<<That really has nothing to do with whether somebody is a Stalinist or not. Again, read the definition I linked. Nor is it an insult. It is a scientific political characterization>>
The statement was made because many Trotskites that I've met seem to have taken the assassination of Trotsky very personally and seem to be quite bitter about it.
<<For a Marxist, political tendencies are defined fundamentally by the class interests they serve, not by individuals. Stalinism is the rule of a privileged bureaucratic caste over a postcapitalist economy.>>
I agree, the Soviet regime did create an all new ruling class. However to blame Stalin exclusively for this is simplistic, many of the tools that were used (and at times abused) by Stalin were of Lenins creation and Trotsky was involved in/approved of/set up some of them. Stalin has been turned into a scapegoat and pseudo-boogieman, he fucked up a lot and I'll be the first to admit that. He did not put enough emphasis on giving the workers themselves control, instead he had CPSU Cadres telling people what to do. However many of these things were simply continuing Lenins policies.
<<And, secondarily, the politics of their franchise parties worldwide. They were defined by their allegiance to these bureaucratic regimes, and identified the interests of the world working class with the interests of the "workers' fatherland", as defined by its rulers.>>
Once again, I agree. In addition I'd like to say that Stalin used the Comintern as a tool for furthering Soviet power, not spreading Revolution- another mistake that he made. This resulted in many oppotunities being lost- for instance the Communist party of France not taking power in 1945, the Communists in Greece not winning the war, it contributed to the failure of the Communists in Spain and other such things. The Revolution should not belong to a set of people in offices on the other side of the world, it should belong to those who are fighting for it (in an un-Juche way).
<<This was the basis of all their actions, and the main characteristic separating them from the social democracy. The larger remaining Stalinist parties, like the CPUSA and the French Communist Party, have become social democratic now that their sponsors have gone.>>
Yes. Their slavish devotion to the Moscow line caused them to zig-zag with every Soviet policy change. The CPUSA eventually became nothing more than a glorified Soviet lobby group. Your assessment is correct, because the parties looked East to Moscow for guidance instead of loooking to themselves and the workers, they have turned into Social Democrat parties because they no longer have Moscow to look to. Plus after '53 neither the CPUSA or the FCP were 'Stalinist'.
<<Some of the smaller remnants and fragments of Stalinism, through inertia, are still clinging to positions which served Moscow or Beijing's interests at some past time.>>
The gazillion break away parties have varied greatly in quality and purpose. Many were nothing much dogmatic printing presses that do nothing much make statements denouncing everything and anything (the MIM, for instance), to parties that have actually done some good in their existane (PLP, although the PLP have mutated into somthing very different from their original Maoist line. The emphasis placed on Stalin can be fairly ironic at times)
<<In that sense, Workers World is the most Stalinist party in the world today. It is still desperately seeking a state sponsor, in a world where the remaining bureaucratic regimes have little interest in sponsoring franchise parties. That's what drives its PR in favor of any regime which happens to be in conflict with Washington (and therefore might have some use for a franchise party in the U.S.)>>
In that sense, yes. This could also explain why the WWP doesn't seem to put a whole lot of emphasis on theory, as they want to stay as flexible as possible- so as not to piss of the people that they want to gain patronage from. I do not support the WWP, while I think that they have done some good work in the anti-war movement, I think that they ultimately contribute little to the revolutionary struggle. Their blind support of teh DPRK can also be slightly disturbing (I 'support' the DPRK as part of a greater anti-imperialist agenda, not because I like the regime, the leadership or the ideology).
<<Maoist is fairly accurate as well; in describing its history one can say that Workers World went from Trotskyism to Maoism, impressed by the victory of the Chinese Revolution. Not in the sense of adopting Mao's positions on everything, but...here ya go, 13 pages of search results from their site on the "Revolutionary Mao era".>>
They could be claimed to be inspired by Mao on some accounts, but they are definately not Maoist. I don't think you can slap a label on the WWP because they have mutated into somthing all of their own and because they are turning more and more into a party of activists, as opposed to a party of revolutionaries with a set line to follow.
<<No. Actually it was the Spanish CP that was tiny. Then it merged into the Spanish SP, and did not exist as a separate organization during the Civil War. It did exist as a political tendency with its own policies.>>
The SCP grew massively during the SCW, as did its sister party in Catalonia. In addition it did a lot of important work with the organisation of the militia, arming workers etc. However they made multile key mistakes, for instance their racism.
<<It was the Spanish bourgeois state that had more guns than the revolutionary workers....eventually. More importantly, during the time when the workers' militias had all the guns in the Republic, the reformist and centrist misleaderships - including the POUM - kept them from smashing the bourgeois state.>>
Yep, the fact that they put the struggle for Communism on hold while fighting was a mistake and Stalin did not help this. The fact that they were trying to play footsie with the Western Imperialists, like France and Britain also aided their downfall. As you've said, it's an example of following the Moscow line fucking the chances for revolution up.
<<The Spanish Stalinists, however, distinguished themselves from other reformists by the consistency of their defense of the bourgeois state, and the viciousness of their bloody repression of revolutionary-minded workers.>>
The stupidity of the Spainish Stalinists did reach dizzying heights, for instance when they decided it would be a bloody brillant idea to start shooting Anarchists while Franco was marching towards them. The SCP are a textbook example of the importance of staying focused- pushing forward the revolution and defeating Franco were a thousand times more important than shooting a few Anarchists, trying to make the French like them and denouncing the POUM.
<<Certainly the questions you raise - what went wrong in Spain, etc - are more worthwhile than the kind of discussion we've been having so far. But it was you and other Stalinists who started that discussion, by throwing a temper tantrum over the perfectly accurate designation of Workers World as Stalinist.>>
I do not deem that I, or anyone else, has thrown a temper tantrum. While many WWP tactics and ideas are fairly 'Stalinist' (as has been discussed above), I would not deem them a 'Stalinist', Maoist or any other -ism. The WWP are WWPist, their theoretical evolution has been...unique.
<<IMO one of the things that has "gone wrong" in the workers' movement is the use of thug tactics to silence opponents or settle differences among different tendencies claiming to be communist. That is, of course, the topic of this thread, Workers' World's thuggish methods.>>
Once again, I agree. Punching people is not going to achive anything and over all does far more harm than good. While I have no problem with people attacking Fascists, Klansmen, Neo-Nazi's and the like, I don't think getting into fist fights with people who disagree with you is going to do anyone any good. The pen tends to be mighter than the sword....
<<You could discuss that, but no, you had to open up exactly the kind of discussion you are now decrying.>>
That wasn't the intention, I would be interested in having civil discussions about pretty much anything with Trotskites (What the hell do you want to be called anyway? -ist or -ite? I've never worked that one out) because as I've said, I think it'd be worth while for all involved.