Quiet honestly, I am at awe at the dishonest/manipulative debate style of some posters here. It really is unbelievable. I wish there was a forum court or something.

I have quite a similar feeling, except it is with the posters who can't post like an adult.

I would seriously punch you if you were next to me.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 02:45

Words

You made the claim that you never called DPRK feudal. I provided a quote where you called it feudal. You are now claiming that my quote is dishonest, as if I edited it or something. It must be stressful trying to argue yourself out of these boxes.

Therefore I argue, capital, NOT IMPERIALISM, has a progressive role to play in N.Korea. And my proof is South Korea which is coming from excatly same conditions and even lacking the natural resource endowment of the North.You should be made aware that siding with capital politically, even if it is an indigenous North Korean bourgeoisie that you imagine can somehow play a role in the DPRK independent of imperialism, is grounds for restriction on this forum. Who am I to say this? Somebody who has read the forum rules and has been here long enough to know the operational principles of the forum.

PhoenixAsh might not do anything about this, because he thinks that the enemy of his enemy must be a friend, and you are arguing against the same "you Trotskyists" that he is decrying. But other admins and mods who aren't into such unprincipled combinationism will see this stuff and probably act on it.

Dodo

10th April 2014, 02:55

You made the claim that you never called DPRK feudal. I provided a quote where you called it feudal. You are now claiming that my quote is dishonest, as if I edited it or something. It must be stressful trying to argue yourself out of these boxes.

Listen kid, if you take everything I say out of their context it is not difficult to distort things. The fact of the matter remains that you had to bring the case of Korea into an irrellevant debate tells a lot about you, not about me.
Why did you even talk of Korea? When did I open the issue of Korea in this thread?
That being said, taking one sentence out of all the things I said means nothing. But lets assume, LETS ASSUME I SAID KOREA IS FEUDAL. It means, literally NOTHING. Feudalism is an abstraction, you are reifiying it as an object because you are not a Marxist. Feudalism does not exist in the nature, feudalism is a large abstraction we use to define a certain set of relations which we pull around.
What matters are the actual relations that exist.
The thing is, you do not know Marxism, you are not a Marxist. You are decieving troll.

You should be made aware that siding with capital politically, even if it is an indigenous North Korean bourgeoisie that you imagine can somehow play a role in the DPRK independent of imperialism, is grounds for restriction on this forum. Who am I to say this? Somebody who has read the forum rules and has been here long enough to know the operational principles of the forum.Actually I have not read it. After they establish what I refer to as "capital", they are free to restrict or ban. If this is the kind of forum that banishes Marxists for critical thinking, I am ready to embrace it.
Though just like you they will have to elaborate on this

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

Or maybe they should ban Marx as a bourgeouisie as well and turn this place into a little N.Korea.

A bunch of circle-jerking, reality reifiying teenage kids mean nothing in the real world.
This is your little playground ....where you are the king because all circle jerkers love your reified concepts.
Enjoy....you will see what happens when you grow up with this pathetic attitude. It is not going to reflect on me but on you.

PhoenixAsh might not do anything about this, because he thinks that the enemy of his enemy must be a friend, and you are arguing against the same "you Trotskyists" that he is decrying. But other admins and mods will see this stuff, and probably act on it.I am a Trotskyist kid. Its just, our understanding of it is different. Mine is Marxism, yours is a cult.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 03:03

LETS ASSUME I SAID KOREA IS FEUDAL.

There's no need to assume something happened when a record of it can easily be seen with the click of a mouse.

Actually I have not read it. After they establish what I refer to as "capital", they are free to restrict or ban.

Huh? Who is "they? The moderators who make and enforce the rules? Are you saying that the forum moderators are going to destroy "feudalism" and establish capitalism in the DPRK?

Alexios

10th April 2014, 03:41

That being said, taking one sentence out of all the things I said means nothing. But lets assume, LETS ASSUME I SAID KOREA IS FEUDAL. It means, literally NOTHING. Feudalism is an abstraction, you are reifiying it as an object because you are not a Marxist. Feudalism does not exist in the nature, feudalism is a large abstraction we use to define a certain set of relations which we pull around.Feudalism has been defined though, both by Marxists and non-marxists. You can play armchair economist if you want, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Anyway, thinking that North Korea is in any way "feudal" is dumb. There's no landed aristocracy, no state religion, and the central state exercises basically all control.

Rafiq

10th April 2014, 03:57

North Korea, like some other previous Communist states, is a failed, illegitimate mode of production in the making. It is impossible to catagorize them as within capitalist production or something else, they simply operate in a set of social relations which, in a larger geopolitical context, is temporary and unsustainable. It has no place in history.

willwinall

10th April 2014, 05:10

Very entertaining reading this debate but how about not getting so personal and sticking more to just historical facts.:)

synthesis

10th April 2014, 07:20

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 12:02

Dear aufheben,

I am so sorry you have such an astonishing lack of knowledge and understanding about the history of your own ideology.

It is extremely ironic that you attack my arguments which are basically a reitteration of the criticism of Trotsky and several Trotskyist movements and parties about the behaviour of Stalin(ism) and the nature of the revisionism debate. For example:

Only in this context could the lies and slanders of the bureaucratic machine against Trotsky begin to take root. Slander becomes a historical force only when it meets some historical demand.

and of course:

Not content with trampling over the traditions of Bolshevism in order to finally defeat them Stalin had to go further and physically annihilate Trotsky and the living links with the leaders of the revolution. Through a policy of torture and murder Stalin drowned Bolshevism in blood. Anyone who advances the false assertion that Stalinism was the natural outgrowth of Leninism must first explain this riddle, why then was it necessary to defeat Bolshevism, to expel it, to persecute it, to annihilate it in order to secure power?

I am perplexed that you actually take position against the argument that the revisionism debate was in fact not a debate but consisted, according to both Trotsky and Trotskyist organizations of slander, lies, torture and murder.

And yet you call this attack on Trotsky and Trotskyism a honest discussion about Marxism. Trostky himself had this to say in 1937:

All the literature if the Second and Third Internationals, as well as of their satellites of the London Bureau, consists essentially of such examples. Not a suggestion of Marxist analysis.

The theoreticians of the Comintern are not even worth mentioning. The famous Dimitrov is as ignorant and commonplace as a shopkeeper over a mug of beer. The minds of these people are too lazy to renounce Marxism: they prostitute it. But it is not they that interest us now. Let us turn to the “innovators”

and ofcourse

The former Austrian communist, Willi Schlamm, has devoted a small book to the Moscow trials, under the expressive title, The Dictatorship of the Lie. Schlamm is a gifted journalist, chiefly interested in current affairs. His criticism of the Moscow frame-up, and his exposure of the psychological mechanism of the “voluntary confessions”, are excellent.

The contrary position you take is a complete legitimization of the arguments posed against Trotsky and Trotskyism and a legitimization of the eventual historical outcome of these arguments.

By saying this was, and is, a legtimate debate you logically acknowledge that the arguments (which Trotsky and just about every self respecting Trotskyist organization denounce(d) as lies, slander and ridiculisation....except of course for you...in this thread...) posed against both Trotsky and Trotskyism are based and founded in an legitimate analysis of Marxism and, though misguided or a result of misinterpretation perhaps iyo, are therefore not to be considered purposeful, dishonest and deceitful but merely the logical conclusion of honest discussion.

Which means these kind of diatribes:

The “Trotskyist” movement is just a variation of a stronger disease. This disease manifests in concepts like the “one true party” theory, so prominent on the left. It shows up when groups split over petty, personal disagreements and details. It manifests itself when existing organizations create a culture where criticizing the party leaders is never legitimate, but always a sign of psychological or political illness, needing “treatment” with some form of punishment or retaliation. This form of revisionism is a result of the isolation of the Communist movement from the U.S. working class for so long. The cure is injection of Communists among the people they seek to liberate, and the eventual forming of mass Communist parties as economic conditions necessitate it. The sectarian confusion and revisionism of the revolutionary movement among the Russian intelligentsia was cured when Plekhanov and Lenin clearly saw that the future of humanity was not to be resolved in cafés or debates between rival Jacobin wannabes.

Your position furthermore means that expelling Trotsky a decision supported by the vast majority of the Bolshevik party and the subsequent denunciation of Trotsky and Trotskyism as counter revolutionary and incompatibly with Bolshevism and the subsequent measures taken against both the Left Opposition, The United Opposition and International Opposition were validated as resulting consequences of legitimate analysis of Marxism and therefore wholly in line with combatting counter-revolutionary forces and protecting the sanctity and safety of the "workers" revolution.

Which brings us to our initial exchange of the fact that Trotsky and Trotskyism were thus contrary to your earlier position legitimately expelled from the Bolshevist party. And this is baffling.

You unwittingly and in your complete lack of actual knowledge and understanding of the nature and origins of the revisionism debate...acknowledged by Trotsky and every Trotskyist movement and organisation as a power struggle in order to defame and annihilate Trotsky, the Left Opposition and any opposition to Stalin...just took the complete and opposite position....just because you just don't get what I am saying and perhaps just because you simply want to troll me.

Wauw.

Very amusing.

I HOPE what we are dealing with here is merely a genuine misunderstanding you have of the arguments I am making (you know...the exact same arguments Trotsky and Troskyist organisations have been making since the 1920's) with respect to the intention of OP and the misinterpretation of what is actually meant with revisionism debate and how this is meant in respect to Trotskyism.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that OP (you know....a person who calls himself BolshevikOG...such a red flag) was asking a honest question when he asked if Trotsky was a revisionist and distorted Marxism and Bolshevism....rather than being a Stalinist bait shill.

When Trostky is involved in questions about revisionism we are no longer having a debate about how to interpret Marxism and whether a more liberal or a more orthodox intepretation is better. Instead we are having the specific debate resulting from the historical context of the revisionism debate which refers to the continuous feud between Trotskyists and Stalinists and is a continuation of accusations made in 1920. And which is actually sectarian in nature.

It may have been necessary to defend against these kind of accusations. But after the fall of the USSR the debate has lost its meaning. Stalinism was increasingly discredited during the 50's and after a brief revival in the late 70's and 80's this debate is only of academic interest to Bolshevists (and those Bolshevists that were kicked out of the Bolshevist party for not being Bolshevist enough) because the main opponents have all but been marginalized. It is no longer necessary for Trotskyism to defend itself from these allegations and in this debate as it is irrelevant with no practical aplplication to the revolution because it is simply a continuation of accusing-defending battle which has been raging for 70+ years.

You tend to see the official definition of sectarianism as somehow being applicable on this thread and the behaviour of you and your cohorts being bullies or hatefull. Which is nice and all but is a complete misrepresentation and failure of understanding on your part.

The accusations against Trotskyism are sectarian in nature. Coninued engaging these accusations as it somehow being the most important thing in the world...is engaging in sectarianism. Which is something Trotskyists are still doing. Rather than simply ignoring thise "debate" as irrelevant.

So you just continue down your path of blissful unawareness about the history of your ideology. You can even continue to purposefully misrepresent my arguments. I think it is humerous and extremely entertaining to see you twist yoruself into taking a counter position to your own ideological line.

Keep up the good work!

Dodo

10th April 2014, 13:26

I have quite a similar feeling, except it is with the posters who can't post like an adult.

By now, since you have taken his side you do not seem to be realizing what he is doing. What is my argument here even? He does not even know what I am arguing against and he is bringing stuff from other threads. We debated there for days, I clarified everything I said...and the little troll, just takes one sentence from one of the earlier posts to delegitimize me.
If he had any self-respect, he would have not tried to change what is going on here with something irrelevant to this discussion.

There's no need to assume something happened when a record of it can easily be seen with the click of a mouse.
Huh? Who is "they? The moderators who make and enforce the rules? Are you saying that the forum moderators are going to destroy "feudalism" and establish capitalism in the DPRK?

A personal note. Think about what you are doing. We do not know each other and this is a forum. These things do not go unresolved in real life. Just think...

Feudalism has been defined though, both by Marxists and non-marxists. You can play armchair economist if you want, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Anyway, thinking that North Korea is in any way "feudal" is dumb. There's no landed aristocracy, no state religion, and the central state exercises basically all control.

I do not say N.Korea is feudal, I used the word feudalistic like at least 20-30 times.
The fact of the matter is, feudalism does not mean anything if you say
" There's no landed aristocracy, no state religion, and the central state exercises basically all control."

A lot of Marxists have swallowed what they have said later on. Since 1950s the debates on feudalism went nuts, and very few people here seems to be aware of it. If feudalism is simple defined by what you wrote here, what was China, Ottoman Empire, Mameluke State, India, African Kingdoms and Japan for instance(Asiatic mode of production literally means nothing, it is a gross generalization and a transitionary concept that was made up, doesnt define anything or explain history)? Or even UK and France differed GREATLY in their handling of this thing we call "feudalism"...in 18th century France, you cannot distinguish a wealth bourgeouisie from a landowner as they both worked the same way. Under French absolutism landowners lived a very different life from that in English arisocrats.

The fact of the matter remains that by taking feudalism as a rigid stage in history, you are objectifying a concept. You are fetishizing a word that does not exist in the world in a "natural cycle". A lot of Marxists used the word feudal in very large contexts...in the end, its original relation ONLY apply to western Europe.
So when I said N.Korea was feudalistic, I was referring to a set of relations that has feudalistic tendencies.

If you have any problem with it, I am ready to open a thread and debate.
Aufheben and Icepick/inertia whatever, I CHALLENGE you guys to a debate on feudalism on a new thread. Either accept it, or shut up about it.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 15:08

It is ironic that the IMT likened the situation in North Korea to feudalism.

As in the earlier feudal kingdoms, the 'Great Leader' Kim Il Sung passed his crown onto his son Kim Jong Il. After the traditional mourning period for the first son of the king before assuming his father's leadership of the ruling party, Kim Jong Il became officially head of state on the fiftieth anniversary of the DPRK in September 1998.

:laugh:

And if I am not mistaken, and I am not ;) , it argued that:

It is time to move on. What then is the fundamental question? CAPITALISM or SOCIALISM is the fundamental question! The transformation of society onto a higher stage! Following the path of their grandparents in the years after the Second World War! In fact, the Korean working class is now far stronger and better organised than their grandparents. The capitalist development of the rural South has created a strong proletariat out of the former peasants. Because of the Cold War, the imperialists stimulated rapid capitalist development. But in the same process they stimulated the development of a strong working class! This is completely in accordance with the predictions of Marx and Engels in 1848 when they stated that "with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more." And further: "The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labour. Wage labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers." (Manifesto of the Communist Party.)

Reads like Trotskyists also believe that capitalism in rural society is beneficial to the creation of a revolutionary working class.

Fourth Internationalist

10th April 2014, 15:50

By now, since you have taken his side you do not seem to be realizing what he is doing. What is my argument here even? He does not even know what I am arguing against and he is bringing stuff from other threads. We debated there for days, I clarified everything I said...and the little troll, just takes one sentence from one of the earlier posts to delegitimize me.*If he had any self-respect, he would have not tried to change what is going on here with something irrelevant to this discussion.*

I don't care what you think he is doing to you. By saying you would punch him if he were next to you, you have shown you're acting far more immature and absurd than he supposedly is, no matter what you disagree with him on. Be more mature.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 16:25

Phoenix, I am still waiting to see references to specific posts in this thread where people have said things that are sectarian. You keep posting long political diatribes instead.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 17:00

When I ask for examples of somebody behaving in a sectarian way, PhoenixAsh, this is what I am referring to. Actual references from specific posts in this thread.

So now that my position on Trotskyism is clear...you still think I give a hoot whether I purposefully misrepresented Trotsky?

:rolleyes: only a Trotskyist would take what is written as a generalization to be a time line. :rolleyes:

Seriously...you Trotskyists need to work on your reading apprehension [sic: comprehension]

No. I think the revisionism debate is sectarian and for it to be sectarian it matters little if it matters to Trotskyists, Stalinists or Marxist-Leninists. It is a circle jerk of a failed ideology from the start and doesn't solve any of the issues which were already present before this became an issue.

And of course, the ultimate sign that somebody is being discriminatory: taking one small and particularly bad subset of a large population and pretending they represent everybody within that population:

It is ironic that the IMT likened the situation in North Korea to feudalism. ... Reads like Trotskyists also believe that capitalism in rural society is beneficial to the creation of a revolutionary working class.

Look, despite your incessant griping that people haven't been reading your posts, it's obvious what your argument has been this entire thread. Your argument, as you succinctly put it, is "The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories."

I have explained multiple times the problem with this line of reasoning, and I'll explain it again here, because that's what good-faith discussants do. You are assuming a divergence between measuring "the basis of an ideology's contents" and determining "deviation from other theories/ideologies."

What you are refusing to consider is that sometimes people might wish to adjudicate whether one set of theories or ideas deviates from another, precisely because that other set has already been established through a long process of principled political debate and critical thinking. In that case, the comparison (the debate over whether something is revisionist) is not at all a matter of unscientific leader-worship, and is instead a matter of using -isms as a short-hand for referring to principled political positions arrived at through critical consideration.

To the extent that these comparisons to orthodoxy do consist of uncritically upholding one particular set of ideas as a standard, they are indeed sectarian. But not all such comparisons have to be. It is perfectly possible to critically evaluating ideas through measuring them up against another set provisionally deemed superior and 'orthodox' through an earlier process of critical evaluation.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 17:16

Phoenix, I am still waiting to see references to specific posts in this thread where people have said things that are sectarian. You keep posting long political diatribes instead.

And why are you waiting to see that? Is my point. :rolleyes::laugh:

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 17:23

And why are you waiting to see that? Is my point. :rolleyes::laugh:

The way principled (and not trollish) discussions work is that when one person makes a series of accusations, they then proceed to provide evidence substantiating those accusations, as I did above in post #161.

Dodo

10th April 2014, 17:30

I don't care what you think he is doing to you. By saying you would punch him if he were next to you, you have shown you're acting far more immature and absurd than he supposedly is, no matter what you disagree with him on. Be more mature.
You are taking that bit too literally. If he were next to me, the debate would not have gone this way because it would not make any sense if he talked about Korea.
He dodges the things I say and quotes something else...if someone next to you does that you would think he is not right in the head. In the forum, he can break the cohesion of an argument easily because other people are just "outside" readers who dont know what exactly is going on between the two.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 17:32

When I ask for examples of somebody behaving in a sectarian way, PhoenixAsh, this is what I am referring to. Actual references from specific posts in this thread.

And of course, the ultimate sign that somebody is being discriminatory: taking one small and particularly bad subset of a large population and pretending they represent everybody within that population:

Could you possibly explain to me how your tendency consistently argues that Anarchists are bourgeois and capitalistshills and counter revolutionaries...defending a politician which advocated murdering Anarchists....but still maintain your position that we belong to the same "subgroup" ?

I don't particularly like your specific subgroup. Is this what you have been trying to prove? Because I have been pretty open about my contempt for Trotskyism.

"I admit, the dictatorship under Stalin's rule has become monstrous. That does not, however, lessen the guilt of Leon Trotsky"

Look, despite your incessant griping that people haven't been reading your posts, it's obvious what your argument has been this entire thread. Your argument, as you succinctly put it, is "The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories."

I have explained multiple times the problem with this line of reasoning, and I'll explain it again here, because that's what good-faith discussants do. You are assuming a divergence between measuring "the basis of an ideology's contents" and determining "deviation from other theories/ideologies."

Yes. Exactly. Because that is what the revisionism debate about Trotsky is.

What you are refusing to consider is that sometimes people might wish to adjudicate whether one set of theories or ideas deviates from another, precisely because that other set has already been established through a long process of principled political debate and critical thinking.

Ahhh....so basically the whole thing with Stalin and Leninists kicking you out and denouncing you as non Bolshevist and counter revolutionary....was a long process of principled debate and critical thinking?

Check.

In that case, the comparison (the debate over whether something is revisionist) is not at all a matter of unscientific leader-worship, and is instead a matter of using -isms as a short-hand for referring to principled political positions arrived at through critical consideration.

Yes. And this principled debate was won by those who established you were in fact not Bolshevists and counter revolutionary after careful critical consideration.

To the extent that these comparisons to orthodoxy do consist of uncritically upholding one particular set of ideas as a standard, they are indeed sectarian. But not all such comparisons have to be. It is perfectly possible to critically evaluating ideas through measuring them up against another set provisionally deemed superior and 'orthodox' through an earlier process of critical evaluation.

Yes. We have established that. The kicking out of the Left Opposition, United Opposition and International Opposition and the denunciation of them as non Bolshevist and counter revolutionary was arrived at after a long process of critical analysis and consideration and a principled political position.

Do you see a pattern yet of how you might be misinterpreting me? Because I have been quite clear about not agreeing with you on how you see the revisionism debate as being a principled discussion.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 17:38

The way principled (and not trollish) discussions work is that when one person makes a series of accusations, they then proceed to provide evidence substantiating those accusations, as I did above in post #161.

Yes. However you evidence is a strawman argument based on a misrepresentation of what I clearly explained multiple times.

The way principled (and not trollish) discussions work is that people refrain from making strawman arguments and misrepresent what they are actually accusing.

Dodo

10th April 2014, 17:43

Yes. However you evidence is a strawman argument based on a misrepresentation of what I clearly explained multiple times.

He does that on purpose, I'm pretty sure on that.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 17:52

Could you possibly explain to me how your tendency consistently argues that Anarchists are bourgeois and capitalistshills and counter revolutionaries...defending a politician which advocated murdering Anarchists....but still maintain your position that we belong to the same "subgroup" ?

Both groups subjectively have as an end goal the establishment of a classless and stateless society, and organize politically to try to make that happen. So yes, I think that "leftist" can have some analytical purchase in that regard. Obviously there are differences in how various subgroups within that larger umbrella seek to achieve the end goal. This is why it is important to have principled and substantive debates about specific ideas and political practices. We can't have such debates if one side continuously makes assertions, then refuses to back those assertions up, then on top of it acts completely stunned and dismissive when somebody else insists that the assertions be backed up (as you did in your previous post).

Ahhh....so basically the whole thing with Stalin and Leninists kicking you out and denouncing you as non Bolshevist and counter revolutionary....was a long process of principled debate and critical thinking?Work on your reading "apprehension," Phoenix. I did not state that every political development, or any political activity in particular, in the Soviet Union was the result of principled political debate. I didn't even make the more circumscribed claim that every debate about "revisionism" is principled. I said that just because a debate takes the form of comparing a set of ideas to an "orthodox" standard does not meant that the debate is uncritical, unscientific, or unprincipled. The "orthodox" standard may very well have been arrived at through, and standing in for, a set of principled political positions already critically developed and clearly articulated. You refuse to even consider this possibility, and are falling back on misrepresenting my claim.

Do you see a pattern yet of how you might be misinterpreting me? Because I have been quite clear about not agreeing with you on how you see the revisionism debate as being a principled discussion.No, I summarized your argument in a single sentence in my last post, and you approvingly acknowledged it as such. Now you are accusing me of misinterpreting you. I have carefully read and considered everything you've said in this thread. I just happen to find most of it to be of woeful quality. Have you considered the possibility that people are disagreeing with you because you are wrong about something, not because people are too dumb to grasp how brilliant you are?

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 17:56

And of course, the ultimate sign that somebody is being discriminatory: taking one small and particularly bad subset of a large population and pretending they represent everybody within that population:

The same article is present on the CWI, EEK, IBT and several other sites.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 18:09

Both groups subjectively have as an end goal the establishment of a classless and stateless society, and organize politically to try to make that happen. So yes, I think that "leftist" can have some analytical purchase in that regard. Obviously there are differences in how various subgroups within that larger umbrella seek to achieve the end goal.

Aha. So....basically killing anarchists is "differences in how subgroups seek to achieve the end goal" now.

And since Trotsky and Trotskyism claim Anarchists are counter revolutionary bourgeois forces. Just how do you make this assertion compatible with Trotskyists and Anarchists "seeking the same end goal" ? What are you saying?

This is why it is important to have principled and substantive debates about specific ideas and political practices. We can't have such debates if one side continuously makes assertions, then refuses to back those assertions up, then on top of it acts completely stunned and dismissive when somebody else insists that the assertions be backed up (as you did in your previous post).

I backed up those assertions. Which is the whole point. You couldn't be bothered to scroll back.

Work on your reading "apprehension," Phoenix. I did not state that every political development, or any political activity in particular, in the Soviet Union was the result of principled political debate.

No...just the point I have been making and you are arguing against. Unfortunately for you the point I was making was that the revisionism debate (you know...the one between Stalinism and Trotskyism about the 1920's...which is not a debate) is not a principled discussion and continuing to engage in it is in itself sectarian. You know....if somebody throws eggs at you and you throw eggs back...then you are engaged in an egg fight. Same principle.

I didn't even make the more circumscribed claim that every debate about "revisionism" is principled.

I didn't say you did. You did however attack me on the assumption that I was arguing the same thing you were. I wasn't. As I have explained I see OP in the light of Stalinist shilling and interpret revisionism in context of Trotsky not as a honest debate but as the continuation of the 1920 debate.

I said that just because a debate takes the form of comparing a set of ideas to an "orthodox" standard does not meant that the debate is uncritical, unscientific, or unprincipled. The "orthodox" standard may very well have been arrived at through, and standing in for, a set of principled political positions already critically developed and clearly articulated. You refuse to even consider this possibility, and are falling back on misrepresenting my claim.

Yes. How is this different from what I said: "The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard (to wit: Stalinist interpretation of Lenin) rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories. (ie: Stalinism; Leninist etc) "

No, I summarized your argument in a single sentence in my last post, and you approvingly acknowledged it as such. Now you are accusing me of misinterpreting you. I have carefully read and considered everything you've said in this thread. I just happen to find most of it to be of woeful quality. Have you considered the possibility that people are disagreeing with you because you are wrong about something, not because people are too dumb to grasp how brilliant you are?

Aha. And so you came to the conclusion that you would focus your attack on my position on what is in fact a reiteration of Trotsky's and Trotskyist positions since the 20's?

This is why I believe you don't understand me rather than you disagreeing with me.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 18:32

Aha. So....basically killing anarchists is "differences in how subgroups seek to achieve the end goal" now.

Yes, and so is killing Trotskyists or members of and any other tendency you might bring up. The question of revolutionary violence is one where different revolutionary leftists have disagreements. What's your point? This has literally no necessary and direct relationship to the discussion we're having on revisionism, and whether debates about it can be conducted on a principled basis. I will, however, note that the only person here who has exhibited any sort of violent attitude is your comrade Dokugan, whose posts you thank and appreciate so frequently.

And since Trotsky and Trotskyism claim Anarchists are counter revolutionary bourgeois forces. Just how do you make this assertion compatible with Trotskyists and Anarchists "seeking the same end goal" ? What are you saying?Want to discuss it? Start another thread on it. I'm sure it will be a lively debate.

I backed up those assertions. Which is the whole point. You couldn't be bothered to scroll back.Wait. What happened to: "IF you don't understand my posts or my argumenst than admit this and you are free to ask clarification and I in turn would be very willing to provide the necessary explanation." It seems like we are back to the approach of, "Screw you if you want evidence. It's back there somewhere!" So much for that new leaf.

No...just the point I have been making and you are arguing against. Unfortunately for you the point I was making was that the revisionism debate (you know...the one between Stalinism and Trotskyism about the 1920's...which is not a debate) is not a principled discussion and continuing to engage in it is in itself sectarian. You know....if somebody throws eggs at you and you throw eggs back...then you are engaged in an egg fight. Same principle.You have consistently made arguments about debates about "revisionism" in general, not referring to any one specific debate except to (as you did in the last thread) to try to confuse matters by conflating concrete historical events with broad logical precepts that will apply different in different historical circumstances. Revisionism isn't just a word hurled against Trotskyists. Its historical origins lie in Bernstein's advocacy of "evolutionary socialism." He was attacked for revising Marx's key tenets, not because the people who lobbed the term "revisionists" were unscientifically and dogmatically accepting everything Marx wrote as true, but because they accepted those key tenets as true after carefully and critically grappling with them.

Yes. How is this different from what I said: "The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard (to wit: Stalinist interpretation of Lenin) rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories. (ie: Stalinism; Leninist etc) "I love how you are modifying your quote to try to make it seems you were saying something different than what you actually said. You were not talking about only Stalinists comparing Trotsky to Marx and calling him revisionist in the context of Soviet reaction in the 1930s. You were clearly making a sweeping statement about evaluating ideas in general by seeing how well they match up to an already existing body of 'orthodox' beliefs. That is why you did not dress up your condemnation in historical specifics as you have done in your latest...revision. It was the method you were criticizing as "sectarian." My point has been that it might be sectarian, or it might not be. It has to be judged on a case by case basis by somebody capable of presenting arguments, rather than just repeating ad nauseam "I already said it!!!"

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 18:48

Yes, and so is killing Trotskyists or members of and any other tendency you might bring up. The question of revolutionary violence is one where different revolutionary leftists have disagreements. What's your point? This has literally no necessary and direct relationship to the discussion we're having on revisionism, and whether debates about it can be conducted on a principled basis.

But it does have a direct relationship on your assertion Anarchism ad Trotskyism belong to the same subgroup. We obviously don't.

And I would think actively advocating killing another tendency is a matter of disagreement is a slight understatement.

Want to discuss it? Start another thread on it. I'm sure it will be a lively debate.

I dont think there is anything to discuss in this respect except for how this fact has led you to believe Anarchism and Trotskyism are the same political subset.

Wait. What happened to: "IF you don't understand my posts or my argumenst than admit this and you are free to ask clarification and I in turn would be very willing to provide the necessary explanation." It seems like we are back to the approach of, "Screw you if you want evidence. It's back there somewhere!" So much for that new leaf.

That went out of the window when I tried it three times and it didn't work because you ignored my entire explanation.

You have consistently made arguments about debates about "revisionism" in general, not referring to any one specific debate except to (as you did in the last thread) to try to confuse matters by conflating concrete historical events with broad logical precepts that will apply different in different historical circumstances. Revisionism isn't just a word hurled against Trotskyists. Its historical origins lie in Bernstein's advocacy of "evolutionary socialism." He was attacked for revising Marx's key tenets, not because the people who lobbed the term "revisionists" were unscientifically and dogmatically accepting everything Marx wrote as true, but because they accepted those key tenets as true after carefully and critically grappling with them.

Actually I have consistently argued that revisionism debate in the cases where it was made in relation to Trotsky and Trotskyism was a specific debate started in the 20's. In fact I have been horribly consistent in that position from post 1.

I love how you are modifying your quote to try to make it seems you were saying something different than what you actually said. You were not talking about only Stalinists comparing Trotsky to Marx and calling him revisionist in the context of Soviet reaction in the 1930s. You were clearly making a sweeping statement about evaluating ideas in general by seeing how well they match up to an already existing body of 'orthodox' beliefs. That is why you did not dress up your condemnation in historical specifics as you have done in your latest...revision.

Actually...this is strange..because you have been attacking me for post #15. Which contained a quote

"Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point (...) But the achievements of October have not yet been fully consummated. We must continue to work determinedly for their fulfillment. And here it would be dangerous and disastrous to deviate from the historically tested path of Leninism. And when such a comrade as Trotsky treads, even unconsciously, the path of revision of Leninism, then the Party must make a pronouncement." - Nadezhda Krupskaya, The Errors of Trotskyism 1925

I think it was pretty damned obvious which line I was taking from there on out. You know. In post #22, #29 etc. etc.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 19:13

Phoenix, you are being deliberately obtuse and staking positions that you then beat a strategic retreat from.

This entire thread you've attacked the methodology of arguing from "orthodoxy," whereby one group claims the other is wrong because the other has departed from some established body of thought. You've called this method "sectarian," and claimed that people in this thread were behaving in sectarian ways.

Not only have you not provided specific examples in this thread where people are behaving in a sectarian way, even after promising that you would respond to any and all requests of mine for evidence or clarification (one claim you've retreated from). You have now tried to sidestep my counter-point that criticizing people for departing from a perceived orthodoxy can potentially be (but is not necessarily) a short-hand way of lodging principled criticisms against a particular person or idea. You now claim that you weren't condemning arguments-from-orthodoxy in general, despite the litter trail of posts you've left behind you clearly demonstrating otherwise (evidencing your second retreat), but instead were referring only to a specific historical argument.

Fine, then we are in agreement. One specific historical instance of an argument-from-orthodoxy may very well have been conducted in an unprincipled and dogmatically uncritical way. It doesn't mean that all such arguments are dogmatic, unprincipled, and uncritical. And it doesn't mean that people here are employing argument-from-orthodoxy in an unprincipled or uncritical way, despite your attempts to argue from first covering principles that they are.

Fourth Internationalist

10th April 2014, 21:22

You are taking that bit too literally.

The phrase "I'm going to kill you" or something similar is also not literal, yet it is still a sign of immaturity and incivility. Just because you say you're going to punch someone but not actually carry that action out doesn't mean it isn't an immature and uneccessary comment. Would you seriously argue it is a mature and valid expression of frustration, especially on an internet forum?

Dodo

10th April 2014, 21:41

The phrase "I'm going to kill you" or something similar is also not literal, yet it is still a sign of immaturity and incivility. Just because you say you're going to punch someone but not actually carry that action out doesn't mean it isn't an immature and uneccessary comment. Would you seriously argue it is a mature and valid expression of frustration, especially on an internet forum?

No. I did not really think that much over it and you shouldn't as well. If out all my posts, that is what you see...it is indeed a problem though.

*also, this is an unnecessary cycle we got here talking over this

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 21:45

Phoenix, you are being deliberately obtuse and staking positions that you then beat a strategic retreat from.

No I haven't.

This entire thread you've attacked the methodology of arguing from "orthodoxy," whereby one group claims the other is wrong because the other has departed from some established body of thought. You've called this method "sectarian," and claimed that people in this thread were behaving in sectarian ways.

I have not claimed people in this thread have behaved in a sectarian way. I said participating the in the revisionism debate is sectarian.

Not only have you not provided specific examples in this thread where people are behaving in a sectarian way,

I have never said that so I fail to see why I should provide examples of something I never said in the first place.

even after promising that you would respond to any and all requests of mine for evidence or clarification (one claim you've retreated from).

Actually I did answer all of your questions except for the ones about things I never claimed.

You have now tried to sidestep my counter-point that criticizing people for departing from a perceived orthodoxy can potentially be (but is not necessarily) a short-hand way of lodging principled criticisms against a particular person or idea.

Except I had never even argued that. So...I didn't actually side step it. You claimed I argued that while it was quite obvious from the start of this thread I didn't.

You now claim that you weren't condemning arguments-from-orthodoxy in general, despite the litter trail of posts you've left behind you clearly demonstrating otherwise (evidencing your second retreat), but instead were referring only to a specific historical argument.

Except...I have been extremely clear from the start.

Fine, then we are in agreement. One specific historical instance of an argument-from-orthodoxy may very well have been conducted in an unprincipled and dogmatically uncritical way. It doesn't mean that all such arguments are dogmatic, unprincipled, and uncritical. And it doesn't mean that people here are employing argument-from-orthodoxy in an unprincipled or uncritical way, despite your attempts to argue from first covering principles that they are.

^ this one instance...is basically what I have been arguing all along. Which should have been obvious from the Krupskaya quote about the LO during the debates about the LO.

Fourth Internationalist

10th April 2014, 21:49

No. I did not really think that much over it and you shouldn't as well. If out all my posts, that is what you see...it is indeed a problem though.

What's more of a problem is that you can think it is nothing to insult and throw petty threats at people willy-nilly and then whine when someone points out how immature this makes you look. You whine about how aufhben is (supposedly) acting, yet you fail to see how much of a hypocrite you are being in regards to your own behavior. I feel bad for calling your behavior childish; children don't act like this.

Dodo

10th April 2014, 22:03

What's more of a problem is that you can think it is nothing to insult and throw petty threats at people willy-nilly and then whine when someone points out how immature this makes you look. You whine about how aufhben is (supposedly) acting, yet you fail to see how much of a hypocrite you are being in regards to your own behavior. I feel bad for calling your behavior childish; children don't act like this.

Erm...I -accept- that it was pointless and childish and immature to say something like that. There, happy?
At the time, I was so enraged that I felt like I can express myself by stating that. It was not supposed to be a mature act, it was an expression.

Fourth Internationalist

10th April 2014, 22:12

Erm...I -accept- that it was pointless and childish and immature to say something like that. There, happy?
At the time, I was so enraged that I felt like I can express myself by stating that. It was not supposed to be a mature act, it was an expression.

Would your earlier accusations of cultism also fall under this? If you say yes, then yes I am happy. :)

Dodo

10th April 2014, 22:19

Would your earlier accusations of cultism also fall under this? If you say yes, then yes I am happy. :)

The focus of my accusation is not cultism. Tbh, I do not think aufheben have a good grasp of what I am talking about. My accusations towards him is that his lack of knowledge on the issue leads him to a dogmatic thinking which he attacks me with. He also claims that I am a bourgeouisie and should at least be restricted if not banned for my ideas.

Fourth Internationalist

10th April 2014, 22:44

The focus of my accusation is not cultism.

But yet you made such accusations earlier.

Rafiq

10th April 2014, 22:56

Sounds a lot like a "deformed worker's state" to me.

I would never prattle of such garbage. I also never posted anything which could lead anyone to possibly infer that I meant to say it was a worker's state at any point in history.

Five Year Plan

10th April 2014, 23:44

Phoenix, when you have consistently said things like

The debate of who is more revisionist in the Trotsky vs Lenin vs Stalin boils down to a debate which colour marbles are best suited to win a soccer match

it is abundantly clear to everybody here that you are condemning any argument ("the debate") that tries to establish whether Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin or any combination departed from the fundamental methods and tenets of Marxism.

After I rebutted this logic, you are now pretending that you are and have all along been referring only to some specific argument about revisionism that occurred at a point in the past, and that you have acknowledged that some debates about revisionism may be principled and intellectually rigorous.

I invite people to estimate the truthfulness of your claim after looking through your entire intervention in this thread, which has been aimed from the beginning at derailing it by telling people how intellectually bankrupt and sectarian discussions (in general) about revisionism are, and therefore how pointless this specific thread is.

PhoenixAsh

11th April 2014, 05:52

Phoenix, when you have consistently said things like

So you admit that I have continuously been referring to the Trotsky vs Stalin debate. Thank you. The rest of your argument is thereby void and disqualified by your own assertion.

Your entire debate tactic hinges on purposeful misrepresentation and creating strawman arguments. Ignoring arguments and creating false flags. Where you even go so far as to ignore and deny the basic arguments of your own ideology.

I am glad you yourself now illustrated this by providing your own contradictory evidence to your claim and proved you are a dishonest debater.

PhoenixAsh

11th April 2014, 06:07

And "my intervention"? Are you fucking kidding me? My "intervention" in this thread would have consisted of all of 1 post had you not started this shit storm...which by the way I predicted you would do from the start.

THIS would have been my one and only post in this thread:

Isn't Leninism itself an pragmatic adaptation and interpretation of Marxism to suit the Russian situation?

As such Trotsky can be seen as revisionist in so far he rejected Leninism (as the pragmatic adaptation of Marxism) and Stalinism (as the practical implementation of Leninism).

And who cares really?

and because Trotskyists have a naturally ability to misunderstand "in so far as" when it suits their purposes and suddenly have no clue how the English language works we are now 5 pages further (amount depending on your page settings)...

So...."my intervention"??? This entire first post is the core of what I have been arguing.

This:

in so far he rejected Leninism (as the pragmatic adaptation of Marxism) and Stalinism (as the practical implementation of Leninism).

Is the basis and the core argumentation for and in the entire Stalin vs. Trotsky debate since 1920.

So yeah. "my intervention".

:rolleyes:

synthesis

11th April 2014, 06:34

I would never prattle of such garbage. I also never posted anything which could lead anyone to possibly infer that I meant to say it was a worker's state at any point in history.

You said that the DPRK "like some other previous Communist states, is a failed, illegitimate mode of production in the making" and can't be considered as having capitalist relations. The closest concept to this of which I am aware - that North Korea is anything other than straight-up capitalism - is that of the "deformed worker's state." Maybe you could actually expand on the distinction between that concept and your own views rather than just sidestepping it through affectedly harsh rhetoric.

Five Year Plan

11th April 2014, 16:28

So you admit that I have continuously been referring to the Trotsky vs Stalin debate. Thank you. The rest of your argument is thereby void and disqualified by your own assertion.

Your quote mentions debates about Stalin, Trotsky, and Lenin in general, not a specific historical debate that occurred at a specific moment in history (e.g., the debate between Stalin and Trotskyists in the Soviet Union in the 1920s). Your point being that such debates by definition are pointless and sectarian. My response has been that such debates in general might or might not be sectarian or pointless, depending on whether they are carried out in a principled and intellectually rigorous way, or whether they are carried out the way you have conducted yourself in this thread. This is just as I stated in a post I made in the last page of the thread:

One specific historical instance of an argument-from-orthodoxy may very well have been conducted in an unprincipled and dogmatically uncritical way. It doesn't mean that all such arguments are dogmatic, unprincipled, and uncritical. And it doesn't mean that people here are employing argument-from-orthodoxy in an unprincipled or uncritical way, despite your attempts to argue from first covering principles that they are.This point of mine was made in a clear and comprehensible way, yet in the portion of your post I quoted above, you deliberately misrepresented it. You hare hiding behind the ambiguity behind your usage of "the debate." Your usage clearly refers to a mode of debate in general, and is not circumscribed to a historically specific discussion that occurred between definite people at a definite time in the past. But when I decisively rebutted your argument about "revisionist" debates in general, you wanted to pretend you were referring to a specific historical instance of the debate. Now that I have provided a quote showing you were not referring to a specific historical instance, but rather to such debates in general, you are pretending that I am acknowledging that your reversal of position was valid, when in fact I am demonstrating just the opposite.

Please stop trolling the thread with constant reversals of position, blatant misrepresentations of what other people have said, deliberate tendency-baiting, false promises of adhering to canons of civil debate, and other similarly juvenile antics. We get it. You don't like Trotskyists because you think we are all responsible for your beloved political forebears being killed. You therefore have no low you won't sink below to try to "get" them. The problem with your Stalinist approach to heresy hunting "you Trotskyists," especially with your Stalinist penchant for arguing three contradictory sides of the same position whenever it suits your perceived standing in the discussion, is that you are hurting discussion in a forum you are supposed to be improving and setting an example for.

PhoenixAsh

11th April 2014, 21:45

Aufhebens distortions; lies and misrepresentation snipped away because they are getting quite tiresome and he needs to expand their repertoire

except for this one:

Now that I have provided a quote showing you were not referring to a specific historical instance, but rather to such debates in general, you are pretending that I am acknowledging that your reversal of position was valid, when in fact I am demonstrating just the opposite.

Are you really sure?

#8 my first post:

As such Trotsky can be seen as revisionist in so far he rejected Leninism (as the pragmatic adaptation of Marxism) and Stalinism (as the practical implementation of Leninism).

#15

"Marxist analysis was never Comrade Trotsky’s strong point (...) But the achievements of October have not yet been fully consummated. We must continue to work determinedly for their fulfillment. And here it would be dangerous and disastrous to deviate from the historically tested path of Leninism. And when such a comrade as Trotsky treads, even unconsciously, the path of revision of Leninism, then the Party must make a pronouncement." - Nadezhda Krupskaya, The Errors of Trotskyism 1925

^ Quote specifically referring to the revisionism debate. YOu know....that historic event you said I wasn't referring to

#22

#22 Therefore the question of whether or not Trotskyism is revisionist matters only in regards to the relative positions within a revisionist tendency tradition.

After I spoke about Marxism-Leninism being revisionist in its entirety. Which quite specifically indicates which debate I am actually referring to.

#22

The entire debate about the nature of Trotsky and the resulting Trotskyist over sensitivity to criticism of their dear precious leader and their eternal obsession over who the bigger and better Bolshevist was is all pretty obscene and a sign of political infantilism.

^ this is also a huge clue :rolleyes:

#25

I also like how Trotskyism was kicked out as not being Bolshevist by other self proclaimed Bolshevists. Apparently your status as Leninists is in dispute by other self proclaimed Leninists...who in turn are not considered Leninists by Trotskyists.

Wauw....again I am strangely referring to a specific debate you claim I haven't been referring to. Hmmm. :confused:

#29

However, as usual, the resident Trots are overly sensitive about the fact that the Bolshivist expelled Trotsky and still feel the need to vindicate and restore Trotsky as the legitimate successor to Leninism and felt the need to start an argument about how "Leninist" Trotsky was with me.

^ O my...there I am...referring to that specific historic event you claimed I wasn't referring to. Sjeez....guess you were really reading my posts :rolleyes:

#52

you are again proving my point that Trotskyists are still fighting battles that have never mattered and will never matter. And in doing so...whatever the outcome...means you are in fact a cult sect. This is not an insult but something you need to realize. The continuation of the '20's debates about the most legitimate form of Leninism are ENTIRELY useless outside of your little blood feud with Stalinists.

Sjeez for something I haven't been referring to, according to you, I have actually been referring to it an awful lot on the first two pages of this thread ;)

#52

Whether or not Trotsky was expelled from the Bolshevist faction matters extremely little because he was an active proponent of this policy and actively participated in enacting it. He differs no less in his anti-working class position than Stalin nor does he represent a more humane version of Bolshevism.

Agian..

#57

IF you had actually comprehended what was going on you would have seen that I have pretty much systematically argued the entire debate whether or not Trotsky was revisionist, reformist, Leninist is pretty much a useless rehash outside of ML circles. You performed splendidly in proving my point.

and again

#78

Trotsky is only reformist to the extend that he rejected Leninism. Which in turn means that if you do not think he rejected Leninism then he isn't reformist. But this issue is contended and Trotsky is not unequivocally seen as a Leninist.

and yet again...

#78

As I said...there is an unfortunate and sadly very pathetic obsession and need to position Trotskyism as close to Leninism as possible and still fight the battles you were fighting some odd 90 years ago and that hardly matter and shouldn't matter.

Really? Again? Yup..again....

#87

That said however, revisionism is not only the abandonment of (various principles of) Marxism but more the reinterpretation of (various principles of) Marxism away from its more traditional and orthodox interpretations. In the case of Trotsky however the interpretation of revisionism is its degree of deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

^ And here I am EXPLICITLY stating how I view the debate.

#87

Which of course led to the denunciation of Stalin(ism) as being revisionism by the LO and of course the eventual expulsion of Trotsky from the party for...tada...being a revisionist.

It is getting repetitive isn't it...me mentioning things you claim I haven't mentioned or referred to.

#90

The debate of who is more revisionist in the Trotsky vs Lenin vs Stalin boils down to a debate which colour marbles are best suited to win a soccer match.

Burn baby burn.

#92

That is twisting the point of this thread which is about the question whether or not Trotsky was revisionist. The counter question is: why should that question matter outside of sectarian intellectualism.

...

And we are only on page 3.

So basically we have established now you are in fact a dishonest debater who is purposefully misrepresenting my arguments.

Thank you...and good night.

You just lost any ounce of respect anybody not belonging to a Trotskyist faction may have had for you.

Five Year Plan

11th April 2014, 23:21

Phoenix, I don't know what else to say except that you are clearly so bent out of shape with blind sectarian rage that you aren't reading my posts. I clearly said that your primary argument in this thread was that debates about revisionism by definition are sectarian and intellectually bankrupt. I posted a quote where you indicated as much. After I refuted your claim, you tried to backpeddle by claiming that you were characterizing only one specific historical instance of a revisionism debate as sectarian, but not all debates invoking revisionism.

In my last post I responded by providing a quote showing that your characterizations of "the debate" over revisionism were not referring to a specific time-bound debate that took place between specific people in the past (even if you had mention specific debates elsewhere in the thread), but rather statements about the method underlying all debates that seek to establish or challenge the label of "revisionist."

Now you respond by claiming I am lying and misrepresenting you...by posting quotes where you yourself stake a position on whether Trotsky was a revisionist, where you quote somebody's else's opinion of Trotksy, and where you mention repeatedly that Trotsky was expelled. None of which points have anything whatsoever to do with the point I was making about your central contention in this thread, which is that debates about revisionism by definition are intellectually bankrupt, unprincipled and all the rest.

I am guessing you are thinking you can wear me down by sheer attrition with your penchant for trying to bury the main issue here with your smokescreen of tangential issues, accusations, and bait and switch. You can't. I am a highly disciplined individual. I took issue with your claim that debates about revisionism are "circle-jerks among dead ideologies," and similar statements. They might be like that sometimes, but they do not have to be by definition.

Which part of this argument would you like evidence for? That you made the statement that revisionist debates by definition are sectarian wastes of time? Or my counter-argument that they don't have to be. There is literally nothing else here for you to challenge, much less something that can be refuted by citing Trotsky's expulsion from the RCP or quoting Krupskaya.

As for respect from you, who cares? I am not interested in whether you like me, respect me, or have fallen in love with me. I have no interest in you whatsoever. My focus is on the discussion, and only the discussion. For you, though, you are on a vendetta against the men who killed your (political) fathers. It's all personal, and there's not a cheapshot, misrepresentation, or any other subterfuge you won't employ to get "us Trotskyists." Chill out. It's a web forum designed to exchange ideas in a principled fashion, not to assign life and death. The more you backpeddle and deflect, the more ridiculous you make yourself look. As a moderator, you should know that you have at least a little cultural capital on the forum. I have no doubt that your performance here is chipping away at it big time in the eyes of many of your peers here. But by all means, if you want to keep hitting the self-destruct button, I'm not going to stop you.

PhoenixAsh

11th April 2014, 23:35

Phoenix, I don't know what else to say

How about: "I am sorry."

You continuously and deliberately misrepresented my position. You have just been proven wrong. You were just completely and utterly discredited.

You STILL argue the position that was just completely and utterly refuted in the post above.

Now you respond by claiming I am lying and misrepresenting you...by posting quotes where you yourself stake a position on whether Trotsky was a revisionist, where you quote somebody's else's opinion of Trotksy, and where you mention repeatedly that Trotsky was expelled. None of which points have anything whatsoever to do with the point I was making about your central contention in this thread, which is that debates about revisionism by definition are intellectually bankrupt, unprincipled and all the rest.

So...basically what you are arguing is that you are completely devoid of any intelligence? Am I getting this right?

Every...EVERY...post I made about the subject has been referring to the debate between Stalinism and Trotskyism from the 1920's onward. Yet you remain to claim I somehow didn't.

I even quoted a post that DIRECTLY contradicts your assertion in which it was completely and utterly clear you were wrong.

But you still argue the point.

http://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/lenin-facepalm2.jpg?w=495

Dude...one pointer...give it up. You are no longer credible, especially, after that post. You are a laughing stock. You accuse me of dishonesty and when your entire point gets completely refuted you seriously re-argue it....sorry...doesn't fly. You're done.

PhoenixAsh

11th April 2014, 23:39

Even these guys are going:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTebwa8mj2UO_9lFb_DAcSUWacg-F4a2De7nJNyMt8JWXppALfp

we would have created better show trials than you

:laugh::rolleyes:

Five Year Plan

12th April 2014, 03:32

As you are quite skilled at trying to confuse and deflect attention away from the weakness of your ideas, it will be useful to provide a summary of the discussion as it has unfolded so far, minus all the smoke and mirrors you've tried to put up about your hurt feelings, whether you respect people, whether a Trotskyist has ever killed an anarchist, when Trotsky was expelled from the CPSU, etc..

The argument we are having here is whether arguments about revisionism are inherently sectarian and useless. You think they are, and I disagree.

We see you voicing the view that they are in this post, where you attack the idea that Trotsky's thought can be evaluated on the basis of how well it matches up to another set of ideas. To emphasize once more, it is the methodology of argument ("insisting that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard") you are attacking:

That is twisting the point of this thread which is about the question whether or not Trotsky was revisionist. The counter question is: why should that question matter outside of sectarian intellectualism.

This is the position I have been trying to convey to you Trotskyists. The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories.

Here we see you arguing once again that employing the analytical concept of revisionism is necessarily "sectarian""

No. I think the revisionism debate is sectarian and for it to be sectarian it matters little if it matters to Trotskyists, Stalinists or Marxist-Leninists. It is a circle jerk of a failed ideology from the start and doesn't solve any of the issues which were already present before this became an issue.

I responded by refuting your implication that measuring somebody's ideas up against another, presumably correct set of ideas, necessarily implies a non-principled or "sectarian" discussion:

You are assuming a divergence between measuring "the basis of an ideology's contents" and determining "deviation from other theories/ideologies."

What you are refusing to consider is that sometimes people might wish to adjudicate whether one set of theories or ideas deviates from another, precisely because that other set has already been established through a long process of principled political debate and critical thinking. In that case, the comparison (the debate over whether something is revisionist) is not at all a matter of unscientific leader-worship, and is instead a matter of using -isms as a short-hand for referring to principled political positions arrived at through critical consideration.

You then apparently backtracked, and suggested that you weren't calling all debates about revisionism sectarian, but only "certain" debates about revisionism that were being conducted on the basis of certain "standards of Orthodoxy" (e.g., by Stalinists who were trying to appropriate the legacy of Lenin's ideas):

Yes. How is this different from what I said: "The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard (to wit: Stalinist interpretation of Lenin) rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories. (ie: Stalinism; Leninist etc) "

I responded by pointing out, repeatedly and clearly, that you were not referring only to certain "revisionism" debates (those that utilize only a "certain" historically specific standard deployed by a specific person in a specific debate in the past) but rather all such debates that utilize *any* standard. Even if I misinterpreted what you said in your modified restatement as backtracking (which you have not demonstrated at all by clarifying what you mean with your modifications to your earlier quote), my original criticism still stands against your initial, non-backtracked claim.

You keep hurling accusations that I am misrepresenting you, but you have never, not once, quoted anything that I have said, and compared that to a quote of what you have said, in order to demonstrate any malicious (or otherwise) misinterpretaiton. Instead you've played the little game of never providing evidence or logic for any of your claims, while pretending you've "provided them earlier." Then, of course, when asked where these earlier claims are, you refuse to show them, because "you provided them earlier." And so on and so on, in a perfectly closed and circular system of hysterically vacuous nonsense.

PhoenixAsh

12th April 2014, 13:00

Dude,

You just got your ass kicked.

Give it up. Go home, Have a hot chocolate. Go cry in a corner. There is nothing here for you now. You have been utterly discredited.

As I have established clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the definition and bounds of how I saw the revisionism debate on page one in this thread. In almost every single post in this thread.

You continued to misinterpret, misrepresent and lie about it.

And now...you are just trying your level best to argue that I didn't by providing out of context quotes; false interpretations of quotes and by being entirely obsessive....and by somehow claiming you can read thoughts. Which is hilarious.

Next it will be aliens with you.

Fourth Internationalist

12th April 2014, 13:23

I've never seen a better use of two people's time than this. :glare:

Five Year Plan

12th April 2014, 15:39

You continued to misinterpret, misrepresent and lie about it.

And now...you are just trying your level best to argue that I didn't by providing out of context quotes; false interpretations of quotes and by being entirely obsessive....and by somehow claiming you can read thoughts. Which is hilarious.

To repeat my last paragraph from my last post: You keep hurling accusations that I am misrepresenting you, but you have never, not once, quoted anything that I have said, and compared that to a quote of what you have said, in order to demonstrate any malicious (or otherwise) misinterpretaiton. Instead you've played the little game of never providing evidence or logic for any of your claims, while pretending you've "provided them earlier." Then, of course, when asked where these earlier claims are, you refuse to show them, because "you provided them earlier." And so on and so on, in a perfectly closed and circular system of hysterically vacuous nonsense.

Thank you for providing a concrete example of this point in the very next post.

PhoenixAsh

12th April 2014, 15:41

I've never seen a better use of two people's time than this. :glare:

I don't know what you are talking about. "It is of vital life or death importance when somebody is supposedly wrong on the internet." And it needs to be debated until the last grain of truth has been brought to light...or until one of the participants dies of old age before the whole matter is resolved....so the other one can continue to gripe about it until their deaths.

PhoenixAsh

12th April 2014, 15:49

And we can see, you continue to make accusations, without providing a shred of evidence to substantiate them, in a lame effort to deflect attention away from an argument you know you are incapable of responding to. That self-destruct button you keep hitting must be wearing out by now.

Aufheben,

You do realize that you only started your approach on revisionism, in post #88 on page 3 (depending on number of posts displayed per page) right?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2738021&postcount=88

Which was a direct reply to this (#87) post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2738014&postcount=87

In which I specifically stated:

That said however, revisionism is not only the abandonment of (various principles of) Marxism but more the reinterpretation of (various principles of) Marxism away from its more traditional and orthodox interpretations. In the case of Trotsky however the interpretation of revisionism is its degree of deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

But in your reply you "conveniently" ignored most of the important parts which discredited your argument. After that you kept insisting that I was speaking in general terms about revisionism arguments. Regardless of the fact I kept arguing that line clearly and referred back to earlier posts in which I structurally did so.

I have already provided you with a huge array of quotes which show I have been referring to the 1920's and resulting "debates" from the start....waaaaaaay before you started arguing that line. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2738761&postcount=188)

Five Year Plan

12th April 2014, 16:01

Aufheben,

You do realize that you only started your approach on revisionism, in post #88 on page 3 (depending on number of posts displayed per page) right?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2738021&postcount=88

Which was a direct reply to this (#87) post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2738014&postcount=87

In which I specifically stated:

After that you kept insisting that I was speaking in general terms about revisionism arguments.

I have already provided you with a huge array of quotes which show I have been referring to the 1920's and resulting "debates" from the start....waaaaaaay before you started arguing that line.

You keep claiming my quotes are out of context misrepresentations of what you said, despite the fact that those quotes are clearly about "revisionism" debates in general as a method of debate.

As evidence that you were referring only to a specific subset of "revisionism" debates, you mention a quote of yours where you say "In the case of Trotsky however the interpretation of revisionism is its degree of deviation from Marxism-Leninism."

Ok, so you think all revision debates are sectarian wastes of time, and think that such debates, when they involve Trotsky, involve the degree to which he deviated from "Marxism-Leninism." These two things do not contradict each other at all, as it is perfectly possible to claim that all revisionism debates are sectarian wastes of time (as you did in quotes I have referenced) and that "sectarian" revisionism debates involving Trotsky/Trotskyism tend to focus on his perceived deviation from or faithfulness to Marx and Lenin (per your quote above).

You seem to think that if you can provide evidence that you mentioned a specific historical debate, that you have then disproved that you made more sweeping claims about revisionism debates. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case at all, and your own words are your worst enemy.

But at least you attempted to provide evidence in your last post, so this is a positive sign, even if your evidence doesn't substantiate any of the claims you are trying to make with it.

PhoenixAsh

12th April 2014, 16:59

Aufheben,

The only thing you have proved so far is your profound lack of understanding of context. If somebody frames their argument entirely withing the 1920's debates...every argument made on the subject has to be considered within that line of reasoning. So far you have defied all context and my continuous explanation of my arguments and adopted a childish, kindergarten methodology of debate. (http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50513_384677577951_476725_n.jpg)

You could of course quote out of the frame of context somebody is arguing in and maintain that they actually argued something else. But this would be named: straw man argument. If you don't understand what a Straw Man is...here is a nifty link which explains the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

Just to make it easy for you:

1. Person 1 has position X.
2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Which is what you have been doing.

When Trotsky(ism) is mentioned in the same sentence with revisionism we are not merely talking about a debate about how to interpret Marx. We are talking about a very specific debate: the feud between Stalin(ism) and Trotsky(ism). This has and will be a historic fact until one or both sides stop arguing the issue (which was mentioned by me on page 1 or 2). you seem to not be aware of this. You seem to be under the impression that when this situation happens we are talking about a discussion on how to interpret Marx. You are however wrong. For a quick example that this is the case: type in Trotsky and revisionism in google and analyse the links you will get back. The fast majority of these links will deal with either the specific feud between Stalin(ism) and Trotsky(ism) or will be a rehash/continuation of this feud. Of course you will also find some links which will refer to the intra-Trotskyist debate on Pabloism. Which in turn is used to fuel other links to provide yet another fundamental in the original 1920's debate.

This is how I have been arguing. And no amount of you telling me that my intent was different (you know...as if you could read minds) is going to change this simple fact which I have proved over and over and over again. Even Ice Pick/Inertia picked this up in post #18 so I am actually at quite a loss why the concept is so difficult for you to understand unless you were doing it on purpose.

You are simply making more of a fool out of yourself. Which is fine by me as I find this entire debate utterly entertaining and I am wondering what kind of fallacy, misinterpretation and misrepresentation you will come up with next.

Five Year Plan

12th April 2014, 23:37

Attempted and unsuccessful deflection

The fact that you have spent the majority of your time derailing and criticizing a discussion about whether a specific historical figure was or was or not revisionist doesn't alter the fact that you clearly argued against the very method of asking and debating the question in all contexts.

Hence we get, from you:

The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories.In the first, unbolded part, we see you weighing in on a historically specific debate, what you call "the context." The last, bolded part is you explaining the principle behind why you are taking the position you staked in your debate about Trotsky and revisionism. What is your stance? That the debate is pointless. Why? Because, as a debate over revisionism, it employs a methodology which measures ideologies "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies." It's not as though we would expect to see you follow up that bolded part by saying: "But it is possible to argue whether Lenin was a revisionist of Marx in a non-sectarian and principled way, because some debates over revisionism are a-okay!"

See how this is coming together yet? Probably not, since you are operating in a completely sealed intellectual environment where nothing comes in and nothing goes out. But I'll proceed for the sake of the lurkers. You have a general covering principle on "revisionism debates" that you are applying to this specific topic. Rather than ignoring what you call the context, it is possible to understand the supposed context only in light of the general principle you are applying, which is clearly spelled out in the bolded part of that quote of yours.

I have repeatedly argued that one can easily measure an ideology "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" while paying very close and principled attention to the contents of the ideologies being compared.

Instead of trying to refute my point, which would be an awfully difficult thing to do, you are trying weasel around it by claiming I am ignoring context and therefore misrepresenting your argument. You are trying to muddy the waters by making the debate about how the debate is being conducted, while throwing in a few irrelevant historical facts along the way, because you justifiably have no confidence in your ability to tackle my argument. But even there, you haven't provided a single compelling argument where I have misconstrued your meaning by taking something out of context. I've read your argument. It's clear what you're saying and why, and I think it's clear why it's wrong. I haven't misrepresented anything.

The riddle behind your involvement in this thread is easy to solve: you strongly dislike Trotskyists, and you viewed this thread as an opportunity to jump in and say nasty things about Trotsky and Trotskyists (see the lovely selection of quote I provided in post #161). Somewhere along the way, though, you slipped up and did articulate a political principle that I, as somebody who is interested in principled discussion, wanted to hammer out with you. But rather than have that discussion, you are doing everything possible to drag it back to your unprincipled personalism and mud-slinging. Fine behavior from a forum moderator!

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 00:22

sigh.

Ok. Well you seem to be very tenacious in proving my point that you are arguing straw men, red herrings an other dishonest debate tactics.

Hence we get, from you:

In the first, unbolded part, we see you weighing in on a historically specific debate, what you call "the context." The last, bolded part is you explaining the principle behind why you are taking the position you staked in your debate about Trotsky and revisionism. What is your stance? That the debate is pointless. Why? Because, as a debate over revisionism, it employs a methodology which measures ideologies "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies."

You seem to clearly lack the understanding principle that: Trotskyists consider themselves Leninists. Stalinists consider themselves Leninists. Both claim the other isn't Leninist. And then there are some Leninists that claim neither are in fact Leninists. Plus of course we have the small matter of the vast majority of Bolsheviks declaring Trotsky non Bolshevik and denouncing Trotskyism as incompatible with Bolshevism. While ate the same time Trotskyism is arguing that those Bolsheviks in fact weren't Bolsheviks.

You know. Like I was arguing all the time. How is what you quote anything different :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It's not as though we would expect to see you follow up that bolded part by saying: "But it is possible to argue whether Lenin was a revisionist of Marx in a non-sectarian and principled way, because some debates over revisionism are a-okay!"

Why would I argue that? Lenin is a revisionist. That is something I clearly stated from post 1. But the debate of whether or not Trotsky is a revisionist is an intra ML "debate". I don't see the need to argue or admit something that isn't part of my argument.

See how this is coming together yet? Probably not, since you are operating in a completely sealed intellectual environment where nothing comes in and nothing goes out.
But I'll proceed for the sake of the lurkers. You have a general covering principle on "revisionism debates" that you are applying to this specific topic. Rather than ignoring what you call the context, it is possible to understand the supposed context only in light of the general principle you are applying, which is clearly spelled out in the bolded part of that quote of yours.[/quote]

Which is out of context. Like most of your straw man arguments. Thank you for proving my point.

I have repeatedly argued that one can easily measure an ideology "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" while paying very close and principled attention to the contents of the ideologies being compared.

Yes I know. You have been arguing this against me. This was incredibly funny because it didn't address my point at all. It was like I was talking about a car and your counter argument would be: "yes but carriages". I have been trying to point this out to you and you have consistently been ignoring it. I am not going to address your straw man arguments and I know it infuriates you.

I have repeatedly and consistently argued the same line. I have explained it again and again to you and I have corrected you repeatedly. And still you insist on forcing me to "admit" to misinterpretation of what I actually argued.

Instead of trying to refute my point, which would be an awfully difficult thing to do

see above.

you are trying weasel around it by claiming I am ignoring context and therefore misrepresenting your argument.

Not weaseling. I have consistently called you out on your obvious lies.

You are trying to muddy the waters by making the debate about how the debate is being conducted,

Eh....no...actually you have got that backwards. You are doing exactly that.

while throwing in a few irrelevant historical facts along the way, because you justifiably have no confidence in your ability to tackle my argument. But even there, you haven't provided a single compelling argument where I have misconstrued your meaning by taking something out of context. I've read your argument. It's clear what you're saying and why, and I think it's clear why it's wrong. I haven't misrepresented anything.

So me basically stating from post one that I was considering this entire issue of revisionism to be a continuation of the 1920 feud 70 posts before you even brought up the issue of revisionism is irrelevant.

Yess...yess...I can clearly see how this helps your case of how you are not entirely construing your argument on straw man.

:rolleyes:

The riddle behind this thread is obvious to see: you strongly dislike Trotskyists, and you viewed this thread as an opportunity to jump in and say nasty things about Trotsky and Trotskyists (see the lovely selection of quote I provided in post #161). Somewhere along the way, though, you slipped up and did articulate a political principle that, I as somebody who is interested in principled discussion, wanted to hammer out with you.

O boehoehoe....somebody said nasty things about Trotsky and Trotskyism. :crying:

Sjezus.

Just as a quick reminder. You guys attacked me. I made a kind post about Trotskyism and you couldn't understand it. You guys drew me into this thread rehashing your total emotional insecurity about your political infantile ideology because you got kicked out of the Bolshevik party for being counter revolutionary elements incompatible with Leninism. And I obliged. Of all ML-factions...Trotskyists are the ones most vulnerable to splits based on personal issues. There is a reason for that.

But I don't dislike Trotskyists. Some of them are ok. You know....the ones who do not regard their ideology as being totally depended on being seen as the only correct form of Leninism and legitimize their ideology based on debate and analysis rather than on rehashing old feuds over, and over, and over again.

Tink is a Trotskyist and I sure as hell like her.

I answered your challenge in post #92:

That is twisting the point of this thread which is about the question whether or not Trotsky was revisionist. The counter question is: why should that question matter outside of sectarian intellectualism.

Obviously when somebody is arguing the point that it is a useless debate on whether or not Trotsky is revisionist he/she isn't interested in making an indepth analysis of why Trotskyism would be revisionist.

Amazing that this cheap shot post can accumulate so many thanks when the "Trotskyist" take on the degeneration of the October Revolution can easily be understood by reading The Revolution Betrayed. Guess what Trotsky's argument there was. It was that the degeneration of revolutionary leadership was the product of material circumstances outside of the control of any "great leader." These material circumstances were the isolation of the revolution in a single country, and a relatively backward one at that. This is why he called for a "political revolution of the masses," in hopes of stirring international revolution, and did not support some kind of conspiratorial coup. But actually understanding Trotskyism is so much more difficult than making lazy cheap shots on revleft, isn't it?

Yes yes. He advocated that the deformed worker state could be totally saved if only it was Trotskyists leading it instead of Stalinists....but please do not touch the mode of production...and the economic ownership of the vanguard. Because...fuck those workers...lets only have a political revolution. THAT is what Trotsky meant by his "political revolution of the masses". As if the oppression and failure of the revolution had no basis in the economic relations. :rolleyes:

Dagoth Ur

13th April 2014, 00:45

The mature consensus of communist is that Trotsky, while flawed, was a great communist. And at the same time Trotskyists are the worst communists. I used to be a trotskyist myself until I realized they had nothing to offer but the works of Trotsky in a cult-like atmosphere. It's honestly creepy.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 00:46

Phoenix, I explained the rationale behind your participation in this thread. I didn't say it hurt my feelings. As I said earlier, I've been called a lost worse than the things hurled at "you Trotskyists" by you and others in this thread, and by people who actually mean a lot to me in real life (though usually these insults were followed by apologies and make-up...well, you get the idea). The snide remarks and cheap-shots that proliferate on revleft don't interest me all that much, except as a nuisance that gets in the way of principled conversation.

You keep saying that I am misrepresenting the one argument I am attributing to you, which is that any debate that transpires "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" is sectarian and pointless by definition.

So my response to this accusation will help resolve things very simply. If I am misrepresenting your argument, provide an example of a conversation that you would approve of that proceeds on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies." If I am incorrect in positing that you are characterizing all such conversations with your quote, this shouldn't be a difficult task at all.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 00:59

Phoenix, I explained the rationale behind your participation in this thread. I didn't say it hurt my feelings. As I said earlier, I've been called a lost worse than the things hurled at "you Trotskyists" by you and others in this thread. It really doesn't interest me all that much, except as a nuisance that gets in the way of principled conversation.

Except it wasn't the rationale behind my participation. The rational behind my initial participation in this thread was stating that whether Trotskyism is revisionist or not doesn't matter for the evaluation of the ideology and it should be analyzed in its own merit.

This should help answer your second question later on in this post.

You keep saying that I am misrepresenting the one argument I am attributing to you, which is that any debate that transpires "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" is a sectarian and pointless by definition.

Yes. As I have explained in the post above and which should have been obvious from the framing of my entire argument preceding this comment I was indicating the intra ML debate and included all the options.

To reiterate:

Stalinism is not considered real Leninism/Bolshevism by Trotsky. Totsky is not considered real Leninism/Bolshevism by Stalinists. And some Leninists don't consider either to be Leninists/Bolshevists.

So that is how that statement should be interpreted.

So my response to this accusation will help resolve things very simply. If I am misrepresenting your argument, provide an example of a conversation that you would approve of that proceeds on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies." If I am incorrect in positing that you are characterizing all such conversations with your quote, this shouldn't be a difficult task at all.

Any debate that is not based on the solid foundation in accusational feuding over power positions devoid of any analysis and based on the assumption that the ideology compared to is flawless dogmatism and correct without any falsification would probably be fine by me.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 01:01

Phoenix, I asked you to "provide an example of a conversation that you would approve of that proceeds on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas 'on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies.'"

Are you not able to provide one? Mentioning the details of whether Stalinists think Trotskyists are Leninists is all besides the point, which is your position, not what Trotkyists or Stalinists think.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 01:15

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 01:17

I don't seem to understand your question if my answer wasn't good enough.

Nor do I seem to understand how this question matters in the current debate...as it seems you are still trying to push your point that somehow this mysterious new direction you are taking would suddenly explain your continuous misrepresentations.

You claimed that I was incorrect in attributing to you the view that all debates are sectarian which proceed on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies."

If I am wrong to attribute to you that view, provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies."

If you can't, I see no compelling reason to believe I unwittingly misinterpreted (or as you would say, deliberately misconstrued) what you said.

In fact...are you now denying Trotskyists and Stalinists deny each other being real Boslheviks and Trotsky and Trotskyism being denounced as not being compatible with Bolshevism?Actually, what I wrote was "Mentioning the details of whether Stalinists think Trotskyists are Leninists is all besides the point." How you read that as potentially "denying Trotskyists and Stalinists deny each other" is mystifying to me, but totally in keeping with my theory that you'd say anything, no matter how baseless or untrue, just to come up with an excuse to say negative things about "you Trotskyists."

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 01:22

You claimed that I was incorrect in attributing to you the view that all debates are sectarian which proceed on the basis of measuring an ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies."

If I am wrong to attribute to you that view, provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of measuring an ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies."

If you can't, I see no compelling reason to believe I unwittingly misinterpreted (or as you would say, deliberately misconstrued) what you said.

Aha. So basically you are now just going to want me to name a specific instance of such a debate I would approve of? In order to prove what I have been explaining to you during this entire debate something which has been consistently argued from post one and you made up somewhere around post #88 on the basis of one out of context and misinterpreted, misrepresented argument.

So before I start playing this incredibly stupid game.

How exactly does naming this specific debate prove or disprove your point?

Did you think this through?

Because I already answered this more or less. But still. I'd like to know the answer to my question first.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 01:26

Actually, what I wrote was "Mentioning the details of whether Stalinists think Trotskyists are Leninists is all besides the point." How you read that as "denying Trotskyists and Stalinists deny each other" is mystifying to me, but totally in keeping with my theory that you'd say anything, no matter how baseless or untrue, just to come up with an excuse to say negative things about "you Trotskyists."

Aha. I now see how you meant that sentence.

No I think you are absolutely right in asserting that that is not how Stalinists and Trotskyists think. They have been at it for over 90 years since the 1920's and it has been incredibly helpful for the revolutionary cause and really brought the working class together.

This kind of has been the central focus of my arguments. And why exactly I called this debate sectarian. The entire conflict is dishonest, unscientific, and basically useless infighting because neither side is going to convince the other side at all. So it is useless intellectualism.

I am sure we have been over this before.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 01:29

Aha. I now see how you meant that sentence.

No I think you are absolutely right in asserting that that is not how Stalinists and Trotskyists think. They have been at it for over 90 years since the 1920's and it has been incredibly helpful for the revolutionary cause and really brought the working class together.

This kind of has been the central focus of my arguments. And why exactly I called this debate sectarian. The entire conflict is dishonest, unscientific, and basically useless infighting because neither side is going to convince the other side at all. So it is useless intellectualism.

I am sure we have been over this before.

I will ask for the third time: can you provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies"?

You keep wanting to talk about what Trotskyists and Stalinists think. That's all irrelevant to the topic we are discussing, which is your claim that I have misreprestented your position. The only position of mine that is relevant here is what I am asserting your position is, not what I might or might not say about Trotskyists and Stalinists after we establish your position in a way we both can agree on.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 01:41

I will ask for the third time: can you provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies"?

You keep wanting to talk about what Trotskyists and Stalinists think. That's all irrelevant to the topic we are discussing, which is your claim that I have misreprestented your position. The only position of mine that is relevant here is what I am asserting your position is, not what I might or might not say about Trotskyists and Stalinists after we establish your position in a way we both can agree on.

Look to the post above the one you quoted.

To add to that one:

...we don't have to agree on establishing my position. I am perfectly aware of my position. It is you who seems to have trouble with it and wants to believe something contrary to what I have been consistently arguing.

So answer the question:

How would naming a specific event validly prove or disprove your point?

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 01:49

Look to the post above the one you quoted.

To add to that one:

...we don't have to agree on establishing my position. I am perfectly aware of my position. It is you who seems to have trouble with it and wants to believe something contrary to what I have been consistently arguing.

So answer the question:

How would naming a specific event validly prove or disprove your point?

You claim I have consistently been misrepresenting your position, then when I ask a very simple question that can establish whether that is the case, you claim that establishing your position doesn't matter because "we don't have to agree on establishing my position." Hilarious! I am beginning to wonder whether you know what it is you are actually arguing in this thread, apart from "Trotskyists are evil!" You just keep switching arguments and goal posts and doing whatever it takes not to have to explicitly take a principled position.

If your position is irrelevant, I don't want to see another peep from you about how I am straw-manning you or misrepresenting your position. If your position about "revisionism" debates is relevant, then I will ask my question for the fourth time: can you provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies"?

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 02:03

You claim I have consistently been misrepresenting your position, then when I ask a very simple question that can establish whether that is the case, you claim that establishing your position doesn't matter because "we don't have to agree on establishing my position." Hilarious! I am beginning to wonder whether you know what it is you are actually arguing in this thread, apart from "Trotskyists are evil!" You just keep switching arguments and goal posts and doing whatever it takes not to have to explicitly take a principled position.

If your position is irrelevant, I don't want to see another peep from you about how I am straw-manning you or misrepresenting your position. If your position about "revisionism" debates is relevant, then I will ask my question for the fourth time: can you provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies"?

You are not answering the question and actually are the one shifting goal posts by proceeding to press the point that I am arguing revisionism debates are irrelevant.

However...I did not express an opinion on revisionism debates anywhere in this thread besides on the specific revisionism debate we both agreed on was not a debate and mere accusations between Stalinists and Trotskyists. So you already shifted the goal post in pressing your point contrary to mine as some form of proof that I haven't been arguing what I say I am arguing.

You now want me to name a specific instance of a revisionism debate I do not think is stupid to somehow validate my position, which I have been consistently arguing for the entirety of this thread, as if this somehow validates my position.

I want to know how you think it validates that position.

Furthermore I already answered your question with a general set of principles on when such a debate would be legitimate.... but you deemed it not good enough because it lacked specifics according to you.

So this further begs the question how naming a specific debate would validate my position.

And to enlighten you on how you have been continuously been misrepresenting me:

we establish your position in a way we both can agree on.

Which you now adapted to read:

you claim that establishing your position doesn't matter because "we don't have to agree on establishing my position."

This again is a straw man argument. You want me to validate my position on a way we both agree on....after you have continuously ignored me arguing that very position and explaining it to you just because you refuse to believe me.

motion denied

13th April 2014, 02:08

Is this now a debate about debating?

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 02:16

Is this now a debate about debating?

It seems to be...

MEGAMANTROTSKY

13th April 2014, 04:34

Yes yes. He advocated that the deformed worker state could be totally saved if only it was Trotskyists leading it instead of Stalinists....but please do not touch the mode of production...and the economic ownership of the vanguard. Because...fuck those workers...lets only have a political revolution. THAT is what Trotsky meant by his "political revolution of the masses". As if the oppression and failure of the revolution had no basis in the economic relations. :rolleyes:

You mean the degenerated worker's state? The concept of the deformed worker's state does not belong to Trotsky. If you're going to drag him through the mud, at least do it with the slightest understanding of his ideas.

The mature consensus of communist is that Trotsky, while flawed, was a great communist. And at the same time Trotskyists are the worst communists. I used to be a trotskyist myself until I realized they had nothing to offer but the works of Trotsky in a cult-like atmosphere. It's honestly creepy.

Yes, it is truly creepy and cultish to read the works that form the basis of your political tendency. The horror...the horror!

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 05:03

I will ask you once more, for the fifth time, PhoenixAsh. Clarify here and now whether I am misrepresenting your position.

Can you provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies"?

You claim I am misrepresenting you on this very point, yet you refuse to answer questions relating to it. Curious.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 05:07

You mean the degenerated worker's state? The concept of the deformed worker's state does not belong to Trotsky. If you're going to drag him through the mud, at least do it with the slightest understanding of his ideas.

It does however belong to Trotskyism. So if you are going to pick an argument at least do it knowing about your political tendency.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

13th April 2014, 05:12

It does however belong to Trotskyism. So if you are going to pick an argument at least do it knowing about your political tendency.
Re-read my post, PA. I was calling you out because you were falsely attributing it to Trotsky himself. Whether I believe it's part of "Trotskyism" or not is irrelevant to how careless and lazy your error was.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 05:16

I will ask you once more, for the fifth time, PhoenixAsh. Clarify here and now whether I am misrepresenting your position.

And I will ask you once more, again, how does providing you with a specific instance of a debate I do not think is stupid or sectarian provide any evidence to prove my argument which had nothing to do with the assertion your are pitting against me in the first place?

Can you provide an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies"

Again. How would this validate my position on this thread and the pertaining question of whether or not I have been referring to the Stalin vs Trotsky feud.

Because I am not seeing that.

You claim I am misrepresenting you on this very point, yet you refuse to answer questions relating to it. Curious.

Yes you have. And your question is not going to invalidate that because they are not related.

There is no correlation to your assertion that I was arguing revisionism debates in general rather than, as I have consistently proven and provided evidence of, the Stalin vs Trotsky sectarian feud and the answer to the question whether or not I will name a specific (not the characteristics mind you) of a debate which I do not think are sectarian.

So answer my question and I will answer yours.

But it is actually curious that you haven't done so. The main reason is that you can't answer the question because you know as well as I know that you are straw manning yet again.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 05:24

Re-read my post, PA. I was calling you out because you were falsely attributing it to Trotsky himself. Whether I believe it's part of "Trotskyism" or not is irrelevant to how careless and lazy your error was.

Fine. You are right. I made a stupid mistake. Posts made at 2 am can contain slight errors. Slight errors which are of course only of mayor importance to Trotskyist phrase mongering to warrant "calling out". So yes. I made that error.

The fact however remains that the interchangeability of degenerated and deformed worker states when it comes to the Trotskyist solution to them is 100%. And this main point that you did not contest is that the ONLY change the Trotskyists apparently saw necessary to repair them is to change political leadership and not the mode of production of the ownership of production factors.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 05:31

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 05:52

Phoenix, you keep trying to bring up Stalin and Trotsky. They are irrelevant to this stage of the conversation. Your claim has routinely been that I am misrepresenting your position when I state that your position is that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian.

If that is, indeed, false, and I am misrepresenting your position, provide me an example of a debate, that you would approve of, that proceeds on the basis of determining the quality of an ideology/idea by measuring that ideology's "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies."

You haven't answered this very simple question the previous four times I have asked it because you cannot provide an example of where you would approve of such a conversation. Why? Because you have argued that such conversations are, by definition, sectarian.

Yet when I state that this is your claim, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. Very curious. The conversation will not proceed until you establish how I have misrepresented you on this matter.

I have shown how you misrepresented me on this issue here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2738761&postcount=188). Your claim that I somehow mysteriously didn't consistently argue a specific historic debate hinges on your complete denial of this and your complete refusal to accept any explanation after your post #88.

Now you are asininely arguing that by naming a specific debate I approve I can somehow prove your assertion, which has already been disproved, is false.

Logically however there is no connection between me mentioning a specific debate which I approve of and your assertion that I have been arguing all debates of revisionism are sectarian in this thread. The interconnection just isn't there.

But to answer your question so you can move on: I am not completely disapproving of the Bernstein and Kautsky debates.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 05:58

MEGAMANTROTSKY

13th April 2014, 05:59

Fine. You are right. I made a stupid mistake. Posts made at 2 am can contain slight errors. Slight errors which are of course only of mayor importance to Trotskyist phrase mongering to warrant "calling out". So yes. I made that error.
It was more than a slight error, if you knew anything about those theories at all. My statement was clearly referring to Trotsky the man, and not Trotskyism. And you have the gall to accuse me of phrase-mongering? You're unbelievable.

The fact however remains that the interchangeability of degenerated and deformed worker states when it comes to the Trotskyist solution to them is 100%. And this main point that you did not contest is that the ONLY change the Trotskyists apparently saw necessary to repair them is to change political leadership and not the mode of production of the ownership of production factors.
Whatever, dude. I was interested in an error of empirical fact that shows your general ignorance of Trotskyism, not a theoretical debate. I've already seen how those end with you.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 06:10

It was more than a slight error, if you knew anything about those theories at all. My statement was clearly referring to Trotsky the man, and not Trotskyism. And you have the gall to accuse me of phrase-mongering? You're unbelievable.

Whatever, dude. I was interested in an error of empirical fact that shows your general ignorance of Trotskyism, not a theoretical debate. I've already seen how those end with you.

Sure whatever dude. Concept remains the same.

Trotsky and Trotskyism is still only concerned with usurping political leadership from one faction to the other in order to solve some imagined political problem with the consolidation into a political elite instead of solving a deep economic failure resulting from usurping political power at the expense of the class.

But I am sure the use of one of the wrong phrases you guys invented to ignore this economic flaw is more important than that.

You do realize though that degenrated worker state is contested within Trotksyism itself don't you? Which adds to the fun of your tendency being a complete shambles.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 06:12

Phoenix, let's settle this once and for all.

Am I misrepresenting you when I say your position is that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian?

Yes or no?

What do you think? :rolleyes: Didn't I just answer your question? According to your game that in itself totally invalidated your argument.

I don't see how exactly. But apparently my ability to name a revisionism debate I don't disapprove of (which by the way I already did on page one...but you have been reading all my posts so you know this) somehow proves I have been arguing a specific historical debate (obvious by the way to some of your tendency comrades on page 1) throughout the thread. Which I proved to you in post #188 and explained structurally to you after your initial post on the subject #88. But which you simply refused to believe on the basis of one misinterpreted quote.

:rolleyes:

MEGAMANTROTSKY

13th April 2014, 06:47

Sure whatever dude. Concept remains the same.
No, they aren't the same at all. A degenerated worker's state is only possible on the condition that revolution was actually carried out by the working class, while the deformed worker's state relies exclusively on a "progressive" strata of the petty-bourgeoisie to carry out the revolution with no involvement from the working class. It was Michel Pablo who created the latter theory, from whom the Fourth International broke in 1953 on the basis that the latter theory was nothing but a bourgeois capitulation to Stalinism, with Trotskyists acting as nothing more than cheerleaders on the sidelines. It is a liquidationist perspective that should be opposed.

These concepts of the worker's state came to a head when they became a major point of contention during the Cuban revolution. Joseph Hansen, arguing for the "deformed" concept, made the absurd argument that Cuba was a worker's state simply because it looked like one, refusing to actually analyze the movement of class forces inside Cuba itself. Because of this and many other reasons, I don't consider the deformed worker's state a Trotskyist concept (or even a Marxist concept), though I acknowledge that there are probably some who will defend it.

Trotsky and Trotskyism is still only concerned with usurping political leadership from one faction to the other in order to solve some imagined political problem with the consolidation into a political elite instead of solving a deep economic failure resulting from usurping political power at the expense of the class.

But I am sure the use of one of the wrong phrases you guys invented to ignore this economic flaw is more important than that.
This statement is rather odd to me. You are framing Trotskyism as if it engages in Bonapartism, when the actual Bonapartist figure in the Russian revolution was Stalin.

You do realize though that degenrated worker state is contested within Trotksyism itself don't you? Which adds to the fun of your tendency being a complete shambles.
I don't see why this is a problem, really. It wouldn't do if Trotsky's ideas ruled by fiat, for he was capable of being wrong. Furthermore, even if Trotsky's categories prove to be inadequate, they would not simply be tossed aside but would instead be integrated into a more comprehensive theory, while retaining the positive content of the ideas being transcended; a negation of the negation, in other words. This is entirely in line with Trotsky's philosophical method. He was very adamant about the inclusion of the dialectic, precisely for party members to guard themselves against ossified prejudices.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 07:13

No, they aren't the same at all. A degenerated worker's state is only possible on the condition that revolution was actually carried out by the working class, while the deformed worker's state relies exclusively on a "progressive" strata of the petty-bourgeoisie to carry out the revolution with no involvement from the working class. It was Michel Pablo who created the latter theory, from whom the Fourth International broke in 1953 on the basis that the latter theory was nothing but a bourgeois capitulation to Stalinism, with Trotskyists acting as nothing more than cheerleaders on the sidelines. It is a liquidationist perspective that should be opposed.

These concepts of the worker's state came to a head when they became a major point of contention during the Cuban revolution. Joseph Hansen, arguing for the "deformed" concept, made the absurd argument that Cuba was a worker's state simply because it looked like one, refusing to actually analyze the movement of class forces inside Cuba itself. Because of this and many other reasons, I don't consider the deformed worker's state a Trotskyist concept (or even a Marxist concept), though I acknowledge that there are probably some who will defend it.

The concept I was referring to is the solution to both of them from the Trotskyist perspective is a political revolution. Maybe concept was the wrong choice of words.

This statement is rather odd to me. You are framing Trotskyism as if it engages in Bonapartism, when the actual Bonapartist figure in the Russian revolution was Stalin.

I believe proletarian bonapartism is another Trotskyist term for the USSR and that this analysis is widely disputed with Trotskysim itself as the Stalin bureaucracy failed to collapse and even expanded.

I also believe however is that if the debates in 1920 had gone the other way it would have simply means a different political elite running the country with the exact mode of production and economic ownership of production. I don't think Trotsky would have presented another face of Bolshevism.

I don't see why this is a problem, really. It wouldn't do if Trotsky's ideas ruled by fiat, for he was capable of being wrong. Furthermore, even if Trotsky's categories prove to be inadequate, they would not simply be tossed aside but would instead be integrated into a more comprehensive theory, while retaining the positive content of the ideas being transcended; a negation of the negation, in other words. This is entirely in line with Trotsky's philosophical method. He was very adamant about the inclusion of the dialectic, precisely for party members to guard themselves against ossified prejudices.

It isn't but it is interesting that there is discontention within the tendency about aspects of the tendency itself. This is strange in the light with the obsession with how the tendency is perceived in respect to adherence to Leninism.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

13th April 2014, 15:39

The concept I was referring to is the solution to both of them from the Trotskyist perspective is a political revolution. Maybe concept was the wrong choice of words.
Trotsky's concept of political revolution was never intended to be an eternal solution to the problem of a degenerated worker's state; once again you demonstrate your ignorance of his actual philosophical method, and how knowledge develops in general. The political revolution, which refers to the deposing of the Stalinists by the proletariat was, at a specific point in history, a possible solution to the problem. But this solution was conditional, and was based off the assumption that, in Trotsky's words (Taken from "Revolution Betrayed"),

The October revolution has been betrayed by the ruling stratum, but not yet overthrown.
So the question is, "When, if ever, was October overthrown"? The answer lies in the contradictory nature of the Soviet state: On the one hand,

The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive sphere [in property relations] would mean its conversion into a new possessing class.
But on the other, Stalinism's need of the organic link to October had become a counteracting influence to this tendency. This led Trotsky to conclude that

The Soviet Union is a contradictory society halfway between capitalism and socialism...
which lacked a finished character at that time. For that reason, Trotsky insisted that his hypothesis was not at all categorical and denigrated the "doctrinaires" for

...throw[ing] out of reality, for the sake of logical completeness, elements which today violate your scheme and tomorrow may wholly overturn it.
In my opinion, the purges of the 1930s did precisely that; it eliminated the Bolsheviks, and with it the last remaining link of the CPSU with October. It is here that I tend to agree with the LRP against Trotsky, that the Stalinist counter-revolution had succeeded in restoring capitalism. But that's for another time. The point of my explanation here is to show that your appraisal of Trotsky's concepts entirely runs counter to what he actually wrote and said; in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and are grasping at straws in order to compensate for an addiction to a vacuous philosophical method, that of intuition and stupidity.

I believe proletarian bonapartism is another Trotskyist term for the USSR and that this analysis is widely disputed with Trotskysim itself as the Stalin bureaucracy failed to collapse and even expanded.
To be specific, proletarian bonapartism is a concept developed by Ted Grant, which held that the Stalinists were indirect representatives of the working class and were thus given an ideological blank check to muck about eastern Europe and impose "socialist" revolutions. This means that Grant's theory is entirely dependent on the revolution "expanding". Again, we see that you have no idea of what you're talking about. And since this is of a piece of Pablo's theory of the deformed worker's state, I do not regard it as a Trotskyist or a Marxist concept on the basis that it exalts a petty-bourgeois strata to carry out revolutionary tasks in place of the workers.

I also believe however is that if the debates in 1920 had gone the other way it would have simply means a different political elite running the country with the exact mode of production and economic ownership of production. I don't think Trotsky would have presented another face of Bolshevism.
You're certainly free to think that. But since it has been shown that your grasp of Trotskyism's history and ideas is incredibly shaky (*cough* downright idiotic *cough*), I would advise you to take a step back and re-examine your logic, to the extent that you use logic at all in your gendarme-like pronouncements.
It isn't but it is interesting that there is discontention within the tendency about aspects of the tendency itself. This is strange in the light with the obsession with how the tendency is perceived in respect to adherence to Leninism.
Before, you were saying that Trotskyism's inability to agree on concepts was a sign of how pathetic the tendency was. Now you're saying it's interesting? Is it now interestingly pathetic? Nice bit of sleight of hand, which is very characteristic of your argument method in general. If you have to try this crap with me, it might be a solid indication that you should pack it in.

As for Trotskyism being a continuation of of Lenin's legacy, I have nothing to say. You've been defeated on that ideological point pretty thoroughly.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 15:52

What do you think? :rolleyes: Didn't I just answer your question? According to your game that in itself totally invalidated your argument.

I don't see how exactly. But apparently my ability to name a revisionism debate I don't disapprove of (which by the way I already did on page one...but you have been reading all my posts so you know this) somehow proves I have been arguing a specific historical debate (obvious by the way to some of your tendency comrades on page 1) throughout the thread. Which I proved to you in post #188 and explained structurally to you after your initial post on the subject #88. But which you simply refused to believe on the basis of one misinterpreted quote.

:rolleyes:

Stop dodging the question, Phoenix. Am I misrepresenting you when I say you think that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian? Yes or no? You ask me what I think, but when I say what I think, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. So here I am being fair and allowing you to clarify your view one way or the other. Is it a view you have or isn't it?

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 16:54

Trotsky's concept of political revolution was never intended to be an eternal solution to the problem of a degenerated worker's state; once again you demonstrate your ignorance of his actual philosophical method, and how knowledge develops in general. The political revolution, which refers to the deposing of the Stalinists by the proletariat was, at a specific point in history, a possible solution to the problem. But this solution was conditional, and was based off the assumption that, in Trotsky's words (Taken from "Revolution Betrayed"),

So the question is, "When, if ever, was October overthrown"? The answer lies in the contradictory nature of the Soviet state: On the one hand,

But on the other, Stalinism's need of the organic link to October had become a counteracting influence to this tendency. This led Trotsky to conclude that

which lacked a finished character at that time. For that reason, Trotsky insisted that his hypothesis was not at all categorical and denigrated the "doctrinaires" for

In my opinion, the purges of the 1930s did precisely that; it eliminated the Bolsheviks, and with it the last remaining link of the CPSU with October. It is here that I tend to agree with the LRP against Trotsky, that the Stalinist counter-revolution had succeeded in restoring capitalism. But that's for another time. The point of my explanation here is to show that your appraisal of Trotsky's concepts entirely runs counter to what he actually wrote and said; in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and are grasping at straws in order to compensate for an addiction to a vacuous philosophical method, that of intuition and stupidity.]

Yes except of course Trotsky continued advocating a political revolution even after the purges. Which of course kind of refutes your little tirade here.

In 1938 (AFTER the show trials and the purge had been concluded) Trotsky completely validated your analysis (which; make note of this; I do absolutely not contest at all) but...not your conclusion. He wrote:

The political revolution in the USSR is inevitable. It will signify the liberation of the elements of the new society from the yoke of the usurping bureaucracy. Only if this condition is given will the USSR be able to develop in the direction of Socialism.

So even after all what you said occurred. All that acknowledged by Trotsky, which I do not dispute, he STILL advocated political revolution as the solution to these problems.

So basically you are wrong...and I do know and understand what I am talking about.

Sorry. But no cigar for you.

To be specific, proletarian bonapartism is a concept developed by Ted Grant, which held that the Stalinists were indirect representatives of the working class and were thus given an ideological blank check to muck about eastern Europe and impose "socialist" revolutions. This means that Grant's theory is entirely dependent on the revolution "expanding". Again, we see that you have no idea of what you're talking about. And since this is of a piece of Pablo's theory of the deformed worker's state, I do not regard it as a Trotskyist or a Marxist concept on the basis that it exalts a petty-bourgeois strata to carry out revolutionary tasks in place of the workers.

This could very well be. I am not entirely familiar with the concept of proletarian bonapartism nor am I familiar with Ted Grant. So I happily concede the point to you. I mentioned it because you mentioned bonapartism.

I am also happy to logically conclude that since you do not regard it as Trotskyist theory...and I have proven you wrong on your assertion of Trotsky's opinion and theory above...the following accusation is a load of horse shit:

You're certainly free to think that. But since it has been shown that your grasp of Trotskyism's history and ideas is incredibly shaky (*cough* downright idiotic *cough*),

So it must sting extra hard that I just disproved your assertion on Trotsky and corrected your knowledge on it?

Lets agree that since we are now actually discussing content and I am happy to admit that on certain aspects of Trotskyist theory and all its bends and side tracks and contradicting theories and inter tendency debates and rejections of theory (like with Ted Grant) I am not completely aware of the details of all developments....so lets both refrain from this exact point on from adhominems and try the approach of mutual information exchange.

Before, you were saying that Trotskyism's inability to agree on concepts was a sign of how pathetic the tendency was. Now you're saying it's interesting? Is it now interestingly pathetic? Nice bit of sleight of hand, which is very characteristic of your argument method in general. If you have to try this crap with me, it might be a solid indication that your should pack it in.

Actually to be entirely correct I said the ideology is in shambles: Which adds to the fun of your tendency being a complete shambles.. Although to be honest I might have argued what you said there in the past.

And you have to admit that when an ideology attacks parts of itself for having incorrect analysis and counter poses it with their own as an independent contradictory version of the ideology...that is beyond normal discussion discourse and creates in fact another split off....as has happened....regularly.

I accepted your explanation of it, still am working it around and evaluating it and so I called it interesting to stop polarization on that specific issue.

As for Trotskyism being a continuation of of Lenin's legacy, I have nothing to say. You've been defeated on that ideological point pretty thoroughly.

Except I haven't argued the contrary....in fact I don't care whether it is or not as it only seems to be very important for Trotskyists, Leninists and Stalinists whether or not it actually is. Hence why I have been arguing that position from the beginning. So I am happy to concede the point to you if it makes you happy. Anarchists simply class it in with the rest of authoritarian socialism so it doesn't matter.

What I was referring to here is the obsession with the continued defending from the 20's accusations which resulted in the purge.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 17:14

Stop dodging the question, Phoenix. Am I misrepresenting you when I say you think that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian? Yes or no? You ask me what I think, but when I say what I think, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. So here I am being fair and allowing you to clarify your view one way or the other. Is it a view you have or isn't it?

For somebody who already managed to argue himself into the corner of irrelevance during the course of this thread you are awfully demanding. Once again you seem to be under the impression that after having been proved wrong in post #118 and still continued to reject the evidence and after you yourself having posed a question which according to you would settle the argument if answered (which I kind of found completely incompatible by the way) and which was answered....you STILL demand answers to questions which have been answered time and time again.

Forgive me if I simply do not trust your intentions.

Here:

If I am misrepresenting your argument, provide an example of a conversation that you would approve of that proceeds on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies." If I am incorrect in positing that you are characterizing all such conversations with your quote, this shouldn't be a difficult task at all.

to answer your question so you can move on: I am not completely disapproving of the Bernstein and Kautsky debates.

and

But apparently my ability to name a revisionism debate I don't disapprove of (which by the way I already did on page one...but you have been reading all my posts so you know this)

Where I indicated I was interested in the debate whether Leninism deviating from or was revisionism of Marxism. Although I understand you may have missed that one.

So by your own logic, not mine btw, we have established the answer to your question and I would appreciate it if you either put up and accept this or simply state that you simply don't believe me. Which would further discredit your opposition against me.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 17:23

I indicated I was interested in the debate whether Leninism deviating from or was revisionism of Marxism.

This is an answer to a question I did not ask you, which would be the question of what historical debate you are interested in talking about. It doesn't answer the question I asked you, because you might be interested in talking about a specific revisionism debate for a variety of reasons, one of which might be just to criticize it as closed and sectarian. So I will ask my question again. And the more you duck and dodge with multiple paragraphs and quotes instead of providing the required one-word answer, the more obvious it is you have something to hide in this debate.

I will ask you once more: Am I misrepresenting you when I say you think that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian? Yes or no?

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 17:27

This is an answer to a question I did not ask you, which would be the question of what historical debate you are interested in talking about. It doesn't answer the question I asked you, so I will ask it again. And the more you duck and dodge with multiple paragraphs and quotes instead of providing the required one-word answer, the more obvious it is you have something to hide in this debate.

I will ask you once more: Am I misrepresenting you when I say you think that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian? Yes or no?

Except I didn't just give that as my only answer and again you are selectively quoting.

Reread that post.

Fourth Internationalist

13th April 2014, 17:32

Why is this thread still going on? What's the point? Just stop already! :mad:

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 17:35

Why is this thread still going on? What's the point? Just stop already! :mad:

Yup. But...

It is just getting interesting again with MEGAMANTROTSKY.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 17:36

Except I didn't just give that as my only answer and again you are selectively quoting.

Reread that post.

I have read the post already. You said a number of things that did not answer my question, so you didn't give any answer. As I said earlier, if you think you're going to wear me down through attrition, you clearly don't know me very well. It's a lot more exhausting for you to duck and dodge than it is for me to repeat a question you refuse to answer.

I will ask you for a fourth time: Am I misrepresenting you when I say you think that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian? Yes or no?

It requires a single word in response, yet you will write multiple paragraphs in an effort to avoid giving that one-word response.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

13th April 2014, 17:45

I have been reading this thread on and off with the intention of intervening in the discussion, and admittedly I am not at this point yet, however I felt the need to make a brief note

North Korea, like some other previous Communist states, is a failed, illegitimate mode of production in the making. It is impossible to catagorize them as within capitalist production or something else, they simply operate in a set of social relations which, in a larger geopolitical context, is temporary and unsustainable. It has no place in history.

There has only been perhaps one circumstance when the movement of the 20th century produced something that was impossible to classify within already existing categories of political economy and that was the khemer rouge which only existed in its most radical form for 2-3 years and was truly an anomaly.

Otherwise, to say that it has no place in history is false, this is a mode of production which spanned a third of the earth and existed for almost a century and still clings on in some forms today. This is merely a cop out for those who don't want to say that it was socialist due to the offensive political implications, those who do not want to say it was capitalist due to the degree of analysis and stretching of old categories which is necessary for that stance, those who do not want to call it a deformed workers state because they find Trotskyism distasteful, and those who do not wish to call it a bureaucratic collectivism because they don't want to be outted for being sly social democrats.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 17:48

I have read the post already. You said a number of things that did not answer my question, so you didn't give any answer. As I said earlier, if you think you're going to wear me down through attrition, you clearly don't know me very well. It's a lot more exhausting for you to duck and dodge than it is for me to repeat a question you refuse to answer.

I will ask you for a fourth time: Am I misrepresenting you when I say you think that all conversations that proceed on the basis of evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies" are sectarian? Yes or no?

It requires a single word in response, yet you will write multiple paragraphs in an effort to avoid giving that one-word response.

Dude, only in your mind I have not yet answered your questions. In fact I have answered all your questions but you continue to claim I am dodging or simply flat out refuse to acknowledge the answers. I think that is because you do not like the answers.

I have refuted your assertion I was talking about revisionism debates in general by providing the frame of my arguments way before you even mentioned it.

Yet you still continued to refuse to accept it.

I have answered your continued (mis)representation of my arguments after you brought up that point.

You continued to not accept it.

You then said if I could give an example of which revisionism debates I found were useful and in doing so you would be satisfied you misrepresented my argument. And I gave you the guidelines for such a debate.

You then said these were not specific enough and wanted me to name a specific debate.

I did that, even though I stated to you the logically fallacy of this line of thinking and asked you how you thought these were mutually exclusive (which you declined).

And now you still want me to answer a question which has already been answered time and time again....by stating it is a simple one word response. And claiming I have not answered your question but you read my response and yet again selectively quoting my posts?

Sorry dude, but at this point I am completely not trusting your intentions since you obviously have some obscure intention and another twist up your sleeve.

So in order to be rid of it:

Why the hell do you think I consistently said: I have not been arguing that position at all? Why the hell would I argue that position instead of: Yeah I think all revisionism debates are sectarian and useless but in the case of this thread revisionism indicates: feud between Stalin and Trotsky?

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 17:58

Dude, only in your mind I have not yet answered your questions. In fact I have answered all your questions but you continue to claim I am dodging or simply flat out refuse to acknowledge the answers. I think that is because you do not like the answers.

I have refuted your assertion I was talking about revisionism debates in general by providing the frame of my arguments way before you even mentioned it.

Yet you still continued to refuse to accept it.

I have answered your continued (mis)representation of my arguments after you brought up that point.

You continued to accept it.

You then said if I could give an example of which revisionism debates I found were useful and in doing so you would be satisfied you misrepresented my argument. And I gave you the guidelines for such a debate.

You then said these were not specific enough and wanted me to name a specific debate.

I did that, even though I stated to you the logically fallacy of this line of thinking and asked you how you thought these were mutually exclusive (which you declined).

And now you still want me to answer a question which has already been answered time and time again....by stating it is a simple one word response.

Sorry dude, but at this point I am completely not trusting your intentions since you obviously have some obscure intention and another twist up your sleeve.

So in order to be rid of it:

Why the hell do you think I consistently said: I have not been arguing that position at all? Why the hell would I argue that position instead of: Yeah I think all revisionism debates are sectarian and useless but in the case of this thread revisionism indicates: feud between Stalin and Trotsky?

The problem here is that all debates about revisionism (Bernstein vs. Kautsky, Stalin vs. Trotsky, etc.) take place by evaluating somebody's theories or ideas "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies."

So if you are now clarifying that your position is that it is possible for some debates about revisionism to be non-sectarian, and we have established that debates about revisionism by definition take place by evaluating somebody's theories "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies," the question is why you would say something like this:

That is twisting the point of this thread which is about the question whether or not Trotsky was revisionist. The counter question is: why should that question matter outside of sectarian intellectualism.

This is the position I have been trying to convey to you Trotskyists. The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories.

On the one hand, in your latest post to me, you are trying to say that some revisionism debates are okay, but then on the other you are saying that a specific historical debate over revisionism doesn't matter because it is, by definition, of no interest "outside of sectarian intellectualism."

Why do you think it is of no interest? Because such a debate "insists Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard," i.e., measured "on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories." In other words, the debate is of no interest "outside of sectarian intellectualism," because it's about whether one thinker is deviating from or revising another thinker's ideas. You are condemning the debate because it's about whether one thinker revised another, and is about revisionism!

Do you not understand why there is confusion in this debate? You denigrate a revisionism debate for being about revisionism, but then when pressed, claim that you are okay with some debates about revisionism. I suppose that since your entire point here has just been to attack Trotsky and Trotskyists for being totalitarian and sectarian, we should never have expected much consistency from you in the first place.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

13th April 2014, 18:31

]

Yes except of course Trotsky continued advocating a political revolution even after the purges. Which of course kind of refutes your little tirade here.

In 1938 (AFTER the show trials and the purge had been concluded) Trotsky completely validated your analysis (which; make note of this; I do absolutely not contest at all) but...not your conclusion. He wrote:

The political revolution in the USSR is inevitable. It will signify the liberation of the elements of the new society from the yoke of the usurping bureaucracy. Only if this condition is given will the USSR be able to develop in the direction of Socialism.

So even after all what you said occurred. All that acknowledged by Trotsky, which I do not dispute, he STILL advocated political revolution as the solution to these problems.
Yes, Trotsky was mistaken in continuing to advocate political revolution even after the purges had taken place. The question is, given that he previously acknowledged that his concept wasn't absolute, what was his mistake and why? The answer lies in his conception of the economic basis of a worker's state. He says that

Classes are characterized by their position in the social system of economy, and primarily by their relation to the means of production. In civilized societies, property relations are validated by laws. The nationalization of the land, the means of industrial production, transport and exchange, together with the monopoly of foreign trade, constitute the basis of the Soviet social structure. Through these relations, established by the proletarian revolution, the nature of the Soviet Union as a proletarian state is for us basically defined.
For Trotsky then, the nationalization of the land and the means of production was a basic prerequisite for a worker's state to exist, that nationalization was a phenomenon unique to socialism. This was an understandable position at the time given that the Soviet Union, even in its degeneration, was a unique case for reasons mentioned in other posts above. Indeed, Trotsky relied on this point in his polemics against Max Schachtman and James Burnham in "In Defense of Marxism". Given that the bourgeoisie has now appropriated nationalization for their own ends in the stifling of the class struggle, it can now be safely concluded that on this particular point, Trotsky erred. But his error was of a factual and not of a methodological character. In fact, he himself pointed out in a late article that (taken from "The USSR in War", 1939)

If contrary to all probabilities the October Revolution fails during the course of the present war, or immediately thereafter, to find its continuation in any of the advanced countries; and if, on the contrary, the proletariat is thrown back everywhere and on all fronts – then we should doubtlessly have to pose the question of revising our conception of the present epoch and its driving forces.
I again must emphasize the tentative character of Trotsky's ideas here, because it is clear from his article that his theories can only be properly evaluated pending the outcome of the Second World War. But you are presenting the question in a black-or-white fashion as if to say, "Trotsky accepted the possibility of making a mistake, but since he made one anyway, you are wrong and Trotskyism is wrong." But as I have tried to show, Trotskyism doesn't rise or fall with the correctness of his ideas, but with the reliability of his overall philosophical method. Just because Trotsky made mistakes, should we really commit political suicide and change our tendency to cleanse ourselves of our sins? You are disregarding the methodology of a body of developing thought while making moral prescriptions within a zero-sum game you have created. Trotsky's error does not necessarily mean that we are all wrong and you are unquestionably right.

This could very well be. I am not entirely familiar with the concept of proletarian bonapartism nor am I familiar with Ted Grant. So I happily concede the point to you. I mentioned it because you mentioned bonapartism.
Considering you didn't know what proletarian bonapartism actually was, you should have actually researched what you were espousing, asked what it was, or just kept your fat trap shut.

Lets agree that since we are now actually discussing content and I am happy to admit that on certain aspects of Trotskyist theory and all its bends and side tracks and contradicting theories and inter tendency debates and rejections of theory (like with Ted Grant) I am not completely aware of the details of all developments....
Naw, really? You've only been asked to discuss "content" since you first popped into this thread. Better late than never, I suppose....

And you have to admit that when an ideology attacks parts of itself for having incorrect analysis and counter poses it with their own as an independent contradictory version of the ideology...that is beyond normal discussion discourse and creates in fact another split off....as has happened....regularly.
It is through contradiction and discussion that ideas and knowledge develop, not blind adherence to theories that may or may not be correct. Not that you'd know anything about that, though.

So basically you are wrong...and I do know and understand what I am talking about.
No. You really don't.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

13th April 2014, 18:33

Why is this thread still going on? What's the point? Just stop already! :mad:
An opportunity to clarify my ideas and positions for myself is something I can't resist.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 18:35

Again. See I told you you couldn't be trusted. You still are holding on to theories in your midn which have been refuted over and over and over again. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

THIS:

This is the position I have been trying to convey to you Trotskyists. The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories.

....has been MORE than adequately explained to you over and over and over again. And I continued refusal to accept an answer is really showing your character.

As I have previously stated ad nausea to you, but which you refuse to accept because of some weird deficiency in which you create your own reality and interpretation by refusing to accept answers and evidence should have been read in the context of how I framed my argument.

The ONLY confusion that exists is created by your insistence to refuse any form of clarification, evidence and answers.

I think we have adequately hashed out why the specific historic feud between Stalinism and Tortskyism is sectarian. But if it makes you happy we can have a re-do

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

1). The criticism of either side is framed in accusation and a dogmatic interpretation of a "correct absolute truth" and rejected by the other side as being unprincipled, lacking proper analysis and based on lies (as for example is shown in Stalinism and Bolshevism as being the opinion of Trotsky with regards to Stalin(ism)).

2). It is measured on the basis of the relative, supposed deviation, from Leninism without critically assessing on either side how the mutually supposed counter revolutions could have taken place when they were not a direct result from the basic tendency (ie. Leninism) ...(Before you tell me...Trotsky did address this in Stalinism and Boslhevism but he only rejected that Stalinism is the logical outcome of Bolshevism/Leninism and failed to give an adequate analysis how a counter revolution was even possible).

3). None of the posed outcomes would result in changes in the ownership of the mode of production and would in fact be the continuation of the same economic policy with a different political leadership of the elite. Nor would it repair any deficiencies inherited in the ideology itself which led up to the feud.

4). The debate was in no way a honest exchange of ideas. And it was framed in political character assassination, real assassination and criminal exploits, counter revolutionary actions and activism rather than an honest assessment of opinions.

5). As such they are merely an exercise of intellectualism which resulted from an internal power struggle.

6). There is no answer. No outcome. The debate is had because of the debate and not in order to resolve the debate. Obviously neither side will ideologically admit or submit to the other side and there will be no resolution at all. Either side refutes the other side of being true Leninism/Bolshevism and what is more...Both sides are dismissed by factions in the very ideological tendency they claim to be the representatives of. There is NO solution. The debate has not changed in nature in 1920. At all. So continuing the debate is futile.

In the 1920's and 30's the debates may have had relevance for the working class and practical application of methods of organization. Still being utterly and totally dishonest and riddled with dogmatic sectarianism. But now...90 years later the rehash of the same old arguments and the continued insistence of defining and/or attacking Trotskyism within the frame of these 1920's debates is rendered completely useless and irrelevant by historic development. There is no practical relevance in winning these debates and they can not be won. The working class is not in the least interested in an ideological rehash of why Trotskyism is better than Stalinism because neither are relevant for the working class at this present time nor is any of the current working class in any way linked to the events then. Stalinism itself has been discredited and Trotskyism has failed to step into the void as a relevant alternative and add to that point number 6 and you can see why I am arguing that it would simply be the best option to just not commit to the debate anymore.

The world has changed radically and as such the old forms of Bolshevism and the ancient feud are not the way to legitimize the ideology...rather the development of new theories, new answers and new ways of organizing that better suit the current situation are ways to legitimize an ideology.

Five Year Plan

13th April 2014, 18:52

This is the position I have been trying to convey to you Trotskyists. The insistence that Trotsky should be measured to a certain Orthodox standard rejects the notion that an ideology should be measured on the basis of its contents and NOT on the basis of deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories.

....has been MORE than adequately explained to you over and over and over again. And I continued refusal to accept an answer is really showing your character.

You then proceed to "explain it to me again."

1). The criticism of either side is framed in accusation and a dogmatic interpretation of a "correct absolute truth" and rejected by the other side as being unprincipled, lacking proper analysis and based on lies (as for example is shown in Stalinism and Bolshevism as being the opinion of Trotsky with regards to Stalin(ism)).The quote of yours I cited said nothing about "absolute truths" or "dogmatism." It said, and I quote, that "the debate" was sectarian because it proceeded by analyzing "the deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories." I have consistently made the point you can analyze deviations between thinkers, and theories, without being dogmatic or claiming to hold absolute truths. I can't be blamed for the fact that I do not read things into your words that you do not put there yourself.

2). It is measured on the basis of the relative, supposed deviation, from Leninism without critically assessing on either side how the mutually supposed counter revolutions could have taken place when they were not a direct result from the basic tendency (ie. Leninism) ...(Before you tell me...Trotsky did address this in Stalinism and Boslhevism but he only rejected that Stalinism is the logical outcome of Bolshevism/Leninism and failed to give an adequate analysis how a counter revolution was even possible).Who are you accusing of not critically assessing ideas? This formulation is so vague that it is impossible to disprove. Trotskyists talk about Stalin's deviation from Leninism all the time by clearly articulating and critically interrogating Lenin's ideas. I know, because I have seen it happen right here on revleft.

3). None of the posed outcomes would result in changes in the ownership of the mode of production and would in fact be the continuation of the same economic policy with a different political leadership of the elite. Nor would it repair any deficiencies inherited in the ideology itself which led up to the feud.I don't know what you're saying here. "Posed outcomes?" Do you mean "proposed courses of action?" Trotsky's proposed course of action was to try to stimulate a political revolution of the masses to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy and reinstitute soviet democracy as a means of inspiring an international revolution. Why do you think that such a course of action, if it had been successful at stimulating global revolution, would have been fated to the same bureaucratic decay that plagued the revolution in isolation post-1917?

4). The debate was in no way a honest exchange of ideas. And it was framed in political character assassination, real assassination and criminal exploits, counter revolutionary actions and activism rather than an honest assessment of opinions.Who was being dishonest and how specifically? You are just making more sweeping and vague accusations again.

5). As such they are merely an exercise of intellectualism which resulted from an internal power struggle.But then let's be clear about how the view you are expressing now measures up against the one you stated in the quote of yours I cited. Here you are listing dishonesty, dogmatism, etc., as reasons "the debate" was sectarian intellectualism. In the quote, you mentioned none of those things, and attributed the sectarianism only to the fact that the debates were about measuring "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories."

6). There is no answer. No outcome. The debate is had because of the debate and not in order to resolve the debate. Obviously neither side will ideologically admit or submit to the other side and there will be no resolution at all. Either side refutes the other side of being true Leninism/Bolshevism and what is more...Both sides are dismissed by factions in the very ideological tendency they claim to be the representatives of. There is NO solution. The debate has not changed in nature in 1920. At all. So continuing the debate is futile.People debate whether Stalin revised Lenin because people want to make sense of what happened historically in 1917 and after, events that Lenin and Stalin (and their ideas) had a large and sometimes decisive role in shaping. These debates can indeed be dogmatic and dishonest, but they can also be principled and honest ways of discussing the issues of state power, the definition of socialism, the nature of the transition from capitalism to communism, the role of leadership in social movements, etc.

In the 1920's and 30's the debates may have had relevance for the working class and practical application of methods of organization. Still being utterly and totally dishonest and riddled with dogmatic sectarianism. But now...90 years later the rehash of the same old arguments and the continued insistence of defining and/or attacking Trotskyism within the frame of these 1920's debates is rendered completely useless and irrelevant by historic development. There is no practical relevance in winning these debates and they can not be won. The working class is not in the least interested in an ideological rehash of why Trotskyism is better than Stalinism because neither are relevant for the working class at this present time nor is any of the current working class in any way linked to the events then. Stalinism itself has been discredited and Trotskyism has failed to step into the void as a relevant alternative and add to that point number 6 and you can see why I am arguing that it would simply be the best option to just not commit to the debate anymore. The issues I raised above, which are sometimes the focus of "revisionism" debates, do have relevance to the working class, even if the working class by and large ignores the debates because they think the issues are irrelevant. Most of the working class also thinks capitalism is the best economic system we can have, and that their goal should be to reform it. Does this mean we should confine ourselves to discussing how to reform capitalism, lest we be guilty of "sectarian intellectualism"?

The world has changed radically and as such the old forms of Bolshevism and the ancient feud are not the way to legitimize the ideology...rather the development of new theories, new answers and new ways of organizing that better suit the current situation are ways to legitimize an ideology.The world is always changing, but this doesn't mean that ideas from the past have no relevance for what we might choose to do today. Some ideas might be obsolete, and others might have a more trans-historical importance. Revolutionaries should debate this in a principled way, and not just dismiss an idea because it's "old."

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

13th April 2014, 19:10

What's the definition of revisionism again?

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 19:18

snip

Ahum.

Your assertion was:

Trotsky's concept of political revolution was never intended to be an eternal solution to the problem of a degenerated worker's state; once again you demonstrate your ignorance of his actual philosophical method, and how knowledge develops in general. The political revolution, which refers to the deposing of the Stalinists by the proletariat was, at a specific point in history, a possible solution to the problem. But this solution was conditional, and was based off the assumption that, in Trotsky's words (Taken from "Revolution Betrayed"),

After which you proceeded to explain to me the conditions under which he advocated a political revolution was possible and how you stated you saw these as forgone after the Moscow trials and used this to argue I didn't know what I was talking about concerning Trotsky.

However, after having been confronted with the fact that Trotsky literally continued to argue exactly that position after the conclusion of the Moscow Trials and you were therefore wrong in your assessment you now turn around and merely dismiss this as "Trotsky wasn't unerring".

The point I was making is that your assessment of my knowledge and understanding about Trotsky was incorrect. And it was.

Considering you didn't know what proletarian bonapartism actually was, you should have actually researched what you were espousing, asked what it was, or just kept your fat trap shut.

Aha. So you are going with the hypocritical argument: either be correct or shut up. Which of course did not count for you not knowing Trotsky still argued political revolution well after you claimed he couldn't because his so called prerequisites were all gone. :rolleyes:

Of course the notion of Proletarian Bonapartism being discredited but Stalinism still being Bonapartism...as you claimed...directly contradicts the nature of the degenerated worker state. Of course you realize this.

Bonapartism can not exist if a state is a degenerated worker state. Or it is reduced to, as indeed Trotsky did, a social phenomenon devoid of Marxist definitions of the term.

The criticism poised at Proletarian Bonapartism was that the term was denying the proletariat couldn't rule socially and economically without political power but instead required conscious political power.

Bonapartism in the meantime is defined as coopting revolutionary characteristics after a bourgeois counter revolutionary reformist take over of the state.

Yet a degenerated workers state is the form of the state in which the bourgeois had been overthrown and ownership of the means of production is collectively held (via the vanguard of course) but power is appropriated by the bureaucratic elite.

Trotsky is therefore wishy washy in his attribution of terms. Eventhough he argued that the USSR under Stalin was bonpartism he also argued a counter and mutually exclusive position of a degenerated workers state. Eventhough he also argued that the new bureaucratic class would probably move towards a new bourgeois elite.

So yeah. Not to certain on how unerring you thin he was. But that is warped ideological framing.

Naw, really? You've only been asked to discuss "content" since you first popped into this thread. Better late than never, I suppose....

asked in funny ways by people who started with replying to me on the basis of misrepresentig my arguments even after they were clarified and making ad hominems.

It is through contradiction and discussion that ideas and knowledge develop, not blind adherence to theories that may or may not be correct. Not that you'd know anything about that, though.

No. You really don't.

O. I know everything about that. Trotskyists however are not known for their open position on debates.

They refuse to acknowledge for example the sheer fact that they argue against Stalinism and argue against Stalinism being the logical outcome of Bolshevism but fail to explain how the system they helped create actually allowed such a take over. They for example refuse to acknowledge the fact that this is because of the lack of political power of the working class inherreted in the ideology of Leninism and one of the primary weaknesses of vanguardism. They also refuse to acknowledge that Trotsky advocated a no factions policy in the Bolshevist party but later contradicted this which he argued and enforced by creating a faction.

These points are rarely debated by Trotskyists.

PhoenixAsh

13th April 2014, 19:50

You then proceed to "explain it to me again."

The quote of yours I cited said nothing about "absolute truths" or "dogmatism." It said, and I quote, that "the debate" was sectarian because it proceeded by analyzing "the deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories." I have consistently made the point you can analyze deviations between thinkers, and theories, without being dogmatic or claiming to hold absolute truths. I can't be blamed for the fact that I do not read things into your words that you do not put there yourself.

Who are you accusing of not critically assessing ideas? This formulation is so vague that it is impossible to disprove. Trotskyists talk about Stalin's deviation from Leninism all the time by clearly articulating and critically interrogating Lenin's ideas. I know, because I have seen it happen right here on revleft.

I don't know what you're saying here. "Posed outcomes?" Do you mean "proposed courses of action?" Trotsky's proposed course of action was to try to stimulate a political revolution of the masses to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy and reinstitute soviet democracy as a means of inspiring an international revolution. Why do you think that such a course of action, if it had been successful at stimulating global revolution, would have been fated to the same bureaucratic decay that plagued the revolution in isolation post-1917?

Who was being dishonest and how specifically? You are just making more sweeping and vague accusations again.

But then let's be clear about how the view you are expressing now measures up against the one you stated in the quote of yours I cited. Here you are listing dishonesty, dogmatism, etc., as reasons "the debate" was sectarian intellectualism. In the quote, you mentioned none of those things, and attributed the sectarianism only to the fact that the debates were about measuring "deviation from other theories/ideologies or like minded and similar ideologies and theories."

People debate whether Stalin revised Lenin because people want to make sense of what happened historically in 1917 and after, events that Lenin and Stalin (and their ideas) had a large and sometimes decisive role in shaping. These debates can indeed be dogmatic and dishonest, but they can also be principled and honest ways of discussing the issues of state power, the definition of socialism, the nature of the transition from capitalism to communism, the role of leadership in social movements, etc.

The issues I raised above, which are sometimes the focus of "revisionism" debates, do have relevance to the working class, even if the working class by and large ignores the debates because they think the issues are irrelevant. Most of the working class also thinks capitalism is the best economic system we can have, and that their goal should be to reform it. Does this mean we should confine ourselves to discussing how to reform capitalism, lest we be guilty of "sectarian intellectualism"?

The world is always changing, but this doesn't mean that ideas from the past have no relevance for what we might choose to do today. Some ideas might be obsolete, and others might have a more trans-historical importance. Revolutionaries should debate this in a principled way, and not just dismiss an idea because it's "old."

Yeah...this is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I said: I don't care to rehash the intra ML debate on content because it was only of interest to Trotskyists and Stalinists who both argue its importance.

I would like to remind you we have been covering this and your answer to it in #177 was:

Fine, then we are in agreement. One specific historical instance of an argument-from-orthodoxy may very well have been conducted in an unprincipled and dogmatically uncritical way. It doesn't mean that all such arguments are dogmatic, unprincipled, and uncritical. And it doesn't mean that people here are employing argument-from-orthodoxy in an unprincipled or uncritical way, despite your attempts to argue from first covering principles that they are.

I am not going to rehash the 1920 feud as I am arguing it on form. If you want to again pretend that the 1920 debate and the resulting feud between Stalinists and Trotskyists in general is based on honest intellectual exchange of ideas based on some individual cases (which by the way I have previously acknowledged as entirely possible) then you are welcome to do so.