A Permanent Revolution!

[Turnoviseous]

There were no major disagreements that would be essential for braking up the Party up until 1912 when Bolsheviks and Mensheviks finally broke up. The fact is that Trotsky left the RSDLP in 1904 and staied out of both camps until 1917. The final broke up of RSDLP into two camps happened in 1912, because of one big difference on class question. But let us examine the question that turned out in the split slowly. At that time there were three tendencies, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Trotsky on his own. All sides came out with different ideas although as we will see Lenin´s and Trotsky´s ideas were practically the same, just that Trotsky determined something more, which was also confirmed by practice. All three tendencies agreed that incomming revolution will be bourgeois-democratic revolution (revolution produced by contradictions between the developing capitalist economy and the semi-feudal autocratic state of tsarism). But the question that separated all three tendencies was the question about leading class in revolution. The class which will lead the revolution.

First, Mensheviks came out with idea that since revolution will be bourgeois-democratic, the leading class of the revolution will be bourgeois class. They assumed that bourgeois class and its petty-bourgeois democrat allies will lead the revolution from the great bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the past, and that they will be supported by working class, again as in past revolutions.

Lenin was on the other hand arguing against Menshevik idea that they are holding back independent working class movement. He criticised them for currying favour with »progressive« bourgeois. As Marx in 1848 warned that German bourgeois class was unable to play a progressive role in the struggle against feudalism. The bourgeois were frightened of the workers movement and they preffered to make a deal with feudalists and by that the revolution fell in ruins and feudalists had the power once again. Lenin then explained that bourgeois will not side with working class, but will inevitably side with the counter-revolution. Lenin explained: »The bourgeois in the mass will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, towards autocracy, against the revolution, and against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it ´recoils´ from consistent democrac (and is already recoiling from it!)« (LCW, vol.9, p.98) Lenin´s idea who will lead revolution was : »There remains the people, that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeois recoiling« (LCW, vol.9, p.98)

Trotsky on the other side also warned: »This results in the fact that the struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now existing strong class in the country, the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political imporatance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role« (Trotsky, Results and Prospects, p.198)
»Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing this, and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois. Theirs surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers.« (Trotsky, Results and Prospects, p.193)

As we see, both Lenin and Trotsky argued against class collaboration of Mensheviks and said that only proletariat with alliance with peasants can carry out the tasks of bourgeois-democratic revolution. So where did ideas of Lenin and Trotsky differ? Lenin was on one side saying that peasants and proletariat must carry out tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which will turn out in the democratic dictatorship of peasantry and proletariat. Trotsky was however worried about that Lenin did not decisevely said which class would exercise the dictatorship of proletariat. Trotsky warned that peasantry was never able to carry out the tasks of revolution independently and that it could only side with proletariat or with couter-revolution. If the peasantry would side with the forces of reaction, there was only thing that could happen, dictatorship of tsarism. On the other hand there would be dictatorship of proletariat. And that was not all. Lenin was at first saying that for carrying out socialist tasks there would be absolutely needed the socialist revolution in the west.Lenin notes that in this way: »The proletariat is already struggling to preserve the democratic conquests for the sake of the socialist revolution. This struggle would be almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone, and its defeat would be inevitable if the European socialist proletariat did not come to help of the Russian proletariat. At that stage the liberal bourgeoise and the well-to-do peasantry plus partly the middle peasantry will organise the counter-revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat will organise the revolution. In such conditions the Russian proletariat can win a second victory. The cause is then not lost. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe. The European workers will show us ´how it is done´« (LCW, v.10, p. 92)

On the other side, Trotsky was saying that workers under Marxist banner will not stop just at bourgeois tasks, but will start carrying out socialist tasks and therefore the socialist revolution in Russia would be before the socialist revolution in the west, but he also noted that socialist revolution in Russia will not be enough for victory of socialism.

[Ian]

Cool post man.
You seem cool... Do I know you from somewhere?

[Marxman]

Indeed. Permanent revolution is for making a socialist revolution in even the most backward industrial areas in the world. But the main thing is spreading the fire of the revolution. Backward countries are most vulnorable and therefore must depend on the socialist revolutionary upheaval in the West, where countries are developed.

[Marxman]

Trotsky was a genius, indeed. He knew before Lenin that the revolution would be a socialist. All of his predictions can be summed up as if he had a crystal ball.

(Edited by Marxman at 8:20 pm on Sep. 3, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Turnoviseous, Lenin never agreed with Trotsky's "permanent revolution " theory. Basically it was a deformated Marx's theory about continious revolution ( buorgeoise-democratical revolution will lead to the socialist revolution)
Trotsky's theory is about spreading the revolutionary movement to the other countries and starting the World Revolution. This is anti- marxist and anti-leninist position. The revolution have to be born, as the result of the specific internal state conditions, the revolutionary situation is the necessary precondition of the socialist revolution.
Trotsky export of the revolution would have resulted in it's failure, as Trotsky wanted to bring revolution into the "unprepared" state.
Besides, Marx and Lenin did not support the idea of the export of the revolution.

Marxman, why are you Marxman, man??? You have to be Trotskyman!!! LOL

[Marxman]

I suggest you rethink what you've written here, revolution hero. You obviously don't know the ABC of Lenin, Marx and Trotsky. Permanent revolution succeeded in practice - OCTOBER REVOLUTION! And Lenin emphasized many many times:" THIS REVOLUTION WILL BE DEAD IF IT IS NOT ON AN INTERNATIONAL SCALE!" I hope you get the picture now. Engels in his ABC of communism said that socialism in one country is very very absurd. It's like saying that capitalism can survive in one country. A complete nonsense invented by stalinists, which never saw a daylight in practice. But permanent revolution saw daylight in practice. I suggest also that you read Communist manifesto where it also says that proletarians must unite from all over the world in order to overthrow capitalism. Lenin AGREED on the permanent revolution more than once. In the begining he was in doubts but as always he admitted that Trotsky was right. So, are you saying that the October revolution wasn't a socialist one? Are you saying that the proletariat hasn't overthrown the goddamn monarchy and capitalism? Please, learn, learn, learn from Marx.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 7:26 am on Sep. 7, 2002
I suggest you rethink what you've written here, revolution hero. You obviously don't know the ABC of Lenin, Marx and Trotsky. Permanent revolution succeeded in practice - OCTOBER REVOLUTION! And Lenin emphasized many many times:" THIS REVOLUTION WILL BE DEAD IF IT IS NOT ON AN INTERNATIONAL SCALE!" I hope you get the picture now. Engels in his ABC of communism said that socialism in one country is very very absurd. It's like saying that capitalism can survive in one country. A complete nonsense invented by stalinists, which never saw a daylight in practice. But permanent revolution saw daylight in practice. I suggest also that you read Communist manifesto where it also says that proletarians must unite from all over the world in order to overthrow capitalism. Lenin AGREED on the permanent revolution more than once. In the begining he was in doubts but as always he admitted that Trotsky was right. So, are you saying that the October revolution wasn't a socialist one? Are you saying that the proletariat hasn't overthrown the goddamn monarchy and capitalism? Please, learn, learn, learn from Marx.


It is obvious that I know theory better than you. You have expressed some of your's opportunistic thoughts and you already think that you are right.

October revolution was socialist. But it wasn't permanent revolution in Trotsky's understanding. Trotsky was for the world revolution. He said, that since the socialist revolution had won in Russia, we should bring the revolution to the other states. Basically it was the idea of the export of the revolution. Red Army was meant to fight for the World socialist victory. (that is how Trotsky thought)
Lenin argued that export of the revolution will never be victorious. As, if the state doesn't have revolutionary situation then revolution will never win. The revolution have to start by itself, without the push from the outside. And only after it had started the socialist state can help to the brotherly proletariat and peasantry, to all who are oppressed. And USSR did that. It helped Cuba, Vietnam, Angola and to many other countries.

Proletariat of all countries unite! That is a very good slogan, but one have to understand it correctly. It means that workers have to forget about nationalism, to understand their common mission, it means that they have respect each other no matter to what nation they do belong.

[Marxman]

USSR helped the socialit revolution? Yeah, right. Under Stalin it only suppressed every socialist revolution on this planet. Lenin AGREED on Trotsky's permanent revolution (do I have to give you a quote from the books?). Lenin said many many times that Russia is doomed without other revolutions and Lenin wanted to give an impetus, an advice to other revolutions. He wanted proletariat to unite from all over the world and help each other. If he wouldn't be ill on his deathbed, he could give a powrful blow for the revolution in Germany, but Stalin fucked it up as he saw that it would be a socialist one. Trotsky and Lenin (if you don't know that by now) were very very fond to each other after 1917 and even before. Their disputes were only with conciliationism of Trotsky when he tried to unite the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Permanent revolution is the only thing that saves SOCIALISM from destruction. Then tell me, what's so wrong with this theory? Tell me, what is wrong with the idea that revolutions spread to all over the world?

[Revolution Hero]

I don't need to hear a quote from you, but you need to know this one.
Lenin rejected the venturesome tactics of the export of the revolution:
" Of, course , there are people , who think that revolution can be borned in the foreign state by the order or the agreement. These people are the madmen or the provocateurs." ( vol. 36, p.457)

The forcing of the revolution by the means of the violent intervention from the outside, " export of the revolution" is incompatible with the marxism- leninism. The socialist revolution is the result of the internal development of each country, the extreme intensification of the social antagonisms.

Why do you keep talking about Stalin? Stalin didn't help to the revolutionary movement, as there were not any revolutions during his time.
Do you deny the fact that USSR helped to the already started revolutions, as those which happened in Cuba, Vietnam and Angola???

[Marxman]

Again, what revolutions? Vientam, Cuba, Korea? Those were stalinist states if you recall. But what troubles me the most is your misinterpretation of permanent revolution. Trotksy never, NEVER, wanted the socialist revolution by force. Why should he? The socialist revolution would spread in one country after another simultaneously if the first ignition started in the advanced capitalist state. The people themselves become aware of this revolution and Trotksy only said that it would be nice to help them, just like he wanted to help the German revolution but Stalin fucked it up as he gave fascists the opportunity. You misinterpret Trotsky, that's all. By forcing other states to have a socialist revolution with the workers' army is truly a mad procedure and it was never said by Trotsky, unless you are so gullible to believe the stalinists. Those stalinist revolutions that the USSR helped are not even worth to mention as they represent nothing close to socialism. Do you really want to know what Trotksy meant by spreading the fire of the revolution? He meant that by helping the workers from other nations, to educate them, to provide necessary means. It is only natural that socialist countries help each other, isn't it? It is only natural to help an injured man to stand, isn't it? Like I said, the only problem is your misinterpretation of Trotsky.

[guerrillaradio]

The problem that many Bolsheviks saw with Permament Revolution was that it slowed down the USSR's industrialisation, something that proved to be essential in WWII. So maybe Trotsky wasn't so great after all...

[Marxman]

Again, misinterpretation of Trotsky. Guerrilaradio, do you want to know what slowed down the industrialisation? CIVIL WAR! What about an intervention of 21 foreign capitalist states? If you don't know, civil war was the most devastating war in Russia, not WWII! Almost every infrastructure was destroyed. Railways were bombarded, factories destroyed. Everything was being eliminated. Permanent revolution has got nothing to do with slowing dow the industrialisation. I suggest you read somewhere about the civil war and war communism. But the main problem of the permanent revolution is that Russia didn't have the means to spread the fire, I mean, it was too late. German revolution was too late because Stalin came in to power then and as you all know, quenched the fire totally. Permanent revolution is the only thing that can save socialist revolutions from falling apart by capitalist interventions.

[guerrillaradio]

But surely if after the Civil War, which ended in 1921, if the USSR had spent the next 20 years concentrating on international revolutions instead of rebuilding their own infrastructure then they wouldn't have lasted one second against Germany.

[Marxman]

If it would spend 20 years on building the international revolution, there would be no WWII! If Stalin would be a marxist, then WWII would be avoided. Germany would have the dictatorship of the proletariat, just as Russia, Spain, Italy, France, Britain,... would. Don't you see what Stalin did in the long run? He gave fascists a chance to rise up! He gave Hitler a chance. And WWII was the continuation of WWI, the imperialists' war. Capitalism in crisis.

[ArgueEverything]

It's true, the spartacist communists in Germany had a real opportunity to seize power before hitler did, but the stalinist leadership of the German labor movement deliberately averted this chance.

Stalin was more concerned with consolidating his own power than spreading the revolution abroad. That's why he killed most of his best generals, and wiped out most of lenin's politburo.

[Marxman]

Thank you, ArgueEverything. You know the basics and I am rejoiced. How many times will I have to explain to the others that WWII could've been avoided from the start, either by (1) Trotsky's permanent revolution or (2) Stalin's assistance to the workers of Germany. Italy was the same case. If Lenin and Trotsky wouldn't seize power in 1917, Kerensky's or Kornilov's tyranny would definitely put Russia into a horrible period of FASCISM. But Lenin's power was actually the power of the workers, and I must emphasize that the October revolution was the only true socialist one, so I am not bullshitting if I'm saying that it was a workers' state. But unfortunately, everything didn't go clock-wise. But I bet a million bucks if the socialist revolution would be in an advanced capitalist state, i.e. France, then it would mean a world-wide revolution.

[Revolution Hero]

If the point of the "permanent" revolution theory is the spreading of the revolutionary "fire" by the peaceful means ( educating, funding and so on), then it means that USSR have done all this. It helped to the communist parties all over the world, Soviet Union gave a necessary support to the revolutionary movement and helped to the proletariat of all countries. Then, why do you cry that USSR was "deformed workers' state"? Isn't it apparent that USSR played a significant role in the world revolutionary process? I know that you are going to talk about Stalin now: Stalin did this, Stalin did that. Leave the man alone! He had made a lot of mistakes, no doubt. But what have been after Stalin? Stalin was criticized by Khruchev and Brezhnev. And you are so bravely call them Stalinists? You call all of the socialist states, those which existed and exist now, stalinist, hence not true socialist........you are wrong........and it seems that you will never understand this.....

[Marxman]

You are totally wrong. Here, read this:

Nationalist Degeneration of Communist Parties

"A fundamental Marxist criticism of Stalinism, which still remains to be made, will not proceed from Trotsky's premises, although his writings should be studied for the many valuable lessons - both positive and negative - that they hold for us. Yet even where his occasional insights are at their most brilliant it is within the framework of a fundamentally false model, which prevented him from understanding the laws of development of Soviet society or grasping the (admittedly new and unprecedented) phenomenon of Stalinism in its complexity and many-sidedness. Hence, the unkindness with which history has treated his major predictions that we have quoted in the course of this article." (Cogito, page 33)

We have already commented on the way in which, not history, but Monty Johnstone has "treated" Trotsky's "predictions". It is a pity that he did not also deal with some of the "predictions" that were made by Stalin, or by the Communist Party leaders in the West over the last few decades. He doesn't dare quote them. He would not even have to resort to distortion to make them appear completely out of tune with reality!

We hope that we have shown in this article, at least in outline, how Trotsky alone provided a Marxist analysis of the "admittedly new and unprecedented" phenomenon of Stalinism. As to the "brilliant, complex and many-sided analyses" of the Brezhnevs and Kosygins, of the Dutts and Klugmans, we are still searching for those. History has not dealt unkindly with them - because they were never made!

How "unkindly" has history dealt with Trotsky's most important prognosis? In 1928, in his Critique of the Draft Programme of the Communist International, Trotsky wrote that the "theory" of "Socialism in One Country", if it were adopted by the International, would inevitably lead to the nationalist degeneration of the Communist International:

"Revolutionary patriotism can only have a class character. It begins as patriotism to the party organisation, to the trade union, and rises to state patriotism when the proletariat seizes power. Whenever the power is in the hands of the workers, patriotism is a revolutionary duty. But this patriotism must be an inseparable part of revolutionary internationalism. Marxism has always taught the workers that even their struggle for higher wages and shorter hours cannot be successful unless waged as an international struggle. And now it suddenly appears that the ideal of the socialist society may be achieved with the national forces alone. This is a mortal blow to the International.

"The invincible conviction that the fundamental class aim, even more so than the partial objectives, cannot be realised by national means or within national boundaries, constitutes the very heart of revolutionary internationalism. If, however, the ultimate aim is realisable within national boundaries through the efforts of a national proletariat, then the backbone of internationalism has been broken. The theory of the possibility of realising socialism in one country destroys the inner connection between the patriotism of the victorious proletariat and the defeatism of the proletariat of the bourgeois countries. The proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries is still travelling on the road to power. How, and in what manner it marches towards it depends entirely upon whether it considers the task of building the socialist society a national or an international task.

"If it is at all possible to realise socialism in one country then one can believe in that theory not only after but also before the conquest of power. If socialism can be realised within the national boundaries of backward Russia then there is all the more reason to believe that it can be realised in advanced Germany. Tomorrow the leaders of the Communist Party of Germany will undertake to propound this theory. The draft programme empowers them to do so. The day after tomorrow the French party will have its turn. It will be the beginning of the disintegration of the Comintern along the lines of social-patriotism." (The Third International After Lenin, pages 71-72, our emphasis)

In these lines, Trotsky brilliantly anticipated the collapse of the Third International, and the nationalist degeneration of the "Communist" Parties, decades in advance. After cynically using the Comintern as the border-guard of the Soviet Union, Stalin contemptuously disbanded it in 1943, as a gesture of "good-will" to his imperialist allies. At the very time when, under the impact of the War, millions of workers in Italy, in Greece, in China, in Eastern Europe, in Britain, were moving in the direction of revolution, the Third International was consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

It is true that, for a number of reasons, Stalinism emerged temporarily strengthened from the Second World War. This was mainly because of the utter bankruptcy of capitalism on a world scale; its powerlessness to intervene against Russia at the end of the War. The revolutionary movement of the working class in Britain, in France, in Italy, plus the mood of the "allied" workers in uniform, paralysed the hand of imperialism.

The inability of imperialism to intervene in Eastern Europe and China, plus the rottenness of capitalism in those areas, led to the rapid overthrow of capitalism and landlordism, which, according to Monty Johnstone, irrefutably demonstrates the incorrectness of Trotsky's accusation of the counter-revolutionary nature of Stalinism. He does not mention the situation in France, where the Communist Party which enjoyed mass support because of the heroic part played by the membership in the Resistance, entered a coalition government with de Gaulle; or Italy, where Stalin instructed the mass Communist Party to support the "ex-Fascist" Badoglio, at a time when the Northern cities were in the hands of the workers; of Greece, where the 200,000-strong Communist Party-led guerrillas were told to lay down their arms and "await elections", while Grievas' thugs were shooting down Communists in the streets; or Britain, where the Communist Party stood for a "National Front" government - including Churchill!

The collapse of landlordism and capitalism in China and Eastern Europe, and its replacement by nationalised planned economies, was a heavy blow to imperialism on a world scale. In particular, the victory of the Chinese Red Army in 1949 was the second greatest event of the twentieth century, after the October Revolution of 1917. By this event, the multi-millioned peasant masses of China for the first time stepped on to the stage of history.

These developments were welcomed at the time by the British Marxists, who never doubted that they would enable these backward countries to commence the historic task of overcoming the problems left over from the semi-feudal past. But we also understood clearly the contradiction implicit in the type of "revolutions" that occurred in China and Eastern Europe. We understood that they had been carried through by the Stalinist readerships in a Bonapartist fashion. Using the Red Army as a battering ram, the Russian bureaucracy crushed the weak, toothless bourgeoisie and installed their own creatures in its place. Balancing between the classes, they created a state in the image of Moscow. For the rule of workers' soviets was substituted "national" variants of the Russian model of Stalinism, with all the hideous deformities of one-Party totalitarian police-states. The Eastern European and Chinese "revolutions" began where the Russian Revolution ended; grotesquely deformed regimes of proletarian Bonapartism.

Since the Second World War, we have seen the truth of Trotsky's analysis of "Socialism in One Country" confirmed in a most striking manner. Instead of the united, "harmonious" socialist bloc to which Monty Johnstone refers, we have the nauseating spectacle, in the first place, of the oppression and plunder of Eastern Europe by the Russian bureaucracy after the War, and then, the wholesale break-up of the Stalinist "bloc" along nationalist lines, starting with the Yugoslav debacle and culminating in the soldiers of Russian and Chinese "socialism" shooting each other down with tanks, planes, and guns in border clashes.

The October Revolution won the ear of the workers of the advanced capitalist countries by its clarion call of socialist internationalism. The Bolshevik appeal for "a peace without annexations or indemnities" struck a responsive chord in the hearts of the millions of war-weary workers of all belligerent nations, including Germany. The propaganda and fraternisation, conducted on class lines, caused wholesale disaffection in the ranks of the German army, and later in the foreign armies of intervention.

During the Second World War the Russian bureaucracy utilised the most shameless chauvinistic prejudices in its propaganda. Instead of a position of proletarian internationalism, they proclaimed the idea that "the only good German is a dead one", in a thinly disguised form. And this anti-German element still pervades the propaganda of the Stalinists. The policy of the Russian bureaucracy was: make the German working class pay for the crimes of Hitler, whose victory was made possible by the criminal actions of the German Social Democratic leaders on the one hand and of Stalin and the leaders of the German Communist Party on the other. Ten million Germans were forcibly expelled from Eastern Europe after the War, of which anything up to two million perished in transit under barbarous conditions.

In the years after the War, the Russian bureaucracy plundered Eastern Europe, East Germany had to pay reparations of 16 billion dollars, Romania and Hungary paid out 570 million and 400 million dollars respectively. Not only the "enemy", but also the other Eastern European countries were systematically stripped of industry, rolling-stock, etc, which were carted off to Russia. Thus, it was the crimes of the Stalinist chauvinists after the War which gave rise artificially to reactionary movements among the expelled population in West Germany, and made the word "Communism" stink among the German working class, which before the War was "the reddest in Europe".

Before the War, Eastern Europe was notorious for its national divisions. Capitalism and the bourgeois nation state showed themselves impotent to deal peacefully and rationally with the problems arising from this complex patchwork quilt of nationalities and languages. These national divisions have been the bane of Eastern Europe, a major factor in perpetuating the backwardness of the region, the poverty and misery of the masses, and the brutal oppression of national minorities. If the Stalinists had still retained one iota of the traditions of Bolshevik internationalism, they would have advanced the slogan of a Socialist Federation of Eastern Europe, based upon a common economic plan and linked up to the enormous resources and potential of the USSR.

The "Balkanisation" of Eastern Europe, which was deliberately fostered by the Russian Stalinists after the War has inevitably given rise to the present situation. As foreseen in advance by Trotsky, each national bureaucratic clique is nursing its "own" borders! This at a time when even in the West, the bourgeoisie is faced with the contradiction between the narrow limits of the national market and the imperative demands of the modern economy. Although, of course, on the basis of the private ownership of the means of production, there is no solution to this contradiction.

The results of this national "socialism" are grotesque. At present in Yugoslavia, there are 300,000 unemployed and a further 400,000 who cannot find work in their "socialist" fatherland and are forced to work in the West. Across the border in "socialist" Bulgaria? Where they speak a similar language, there are enterprises working at 45-50% of capacity because of the shortage of semi-skilled operators. (The Economist, Jan 20, 1968) Czechoslovakia and East Germany also suffer from a shortage of labour thanks mainly to the expulsion of the Sudetenland Germans and the mass exodus from the repugnant Stalinist regime of Ulbricht.

The most criminal manifestation of "Socialism in One Country" however, is the Sino-Soviet split. Monty Johnstone points to the victory of the Chinese Red Army in 1949 as "proof" that "Socialism in One Country" is not incompatible with revolutionary socialist internationalism. But the Chinese Stalinists took power in spite of the "fraternal" advice of their Soviet "comrades". Stalin favoured a partition of China or a coalition government with Chiang Kai-Shek!

It would be interesting to see Monty Johnstone's analysis of the Sino-Soviet dispute, which he does not mention once in his article! What is the explanation of this, Comrade Johnstone? Is it yet another "tragic mistake"? Or is it the result of Mao's "personality cult"? If Stalin's "personality" could hold the entire Russian people in terror, then Mao presumably can also manipulate 700 million Chinese on the strength of his! In reality, Monty Johnstone and the "theoreticians" of Stalinism have no explanation of the Sino-Soviet split. And there can be no explanation, if we accept that both Russia and China are "socialist countries".

The Sino-Soviet split (which was predicted even before Mao's armies came to power by the British Marxists, who based themselves on the prognoses of Trotsky, to which history is alleged to have been so "unkind") has nothing whatever to do with questions of theory and ideology. It is the result of a clash of interests between two rival national bureaucracies. Like two rival gangs in the Chicago of Al Capone, the Russian and Chinese bureaucracies are not prepared to share their power and wealth with anyone, and jealously guard "their territory" against the intrusions of their "fraternal comrades".

From a Marxist point of view the Sino-Soviet dispute is a monstrous occurrence which could never take place between two genuine healthy workers' states. It is a crime which not only does untold damage to the cause of socialism on a world scale, but also stands in fundamental opposition to the interests of the workers and peasants of both Russia and China.

An elementary demand which a genuinely Marxist-Leninist Party would have raised long ago would be: a Socialist Federation of Russia and China. The Russian bureaucracy has been trying to open up the vast expanses of Soviet Asia, which contain untold mineral wealth, the tapping of which could transform the entire way of life of the Soviet people. The main obstacle is the shortage of labour; Soviet workers are reluctant to leave Moscow and Leningrad to go to Central Asia. On the other hand, the vast population of China provides a huge potential labour force for this historic task. Yet, when Chinese cross the "border", an arbitrary, meaningless line that cuts across all natural units, they are forcibly expelled by units of the Red Army. At the same time, the Russian bureaucracy is busily negotiating with Japanese Big Business for the opening up of Siberia!

For all their cynical blustering about "proletarian internationalism", neither the Chinese nor the Russian bureaucracy has advanced the real internationalist programme for the linking-up of the two great economic giants of Russia and China in the interests of both peoples. Instead, we have witnessed the spectacle of the border clashes, the criminal murder of Russian and Chinese workers in uniform, the even more criminal and atrocious propaganda of the Russian and Chinese Stalinists, which is not merely chauvinistic, but has even racialist overtones.

This is the reality of Monty Johnstone's "thirteen socialist countries", thirteen totalitarian states, ruled over by thirteen nationalist bureaucracies, who communicate between each other in the fraternal language of machine-guns and rockets!

But Trotsky's prognosis holds good on yet another question. In the Critique of the Draft Programme of the Comintern, Trotsky points out that the "theory" of "Socialism in One Country" signifies the danger of nationalist degeneration, not only after, but also before the conquest of power. And what is the position with the Parties of the former Communist International today? Everywhere, whether in power, or out of power, the so-called "Communist" parties display all the repulsive features of nationalist degeneration.

For decades, the "leaderships" of the Communist Parties internationally kow-towed, in a truly abject manner, to the dictates of the Russian Stalinist bureaucracy. Their policies consisted of a series of contradictory twists and turns, in accordance with the latest manoeuvres of Stalin; now denouncing Social-Democratic workers as "scabs" and "proto-fascists"; now calling for unification with the bourgeois parties of so-called Liberalism; now opposing the war with Germany on the basis of a peace on Hitler's terms; now adopting the role of the worst strike-breakers "in the national interest" after 1941.

Monty Johnstone, by means of manipulated quotations, tries to "prove" the inconsistency of Trotsky's analysis of the Soviet Union. But the series of political somersaults performed by his friends, Pollitt, Dutt, Gollan, Campbell, et alia in the past beggar description. Such manoeuvres have nothing in common with Marxism and the Marxist method - they are merely proof of the utterly unprincipled approach of all the Communist Party leaders.

Over the last two decades, the Stalinist "Monolith" has suffered a series of crushing blows: the Yugoslav split, the Polish events and the Hungarian revolution of 1956, and especially the Sino-Soviet split, have all weakened the iron grip of the Russian bureaucracy on the international movement. But what alternative do the "progressive" or "left" Communist Party leaders pose to "the Moscow line"? A return to the ideas of Lenin? Far from it.

The leaders of the Communist Parties everywhere have taken advantage of the situation to assert the right of each national bureaucracy to rule its own roost. The "British Road to Socialism", the "Polish Road to Socialism" - are each manifestations of the narrow, national mentality of the Communist Party leadership and its determination to guard its own leading position in "its own" country, without any "interference" from outside.

The stand taken by a number of foreign Communist Parties over Czechoslovakia was proof of this. They were not going to "carry the can" for the actions of the Russian bureaucracy as they had, with disastrous results, in 1956. The Gollans, the Dutts, the Monty Johnstones, have made no attempt to analyse or explain the invasion of Czechoslovakia. "Is it not enough that the Party leadership dissociated itself from the invasion? What are you complaining about?" Yes, comrades, but what interests a Marxist is not merely pious gestures (the right-wing Labour leaders also "dissociated themselves" from the invasion of Czechoslovakia!) but an explanation.

The real reason why Brezhnev and Co decided to invade Czechoslovakia is because they feared the effect which even the slightest democratic concessions in Czechoslovakia would have had upon the workers in Russia. Their action was evidence of jittery nerves, not confidence and strength. Yet the Gollans and the Johnstones continue to act as though it were merely a "tragic mistake" on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy![1]

The "independent" stand of the Communist Party readerships in the West vis-à-vis Moscow is only one side of the coin. On the other side, we have the persistent efforts of the Gollans and the Waldeck-Rochets to ingratiate themselves with "their" national bourgeois "public opinion". The "new look" of the Stalinists is even more repulsive than the old. It is a caricature of the wretched reformism of the Social Democratic leaders. Thus, the Daily Worker becomes the Morning Star, the Communist Party leaders in all their pronouncements emphasise the non-revolutionary, bourgeois respectability of the Party, its profound patriotism which wants to put the "Great" back in Britain. Evidently, the Communist leaders want to prove they can sing the national anthem louder than the Tory or right-wing Labour leaders! The Union Jack features on every large Communist Party demonstration; after all, it is "our" flag…!

It was significant that the same Communist Party "theoreticians" who criticised the invasion of Czechoslovakia, were also most vocal in support of the disgraceful role played by the leadership of the French Communist Party and CGT during and after the May events last year.

[Revolution Hero]

Well, that is not what I would like to read. "Degeneration of the Communist Parties"? What a nonesense!!!
You always try to run away from my points. Your mind is doomed to exist in the darkness....you will never reach anything with Trotsky's ideas.
Marxism-Leninism was the soviet ideology. Do you want to say that it was wrong? Then show me the places in the book , called "Scientific Communism"( soviet book), which show the contradictions to Marx and Lenin! There aren't any!
And Soviet theoretics criticized Trotsky. Sure, they had a very important reasons for that. The conclusion is :
Trotskysm has nothing in common with marxism- leninism.

[Marxman]

You really ought to shut up and just shut your door and read books for months and then come back again because you obviously don't know shit. Trotskyism was an invention by stalinists to slander the ideas of Trotsky as if he never was on the side of Lenin. Marxism, if you don't know, was properly continued by Lenin and Trotsky and not by treacherous Stalin. But here, I'll do the honour to post from a resource, which you say that is alien to Trotsky - www.marxists.org.

Trotskyism

Trotskyism and Stalinism are children from the same womb, born from the Russian Revolution. Both were nursed to health through the reaction caused by the Soviet Civil War.

Trotskyism began with the premise that the transition to Socialist society lay in the balance of the Russian Revolution, but if the transition was not attended to by the Trotskysts, Socialism would not be achieved. Trotskyism explains this as an inheritance of Lenin's theory of the necessity of the vanguard role of the workers' party, an inheritance Stalinists claim as well. While the Stalinists were working to secure their power of the Soviet state through the suppression of all who opposed them, the Trotskysts sought to replace the Stalinist reigns of government with their own methods of establishing Socialism. See: Platform of the Joint Opposition

The distinguishing characteristic between Trotskyist and Stalinist political theory is based on the events they were born into during these reactionary times. The Stalinists, in control of the Soviet government, became exceedingly pragmatic, throwing out reference to theory or morality with the aim that above all else it was necessary to secure the power of the Soviet state, and as a consequence their power over the Soviet state, at all costs. The Trotskyists on the other hand, occupying a role not as dominate as the Stalinists in the Soviet bureaucracy, focused on Marxist and Socialist theory, claiming at various junctures that the Stalinists were acting directly against these theoretical principles.

From this intrinsic battle much of the sectarianism rampant throughout Marxism in the 20th-century is rooted. The Stalinists labeled Trotskyists as bitterly sectarian, because the Trotskyists would not follow the Stalinist methods of the state and instead constantly beat the snot out of the Stalinists on the most fundamental of theoretical grounds. But while the Stalinists were decrying the Trotskyists as overly theoretical and counter-revolutionaries, the Trotskyists aptly labeled the Stalinists as overly bureaucratic and exceedingly brutal -- Stalinism more and more came into complete control of the Soviet bureaucracy, and increasingly began violently suppressing all dissentors. Though the Trotskyists considered the Soviet state a "workers state", they refused to call it a socialist state until the malignant tumor of the Stalinist bureaucracy was removed.

The two-part solution that Trotskyists saw to remedying the Russian Revolution to a socialist path can firstly be surmised by a "changing of the linen" — replacing the Stalinist bureaucracy with a Trotskyist one. The next necessary step was outlined by the theory of the Permanent Revolution. This stipulated that Socialism could not be achieved in any one nation but only through world wide worker's revolutions, a theory starkly in contrast to the revisionary Stalinist theory of Socialism in One Country, that stated Socialism was possible in a single country.

Along these lines of division in the late 1920s, after the Stalinist suppression of the Trotskyists, the right-wing of the party, and the failures of the Communists in Germany, the Trotskyists moved strongly into the arena of forming a new international, called the Fourth International (as opposed to the Third International created by Lenin and led by the Soviet state). While the Trotskyists continue their internationalist efforts to this day, the Third International was deserted in 1943, with later Stalinist internationalism leaving behind the inherited theoretical aspects which the Trotskyists were so excellent at championing, and instead focused on the direct pragmatic realities of conquering new territories, dominating foreign markets, etc.

The fundamental basis of these deviations between the two children of the Russian Revolution continue to the present. While Stalinist groups of various strips lay claim to having actively led working class revolutions in various countries (the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, N. Korea, etc.), to varying degrees of success, the Trotskyists lay claim to critiquing these revolutions (and others, including the workers revolutions in Mongolia, Cuba, etc) pointing out their theoretical deficiencies. While Stalinists have attempted some basic theoretical work without success, Trotskyists have taken part in some revolutions (the Spanish Civil War), though these also, like the Fourth International, have not achieved success.

Not surprisingly, there are many deviations within Trotskyism, and these deviations run so deep that certain groups of Trotskyists consider other groups of Trotskyists equivalent to Stalinists. Like every other derivative from Marxism, most Trotskyists resent the differing label, refusing to recognize their sect as anything different from Marxism, but they readily label other deviations (including internal ones) as something other than Marxism (i.e. Maoism, Stalinism, Social-Democrats, etc.). Additionally, Trotskyists lay claim to the name Leninism, believing that the theories of Trotsky are more or less synonymous with the theories of Lenin, thus to distinguish between Leninism and Trotskyism is also wrong.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 4:12 am on Sep. 12, 2002
You really ought to shut up and just shut your door and read books for months and then come back again because you obviously don't know shit. Trotskyism was an invention by stalinists to slander the ideas of Trotsky as if he never was on the side of Lenin. Marxism, if you don't know, was properly continued by Lenin and Trotsky and not by treacherous Stalin. But here, I'll do the honour to post from a resource, which you say that is alien to Trotsky - www.marxists.org.




Ha! Ha! Ha!

You have nothing to say, Marxman. LOL
I know more than you and that stupid marxist.org site. It is made by the opportunists, just like you. Your friends are everywhere, and they are the main problem of the leftist movement.

I will find the place in Lenin's works where he called trotsky's" theory" Trotskysm.

Besides, I have already told you ( and proved you) that Lenin called Trotsky JUDAS!

Not everyone who calls himself/herself marxist is actually marxist. There ARE A LOT OF OPPORTUNISTIC ELEMENTS.
marxist.org is the part of the opportunistic chain, which have to be broken in order to acieve a true unity!!!
OPEN YOUR EYES, MARXMAN!!!!

[El Che]

IMO, marxists.org is theee best site i`ve come across in two years of net.

[Marxman]

Revolution Hero. You have a slogan of KPRF. There are millions of members in KPRF and what have those opportunists done? Nothing! They are true opportunists coming from opportunist times (stalinism), just like you are an ignorant communist-wannabe. You talk about Trotsky being an opportunist and a bad guy and you talk about Trotsky struggling with Lenin like they were fighting all their lives. Have you ever read the article Cogito, written by a stalinist Monty Johnstone? I've read a book "Lenin and Trotsky:What they really stood for" and it's a reply to that stalinist article Cogito. I suggest you read it, just a little bit because it's a wonderful answer to all the slanders made by stalinists. It's a book made for you, Revolution Hero and there are many many more, just for you. While you are foolong yourself with stupid old slandered-by-stalinists Lenin's collected works, you should switch to the newest edition of them. You're not an opportunist, so far and neither am I. You're just angry at capitalism and you wish to destroy it but you're just a communist-wannabe. You're ignorant but you won't admit that, of course. And you prove your ignorance with your posts and you also reveal your primitivism. Sad but true.

[oki]

I thought you said anarchists were the ones holding down the left? :)

[Turnoviseous]

Said by Revolutionary "Hero"
"Degeneration of the Communist Parties"? What a nonesense!!!

If you accept dialectics, then you accept that anything can degenerate, because everything is changing.

There is no absolute truth.

You should start with the basics of dialectics:

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/ABC.html



(Edited by Turnoviseous at 12:04 am on Sep. 18, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 4:12 am on Sep. 12, 2002

Not surprisingly, there are many deviations within Trotskyism, and these deviations run so deep that certain groups of Trotskyists consider other groups of Trotskyists equivalent to Stalinists. Like every other derivative from Marxism, most Trotskyists resent the differing label, refusing to recognize their sect as anything different from Marxism, but they readily label other deviations (including internal ones) as something other than Marxism (i.e. Maoism, Stalinism, Social-Democrats, etc.). Additionally, Trotskyists lay claim to the name Leninism, believing that the theories of Trotsky are more or less synonymous with the theories of Lenin, thus to distinguish between Leninism and Trotskyism is also wrong.







The quote from Lenin's speech, Petrograd conference record, april, 1917:

" Trotskysm says " without Tsar, but the state belongs to the workers." This position is WRONG. Petty- bourgeoisie exists, it can't be thrown away. But it consists of two parts. It's poorest part goes together with the working class."

This quote proves that Lenin called Trotsky's "theory " Trotskysm. Besides, it shows that Lenin disagreed with Trotsky in the most principle question of the proletariat's allies.

Lenin about Trotsky's "permanent revolution":
" "Original" Trotsky's theory takes the call to the decisive revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from bolsheviks and the " negation of the role of peasantry" from mensheviks. Trotsky helps to Russian liberal workers' politicians, who don't want to stir peasants to revolution!" ( vol. 18, p.317-318)

It is clear that Lenin considered "permanent revolution" half- menshevist theory, which ignores the revolutionary role of the peasantry in the russian revolution.

Lenin about trotsky:

" There are lot of lustre and raise in the phrases of Trotsky, but they don't have any matter" ( vol.17, p.383).

[Revolution Hero]

"Marx"man and Turnoviseous are the most ignorant people on the board. These men don't know Lenin and Marx, they can't see the differences between Marxism- Leninism and trotskysm.

And after all these Marxman dared to call me ignorant! Marxman you have to learn history(1!!!) , theory (2!!!) and the criticism of trotsky (3!!!).

You are lower than my level... learn, learn and learn, I hope you will reach my level sometime.....

[Marxman]

Oh, you're a true genius. Such a genius that doesn't even understand that Lenin argued Trotsky only about conciliationism when Trotsky was in Mensheviks (for only a year). Such a genius that thinks Stalin was a true Marxist, who actually dimished every workers' aspect. Yeah, when you're going to teach me about Marxism, then cappies are gonna give money to the poor. If you are a true wise-ass, read "REASON IN REVOLT: A MARXIST PHILOSOPHY" by Ted Grant.

You don't comprehend Marx nor Engels because you prove that every time with your posts. You discredit Trotsky and Lenin with the unscrupulous stalinist LCW.

Let me ask you a reward question: Why do you think Stalin suppressed the LCW? Sub-question: Why do you think Stalin only published 7 or 8 volumes of LCW?

If you anwer correctly, you shall be given a cure for ignorance.

[oki]

quote from the thread first post:
"Trotsky on the other side also warned: »This results in the fact that the struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now existing strong class in the country, the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political imporatance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role« (Trotsky, Results and Prospects, p.198) "

in this part trotsky explanes why the workers are the leading force and not peasants.his tone revieals however,that he would have prefered the peasants.the alinia after this,(I didn't paste that)it's said that liberals have fear of arming the workers in revolution.why do you think that is?
my conclution:if the workers aren't the biggest class,they shouldn't lead the revolution at all.

[Marxman]

Why not? Do you think that quantity matters so much? Pesants are numerous but they must be an alliance of the proletariat, they must follow the proletariat to victory. Peasants nowadays follow the exploiters and just look where they are - in deep shit. Can you imagine what fruitful progress would be the dictatorship of the proletariat with an alliance of pesantry? GDP would increase 1000% of today. Planned economy would suffice everyone's needs, not just a few with needs of unlimited lust like today.

Don't you still get it? I gave numerous posts why proletariat have a socialist conscious implemented in their cerebrum. I suggest you check some marxist glossary, man.

[oki]

well just read that part I quoted again,and try to imagin what I'm tellin you.I don't thimk trotski was too fond of the workers,and neighter was anybody.they were quite scared in fact.I can totally understand that.these people are abused slaves ,with no perspective at all,and hardly any education.they can be loose cannons.
I'm not even trieing to piss you off here,it was just what I saw in his words.
you need the biggest class to revolt,otherwise you cant win.you should start by determening which class is the biggest.then find out why they think the system sucks and then you're getting somewhere.how will you start a revolution when you can only otrganise a (small) part of the people?when most people are content,and dont see anything in a revolution?when the ideals of this revolution apply to workers,and not to them?

[Turnoviseous]

Marx and Engels already explained in the Communist Manifesto why the workers had to be in the leadership of the revolution: they are the only class which can have a socialist collective consciousness, and this is because of the place they occupy in capitalist production. They produce in a collective way. If the workers take power they will not think about dividing the factory and each one being the owner of a little bit of it. They will think about organising the production collectively. A peasant on the other hand has a natural tendency to fight for the division of the land into small
plots and himself having his own one. Poor peasants can be very revolutionary, but usually it will be difficult for them to develop a socialist consciousness They must play an important auxiliary role but the leadership of the revolution must be in the cities and in the hands of the
workers. This is Marxist ABC.

[Marxman]

Oki, what you are saying is exactly what failed. Have you ever heard of NARODNIKS and their slogan "Peasant socialism" or "Back to the people?"

They did exactly that. They said peasants are the numerous and they should be leading a socialist revolution but they found out peasants don't have a socialist conscious. They lived with peasants and observed them, tried to convince them of socialism but the peasants did not respond the way they wanted. So, finally they said:"damn the peasants, they'll never make a revolution." Later on, Narodniks became Social revolutionaries.

[oki]

mao managed to have a pesant revolution.so did the spanish anarchists.I still think it's weird.from the beginning of capitalism pesants were the repressed class,because just about everybody was a farmer,and suffering under landowners.I think the basic idea of this is the thought that farnmers are dumb.sure they have the tendency to divide land,and grow their own food.that's a basic human right.workers have a right to a home too,preferebly with garden?farmers can work land together,help eachother,share tthe profits,work together with other collectives,that is very natural,and it was common practice in spain long before the civil war.
did you ever work in a factory yourselves?well I did and can tell lots of story's about workers that make your hair stand up straight.they are NOT per definition blessed with more moralss and contiousness than other humans.this is a fairytale story.they work for money.they want to make as mutch as they can,buy a bmw and show it off,and petronise eachother all day long.very hyrarchic.

[Marxman]

Ever heard of LUMPENPROLETARIAT?

BTW, Mao didn't make a socialist revolution because it doesn't even exit on paper. He just made a revolution with the majority of pesants. But did he gave the land to the peasants and gave them what Lenin did? Nope!

Mao was a stalinist, so please don't drag him into this.

[Turnoviseous]

oki, maybe you should read my previous post again.
Of course farmers can make a revolution, but what kind of revolution? What will it turn into?..

[Marxman]

It would turn into anarchy in the long run. No programme, no plans, no nothing. Sure, they'd be happy for a moment when all food would be in the hands of the people but what happens when they start to argue about land, inheritance, division,...?

[oki]

Quote: from Marxman on 3:14 pm on Sep. 22, 2002
It would turn into anarchy in the long run. No programme, no plans, no nothing. Sure, they'd be happy for a moment when all food would be in the hands of the people but what happens when they start to argue about land, inheritance, division,...?

you probebly ment It would turn into chaos.it could definetly turn into anarchy,but that is the opposite from what you mean.anarchy is a system just like communism,and not chaos.you can devide land equal.no arguements there.you can work together in collectives.share the food with everybody in the country,and the country shares with you.inheretence is possesion,and therefore non-existant.new people jsut get equal land if tehy want to be a farmer.I don't see the problem.all these things you can think of yourself as a marxist/lenist.I could give you a same list about problems factory's run into .
and I don't even believe in a pesant revolution,I believe in an EVERYBODY revolution.why do you make a seperation between classes,when the goal of the rev. is to end that?that way nothing changes,and it shows that you're no different.

[Marxman]

Your words are anarchist and these words are utopian, unfortunately. Anarchists and communists all have the same goal but anarchists have a way-different tendency for that and they tend on "shortcuts" to it.

Socialist revolution does not end classes! It ends exploitation and it starts the immediate road to socialism by installing the DoP. If you belive that the socialist revolution ends classes overnight, then you're utopian. I am for a classless society but I know that in my lifetime that cannot be achieved. It takes generations and generations to fullfill the road to communism. Read my qoute.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 11:07 pm on Sep. 18, 2002
Oh, you're a true genius. Such a genius that doesn't even understand that Lenin argued Trotsky only about conciliationism when Trotsky was in Mensheviks (for only a year). Such a genius that thinks Stalin was a true Marxist, who actually dimished every workers' aspect.

Lenin argued Trotsky since Trotsky joined Mensheviks. Lenin argued Trotsky before and after the October revolution. The quotes , which I have posted are taken from the different Lenin's works, written in the different time periods. And , if I am not mistaken it was you who had said that the term " Trotskysm" is made by the Stalinists. One of the quote proves that Lenin called Trotsky's theory Trotskysm ( the term was created by the bolsheviks, and in some way by Trotsky himself). Hence, Lenin saw Trotsky's theory different from Marxism. Don't you understand these simple things?

Why do you start talking about Stalin? I think we discuss Trotsky and his "theory".

[oki]

anarchism will not solve anything instantly.it will take time,just like you say.I have a problem with the commuinst way towards equality.I think it will never get there actually.history only proves that.no communist regieme could stop falling back to kapitalism.because the people want freedom,and communism doesn't give that,it gives only the promise of freedom.

[Marxman]

Oki, communism brings perfect freedom, almost absolute.

Anyway, R.H. - Lenin heatedly announced the word Trotkskyism but not in the wa Stalinists did. Lenin later realised and apologised to Trotsky about his permanent revolution theory and it was proved that Trotksy was correct, definitely. Lenin believed that the Russian revolution would be a burgeois-democratic but Trotsky objected and developed a marxist revolution theory further and that theory said that the revolution in Russia can definitely be a socialist one and it proved that it was.

Lenin argued with Trotsky and so what! That does definitely not mean that they were enemies. If they were enemies, why did the cooperate numerously and were close friends after the revolution? Why did Lenin wrote that Trotsky must be the next guide for socialism after Lenin's death? I know the answers!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 8:06 am on Sep. 26, 2002
Oki, communism brings perfect freedom, almost absolute.

Anyway, R.H. - Lenin heatedly announced the word Trotkskyism but not in the wa Stalinists did. Lenin later realised and apologised to Trotsky about his permanent revolution theory and it was proved that Trotksy was correct, definitely. Lenin believed that the Russian revolution would be a burgeois-democratic but Trotsky objected and developed a marxist revolution theory further and that theory said that the revolution in Russia can definitely be a socialist one and it proved that it was.

Lenin argued with Trotsky and so what! That does definitely not mean that they were enemies. If they were enemies, why did the cooperate numerously and were close friends after the revolution? Why did Lenin wrote that Trotsky must be the next guide for socialism after Lenin's death? I know the answers!


" Lenin believed that the Russian revolution would be a burgeois-democratic but Trotsky objected and developed a marxist revolution theory further and that theory said that the revolution in Russia can definitely be a socialist one and it proved that it was."


First of all , that is the marxist theory of the permanent revolution, according to which bourgeois-democratic revolution have to be developed into the socialist one.
Secondly , Lenin clearly understood that the socialist revolution must follow after the bourgeois-democratic revolution. As Lenin developed marxist theory of the socialist revolution, by creating a completely new theory, which was made according to the modern historical conditions of that time.
Thirdly, "Trotsky's permanent revolution" have to be something different from Marx's permanent revolution, otherwise there is no need to use the term Trotsky's permanent revolution.

"Why did Lenin wrote that Trotsky must be the next guide for socialism after Lenin's death?"

Lie , which resulted in the misinterpretation of Lenin. Lenin advised to replace both Stalin and Trotsky.

Now you admit that Lenin argued with trotsky. You have made some progress, that's good. If Lenin argued with Trotsky, then there must be some theoretical points of their disagreement ( which I tried to make you understand all this time), hence trotskysm is not based on leninism. Trotskysm deformed Leninism, that's all it did. This is not positive, of course.

[Marxman]

You are wrong. Stalinist material is deforming your knowledge, you see.

Lenin emphasized that Stalin must be down and Trotsky up. He knew Trotsky was the only man he ciuld completely trust to guide the revolution in the right way.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 2:02 am on Sep. 27, 2002
You are wrong. Stalinist material is deforming your knowledge, you see.

Lenin emphasized that Stalin must be down and Trotsky up. He knew Trotsky was the only man he ciuld completely trust to guide the revolution in the right way.

Stalinist versions of Lenin's works don't exist. You make me to look over Lenin's works all the time. I have the whole collections of his works and I will find the letter to the Central Committee, in which Lenin explained the necessity of replacing both Stalin and Trotsky.

Coming back to your view of the hisotry ( Lenin believed that revolution would be democratic, but Trotsky said that socialist revolution is also possible, hence Lenin didn't believe in the socialist revolution in Russian conditions and trotsky showed the right way), I would like to show you the quote from one of Lenin's works:

" ...From the democratic revolution we will immediately go over (...) to the socialist revolution. We are for the continuous revolution..." ( vol.11, p.222)

[Marxman]

Typical, so typical for slanderers like you. You gave me a post from Lenin's work and now you claim you are the man.

I noticed that your qoute is actually shortened as I see et cetera signs. Now I give you a task - study original version of LCW (non-stalinist) and tell me when was that quote written and then also give me a FULL, COMPLETE quote, not with et cetera signs.

I know your tricks and they don't fool me quite bit. I've actually read and saw what stalinists do with quotes from Lenin and Trotsky and how they edit sentences.

Did you know that Stalin has been editing Lenin's and Trotsky's letters before the revolution and that Trotsky only after the revolution found out that they were forged?

[Revolution Hero]

Well, Mraxman, unlike you I know Lenin. You don't believe me and that is why I post quotes from Lenin to prove my words.

This quote is original, I have just made it shorter. Instead of quoting the part about the strength of proletariat, I have put (...).
And you are not the one , who can give me the tasks. If you want full and complete quote , try to find it yourself.

[Revolution Hero]

I have posted the quotes from Lenin's "letter to the Congress" in the "HISTORY".

[Marxman]

Let's put it simply.

You didn't complete the tasks you required so I am noe even more skeptical about your knowing of Lenin, especially when you say things like:"Socialism in 1 country can work."

[Revolution Hero]

What tasks did you talk about?
I have posted so many of Lenin's quotes, in order to get your mind out of the Trotsky's chaos theory.But, it seems that you will never learn.

I know Lenin better than you, so you have to listen to what I had said, because all what I had said I proved with Lenin's quotes later.

Do you remember what I have said you? I will repeat it one more time,so you will understand this:
Who are you to give me the tasks?

My advise:
START READING LENIN. Believe me, he was greater than Trotsky.

[Marxman]

Noone is better than anyone. Remember that. Stop saying that Lenin is better than Trotsky because it is futile to argue about it and it reminds of the "cult personality" invented by stalinists.

I've told you many times. I read Lenin, just not directly. The books like "Bolshevism:the road to revolution" includes 100 times more quotes from Lenin's books than you have posted and not to mention the other marxist books.

You must understand that marxist books are together interfaced, linkes, fused because they are marxist. These books are like a cycle, a very long cycle.

[Revolution Hero]

You have to read Lenin directly in order to understand him really well.
You have to read Lenin directly in order to understand that he made a great conclusion about the possibility of building socialism in one country.
You have to read Lenin directly in order to see how different his theory was comparing with Trotsky's.
You have to read Lenin directly in order to see the truth.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR STUDYINGS!