Results 21 to 40 of 181
No, this is not a core part of the Trotskyist tradition. Trotsky supported temporary entry into the French Section of the Workers' International in the 1930s but this was only a tactical move, and was designed to allow French Trotskyists to engage with broader forces. It was not based on the assumption that it would be possible to transform the Section into a revolutionary party, and only rarely have subsequent Trotskyist organizations turned this particular tactic into a starting-point for all strategy - in fact, the IMT is the only Trotskyist international that does this, and its insistence on working through and within social democracy is a major point of critique for other Trotskyists like the IST and the ICL-FI. It's worth pointing out that when it comes to China and the Third World more generally it is normally Stalinists who have been most aggressive in calling for cooperation with vacillating forces like petty-bourgeois nationalist parties, such that Trotsky and the individuals in China who would later become Trotskyists were the ones who were most opposed to the first united front with the KMT in the 1920s, whereas Stalin and the main part of the Comintern forced the CPC to follow through on this policy.
Well, why don't we push the question to an even further extreme. Let's ask ourselves what theoretical commonalities their might be between the Italian Communist Left in any phase of it's existence, but particularly in the stage of it's development when the Left constituted itself as an organised fraction outside the PCd'I and published Bilan, as well as the post-war phase in which the fraction formed the Internationalist Communist Party, and Maoism. Can't think of one? Can the two tendencies find nothing to agree on? Seriously?! Well that would be because it's a ridiculous endeavour. There's no 'dogmatism' here unless by 'dogmatism' you mean facing reality as opposed to living in some fantasy land where the differences between tendencies are superficial and really we can all focus on our points of commonality and get along and hold hands across the rivers of blood which quite literally seperate a number of communist groups.
"From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."
- Karl Marx -
If the two leninist tendencies could coexist they wouldnt exist. They are defined when they are put in opposition with each other. A major point of being a trot for example is to be opposed to stalinism.
Avanti barbarati
First, separate the individual from the politics.
Discard the revisionist ideas that led to the restoration of capitalism.
The dichotomy on the left according to trots is "Trotskyism vs. Stalinism". This is invalid because not all ML parties who criticize Trotsky are Maoists or Stalinists.
This political line is part of the "cult of the individual" that trots perpetuate.
The real dichotomy is "Socialists vs. Communists" or "Revisionist vs. Anti-revisionist". The old movement contained elements of both. Since it was insufficiently anti-revisionist capitalism has been restored.
Read up on Progressive Labor Party. PLP broke with the CPUSA, the SU and China in the 1960's for their revisionist politics that opened the door for counter-revolution.
We need to criticize everything and eliminate revisionist ideas from our current theory.
Look around today, PLP projected this reversal of socialism over 40 years ago.
You have a knack to make maoism sound less attractive than it already is. It seems terribly militarist, hierarchical, and not particularly communist (at best left-nationalist) put that way.
Yeah let's make the revolution by all sitting in a circle, holding hands and singing kumbaya
"The spiritual atom bomb that the revolutionary people possess is a far more powerful and useful weapon than the physical atom bomb"
-Lin Biao
...though I feel many would actually consider this a more legitimate revolutionary tendency than MaoismYeah let's make the revolution by all sitting in a circle, holding hands and singing kumbaya
/trollin'
I know the OP isn't in this conversation any more for being a big ol' Confederacy-lover, but if he happens to come back and reads this, I'd suggest he stop thinking about synthesising Maoism and Trotskyism, and instead just thinks about what features of this or that tendency he considers viable. That isn't synthesising disparate ideas, though, it's about actually having independent opinions, rather than relying in some dogmatic tendency to tell you what you're supposed to think about absolutely everything...
Yeah and with exactly the same amount of Marxism in their views.
This is a hoot, a regular knee-slapper; former and current Stalin and Mao worshipers talking about Trotskyists' cult of personality.
In fact the "theories" are not compatible, because 1) Trotsky's analysis is based on the fact that the uneven and combined development of capitalism in both its local, and international, manifestation makes the proletariat necessarily the leading class of social revolution, even in, especially in conditions of weakly developed capitalism. In turn, the proletariat in those less capitalistically developed areas will only be able to maintain power to the degree that their revolution is reciprocated by proletarian revolution in the advanced countries.
Maois shares none of that fundamental, and I would add, Marxist material analysis of capitalism in its international development.
I'm not a Trotskyist, but you have to recognize and appreciate the tremendous advance Trotsky made, not in creating a theory of uneven and combined development, but in seeing uneven and combined development in the specific conditions in Russia.
Yes, let's forget that Trotsky was the one who commanded the red army to victory and that the bulk of the left's fighters in Spain were not the woefully inefficient Stalinoids despite actually getting foreign funding and traditional military hierarchies.Yeah let's make the revolution by all sitting in a circle, holding hands and singing kumbaya
I've actually seen some Trots defending Mao to an extent and vice versa. Caramelpence, for example.
"In your system, gentlemen fascists, to whom do the means of production belong? To individual capitalists and to groups of capitalists and, therefore, you cannot have genuine planning, except for bits, as the economy is divided among groups of owners." - J.V. Stalin
"[The children's] life will be better than ours; much of what was our life, they will not experience. Their lives will be less cruel. [...] Our generation has succeeded in doing a job of astounding historical importance. The cruelty of our life, forced upon us by conditions, will be understood and justified. It will all be understood, all of it!" -V. Lenin
...where have I defended Mao?
Most are concerned in getting a few catchy one liners.
Dammit, the irony is unbearable.
Yes, I do have a sailors mouth. Did it offend you? Then toughen up you pussy penis!
Do to Iseuls claims I am a Sexist, I added penis!
I dont like being a wage slave =
"Using negative rep as a weapon against other people just reveals your cowardly and reactionary nature."
--Iseul
"And once again, the old dictum is confirmed that the worst product of fascism was 'anti-fascism'."
-- Zanthorus
You've defended Mao and the CCP when it comes to Comintern policies (which were flawed, no argument there) concerning the Chinese revolution.
And the negrep was unnecessary.
"In your system, gentlemen fascists, to whom do the means of production belong? To individual capitalists and to groups of capitalists and, therefore, you cannot have genuine planning, except for bits, as the economy is divided among groups of owners." - J.V. Stalin
"[The children's] life will be better than ours; much of what was our life, they will not experience. Their lives will be less cruel. [...] Our generation has succeeded in doing a job of astounding historical importance. The cruelty of our life, forced upon us by conditions, will be understood and justified. It will all be understood, all of it!" -V. Lenin
Evidence? If by "when it comes to Comintern policies" you mean that I've criticized the Comintern imposing an opportunist line on the infant CPC, then that hardly amounts to defending Mao and the CPC, given that the Comintern's role in China is a major object of critique for the whole of the Trotskyist tradition and was the experience that led Trotsky to generalize his theory of permanent revolution. Moreover, it's also stupid to characterize me as a defender of Mao on that issue because Mao and Zhou Enlai went out of their way to slander Chen Duxiu, who became a Trotskyist after being purged from the CPC leadership, by making it seem as if he had supported the line and was therefore guilty of "right opportunism", rather than recognizing Stalin's responsibility and abandonment of world revolution.You've defended Mao and the CCP when it comes to Comintern policies (which were flawed, no argument there) concerning the Chinese revolution.
And the negrep was unnecessary.
If you don't want neg rep, then don't make stupid slanders about me or other users.
All I know is that Mao reportedly kicked Trotskyists and people who showed Trotskyist-like tendencies out of the Party.
FKA Comrade Ducky
Question everything, answer to no one.
MAKE TOTAL DESTROY, not war.
"This duck is a nuclear duck and it's time the world started calling a duck a duck."-Benjamin Netanyahu
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."- Adam Savage
Uhh, not even all of that. The Nepalese Maoists are currently engaged in a crusade to bring capitalism to Nepal. Maoists here have, by and large, defended this.
RED DAVE
Well I probably should have said that they share a theoretical rejection of the word 'capitalism' since the maoists seem to ahere to the neo-liberal rather than marxian understanding of capitalism, which tends to reflect on the type of society that they advocate.
Just look at a few of your posts in the "Stalin abandoned world revolution" thread, among others.
Yeah, I know the Trotskyist line on the Comintern, but it is not the fault of a so called "Stalinist bureaucracy" why the CCP faced blunders during the revolution, especially during the 30s, where Stalin was actually in oppposition to the Comintern's line that social democrats are equal to social fascists. He rather argued that the two are "twins" and that social democracy was the moderate wing of fascism, instead of simply saying that social democrats = nazis.
"Fscism is the bourgeoisie's fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. . . . These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism . . . is intended for combating the proletarian revolution." Josef V. Stalin, Concerning the International Situation (20-9-24), in Works, vol.6, Moscow, 1947, pp. 294-5
Still in regards to China, the proletariat quickly rose to a position from which it could challenge the bourgeoisie, particularly in May 1925, in the Hongkong-Canton strike of 1925-26, in the Shangai uprising of 1927. But these events were also accompanied by missed opportunities on the part of the Chinese Communist Party, which failed to successfully infiltrate the army during its alliance period with the Kuomintang. The revolution was still supported, although Stalin characterized the CCP as "not a thorough Communist Party" in one of his letters to Molotov.
At the sixth Congress of the Comintern, the question of national liberation in colonial and feudal/semi-feudal countries were discussed. In regards to China, it was necessary to: consolidate the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist forces within the communist ranks; secure the working class' alliance with the peasantry; bring the Communist Party into the national revolutionary movement, which was represented by the Kuomintang, thus striving to attain the hegemonic role of the proletariat in the revolution.
Stalin viewed the continuation of the CCP-Guomindang alliance as an objective necessity precisely because he feared the Guomindang right-wing would triumph over the left-wing and leave the CCP exposed. Stalin's analysis was not the best, but letters and such opened up after 1991 show that he didn't regard Chiang's coup lightly. The equivalent under Lenin would be when Lenin sent Ottoman leader Ismail Enver to suppress an anti-Bolshevik uprising in Central Asia (many leftists from the Ottoman Empire hated him and refused to be at the same place as he when he visited Moscow) and instead Ismail Enver proceeded to assist the uprising. Bottom line, world revolution is not clear cut. It will face victories and defeats in the long run.
Bringing up someone's past posts is not slander. And I didn't call out any users.
"In your system, gentlemen fascists, to whom do the means of production belong? To individual capitalists and to groups of capitalists and, therefore, you cannot have genuine planning, except for bits, as the economy is divided among groups of owners." - J.V. Stalin
"[The children's] life will be better than ours; much of what was our life, they will not experience. Their lives will be less cruel. [...] Our generation has succeeded in doing a job of astounding historical importance. The cruelty of our life, forced upon us by conditions, will be understood and justified. It will all be understood, all of it!" -V. Lenin
marxism isn't based on principles it's based on the study of history
"It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it" - Pirkei Avot
The longer a drought lasts the more likely it is to continue.
