Trots Against Democracy?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

An object can be internally contradictory, but be overwhelmed by one side of the contradiction, as the Soviet bureaucracy was in the 1930s, causing it to move decisively back toward capitalism and ever more away from the working class. Ergo the change of language about Stalinist centrism, the new call for multiparty elections, and all the rest. Your understanding of Trotsky's view is just as I said above. You think the bureaucracy was riven by a contradiction with two sides pulling it equally, with the effect being a kind of neutrality toward both poles. It's all a wonderful way of setting up how the bureaucracy really could do progressive things, like set up its own workers states. That's not how Trotsky viewed it.

Well, I would almost say you're correct re: your characterisation of my reading of Trotsky on the bureaucracy, but there is no neutrality. Neutrality is either static - that is, the bureaucracy would be always exactly or approximately between the two poles - or dynamic - that is, the bureaucracy would oscillate between the two poles but in such a way that their mean cumulative effect is neutral between the two poles. At least it seems to me these are the only two options. But it is entirely possible to admit that the bureaucracy was not neutral - that it was more often on the side of reaction

And well, I suppose we are going to disagree on what Trotsky meant, but how do you understand his statements about, again, Finland and Poland (yes, I know I'm boring with those two examples but they were the closest the old man came to addressing future developments in Chechoslovakia, Bulgaria etc.)? Because it seems clear to me - he was recognising the possibility of the Soviet Union installing a "Stalinist" regime in these countries even if he did not have a fully worked-out theory of how this would happen.

But you wouldn't say that, I suppose? So how do you understand his statement about the "firebug", for example? Obviously the firebug is doing something right even if it's for completely wrong reasons.

Yes, Trotsky viewed the nationalization of the means of production as the result of workers' revolutionary agency from the October period. He also believed that the Soviet bureaucracy was actively undermining that conquest, through inability to plan effectively because of the lack of democracy, and through how the resultant chaos was encouraging segments of the bureaucracy to maintain their growing level of bourgeois distributional remuneration through a more stable system--a new bourgeois system.

And yet, he polemicised against what he called "running back the film of revisionism" - a smooth transition from a workers' state to a bourgeois one. Certainly he recognised the counter-revolutionary tendencies of the bureaucracy - as does the ICL (consider the IG-ICL debate on the Reiss faction in the present epoch). But - and here is the real empirical test of what ICL considers to be orthodox Trotskyism - the ICL claim that a bourgeois dictatorship can't be restored without a sudden, violent counter-revolution (even if the workers "concede the crucial battle" - I can't remember how that was formulated in English now). If China goes capitalist, it won't be a smooth transition - that's our perspective - it will be like in Russia in the nineties.

He fought against those propaganda grouplets for the same reason the ISO fights against the ICL, and the CWI fights against the ISO, and the IMT fights against the SWP-US. That is a separate question from how to relate to mass movements for desirable reforms. That question was settled over a decade before at the first Comintern congresses.

But aren't you taking an abstract, A=A position now? As Trotsky saw it, when the first ComIntern congresses took place there was no need to view the Soviet Union as a temporarily stable workers' state, particularly not one that has been degenerated because of the failure of the world revolution. The Thermidor was a new situation, that the first congressess of the CI couldn't have taken into account.

[Sharia Lawn]

Well, I would almost say you're correct re: your characterisation of my reading of Trotsky on the bureaucracy, but there is no neutrality. Neutrality is either static - that is, the bureaucracy would be always exactly or approximately between the two poles - or dynamic - that is, the bureaucracy would oscillate between the two poles but in such a way that their mean cumulative effect is neutral between the two poles. At least it seems to me these are the only two options. But it is entirely possible to admit that the bureaucracy was not neutral - that it was more often on the side of reaction

Squirm as you may, Trotsky abandoned your characterization of Stalinism in the last years of his life. Do you disagree that he dropped the term centrism? Do you disagree that he viewed Stalinism as the single largest obstacle on the road to the establishment of socialism?

You might disavow that you do, but your poltics suggest otherwise. You think Stalinists were still oscillating in 1938 and 1939 when Trotsky viewed them as scurrying toward international capital. You view them as establishing workers' states in 1945 and 1946, when Trotsky would have viewed the suggestion as a betrayal of the simplest of Marxist principles. You see them as cracking down on workers on the side of a pro-worker social system in China today, between their meetings with Apple executives on how best to exploit Chinese workers. Your politics are as bankrupt as your reading of Trotsky is. Trotsky would have unloaded on you with the rhetorical ferocity he would have heaped onto four Shachtmans.

I am not a big fan of the interminable quote mining that goes on in these threads. Nevertheless I could easily provide quotes to substantiate my understanding of Trotsky's view, if you'd like to see them. Just say the word.

You've provided a single quote where Trotsky makes the uncontroversial observation that the Stalinist bureaucracy, as a bureaucracy, had some backward interest, entirely different from that of the workers, in defending nationalized property. Not strengthening socialism. Not standing on the side of the working class, even intermittently. Not in advancing working class agency. By 1939 he had abandoned that analysis. He didn't think it was a capitalist class, but he no longer viewed it as flitting back and forth indecisively between capital and labor. He viewed as a monstrous counter-revolutionary growth that was on the verge of reestablishing capitalism. He thought the situation was so dire that it was more reasonable to open up an electoral system to various non-revolutionary parties than it was to continue to let the Stalinists exercise a political monopoly. You are 80 years behind his analysis.

And well, I suppose we are going to disagree on what Trotsky meant, but how do you understand his statements about, again, Finland and Poland (yes, I know I'm boring with those two examples but they were the closest the old man came to addressing future developments in Chechoslovakia, Bulgaria etc.)? Because it seems clear to me - he was recognising the possibility of the Soviet Union installing a "Stalinist" regime in these countries even if he did not have a fully worked-out theory of how this would happen.

He recognized the possibility of Stalinists nationalizing property and fighting against the bourgeoisie of Finland and Poland. History showed otherwise. Stalinists at the end of the war ended up on the side of fascists and monarchs, and joined them in strangling the working class of the "liberated" countries.

And yet, he polemicised against what he called "running back the film of revisionism" - a smooth transition from a workers' state to a bourgeois one. Certainly he recognised the counter-revolutionary tendencies of the bureaucracy - as does the ICL (consider the IG-ICL debate on the Reiss faction in the present epoch). But - and here is the real empirical test of what ICL considers to be orthodox Trotskyism - the ICL claim that a bourgeois dictatorship can't be restored without a sudden, violent counter-revolution (even if the workers "concede the crucial battle" - I can't remember how that was formulated in English now). If China goes capitalist, it won't be a smooth transition - that's our perspective - it will be like in Russia in the nineties.

When does the ICL locate the counter-revolution against the Soviet workers' state, out of curiosity? What was the month and year? How many casualties were involved. I'd love to know.

[Sharia Lawn]

Then we have this in the latest issue of Workers Vanguard

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/index.html

Hong Kong Protests: Spearhead for Capitalist Counterrevolution

OCTOBER 13—Imperialist-backed “democracy” activists seeking to end Chinese Communist Party (CCP) control over the capitalist enclave of Hong Kong continue to block streets in parts of the city, as they have since late September. Using the demand for universal suffrage as a wedge, the protesters, known as the Umbrella Movement, are attempting to open the way for Hong Kong’s capitalist parties to exercise direct political power. It is in the interest of working people around the world to oppose these protests. Political power in the hands of the bourgeoisie in Hong Kong would be a spearhead for smashing the Chinese bureaucratically deformed workers state and opening the mainland to untrammeled capitalist exploitation.

[Art Vandelay]

I think it's actually surprising that we haven't seen more Trotskyist groups (of the orthodox-Trotskyist lineage) put forth a similar position. I'm not saying that I agree with the position, but it does seem like the logical line to take if you uphold China as a deformed workers state. Groups like the IMT, CWI, etc..also have the same characterization of China, yet their line is vastly different.

[Sharia Lawn]

I think it's actually surprising that we haven't seen more Trotskyist groups (of the orthodox-Trotskyist lineage) put forth a similar position. I'm not saying that I agree with the position, but it does seem like the logical line to take if you uphold China as a deformed workers state. Groups like the IMT, CWI, etc..also have the same characterization of China, yet their line is vastly different.

The Spart position assumes that the political revolution it calls for won't spring out of a mass movement of the type that currently exists in the streets of Hong Kong. Presumably it will arise out of a layer of declassed intellectuals hailing the red army in afghanistan. Nevermind the real movement or the role of struggle in bringing about a clearler picture of how to accomplish the tasks at hand.

[Sharia Lawn]

The Chinese bureaucracy recognizes the clear class lines, even if Workers Vanguard doesn't. http://online.wsj.com/articles/hong-...lks-1413817975

Hong Kong Leader Warns Poor Would Sway Vote

HONG KONG—Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said that if the government met student demands and allowed candidates to be nominated by the public, Hong Kong’s poor and working class could dominate the elections.


Speaking in an interview with foreign media, Mr. Leung reiterated that the student demand for direct input from the public on candidates for the city’s top post was impossible. He said using a nominating committee as required by Beijing gives representation to a wide range of groups. (Latest News: Hong Kong Protest Talks Set, Police Ready)


He warned that if candidates were nominated by the public, the population that earns less than the median monthly salary of US$1,800 could dominate the process.

[Geiseric]

Mensheviks and SRs used "more democracy" as a slogan. I need actual demands before I support the people on the ground in hong kong. What do they want done with the economy? Maidan was a disaster, lets not get fooled again.

[Sharia Lawn]

Mensheviks and SRs used "more democracy" as a slogan. I need actual demands before I support the people on the ground in hong kong. What do they want done with the economy? Maidan was a disaster, lets not get fooled again.

Yeah, it is risky. If the protestors got "more democracy, the working class in Hong Kong might use their increased political agency to elect people who will try to invite large bourgeois firms back in and privatize large chunks of industry. Or they might vote for opponents of the existing bureaucracy. We may never know.

[DOOM]

Then we have this in the latest issue of Workers Vanguard

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/index.html

Untrammeled capitalist exploitation, I see. so the mainland exploitation seems to be trammeled in some way. All hail the deformed workers' state of China!

[DOOM]

Mensheviks and SRs used "more democracy" as a slogan. I need actual demands before I support the people on the ground in hong kong. What do they want done with the economy? Maidan was a disaster, lets not get fooled again.

There's no reason to support them. Fact is those protests aren't in any way offerring communist perspectives.
However, this doesnt mean you have to make a complete U-turn and actively defend capitalist China supressing this movement. The inverse-conclusion, that one should oppose this movement and (indirectly) support China in doing so, is not working-class friendly.
At this point in time there's no active faction in Hong-Kong which is to be supported by us.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Apologies for responding late.

Squirm as you may, Trotsky abandoned your characterization of Stalinism in the last years of his life. Do you disagree that he dropped the term centrism? Do you disagree that he viewed Stalinism as the single largest obstacle on the road to the establishment of socialism?

I do not disagree that Trotsky dropped the term "centrist" when referring to the bureaucracy; however I do think that the second claim is far too simplistic and reduces Trotsky's very nuanced view of the bureaucracy to one of its sides. To me it is the same as when the left communists, acting out of genuine and understandable disgust at the trade-union leadership, write off unions entirely.

You might disavow that you do, but your poltics suggest otherwise. You think Stalinists were still oscillating in 1938 and 1939 when Trotsky viewed them as scurrying toward international capital. You view them as establishing workers' states in 1945 and 1946, when Trotsky would have viewed the suggestion as a betrayal of the simplest of Marxist principles.

It's difficult to say what people would have done if they were alive at some point, but while he was still alive, one of his last articles claims:

"I specified several times that if the war in Finland was not submerged in a general war, and if Stalin was not compelled to retreat before a threat from the outside, then he would be forced to carry through the sovietizing of Finland. This task by itself was much more difficult than the sovietizing of Eastern Poland. More difficult from a military standpoint, for Finland happened to be better prepared. More difficult from a national standpoint, for Finland possesses a long tradition of struggle for national independence from Russia, whereas the Ukrainians and the White Russians were fighting against Poland. More difficult from a social standpoint, for the Finnish bourgeoisie had in its own way solved the pre-capitalist agrarian problem through the creation of an agricultural petty-bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the military victory of Stalin over Finland would unquestionably have made fully possible an overthrow of property relations with more or less assistance from the Finnish workers and small farmers."

(Balance Sheet of the Finnish Events)

Sovietisation - what is that if not establishing a deformed workers' state? In fact, later on you admit that this was Trotsky's perspective, but claim that history did not bear it out.

I am not a big fan of the interminable quote mining that goes on in these threads. Nevertheless I could easily provide quotes to substantiate my understanding of Trotsky's view, if you'd like to see them. Just say the word.

Yes, I would like to see these quotes - not because I doubt your sincerity but because often I find that we and our political opponents understand the same quotes in an entirely different manner (cf. "aristocratic nations").

You've provided a single quote where Trotsky makes the uncontroversial observation that the Stalinist bureaucracy, as a bureaucracy, had some backward interest, entirely different from that of the workers, in defending nationalized property. Not strengthening socialism.

No Trotskyist, of the Cannonite variety or otherwise, would claim that the bureaucracy could "strengthen socialism". That's not the point. The point is that the bureaucracy defended - to an extent - nationalised property of a particular sort, the sort that corresponded to the transition between capitalism and communism (and not the nationalised property of a bourgeois state). In this their interest and the interest of the workers were aligned - but only to an extent. Overall, the bureaucracy was, as you say, a "monstrous growth" that had to be excised. But you don't excise growths by killing the patient - here, the Soviet workers' state.

Not standing on the side of the working class, even intermittently. Not in advancing working class agency. By 1939 he had abandoned that analysis. He didn't think it was a capitalist class, but he no longer viewed it as flitting back and forth indecisively between capital and labor. He viewed as a monstrous counter-revolutionary growth that was on the verge of reestablishing capitalism. He thought the situation was so dire that it was more reasonable to open up an electoral system to various non-revolutionary parties than it was to continue to let the Stalinists exercise a political monopoly. You are 80 years behind his analysis.

Surely we can agree that a non-revolutionary party, representing the bureaucracy as a special caste, was in power? Multi-party democracy, then, was not a matter of allowing further non-revolutionary parties to be represented in the political system (the Stalinists could do this - there is, after all, a "revolutionary committee" of the GMD in the councils of the Stalinist PRC), but of allowing parties that represent one or more of the strata of the proletariat, deprived of political power, to freely function.

If you think Trotsky wanted freedom for the Mensheviks and Kadets - well, that is something that would go against his entire work as a revolutionary.

He recognized the possibility of Stalinists nationalizing property and fighting against the bourgeoisie of Finland and Poland. History showed otherwise. Stalinists at the end of the war ended up on the side of fascists and monarchs, and joined them in strangling the working class of the "liberated" countries.

And yet, when the combinations with the imperialists failed, these countries all nationalised bourgeois property etc. - even China, which explicitly tried to include a "national" bourgeoisie, was compelled to move against them.

When does the ICL locate the counter-revolution against the Soviet workers' state, out of curiosity? What was the month and year? How many casualties were involved. I'd love to know.

Late August - November 1991, after the success of the Yeltsin putsch. There were few casualties because the working class was demoralised, atomised and without a Leninist leadership - which wasn't helped by those ostensible socialists who fell in line behind Yeltsin and Bush. You know the quote - in war and in politics, surrender can take place of the decisive battle.

The Spart position assumes that the political revolution it calls for won't spring out of a mass movement of the type that currently exists in the streets of Hong Kong. Presumably it will arise out of a layer of declassed intellectuals hailing the red army in afghanistan. Nevermind the real movement or the role of struggle in bringing about a clearler picture of how to accomplish the tasks at hand.

I see, was the Hungarian revolution led by "a layer of declassed intellectuals"? Was Tiananmen? Because the ICL recognises both as an example of an incipient workers' political revolution. At the same time they recognise that unrest in deformed workers' states can either be extremely left or extremely right - asking for socialism or for the dissolution of the workers' state. Everything I have seen and heard about the Hong Kong protests places them squarely in the latter category - these aren't people who are asking for the iron bowl back or for the reintroduction of the eight-grade wage scale (as naff as that was). What they want is bourgeois democracy, something that, to us, is entirely reactionary in the context of a workers' state, even a deformed one.

[Sharia Lawn]

Apologies for responding late.

I do not disagree that Trotsky dropped the term "centrist" when referring to the bureaucracy; however I do think that the second claim is far too simplistic and reduces Trotsky's very nuanced view of the bureaucracy to one of its sides. To me it is the same as when the left communists, acting out of genuine and understandable disgust at the trade-union leadership, write off unions entirely.

Earlier in his analysis Trotsky viewed the bureaucracy's zigzagging to be the result of its centrism. The party was centrist becuse it contained or was capable of attracting -- and in terms of its social function needed to be attractive to -- the vanguard of the proletariat, at the same time that the party's upper layers were thoroughly bureaucratised and growing ever more distant from the rank and file. The contradiction of centrism led to pulling in many different directions, resulting in dramatic about faces. Once centrism no longer captures the party or its bureaucracy, so too disappears the zagging. It also means that the party no longer has or needs to appeal to the vanguard. It is no longer a vanguard party. That should clue people in to what Trotsky would have thought about Stalinism making revolutions, as Trotsky was clear that only workers organized into a revolutionary vanguard party could do that.

You have a problem with my second claim that Trotsky viewed the bureaucracy as the single greatest obstacle to world revolution. I hate quote dropping, but here is what Trotsky himself said: "The primary political criterion for us is not the transformation of property relations in this or another area, however important these may be in themselves, but rather the change in the consciousness and organization of the world proletariat, the raising of their capacity for defending former conquests and accomplishing new ones. From this one, and the only decisive standpoint, the politics of Moscow, taken as a whole, completely retains its reactionary character and remains the chief obstacle on the road to the world revolution." (Revolution Betrayed)

It's difficult to say what people would have done if they were alive at some point, but while he was still alive, one of his last articles claims:

"I specified several times that if the war in Finland was not submerged in a general war, and if Stalin was not compelled to retreat before a threat from the outside, then he would be forced to carry through the sovietizing of Finland. This task by itself was much more difficult than the sovietizing of Eastern Poland. More difficult from a military standpoint, for Finland happened to be better prepared. More difficult from a national standpoint, for Finland possesses a long tradition of struggle for national independence from Russia, whereas the Ukrainians and the White Russians were fighting against Poland. More difficult from a social standpoint, for the Finnish bourgeoisie had in its own way solved the pre-capitalist agrarian problem through the creation of an agricultural petty-bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the military victory of Stalin over Finland would unquestionably have made fully possible an overthrow of property relations with more or less assistance from the Finnish workers and small farmers."

Trotsky took the view that he did not because he still clung to the idea that the stalinists were centrists capable of making revolutions. He viewed the conquest as a good thing because he thought it would ignite the workers and that, because of the nature of the soviet system, the Stalinists would fall on the side of the workers, at least temporarily. The opposite happened. Materialists adjust their theories if they don't match up with reality.

Yes, I would like to see these quotes - not because I doubt your sincerity but because often I find that we and our political opponents understand the same quotes in an entirely different manner (cf. "aristocratic nations").

"This political fact, very significant in itself, provides at the same time a measure of the degeneration of the Comintern in the last few years. I once defined Stalinism as bureaucratic centrism, and events brought a series of corroborations of the correctness of this definition. But it is obviously obsolete today. The interests of the Bonapartist bureaucracy can no longer be reconciled with centrist hesitation and vacillation. In search of reconciliation with the bourgeoisie, the Stalinist clique is capable of entering into alliance only with the most conservative groupings among the international labor aristocracy. This has acted to fix definitively the counterrevolutionary character of Stalinism on the international arena." (The Spanish Revolution)

No Trotskyist, of the Cannonite variety or otherwise, would claim that the bureaucracy could "strengthen socialism". That's not the point. The point is that the bureaucracy defended - to an extent - nationalised property of a particular sort, the sort that corresponded to the transition between capitalism and communism (and not the nationalised property of a bourgeois state). In this their interest and the interest of the workers were aligned - but only to an extent. Overall, the bureaucracy was, as you say, a "monstrous growth" that had to be excised. But you don't excise growths by killing the patient - here, the Soviet workers' state.

Yet when you describe the Stalinist bureaucracy as establishing workers' states over the heads of the workers, this is exactly what you are doing. The post-centrist bureaucracy defended nationalized property from incursions by foreign invaders -- and from the proletariat -- because its members had their own sights set on nationalized property. After Deng's and Castro's and Gorbechev's and Kim's reforms, I don't know how anybody can try to argue anything different.

Surely we can agree that a non-revolutionary party, representing the bureaucracy as a special caste, was in power? Multi-party democracy, then, was not a matter of allowing further non-revolutionary parties to be represented in the political system (the Stalinists could do this - there is, after all, a "revolutionary committee" of the GMD in the councils of the Stalinist PRC), but of allowing parties that represent one or more of the strata of the proletariat, deprived of political power, to freely function. If you think Trotsky wanted freedom for the Mensheviks and Kadets - well, that is something that would go against his entire work as a revolutionary.

I think you miss the point. It wasn't whether Trotsky wanted non-revolutionary parties or revolutionary parties. It's that Trotsky wanted to open up the electoral process because he thought that the stranglehold of the bureaucracy represented a greater threat to the revolutionary agency of the working class than the possibility that the workers might turn to one or another non-revolutionary party. It was a calculated risk, but one he was willing to take.

Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, which is the home to some of the world's richest bourgeois tycoons, students demonstrating for more democracy because they can't afford apartments in the city are given the cold shoulder by supposed Trotskyists, because Trotsky said such and such about the war in Finland. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

Late August - November 1991, after the success of the Yeltsin putsch. There were few casualties because the working class was demoralised, atomised and without a Leninist leadership - which wasn't helped by those ostensible socialists who fell in line behind Yeltsin and Bush. You know the quote - in war and in politics, surrender can take place of the decisive battle.

It's interesting that you date the counter-revolution to late August through early November of 1991, because your own organization's press (Workers Vanguard No 564, available on scribd) doesn't say that was the destruction of the workers' state. They say that the counter-revolution occurred in the summer of 1992. Here is what your own organization's press says about your dates: "The ascendancy of Yeltsin and capitalist restorationist forces backing him was a pivotal event in determining the fate of the Soviet Union, but it was not conclusive."

This is the problem that happens when you adopt a reformist understanding of the state, and try to use misconstrued Trotsky quotes to cover for it: revolutions become invisible. Trotsky's quote about the decisive battle refers to a situation in which one set of class forces have clearly mustered and are preparing to deploy force against a ruling class, or vice versa. There was nothing forcible, and there was no mustering of forces in 1991 or 1992, unless you count the move by one faction of the Stalinist bureaucracy that wanted to privatize more slowly trying to seize power away from another faction of the same bureaucracy that wanted to liberalize more quickly. But even the SL doesn't identify the coup attempt as the counter-revolution. And it's a good thing, because if it did, it would have to claim that a counter-revolution occurred as a result of a failure of a coup attempt!

I see, was the Hungarian revolution led by "a layer of declassed intellectuals"? Was Tiananmen? Because the ICL recognises both as an example of an incipient workers' political revolution. At the same time they recognise that unrest in deformed workers' states can either be extremely left or extremely right - asking for socialism or for the dissolution of the workers' state. Everything I have seen and heard about the Hong Kong protests places them squarely in the latter category - these aren't people who are asking for the iron bowl back or for the reintroduction of the eight-grade wage scale (as naff as that was). What they want is bourgeois democracy, something that, to us, is entirely reactionary in the context of a workers' state, even a deformed one.

No, the protesters want democracy. They haven't called for privatization of property. In fact it would be weird if they did, since Hong Kong has nothing but privatized property. If you followed more closely, you'd see the protestors have the backing of workers in the city, and that the students have been highly critical of the capitalists, viewing them as working hand-in-hand with the mainland bureaucrats. I don't think anybody on the forum would suggest we support a slogan of "democracy" or the formation of a political bloc with the student leaders. But to forgo a united front action with these protestors because they aren't Leninist from the start? That's half-baked ultra-leftism.

[Sharia Lawn]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/02/news...-kong-tycoons/

Hong Kong's glistening skyline is home to many booming industries, earning the city a reputation as a hub of free trade and opportunity. But in reality, the city of 7.2 million is dominated by a handful of tycoons that control everything from supermarkets to real estate.

[Sandy Becker]

Nope. Trotsky's position on attacks on the degenerated workers' state in the USSR was very clear -- In fact he was ready to side with Stalin against the Right Opposition -- Bukharin approached Trotsky as he was being smashed by Stalin -- Trotsky rejected this approach out of hand. In Spain, Trotsky was adamant that the no political support was to be given to POUM as they were precisely this kind of unprincipled bloc. In Hong Kong, the leadership of the movement is anti-communist and tied to international capital. Any "success" they have will be to further open up Hong Kong and China to imperialist penetration. It's not complicated. There will be nothing good coming from this kind of movement. How many of these "democratic" movements do you have to witness before you understand what they really represent?

[Sandy Becker]

This is incorrect. In my understand of Trotsky's view, which is the basis on which I have criticized you and VivaLaCuarta, the bureaucracy was sandwiched between the working class and international capitalism, and between socialistic property relations and bourgeois distribution norms. Where you depart from what Trotsky wrote and understood was that being sandwiched between two things doesn't mean that an entity is immovably neutral regarding or equidistant between those two things.

By the 1930s Trotsky had begun to argue that the CP of the Soviet Union had degenerated to the point where it needed to be removed forcibly by the working class through a political revolution on the masses. The reason this was important was that the bureaucracy was growing ever more distant from the working class, to the point where a section of the bureaucracy would sooner rather than later begin to try to reintroduce bourgeois capitalism back into the core of Soviet economy. This is also why he dropped the term centrism in his description of the Stalinist bureaucracy at that time.

It is in that context that you need to understand Trotsky's conception of permanent revolution, the role of democratic rights in that conception, and how those democratic rights relate to monopoly capital either direct or through the intermediary of a bureaucracy operating ever more fully under its sway.

It's pretty misleading to bring up how Trotsky didn't align himself politically or enter a political bloc with small non-revolutionary propaganda groups when what we're discussing is how revolutionaries relate to mass movements for bourgeois-democratic reforms. The record of where Trotsky stood on that issue is clear, no matter how many side-issues you try to bring up as a distraction.

But the only real bone of contention here is the class nature of the Chinese State. If you view it as a deformed worker's state, as the ICL does, it is imperative to oppose the pro-bourgeois "pro-democracy" movements. If you think China is a capitalist country and the rulers imperialist, then you wind up supporting the so-called reformers. The key issue for Trotsky was not abstract "democracy" but in whose class interest any movement was.

I would hasten to add that some major rightward moving splits from Trotskyism over the decades did this sort of thing. Shachtman regarding the invasion of Finland, Cliff over the Korean War. Most ostensible Trotskyists in the world supported Solidarnosc in Poland -- even though they rapidly became a reactionary movement. The leadership of the Hong Kong protests, having no pro-socialist/working class program, to the extent that it is not already in league with international imperialism, will become so post haste. That is how this stuff has always worked for the past 90 years or so.

[Sharia Lawn]

But the only real bone of contention here is the class nature of the Chinese State. If you view it as a deformed worker's state, as the ICL does, it is imperative to oppose the pro-bourgeois "pro-democracy" movements. If you think China is a capitalist country and the rulers imperialist, then you wind up supporting the so-called reformers. The key issue for Trotsky was not abstract "democracy" but in whose class interest any movement was.

A pro-bourgeois student movement that wants to extract voting rights for the poor against the powerful billionaire bourgeois tycoons who dominate Hong Kong? Clearly counter-revolutionaries in league with Western imperialism. The central issue for Trotsky was workers' political agency, with property forms and classification of state power flowing from that central category. Trotsky in 1936 viewed the Soviet Union as a workers state but supported workers struggling for democratic rights because he understood the issue wasn't "democracy" in the abstract but masses of workers and oppressed people struggling for democracy: their agency was the issue, even if they had not fully worked out their politics to the point where it was a revolutionary working class program.

I would hasten to add that some major rightward moving splits from Trotskyism over the decades did this sort of thing. Shachtman regarding the invasion of Finland, Cliff over the Korean War. Most ostensible Trotskyists in the world supported Solidarnosc in Poland -- even though they rapidly became a reactionary movement. The leadership of the Hong Kong protests, having no pro-socialist/working class program, to the extent that it is not already in league with international imperialism, will become so post haste. That is how this stuff has always worked for the past 90 years or so.

Your beloved Chinese workers state is already in league with international imperialism far more than any Hong Kong students are. Any analysis that doesn't recognize this objective and undeniable fact is mired in pseudo-revolutionary word games and doctrinaire clowning.