daft punk

As your a Trotskyist I'd like to knwo your views on the idea of political revolution: from what I've read (mainly from the spartacist website) most Trotskyists during the late 80's viewed the developments of Eastern Europe as potential 'political revolutions', yet in all of these countries capitalism was restored. China 1989 is also seen as a possible 'political revolution' (Workers held red banners, Mao, sang Internationale, this might be more a case of 'good tsar' illusions), but in the context of when the China events happened is their any evidence to suggest that it wouldn't have resulted in full Capitalist restoration ?(though I believe that had already happened). What should the criteria for describing something as a 'political revolution' be? A lot of left groups have found obscure evidence that the protests held a socialist character, though I'm not sure if these theories are any more credible than the conventional view that they were entirely , pro-'democracy' protests.

The degeneration of the USSR is so demoralising, it not only took USSR on the wrong path but also the International communist movement. Now us communists are widely discredited, our theories are not viewed as tyrannical as was in the McCarthy era but are associated with abject failure which is probably worse.

So what was it that made Stalin collectivise? My theory is that the Kulak's had got rich during the NEP, which lasted too long, meaning that they could afford to withhold grain in order to increase it's value, thus causing a major shortage.

Just read through the intro of the platorm of the opposition. As I see it Trotsky is arguing that elements of bureaucracy had entered the party with many old Bolsheviks being pushed out of influential positions. This new bureaucracy made it easier for capitalist elements to enter the party who had gained greater influence due to Stalin's refusal to implement a progressive tax. These Capitalist elements aspsired to achieve a dual-power situation. The correct line to take would be implementing a heavy tax on the rich and the setting up of voluntary collectives for the peasants whilst developing advanced technology for the collectives. The middle peasants would thn realise it is in their interests to enter similar collectives themselves thus leaving the kulak elements isolated.

Would you say that this is a correct understanding of Trotsky's argument? Your thoughts would be appreciated, thanks comrade.

*I meant a unification of Trots and ML's