Trotskyism

[LOLseph Stalin]

It has been occuring to me that for some reason Trotskyism seems to be unpopular. Why is this? Is it so just because of a bunch of Stalinist lies or is there something i'm missing? This has kept me wondering as I really like Trotsky's ideas of world revolution and anti-Stalinism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

1) Rampant sectarianism;
2) The dogmatic upholding of the specific demands of the Transitional Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm) (all the while not taking into consideration developments since then) as opposed to the transitional method; and
3) General underemphasis on the demokratia question, including in Trotsky's own formulation of the transitional method (typical of other manifestations of broad economism) (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/649/programme.htm).

[Q]

It has been occuring to me that for some reason Trotskyism seems to be unpopular. Why is this? Is it so just because of a bunch of Stalinist lies or is there something i'm missing? This has kept me wondering as I really like Trotsky's ideas of world revolution and anti-Stalinism.

I'll give a short anecdote of some people hate us: Last Saturday I was in Stolberg (near Aachen, Germany) for an antifascist manifestation. This was organised by the socalled "antifascist league Aachen" on a short notice. This is a new group consisting of anarchists, Die Linke (a new left party in Germany, very popular) and some bourgeois forces if I'm not mistaken.

Earlier in the year, in April, there also was a demo in Stolberg and we played a big part in the mobilisation and groundwork of that. The result then was 1500 people demonstrating against the nazi's in the town, many of them people from Stolberg. Last Saturday however only showed up 40 or so, and I'm generous in that estimate.

What was the difference between April and last Saturday? In my view it was the lack of necessary groundwork in preperation to such a demo: political meetings, leafletting, etc weren't done at all...

At the demo the political material of the league consisted of: one flag saying "No Nazi's" and a lot of balloons. A few meters away was the NPD (nazi) stand where they could spread their filth unhindered... No attempt was made by the "antifascist league" to stop them.

Instead of focussing the hate on the nazi's, this league seemed to be more concerned with us: we were asked very early on not to set up our stand (we were the only stand which actually had political stuff at all) and when we ignored that they asked not to sell our papers (which we also ignored).

The background of this response is that we've been active in the local Die Linke branch and successful in spreading our ideas and have quite some support among the rank and file, which annoys the bureaucrats and careerists at great length. This same leadership is also dominant in this "antifascist league". Our success is their agony.

[Poum_1936]

Unpopular? Poppycock!

[Tower of Bebel]

Why is it that Trotskyism is unpopular? Why is it that the revolutionary left keeps fighting each other?

Sectarianism.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's not sectarianism and it's not something inherent within Trotskyism. I wouldn't even say that it's any particular group's fault, although the degeneration of the FI has certainly discredited Trotskyism in the eyes of many. The reason why even authentic Marxism, i.e. genuine Trotskyism in unpopular today is because we are still not living in a revolutionary period. Even most workers are not open today to the ideas of Trotskyism. There's not much to do about that other than to attempt to recruit those few that are.

[Incendiarism]

Speaking as a person who believes Trotsky to be a brilliant marxist theorist, I would have to say that the sectarianism is a definite turnoff for me. That, and they still fight a dead man's battles, and this could also be applied to marxist-leninists.

[Revy]

Trotskyism is in fact very popular. There are just a lot of splits and sectarian chaos within it. Also it doesn't help that many parties like the SWP and SEP, turn into authoritarian personality cults. Also many of these Trotskyist parties and organizations will endorse a capitalist candidate like the Greens or Nader without any second thoughts, even though socialist candidates exist.

[Louis Pio]

I wouldn't say trotskyism is any more unpopular than other parts of the left. However among certain parts of the left their is a tendency to combat among each others instead of focusing on their own ideas and carrying those out.

[revolution inaction]

It has been occuring to me that for some reason Trotskyism seems to be unpopular. Why is this? Is it so just because of a bunch of Stalinist lies or is there something i'm missing? This has kept me wondering as I really like Trotsky's ideas of world revolution and anti-Stalinism.

It has nothing to do with starlinist lies, or sectarianism, we don't like troskyism because trotsky and troskyist organisations have constantly acted against revolutionaries and working class self organisation.

Here's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotsky-big-deal-t84782/index.html?t=84782) thread about trotsky to start with.

[Louis Pio]

Who's we?

[Q]

Who's we?

Anarchists I guess.

[Q]

Trotskyism is in fact very popular. There are just a lot of splits and sectarian chaos within it. Also it doesn't help that many parties like the SWP and SEP, turn into authoritarian personality cults. Also many of these Trotskyist parties and organizations will endorse a capitalist candidate like the Greens or Nader without any second thoughts, even though socialist candidates exist.

It is true that we (The Socialist Alternative - CWI in the USA) call for a vote on Nader. But this has little to do with the person of Nader and more about the pole of attraction he is for many people looking for an alternative to the two-party hegemony. We call to use this election to start a campaign for a mass workers party. Nader himself is not interested in this, doesn't stop us from trying and working towards that.

In short: Nader is a means to an end, not the goal itself.

[Sam_b]

Here's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotsky-big-deal-t84782/index.html?t=84782) thread about trotsky to start with.

Oh great, another anarchist rage-fest against Trotsky and his smashing of so-called 'revolutionaries' who were all up for destroying the gains made by the working class.

Now, where have I seen this all before? :rolleyes:

[Q]

Oh great, another anarchist rage-fest against Trotsky and his smashing of so-called 'revolutionaries' who were all up for destroying the gains made by the working class.

Now, where have I seen this all before? :rolleyes:

Don't feed the anarkiddy.

[zimmerwald1915]

It is true that we (The Socialist Alternative - CWI in the USA) call for a vote on Nader. But this has little to do with the person of Nader and more about the pole of attraction he is for many people looking for an alternative to the two-party hegemony. We call to use this election to start a campaign for a mass workers party. Nader himself is not interested in this, doesn't stop us from trying and working towards that.

In short: Nader is a means to an end, not the goal itself.
I would call this a diversion rather than the beginning of a campaign. A vote for Nader by a person seeking an alternative leads to a person who becomes disappointed and gives up seeking an alternative.

[Q]

I would call this a diversion rather than the beginning of a campaign. A vote for Nader by a person seeking an alternative leads to a person who becomes disappointed and gives up seeking an alternative.

Hey Gelibolu, is that you? :P

Well, there are no silver bullets and there will of course be setbacks and disappointments, but a campaign around Nader is certainly a good place to start a campaign for a mass workers party, if alone for organising people and putting forward an alternative to the two-party hegemony.

If it is you, I do expect a proper wall of text dear sir! :lol:

[Yehuda Stern]

I've seen many people claim that the Nader campaign would help start a campaign for a working class party, but I have yet to see a single argument as to why. Our task, after, is not to challenge the two-party hegemony - that has been done in many countries with little to show for in terms of gains for the working class. Why, then, if what we really want is a revolutionary party, must we lie to the workers and say that actually what we want is a Green or a reformist party?

[Q]

I've seen many people claim that the Nader campaign would help start a campaign for a working class party, but I have yet to see a single argument as to why. Our task, after, is not to challenge the two-party hegemony - that has been done in many countries with little to show for in terms of gains for the working class. Why, then, if what we really want is a revolutionary party, must we lie to the workers and say that actually what we want is a Green or a reformist party?

Ah, the sectarian strikes again :)
The CWI has put itself a dual task after the collapse of Stalinism and the definite betrayal of the old workers parties. Of course building our revolutionary forces is an integral part to all our work, but we cannot recruit people out of apathy and cynicism. We need a strong and fighting workers movement for revolutionary ideas to thrive in. This is what we try to build in the US and many other countries: a (re)building of a mass federative and union-based workers party. And in this context, Nader is a good starting point.

[Yehuda Stern]

Ah, the sectarian strikes again

Ah, the opportunist-who-can't-defend-his-positions-without-using-cliched-epitaph strikes for the who knows what time.


We need a strong and fighting workers movement for revolutionary ideas to thrive in. This is what we try to build in the US and many other countries: a (re)building of a mass federative and union-based workers party. And in this context, Nader is a good starting point.

So, by supporting a party which has nothing to do with the working class - unlike reformist parties, that at least have some sort of relationship with trade unions and such - and disillusioning activists, you're going to build a revolutionary party? Is that about right?

[Valeofruin]

It has nothing to do with starlinist lies, or sectarianism, we don't like troskyism because trotsky and troskyist organisations have constantly acted against revolutionaries and working class self organisation.

Here's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotsky-big-deal-t84782/index.html?t=84782) thread about trotsky to start with.

Exactly!

A. Trotsky was a counter revolutionary. If anyone here is a factionalist there is a strong chance that he/she is a Trotskyite. It never fails. As a rule Trotskyites have historically been Liberals satisfied with fighting amongst themselves and other leftists, rather then getting things done. I have yet to meet 1 Trot, not one, willing to work with a 'Stalinist' just one single time, to get just 1 petty task done in the name of the working class.

B. Trotskyite theories on 'permanent revolution' as they present it, and the claim that socialism is impossible in 1 country, has already been proven false by the building of Socialism in the Soviet Union.

C. Trots typically underestimate, or simply disreguard altogether the revolutionary potential of peasentry and small agricultural workers, as a reserve for the Proletariat.

[Louis Pio]

Trotskyite theories on 'permanent revolution' as they present it, and the claim that socialism is impossible in 1 country, has already been proven false by the building of Socialism in the Soviet Union.


That depends on what one views as socialism, you certainly seem to have left Marx and Lenin a long long time ago. But I would be happy to hear your explanation then on how this "socialism in practice" so easily crumbled.

Btw a long time since I saw so many generalisations based on what must be a quite limited personal experience.

[Wanted Man]

First of all, I must say that this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cwi-and-imt-t90166/index.html?t=90166) is a very effective argument against the trotskyist idea that factionalism within the party should be allowed...

Anyway, it's not so much that trotskyism is unpopular (in the west, it's just as 'unpopular' as any far left group). Of course, it is disliked by those groups that trotskyists oppose, but that's kind of obvious. It's a bit masochistic to take a liking towards people who call you their enemy.

[Louis Pio]

Lenin would have had a problem if factionalism wasn't allowed, he was in a minority in the bolshevic party most of the time and worked for his views in quite the factional way.
However I like the way your able to take one random thread on a random discussion board and make it into a global example, damn easy supporting ones views that way:)

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#ss


The Fourth International declares uncompromising war on the politics of the capitalists which, to a considerable degree, like the politics of their agents, the reformists, aims to place the whole burden of militarism, the crisis, the disorganization of the monetary system and all other scourges stemming from capitalism’s death agony upon the backs of the toilers. The Fourth International demands employment and decent living conditions for all.

Neither monetary inflation nor stabilization can serve as slogans for the proletariat because these are but two ends of the same stick. Against a bounding rise in prices, which with the approach of war will assume an ever more unbridled character, one can fight only under the slogan of a sliding scale of wages. This means that collective agreements should assure an automatic rise in wages in relation to the increase in price of consumer goods.

WTF??? :confused:

Why did Trotsky NOT formulate the "sliding scale of wages" concept as a demand against the bourgeois state itself? It seems that CPGB comrade Jack Conrad himself underestimated the broad economism of the 1938 transitional programme!

[Sam_b]

I have yet to meet 1 Trot, not one, willing to work with a 'Stalinist' just one single time, to get just 1 petty task done in the name of the working class.


Erm....would you work alongside supporters of a man who purged and killed your fellow comrades?


Trotskyite theories on 'permanent revolution' as they present it, and the claim that socialism is impossible in 1 country, has already been proven false by the building of Socialism in the Soviet Union.

Oh really? Didn't the glorious Soviet Union....em...collapse?

[Enragé]

Though the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion by Trotsky and his red army was without a doubt a great injustice (though perhaps understandable from the side of the bolsheviks), we have to move on. And the fact of the matter is, that at least where i am (the netherlands) the trotskyites are the only constructive revolutionaries around. The anarchists are too busy alienating themselves from the rest of the population by acting radical for the sake of it, whilst the stalinists are... well.. stalinists. So that's the reason why I, though i wouldnt describe myself as a trot, am active in a trot org (well, cliffite to be exact).

I'd also like to point out that during the holy grail of the anarchist movement, the spanish revolution, the CNT worked WITH the trotskyites (the POUM)... and that instead of the trots crushing the anarchists the anarchists later on (though ofcourse i wouldnt call them anarchists, but they were members of the CNT) actually participated in a government (!) which outlawed the POUM.

[Q]

(well, cliffite to be exact).
Meh, they hardly count as Trot :P

(sorry, couldn't resist :P )

[Black Sheep]

May i ask something here?I saw this elsewhere,but i dont remember where.

What do Trotskyists propose to do,if the nearby countries have no socialist revolution progress,but the country here IS on the verge of revolution.

Do they say 'aaawwwh, since the nearby countries are backwards revolutionally,then we should not do anything'.

IF they say that 'let's revolt and aid the nearby countries' then that is no different that marxism-leninism-stalinism

[Tower of Bebel]

May i ask something here?I saw this elsewhere,but i dont remember where.

What do Trotskyists propose to do,if the nearby countries have no socialist revolution progress,but the country here IS on the verge of revolution.

Do they say 'aaawwwh, since the nearby countries are backwards revolutionally,then we should not do anything'.

IF they say that 'let's revolt and aid the nearby countries' then that is no different that marxism-leninism-stalinism
Reading the Permanent Revolution would give you the answer. We would support the most favourable outcome for the working class. Your hypothesis does not give us the information we need to decide whether or not your revolution is premature or not.

[Valeofruin]

That depends on what one views as socialism, you certainly seem to have left Marx and Lenin a long long time ago. But I would be happy to hear your explanation then on how this "socialism in practice" so easily crumbled.

Btw a long time since I saw so many generalisations based on what must be a quite limited personal experience.

Actually its personal experience that leads me to make generalisations. I know every time i hav eattempted to have an intelligent conversation with a trot it has ended in disaster. I know my efforts to combat your idealology, especially on this board, where so many people have been mislead, will be futile. Call it defeatist thinking if you wish, in fact call it whatever you like, but quite frankly ive grown quite weary of fighting the neverending battle against Trotskyism.

P.S. Departed from Marx and Lenin? I think not! Stalin invented nothing new, he just reiterated the message of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. But again why bother? As i said i think we all know where this road leads, Lenin would call it pathetic Liberalism, to participate in such quarrelling.

[Valeofruin]

"Lenin fought the adherents of "permanent" revolution, not over the question of uninterruptedness, for Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution, but because they underestimated the role of the peasantry, which is an enormous reserve of the proletariat, because they failed to understand the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat." (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, 1924)

If i set the ball in motion for 6 days of Lenin quoting and petty quibbling forgive me.

[Wanted Man]

And the fact of the matter is, that at least where i am (the netherlands) the trotskyites are the only constructive revolutionaries around.
Where does this manifest itself?

[Tower of Bebel]

"Lenin fought the adherents of "permanent" revolution, not over the question of uninterruptedness, for Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution, but because they underestimated the role of the peasantry, which is an enormous reserve of the proletariat, because they failed to understand the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat." (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, 1924)

If i set the ball in motion for 6 days of Lenin quoting and petty quibbling forgive me.Yes, but this was written in 1924... the year when Lenin wrote the party was possibly on the verge of a split (which was something he didn't want). So, there is a polemical context. And... Lenin indeed attacked Trotsky because he would have underestimated the role of the peasants. But the differences between the Permanent Revolution and the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry were small. Their conclusions were entirely the same. What made them struggle against each other? Well, again we see a polemical context: one of building a mass working-class party in which Trotsky opposed Lenin.

[Valeofruin]

Yes, but this was written in 1924... the year when Lenin wrote the party was possibly on the verge of a split (which was something he didn't want). So, there is a polemical context. And... Lenin indeed attack Trotsky because would have underestimated the role of the peasants. But the differences between the Permanent Revolution and the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry were small. Their conclusions were entirely the same. What made them struggle against each other? Well, again we see a polemical context: one of building a mass working-class party in which Trotsky opposed Lenin.

I warm point out that in 1924 Lenin was very ill, and incapable of making sound judgements.

Dont pretend you have not seen the pictures of Lenin in his last hours. you KNOW how ill he was, of this i am almost certain.

So to be quite honest i find it quite disgusting when a Trot uses Lenins 'will' as a weapon against Stalin. You twist the words he uttered on his deathbed, even after his own doctors expressed concerns over his mental stability, for personal gain, rather then cherishing the memory of the REAL Lenin, and faithfully devoting yourself to his teachings, made while he was strong and wise, as us Marxist-Leninists have done.

[Bear MacMillan]

So to be quite honest i find it quite disgusting when a Trot uses Lenins 'will' as a weapon against Stalin. You twist the words he uttered on his deathbed, even after his own doctors expressed concerns over his mental stability, for personal gain, rather then cherishing the memory of the REAL Lenin, and faithfully devoting yourself to his teachings, made while he was strong and wise, as us Marxist-Leninists have done.

Does it really matter what Lenin's will was anyways?

We should base our ideology off a Marxist analysis of history and theory, not the last testament of one great man.

Making arguments like this makes the Bolshevik party sound like some kind of monarchy, which we of course know is false...

[Tower of Bebel]

I warm point out that in 1924 Lenin was very ill, and incapable of making sound judgements.

Dont pretend you have not seen the pictures of Lenin in his last hours. you KNOW how ill he was, of this i am almost certain.

So to be quite honest i find it quite disgusting when a Trot uses Lenins 'will' as a weapon against Stalin. You twist the words he uttered on his deathbed, even after his own doctors expressed concerns over his mental stability, for personal gain, rather then cherishing the memory of the REAL Lenin, and faithfully devoting yourself to his teachings, made while he was strong and wise, as us Marxist-Leninists have done.
(1) When Lenin wrote his Will he was doing better. Before he started writing again (that is 1923) he was indeed very ill. What killed him was another stroke. So his will is not made out of bullshit: it shows us that the man was also concerned about developments of that time.
But that is not the point, because (2) I'm not abusing Lenin's illness and his will. I don't want to argue in favor of Trotsky. All I wanted to do is to point out that "Foundations of Leninism" was written in a certain political and historical context. It makes many claims easier to understand.

[Enragé]

Where does this manifest itself?

in the near complete absence of the NCPN from anywhere in the netherlands besides their traditional strongholds, not to mention their failure to denounce the state capitalist/bureaucratic regimes of the past and present. The applauding of joint military exercises of Russia and China as "anti-imperialist" and the coming to power of Raul Castro quite frankly sickens me (read this in Manifesto).

The IS is constantly organising meetings throughout the country (though our presence is strongest in the big cities i admit), spreading propaganda and organising at the grassroots whenever it can.

As for the dutch anarchists, well i think we're largely in agreement on their uselessness 99% of the time (this is not a criticism of anarchists abroad, let alone anarchism in and of itself, its just that over here all they do is squat and act radical for the sake of being radical.. and if they organise anything even remotely pointing to a more outward, less isolatory stance its on something so obscure as the Anarchist Federation in the 20's and 30's in Uruguay, which no doubt is interesting but not likely to get anyone to go to except people who are already anarchist).

[Valeofruin]

(1) When Lenin wrote his Will he was doing better. Before he started writing again (that is 1923) he was indeed very ill. What killed him was another stroke. So his will is not made out of bullshit: it shows us that the man was also concerned about developments of that time.
But that is not the point, because (2) I'm not abusing Lenin's illness and his will. I don't want to argue in favor of Trotsky. All I wanted to do is to point out that "Foundations of Leninism" was written in a certain political and historical context. It makes many claims easier to understand.

I misunderstand you, I appologize, I assumed you were making a passive arguement in favour of the Trotsky succession theories, or the idea that Lenin wanted Stalin to make concessions to Trotsky for the sake of 'Unity'

[Wanted Man]

Can't sleep, luckily there's still RevLEft. I haven't argued with you in years. :(


in the near complete absence of the NCPN from anywhere in the netherlands besides their traditional strongholds
Which strongholds would that be? I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong.


not to mention their failure to denounce the state capitalist/bureaucratic regimes of the past and present. The applauding of joint military exercises of Russia and China as "anti-imperialist"They are, in a way. The US constantly tries to encircle both of those countries, with the war in South Ossetia being the most recent example. Or would the cliffite line be to support Saakshvili's regime? :confused: Anyway, of course that doesn't mean that Russia and China should be supported as a whole, but they don't do that anyway. There are almost constantly anti-Putin articles, and plenty of lively discussion on China's present and future.

But maybe we can get better 'anti-imperialist' credentials if we not only critically support Hamas and Hezbollah, but also cheerlead for them at every possible turn...


and the coming to power of Raul Castro quite frankly sickens me (read this in Manifesto).Solidarity with Cuba, sickening... :rolleyes: Maybe there will be something to 'applaud' if Raúl is replaced by a bunch of American businessmen in suits?


The IS is constantly organising meetings throughout the country (though our presence is strongest in the big cities i admit), spreading propaganda and organising at the grassroots whenever it can.Well, that's an interpretation. If I wanted to be negative nancy, I'd go on about 'traditional strongholds' (universities). I do think the IS are doing well, actually. But that's a far cry from being 'the only constructive revolutionaries' in the country.


As for the dutch anarchists, well i think we're largely in agreement on their uselessness 99% of the time (this is not a criticism of anarchists abroad, let alone anarchism in and of itself, its just that over here all they do is squat and act radical for the sake of being radical.. and if they organise anything even remotely pointing to a more outward, less isolatory stance its on something so obscure as the Anarchist Federation in the 20's and 30's in Uruguay, which no doubt is interesting but not likely to get anyone to go to except people who are already anarchist).I don't know, I like anarchists sometimes. Don't ignore anti-fascist actions, for example. Sure, they don't stand on the Dam in a front with liberals, conservatives and social-democrats to exclaim that Wilders is a bad man, but the ground work is important too. Also, defending squatting rights is a bit more than just radical posturing. It's a very valid part of the housing struggle. If the anarchists can consistently abandon subculturalism and broaden their struggles, they should not be dismissed, not "99% of the time", nor even half of that.

Of course, if an anarchist came here and said that they are 'the only constructive revolutionaries' in town, I'd also put question marks there. Maybe that kind of arrogance from relatively small groups (if you'd put them all together, it would still be a speck on the map) is a thing that hasn't helped anybody in the past.

[Revy]

Does it really matter what Lenin's will was anyways?

We should base our ideology off a Marxist analysis of history and theory, not the last testament of one great man.

Making arguments like this makes the Bolshevik party sound like some kind of monarchy, which we of course know is false...

But...but...Lenin is god! That's what Stalin says :thumbup1:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Whoa! I return and my thread has three pages of replies. Oh my! :o I'll just have to read it all later.

[magnus]

Trotskyism is very popular among the left in many countries such as France, Britain , Spain , Greece etc.
But that does not matter. Popularity of ideologies do not matter what matters is their correctness.

Also the goal of revolutionaries is not to make the left believe in their ideas but make the proletariat believe in their ideas!

[Lenin's Law]

Exactly!

C. Trots typically underestimate, or simply disreguard altogether the revolutionary potential of peasentry and small agricultural workers, as a reserve for the Proletariat.

This is a classical Marxist position: only the working class can be the revolutionary force that effectively change and take control of the MOP. Marx himself had a very negative view of the peasantry and spoke of the "idoicy of rural life."

[Enragé]

Which strongholds would that be? I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong.

reiderland, lemsterland, heiloo, places like that.


The US constantly tries to encircle both of those countries, with the war in South Ossetia being the most recent example. Or would the cliffite line be to support Saakshvili's regime?

Ofcourse not. But china and russia are just as imperialist as the US. I don't think we should be taking any side on this, that is, none of the governments' side. Our side is the people of South Ossetia, Abchazia, as well as those in Georgia, Russia and China.


Solidarity with Cuba, sickening... Maybe there will be something to 'applaud' if Raúl is replaced by a bunch of American businessmen in suits?


There is nothing wrong with solidarity with cuba, there is however something wrong with applauding the replacing of one bureaucratic fucker with the other.


I don't know, I like anarchists sometimes. Don't ignore anti-fascist actions, for example. Sure, they don't stand on the Dam in a front with liberals, conservatives and social-democrats to exclaim that Wilders is a bad man, but the ground work is important too. Also, defending squatting rights is a bit more than just radical posturing. It's a very valid part of the housing struggle. If the anarchists can consistently abandon subculturalism and broaden their struggles, they should not be dismissed, not "99% of the time", nor even half of that.

Point taken. I exaggerated, ofcourse there are many examples of dutch anarchists doing good things, the actions of GroenFront in Schinveld spring to mind, as well as Doorbraak (i actually planned to join them but in the end chose not to due to simply not having enough time to be active in 2 organisations next to my day to day life). The subculturalism and the narrowness of their struggles is indeed their biggest problem, and were they to abandon that they'd have great potential.

[Valeofruin]

This is a classical Marxist position: only the working class can be the revolutionary force that effectively change and take control of the MOP. Marx himself had a very negative view of the peasantry and spoke of the "idoicy of rural life."

Yet its foolish to reject the use of peasentry as a reserve to the proletariat vanguard. Meaning under the classical Trot position on the peasentry, all important socialist revolutions to date would have failed.

The peasentry must be won over to the side of the Urban proletariat. In addition, while they are not working class, they are amongst the 'toiling masses', not even Marx denied this. Why would you let a force as formidable as the peasentry fall into the hands of the bourgeoise? this is just foolish.

[Hit The North]

Yet its foolish to reject the use of peasentry as a reserve to the proletariat vanguard. Meaning under the classical Trot position on the peasentry, all important socialist revolutions to date would have failed.



You don't know what you're talking about! When has the classic Trot position been to disregard the role of the peasantry? Cite me one instance of Trotsky arguing that the mass of the Russian peasantry were irrelevant to the struggle against Tsarism or bourgeois republicanism?



The peasentry must be won over to the side of the Urban proletariat. In addition, while they are not working class, they are amongst the 'toiling masses', not even Marx denied this. Why would you let a force as formidable as the peasentry fall into the hands of the bourgeoise? this is just foolish.What peasantry are you even talking about? You're from Pennsylvania!

Is this banal reiteration of old squabbles based on ancient falsifications all that you Stalinists have to offer? Do you stand in front of the working class of your town and proclaim, "Comrades, the peasantry must be won over to the side of the urban proletariat!"? They'd laugh at you. You'd sound ridiculous.

[Valeofruin]

What peasantry are you even talking about? You're from Pennsylvania!

Is this banal reiteration of old squabbles based on ancient falsifications all that you Stalinists have to offer? Do you stand in front of the working class of your town and proclaim, "Comrades, the peasantry must be won over to the side of the urban proletariat!"? They'd laugh at you. You'd sound ridiculous.

Edit: just for simplicity i concede i should say Peasents and SMALL FARMERS.

That being said:

I will cite a case of Trots at a bare minimum underestimating the role of peasentry, if you can cite one Trotskyite organization currently involved in an armed struggle against a bourgeois or imperialist force, or at least one Trot organization currently working alongside a 'Stalinist' one, to achieve a common goal.

[Hit The North]

Oh, agricultural workers, not peasants after all. So they don't need winning over to the working class as they are a part of it. But even if they did, what percentage of the US workforce is engaged in agricultural production? In the UK it's only 2%'; I can't imagine is comprises much more in the United States. So they don't really represent the decisive masses which the Russian peasantry represented, do they?


I will cite a case of Trots at a bare minimum underestimating the role of peasentry, if you can cite one Trotskyite organization currently involved in an armed struggle against a bourgeois or imperialist force, or at least one Trot organization currently working alongside a 'Stalinist' one, to achieve a common goal. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif All that proves is that Trotskyists don't hold truck with the substitutionist tactic of waging a guerrilla war which by-passes the proletariat. We're Marxists, not Bakunists.

[Valeofruin]

Oh, agricultural workers, not peasants after all. So they don't need winning over to the working class as they are a part of it. But even if they did, what percentage of the US workforce is engaged in agricultural production? In the UK it's only 2%'; I can't imagine is comprises much more in the United States. So they don't really represent the decisive masses which the Russian peasantry represented, do they?

All that proves is that Trotskyists don't hold truck with the substitutionist tactic of waging a guerrilla war which by-passes the proletariat. We're Marxists, not Bakunists.

Again i recommend you find the debate, there was much dispute over whos an agricultural worker, and whos a small farmer, and who by a marxist deffinition is bourgeoise, working class, peasent or perhaps something else.

You have to understand why im being so cautious, I took the position on this board before that they were in fact a part of the working class, and detached them from that same sort of grey area shared with the peasentry, but i wound up in a long, difficult discussion with a SPUSA member. so for the time being im attempting to not really grab hold of a solid position on the topic, whether or not this is wise, i can not say.

hopefully with that out of the way i point out that such a group of people would account for a perhaps larger portion of America.

In addition, what is the Trotskyite position? Pass out handouts? hold little demonstrations? While Marxist-Leninists spill blood and start revolutions?

[Q]

In addition, what is the Trotskyite position? Pass out handouts? hold little demonstrations? While Marxist-Leninists spill blood and start revolutions?

How much blood have you spilled in your life? Have you actually done anything at all? Or are you just in a dotcommie flaming people that actually do stuff all day long?

[LOLseph Stalin]

How much blood have you spilled in your life? Have you actually done anything at all? Or are you just in a dotcommie flaming people that actually do stuff all day long?

Haha! I sure wish I could do stuff. I'm scared to do stuff alone in my ultra-conservative town. :ohmy:

[Q]

Haha! I sure wish I could do stuff. I'm scared to do stuff alone in my ultra-conservative town. :ohmy:

I didn't mean this at you or anyone in a similar position. I do understand the difficulties of being alone in an area (I'm in a similar situation). However, people like Valeofruin and other stalinists (oh pardon me "marxists-leninists") are hopelesly trying to recruit new people to their bankrupt ideas. This they try to by attacking and slandering genuine revolutionaries and is something I have a low tolerance for.

[RedHal]

What do you mean by Trotskyism being unpopular? If you're refering to the 1st world, they are as popular as Stalinist or any radical leftist groups. Which unfortunately is pretty irrevelent, and I don't think having all these different groups is helping change this political weakness, especially when these groups are stuck on these dead historical figures. They seem to have as much hatred for each other as they do or the ruling class. Cointelpro coudn't work a better scheme at getting these groups fighting each other. fucking pathetic:rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

or at least one Trot organization currently working alongside a 'Stalinist' one, to achieve a common goal.

The last time that happened, didn't you guys.....um.....shoot us?

[Yehuda Stern]

The last time that happened, didn't you guys.....um.....shoot us?

No no no, you've been buying into imperialist propaganda. The Trots were such fascist counterrevolutionaries that they decided to shoot themselves.