You misunderstand me; I wasn't defending Barnes, nor the SWP. Is Barnes an elitist who lives in privilage? Probably, but that isn't the issue (although it is problematic). The issue (or at least the first part of it,) is, what exactly makes the SWP "Stalinist"? Even if the SWP abandoned permanent revolution, that doesn't necesarily mean that they are anti-revisionists now. I mean, Kruchevites on all corners of the planet reject permanent revolution ( however, by arbitrary Trot analysis, they are "Stalinists" too.). Sheesh, there are other left-wing trends than anarchism, "Stalinism", and Trotskyism. I would like to see some quotes where Barnes argues from an anti-revisionist point of view.
By rejecting the theory of permanent revolution, one is essentially left with the inevitability of supporting a "progressive bourgeoisie" or supporting the outdated (Lenin himself declared it outdated) "Democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." It is Stalinist-Menshevism, perhaps with an odd twist. I have not read it yet, but from glancing at his Their Trotsky and Ours, he literally uses Stalinist arguments against Trotsky. They are also very totalitarian in their methods, being extremely hostile to those that disagree with them and use Stalinist bureaucratic methods to get rid of those that disagree with them on the slightest topics.
Now, even if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barnes is in fact a die hard "Stalinist", that raises part two of the issue: So What? ;) (This is not an invitation to launch into an over-blown litanny about beauracracy and 'Holodomor'.
There is not a man, woman or child on rev-left who hasn't heard these slanders yet, so please give it a rest.).[QUOTE]
It would prove that he is a liar and not the Trotskyist he claims to be.
[QUOTE]Yes, the DPRK certainly is revisionist... at least you aknowledge some gains of revolution that remain in that country; many Trots don't even do that.
That is because most Trotskyists don't even know Trotsky's method of analysis. They just repeat some older outdated stuff and make new inventions to justify ultra-leftism.
That is a fairly big "Probably"; you think that there are no socialists left in the WPK?
There probably aren't very many, if any at all. A Bolshevik would probably lose his/her life in North Korea if he/she were open about it.
That is the fruit of Juche, not "Stalinism". Allright, we've established that the DPRK has heavy revisionist tendencies; moving on....
It may have renounced the works of Stalin, but it is still a proletarian bonapartist state.
I said Trot analysis was a joke; modern Trotskyism contains much Leninst theory, hence Trots do sometimes take a proper stand on issues.
What I'm refering to is your bi-polar theoretical analysis, with Trotsky at the top (good), Stalin at the bottom (bad), and next to nothing in between. Via the concepts of "unconcious Trotskyism", Trots lay claim to the achievements of figures who are not Trotskyists, and through the concept of "Neo-Stalinism", they draw dotted lines between uncle joe, and revisionist scum who bear no resemblance.
You're analysis is not rooted on theoretical consistencies between organizations, or their self-professed loyalties; it is based entirely on comparisons of misconceptions
about two entities, and down-right slander.
The only thing I have seen as some odd Neo-Stalinism is the US SWP. And when it comes to workers states, you don't really have much in between - you have proletarian property forms either way, but in a healthy workers' state, the proletariat has political power, and in a deformed one, the proletariat does not have political power. Of course, there are definite degrees of deformation - for example, Cuba has a mild form of proletarian bonapartism. It can literally be reformed to a healthy status. North Korea, on the other hand, needs a political revolution.
As I said, a fucking joke.
Okay...
My point exactly. :lol:
You'll notice that Trotskyists will end arguments with " (blank) is Stalinist.", as though that is all that needs to be said, end of argument.
That's what capitalists do: "(Blank) is a communist".
You try to point out a worker, say in the US, that would allow a bureaucracy to control major aspects of his/her life. You won't find many. The very history and traditions of the US working class will never permit a form of Stalinism to arise. Even if it somehow arose, it would be very short lived. Add to that the Menshevism of Stalinism, and you come up with the fact that the chances of Stalinism coming to power in today's world (especially the advanced countries) are pretty low.
Notice anti-revisionists raely so that. We don't assert someone is a Trotskyist, end of story, as though that alone is an incrininating point that reduces their point of view to rubble.
Yeah, instead, you just call anyone that disagrees with you a "revisionist."
This is what I was talking about. By arbitrary Trot analysis , Stalin is the polar incarnation of darkness, hence to say that Someone is "a Stalinist" is to equate them with evil, hence by this logic, what reason is there to continue? If they are evil, and they are opposed to you, you must be good. Hooray,Trot logic!
What kind of dolt merely uses phrases like "good" and "evil" to describe things? I have repeatedly stated in the past that I oppose Stalinism (but will critically support against capitalism) because it does not provide political power to the working class, that the economy gets too complicated for bureaucratic planning after a point, it has historically destroyed revolutions, etc.
Well, if you want to get technical, Capitalism is actually more popular than Trotskyism; does that make it the superior socio-economic theory/ system?
ridiculous logic.
But with its democratic proletarian character, Trotskyism can gain an echo in the advanced countries, based on correct theory, method, tactics, etc. Stalinism cannot. The reason why communism is so unpopular is in fact due to the bourgeoisie hammering into peoples' heads the "fact" that Stalinism is communism! It is Stalinism that is repulsive to everyone. It is Stalinism that has done countless damage to socialism. Not Trotskyism.
As for the numbers of self-described Hoxhaists, all of the so-called "stalinists" around the world who do not subscribe to Mao are therefore Hoxhaists; they may not give him credit (or even know about him), but if they uphold the four classics properly, then they are ideologically indistinguishable from Hoxhaism (Notice I am not saying they are "Unconcious hoxhaists"; I base my analysis on concrete factors, like ideological foundation.). Their numbers are just as numerous as Trotskyism.
Stalinists that don't subscribe to Mao are Hoxhaists? Given the nationalism and differences between Stalinist states, this is not so. Take Titoites or Jucheites. "Upholding the four classics" merely amounts to a hardline stance toward the policies of Stalin and Hoxha.
Peculiar logic...
I'd rather bet on a horse that has crossed the finish line in the past, than a horse that has never crossed the finish line, despite partcipating in just as many races as the former. I will never understand the logic that leads adhearants of unsubstantiated, intangible ideologies to claim that thier way will triumph over those that have actually yeilded fruit.
Not really. The history of the US working class and its traditions are inherently anti-bureaucatic.
We should give up :rolleyes: . If handing out pamphlets about the plight of Mumia Abu Jamal on campus constitutes a "revolution", then by all means, reap the fruits of your ideology, comrades. :rolleyes:
That does not constitute a revolution. It is just a part of political exposure.
"post war boom" is a very tidy euphamism for imperialist exploitation. As for the "slander identifying (communism) with Stalinism", seriously, don't be naive.
Trots, Anarchists and all of the "recent reds" need to stop using that line, believing that Uncle Joe and his way of doing things were the main cause of the defamation of communism. :rolleyes:
Of course it was based on imperialist exploitation, but during this time, in the advanced countries, the standards of living for the working class rose tremendously. Capitalism appeared to be "delivering the goods," and that explains the general right-wing tendency during that time period.
And it is common sense that identification of Stalinism with communism is what makes it repulsive to so many people.
As I've said before, "Why, if it hadn't been for Uncle Joe, surely everyone the world over would have embraced communism, especially the propertied classes of all nations who hold political power and the media outlets; surely those who have everything to lose from communiust revolution would not have convinced the masses that we are scum, if not for Stalin! It has nothing to do with the fact that the very people who print our schoolbooks and own our TV stations(and therefore create pubilc opinion and spread their ideology among masses) are the same people who would get thumped when the revolution comes. Of course not; Stalin is the only possible explanation for our negative image."
Stalinism is largely the explanation for the negative image, due to the fact that most people don't study Marxism, and it appeared that Stalinism was the logical consequence of Leninism. No one in the advanced world is going to put up with mass murder, man-made famine, gulags, censorship, etc.
And, it's not as though there were any anti-communist sentiments/propoganda before Stalin. Oh wait; there was...
American Anti-Communist poster, circa 1919 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/
[email protected]/456964557/)
And It's not as though the powers that be would have reacted the same way to Trotsky...
[img]http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/thumb/0/0b/200px-WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />
Surely Marx would have been treated fairly by all...
[img]http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/slides/012334.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />
Don't be gullible.
Of course there was anti-communist propganda back then. John Reed described it going on in his classic work, Ten Days That Shook the World (a work banned in Stalinist USSR, nevermind the fact that Lenin considered it a truthful account and recommended that it be printed in millions of copies in many languages.). But back then, there was not much basis for this propaganda, as one could actually go to the USSR and see workers' democracy. With Stalinism, they could literally objectively prove mass murder, gulags, Marxists could notice the extermination of Bolsheviks, making pacts with Nazis!, etc.
Also, you are the Grand emporer of stating the obvious, axel :
You are not going to win many over in the advanced countries if you don't advocate empowering them and eliminating bureaucracy.
This reminds me of how the capitalist media used to refer to the cold war (between Communism and capitalism) as the fight between "communism and Democracy" which is completely subjective, as Communism is democracy, but the western media chose to make the two seem opposed to one another.
Nevermind the fact that communism has never existed in practice and that the democracy they ranted about was democracy for the rich.
This is what you've done. "Stalinism" IS Communism.
Bureaucratic totalitarianism is a classless, stateless society? :blink:
Only a Sith deals in absolutes :lol:. This is what I'm talking about : Bi-polar, and arbitrary.
So, you've read Stalin, have you? Surely that must be the case, otherwise that statement you just pulled out of your ass was an ill-thought out generalization without basis.
I have read some bits, but I am will get to it later. Nevertheless, we do have Stalin's actions to speak for us.
So, you admit that you share similarities in ideology with the folks who call communism utopian? Good. The next step is doing something about it.
Not at all. These people are not repulsed by genuine Marxism, as it is anti-totalitarian.
Even the genuine Trotties are kind of ivory-tower, but yeah, there are some pretty useless individuals under the banner of the 4th international.
The Fourth International is dead and buried. It has been that way for decades.
Once again, there are other options (not to mention there is no such thing as "Stalinism".).
I suppose there are other options on the left, but the are rather stupid (primitivism, utopian socialism, etc.).
Are you high, or just incredibly naive? Shit, I don't think even Trotsky advocated a line that erroneous.
If you leave it on a voluntary basis, some areas will collectivize, and others won't, hence there will still be a contradiction between the two, and the privatized farms will become alluring to the collectivized farmers.
Nope. The examples of the initial collectivized farms will provide an example based on democratic planning. Their yields would be superior and the work would be easier than one trying to do it himself/herself.
"..and I base this on a documentary I saw on history channel."
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]The Nazi threat was largely Stalin's fault
Nevermind the fact that an entire generation of Bolsheviks were killed by the Stalinist regime. If Lenin lived longer, he would have probably suffered a similar fate.
You are not honeslty blaming Stalin fo rthe rise of German fascism, are you? Man, I don't hate anyone enough to blame them for incidents (outside of their control) like the rise of Hilter!
No, I am blaming the policies of Stalinism for helping Hitler come to power. Stalin was the lead bureaucrat in the process.
What was that you said about Trotskyism being closer to Leninism? I don't believe that Lenin ever advocated the Communists joining forces with Second international trash. Also, the social dems didn't want to smash the fascists. Don't be naive.
Lenin formed a united front with the Mensheviks at one point. He would have done another one if necessary to crush Fascism. Stalin on the other hand, allied with Hitler and, for a time, forbade criticism of Hitler in the Soviet press!
A word of advice: Using the word "Totalitarian" on rev-left almost instantaneously dis-credits you, as everyone knows that "Totalitatarian" is a bullshit line, specifically invented to create a non-existant link between fascism and communism. I challenge you to find a mention of that word in the english language,
prior to 1922.
Actually, it does not. You Stalinists are the most discredited in the eyes of most people on revleft. There was even an anti-Stalinist line in the guidelines at one point. Even if it did not exist prior to 1922 (I don't know if it did nor not), there is an objective basis for the word.
As for the rest of that statement, maybe you should actually read some
Stalin, rather than pulling brain-dead misconceptions out of thin air.
Yet you never read Trotsky. Although I have been scrounging up Stalin's Works when I can find a volume for a fair price (the set is hard to find, and a full set is overpriced, often at US $400+ for a 13 volume set!). And I do have intentions of getting to reading these works as well.
Finally,the trotskyist grudgingly mentions that Capitalism is the real enemy.
There may be hope for you yet.
That was Trotsky's original analysis. Ultra-left fools have conveniently "forgotten" it to justify their turn to neo-idealism.
More later.