Trotskyism (Study Guide)

Well I haven't given it anything more than a cursory going over, but I have already identified a pretty serious error. You claim "The 'Cliffite' tendency is represented in modern times by, most notably, the Committee for a Workers International (C.W.I)." The main heirs of Cliff's political tradition are members of the International Socialist Tendency (IST), the biggest section being the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The CWI are Grantites.

Oh, and calling Marcyites "Post-Trotskyists" is just odd. The WWP, Marcy's party, emerged out of the Trotskyist SWP in the USA, but its views quickly gravitated toward a kind of Brezhnevism embracing "Socialism in One Country" -- anathema to Trotskyists. Marcyism is basically a form of Marxism-Leninism, not "post-Trotskyism." If you can identify anything distinctly Trotskyist in their program or line, I would like to know what it is.

TGU, permanent revolution is not compatible with "socialism in one country." The whole point of making the revolution "permanent" was to trigger revolutions in the more advanced Western European countries in a way that would make the advance to socialism possible in Russia. If socialism in one country is possible, there would be no point to this international dimension.

I am not saying it is, Lucretia. But there the PSL and WWP does not uphold SoiC as their political line; when I asked the PSL they said most of their members uphold PR. If you have a problem with the Marcyite parties position that is fine but this does not mean I am going to remove their inclusion from this study guide simply because you do not like their policies. If you do not consider them part of teh Trotskyist strata that is also fine but judging from this thread on RevLeft most peope do so the Marcyite position remains.

I am confused by why you say that the PSL and WWP don't uphold socialism in one country in their political line. They very openly state that countries like North Korea and Cuba are socialist. Individual members, due to what is obviously theoretical confusion, might not see a contradiction between claiming to draw a little bit from Trotsky and a little bit from Stalin, but it's just not possible to think that a country like North Korea is socialist, while claiming to uphold Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. Not possible at all.

Support for self-proclaimed socialist countries doesn't equate to a political line endorsing PR or SoiC, in any case, it is their problem, not ours. The devil is in the details and in this case the key word is post-Trotskyist. If you have an issue take it up with one of them.

Huh? You claimed that the WWP/PSL did not subscribe to the idea of socialism in one country in their political line. I'm not sure what you think this political line is supposed to look like when put into practice, but upholding North Korea and Cuba and China as socialist states is it. That is the doctrine of "socialism in one country." Not much to look at, is it? What the WWP/PSL do is not just "support" countries that also happen to call themselves "socialist." Trotsky, after all, "supported" (as a degenerated workers' state) the Soviet Union, even as the ruling bureaucracy proclaimed itself socialist, while Trotsky himself never called the USSR socialist. What the WWP/PSL are doing is describing North Korea and similar states as socialist.

To repeat once more, that is the idea of socialism in one country, an idea that stands in direct opposition to Trotskyism in general, and permanent revolution in particular. I am not really sure how much clearer I can make this. But if you want your study guide to have major issues with basic ideas like this, that's not really my problem. I'm just trying to help you out here in as comradely way as possible. And I think it's a cop-out to say that I should take this issue up with them. It's not their study guide, dude. It's yours. And part of crafting your own intellectual niche is sometimes not just accepting what people call themselves, but forming your own conclusions. I'll ask once more: which aspects of Trotskyism, as distinct from the rest of the Marxist and Leninist traditions, do the Marcyites in practice uphold (not claim to uphold, but actually uphold)? I can't think of a single one. Can you?

I understand what you are saying but you are coming at it from an entirely unrealistic angle: post-Trotskyist isn't orthodox Trotskyist. They diverge on several key issues, parts are descended from Orthodox Trotskyism while others are descended from more bizarre M-L positions (expanding on this slightly they do not uphold North Korea as a socialist state but rather defend it from imperialist aggression). If the WWP/PSL have political dissonance in their program that is their problem, not ours, not the guide's. It may not make sense but it is what it is: their political line incorporates numerous outlooks and that doesn't have any sway on the other "sub-tendencies" within the guide.

I know that there are lots of "unorthodox" Trotskyist groups that diverge from Trotsky's supposed views on this detail or that issue. My question is, apart from the fact that the founder of WWP came out of the Trotskyist SWP, what link is there at all -- in terms of political theory and practice -- between the Marcyites and Trotskyism. I don't see any, and you haven't provided any. Yet you once again have repeated the erroneous claim that "they do not uphold North Korea as a socialist state," so I will simply refer you to their own website (http://www.pslweb.org/party/who-we-are/), wherein they clearly state that North Korea is a socialist state under a socialist government. I'm not sure what additional evidence you need to convince you of this.

I didn't find anything in that document which signaled that the PSL upheld North Korea as a socialist state; to this extent I am not here to argue over their semantics.

Then you didn't make it to this part of the document: "The destruction of the socialist camp between 1989 and 1991 brought disastrous changes for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR, and profound challenges for the socialist governments of North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and (then) Yugoslavia"?

This is not something the PSL hides. They believe that these countries are socialist, not "transitioning to socialism" under a workers' state -- which is what an orthodox Trotskyist might argue.

Furthermore I already provided a link in previous post which said much about their post-Trotskyist position; building on this, they came out of the SWP's tradition but, that is the thing, they are not orthodox Trotskyists, hence, they have little common ground with such groupings. To illustrate my point see this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...9&postcount=55 Ergo, post-Trotskyist. This is in addition to the members I know who proclaim themselves anti-Stalin and uphold Permanent Revolution.

We've been over this, but I'll repeat once more my response to these points you make. (1) Yes, Sam Marcy came out of the Trotskyist SWP. Then abruptly jettisoned anything even remotely Trotskyist from his group's theory and political practice. If that makes the WWP "post-Trotskyist," then I suppose the LaRoucheites are also "post-Trotskyist" and belong under that subheading of your study guide as well. (2) Some members of the WWP *claim* to uphold Permanent Revolution, while also upholding Socialism in One Country. As explained, these two views are incompatible and reflect theoretical confusion on the part of the individuals claiming to combine these perspectives. (3) You haven't identified anything recognizably Trotskyist in the group's political program or practice. A few slackjaws in the group claiming they draw inspiration from Trotsky because they do not understand Trotsky's theories does not make their group Trotskyist in any way.

Are they different from Orthodox Trotskyists, yes, and that is the whole point of being Post-Trotskyist: they share similarities but that all there is. Hence why the Marcyite section is one in itself. I think we have gotten to the place where little will be achieved by going in circles. I have explained my stance and you yours, to this point I am no great defender of Marcyite logic so I have little stake in defending their positions on [country X].

We're going in circles because you're not seriously grappling with anything I'm saying. You claim that the WWP/PSL don't uphold the idea of socialism in one country, and then when I provide a link where the PSL refers to North Korea as a "socialist government," you respond with, "Well, I can't see anything there that you mention." I ask if you can identify anything recognizably Trotskyist in the group's political practice or program, and you just repeat that the group was founded by a guy who was in the SWP. And so on. Trust me when I say I don't like repeating myself, and find this exchange becoming a little onerous. If you want a study guide that makes these basic and somewhat surprising mistakes to be circulating under your name, reflecting your level of understanding, then more power to you. I wouldn't.

No, Grant had his own theories on entryism summed up as: the workers only radicalise through their traditional organisations, the labour and social-democratic parties, out of this there is nothing.
The IMT are the proponents of this theory today, the CWI abandoned this in the 80's and the corresponding fight led to the split and the CWI expelling Grant.

Aurura, you are right about the split in the CWI and the IMT, but it is my understanding that the CWI still upholds Grant's theory of entryism, even if they differ, and split, over its implementation. The cause for the split was that they disagree that parties like British Labour are still parties of the working class, which Grant's IMT continues to argue. They still agree, in principle, with the idea of deep entryism into "labor parties," however those might be defined. At least that's my understanding.

Lucretia: We've been over this before. The Marcyite section is staying; it is post-Trotskyist and it belongs in the guide. You are only grappling on semantics in order to prove your points when the reality is what I have already explained it to be (see previous statements). You are not seeing the point in the Marcyites being post-trotskyist, and thus upholding different values, and instead focus on how they relate to orthodox Trotskyism despite the fact they are different: doing this one will naturally see little similarities. It is sectarianism which, oddly enough, has a parallel in Maoism (which was old then too): two sections stand before each other and clamor that the other one is either too dogmatic or rejects core principals. It was tired then and it is just as tired when transplanted to Trotskyism. If you cannot see the similarities and how their theory takes on form of Unorthodox Trotskyism while borrowing from other tendencies then that is fine but I am not going to wipe away this section of the guide simply because you have an issue with Marcyite theory.

I am taking issue with the fact that the only reason you can provide to group Marcyism under "post-Trotskyist" is that the founder of the tendency, Sam Marcy, used to be a member of the Trotskyist group. You have not been able to provide any other rationale, any kind of programmatic or theoretical statement that the WWP/PSL has produced that would put them in league with any kind of Trotskyism, orthodox or unorthodox. And the one statement you do make about the WWP/PSL's politics -- that they don't subscribe to socialism in one country -- is flat-out wrong. Incidentally, this position and this position alone places them outside the bounds of any kind of Trotskyism, as the central tenet of Trotskyism is a democratic criticism of the idea that the Soviet bureacracy's dictatorial rule was somehow "socialist." That you don't understand this, and what is worse, are categorizing groups as Trotskyist or "post-Trotskyist" without even understanding the very foundation of Trotskyism pretty much undermines whatever value you might hope your study guide has.

This is not semantics I am taking issue with. It's your whole case, which is non-existent and seems premised more on some fucking ego-tripping desire not to admit you're wrong than any kind of carefully thought-out analysis. If I'm wrong on this, show me I'm wrong by providing me with some piece of evidence that the WWP/PSL subscribes to some Trotskyist tenet(s). You've yet to do it, so I have to keep asking. If you don't want me to keep repeating myself, provide the evidence.

I've already provided the evidence, if you refuse to see such evidence and continue placing emphasis on segments which is not the focus of the part than such is your concern, not mine. I am not the one trying to prove that Marcyism is Trotskyism; rather I am the one who has already given evidence about why it is Post-Trotskyism (a concept which you seem incapable of understanding). As such I am not going to fall into your tendency mongering trap of justifying its existence or their own theoretical contributions to the Post-Trotskyist strata.

What evidence, TGU? If you posted it once, surely you'll have no problem reposting it. All it takes is what? One hyperlink, plus an accompanying explanatory sentence of how the PSL website is clearly upholding some tenet of Trotskyism. Where is your evidence that the PSL or WWP are in any way Trotskyist? We've seen no evidence. Now you're playing the game of saying you've already shown the evidence. You surely don't think that game is going to work with me.

If you mean by "post-Trotskyist" that a group was established by a person who was once in a Trotskyist group, then I am all for you using the label ... consistently. I have a list of other groups established by people who used to be Trotskyists, and who now espouse views (like socialism in one country) that directly contradict Trotskyism. I'll be waiting with baited breath for you to add those groups, too. If you mean by post-Trotskyist, that a group shares some programmatic or theoretical affinity with Trotskyism, see the above paragraph.