Theories of trotskyist party weakness

Why are our parties so small, divided and how do we come to terms with our weakness?

are we happy with not being mass parties, and working through other avenues, like 'respect' or the 'compaign for a new workers' party' and trade unions?

Why is it that, we have many trotskyist groups, yet we all agree with each other enough to call ourselves trotskyists.

Are our movements ego's partially responsible, and is it the trotskyist rank and files own fault that we cannot even come to terms with this!

we are advocating revolution after all.

Silence......

i have read from Rosa's essays why she thinks it is so. But im looking for a fuller explanation. Because really, how can we advocate a socialist society, with mass participation when we cannot even control the leadership(s) of our own movement.

To me that is quite worrying. It's got to be ideology, organisation or in fact, Trotskyists are no more similar to one another than we are to stalinists.

im very confused on this issue.

There are some historical aspects I can think of:

The leadership of the Fourth International was rotten and drove it into the ground - they kept stating Trotsky's words regarding WWII and a postwar world, but they did not understand his method. They kept saying that revolution would be around the corner, with the bourgeoisie falling into crisis and eventually resorting to bonapartism.

This is not what happened, and in fact, capitalism ended up entering into its biggest boom in history. The leaders of the Fourth International did not come to terms with this, constantly repeating old nonsense over and over again. Ted Grant and the Revoutionary Communist Party (RCP - the British section of the Fourth International at the time, not the Bob Avakian cult) had come to terms with the new situation, making a sober analysis. This historical aspect is what makes me think that the IMT has the correct method, programme, etc.

The effects of the postwar boom had fostered illusions in many workers (at least in the advanced countries) that capitalism was "delivering the goods." Their living standards had continued to climb. Marxists found themselves isolated, and some got too accustomed to isolation - it seems that the working class sometimes empties out of traditional organizations when there is a good period of "class peace." Many Marxists had become accustomed to working in isolation, and did not understand that the masses move through their traditional organizations first, and as a result, many of them just declared the traditional organizations to be "bourgeoisified" and kept out of them, effectively cutting themselves off from the working class.

There were resurgences and the like, but I really have not done the research into things like Italy's communist party and other such things.

Every attempt to make a new "mass party" outside of the "bourgeoisifed" traditional organizations has failed. History shows that the working class will return to its traditional organizations when the heat of the class struggle starts rising. To refuse to work in these organizations is sectarianism.

There were revolutionary movements after WWII (including a massive strike wave not reported in history books.), but they were diverted into safe channels by reformist and Stalinist leaderships.

Sorry, I know that this post is short and not too descriptive (it almost appears as scattered notes at best!), but I am short on time and far too busy to spend countless hours on research to make it better. Perhaps some other comrade can supplement it.

None of this explains why Trotskyism is synonymous with splits and expulsions, meaning that Trotskyist groups remain small and ineffectual.

Nor does it account for the fact that all four internationals have failed (indeed, the alleged 'fifth' international has already split!), or the fact that every single marxist current is deeply divided, and has been for 140 odd years.

Some 'science' if we cannot even explain our own movement!

[I can, however!]

:Splitters

But most if not all Trotskyist parties support democratic centralism within the party ,debate and discussion are healthy properties of any movement so long as democratic centralism is there I would think .

Why are our parties so small, divided and how do we come to terms with our weakness?

Political climate in general, sectarianism or opportunism in particular. The key is to steer a clear theoretical line and combine it with practice which is relevant in the everyday lives of the people, to neither fall into the trap of becoming a theoretical sect, nor to become a shallow protest group eventually degenerating into reformism.

are we happy with not being mass parties, and working through other avenues, like 'respect' or the 'compaign for a new workers' party' and trade unions?

I think its not possible for us to be mass parties right now, nor should we strive towards that. What we should be is that group which says it how it is, that group which is always there to support the oppressed (whether they are muslim or christian, black or white, old or young etc), that group which is paving the way for a better future, which is open (yet capable of doing clandestine stuff), democratic (yet capable of mobilising a good number of people at a moments' notice), undogmatic yet uncompromisingly revolutionary (yet always working together with any group fighting capitalism in some way, whether they are reformist or anarchist or another trotskyist sect :P).

If we do that, if we remain connected with everyday practice but with our goal clearly in mind, our organisations will grow, and regardless if our orgs grow out to be the mass parties, we'll at least be there in force when those mass parties take shape, and be there to have a great deal of influence on them.

Why is it that, we have many trotskyist groups, yet we all agree with each other enough to call ourselves trotskyists.

Are our movements ego's partially responsible, and is it the trotskyist rank and files own fault that we cannot even come to terms with this!

As i see it, and as i have seen it in practice, trotskyism can be very authoritarian (but so can anarchism, everything can, but trotskyism has the added baggage of democratic centralism, which is a good concept, but the centralism sometimes tends to outweigh the democratic-ness). Most often this is simply due to the fact that we live in an authoritarian society, that all of us have to either work and/or study and cannot be involved in the organisation 24/7. This leads to some people having to do some more shit, thus having more power, for the org than others (in the I.S, the local and national committees, i assume its about the same elsewhere). Problems arise when because of this "super-activism" of the committee-members they're basically running the organisation, and the average member feels himself to be ignored (lack of open discussion at the meetings, lack of democracy in deciding what exactly we're going to do, what topic we are going to address etc.). Now, since trotskyists are principled people, they dont like to stick around in a stagnating, authoritarian organisation (unlike stalinists), so they either get all gloomy and think "the revolution's impossible!" or they split.

The only real solution to this is permanent revolution within our organisations. Continuous debates and votes if necessary on just about anything (within the limits of practical possibility), and involvement of every member in the decision process. This will make sure that all beginnings of disillusionment in individual members is overcome through mutual discussion and changing what is seen as wrong in the organisation. If each member feels himself to be heard in the organisation, (s)he will truly feel himself part of that organisation and part of this struggle for self-liberation.

Democratic centralism is a good thing, as long as it is DEMOCRATIC centralism, not the other way around. Our organisations should be as democratic as humanly possible, and as centralised as absolutely necessary.

i think factionalism is a right which people should have, otherwise any position which isnt the position of the central committee or something along those lines would be at a serious disadvantage. By having the right to form a faction, you can organise opposition to the party line as it is at presents and this thus ensures a healthy environment for debate, and always questioning everything (which is i'd think the marxist thing to do ).

Now, aside from the arguments in favour of factionalism, there are simple arguments against being against factionalism: it leeds to knee-jerk responses by the leadership (expulsions will be common). Once 3 members of the IS decided to discuss some conference issue leading up to the conference (which is a good thing for fuck sake, people discussing, thinking, sharing ideas), the leadership had a knee-jerk reaction, they panicked (probably because it could be considered a faction, or what not), luckily, they came to their senses. Also, if people cant form factions, they'll just split! and i think we've had enough of that already =

Yes you accept the majority decision in the sense that you stick with the plan as has been decided by the majority, but the debate should always continue!.
Freedom in discussion, unity in action, thats all!

Has there ever been a strong mass revolutionary party outside a (pre- or post-)revolutionary periode? The only mass workers' parties during periodes of little or no class struggle were reformist and/or bureaucratic.

None of this explains why Trotskyism is synonymous with splits and expulsions, meaning that Trotskyist groups remain small and ineffectual.

Nor does it account for the fact that all four internationals have failed (indeed, the alleged 'fifth' international has already split!), or the fact that every single marxist current is deeply divided, and has been for 140 odd years.

Some 'science' if we cannot even explain our own movement!

[I can, however!]

While I'll accept that Trotskyism is synonymous with splits, there's no proof that is an attribute of Trotskyism alone. You can easily look at the number of splits from groups across the revolutionary left and see that there are plenty of splits, splinter groups and expulsions.

None of this explains why Trotskyism is synonymous with splits and expulsions, meaning that Trotskyist groups remain small and ineffectual.

Nor does it account for the fact that all four internationals have failed (indeed, the alleged 'fifth' international has already split!), or the fact that every single marxist current is deeply divided, and has been for 140 odd years.

Some 'science' if we cannot even explain our own movement!

[I can, however!]

You make a contradiction by saying trotskyism is synonymous with splits and expulsions.
Your analysis ignores the prejudice towards trotskyist splits by attacking something every marxist party uses: DM.

Rakunin:

You make a contradiction by saying trotskyism is synonymous with splits and expulsions.
Your analysis ignores the prejudice towards trotskyist splits by attacking something every marxist party uses: DM.

Well, there are reasons why Stalinist and Maoist groups do not split: they at least have a few successes to boast about, and have mass (if passive) support in certain countries -- we do not.

Second, when in power, they murder anyone who steps out of line. Under those circumstances, only the bravest of souls will question the correct 'dialectical' line.

We do not do that (since we have never been 'in power'). The only form of 'discipline' we have is expulsion and fragmentation.

And, you inadvertently made my point: dialectics is the common element here.

To imagine that our core theory has nothing to do with our lack of success and our tendency to split is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

And if you compare the links I have given here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...69&postcount=2

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=18

you will see that us trots are far more fragmented than any other tendency, which is why I said what I said.

permanent factions are determental to democratic centralism as it weakens the unity of the party. there is nothing wrong with trying to pursue an agenda through collective action during the debate, or trying to force the issue forward for discussion- but building a seperate platform and identity based on such issues is dangerous and determental to the health of democracy and unity.

im' not sure whether that sounds like george washington's view on political parties or stalins... not good.

anyway- factions and an intellectualist outlook, (constant bickering over small points) is not constructive and alienates workers- whose grasp is not as in depth and do not understand the differences between very similar positions...

though i appreciate the concern, i get it, whats the alternative? kicking out factions? That only leads to splits and is a lot more detrimental to the building of a movement than plurality inside an organisation. Independent platforms inside an organisation are detrimental to unity, i agree, but kicking those independent platforms out only causes more trouble

And that in-depth grasp is what the organisation should try to foster, to 'teach' to new members, to the rest of the working class, to, in short, discuss with them the points and allow them to respond, to confront them to concepts which they know often at first nothing about, to make them familiar with the essential critique of capitalism. This said, nothing is gained by pointing highly intellectual debates outwards, since it does alienate others, but inside the organisation the debate should be continuous. The points brought into the "outside" world have to be understandable to that world, but that doesnt mean that we should make our theories completely shallow, in the end, we have to work towards the point that the outside world gets what we're saying.

Thát is the idea of the "vanguard".

Spractlm, I would say they have a terror organisation that does this.

The major problem with modern Marxism, i.e., Trotskyism, is contempt of the basic principles of Democratic Centralism, that is, democracy in discussion – centralism (and unity) in action.

When there is even a minor disagreement over something, instead of forming a faction around that issue within the organization and trying to convince other members to come over to their point of view, they run off and form their own organization. Imagine if this happened in the Bolshevik party! There would've been countless splits and there probably wouldn't have been a successful socialist revolution in Russia as a result of that.

Unity in action is always more important than petty disagreements and squabbling. If there's one thing to be learned from the Bolsheviks, it's that.

We do not do that (since we have never been 'in power').

Huh? What would you consider "us" being during the first 5/6 years after the Russian revolution then?

LZ:

What would you consider "us" being during the first 5/6 years after the Russian revolution then?

Unfortunately, the Stalinists, and Maoists (by default) also claim this for themselves.

Now, we both know this is a lie.

But, the fact is that 'Trotskyists' (if we asume identity with the rapidly deformed Bolshevik regime for the purposes of this thread) were not in power for long -- the bureaucracy controlled things almost from the get-go .

So, at best, we had 'power' for a couple of years, allowed it to slip away, and watched as the Stalinists destroyed the revolution (1924-1929).

Not something to put on one's CV, I think.

Since then, zippo.

The Stalinists and Maoists at least have had a few revolutions to boast about since the 1940's.

What can we crow about?

Spractlm:

a terrorist organisation?

terrorism is based on individualism- that an individual can change history- so it is more likely to be run by radicalised peasents or petit bourgeosise than bureaucrats.

Maybe so, but the Stalinists (and Maoists) ran a terror organisation, whatever its class composition was.

Unfortunately, the Stalinists, and Maoists (by default) also claim this for themselves.

Now, we both know this is a lie.

But, the fact is that 'Trotskyists' (if we asume identity with the rapidly deformed Bolshevik regime for the purposes of this thread) were not in power for long -- the bureaucracy controlled things almost from the get-go .

So, at best, we had 'power' for a couple of years, allowed it to slip away, and watched as the Stalinists destroyed the revolution (1924-1929).

Not something to put on one's CV, I think.

Since then, zippo.

The Stalinists and Maoists at least have had a few revolutions to boast about since the 1940's.

What can we crow about?

Yeah, you raise good points. Blaming it all on sectarianism seems to be putting the issue wrongly though, or at least in the wrong order.

I believe that the sectarianism, the tendency to split etc. was (and still is) a result of the ebb in the revolutionary consciousness of the masses which was the case for most of the latter part of the last century. When your movement lacks support on a significant basis, history has shown that sectarianism and splitting tendencies are cultivated by that.

That is the main reason why Maoist and other Stalinist tendencies have lacked splitting on such a basis, and have therefore historically not been plagued by it. However it is to be noted that after the collapse of the USSR and restoration of capitalism in China the Stalinist tendencies went through basically the same problems as us, so it is not a "Marxist" thing to go through it, it is a thing related to all movements.

The history of the Russian workers' movement shows the same thing.

So it has to do with objective material conditions at first, and then goes over to the realm of subjectives, that is, the conduct of individuals within those specific objective material conditions.

But Lenin was clear about what to do during the ebb in revolutionary consciousness; keep together, stay united, and make sure you do not let sectarianism and splitting infiltrate the party-structure. This is why he had to spend so much of his time writing polemics against other "revolutionary" organizations, and also against members of his own.

Sadly we Marxists, after the death of Trotsky, were not able to do this effectively.

The solution to the problem is a change in the attitude of Marxists, but I believe that only a change in the objective material conditions can spur that on. I hope I'm wrong about that. There is also the small chance that a new figure of authority within Marxist theory may emerge before the change in objective material conditions (usually it is as a result of that), who is able to unite a significant portion of Marxists behind him or herself, in the manner Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky etc. were able to do.

Our current theoreticians (Woods, Taaffe etc.) are sadly not able to do so.

LZ:

Blaming it all on sectarianism seems to be putting the issue wrongly though, or at least in the wrong order.

Where do I do that?

I believe that the sectarianism, the tendency to split etc. was (and still is) a result of the ebb in the revolutionary consciousness of the masses which was the case for most of the latter part of the last century. When your movement lacks support on a significant basis, history has shown that sectarianism and splitting tendencies are cultivated by that.

Sectarianism is alas just as prevalent when the 'revolutionary consciousness of the masses' is high.

And, I am not sure it is a good idea to blame our faults on workers.

Plus, it fails to explain why this has been a constant feature of all forms of Marxism, at all times.

This is an idealist argument:

The solution to the problem is a change in the attitude of Marxists, but I believe that only a change in the objective material conditions can spur that on. I hope I'm wrong about that. There is also the small chance that a new figure of authority within Marxist theory may emerge before the change in objective material conditions (usually it is as a result of that), who is able to unite a significant portion of Marxists behind him or herself, in the manner Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky etc. were able to do.

We need a materialist one -- and I think I have hit upon it.