Trotsky: counterrevolutionary?

[DoctorWasdarb]

Stalin was anti-Semitic and forcefully move ethnic minorities to underpopulated areas

Provide one shred of proof.

[General Winter]

Lol, I did not - you are making a straw argument in order to avoid having to defend the historical record of what this ideology has sustained. The ideology you claims helps sustain revolution led CPs to the exact opposite in numerous historical cases. I was countering your claim that the socialism in one country ideology sustained revolution and my point is that the logic of that ideology led to backing European political stability over “sustaining a revolution” - it led to things like disarming revolutionary forces.

Over and over again, this view led to downplaying struggle when that was a better move for USSR relations. This makes total sense from that ideological view: sustain the USSR but revolution elsewhere might upset international relations under some conditions.

But from a class struggle view (putting it all on red, IE working class self-emancipation) having CPs enforce no-strike pledges, backing moderate forces or even capitalist parties like the Democrats makes no sense.

Lol. "Stalin didn't put his chips on red, that's why the revolution in Spain didn't happen" - that's your claim,isn't it ?

Dear friend, the foreign help for the success of revolution is desired but not required. As a matter of fact, only two things are necessary for revolution : a presence of a revolutionary situation and a presence of a revolutionary party. The fact that there is no revolution in one or another country means only that at least one of this factors is absent - and nothing more.

In Spain (and in the whole world) in 1930s a united anti-fascist front was necessary. And you will never able to prove to me that participation in the anti-Nazi war of Britain and the United States is bad. You will never able to prove to me that the Trotskyists splitting the antifascist front acted as revolutionaries - no, they acted as provocateurs.

Further, there was no idea of "socialism in one country", you are lying. There was an idea of the possibility of a socialist construction first in one country. Is stemmed from the fact of stabilization of capitalism in other countries - while you are trying to prove that capitalism has stabilized because of the adoption of this idea, ie you arevputing the cart before the horse.

And to top it all, the idea of the possibility of a socialist construction first in one country in no case led to the refusal of assistance to revolutionary movements in other countries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, that is not my claim - you simply added quotes around the straw-argument you keep making. My claim is that M-Lism by putting chips on stability for Russia led to M-L forces repeatedly making the wrong choices in revolutionary situations (backing international stability over actual existing revolution). Even with hindsight, you think that France and the UK, not revolutionary workers were the best hope for Spain?

As for “splitting the revolution”: There was no real Spanish CP at the start of the Spanish revolution, it developed during the revolution, it disarmed revolutionaries and disbanded worker controlled shops... in other words split the revolution.

There were no Trotskyist parties really either. Trotsky urged revolutionaries to try and unite the left-syndicalists and left-socialist parties because in his view, both were independently coming to Bolshevik like conclusions through the conflict (ie create a derrutti like unified worker militia and fight for an independent course from the vasscilating syndicalist leaders and moderate socialist leaders.

If this is “splitting” the revolution, then the Bolsheviks also split the Russian one by rejecting calls for a united (moderate) socialist parliament.

[General Winter]

My claim is that M-Lism by putting chips on stability for Russia led to M-L forces repeatedly making the wrong choices in revolutionary situations (backing international stability over actual existing revolution).

Soviet Russia needed a friendly environment so it needed a destruction of an unfriendly environment and M-Lists by putting chips on unstability in revolutionary situations achieved revolutions in Western Europe and Asian countries. So that it is you who makes straw arguments.

You say there was a revolutionary situation in Spain. And there was a super-puper revolutionary anti-Stalinist organisation POUM. So where is revolution in Spane if there was everything necessary for it ?

You say M-Lism always put chips on stability. But you anti-stalinists do not (acoording to your claims). So where is your revolutions ?

As for “splitting the revolution”

Lying again. The talk was about splitting the antifascist front. Even with hindsight, I think that at that time the united antifascist front was the best hope for Spain and for Europe.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Soviet Russia needed a friendly environment

yes, my point exactly. From a M-L perspective it makes sense to prioritize the needs of Russia.

You say there was a revolutionary situation in Spain. And there was a super-puper revolutionary anti-Stalinist organisation POUM.

I never mentioned POUM. My understanding was that they were too small. Trotsky was pissed at them, can’t remember why—I think because they were too aloof from the left-anarchists and left-socialists? I think he thought that splitting those forces from the moderate elements of the Socialists and CNT was what needed to happen.

But the POUM was small and Derrutti’s Army was too late.

So where is revolution in Spane if there was everything necessary for it ?

Betrayed by moderates who were supported by counterrevolutionary M-Ls?

You say M-Lism always put chips on stability. But you anti-stalinists do not (acoording to your claims). So where is your revolutions ?

M-Ls do not have revolutions, Trotskyists or anarchists do not have revolutions. The question, as you put it, is what ideas best support or “sustain” revolutions. Trotskyists would claim that the Bolsheviks showed their ideas worked to connect Revolutionaries to revolutionary workers in opposition to moderates because they tend to think of their politics as revolutionary-Bolshevism. Syndicalists would likely claim that their ideas helped workers run regions of Spain. But aside from the CNT/FAI there are not many revolutionary situations where anarchism was the dominant radical trend. M-L groups on the other hand were influential in many cases and they tripped over their own ideology thanks to things like their stage-ism and need to ensure the best international environment for Russia. These ideas and practices have made it an uphill battle to try and salvage the actual revolutionary legacy of the Bolsheviks for at least the last two generations.

[General Winter]

But the POUM was small and Derrutti’s Army was too late.

Something always hinder anti-stalinists from doing revolution,eh ? Bad dancer blames his bollocks.

BTW, POUM and the Communist Party in early 1936 were equal in number.

A paucity of revolutionary parties is a consequence of small demand for a revolution in society, ie of an absence of a revolutionary situation, which is what we set out to prove.

Briefly summarizeing :

- the idea of the possibility of a socialist construction first in one country does not lead to the refusal of assistance to revolutionary movements in other countries;

- the USSR needed not a stabilization a hostile capitalist encirclement but in it's destruction;

- anti-MLists weren't able to carry out any revolution and showed their bankruptcy.

[The scythe]

its hard for Bolshevik-Leninists to start a revolution when the ML's Purge their ranks and kisses up to the state to the point that any other ideology is illegal, The same thing happened in South Vietnam.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How does restoring property rights and disarming revolutionaries in Spain to protect a right-collaborating Republican government from workers “sustain revolution”?