Why are Trotskyists so anti-bureaucracy?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Disclaimer: A more polemical version of this thread may be in the works once the "Revolutionary Marxists" user group gets going (replacing the word "so" with a more polemical adverb).

That being said, why are Trotskyists so anti-bureaucracy? I don't recall Trotsky being as anti-bureaucracy as modern Trotskyists.

[Mara_Suomessa]

Disclaimer: A more polemical version of this thread may be in the works once the "Revolutionary Marxists" user group gets going (replacing the word "so" with a more polemical adverb).

That being said, why are Trotskyists so anti-bureaucracy? I don't recall Trotsky being as anti-bureaucracy as modern Trotskyists.


Most Trots have a disgustingly romanticized view of the historical Trotsky. They fail to see that while he was in power he was just as much of a centrist as Stalin, and when he was out of power initially he was a coward when it came to tackling the rising bureaucracy (and the centralization of power around Stalin). Part of the problem is that they read "The Revolution Betrayed" without reading other accounts of the Revolution itself, and then get Trotsky's life from his objective (not the sarcasm) autobiography. A few lofty phrases thrown here and there, utopian "what-ifs", and distorted revisionist history; there you have Trotsky's contribution to the left post Russian Revolution.

So I think a lot of Trots, especially the more liberalistic ones (and I use that not in the sense of them being liberals but in the sense of the non-cultish types), are ideologically confused. They identify with Trotsky as a historical figure because of his "battle" against the bureaucracy, but at the same time don't identify with strict Bolshevik party organizational methods. My perspective is that a lot of Trots are actually council-communists looking for some sort of historical basis in the Russian experience. Even some of the more cultish sects like SEPtic attempt to portray Trotsky as some liberal saviour (their take on Trotsky's take on art and revolution is very indicative of this), whereas the historical Trotsky was much much different. This confusion has been my experience; I started out as a Trot with council communist leanings, and since then have gotten rid of Trotsky and now I identify with anarcho-communism.

[Louis Pio]

Dunno what to write in reply to a post like Mara's, it's just so remote from anything communist. A but of "I have seen, I have met, yadda yadda yadda" and so on"

Now of course Trotsky was never anti-bureaucracy as such, a bureaucracy are needed in some ways. But when it end up getting all power like in the USSR it is of course wrong. From Mara's post it's clear he hasn't really read "the revolution betrayed" since anyone reading it knows it's firast and foremost a defence of USSR, now a big problem in USSR was of course that Stalin ended up basing his system of many old menshevics that only joined after the revolution, the stalinist hero in the cases against the old bolshevics, the accuser Vychinsky is a prime example of that.

Anyway in regards to your original question I think you should look at the history, Trotsky had to work with what he had, and many of them were strange types, especially in Europe. Which was what ended up shapeing the 4. International after the war, a notably exception was the english RCP lead by Jimmy Deane, Jock Haston and Ted Grant, by countering the official classcollaborationist policy of the CP during the war they ended up having quite an impact among both the workers and in the armed forces (most notably the 8. Army, the desert one were quite a big group of trotskyists were elected the the "soldier parliament" the generals were forced to set up to counter discontent). The official CP policy at that time were, classcollaboration against Germany, just as before they war they had argued to support NSDAP against "english capitalism" (stalinists always been good at changeing stands quickly when ordered too, even a few examples of some doing it during spechees).
In the places were the 4. international had a very large working class representation like for exampel Vietnam, alot of cadres were shot by stalinists when they had to pursue their policy of class collaboration with "the national bourgiosie" (old menshevic theory they picked up).

So with this mishmash of forces it's no wonder that some selfproclaimed trotskyists are closer to "leftcommunism" than the ideas of Trotsky. Another point could possibly also be that some went to much in the other direction in an effort to counter that mounstrous carricature of communism that evolved in the USSR.

[Mara_Suomessa]

Dunno what to write in reply to a post like Mara's, it's just so remote from anything communist. A but of "I have seen, I have met, yadda yadda yadda" and so on"

I can only speak to my experiences, and you can only speak to yours. The question was asking for subjective inquiry, I related my experiences. Is my response remote from anything objective? Duh. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any sort of objective findings on left-communist trends within the Trotskyist movement, and until either of us can produce something, we're stuck at square one. You can speak beyond your experiences if you like (which is a very Trotskyist thing to do), but I'll stick to mine.



Now of course Trotsky was never anti-bureaucracy as such, a bureaucracy are needed in some ways. But when it end up getting all power like in the USSR it is of course wrong. From Mara's post it's clear he hasn't really read "the revolution betrayed" since anyone reading it knows it's firast and foremost a defence of USSR, now a big problem in USSR was of course that Stalin ended up basing his system of many old menshevics that only joined after the revolution, the stalinist hero in the cases against the old bolshevics, the accuser Vychinsky is a prime example of that.

I have read "The Revolution Betrayed", and despite what you say I'll argue that it's primarily a historical work. The defence of the USSR is intertwined with reasons why one should defend the USSR, most of which relate to the history of the Russian Revolution. Even from the first chapter we learn that production has improved from a specific historic point, and the different phases of the increases in production are put within a historical context. I don't see how you can argue that the history isn't in there; chapter 5 is all about the history of the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy. The entire book is essentially an economic history of the USSR with moral overtones.


Anyway in regards to your original question I think you should look at the history, Trotsky had to work with what he had, and many of them were strange types, especially in Europe. Which was what ended up shapeing the 4. International after the war, a notably exception was the english RCP lead by Jimmy Deane, Jock Haston and Ted Grant, by countering the official classcollaborationist policy of the CP during the war they ended up having quite an impact among both the workers and in the armed forces (most notably the 8. Army, the desert one were quite a big group of trotskyists were elected the the "soldier parliament" the generals were forced to set up to counter discontent). The official CP policy at that time were, classcollaboration against Germany, just as before they war they had argued to support NSDAP against "english capitalism" (stalinists always been good at changeing stands quickly when ordered too, even a few examples of some doing it during spechees).
In the places were the 4. international had a very large working class representation like for exampel Vietnam, alot of cadres were shot by stalinists when they had to pursue their policy of class collaboration with "the national bourgiosie" (old menshevic theory they picked up).

So with this mishmash of forces it's no wonder that some selfproclaimed trotskyists are closer to "leftcommunism" than the ideas of Trotsky. Another point could possibly also be that some went to much in the other direction in an effort to counter that mounstrous carricature of communism that evolved in the USSR.

And in the end we're saying things that may in fact be the same! I argue that many Trots are confused left-communists, and you put it into a historical context describing it as the outcome of the odd-bunch that constituted the Fourth International. You elaborated on something I speculated on. Congratulations. Was your post just a retaliation for a Trotsky jab?

[Louis Pio]

You can speak beyond your experiences if you like (which is a very Trotskyist thing to do), but I'll stick to mine.


Well most would say it's a communist thing to do. We don't read theoretical works for fun (well some do) but to learn from them. Personally I didn't participate in the russian revolution or the paris commune and somehow I doubt you did (unless you are like Christopher Walken in Highlander or a vampire for that matter) still I can learn from it. If your argument is taken to it's logical conclusion you actually mean revolutionary theory is useless.


And in the end we're saying things that may in fact be the same! I argue that many Trots are confused left-communists, and you put it into a historical context describing it as the outcome of the odd-bunch that constituted the Fourth International. You elaborated on something I speculated on. Congratulations. Was your post just a retaliation for a Trotsky jab?

Well you are right that many selfproclaimed trotskyists are more of "leftcommunists". And yes a large part of my post was a jab, course I seldom meet Stalinists outside the net, so from lack of other I can only debate you here. And alot of the ones I then end up meeting in political life now has nice comfortable positions in the unions so they are more like "well we most be practical, not make to hard demands follow the system etc etc, But still Stalin was a good guy"
Hate those types, better like discussing with people like you who nomatter how ideologically confused I find you at least haven't sold your soul to the reformists.

[Mara_Suomessa]

Well most would say it's a communist thing to do. We don't read theoretical works for fun (well some do) but to learn from them. Personally I didn't participate in the russian revolution or the paris commune and somehow I doubt you did (unless you are like Christopher Walken in Highlander or a vampire for that matter) still I can learn from it. If your argument is taken to it's logical conclusion you actually mean revolutionary theory is useless.


There's a difference between speaking outside your experience and discussing revolutionary theory. For instance, regarding this post, I wasn't willing to make blanket statements because I can only speak to my experience. I don't see how reading revolutionary theory even comes into play here... but that being said, if one can't experience/grasp a concrete example of the theory being discussed it probably won't resonate within one's thoughts. Abstracts are only useful to a point.



Well you are right that many selfproclaimed trotskyists are more of "leftcommunists". And yes a large part of my post was a jab, course I seldom meet Stalinists outside the net, so from lack of other I can only debate you here. And alot of the ones I then end up meeting in political life now has nice comfortable positions in the unions so they are more like "well we most be practical, not make to hard demands follow the system etc etc, But still Stalin was a good guy"
Hate those types, better like discussing with people like you who nomatter how ideologically confused I find you at least haven't sold your soul to the reformists.

Well, I'm not a Stalinist. I'm not a Trot either though... I love how it always comes down to that binary distinction. I refer to myself as a non-denominational commy, but I think you could classify me as a left-communist or anarcho-commy. I consider Trotskyism and Stalinism to be two sides of the same coin. Who knows; ideology is a stupid game to play.

Now, it can't be denied that quite a few progressive things happened in the USSR under Stalin; whether or not that was because of or inspite of is the topic of debate, and I don't want to hijack this thread.

As for your last thing there, reform is revolution. Both minimal and maximal programs have a place to play; by demanding reforms you push the state to the limits at which point it either collapses or transforms itself. But another topic for another thread.

To turn over a new leaf, I'm envious that you live in Copenhagen. I had the pleasure of spending a few days there over the summer... visited the Tivoli, the Parliament, the Little Mermaid, etc. . Really nice place.

[Louis Pio]

You really like Copenhagen? Well for a few days I guess it could be nice, however our wellfare state are being rapidly dismantled and civilliberties taken away, the cops can now stripsearch you in all of the town if they please. Anyway im derailing the thread so I will stop:)
Never heard about a non-denominational commy before so you are the first I met. However have to add that while you might find ideology stupid im pretty sure you maybe unconsciously have one, and the unconscious part always end up making it incoherent.

[gilhyle]

The questsion why are trotskyists so anti-bureaucracy is hardly an accurate generalisation from the history of Trotskyism when you see Pabloites, Sparticists, the American SWP etc taking the defence of the USSR or other stalinist states to the point of political sympathy for the defence of the bureaucracy. By the same token other trotskyists, eg followers of Lambert in France, have taken their criticism of the bureaucracy to the point of falling down on the defence of the USSR.

Certainly, Trotsky relied on 'left communist tendencies to build the 4th Inernational. They were - outside the USSR - the only forces available to him That has meant that throughout its history trotskyism has constantly degenerated into ulta-leftist sectarianism and adventurism.

Such an ultrleftist view sees bureaucracy as the main threat to revolutionary politics, rather than seieing it as a secondary threat. This is a kind of ultimatist view - that an imperfect revolution is no revolution at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I didn't know left-communists demonized bureaucracy, too. :confused:

From my readings of ICC material, they just brush it aside as state capitalism (which it is, and I've explained it here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-stalin-and-t66656/index.html) from my perspective and not theirs) and moved on.

I do have some "ultimatist" views:

1) As discussed before between the two of us, a rapid revolution everywhere, with the acknowledgement that it may start in a middle-of-the-road country like somewhere in Latin America; and
2) The need for an international socialist party proper (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index.html) to lead this revolution.

[ecoTROTSKYIST]

Sup comrades :D

To answer, or at least relate to, the topic: yes Trotskyists are anti-bureaucracy. As are Leninists, Bolsheviks and Marxists. In fact all comrades that understand the core principles of socialism would be anti-bureaucracy; which is probably why so many Stalinists support it (bureaucracy).

Bureaucracy is only necessary when a power, namely a specific class or elite element of society, acts in a way directly contrasting, or at least a way which does not operate in line, with the view and needs of the majority.

As Trotsky explains: “it is not the tasks of defense which create a military and state bureaucracy, but the class structure of a society carried over into the organizations of defense”.

The abolishment of bureaucracy is supported by Trotsky, Lenin, Engels, Marx...in fact it seems to be supported by all prominent Marxist thinkers other than Stalin, (with a few exceptions). That is if Stalin can be called a Marxist at all. Seeing as how he and the ideology he created, or rather deformed, directly contradicts Marxism; that is in relation to his tactics, ideals and understanding or interpretation.


Now, it can't be denied that quite a few progressive things happened in the USSR under Stalin

Comrade, what progressive things are you referring to? Yes the situation for people improved, but that was not due to Stalin, but rather to nationalisation; (plus that the situation couldn’t really get any worse for people then).

In fact Stalin actually hindered, quite dramatically, the progression of socialism in the USSR. A hindrance which inevitably lead to the betrayal of the Bolshevik revolution and of the principles of Marxism, and did more damage to true socialism then has ever been done before.


...an imperfect revolution is no revolution at all.

Comrade, I believe this statement to be incorrect. It is not that bureaucracy leads to an imperfect revolution; it’s that bureaucracy is entirely unnecessary and is, at the very least, a contradiction of the methods laid out by Lenin. Bureaucracy can only lessen the benefits and progression of socialism; it cannot aid them in any way.

Later comrades :D

[Louis Pio]

the only forces available to him That has meant that throughout its history trotskyism has constantly degenerated into ulta-leftist sectarianism and adventurism.


True to a cetain extent, however I think RCP in Britain was the example on how it didnøt need to be that way. The Vietnamese and Sri lankan groups being other examples. In Vietnam the stalinists unfortunately managed to kill most of the revolutionary cadres. In Sri Lanka and Bolivia it was otherwise, there the 4. international won the majority. Later some of the leaders of those parties ended up being bureaucracised, just like all those ex communists/stalinists that are leaders of many european trade unions

[INDK]

"To the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him."
- Karl Marx

[bezdomni]

Good question. I think this actually exposes a big contradiction in the trotskyist line. On the one hand, Trotsky's rhetoric is all against the big bad "stalinist bureaucracy"...while on the other hand, Trotsky was probably the most bureaucratic member of the Central Committee.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73i.html#s4

^ On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and History, Chapter Four: An Anti-Bureaucratic Bureaucratism

[Organic Revolution]

The real question is, why is anyone pro-bureaucracy?

[Comrade Rage]

The real question is, why is anyone pro-bureaucracy?I don't think anyone is in favor of creating a huge bureacracy. We may be in favor of a revolutionary state but we don't want to create a humongous Khruschev-Brezhnev bureaucracy.

[Holden Caulfield]

Good question. I think this actually exposes a big contradiction in the trotskyist line. On the one hand, Trotsky's rhetoric is all against the big bad "stalinist bureaucracy"


The real question is, why is anyone pro-bureaucracy?

i am not anti-bureaucracy, and i am a Trotskyist, i am against Stalinist bureaucracy and the abuse of power with it, as Trotskyists i think we stand for democratic centralism, thus do support some form of bureaucracy however a bureaucracy to carry out bureaucractic duties not hold power or to build up 'bases' of power through their positions so that they are in effect a behind the scenes dictator, which can bypass the democratic workings of the party, we stand for democracy in the party first, and a bureaucracy as a nessacary evil to help it function (with out having constant splits due to bickering over petty details etc..)

bureaucracy is needed to hold together the party mechanisms and the lack of this is the cause of the failings of many Trotskyist ventures, whereas the abundance of bureaucracy leads to the sucess of
tyrannical authoratarian leftists such as Stalin

[bezdomni]

, as Trotskyists i think we stand for democratic centralism

Oh? So is that why Trotsky demanded the Central Committee publish Lenin's testament, despite the requests of Lenin himself? Or formed factions, despite the resolution against factionalism (supported, at the time, by Trotsky) made in the tenth party congress?

Trotskyists don't understand what democratic centralism is, that's why you're always splitting!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Trotskyism isn't just what Trotsky said and did throughout his life. We are not Jesuits!

And we don't split because of a misunderstanding of democratic centralism but in spite of a good understanding of it lol, ah well.

[Devrim]

but I haven't seen any sort of objective findings on left-communist trends within the Trotskyist movement, and until either of us can produce something, we're stuck at square one.

During the Second World War, and its aftermath there was a move in parts of the Trotskyist movement towards left communism. Prominent names would include Aghis Stinas, Grandizo Munis, and of course Natalia Sedova, as well as organisations like the RKD in Germany. If one wanted to stretch the definition a little the Johnson-Forest tendency, Cornelius Castoriadis/Paul Cardan, and Tony Cliff broke with Trotskysim in the same period, over the same issues.

It is also true that left communism, and Trotskyism have similar roots (the degeneration of the Third International), and in its earlier days what became 'Trotskyism', the international left opposition hadn't defined itself as 'Trotskyist', and there was some collaberation.


So with this mishmash of forces it's no wonder that some selfproclaimed trotskyists are closer to "leftcommunism" than the ideas of Trotsky.
...Well you are right that many selfproclaimed trotskyists are more of "leftcommunists".

I don't think that any of the Trotskyists today are close to left communism. Based on this, and your other comments I don't think you know what 'left communism' is, Teis.


Certainly, Trotsky relied on 'left communist tendencies to build the 4th Inernational. They were - outside the USSR - the only forces available to him That has meant that throughout its history trotskyism has constantly degenerated into ulta-leftist sectarianism and adventurism.

This is not true either. Trotsky abandoned joint work with the left communists well before the formation of the 4th International. The problem with the groups that formed the 4th International was that many of them were little more than left social democrats.

...

To answer the original question, the reason that the Trotskyists have to go on about the bureaucracy, is that they maintain that the USSR was a deformed worker's state. Therefore it is necessary to go on about what made it different from an undeformed workers state. In Trotskyist eyes the bureaucracy.

Devrim

[gilhyle]

It is also true that left communism, and Trotskyism have similar roots (the degeneration of the Third International), and in its earlier days what became 'Trotskyism', the international left opposition hadn't defined itself as 'Trotskyist', and there was some collaberation...........

This is not true either. Trotsky abandoned joint work with the left communists well before the formation of the 4th International. The problem with the groups that formed the 4th International was that many of them were little more than left social democrats.

Devrim
Given your first comment, its hard to see that your second comment is justified. The point is about looking at the particular layer of militants that Trotsky relied on - that was a layer of militants, young petit bourgeois (broadly defined) in social character, disengaged from the organisations of the working class, inclined to seek perfect revolutions, inclined to reject necessary alliances. Trotsky won certain people to his politics who would otherwise have ended up in left communist-type positions and retained left-communist approaches

If I understnad your politics a bit, you dont share these pejorative judgements, but this isnt the place to get into that. My poiint is that that layer always had a tendency to interpret Trotsky's analysis in a particular way, one which emphasised direct democracy as an immediate prospect after seizure and which emphasised the transformative and immediate restructuring of the state.

This tendency wasnt the only one within Trotskyism, but it was one trend - and still is. It interprets Trotsky's critique of bureaucracy as having certain implications which for Trotsky it did not.

[bezdomni]

Trotskyism isn't just what Trotsky said and did throughout his life. We are not Jesuits! Yeah, but what Trotsky objectively did was violate the democratic centralism of the CPSU by not understanding what democratic centralism means, viewed Leninism as a mere set of organization principles (rather than an extension of marxist theory in the era of imperialism) by misunderstanding what leninism is, and establish a crappy leftist tendency based around supporting "workers states" (even the deformed and degenerate ones!) by not understanding what marxism is.

also he never really broke with menshevism

[Devrim]

Given your first comment, its hard to see that your second comment is justified. The point is about looking at the particular layer of militants that Trotsky relied on - that was a layer of militants, young petit bourgeois (broadly defined) in social character, disengaged from the organisations of the working class, inclined to seek perfect revolutions, inclined to reject necessary alliances. Trotsky won certain people to his politics who would otherwise have ended up in left communist-type positions and retained left-communist approaches

The problem is though that this isn't the layer of militants, which the communist left came from. The communist left arose in the countries where the working class was closet to revolution, Germany, and Italy, and was overwhelmingly working class. Even Lenin admits as much in his tirades against them. He characterised their politics as petite bourgeois. He is not referring to their class origins. In fact he is quite clear that it was something that affected the best worker militants.

There is no basis of reality in what you say.

Devrim

[gilhyle]

I dont see that your point affects mine at all - which is about where in scoeity Trotskyism has its social base...you have a very particular concept of 'left communists' which isnt the same one I am using. I am using the term to refer to a trend that can be traced back to the 1840s, appears again in the Second Internnational as Die Junge and goes on....etc, etc, sectarians in their various forms. However, Im not so much interested in differentiating that trend into its elements (one of which is very important to you) as raising the question of where Trotskyism came from. To illustrate the point: the stratum to which I refer was also the base from which the 'right communists' of the twenties and thirties (who thereafter mostly disappeared) also came.

You have a very particular concept of what it means to be within and be embedded within the class which I dont share and that is at the heeart of the difference between us. My view would tend to be shared by most trotskyists which allows what I say to be relevant to Trotskyists. To you its a threatening view because if it was correct, your whole view of revolutionary politics would be wrong - the difference between you and me is another issue than the one being discussed in this thread.

[Devrim]

you have a very particular concept of 'left communists' which isnt the same one I am using. I am using the term to refer to a trend that can be traced back to the 1840s, appears again in the Second Internnational as Die Junge and goes on....
My concept of the term left communists is the left wing of the Third International and its political descendent. It is the one which is generally used today, was used by Lenin, and the left communists themselves. Yours seems quite bizarre.


You have a very particular concept of what it means to be within and be embedded within the class which I dont share and that is at the heeart of the difference between us

I didn't even talk of being embedded within the class. I was talking about the sociological base of the left communist militants. It was, and is overwhelmingly working class.


the difference between you and me is another issue than the one being discussed in this thread.

Yes, I made my point on the main issue. I brought the other things up to correct misunderstandings about what the communist left is/was.

Devrim

[RNK]

Not to mention the fallacy of modern-day Trotskyist organizations who preach for entryism -- ie, joining a bourgeois mass political party and attempting to transform it, through agitation and propaganda, into a worker-oriented party, and then excusing this blatant counter-revolutionary move by claiming that when the worker's realize bourgeois liberal parties can not make their lives better, the masses will be ready for a "truely" revolutionary movement.

It seems to me that this theory holds no basis in modern reality, and is a throwback to the Bolshevik's successful take-over and seizure of state power. What they mainly fail to realize is that politics have changed greatly over the past 100 years and that while that strategy worked in transitional Russia, it can not simply be forced upon every state and be expected to work as if it were 1917.

[gilhyle]

My concept of the term left communists is the left wing of the Third International and its political descendent. It is the one which is generally used today, was used by Lenin, and the left communists themselves. Yours seems quite bizarre.

I accept that - few people would link the various trends together which I link to gether. But bizarre is not always bad. (actually I seem to recall Lenin linking the Third Internaional Left Communists to earlier trends) However be all that as it may.

Entriism as you (RNK) describe it is not characteristic of Trotsky - see his Crisis in the French Section. It was characteristic of Militant in the UK and fits in entirely with the Marxist characterisation of ultra lefts as only the other face of opportunism. Thus the method of the Healyite Club could lead both to opportunist Militant and the sectarian WRP

[Coggeh]

Not to mention the fallacy of modern-day Trotskyist organizations who preach for entryism -- ie, joining a bourgeois mass political party and attempting to transform it, through agitation and propaganda, into a worker-oriented party, and then excusing this blatant counter-revolutionary move by claiming that when the worker's realize bourgeois liberal parties can not make their lives better, the masses will be ready for a "truely" revolutionary movement.
Theirs nothing wrong with being in touch with the working class once in a while , should probably try it . Liberal bourgeoise parties such as labour ones are sometimes directly related to trade unions which we also need to agitate . We( and im speaking really about my personnel position maybe some others could clear it up after) don't support entryism into parties like Labour when we think they've completely lost touch with the main stream working class and have swung too far right . Thus resulting in setting up an independent party to counter act the swing to the right .

[RNK]

Theirs nothing wrong with being in touch with the working class once in a while, should probably try it. Liberal bourgeoise parties such as labour ones are sometimes directly related to trade unions which we also need to agitate. We( and im speaking really about my personnel position maybe some others could clear it up after) don't support entryism into parties like Labour when we think they've completely lost touch with the main stream working class and have swung too far right. Thus resulting in setting up an independent party to counter act the swing to the right.

I'm actually more supportive of entryism than I am of independant electoral platforming. In my opinion, atleast entryists have more of a chance (the difference is miniscule, but pertinent) to touch base with the working masses than an independant party which can not hope in any way, shape or form to challenge the bourgeoisie in their own arena, under their terms, with their tools and their rules.

[Led Zeppelin]

Not to mention the fallacy of modern-day Trotskyist organizations who preach for entryism -- ie, joining a bourgeois mass political party and attempting to transform it, through agitation and propaganda, into a worker-oriented party

The point is not to transform it, it is to recruit from it on an independent platform.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

[RNK]

Funny, so all the talk about "socialist caucases" "pulling the leadership of liberal worker party's to the left"...

[Led Zeppelin]

Provide sources, don't just air-quote nonsense.

[RNK]

Everything to do with the IMT's involvement with the NDP in Canada?

[redarmyfaction38]

Most Trots have a disgustingly romanticized view of the historical Trotsky. They fail to see that while he was in power he was just as much of a centrist as Stalin, and when he was out of power initially he was a coward when it came to tackling the rising bureaucracy (and the centralization of power around Stalin). Part of the problem is that they read "The Revolution Betrayed" without reading other accounts of the Revolution itself, and then get Trotsky's life from his objective (not the sarcasm) autobiography. A few lofty phrases thrown here and there, utopian "what-ifs", and distorted revisionist history; there you have Trotsky's contribution to the left post Russian Revolution.

So I think a lot of Trots, especially the more liberalistic ones (and I use that not in the sense of them being liberals but in the sense of the non-cultish types), are ideologically confused. They identify with Trotsky as a historical figure because of his "battle" against the bureaucracy, but at the same time don't identify with strict Bolshevik party organizational methods. My perspective is that a lot of Trots are actually council-communists looking for some sort of historical basis in the Russian experience. Even some of the more cultish sects like SEPtic attempt to portray Trotsky as some liberal saviour (their take on Trotsky's take on art and revolution is very indicative of this), whereas the historical Trotsky was much much different. This confusion has been my experience; I started out as a Trot with council communist leanings, and since then have gotten rid of Trotsky and now I identify with anarcho-communism.

wow! i'm a trot! with severe anarchist tendancies, in my experience they tend to go together.
"democratic centralism" is the foundation stone of leninist/trotskyist thinking in a workers state, what's your problem?
"communism" is not a "liberal" or "libertarian" ideology, anybody who tells you different is lieing.
the "historical basis" of trotskyism and its opposition to stalinism is quite clear, trotsky believed in the "democratic dictatorship by tghe working class" as opposed to stalins "buerocracy" whgich was made up of layers of the "middle class" that happily served the tsars., and was consequently happy to serve stalins personal ambitions and the subsequent denigration of the russian revolutuion.
try reading duestcher, he supported stalins position after the the civil war, "the prophet fallen".
doesn't make it right, just explains the politics and thinking of the time.
personally, i think the lessons of the spanish civil war, the ongoing crisises in venezuala and bolivia demonstrate the futility of "stalinist" ,"bourgeouis parliamentary" and "third way" methods of delivering "socialism".
all of which were disregarded and disproved by lenin trotsky AND the anarchists.

[RNK]

as opposed to stalins "buerocracy" whgich was made up of layers of the "middle class" that happily served the tsars., and was consequently happy to serve stalins personal ambitions and the subsequent denigration of the russian revolutuion.


Funny, reminds me of the White Generals who'd defect to the Red Army and be put under the auspices of Trotsky. They happily served his personal ambitions as Generals in Trotsky's armies.

Nothing else you said makes enough sense to be able to respond to.