Trotskyism

[el Rebesnét del Tio Canya]

What think you about the trotskism and the IV International?

[More Fire for the People]

My problem with Trotskyism is that it places emphasis on legal political action and classical warfare. For instance, in Latin America the Trotskyist parties refused to work with the guerrilla people’s armies and in the imperialist first world they refuse to engage in anything but protest and reform.

[jaycee]

my problem with trotskyism is that it is mainly based on the mistakes made by trotsky and usually ignore his best points. For example they emphasise his anti-fascist views supporting bourgeois democracy and disregard his best and clearest ideas such as recognising that the revolution in Russia would be a working class one and before lenin he recognised the full importance of the soviets as well as his internationalist views he held in 1914

[wet blanket]

A fruitless endeavor that's degenerated to riding on the coat-tails of populists.

[black magick hustla]

A very detailed set of fiction books.

[Revolution 9]

Trotskyism is nothing more than a reactionary form of Communism, if you ask me.

Although the Trotskyists are our allies when it comes to fighting Stalin and the likes, they are just as any other "Social Democrats" - they wish to engage in the capitalist "democratic" machine and go for office.

When a Communist is in public office in a capitalist society, he essentially ceases to be a Communist and starts being a capitalist, as far as I'm concerned.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by Street [email protected] 4 2006, 11:49 PM
When a Communist is in public office in a capitalist society, he essentially ceases to be a Communist and starts being a capitalist, as far as I'm concerned.
Why?

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by Street [email protected] 4 2006, 11:49 PM
When a Communist is in public office in a capitalist society, he essentially ceases to be a Communist and starts being a capitalist, as far as I'm concerned.
There is nothing wrong with that tactic.. While the Bolsheviks were able to put themselves at the head of the labour movement in pre-revolutionary Russia with quite ease it can be said that were able to do so 1. because the proletariat was politically virgin (Many times Marxist studygroups went on from being small sects to having several hundreds of thousands of followers in months, before being smashed by police reaction) 2. the horrible conditions of the proletariat.

Naturally, the West-European proletariat can hardly be said to be politically virgin, or live in very shanty conditions, so if Marxists wish to step out of the 'sect-phase' they must adopt a flexible tactic involving work with the working class through the traditional mass parties which the proletariat unites about.. Many cases this is the social-democratic labour party, and even in some countries (such as Pakistan) the only place where the working class can express themselves is in bourgeious parties.. So why not work directly with the workin class instead of being a small sect standing on the sideline?

I have not studied Trotskyism in-depth, but this tactic did bring some results (notably in the UK).

And besides, a capitalist is someone who has direct control over the means of production and buys labour power. How does this fit with a communist in public office?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Street [email protected] 4 2006, 11:21 PM
Trotskyism is nothing more than a reactionary form of Communism, if you ask me.

Although the Trotskyists are our allies when it comes to fighting Stalin and the likes, they are just as any other "Social Democrats" - they wish to engage in the capitalist "democratic" machine and go for office.

When a Communist is in public office in a capitalist society, he essentially ceases to be a Communist and starts being a capitalist, as far as I'm concerned.
What are you talking about?

Are you familiar with Trotsky at all? If Trotskyism is "social democratic", as you say, then why on Earth did Trotsky join the revolutionary Bolsheviks?

There is a world of difference between Trotsky and social democracy...I really don't understand where you get the idea that Trotskyists are not revolutionary, because I am a Trotskyist and a revolutionary, as are all of the other Trotskyists that I know.

I'll admit that I have some disagreements with Trotskyists...but that's the WHOLE POINT. We aren't SUPPOSED to agree on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Otherwise democracy is pointless.

The main thing about Trotskyism is "Permanant Revolution"...not bourgeois democracy.

If Trotskyism is bourgeois, then Trotsky would have supported and joined the Duma as opposed to leading the Red Army against it.

[redstar2000]

Dancing with Trotskyists (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083177745&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:17 PM
I have not studied Trotskyism in-depth, but this tactic did bring some results (notably in the UK).

Unless you are aware of some historical event from 1925 to the present day that I have absolutely no knowledge of, I don't know what you are referring too.

From 1920 to about 1950, the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) - the "Great" always makes me chuckle! - was the "big dog" with regards revolutionary politics in Britain.

Indeed, the early CPGB contained a fair amount of Left-Communists who were unfortunately defeated by the Conservative elements within the Party who wanted either to support the Labour Party, or run Communist candidates.

The most notable event the CPGB was involved in - along with other radicals - was the "Battle of Cable Street" where Mosley's fascists and the Police were defeated.

The subsequent Act passed - which banned the wearing of fascist uniforms - was perhaps one of the biggest factors in stopping a British variant of fascism "taking hold".

In the 60's, a few Trotskyist inspired Parties did get a "foothold", but as far as I'm aware, the "radical" option was found within the "Hippie Movement" - squatting etc. - and people who just identified themselves as "Revolutionary Socialists".

Through the 70's and 80's, most "radical" politics were found in either the Labour-Left, or some of the radical feminist groups.

Throughout this period, Trotskyists were little more than an historical footnote and after they were "purged" from the Labour Party, their "entrist" strategy looked dead.

Indeed, what is most strange, is that at no time during the 80's - when the Poll Tax Riots happened, or the Miners Strike and so on - am I aware of a single "entrist" calling for revolution, the cry was usually VOTE LABOUR!

Perhaps the only thing the Trotskyists could claim partial credit for, was their involvement in the Poll Tax Riots, but even though couldn't be called a "success story".

As for 1990 onwards, most Trotskyist Parties - which formed after the "purge" - have involved themselves fully in running for Parliament, with little or no success.

As far as I know, the only time in the past century any Leninist Party in Britain has looked like it was even coming close to forming a Mass Party based on "iron Bolshevik discipline" was in the 1930's.

And the Party, as I mentioned, was the "Stalinist" CPGB.

[321zero]

Obviously there are trotskyists and trotskyists. The best of them emphasise permanent revolution, internationalism and working-class independence. All of which has clear implications for how to relate to bourgeois 'democracy'.

The 'deep entry' strategy engaged in by the International Secretariat (wherever there was a suitable 'host') is liquidationist and counterposed to T's call for a IVth international.

Good grief! The Word spellcheck recommends 'Trotskyite' - has Microsoft been penetrated by stalinist cells?

[rouchambeau]

Not enough emphasis on working class organization.

[xprol]

Trotsky didn't even join the Bolsheviks until just months before the revolution.
He spent his entire life before that opposing Lenin. He was an incurable factionalist constantly being bollocked by Lenin for wanting to shak up everything.

Most modern Trots groups are middle class opportunists on the wrong side of every anti-imperialist struggle on the planet.

[321zero]

Nonetheless Lenin adopted Trotsky's perspective for the Russian revolution, that is under T's influence the Bolsheviks essentially adopted the theory of permanent revolution.

Yes comrades, Lenin was a Trotskyist.

Also keep in mind that while T may have joined the Bolsheviks late, the Bolshevik Party itself was ready to offer support to the Provisional Government and only Lenin's intervention in April, when he threatened to split the party, changed their orientation.

[321zero]

Not enough emphasis on working class organization.

Y'all read Teamster Rebellion by Farrell Dobbs?

[Faceless]

Through the 70's and 80's, most "radical" politics were found in either the Labour-Left, or some of the radical feminist groups.

Throughout this period, Trotskyists were little more than an historical footnote and after they were "purged" from the Labour Party, their "entrist" strategy looked dead.

Indeed, what is most strange, is that at no time during the 80's - when the Poll Tax Riots happened, or the Miners Strike and so on - am I aware of a single "entrist" calling for revolution, the cry was usually VOTE LABOUR!

Perhaps the only thing the Trotskyists could claim partial credit for, was their involvement in the Poll Tax Riots, but even though couldn't be called a "success story".

I'm curious as to why it is that you are pouring scorn onto the history of Trotskysiy politics, including its noteworthy successes.

For instance, the militant tendency was a large part of that Labour-Left radical politics; unless you are referring to soft-lefts such as the Tribune.

There were numerous attempts by Labour to "purge" the Militant from Labour, all of which were unsuccessful. Michael Foot failed and when Kinnock tried not even he was successful. It is people like you who insist on propagating this myth; ironic that you are doing the work of the bourgeois ideologues for them.

The opportunists around Taffe used the opportunity to split Militant from Labour. The publicity surrounding these so-called "purges" was only ever positive for the Tendency. Many people within the current Socialist Party (and the other sects) are quick to point out that the entire left went into a state of decline in the following period and that the decline of the Socialist Party was independent of this. This cannot account for the fact that the Socialist Party has been reduced from the biggest trotskyist movement in Britain to a few hundred, relegating itself behind many of the other sects. The split from Labour was the deciding factor in the fall of Militant, we would be in a better position today if so-called revolutionaries could make that sobre judgement.

The "entrists" have always called for revolution. If you think that is mutually exclusive to voting Labour, please explain why. Indeed, the "entrists" were pivotal in the Poll Tax movement which was the tipping point in the demise of Thatcher. If you think that was something trivial, please tell me of the great things your specific brand of socialism has achieved to shape modern Britain.

The fact is, VOTE LABOUR is not something the entrists were screaming at the average workers. Most workers were voting Labour and to them we WERE encouraging revolution. Rather it is the self-proclaimed vanguard such as yourself who we were calling to vote Labour. Revolutionary politics is just a pie in the sky when the most advanced workers insist on seperating themselves from the backward majority.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The reason why i think it still is the dominant theory of the left, in countries like the US and UK is because they are easily accessible. Most people, like me, learn about Marxism and might know quite alot, even if they are not able to articulate it very well.

So they look for people with similar opinions. Trotskyist parties get membership because all these people think, like i once did, that Trotskyism IS Marxism.

When i joined the Socialist party last year, i knew lots about Marxist theory but very little about disagreement within the Marxist left. So i just assumed joining one party was as good as any other!

I know better now though. thankfully!

Trotskyism shouldn't really exist IMHO. But it does, and its supporters are Marxists who know little else about competing paradigms.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)I'm curious as to why it is that you are pouring scorn onto the history of Trotskysiy politics....[/b]

Why? ....because I'm a sectarian bastard who wants to see "Stalinism" rehabilitated as a revolutionary theory!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And then there's this....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292032775 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47241&view=findpost&p=1292032775)


Originally posted by [email protected]
Indeed, the "entrists" were pivotal in the Poll Tax movement which was the tipping point in the demise of Thatcher.

What an achievement!

Thatcher went....and then came Major!

VICTORY!

I see nothing "brilliant" in getting one "old bag" to leave Office and replacing her with another corrupt bastard.

In other words, removing Thatcher was meaningless!


Faceless
Rather it is the self-proclaimed vanguard such as yourself who we were calling to vote Labour.

Curious, I was 3 years old in 1990, I could barely speak, never mind issue a "call" to "vote Labour". :lol:

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:23 PM
The opportunists around Taffe used the opportunity to split Militant from Labour. The publicity surrounding these so-called "purges" was only ever positive for the Tendency.

Many people within the current Socialist Party (and the other sects) are quick to point out that the entire left went into a state of decline in the following period and that the decline of the Socialist Party was independent of this. This cannot account for the fact that the Socialist Party has been reduced from the biggest trotskyist movement in Britain to a few hundred, relegating itself behind many of the other sects. The split from Labour was the deciding factor in the fall of Militant, we would be in a better position today if so-called revolutionaries could make that sobre judgement.
On what basis was the split from the Grantites and the rejection of Entryism opportunist? And when has the SP even claimed that they were independant of the decline in the left? As for your figures about hundreds, I don't know where you got them from.

[barista.marxista]

I'm reposting this from an old topic, because the question has been addressed so many times here. Next time, please use the search function, and read one of the five hundred million threads that exhaustively argued the tired subject.
---
Trotskyists complain that Stalin broke with Leninism, despite the fact that Stalin was elected democratically within the Party, and that Stalin expelled him both for being a threat, and for breaking the centralism of the party (an important Leninist tenet). Trotsky was just as authoritarian as Stalin was -- any look as his suppression of the anarchist collectives in the Ukraine and Russia during the Civil War will show you this. "Stalinism" is nothing but the natural outgrowth of Leninism with the failure of permanent revolution -- Trotskyists just ***** that it didn't go their way.

We need to stop focusing on dead Russians and failed Leninist regimes. Authoritarian "communism" had its reign and proved itself politically and economically incapable of building anything but a bourgeois revolution and an inevitable capitalist economy. We need a new revolutionary vision -- libertarian, not authoritarian; autonomy, not totalitarianism. We need to, alongside our fellow workers, build the new future ourselves -- not trust it to an elite party of "professional revolutionaries" who claim to be most fit to lead.

[Famous Mortimer]

ArmchairSocialism made me chuckle, not only for his name (which I can only hope is a joke) but for his ignoring of the thousands strong party in the UK which is Trotskyist. It's like reading a bad bourgeois history of British leftism. Let's ignore the 2 million-strong march in London in 2003 with Trotskyists as its organisational backbone (oh, it didn't change anything, so by the people in this thread we should ignore it) and the first election of an MP in a party to the left of Labour since the 1940s. Ho hum.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Famous Mortimer
...and the first election of an MP in a party to the left of Labour since the 1940s.

Curious George?

Woo hoo! :lol:

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Famous Mortimer+--> (Famous Mortimer)....but for his ignoring of the thousands strong party in the UK which is Trotskyist.[/b]

I assume you are referring to the Socialist Workers' Party here?

In which case, I found this critique pretty good if I remember correctly....

HOW SOCIALIST IS THE SWP? (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/swp.html)

....of course, it is dated 1985, but, from what I gather, the SWP has got less "radical" since then.

I think you'd agree that this critique hardly represents a "bourgeois history of British leftism [Trotskyism]".


Originally posted by Famous [email protected]
Let's ignore the 2 million-strong march in London in 2003 with Trotskyists as its organisational backbone (oh, it didn't change anything, so by the people in this thread we should ignore it)....

Without debating whether or not it was "Trotskyist organisational backbone" that led to the anti-war protests - the "revolutionary message" didn't seem all to be at the forefront of the protests now did it?

The effectiveness does need to be questioned.

2 million people is a lot, but results are what matters. When the CPGB and other militants beat the fascists and the Police at Cable Street, they effectively "stamped" British fascism out of existence as a significant political force in the 30's.

That was effective, it achieved something.

What did the "2 million-strong march" achieve? ....a slight increase in SWP membership? ....possibly, but apart from that????

I was not at that particular occasion, but the impression I have of it is that it was ceremonial and not militant. And, unless you haven't figured it out yet, militancy, and not "ceremony", is what gets results.


Famous Mortimer
....and the first election of an MP in a party to the left of Labour since the 1940s.

Are you referring to George Galloway here, "Curious George" as redstar2000 called him?

If so, I don't think you'll find many people here "jumping with joy" about the election of a Catholic Social-Democrat who fawns over Islam. As the previous threads on RESPECT demonstrate....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...t=0&hl=galloway (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44784&st=0&hl=galloway)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...t=0&hl=galloway (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43716&st=0&hl=galloway)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...t=0&hl=galloway (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42508&st=0&hl=galloway)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...t=0&hl=galloway (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35478&st=0&hl=galloway)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...t=0&hl=galloway (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34978&st=0&hl=galloway)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...809&hl=galloway (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34809&hl=galloway)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=22232&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=22232&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=21808&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=21808&hl=)

That's what I found of interest in the Politics forum using "galloway" as a search term, I'm sure there are more threads "out there" from which you can ascertain the revolutionary view of what RESPECT stands for.

What's most interesting, is that everyone seems to dislike Galloway, bar a few SWP members. That's gotta' hint at something! :lol:

[xprol]

As an ex Trotskyists I know first hand what a gang of useless opportunist manipulators they are. Their main objective is propping up reformism in the vain hope of gaining some little bureaucratic positions in "the labor movement". I did enough of it to know. As for the Militant in Liverpool, they groveled to stay in the Labor Party, pleading that they were not a separate party, saying how they were loyal Labor to the core. Which they were. Like the museum Satanists they were suckered into the post war boom 'mainstream' of single issues and peace protests.

I dose not matter one jot how many people march behind their reformist pacifist 'Stop The War' banners, it won't stop anything except a bit of traffic.
Has anyone ever heard a Trotskyists make a revolutionary speech espousing the dictatorship of the proletariat in public, at a mass rally etc?

As for the chap himself, at no point was he ever allied with Lenin or ever produced any better theory etc, its all another middle class fantasy from a tendency that has never routed a Sally Army band. By the way you will end up paying top dollar for the privilege of of keeping some academic buffoons in petal money.

[321zero]

Has anyone ever heard a Trotskyists make a revolutionary speech espousing the dictatorship of the proletariat in public, at a mass rally etc?

Yes. For example I've heard a Trotskyist addressing a large(ish) anti-nuclear testing demonstration begin by opposing imperialist nuclear development, go on to defend Chinese nukes (which really offended the various peaceniks present) and end up with, for this lot, absolutely ordinary calls for communist revolution.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[321zero]

I dose not matter one jot how many people march behind their reformist pacifist 'Stop The War' banners,

You are allowed to bring your own banners to this kind of demonstration, you are not obliged to 'march behind reformist, pacifist...banners.' Plenty of people on the big anti-war demonstration did carry slogans to the left of the STWCoalition approved ones.

I completely agree with you about the fucked-upness of the STWC though. Pacifist/reformist is correct.

We were obliged to listen to Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats waffle on for ages from a platform which specifically excluded any analysis of imperialism, lest it displease the right-wingers and 'split the coalition against the war' (which of course is exactly what's required - a split along class lines - liberal pacifists and 'realist' critics of this particular war over there, us anti-imperialists over here.

[xprol]

Exactly the exception that proves the rule. Lets see how many Trots on the staged managed platform this weekend (London, Stop The War) will make revolutionary speeches calling for the DEFEAT of imperialist war mongering instead of the useless pacifist 'Bring The Troops Home' Treachery. Imperialist war will have to be defeated! Not pleaded with. Endless confusion well continue to be spread as long as reformist Trots insist on propping up discredited parliamentary reformism and a return to 'Old Labor' values, bullocks.

Close beside then will be the museum Satanists of the Scargill Galloway types. Living examples of 'peaceful coexistence' with imperialism, regardless of any past contributions under pressure from the workers around them.

An entire 'left' dedicated to avoiding an open polemical struggle for Leninist theory which requires the DEFEAT of this ruling class and its allies. Build Leninism!

EDIT Comrade, We don't need an "analysis of imperialism" we need a revolutionary attacking analysis that will explain that only revolution can stop war. There is a big difference.

[Faceless]

Armchair Socialism, the bulk of your responses are flame and are of very little substance. Why for instance do you write this when I try to approach you in respect and with the intention of having a reasoned debate:


Why? ....because I'm a sectarian bastard who wants to see "Stalinism" rehabilitated as a revolutionary theory!

I asked you why you pour scorn over the achievements of the Trotskysit movement. The irony is that your response is an attempt to antagonise me and put a wedge between our two sets of ideas. It IS sectarian and does not constitute constructive criticism. "Trotskyists" have proven the force behind the anti-war movement here in the UK. Most of those thinking "Trotskyists" such as myself consider the stop the war movement to have been ineffective and not to have gone far enough. Yes, it was weak and reformist.


What an achievement!

Thatcher went....and then came Major!

VICTORY!

I see nothing "brilliant" in getting one "old bag" to leave Office and replacing her with another corrupt bastard.

In other words, removing Thatcher was meaningless!
Right- removing Thatcher was meaningless in your conclusion. Presumably you should stand with banners shouting for the end of the wage system with the intention of getting baffled looks from passing workers. Thatcher was a symbol of the corruption of the capitalist system. In herself she was little more than a representative. But in Bolivia we have seen numerous representatives of the capitalist system coming and going. The submission of a capitalist puppet is far from meaningless, it is a symbol of the power and confidence of the worker's movement and a concrete aim about which "trots" and anyone else who cares can rally. I'm not going to say that therefore the poll tax riots resulted in a revolution, the workers were defeated on this occasion. If anyone had done something "meaningful" by the weight you put on the word, we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion



QUOTE (Faceless)
Rather it is the self-proclaimed vanguard such as yourself who we were calling to vote Labour.



Curious, I was 3 years old in 1990, I could barely speak, never mind issue a "call" to "vote Labour".

Sorry, I miss typed. I meant vote against Labour

The fact is that you failed to answer any of my questions.

I asked you why you pour scorn on "trot" achievements, however minor;

you reply with sarcasm

I ask you what your brand of socialism has achieved which transcends trotskyism as it does;

...

I made the accusation against sectarians that they were the ones calling for a vote against labour, contrary to the idea that entrism was a call to vote FOR labour;

you said you were 3 at the time, as was I



On what basis was the split from the Grantites and the rejection of Entryism opportunist? And when has the SP even claimed that they were independant of the decline in the left? As for your figures about hundreds, I don't know where you got them from.
The point is no one I've met from the SP, or for that matter any of the left groups, tries to explain the decline of Militant in any other terms other than the general decline of the left. The SP has never put down to the split with Labour its catastrphic fall from grace.

[emokid08]

A fruitless endeavor that's degenerated to riding on the coat-tails of populists.

I'm with wet blanket.


an ex Trotskyists I know first hand what a gang of useless opportunist manipulators they are. Their main objective is propping up reformism in the vain hope of gaining some little bureaucratic positions in "the labor movement". I did enough of it to know. As for the Militant in Liverpool, they groveled to stay in the Labor Party, pleading that they were not a separate party, saying how they were loyal Labor to the core. Which they were. Like the museum Satanists they were suckered into the post war boom 'mainstream' of single issues and peace protests.

I dose not matter one jot how many people march behind their reformist pacifist 'Stop The War' banners, it won't stop anything except a bit of traffic.
Has anyone ever heard a Trotskyists make a revolutionary speech espousing the dictatorship of the proletariat in public, at a mass rally etc?

As for the chap himself, at no point was he ever allied with Lenin or ever produced any better theory etc, its all another middle class fantasy from a tendency that has never routed a Sally Army band. By the way you will end up paying top dollar for the privilege of of keeping some academic buffoons in petal money.

thank you

:hammer: :marx: :engles:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)Armchair Socialism, the bulk of your responses are flame and are of very little substance.[/b]

Well, I did provide you with a link to a more in-depth assessment on Trotskyism that I have written, here it is again....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292032775 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47241&st=0&#entry1292032775)


Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)I asked you why you pour scorn over the achievements of the Trotskysit movement.[/b]

In the same paragraph you said this about the "stop the war movement" protests....


Originally posted by Faceless
Yes, it was weak and reformist.

I think that statement could be applied to most of the Trotskyist paradigm and its Parties, especially the "reformist" bit.

And that incidentally, is why "pour scorn over the achievements of the Trotskysit [sic] movement" - not that there have been many "achievements" that I know of.


Originally posted by Faceless
Thatcher was a symbol of the corruption of the capitalist system. In herself she was little more than a representative.

Link the dots together.

Thatcher was only a "symbol" of Capitalism, and like all "symbols", she was meaningless.

The removal of Thatcher didn't result in a change of ruling class, nor did it even result in a change of Government and policy. The only real change was that the "symbol" had a different sex.

Is that an "achievement"???


[email protected]
....and a concrete aim about which "trots" and anyone else who cares can rally.

You have the rhetoric of a reformist -- "cares".

A revolutionary couldn't give two shits about the removal of one corrupt ruling class bastard and their replacement with another identical bastard.

A revolutionary demands the removal of the whole ruling class and its lackeys and their replacement with the whole of the working class, bringing with it an end to wage slavery -- that is our only "aim".

So whilst the removal of Thatcher may be a "big deal" to you, it doesn't mean squat to me.


Faceless
I made the accusation against sectarians that they were the ones calling for a vote against labour....

I don't want people to vote at all!

[Shredder]

And that's why you are just a moronic, counterrevolutionary, Redstar parrot. You don't give a damn about the working class today. You don't give a damn about ceaselessly pushing politics to the left until the only way to move left is revolution. Like your fellow unreadable Redstar clones, you advocate telling the proletariat to give up all hope until revolution comes. In fact, on some days, depending on what mood you're in, you support right wing and reactionary policies because you think this will develope class conciousness. What you and the other posters on this board are failing to grasp is that the Redstar brand of anarchism has nothing in common with Marxism and is merely a utopian dogma. This is the same nonsense that religions preach, with heaven replaced by spontaneous utopian revolution.

Your message is to ignore politics because it's a sham and instead become revolutionary. But this message does not hit home with anybody but lost teens looking for a cult who stumble upon Redstar's page. The message of dismissing politics (or again, depending on mood, encouraging reactionary politics) does not contribute to class struggle or develope revolutionary class consciousness. It is a message of apathy and creates only apathy. The only alternative is to fight every battle on every issue for the proletariat, to never stop making more and more demands to the capitalist system. When the system can no longer meet the demands, the system will be destroyed. This is the program of Trotskyists.

What you are looking at here is the difference between genuine Marxism and anarchism a la Redstar 2000. The former, as the Communist Manifesto tells us, wants to make gains for the working class here and now as well as later, and the latter imaginines a utopian revolution will be achieved by leaving the workers stranded and helpless to get trampled.

[Xanthus]

*sigh*
What harm 80 years of purges, misinformation and lies have done to the once great Marxist movement... to see how many ridicule one of those who added the so much to Marxist theory is disheartening. Sometimes I feel that this board is so full of misunderstandings and repeated lies that I wonder why I came here in the first place, but then I see a few important posts made and I remember.

We Marxists must always maintain a perspective of revolutionary struggle, it must be the backbone of everything we stand for. But, that must not be the end all and be all of what we are. To make it such is to think formally, and to alienate ourselves from the mass of the working class.

There is an important distinction to make... between a principle and a tactic. This is a major difference, but you bashers of Trotsky fail to take it into account. Here's a quote that I shouldn't even need to name. All in here should know it:


"They have no interest separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

"The Communists are, therefore, on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others: on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol.1, pp.119-120).

So let's examine the first bit of this quote.

- "They have no interests seperate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."
This is not something to be taken lightly. If the interests of the proletariat are in kicking out Thatcher, for example, we advocate doing so, and provide the leadership in tactics to do so. This is EXTREMELY important, as to try to advocate your own will, blind to the aspirations of the mass of people is the fastest way to alienate the masses.

- "They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement."
Well, that makes it clear. Sectarian principles are the death of a Marxist's link to the working class. Saying to a worker that his efforts will amount to nothing is like kicking him in the shin, it will not gain support. To support that worker, all the while patiently explaining that his solution, while an improvement, will never be permanent or complete within the realm of capitalism, and then to let him learn that same lesson first hand in seeing the results of that work (Thatcher for Major for example)... That is the way to spread ideas of Marxism without kicking the worker in the shins first!

- "The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only..."
"This only" is not a part of this quote to be taken lightly either. Again, Marxists are not, and should not be sectarian by nature. When a Marxist fetishises the idea of an "independant revolutionary party" when no revolutionary mass willing to form the party exists, they drive an irremovable wedge between themselves and the masses. We must remember above all that the great parties of the past were a result of splits from mass parties of labour and social democracy. The call for an independant party was made ONLY AFTER a mass base who accepted the principles of Marxism had been established from work within the mass left-wing parties. The bankrupcy of splitting too early can be seen all to obviously by the results of Militant after Taffe took it over and turned it into a sectarian organisation.


These are examples of the difference between principles and tactics. The principle of always pushing the working masses towards a revolutionary outlook is certainly the first consideration. But that effort will all goto waste if we do not consider the tactics required to not devide ourselves from those masses.

Of course, it goes without saying that many/most Trotskyists in this day and age don't know the first thing about being Marxists... but that's true of any group. That's true of the entire movement. But to suggest that just because many are ignorant, shouldn't in any way suggest that all Trotskyists are throetically incompetent, or that the tendancy in general is in any way bankrupt. And for you Stalinists... I beg you to read The Transitional Program. Maybe then you wouldn't do so much harm to the good name of "Marxism" in your confused dealings with the masses.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)And that's why you are just a moronic, counterrevolutionary, Redstar parrot.[/b]

And I love you too. :wub:

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)....you advocate telling the proletariat to give up all hope until revolution comes.[/b]

No, I advocate resistance to Capitalism.

You, on the other hand, advocate participation in the bourgeois establishment -- could you capitulate any more???


[email protected]
Your message is to ignore politics because it's a sham....

So the debates between David Cameron and Tony Blair aren't a "sham"? ....they really mean something?


Xanthus
If the interests of the proletariat are in kicking out Thatcher....

Explain to me, how it is in the "interests of the proletariat" to remove Thatcher whilst leaving in place a Conservative Government and the despotism of the bourgeois?

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 17 2006, 11:17 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 17 2006, 11:17 AM)
Xanthus
If the interests of the proletariat are in kicking out Thatcher....

Explain to me, how it is in the "interests of the proletariat" to remove Thatcher whilst leaving in place a Conservative Government and the despotism of the bourgeois? [/b]
It is not our place to dictate to the proletariat what the interests of the proletariat are.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
Thatcher (especially after her poll-tax) was hated by the vast majority of the British proletariat, and therefore they were willing to struggle against her.

At that point, Marxists have two choices. We can denounce this struggle as pointless, and alienate ourselves from those taking part in the struggle... who are the very same people who we should be appealing to.
Or we can take part in that struggle, all the while patiently explaining the truth of the situation, that one conservative leader would not be a major (no pun intended) improvement over another. In taking part in the struggle of the masses, we show them that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them, rather then appearing to stand in front of them shouting at them about their own ignorance. In explaining to them the limitations of that struggle, we eventually win them over to the side of revolutionary socialism.

Again, it's about tactics which are very different from -- but complimentary to -- our principles as Marxists.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Xanthus
It is not our place to dictate to the proletariat what the interests of the proletariat are.

Maybe that's just your class speaking, if it were being said by one of the Trotskyist "bigwigs" then it would almost definitely be their class speaking.

I, on the other hand, am part of the working class and it's in my interests to overthrow the despotism of the bourgeois and not to just change its "symbol".

Aside from this, if the working class really "wanted" sexism, would you go along with them and support them? ....would you not "dictate" to them that sexism is a really reactionary thing?

[Xanthus]

Maybe that's just your class speaking, if it were being said by one of the Trotskyist "bigwigs" then it would almost definitely be their class speaking.
Yes, you are a part, as am I. But the revolutionary part is a small minority at present. It is a minority which, while it remains so, must respect the struggles of the majority, otherwise it alienates them from ever becoming part of the minority. People don't like being dictated to, even by members of their own class, and we must remember that it is not fellow revolutionaries we must be concerned with, but the mass, which at this point is not revolutionary (until we change that, through patient explaining).


Aside from this, if the working class really "wanted" sexism, would you go along with them and support them? ....would you not "dictate" to them that sexism is a really reactionary thing?
That is rediculous. There is a very clear defining line between progressive struggle (even if misguided) and reactionary struggle.

[redstar2000]

Trotskyist social democracy becomes more and more hysterical as time passes...and the idiocy of their "approach" is revealed for all to see.

All they have to offer is the promise of "improvement in the here and now"...and on which they cannot deliver.

Conditions are getting worse for the working class in all the "old" capitalist countries...inspite of the "heroic efforts" of the heirs of St. Leon to "command the tide of events".

It is indeed shameful that they invoke the name of Marx to "cover" their wretched bourgeois ass-kissing...but what can we expect from people who understand so little?

I suspect even Trotsky himself would be sickened by the modern groups that claim his name; they should be honest and name themselves after Kautsky.

At that, even Kautsky might feel slightly embarrassed! :lol:


Originally posted by Xanthus
In taking part in the struggle of the masses, we show them that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them, rather then appearing to stand in front of them shouting at them about their own ignorance. In explaining to them the limitations of that struggle, we eventually win them over to the side of revolutionary socialism.

Hey people, we're just as ignorant as you are! REALLY! Pssst...wanna buy a dirty book by Trotsky.

Dumbasses!

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Xanthus+--> (Xanthus)But the revolutionary part is a small minority at present.[/b]

And this, I suspect, is the main reason for our discussion.

You, if I have correctly understood your views, seem to think that we, as revolutionaries, should try to "tone down" a bit to try to appeal to people who are presently really happy with the current social order.

Basically, that we should try to persuade people into becoming "communists" by compromising what it actually means to be a communist.

I, on the other hand, think we should stay as firm as possible -- no compromise!

Which means that whilst at this moment in time we'll look "silly" and "utopian" telling people they live under the despotism of capital. When Capitalism does "take a turn for the worse" -- which is what Marx predicted Capitalism would do "towards the end" -- our message will make a lot of sense.

However, if right now we "tone down" our message in an attempt to draw more support, then when the time does come when the material conditions for proletarian revolution are "in place" -- i.e. an economic crises. What will people make of us?

Many people, significantly radicalised by the material conditions will (rightly) ignore all the pseudo-communist reformist organisations around and set up their own organisations, but others, may well be disgusted by the whole charade of opportunism and just dismiss the "revolutionary option" altogether.

Additionally, according to materialist dictum -- you are what you do -- many of the self proclaimed communist organisations will become reformist organisations by participating in reformism.

Then when the time comes, they will stab the working class in the back just like in Paris 1968 and as was almost the case in Petrograd 1917.

By compromising the "communist message", communists themselves become counter-revolutionaries. They become obstacles to proletarian revolution.

Additionally, by involving ourselves in the muck of bourgeois politics, people who have become alienated from it will view us just as harshly as any other bourgeois politician.

Therefore, when the conditions for revolution do occur, any tactical assistance we may have been able to offer, will be brushed aside because the working class will see us as class enemies.


Originally posted by [email protected]
People don't like being dictated to....

I'm not proposing we "dictate" to people, I'm proposing that we encourage resistance.

Basically saying that if you want anything, you have to fight for it -- voting some bastard into office, or removing some bastard, won't change a thing!


Xanthus
....but the mass, which at this point is not revolutionary (until we change that, through patient explaining).

For someone who considers themselves a Marxist, your Marxism, here, sucks!

People won't become revolutionary because we "patiently explain" revolution to them, they will become revolutionaries because the material conditions for revolution compel them to become revolutionary.

As Capitalism ages, it works less and less, this leads people to become alienated from the Capitalist order, which in turn lays the foundations for the destruction of said social order.

Communist ideas "make sense" when the material conditions are in place for them to "make sense". Therefore, what communists need to do in un-revolutionary times is (1) try to get the revolutionary message spread, (2) encourage resistance to Capitalist despotism and (3) attack all other things that stand as obstacles to the spread of revolutionary ideas.

Additionally, we need to keep the revolutionary message revolutionary!

You see, the working class is not a child that need to be "taught" -- "patient explaining" -- as you imply, rather it is a class like any other that reacts to the material conditions around it.

No amount of "patient explaining" is going to make the working class revolutionary if the material conditions aren't there, but, if Marx was right, these conditions will present themselves and at these times the most we can do is try to make the revolutionary message as clear (and widespread) as possible.

And part of the revolutionary message by the way, is that bourgeois "democracy" is a "sham".

[Xanthus]

Wow, much to comment on here, eh?


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Hey people, we're just as ignorant as you are! REALLY! Pssst...wanna buy a dirty book by Trotsky.

Dumbasses![/b]
Did you even read the part about explaining our program and telling them why ultimately they can't accomplish their goals from within capitalism?

It seems quite obvious which of us falls into the catagory of "dumbass".


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)You, if I have correctly understood your views, seem to think that we, as revolutionaries, should try to "tone down" a bit to try to appeal to people who are presently really happy with the current social order.[/b]
There's a large difference between toning down your views and expressing them in full, but in the spirit of critical support rather then pure criticism.

How could we POSSIBLY appeal to people who are really happy with the current order? That is pure idiocy. We appeal to those who are unconvinced of the necessity of struggling towards revolution, but who are also deeply dissatisfied with capitalism (as so many are, especially in this day and age). To preach to the converted is not the way to build upon the number of converted.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Basically, that we should try to persuade people into becoming "communists" by compromising what it actually means to be a communist.
Never! What it means to be communist is to adopt a solid revolutionary program on a marxist basis, and present that to the masses in the best possible way to help them understand and agree with it. This is merely what we are doing. Those who scream at people of formal programs are forgetting what it means to be a communist.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
I, on the other hand, think we should stay as firm as possible -- no compromise!
I totally agree with you. The decision of how to present that firm program is a question of tactic, not compromise.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Which means that whilst at this moment in time we'll look "silly" and "utopian" telling people they live under the despotism of capital. When Capitalism does "take a turn for the worse" -- which is what Marx predicted Capitalism would do "towards the end" -- our message will make a lot of sense.
Absolutely right. This is why I continue to do what I do. But if we can find a bridge to join these people in order to tell them, then our telling will be far more effective. People will listen to a friend more then a foe.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
However, if right now we "tone down" our message in an attempt to draw more support, then when the time does come when the material conditions for proletarian revolution are "in place" -- i.e. an economic crises. What will people make of us?
Again, absolutely right. Those who tone down their messages are doomed to fail right when it matters most. That is why we never do that.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Many people, significantly radicalised by the material conditions will (rightly) ignore all the pseudo-communist reformist organisations around and set up their own organisations, but others, may well be disgusted by the whole charade of opportunism and just dismiss the "revolutionary option" altogether.
Absolutely! That is why we in the CMI are having such success right now in Venezuela while many sectarians who have gone down the reformist road and are calling for (among other things) the Menshevist theory of two stages, are being swept into the rubbish bin.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Additionally, according to materialist dictum -- you are what you do -- many of the self proclaimed communist organisations will become reformist organisations by participating in reformism.
You seem to understand many things quite well, but ultimately, yet again, fail to understand anything I have been saying. There is a big difference between advocating reformism, and offering critical support for this or that progressive reformist measure.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Then when the time comes, they will stab the working class in the back just like in Paris 1968 and as was almost the case in Petrograd 1917.
And out of those two, which were the Trotskyists you so love to bash? In Petrograd, it was certain right-leaning members of the Bolsheviks (including Stalin), but never Trotsky. In Paris it was the Communist Party, not Trotskyists.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
By compromising the "communist message", communists themselves become counter-revolutionaries. They become obstacles to proletarian revolution.
Absolutely. And that is exactly what communists who break away from the masses condem themselves to. Again, please refer to that quote I pasted from the mannifesto. It has been repeated in different language many times by many Marxists, and it is an extremely important part of the "communist message" which comrades like yourself forget.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Additionally, by involving ourselves in the muck of bourgeois politics, people who have become alienated from it will view us just as harshly as any other bourgeois politician.
If we raise the views of those who have been alienated, that will alienate them? This is very interesting logic. Nobody ever proposed that we raise the views of any bourgeois politician!

Remember too that the Bolsheviks participated in Kerensky government until they were ready to overthrow it, in order to get their message accross.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Therefore, when the conditions for revolution do occur, any tactical assistance we may have been able to offer, will be brushed aside because the working class will see us as class enemies.
Is that so? Or is it so that if we separate ourselves from the working class now, we will never achieve an echo within the movement which will allow ourselves to avoid being brushed aside? We will never compromise our program, and we will never alienate ourselves from those who support that program.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
I'm not proposing we "dictate" to people, I'm proposing that we encourage resistance.

Basically saying that if you want anything, you have to fight for it -- voting some bastard into office, or removing some bastard, won't change a thing!
Damn right! But there are different approaches to encouraging that resistance and saying that you must fight. This is a question of tactics. Some of these tactical methods appear to the people who are being encouraged as dictation, while others don't.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
People won't become revolutionary because we "patiently explain" revolution to them, they will become revolutionaries because the material conditions for revolution compel them to become revolutionary.
No, they won't become revolutionary because we "patiently explain", but it is indeed the only way of explaining our program and the program of Marxism to them in a way which doesn't come off as offensive. I'll get to this more below, but Lenin in praticular was extremely clear on this point in may different writings.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
As Capitalism ages, it works less and less, this leads people to become alienated from the Capitalist order, which in turn lays the foundations for the destruction of said social order.
Absolutely. But none the less, there is also a subjective factor, which is the only reason why revolutionaries agitate. If we merely need to wait for the destruction to happen, what are we all doing? Wasting our time?


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Communist ideas "make sense" when the material conditions are in place for them to "make sense". Therefore, what communists need to do in un-revolutionary times is (1) try to get the revolutionary message spread, (2) encourage resistance to Capitalist despotism and (3) attack all other things that stand as obstacles to the spread of revolutionary ideas.
That is absolutely right, though I'd add to build a cadre-base of Marxists who are capable of playing a role when material conditions are present.
But what you're missing is that all of these goals are much better served when our messages are well recieved, rather then hostilly recieved. That is a question of tactics, and what you are lacking.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Additionally, we need to keep the revolutionary message revolutionary!
I see no reason to disagree with anything here. But I also have no idea why you feel it necessary to shout that at me... unless you competely misunderstand my methods, and the methods of Marxism, which it appears you do.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
You see, the working class is not a child that need to be "taught" -- "patient explaining" -- as you imply, rather it is a class like any other that reacts to the material conditions around it.
Absolutely, they react to material conditions. Which is exactly why I said:

Originally posted by Xanthus
To support that worker, all the while patiently explaining that his solution, while an improvement, will never be permanent or complete within the realm of capitalism, and then to let him learn that same lesson first hand in seeing the results of that work (Thatcher for Major for example)...
The term "patiently explain" is a very celebrated term of Lenin's. I don't think a quote is necessary to illustrate it's importance, as it appeared in many of Lenin's writings. Patience is necessary exactly because the working class must learn from it's own experiences, and that can take time. Marx used the same method, as has every other successful Marxist.


Armchair [email protected]
No amount of "patient explaining" is going to make the working class revolutionary if the material conditions aren't there, but, if Marx was right, these conditions will present themselves and at these times the most we can do is try to make the revolutionary message as clear (and widespread) as possible.
Again, if agitation before the material conditions exist is useless, then what are we all doing? The objective factor is primary, there is no doubt, but the subjective can be what determines success or failure.


Armchair Socialism
And part of the revolutionary message by the way, is that bourgeois "democracy" is a "sham".
...Which is exactly what must be patiently explained to them, so to help them learn it from experience.

[Shredder]

You, on the other hand, advocate participation in the bourgeois establishment...[bold removed for readability]

No, I advocate participation in class struggle. Real, actual, class struggle, wherever it is is needed.

You, on the "other hand", advocate apathy in the "face" of "class struggle."

The transitional programme of Trotsky is quite simple to understand if you are actually a Marxist instead of a senile old anarcho-hippie whose former drug use has caused such psychosis that his quick snip&quip, one-sentence-paragraph replies are all written with the most useless and superfluous use of quotation marks and bold to ever make an eye bleed. In essential form, the transitional programme is not peculiar to Trotsky, but is the plan of any genuine Marxist.

You need to read and reread the excerpt from the communist manifesto I mentioned previously which the next poster quoted for your convenience.

[chebol]

Xanthus, I've got a fair bit of sympathy for your position, (although you could be arguing it better), but there's a key point you make that leaves you open to a broadside attack.

While the CMI are to be commended for the support they are giving the Venezuelan revolution, both inside and out, (not to mention what appears to be a grudging reappraisal of your view on Cuba), the revolution in Venezuela does not prove Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution. It is, if anything, an example of Lenin's Two-stage Uninterrupted Revolution, that which Trotskyists tend to either mischaracterise as what you call "the Menshevist theory of two stages", or, when the same tactics are followed but are successful, duly claim to be a proof of the Permanent Revolution.

It is this wind-baggery, despite the earnest work of many (but certainly not all) Trotskyist organisations (which are certainly not all the same, I know), that lends weight to your detractors.

And as an aside, would you regard the PCV as being swept into said dustbin, or have these communists, and non-Trotskyists, somehow managed to accrete themselves to the spontaneously "Permanent" revolution in Venezuela?

And are the Trotskyists of Banderaroja correct in their 'permanent' opposition of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:21 AM
Xanthus, I've got a fair bit of sympathy for your position, (although you could be arguing it better), but there's a key point you make that leaves you open to a broadside attack.

While the CMI are to be commended for the support they are giving the Venezuelan revolution, both inside and out, (not to mention what appears to be a grudging reappraisal of your view on Cuba), the revolution in Venezuela does not prove Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution. It is, if anything, an example of Lenin's Two-stage Uninterrupted Revolution, that which Trotskyists tend to either mischaracterise as what you call "the Menshevist theory of two stages", or, when the same tactics are followed but are successful, duly claim to be a proof of the Permanent Revolution.

It is this wind-baggery, despite the earnest work of many (but certainly not all) Trotskyist organisations (which are certainly not all the same, I know), that lends weight to your detractors.

And as an aside, would you regard the PCV as being swept into said dustbin, or have these communists, and non-Trotskyists, somehow managed to accrete themselves to the spontaneously "Permanent" revolution in Venezuela?

And are the Trotskyists of Banderaroja correct in their 'permanent' opposition of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution?
Lenin advocating the Menshevik two-stage theory? That is pure nonsense! :lol: Do you even know anything about the theory of permanent revolution?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Shredder
The transitional programme of Trotsky is quite simple to understand if you are actually a Marxist instead of a senile old anarcho-hippie whose former drug use has caused such psychosis that his quick snip&quip, one-sentence-paragraph replies are all written with the most useless and superfluous use of quotation marks and bold to ever make an eye bleed.

The furious rage of a social-democrat! :o

One trembles in one's "sandals". :lol:

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Xanthus+--> (Xanthus)There's a large difference between toning down your views and expressing them in full, but in the spirit of critical support rather then pure criticism.[/b]

Indeed, there is a difference between "critical support" and "pure criticism", but working out exactly where the "line" is between the two is not always easy.

For instance, the Socialist Workers' Party seem to be under the impression that criticising elections for the fraud they are, amounts to "pure criticism" and therefore, instead of telling the truth, they participate in the fraud and drop all mentions of communism -- one would imagine they do this to make sure they don't "alienate" people.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure they main aim as it were, is to recruit people to join their Party regardless of whether these people are communists or not. All that is needed is that you are willing to pay your membership dues!

On top of this, they refrain from attacking superstition -- of all varieties.

Is this particular group offering "critical support" to the working class, or are they proving themselves to be an obstacle to proletarian revolution by supporting institutions that stand in the way of proletarian revolution?

As you say, there is a difference between just shouting at people and telling them what they are doing won't work, and on the other hand, trying to spread a communist message of resistance that will be heard, and hopefully acted upon.

However, in my opinion, the difference is pretty trivial.

The difference between "pure criticism" and "critical support", is, in my opinion, just a question of how you deliver a message and not what type of message you deliver.

I think we'd all agree that just shouting at people ain't going to work, but a message of outright resistance to the current social order can be delivered civilly in a way that won't "alienate" people.

You see, from what I've read and seen with my own eyes, the various Leninist Parties don't try to encourage resistance at all, instead they dilute their message just to make sure it doesn't "alienate" people.

And, a communist message which becomes less "radical" than the German Social-Democratic message in 1910, is, I think we would all agree, not a communist message at all!


Originally posted by Xanthus+--> (Xanthus)We appeal to those who are unconvinced of the necessity of struggling towards revolution, but who are also deeply dissatisfied with capitalism (as so many are, especially in this day and age).[/b]

Again, I agree with you and, as you have pointed out, our difference is over tactics.

As far as I can tell, most Trotskyists seem to deal with the ever lowering turnouts for elections by proposing the "tactic" of getting people involved in bourgeois "democracy" again.

That, in my opinion, is a really stupid idea. These people have already realised bourgeois "democracy" is a crock, so why would we want to convince them otherwise?

Rather, wouldn't it be more appropriate if we -- communists -- told them they are right, which is, by the way, what they are. We should tell them that elections are a crock and the only way your going to change anything is through resistance to the bourgeois.

This is the truth and the truth is our most potent weapon.

You see, as far as I can tell, the Trotskyist "tactic" seems to be one of trying to draw the "deeply dissatisfied" back into the system! And that is a really dumb thing to do.


Originally posted by Xanthus
There is a big difference between advocating reformism, and offering critical support for this or that progressive reformist measure.

Indeed, it is not going to turn one into a reformist if one just recognises that reform X or Y is beneficial.

However, the problems start when one begins to actively participate in these reformist kuffules and perhaps even tries to get elected to carry out these reforms.

By entering the bourgeois political arena we accept the bourgeoisies rules. And, when you do this, you start to think within the limits of bourgeois politics!

As far as I'm aware, during the 60's many communist groups in America started working with liberal groups against the Vietnam War, and instead of "radicalising" the movement, they "liberalised" themselves!

The same thing happened to the American Communist Party during the New Deal period in the 30's. They became Social-Democrats because Social-Democracy was what they were doing!

Another relevant example is in the arena of anti-fascism.

The communist groups that work within the bourgeois arena all seem to be under the impression that it would be a "good thing" to use bourgeois legality and some ceremonial marches to stop fascist groups. That that is all that is needed.

Indeed their faith in bourgeois "democracy" is saddening! :(

On the other hand, the communist and Anarchist groups that come out of the "no compromise" tradition, take a far more radical stance against fascism. They advocate the philosophy of "No Platform" and confront and battle with the fascist groups wherever they rear their head.

That is a revolutionary response to fascism.

Indeed, it was the "Battle of Cable Street" that effectively "stamped out" Mosley and co. in the 30's, not the Labour Party MP's trying to do so through Parliament.


Originally posted by Xanthus
In Petrograd, it was certain right-leaning members of the Bolsheviks (including Stalin), but never Trotsky.

Really....


Originally posted by Wikipedia
In early July widespread discontent in Petrograd led to militant demonstrations calling for the overthrow of the Provisional Government. The Bolshevik leadership opposed this as premature....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik#July_Days

It doesn't mention Trotsky, but I would suspect that he sided with the rest of the Bolshevik leadership.

As for Paris in 68', there were a whole bunch of Trotskyist Parties, and I'm not aware of the "biggies" differing from the "Official" Communist Party in a significant way.


Originally posted by Xanthus
Nobody ever proposed that we raise the views of any bourgeois politician!

Many -- in not all! -- Leninist Parties in the Modern-Capitalist World, over time, resemble other Social-Democratic Parties.

Indeed, most British Trotskyist Parties today, sound exactly like bourgeois politicians.

You are what you do!

Therefore, if you spend your time "electioneering", you become a bourgeois politician! -- especially if you get your fat arse into Parliament!


Originally posted by Xanthus
Remember too that the Bolsheviks participated in Kerensky government until they were ready to overthrow it, in order to get their message accross.

As far as I'm aware, the Bolsheviks' didn't participate in the Provisional Government, they only participated in the Soviets.


[email protected]
....a senile old anarcho-hippie whose former drug use has caused such psychosis....

I think this comment is particularly relevant....


redstar2000
How often does it have to happen?

You know, scratch a Leninist and discover a reactionary?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292035181 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47212&view=findpost&p=1292035181)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

There seems to be a high correlation between those who describe themselves as Leninists also being puritan assholes!

Tell me "Shredder", what is you problem with "drugs"? ....and while you're at it, why don't you tell us all how bad sex is and just enjoyment in general. :lol:

[Comrade-Z]

No, I advocate participation in class struggle. Real, actual, class struggle, wherever it is is needed.

You, on the "other hand", advocate apathy in the "face" of "class struggle."

Yes, because participating in the sham of bourgeois politics really qualifies as "class struggle."

I, for one, don't advocate apathy. Do you have any idea what "resistance to capitalism" means?

One example of "resistance to capitalism" would be to attempt to destroy institutions of global finance capital and bring the ruling class bastards running those institutions out into the street to be shot.

For instance, the 1999 WTO Summit in Seattle scared the shit out of some sectors of the ruling class. Now everytime they gather for a summit, they are, for their own protection, forced to bring out the "fascist underbelly of the beast" for all to see.

Why were they scared? Did those corporate bastards give much thought to the impotent reformists marching around with signs in complete docility?

Or was it the 300 or so anarchists and direct-actionists who tangibly threatened corporate property and the very lives of the corporate bastards themselves? Thanks to the direct-actionists, the corporate bastards were faced with the prospect of the entire protest becoming ignited with a drive towards popular insurrection. Just think if the direct-actionists had been successful in convincing the 40,000 or so other protesters to take up direct action as well against corporate property and those corporate bastards gathering for the meeting themselves? The corporate bastards would have been in loads of deep shit!

An even better example is today's marches in France to protest the CPE. According to some estimates, there should be 1.5 million marching. Interspersed within this crowd might be some smaller groups hell-bent not on impotent marching for reforms, but on direct action.

Just imagine what would happen if all 1.5 million protesters were direct-actionists hell-bent on seizing corporate property, occupying workplaces, hanging ruling class bastards in the street, and generally overthrowing capitalism?

Since you still seem to think that reform is possible, I'll phrase this question in terms you can understand and connect with: just imagine how many concessions those protesters could ring out of the frightened, bewildered ruling class!

Even reformism is accomplished more effectively through direct action than through the muck of sham bourgeois elections.

Some French officials are calling on the protesters to exit the streets and "bring the struggle to the ballot box." If a sizable portion of the protesters do this, it will be the death-knell to any progressive advances, whether they are reformist or revolutionary.

Recently one French politician flatly declared, "Politics is not in the streets." A perceptive French students shot back "Politics is in the streets!"

And that's the simple fact. Bourgeois elections don't accomplish a damn thing. Only tangible resistance against and/or overthrow of the ruling class, or the perceived threat of such action, is the only thing that compels politicians to do anything good for their constituents. Even if the politician flies a red flag, it is the same way. They don't do things for people out of "good will." Being a politician means being a part of the ruling class and gradually obtaining the mindset of a member of the ruling class. Being determines consciousness

Thinking that politicans can do things out of "good will" and trying to figure out which politician to place trust in is complete foolishness.

People who are interested in any type of progressive reform or revolution and who know what they are doing don't trust anyone. They only follow their own reason and attempt to take what they want, alllying with equals who share a like mind.

"We will not ask. We will not demand. We will take, occupy."

Edit: So in conclusion, why seek to recruit greater numbers of followers or voters who will impotently posture against the despotism of capital and participate in meaningless elections? Such members are well-nigh worthless in terms of winning reforms or revolution.

We should instead encourage people to follow nobody, but instead act for themselves, ally with equals of like mind, and fight directly for what they want. That is, they should directly engage in "resistance to capitalism."

Whether you are interested in reform or revolution, this is by far the most effective strategy.

[Faceless]

You, on the other hand, advocate participation in the bourgeois establishment -- could you capitulate any more???

That the bourgeois establishment has some democratic trappings and that it has been forced to allow trade unions to operate in the open, for workers to form independent parties without immediate fear of repression is symbolic of the partial capitulation of the bourgeoisie! "Trotskyists" do not fetishise parliamentary participation but rather use it as one tactic among many in the GENERAL fight of the working class, wherever it takes that fight. I do not doubt that it may prove impossible for the working class to obtain political power by participation in elections, I do not accept the reformist idea that you can simply evolve from one form of class rule to another in such away. Much of the rest of your reply is more flame and doesnt really constitute an attempt to respond to my points including the fact that entrists do not go around shouting VOTE LABOUR, and that the achievements of your brand of socialism are nil. Reforms are not meaningless to the working class. They help alleviate the hardships of everyday life. To "reject" that they are achievments is to reject the suffering of the working class. To accept these reforms is not the same as to see them as an end in themselves. You also pointed to your article which I will now deal with:

Firstly I am interested in which "illustrious" member inspired this article


Unable to provide a successful Vanguard for even one revolution during the last century, the Trotskyist paradigm should be long dead, it should, by all accounts, be a rotting corpse six feet under and stinking.
One could substitute the word anarchism, redstarism etc. Of course, you start with your conclusion, never a good method in your article. It is clear from this first line that you do not intend a scientific investigation into what trotskyism represents. This line already proves to me that you do not think it represents a continuity with Marxism or even "Leninism" if you want to differentiate between the two.


Granted, it does now “stink” from a revolutionary perspective, but unlike the other variants of Leninism, most notably its “mortal foe” Stalinism, it seems a long way from dead.
:huh: I'll take your word for it. Of course, if you really think that Stalinism is "dead" then you are quite mistaken. In many western countries the former stalinist parties are dead but stalinism still exists in many of the reformist ex-communist parties and even in the UK there are plenty of Stalinists.

As a generalisation you don't look at Troskyism as perhaps being little more than a name. It does not always define a homogenous set of ideas, nor are your attempts to paint the entire trotskysit movement in britain on the basis of stop the war and the SWP fair. Trotskyism was merely a reproach of the stalinists against those who carried on the ideas of Marx. You might say the same that stalinism was just a term used by troskyists. That however is self-evidently not true. Stalinism I am sure you will accept is a degenerate form of bureaucratism and can be described more by its bureaucratic features than by any ideological trait.


Now, the “Stalinists” make much of Trotsky’s decision to side with the Mensheviks’, “careerist” they scream - as if “their guy” was any better! Needless to say, this piece of information is not “crucial evidence” of Trotsky’s “villainy”, but, in my opinion, it is a symbolic representation of the Trotskyist paradigm, a paradigm of the “left-bourgeois” - Social-Democracy.
OK, this little thing always proves a fly-trap. That Trotsky inititally sided with the Mensheviks. You overlook the circumstances under which he turned to the Bolsheviks. You see the initial "split" was not a split at all. Two tendencies were emerging but the disagreements were far from deadly. It was as early as the 1905 revolution that Menshevism came out as a tendency opposed to the independence of the working class and it was at this point that Trotsky broke away from them. How then his so-called "Menshevism" proves any form of liberl-left bourgeois nature is a mystery to me. All this puts lie to

During 1917, Trotsky formally “renounced” his Menshevism and became Lenin’s “number 2” in the Bolshevik Party elite.


Now without a doubt, Trotsky was a clever man and his theoretical work was certainly enough in terms of foundations on which a paradigm could be built, but as I mentioned earlier, Bukharin too wrote enough for the construction of a coherent paradigm, yet there is no “Bukharinism”.

Please, Bukharin flip-flopped from ultra-left to right wing communism. This as opposed to Trotsky's defence of Marxist ideas such as the "permanent revolution" (first coined by Marx infact)

I read a few lines more and it seems you conclusion about why trotskyism exists is luck and romantic appeal. Personally I care little about Trotsky the man. Perhaps it is ironic that on a site called "che-lives" people condemn each other for "romantic appeal" or whatever. blah blah blah, i cant be bothered any more

[edit]
and yet your article still does not explain why you are a hater for trotskyist acievements and generally flame people who approach you with these ideas.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z+--> (Comrade-Z)Even reformism is accomplished more effectively through direct action than through the muck of sham bourgeois elections.[/b]

Quite right.

If I remember correctly, the basis as it were, for the riots in Paris in 1968 were to keep the University in Sorbonne (?) open. By resisting like fuck, the "aim" as it were, was met.

Additionally, the Civil Rights Movement, as good as it was, was quite obviously not a "revolutionary movement", it was a reformist one. However, by being militant, the aims were met far more quickly.

Indeed, if there had been more "Black Panther" type groups, I would have suspected that the aims would have been met in an even shorter space of time.


Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)That the bourgeois establishment has some democratic trappings and that it has been forced to allow trade unions to operate in the open....[/b]

I'd actually say, that by "accepting" Trade Unions, the bourgeois rather cleverly made them impotent.

As part of the bourgeois establishment, Trade Unions have lost virtually all of their "radical nature" and now do very little with regards resistance. And I'd seriously doubt whether they could ever "recapture" their old nature.


Originally posted by Faceless
"Trotskyists" do not fetishise parliamentary participation....

Name one Trotskyist Party that doesn't routinely take part in bourgeois "elections"?

Probably upwards of 95% of Trotskyist Parties "electioneer" and most of these Parties do end up "fetishing" elections and worse of all, they end up "fetishing" bourgeois law!

If you are a Left-Trotskyist, as it were, then you may well be part of the tiny fraction within the paradigm who wishes to drag it to the left. If that is your "aim", then I wish you luck.

However, until you do manage to drag the paradigm in a revolutionary direction, then I can only comment on what the paradigm actually is. And that ain't anything "great".


Originally posted by Faceless
Reforms are not meaningless to the working class.

They can be both really "meaningful" and really "meaningless". However, they are rarely against the interests of capital.

For example, the NHS is, without a doubt, a meaningful "reform" -- it has provided healthcare to those who can't afford it and alleviated some of the suffering you refer too.

However, the NHS was in the interests of capital and it was a rather clever policy from the "left-bourgeois". After the War, it was vital to have a healthy and productive working class that could engage in rebuilding, not only this, but it was also affordable to provide Nationalised Healthcare.

So, like a lot of reforms, it was in the interests of the bourgeois and the "alleviation of suffering" was a by-product.

Reforms, nearly always, benefit capital and any "progressive" result from them is a y-product. Which means, that unless we wish to be "really great" charity workers -- which is not what communism is about -- these "reforms" mean little.

After all, unless we wish to become charity workers, what is the point of directing out energy towards reforming the system when abolishing wage-slavery is our goal?

There are plenty of reformists and bleeding heart liberal who will happily do "charity work" and capital will grant these reforms when it is in capitals interests.

So, lets leave the arena of reforms to those people and instead concentrate on our goals.


Originally posted by Faceless
To "reject" that they are achievments is to reject the suffering of the working class.

Well, after 18 years of that "suffering", I'm pissed off!

Yet, unlike you, I do not wish to do "charity work" or to grovel to the ruling class, rather I want to destroy said ruling class -- a process which will "alleviate" my "suffering" for good!

If you desire to become a "noble philanthropist", I wish you luck. Just please refrain from calling yourself a communist and instead call yourself, and your group, what Miles correctly summed up as "a petty-bourgeois liberal therapy group. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46364&view=findpost&p=1292021972)"

Okay? :)


Originally posted by Faceless
Firstly I am interested in which "illustrious" member inspired this article

Severian. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showuser=961) :D


Originally posted by Faceless
Of course, you start with your conclusion....

No I didn't.

My "conclusion" as it were, was/is that Trotskyism "represents just another “branch” of bourgeois politics." -- i.e. another form of Social-Democracy.

The start of my piece however, was a short introduction into what I was about to write about -- which was "why Trotskyism has been able to linger around in the Modern-Capitalist World for so long, indeed exceeding the life-span of Leninism’s other “offspring” and “Orthodox Leninism” itself".

In other words, what does the Trotskyist paradigm represent?

If you wish to argue that stating the question you are about to answer at the beginning of a piece is "wrong" or "bad", then you'd be presenting a somewhat unique view of essay writing -- one which I have never encountered.


Originally posted by Faceless
It is clear from this first line that you do not intend a scientific investigation into what trotskyism represents.

Well....


Originally posted by Wikipedia
Scientific method as envisaged by one of its early exponents, Sir Isaac Newton, is fundamental to the investigation and acquisition of knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories that can be reproducibly tested by experiments are the basis for developing new technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

I did "observe" and "investigate" what the Trotskyist paradigm has done and is doing and to do this I used "physical evidence" -- i.e. the "history" of Trotskyism.

I also proposed a theory with the aim of "explaining" why the Trotskyist paradigm -- the "natural phenomena" as it were -- behaves like it does and I then went on to make a few "predictions".

You may disagree with the analysis or how good my investigation was, but in the grand scheme of things, the method of "scientific investigation" was applied.


Originally posted by Faceless
Of course, if you really think that Stalinism is "dead" then you are quite mistaken.

Fuck me, this must another variation about what "Stalinism" is to emerge from the "Trotskyist camp".

Perhaps you could further elaborate on what "Stalinism" means to you before we discuss this issue any more.


Originally posted by Faceless
Perhaps it is ironic that on a site called "che-lives" people condemn each other for "romantic appeal" or whatever.

Actually, the forum is called Revolutionary Left.


Originally posted by Faceless
....i cant be bothered any more

Your choice I suppose.


[email protected]
and yet your article still does not explain why you are a hater for trotskyist acievements....

What "achievements" am I supposed to be "hating"???


Faceless
....and generally flame people who approach you with these ideas.

As a Local Mod on this board, my behaviour as it were, is supposed to be exemplary. Therefore, as a member of this board, you should report me if you think I have broken the boards guidelines and/or rules -- and "flaming" is against the rules.

Which means, either you do report the behaviour you are accusing me of in -- either through a thread in the Members' Forum, a thread in the Commie Club, or a PM to LSD -- or you refrain from making accusations about my character, which you have repeatedly made.

Additionally, it should be said that your "pals" have resorted to "name calling" on a few occasions in this thread. In particular here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292036357 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46981&view=findpost&p=1292036357)

And here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292036692 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46981&view=findpost&p=1292036692)

And my responses have been relatively civil.

[chebol]

I'm quite familiar with Trotsky's works Axel. I wonder if you're familiar with Lenin's? If you read Lenin in the same way you read my post, we're in trouble, comrade. I was referring to the mischaracterisation by Trotskyists of Lenin's position of the Two-Stage Uninterrupted Revolution, where it is either (such as in the case of Russia) dishonestly claimed to actually have been Trotsky's Permanent Revolution (in open denial of the facts), or it is lumped in with the even more mistaken Menshevik position. Lenin's understanding of the revolution was neither of these things, despite both sides trying to claim it was.

I've posted the introduction to this book in full because there is no direct link (and the full text is not online, although I would recommend getting a hold of it). Apologies for length:

http://www.dsp.org.au/
TROTSKY'S THEORY OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION: A LENINIST CRITIQUE
By Doug Lorimer

Here's the INTRODUCTION of our recently published book, More will follow later (but buy the book now).

I. Introduction

II. 1905 to 1917: Bolshevism and Trotskyism
1. Bolshevism versus Menshevism
2. Trotsky's disagreements with the Bolsheviks
3. Methodological roots of Trotsky's position
4. The practical consequences of Trotsky's position

III. 1917 to 1928: Debates within the CPSU
1. Trotsky's 1919 evaluation of Bolshevik policy
2. `Lessons of October'
3. Trotsky on China: from Leninism to ultraleft fantasies

IV. 1928 to 1940: Trotsky's defence and `generalisation' of the theory of permanent revolution
1. Trotsky's new line on China
2. Trotsky's defence of his pre-1917 permanent revolution theory
3. Trotsky's identification of Bolshevik policy with Menshevism
4. Trotsky's `generalised' theory of permanent revolution

I. Introduction

Leon Trotsky was one of the outstanding Marxist revolutionaries of the 20th century. A leading figure in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party from the time of its second congress in 1903, after joining the Bolsheviks in July 1917, Trotsky rapidly became one of its central leaders. When the Bolsheviks won a majority in the Petrograd soviet (council) of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies, Trotsky was elected its president and in that capacity headed the organisation of the insurrection of November 7 (October 25 in the tsarist calendar). A member of the first Soviet government, he served as People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs until the signing of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty between Soviet Russia and imperial Germany, and then as People’s Commissar of War. In the latter capacity, he was responsible for the organisation of the Red Army in 1918 and was its supreme commander during the 1918-21 Russian civil war. A central leader of the Communist International during its first five years, from the mid-1920s he became the chief spokesperson of the Bolshevik-Leninist Opposition within the Soviet Communist Party, fighting against the antiproletarian line of the Stalin bureaucracy.

During the 1930s Trotsky made his most significant contributions to the theoretical arsenal of the Marxist movement. In 1932-33 he wrote a three-volume History of the Russian Revolution, providing an incomparable Marxist exposition of the events that led to the Bolshevik victory in 1917. During the same period, in his writings on Germany, he made the first systematic Marxist analysis of the nature of fascism and of the strategy and tactics needed by the working-class movement to combat and defeat this reactionary phenomenon. In his 1936 book The Revolution Betrayed he provided the first consistently Marxist explanation of the nature and causes of the regime established in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

From the time of his exile from the USSR by Stalin in 1929 until his death at the hands of a Stalinist agent in 1940, Trotsky dedicated himself to the forging of a new international organisation of Marxist cadres — the Fourth International — based upon the defence of the political heritage of Bolshevism and the programmatic acquisitions of the early years of the Communist International. He regarded this as his most important contribution to the revolutionary movement.

James P. Cannon, one of Trotsky’s key collaborators in this project, pointed out in The History of American Trotskyism that: "Trotskyism is not a new movement, a new doctrine, but the restoration, the revival of genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practised in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International."1 In one important doctrinal respect however the movement that Trotsky founded in the 1930s departed from this claim.

Explaining the factors that were responsible for the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, Lenin noted in 1919 that one of these was that "Russia’s backwardness merged in a peculiar way the proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie with the peasant revolution against the landowners". Elaborating on this point, Lenin added:
As long ago as 1856, Marx spoke, in reference to Prussia, of the possibility of a peculiar combination of proletarian revolution and peasant war. From the beginning of 1905 the Bolsheviks advocated the idea of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.2
Despite the fact that the 1927 platform of the Bolshevik-Leninist Opposition in the CPSU had argued in favour of this idea, counterposing it to the Stalinists’ neo-Menshevik formula of a "bloc of four classes" (i.e., a regime "uniting" representatives of the workers, peasants, petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie), from its foundation the international Trotskyist movement officially rejected the Bolshevik formula in favour of a revived version of Trotsky’s pre-1917 theory of "permanent revolution".

The Opposition platform had argued that:
The slogan of "soviets" proposed by Lenin for China as early as 1920 had every possible justification in the conditions existing in 1926-27. Soviets in China would have offered a form through which the forces of the peasantry could have been consolidated under the leadership of the proletariat. They would have been real institutions of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry…

The doctrine of Lenin, that a bourgeois-democratic revolution can be carried through only by a union of the working class and the peasants (under the leadership of the former) against the bourgeoisie, is not only applicable to China, and to similar colonial and semicolonial countries, but in fact indicates the only road to victory in those countries…

It follows from this that a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, taking the form of soviets in China, would have every chance, in the present age of imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions and given the existence of the USSR, of developing relatively rapidly into a socialist revolution…

In mockery of Lenin’s teaching, Stalin asserted that the slogan of soviets in China would mean the demand for an immediate formation of the proletarian dictatorship. As a matter of fact Lenin, as long ago as in the revolution of 1905, advanced the slogan of soviets as organs of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasants.3
The first resolution adopted by the international Trotskyist movement, however, stated that one of the fundamental principles of the movement was "[r]ejection of the formula of the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry’ as a separate regime distinguished from the dictatorship of the proletariat, which wins the support of the peasantry and the oppressed masses in general; rejection of the anti-Marxist theory of the peaceful ‘growing over’ of the democratic dictatorship into the socialist one".4

This position was enshrined in the basic programmatic statement adopted by the Fourth International at its founding congress in 1938. This document — the "Transitional Program" — declared that the Bolshevik formula of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" had been "buried by history" and that the Stalinists had "tried to revive" it. Moreover, it claimed that when they "had revived" this formula the Stalinists had given it "a completely ‘democratic’, i.e., bourgeois content, counterposing it to the dictatorship of the proletariat".5 Instead of the Bolshevik formula, the document declared that the "general trend of revolutionary developments in all backward countries can be determined by the formula of the permanent revolution in the sense definitively imparted to it by the three revolutions in Russia (1905, February 1917, October 1917)".6

This implied that Trotsky’s pre-1917 theory of "permanent revolution" was superior to the Bolsheviks’ policy as a guide to revolutionary action in industrially backward countries. This view was to become an officially endorsed article of faith among Trotskyists.

The Trotskyist movement has been the main vehicle through which the legacy of Bolshevism and the early years of the Communist International has been transmitted to many revolutionary-minded workers, students and intellectuals in large parts of the world, particularly the advanced capitalist countries, in the last decades of the 20th century. Any attempt to build an international movement that is really based, as Cannon put it more than fifty years ago, on a revival of "genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practised in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International", cannot avoid dealing with the misrepresentations of Bolshevik theory and policy made by Trotsky in the 1920s and ’30s. This work is a contribution to that task.

I have limited the discussion of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution to those aspects of his theory which differ from the theory and policy of Leninism. The Stalinists claimed that the theory of permanent revolution was opposed to Leninism because Trotsky rejected the idea that a socialist society could be brought into being in one country, i.e., the USSR, without the victory of socialist revolutions in the industrially more developed countries. While rejection of the Stalinist theory of "socialism in one country" was a key part of Trotsky’s theory, as he presented it from the late 1920s on, this aspect of Trotsky’s theory fully accorded with the views of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Indeed, until late 1924 Stalin himself rejected the idea that socialism, i.e., a classless society of freely associated producers, could be achieved in one country alone. In the first edition of his pamphlet Foundations of Leninism, published in May 1924, Stalin wrote:
Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be attained in a single country without the joint efforts of the proletariat in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. In order to overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of a single country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, efforts of a single country, and particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are inadequate; for that, the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries are required.7
Here Stalin was only repeating Lenin’s view of the matter. In 1922, for example, Lenin wrote:
But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism — that joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.8
I have also not attempted to take up the innumerable distortions of Lenin’s views on the question of the class dynamics of the Russian revolution made by later Trotskyists and by writers influenced by Trotskyism, preferring instead to concentrate on the original source of these distortions, i.e., Trotsky himself.

Notes
1. Cannon, The History of American Trotskyism (New York, 1972), p. 1.

2. Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow, 1977), Vol. 29, p. 310.

3. Trotsky, Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-27) (New York, 1980), p. 369, 372.

4. Trotsky, Writings (1932-33) (New York, 1972), p. 53.

5. Trotsky, The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution (New York, 1973), p. 93.

6. ibid., p. 98.

7. Quoted in Trotsky, Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-27), p. 157, emphasis added by Trotsky.

8. Lenin, CW, Vol. 33, p. 206.

[Shredder]

I didn't say I had any moral opposition to drugs. I was points out links between drugs and brain damage. I suppose you will claim there is no link, because when it comes to facts you will ignore as many as you need to since you have some type of complex that causes you to want to oppose everything and everyone and disagree with as many people as possible, but that's a whole different branch of neurology.

Anyway, the point was Redstar --> anarcho-hippie --> drug use --> brain damage --> paranoid delusions & erratic behavior --> Redstar. It's the circle of life.

[Faceless]

Probably upwards of 95% of Trotskyist Parties "electioneer" and most of these Parties do end up "fetishing" elections and worse of all, they end up "fetishing" bourgeois law!

OK, I'm not going to argue the toss. Show me where a trotskyist has "fetishised" "electioneering". More specifically where the CMI has "fetishised" electioneering. Simple participation is not a sign of participation. Neither is it mutually exclusive to calling for the revolutionary transformation of society. Participation in elections as opposed to boycott of elections can at certain times show this so called democracy to be no more of a sham and yet at other times there may be reason to boycott elections at a decisive time when this democracy has already come to be seen as a sham in the eyes of the majority. If you think boycott of elections is going to resonate well at this moment in the UK, you are mistaken.

As for fetishisng bourgeois law, well I do not do that. I have no problem with breaking the law, and if it was not for my aversion to being arrested I would list the times I have broken the law. Why you brought "fetishisng" bourgeois law into this though I am uncertain. There is obviously a reason why "trotskyists" as well as any sound minded person would stay within the confines of the law. For instance, if I got arrested today for something minor like smashing up a branch of mcdonalds, as much as I might enjoy it I would not achieve anything and would rather deprive myself of the opportunity to organise legal meetings and do legal work which would get rewards. That is not to say that at other times I would not be prepared to break the law.


I'd actually say, that by "accepting" Trade Unions, the bourgeois rather cleverly made them impotent.

As part of the bourgeois establishment, Trade Unions have lost virtually all of their "radical nature" and now do very little with regards resistance. And I'd seriously doubt whether they could ever "recapture" their old nature.
Don't get me wrong, I recognise that trade unions were somewhat pacified by their legalisation, but you must recognise that you are exagerating when you say impotent. The NUM in the past has been very class consciouss. A number of unions have also shifted left in recent years.


However, until you do manage to drag the paradigm in a revolutionary direction, then I can only comment on what the paradigm actually is. And that ain't anything "great".
and what is it?


They can be both really "meaningful" and really "meaningless". However, they are rarely against the interests of capital.
The minimum wage? Allowing a state pension? Stopping the employment of children? All of these are potential sources of human labour that are being untapped. There is nothing in the interests of capital here except for that one thing which stops them from undoing all these reforms: the militant reaction they could expect from the working class.


My "conclusion" as it were, was/is that Trotskyism "represents just another “branch” of bourgeois politics." -- i.e. another form of Social-Democracy.

But you began with:

Unable to provide a successful Vanguard for even one revolution during the last century, the Trotskyist paradigm should be long dead, it should, by all accounts, be a rotting corpse six feet under and stinking.
I can't really see how your starting statement was written with anything other than the former in mind.


Fuck me, this must another variation about what "Stalinism" is to emerge from the "Trotskyist camp".

Perhaps you could further elaborate on what "Stalinism" means to you before we discuss this issue any more.
I already explained what the phenomenon of Stalinism is.


As a Local Mod on this board, my behaviour as it were, is supposed to be exemplary. Therefore, as a member of this board, you should report me if you think I have broken the boards guidelines and/or rules -- and "flaming" is against the rules.

Which means, either you do report the behaviour you are accusing me of in -- either through a thread in the Members' Forum, a thread in the Commie Club, or a PM to LSD -- or you refrain from making accusations about my character, which you have repeatedly made.

Additionally, it should be said that your "pals" have resorted to "name calling" on a few occasions in this thread. In particular here....

Jesus, I meant flaming because I see every post of yours contains many little insults, which whilst their tone may be subdued and you havent used the word ****, faggot or the likes, the effect is still the same. You have little content in your arguements. You use words like fetishism of bourgeois law without justification. You call trotskyism another form of bourgeois politics without justifying what it is exactly about trotskyism that is bourgeois except the willingness to take part in elections and to enter organisations of the working class. You have also failed to explain what method we should use instead.

Trade Unions are impotent

Participation in election is pointless

Reforms can only help the bourgeoisie

So what SHOULD we do? Your posts are full of one-liners and have no content. You know that I would be defeated in the commie club but I would still call your posts flames with no intention to win the arguement, only to humiliate a section of the left in front of your friends.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Shredder
Anyway, the point was Redstar --> anarcho-hippie --> drug use --> brain damage --> paranoid delusions & erratic behavior --> Redstar. It's the circle of life.

There's one hypothesis.

Here's another...

Kautsky --> Lenin --> Trotsky --> Back to Kautsky! :lol:

That seems to describe what's actually happened.

Not a "circle of life", however...more a circle of futility. :o

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)I was points out links between drugs and brain damage. I suppose you will claim there is no link....[/b]

The "link" between drug use and "brain damage", are, as far as I know, dubious.

For instance, a high proportion of people whop use LSD who then develop psychological problems have been found to have certain genetic traits which would indicate that they were prone to developing psychological problems anyway. If anything, the use of LSD simply "speeded up" the process.

With regards the "brain damage" associated with the general use of drugs, the case tends to be that it results from either using massive amounts of a particular drug, drug misuse and not drug use in general, or mixing your drugs.

Ecstasy for instance, is a relatively safe drug if you know how to take it properly -- drink the right amount of water, take an amount of pills that does not exceed what you can handle and so on.

The "negative effects" happen when you don't know what the fuck you are doing!

Just like you're likely to crash a car if you don't know how to drive!

Other drugs -- like cocaine and alcohol -- tend to effect you physically and not psychologically. Research has shown that the drugs tend to effect you organs in the long run, not your brain.

Though with cocaine, the negative impact tends to come if you mix it with alcohol.

You see, the research in these areas is at a primitive stage and is also undeniably tainted by certain class and/or puritanical motives. So, when talking about this stuff, we have to rely on -- to some degree at least -- personal experience.

And, given the tone of your posts, I rather doubt you've done anything stronger than aspirin! :lol:

Therefore, I will happily dismiss most of what you have to say on this particular subject, just like I'd dismiss the advice of a Plumber on the subject of making clothes.

You may dismiss what I have to say, putting it down to "brain complexes" and so on, but personally, I prefer to listen to people who know what they are talking about! :lol:


Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)More specifically where the CMI has "fetishised" electioneering.[/b]

The CMI being the Committee for a Marxist International right? ....and their Official Website being this....

http://www.marxist.com/

....?

Well, in the first article on that site the CMI state this....


Originally posted by The Case for Nationalization
The SoS are an example of the process that led to the emergence of a rank and file controlled trade union movement in Venezuela. They are just the beginning of the organizational formations that must emerge around the country and in all sectors in response to the bosses' attacks. All working Americans should support and join the SoS! The way forward to nationalization can be seen in Venezuela, where over the past few months, where under the pressure of the rank and file, several important industrial plants have been nationalized under workers' control. In many cases workers occupied the factories and got them running themselves. Instead of being "restructured" into oblivion, nationalization of the U.S. auto industry under democratic workers' control would open an entirely new chapter for the U.S. and world working class.

http://www.marxist.com/us-auto-industry-cr...ation170306.htm (http://www.marxist.com/us-auto-industry-crisis-nationalization170306.htm)

There is no mention of working class revolution in that piece, only a call for the Nationalisation of the Auto-Industry. Now that in itself is not "evidence" that they "fetishise" -- your word by the way, that's why I stuck it in quotation marks -- elections, but the example of Venezuela is telling.

Not only is their message of Nationalisation a traditional message of Social-Democracy -- though they are unclear on this, will the Industries be democratically controlled or Nationalised? ....they leave that up in the air.

The message that "an example of the process that led to the emergence of a rank and file controlled trade union movement in Venezuela" suggests that their aim as it were, is to "elect a Chavez", build a strong Union movement and Nationalise various industries -- without a revolution as there was no mention of one.

These, as you are no doubt aware, were the aims of the British Labour Party throughout the last century!

And unless you're about to suggest the British Labour Party was not a Social-Democratic Party, then I don't see how the Committee for a Marxist International differs in any substantial way.

The second article I browsed through was this....


Originally posted by Only the Working Class Can Defeat Bush
So what are we supposed to do? Most Americans are coming to the painful realization that neither of the bosses’ parties offers any real alternative. On all fundamental questions, the Democrats are the mirror image of the Republicans, and do not serve the interests of working people. What we need is a party by and for working people - a mass party of labor. We can’t trust the representatives of another class to defend our interests. We can rely only on our own strength and organizations to do this.

http://www.marxist.com/working-class-can-defeat-bush-2.htm

Again, no mention of workers revolution, so one can only assume that what the above statement means is that the Committee for a Marxist International wishes to establish a Social-Democratic Party to compete with the Republican and Democratic Parties at election time -- "a mass party of labor" as they put it.

This again, is not different in any substantial manner from what happened across Western Europe at the turn of the 20th century. In most places "a mass party of labor" was formed -- the British Labour Party, the German Social-Democratic Party and so on.

I don't have the time to read everything on that site, but from those two pieces, it appears to me that both the absence of any mention of working class revolution and the terminology in general, that the Committee for a Marxist International has its "heart" in Social-Democracy.

And something we do know, is that Social-Democrats do "fetishise elections" constantly. As do all bourgeois political parties.

Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, one of the "major successes" of the Committee for a Marxist International is that they have a few entrists elected to Parliament in Pakistan Peoples Party -- maybe they'll gain a Council and threaten some workers with the sack! :angry:

They don't appear to be as Social-Democratic as the Socialist Workers' Party, but the odour is definitely there.

Indeed I just had a look over their British section and I found this....

Crisis of Working Class Political Representation (http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm)

The message is clear, we need to "reclaim" the Labour Party from the bourgeois and return it to its "socialist programme". Indeed, they seem to think the Wilson era was really great, when it wasn't.

The article seems to be a rather romantic and nostalgic take on the British Labour Party. A similar view to the one I held when I first came here and I actually wrote an article along similar lines....

Labour after Blair. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40912&hl=Gordon)

I have an excuse, well sort of anyway. I'm too young to remember what the Labour Party was actually like and therefore am prone to falling for the "romantic images" of the past.

Rob Sewell who wrote that article, on the other hand, has no such excuse. He is old enough to have seen with his own eyes the Social-Democratic claptrap that was the British Labour Party. Indeed, he wrote a rather scathing Postscript on it....

History of British Trotskyism Postcript (http://www.marxist.com/hbt/p-1.html)

And yet in the CMI piece -- Crisis of Working Class Political Representation -- he seems to be proposing that communists repeat that sequence of events.

The mind boggles!


Originally posted by Faceless
If you think boycott of elections is going to resonate well at this moment in the UK, you are mistaken.

Well....we don't know until we try!

One of articles I linked said this....


Originally posted by Sewell
The RMT statement about the conference explains that: “The conference will not be used to promote the establishment of a new political party and will be a non resolution based conference. It will be an open public debate to discuss the crisis in working class representation and also how best to address the continued decline in working class people standing for public office and the continuing low turnouts in elections.”

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-clas...ation160106.htm (http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm)

Sewell offers no criticism of the RMT's statement, so one can only assume that he too considers "the continuing low turnouts in elections" a problem and from the rest of the piece, it's clear that he wishes to make elections "appealing" again by "reclaiming" the Labour Party and getting working class people to support it.

How exactly is this supposed to "show this so called democracy to be no more of a sham"???

Indeed, Sewell -- who one would imagine accurately depicts the CMI's views, otherwise they wouldn't host his articles -- seems to think that we should be trying to show people that bourgeois "democracy" isn't a "sham".

There is no mention in that article of "proving" bourgeois "democracy" is a "sham", so one can only conclude that the CMI, or at least sections of it, don't think bourgeois "democracy" is a "sham".

Indeed, they actually seem to think and act, as if bourgeois "democracy" really means something!

There is a word for this type of "worldview" -- Social-Democracy.


Originally posted by Faceless
Why you brought "fetishisng" bourgeois law into this though I am uncertain.

When I said this I was thinking of one particular example -- the Socialist Workers' Party and in particular their response to the British National Party and "Islamaphobia".

Unlike AntiFa, the SWP seems to be under the impression that it's a "good idea" to get the British National Party banned. As if the bourgeois actually adhere to bourgeois law!

The organisation AntiFa on the other hand, pursues what in my opinion constitutes the revolutionary method. They propose that the only viable method to defeat the British National Party is to beat them in the streets.

They'll leave the reforming of bourgeois law to the reformists, unlike the SWP who wish to take part in the reform.

Additionally, with "Islamaphobia", the SWP, as far as I'm aware, want to have things deemed "offensive to Islam" banned.

In both these examples, the SWP replace a Marxist analysis of what bourgeois law actually is, with petty faith in bourgeois law. The actions seem to indicate that they actually think bourgeois laws means something, and that the bourgeois will abide by it.

This is, in my opinion, "fetishisng bourgeois law".


Originally posted by Faceless
A number of unions have also shifted left in recent years.

The "shift left" is, in my opinion, very subjective.

It was not shift to the radical left, rather a shift to the left of New Labour!

Which, in my opinion, is hardly a shift leftwards at all.

As for whether they are "impotent" or not, based on current evidence I'd say they are "impotent". However, unlike the Labour Party, I wouldn't say they'll never become militant again, because there's a good chance they will.

However, until the whole Union establishment starts to become more militant, I don't see any point in working with them. Indeed, not only would I consider it a waste of energy at the current moment to work with the Unions, I'd also say that trying to "reclaim" them or "drag them leftwards" will be a fruitless task.

The whole Union bureaucracy is part of the bourgeois establishment, and until the Unions leave this environment -- which I don't see happening any time soon -- I see no point working with them.

It would be about as meaningful as Party building for the Labour Party!


Originally posted by Faceless
The minimum wage?

Well I'm not a trained economist, but as the minimum wage didn't affect the majority of workers, I'd say that from that perspective it didn't really harm capital.

Indeed, with inflation and so on, it's likely that there was no real increase in the amount of money people had to spend. After all, the minimum wage didn't result in workers gaining more of their labour value, it just mainly led to stuff costing more!

Additionally, even with the minimum wage (introduced in 1992?), real wages have been steadily declining.

You may now earn £18,000 a year compared to £9,000 20 years earlier, but back then, that £9,000 would buy you more shit!


Originally posted by Faceless
Allowing a state pension?

One of the few pro-working class reforms that probably harmed capital.

However, most of it is by workers tax and therefore capital is only slightly harmed.


Originally posted by Faceless
Stopping the employment of children?

Absolutely necessary.

The means of production today are far more advanced than previously. Therefore, it is essential that workers receive some level of education in order to operate them efficiently.

The only function of the State School Structure is to produce productive workers. It is therefore no surprise that children no longer work up chimneys, nor is it a surprise that there is no pressure to return to this arrangement.

After all, how could one do most of todays jobs if they couldn't read? ....and you don't get a literate workforce by sending them up chimneys aged 5!


Originally posted by Faceless
There is nothing in the interests of capital here except for that one thing which stops them from undoing all these reforms: the militant reaction they could expect from the working class.

And of course, the decrease in productivity, particularly with regards bringing back child labour.

Incidentally, they are making people work longer now and that is because the workforce is ageing. Another reform that benefits capital!


Originally posted by Faceless
So what SHOULD we do?

If I could predict the future, I'd be a millionaire! :D

As it stands, we enter this century knowing that our attempts in the last century failed. Therefore, I propose we scrap the old methods and start rebuilding the communist paradigm.

We start by not compromising with the bourgeois -- elections -- and by encouraging resistance to the despots of capital. And of course, forming exclusively working class organisations. :D

If we start doing that, the rest should follow.


[email protected]
You know that I would be defeated in the commie club but I would still call your posts flames with no intention to win the arguement....

Either refrain from accusing me of breaking the rules and/or guidelines of this board, or bring it up in the Commie Club.

It really annoys me when people make accusations about me which they won't back up.

So, either back them up or shut up.

Okay? :)


redstar2000
Kautsky --> Lenin --> Trotsky --> Back to Kautsky! :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: