The trots......

[politics student]

Edited - Poorly rambled question.


Ok let’s try this again.
Has Trotsky’s writing caused polarisation within Marxism?

I agree his Criticisms where valid of the USSR and many of his other writings were valid.
Where is Marxism going?

[Sprinkles]

This is a rather quick question which comes down to Trotsky.

What has the Trotskyites achieved? Marxism seems to have become increasingly marginalised in recent times.

I do rather like some works of Trotsky but I am a Marxist-Leninist, I am struggling to see how Trotsky’s works have benefited the movement, perhaps even creating polarisation within Marxism.

Any way I look forward to the debate.



The demand for 'unquestioning' obedience has, throughout history, been voiced by countless reactionaries, who have sought moreover to impose such obedience on those over whom they exerted authority. A highly critical (and self - critical) attitude is, on the other hand, the hallmark of the real revolutionary.


Informed and sincere debate is the highest form of proletarian discourse. The moment when dissenting opinions, discussions and debate were silenced in the USSR, was the moment when the Russian Revolution had died. Simply put: criticism is needed to determine whether your right in your assumptions, Trotsky provided valuable and insightful criticism in regards to many subjects.

[Led Zeppelin]

Aren't you the person who contacted me about joining the SP?

Gee, you sure have degenerated over the past few weeks.

I'm not really interested in having a debate with someone who uses the term "Trotskyites" and goes on to say that Trotsky should have kept his mouth shut because when you criticize others all you do is polarize the movement. And then also saying that you don't really see how Trotsky advanced the movement, while obviously it is clear as day how "Marxist-Leninists" have done so.

Give me a break, you're more biased towards Trotskyism than Sarah Palin is on "socialism".

[Junius]

Sprinkles: Then again, Trotsky was one, of a few, whom dared voice his on the lack of independent thought in the party. See for example, The Appeal to the Party Members and Platform of the Joint Opposition: Real and Pretended Disagreements.

Of course, if you were not in the party, then tough luck.

Edit: Oh, I have seen your edit. ;) Yes, I agree, Trotsky was decent enough to voice his opinions, many of which were right, in the face of his opponents.

The lack of debate and ruthless criticism was not the cause of a degeneration in the revolution, it was but a symptom.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sprinkles: Then again, Trotsky was one, of a few, whom dared voice his on the lack of independent thought in the party. See for example, The Appeal to the Party Members and Platform of the Joint Opposition: Real and Pretended Disagreements.

Didn't you know?

You're not allowed to show dissent, even if Marxism is being cast aside like it was trash, because if you do you are only polarizing the movement!

That was seriously probably the most ridiculous "argument" I have ever read on this forum, and I've read a lot of them.

[Junius]

Didn't you know?

You're not allowed to show dissent, even if Marxism is being cast aside like it was trash, because if you do you are only polarizing the movement!

That was seriously probably the most ridiculous "argument" I have ever read on this forum, and I've read a lot of them.

Are you talking to me or what?

I fully support Trotsky's principled stance against his gutless opponents whom showed their true colors by murdering his family. We never support violence as a method of solving theoretical disputes amongst the working class.

Trotsky held an internationalist position (at a time). Left Communists defended that position, were expelled from the Comintern because of it, and ended up in the gulags.

Italian Communists Inside Stalin’s Gulags (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2008-03-01/italian-communists-inside-stalin%E2%80%99s-gulags)

Edit: If you are being sarcastic, I can't tell, apologies.

Left Communists, I think, aren't worried about being 'polarized.'

Lenin himself said, and I paraphrase, that it was better to stand like Liebknecht, facing all the imperialist apologists, rather than capitulate to the demands of the majority in the hope of party unity.

[politics student]

Didn't you know?

You're not allowed to show dissent, even if Marxism is being cast aside like it was trash, because if you do you are only polarizing the movement!

That was seriously probably the most ridiculous "argument" I have ever read on this forum, and I've read a lot of them.

Think you have taken me the wrong way, I was not making an argument against Trotsky. My point was the fact that these arguments within Marxism seems to be just causing divisions. Maybe I never made my orginal post clear, o well....

The SP?

[Junius]

My point was the fact that these arguments within Marxism seems to be just causing divisions.

Marxism was a 'division' from Utopian socialism; Luxemburg's arguments against reformism was a 'division', an internationalist stance in World War One was a minority position, the Bolsheviks splitting with the Mensheviks was a 'division', the Bolsheviks arguing for all power to the Soviets was a 'division', the formation of the first, second, third and fourth internationals were 'divisions'...

What is the history of the communist movement but one of divisions?

[Led Zeppelin]

Edit: If you are being sarcastic, I can't tell, apologies.

Yeah I was being sarcastic, but it's understandable that you didn't know because you're a relatively new member and didn't know that I was a Trotskyist myself. :p


My point was the fact that these arguments within Marxism seems to be just causing divisions.

But then why did you attack Trotskyism for "causing divisions" when in reality every single tendency that exists, including your "Marxism-Leninism", does the same thing?

You came over as biased because of that. If I got you wrong I apologize.

[Coggeh]

Think you have taken me the wrong way, I was not making an argument against Trotsky. My point was the fact that these arguments within Marxism seems to be just causing divisions. Maybe I never made my orginal post clear, o well....

The SP?
Socialist Party.

Anyway, Trotsky has contributed many works not just criticisms but tactics on the revolution and building the leftist alternative . Just have a read of them here http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm .

Trotsky wrote not to "divide" Marxism which is a typical Stalinist argument how can you expect for a Marxist to sit around after all that had happened in the degeneration of the Soviet state.Clearly Stalin has been proven wrong on socialism in one country , it has been shown that he never had slightest intention of creating a workers democracy or spreading the revolution, such as his actions in Spain and his actions against other members of the CP in Russia prove .

[Junius]

Yeah I was being sarcastic, but it's understandable that you didn't know because you're a relatively new member and didn't know that I was a Trotskyist myself. :p

No problem. :blushing:

[Coggeh]

Marxism was a 'division' from Utopian socialism; Luxemburg's arguments against reformism was a 'division', an internationalist stance in World War One was a minority position, the Bolsheviks splitting with the Mensheviks was a 'division', the Bolsheviks arguing for all power to the Soviets was a 'division', the formation of the first, second, third and fourth internationals were 'divisions'...

What is the history of the communist movement but one of divisions?
If you look at the current situation nowadays you will see that more and more leftist organisations are working together fight against capitalist reforms . And not through total agreement will this division to closed but through more of this cross party work .

Theirs no point sitting around and pondering about oh socialism will never happen because of this , but get organized and you will see this divisions being overlooked . for example the CWI are active in Syriza in Greece which is a cross party movement thats now steadily growing .

We do not believe that our trotskyists organizations can challenge the capitalist class on our own so we have struggled towards creating a mass workers party of radical leftists and trade unionists which would be capable of challenging capitalism

[politics student]

Marxism was a 'division' from Utopian socialism; Luxemburg's arguments against reformism was a 'division', an internationalist stance in World War One was a minority position, the Bolsheviks splitting with the Mensheviks was a 'division', the Bolsheviks arguing for all power to the Soviets was a 'division', the formation of the first, second, third and fourth internationals were 'divisions'...

What is the history of the communist movement but one of divisions?

You make an excellent point.

[Junius]

Theirs no point sitting around and pondering about oh socialism will never happen because of this , but get organized and you will see this divisions being overlooked.

This was not my point; my point was that 'divisions' are often justified.

I don't think the working class is weak because it is divided, I think it is divided because it is weak.

On libcom there was a thread regarding the division between the ICC and the IBRP - both internationalist organizations. Personally, I don't understand why they are still arguing about something - which as I said - had happened before I was even born. (And was more over personal disputes) Oh well. :rolleyes:

However, I don't think it is possible or desirable for Left Communists to work with Trotskyists, Stalinists or Maoists, since our views are so radically different concerning certain questions that such a compromise would really be throwing away our political heritage - I suppose it would be like yourself working with, say, a conservative party. (Unlike Trotskyists, Left Communists are not really concerned with building 'mass parties.') By the way, that wasn't meant as a political snipe, but clearly their is a huge gap between our political tendencies.

[Yehuda Stern]

The question makes very little sense. The Marxist movement did become polarized - Trotsky merely expressed its left proletarian wing.

[Sprinkles]

Edit: Oh, I have seen your edit. ;) Yes, I agree, Trotsky was decent enough to voice his opinions, many of which were right, in the face of his opponents.


Well, that's what I get for trying to avoid writing a wall of text for once. :D



The lack of debate and ruthless criticism was not the cause of a degeneration in the revolution, it was but a symptom.

More then agreed.


This was not my point; my point was that 'divisions' are often justified.

I don't think the working class is weak because it is divided, I think it is divided because it is weak.


This as well.

[politics student]

However, I don't think it is possible or desirable for Left Communists to work with Trotskyists, Stalinists or Maoists, since our views are so radically different concerning certain questions that such a compromise would really be throwing away our political heritage - I suppose it would be like yourself working with, say, a conservative party. (Unlike Trotskyists, Left Communists are not really concerned with building 'mass parties.') By the way, that wasn't meant as a political snipe, but clearly their is a huge gap between our political tendencies.

Very true but would a joint movement aiming to give greater understanding to the working class be really a bad thing? What about a combined national paper including anarchism, all Marxism forms and union coverage? Or would you consider a movement of such a publication impossible due to the mix of groups it would cover?

[Coggeh]

This was not my point; my point was that 'divisions' are often justified.

I don't think the working class is weak because it is divided, I think it is divided because it is weak.

On libcom there was a thread regarding the division between the ICC and the IBRP - both internationalist organizations. Personally, I don't understand why they are still arguing about something - which as I said - had happened before I was even born. (And was more over personal disputes) Oh well. :rolleyes:

However, I don't think it is possible or desirable for Left Communists to work with Trotskyists, Stalinists or Maoists, since our views are so radically different concerning certain questions that such a compromise would really be throwing away our political heritage - I suppose it would be like yourself working with, say, a conservative party. (Unlike Trotskyists, Left Communists are not really concerned with building 'mass parties.') By the way, that wasn't meant as a political snipe, but clearly their is a huge gap between our political tendencies.
Sorry i misread that .
But the question remains how does the left communists expect to challenge the capitalist class when their virtually non existent in most places and don't take this as an insult because its true too of some trotskysists orgs , the left must work together in a mass movement against capitalism , but never in a reformist manner with any government of reformist parties .

[Junius]

Sorry i misread that .
But the question remains how does the left communists expect to challenge the capitalist class when their virtually non existent in most places and don't take this as an insult because its true too of some trotskysists orgs , the left must work together in the mass movement against capitalism.

Hi,

Since this thread is about Trotskyism, and not Left Communism, I will keep it brief.

1. I don't think Left Communists have ever considered or desired themselves to be mass organizations - however, historically Left Communist organizations have had as many members as Trotskyist organizations. :D Those days are long past, however.

2. The views on a party by the Communist Left are by no means agreed upon.

There exist the Italian (Bordigist) conception and the German-Dutch conception (i.e. Panekoek). They are quite different (read, hostile to each other). Briefly, the Bordigist conception is quite centralized, quite influenced from the Leninist tradition. Contrary to popular belief, a portion of the Communist Left consider themselves part of the Bolshevik tradition.

On the other hand, the German-Dutch view downplays the role of the party - i.e. 'the revolution is not a party Affair.'

If you want a more comprehensive explanation of both views, check out Bordiga versus Panekoek. (http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/bordiga/bvptoc.html) Its available as a PDF pamphlet at the bottom.

I suppose you could also include Luxemburg in a separate category herself, but that's a story for another day.

Personally, I believe that both tendencies introduce relevant arguments and criticisms. Panekoek emphasizes the role of the working class, whilst Bordiga emphasizes the subjective role of the party.


never in a reformist manner with any government of reformist parties .

But various Trotskyist organizations do just this.

Edit: I missed this:


Or would you consider a movement of such a publication impossible due to the mix of groups it would cover?

Yes it would be impossible - how could you have one group calling for the massacre of workers in defense of their homeland whilst another calls for class war? Libcom, however, publishes a non-aligned bulletin Tea Break - but it is concerned primarily with worker's actions, is short, and hence would be more difficult to have a conflict between tendencies.