What Type Of Communism Is Most Popular

[RedAnarchist]

Somone recently said to me that Trotskyism is more popular in the UK than any other Communist idealogy. Is this true?

[Saint-Just]

Euro-communism and Trotskyism are most popular. I am not sure which is more popular. It is probably Trotskyism. I would suggest that Trotskyism is only popular in developed western societies because it is bourgeois-socialism.

[il Commie]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 6 2004, 05:15 PM
Euro-communism and Trotskyism are most popular. I am not sure which is more popular. It is probably Trotskyism. I would suggest that Trotskyism is only popular in developed western societies because it is bourgeois-socialism.
Yes, and I guess Palestine is a developed western country, since the RCPP is trotzkyist (I'm not saying it's the biggest communist organization in Palestine, I'm just saying it's relatively big).

Anyways, I guess Trotzkysm became popular in the UK after the fall of the USSR, because it criticized the mistakes of the soviet state from a very early period (the rise of Stalinism).



And if we're already talking about bourgeois-socialism, I am very suprised that a maoist calls Trotzkysm like that. After all, it is Maoism who calls for a peasants revolution. I wish to remind you that peasants (in contradiction to workers) own land, and since land is private property we can see that the peasants are bourgeois - petty bourgeois.

So if Maoism supports a guerilla revolution of petty-bourgeois, and Trotzkyism supports a revolution of the workers and petty-bourgeois led by the workers - which one is bourgeois-socialism?

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by il [email protected] 6 2004, 09:21 PM
I wish to remind you that peasants (in contradiction to workers) own land, and since land is private property we can see that the peasants are bourgeois - petty bourgeois.
Dont be silly!

Peasants are peasants not petty-bourgeois, where the hell did you get the idea that peasants own land???
they work the land for the owner, they are labourers and tenants.

[Voice of the Revolution]

I think that by deffinition peasants do not own land. But I think I can see what il Commie was saying though. A revolution involving only the most downrtrodden of the prolatariat is doomed to failure. Rember that we all are sitting here, with acess to a computer and the internet, the borgoise trappings of the western world.

[il Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 09:43 PM
Peasants are peasants not petty-bourgeois, where the hell did you get the idea that peasants own land???
they work the land for the owner, they are labourers and tenants.
Incorrect, a peasants are like a falahs in Palestine. They own a small piece of land, and they live on what it gives them. They don't employ workers, maybe just one or two. Peasants use a less modern mode of farming, that's why they are more to be find in the 3rd world than in the west.

In a more modern farming we have the land owners, which are like the bouregeois of the countryside. They own big lands and the farming tools and they employ workers to work there. They're workers are 'farm proletariat', they don't have any private property.

The farm proletariat is in the same class with the urban proletariat, but the peasants have a different role in society. They usualy join the workers, and in Russia they also joint the revolution, but they are not the leaders of the communist revolution. If they are, than you and up not with Socialism but with a degenerated workers' state, like China.

[Guest1]

The problem here my man, is you are talking about a completely different system.

There really aren't many peasants in the world anymore. A peasant doesn't just mean poor farmer. It is a class all on its own. Peasants were the downtrodden class of the feudalist system. There are very few left over from that system nowadays.

Peasants were basically slaves who lived on the land of their feudal lord, and worked in exchange for some food and board.

Modern day "peasants" work for their landlords.

[Saint-Just]

Yes, and I guess Palestine is a developed western country, since the RCPP is trotzkyist (I'm not saying it's the biggest communist organization in Palestine, I'm just saying it's relatively big).

Yes, there are a few Trotskyist organisations in developing countries, but as you specified, they are often small.


Anyways, I guess Trotzkysm became popular in the UK after the fall of the USSR, because it criticized the mistakes of the soviet state from a very early period (the rise of Stalinism).

Trotskism has been popular in the UK for a long time before the fall of the USSR.


And if we're already talking about bourgeois-socialism, I am very suprised that a maoist calls Trotzkysm like that. After all, it is Maoism who calls for a peasants revolution. I wish to remind you that peasants (in contradiction to workers) own land, and since land is private property we can see that the peasants are bourgeois - petty bourgeois.

I am not a Maoist but anyway, although I would not call Trotsky's ideas bourgeois I would suggest that people who align themselves with him nowadays are bourgeois socialists.


So if Maoism supports a guerilla revolution of petty-bourgeois, and Trotzkyism supports a revolution of the workers and petty-bourgeois led by the workers - which one is bourgeois-socialism?

Maoists and Trotskyists both subscribe to Leninism. Lenin said that the revolution will not be led only by workers but by middle-class intellectuals. In Russia peasants were important in the revolution, the industrial working-class was very small, the same for China.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 7 2004, 05:13 PM

Yes, and I guess Palestine is a developed western country, since the RCPP is trotzkyist (I'm not saying it's the biggest communist organization in Palestine, I'm just saying it's relatively big).

Yes, there are a few Trotskyist organisations in developing countries, but as you specified, they are often small.
I'm pretty shure that nowadays Trotzkyist parties are bigger in South America than Stalinists parties.

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by il [email protected] 7 2004, 07:33 AM
Incorrect, a peasants are like a falahs in Palestine. They own a small piece of land, and they live on what it gives them. They don't employ workers, maybe just one or two. Peasants use a less modern mode of farming, that's why they are more to be find in the 3rd world than in the west.

In a more modern farming we have the land owners, which are like the bouregeois of the countryside. They own big lands and the farming tools and they employ workers to work there. They're workers are 'farm proletariat', they don't have any private property.

The farm proletariat is in the same class with the urban proletariat, but the peasants have a different role in society. They usualy join the workers, and in Russia they also joint the revolution, but they are not the leaders of the communist revolution. If they are, than you and up not with Socialism but with a degenerated workers' state, like China.
In the "first world" the farmers are petty bourgeois and in the "first world" they own land, there are no longer such a class as peasants in the "first world"

In the "third world" there is still such a thing as peasants, these people do not own land, they work it and are tenants on it, how modern equipment they use is irrelavent, thought it is likely that they use older machinery/methods as they have no money to update.

You could refer to these people as farmers but if you do dont confuse them as being the same as the farmers in the "first world"

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:26 PM
I'm pretty shure that nowadays Trotzkyist parties are bigger in South America than Stalinists parties.
:lol:

I really don't think thats the case.


In South America we have the FARC, the ELN (ruling half of Colombia), the Bolivarian movement, ruling faction in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and powerful influence on the whole of Sout America, the Cuban Communist Party ruling party in Cuba obviously, the Workers Party of Brazil, ruling party of Brazil including the president, the Movement Towards Socialism in Bolivia, majority party in parliament in Bolivia, the reconstructed Peruvian Communist Party, the "Shining Path.," the Sandinista's in Nicaragua, the FMLN in El Salvador.

And this is just counting pro-soviet Marxist-Leninists who actually control a country or a sizable part of a country. That is eight Latin American countries either controlled by or heavily influenced by non-trotskyist Communist parties.

What South American Trotskyists where you thinking of?

[il Commie]

I talked with an israeli member of the CMI. He said they have a big party in Pakistan. He said it is 10 times bigger than all of the israeli anti-zionist left, and I don't find it hard to believe.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by TragicClown+Feb 9 2004, 05:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TragicClown @ Feb 9 2004, 05:18 AM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 03:26 PM
I&#39;m pretty shure that nowadays Trotzkyist parties are bigger in South America than Stalinists parties.
:lol:

I really don&#39;t think thats the case.


In South America we have the FARC, the ELN (ruling half of Colombia), the Bolivarian movement, ruling faction in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and powerful influence on the whole of Sout America, the Cuban Communist Party ruling party in Cuba obviously, the Workers Party of Brazil, ruling party of Brazil including the president, the Movement Towards Socialism in Bolivia, majority party in parliament in Bolivia, the reconstructed Peruvian Communist Party, the "Shining Path.," the Sandinista&#39;s in Nicaragua, the FMLN in El Salvador.

And this is just counting pro-soviet Marxist-Leninists who actually control a country or a sizable part of a country. That is eight Latin American countries either controlled by or heavily influenced by non-trotskyist Communist parties.

What South American Trotskyists where you thinking of? [/b]
With Stalinist parties I mean "anti-revisionist" parties, not just "pro-soviet Marxist-Leninists", whereby I doubt that all of your parties are really pro-soviet Marxist-Leninists.
But I&#39;m not a Trotzkyist, and my post was admittingly just a guess out of the blue. But I know for example that Trotkyists have played a significant role in the workers protests and factory squattings in Argentinia.

[Guest1]

How the hell do you count all of those parties as "Stalinist"?

Are you on crack? You&#39;re telling me Hugo Chavez is a Stalinist?

I like the guy, but even I know he&#39;s not even a Communist, no matter how left-wing he is.

Besides, not all Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2004, 09:01 PM
How the hell do you count all of those parties as "Stalinist"?

Are you on crack? You&#39;re telling me Hugo Chavez is a Stalinist?

I like the guy, but even I know he&#39;s not even a Communist, no matter how left-wing he is.

Besides, not all Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists.
TragicClown was saying that these movements were non-Trotskyist communists, not that they were &#39;Stalinist&#39;. Also, he never referred to Hugo Chavez at all, where did you see that? He was talking about a faction of the bolivarian movement in Venezuala.

&#39;Stalinists&#39; support these movements, such as the one in Venezuala. But Trotskyists always say they hope a &#39;real&#39; worker&#39;s revolution will overthrow them.