What about Mao and the Chinese Revolution?

[nvm]

From time to time it is necessary to draw a balance sheet of our ideas and theoretical positions. How did they work out in practice over the past fifty years? If there is a major contribution of our tendency to Marxism, this is our analysis of the colonial revolution and the development of proletarian bonapartism, beginning with our analysis of the Chinese revolution after 1945. It was precisely the impasse of capitalism in these countries and the pressing need of the masses for a way forward which gave rise to the phenomena of proletarian bonapartism. This was due to a number of different factors. In the first place, the complete impasse of society in the backward countries and the inability of the colonial bourgeoisie to show a way forward. Secondly, the inability of imperialism to maintain its control by the old means of direct military-bureaucratic rule. Thirdly, the delay of the proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries and the weakness of the subjective factor. And lastly, the existence of a powerful regime of proletarian bonapartism in the Soviet Union. The victory of the USSR in the Second World War, and the strengthening of Stalinism after the War with its extension to Eastern Europe and the victory of the Chinese revolution were all factors that combined to condition the development of proletarian bonapartism as a peculiar variant of the permanent revolution which was only understood by our tendency. This was an entirely unprecedented and unexpected phenomenon. Nowhere in the classics of Marxism was it even considered as a theoretical possibility that a peasant war could lead to the establishment of even a deformed workers' state. Yet this is precisely what occurred in China, and later in Cuba and Vietnam.
We characterised the Chinese revolution as the second greatest event in world history, after the Russian revolution of 1917. It had an enormous effect in the subsequent development of the colonial revolution. But this revolution did not take place on the classical lines of the Russian revolution in 1917 or the Chinese revolution of 1925-27. The working class played no important role. Mao came to power on the basis of a mighty peasant war, in the traditions of China. The only way Mao was able to win the civil war of 1944-49 was by offering a programme of social liberation to the peasant armies of Chiang Kai-shek, who was armed and backed by American imperialism. But the Stalinist leaders of the peasant Red Army had no perspective of leading the workers to power as did Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. When Mao's peasant armies arrived at the cities, and the workers spontaneously occupied the factories and greeted Mao's armies with red flags, Mao gave the order that these demonstrations should be suppressed and the workers were shot.
Initially, Mao did not intend to expropriate the Chinese capitalists. His perspectives for the Chinese revolution were outlined in a pamphlet called "New democracy" in which he wrote that the socialist revolution was not on the order of the day in China, and that the only development that could take place was a mixed economy, i.e. capitalism. This was the classical "two stage" Menshevik theory which had been adopted by the Stalinist bureaucracy and had led to the defeat of the Chinese revolution in 1925-27. But our tendency understood that under the concrete conditions that had developed that Mao would be forced to expropriate capitalism.
Not only that but we also predicted in advance the fact that Mao would be forced to break with Stalin. Already in early 1949 we wrote: "The fact that Mao has a genuine mass base independent of the Russian Red Army, will in all likelihood provide for the first time an independent base for Chinese Stalinism which will no longer rest directly on Moscow. As with Tito, so with Mao, despite the role of the Red Army in Manchuria, Chinese Stalinism is developing an independent base. Because of the national aspirations of the Chinese masses, the traditional struggle against foreign domination, the economic needs of the country and above all, the powerful base in an independent state apparatus, the danger of a new and really formidable Tito in China is a factor which is causing anxiety in Moscow.

"However, the subordination of the Chinese economy to the benefit of the Russian bureaucracy, with the attempts to place puppets in control who will be completely subordinate to Moscow--in other words, the national oppression of the Chinese--will create the basis for a clash with the Kremlin of great magnitude and significance. Mao, with an independent and powerful state apparatus, with the possibility of manoeuvring with the imperialists of the West (who will seek to negotiate with China for trade and try and drive a wedge between Peking and Moscow) and with the support of the Chinese masses as the victorious leader against the Kuomintang, will have powerful points of support against Moscow.
"Stalin's very efforts to try and forestall this development will tend to accelerate and intensify the resentment and the conflict." (Reply to David James (http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/james.htm), reprinted in Grant, The Unbroken Thread, p. 304.)
These lines were written more than a decade before the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet conflict, when the Chinese and Russian bureaucracies seemed to be inseparable allies.
The victory of Mao's peasant armies in China was due to a number of factors: the complete and utter impasse of Chinese capitalism and landlordism, the inability of imperialism to intervene because of the war-weariness of the imperialist troops after the Second World War, and also because of the colossal power of attraction of the nationalised planned economy in Stalinist Russia which demonstrated its superiority during the war with Hitler's Germany.
The fact that the peasantry was used to carry through a social revolution was a completely new development in the history of China. China was the classical country of peasant wars, which took place at regular intervals. But even when these wars were victorious this merely resulted in the fusion of the leading elements of the peasant armies with the elite in the towns, resulting in the formation of a new dynasty. It was a vicious circle which characterised Chinese history for over 2,000 years. But here we had a fundamental departure. The peasant army under Mao was able to smash capitalism and create a society on the image of Stalin's Moscow. Of course, there could be no question of a healthy workers' state as in Russia in November 1917 being established by such means. For that, the active participation and leadership of the working class would be required. But a peasant army, without the leadership of the working class, is the classical instrument of Bonapartism, not workers' power. The Chinese Revolution of 1949 began where the Russian Revolution had ended. There was no question of soviets or workers' democracy. From the very beginning it was a monstrously deformed workers' state. Our tendency underlined that on the world scale the only class which can bring about the triumph of socialism is the proletariat.
Once Mao had taken power and created a state apparatus on the basis of the hierarchy of the Red Army he did not have any need to ally himself with the bourgeoisie. In a typical bonapartist fashion, Mao balanced between the different classes. He leaned on the peasantry and to a certain extent on the working class to expropriate the capitalists, but once these had been defeated he then proceeded to eliminate any elements of workers democracy that might have existed. This phenomena was possible precisely because of the delay of the world revolution and the impasse of society. He had the powerful example of Stalinism in Russia, where a strong bureaucracy was parasiting the planned economy and benefiting from it, so he decided to follow the same model. Despite its monstrously deformed character, the Chinese Revolution nevertheless represented a gigantic step forward for hundreds of millions of people who had been the beasts of burden of imperialism.

[Rawthentic]

Where did you get this from, nvm?

[nvm]

where Did You Get This From, Nvm?

Yfis

[Rawthentic]

What?

[nvm]

http://www.newyouth.com/

It's the youth group of the IMT

[Wanted Man]

Why does this even get published on a youth site? Do kids often come to you to tell you how glad they are that Ted Grant was the only one who got it right in 1949? :confused: And what's the point of posting it here?

[nvm]

Why does this even get published on a youth site? Do kids often come to you to tell you how glad they are that Ted Grant was the only one who got it right in 1949? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif And what's the point of posting it here?

The point publishing it in a youth site is that sometimes youth become disillusioned and call themselves Maoists, Stalinists ,Titoists etc, (like we have so many of these varieties on revleft which is mostly youth) and those youth are therefore far from genuine marxism and genuine marxist tactics and ideas. By exposing Mao to the youth, we are trying to bring back some of the youth to the correct ideas of marxism. Because just like the deformed workers states collapsed, the deformed marxists collapse when they realize the nakedness of their ideas.
It serves the same purpose on revleft.

[Wanted Man]

Oh, I see. So that boring tract is supposed to convert me into a trotskyist?

[Leo]

The point publishing it in a youth site is that sometimes youth become disillusioned and call themselves Maoists, Stalinists ,Titoists etc

And Trotskyists, of course...


The point publishing it in a youth site is that sometimes youth become disillusioned and call themselves Maoists, Stalinists ,Titoists etc, (like we have so many of these varieties on revleft which is mostly youth) and those youth are therefore far from genuine marxism and genuine marxist tactics and ideas. By exposing Mao to the youth, we are trying to bring back some of the youth to the correct ideas of marxism. Because just like the deformed workers states collapsed, the deformed marxists collapse when they realize the nakedness of their ideas.
It serves the same purpose on revleft.

So what you are basically saying is that your propaganda activity is aimed at recruiting new people from other groups?


Because just like the deformed workers states collapsed

And of course the funniest part is that Teddy called China a "deformed workers state".

[nvm]

Oh, I see. So that boring tract is supposed to convert me into a trotskyist
You are far too disillusioned! It won't do for you:D



And Trotskyists, of course...

I disagree on that. Trotskyists uphold the ideas of genuine Marxism and are in a constant battle with revisionists, reformists and Stalinists


So what you are basically saying is that your propaganda activity is aimed at recruiting new people from other groups?

Not on revleft !
I m not an e-revolutionary.
On revleft I am trying to expose people to the ideas of Marxism and fight the stalinists.



And of course the funniest part is that Teddy called China a "deformed workers state".

Was it not?

[Leo]

I disagree on that. Trotskyists uphold the ideas of genuine Marxism and are in a constant battle with revisionists, reformists and Stalinists


On revleft I am trying to expose people to the ideas of Marxism and fight the stalinists.

I think it is good that you are militant with your anti-Stalinism, not all, actually not most Trotskyists are though, with their "critical" defense of all different sorts of Stalinist regimes. I think you might find this article interesting: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm


Was it not?

Clearly not, it was a nationalist bourgeois state which repressed workers and revolutionaries at every instance. It was not a "workers' state" in a way, not even a "deformed" one. From 1946 to 1949, the confrontation between the two super powers led directly to a war between the CPC and the Kuomintang. During the war other Kuomintang generals went over, along with their arms and men,to the side of the “popular forces”. In this way, we can see four successive stages in which the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie nourished the CPC: the one that followed the defeat of the working class, from 1928; the one rooted in the student movement of 1935; the period of the war against Japan and finally that provoked by the collapse of the Kuomintang. The “old” bourgeoisie - with the exception of the great monopolists linked directly with Chiang Kai-Shek, such as Soong - merged into the CPC and founded the “new” bourgeoisie that arose during the war. In 1949 the Communist Party of China, headed by the Red Army, took power and proclaimed the People’s Republic. But this never had anything to do with Communism. The class character of the “Communist” party that took power in China was completely alien to communism and antagonistic to the working class. From the beginning, the regime was only a form of state capitalism.


Not on revleft !
I m not an e-revolutionary.

:) I think you misunderstood me, I did not mean this was what you were trying to do on RevLeft, what I was trying to say is that what you said was an expression of the recruitmentist mentality.

[nvm]

think it is good that you are militant with your anti-Stalinism, not all, actually not most Trotskyists are though, with their "critical" defense of all different sorts of Stalinist regimes

A lot of trotskyists are militant anti stalinists and fierce polemics of Stalinism. One of them of course was Ted Grant. The critical support of Stalinists regimes reduces itself to a support of the national planned economy and against the bureaucratic nature of that planning , the authoritarialism and lack of democratic workers control and against the bureaucratic parasitic class . It is the best position of anti-Stalinist polemics to take, in order to show the nakedness of the regime , while supporting a political revolution of the worker that can bring genuine socialism.
A lot of trots for the sake of not being called sectarians(?!) are very mild against stalinists. That is a grave mistake as I think that we should fight this "cholera " that has cost the lives of thousands and thousands of workers and of tens of lost revolutions, with ALL OUR MIGHT. Even though Stalinism is half dead in the present epoch, it does not deserve our pity. It deserves the final blow that will send it to the trashcan of history for ever!


I think you might find this article interesting: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm)
I am gonna read it when I finish these lines and tell you what I think.




Clearly not, it was a nationalist bourgeois state which repressed workers and revolutionaries at every instance. It was not a "workers' state" in a way, not even a "deformed" one. From 1946 to 1949, the confrontation between the two super powers led directly to a war between the CPC and the Kuomintang. During the war other Kuomintang generals went over, along with their arms and men,to the side of the “popular forces”. In this way, we can see four successive stages in which the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie nourished the CPC: the one that followed the defeat of the working class, from 1928; the one rooted in the student movement of 1935; the period of the war against Japan and finally that provoked by the collapse of the Kuomintang. The “old” bourgeoisie - with the exception of the great monopolists linked directly with Chiang Kai-Shek, such as Soong - merged into the CPC and founded the “new” bourgeoisie that arose during the war. In 1949 the Communist Party of China, headed by the Red Army, took power and proclaimed the People’s Republic. But this never had anything to do with Communism. The class character of the “Communist” party that took power in China was completely alien to communism and antagonistic to the working class. From the beginning, the regime was only a form of state capitalism.


Capitalism is when the means of production belong to individuals. So state capitalism is an absurd idea for me. As about the historical facts I am not an expert on that subject. My knowledge on China is limited.
What I certainly know is that under Mao the economy was planned , the land was taken by the big land owners etc . It was not a degenerated workers state like in Russia that was once a workers state and degenerated into Stalinism(although some might argue that it was never a workers state which is reasonable) . China was clearly a deformed workers state. Workers-peasants state because the economy was planned and nationalized and the land expropriated from the big landowners, with education , healthcare etc. , and deformed because it was never a genuine workers state as you said, but based on Stalinism .


what I was trying to say is that what you said was an expression of the recruitmentist mentality.
Of course in my every day life I have the recruitment mentality . In protests, discussions with socialists etc I always bring that up. That is because I firmly believe that the IMT stands for genuine Marxism and by recruiting people to the IMT i am helping(at least a little) for the eventual workers revolution.
For a genuine socialist society based on the Ideas of MArx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky and using the methods to get there on Lenin , Trotsky and Ted Grant, whose ideas are the natural continuation of the ideas of Trotsky, oppossed to CWI's ultra-leftism and sectarianism.

[Leo]

A lot of trotskyists are militant anti stalinists and fierce polemics of Stalinism. One of them of course was Ted Grant. I don't think someone who has always been in the Labour Party is a good reference of anti-stalinism, since social-democrats have never been any better.


The critical support of Stalinists regimes reduces itself to a support of the national planned economyBut who controls the "national planned economy"? What class? If a "national planned economy" by itself turned a state into a "workers'" state, then the New Deal America, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Kemalist Turkey, Kuomintang's China, Congress Party's India, Idi Amin's Uganda, social democratic European countries and many other similar would all count as "workers' states".


and against the bureaucratic nature of that planning , the authoritarialism and lack of democratic workers control and against the bureaucratic parasitic class .But what class is this "bureaucratic parasitic class"? Where did it come from? What is the economic basis of this class? What is the economic function of this class? Is this a historical class? What does this class profit from, what is in the interests of this class?

If one is to claim to be marxist and then one is to analyze the ruling class in the so-called socialist countries, one has to see that what you call the "bureaucratic parasitic class" is nothing but the ruling class, the bourgeoisie of that country, and is tightly connected with the bourgeoisie of the other countries.


It is the best position of anti-Stalinist polemics to take, in order to show the nakedness of the regime , while supporting a political revolution of the worker that can bring genuine socialism.You know that "political revolution" in the way Teddy, the earlier followers of the old man, and the old man himself even used means a mere change in personnel, fundamentally a fancy world for expressing a coup d'etat. Now even if you claim that who ruled the so-called socialist countries was a "bureaucratic-parasitic class", you acknowledge the fact that it is a class society and that one class is ruling another. Thus if you are to be against the ruling class, then surely, you have to call for a proletarian revolution, that is a social revolution instead of a political one: that is a revolution conducted by a class against another: by the working class against the ruling class.


A lot of trots for the sake of not being called sectarians(?!) are very mild against stalinists. That is a grave mistake as I think that we should fight this "cholera " that has cost the lives of thousands and thousands of workers and of tens of lost revolutions, with ALL OUR MIGHT.I don't see getting that from any Trotskyist group: they are either close to stalinists, or to social democrats, or the nationalists.


I am gonna read it when I finish these lines and tell you what I think.I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions on it.


Capitalism is when the means of production belong to individuals.Actually I think you are wrong, according to the marxist production. Capitalism is a certain mode of production and it doesn't have much to do with individual ownership of the means of production more than other modes of production, such as feudalism or slavery were. It is a class society, thus it is a society based on private property, and this private property is the property of a class and it expresses the control of that class over the means of production. So regardless of the fact that individual property exists juridically, private property existed in the so-called socialist countries through the ownership of the organ of the bourgeoisie united: the state, and this didn't prevent competition and polarization among different elements of the bourgeoisies in those countries either. What determined this was the mode of production which was capitalist, so workers kept being exploited, surplus value kept being extracted and capital kept being accumulated. Nothing infrastructural changed for workers or for the bosses.


Of course in my every day life I have the recruitment mentality.It's not a good way to go. I don't think this is the proletarian way of organizing.


In protests, discussions with socialists etc I always bring that up. That is because I firmly believe that the IMT stands for genuine Marxism and by recruiting people to the IMT i am helping(at least a little) for the eventual workers revolution.I am absolutely sure that you have all the best intentions.

On the other hand, I would like to make a friendly suggestion to you: never be afraid of questioning everything you do and everything you believe in, otherwise your sincere convictions can turn into a cold and "professional" passions for something else, and your means can become the end in itself.

[Wanted Man]

Even though Stalinism is half dead in the present epoch, it does not deserve our pity. It deserves the final blow that will send it to the trashcan of history for ever!
How will you do that? By having a 'youth movement' with historical articles that denounce Mao, just in case any kid might get bad ideas? I think that's silly. I'm not in a maoist party, and I think maoism is ultimately not the answer (although the positive aspects of the Chinese experience shouldn't be left in the dirt). But if some new kid brings his copy of the Little Red Book, I think it's fun to engage them about it and find common ground. It's not my style to use intellectual elitism against people who have barely formulated a political opinion, just for the sake of stamping out their "wrong ideas" because of some historical mission to give his trend "the final blow".

Hey, if you want to deal Stalinism the final blow, why don't you go to one of the countries that your cult has designated as "Stalinist deformed workers' states" (Cuba, DPRK, etc.) and try to warm the people there up for "political revolution"? Come on, it's no fun in the Anglosphere or the Germanic countries. We all have communist parties with a few hundred members, then a maoist sect with 100, then a hoxhaist one with 20. And then there's the CWI, IMT, Sparts, 4th Int., 5th Int., with about 20 people each. Let's face it, we're all equally pathetic. "The Stalinists" or "The ultra-left sects" have probably never heard of you and don't care if you want to "take them down".


Of course in my every day life I have the recruitment mentality . In protests, discussions with socialists etc I always bring that up. That is because I firmly believe that the IMT stands for genuine Marxism and by recruiting people to the IMT i am helping(at least a little) for the eventual workers revolution.
For a genuine socialist society based on the Ideas of MArx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky and using the methods to get there on Lenin , Trotsky and Ted Grant, whose ideas are the natural continuation of the ideas of Trotsky, oppossed to CWI's ultra-leftism and sectarianism.
That's such a cultist mentality. It's all there:


Recruitment madness.
Ideological absolutism (only my clique has it right!).
Worship of leader or theoretical founding father (my guy is the direct continuation of the classics!).
Sectarianism in the marxist sense (my group will make the revolution!).
Sectarianism in the typical sense (all the other groups are wrong!)


Drop it, it's scary.

[nvm]

How will you do that? By having a 'youth movement' with historical articles that denounce Mao, just in case any kid might get bad ideas? I think that's silly. I'm not in a maoist party, and I think maoism is ultimately not the answer (although the positive aspects of the Chinese experience shouldn't be left in the dirt). But if some new kid brings his copy of the Little Red Book, I think it's fun to engage them about it and find common ground. It's not my style to use intellectual elitism against people who have barely formulated a political opinion, just for the sake of stamping out their "wrong ideas" because of some historical mission to give his trend "the final blow".

Why not stamp out the wrong ideas? Reformism and Stalinism (with all its variations) are equally wrong. So why should we find common ground with reformists , revisionists and Stalinists? It is just absurd. I think there should be no compromise with the counter-revolutionaries and educate young socialists in the ideas of genuine marxism , not distorted marxism. There is no common ground with Stalinism in a theoretical level.
We need to kill that trend not nurture it. Just like Lenin never compromised with the Mensheviks or "found common ground".


Hey, if you want to deal Stalinism the final blow, why don't you go to one of the countries that your cult has designated as "Stalinist deformed workers' states" (Cuba, DPRK, etc.) and try to warm the people there up for "political revolution"?

My "cult" has done a very good work in cuba. The Friedrich Engels foundation which is a foundation of the IMT in Spain has participated in the Havana book-fair and Cubans had an enthusiastic response to Trotsky's ideas. So enough with baseless accusations.



Recruitment madness.
Ideological absolutism (only my clique has it right!).
Worship of leader or theoretical founding father (my guy is the direct continuation of the classics!).
Sectarianism in the marxist sense (my group will make the revolution!).
Sectarianism in the typical sense (all the other groups are wrong!)

First of all every genuine Marxist organization needs new blood. It needs to educate students in the ideas of genuine Marxism. Recruits=Progress and ability to do more action. I see no problem with "recruitment madness". It is a way forward.
As about ideological absolutism , I wouldn't be a member of the IMT if I did not think that the ideas of the IMT are the correct ideas. So in that sense you that you are a member of your organization , you are an ideological absolutist, as you think that your organization has the correct ideas, methods and practice.
As about worship of the theoretical father or the leader that is just nonsense.
We don't worship people ( like the Stalinists who worship the "fathe rof socialism). It is an aknowledgment of the correctness of the Ideas of Marx , Engels, Lenin and Trotsky and the methods of Lenin and Trotsky further developped by Ted Grant.
It is my subjective opinion that the ideas of Ted Grant are the preservation and continuation of Trotskyism. I see no wrong to that. Otherwise I would not be a member of the IMT. Sectarianism in any sense does not exist in the IMT or within me.
The IMT uses entrism which is the absolute negation of sectarianism. The workers will make the revolution not the IMT. But the workers should be educate in the ideas of genuine Marxism in order to avoid past mistakes. and it is the role of the members of the IMT to teach the ideas to the workers. The ideas that we think are correct.
We never alienated ourselves from the masses. As about the correctness of our ideas. That is proved through our successes and will be proved if indeed they are correct in the future. I am optimistic because I subjectively think they are correct and will lead to revolution , if applied .
Sectarianism in the typical sense. I think that exists everywhere. Either you have the courage to talk about it or not it exists. Otherwise we wouldn't belong to different groups with different ideas but we would be united. Let's say the united left. But that is not the case. Obviously every leftist think that his group is right and other groups are wrong.
The difference is that I have the balls to admit that i think like that while others hide it.


PS:Here are some links that will prove what I said about the work in Cuba is true, and will demolish you baseless accusations.
http://www.marxist.com/marxist-theory-havana-book-fair.htm
http://www.marxist.com/launch-revolution-betrayed.htm

[RHIZOMES]

ey, if you want to deal Stalinism the final blow, why don't you go to one of the countries that your cult has designated as "Stalinist deformed workers' states" (Cuba, DPRK, etc.) and try to warm the people there up for "political revolution"? Come on, it's no fun in the Anglosphere or the Germanic countries. We all have communist parties with a few hundred members, then a maoist sect with 100, then a hoxhaist one with 20. And then there's the CWI, IMT, Sparts, 4th Int., 5th Int., with about 20 people each. Let's face it, we're all equally pathetic. "The Stalinists" or "The ultra-left sects" have probably never heard of you and don't care if you want to "take them down".

This.

In my country, New Zealand, there are 5 communist groups. 4 of them are Trotskyist. Something is wrong here! Socialist Equality Party, the Communist Worker's Group, The Communist League and the Socialist Worker, which recently had a split, making it 5 Trotskyist groups! :lol::lol::lol:

They really should unite though, I mean, they all have a few things in common. They're all tiny and they're all irrelevant to the New Zealand working class.

[nvm]

This.

In my country, New Zealand, there are 5 communist groups. 4 of them are Trotskyist. Something is wrong here! Socialist Equality Party, the Communist Worker's Group, The Communist League and the Socialist Worker, which recently had a split, making it 5 Trotskyist groups! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

They really should unite though, I mean, they all have a few things in common. They're all tiny and they're all irrelevant to the New Zealand working class.

That is indeed weird but he was not talking about that . We can talk about Trotskyists splitting in another thread

[Wanted Man]

Why not stamp out the wrong ideas? Reformism and Stalinism (with all its variations) are equally wrong. So why should we find common ground with reformists , revisionists and Stalinists? It is just absurd. I think there should be no compromise with the counter-revolutionaries and educate young socialists in the ideas of genuine marxism , not distorted marxism. There is no common ground with Stalinism in a theoretical level.
We need to kill that trend not nurture it. Just like Lenin never compromised with the Mensheviks or "found common ground".
Lenin still had to deal with them for about a decade before finally managing to break away. That was revolution in 1917's Russia, where the Bolsheviks were in the position to mobilise the working class. Of course, at that time, the Mensheviks had to be done away with. But we're talking about the here and now, and I already explained how meaningless it is. If all trotskyists in a country united, they'd still amount to nothing (200 people at most). If they didn't believe your "no compromise" stuff and everyone on the "revolutionary left" united, they'd still only have about 500-1,000 people.

So really, what is there to stamp out? And again, how are you going to do it? You're originally Greek, right? Do you think the KKE should be "stamped out" as well, or are you quite openly proud of that party's strength, like almost every ardent "anti-stalinist" who is confronted with the fact that his theories don't apply everywhere, and that many communist parties are pretty awesome? In southern Europe, the "stalinist" communist parties and unions organise millions of workers. Of course, the vast majority of them aren't ideologically "stalinists", but just acting in their best interests. So what should be done there? Will you recruit them all to the IMT so that their parties can be "stamped out"? :lol:


My "cult" has done a very good work in cuba. The Friedrich Engels foundation which is a foundation of the IMT in Spain has participated in the Havana book-fair and Cubans had an enthusiastic response to Trotsky's ideas. So enough with baseless accusations.

(...)

PS:Here are some links that will prove what I said about the work in Cuba is true, and will demolish you baseless accusations.
http://www.marxist.com/marxist-theory-havana-book-fair.htm
http://www.marxist.com/launch-revolution-betrayed.htm
A Spanish foundation? I think it's pretty offensive that Spaniards need to tell the Latin Americans what's best for them. Isn't there any movement in Cuba that wants "political revolution"? Because it's nice that you're citing those two events, but that doesn't sound like the fighting words you spoke before. Is Cuba "Stalinist" or is it not? Does it need a political revolution or does it not? Should the "Stalinist" CPC be "stamped out" in order to deal Stalinism a "final blow"? Who's going to do it? The IMT, since they're the only ones who are right about everything? You talk tough, but it doesn't really apply to the real world.

So they sold books at a book fair? Wow. As for the second event, I would likely go there to listen to Celia Hart. And she's not in the IMT, doesn't that mean she's baaaad (cue to the sound of sheep bleating)?


First of all every genuine Marxist organization needs new blood. It needs to educate students in the ideas of genuine Marxism. Recruits=Progress and ability to do more action. I see no problem with "recruitment madness". It is a way forward.
Of course new members are important. But it's ridiculous to preach like Jehova's Witness and try to "steal" members away from other organisations which you think should be "stamped out". I think the "bar" to becoming a member of a communist youth organisation should be set a bit lower. It should be easy to ask sympathisers to get a membership card and arrange that quickly. If they refuse to join, it's useless to go on about it, it's better to invite them to public events, discuss with them and gain a good sympathiser who may still join later.


As about ideological absolutism , I wouldn't be a member of the IMT if I did not think that the ideas of the IMT are the correct ideas. So in that sense you that you are a member of your organization , you are an ideological absolutist, as you think that your organization has the correct ideas, methods and practice.
I don't buy that. For marxism, nothing is absolute, sacred or infallible. Sticking to a rigid theory, even as conditions change, is idiotic. It once again brings us to political cultism. Often in trotskyism, when disagreement comes up and a majority picks one position, the minority simply splits off or gets expelled. Come on, the IMT was even founded in that manner, you must know this.


As about worship of the theoretical father or the leader that is just nonsense.
We don't worship people ( like the Stalinists who worship the "fathe rof socialism). It is an aknowledgment of the correctness of the Ideas of Marx , Engels, Lenin and Trotsky and the methods of Lenin and Trotsky further developped by Ted Grant.
It is my subjective opinion that the ideas of Ted Grant are the preservation and continuation of Trotskyism. I see no wrong to that. Otherwise I would not be a member of the IMT.
So, basically, the theoretical foundation lies upon a single man. Political cults often propel the ideas of the chairman or the "main theorist" to a great height. When trotskyists fight amongst themselves, they mostly refer to each other like this: Grantites, Cliffites, Taaffeites, Mandelites, etc. Because their theoretical foundation is the rigid adoption of one man's ideas. And as I said, the slightest difference leads to splits or expulsions. And you really said it yourself: you would not be a member of the IMT if you didn't fully agree with one man's ideas, and didn't see a direct line from Marx, through Lenin, through Trotsky, to him.

It's not just a feature of trotskyism though, as it's really a lot worse with Avakian. I've never understood why one chairman needs to be the theoretical godfather of a whole international movement. And for some reason, it's always a British or American guy. I think that's silly. As a chairman, you chair your party, you're a serving servant. Let the political line be developed democratically.


Sectarianism in any sense does not exist in the IMT or within me.
The IMT uses entrism which is the absolute negation of sectarianism.
Entrism sounds logical in countries like the UK, where the Labour Party is clearly one of the big two and you can easily sell nonsense like "the workers will turn back to Labour during crisis, because it's their traditional organisation". But what about the USA? Enter the Democrats? Or a spineless "third party" like the Greens? What about Canada, where the NDP is also a third party? Enter the Liberals? Or in the Netherlands (thank God the IMT doesn't exist here...)? Here we've already had plenty of crap from right-wing governments, but the workers didn't run back to Labour. Instead, they turned to the Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(Netherlands)) or started voting for the ultra-right. What if that happens in countries where the IMT does exist? You'd be standing in your underwear while still going on about the traditional organisations of the proletariat.

Come to think of it, what about Greece? Would you enter PASOK, the KKE or Synapsismos?


The workers will make the revolution not the IMT. But the workers should be educate in the ideas of genuine Marxism in order to avoid past mistakes. and it is the role of the members of the IMT to teach the ideas to the workers. The ideas that we think are correct.
So the IMT is (or will be) the revolutionary vanguard, and nobody else? This is certain, absolute and inevitable?


We never alienated ourselves from the masses. As about the correctness of our ideas. That is proved through our successes and will be proved if indeed they are correct in the future. I am optimistic because I subjectively think they are correct and will lead to revolution , if applied .
I think it's pretty alienating when you've continued to be stuck in obscurity... Compare to the CWI. Now, like I said, we're all in the same boat, and almost equally tiny. And I think that the CWI's theoretical "new workers party" will fail to grow (as has happened when they tried) or turn to reformism. But it's unavoidable that they have seen significantly more growth in membership and activity than the IMT. They have done better, objectively. The only thing that you can bring against that fact is that you are convinced that only the IMT is correct, and that the CWI (and the other "ultra-left sects") will be made irrelevant eventually. But there's no sign of this, just belief. Cult. Religion.


Sectarianism in the typical sense. I think that exists everywhere. Either you have the courage to talk about it or not it exists. Otherwise we wouldn't belong to different groups with different ideas but we would be united. Let's say the united left. But that is not the case. Obviously every leftist think that his group is right and other groups are wrong.
The difference is that I have the balls to admit that i think like that while others hide it.
There's a difference between having balls and pig-headed stubbornness. You may be proud of your huge balls, but it can't go on like this. If you want to believe that you will someday educate and lead the masses on your own, that's fine. But I don't think many people are going to take notice of your testicular fortitude when the time has come.

[RHIZOMES]

That is indeed weird but he was not talking about that . We can talk about Trotskyists splitting in another thread

And my point is that you guys spend too much time criticizing everyone else over petty historical squabbles in socialist states that don't even exist anymore rather than building a working class movement in the here and now.

There are of course Trotskyists that are exceptions to that generalization, but as far as I can see Ted Grantites aren't one.

[Dros]

On revleft I am trying to expose people to the ideas of Marxism and fight the stalinists.

News flash: nvm is a troll!


he IMT uses entrism which is the absolute negation of sectarianism.

I hope that argument makes sense to you but over here in reality all I see is opportunism, revisionism, economism, a Menshevism.

Really, the logic of revisionism is the only logic that justifies entryism.

And no. Entryism does not negate the fact that your religious little sect is dogmatic, hyper sectarian (in the bad way), and anti-Marxist.

[Killer Enigma]

It's great to dismiss most everyone who disagrees with you as a troll, isn't it?

[RevolutionaryKluffinator]

Forget defending Mao. I never understood how Maoism caught on and I support anyone true to real socialist thought who is willing to tear him down.

Just to let all you "Maoists" know: Mao was the clearest hypocrite (Along with Stalin too) that Marxism has ever produced.

Why?

Mao was a MILLIONAIRE! In China, in a "workers state," this "communist" and "revolutionary" was a millionaire! Clearly, the proletariat of China had not and will never benefit from his wealth.

[nvm]

Lenin still had to deal with them for about a decade before finally managing to break away. That was revolution in 1917's Russia, where the Bolsheviks were in the position to mobilise the working class. Of course, at that time, the Mensheviks had to be done away with. But we're talking about the here and now, and I already explained how meaningless it is. If all trotskyists in a country united, they'd still amount to nothing (200 people at most). If they didn't believe your "no compromise" stuff and everyone on the "revolutionary left" united, they'd still only have about 500-1,000 people.
The Mensheviks are like the social democrats of todays world. We live with them in the parties where we perform entrism but we do away with them in a revolutionary situation so I don't get your point.And how is it meaningless not to unite? If we indeed unite there would be endless fights o wether we use entrism or not and then we will break up agin.The Bolsheviks we no more than a few dozens in 1915 and no more than 8 000 in 1917. The IMT has thousands in Pakistan just like the bolsheviks in Russia. They could lead a revolution. We have thousands in Spain, Italy , venezuela etc. You don't need millions. You need a group of proffesional revolutionaries having a bridge with the working class. And using entrism in a SP or a CP with a mass workers' base gives you that necessary bridge and breaks the isolation of the few forces of genuine MArxism. So again your point is useless



So really, what is there to stamp out? And again, how are you going to do it? You're originally Greek, right? Do you think the KKE should be "stamped out" as well, or are you quite openly proud of that party's strength, like almost every ardent "anti-stalinist" who is confronted with the fact that his theories don't apply everywhere, and that many communist parties are pretty awesome? In southern Europe, the "stalinist" communist parties and unions organise millions of workers. Of course, the vast majority of them aren't ideologically "stalinists", but just acting in their best interests. So what should be done there? Will you recruit them all to the IMT so that their parties can be "stamped out"? :lol:

No we will continue what we are doing. Working inside the KKE and killing off the remnants of Stalinism. Yes the KKE has a stalinist leadership but the thousands of workers are not. So by working inside the KKE we have a bridge to those workers in order to educate them about the ideas of genuine Marxism. And believe me we are more believable than the apologists of Stalinism.




A Spanish foundation? I think it's pretty offensive that Spaniards need to tell the Latin Americans what's best for them. Isn't there any movement in Cuba that wants "political revolution"? Because it's nice that you're citing those two events, but that doesn't sound like the fighting words you spoke before. Is Cuba "Stalinist" or is it not? Does it need a political revolution or does it not? Should the "Stalinist" CPC be "stamped out" in order to deal Stalinism a "final blow"? Who's going to do it? The IMT, since they're the only ones who are right about everything? You talk tough, but it doesn't really apply to the real world.

So they sold books at a book fair? Wow. As for the second event, I would likely go there to listen to Celia Hart. And she's not in the IMT, doesn't that mean she's baaaad (cue to the sound of sheep bleating)?

First of all the thing about Spaniards was utterly stupid. Who cares if they were Spaniards or not? They are Marxists. If that is the case I ll never talk to germans again because the Nazis invaded Greece. What kind of logic is that? It was the king of Spain and the rulers of Spain who held those colonies not the Spanish workers. You really sound like a child.
Yes there is a movement about political revolution in cuba. It is underground though and the apologists of Stalinism in you sect will never tell you about it. The big interest of the workers in the literature of the IMT shows how relevant our ideas are and how they are applicable to this situation . And yes Cuba needs a political revolution .
As about Celia Hart we invited her in Montreal about a month ago where the IMT held one of the most successfull leftist events of the last few years in Montreal. She is a Trotskyist and a friend of the organization. I never said that whoever is not in the IMT is bad. We have close allies one of them being Celia Hart



Of course new members are important. But it's ridiculous to preach like Jehova's Witness and try to "steal" members away from other organisations which you think should be "stamped out". I think the "bar" to becoming a member of a communist youth organisation should be set a bit lower. It should be easy to ask sympathisers to get a membership card and arrange that quickly. If they refuse to join, it's useless to go on about it, it's better to invite them to public events, discuss with them and gain a good sympathiser who may still join later.

Yes loselly affliated organizations. Nice job . And you call yourself a Leninist. Lmao. The bar needs to be high. Revolutionary organizations are serious and only if someone agrees with the majority of the IMT program should join. Thats for the IMT. For a youth organization like YFIS the bar is signifficantly lower. And you are mistaken. I don't pressure anyone to join or preach like a Jehovas witness. I just explain my ideas and positions of the IMT and talk a bit about the organization I am in. It's not a big deal. And yes good sympathizers that might join later are good but I don't see this statement you meant of relevance with the whole conversation.



I don't buy that. For marxism, nothing is absolute, sacred or infallible. Sticking to a rigid theory, even as conditions change, is idiotic. It once again brings us to political cultism. Often in trotskyism, when disagreement comes up and a majority picks one position, the minority simply splits off or gets expelled. Come on, the IMT was even founded in that manner, you must know this.

There are some basic things that are absolute under capitalism. The capitalists exploit the proletaria . That is absolute. The very small forces of genuine Marxism need to reach the workers and the best way to do that is through the workers organizations which might be reformist. That is absolute. And no they don't split of in dissagreements. I know that. I had major dissagreements with other comrades. But when a group of comrades move to ultra leftism(aka leave from the LAbour party and destroy the work of 40 years in order to become a sect with no appeal to the workers) then yes! A split is needed . I won't elaborate more on that point. Read the History of British Trotskyism by Ted Grant if you are interested , which I doubt you are. But I wont go on because its not of relevance with the whole discussion. I might open a thread on the topic in the Trotskyist forum.


So, basically, the theoretical foundation lies upon a single man. Political cults often propel the ideas of the chairman or the "main theorist" to a great height. When trotskyists fight amongst themselves, they mostly refer to each other like this: Grantites, Cliffites, Taaffeites, Mandelites, etc. Because their theoretical foundation is the rigid adoption of one man's ideas. And as I said, the slightest difference leads to splits or expulsions. And you really said it yourself: you would not be a member of the IMT if you didn't fully agree with one man's ideas, and didn't see a direct line from Marx, through Lenin, through Trotsky, to him.
Ideas not of a single man. The ideas of scientific socialism. Marxism is interpered in several ways. Lenin's way of organizing have been interpered in may ways. I think the correct ideas are those of MArx LEnin Engels Trotsky and Grant. IS there something bad with that? Then there must be something bad with 90% of Communists who call themselves either Marxist LEninists either wtv. I am not saying that people who call themselves maoists have the correct ideas. Certainly they dont. But its not bad to base your ideology on those who wrote the basics of Scientific socialism. If everything was like that we wouldn't call a math theorem , the Pythagorean theorem , but the a2=b2+c2 theorem. Which is idiotic to do so .




It's not just a feature of trotskyism though, as it's really a lot worse with Avakian. I've never understood why one chairman needs to be the theoretical godfather of a whole international movement. And for some reason, it's always a British or American guy. I think that's silly. As a chairman, you chair your party, you're a serving servant. Let the political line be developed democratically.

yes the line in the IMT is always amended democraticaly.Of course always in the principles of MArxism and genuine socialism and not ultra leftism.And whats the problem with the chairman being American or British? Again racism. A brit or an american can be as good a socialist as someone for the Netherlands. Can't he? And it is not King Alan Woods in the IMT. If the base had little respect for Alan Wods he wouldnt be there. In a MArxist organization you earn respect and authority. And Woods has done so.




Entrism sounds logical in countries like the UK, where the Labour Party is clearly one of the big two and you can easily sell nonsense like "the workers will turn back to Labour during crisis, because it's their traditional organisation". But what about the USA? Enter the Democrats? Or a spineless "third party" like the Greens? What about Canada, where the NDP is also a third party? Enter the Liberals? Or in the Netherlands (thank God the IMT doesn't exist here...)? Here we've already had plenty of crap from right-wing governments, but the workers didn't run back to Labour. Instead, they turned to the Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(Netherlands)) or started voting for the ultra-right. What if that happens in countries where the IMT does exist? You'd be standing in your underwear while still going on about the traditional organisations of the proletariat.


First of all in Britain we were proved right. In other countries we adjust our tactics. In canada we work in the NDP. In the US we do more open work. In Pakistan with the PPP and so on. It always depends on the situation. But we always orientate to the mass organizations of the proletariat and along with entrist work we do open work. BECAUSE THE PROLETARIAT is inside those traditional mass organizations. Who the fuck will notice the MArxist sect of the New Socialists or wtv they re called?
No one will notice them. Party building is does not go in a straight line. You gotta understand that. You need to adjust your tactics in order for the few forces of genuine marxists to find a way to aproach the workers.And whats a better way than working inside their organizations? Set up a sect with 2 people and their dog? No thank you
Come to think of it, what about Greece? Would you enter PASOK, the KKE or Synapsismos?




So the IMT is (or will be) the revolutionary vanguard, and nobody else? This is certain, absolute and inevitable?

The Vanguard is the organization that the bing mass of the workers looks up to. Since I a, mot a determinist I won't say that the big mass of workers will look up to the IMT. But judging from my experience it will most likely be the IMT than a bunchg of ultra lefts that wear Mao's shirt and yell revolution the only solution.





I think it's pretty alienating when you've continued to be stuck in obscurity... Compare to the CWI. Now, like I said, we're all in the same boat, and almost equally tiny. And I think that the CWI's theoretical "new workers party" will fail to grow (as has happened when they tried) or turn to reformism. But it's unavoidable that they have seen significantly more growth in membership and activity than the IMT. They have done better, objectively. The only thing that you can bring against that fact is that you are convinced that only the IMT is correct, and that the CWI (and the other "ultra-left sects") will be made irrelevant eventually. But there's no sign of this, just belief. Cult. Religion.

It is not a matter of who is larger now lol . The Bolsheviks were a minority compared to the Mensheviks and the other "Marxists" in Russia. But the workers carried out the revolution under the banner of the bolsheviks not the others. It is a theoretical question. Yes someone called"Wanted Man" could say all the stupidities to Lenin in 1915, that the Mensheviks were more and all that. But Lenin had the correct theory,tactics,traditions and perspectives and he was proved right at the end. I am not saying that I am the next LEnin or the IMT is identical to the Bolsheviks(although we are closer than most groups) . I am just saying that current numbers DONT matter. What matters are tactics,ideas,methods and perspectives.



There's a difference between having balls and pig-headed stubbornness. You may be proud of your huge balls, but it can't go on like this. If you want to believe that you will someday educate and lead the masses on your own, that's fine. But I don't think many people are going to take notice of your testicular fortitude when the time has come

I am not stuborn . I m just not a sectarian ultra leftist. And I think i am closer to the workers than yout pitiful sect.
Thats all .

[Wanted Man]

The Mensheviks are like the social democrats of todays world. We live with them in the parties where we perform entrism but we do away with them in a revolutionary situation so I don't get your point.And how is it meaningless not to unite? If we indeed unite there would be endless fights o wether we use entrism or not and then we will break up agin.The Bolsheviks we no more than a few dozens in 1915 and no more than 8 000 in 1917. The IMT has thousands in Pakistan just like the bolsheviks in Russia. They could lead a revolution. We have thousands in Spain, Italy , venezuela etc. You don't need millions. You need a group of proffesional revolutionaries having a bridge with the working class. And using entrism in a SP or a CP with a mass workers' base gives you that necessary bridge and breaks the isolation of the few forces of genuine MArxism. So again your point is useless


No we will continue what we are doing. Working inside the KKE and killing off the remnants of Stalinism. Yes the KKE has a stalinist leadership but the thousands of workers are not. So by working inside the KKE we have a bridge to those workers in order to educate them about the ideas of genuine Marxism. And believe me we are more believable than the apologists of Stalinism.
Okay, that makes things more clear. So 'traditional organisations' may just as well be a communist party that has mass support? It doesn't always have to be the social-democrats?

Anyway, it's interesting that you mention the PPP. Around the time of Bhutto's murder, the IMT proclaimed that a revolution would soon follow. You wouldn't happen to have a time frame, would you?


First of all the thing about Spaniards was utterly stupid. Who cares if they were Spaniards or not? They are Marxists. If that is the case I ll never talk to germans again because the Nazis invaded Greece. What kind of logic is that? It was the king of Spain and the rulers of Spain who held those colonies not the Spanish workers. You really sound like a child.
Don't be silly. I was wondering why it's necessary that Spanish people have to go to there to tell the people what to do. You're confident, but where is the 'homegrown' movement? Oh, nevermind, you're getting to that below.


Yes there is a movement about political revolution in cuba. It is underground though and the apologists of Stalinism in you sect will never tell you about it. The big interest of the workers in the literature of the IMT shows how relevant our ideas are and how they are applicable to this situation . And yes Cuba needs a political revolution .
Oh, I'll readily believe that there is an 'underground movement'. I'm just not as convinced that it will do anything meaningful. And I maintain that you apply double standards when it comes to Cuba. Having book fairs is a far cry away from, say, openly proclaiming the need to overthrow Fidel (and now Raul). Or do you do that too?


As about Celia Hart we invited her in Montreal about a month ago where the IMT held one of the most successfull leftist events of the last few years in Montreal. She is a Trotskyist and a friend of the organization. I never said that whoever is not in the IMT is bad. We have close allies one of them being Celia Hart
Okay, more power to you. But compared to the usual bluster about how all the "ultra-left sects" have it wrong, it's a bit hypocritical.


Yes loselly affliated organizations. Nice job . And you call yourself a Leninist. Lmao. The bar needs to be high. Revolutionary organizations are serious and only if someone agrees with the majority of the IMT program should join. Thats for the IMT. For a youth organization like YFIS the bar is signifficantly lower. And you are mistaken. I don't pressure anyone to join or preach like a Jehovas witness. I just explain my ideas and positions of the IMT and talk a bit about the organization I am in. It's not a big deal. And yes good sympathizers that might join later are good but I don't see this statement you meant of relevance with the whole conversation.
Strawman. I never said that the organisation should be 'loosely affiliated' (otherwise, you might as well just have a big party of 'paper members', or some kind of anarchist network, neither of which are things that I propose). But it's obvious that, especially in the west, people who are interested have to make a big switch. To say: "I am a communist" and then to say "I want to be active for a communist party" is, unfortunately, a very big hurdle for many. Of course, the program and principles should never be compromised, nor should the membership structure. But the party should be more than just an elitist society of people who are 'believers' already. And judging by the way you put it at the end, I think we can agree on that much.



There are some basic things that are absolute under capitalism. The capitalists exploit the proletaria .
I was paraphrasing Engels, who explained dialectics in "Ludwig Feuerbach". He puts it better than I ever could:


For it [dialectical philosophy], nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain. It has, of course, also a conservative side; it recognizes that definite stages of knowledge and society are justified for their time and circumstances; but only so far. The conservatism of this mode of outlook is relative; its revolutionary character is absolute — the only absolute dialectical philosophy admits.

If exploitation was 'absolute', then it could not be overthrown. That brings us to metaphysics, where things are set, mechanical and unchanging. But in dialectics, everything has what Engels calls a 'transitory character', i.e. it will come to pass. Capitalism is, thankfully, no exception.

I know you're not claiming otherwise, and you'll probably agree. I just wanted to make clear the 'absolute' thing.


That is absolute. The very small forces of genuine Marxism need to reach the workers and the best way to do that is through the workers organizations which might be reformist. That is absolute.
And this is where you go wrong, I think. The idea that the ideological line (what you call 'genuine Marxism', i.e. the principles of your organisation, or at the very least Trotskyism) is vital to the revolution, and that it won't happen unless that very specific brand is 'injected' into the workers by a very small organisation. And in the IMT's case, that this needs to be done through 'the workers' organisations' which, apparently, shift fluidly between traditional social-democratic parties, strong communist parties and new 'socialist' parties...

To me, it appears to be a confusion between political parties and trade unions. Obviously, unions should be worked in while agitating against their reformist bureaucrats, and connect their struggle to that of a larger anti-capitalist one, instead of just plain economism. Political parties are much different, IMO.

One last thing: in the posts of IMT members here, there's always the claim that once the right have cocked things up, "the workers will turn to their traditional organisations", and 'genuine Marxism' will need to be there to lead them the right way. But I don't think that is so absolute.

For example, in late 2006, the Netherlands had just been through four years of right-wing destruction. The first several months, in 2002, right-wing nationalists even took part in the government before leaving in a huff. After that, massive programs of neo-liberal destruction were undertaken. When the elections in 2006 came, however, the 'traditional' Labour Party lost heavily. The way things are going now, they only stand to lose more. People in the smaller villages stick with the conservative Christian parties. But the rest are increasingly voting for either the Socialist Party (comparable to the "Left Party" of Germany, and I think the NDP in Canada, but I'm not sure), or for the ultra-nationalists.

So, basically, the balance has completely shifted away from that "traditional workers organisation" that is Labour in the Netherlands. And it has instead gone towards a new reformist party on one hand, and to the far right on the other. The SP's structure and modus operandi is also completely different from a "traditional organisation". I don't think that fits within the IMT's calculations at all, they clearly don't apply universally. Or what about France, where the Chirac government was already conservative, but just nominally opposed to the Iraq War. The French are now left with Sarkozy! Or Italy, where Berlusconi lost once, but the new centre-left government fell apart, and there is Berlusconi again!


And no they don't split of in dissagreements. I know that. I had major dissagreements with other comrades. But when a group of comrades move to ultra leftism(aka leave from the LAbour party and destroy the work of 40 years in order to become a sect with no appeal to the workers) then yes! A split is needed . I won't elaborate more on that point. Read the History of British Trotskyism by Ted Grant if you are interested , which I doubt you are. But I wont go on because its not of relevance with the whole discussion. I might open a thread on the topic in the Trotskyist forum.
I'm interested, although it's not a high priority, and I'm afraid reading Ted Grant isn't one either. But I look forward to reading your thread. I won't be able to reply though, as I'm not much into the usergroup stuff anymore, other than the unionist one.

Anyway, you say yourself that a split is needed if the disagreements are particularly severe. That's a value judgment, it's a matter of opinion. So there seems to be little material base for that.


Ideas not of a single man. The ideas of scientific socialism. Marxism is interpered in several ways. Lenin's way of organizing have been interpered in may ways. I think the correct ideas are those of MArx LEnin Engels Trotsky and Grant. IS there something bad with that? Then there must be something bad with 90% of Communists who call themselves either Marxist LEninists either wtv. I am not saying that people who call themselves maoists have the correct ideas. Certainly they dont. But its not bad to base your ideology on those who wrote the basics of Scientific socialism. If everything was like that we wouldn't call a math theorem , the Pythagorean theorem , but the a2=b2+c2 theorem. Which is idiotic to do so .
I don't think it's wrong to name ideas after people. But I'm questioning the need for trotskyism to have its own 'grantite', 'mandelite', 'taaffeite', 'cliffite', etc. tendencies where the differences are really small. For example, after the Cold War, the Workers Party of Belgium and Ludo Martens played a certain role in the International Communist Seminar, increasing the contacts between anti-revisionist communist parties, including the contacts between the divided "Soviet", "Chinese", "Albanian" and "Latin American" variants. But that doesn't mean that they form some kind of "International Communist Tendency", who are called "Martensites" by the maoists or hoxhaists who don't want anything to do with it...


yes the line in the IMT is always amended democraticaly.Of course always in the principles of MArxism and genuine socialism and not ultra leftism.And whats the problem with the chairman being American or British? Again racism. A brit or an american can be as good a socialist as someone for the Netherlands. Can't he? And it is not King Alan Woods in the IMT. If the base had little respect for Alan Wods he wouldnt be there. In a MArxist organization you earn respect and authority. And Woods has done so.
Again, don't be silly, I'm not saying that a chairman can't be American or British. It's just odd that all theoretical heavyweights and international leaders must be from the biggest imperialist countries and must be propagated worldwide. And that their experiences with the UK Labour Party should form the basis for a worldwide political program. On the contrary, I somehow doubt that they're all reading about Avakian's "new synthesis" in Nepal or the Philippines...




First of all in Britain we were proved right. In other countries we adjust our tactics. In canada we work in the NDP. In the US we do more open work. In Pakistan with the PPP and so on. It always depends on the situation. But we always orientate to the mass organizations of the proletariat and along with entrist work we do open work. BECAUSE THE PROLETARIAT is inside those traditional mass organizations. Who the fuck will notice the MArxist sect of the New Socialists or wtv they re called?
No one will notice them. Party building is does not go in a straight line. You gotta understand that. You need to adjust your tactics in order for the few forces of genuine marxists to find a way to aproach the workers.And whats a better way than working inside their organizations? Set up a sect with 2 people and their dog? No thank you
Come to think of it, what about Greece? Would you enter PASOK, the KKE or Synapsismos?
The thing is, if the other groups are "sects with 2 people and their dog", then what are you? Pretty much the same, except that you also work inside bigger parties, all in the hope that someday, all its members will start following you. And I don't think the proletariat is necessarily "in" those parties universally. You mention doing "more open work" in the USA, so apparently there is no "traditional party" of the proletariat there. And as I explained by some European examples, there is no proof that the proletariat will necessarily fall back on those organisations.


The Vanguard is the organization that the bing mass of the workers looks up to. Since I a, mot a determinist I won't say that the big mass of workers will look up to the IMT. But judging from my experience it will most likely be the IMT than a bunchg of ultra lefts that wear Mao's shirt and yell revolution the only solution.
I don't think the workers will suddenly turn to a tiny sect, just because they happen to have the 'right line' or try to make themselves heard in social-democratic parties. But what do I know.


It is not a matter of who is larger now lol . The Bolsheviks were a minority compared to the Mensheviks and the other "Marxists" in Russia. But the workers carried out the revolution under the banner of the bolsheviks not the others. It is a theoretical question. Yes someone called"Wanted Man" could say all the stupidities to Lenin in 1915, that the Mensheviks were more and all that. But Lenin had the correct theory,tactics,traditions and perspectives and he was proved right at the end. I am not saying that I am the next LEnin or the IMT is identical to the Bolsheviks(although we are closer than most groups) . I am just saying that current numbers DONT matter. What matters are tactics,ideas,methods and perspectives.
Actually, the Mensheviks were the minority, and the Bolsheviks the majority, but that's besides the point. I just don't think your tactics have yielded much so far, I don't think your ideas are great, I don't think your methods accomplish much, and I don't think your perspectives for the future are very rose-coloured, either. The idea that they are seems like blind faith to me.



I am not stuborn . I m just not a sectarian ultra leftist. And I think i am closer to the workers than yout pitiful sect.
Thats all .
How would you know? See, here's your dogmatism as naked as it'll ever be. You have no idea what you're talking about, but you've already made assumptions because I don't follow your line. What does it mean to be "closer to the workers"? Does being an actual worker count?

[RHIZOMES]

Forget defending Mao. I never understood how Maoism caught on and I support anyone true to real socialist thought who is willing to tear him down.

Just to let all you "Maoists" know: Mao was the clearest hypocrite (Along with Stalin too) that Marxism has ever produced.

Why?

Mao was a MILLIONAIRE! In China, in a "workers state," this "communist" and "revolutionary" was a millionaire! Clearly, the proletariat of China had not and will never benefit from his wealth.

Care to back that up?

[Saint-Just]

I'm surpised people waste their time debating this Trotskyist nonsense.

The capitalist critique of the USSR is that it was a totalitarian dictatorship under Stalin's orders to pursue worldwide revolution.

The Trotskyist critique is that the USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship under Stalin's orders not to pursue worldwide revolution .

In essence, they are mutually re-inforcing. Or at least they are in theoretical terms. In practise capitalism is near hegemonic in the west and Trotskyism is nothing. As such, liberal western capitalism contributes more to propping up Trotskism than the latter does to the former. Trotskyism is appealing in liberal, capitalist society because it doesn't require people to fundamentally rethink much of what they learnt from the liberal, reactionary media and polity in western countries.


The point publishing it in a youth site is that sometimes youth become disillusioned and call themselves Maoists, Stalinists ,Titoists etc, (like we have so many of these varieties on revleft which is mostly youth) and those youth are therefore far from genuine marxism and genuine marxist tactics and ideas.

In what respect do youth become disillusioned and call themselves Maoists, Stalinists, Titoists etc. as opposed to Trotskyists? As Leo said, in an earlier post, disillusionment is what causes people to become Trotskyists in addition to Maoists, Stalinists and so forth. Most people are more likely to become a Trotskyists because it is a much shorter break from the liberal, western critique of communism.


By exposing Mao to the youth, we are trying to bring back some of the youth to the correct ideas of marxism. Because just like the deformed workers states collapsed, the deformed marxists collapse when they realize the nakedness of their ideas.
It serves the same purpose on revleft.

Worker's states in China, Russia, Eastern Europe and East Asia may have collapsed. But, they sure got further than any Trotskyist state. You Trotskyists would be glad to get to the point where a Trotskyist state was in danger of collapsing.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I'd like to see the source that links the PLA to the shooting of workers shortly after the Kuomintang-controlled cities fell into Red hands. This never happened, and though there probably was curfews and road-blocks (as there mostly are after any battle) in tact, it can not be related to the massacres of 1927 whatsoever.

Mao himself declared that the big bourgeois and bankers would only be tied to foreign capital shortly after they took the cities, and it began a shift of political work from the countryside to the street corners. Soon after, 'block committees' and workers' clubs were formed, and between 1950-1953, there was the most violent periods of strike-actions and riots that were ever before seen in Chinese history, which ultimately concluded with the nationalization of key industries and utilities, and the expropriation of capitalist private property.

[Del]

Care to back that up?

This person wont be backing it up, because it is untrue. Just another beat up Mao Zedong Thought thread, which there seems to have been a few of recently.

I prefer to get on with other comrades rather than looking for differences. Critisism should be directed at oneself rather than others.

[PigmerikanMao]

"the Chinese Revolution nevertheless represented a gigantic step forward for hundreds of millions of people who had been the beasts of burden of imperialism."

You just ruined your own counter-mao argument. Case closed