Communism/socialism/marxism/trotskyism

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And all the other "Ism's" that mean almost the same thing. Could someone possibly spoon feed me the differences between them? I am woefully ignorant of it all.

Thanks.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And all the other "Ism's" that mean almost the same thing. Could someone possibly spoon feed me the differences between them? I am woefully ignorant of it all.

Thanks.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And all the other "Ism's" that mean almost the same thing. Could someone possibly spoon feed me the differences between them? I am woefully ignorant of it all.

Thanks.

-Alex

[More Fire for the People]

Communism -- a system in which the proletariat (the working class) has been liberated from the ruling class in-which labour can freely associate.

Marxism -- Analysis of political economy, history, philosophy, etc. from the standpoint of dialectical materialism. Concludes that the 'end of class society' is communism.

Leninism -- A development of Marxism exploring imperialist economics and the organizational tasks of Marxism. The center of Leninist organizational theory is building a party of the class consciouss workers. Another key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism” that was supposed to overcome that anti-organization and the ultra-centralism of the two factions — the Anarchists and the Blanquists — in the Paris Commune.

There are also three branches of Leninism,
Stalin-inspired Leninism -- Essentially Leninism but with an emphasis on building socialism on the national level and authoritarian suppression of ‘reactionaries’. A fault with Stalinism — killing the revisionist didn’t get rid of their ideology.

Trotskyism -- An extension of Leninism based on the premise that the socialist state can only survive through an international proletarian revolution. Trotskyists also work within existing states to further the revolutionary cause. A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.

Maoism -- Relatively based off Stalin-inspired Leninism with an emphasis on national liberation of the Third World and a peasant army lead by the minority working class. Maoists emphasize a Cultural Revolution to purge revisionists and their ideology. Maoists’ faults, they like to use the words “fascism” and “contradictions” a whole lot without having a clue about what they mean.

[More Fire for the People]

Communism -- a system in which the proletariat (the working class) has been liberated from the ruling class in-which labour can freely associate.

Marxism -- Analysis of political economy, history, philosophy, etc. from the standpoint of dialectical materialism. Concludes that the 'end of class society' is communism.

Leninism -- A development of Marxism exploring imperialist economics and the organizational tasks of Marxism. The center of Leninist organizational theory is building a party of the class consciouss workers. Another key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism” that was supposed to overcome that anti-organization and the ultra-centralism of the two factions — the Anarchists and the Blanquists — in the Paris Commune.

There are also three branches of Leninism,
Stalin-inspired Leninism -- Essentially Leninism but with an emphasis on building socialism on the national level and authoritarian suppression of ‘reactionaries’. A fault with Stalinism — killing the revisionist didn’t get rid of their ideology.

Trotskyism -- An extension of Leninism based on the premise that the socialist state can only survive through an international proletarian revolution. Trotskyists also work within existing states to further the revolutionary cause. A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.

Maoism -- Relatively based off Stalin-inspired Leninism with an emphasis on national liberation of the Third World and a peasant army lead by the minority working class. Maoists emphasize a Cultural Revolution to purge revisionists and their ideology. Maoists’ faults, they like to use the words “fascism” and “contradictions” a whole lot without having a clue about what they mean.

[More Fire for the People]

Communism -- a system in which the proletariat (the working class) has been liberated from the ruling class in-which labour can freely associate.

Marxism -- Analysis of political economy, history, philosophy, etc. from the standpoint of dialectical materialism. Concludes that the 'end of class society' is communism.

Leninism -- A development of Marxism exploring imperialist economics and the organizational tasks of Marxism. The center of Leninist organizational theory is building a party of the class consciouss workers. Another key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism” that was supposed to overcome that anti-organization and the ultra-centralism of the two factions — the Anarchists and the Blanquists — in the Paris Commune.

There are also three branches of Leninism,
Stalin-inspired Leninism -- Essentially Leninism but with an emphasis on building socialism on the national level and authoritarian suppression of ‘reactionaries’. A fault with Stalinism — killing the revisionist didn’t get rid of their ideology.

Trotskyism -- An extension of Leninism based on the premise that the socialist state can only survive through an international proletarian revolution. Trotskyists also work within existing states to further the revolutionary cause. A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.

Maoism -- Relatively based off Stalin-inspired Leninism with an emphasis on national liberation of the Third World and a peasant army lead by the minority working class. Maoists emphasize a Cultural Revolution to purge revisionists and their ideology. Maoists’ faults, they like to use the words “fascism” and “contradictions” a whole lot without having a clue about what they mean.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Gracias. :D

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Gracias. :D

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Gracias. :D

-Alex

[Tekun]

The search function is your friend

Not that HA didn't provide a good enough explanation of all the isms....but these questions have been asked and answered many times, plus they have long and complete explanations of all the isms

Another good source, is from our comrade RedStar
www.redstar2000papers.com

[Tekun]

The search function is your friend

Not that HA didn't provide a good enough explanation of all the isms....but these questions have been asked and answered many times, plus they have long and complete explanations of all the isms

Another good source, is from our comrade RedStar
www.redstar2000papers.com

[Tekun]

The search function is your friend

Not that HA didn't provide a good enough explanation of all the isms....but these questions have been asked and answered many times, plus they have long and complete explanations of all the isms

Another good source, is from our comrade RedStar
www.redstar2000papers.com

[elmo sez]

Are the wikipedia definitions acurate ?

[elmo sez]

Are the wikipedia definitions acurate ?

[elmo sez]

Are the wikipedia definitions acurate ?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Thak you both, I apologize for being a n00b. To wikipedia, and beyond.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Thak you both, I apologize for being a n00b. To wikipedia, and beyond.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Thak you both, I apologize for being a n00b. To wikipedia, and beyond.

-Alex

[barista.marxista]

Leninism -- a left-variant of capitalism, borne from a early-twentieth century neo-colonial class composition, which has served to advance unindustrialized nations to advanced capitalist powers, but has never once created working-class power in history.

Autonomism -- a form of Marxism that focuses on developing working class autonomy and power in a capitalist society that is constituted by and through class struggle.

[barista.marxista]

Leninism -- a left-variant of capitalism, borne from a early-twentieth century neo-colonial class composition, which has served to advance unindustrialized nations to advanced capitalist powers, but has never once created working-class power in history.

Autonomism -- a form of Marxism that focuses on developing working class autonomy and power in a capitalist society that is constituted by and through class struggle.

[barista.marxista]

Leninism -- a left-variant of capitalism, borne from a early-twentieth century neo-colonial class composition, which has served to advance unindustrialized nations to advanced capitalist powers, but has never once created working-class power in history.

Autonomism -- a form of Marxism that focuses on developing working class autonomy and power in a capitalist society that is constituted by and through class struggle.

[Janus]

Are the wikipedia definitions acurate ?
Generally, but don't use them as a source. Remember, anyone can edit them.

[Janus]

Are the wikipedia definitions acurate ?
Generally, but don't use them as a source. Remember, anyone can edit them.

[Janus]

Are the wikipedia definitions acurate ?
Generally, but don't use them as a source. Remember, anyone can edit them.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:18 PM
Gracias. :D

-Alex
Wikpedia is a good idea, it is for the most part, neutral. The 'resstar' papers and most people on here are not.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:18 PM
Gracias. :D

-Alex
Wikpedia is a good idea, it is for the most part, neutral. The 'resstar' papers and most people on here are not.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:18 PM
Gracias. :D

-Alex
Wikpedia is a good idea, it is for the most part, neutral. The 'resstar' papers and most people on here are not.

[Ander]

I still don't understand the main differences of Trotskyism, Leninism, and Marxism.

And why do so many people seem to hate Trotskyites?

[Ander]

I still don't understand the main differences of Trotskyism, Leninism, and Marxism.

And why do so many people seem to hate Trotskyites?

[Ander]

I still don't understand the main differences of Trotskyism, Leninism, and Marxism.

And why do so many people seem to hate Trotskyites?

[Palmares]

Try the Revleft dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

[Palmares]

Try the Revleft dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

[Palmares]

Try the Revleft dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

[Ali.Cat]

I think I've got an OK understanding of the ideoligies above, but still have some questions.


key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism”

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.


Why is that?

[Ali.Cat]

I think I've got an OK understanding of the ideoligies above, but still have some questions.


key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism”

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.


Why is that?

[Ali.Cat]

I think I've got an OK understanding of the ideoligies above, but still have some questions.


key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism”

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.


Why is that?

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:03 AM
I think I've got an OK understanding of the ideoligies above, but still have some questions.


key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism”

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.


Why is that?
I will give these my best show, with out being biased.

First question. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision. This latter aspect represents the centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion and criticism, unity of action"

I dunno which book it was in...What is to be Done? Parhaps?

Leninist organizations' constitutions have typically defined the following key principles of democratic centralism:

1.Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.
2.Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.
3.Strict and conscious discipline in the party -- the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.
4.Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.
5.Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create.


It's pretty much so that the party doesn't cave in durring Civil War or cave in and become social democrats. And 'Trots' are usually a little looser about democratic centralism, so a lot of times they just give up and become capitalist. As Trotsky was one a Menshivik (they had a loose party).

NOTE;This article comes from the PLP, which means it's baised. But I trust you can filter out the crap and get the point...

http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/democent.html

So in a nutshel under Democratic Centralism there can be all the debate in the world before a measure is voted on, but once the measure is voted on, that's it, end of talking, move foward to the next thing.

That help?

Questions...please ask.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:03 AM
I think I've got an OK understanding of the ideoligies above, but still have some questions.


key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism”

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.


Why is that?
I will give these my best show, with out being biased.

First question. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision. This latter aspect represents the centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion and criticism, unity of action"

I dunno which book it was in...What is to be Done? Parhaps?

Leninist organizations' constitutions have typically defined the following key principles of democratic centralism:

1.Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.
2.Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.
3.Strict and conscious discipline in the party -- the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.
4.Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.
5.Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create.


It's pretty much so that the party doesn't cave in durring Civil War or cave in and become social democrats. And 'Trots' are usually a little looser about democratic centralism, so a lot of times they just give up and become capitalist. As Trotsky was one a Menshivik (they had a loose party).

NOTE;This article comes from the PLP, which means it's baised. But I trust you can filter out the crap and get the point...

http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/democent.html

So in a nutshel under Democratic Centralism there can be all the debate in the world before a measure is voted on, but once the measure is voted on, that's it, end of talking, move foward to the next thing.

That help?

Questions...please ask.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:03 AM
I think I've got an OK understanding of the ideoligies above, but still have some questions.


key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism”

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.


Why is that?
I will give these my best show, with out being biased.

First question. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision. This latter aspect represents the centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion and criticism, unity of action"

I dunno which book it was in...What is to be Done? Parhaps?

Leninist organizations' constitutions have typically defined the following key principles of democratic centralism:

1.Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.
2.Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.
3.Strict and conscious discipline in the party -- the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.
4.Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.
5.Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create.


It's pretty much so that the party doesn't cave in durring Civil War or cave in and become social democrats. And 'Trots' are usually a little looser about democratic centralism, so a lot of times they just give up and become capitalist. As Trotsky was one a Menshivik (they had a loose party).

NOTE;This article comes from the PLP, which means it's baised. But I trust you can filter out the crap and get the point...

http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/democent.html

So in a nutshel under Democratic Centralism there can be all the debate in the world before a measure is voted on, but once the measure is voted on, that's it, end of talking, move foward to the next thing.

That help?

Questions...please ask.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Essentially trots are relaxed leninists lol?

Oh I've been dying to ask this. What the fuck is the Permanent revolution? I always get these arduous awnsers that are dripping with bias from anarchists and never understand. And how do you expect a simultaneous revolution?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Essentially trots are relaxed leninists lol?

Oh I've been dying to ask this. What the fuck is the Permanent revolution? I always get these arduous awnsers that are dripping with bias from anarchists and never understand. And how do you expect a simultaneous revolution?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Essentially trots are relaxed leninists lol?

Oh I've been dying to ask this. What the fuck is the Permanent revolution? I always get these arduous awnsers that are dripping with bias from anarchists and never understand. And how do you expect a simultaneous revolution?

[More Fire for the People]

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?
There is a big problem with democratic centralism within Leninist circles. Is it still useful? If so, how should we implement democratic centralism? But otherwise I would accept Axel’s definition of democratic centralism.


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.
Trotsky conceptualized a way to go beyond the minimum programme — what we need to do now — and the maximum programme — a schema of a socialist society — with his concept of a ‘transitional programme’ — radicalizing unions members and workplaces, forming workers’ committees, fighting for workers’ rights, and so on. Most Trotskyist parties have either stopped with a diluted transitional programme, i.e. trade unionism, minimum wage laws, and other social democratic things.

[More Fire for the People]

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?
There is a big problem with democratic centralism within Leninist circles. Is it still useful? If so, how should we implement democratic centralism? But otherwise I would accept Axel’s definition of democratic centralism.


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.
Trotsky conceptualized a way to go beyond the minimum programme — what we need to do now — and the maximum programme — a schema of a socialist society — with his concept of a ‘transitional programme’ — radicalizing unions members and workplaces, forming workers’ committees, fighting for workers’ rights, and so on. Most Trotskyist parties have either stopped with a diluted transitional programme, i.e. trade unionism, minimum wage laws, and other social democratic things.

[More Fire for the People]

what does democratic centralism specifically in this context?
There is a big problem with democratic centralism within Leninist circles. Is it still useful? If so, how should we implement democratic centralism? But otherwise I would accept Axel’s definition of democratic centralism.


A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.
Trotsky conceptualized a way to go beyond the minimum programme — what we need to do now — and the maximum programme — a schema of a socialist society — with his concept of a ‘transitional programme’ — radicalizing unions members and workplaces, forming workers’ committees, fighting for workers’ rights, and so on. Most Trotskyist parties have either stopped with a diluted transitional programme, i.e. trade unionism, minimum wage laws, and other social democratic things.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:39 AM
Essentially trots are relaxed leninists lol?

Oh I've been dying to ask this. What the fuck is the Permanent revolution? I always get these arduous awnsers that are dripping with bias from anarchists and never understand. And how do you expect a simultaneous revolution?
Trots are in a way 'relaxed Leninists' I'd agree with that to an extent, Trotsky wasn't as much of a 'ahrdliner' as Lenin or Stalin was.

Now to your second question...'What is the Permanent revolution theory?'

Like you noticed it is indeed a Trot theory, one that I hold to be true. Also note a lot of Stalinists and Maoists have the idea of 'Socialism in One COuntry' this is the anti-thesis for that.

It's an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved 'advanced' capitalism. The phrase was coined by Marx in 1850. (Something I didn't know until I looked some more information up, I will edit this in the Wiki) The theory states that the bourgeois democratic tasks in countries with delayed bourgeois democratic development cannot be accomplished except through the establishment of a workers' state, and further, that the creation of a workers' state would inevitably involve inroads against capitalist property. Thus, the accomplishment of bourgeois democratic tasks passes over into proletarian tasks, and it is in this sense that the revolution is "permanent" in that it must be "continuous" until "final" victory.


That was the Marxist concept, that the Revolution must not remain stagnant in one country (like it always seems to do) or else it'd fail.

http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2fr...?permanent.html (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2frame.htm?permanent.html)

Now to Trotsky...he KNEW that the Russian Revolution was doomed unels the German (or a First World country) had it's own revolution and gave the Russians support.

Let's face it, the Revolution in Russia had some great industrial and agricultural benifits, but what good is a new steam powered tractor if the person working it thinks it's a 'demon'?

Trotsky hoped that German workers (First world) would help the USSRs workers and teach them how to use their new tools and contribute ideas on how to work with the new tools.

Make sense?

The main idea is that (for Trotsky) is that if a revolution were to happen in the Third world that it NEEDS to be supported by a First World country, and the revolution must spread quickly and become world wide...I happen to believe Mr Trotsky to be correct in this assumption.

I hope that helps. If not, keep asking questions.

And HopAnt, I'm CCCPNeubauten, not Axel, :rolleyes: but we have the same picture, so no worries.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:39 AM
Essentially trots are relaxed leninists lol?

Oh I've been dying to ask this. What the fuck is the Permanent revolution? I always get these arduous awnsers that are dripping with bias from anarchists and never understand. And how do you expect a simultaneous revolution?
Trots are in a way 'relaxed Leninists' I'd agree with that to an extent, Trotsky wasn't as much of a 'ahrdliner' as Lenin or Stalin was.

Now to your second question...'What is the Permanent revolution theory?'

Like you noticed it is indeed a Trot theory, one that I hold to be true. Also note a lot of Stalinists and Maoists have the idea of 'Socialism in One COuntry' this is the anti-thesis for that.

It's an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved 'advanced' capitalism. The phrase was coined by Marx in 1850. (Something I didn't know until I looked some more information up, I will edit this in the Wiki) The theory states that the bourgeois democratic tasks in countries with delayed bourgeois democratic development cannot be accomplished except through the establishment of a workers' state, and further, that the creation of a workers' state would inevitably involve inroads against capitalist property. Thus, the accomplishment of bourgeois democratic tasks passes over into proletarian tasks, and it is in this sense that the revolution is "permanent" in that it must be "continuous" until "final" victory.


That was the Marxist concept, that the Revolution must not remain stagnant in one country (like it always seems to do) or else it'd fail.

http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2fr...?permanent.html (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2frame.htm?permanent.html)

Now to Trotsky...he KNEW that the Russian Revolution was doomed unels the German (or a First World country) had it's own revolution and gave the Russians support.

Let's face it, the Revolution in Russia had some great industrial and agricultural benifits, but what good is a new steam powered tractor if the person working it thinks it's a 'demon'?

Trotsky hoped that German workers (First world) would help the USSRs workers and teach them how to use their new tools and contribute ideas on how to work with the new tools.

Make sense?

The main idea is that (for Trotsky) is that if a revolution were to happen in the Third world that it NEEDS to be supported by a First World country, and the revolution must spread quickly and become world wide...I happen to believe Mr Trotsky to be correct in this assumption.

I hope that helps. If not, keep asking questions.

And HopAnt, I'm CCCPNeubauten, not Axel, :rolleyes: but we have the same picture, so no worries.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:39 AM
Essentially trots are relaxed leninists lol?

Oh I've been dying to ask this. What the fuck is the Permanent revolution? I always get these arduous awnsers that are dripping with bias from anarchists and never understand. And how do you expect a simultaneous revolution?
Trots are in a way 'relaxed Leninists' I'd agree with that to an extent, Trotsky wasn't as much of a 'ahrdliner' as Lenin or Stalin was.

Now to your second question...'What is the Permanent revolution theory?'

Like you noticed it is indeed a Trot theory, one that I hold to be true. Also note a lot of Stalinists and Maoists have the idea of 'Socialism in One COuntry' this is the anti-thesis for that.

It's an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved 'advanced' capitalism. The phrase was coined by Marx in 1850. (Something I didn't know until I looked some more information up, I will edit this in the Wiki) The theory states that the bourgeois democratic tasks in countries with delayed bourgeois democratic development cannot be accomplished except through the establishment of a workers' state, and further, that the creation of a workers' state would inevitably involve inroads against capitalist property. Thus, the accomplishment of bourgeois democratic tasks passes over into proletarian tasks, and it is in this sense that the revolution is "permanent" in that it must be "continuous" until "final" victory.


That was the Marxist concept, that the Revolution must not remain stagnant in one country (like it always seems to do) or else it'd fail.

http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2fr...?permanent.html (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2frame.htm?permanent.html)

Now to Trotsky...he KNEW that the Russian Revolution was doomed unels the German (or a First World country) had it's own revolution and gave the Russians support.

Let's face it, the Revolution in Russia had some great industrial and agricultural benifits, but what good is a new steam powered tractor if the person working it thinks it's a 'demon'?

Trotsky hoped that German workers (First world) would help the USSRs workers and teach them how to use their new tools and contribute ideas on how to work with the new tools.

Make sense?

The main idea is that (for Trotsky) is that if a revolution were to happen in the Third world that it NEEDS to be supported by a First World country, and the revolution must spread quickly and become world wide...I happen to believe Mr Trotsky to be correct in this assumption.

I hope that helps. If not, keep asking questions.

And HopAnt, I'm CCCPNeubauten, not Axel, :rolleyes: but we have the same picture, so no worries.

[More Fire for the People]

I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.

[More Fire for the People]

I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.

[More Fire for the People]

I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 07:40 PM
I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.
Seems that all Thrid World revolutions end in failure. Why not try Mr Trotsky's idea?

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 07:40 PM
I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.
Seems that all Thrid World revolutions end in failure. Why not try Mr Trotsky's idea?

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 07:40 PM
I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.
Seems that all Thrid World revolutions end in failure. Why not try Mr Trotsky's idea?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 23 2006, 02:05 PM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 23 2006, 02:05 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 07:40 PM
I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.
Seems that all Thrid World revolutions end in failure. Why not try Mr Trotsky's idea? [/b]
I’m simply skeptical of the need of a first world revolution for the survival of a revolution in an underdeveloped country. We’ve seen revolutions in underdeveloped countries devolve into degenerated workers’ states or even worse, flat out capitalist countries. However, until we’ve had a first world revolution and a third world revolution aligned with the first, I will remain skeptical.

For instance, in Russia, a succesful socialist revolution in Germany would not have ended chlorea, the civil war, the influx of petty-bourgeois specialists, the kulak problem, etc.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 23 2006, 02:05 PM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 23 2006, 02:05 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 07:40 PM
I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.
Seems that all Thrid World revolutions end in failure. Why not try Mr Trotsky's idea? [/b]
I’m simply skeptical of the need of a first world revolution for the survival of a revolution in an underdeveloped country. We’ve seen revolutions in underdeveloped countries devolve into degenerated workers’ states or even worse, flat out capitalist countries. However, until we’ve had a first world revolution and a third world revolution aligned with the first, I will remain skeptical.

For instance, in Russia, a succesful socialist revolution in Germany would not have ended chlorea, the civil war, the influx of petty-bourgeois specialists, the kulak problem, etc.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 23 2006, 02:05 PM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 23 2006, 02:05 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 07:40 PM
I actually disagree a bit with Trotsky’s conception of the permanent revolution. The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries. However, I do not believe that to do requires support from a ‘First World’ socialist country. Rather, I suggest that the advanced working class build up socialist organization in the industrial centres. While the industrial proletariat is constructing workers’ committees, organizing industrial unions, etc., the poor peasants must be aided in the development of their lands and the agrarian proletarians must organize themselves into unions until collective farming becomes practical.
Seems that all Thrid World revolutions end in failure. Why not try Mr Trotsky's idea? [/b]
I’m simply skeptical of the need of a first world revolution for the survival of a revolution in an underdeveloped country. We’ve seen revolutions in underdeveloped countries devolve into degenerated workers’ states or even worse, flat out capitalist countries. However, until we’ve had a first world revolution and a third world revolution aligned with the first, I will remain skeptical.

For instance, in Russia, a succesful socialist revolution in Germany would not have ended chlorea, the civil war, the influx of petty-bourgeois specialists, the kulak problem, etc.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:26 PM

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.
Eh.., 'abolition of nobility', 'freedom of speech';

'Bourgeois democratic tasks' are those tasks that are 'by law' carried out by bourgeois revolutions — Constitutions, civil liberties, etc.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:26 PM

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.
Eh.., 'abolition of nobility', 'freedom of speech';

'Bourgeois democratic tasks' are those tasks that are 'by law' carried out by bourgeois revolutions — Constitutions, civil liberties, etc.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:26 PM

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.
Eh.., 'abolition of nobility', 'freedom of speech';

'Bourgeois democratic tasks' are those tasks that are 'by law' carried out by bourgeois revolutions — Constitutions, civil liberties, etc.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:26 AM

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.
:o No, sorry, that came off as saying ban freedom of speech, I was saying that there must be a point before the revolution where freedom of speech is granted, land reform, ect.

''bourgrois democratic tasks" means the stuff the capitalists do before the revolution.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:26 AM

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.
:o No, sorry, that came off as saying ban freedom of speech, I was saying that there must be a point before the revolution where freedom of speech is granted, land reform, ect.

''bourgrois democratic tasks" means the stuff the capitalists do before the revolution.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:26 AM

The proletariat must carry out 'bourgeois democratic' tasks — abolition of the nobility, freedom of speech, legalization of unions, land reform — in underdeveloped countries.

Wait what? Abolition of freedom of speech? what exactly are these 'bourgrois democratic tasks? I don't understand what it has do with anything.

Thanks for explaining the permanent revolution CCCPn. Now it makes sense and I agree with it.
:o No, sorry, that came off as saying ban freedom of speech, I was saying that there must be a point before the revolution where freedom of speech is granted, land reform, ect.

''bourgrois democratic tasks" means the stuff the capitalists do before the revolution.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 08:13 PM
For instance, in Russia, a succesful socialist revolution in Germany would not have ended chlorea, the civil war, the influx of petty-bourgeois specialists, the kulak problem, etc.
It may not have stoped those things outright, but sure might have lessened the blow...you think? I mean German science was WAY ahead of the USSR in the begining, it would have cut time, money, and manpower for the Germans just to give them the knowledge.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 08:13 PM
For instance, in Russia, a succesful socialist revolution in Germany would not have ended chlorea, the civil war, the influx of petty-bourgeois specialists, the kulak problem, etc.
It may not have stoped those things outright, but sure might have lessened the blow...you think? I mean German science was WAY ahead of the USSR in the begining, it would have cut time, money, and manpower for the Germans just to give them the knowledge.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 08:13 PM
For instance, in Russia, a succesful socialist revolution in Germany would not have ended chlorea, the civil war, the influx of petty-bourgeois specialists, the kulak problem, etc.
It may not have stoped those things outright, but sure might have lessened the blow...you think? I mean German science was WAY ahead of the USSR in the begining, it would have cut time, money, and manpower for the Germans just to give them the knowledge.