What is Trotskyism? [Archive]

INDK

5th February 2008, 22:04

I'm not the greatest person to ask, but I'll give ya all the info I got.

Can someone explain to me what the central tenants of Trotskyism is and how it differs from regular Leninism?

Instead of comparing Trotskyism to orthodox Leninism , let's compare Trotskyism to the ideology similar but at odds to it - Stalinism. They're both, at their absolute basis, Marxism-Leninism. What makes them different is their perception of international revolution. Trotsky advocated the Permanent Revolution theory that stated once socialism is achieved in one country that country should extend solidarity to other countries and spread socialism in an immediate and urgent manner: this built large amounts of world-wide socialist power and an international unity between workers. Stalin advocated the Socialism in One Country theory that advocated achieving socialism in one country and building socialism there and making it a stronghold of workers' power - and then attacking the bourgeoisies of other countries and building socialism there. This is seen by most (particularly Trotskyists, Left-Communists, and other anti-Stalin Communist entities) as "social-imperialism" as it is called because Stalin ultimately did not build socialist power in other countries as he built Soviet power (as in, the power of the stronghold country).

In my personal opinion, I don't think there is such a thing as "orthodox Leninism" - one is either a Leninist-Trotskyist or Leninist-Stalinist (they like to call themselves "Hoxhaists" to sugarcoat their ideology) because people have to have some sort of idea as to how the revolution will spread to the world, especially if they are Marxists (a very internationalist theory by nature).

Also I get the impression it is more libertarian/anti-authoritarian, is this true?

I would certainly say so.

INDK

5th February 2008, 22:06

Trotskys opposition to Stalin (an authoritarian) reveals that Trotsky was more of a libertarian. Also, he was closer to the Marxistic-Leninistic ideology than Stalin.

Wrong. They were both Marxist-Leninists, their distinction lies in 'means to an end'. They were basically on the same terms on most politically theoretical topics.

Random Precision

5th February 2008, 22:11

From the Marxist Internet Archive's Encyclopedia of Marxism:

Trotskyism is a Marxist theory whose adherents aim to be in the vanguard of the working class, particularly as opposed to Stalinism and Social Democracy. When opposed to Stalinism, Trotskyists place emphasis in their objective of eliminating Stalinist bureaucratic rule; in opposition to Social Democracy, Trotskyists advance the cause of militant workers revolution.

Trotskyist theory in the 20th century had three unique components, which set it apart from other Marxist currents:

Permanent Revolution: This theory stipulates that colonial/feudalist nations must engage in socialist revolutions, as opposed to the stagist theory of first having a capitalist revolution.
Political Revolution: The idea that the Soviet Union could be restored to a worker's democracy with a political revolution (as opposed to a social and economic revolution, in the traditional Marxist sense of the word.)
Transitional Programme: The use of "Transitional Demands" which can be introduced into workers' struggles with the possibility of receiving widespread support even in non-revolutionary times, but which lead into conflict with capitalism (forming a United Front, for example). Such demands are deemed to form a "bridge" between the "Maximum program" of revolution and the "Minimum program" of minor reforms under capitalism. (See the The Transitional Program).

In the 21st century, the theory of political revolution is no longer relevant, while the subject of permanent revolution has witnessed historical changes while retaining its relevance. The transitional programme remains valid for many Trotskyists, though to varying degrees.

and how it differs from regular Leninism?

Basically Trotskyism represents a continuation of Leninist principles in light of the rise of Stalinism. The major theoretical difference between Lenin's thought and Trotsky's thought was the matter of the permanent revolution, under which Trotsky argued that a socialist revolution in an underdeveloped country could produce a workers state, which would establish the foundations of state capitalism, accomplishing the historical tasks of the bourgeoisie where the bourgeoisie was too weak and vacillating to do it themselves. Then it would move toward socialism, making the revolution permanent, of course with the help of more advanced workers states. Lenin on the other hand argued for "revolutionary democracy", state capitalism run by a government of workers and peasants, which would also accomplish the bourgeoisie's historical tasks, but would have to go through another period of upheaval before socialism could be possible. However, it's questionable how much Lenin stuck to his original formulation after the October Revolution.

More important is the revolutionary continuity between Lenin and Trotsky on the question of the world revolution. Trotsky continued to emphasize the importance of making sure the revolution spread quickly from Russia after Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev and other leaders of the CPSU had abandoned it for the reactionary "socialism in one country" thesis. Of course, Trotskyism upholds the other important parts of Lenin's thought, such as the vanguard party, the theory of imperialism and so on.

Also I get the impression it is more libertarian/anti-authoritarian, is this true?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "authoritarian". Trotsky of course was a revolutionary Marxist and thus was a proponent of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and like I said before he held closely to Leninist organizational methods. Trotskyists do, however, criticize the "dictatorial" expressions of bureaucratic, i.e. Stalinist rule, such as the monolithic party that is free from criticism, as well as the abolition of the workers' right to organize and control over the arts/sciences and such. This, however, should not be mistaken for anything resembling the "anti-authoritarian" position of anarchists.

Dros

5th February 2008, 22:20

Trotskys opposition to Stalin (an authoritarian) reveals that Trotsky was more of a libertarian.

lol

No. That is flawed reasoning. The fact that Trotsky lost a power struggle in the Communist party does not make him more libertarian. However, Trotskyism as a theory does tend to be more libertarian. Whether or not Trotsky himself was is a matter of historical debate. For instance, he played a very personal role in the Bolshevik government under Lenin and Lenin was not a libertarian.

Also, he was closer to the Marxistic-Leninistic ideology than Stalin.

Ummm...

Again no. Please explain why you personally believe that.

And most people call it Marxism-Leninism (or Marxist-Leninist, no need fo -ic).

============

Generally speaking, "Trotskyism" is a branch of Marxism-Leninism (ie they uphold the theoretical and political contributions of VI Lenin) that believes that the USSR departed from Socialism in the early 1930's or late 1920's when Stalin gained control of the USSR.

A central part of this theory is the idea of "Permanent Revolution" which states that, in underdeveloped countries with a weak Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat must accomplish the Bourgeois historical tasks and then continue on (hence making the revolution "permanent") to complete the tasks of the Proletarian revolution.

I disagree with most everything of Trotsky's, but I do see him as a great revolutionary hero and leader (although he did make mistakes and do some pretty stupid things).

Random Precision

5th February 2008, 22:30

Generally speaking, "Trotskyism" is a branch of Marxism-Leninism (ie they uphold the theoretical and political contributions of VI Lenin) that believes that the USSR departed from Socialism in the early 1930's or late 1920's when Stalin gained control of the USSR.

No, that's incorrect, at least if you mean socialism as a stage rather than a goal, sorry if not. We don't believe the USSR ever reached socialism, although it was a workers state. Isolation and the pressures of imperialism on Russian workers' revolution caused the workers state to bureaucratically degenerate. The bureaucracy then took the USSR off the road to socialism, although it's a matter of debate among Trotskyists what exactly the USSR became after the bureaucratic Thermidor.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 22:36

Well, it depends on what you mean by "authoritarian". Trotsky of course was a revolutionary Marxist and thus was a proponent of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and like I said before he held closely to Leninist organizational methods. Trotskyists do, however, criticize the "dictatorial" expressions of bureaucratic, i.e. Stalinist rule, such as the monolithic party that is free from criticism, as well as the abolition of the workers' right to organize and control over the arts/sciences and such. This, however, should not be mistaken for anything resembling the "anti-authoritarian" position of anarchists.
Well I did mean it more or less in that way, as in more affinity with decentralised and democratic worker run institutions such as worker's councils as well as more of an affinity for the individual's freedom. It seems they are better than Stalinists of course, but I'm not sure if they are better than other leninists.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 22:38

No, that's incorrect, at least if you mean socialism as a stage rather than a goal, sorry if not. We don't believe the USSR ever reached socialism, although it was a workers state. Isolation and the pressures of imperialism on Russian workers' revolution caused the workers state to bureaucratically degenerate. The bureaucracy then took the USSR off the road to socialism, although it's a matter of debate among Trotskyists what exactly the USSR became after the bureaucratic Thermidor.
You don't think this course could also have something to do with the pursuit of centralism and use of unaccountable power?

Intelligitimate

5th February 2008, 22:40

Trotskyism is a political cult, with many different denominations, centered around the cultic icon of Trotsky, usually referred to in cultish terms like "The Old Man" or the "Prophet." The denominations are in turn controlled by a cult leader, who usually couldn't agree with the cult leaders of their former organizations on some minor issue so decided to create their own cults instead.

Random Precision

5th February 2008, 22:45

You don't think this course could also have something to do with the pursuit of centralism and use of unaccountable power?

Of course we do. For example, we recognize the ban on factions at the Tenth Party Congress as a mistake, although an understandable one considering what was going on at the time. This was what the Stalinists used to later eliminate the United Opposition. There were many mistakes the Bolsheviks made that led to Stalinism, however we maintain that these mistakes in themselves did not make Stalinism, which was a product of the Russian Revolution's isolation.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 22:45

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 22:49

Of course we do. For example, we recognize the ban on factions at the Tenth Party Congress as a mistake, although an understandable one considering what was going on at the time. This was what the Stalinists used to later eliminate the United Opposition. There were many mistakes the Bolsheviks made that led to Stalinism, however we maintain that these mistakes in themselves did not make Stalinism, which was a product of the Russian Revolution's isolation.
Just personally I'd cite the very fact you'd have congresses in the style of centralised representative systems as a large factor. They are bound to be beyond the control of the workers. But anyway, this has all been interesting, I never actually knew what Trotskyism was before.

Another question does not being a Trotskyite mean you like or apologise for Stalin or Mao?

Random Precision

5th February 2008, 22:50

Just personally I'd cite the very fact you'd have congresses in the style of centralised representative systems as a large factor. They are bound to be beyond the control of the workers.

How so, if the workers control the party? :confused:

Jimmie Higgins

5th February 2008, 22:52

You don't think this course could also have something to do with the pursuit of centralism and use of unaccountable power?No.

The civil war caused the government to take drastic measures and industrial workers were leaving the cities because of famine. The social base of the revolution was disintegrating and they tried to hold it together. This pressure led them to take war powers and other horrible measures but when some of these pressures lessened, the measures were also changed.

However, when Stalin was in power and trying to create "socialism in one country" he used these and similar measures in order to force Russia to consolidate his power and industrialize on the backs of workers.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 22:57

No.

The civil war caused the government to take drastic measures and industrial workers were leaving the cities because of famine. The social base of the revolution was disintegrating and they tried to hold it together. This pressure led them to take war powers and so on.Well technically the repression started before the civil war proper; as an anarchist I'm very sceptical of this basically "reasons of state" excuse.

Despite random lies as Christopher Read says in his Tsars to Soviets, Makhno proves another route was possible, but perhaps that is a whole new discussion or old discussion that is best not revived.

bloody_capitalist_sham

5th February 2008, 22:59

Bolsheviks locking up anarchists who try to assassinate officials is entrely justified.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:00

How so, if the workers control the party? :confused:
Because as liberal "democracy" has shown centralising power in representatives, particularly ones that are not recallable, creates a gap between the gov't and the people and makes them far less accountable.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:03

Bolsheviks locking up anarchists who try to assassinate officials is entrely justified.
Depends, if they were officials being forced on Soviets like the Makhnovists one which wanted to remain autonomous then they are not justified.

Jimmie Higgins

5th February 2008, 23:09

Despite random lies as Christopher Read says in his Tsars to Soviets, Makhno proves another route was possible, but perhaps that is a whole new discussion or old discussion that is best not revived.

Yes, and Nakhno had to jettison some of his principles and egalitarian structure, even becoming like a dictator for a time, due to similar hardships during the civil war. Neither he or the Bolsheviks were secretly plotting to take all power when they took drastic measures with the goal of holding things together until the conditions returned to normal.

The discussion is going on now, here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/makhno-arshinov-skirda-t68854/index.html?t=68854

Random Precision

5th February 2008, 23:11

Well technically the repression started before the civil war proper; as an anarchist I'm very sceptical of this basically "reasons of state" excuse.

What repression are you referring to?

Despite random lies as Christopher Read says in his Tsars to Soviets, Makhno proves another route was possible, but perhaps that is a whole new discussion or old discussion that is best not revived.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I recommend this article for you to read:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Because as liberal "democracy" has shown centralising power in representatives, particularly ones that are not recallable, creates a gap between the gov't and the people and makes them far less accountable.

The workers' representatives in the Bolshevik Party were completely recallable. In any case, most Trotskyists will not argue that the organizational demands of a Leninist party should be enforced on the state machinery. This is where direct workers control, i.e. Soviets, come in.

Yes, and Nakhno had to jettison some of his principles and egalitarian structure, even becoming like a dictator for a time, due to similar hardships during the civil war. Neither he or the Bolsheviks were secretly plotting to take all power when they took drastic measures with the goal of holding things together until the conditions returned to normal.

Indeed, comrade. However I would like to add this, as Yanowtiz's article says:

Makhno calls for the forms of Bolshevism—revolutionary discipline, vanguard party—without the content, the self-emancipation of the working class. He saw the degeneration in Russia primarily as a problem of ideas—“statism” and authoritarianism—instead of material conditions—poverty and isolation. Thus, he concludes that, “had anarchists been closely connected in organizational terms and had they in their actions abided strictly by a well-defined discipline, they would never have suffered such a rout.”113 But the strength required to fundamentally transform society and set it on new foundations cannot exist only among the enlightened few who “get it.” Instead, it is found in the collective energy and self-activity of the working class. With their hand on the lever of production, only the working class can revolutionize society. The Russian experience demonstrates they will need a state when they do so—to defend their new gains...

To overthrow the bourgeoisie requires organization and authority. In their actions, the Makhnovists recognized this. But their utopian views prevented them from uniting with the workers’ state. Other anarchists, such as Victor Serge and Bill Shatov, recognized that the moment required unshakeable unity of revolutionaries and knew that immediate aims had to fall short of long-term goals. Although the Bolsheviks were ultimately unsuccessful (and certainly made many mistakes along the way), any other course would have prematurely thrown in the towel on the possibility of spreading workers’ power.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:14

Yes, and Nakhno had to jettison some of his principles and egalitarian structure, even becoming like a dictator for a time, due to similar hardships during the civil war. Neither he or the Bolsheviks were secretly plotting to take all power when they took drastic measures with the goal of holding things together until the conditions returned to normal.

The discussion is going on now, here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/makhno-arshinov-skirda-t68854/index.html?t=68854
That is just not true, it is as I said random lies. Most claims seem to come from Trotsky himself.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:19

What repression are you referring to?Centralising of authority, crack downs on liberties and opposition even within the socialist movement.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I recommend this article for you to read:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml
I recommend you read something from an objective historian such as Chris Reed.

Or at least balance the lies.

www.nestormakhno.info/

The workers' representatives in the Bolshevik Party were completely recallable. In any case, most Trotskyists will not argue that the organizational demands of a Leninist party should be enforced on the state machinery. This is where direct workers control, i.e. Soviets, come in.They were still centralised and this is bound to seperate the people from gov't and make it at least somewhat unacountable.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:24

Indeed, comrade. However I would like to add this, as Yanowtiz's article says:

The article is written by an Leninist, it is somewhat biased, it is at least equaled by anarchist documents and shown to be rubbish by objective historians, I have never seen a decent attack on Makhno, they all are rather poor and from Leninists or rabid capitalists eager to dismiss what might be a real example of libertarian socialists. It is much like Spain.

Random Precision

5th February 2008, 23:26

Centralising of authority, crack downs on liberties and opposition even within the socialist movement.

What specifically, though? Can you support your claims?

I recommend you read something from an objective historian such as Chris Read.

Or at least balance the lies.

www.nestormakhno.info/

I've read most of the stuff on that website already. I hope you will read the Yanowitz article, as its very thoroughly sourced and presents a compelling argument.

They were still centralised and this is bound to seperate the people from gov't and make it at least somewhat unacountable.

I think here we have a definite split on the question of workers rule. Marxists will support the Soviets as the organized expression of the workers state, while anarchists will call for decentralization.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:36

What specifically, though? Can you support your claims?Anarchists and other socialists were repressed before the civil war proper started and Soviet autonomy was curbed as well.

I've read most of the stuff on that website already. I hope you will read the Yanowitz article, as its very thoroughly sourced and presents a compelling argument.I've read it as someone who has read more objective documents it is not really convincing.

I think here we have a definite split on the question of workers rule. Marxists will support the Soviets as the organized expression of the workers state, while anarchists will call for decentralization.We support the Soviets, that is the point. We simply want most power to stay at the level of the local Soviet.

Random Precision

5th February 2008, 23:41

Anarchists and other socialists were repressed before the civil war proper started and Soviet autonomy was curbed as well.

Again, what specifically?

We support the Soviets, that is the point. We simply want most power to stay at the level of the local Soviet.

In Russia there was clearly a need for centralized authority. The workers' revolution could not survive the reactionary and imperialist onslaught without it.

Jimmie Higgins

5th February 2008, 23:42

That is just not true, it is as I said random lies. Most claims seem to come from Trotsky himself.

No, this is from a book by an anti-bolshevik anarchist:
http://www.ditext.com/arshinov/conclusion.html

Three years of uninterrupted civil wars made the southern Ukraine a permanent battlefield. Numerous armies of various parties traversed it in every direction, wreaking material, social and moral destruction on the peasants. This exhausted the peasants. It destroyed their first experiments in the field of workers' self-management. Their spirit of social creativity was crushed. These conditions tore the Makhnovshchina away from its healthy foundation, away from socially creative work among the masses, and forced it to concentrate on war -- revolutionary war, it is true, but war nevertheless.

This basically describes the same situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in. Both Makhno and the Bolsheviks were dedicated and sincere to worker and peasant power, but the conditions they found themselves in limited this possibility.

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:48

No, this is from a book by an anti-bolshevik anarchist:
http://www.ditext.com/arshinov/conclusion.html

This basically describes the same situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in. Both Makhno and the Bolsheviks were dedicated and sincere to worker and peasant power, but the conditions they found themselves in limited this possibility.
But what is that proving?

Nusocialist

5th February 2008, 23:51

Again, what specifically?Are you looking for individual actions against individuals or individual soviets because I can't remember exact details. I believe Moscow anarchists were arrested on quite a large scale before the civil war started.

In Russia there was clearly a need for centralized authority. The workers' revolution could not survive the reactionary and imperialist onslaught without it.
This is just not true, as Reed said the Makhnovists proved their was another way of successfully organising against the counter-revolution(the white one:cool:.), they were responsible for the defeat of Denkin and Wrangel.

Jimmie Higgins

6th February 2008, 00:12

But what is that proving?

Short-term memory, much?

It proves this:

I said: The civil war caused the government to take drastic measures and industrial workers were leaving the cities because of famine. The social base of the revolution was disintegrating and they tried to hold it together. This pressure led them to take war powers and so on.

You Said: Despite random lies as Christopher Read says in his Tsars to Soviets, Makhno proves another route was possible,

I replied: Nakhno had to jettison some of his principles and egalitarian structure, even becoming like a dictator for a time, due to similar hardships during the civil war. Neither he or the Bolsheviks were secretly plotting to take all power when they took drastic measures with the goal of holding things together until the conditions returned to normal.

But you said: That is just not true, it is as I said random lies. Most claims seem to come from Trotsky himself.

So I showed you a quote from an anarchist - unless you think he's making random lies as well:

Originally Posted by Peter Arshinov

Three years of uninterrupted civil wars made the southern Ukraine a permanent battlefield. Numerous armies of various parties traversed it in every direction, wreaking material, social and moral destruction on the peasants. This exhausted the peasants. It destroyed their first experiments in the field of workers' self-management. Their spirit of social creativity was crushed. These conditions tore the Makhnovshchina away from its healthy foundation, away from socially creative work among the masses, and forced it to concentrate on war -- revolutionary war, it is true, but war nevertheless.So, this "other route" by having some of the same problems of having to substitute undemocratic measures when the social base of the revolution was deteriorating, shows that like Makhno, the Bolsheviks undemocratic actions are actually the result of the objective conditions rather than some secret plot to stop the worker's power they advocated.

Die Neue Zeit

6th February 2008, 00:52

Instead of comparing Trotskyism to orthodox Leninism

That's exactly what's needed, though. :(

[Once the "Revolutionary Marxists" user group gets going, I can clarify more on this.]

They're both, at their absolute basis, Marxism-Leninism.

"Marxism-Leninism" was a term coined by Stalin to justify his revisionist BS. In any event, NEITHER "ideology" is revolutionary Marxism (the Marxism of Lenin and even Luxemburg).

In my personal opinion, I don't think there is such a thing as "orthodox Leninism" - one is either a Leninist-Trotskyist or Leninist-Stalinist (they like to call themselves "Hoxhaists" to sugarcoat their ideology) because people have to have some sort of idea as to how the revolution will spread to the world, especially if they are Marxists (a very internationalist theory by nature).

Knock, knock. :glare:

The fight against [Trotskyist and Stalinist] revisionism (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/00Revisionism.html)

Lenin on the other hand argued for "revolutionary democracy", state capitalism run by a government of workers and peasants, which would also accomplish the bourgeoisie's historical tasks, but would have to go through another period of upheaval before socialism could be possible. However, it's questionable how much Lenin stuck to his original formulation after the October Revolution.

"For one thing, ours is not actually a workers' state but a workers' and peasants' state. And a lot depends on that." (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTM20.html)

[I know I'm quoting from a Maoist site, but the core material is valid enough.]

This was in 1920. :glare:

Nusocialist

6th February 2008, 01:04

Short-term memory, much?

It proves this:

I said: The civil war caused the government to take drastic measures and industrial workers were leaving the cities because of famine. The social base of the revolution was disintegrating and they tried to hold it together. This pressure led them to take war powers and so on.

You Said: Despite random lies as Christopher Read says in his Tsars to Soviets, Makhno proves another route was possible,

I replied: Nakhno had to jettison some of his principles and egalitarian structure, even becoming like a dictator for a time, due to similar hardships during the civil war. Neither he or the Bolsheviks were secretly plotting to take all power when they took drastic measures with the goal of holding things together until the conditions returned to normal.

But you said: That is just not true, it is as I said random lies. Most claims seem to come from Trotsky himself.

So I showed you a quote from an anarchist - unless you think he's making random lies as well:
So, this "other route" by having some of the same problems of having to substitute undemocratic measures when the social base of the revolution was deteriorating, shows that like Makhno, the Bolsheviks undemocratic actions are actually the result of the objective conditions rather than some secret plot to stop the worker's power they advocated.
The quote doesn't prove your point though, which is why I was confused.

It simply shows that the people had to waste time fighting, often against the Bolsheviks, rather than being able to create a positive, peaceful society, not that they weren't democratic.

dksu

6th February 2008, 17:56

Forward Union

6th February 2008, 18:06

So I showed you a quote from an anarchist - unless you think he's making random lies as well:

Loads of anarchists disagree with the Makhnovist model, but they're mostly anti-organisationalists, individualists, lifestylists or Malatestites.

as Makhno himself said "We know the anti-organisationalists will attack us, foaming at the mouth. But we can quietly dismiss their criticisms. Our hopes lay in other millitants"

The fact is that every time anarchism has manifested on a mass scale (Ukraine 1917. Korea 1929, and Spain 1936) it has appreard in a very different form to that which the utopian, daydreamers have envisioned. They almost hold reality ransom to their untouchable, pure, anarchist thoery. I quote it often but Durruti said this and I think it sums up this disagreement within anarchism, between the revolutionaries and the theorists;

"As we see it, the revolution needs organisms to oversee it, and repress, in an organised sense, hostile sectors. As current events have shown such sectors do not accept oblivion unless they are crushed.

There may be anarchist comrades who feel certain ideological misgivings, but the lesson of experience is enough to induce us to stop pussy-footing"

However I would say that even The FAI-CNT and the Makhnovists were directly democratic. They had no state, and all decisions were made by the people in a federation of democratic assemblies, which the Trotskyist scum were so keen to destroy.

Nusocialist

7th February 2008, 02:43

Loads of anarchists disagree with the Makhnovist model, but they're mostly anti-organisationalists, individualists, lifestylists or Malatestites.
By Malatestites do you mean regular anarcho-communists and syndicalists?

I have no problem with the Platform but alot of social anarchists seem to have small but definite problems with it.

Random Precision

7th February 2008, 02:57

However I would say that even The FAI-CNT and the Makhnovists were directly democratic. They had no state, and all decisions were made by the people in a federation of democratic assemblies, which the Trotskyist scum were so keen to destroy.

Interesting you bring up the CNT... if it was truly run by the workers, then why did they require a secret society to maintain their anarchist principles?

Random Precision

7th February 2008, 03:05

RandomPrecision said:
"In Russia there was clearly a need for centralized authority. The workers' revolution could not survive the reactionary and imperialist onslaught without it."

Hrm... So if the situation was different (somehow) in Russia at the time, or got better over time, would the centralization be dispersed? If so, to what extent? What relation would the soviets have to one another?

Centralization in the revolutionary party is absolutely necessary before and after the revolution, wherever you go. Centralization in the state is a different matter, although I maintain it is necessary during the dictatorship of the proletariat (and afterwards into socialism, although we can't tell exactly how far it will continue, as no one has ever made it that far). Of course, the state, and centralized authority, will "wither away", as Engels said, as we come closer and closer to communism.

I'm sorry, that probably isn't very helpful. :(

Die Neue Zeit

7th February 2008, 03:22

^^^ I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there on your already excessive centralization. :(

Democratic centralism may be "freedom of discussion and unity in action," but "freedom of discussion and unity in action" is much greater than merely democratic centralism. :(

The Digital Fire (http://www.leninism.org/stream/96/fire.htm)
Centralism in the Service of Democracy (http://www.leninism.org/pof/pof7.htm)

I want to return to this because, if we want to understand why Lenin was in favor of a centralized organization, we have to consider his actual arguments and the circumstances that existed at the time. Otherwise we could end up making a fetish of centralism, as is not uncommon amongst some groups on the left.

[...]

"Whoever considers this too bureaucratic or centralistic let him suggest that candidates be nominated by the direct vote of the Party membership at large ... If he thinks this is not practical, he must not complain of a lack of democracy, when this function, like many others that concern the Party as a whole, is exercized by one or several Party bodies." (Karl Kautsky)

Sky

7th February 2008, 03:55

Trotskyism is an ideological and political petit bourgeois trend that is hostile to Marxism-Leninism and to the international communist movement and that conceals its opportunistic essence with radical, "left-wing" slogans. Trotskyism arose within the Russian Social Democratic movement at the beginning of the 20th century as a form of Menshevism. The theoretical sources of Trotskyism are mechanical materialism in philosophy and voluntarism and schematism in sociology. The methodological basis of the trend is subjectivism, which is characteristic of the petit bourgeois world view as a whole. Since Trotskyism is a reflection of the antiproletarian views of the petite bourgeoisie, it is characterized by an anticommunist tendency in its political positions, by abrupt shifts from an extreme revolutionary stance to one of capitulation to the bourgeoisie, by a misunderstanding of the dialectics of social development, and by dogmatism in evaluating the events and phenomena of social life. The views and principles of Trotskyism were formulated in opposition to those of Leninism on all fundamental questions concerning the strategy and tactics of the working class movement. Trotskyism took as its point of departure the rejection of the Leninist doctrine of a new type of party. In the debate over the wording of the first paragraph of the party rules at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP in 1903, Trotsky supported Martov's wording, which opened the way for untable elements to penetrate the party.

Trotskyists reject the principle of peaceful coexistence between states having different social structures. They continue to assert that war is the only means of eliminating capitalism. Certain groups of Trotskyists deny the leading role of the working class in the revolutionary process, and they attempt to prove that the proletariat in capitalist countries has lost its fighting spirit; they contrast the world socialist system and the international communist movement with the national liberation movement, which they claim is thd riving force in the revolutionary process.

The existence of Trotskyism and its periodic activiation in individual countries are traceable to various causes, among which are the following: the attraction into the revolutionary movement of large numbers of petit-bourgeois minded and politically inexperienced intellectuals, students, peasants, and craftsmen, who easily fall under the influence of the "ultrarevolutionary" slogans of the Trotskyists, the antirevoultionary activity activity of "left-wing" and right-wing revisionists, whose views and actions often coincide with those of the Trotskyists; and the use and support of Trotskyism by forces of anticommunism and imperialism, which find in Trotskyism an ally in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism.

Trotskyists render substantial aid to the bourgeoisie in its efforts to cause schisms in working class and national liberation movements. During periods of mass demonstrations by working people, extremist factions among the Trotskyists carry out provocative acts that provide the forces of reaction with an opportunity to arouse the politically inexperienced portion of the population against the proletariat and its vanguard, the Communists. During the 1968 general strike in France, Trotskyists and other "ultrarevolutionaries" supported the adventuristic idea of an immediate armed uprising. In Japan the Trotskyists gave the reactionary forces a pretext for the bloody suppression of the demonstrations in Shinjuku in October 1968 and in Yokosuka in January 1969. Trotskyists have engaged in similar activities in other countries as well. Schismatic efforts of the Trotskyists in Chile aided the fascist coup there. Trotskyists attmept to penetrate mass revolutionary organizations for the purpose of destroying the organizations from within. They are particularly active in youth organizations, where they take advance of some of the youngsters' political immaturity and failure to recognize the true face of Trotskyism.

Under conditions of the intensified ideological struggle against capitalism, the furhter struggle against the ideology and schismatic actions of the Trotskyists remains one of the most important tasks for the proletarian movement.
Further Reading:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/CQL26.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/CQL26.html)
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/OR24.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/OR24.html)
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/OB26.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/OB26.html)
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TO27.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TO27.html)

Nusocialist

7th February 2008, 04:52

Interesting you bring up the CNT... if it was truly run by the workers, then why did they require a secret society to maintain their anarchist principles?
Wtf? They had ray guns as well I heard.

Nusocialist

7th February 2008, 04:55

Democratic centralism may be "freedom of discussion and unity in action," but "freedom of discussion and unity in action" is much greater than merely democratic centralism.
Democratic centralism is an oxymoron, what it really means is largely unaccountable oligarchy. Historically speaking it is always the same whether bourgeois or socialist, once you have this kind of organisation it becomes one above the people with simply a rubber stamp of popular representation.

manic expression

7th February 2008, 08:07

Democratic centralism is an oxymoron, what it really means is largely unaccountable oligarchy. Historically speaking it is always the same whether bourgeois or socialist, once you have this kind of organisation it becomes one above the people with simply a rubber stamp of popular representation.

No. Democratic centralism has nothing to do with oligarchy, because the whole party is involved in deciding the issues.

And no, democratic centralism has a track record for accountability and success. Democratic discussion of all issues with discipline and solidarity once a decision is made. That is how all successful revolutions have been organized, unlike the pitiful anarchist and ultra-left misadventures throughout history.

A.J.

7th February 2008, 17:33

What is Trotskyism?

a complete failure.

Never in it's entire history has trotskyism been able to develop roots in the industrial working class.

The membership of trotskyite sects consists more-or-less entirely of effeminate, unmanly middle class arts students and some white-collar petty-bourgeois employess(e.g. school teachers) in imperialist countries.

They're a bunch of parasites and frauds, a bulwark of social-democracy, who support imperialism using fake-"left" logic.

They must be ruthlessly hunted down and annihilated for the sake of the world revolution.

Forward Union

7th February 2008, 17:49

Interesting you bring up the CNT... if it was truly run by the workers, then why did they require a secret society to maintain their anarchist principles?

It was so top-secret only the highst CNT officials, you and the Revleft community are allowed to know about it!

Forward Union

7th February 2008, 17:56

By Malatestites do you mean regular anarcho-communists and syndicalists?

No. In history most manifestations of anarcho-communisms and syndicalism have radically opposed Malatestas writings in their activities.

By Malatestite I mean Anarchist-communists who see the individual as more important than the collective. They emphasis rethoric over praxis. And are generally prone to ideological purity over pragmatism. And of course, agree with Malatestas objections to The platform and other papers published by "Workers cause"

Whereas Espacifismo/platformists/post-platformists or whatever, believe that the individual is accountable for his or her own actions, to the collective.

bezdomni

7th February 2008, 18:24

manic expression

7th February 2008, 19:32

I'd say Trotskyism is characterized by the following things:
1) Deep theoretical misunderstandings of Marx and Lenin. Trotsky consistently mis-applied Marxism (for example "degenerated worker's state") and had all kinds of disagreements with Lenin. Trotskyists famously view Lenin's contributions to Marxism as more or less organizational models, rather than a major development of Marxist theory (ie: Marxism in the era of imperialism).

Wrong. Completely.

The analysis of the deformed worker state is very much consistent with Marx's own writings. In 16th Brumaire, Marx pinpoints the Bonapartist nature of the state; a capitalist society in which the bourgeoisie had been politically subjugated. The Soviet Union was similar, except it was a worker state that had politically alienated the working classes. Your obliviousness to this shows your misunderstanding of Trotskyism (and dare I say Marxism itself).

Secondly, Trotsky did disagree with Lenin in the years after 1905, but Trotsky gradually came to agree with Lenin and joined the Bolsheviks. Trotsky was one of the most prominent leaders of the revolutionary proletariat in 1905, and he more than repeated this feat in 1917 and beyond. (Where was Stalin? Robbing trains in Siberia IIRC.) Lenin placed a great amount of confidence and trust in Trotsky, and for good reason.

And Trotsky bases most of his analyses on the conclusions of the age of imperialism.

2) The idea of "permanent revolution" is based around selectively reading Marx and ignoring the works of Lenin. Lenin and Stalin were very clear that, while socialism could exist in one country alone for a period of time, it is impossible for the "final victory" of socialism to be achieved in one country.

Please be specific.

3) Trotskyists usually suffer from economism and often get sucked into bourgeois reformism.

First of all, you are substituting Trotskyism with Trotskyists. The two are not always analogous. Secondly, every section of the communist movement has had its share of reformists, but that alone is not enough to blame an entire ideology, is it? You should know this better than anyone.