the importance of economics

[Vincent]

I have been reading through the boards and a few things have struck me. Here I'd like to discuss an almost complete lack of respect for the importance of econmics in revolutions, capitalism, and communism.

I see so many threads talking fighting for revolution, winning party seats in government, killing capitalists blah blah blah. It's almost as if no one has actually READ any of Marx's works, or any of his contemporaries works.

People don't seem to understand that revoluton hasn't come because the global economic situation has not ever been dire enough to warrant a mass workers uprising at the hands of a fatherly Communist party.

So what I am saying is, I obviously have no faith in the notion of forced revolution. What is your opinion; do you think the orthodox Marxist concept of a 'natural', economic based, revolution is credible, or do you think 'screw that, let's get some guns and start the revolution now'?

[redstar2000]

I share your frustration. Many people on this board still accept, consciously or not, Lenin's idea that "revolutionary will" could be freely substituted for favorable material conditions.

If you try hard enough, you can do anything.

This is, in the last analysis, 19th century bourgeois idealism...and not Marxism at all.

The weakness of Marxist theory in explicitly defining what the necessary material conditions really are just strengthens this old bourgeois conceit.

You can see what is needed here. Someone (or some group) of academic Marxists need to examine the "parameters" of a large sample of revolutions over the last century. They need to distinguish variables and how to weigh them in a consistent way.

Imagine how much better we could do if we could accurately say: this is a pre-revolutionary situation -- the favorable index stands at 97 and is still rising.

Or, this is not a revolutionary situation -- the favorable index stands at 17 and will probably decline further before it starts to rise again.

We could even prepare tables...

Nepal...85 and rising (peasant)

Venezuela...68 and rising (left bourgeois/nationalist)

Colombia...57 and rising (peasant)

Bolivia...42 and stationary (peasant/nationalist)

Argentina...36 and falling (proletarian)

France...23 and rising (proletarian)

Germany...16 and rising (proletarian)

United States...6 and falling (proletarian)

These numbers are all imaginary...but suppose they were real?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[enigma2517]

Sounds like a plan lets do it :)

[Paradox]

Now I know your example was just that, an example. But it looks as though you have already been working on this "Revolutionary Index," redstar. And as far as Venezuela and the US are concerned, it looks like you're doing a good job at it too!!! :lol: My knowledge of the other countries is pretty low, except maybe Colombia, so I can't say whether your index ratings of them are good, but I like the model. Quite an interesting and potentially very helpful idea. :D

[redstar2000]

Actually measuring things is the most difficult aspect of "social science"...the more I read of such matters, the more it seems to me that everyone is mostly "groping in the dark".

Lately, I've been reading an economic history of the USSR...and realized while I was reading it that central planners in the USSR did not know how to measure what they were doing. They had "units" and tried to "add them up"...but the units were misleading or worse!

For example, a given plan might call for "X tons" of sheet steel...and this was duly produced or even more. But, in order to meet that quota, steel factories made "extra-thick, extra-heavy" steel sheets...because it was easier to meet the quota by producing fewer but heavier sheets.

And the Russians were actually counting real, material objects. (!)

So you can imagine the problems with constructing an accurate "revolutionary situation index" -- the product of a whole series of sub-indexes.

General level of technological development/general condition of infrastructure
Population of different classes/growth or shrinkage/age distribution
Class mobility/stratification
Specific type of class rule/well-entrenched or unstable
Demonstrated organizational capacity of exploited class(es)
Previous revolutionary history
War likely or in progress/defeat likely or imminent
Quality/class basis/size of existing revolutionary movements
Influence of religion/racism/sexism/nationalism, etc.

And probably many other factors that I've overlooked.

You can see this would be a massive undertaking; only a sizable group would be able to do this. And I suggested "academic Marxists" because they would have the time and access to the resources to pull something like this off.

And, of course, the indexes would all have to be updated with considerable frequency...at least every couple of years or so. It would almost require a well-funded "Institute of Revolutionary Studies" to manage the task on an ongoing basis.

I'm thinking something along the lines of the U.S. National Hurricane Center...that would issue "bulletins" when political "storms" emerge and give promise of growing into "revolutionary hurricanes". The NHC has, I think, 8 or 9 computer models of how hurricanes develop and move under different conditions...and their models usually cluster around a certain forecast -- they are very accurate.

So that we might one day get an "IRS" email; re: Special Bulletin #1 on the current political crisis in France.

In light of the recent events in France, we have raised the RSI to 62 from last year's 48 -- and there is a good chance of further increases in the next few months.

Or, a more prosaic example: The RSI for the United States is raised to 12...the first time for a U.S. double-digit rating since the index began.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vincent]

Some very interesting ideas here, indeed!

This may sound like a an idiots question, but I'll go for it... doesn't your indexing assume that one country can operate independantly from another? Wouldn't you need to take into account other countries' situations to give an indication of the 'real' situation in one particular country? Wouldn't you expect the values of certain indexes in one country or a number of countries to affect others? Of course ou would, but this would make the task all the more difficult.

But, in all probability, I just don't understand the concept!

Also, I've never been a supporter of the idea that communism/socialism can actually be achieved, fully, in one country alone- which is my excuse for the questions above!

[redstar2000]

The RSI of a given country could certainly be strongly influenced by the situation in a neighboring country...a high RSI for Germany would boost the index for Austria, Switzerland, Holland, and Denmark, for example.

However, this idea doesn't really have too much to do with "socialism in one country"...which is a separate issue. Rather, it addresses the profound weakness of revolutionary theory: we cannot tell why a revolution happens in this place and not some other place, or why it happens at this time and not some other time.

We are like coastal dwellers before 1950 -- a hurricane (revolution) comes as a complete surprise for which we are totally unprepared.

Consider May 1968 in France -- which was just such an unexpected storm. How much better would the revolutionary forces in France had done if they had had a few months warning to prepare? To address the French working class on the need to go beyond the passive occupations and begin to establish "soviets" before the occupations even began, etc.

We know from history that even the most politically advanced elements are still "not revolutionary enough" in situations where even more could be attempted with an excellent chance of success.

Or, in really reactionary situations, how much better would the revolutionaries fare if they "knew what was coming" and set up an underground apparatus to protect their people while the period of reaction lasted?

What happens now is that people offer unsupported opinions -- often dignified with the title of "analysis" -- about what is going to happen next. I do it, you do it, we all do it. Whoever "guesses right" looks like a "great theoretician", the "next Lenin", blah, blah, blah. Until, of course, their next guess turns out to be crap.

If Marxism is to become a thoroughly scientific discipline, then we have to do better than that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

So where is the human subject in all this? Where is the working class? We are talking about people, about human beings, with brains and consciousness. I've used this quote from the Communist Manifesto before: "Every class struggle is a political struggle." Political forces have to battle for the "hearts and minds" of the working class. Communism does not "naturally" arise out of capitalist society.

I'm not undermining economic circumstances here. We live in a period where capitalism is in a deep malaise. It's not experiencing any serious booms, just as it's not experiencing any serious busts. What does not come up very high will not drop very hard. The truth is that capitalism is rotting from the head. But, nonetheless, there is NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE to capitalism in our period as there were in past periods. The only challenge to capitalism in capitalist society will ever come from the working class. But the working class today is disorganised, depoliticised and demoralised by the countless defeats of the past. This is a subjective problem, just as it is an objective problem, for those of us who want to see a revolutionary transformation of society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
So where is the human subject in all this? Where is the working class? We are talking about people, about human beings, with brains and consciousness.

Indeed...and human behavior is undoubtedly orders of magnitude more complicated than a hurricane.

But "the subjective approach" does not seem to have done us any good. Over the course of a lifetime, I've lost track of all the proclamations I've read that began "A new period in capitalism has emerged...in which we must blah, blah, blah".

The last time any of those proclamations turned out to be significantly true was Stalin's Comintern back in 1928 or thereabouts...which predicted correctly the world-wide great depression. It also predicted lots of proletarian revolutions (false) and inter-imperialist wars (true).


Political forces have to battle for the "hearts and minds" of the working class. Communism does not "naturally" arise out of capitalist society.

Communists emerge "naturally" from capitalist society and do battle for the "hearts and minds" of the proletariat.

What we don't know (the weakness of revolutionary theory) is why that battle is successful at some times and not other times or in some places and not other places.

Consider a country like India. It has a huge and utterly wretched peasantry. But it also has a substantial proletariat...probably more culturally advanced than the Russian proletariat of 1917 (though not by all that much). It also has a "westernized" capitalist elite with a substantial petty-bourgeoisie.

It is both "like" and "unlike" the Russia of 1917. What are the possibilities there? What should communists be doing there and what is just a waste of time?

I could make some guesses, you could make some guesses, and communists in India could make even better guesses...but everybody's still guessing.

If one of the rival communist parties in India made some "lucky guesses" and came to power as a consequence, there'd be a whole lot of people (including many on this board) who would hail their "revolutionary genius" and say "wow, those guys really knew what they were doing -- let's learn from them!".

No, they didn't "know what they were doing", they won the lottery!


But, nonetheless, there is NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE to capitalism in our period as there were in past periods. The only challenge to capitalism in capitalist society will ever come from the working class. But the working class today is disorganised, depoliticised and demoralised by the countless defeats of the past. This is a subjective problem, just as it is an objective problem, for those of us who want to see a revolutionary transformation of society.

Yes, the working class today has a real "self-esteem" problem...they think they "can't win" no matter what they do.

Do you prescribe "talk therapy"? I don't think that's going to get the job done. There do not appear to be any "magic words" that convert a demoralized working class into a confidant and aggressive one.

Only significant changes in objective material conditions can do that. Our problem is that we don't know what those changes have to be to produce the revolutionary climate that we require to get anything done.

All we can say is "things have to get worse"...but "worse" in what way? Economic collapse? Major military defeats? Outrageous fascist repression? Some lefties are even betting on environmental catastrophes. (!)

Looking back on the history of the communist movement from the time of Marx and Engels, we can observe that most of the time, the working class is passive and uninterested in what we have to say. A few times, they are interested...but undecided. And, on rare occasions, they rip the ideas out of our mouths and run with them!

But we have not the faintest idea why the good result turns up when it does and where it does.

We just guess.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[joshdavies]

I think wihen looking at the relation between economics and the potential for a revolution its important to have a clear understanding of the role and the potential role that both the objective situation (the economics) and the level of organised class consciousness have.

Marxists understand, of course, that 'being determines consciousness' and that a worsening economic situation for capitalism exposes the system's bare bones and leaves workers seeing less and less benefits from it. A period of capitalist decline or stagnation clarifies exploitative class relations and so leads to more leftward moving consciousness (although a period of growth can also show clearly that exploitation exists through the tendency in imperialism for the gap between rich and poor to widen - the difference is that if people have more money, as they tend to when capitalism is growing, then they will be less inclined to be against capitalism).

But a bad economic situation doesn't in itself lead to a successful revolution - this is where the factor of the leadership of the class comes in. A look at the potential embodied in the 1984 miners strike in Britain, Germany in 1918-23 or most of the imperialist world after the 1929 crash shows this.

The fact is that there are the material conditions (and I'd say the material necessity) for the replacement of capitalism by socialism and at times this argument is easier to make and has more resonance amongst the mass of workers. These times come from situations in which the economy or the political situation (which is of course dictated to by the economic situation but does not necessarily follow it hand in hand - in 2003 for instance there was a lot of struggle in Britain and a lot of people became more class conscious but there was no crash in the economy). A Marxist understanding of capitalist economics shows us that capitalism will inevitably be in crisis again and again (because of the inevitable periodic overproduction which takes place because of competition). The role of revolutionaries is to organise around a clear programme and to use these situations where the economy makes socialism an argument which has more resonance amongst the working class and turn them into situations where you can turn the situation into being one where the capitalists are having problems trying to increase their rates of profit into one where the question is of which class runs society.

This doesn't mean that everything is down to the economy though. To reach such a conclusion is qute dangerous, look at the perspectives of the 4th International after Trotsky's death where they followed on from the (incorrect) prediction by Trotsky that the world economy was going to be in crisis afte rthe world war (the perspectives did not factor in US imperialism and the strengthening of Stalinism) and led to such useless and liquidationist tacics as deep entryism being perfomed as long term strategies. If you simply wait for an economic crisis you are doomed to make similar mistakes.

Trotsky outlined three factors which improve the prospects for a revolution: 1) weak ruling class, 2) a strong working class 3) an economic or social crisis, this situation needs to be 'exploited' by a revolutionary party which can enable the working class to take full advantage of it. The achievement of the above conditions does not rest soley on an economic crisis and shows the decisive role that conscious and organised revolutionaries play in deciding the outcome of a situation.

In short there can be no proper understanding of the role of revolutionaries in changing the world without looking at economics but any understanding of economics has to be coupled with an understanding of the ability of revolutionaries to change the world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by joshdavies
But a bad economic situation doesn't in itself lead to a successful revolution - this is where the factor of the leadership of the class comes in.

Ok...then where are they?

Where are the Leninists in the "west" who "got it right"? Who seized upon "a bad economic situation" and led the working class to victory?

How many hundreds of Leninist vanguard parties have there been in the "west"...and not a single one achieved squat!

We (non-Leninists) admit that we don't know why one "bad economic situation" leads to a working class upheaval and a hundred others (some far worse) do not.

You (Leninists) claim that it's the lack of correct Leninist leadership -- but then how is it that no Leninists have ever been capable of providing this "crucial" ingredient?

Was Lenin the only competent Leninist?

And, if so, are we not back to a "great man" theory of history?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[joshdavies]

Leninists are only people and people make mistakes.

I don't think anyone would argue that the class struggle is simple; different balances of class forces, missed opportunities, over estimations, under estimations and all kinds of things can mean that when push comes to shove economically the working class does not take political power. That is what a crisis of leadership means, it is not about 'great men' it is about the decisions made by the working class and its organisations over time and is about how those organisations are built up over time and how they relate to the class and to struggles.

If a crisis of leadership (and anarchists could think that a crisis of leadership would be solved by the working class building anarchist organisations) doesn't play a part but capitalism has gone through many crises and times where capitalism has been exposed as being an anti working class system - then why hasn't a revolution happened?

I think that trying to create an index of revolutionary potential is too simplistic and doesn't take any account of the changes that can happen in working class consciousness.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Josh
If a crisis of leadership (and anarchists could think that a crisis of leadership would be solved by the working class building anarchist organisations) doesn't play a part but capitalism has gone through many crises and times where capitalism has been exposed as being an anti- working class system - then why hasn't a revolution happened?

I don't know...and it's precisely my point that no one knows. It is the basic weakness of revolutionary theory at this point that no one can say with any confidence why the working class rises here and not there and at this time and not some other time.

The Leninist approach just says that "if it doesn't happen" it's because the "right leadership" wasn't present.

How utterly pathetic that explanation is!

And how useless...because we only know if the "right leadership" was present afterwards.

It tells us nothing about how to pick "the right leaders" ahead of time.

In other words, it tells us nothing useful at all!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[joshdavies]

I think you're misunderstanding Leninism. I don't think any Leninist would put every stage of the working class movement and its successes and failures down to simply leadership. Economics plays a huge part - if your working conditions are being attacked (for example) then you are likely to be more inclined to fight back and organise in your workplace - leadership comes into it when decisions are being made as to wat course of action to take (eg. in a strike to continue the last example). At times leadership and the level of organisation become more important than the broader economic situation, but other times it is the other way round.

Your misunderstanding of what Leninism has to say about leadershiip goes further when you say
It tells us nothing about how to pick "the right leaders" ahead of time. what the right leadership means is not about the individual people who are put in charge of organising a strike or demonstration (unless of couse, you are a Stalinist in which case there's an obsession with personalities) it is about the structures that the working class builds up in order to be able to fight against the bosses. These include Trade Unions, workers councils and a revolutionary party. Each have different roles in the course of struggle. Building up each of these is important to win the struggle and to provide the class with better leadership.

But building up structures in itself doesn't guarentee success, it is also necessary to make sure these structures - the means by which the working class is represented and wages its fight - have the corret politics. At one level saying that you can only know what is correct afterwards is true, but this is where the need for a revolutionary party comes in. As the saying goes 'the party is the memory of the class', by building a revolutionary parrty out of the most militant and class conscious elements of the working class which dedicates itself to learning from past struggles and from them together with an analysis of current events comes up with the best way it sees as being able to win a struggle and fighting for it you guard against mistakes (although obviously there is no guarantee).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Josh
As the saying goes 'the party is the memory of the class'...

Then it must suffer from advanced Alzheimer's Disease.

How else to explain their willingness to do the same things over and over again without regard to historical experience?

The vast majority of Leninist parties in the past and up to this very day take bourgeois "elections" seriously -- either supporting "left"-bourgeois candidates or running their own candidates.

Even though it's been self-evident since 1914 that there is no electoral path to socialism, much less communism.

So what is it with these guys? Why can't they learn from a 90-year losing streak?

They all think that whatever Lenin did (or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao, etc.), we'll "do it too"...and that's "how we'll win".


...by building a revolutionary party out of the most militant and class conscious elements of the working class which dedicates itself to learning from past struggles and from them together with an analysis of current events comes up with the best way it sees as being able to win a struggle and fighting for it, you guard against mistakes (although obviously there is no guarantee).

This leaves you with two choices:

1. There have been no revolutionary situations at all in the "west" for the last 90 years.

2. There have been such situations, but the Leninists fucked up every single time.

The first choice seems untenable...but the second choice implies that the Leninists are chronically incompetent. Their claim to "revolutionary expertise" is falsified.

They are actually an obstacle to proletarian revolution.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

The vast majority of Leninist parties in the past and up to this very day take bourgeois "elections" seriously -- either supporting "left"-bourgeois candidates or running their own candidates.

Even though it's been self-evident since 1914 that there is no electoral path to socialism, much less communism.

So what is it with these guys? Why can't they learn from a 90-year losing streak?

They all think that whatever Lenin did (or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao, etc.), we'll "do it too"...and that's "how we'll win".

I believe Lenin was wrong on this issue, i agree with you that we must not participate in bourgeois elections.

The only thing most western Communist parties seem to do is prepare for elections to get as many votes as possible (usually about 0.10% of the total), as if it matters.

If you ask them why they do it they respond "well Lenin said this", who cares?!?

[YKTMX]

I share your frustration. Many people on this board still accept, consciously or not, Lenin's idea that "revolutionary will" could be freely substituted for favorable material conditions.


You wouldn't have to have a source or example for this allegation would you?

Anyone who understands Leninism knows that Lenin was always fighting against the idea that revolutionary will could "substitute" itself for the masses.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:15 AM

I share your frustration. Many people on this board still accept, consciously or not, Lenin's idea that "revolutionary will" could be freely substituted for favorable material conditions.


You wouldn't have to have a source or example for this allegation would you?

Anyone who understands Leninism knows that Lenin was always fighting against the idea that revolutionary will could "substitute" itself for the masses.
I think you have misunderstood the intent of my statement.

Lenin did indeed argue against the idea that the party could "substitute" itself for the masses. And all Leninist parties have at least paid lip-service to that idea.

What I'm speaking here about is the idea that you can substitute "revolutionary will" (as concentrated in the party) for objective conditions that determine what kind of revolution takes place...or even if one takes place at all.

For example, that a backward country can have a bourgeois revolution that "passes into" a socialist revolution without a long period of capitalist development between those two events.

Or that the "leading role of the party" is sufficient to "begin the construction of socialism" without regard to objective material conditions.

Or that a small working class minority can make a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry.

This kind of stuff is idealism...no matter how much "Marxist" rhetoric it is surrounded with.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

I think you have misunderstood the intent of my statement.


No, I think the problem is that I understand exactly what you're saying.


What I'm speaking here about is the idea that you can substitute "revolutionary will" (as concentrated in the party) for objective conditions that determine what kind of revolution takes place...or even if one takes place at all.


This is not a tenet of Leninism.

It's a fairly historically specific view, closely tied to peasant struggles in the third world. These groups, because of the geopolitical conditions of the time, decided to try and frame their ideas in the "Leninist" orthodoxy of the times e.g Stalinism.

We're past that now, those days are over. Move on, Red.


For example, that a backward country can have a bourgeois revolution that "passes into" a socialist revolution without a long period of capitalist development between those two events.

The theory of permanent revolution is too long to be discussed here I think.


Or that the "leading role of the party" is sufficient to "begin the construction of socialism" without regard to objective material conditions.

Not Leninsm again.


Or that a small working class minority can make a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry.

Well, this actually happened, so I'm not sure how you can argue that this is "idealistic". The Russian workers made the proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
We're past that now, those days are over. Move on, Red.

It would be nice if we really were...but I don't think that's the case.

The ongoing "mystique" of Leninism still revolves around "the leading role of the party"...without which "we're nothing".

But we've had nine decades of Leninism (in various forms)...and we're still nothing.

Time to "move on", indeed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[joshdavies]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:42 AM
we've had nine decades of Leninism (in various forms)...and we're still nothing.
The point though isn't that the conditions today are exactly the same as during Lenin's time and all people should do is to act exactly as the Bolsheviks did and then everything will be fine and dandy. An important part of not just Leninism, but of Marxism is the understanding that conditions can change, both the economic conditions of capitalist society and the state that the working class movement is in and the understanding that whilst these things change we are still in a capitalist society and certain things still exist which need to be fought and which are at the root of problems. Your argument that Leninism hasn't moved on is nonsense, anyone who sees Leninism as a dogma clearly needs to read some Lenin.

Also, you say that in 90 years no Leninist group has taken the working class to power - but how many times has a Leninist group been at the leadership of the working class? (and by this I don't include Stalinists and Maoists) This is not to say that no group has ever made any mistakes, they obviously have - thats life - and many have had wrong assessments of the world situation and bad methods for getting the working class to power which are deeper than just mistakes. It would be very un-Leninist to think that a Leninist party would automatically and always have leadership of the working class. You seem to measure the failure of all forms of Leninism in lying in the fact that the working class are not in power in the world now, this is a very easy argument to take but its also quite shallow.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by joshdavies
Your argument that Leninism hasn't moved on is nonsense, anyone who sees Leninism as a dogma clearly needs to read some Lenin.

I read quite a bit of Lenin back in the 60s and 70s -- including the entire volumes of his Collected Works written after October 1917.

Lenin was not dogmatic in his own time...but his followers (Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.) by and large have been dogmatic.

And the modern followers of these icons have been literally frozen in time -- Maoists in 1966, Stalinists in 1952, Trotskyists in 1940.

Museum keepers all!


Also, you say that in 90 years no Leninist group has taken the working class to power - but how many times has a Leninist group been at the leadership of the working class? (and by this I don't include Stalinists and Maoists)

That old humbug, eh? Stalinists and Maoists are not "real Leninists" -- only Trotskyists, right?

You know, that limit on your sample makes your case for Leninism even weaker.

If Trotskyists are "the only real Leninists" and if Trotskyists have never led the working class in the "west", then in what sense are we to understand your claims of "revolutionary expertise", "mastery of the dialectic", etc.

In terms of "getting the job done" (proletarian revolution), you're useless!

At least the anarchists in Spain actually led a revolutionary movement of the working class...even if it failed to defeat the fascists.

You don't even have that...and you've had 70 years to show us that you know what you're talking about.


You seem to measure the failure of all forms of Leninism in lying in the fact that the working class are not in power in the world now, this is a very easy argument to take but it's also quite shallow.

Yes, I am "shallow" -- if someone says to me that they know how to do something and then shows me that they don't know squat...I stop believing their claims.

That's "undialectical", I agree. Instead, it's plain common sense!

And the situation is even worse than your summary, by the way. Not only have Leninists failed to lead even one successful proletarian revolution in the "west"...they have failed to even threaten the capitalist class in a serious way.

After a performance like this, I'm astonished that anyone with revolutionary aspirations would identify themselves as Leninist under any circumstances.

It's like pasting a sticker on your forehead: LOSER!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JC1]

At least the anarchists in Spain actually led a revolutionary movement of the working class...even if it failed to defeat the fascists.

The anarchist influence in that reveloution is quite exagerated. Whereas the Trotskyists lead thousands of workers in Argentina (around the PO), Pakistan (The Struggle), France, Britian, some pressence around the Left-Opposition in the Communist Party of Italy, Mexico, and there by far the most numerous kind of radical leftist in north america. Im no Trot, but I do like to play devil's advocate.

But the Anarchists have spain ... where they led a mild-peaseant insurgency ... and the Trotskyists have there POUM witch had 40,000 members, aswell.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the trots led a reveloution. The 1945 uprising in vietnam lasted a year. I guess that par's up Trotskyism with the anarchists.