Leninism Vs. Trotskyism

[Green]

Hi this is my first post here so firstly i'd just like to say hi to everyone.

But can someone please explain to me the difference between Leninism and Trotskyism?

[black magick hustla]

lol the shitstorm is coming.

Be prepared for a horde of stalinists and maoists telling you how trotsky wasn't a leninist, and viceversa.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" versus "permanent revolution"

[bezdomni]

There have been numerous threads on this already. I suggest doing a search and seeing some previous arguments there have been on this.

I will tell you right now that you will not get a definite answer. I do not consider Trotskyists to actually be in agreement with Marxism-Leninism (and most will shy away from that term), however, any Trotskyist would consider themselves to be a 'Leninst'.

There are a lot of shortcomings of Trotskyism. Whenever people ask questions about Trotskyism, I always refer them to this book by a Kostas Mavrakis (a Greek Maoist) called "On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and History."

On Trotskyism (Part I) (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73i.html)
On Trotskyism (Part II) (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73ii.html)
On Trotskyism (Part III) (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73iii.html)

[Led Zeppelin]

Whenever people ask me about Stalinism I refer to this book by Trotsky: The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)

This FAQ on Marxism has a part about Stalinism which is pretty good: Stalinism (http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/129/64/#stalinism)

Here's another good work on what Stalinism is: Stalinism – How to Understand It and How to Fight It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1947/04/stalism.htm)

And here are some more writings on the issue:

Lenin and Trotsky: What they really stood for (http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/)
The Red Book: On the Moscow Trials (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/works/red/index.htm)

[leftspot]

There is also Carl Davidson's thorough and excellent pamphlet published in 1973, Left in Form, Right in Essence: A Critique of Contemporary Trotskyism (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/guardian/index.htm). It goes through the main dividing line questions between Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists historically. It was originally published as a series in the now-defunct Guardian (U.S.) newspaper.

[Guest1]

Trotskyism is simply an attempt to organize the workingclass without bureaucratic degeneration.

In otherwords, to build revolutionary workers' parties, on the basis of workers' democracy and class struggle, and to prepare workers to take power and establish a Socialist Federation that spans the globe. This also means fighting future Stalins and Maos by reclaiming the history of working class revolutions.

From burying the soviets, the workers' councils which once ran Russia after the revolution, to destroying the Spanish revolution, preferring Fascism to democratic workers' control of the factories, Stalin should be a lesson to all future workers' revolutions.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:49 am
"Revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" versus "permanent revolution"
What is the difference between both? Does this dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry not have the same conclusion as the permanent revolution?

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:40 am
Explain to me the difference between Leninism and Trotskyism?
These two aren't equivalent. It's kind of like asking (but not entirely) what the difference between science and chemistry are.

Trotsky and trotskyists claim that Trotsky built on Leninism. So Trotskyists will answer your question by saying "Nothing!" They beleive that Trotsky's theory (Permanent Revolution) was the logical extension of Leninism and that Lenin tacitly indorsed it in his "April Theses" (even though he had previously rejected the theory).

The theories that are in opposition to "Trotskyism" are Stalinism and Maoism which is a further extension of "Stalinism" (and both of which are simply expansions on Marxism-Leninism).

One thing that is complicating this issue is that modern "Trotskyism" sometimes has very little to do with what Trotsky said. So some people will yell about how "those damn trotskyites" are pieces of trash etc... when what these so-called "trostkyists" say has NOTHING to do with Trotsky. For instance, Trotsky was not a reformist. But a lot of "Trotskyist" orginizations are vehemently reformist. And this is where many other communists get the idea that Trotsky or "Trotskyism" is a reformist ideology.

Here is my basic disagreement with Trotsky himself. Trotsky believed that Russia could not develop Socialism by itself because it was too backward. He said that there needed to be revolutions in Western Europe to shield and sustain the Russian Socialist state. However, these revolutions didn't occur or were suppressed. So in the end, Stalin advocated that the Bolsheviks should attempt to build "socialism in one country" (Russia) while Trotsky held this to be impossible. So ultimately, Trotsky's analysis didn't allow for socialism to be developed in Russia which strikes me (and Lenin would agree) as reactionary.

Now before all the Trotsky fans come swinging clubs at me, I would like to say that while I disagree with Trotsky's theory (both Permanent Revolution and the opposition to socialism in one country) I respect him as a great revolutionary leader who dedicated his entire life to communism.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:49 am
"Revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" versus "permanent revolution"
I disagree. The theory of permanent revolution ends with a dictatorship of the proletariat. All that the theory says is that in under-developed countries, the Bourgoisie can not accomplish the historical tasks played by the bourgois revolution. Thus, in thes countries, the proletarian revolution must accomplish the tasks of the bourgois revolution and then continue beyond that (thus making the revolution "permanent") to accomplish the tasks of the proletarian revolution ie the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I don't think this is a bad theory it's just that I believe Mao's "New Democracy" is better for numerous reasons.

[Marxist1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:34 pm

Here is my basic disagreement with Trotsky himself. Trotsky believed that Russia could not develop Socialism by itself because it was too backward. He said that there needed to be revolutions in Western Europe to shield and sustain the Russian Socialist state. However, these revolutions didn't occur or were suppressed. So in the end, Stalin advocated that the Bolsheviks should attempt to build "socialism in one country" (Russia) while Trotsky held this to be impossible. So ultimately, Trotsky's analysis didn't allow for socialism to be developed in Russia which strikes me (and Lenin would agree) as reactionary.
Actually, Trotsky never wanted to prevent Socialism from developing in Russia without the European countries. He just knew that it would be impossible to do without the European countries (as it proved to be when the USSR fell). If Trotsky would have taken power he would have done much more than Stalin did to inspire revolution in Germany, and their is a good chance that if his plan of allying with the social democrats was implemented, Hitler would have never risen to power.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:34 pm
The theories that are in opposition to "Trotskyism" are Stalinism and Maoism which is a further extension of "Stalinism" (and both of which are simply <s>expansions</s> degenerations on Marxism-Leninism).
Fixed...

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by drosera99+November 27, 2007 03:34 pm--> (drosera99 &#064; November 27, 2007 03:34 pm)
"Revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" versus "permanent revolution"

I disagree. The theory of permanent revolution ends with a dictatorship of the proletariat. All that the theory says is that in under-developed countries, the Bourgoisie can not accomplish the historical tasks played by the bourgois revolution. Thus, in thes countries, the proletarian revolution must accomplish the tasks of the bourgois revolution and then continue beyond that (thus making the revolution "permanent") to accomplish the tasks of the proletarian revolution ie the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I don&#39;t think this is a bad theory it&#39;s just that I believe Mao&#39;s "New Democracy" is better for numerous reasons. [/b]
I think you&#39;re the one who&#39;s a bit confused here:


Here is my basic disagreement with Trotsky himself. Trotsky believed that Russia could not develop Socialism by itself because it was too backward. He said that there needed to be revolutions in Western Europe to shield and sustain the Russian Socialist state.

Actually, the crux behind "permanent revolution" is that Trotsky believed that capitalism had spread enough globally such that any country could trigger an outright socialist revolution. The underdeveloped countries would then accomplish the bourgeois-democratic tasks and then magically "reform" to achieve socialist tasks (skipping historical stages PLUS Bernstein&#39;s revisionism).

Unfortunately, your "New Democracy" stuff is Menshevism redux, because of the involvement of the "red bourgeoisie." The idea that the bourgeoisie could&#39;ve still carried out their own historical tasks, albeit with a nationalistic twist, started from Menshevism, went down to Mao&#39;s thought, and further down to Brezhnev&#39;s "national-democratic revolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev#Brezhnev_and_the_National_Democrat ic_Revolution):


Brezhnev
On the contrary, one of the social foundations of power would be formed by petty bourgeois classes, supported by part of the non-working owners class, groups which will ultimately resist the reinforcement of revolutionary change. The special nature of the balance between classes obliges the workers to share power with owners and/or other non-working classes.


Here are the key points of difference in Lenin&#39;s specific theory:

1) Don&#39;t count on even the "red bourgeoisie" to carry out the historical tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. [Agreed with "permanent revolution" folks here.]

2) Because of uneven development, Russia per se didn&#39;t have the material conditions to launch an outright socialist revolution, even if the European countries did the same. At best, it could attempt to compress the timeframe between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proper socialist revolution through something called "revolutionary democracy" - all within the aegis of some form of state capitalism. [Disagree with the "permanent revolution" folks here]

3) The "revolutionary-democratic" tasks should be carried out by an alliance between workers and peasants - and potentially other segments of the petit-bourgeoisie (not to be confused with the landlords and capitalists, among whom exist the so-called "red bourgeoisie") - and not under the leadership of the former that leans on the latter. [Disagree with the "permanent revolution" folks here]

4) Even after said compression, there would still be a separate socialist revolution within Russia itself around the corner. It is impossible for revolutionary-democratic regimes to "reform" themselves (because of the aforementioned state capitalism) and magically proceed to socialist tasks without further upheaval. [Disagree with the "permanent revolution" folks here]



Spectrum:

"Permanent revolution" (non-stage-ist but rather utopian AND revisionist per above) --- "Revolutionary democracy" (quite two-stage-ist, but "centrist") --- Bourgeois-democratic orthodoxy of the Mensheviks, Maoists, "National-democratic" folks like Brezhnev, etc. (two-stage-ist but historically outdated)

[Q]

Originally posted by Rakunin+November 27, 2007 10:00 pm--> (Rakunin &#064; November 27, 2007 10:00 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 05:49 am
"Revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" versus "permanent revolution"
What is the difference between both? Does this dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry not have the same conclusion as the permanent revolution? [/b]
Trotsky argued that the peasantry cannot take a leading role in the revolution, due to its limits as a class. The leadership must be in the hands of the working class, in coalition with the peasantry.

But yeah, Trotsky and Lenin are basically same same since the revolution.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)The underdeveloped countries would then accomplish the bourgeois-democratic tasks and then magically "reform" to achieve socialist tasks (skipping historical stages PLUS Bernstein&#39;s revisionism).[/b]

Hammer
2) Because of uneven development, Russia per se didn&#39;t have the material conditions to launch an outright socialist revolution, even if the European countries did the same. At best, it could attempt to compress the timeframe between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proper socialist revolution through something called "revolutionary democracy" - all within the aegis of some form of state capitalism.

"Magical reform" versus "compression in time"? Is that it? I need more time studying this subject because I&#39;m getting confused.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Rakunin+November 28, 2007 01:49 am--> (Rakunin &#064; November 28, 2007 01:49 am)
Originally posted by [email protected]
The underdeveloped countries would then accomplish the bourgeois-democratic tasks and then magically "reform" to achieve socialist tasks (skipping historical stages PLUS Bernstein&#39;s revisionism).

Hammer
2) Because of uneven development, Russia per se didn&#39;t have the material conditions to launch an outright socialist revolution, even if the European countries did the same. At best, it could attempt to compress the timeframe between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proper socialist revolution through something called "revolutionary democracy" - all within the aegis of some form of state capitalism.

"Magical reform" versus "compression in time"? Is that it? I need more time studying this subject because I&#39;m getting confused. [/b]
Let me explain (perhaps I was too Morse code :( ).

The basic idea behind "revolutionary democracy" is that it is possible to compress the combined timeframe of pre-monopoly capitalism, monopoly capitalism, and "reactionary stamocap" (the period of capitalism in decline). Not necessarily in a few years, but say, a few decades.

[The paradox here with Lenin, however, is that the Soviet government didn&#39;t pursue a rapid industrialization policy until Trotsky&#39;s views on the subject were appropriated by the Stalinist "center." The "compression" would have taken longer without the Stalinist drive. However, consider the death of Stalin and the lead years of the Khrushchev regime. That Khrushchev himself said that Russia would be ready for communism by 1980 had a grain of truth - namely that, by his time, with the lack of "socialist" primitive accumulation, the bureaucracy could&#39;ve been overthrown.]

"Magical reform" refers to the idea that, somehow, the working class can magically evolve the capitalist system into a socialist one after completing the bourgeois-democratic tasks. Gee, didn&#39;t Bernstein say something similar in his remarks? Furthermore, it also refers to the idea that perhaps the "revolutionary democracy" portion could be compressed into a few years. :lol:

Then again, Stalin declared "socialism" after the "completion" of a rather bureaucratic twist on the "revolutionary-democratic" tasks in a timeframe not unlike what Trotsky proposed.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Actually, Trotsky never wanted to prevent Socialism from developing in Russia without the European countries. He just knew that it would be impossible to do without the European countries (as it proved to be when the USSR fell). If Trotsky would have taken power he would have done much more than Stalin did to inspire revolution in Germany, and their is a good chance that if his plan of allying with the social democrats was implemented, Hitler would have never risen to power.
1.) I know he wasn&#39;t trying to prevent it. The question was, should we strengthen and fortify socialism in Russia or invest only in revolutions elsewhere. Stalin did not do enough to foment international revolution. But Trotsky didn&#39;t beleive that socialism could survive in the USSR (which it did for a time).

2.) There had already been an attempted communist revolution in germany that had been crushed. It happened in 1918 so that would have been Lenin&#39;s call and they were kinda busy with the Whites.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Hammer+November 28, 2007 02:37 am--> (Hammer @ November 28, 2007 02:37 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:34 pm

"Revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" versus "permanent revolution"

I disagree. The theory of permanent revolution ends with a dictatorship of the proletariat. All that the theory says is that in under-developed countries, the Bourgoisie can not accomplish the historical tasks played by the bourgois revolution. Thus, in thes countries, the proletarian revolution must accomplish the tasks of the bourgois revolution and then continue beyond that (thus making the revolution "permanent") to accomplish the tasks of the proletarian revolution ie the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I don&#39;t think this is a bad theory it&#39;s just that I believe Mao&#39;s "New Democracy" is better for numerous reasons.
I think you&#39;re the one who&#39;s a bit confused here:


Here is my basic disagreement with Trotsky himself. Trotsky believed that Russia could not develop Socialism by itself because it was too backward. He said that there needed to be revolutions in Western Europe to shield and sustain the Russian Socialist state.

Actually, the crux behind "permanent revolution" is that Trotsky believed that capitalism had spread enough globally such that any country could trigger an outright socialist revolution. The underdeveloped countries would then accomplish the bourgeois-democratic tasks and then magically "reform" to achieve socialist tasks (skipping historical stages PLUS Bernstein&#39;s revisionism).

Unfortunately, your "New Democracy" stuff is Menshevism redux, because of the involvement of the "red bourgeoisie." The idea that the bourgeoisie could&#39;ve still carried out their own historical tasks, albeit with a nationalistic twist, started from Menshevism, went down to Mao&#39;s thought, and further down to Brezhnev&#39;s "national-democratic revolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev#Brezhnev_and_the_National_Democrat ic_Revolution):


Brezhnev
On the contrary, one of the social foundations of power would be formed by petty bourgeois classes, supported by part of the non-working owners class, groups which will ultimately resist the reinforcement of revolutionary change. The special nature of the balance between classes obliges the workers to share power with owners and/or other non-working classes.


Here are the key points of difference in Lenin&#39;s specific theory:

1) Don&#39;t count on even the "red bourgeoisie" to carry out the historical tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. [Agreed with "permanent revolution" folks here.]

2) Because of uneven development, Russia per se didn&#39;t have the material conditions to launch an outright socialist revolution, even if the European countries did the same. At best, it could attempt to compress the timeframe between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proper socialist revolution through something called "revolutionary democracy" - all within the aegis of some form of state capitalism. [Disagree with the "permanent revolution" folks here]

3) The "revolutionary-democratic" tasks should be carried out by an alliance between workers and peasants - and potentially other segments of the petit-bourgeoisie (not to be confused with the landlords and capitalists, among whom exist the so-called "red bourgeoisie") - and not under the leadership of the former that leans on the latter. [Disagree with the "permanent revolution" folks here]

4) Even after said compression, there would still be a separate socialist revolution within Russia itself around the corner. It is impossible for revolutionary-democratic regimes to "reform" themselves (because of the aforementioned state capitalism) and magically proceed to socialist tasks without further upheaval. [Disagree with the "permanent revolution" folks here]



Spectrum:

"Permanent revolution" (non-stage-ist but rather utopian AND revisionist per above) --- "Revolutionary democracy" (quite two-stage-ist, but "centrist") --- Bourgeois-democratic orthodoxy of the Mensheviks, Maoists, "National-democratic" folks like Brezhnev, etc. (two-stage-ist but historically outdated) [/b]
I think you&#39;re misreading Trotsky hear, comrade. He never said that the under-developed countries would "magically reform" into socialist countries. He thought that in nations where there were semi-feudal conditions, the bourgoisie could not accomplish their own revolutions. Thus the proletariat must accomplish the bourgoisie tasks (ie overthrow monarchies etc...) and the historical task of the proletarian revolution (the establishment of a DoP). So yes he is saying that "skipping" the stage of capitalist oppression is ok.

And as for New Democracy being Menshevist, that is pretty absurd. If by Menshevist you mean that Mao recognized the need for the involvement in China of the peasentry (who, yes, are petty-bourgoisie) than yes. New Democracy states that in under-developed countries, the proletariat can not accomplish their task alone and must lead all of the revolutionary classes (which yes includes certain sections of the petty bourgoisie) in to People&#39;s War in order to emancipate the masses.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:04 am
1.) I know he wasn&#39;t trying to prevent it. The question was, should we strengthen and fortify socialism in Russia or invest only in revolutions elsewhere. Stalin did not do enough to foment international revolution. But Trotsky didn&#39;t beleive that socialism could survive in the USSR (which it did for a time).

2.) There had already been an attempted communist revolution in germany that had been crushed. It happened in 1918 so that would have been Lenin&#39;s call and they were kinda busy with the Whites.
1. He did not believe that socialism could not survive in Russia without the help of other countries. He believed, and quite rightly, that it could not be built in the first place without material aid from more advanced socialist nations.

2. The Spartacist uprising was just one expression of the revolutionary wave that swept Europe immediately after the October Revolution. There were two more revolutions in Germany alone, the 1921 March Action and the 1923 uprising in Bavaria. There was also the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and abortive attempts at revolution in Italy. Even after this revolutionary wave had ebbed in Europe, there was still the attempted revolution in China... as a Maoist you should know what happened to that...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:19 pm
And as for New Democracy being Menshevist, that is pretty absurd. If by Menshevist you mean that Mao recognized the need for the involvement in China of the peasentry (who, yes, are petty-bourgoisie) than yes. New Democracy states that in under-developed countries, the proletariat can not accomplish their task alone and must lead all of the revolutionary classes (which yes includes certain sections of the petty bourgoisie) in to People&#39;s War in order to emancipate the masses.
^^^ Not at all. Mao had four classes in mind: workers, peasants and other petit-bourgeoisie, intelligentsia, and "red bourgeoisie" (yes, actual landlords and capitalists, albeit supposedly sympathetic to the revolution).

At the very "worst," what Lenin called for was a petit-bourgeois revolution (because, in Russia&#39;s "class alliance," the peasantry formed the demographic majority). At no point did he ever consider including Russia&#39;s equivalent of the "red bourgeoisie" (again, anti-war and/or "patriotic" landlords and capitalists).

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:30 am
^^^ Not at all. Mao had four classes in mind: workers, peasants and other petit-bourgeoisie, intelligentsia, and "red bourgeoisie" (yes, actual landlords and capitalists, albeit supposedly sympathetic to the revolution).

At the very "worst," what Lenin called for was a petit-bourgeois revolution (because, in Russia&#39;s "class alliance," the peasantry formed the demographic majority). At no point did he ever consider including Russia&#39;s equivalent of the "red bourgeoisie" (again, anti-war and/or "patriotic" landlords and capitalists).
I understand that.

What is wrong with allowing sympathetic elements of the bourgoisie to participate in the revolution?

Edit: And how does that make it Menshavist in any way?

[Herman]

Let me explain (perhaps I was too Morse code )

Yeah, explaining the different theories without mentioning a bit on what was happening or the history of the Russian revolution is going to make it difficult for him to understand what is the "bourgeois-democratic revolution" or "revolutionary democracy" (it is difficult unless you explained the situation of Russia - the Tsar, semi-feudalist society with older relations being slowly destroyed by newer capitalist ones and the incapability of the bourgeoisie to further their own interests&#33;).

By the way, I agree with what you said all the way above.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 29, 2007 02:30 am
1. He did not believe that socialism could not survive in Russia without the help of other countries. He believed, and quite rightly, that it could not be built in the first place without material aid from more advanced socialist nations.

2. The Spartacist uprising was just one expression of the revolutionary wave that swept Europe immediately after the October Revolution. There were two more revolutions in Germany alone, the 1921 March Action and the 1923 uprising in Bavaria. There was also the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and abortive attempts at revolution in Italy. Even after this revolutionary wave had ebbed in Europe, there was still the attempted revolution in China... as a Maoist you should know what happened to that...
1.)Your right. I used the wrong word. My point is that he was wrong, IMHO. I believe that socialism was built in Russia up until the seizure of power by Krushchev.

2.) All of which were on Lenin&#39;s watch. My point here is that Stalin is not responsible for those crushed revolutions in Germany. Of course there were others and he could have done more, particularly in Spain. I&#39;m not saying their weren&#39;t other revolutions so I&#39;m not quite sure what you&#39;re trying to get at here...

[Die Neue Zeit]

"I believe that socialism was built in Russia."

First off, I have to disagree with you here, because Lenin himself did NOT build socialism or even that prerequisite for socialism known as the DOTP (and I say this as a "Leninist"):

Lenin, Stalin, and post-Stalin (Khrushchev): "Primitive stamocap" revisited (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73454)

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:48 am
"I believe that socialism was built in Russia."

First off, I have to disagree with you here, because Lenin himself did NOT build socialism or even that prerequisite for socialism known as the DOTP (and I say this as a "Leninist"):
So, what about you makes you a Leninist if you don&#39;t uphold Lenin&#39;s revolution? You seem to disagree with Trotskists, Stalinists, and Maoists so the other question is... what do you beleive exactly?

[Random Precision]

2.) All of which were on Lenin&#39;s watch. My point here is that Stalin is not responsible for those crushed revolutions in Germany. Of course there were others and he could have done more, particularly in Spain. I&#39;m not saying their weren&#39;t other revolutions so I&#39;m not quite sure what you&#39;re trying to get at here...

No. The 1927 Shanghai Massacre took place under Stalin&#39;s watch and was caused by his and Bukharin&#39;s ridiculous policy of making the Chinese Communist Party join forces, and even unite entirely, with the Kuomintang. Chiang Kai-shek was even given a seat on the Comintern&#33; This fuckup is just the one very visible counter-revolutionary move the Stalin bureaucracy made.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by drosera99+November 29, 2007 06:09 pm--> (drosera99 &#064; November 29, 2007 06:09 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 12:48 am
"I believe that socialism was built in Russia."

First off, I have to disagree with you here, because Lenin himself did NOT build socialism or even that prerequisite for socialism known as the DOTP (and I say this as a "Leninist"):
So, what about you makes you a Leninist if you don&#39;t uphold Lenin&#39;s revolution? You seem to disagree with Trotskists, Stalinists, and Maoists so the other question is... what do you beleive exactly? [/b]
On the contrary, I do uphold the idea that "revolutionary democracy" (WITHOUT the participation of the historically obstructionist "red bourgeoisie") was necessary for Russia. I also uphold that, in the socialist revolution proper, an international vanguard party, consisting of the most politically conscious sections of the working class, is needed. For the latter, I like Lenin consider organization to be a "separate question" because of its historical importance.

I just happen to be a "Leninist" who doesn&#39;t belong to one of the spinoff schools of thought. I have stated why I oppose Trotskyist revisionism (skipping historical stages and compressed reform at the same time), Stalin&#39;s revisionism ("socialism in one country"), and Maoist revisionism (historically obstructionist "red bourgeoisie" stuff plus practical overemphasis on the peasantry).



Now, to answer your original question regarding the historically obstructionist "red bourgeoisie": You should check out the history of "National Bolshevism" during the Russian civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik#Russia).

[Dros]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 30, 2007 03:15 am

2.) All of which were on Lenin&#39;s watch. My point here is that Stalin is not responsible for those crushed revolutions in Germany. Of course there were others and he could have done more, particularly in Spain. I&#39;m not saying their weren&#39;t other revolutions so I&#39;m not quite sure what you&#39;re trying to get at here...

No. The 1927 Shanghai Massacre took place under Stalin&#39;s watch and was caused by his and Bukharin&#39;s ridiculous policy of making the Chinese Communist Party join forces, and even unite entirely, with the Kuomintang. Chiang Kai-shek was even given a seat on the Comintern&#33; This fuckup is just the one very visible counter-revolutionary move the Stalin bureaucracy made.
If I remember correclty, the point I&#39;ve been making the whole time is that Stalin can&#39;t be held responsible for the failure of the German revolution(s). So the China example it totally irrelevant to the very specific point that I was trying to make here. I have actively criticized Stalin for opposing and limiting revolutions in other countries. While your example is pertinent to this, I think the Spanish one more closely illustrates this point. I am not uncritical of Stalin or his lack of willingness to support socialist revolutions in other countries. Many of his policies were dreadful. I criticize and learn from his mistakes within their historical context and at the same time uphold his successes.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:58 am
Now, to answer your original question regarding the historically obstructionist "red bourgeoisie": You should check out the history of "National Bolshevism" during the Russian civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik#Russia).
So what? My point was not that we should let any bourgois fascist into the party, but that the revolution may need to use elements of the bourgoisie during the revolution in order to succeed. Not everyone in the revolution will be a communist. One of the roles of the Vanguard is to struggle with these groups of revolutionary non-communists before, during, and after the revolution with regards to line and the science of communism.

I don&#39;t really see the usefullness or importance of this example. Perhaps you could explain your point a little more.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Jacob Richter
"Magical reform" refers to the idea that, somehow, the working class can magically evolve the capitalist system into a socialist one after completing the bourgeois-democratic tasks. Gee, didn&#39;t Bernstein say something similar in his remarks? Furthermore, it also refers to the idea that perhaps the "revolutionary democracy" portion could be compressed into a few years.

The proletariat doesn&#39;t convert the semi-feodal system into a socialist system, it would want to, but it cannot reach the stage socialism.