Trots Against Democracy?

[Sharia Lawn]

I was appalled yesterday to read a number of posts by self-identified Trotskyists flirting with supporting the Chinese government’s proposed repressive measures against pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong. This is a situation where class lines seem quite clear. It was reported today that thousands of Hong Kong workers have gone on strike in solidarity with the protests.

Meanwhile, when the Stalinist bureaucracy is not scheming of ways to suppress pro-democratic dissent on the streets of Hong Kong, it is clamoring for ways to privatize even more of its economy, accumulate even more capital, and strengthen its relations with big Western businesses.

What's striking about these self-identified Trotskyists is the way in which the principles they are fanatically committed to defending deviate so much from Trotsky's own principles. For him political substitution was never a principle. An event like Kronstadt might be necessary at a time, in 1921, when the party was in his view "a genuine organization of the proletarian vanguard" that needed to be preserved in the interests of stimulating revolutionary political activity by the masses in the future. It was inexcusable to him by the middle of the next decade, when he believed that the Stalinists, whose interests were driven by their pursuit of bourgeois-individualist norms of distribution, were at the forefront of a right-ward movement to restore capitalism.

He was a creative, at times brilliant, thinker who always insisted on analyzing the concrete, and placing the revolutionary agency of the masses at the center of his political perspective. With his self-professed epigones, it is nationalization that stands at the center.

Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution espoused that decaying capitalism placed the bourgeoisie in structural antagonism to political democracy. Mass democratic movements were dangerous since capitalism was no longer developing from the ground up in opposition to earlier modes of production. It was being imposed from the top-down. In best-case scenarios, the bourgeoisie might proactively institute democratic governance as a strategic cudgel against international capitalist rivals, but only in cases where the working class had been temporarily demobilized and defeated. That way, workers would not be able to learn through ongoing struggle that the implications of the way the bourgeoisie would attempt to set democratic procedures on a firmly anti-democratic social basis.

Trotsky understood this. He understood what his followers on this forum do not. This is why by the Revolution Betrayed, he had come out in favor of multi-party elections of the same kind that Hong Kong's workers are now striking for. He realized that vanguards and revolutionary parties were the product of workers mobilized in struggle, learning from their successes and mistakes. For the Trotskyists in the thread about Hong Kong, those same workers are an untrustworthy mob wanting a free lunch.

The ICL has made a tradition of justifiably critiquing reformist socialists for fighting for various democratic measures and reforms now, and suspending the fight for socialism until the "sweet by-and-by." It makes a similar mistake in its strategic analysis of the Chinese bureaucracy. In their clutches, Trotsky's call for a political revolution of the masses has become a cover for a thoroughly reactionary policy of stabilizing Stalinist leadership, of politically supporting crackdowns on militant workers. All this decades after Trotsky had discarded any illusions that Stalinism was capable of acting in way other than an obstacle to workers revolutionary political agency.

[Magón]

Firstly, I didn't know China was "Stalinist" anymore. I kind of though Stalinism and Maoism went out when Deng Xiaoping came in, and started throwing reforms around everywhere he could, and was basically like, "We're done with Maoism, guys, we're done with it." (Not an actual quote by the man.) So I think it's more accurate to just call them straight up Capitalists, if we go by how they maneuver in the world, than Stalinists.

As for the rest, I just got back so I haven't seen any of these posts by Trotskyists, talking about the demos in Hong Kong.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I was appalled yesterday to read a number of posts by self-identified Trotskyists flirting with supporting the Chinese government’s proposed repressive measures against pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong.
Where are these posts? And why haven't you provided any quotes so that we can judge for ourselves?

[Tim Cornelis]

He's referring to some fringe right-wing Trots.


Aren't these protests demanding the legalization of bourgeois parties?

Why shouldn't a workers state [China] ban bourgeois parties? Why should leftists support another Color Revolution?

(870 thanked this post).

It's amazing how these people form thoughts -- China, a workers' state.

Stalinists and Maoists > right-wing Trots.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

He's referring to some fringe right-wing Trots.



(870 thanked this post).

It's amazing how these people form thoughts -- China, a workers' state.
Yeah...this Trotskyist doesn't agree with Vivala's position.

[VivalaCuarta]

Trotsky's call for a political revolution of the massesSince when did Trotsky call for this? Or are you confusing him with George Soros?

Trotskyists are for workers political revolution, not imperialist-orchestrated "color revolutions."

Stop reading Nahuel Moreno and start reading The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.

[PhoenixAsh]

Except when they start supporting China....then they are just capitalist appologists calling for enrichment of the bourgeoisie...

[Sharia Lawn]

Since when did Trotsky call for this? Or are you confusing him with George Soros?

Trotskyists are for workers political revolution, not imperialist-orchestrated "color revolutions."

Stop reading Nahuel Moreno and start reading The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.

If you had read Trotsky instead of just selectively twisting his words to support anti-worker repression, you'd know that Trotsky frequently used the phrase revolution of the masses synonymously with working-class revolution. What class do you think the vast majority, the masses, of people in Hong Kong belong to? The petty-bourgeois peasantry?

[Celtic_0ne]

Trotskyists are for workers political revolution, not imperialist-orchestrated "color revolutions."

.
I am pretty sure that Permanent Revolution includes more than just workers, you are merely just an elitist corrupt trot and the reason for my leaving of the idea.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright, so a couple of things need to be pointed out. First, there is no official ICL position on the Hong Kong events yet. My opinion is not representative of an organisation I am not a part of (I believe the same goes for comrade VL4).

Second, the ICL has never taken an abstract anti-democracy stance nor has it ignored democratic demands in the deformed workers' states. But at the same time it has not allowed itself to be swindled by nominal pro-democracy rhetoric from rightist and anti-communist movements.

The ICL, for example, considers Tiananmen to have been an "incipient workers' political revolution". This despite the popular image of Tiananmen as a pro-American, pro-capitalist manifestation, and the presence of a small minority of liberal students. But Tiananmen and related disturbances were led by workers, socialist workers and socialist students. They were not successful - they were not entirely consistent and they were not able to act as a revolutionary group might - but they are a far cry from these Hong Kong protests, which as far as I can tell (and I freely admit that I haven't been able to keep up with the events) are led by petit-bourgeois types, anti-communists and vicious anti-Han racists.

As for Trotsky, well, what was his position on anti-communist pro-democracy movements? Just recall his statements about the civil war in Finland - the one he predicted would happen after the Red Army invasion. He did not side with the pro-democratic rightists once, he could not dream of it, in opposition to Shachtman and Burnham.

As for parties, Trotsky advocated freedom for proletarian parties. When he said that the ban on oppositional parties was a necessity of the civil war, he was talking about the ban on Internationalists, Popular Communists etc. - not the Kadets and Octobrists. Likewise, he considered multiple parties to be necessary in non-emergency situations because of, as he said, "little strata" in the proletariat - not the petite bourgeoisie or the haute bourgeoisie. I think it is quite a stretch to imply that, when Trotsky was talking about the need for multiple parties, he was talking about the Union of Archangel Michael!

Last, if we do not support these protests, that does not mean we give political confidence to the Chinese Stalinist government, who do more than anyone else to undermine the Chinese deformed workers' state. As Trotsky said, the defence of the workers' state means political revolution. But not a political reaction - not cutting off the gains of the revolution to spite the bureaucracy.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Any Trotskyist who thinks these protests are reactionary is confusing authoritarian capitalism for a "worker's state" and pro-democracy protests as "neoliberal capitalists". Both sides do not challenge market paradigms, but one side is using truncheons and state brutality to defend capital and the other isn't.


They were not successful - they were not entirely consistent and they were not able to act as a revolutionary group might - but they are a far cry from these Hong Kong protests, which as far as I can tell (and I freely admit that I haven't been able to keep up with the events) are led by petit-bourgeois types, anti-communists and vicious anti-Han racists.

I have seen no evidence to show that the protests are being determined by petit bourgeois interests over and above the interests of the proletariat. As for "vicious anti-Han racists" I have heard of anti-mainlander sentiment in the protests but as far as I know Cantonese people from Hong Kong are considered amongst the "Han nation". As much as anything else one major motive behind the protests is a perceived failure on the part of the Chinese government to live up to promises of full suffrage for Hong Kong, as the CCP instead chooses to hand-pick candidates that fit their political and economic interests in the city.


As for parties, Trotsky advocated freedom for proletarian parties. When he said that the ban on oppositional parties was a necessity of the civil war, he was talking about the ban on Internationalists, Popular Communists etc. - not the Kadets and Octobrists. Likewise, he considered multiple parties to be necessary in non-emergency situations because of, as he said, "little strata" in the proletariat - not the petite bourgeoisie or the haute bourgeoisie. I think it is quite a stretch to imply that, when Trotsky was talking about the need for multiple parties, he was talking about the Union of Archangel Michael!

Trotsky was advocating that position in a proletarian state ruled by a proletarian party. I think the demands in a society run by a Capitalist party masquerating as a Communist party which brooks no opposition from any class, proletarian or otherwise, would be quite different.


Last, if we do not support these protests, that does not mean we give political confidence to the Chinese Stalinist government, who do more than anyone else to undermine the Chinese deformed workers' state. As Trotsky said, the defence of the workers' state means political revolution. But not a political reaction - not cutting off the gains of the revolution to spite the bureaucracy.

Any gains of the Chinese revolution, whatever they were, are long gone.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Any Trotskyist who thinks these protests are reactionary is confusing authoritarian capitalism for a "worker's state" and pro-democracy protests as "neoliberal capitalists". Both sides do not challenge market paradigms, but one side is using truncheons and state brutality to defend capital and the other isn't.

The ICL, for one, doesn't buy into the hysteria over "neoliberalism". Capitalism is capitalism, and the "old" social democracies were no less anti-worker. But that's besides the point.

The ICL analysis of China is given, among other articles, here (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/archives/oldsite/BRINK.HTM), with some guff about a Soviet Tibet that's been dropped shortly after the article was published.

[Sharia Lawn]

Alright, so a couple of things need to be pointed out. First, there is no official ICL position on the Hong Kong events yet. My opinion is not representative of an organisation I am not a part of (I believe the same goes for comrade VL4).

No, I don't consider your statements to be the official line of the ICL or its sub-grouplets, but I think your and LaCuarta's flirtations with the potential actions of Comrade Jinping's police forces are totally consistent with the Spartacist political tradition.


Second, the ICL has never taken an abstract anti-democracy stance nor has it ignored democratic demands in the deformed workers' states. But at the same time it has not allowed itself to be swindled by nominal pro-democracy rhetoric from rightist and anti-communist movements.What the protestors are demanding at the present moment is the opening of electoral system to permit participation by parties outside of the Chinese Communist Party. It is possible to support this position, while also politically supporting any number of non-Communist candidates or platforms. This is where I would expect a Trotskyist to point to the united front, which permits revolutionaries to fight alongside non-revolutionaries for the same reforms. Sometimes even non-working-class elements get involved. That doesn't alter the nature of the reform being fought for when on the one hand you have the most militant workers, and on the other you have either a state capitalist government, or more optimistically, a Bonapartist bureaucracy that can only be removed by force.

It is to be expected that some workers are fighting for those reforms for entirely reformist, perhaps even bourgeois purposes. Supporting their struggle for the reform isn't swindling them. It's supporting their struggle with an understanding that it is through struggle that workers learn and become revolutionary. There was no swindling involved when communists struggled under their own revolutionary banner for African-American voting rights in the southern United States in the 1960s alongside liberal workers who may have harbored illusions in the capitalist system.


The ICL, for example, considers Tiananmen to have been an "incipient workers' political revolution". This despite the popular image of Tiananmen as a pro-American, pro-capitalist manifestation, and the presence of a small minority of liberal students. But Tiananmen and related disturbances were led by workers, socialist workers and socialist students. They were not successful - they were not entirely consistent and they were not able to act as a revolutionary group might - but they are a far cry from these Hong Kong protests, which as far as I can tell (and I freely admit that I haven't been able to keep up with the events) are led by petit-bourgeois types, anti-communists and vicious anti-Han racists.In keeping with Spartacist tradition, struggles for reforms must be led by revolutionaries from the start or you advocate abstention. Tim Cornelis identified you as an ultra-right Trot. He's wrong. On this matter you manifest the worst tendencies of the ultra-left.


As for Trotsky, well, what was his position on anti-communist pro-democracy movements? Just recall his statements about the civil war in Finland - the one he predicted would happen after the Red Army invasion. He did not side with the pro-democratic rightists once, he could not dream of it, in opposition to Shachtman and Burnham.His position was not to abstain from pro-democracy movements until they were led by a Leninist leadership. His position was to build the Leninist leadership through struggles like those for multi-party elections, while he and his comrades simultaneously struggled to build the revolutionary party through that struggle.


As for parties, Trotsky advocated freedom for proletarian parties. When he said that the ban on oppositional parties was a necessity of the civil war, he was talking about the ban on Internationalists, Popular Communists etc. - not the Kadets and Octobrists. Likewise, he considered multiple parties to be necessary in non-emergency situations because of, as he said, "little strata" in the proletariat - not the petite bourgeoisie or the haute bourgeoisie. I think it is quite a stretch to imply that, when Trotsky was talking about the need for multiple parties, he was talking about the Union of Archangel Michael!Right. Trotsky was not interested in multi-party elections out of a misguided liberal compulsion to create a level playing field for all political views. He was interested in them as a slogan with which to draw workers to the political program that he thought would be the most effective in struggling for the political reform: that of the Fourth International. Reactionary elements of the population might and in the 1930s did try to exploit the movement for their own purposes.

This did not compel Trotsky to oppose it, or to abstain from it, or to dismiss it publicly. In line with his understanding of permanent revolution, he believed that popular struggles for democracy were structurally antagonistic to capital and their political representatives in the era of monopoly and imperialism. The Soviet Union's bureaucracy, a gendarme shaped disproportionately by international capital, was not exempt from that analysis.


Last, if we do not support these protests, that does not mean we give political confidence to the Chinese Stalinist government, who do more than anyone else to undermine the Chinese deformed workers' state. As Trotsky said, the defence of the workers' state means political revolution. But not a political reaction - not cutting off the gains of the revolution to spite the bureaucracy.You're right. It doesn't mean that you are giving confidence to the Chinese Stalinist government. It does mean you are breaking with the precedent Trotsky set in a situation where it actually would have been far easier to argue that the state resided on a working class basis. I do find it humorous how you try to paper over this clear revision by invoking Shachtman and Finland. Don't let it stop you that those talking points are at best tenuously related to what is under deliberation.

[Creative Destruction]

Since when did Trotsky call for this? Or are you confusing him with George Soros?

i don't know how you can't call for something like the political revolution of the masses and call yourself a Marxist. that you equate that with liberalism is awfully bizarre.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I wouldn't say Finland is irrelevant, quite the contrary. Trotsky had no illusions about the Stalinists - in fact he explicitly notes they will "strangle the workers" - and while he hoped that the civil war would lead to a political revolution, he refused to make his support for the "Red" side conditional on the possibility of a successful political revolution. He took a position that was directly opposed to the forces fighting for bourgeois democracy. Likewise in Poland.

In fact, it is in connection with Finland that Trotsky wrote:

'The key to this tangle of confusion rests in the fact that the statement, “We have never supported the Kremlin’s international policy,” is an abstraction. It must be dissected and concretized. In its present foreign as well as domestic policy, the bureaucracy places first and foremost for defense its own parasitic interests. To that extent we wage mortal struggle against it, but in the final analysis, through the interests of the bureaucracy, in a very distorted form the interests of the workers’ state are reflected. These interests we defend – with our own methods. Thus we do not at all wage a struggle against the fact that the bureaucracy safeguards (in its own way!) state property, the monopoly of foreign trade or refuses to pay Czarist debts. Yet in a war between the USSR and the capitalist world – independently of the incidents leading up to that war or the “aims” of this or that government – what is involved is the fate of precisely those historical conquests which we defend unconditionally, i.e., despite the reactionary policy of the bureaucracy. The question consequently boils down – in the last and decisive instance – to the class nature of the USSR.'

And this is, I would say, pretty much how the ICL approaches the problem. You see the bureaucracy as merely representatives of imperialism - but how Trotsky actually put it was that they were intermediaries between imperialism and the workers' state. They were a contradictory caste - far from being simple lieutenants of the imperialists, they were influenced both by the demands of world imperialism and the pressures arising from the nationalised economy of the workers' state. The same, the ICL contends, goes for the Chinese bureaucracy. We can't say that we oppose their policies in the abstract.

Now, it is obvious, particularly taking into account the history of movements like Solidarnosc, that amorphous pro-democracy or anti-austerity etc. movements, without something approximating a revolutionary socialist programme, inevitably turn into anti-communist movements aiming at the destruction of the workers' state. That is why the ICL opposes them. Not because they oppose movements for reform that are not led by revolutionaries - this is obviously not the case if you look at their work in the US.

As for whether this deviates from the programme of the revolutionary Fourth International, just recall that there were a lot of abstract calls for "democracy" with no class content coming from various left groups in the thirties and fourties - from the Menshevik faction around Dan, from some of the proto-councilists, from the London Bureau and so on. Trotsky refused to work with any of these groups and polemicised against them.

[Dagoth Ur]

The more China become like Hong Kong the worse it will be for all Chinese workers.

[Sharia Lawn]

You see the bureaucracy as merely representatives of imperialism - but how Trotsky actually put it was that they were intermediaries between imperialism and the workers' state.This is incorrect. In my understand of Trotsky's view, which is the basis on which I have criticized you and VivaLaCuarta, the bureaucracy was sandwiched between the working class and international capitalism, and between socialistic property relations and bourgeois distribution norms. Where you depart from what Trotsky wrote and understood was that being sandwiched between two things doesn't mean that an entity is immovably neutral regarding or equidistant between those two things.

By the 1930s Trotsky had begun to argue that the CP of the Soviet Union had degenerated to the point where it needed to be removed forcibly by the working class through a political revolution on the masses. The reason this was important was that the bureaucracy was growing ever more distant from the working class, to the point where a section of the bureaucracy would sooner rather than later begin to try to reintroduce bourgeois capitalism back into the core of Soviet economy. This is also why he dropped the term centrism in his description of the Stalinist bureaucracy at that time.

It is in that context that you need to understand Trotsky's conception of permanent revolution, the role of democratic rights in that conception, and how those democratic rights relate to monopoly capital either direct or through the intermediary of a bureaucracy operating ever more fully under its sway.


As for whether this deviates from the programme of the revolutionary Fourth International, just recall that there were a lot of abstract calls for "democracy" with no class content coming from various left groups in the thirties and fourties - from the Menshevik faction around Dan, from some of the proto-councilists, from the London Bureau and so on. Trotsky refused to work with any of these groups and polemicised against them.It's pretty misleading to bring up how Trotsky didn't align himself politically or enter a political bloc with small non-revolutionary propaganda groups when what we're discussing is how revolutionaries relate to mass movements for bourgeois-democratic reforms. The record of where Trotsky stood on that issue is clear, no matter how many side-issues you try to bring up as a distraction.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is incorrect. In my understand of Trotsky's view, which is the basis on which I have criticized you and VivaLaCuarta, the bureaucracy was sandwiched between the working class and international capitalism, and between socialistic property relations and bourgeois distribution norms. Where you depart from what Trotsky wrote and understood was that being sandwiched between two things doesn't mean that an entity is immovably neutral regarding or equidistant between those two things.

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that being "sandwiched" means it is subjected to pressures coming from both sides. This will not manifest itself as neutrality, but as a confused and contradictory policy, occasionally taking one side and occasionally another, depending on the balance of forces and other factors.


By the 1930s Trotsky had begun to argue that the CP of the Soviet Union had degenerated to the point where it needed to be removed forcibly by the working class through a political revolution on the masses. The reason this was important was that the bureaucracy was growing ever more distant from the working class, to the point where a section would sooner rather than later begin to try to reintroduce bourgeois capitalism back into the core of Soviet economy. This is also why he dropped the term centrism in his description of the Stalinist bureaucracy at that time.

And yet, as late as the forties, he still maintained that "in the final analysis, through the interests of the bureaucracy, in a very distorted form the interests of the workers’ state are reflected". This of course does not contradict his statements about the reactionary nature of the bureaucracy - in fact it provides the framework in which they are to be understood. But this statement underlies the need to defend the accomplishment of the workers' state even if that means being "on the same side" as the bureaucracy from time to time, and even if it means being against those forces (such as the Mensheviks) who fought for abstract democracy without class content.


It is in that context that you need to understand Trotsky's conception of permanent revolution, the role of democratic rights in that conception, and how those democratic rights relate to monopoly capital either direct or through the intermediary of a bureaucracy operating ever more fully under its sway.

But - and this is a serious question - why do you think Trotsky never put the question in that form? Why do you think he fought against the London Bureau, for example? It doesn't at all seem consistent with what you seem to be insinuating.

[Sharia Lawn]

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that being "sandwiched" means it is subjected to pressures coming from both sides. This will not manifest itself as neutrality, but as a confused and contradictory policy, occasionally taking one side and occasionally another, depending on the balance of forces and other factors.An object can be internally contradictory, but be overwhelmed by one side of the contradiction, as the Soviet bureaucracy was in the 1930s, causing it to move decisively back toward capitalism and ever more away from the working class. Ergo the change of language about Stalinist centrism, the new call for multiparty elections, and all the rest. Your understanding of Trotsky's view is just as I said above. You think the bureaucracy was riven by a contradiction with two sides pulling it equally, with the effect being a kind of neutrality toward both poles. It's all a wonderful way of setting up how the bureaucracy really could do progressive things, like set up its own workers states. That's not how Trotsky viewed it.


And yet, as late as the forties, he still maintained that "in the final analysis, through the interests of the bureaucracy, in a very distorted form the interests of the workers’ state are reflected".Yes, Trotsky viewed the nationalization of the means of production as the result of workers' revolutionary agency from the October period. He also believed that the Soviet bureaucracy was actively undermining that conquest, through inability to plan effectively because of the lack of democracy, and through how the resultant chaos was encouraging segments of the bureaucracy to maintain their growing level of bourgeois distributional remuneration through a more stable system--a new bourgeois system.


But - and this is a serious question - why do you think Trotsky never put the question in that form? Why do you think he fought against the London Bureau, for example? It doesn't at all seem consistent with what you seem to be insinuating.He fought against those propaganda grouplets for the same reason the ISO fights against the ICL, and the CWI fights against the ISO, and the IMT fights against the SWP-US. That is a separate question from how to relate to mass movements for desirable reforms. That question was settled over a decade before at the first Comintern congresses.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The ICL, for one, doesn't buy into the hysteria over "neoliberalism". Capitalism is capitalism, and the "old" social democracies were no less anti-worker. But that's besides the point.


Well then I agree to a point with ICL although neoliberalism is a more sophisticated form of capitalism



The ICL analysis of China is given, among other articles, here (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/archives/oldsite/BRINK.HTM), with some guff about a Soviet Tibet that's been dropped shortly after the article was published.

I've read a part of this but I'm not wholly convinced.


And this is, I would say, pretty much how the ICL approaches the problem. You see the bureaucracy as merely representatives of imperialism - but how Trotsky actually put it was that they were intermediaries between imperialism and the workers' state. They were a contradictory caste - far from being simple lieutenants of the imperialists, they were influenced both by the demands of world imperialism and the pressures arising from the nationalised economy of the workers' state. The same, the ICL contends, goes for the Chinese bureaucracy. We can't say that we oppose their policies in the abstract.


That is plausible for the Soviet bureaucracy, but not the Chinese bureaucracy. The Chinese bureaucracy is no more accountable to the interests of the proletariat than the bureaucracy of a social democracy, or even the US.



Now, it is obvious, particularly taking into account the history of movements like Solidarnosc, that amorphous pro-democracy or anti-austerity etc. movements, without something approximating a revolutionary socialist programme, inevitably turn into anti-communist movements aiming at the destruction of the workers' state. That is why the ICL opposes them. Not because they oppose movements for reform that are not led by revolutionaries - this is obviously not the case if you look at their work in the US.

I think it was the failures of the Polish state which was really most culpable in the anti-communist nature of the Solidarnosc movement. The fact is that the workers encountered a state which was not accountable to them, which did not listen to their interests and was not seen as very credible. I think the issue with Poland was how the working class there had become so lacking in political consciousness by the 70s, and the only culprit I can think of is an incompetent so-called "worker's state" which failed to show the workers the benefits of their model over liberal capitalism.

Solidarnosc was different however since it was a movement of workers within state industries. The Hong Kong protests are not those kinds of protests - of course, state industry is not so prevalent.


And yet, as late as the forties, he still maintained that "in the final analysis, through the interests of the bureaucracy, in a very distorted form the interests of the workers’ state are reflected". This of course does not contradict his statements about the reactionary nature of the bureaucracy - in fact it provides the framework in which they are to be understood. But this statement underlies the need to defend the accomplishment of the workers' state even if that means being "on the same side" as the bureaucracy from time to time, and even if it means being against those forces (such as the Mensheviks) who fought for abstract democracy without class content.


First, I think you mean the 30s right? (for obvious reasons)

Second, I see no way in which one can maintain that the bureaucracy of China is the bureaucracy of a "worker's state". I see no way in which the PRC is a "worker's state" aside from sheer aesthetics or from metaphysical superstition. The Chinese state is basically a Capitalist autocracy which claims to be "essentially" socialist. Well, we're "actual" socialists and we don't believe in mysterious essences which are not reflected in the structures of the material world. If the PRC is a worker's state, then so was France under Emperor Napoleon, Germany under Bismark, or any other highly bureaucratic Capitalist state

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

An object can be internally contradictory, but be overwhelmed by one side of the contradiction, as the Soviet bureaucracy was in the 1930s, causing it to move decisively back toward capitalism and ever more away from the working class. Ergo the change of language about Stalinist centrism, the new call for multiparty elections, and all the rest. Your understanding of Trotsky's view is just as I said above. You think the bureaucracy was riven by a contradiction with two sides pulling it equally, with the effect being a kind of neutrality toward both poles. It's all a wonderful way of setting up how the bureaucracy really could do progressive things, like set up its own workers states. That's not how Trotsky viewed it.

Well, I would almost say you're correct re: your characterisation of my reading of Trotsky on the bureaucracy, but there is no neutrality. Neutrality is either static - that is, the bureaucracy would be always exactly or approximately between the two poles - or dynamic - that is, the bureaucracy would oscillate between the two poles but in such a way that their mean cumulative effect is neutral between the two poles. At least it seems to me these are the only two options. But it is entirely possible to admit that the bureaucracy was not neutral - that it was more often on the side of reaction

And well, I suppose we are going to disagree on what Trotsky meant, but how do you understand his statements about, again, Finland and Poland (yes, I know I'm boring with those two examples but they were the closest the old man came to addressing future developments in Chechoslovakia, Bulgaria etc.)? Because it seems clear to me - he was recognising the possibility of the Soviet Union installing a "Stalinist" regime in these countries even if he did not have a fully worked-out theory of how this would happen.

But you wouldn't say that, I suppose? So how do you understand his statement about the "firebug", for example? Obviously the firebug is doing something right even if it's for completely wrong reasons.


Yes, Trotsky viewed the nationalization of the means of production as the result of workers' revolutionary agency from the October period. He also believed that the Soviet bureaucracy was actively undermining that conquest, through inability to plan effectively because of the lack of democracy, and through how the resultant chaos was encouraging segments of the bureaucracy to maintain their growing level of bourgeois distributional remuneration through a more stable system--a new bourgeois system.

And yet, he polemicised against what he called "running back the film of revisionism" - a smooth transition from a workers' state to a bourgeois one. Certainly he recognised the counter-revolutionary tendencies of the bureaucracy - as does the ICL (consider the IG-ICL debate on the Reiss faction in the present epoch). But - and here is the real empirical test of what ICL considers to be orthodox Trotskyism - the ICL claim that a bourgeois dictatorship can't be restored without a sudden, violent counter-revolution (even if the workers "concede the crucial battle" - I can't remember how that was formulated in English now). If China goes capitalist, it won't be a smooth transition - that's our perspective - it will be like in Russia in the nineties.


He fought against those propaganda grouplets for the same reason the ISO fights against the ICL, and the CWI fights against the ISO, and the IMT fights against the SWP-US. That is a separate question from how to relate to mass movements for desirable reforms. That question was settled over a decade before at the first Comintern congresses.

But aren't you taking an abstract, A=A position now? As Trotsky saw it, when the first ComIntern congresses took place there was no need to view the Soviet Union as a temporarily stable workers' state, particularly not one that has been degenerated because of the failure of the world revolution. The Thermidor was a new situation, that the first congressess of the CI couldn't have taken into account.

[Sharia Lawn]

Well, I would almost say you're correct re: your characterisation of my reading of Trotsky on the bureaucracy, but there is no neutrality. Neutrality is either static - that is, the bureaucracy would be always exactly or approximately between the two poles - or dynamic - that is, the bureaucracy would oscillate between the two poles but in such a way that their mean cumulative effect is neutral between the two poles. At least it seems to me these are the only two options. But it is entirely possible to admit that the bureaucracy was not neutral - that it was more often on the side of reaction

Squirm as you may, Trotsky abandoned your characterization of Stalinism in the last years of his life. Do you disagree that he dropped the term centrism? Do you disagree that he viewed Stalinism as the single largest obstacle on the road to the establishment of socialism?

You might disavow that you do, but your poltics suggest otherwise. You think Stalinists were still oscillating in 1938 and 1939 when Trotsky viewed them as scurrying toward international capital. You view them as establishing workers' states in 1945 and 1946, when Trotsky would have viewed the suggestion as a betrayal of the simplest of Marxist principles. You see them as cracking down on workers on the side of a pro-worker social system in China today, between their meetings with Apple executives on how best to exploit Chinese workers. Your politics are as bankrupt as your reading of Trotsky is. Trotsky would have unloaded on you with the rhetorical ferocity he would have heaped onto four Shachtmans.

I am not a big fan of the interminable quote mining that goes on in these threads. Nevertheless I could easily provide quotes to substantiate my understanding of Trotsky's view, if you'd like to see them. Just say the word.

You've provided a single quote where Trotsky makes the uncontroversial observation that the Stalinist bureaucracy, as a bureaucracy, had some backward interest, entirely different from that of the workers, in defending nationalized property. Not strengthening socialism. Not standing on the side of the working class, even intermittently. Not in advancing working class agency. By 1939 he had abandoned that analysis. He didn't think it was a capitalist class, but he no longer viewed it as flitting back and forth indecisively between capital and labor. He viewed as a monstrous counter-revolutionary growth that was on the verge of reestablishing capitalism. He thought the situation was so dire that it was more reasonable to open up an electoral system to various non-revolutionary parties than it was to continue to let the Stalinists exercise a political monopoly. You are 80 years behind his analysis.


And well, I suppose we are going to disagree on what Trotsky meant, but how do you understand his statements about, again, Finland and Poland (yes, I know I'm boring with those two examples but they were the closest the old man came to addressing future developments in Chechoslovakia, Bulgaria etc.)? Because it seems clear to me - he was recognising the possibility of the Soviet Union installing a "Stalinist" regime in these countries even if he did not have a fully worked-out theory of how this would happen.He recognized the possibility of Stalinists nationalizing property and fighting against the bourgeoisie of Finland and Poland. History showed otherwise. Stalinists at the end of the war ended up on the side of fascists and monarchs, and joined them in strangling the working class of the "liberated" countries.


And yet, he polemicised against what he called "running back the film of revisionism" - a smooth transition from a workers' state to a bourgeois one. Certainly he recognised the counter-revolutionary tendencies of the bureaucracy - as does the ICL (consider the IG-ICL debate on the Reiss faction in the present epoch). But - and here is the real empirical test of what ICL considers to be orthodox Trotskyism - the ICL claim that a bourgeois dictatorship can't be restored without a sudden, violent counter-revolution (even if the workers "concede the crucial battle" - I can't remember how that was formulated in English now). If China goes capitalist, it won't be a smooth transition - that's our perspective - it will be like in Russia in the nineties.When does the ICL locate the counter-revolution against the Soviet workers' state, out of curiosity? What was the month and year? How many casualties were involved. I'd love to know.

[Sharia Lawn]

Then we have this in the latest issue of Workers Vanguard

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/index.html


Hong Kong Protests: Spearhead for Capitalist Counterrevolution

OCTOBER 13—Imperialist-backed “democracy” activists seeking to end Chinese Communist Party (CCP) control over the capitalist enclave of Hong Kong continue to block streets in parts of the city, as they have since late September. Using the demand for universal suffrage as a wedge, the protesters, known as the Umbrella Movement, are attempting to open the way for Hong Kong’s capitalist parties to exercise direct political power. It is in the interest of working people around the world to oppose these protests. Political power in the hands of the bourgeoisie in Hong Kong would be a spearhead for smashing the Chinese bureaucratically deformed workers state and opening the mainland to untrammeled capitalist exploitation.

[Art Vandelay]

I think it's actually surprising that we haven't seen more Trotskyist groups (of the orthodox-Trotskyist lineage) put forth a similar position. I'm not saying that I agree with the position, but it does seem like the logical line to take if you uphold China as a deformed workers state. Groups like the IMT, CWI, etc..also have the same characterization of China, yet their line is vastly different.

[Sharia Lawn]

I think it's actually surprising that we haven't seen more Trotskyist groups (of the orthodox-Trotskyist lineage) put forth a similar position. I'm not saying that I agree with the position, but it does seem like the logical line to take if you uphold China as a deformed workers state. Groups like the IMT, CWI, etc..also have the same characterization of China, yet their line is vastly different.

The Spart position assumes that the political revolution it calls for won't spring out of a mass movement of the type that currently exists in the streets of Hong Kong. Presumably it will arise out of a layer of declassed intellectuals hailing the red army in afghanistan. Nevermind the real movement or the role of struggle in bringing about a clearler picture of how to accomplish the tasks at hand.

[Sharia Lawn]

The Chinese bureaucracy recognizes the clear class lines, even if Workers Vanguard doesn't. http://online.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-leader-sticks-to-election-position-ahead-of-talks-1413817975


Hong Kong Leader Warns Poor Would Sway Vote

HONG KONG—Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said that if the government met student demands and allowed candidates to be nominated by the public, Hong Kong’s poor and working class could dominate the elections.


Speaking in an interview with foreign media, Mr. Leung reiterated that the student demand for direct input from the public on candidates for the city’s top post was impossible. He said using a nominating committee as required by Beijing gives representation to a wide range of groups. (Latest News: Hong Kong Protest Talks Set, Police Ready (http://online.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-protest-talks-set-police-ready-1413872991))


He warned that if candidates were nominated by the public, the population that earns less than the median monthly salary of US$1,800 could dominate the process.

[Geiseric]

Mensheviks and SRs used "more democracy" as a slogan. I need actual demands before I support the people on the ground in hong kong. What do they want done with the economy? Maidan was a disaster, lets not get fooled again.

[Sharia Lawn]

Mensheviks and SRs used "more democracy" as a slogan. I need actual demands before I support the people on the ground in hong kong. What do they want done with the economy? Maidan was a disaster, lets not get fooled again.

Yeah, it is risky. If the protestors got "more democracy, the working class in Hong Kong might use their increased political agency to elect people who will try to invite large bourgeois firms back in and privatize large chunks of industry. Or they might vote for opponents of the existing bureaucracy. We may never know.

[DOOM]

Then we have this in the latest issue of Workers Vanguard

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/index.html

Untrammeled capitalist exploitation, I see. so the mainland exploitation seems to be trammeled in some way. All hail the deformed workers' state of China!

[DOOM]

Mensheviks and SRs used "more democracy" as a slogan. I need actual demands before I support the people on the ground in hong kong. What do they want done with the economy? Maidan was a disaster, lets not get fooled again.

There's no reason to support them. Fact is those protests aren't in any way offerring communist perspectives.
However, this doesnt mean you have to make a complete U-turn and actively defend capitalist China supressing this movement. The inverse-conclusion, that one should oppose this movement and (indirectly) support China in doing so, is not working-class friendly.
At this point in time there's no active faction in Hong-Kong which is to be supported by us.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Apologies for responding late.


Squirm as you may, Trotsky abandoned your characterization of Stalinism in the last years of his life. Do you disagree that he dropped the term centrism? Do you disagree that he viewed Stalinism as the single largest obstacle on the road to the establishment of socialism?

I do not disagree that Trotsky dropped the term "centrist" when referring to the bureaucracy; however I do think that the second claim is far too simplistic and reduces Trotsky's very nuanced view of the bureaucracy to one of its sides. To me it is the same as when the left communists, acting out of genuine and understandable disgust at the trade-union leadership, write off unions entirely.


You might disavow that you do, but your poltics suggest otherwise. You think Stalinists were still oscillating in 1938 and 1939 when Trotsky viewed them as scurrying toward international capital. You view them as establishing workers' states in 1945 and 1946, when Trotsky would have viewed the suggestion as a betrayal of the simplest of Marxist principles.

It's difficult to say what people would have done if they were alive at some point, but while he was still alive, one of his last articles claims:

"I specified several times that if the war in Finland was not submerged in a general war, and if Stalin was not compelled to retreat before a threat from the outside, then he would be forced to carry through the sovietizing of Finland. This task by itself was much more difficult than the sovietizing of Eastern Poland. More difficult from a military standpoint, for Finland happened to be better prepared. More difficult from a national standpoint, for Finland possesses a long tradition of struggle for national independence from Russia, whereas the Ukrainians and the White Russians were fighting against Poland. More difficult from a social standpoint, for the Finnish bourgeoisie had in its own way solved the pre-capitalist agrarian problem through the creation of an agricultural petty-bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the military victory of Stalin over Finland would unquestionably have made fully possible an overthrow of property relations with more or less assistance from the Finnish workers and small farmers."

(Balance Sheet of the Finnish Events)

Sovietisation - what is that if not establishing a deformed workers' state? In fact, later on you admit that this was Trotsky's perspective, but claim that history did not bear it out.


I am not a big fan of the interminable quote mining that goes on in these threads. Nevertheless I could easily provide quotes to substantiate my understanding of Trotsky's view, if you'd like to see them. Just say the word.

Yes, I would like to see these quotes - not because I doubt your sincerity but because often I find that we and our political opponents understand the same quotes in an entirely different manner (cf. "aristocratic nations").


You've provided a single quote where Trotsky makes the uncontroversial observation that the Stalinist bureaucracy, as a bureaucracy, had some backward interest, entirely different from that of the workers, in defending nationalized property. Not strengthening socialism.

No Trotskyist, of the Cannonite variety or otherwise, would claim that the bureaucracy could "strengthen socialism". That's not the point. The point is that the bureaucracy defended - to an extent - nationalised property of a particular sort, the sort that corresponded to the transition between capitalism and communism (and not the nationalised property of a bourgeois state). In this their interest and the interest of the workers were aligned - but only to an extent. Overall, the bureaucracy was, as you say, a "monstrous growth" that had to be excised. But you don't excise growths by killing the patient - here, the Soviet workers' state.


Not standing on the side of the working class, even intermittently. Not in advancing working class agency. By 1939 he had abandoned that analysis. He didn't think it was a capitalist class, but he no longer viewed it as flitting back and forth indecisively between capital and labor. He viewed as a monstrous counter-revolutionary growth that was on the verge of reestablishing capitalism. He thought the situation was so dire that it was more reasonable to open up an electoral system to various non-revolutionary parties than it was to continue to let the Stalinists exercise a political monopoly. You are 80 years behind his analysis.

Surely we can agree that a non-revolutionary party, representing the bureaucracy as a special caste, was in power? Multi-party democracy, then, was not a matter of allowing further non-revolutionary parties to be represented in the political system (the Stalinists could do this - there is, after all, a "revolutionary committee" of the GMD in the councils of the Stalinist PRC), but of allowing parties that represent one or more of the strata of the proletariat, deprived of political power, to freely function.

If you think Trotsky wanted freedom for the Mensheviks and Kadets - well, that is something that would go against his entire work as a revolutionary.


He recognized the possibility of Stalinists nationalizing property and fighting against the bourgeoisie of Finland and Poland. History showed otherwise. Stalinists at the end of the war ended up on the side of fascists and monarchs, and joined them in strangling the working class of the "liberated" countries.

And yet, when the combinations with the imperialists failed, these countries all nationalised bourgeois property etc. - even China, which explicitly tried to include a "national" bourgeoisie, was compelled to move against them.


When does the ICL locate the counter-revolution against the Soviet workers' state, out of curiosity? What was the month and year? How many casualties were involved. I'd love to know.

Late August - November 1991, after the success of the Yeltsin putsch. There were few casualties because the working class was demoralised, atomised and without a Leninist leadership - which wasn't helped by those ostensible socialists who fell in line behind Yeltsin and Bush. You know the quote - in war and in politics, surrender can take place of the decisive battle.


The Spart position assumes that the political revolution it calls for won't spring out of a mass movement of the type that currently exists in the streets of Hong Kong. Presumably it will arise out of a layer of declassed intellectuals hailing the red army in afghanistan. Nevermind the real movement or the role of struggle in bringing about a clearler picture of how to accomplish the tasks at hand.

I see, was the Hungarian revolution led by "a layer of declassed intellectuals"? Was Tiananmen? Because the ICL recognises both as an example of an incipient workers' political revolution. At the same time they recognise that unrest in deformed workers' states can either be extremely left or extremely right - asking for socialism or for the dissolution of the workers' state. Everything I have seen and heard about the Hong Kong protests places them squarely in the latter category - these aren't people who are asking for the iron bowl back or for the reintroduction of the eight-grade wage scale (as naff as that was). What they want is bourgeois democracy, something that, to us, is entirely reactionary in the context of a workers' state, even a deformed one.

[Sharia Lawn]

Apologies for responding late.

I do not disagree that Trotsky dropped the term "centrist" when referring to the bureaucracy; however I do think that the second claim is far too simplistic and reduces Trotsky's very nuanced view of the bureaucracy to one of its sides. To me it is the same as when the left communists, acting out of genuine and understandable disgust at the trade-union leadership, write off unions entirely.

Earlier in his analysis Trotsky viewed the bureaucracy's zigzagging to be the result of its centrism. The party was centrist becuse it contained or was capable of attracting -- and in terms of its social function needed to be attractive to -- the vanguard of the proletariat, at the same time that the party's upper layers were thoroughly bureaucratised and growing ever more distant from the rank and file. The contradiction of centrism led to pulling in many different directions, resulting in dramatic about faces. Once centrism no longer captures the party or its bureaucracy, so too disappears the zagging. It also means that the party no longer has or needs to appeal to the vanguard. It is no longer a vanguard party. That should clue people in to what Trotsky would have thought about Stalinism making revolutions, as Trotsky was clear that only workers organized into a revolutionary vanguard party could do that.

You have a problem with my second claim that Trotsky viewed the bureaucracy as the single greatest obstacle to world revolution. I hate quote dropping, but here is what Trotsky himself said: "The primary political criterion for us is not the transformation of property relations in this or another area, however important these may be in themselves, but rather the change in the consciousness and organization of the world proletariat, the raising of their capacity for defending former conquests and accomplishing new ones. From this one, and the only decisive standpoint, the politics of Moscow, taken as a whole, completely retains its reactionary character and remains the chief obstacle on the road to the world revolution." (Revolution Betrayed)


It's difficult to say what people would have done if they were alive at some point, but while he was still alive, one of his last articles claims:

"I specified several times that if the war in Finland was not submerged in a general war, and if Stalin was not compelled to retreat before a threat from the outside, then he would be forced to carry through the sovietizing of Finland. This task by itself was much more difficult than the sovietizing of Eastern Poland. More difficult from a military standpoint, for Finland happened to be better prepared. More difficult from a national standpoint, for Finland possesses a long tradition of struggle for national independence from Russia, whereas the Ukrainians and the White Russians were fighting against Poland. More difficult from a social standpoint, for the Finnish bourgeoisie had in its own way solved the pre-capitalist agrarian problem through the creation of an agricultural petty-bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the military victory of Stalin over Finland would unquestionably have made fully possible an overthrow of property relations with more or less assistance from the Finnish workers and small farmers."Trotsky took the view that he did not because he still clung to the idea that the stalinists were centrists capable of making revolutions. He viewed the conquest as a good thing because he thought it would ignite the workers and that, because of the nature of the soviet system, the Stalinists would fall on the side of the workers, at least temporarily. The opposite happened. Materialists adjust their theories if they don't match up with reality.


Yes, I would like to see these quotes - not because I doubt your sincerity but because often I find that we and our political opponents understand the same quotes in an entirely different manner (cf. "aristocratic nations"). "This political fact, very significant in itself, provides at the same time a measure of the degeneration of the Comintern in the last few years. I once defined Stalinism as bureaucratic centrism, and events brought a series of corroborations of the correctness of this definition. But it is obviously obsolete today. The interests of the Bonapartist bureaucracy can no longer be reconciled with centrist hesitation and vacillation. In search of reconciliation with the bourgeoisie, the Stalinist clique is capable of entering into alliance only with the most conservative groupings among the international labor aristocracy. This has acted to fix definitively the counterrevolutionary character of Stalinism on the international arena." (The Spanish Revolution)


No Trotskyist, of the Cannonite variety or otherwise, would claim that the bureaucracy could "strengthen socialism". That's not the point. The point is that the bureaucracy defended - to an extent - nationalised property of a particular sort, the sort that corresponded to the transition between capitalism and communism (and not the nationalised property of a bourgeois state). In this their interest and the interest of the workers were aligned - but only to an extent. Overall, the bureaucracy was, as you say, a "monstrous growth" that had to be excised. But you don't excise growths by killing the patient - here, the Soviet workers' state.Yet when you describe the Stalinist bureaucracy as establishing workers' states over the heads of the workers, this is exactly what you are doing. The post-centrist bureaucracy defended nationalized property from incursions by foreign invaders -- and from the proletariat -- because its members had their own sights set on nationalized property. After Deng's and Castro's and Gorbechev's and Kim's reforms, I don't know how anybody can try to argue anything different.


Surely we can agree that a non-revolutionary party, representing the bureaucracy as a special caste, was in power? Multi-party democracy, then, was not a matter of allowing further non-revolutionary parties to be represented in the political system (the Stalinists could do this - there is, after all, a "revolutionary committee" of the GMD in the councils of the Stalinist PRC), but of allowing parties that represent one or more of the strata of the proletariat, deprived of political power, to freely function. If you think Trotsky wanted freedom for the Mensheviks and Kadets - well, that is something that would go against his entire work as a revolutionary.I think you miss the point. It wasn't whether Trotsky wanted non-revolutionary parties or revolutionary parties. It's that Trotsky wanted to open up the electoral process because he thought that the stranglehold of the bureaucracy represented a greater threat to the revolutionary agency of the working class than the possibility that the workers might turn to one or another non-revolutionary party. It was a calculated risk, but one he was willing to take.

Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, which is the home to some of the world's richest bourgeois tycoons, students demonstrating for more democracy because they can't afford apartments in the city are given the cold shoulder by supposed Trotskyists, because Trotsky said such and such about the war in Finland. Do you not see anything wrong with that?


Late August - November 1991, after the success of the Yeltsin putsch. There were few casualties because the working class was demoralised, atomised and without a Leninist leadership - which wasn't helped by those ostensible socialists who fell in line behind Yeltsin and Bush. You know the quote - in war and in politics, surrender can take place of the decisive battle.It's interesting that you date the counter-revolution to late August through early November of 1991, because your own organization's press (Workers Vanguard No 564, available on scribd) doesn't say that was the destruction of the workers' state. They say that the counter-revolution occurred in the summer of 1992. Here is what your own organization's press says about your dates: "The ascendancy of Yeltsin and capitalist restorationist forces backing him was a pivotal event in determining the fate of the Soviet Union, but it was not conclusive."

This is the problem that happens when you adopt a reformist understanding of the state, and try to use misconstrued Trotsky quotes to cover for it: revolutions become invisible. Trotsky's quote about the decisive battle refers to a situation in which one set of class forces have clearly mustered and are preparing to deploy force against a ruling class, or vice versa. There was nothing forcible, and there was no mustering of forces in 1991 or 1992, unless you count the move by one faction of the Stalinist bureaucracy that wanted to privatize more slowly trying to seize power away from another faction of the same bureaucracy that wanted to liberalize more quickly. But even the SL doesn't identify the coup attempt as the counter-revolution. And it's a good thing, because if it did, it would have to claim that a counter-revolution occurred as a result of a failure of a coup attempt!


I see, was the Hungarian revolution led by "a layer of declassed intellectuals"? Was Tiananmen? Because the ICL recognises both as an example of an incipient workers' political revolution. At the same time they recognise that unrest in deformed workers' states can either be extremely left or extremely right - asking for socialism or for the dissolution of the workers' state. Everything I have seen and heard about the Hong Kong protests places them squarely in the latter category - these aren't people who are asking for the iron bowl back or for the reintroduction of the eight-grade wage scale (as naff as that was). What they want is bourgeois democracy, something that, to us, is entirely reactionary in the context of a workers' state, even a deformed one.No, the protesters want democracy. They haven't called for privatization of property. In fact it would be weird if they did, since Hong Kong has nothing but privatized property. If you followed more closely, you'd see the protestors have the backing of workers in the city, and that the students have been highly critical of the capitalists, viewing them as working hand-in-hand with the mainland bureaucrats. I don't think anybody on the forum would suggest we support a slogan of "democracy" or the formation of a political bloc with the student leaders. But to forgo a united front action with these protestors because they aren't Leninist from the start? That's half-baked ultra-leftism.

[Sharia Lawn]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/02/news/economy/hong-kong-tycoons/


Hong Kong's glistening skyline is home to many booming industries, earning the city a reputation as a hub of free trade and opportunity. But in reality, the city of 7.2 million is dominated by a handful of tycoons that control everything from supermarkets to real estate.

[Sandy Becker]

Nope. Trotsky's position on attacks on the degenerated workers' state in the USSR was very clear -- In fact he was ready to side with Stalin against the Right Opposition -- Bukharin approached Trotsky as he was being smashed by Stalin -- Trotsky rejected this approach out of hand. In Spain, Trotsky was adamant that the no political support was to be given to POUM as they were precisely this kind of unprincipled bloc. In Hong Kong, the leadership of the movement is anti-communist and tied to international capital. Any "success" they have will be to further open up Hong Kong and China to imperialist penetration. It's not complicated. There will be nothing good coming from this kind of movement. How many of these "democratic" movements do you have to witness before you understand what they really represent?

[Sandy Becker]

This is incorrect. In my understand of Trotsky's view, which is the basis on which I have criticized you and VivaLaCuarta, the bureaucracy was sandwiched between the working class and international capitalism, and between socialistic property relations and bourgeois distribution norms. Where you depart from what Trotsky wrote and understood was that being sandwiched between two things doesn't mean that an entity is immovably neutral regarding or equidistant between those two things.

By the 1930s Trotsky had begun to argue that the CP of the Soviet Union had degenerated to the point where it needed to be removed forcibly by the working class through a political revolution on the masses. The reason this was important was that the bureaucracy was growing ever more distant from the working class, to the point where a section of the bureaucracy would sooner rather than later begin to try to reintroduce bourgeois capitalism back into the core of Soviet economy. This is also why he dropped the term centrism in his description of the Stalinist bureaucracy at that time.

It is in that context that you need to understand Trotsky's conception of permanent revolution, the role of democratic rights in that conception, and how those democratic rights relate to monopoly capital either direct or through the intermediary of a bureaucracy operating ever more fully under its sway.

It's pretty misleading to bring up how Trotsky didn't align himself politically or enter a political bloc with small non-revolutionary propaganda groups when what we're discussing is how revolutionaries relate to mass movements for bourgeois-democratic reforms. The record of where Trotsky stood on that issue is clear, no matter how many side-issues you try to bring up as a distraction.
But the only real bone of contention here is the class nature of the Chinese State. If you view it as a deformed worker's state, as the ICL does, it is imperative to oppose the pro-bourgeois "pro-democracy" movements. If you think China is a capitalist country and the rulers imperialist, then you wind up supporting the so-called reformers. The key issue for Trotsky was not abstract "democracy" but in whose class interest any movement was.

I would hasten to add that some major rightward moving splits from Trotskyism over the decades did this sort of thing. Shachtman regarding the invasion of Finland, Cliff over the Korean War. Most ostensible Trotskyists in the world supported Solidarnosc in Poland -- even though they rapidly became a reactionary movement. The leadership of the Hong Kong protests, having no pro-socialist/working class program, to the extent that it is not already in league with international imperialism, will become so post haste. That is how this stuff has always worked for the past 90 years or so.

[Sharia Lawn]

But the only real bone of contention here is the class nature of the Chinese State. If you view it as a deformed worker's state, as the ICL does, it is imperative to oppose the pro-bourgeois "pro-democracy" movements. If you think China is a capitalist country and the rulers imperialist, then you wind up supporting the so-called reformers. The key issue for Trotsky was not abstract "democracy" but in whose class interest any movement was. A pro-bourgeois student movement that wants to extract voting rights for the poor against the powerful billionaire bourgeois tycoons who dominate Hong Kong? Clearly counter-revolutionaries in league with Western imperialism. The central issue for Trotsky was workers' political agency, with property forms and classification of state power flowing from that central category. Trotsky in 1936 viewed the Soviet Union as a workers state but supported workers struggling for democratic rights because he understood the issue wasn't "democracy" in the abstract but masses of workers and oppressed people struggling for democracy: their agency was the issue, even if they had not fully worked out their politics to the point where it was a revolutionary working class program.
I would hasten to add that some major rightward moving splits from Trotskyism over the decades did this sort of thing. Shachtman regarding the invasion of Finland, Cliff over the Korean War. Most ostensible Trotskyists in the world supported Solidarnosc in Poland -- even though they rapidly became a reactionary movement. The leadership of the Hong Kong protests, having no pro-socialist/working class program, to the extent that it is not already in league with international imperialism, will become so post haste. That is how this stuff has always worked for the past 90 years or so. Your beloved Chinese workers state is already in league with international imperialism far more than any Hong Kong students are. Any analysis that doesn't recognize this objective and undeniable fact is mired in pseudo-revolutionary word games and doctrinaire clowning.