Essay I wrote

[Amusing Scrotum]

Inspired by one of our more illustrious (!) members, the other night when I couldn't get to sleep, I decided to "do a polemic". Now, this is a first draft, and it could do with a bit of editing. But I decided to post it anyway to see what everyone thought and hopefully, for some suggestions as to how I could improve it.

So, without further ado, here goes....

A presentation by "Doing Polemics in my sleep":

Trotskyism and what it represents. (Does anyone think the title, What Trotskyism Represents would be better?)

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.
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.
Trotskyism seems to still hold some “prestige” on the left, at least sections of the left, and from time to time, Trotskyism in the Modern-Capitalist World has a revival of sorts.
And though this revival is often short lived and, in the grand scale of things, meaningless. Quite 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, is what I wish to analyse.

Firstly, as I mentioned above, Trotskyism as a paradigm wasn’t able to form the theoretical basis for even one revolution - bourgeois or proletarian - during the last century.
Which is not at all surprising given that most “Third World” bourgeois revolutions during the last century were funded, directly or indirectly, by Moscow. And in return for this funding, the revolutionaries themselves were “obliged” to accept certain models for post-revolution organisation and of course, adherence, at least on paper, to “Marxism-Leninism” the Official Ideology of the Soviet Union - and later the People’s Republic of China.
So it is obvious that Trotskyism was never able to rely on the “winners status” that other variants of the Leninist paradigm have had. Indeed, it is this “status” that perhaps best explains the remaining (if small) following of Maoism in the Modern-Capitalist World. After all, Maoism in the Modern-Capitalist World, has been completely divorced from its material roots and therefore its remaining relevance, if you can call it that, is that it still “does” revolution in the “Third World”, Nepal being the obvious example at the moment.
So Maoism at least, still has the “aura” of a revolutionary paradigm, well sort of anyway, and this, in a way, explains why Maoism has some lasting appeal in the Modern-Capitalist World, mainly in America.

Yet this, as you will have noticed, still leaves us puzzled as to why Trotskyism maintains some form of respect within “left circles”. After all, we never saw a version of “Bukharinism” or “Zinovievism” emerge in the Modern-Capitalist World, yet both these individuals suffered the same type of plight as Trotsky the individual and both men also compiled enough in terms of theoretical material from which a paradigm could be constructed. Indeed, it could even be argued that Bukharin’s work has more theoretical “weight” - so to speak - than Trotsky’s, though that is not what I wish to discuss here.

So why has Trotskyism stuck around?

Now, there is obviously a certain “romantic appeal” about an exiled revolutionary who then mounts a “brave” struggle to “rescue” the revolution. Individual heroism like this, is what bourgeois ideologues love. No one more so than that pretentious windbag Christopher Hitchens.
However, even a “third rate” Marxist like myself, will realise that “romantic appeals” are not why paradigms take hold. Trotskyism is not some “far out cult” that's appeal can be said to be the result of human idiocy, though it does sometimes act as one!
No, it is a significant “social force” so to speak, and although “cults” are often thought of as “petty-bourgeois”, their significance doesn’t really warrant any further investigation. The same cannot be said of Trotskyism.
Therefore, if we wish to figure out the Trotskyist paradigm as a “social force”, we really do need to investigate further.

It appears to me that the best place to start this “investigation”, is to briefly discuss Trotskyism “paternal father” - Leninism, as in the theories devised by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and mainly, the issue of Party organisation and practices.
Leninism, has its roots firmly in the German Social-Democratic “version” of Marxism and Lenin himself, was a great admirer of German Social-Democracy pre-1914. So much so, that the young Lenin was a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and was also a prominent figure in the eventual split of the Party into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions.
Indeed just before this split, Lenin wrote the pamphlet What Is to Be Done? (1902). The arguments presented in this pamphlet, are certainly an example of the political atmosphere of that time and the difficulties that face Marxists who try to be revolutionaries in places where the objective material conditions for proletarian revolution are not present.

Both factions from the split realised that Socialism was not possible in Russia at that time, but both proposed different methods to follow.
Lenin, no doubt affected by the theories of Karl Kautsky, thought that a highly disciplined Revolutionary Party was needed to “inject” into the proletariat the “science” of revolution and that the Party would then establish the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”.
The Mensheviks, of which a young Trotsky was a member, were more conservative. They thought participation in a “bourgeois democracy” was “enough” and then diligently went about figuring out how best to get their fat arses into a plush seat in the soon to be Russian Parliament!
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.

It is of course, no surprise that the young Trotsky would find Social-Democracy so attractive. After all, Social-Democracy is what happens when the “Middle Class” become “Marxists”, it is the manifestation of “Middle Class Marxism”.
In this respect, Lenin does deserve some “credit” for being able to “rise above” his class roots at that time, even though that rise was never greater than a couple of “rungs” up the proverbial ladder!

During 1917, Trotsky formally “renounced” his Menshevism and became Lenin’s “number 2” in the Bolshevik Party elite. And whilst it would be careless to completely forget Trotsky’s earlier sympathies - as it would be to forget Lenin’s links with German Social-Democracy - Trotsky the individual, proved himself to be a “competent Bolshevik”. Indeed, some of his acts would make Uncle Joe blush!

Then Lenin died and we all know about what happened next. Fierce debate ensued within the upper echelons of the Bolshevik Party elite and eventually, one Josef Stalin rose to prominence as the leader of the Russian State. Trotsky was exiled and from this point on, the Trotskyist paradigm was born.

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”.

So again we need to ask; why did Trotskyism become a “social force”?

Much like early Christianity, I think it was luck that Trotsky’s theoretical analysis was the basis on which a paradigm was built. There were countless other “Old Bolsheviks’” that could of been the basis for a paradigm, but that Trotsky in exile was able to “denounce” what he saw as “Stalin’s Russia”, was down to the good fortune that he wasn’t killed in Russia!
However, it was these “denunciations”, that, in my opinion, gained him his initial appeal, along with of course, his reputation as a former leader of the Red Army which successfully repelled the White Army.
In essence, the “romantic appeal” of the exiled revolutionary “battling” the “tyrant”, filled a void, and that “void” was essentially the disillusioned Social-Democrats of that time, along with the “revolutionaries” still thinking inside the “Leninist box”, but who had also become disillusioned with what had happened in the former Soviet Union.

Been as the Stalin clique had successfully commandeered “Marxism-Leninism” and, in some cases, altered it so that it more accurately defined the material conditions of 1930’s Russia, making it the “Ideology” of a ruling class.
Those who had once “identified” with the Russian Revolution, were, as is to be expected, extremely alienated. They needed something to fill the “market niche” that had been left open by the failure of the Russian Revolution, and in stepped the Trotskyist paradigm.

Now, at this point in time, as I have eluded too, there were two separate currents within the Trotskyist paradigm, two currents that - sort of - remain today. There was the “revolutionary bourgeois democrat”, which Trotsky himself represented, and the “left” Social-Democrats. Both as bourgeois as Bill Gates!

Now, the “left” Social-Democrat involvement, is very interesting. This “tendency”, as with traditional Social-Democracy, is a “Middle Class” liberal “thing”. It represents those that are unhappy about poverty and homelessness and so on, those who essentially see the working class as a charity case. This prejudice, as you no doubt know, stems directly from their own class position and one would imagine, that Trotsky’s own “victim status” plays a role in the paradigms appeal to these people.
So, whilst traditional Social-Democracy in Western Europe remained strong throughout the last century, the more “radical” petty-bourgeois found all variants of Leninism attractive.
Trotskyism however, unlike the “Official” Communist Parties - which mainly concentrated their efforts on doing Moscow‘s “bidding“ - seemed to attract the more liberal, philanthropist even, sections of petty-bourgeois. And in the end, these “tendencies” within the Trotskyist paradigm, “guzzled up” the bourgeois revolutionary tendencies.
Which is not at all surprising, Trotskyism, divorced from its material roots as part of a bourgeois revolution in Russia and without being able to gain any “victories” abroad, found that as a paradigm it needed to evolve.
The first, and perhaps most poignant, signal of its “evolution” as a paradigm was the French Turn in 1934. The inclusion of “entrism” into the Trotskyist paradigm, although at the time as an attempt to stop a French variant of fascism and also to try and gain the Trotskyist paradigm enough “prestige“ with which to challenge “Stalinism“, really laid the foundation for Trotskyisms’ later role of “radical” Social Democrats.

Entrism, over time, became “accepted practice” for Trotskyists, indeed in many cases it became the main aim. And once again, this forced another “evolution” within the Trotskyist paradigm.
The paradigm, which had already almost completely removed its bourgeois revolutionary “character”, started to remove even its “radical” Social-Democratic character. “Socialism” became less and less of an importance and what mattered more than anything, was getting the Social-Democratic Parties they “entered”, and in some cases themselves, elected.
As the material conditions of those identifying with the Trotskyist paradigm changed, so did the paradigm itself change. In other words, they became bourgeois politicians! - this perhaps, best represented by Militant Tendency of the British Labour Party which threatened to make the entire workforce of Liverpool Council redundant!

When in the 80’s, in Britain at least, the Social-Democratic Parties “formalised” their position as openly Capitalist establishments, the “entrists” found themselves “purged” - almost as if Stalin’s ghost had come back to haunt them!
The “formal” declarations by Social-Democracy that it was going to support capital, not labour, and the subsequent removal of Trotskyist tendencies in Social-Democratic organisations, would, one would have thought, led to the Trotskyists re-evaluating their paradigm. However, instead of this, they went ahead and formed their own Social-Democratic Parties, which most of the time split in two, and then in two again!
The paradigm, unable to rely on foreign affairs to win them prestige, became more and more immersed in the traditional methods of Social-Democracy and Social-Liberalism.

Even when they did venture out and “cheerlead” the events of foreign countries, they “cheerleaded” on behalf of other forms of Social-Democracy.
Whilst the Maoist variant of Leninism spends its time fawning over a real bourgeois revolution in the “Nepalese Theatre”, the prominent British Trotskyist Alan Woods, spends his time masturbating over Bolivarian Social-Democracy. The Trotskyist paradigms “revolutions”, aren’t even real!

Perhaps the most curious thing about the Trotskyist paradigm today, is that although its “transformation” into a variant of Social-Democracy looks almost complete, they still retain Lenin’s original organisational model - the Vanguard Party.
It is this that, perhaps, best explains why Trotskyist Parties suffer so many splits. After being removed from its original material roots, the paradigm, as I have mentioned, “evolved” in accordance with it new material roots into a variant of Social-Democracy. And whilst the modern Trotskyist Parties spend the majority of their time “electioneering”, defending “bourgeois democratic rights” and building “broad coalitions” with other Social-Democratic and Liberal Groups, all traditional Social-Democratic tasks, the paradigm has not yet anyway, completed its “evolution”.
By retaining the organisational model of a bourgeois revolution - about the only similarity paradigm retains from its original roots - the paradigm has been unable to adapt itself that successfully to traditional Social-Democracy.
In essence, by keeping the organisational model of a bourgeois revolution to “do” Social-Democracy, they are like a Plumber who use a screwdriver to solder joints!
Basically, they are using the wrong tool for the job, and it shows!

The Leninist organisational model is really the only thing that stands between the Trotskyist paradigm and its “formal” incorporation into the Social-Democratic paradigm.
And, it is my hypothesis, that within the next two or three decades the paradigm will formally reject this model. Certainly the material base for such a model - a bourgeois revolutionary situation - has been completely eroded.
Therefore, I see no material base for the Trotskyist paradigm to continue using “iron Bolshevik discipline” as an organisational model, especially if it continues on its path towards traditional Social-Democracy.

So, it is my prediction that unless the Trotskyist paradigm can gain some significant success in the “Third World”, it will, within the next few decades, completely abandon the Leninist organisational model in favour of the model of traditional Social-Democracy. Not only this, I predict that along with this “evolution”, the paradigm will finally drop its “revolutionary rhetoric”. The parallels with early German Social-Democracy are astounding!

So in conclusion, it is my analysis that the Trotskyist paradigm has mostly abandoned its original incarnation, and by attracting “left” Social Democrats alienated by the events in Russia, it has become a variant of traditional Social-Democracy.
The paradigms material base, and what it represents, is the “left-bourgeois” (and petty-bourgeois) and their “desire” to become “noble philanthropists” by being charitable to the poor - the working class.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that the paradigm, and it material incarnation - Trotskyist Parties - represents just another “branch” of bourgeois politics. And like all good bourgeois political tendencies, their main aim is to sell another product.
So my advice to all those who might come across this political tendency, is to treat it like you would treat any other salesman, ignore them - because just like Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham), the rhetoric is “grand”, but the “product” is rubbish!
____________

Note: I don’t want to start discussing who is or who isn’t a “real” Trotskyist. So for the purposes of this piece, I’ve use a “broad brush” to define Trotskyism.

[ComradeRed]

This is more of a criticism of the writing style itself rather than the piece (the piece was very interesting, very good!), but in the beginning it "seems" like "you" use "too many" quotations next "to" each other. But small things like that bother only me ;)

I would suggest to try to make it comical; present the absurdity so clearly that someone has to laugh at it. It's damn hard writing, but it's also damn good writing.

Just a few "meta"-details.

[redstar2000]

I think it is very perceptive...and entertaining as well. :)

It will indeed be interesting to see if your prediction works out...that the various Trotskyist groups one by one will "drop" the "vanguard party" as "obsolete" and "no longer relevant", etc. :lol:

From what I've read about the British "Socialist Workers Party", you no longer even have to "be" a self-described "Marxist" to join. Like a neighborhood church, "all are welcome". :lol:

I also thought it was interesting to think about why there was never a "Bukharinist" variant of Leninism...although, in a way, the Vietnamese Communist Party follows Bukharin's recipes fairly closely.

All the people in love with "market socialism" could be said, not unfairly, to be "Bukharinist".

Lenin once referred to Bukharin as "the party's darling"...but he never seemed to capture "popular imagination" the way Trotsky, Lenin, and even Stalin managed to do.

Lenin also expressed the opinion that Bukharin "never really understood dialectics". :lol:

Perhaps we could say that some form of "left" opposition was bound to arise as a consequence of Stalin's policies...and it was something of a historical accident that Trotsky the personality was there to serve as a "focus" for it.

Good essay! :D

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

[321zero]

I don't think a "broad-brush" is useful when trying to describe the 57 varieties, it only serves to obscure real differences.

Trotsky had his epigones too. The 'French Turn' entrism advocated by Trotsky was only to apply if the Trotskyists could maintain their independent voice (ie so long as internal democracy was maintained within the Socialist party), and the only valid target for this 'entry' tactic would be organisations which at least made lip service to the existance of class struggle and the need for working class independance. Also the 'entry' into the Socialists was to be short-term, and result in 're-groupment of revolutionaries' of some sort.

The 'deep entrism' stratagy adopted by the International Secretariat in the 50's (after T's assassination and after the disorientation induced by a post WWII situation which did not match with pre-war predictions) was not the same thing at all.

My point is that there is a Trotskyist current which rejects strategic entrism and rejects the class-collaboration represented by stalinist "Popular Front" stratagy.

In short there is a Trotskyist current for which 'entrism' and 'united fronts' are tactics to be applied in particular circumstances and for whom the independance of working-class politics is still the stratagy.

Of course they are all vanguardists and if you and Redstar are correct about the fate of vanguardism I would expect a breakdown of Trots (and other flavours of vanguardism) into not only social-democracy but also revolutionary politics.

Also I think the reason for the many splits is nothing inherrent to Trotskyism. After all the first great split in the movement was initiated by Lenin when he proclaimed the need for a programatically based vanguard after he concluded that the old "party of the whole class" model was fatally compromised in 1914. Consider also that non-trotskyist currents are now undergoing an awful lot of spliting now that the USSR is gone and the CCP is no longer interested. Once the spigot is turned off what is there to keep 'em together?

Split-mania therefore is imo more a consequence of programatically based organisation and the political discipline implied by it.

[Chrysalis]

I like the comic-analytic style of the essay. The best ideas come at odd hours of the night. You should be a lecturer, AS.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Now, there is obviously a certain “romantic appeal” about an exiled revolutionary who then mounts a “brave” struggle to “rescue” the revolution. Individual heroism like this, is what bourgeois ideologues love. No one more so than that pretentious windbag Christopher Hitchens.
However, even a “third rate” Marxist like myself, will realise that “romantic appeals” are not why paradigms take hold.
I think you are very Marxian. :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed)(the piece was very interesting, very good!)[/b]


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Good essay! :D [/b]

Cheers! :)


Originally posted by redstar2000
It will indeed be interesting to see if your prediction works out...that the various Trotskyist groups one by one will "drop" the "vanguard party" as "obsolete" and "no longer relevant", etc. :lol:

I think it is highly likely that they will do that.

After all, as I mentioned, it is not the appropriate "tool" for the job in hand, or of course, they could carry on like they are. Either way, I doubt they'll last long.

Pity! :lol:


Originally posted by redstar2000
Lenin also expressed the opinion that Bukharin "never really understood dialectics". :lol:

To give some credit to Lenin, didn't he say this when Bakunin was proposing a Russian invasion of Germany?

And although it seems an impossible policy, "Lenin the internationalist" who we are so often told about, should have, in my opinion, at least seriously considered diverting resources to help out in Germany and Finland.

After all, if, as the Leninists claim, Lenin "recognised" the revolution would "fail" if there weren't other revolutions. Then concentrating resources on European countries where revolution looked "possible", would have been a sensible policy.


Originally posted by 321zero
I don't think a "broad-brush" is useful when trying to describe the 57 varieties, it only serves to obscure real differences.

It would take months, if not years, to analyse every political tendency referring to themselves as "Trotskyist".

However, as far as I know, all tendencies propose some form of "electioneering", some form of "entrism" and "building broad coalitions". There may be some far-out sects who differ, but I suspect that the majority of Trotskyist Parties adhere to this and this was the main focus of my essay.


Originally posted by 321zero
The 'French Turn' entrism advocated by Trotsky was only to apply if the Trotskyists could maintain their independent voice....

I'm sure, if I could be arsed to read all of Trotsky's theoretical work, that there are many differences between what Trotsky proposed and modern day Trotskyism.

However, I was analysing the Trotskyist paradigm, which is more than just Trotsky. Indeed the Trotskyist paradigm today, is represented by the various Trotskyist Parties and not Trotsky himself.

If you would like an historic comparison, think of Darwinism. Today, Darwinism, despite having Darwin's name, represents a lot more than Darwin's original theories. Indeed, a lot of what we consider Darwinism, wasn't "invented" by Darwin himself.

That is (sort of) what I mean when I talk about Trotskyism.


Originally posted by 321zero
In short there is a Trotskyist current for which 'entrism' and 'united fronts' are tactics to be applied in particular circumstances and for whom the independance of working-class politics is still the stratagy.

Are they a majority or minority "current"?


[email protected]
Also I think the reason for the many splits is nothing inherrent to Trotskyism.

Indeed.

I think there may well be something "inherent" in the Democratic Centralist model, which as you eluded to, splits unless it is heavily funded.

I actually watched a program the other day where the sons and daughters of former CPGB members were interviewed. Basically, they said that after Stalin was "denounced" (1956), the whole thing fell apart. The CPGB just couldn't cope and in my opinion, this certainly hints that there was something wrong with the organisational model.

Additionally, this piece -- Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html) -- is linked on redstar2000's website. I read it a while back and if I remember correctly, it does a good job of explaining why Leninist Parties fall apart.

I think Trotskyism, as a paradigm, suffered because the funding wasn't there to force them to stick together.


Chrysalis
I think you are very Marxian.

:blush:

[321zero]

It would take months, if not years, to analyse every political tendency referring to themselves as "Trotskyist".

The same is true of Marxism, but you are obviously concerned to correctly identify and evaluate the broad tendencies among self-proclaimed Marxists.


However, as far as I know, all tendencies propose some form of "electioneering", some form of "entrism" and "building broad coalitions". There may be some far-out sects who differ, but I suspect that the majority of Trotskyist Parties adhere to this and this was the main focus of my essay.

Yee...sss, but 'electioneering' and 'building broad coalitions' do not amount to a definition of Trotskyism. In fact these two elements are typical of a much broader swath of 'communism' than the Trots alone, and they need not apply to Trots...


I'm sure, if I could be arsed to read all of Trotsky's theoretical work, that there are many differences between what Trotsky proposed and modern day Trotskyism.

Oh. Well If you are going to attempt an analysis I recommend you aquaint yourself with those elements of T's theroretical work that you comment on. For example you might have a go at his writings on the 'French Turn' before drawing conclusions about 'entrism', which was applied very differently by T and the French Trots 1934-36 and by for example the Militant tendency in the Labour Party between, I think the mid 60's-1991. In fact you can see the difference immediately just by observing the dates...

Similarly there is 'electioneering' and 'electioneering' - some Trot groups in the UK can be characterised as 'auto-labourist' whereas others are quite particular. For example I have voted once in 15 years (for a left-moving split from the dominant Social-Democratic organisation). Once more the difference between the autolabour type and the more particular type can be traced to the essential split between the liquidationist wing and those who maintained working class independance as a guiding principle.


However, I was analysing the Trotskyist paradigm, which is more than just Trotsky. Indeed the Trotskyist paradigm today, is represented by the various Trotskyist Parties and not Trotsky himself.

If you would like an historic comparison, think of Darwinism. Today, Darwinism, despite having Darwin's name, represents a lot more than Darwin's original theories. Indeed, a lot of what we consider Darwinism, wasn't "invented" by Darwin himself.

That is (sort of) what I mean when I talk about Trotskyism.

Okay, but once more, is it reasonable to treat Trotskyism, with it's wildly divergent constituents, as a single paradigm? You clearly wouldn't want Marxism to be evaluated as a single paradigm given that self-proclaimed Marxists differ so much. In fact I can see Redstar and yourself recommending, essentially, that people go back to Marx in order to appreciate his politics in the original.


Are they [anti-lquidationist Trots] a majority or minority "current"?

A minority current. Much like non-Leninist Marxists are ;)


Indeed.

I think there may well be something "inherent" in the Democratic Centralist model, which as you eluded to, splits unless it is heavily funded.

I actually watched a program the other day where the sons and daughters of former CPGB members were interviewed. Basically, they said that after Stalin was "denounced" (1956), the whole thing fell apart. The CPGB just couldn't cope and in my opinion, this certainly hints that there was something wrong with the organisational model.

Additionally, this piece -- Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left -- is linked on redstar2000's website. I read it a while back and if I remember correctly, it does a good job of explaining why Leninist Parties fall apart.

I think Trotskyism, as a paradigm, suffered because the funding wasn't there to force them to stick together.

Indeed, it seems your beef is with Leninism, rather than Trotskyism per se.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)....but you are obviously concerned to correctly identify and evaluate the broad tendencies among self-proclaimed Marxists.[/b]

Well, it would depend.

If, for instance, I wanted to write about "Ultra-Left" Marxism, then I wouldn't use that narrow a brush stroke, I'd analyse the basic premises of the "Ultra-Left" paradigm.

However, if I wanted to do a more detailed "critique" of a particular tendency that could be said to be part of the "Ultra-Left", say Left-Communism, then I'd analyse the theoretical content of that tendency specifically.

So, with regards this piece, my aim was to analyse the "broader" variant of Trotskyism and my opinions of what this represents are based on the Trotskyist Parties I know of and have read about. Mainly Parties like the Socialist Workers' Party and so on, which operate in Britain.


Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)In fact these two elements are typical of a much broader swath of 'communism' than the Trots alone....[/b]

Indeed.

These things can be found in most Leninist Parties with the KPD being an obvious exception on the "broad coalition" front.

However, the other Leninist tendencies are virtually dead. "Stalinist" Parties are nowhere to be seen, Maoism is just concerned with cheerleading and outside America, I don't think it has any impact on the "political culture" of the Modern-Capitalist Countries. As for "Orthodox Leninism", well, that probably died in 1925 as a paradigm on its own.

So that's why my focus is on the Trotskyist variant of Leninism.


Originally posted by 321zero
....which was applied very differently by T and the French Trots 1934-36 and by for example the Militant tendency in the Labour Party between, I think the mid 60's-1991.

This was the point of my essay. Trotskyism, as a paradigm, has "evolved" to fit its new material conditions.

Perhaps I should have gone into "entrism" in more detail, but my point was that "entrism", despite being a "revolutionary theory" to start with, "evolved" into something else.

The "entrists", in accordance with their new material conditions, modified the paradigm.


Originally posted by 321zero
....is it reasonable to treat Trotskyism, with it's wildly divergent constituents, as a single paradigm?

For the purposes of a short essay....probably.


[email protected]
In fact I can see Redstar and yourself recommending, essentially, that people go back to Marx in order to appreciate his politics in the original.

We would recommend "people go back to Marx" and essentially, this would make them Marxists!

You see, people who haven't "gone back to Marx" are "Marxist"-Leninists-Trotskyist/Maoists and so on. Which essentially means that they operate within a separate paradigm from Marxism, despite using some of the theories from the Marxist paradigm.

Although what people call themselves isn't a "great" guide to their politics, when someone calls themselves a Leninist, or a Maoist, or for that matter a Marxist, you get a decent picture of what their politics are.


321zero
Indeed, it seems your beef is with Leninism, rather than Trotskyism per se.

It is! :D

It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of others, that the Leninist paradigm has as much relevance to revolutionaries in the Modern-Capitalist World as "Jacobinism".

Not only this, but along with the theoretical side of German Social Democracy, I have found nothing within the Leninist paradigm that I think is worth saving!

Make of that what you will. :P

[ComradeOm]

How could I not comment on this little assassin piece?


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)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.[/b]
Leaving aside the fact that Trotskyism is hardly deader than any other form of Marxist thought (send me an invite to the next Libertarian Marxist rally) the problem with this statement is that it is well… incorrect. Trots tend to claim the legacy of the Russian Revolution. Like the Stalinists they cloak themselves in the glory of long dead Russians… hence the conflict. Seeing as how the Stalinists are now almost completely discredited its logical to assume that this can only benefit the Trots.

So really an answer to your question, without going into 2,500 words or a breakdown of the essay, which I did enjoy btw, the reason that Trotskyism is still bumping around is due to the lack of alternatives. It fulfils a useful role on the left of the political spectrum.


In this respect, Lenin does deserve some “credit” for being able to “rise above” his class roots at that time, even though that rise was never greater than a couple of “rungs” up the proverbial ladder!
You know I can’t resist a Lenin dig. Simple question though, Lenin made it a few “rungs” up the “proverbial ladder”. How many “rungs” are you ahead of him? :lol:


Originally posted by [email protected]
I think it is very perceptive...and entertaining as well.
Of course. It must be like listening to an echo.


Armchair Socialism
After all, if, as the Leninists claim, Lenin "recognised" the revolution would "fail" if there weren't other revolutions. Then concentrating resources on European countries where revolution looked "possible", would have been a sensible policy.
That was Lenin the Pragmatist. The Red Army lost the Polish – Soviet War. No doubt RedStar disapproves :lol:

[anomaly]

Pretty good, comrade! It points out very well the flaws of Trotskyism, and it should make any serious 'Trot' think twice about the 'revolutionary' nature of their paradigm.

[GoaRedStar]

I think it was a excellently written essay on the complete load of shit that is Trotskyism.

You should email this to Marxist.com :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)How could I not comment on this little assassin piece?[/b]

Well, as someone who wishes to "rescue" Leninism from it "offspring" - Maoism, Stalinism and Trotskyism - I would think that you'd welcome attempts to discredit one or all of these paradigms.

Indeed, in this instance, my "assassination attempt" mostly helps you! :o

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Trots tend to claim the legacy of the Russian Revolution.[/b]

True, but that doesn't produce the "winner effect". After all, Trotsky got "purged" and the revolution, from their perspective, failed.

That doesn't inspire confidence! :lol:


[email protected]
It fulfils a useful role on the left of the political spectrum.

Indeed, only I contest it fills the role of early 20th century German Social-Democracy, though it's probably less "radical" than them.

I mean, the SWP today seems to spend most its time fawning over Galloway and trying to build a "united front" with RESPECT and also, trying to promote Islam! :o


ComradeOm
How many “rungs” are you ahead of him?

Well, in the essay I indulged in a bit of flattery by referring to myself as a "third rate Marxist".

However, personal assessments are very unreliable, so I'll leave it up to the reader to decide what rung I'm on on the proverbial ladder.

I suspect the Trots will contest that I haven't even started climbing yet! :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)Pretty good, comrade![/b]

:D


Originally posted by [email protected]
....and it should make any serious 'Trot' think twice about the 'revolutionary' nature of their paradigm.

I wouldn't bet on it! :lol:


GoaRedStar
You should email this to Marxist.com :lol:

I'm not that brave! :lol:

I actually just went over to marxist.com, look how many articles they have on their front page about Venezuela....

http://marxist.com/

Viva la Social-Democracy! :lol:

[321zero]

This was the point of my essay. Trotskyism, as a paradigm, has "evolved" to fit its new material conditions.


Trotskys ghost, circa 1953:

"What is certain is that I am not a Trotskyist." ;)

[YKTMX]

How dull.

Still, it's worth exposing the fallacies and refuting the lies, just for intellectual honesty's sake.


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.



How does that work then?

Going by your and Redstar's standard, there has never been a genuine 'Marxist revolution'...ever!

Where does that leave Marxism?


Quite 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, is what I wish to analyse.


Worthless.

What do you mean by orthodox Leninism? In what ways does it differ from 'Trotskyism'?


Firstly, as I mentioned above, Trotskyism as a paradigm wasn’t able to form the theoretical basis for even one revolution - bourgeois or proletarian - during the last century.


Not strictly true. The Bolivian revolution in 1952 was influenced quite powerfully by the strong Trotskyist movement there. Trotskyists also played an important role in the '68 rebellions in France.


Which is not at all surprising given that most “Third World” bourgeois revolutions during the last century were funded, directly or indirectly, by Moscow. And in return for this funding, the revolutionaries themselves were “obliged” to accept certain models for post-revolution organisation and of course, adherence, at least on paper, to “Marxism-Leninism” the Official Ideology of the Soviet Union - and later the People’s Republic of China.

Aha! What's this? A bit of history! Surely not!


So it is obvious that Trotskyism was never able to rely on the “winners status” that other variants of the Leninist paradigm have had.

You can't have 'variants' on a paradigm. You either share the essential concepts of Leninism - self-emancipation, the revolutionary party, internationalism - or you don't.


Now, there is obviously a certain “romantic appeal” about an exiled revolutionary who then mounts a “brave” struggle to “rescue” the revolution. Individual heroism like this, is what bourgeois ideologues love. No one more so than that pretentious windbag Christopher Hitchens.


Why is "brave" in scare quotes here, comrade?

Trotsky was ostracised, exiled, murdered, his family his murdered, his comrades were murdered - all because he believed that the world revolution shouldn't be betrayed without a wimper.

I don't suppose you've ever shown any real fucking bravery in any way comparable?



It is of course, no surprise that the young Trotsky would find Social-Democracy so attractive. After all, Social-Democracy is what happens when the “Middle Class” become “Marxists”, it is the manifestation of “Middle Class Marxism”.
In this respect, Lenin does deserve some “credit” for being able to “rise above” his class roots at that time, even though that rise was never greater than a couple of “rungs” up the proverbial ladder!


*sigh*. So do Marx and Engels, and Che, and Bakunin, and Kropotkin, and Castro.

They all deserve 'credit'!

Well done everybody.


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

Haha, "elite".


Indeed, some of his acts would make Uncle Joe blush!



Ohhhh, like what? C'mon now, don't leave us waiting.



Fierce debate ensued within the upper echelons of the Bolshevik Party elite and eventually, one Josef Stalin rose to prominence as the leader of the Russian State.

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

A 'fierce debate'!? Nonsense.

Comrade, history does not move along because of 'debates in the upper echelons' - "fierce" or otherwise. History moves because of real social forces coming into conflict with one another. Capitalism didn't come into being because Adam Smith had a 'fierce debate' with Absolutist kings.

Josef Stalin rose to prominence because he was a representative of the counter revolution going on in Russia. He spoke in the interests of the nascent ruling class - the bureaucracy.

'Debate' has nothing to do with it.


Trotsky was exiled and from this point on, the Trotskyist paradigm was born.

More accurately - the Marxist revolution was crushed, but the Marxist 'paradigm' lived on.


was down to the good fortune that he wasn’t killed in Russia!



Good fortune?!

The reason he was exiled was because he refused to have anything to do with the Thermidorian reaction. The reason figures like Bukharin and Kamenev eventually got it in the neck was because they wanted to stay and make deals with Stalin - usually against Trotsky.


Whilst the Maoist variant of Leninism spends its time fawning over a real bourgeois revolution in the “Nepalese Theatre”, the prominent British Trotskyist Alan Woods, spends his time masturbating over Bolivarian Social-Democracy. The Trotskyist paradigms “revolutions”, aren’t even real!


Maoism has nothing to do with Leninism.

I have my scepticisms about the Bolivarian revolution, but I don't see how offering solidarity with it is 'masturbating' over it.

Tell me, comrade, what practical things are you doing for the revolution? Apart from slagging everyone else off?


The paradigms material base, and what it represents, is the “left-bourgeois” (and petty-bourgeois) and their “desire” to become “noble philanthropists” by being charitable to the poor - the working class.


http://www.marxists.org/francais/poum/socialismo.jpg

Noble Philanthropists.



On another note:


It should be obvious why the Anarchists, ultraleftists want to 'banish Trotksyism'. Despite AS repeated assertions (facts anyone, facts?), the Trotskyist 'paradigm' (what does this even mean?) lives on and is getting stronger. Why?

1) For ANY Marxists, in this century or the last, the question of the Russian revolution and its progress has got to be central. Any young worker or intellectual who comes to socialism has got to address that problem.

Trotksyism remains 'attractive' because Trotksy idenitified and upheld two essential truths about the revolution:

The Russian Revolution was the greatest single event in human history. It released emancipatory potentialities the likes of which never seen before, or since. If the Russian Revolution had found a counterpart in the German Republic, we would be living under International Socialism NOW.

Why did the Russia Revolution degenerate? Was it because, as AS asserted in his puff piece, because Trotsky lost a 'fierce debate'? No, of course not. The Revolution degenerated, as the Bolsheviks predicted it would, because of internal and external contradictions in the process, which could not be solved unless the revolution spread internationally.

2) Trotsky defended the essential usefelness of the Leninist theory of the Party. Democratic centralism and self-activity of the masses.

Only the class can make the revolution. No other force can do so on its behalf.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Going by your and Redstar's standard, there has never been a genuine 'Marxist revolution'...ever!

Where does that leave Marxism?

Forced to depend entirely on strength of argument and accumulation of evidence...as it always has been.

Marxists have no "winner effect" to fall back on...and no "romantic celebrities" to celebrate.

The only appeal we have is to just keep telling the truth as best we can. We assume that the working class will hear us and, at some appropriate point, will conclude that what we've been saying makes sense.

How tedious! :o

Well, that's how things go during periods of reaction. We'll have a lot more fun when things "heat up" again. :D

With a bit of luck, Trotskyism and Maoism will all be safely relegated to museums and people can spend their time and energies talking about and doing real things.

And won't that be nice. :lol:

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Where does that leave Marxism?[/b]

Marxism, with regards the historical materialist paradigm, is just fine.

The organisational methods and forms proposed by Marx and Engels are, as we speak, being altered and changed in accordance with the material conditions of the present day.

The paradigm (Marxism in general) is "evolving".

The most recent and (potentially) ground braking development in the Marxist paradigm that I know of is the Communist League represented on this board by Miles.

The creation of an exclusively proletarian Party - or Organisation or whatever you want to call it - represents, in my opinion, a huge development with regards revolutionary theory.

Additionally, this development was made possible by the change in material conditions that has made it possible for the working class to have an exclusive organisation.

In my opinion, this hints that the appropriate technological level for proletarian revolution is nearing, because it seems that revolutionary workers are making a conscious choice to organise themselves.

History moves slowly, but it still moves! :D


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)What do you mean by orthodox Leninism? In what ways does it differ from 'Trotskyism'?[/b]

What do you think it means? ....it's Leninism without Maoist, Stalinist or Trotskyist additions of course.

For further elaboration, ask ComradeOm or any of the other "Orthodox Leninists" here.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
You can't have 'variants' on a paradigm.

What are Sociobiology and Evolutionary Biology if not variants of the Darwinist paradigm?


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I don't suppose you've ever shown any real fucking bravery in any way comparable?

You're right, Trotsky undeniably has a "bigger dick" than me.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Comrade, history does not move along because of 'debates in the upper echelons' - "fierce" or otherwise. History moves because of real social forces coming into conflict with one another.

Unlike you, I don't think Trotsky "represented" the working class within the Bolshevik Party - if any argument could be made about who "represented" the working class and its interests, then the Workers' Opposition would no doubt win.

Also unlike you, I recognise that the Russian Revolution was a bourgeois revolution and not a proletarian revolution.

Therefore, it is my opinion that both Stalin and Trotsky "represented" the "interests of the nascent ruling class", just different sections of it. And their opposition to each other had all the relevance of David Cameron's opposition to Tony Blair or John Kerry's opposition to George Bush.

In other words, it was just a squabble between two members of the Russian ruling class, as objective material conditions meant that a "bureaucracy" would arise anyway.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
....the Trotskyist 'paradigm' (what does this even mean?)....

Try a dictionary....


[email protected]
paradigm

3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradigm


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Was it because, as AS asserted in his puff piece, because Trotsky lost a 'fierce debate'?

Do you lack reading comprehension?

In my "puff piece" I offered no explanation as to why the Russian Revolution "degenerated", though I have said why I think it did in another thread where you were posting and have mentioned why in this post as well.

This essay was not about the Russian Revolution, it was about the Trotskyist paradigm, why it came about and what it represented originally and what it represents now.

And curiously, you chose not to even comment on my contention that Trotskyism today represents a variant of Social-Democracy.

Actions as they say, speak louder than words! :lol:

[Janus]

This article is very interesting particularly your prediction concerning the future of Trotskyism. This piece has definitely led me to ponder on how revolutionary Trotskyism really is currently. It seems that there is a major difference to Trotsky's original theory and what it has developed to currently.The main thing we are sure of is the relative failure of these vanguardist paradigms throughout history and a need to move away from them.

[YKTMX]

What are Sociobiology and Evolutionary Biology if not variants of the Darwinist paradigm?


Did you mean evolutionary psychology?


You're right, Trotsky undeniably has a "bigger dick" than me.

Maybe.

I'm just trying to get a bit of historical honesty into this. It's a powerful notion amongst Stalinist/Anarchist hacks that Trotksy left the Soviet Union to 'live the good life' attacking it from abroad.

I'm just pointing out this is rubbish.


Unlike you, I don't think Trotsky "represented" the working class within the Bolshevik Party - if any argument could be made about who "represented" the working class and its interests, then the Workers' Opposition would no doubt win.


Of course.


Also unlike you, I recognise that the Russian Revolution was a bourgeois revolution and not a proletarian revolution.

In what kind of 'bourgeois revolution' do you see General strikes, Soviets, Mass worker parties?

I mean, it's just ridiculous.


And their opposition to each other had all the relevance of David Cameron's opposition to Tony Blair or John Kerry's opposition to George Bush.


Yes, and we all await David Cameron exiling Tony Blair and shooting everybody in the Labour Party with a certain sense of relish.


In other words, it was just a squabble between two members of the Russian ruling class, as objective material conditions meant that a "bureaucracy" would arise anyway.

The bureaucracy is caused by a degeneration in the process, yes. The revolution's contradictions can't be solved from within Russia.

Does that mean you have to capitulate to forced collectivization and primitive accumulation?

No.


In my "puff piece" I offered no explanation as to why the Russian Revolution "degenerated",

Exactly.

You want to talk about Trotskyism, yet you don't want to talk about the Russian revolution or the nature of Stalinism.

Instead, you want to waffle on nonsensically about 'social democracy' - as if the practise of entrism means the whole Trotskyist movement was 'petty bourgeois, it's just ridiculous.


“The sect sees the justification for its existence and its point of honour not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from the movement.” (The emphasis is Marx’s own.)


The Trotskyist theory of entrism, even though I disagree with it, was based on this principle. That Communinsts should engage with the living organs of actual class struggle, rather than rush of to form insignificant sects seperate from the class.

It has nothing to do with the 'petty bourgeois' nature of Trotskyism, as you so ridiculously assert.


And curiously, you chose not to even comment on my contention that Trotskyism today represents a variant of Social-Democracy

Because it was embarassing rubbish.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2006, 02:45 AM
Well, as someone who wishes to "rescue" Leninism from it "offspring" - Maoism, Stalinism and Trotskyism - I would think that you'd welcome attempts to discredit one or all of these paradigms.

Indeed, in this instance, my "assassination attempt" mostly helps you! :o

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh I'm not detracting from the piece. Just noting its intentions :P


True, but that doesn't produce the "winner effect". After all, Trotsky got "purged" and the revolution, from their perspective, failed.

A revolution that failed after their idol was exiled. Until then everything was running smoothly. At least that's how the Trots see it. Meh.

[YKTMX]

A revolution that failed after their idol was exiled. Until then everything was running smoothly. At least that's how the Trots see it. Meh.

No they don't.

[321zero]

I'm sure, if I could be arsed to read all of Trotsky's theoretical work...

Ignorant... and proud of it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course. It must be like listening to an echo.

Indeed. If you look over ArmchairSocialism's posts, you can see that he's been immensley influenced by RedStar2000.

At this point I can't tell if it's ArmchairSocialism or RedStar2000 whos posting... Sometime I have to scroll down to the sig to see who it actually is.


The most recent and (potentially) ground braking development in the Marxist paradigm that I know of is the Communist League represented on this board by Miles.

The creation of an exclusively proletarian Party - or Organisation or whatever you want to call it - represents, in my opinion, a huge development with regards revolutionary theory.

Indeed, something new and powerful has emerged.. but the CL wasn't the first group to be wholly proletarian. There was (and is) a party in Russia that emerged before the downfall of the USSR if I remember correctly, and the FPM was formed about a year before the CL (though I think the original members of the CL were already in talks about forming the CL around this time).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Did you mean evolutionary psychology?[/b]

Sociobiology....


Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)Sociobiologists believe that animal or human behaviour cannot be satisfactorily explained entirely by "cultural" or "environmental" factors alone. They contend that in order to fully understand behaviour, it must be analyzed with some focus on its evolutionary origins. If Darwin's theory of natural selection is accepted, then inherited behavioural mechanisms that allowed an organism a greater chance of surviving and/or reproducing would be more likely to survive in present organisms. Many biologists accept that these sorts of behaviours are present in animal species. However, there is a great deal of controversy over the application of evolutionary models to human beings.[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology#...ological_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology#Sociobiological_theory)

And evolutionary biology....


Originally posted by Wikipedia
Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time, i.e. their evolution. One who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist, or, less frequently, evolutionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology

Both, as far as I'm aware, are part of the Darwinist paradigm.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
In what kind of 'bourgeois revolution' do you see General strikes, Soviets, Mass worker parties?

Ever read about what the sans-culottes army did in 1789???


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
You want to talk about Trotskyism, yet you don't want to talk about the Russian revolution or the nature of Stalinism.

Well I did mention that Trotskyism, as a paradigm, gained support from people alienated by what was happening in Russia and from people disgruntled with traditional Social Democracy.

I would contend that Trotskyism fills the "niche" left open by the failure, as it were, of German Social Democracy and the Russian Revolution.

Additionally, when talking about Trotskyism today, Stalinism doesn't matter.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
....as if the practise of entrism means the whole Trotskyist movement was 'petty bourgeois, it's just ridiculous

I actually said that the process of "entrism" intentionally or unintentionally "evolved" the paradigm into a form of Social-Democracy. And been as me (and most other people) would consider Social-Democracy part of the bourgeois political spectrum, the Trotskyist paradigm today, would have to fall into that spectrum.


Compañ[email protected]
At this point I can't tell if it's ArmchairSocialism or RedStar2000 whos posting....

I actually borrowed much of the style of LSD, but have borrowed some of redstar2000's methods too.

For instance, LSD will write like this. Where as redstar2000 will do this. I prefer to include the full stop in the bold.

Additionally, both will write names in bold, personally I prefer to write names in italic.

There are quite a few subtle differences between the way LSD and the way redstar2000 write, been as I like the layout of their writing method, I try to take the bits that look most attractive to me from both styles.


CompañeroDeLibertad
....but the CL wasn't the first group to be wholly proletarian.

I wasn't sure whether the CL came before the FPM or not, plus I think there were a couple of Anarchist groups that were exclusively proletarian before either organisation.

Either way, it's the CL that has impressed me the most.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Like I said, there was a group of communist workers in the USSR before the fall..

The Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship (http://proletarism.org/m1str.shtml)

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2006, 04:23 AM
Also unlike you, I recognise that the Russian Revolution was a bourgeois revolution


:blink:

[Connolly]

:blink:

You are confused by this?

I suppose you believe the revolution in Nepal will achieve socialism?

Well..........It wont!

Just like the Russians, they may think thats what they are doing.

The productive forces both in the soviet union and nepal were/are not sufficient for the socialist transformation of society.

So it [was/it is] nothing but a a bourgeois revolution.

[321zero]

So it [was/it is] nothing but a a bourgeois revolution.

You wouldn't mind giving us a quick outline of the leading role played by the Russian Bourgeosie and their party the Kadets in the revolution then?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:44 PM

So it [was/it is] nothing but a a bourgeois revolution.

You wouldn't mind giving us a quick outline of the leading role played by the Russian Bourgeosie and their party the Kadets in the revolution then?
Exactly.

This whole notion is beyond ridiculous.

[GoaRedStar]

Ridiculous in what form ?

What the fuck do you think does countries you Leninist jackass call Socialist develope into ?

[anomaly]

Janus said:

This piece has definitely led me to ponder on how revolutionary Trotskyism really is currently
Told ya' so, AS!

321zero said:

You wouldn't mind giving us a quick outline of the leading role played by the Russian Bourgeosie and their party the Kadets in the revolution then
It wasn't that the bourgeoisie overthrew the czar. So in this sense it truly wasn't a bourgeois revolution. But, the Bolsheviks and the elite of the Bolshevik party assumed the role that otherwise would have been assumed by the bourgeosie: the ruling class. And, after Russia, China, and the like proved that Marx was, after all, right (about HM), the bourgeoisie did take over. So, in this sense, all Leninist revolutions became, in effect, bourgeois revolutions. And I think this is what AS means.

You Leninists don't seriously believe that Lenin, not Marx was right, and we can just 'skip' a socioeconomic epoch, do you?

[321zero]

It wasn't that the bourgeoisie overthrew the czar. So in this sense it truly wasn't a bourgeois revolution.

Cool. Now why do you suppose the Russian Bourgeoisie wasn't up to the task appointed them by 'history'?

[Connolly]

You wouldn't mind giving us a quick outline of the leading role played by the Russian Bourgeosie and their party the Kadets in the revolution then?

Dont try act the smart ass! :angry:

If you dont understand what I mean by Bourgeos revolution then tough.

Inevitably, due to the lack of advanced productive forces to achieve socialism, the bourgeosie will emerge - as society is based around a particular productive level.

If you were to compare the productive level of the soviet union in 1991, in terms of technological advancement, to now 2006, you will see huge differences in productive technological potential.

And yet socialist revolution has not occured yet in the advanced west?

And you are trying to tell me that Lenin and his feudal mongers created socialist revolution with fucking steam engines and Ox ploughs?......... :lol: :lol:

Just look at modern Russia, bourgeosie state, inevitably.

Hence, Bourgeosie revolution.

Nothing more.

Same goes for Nepal, Communist China, Cuba, Philipines etc.....

Leninism is quite simply, another way to achieve the feudal transition to capitalsim.

Dont delude yourself by believing otherwise.

[YKTMX]

Firstly, countries are not "backward" or advanced" - it's not as simple as that.

For instance, Russia had high levels of illiteracy (backward), but it had the biggest factory in the world - the Putilov Works. So there's a contradiction there.


And you are trying to tell me that Lenin and his feudal mongers created socialist revolution with fucking steam engines and Ox ploughs?.........


This is what I was just discussing.

No one in the Bolshevik party thought that you could create socialism in Russia alone.

The whole point of the Bolshevik revolution was that it would spur revolutions in other European countries - particuarly in Germany.


Nothing more.

Same goes for Nepal, Communist China, Cuba, Philipines etc.....

Leninism is quite simply, another way to achieve the feudal transition to capitalsim.


'Leninism' existed in Russia from 1917 to about the start of the first five-year plan.

It has 'existed' in no other countries and at no other time than this.

[321zero]

Dont try act the smart ass!

If you dont understand what I mean by Bourgeos revolution then tough.

Ok, ok you clearly do mind giving us a quick outline of the leading role played by the Russian Bourgeosie and their party the Kadets in the revolution.

No skin off my nose. :P

Now if it's not too much trouble how about having a go at this:

Why do you suppose the Russian Bourgeoisie wasn't up to the task appointed them by 'history'?

[321zero]

If you were to compare the productive level of the soviet union in 1991, in terms of technological advancement, to now 2006, you will see huge differences in productive technological potential.

Can you clarify this "productive technological potential" and "productive level...in terms of technological advancement"?

Are you talking about GDP or patents pending?

Can you explain what 'huge differences' you see. Could it have anything to do with an increased intensity in the exploitation of labour?

[321zero]

If you were to compare the productive level of the soviet union in 1991, in terms of technological advancement, to now 2006, you will see huge differences in productive technological potential.

I don't understand what you are getting at here, but I am curious.

This is for the Russian region, that is pre-1991 figoures are for Russia as opposed to the USSR as a whole. I can see huge a huge difference between 1991 and 2006, but how does fit fit into your argument?

http://www.econstats.com/weo/C132V012.htm

Russia - GDP based on PPP share of world total

column1 column2 column3
Year Percent percent change
1980 4.6820
1981 4.7430 1.3%
1982 4.8850 3.0%
1983 4.9500 1.3%
1984 4.8710 -1.6%
1985 4.7760 -2.0%
1986 4.7760 0.0%
1987 4.7250 -1.1%
1988 4.7580 0.7%
1989 4.7270 -0.7%
1990 4.7720 1.0%
1991 4.4740 -6.2%
1992 3.7530 -16.1%
1993 3.3550 -10.6%
1994 2.8300 -15.6%
1995 2.6230 -7.3%
1996 2.4320 -7.3%
1997 2.3670 -2.7%
1998 2.1840 -7.7%
1999 2.2410 2.6%
2000 2.3570 5.2%
2001 2.4210 2.7%
2002 2.4630 1.7%
2003 2.5460 3.4%
2004 2.6040 2.3%
2005 2.6620 2.2%
2006 2.6900 1.1%

Sorry for crap formatting.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:13 AM

It wasn't that the bourgeoisie overthrew the czar. So in this sense it truly wasn't a bourgeois revolution.

Cool. Now why do you suppose the Russian Bourgeoisie wasn't up to the task appointed them by 'history'?
Unsurprisingly, the Leninist quotes only the bit of my post that appeals to their 'argument'!

Now, if you read the rest of my post, you will see why I think AS is also correct in saying that the Russian revolution turned out to be a bourgeois revolution. Were the bourgeois the ones who started it? No. But did they ultimately 'take over'? Yes. And this will always happen.

You Leninists either need to proclaim your idealism now, or stop with this bullshit about 'defending' the Bolsheviks.

And by the way, I can tell you exactly what The Red Banner is 'talking about': historical materialism! Now, I have a simple question for you Leninists: do you accept historical materialism or not?

[Connolly]

Ok, ok you clearly do mind giving us a quick outline of the leading role played by the Russian Bourgeosie and their party the Kadets in the revolution.

No skin off my nose.

Now if it's not too much trouble how about having a go at this:

Why do you suppose the Russian Bourgeoisie wasn't up to the task appointed them by 'history'?

Again, you persist in asking a question thats entirely irrelevant - I have explained exactly whats meant by bourgeoisie revolution.

And yes, I DO mind answering the question asked when its nothing to do with the discussion.

Ask it again and I might be forced to google an answer or linked article to suit your arrogant desire for intellectial dominance of "the russian revolution".

Now though - I couldnt be arsed!! - nothing an internet search cant find!

Im more interested in the historical results of the revolution.


Can you clarify this "productive technological potential" and "productive level...in terms of technological advancement"?

Completely my fault for being over descriptive.

To clarify - "advancements to the means of production"

In relation to this, HOW STUPID OF ME FOR THINKING TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED SINCE 1991 :unsure:

"After all, who could ever beat the Mighty Soviet Mother Land, " the greatest super power in the world""

[I was at that stage at one point] - I copped on though!! :P

[321zero]

Unsurprisingly, the Leninist quotes only the bit of my post that appeals to their 'argument'!

Oh, i wouldn't want to lay claim the title 'the Leninist' - too elitist ;)

I'd just asked an (admittedly rhetorical) question about the role of the Russian bourgeosie. I quoted the bit of your reply that was relevant.

Unsurprisingly I don't want to quote whole posts, that would be inefficient. I expect anybody interested in the argument to, like, scroll up? Enough bickering.

The reason the uselessness of the Russian bourgeosie is important is becuase it has implications for revolutionary stratagy in what is after all a joined up world. Imperialism chokes capitalist development in it's victims, distorting their economies and subordinating them to the needs of the imperialists.

Russia is not going to join the ranks of the advanced capitalist nations now that the USSR is gone. Instead it is going to be plundered for raw materials like any other victim of the imperialists and pushed back into the ranks of those nations unable to develop towards mature capitalism.

There has not been an unambigiously bourgeosis revolution anywhere in the world since 1789, and even then the nascent tension between the interest of bourgoesis and proletariat could be discerned. In 1848 this tension was still clearer, and since then anything you might identify as a bourgeosis revolution has been severely compromised by the influence of imperialism and typically characterised by conflict between ambitious proletarian forces and the relative conservatism of the camprador bourgeoisie.

Your insistance on regarding national borders, or boundries between 'advanced' and 'backward' regions of of the world, as somehow being impermiable and discrete, fits with your argument, but it doesn't fit reality. Given that most proletarians probably live outside the 'advanced capitalist' nations, what is your 'program' for their struggle? To place themselves at the mercy of imperialism? To wait supine for their 1st world comrades to get their shit together?

I know that you are anxious to ditch anything associated with Lenin, but I think his analysis of imperialism describes the modern development of capitalism which Marx didn't live to see. Both Marx and Lenin need to be critiqued if their insights are going to be useful nowadays.



Now, I have a simple question for you Leninists: do you accept historical materialism or not?

Yes, but your ahistorical and mechanical application of Marx's 'stages of history' schema does you no favours.

[321zero]

HOW STUPID OF ME FOR THINKING TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED SINCE 1991

Well I never called you stupid, wouldn't dream of it, you are clearly more clued up than most people. Nice one.

Technology has certainly advanced, but if economic progress was simply a matter of the newest technology being installed everywhere for the benifit of all - well that'd be communism wouldn't it.

Science fiction writers and futureologists used to predict that by now we'd all be living the easy life while robot factories did all the work. Well we have the technology for this, but it hasn't happened.

Your apparent faith in technological advancement, without reference to economic system backgrounding this advancment, does you no favours.

Oh, please lay off all the SHOUTING and (gratuitous) insults. All the bombast just makes you look like an arsehole. Comrade.

[YKTMX]

Why do you suppose the Russian Bourgeoisie wasn't up to the task appointed them by 'history'?

Oh, that's a simplification, they were up to it!

http://www.bl.uk/collections/easteuropean/images/cossack.jpg

Armchair Socialism and the Bourgeoisie on the march!

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Until Petrograd!


:lol:

[Connolly]

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Until Petrograd!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

very good comrade :lol: :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:40 PM
Armchair Socialism and the Bourgeoisie on the march!

I would have thought such a slogan would be more suitable when adapted to: The Socialist Workers' Party and the Bourgeoisie on the march! And then used during your next "gig" with gorgeous George. :lol:

[anomaly]

Given that most proletarians probably live outside the 'advanced capitalist' nations, what is your 'program' for their struggle? To place themselves at the mercy of imperialism? To wait supine for their 1st world comrades to get their shit together?
No. I strongly encourage any resistance to imperialism. However, we should not have these dreams in our heads that 'any people' can produce socialism, let alone communism. Now, if you defend the Russian revolution as 'anti-imperialist', that is probably correct (the reds did successfully repel all imperial powers). However, I do not think Russia is now 'at the mercy of the imperialists'. Rather, it seems to me that Russia and China have now risen to the ranks of imperialists themselves.

You criticize the way I characterize people using 'boundaries', but in the world at present, 'boundaries' play a significant role. Only in the 'first world' does there exist any chance of communist revolution. The proletariat of South America, Africa, and most of Asia simply do not have the material means to have a communist revolution (and they are, for the most part, outnumbered by peasants in these places). The best bet for a communist revolution in this century is the European proletariat.

[YKTMX]

I would have thought such a slogan would be more suitable when adapted to: The Socialist Workers' Party and the Bourgeoisie on the march! And then used during your next "gig" with gorgeous George.

Why don't you stick to armchair socialism, and we'll stick to the real thing, comrade.

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/upload/thumb/0/0b/200px-WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg

Translation:

General Denikin and Armchair Socialism agree: Trotsky's the bad guy!

[321zero]

Mr Armchair\Redbanner - sorry for losing my rag back there.

[321zero]

"The best bet for a communist revolution in this century is the European proletariat. "


Lenin and Trotsky had the same assessment in 1917.
The Bolsheviks gambled, and lost. On that we can all agree.

[321zero]

For you Comrade Armchair -

http://static.flickr.com/19/112830069_0b09bdd2fc.jpg

Credit Colonel Chabert

[321zero]

anomaly Posted: Mar 14 2006, 09:56 PM

However, I do not think Russia is now 'at the mercy of the imperialists'. Rather, it seems to me that Russia and China have now risen to the ranks of imperialists themselves.

So Russia and China are imperialist, but not (yet?) mature or advanced capitalist economies.

How about India or Indonesia? Imperialist? Why not?

[Connolly]

Mr Armchair\Redbanner - sorry for losing my rag back there.

No Problem, you acted in a polite manner. :D

You clearly had me "out gunned" with the question you asked. (however irrelevant it was)


Very good essay by the way AS! keep it up.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:40 AM
So Russia and China are imperialist, but not (yet?) mature or advanced capitalist economies.

How about India or Indonesia? Imperialist? Why not?
China is quite openly imperialist, as is Russia. They are both also 'mature' economies, though China's is obviously larger than Russia's. But, Leninism has successfully modernized each.

India and Indonesia are going the opposite way. Rather than using Leninism to reach modern capitalism, they seem to be accepting the 'global market'. They are what you can call 'developing' (whereas Russia and China are rather developed, though China will certainly continue to develop more, and, one day, overtake the US as the economic power of the world).

But the point here, before we fade into mindless bickering, is that Leninism is a method of modernizing a nation. It successfully took feudal China and feudal Russia and made them into the powers they are today. And Leninism, it can be argued, is a much more 'humane' way for a country to develop than using 'free market' forces. However, Leninism is not the way to build socialism, let alone communism.

[321zero]

The RedBanner Posted on Mar 15 2006, 03:53 PM
...the question you asked. (however irrelevant it was)

I decide if my question is relevant, and I think it was (and still is) given that it was about the problems confronting us which arise out of combined and uneven development.


anomaly Posted on Mar 16 2006, 01:16 AM
But the point here, before we fade into mindless bickering

You make sound like it's inevitable :lol: Probably not even Lenin could prevent this degeneration. If someone else wants the last word, I promise not to come back to this thread again.

[KC]

China is quite openly imperialist, as is Russia. They are both also 'mature' economies, though China's is obviously larger than Russia's. But, Leninism has successfully modernized each.

Russia was Stalinism. China was Maoism.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:16 AM
Russia was Stalinism. China was Maoism.
Those are just variants on Leninism. 'Stalinism', 'Maoism', 'Trotskyism'...all have the same basic idea: a 'great leader' or 'vanguard' to lead the proletariat.