View Full Version : Anarchism and communism.
Revolutiondownunder
3rd June 2008, 04:03
Im fairly new to this, and I have read up a bit online but I would like to know from the horses mouth so to speak.
What is anarchism, and why do there seem to be so many different types?
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?
What would a truely socialist/anarchist/communist world look like?
I am not really committed to any ideology, but I want to learn as much as I can, hope these are not stupid questions...:blushing:
Im fairly new to this, and I have read up a bit online but I would like to know from the horses mouth so to speak.
What is anarchism, and why do there seem to be so many different types?
Anarchism is the opposition to forces which strip away our ability to be free human beings. Necessarily, this oppsoes economic centrism such as capitalism exemplifies. Many forms of "anarchism" are hardly anarchistic.
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?
I leave this for someone else, I'm not much of an expert. Basically, though, Trotskyists seem more interested in decentralization, and can usually be distinguished by their opposition to Soviet dogmatism.
What would a truely socialist/anarchist/communist world look like?
we can't know for sure, but we can make come comments on what it means to have a communist society. For starters, it is based around associative society. That is, human beings are increasingly social in a communist societ,y and we alleviate competition while cultivating the more cooperative elements of our society. It would also be based around human spontaneity and actuation of the self. Basically, the concept is that society should seek to encourage, rahter than hinder, the free, educated and rational development of humans.
I am not really committed to any ideology, but I want to learn as much as I can, hope these are not stupid questions...:blushing:
Not at all. Sometimes, questions may seem sill yor simplistic, but it is usually those times when those who are faced with such questions realyl step back and realize some pretty simple or fundamental aspects of their thoughts that they have neglected or misunderstood. You should understand your inquiries from the context that they are just as much an inquiry of my own (and any other respondent) into our own thoughts. I hope you can learn a lot, and remain focused.
Voice_of_Reason
3rd June 2008, 04:35
Many forms of "anarchism" are hardly anarchistic.
My Favorite is Anarcho-Capitalist
Joe Hill's Ghost
3rd June 2008, 04:56
What is anarchism, and why do there seem to be so many different types?
Anarchism is the revolutionary program that we must oppose all forms of coercive power. This entails the elimination of all forms of hierarchical power, which create the conditions for exploitation and oppression.
The Anarchist FAQ is a great place to start, it will answer any question you have pretty much. Libcom also has loads of anarchists writings that you can look at. Anarchistblackcat is a good place for discussion of anarchism and anarchist ideas.
Anarchism really only has two broad camps, those that believe in building large mass social movements from the working class to overthrow our oppressors and those that reject organization, working class politics and, depending on the loony, reject technology. Now amongst those two camps you have lots of sub groupings, but these are mostly minimal disagreements. An anarcho communist group and an anarcho syndicalist union often work together.
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?Well Trotsky lost his battle with Stalin over control over the Soviet Union and he had to justify why he was better. the end result was that authoritarian state socialism is fine, but Stalin took it so far that it became an oppressive "deformed worker's state". Better than capitalism, but not a whole lot better.
What would a truely socialist/anarchist/communist world look like?
Well I would assume that you would have a world where workplace assemblies and community assemblies made all major political/economic decisions. Technology would be harnessed to eliminate as much rote and menial labor as possible, freeing us to spend the majority of our time in interesting, liberating labor that we enjoy. Any shit work left we would assign like family chores ie everyone does their share of it. Though of course we'd probably try to make it a lot more fun than chores today!
I am not really committed to any ideology, but I want to learn as much as I can, hope these are not stupid questions...:blushing:Not at all. Though you should know that anarchism isn't so much a set ideology as a rough outline of beliefs and practices. Its always flexible to change and inclusion of new ideas and developments.
aussiestalinist
3rd June 2008, 08:15
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?
Trotskyism is counter revolutionary and Trotsky was really a agent for the international bourgeoisie-nerds. Trotsky was in league with the fascists i.e he was a social fascist. He voiced lots of opposition to the Soviet Stalin government in the 20's and 30's. He was opposed to collective ownserhip of the farms and to the five year plans Stalin started.
deformed worker's state
That is a total bull shit. what are you? a trotsky.
BIG BROTHER
3rd June 2008, 08:36
Im fairly new to this, and I have read up a bit online but I would like to know from the horses mouth so to speak.
What is anarchism, and why do there seem to be so many different types?
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?
What would a truely socialist/anarchist/communist world look like?
I am not really committed to any ideology, but I want to learn as much as I can, hope these are not stupid questions...:blushing:
well, i'm not the best guy to answer this, but here it goes:
anarchism is pretty much an ideology(and for some a way of life too) that oposes the goverment, and hierachy because they are seen as tools for opression.
Trotskyism is the continuation of marxism lennism acording to the ideas of Trotsky who was against burocrazitation, and stalinism among other things.
Stalinism is a term used by trotskyists to refer to the type of policies made by stalin.
communard resolution
3rd June 2008, 08:47
Trotskyism is counter revolutionaryThis is a matter of opinion and hardly a definition of Trotskyism.
Trotsky was really a agent for the international bourgeoisie-nerdsSee above.
Trotsky was in league with the fascistsSee above.
he was a social fascistHonestly: do you know what fascism means or are you just parroting something you picked up somewhere?
He voiced lots of opposition to the Soviet Stalin government in the 20's and 30's. He was opposed to collective ownserhip of the farms and to the five year plans Stalin started.This is the only bit that you should have posted in this particular thread as it contains facts rather than personal opinions.
aussiestalinist
3rd June 2008, 08:55
This is the only bit that you should have posted in this particular thread as it contains facts rather than personal opinions.
My god your arrogant. Go get deported.
communard resolution
3rd June 2008, 09:09
My god your arrogant. Go get deported.
You go get deported to Goli Otok! :laugh:
aussiestalinist
3rd June 2008, 10:36
You go get deported to Goli Otok! :laugh:
No, the Simpson Desert
communard resolution
3rd June 2008, 10:52
Haha! Okay then, sorry if I sounded patronizing, dude.
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?
Trotskyism is the theory advanced by Leon Trotsky in opposition to Stalin and also to Lenin. It involves a number of things but basically, Trotskyists believe that the USSR became a degenerate worker's state and was overcome with and taken over by a bureaucratic cast. They also oppose the efforts of Stalin to build socialism in the USSR on the grounds that socialism could not be built in one country.
I disagree with all of this and I see these claims as rather baseless. Trotskyism as a tendency is in a lot of ways (I'm gonna take shit for this and I'm not trying to insult the Trots or anything) similar to Menshevism (the theory of Martov, a negation of Lenin's Vanguard Party theory) and Liberalism in terms of the world outlook. I don't see Trotskyism being grounded in any kind of materialism (Marxist analysis) but more generally in idealism (the belief that ideas define reality instead of other way around) and economism (we should try and get a lot of members and focus on narrow short term goals by participating in the labor movement and focusing on labor style reforms instead of Communist revolution).
I used to be a Trot and so I repeat again, I mean no disrespect to the Trotskyists.
Originally Posted by Revolutiondownunder http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1162264#post1162264)
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?
Trotskyism , being the continuation of Marxism-Leninism advocates democratic workers control with elected and recallable officials. Trotskyists critically supported the Soviet Union and other degenerated workers state, in opposition to Stalinists that thought that all was fine and working well in the Soviet Union.
Trotskyists opposed and still oppose the bureaucratic caste that developed in degenerated or deformed workers states and always push for workers control.
They are also internationalists advocating international revolution rather than socialism in one country which history proved that it doesn't work, although if circumstances bring socialism in only one country because something went terribly wrong we build socialism in one country while pushing to "export" the revolution in other countries.
An example that shows the differentiation of Trotsky and stalin was the collectivization in the Soviet union. While Trotsky advocated the voluntary collectivization of the farmers from 1923-1928 , until he got exiled by the Stalinist "democracy", Stalin was moving left and right in that time. So while until 1928 he opposed collectivization in 1929 he decided to collectivize the farms. So he sent...the Red Army to forcefully collectivize EVERYTHING. Of course the farmers reacted and killed half of their cattle and sold secretly their crops before the Army came. So that resulted to the Holodomor where millions died from starvation. This is a big difference in tactics, understanding and analysis.
Another thing is that while Lenin and Trotsky wanted fractions inside the party after the period of "war communism" , when fractions were banned as a necessary evil, Stalin opposed fractionism and democracy inside the party. So instead of ideas, policies etc going from below to above as Lenin and Trotsky wanted , they were going from above(the bureaucrats) , to below (the people) . If you had different ideas on how to achieve socialism you were sent to a gulag for example, or exiled , or shot.
Btw something that Trotsky predicted in 1936(!!) was that either in the Soviet Union there is going to be a revolution by the people so that the power will return to the people and the Soviet Union is going to return to the ideas of Lenin, or the bureaucrats are going to sell out socialism in order to serve their own interests. The second unfortunately happened which proves though Trotskys superior Marxist-Leninist understanding and analysis , which of course Stalin did not have as he wasn't a Marxist-Leninist.
For more info about Trotsky go on
www.trotsky.net (http://www.trotsky.net)
for more info about what Lenin and Trotsky stood for read "Lenin and Trotsky , what they really stood for" by Ted Grant and Alan Woods.
For more info about the differences between Stalin and Trotsky read "the revolution betrayed" by Leon Trotsky
leftspot
3rd June 2008, 17:57
My two cents on these questions:
What is anarchism, and why do there seem to be so many different types?
Anarchism is an ideology that is against all authority relationships. Anarchism's main difference with socialists and communists is that anarchists think it's possible to go directly from capitalism to anarchism -- to abolish the state immediately. Whereas socialists and communists see the need for a transitional socialist state for the period between capitalism and communism. There are so many different types of anarchists in my opinion because there's really no coherent body of theory that defines "anarchism" in the same way that there can be said to be a coherent body of principles that are the fundamentals of Marxism. Anarchism is really more of an idea or a stance that can be summed up in one phrase -- opposition to all authority. Marxism on the other hand is a more developed and complex body of theory. So individuals or small groups of anarchists interpret the basic "anti-authoritarianism" in very different ways, which expresses itself in lots of small anarchist groupings with a lot of differing politics.
How is Trotskyism different from Stalinism?
drosera99 already answered this in a way that I agree with. I would just add that Trotskyism and Stalininsm (i.e. Leninism, since there really is no defining body of theory known as Stalinism) should not just be evaluated in the realm of ideas, where you pick the one that had ideas that sound prettier or cooler. Instead we have to look at which one's theory and practice led to revolutionary advances, and which one didn't. No Trotskyist party has ever led a revolution anywhere on the planet ever. Meanwhile all the revolutions led by communist forces have been led by Marxist-Leninists (Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc). It's as simple as that for me -- Trotskyists and anarchists have not been able to win a revolution anywhere ever. Whereas Marxist-Leninists have won many revolutions. So Trotskyists and anarchists have all kinds of criticisms of the practice of Marxist-Leninists in power. But that's so smug and easy -- because Trotskyists and anarchists have no comparable practice in power to compare to. Marxism-Leninism has proven to be the theory that when put into practice and developed according to local conditions, can lead to revolution. After 100 years of trying, anarchists and Trotskyists haven't been able to do it.
I would just add that Trotskyism and Stalininsm (i.e. Leninism, since there really is no defining body of theory known as Stalinism) should not just be evaluated in the realm of ideas, where you pick the one that had ideas that sound prettier or cooler.
Theory just as important as practice. You have a theory you put it into practice , then you go back to your theory see what needs improvement go again into practice etc. It is a dialectical process. If you deny that you are not a Marxist.
. Instead we have to look at which one's theory and practice led to revolutionary advances, and which one didn't. No Trotskyist party has ever led a revolution anywhere on the planet ever. Meanwhile all the revolutions led by communist forces have been led by Marxist-Leninists (Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc). It's as simple as that for me
The revolution in Russia. Yes it has been led by Marxist - Leninists. Lenin and Trotsky! Trotsky was a Marxist Leninist during his life, but the Trotskyist groups took that word which was used prejoratively and adopted it in order to differentiate themselves from the Stalinists, which called themselves Marxist-Leninists. So essentialy original Marxism-Leninism= Trotskyism today. So here's one revolution by original Marxist Leninists or Trotskyists as we know them today.
China:Mao developed a new theory MAoism which does not correspond neither to the original Marxism-Leninism(modern Trotskyism) nor deformed Marxism - Leninism(Stalinism). So It was not a Marxist-Leninist revolution.
Cuba: Castro in the beggining was a bourgeois democrat, that only wanted to liberate Cuba from Batista's dictatorship. He was not a Marxist-Leninist.
As about successes in the world revolution, Stalinism has none. As all the Stalinist states collapsed as predicted by Trotsky due to their bureaucratic and degenerated nature. So If i was a stalinist I would not brag about my historical achievements because there are none.
Was Stalin mentioned in any book about the October Revolution? Yes , one time in a list of names and another in his auto-biography! Other than that he had no mentions because he had a very small role. Trotsky was second only after Lenin in the revolution.
After 100 years of trying, anarchists and Trotskyists haven't been able to do it
First of all anarchists have made 2 revolutions. One with Makno and one in Spain where the Stalinists betrayed once again the workers and played a major role in the defeat of the revolutionaries.
At the end it doesn't matter how many revolutions you made but in how many you succeeded and didn't go back to capitalism. So although the Stalinists had a successfull revolution at their hands due mainly to Lenin and Trotsky they blew it.
leftspot history is not that simple.
The collapse of Stalinism makes it certainly a wrong idea on how should we build socialism.
dirtycommiebastard
3rd June 2008, 20:54
I don't see Trotskyism being grounded in any kind of materialism (Marxist analysis) but more generally in idealism (the belief that ideas define reality instead of other way around)
and economism (we should try and get a lot of members and focus on narrow short term goals by participating in the labor movement and focusing on labor style reforms instead of Communist revolution).
So how is this idealism, in your opinion?
I think it is the best approach. Trotskyists realize that revolution is not attained by crying Revolution in the streets and denouncing worker's actions, but by working alongside the proletariat and supporting their demands, whether they be small reforms or not. (See Minimum and Maximum Program in Trotsky's Transitional Program)
Unlike, other groups, the Trotskyists have the least sectarian approach to the labour movement as they do not denounce workers as 'bourgeoisified' just for being members of unions.
Yes, they do make short term goals, based on the consciousness of the labour movement, and from there, do find the most advanced layers and try to win them over to revolutionary theory. This is how the vanguard is created, and not by announcing the creation of the 'Revolutionary Party' that consists of two men and their dog and expect the workers to come to them.
Trotskyism , being the continuation of Marxism-Leninism
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "Marxism-Leninism" was a term coined by Stalin to describe his "version" (that is, the correct one) of Lenin's ideas. Trotsky always referred to his beliefs (later to be called Trotskyism) as "Bolshevik Leninism". He never claimed to have anything to do with Marxism-Leninism.
So how is this idealism, in your opinion?
In a lot of ways, Trotskyism seems more interested in the idea of revolution. A perfect example of this is the theory of "Permanent Revolution", which in complete oppostion to Leninism, poses the development of socialism in one country impossible. This completely fails to recognize the fact that capitalist and imperialist production and exchange on a global level leads to uneven development throughout the capitalist world which in turn means that the potential for a revolution to occur at any one time will only exist within defined and non-global areas. That is, there is no conceivable circumstance where the entire world will have a revolution at the same time. Trotskyism posits that in these instances, where a country can have a revolution, they should sit back and wait for the rest to get ready before actually building socialism. This is totally opposed to the Marxist-Leninist concept of building socialism in one country. This theory (socialism in one country), is not a negation of internationalism, but rather the scientific recognition of the actuality of capitalism.
MaverickChaos
3rd June 2008, 21:59
Trotskyism is counter revolutionary and Trotsky was really a agent for the international bourgeoisie-nerds. Trotsky was in league with the fascists i.e he was a social fascist. He voiced lots of opposition to the Soviet Stalin government in the 20's and 30's. He was opposed to collective ownserhip of the farms and to the five year plans Stalin started.
That is a total bull shit. what are you? a trotsky.
Wasn't it Trotsky who created the Five Year Plans? I know it was Stalin who introduced them, but I thought he simply stole them from Trotsky.
Wasn't it Trotsky who created the Five Year Plans? I know it was Stalin who introduced them, but I thought he simply stole them from Trotsky.
:lol::lol::lol:
How do you steal an idea in a democratic society? :rolleyes:
And Trotsky originally wanted to not even try to develop socialism in the USSR. Then when he was defeated, he suggested rapid industrialization. Then after he was defeated again by the CC of the CPSU, he criticized Stalin for rapidly industrializing the country!
Did someone say opportunism...:ohmy:
welshboy
4th June 2008, 12:29
What is anarchism, and why do there seem to be so many different types?
Anarchists, for the most part, believe in building the necessary forms and structures to replace capitalism in the here and now. We don't as a lot of the left like to claim believe that we can transform from a capitalist society to a communist society over night. We need to create the new society within the shell of the old, to paraphrase.
It is true that there are many trends within Anarchism though the dominant, and most coherent two, Anarchist-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism have much and common and only really disagree upon tactics.
No form of Anarchism however believes that giving power to a so-called vanguard party will lead to anything more than barbarity and a new class system as we have seen in the past.
What would a truely socialist/anarchist/communist world look like?
Now that one's debatable. In my ever so humble opinion we would see workplace and community committee's as the local organizational form. These committee's would be made up of all who wished to be involved within the community/workplace. For organization over a larger area these committee's would send delegates who would have to follow a strict mandate to larger regional committee's. The delegate would have to follow this mandate and could be recalled and replaced at any time.
This would allow for maximum participation and control over our workplaces and homes.
Obviously there is a hell of a lot more to it than that but it's the best I can do in a paragraph.
*prepares to be shot down from all sides*
And Trotsky originally wanted to not even try to develop socialism in the USSR. Then when he was defeated, he suggested rapid industrialization. Then after he was defeated again by the CC of the CPSU, he criticized Stalin for rapidly industrializing the country!First of all not even Lenin thought that the USSR will live on its own. They even wrote their "constitution"(sorry I dont know the word in English) , with the hopes of a German revolution or some other revolution in other parts of the world. So it was not that Trotsky did not believe that but they had the revolution in Germany(all the Bolseviks) as something certain. And the revolution in Germany would have succeeded if there werent mistakes by the leadersip there.
The 2 stage theory had a catastrophic result in China and Germany. Communists allied with the Chinese bourgeois and the Nazis ? Is that what you support? Because that was the 2 stage theory in effect. The permanent revolution was what was applied in the Soviet Union for the revolution. The two stage theory and socialism in one country are oppossed to Marxism-Leninism.
the theory of "Permanent Revolution", which in complete oppostion to Leninism, poses the development of socialism in one country impossible. This completely fails to recognize the fact that capitalist and imperialist production and exchange on a global level leads to uneven development throughout the capitalist world which in turn means that the potential for a revolution to occur at any one time will only exist within defined and non-global areas. That is, there is no conceivable circumstance where the entire world will have a revolution at the same time. Trotskyism posits that in these instances, where a country can have a revolution, they should sit back and wait for the rest to get ready before actually building socialism. This is totally opposed to the Marxist-Leninist concept of building socialism in one country. This theory (socialism in one country), is not a negation of internationalism, but rather the scientific recognition of the actuality of capitalism.What is all this slandering of the theory of the permanent revolution >?
You claim to be an ex-trot. Have you actualy read the book ?
he permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore completely unable to carry through any of its historical tasks. The rottenness of the bourgeois liberals, and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, was already observed by Marx and Engels. In his article The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution .
Only the proletariat, allied with the poor peasants and urban poor, can solve the problems of society by taking power into its own hands, expropriating the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, and beginning the task of transforming society on socialist lines. By setting itself at the head of the nation, leading the oppressed layers of society (urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie), the proletariat could take power and then carry through the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (mainly the land reform and the unification and liberation of the country from foreign domination). However, once having come to power, the proletariat would not stop there but would start to implement socialist measures of expropriation of the capitalists. And as these tasks cannot be solved in one country alone, especially not in a backward country, this would be the beginning of the world revolution. Thus the revolution is "permanent" in two senses: because it starts with the bourgeois tasks and continues with the socialist ones, and because it starts in one country and continues at an international level.
The two stage theory was developed by the Mensheviks as their perspective for the Russian revolution. It basically states that, since the tasks of the revolution are those of the national democratic bourgeois revolution, the leadership of the revolution must be taken by the national democratic bourgeoisie. For his part, Lenin agreed with Trotsky that the Russian Liberals could not carry out the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and that this task could only be carried out by the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry.
However, up until 1917, he did not believe that the Russian workers would come to power before the socialist revolution in the West&emdash;a perspective that only Trotsky defended before 1917, when it was fully adopted by Lenin in his April theses.
The correctness of the permanent revolution was triumphantly demonstrated by the October Revolution itself. The Russian working class&emdash;as Trotsky had predicted in 1904&emdash;came to power before the workers of Western Europe. They carried out all the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and immediately set about nationalising industry and passing over to the tasks of the socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie played an openly counterrevolutionary role, but was defeated by the workers in alliance with the poor peasants. The Bolsheviks then made a revolutionary appeal to the workers of the world to follow their example. Lenin knew very well that without the victory of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, especially Germany, the revolution could not survive isolated, especially in a backward country like Russia. What happened subsequently showed that this was absolutely correct. The setting up of the Third (Communist) International, the world party of socialist revolution, was the concrete manifestation of this perspective.
Had the Communist International remained firm on the positions of Lenin and Trotsky, the victory of the world revolution would have been ensured. Unfortunately, the Comintern's formative years coincided with the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia, which had a disastrous effect on the Communist Parties of the entire world. The Stalinist bureaucracy, having acquired control in the Soviet Union developed a very conservative outlook. The theory that socialism can be built in one country&emdash;an abomination from the standpoint of Marx and Lenin&emdash;really reflected the mentality of the bureaucracy which had had enough of the storm and stress of revolution and sought to get on with the task of "building socialism in Russia". That is to say, they wanted to protect and expand their privileges and not "waste" the resources of the country in pursuing world revolution. On the other hand they feared that revolution in other countries could develop on healthy lines and pose a threat to their own domination in Russia, and therefore, at a certain stage, sought actively to prevent revolution elsewhere.
Instead of pursuing a revolutionary policy based on class independence, as Lenin had always advocated, they proposed an alliance of the Communist Parties with the "national progressive bourgeoisie" (and if there was not one easily at hand, they were quite prepared to invent it) to carry through the democratic revolution, and afterwards, later on, in the far distant future, when the country had developed a fully fledged capitalist economy, fight for socialism. This policy represented a complete break with Leninism and a return to the old discredited position of Menshevism&emdash;the theory of the "two stages".
In order to cover up for their own abandoning of the lessons that the Bolsheviks had drawn from the experience of the Russian revolution itself the Stalinists mounted a huge campaign of falsification of Trotsky's analysis and conclusions. They tried to separate Trotsky's position from that of Lenin, by going back to the polemics of the period prior to the revolution, when in fact the experience of the revolution had put all theories to the test and had proven the theory of the Permanent Revolution to be correct.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "Marxism-Leninism" was a term coined by Stalin to describe his "version" (that is, the correct one) of Lenin's ideas. Trotsky always referred to his beliefs (later to be called Trotskyism) as "Bolshevik Leninism". He never claimed to have anything to do with Marxism-Leninism.
So the Mensevik two stage theory is the continuation of Leninism :rolleyes:?
Bolshevik Leninism=Marxism Leninism
the terminology doesnt matter
what matters is the theories that coincide :D
Stalinists Trotskyists we are still communist comrades even though we have a different views on certain topics :)
Revolutiondownunder
5th June 2008, 02:10
Thanks everyone!:)
I didnt understand everything but it cleared up a lot. sorry im only 17...:blushing:
Just two more questions...:blushing:
For those here that would call themselves followers of trotsky, what would the USSR have done differently if Trotsky had been in charge rather than Stalin?
What is a short, simple explanation of the differences between anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism? [short words please:blushing:].
For those here that would call themselves followers of trotsky, what would the USSR have done differently if Trotsky had been in charge rather than Stalin?
Workers democratic control of the means of production, no bureaucratic caste controling the people and the permanent revolution instead of the criminal two stage theory.
For more on the permanent revolution read my post above this one.
And of course international revolution would be easier with the permanent revolution.
So the Mensevik two stage theory is the continuation of Leninism :rolleyes:?
What the hell are you talking about?
Bolshevik Leninism=Marxism Leninism
Fail. These terms are terms that have historically defined meanings. The fact that you simply choose to ignore them does not mean that your decontextualized interpretations are in some way valid to the revolutionary left as a movement. It just means you have no idea what you're talking about. Trotskyism is not Marxism-Leninism and it does not claim to be so.
the terminology doesnt matter
Our ability to intelligently communicate ideas is irrelevant to you? We can make all words mean whatever we want them to mean without any regard to established usage or historical context?!
Stalinists Trotskyists we are still communist comrades even though we have a different views on certain topics :)
:lol::lol::lol:
This from the guy who started a "ban all Stalinists" thread!
BIG BROTHER
5th June 2008, 06:42
Thanks everyone!:)
I didnt understand everything but it cleared up a lot. sorry im only 17...:blushing:
Just two more questions...:blushing:
For those here that would call themselves followers of trotsky, what would the USSR have done differently if Trotsky had been in charge rather than Stalin?
What is a short, simple explanation of the differences between anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism? [short words please:blushing:].
I'll answer the seccond one. Anarcho-syndicalism is more of a method to achieve anarchism. Syndicalists believe that enstead of parties, unions or "sindicatos" as they call them in spain, are the way of organizing the working class.
btw most anarcho-syndicalists are also anarcho-communists. Anarcho communist basically don't believe in dictatorship of the proletariat, or vanguard party, and seek to make a stateless classles society right away.
Niccolò Rossi
5th June 2008, 06:55
Workers democratic control of the means of production, no bureaucratic caste controling the people and the permanent revolution instead of the criminal two stage theory.
This is a complete joke. When trots like you spew crap like this you actually add weight to Drosera's arguement that trots are idealists.
You yourself said that socialism can not be achieved in one country above, and then suddenly do a back flip saying that in fact if Trotsky had been at the helm things would all have been different.
How humiliating, you confessed to a "great-men-in-history" undertsanding which is totally and utterly opposed to a Marxist, Materialist conception of History. If you understood and utilised a Historical Materialist perspective you would realise that it is not the man at the helm that could have decided the fate of the USSR, but the objective material conditions.
Ghaile
5th June 2008, 07:36
Workers democratic control of the means of production, no bureaucratic caste controling the people and the permanent revolution instead of the criminal two stage theory.
For more on the permanent revolution read my post above this one.
And of course international revolution would be easier with the permanent revolution.
Your are no one's comrade, certainly not one of workers'. You are a dangerous sectarian.
Revolutiondownunder
5th June 2008, 11:53
didnt mean to start a fight sorry.
Thanks for the definitions I am defo going to have to do some more research but at least I have a starting point now. Thanks!:)
You yourself said that socialism can not be achieved in one country above, and then suddenly do a back flip saying that in fact if Trotsky had been at the helm things would all have been different.Yes because the Stalinists gave up the international revolution. Of course it is difficult to sustain socialism in one country , but if not the prevailing of Stalinists , the Chinese communists would not ave allied themselves with the Kuomintang and they werent gonna be slaughtered like they did due to the criminal stalinist policy of the two stage theory. The Comintern gave less focus to the international revolution during Stalin's time.
How humiliating, you confessed to a "great-men-in-history" undertsanding which is totally and utterly opposed to a Marxist, Materialist conception of HistoryI am not talking about men my friend , I am taking about two distinct ideologies! You just confessed to not understanding the distinction between Trotskyism and Stalinism. It was thousands of people representing genuine socialism that were exterminated by the GPU. It's not a question of individuals for sure. It was a question of tactics and Marxist analysis
Fail. These terms are terms that have historically defined meanings. The fact that you simply choose to ignore them does not mean that your decontextualized interpretations are in some way valid to the revolutionary left as a movement. It just means you have no idea what you're talking about. Trotskyism is not Marxism-Leninism and it does not claim to be soIt is marxism leninism. It is its continuation. And it claims so.
Also I see no reply about the permanent revolution thing.
You thought you can slander it without me replying to you?
This from the guy who started a "ban all Stalinists" thread!Well after hanging out with some Stalinists I revised my opinion:rolleyes:
Stainists are good people.
They are just confused
Your are no one's comrade, certainly not one of workers'. You are a dangerous sectarian.New guy stop flaming.
And I am less of a sectarian than you lol . Im an entrist. :D
:lol:
communard resolution
5th June 2008, 12:59
Yes because the Stalinists gave up the international revolution
Do you think the revolution is supposed to happen in all countries at the same time, or in all countries but one by one?
I asked a Trotskist friend of mine why he thinks the USSR degenarated into 'state capitalism', and he said "because it only occurred in one country" - according to him, everything would have been hunky dory had the revolution been international. While I think my friend is taking some sort of shortcut in his reasoning that I don't quite follow, I'd like to know: how can the revolution occur simultaneously in all countries if not all countries are at the same stage of economic development?
Ghaile
5th June 2008, 13:52
Stalinists never gave up the international revolution, they are the only ones who firmly stayed it's course. It's the Trotskyites who parroting their ultranationalist social-imperialism and called it 'internationalism'.... Stalin was a true Marxist revolutionary and practical about the development of capitalism and socialism in different conditions worldwide, and he certainly didn't apply the degenerate 'all or nothing' ultra-left dogshit to how to build real existing socialism.
Anarchists: Take your moralistic petite-bourgeois whinbaggery elsewhere.
dirtycommiebastard
5th June 2008, 16:12
If you understood and utilised a Historical Materialist perspective you would realise that it is not the man at the helm that could have decided the fate of the USSR, but the objective material conditions.
I don't necessarily disagree with your post, but for someone who believes to understand historical materialism, ignoring the fact that individuals can play a very large and influential role is criminal.
Yes, material conditions and class antagonism are the driving force of history in the long run, but saying that only these factors affected the Russian Revolution is un-Marxist.This would be like claiming that Chavez is playing no role whatsoever in the situation in Venezuela right now. We have to understand the multiple dynamics that affected the state of Russia at the time, and to ignore Stalin's acts and those of the bureaucracy would be incorrect, so please keep your apologetics for your circle of Stalin-fetishists.
We have to be careful to not look at things one dimensionally so that our views are not blackened by obsession over a particular line in a book written over a hundred years ago.
It is marxism leninism. It is its continuation. And it claims so.
Show me one instance where Trotsky claims to follow Marxism-Leninism. You have no idea what you're talking about and it is readily apparent to any casual observer. There is absolutely no basis for what your claim. You are simply confusing yourself and others about what Marxist terminology is.
Also I see no reply about the permanent revolution thing.
You thought you can slander it without me replying to you?
Again, what are you talking about?
Also, you can't slander a theory.
I m replying to everyone soon !
I'm just really busy with exams and work now
just wait a few days:rolleyes:
Niccolò Rossi
7th June 2008, 02:52
I am not talking about men my friend , I am taking about two distinct ideologies! You just confessed to not understanding the distinction between Trotskyism and Stalinism. It was thousands of people representing genuine socialism that were exterminated by the GPU. It's not a question of individuals for sure. It was a question of tactics and Marxist analysis
What is this supposed to mean? It does not matter about Trotskyism and Stalinism being two distinct ideologies. In you post above you made the claim that if it was Trotsky that succeeded Lenin the whole course of world history would have been different. Essentially you were sinking to a "great-men-in-history" view. No man solely by the ideas (ideology) in his mind or my some "greater understanding", can shape and mould history at his will.
If Trotsky had come to power I think world history would have been scarcely different. To say that by Trotsky's "superior ideology" he could have changed to course of history and "secured the victory of world socialism" is, quite frankly, bullshit.
I don't necessarily disagree with your post, but for someone who believes to understand historical materialism, ignoring the fact that individuals can play a very large and influential role is criminal.
Yes, material conditions and class antagonism are the driving force of history in the long run, but saying that only these factors affected the Russian Revolution is un-Marxist.This would be like claiming that Chavez is playing no role whatsoever in the situation in Venezuela right now.
I agree completely. Certainly their have been "great men" which have had a huge impact on world history, one only has to think of individuals such as Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler to see this. However, it is important to acknowledge that these men did make history by their will alone, they made it only in accordance with the existing material conditions.
Men are the vehicles through which material conditions find their expression. In this sense men make history and it is important not to ignore this.
We have to understand the multiple dynamics that affected the state of Russia at the time, and to ignore Stalin's acts and those of the bureaucracy would be incorrect, so please keep your apologetics for your circle of Stalin-fetishists.
You offend me! I never knew I was a Stalinist apologist, but thanks for the info.
In all seriousness now, I was not condoning or defending the actions of the Stalinist bureaucracy. All I was doing was combating the most foul and dogmatic approach to Soviet history advocated by such (but not all) Trots such as nvm.
We have to be careful to not look at things one dimensionally so that our views are not blackened by obsession over a particular line in a book written over a hundred years ago.I agree completely. However it is not I who is the dogmatist here, but rather nvm and his vulgar "great-men-in-history", who sees embodied in Trotsky the messiah who had the ability to save the Russian Revolution.
Die Neue Zeit
7th June 2008, 03:01
^^^ Trotsky was already a VERY bureaucratic person. Lenin said this in his testament.
Some policies here and there may have differed, but who knows whether Trotsky-as-boss would actually have had SIOC in practice (without necessarily theorizing it as Stalin and especially Bukharin did)?
Remember, such centrist scenario that I posed above would not be surprising, given Trotsky's past centrism in the schism between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhraiontsy).
NoArch
27th June 2008, 15:08
I'm not going to go in to a massive definition of Anarchism as I really don't think it can be defined other than lots of non-hierarchial collectives. I don't think Anarchism can ever be "internationalist" as how can anybody organise people to think and act internationally?
People should organise around their local community and work as one to forward their own needs. Where two or more local communities meet, the two or more groups work out what is best for all of them. On a large scale (looking from the Moon) this may look like internationalism but in the end it is just collectivism without the values of imperialism and aggression that comes with capitalism.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.