A quick question

And just why would having backward nonrevolutionary elements of the working class, Soviet Archie Bunkers, replace old revolutionaries be a good thing in any way?

More workers support the Tea Party than support any socialist or communist movement ororganization in America. Should we therefore support the Tea Party?

You are the last one who should delve into questions of sociology, after your assertion elsewhere on Revleft that the police are "petty bourgeois." The kindest thing that can be said about that is that it is an utterly ignorant statement.

Facts are facts. Just because Brezhnev and just about his whole Politburo were former workers, with a higher percentage of proletarian background than any other governing body in Soviet history, and for that matter in the history of the human race -- basically means nothing. Why? Because they were *bureaucrats.* Sellouts. The Soviet equivalent of social democratic sellouts in the Western labor movement.

Just like ... well, today I am not going to go there.

-M.H.-

Translation to regular speak: If you don't agree with me/Spartacus league you are ignorant and stupid! For how could out condescending rhetoric spewing be wrong! All hail the Red Army in Afghanistan!

And apparently stating that the police are in the very class they are, makes you ignorant, remember that everyone else on the forum. The Sparts say so, so it must be true.

but if we want to talk about posts elsewhere on the forum, should point out how you support rape, blame it on the victim and all. Also you spoke out against factionalism then supported a boycott which is and causes factionalism. Seems you sparts have a problem maintaining a any sort of coherence in your views without showing the true hypocritical side of yourselves.

but on sellouts, I feel like going there, before adding you to my ignore list for being an ignorant rhetoric spewing pro imperialist, pro soviet bourgeois. (so don't bother ever responding to me, for I won't be seeing it, what a glorious day it shall be to not seeing your baseless accusations from an outdated Stalinist and his organisational rhetoric)

I'll let that post in my response to, again, your baseless factioanlist accusations in the vietnam thread to speak for who the real sellout is, and comrade I assure it's you and your party of imperialists, safely on your college campuses and saying forget the workers, no need to organise them (Detroit is a ghetto of lumpen remember)

But on the matter: You are taking up for Stalin, not for sociology. No, having Brezhnev and his party of cronies being ex-workers has no impact whatsoever, mind you it was he who destroyed the Soviet economy by simply ignoring economic problems (well accepted fact.) so yeah, if your argument is that his government had the highest % of workers than any in history, given the results, by your statement you are saying that workers are incapable of running a nation for they certainly failed miserably at it.

But I digress, to the ignore list you go.

Hey guys I have another question and this one is about economic planning. I have heard from others that Trotskyists don't support economic planning but that seems to fly in the face of what Trotsky states in The Revolution Betrayed in which he supports economic planning but believes it should not be connected to a bureaucracy. So which one is that Trotskyists and Modern Parties go with?

Also I found his predictions of how the USSR would collapse back to capitalism with a counterrevolutionary party at the helm to be almost prophetic with how it happened after the Gorbachev reforms after they completely abandoned a State Capitalist style of production.

Probably because your posts make zero sense, and arguing with you has no purpose at all.

Stated Perfectly, comrade.

Hey guys I have another question and this one is about economic planning. I have heard from others that Trotskyists don't support economic planning but that seems to fly in the face of what Trotsky states in The Revolution Betrayed in which he supports economic planning but believes it should not be connected to a bureaucracy. So which one is that Trotskyists and Modern Parties go with?

Also I found his predictions of how the USSR would collapse back to capitalism with a counterrevolutionary party at the helm to be almost prophetic with how it happened after the Gorbachev reforms after they completely abandoned a State Capitalist style of production.

Well Trotsky was supporting economic planning at the time due to the fact that Russia was under-industrialised and absolutely needed economic planning or else industrialisation wouldn't happen.

These days most Trotskyist parties vary in message, I'll post the IMT's policy here:

A socialized plan of production for agriculture and natural resources

End the anarchy of the market in the resource industry. Nationalize the food distribution giants and agri-chemical companies that destroy farmers' livelihoods. For a voluntary socialized plan of production for farming that would protect small farmers' and agricultural workers' jobs and security.

Nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy: the major banks and corporations

Break with the chaos of the capitalist free market. Nationalize the Fortune 500. No compensation to the millionaires, only to those in genuine need. All nationalized enterprises to be run under democratic workers' control and management, and integrated in a socialist plan of production to meet the needs of society. For genuine freedom of expression. Nationalize the means of communication and democratize access to the media and the use of public meeting spaces on the basis of proportional representation.

We still believe in economic planning, based on democratic workers' control, at least during the transitional state to communism. Once fully communist, though, there wouldn't be any group to economically plan except for the various worker controlled companies/farms themselves....unlike in Stalinism where the state never goes away. (which is what those who have said Trotskyists don't believe in economic planning might have been thinking of)

Well Trotsky was supporting economic planning at the time due to the fact that Russia was under-industrialised and absolutely needed economic planning or else industrialisation wouldn't happen.

These days most Trotskyist parties vary in message, I'll post the IMT's policy here:



We still believe in economic planning, based on democratic workers' control, at least during the transitional state to communism. Once fully communist, though, there wouldn't be any group to economically plan except for the various worker controlled companies/farms themselves....unlike in Stalinism where the state never goes away. (which is what those who have said Trotskyists don't believe in economic planning might have been thinking of)

Interesting you should mention the IMT's policy since I had just recently been reading about them as their is a local branch nearby and I have been curious about seeing what they had to say.

Interesting you should mention the IMT's policy since I had just recently been reading about them as their is a local branch nearby and I have been curious about seeing what they had to say.

I am, myself, a member of the US chapter of the IMT (Worker's International League) you should check out our website if you have some more questions about them, or you can ask me if you wish on other questions.

http://socialistappeal.org/

I am, myself, a member of the US chapter of the IMT (Worker's International League) you should check out our website if you have some more questions about them, or you can ask me if you wish on other questions.

http://socialistappeal.org/

Definitely will since it is the WIL that I am looking at.

I am gonna PM you too for some details on the IMT if you don't mind

I would love it comrade. The more information the better.