That's a complete lie. I suggest you read some of Trotsky's works.
Trotsky died before Mao even came to power. He did, however, support the Chinese communists against the Kuomintag .
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/china/index.htm
Results 1 to 20 of 58
I have heard people make the same claims again and again. I've always considered myself to have a fairly good understanding of Marxist theory. I have never been able to understand why people say that 1.) Trotsky is a revisionist / anti-Marxist and 2.) why he is inconsistent with Maoism (other than the fact that Mao excepted Stalinism. But I've never seen Maoism as reliant on Stalinism). Perhaps this is my error or due to a lack of understanding on my part or on the part of others. I am interested in your views on these questions.
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
That's a complete lie. I suggest you read some of Trotsky's works.
Trotsky died before Mao even came to power. He did, however, support the Chinese communists against the Kuomintag .
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/china/index.htm
Maoism and Trotskyism are mutually exclusive tendencies. In fact, there are several tendencies within what is called "Trotskyism", making it incredibly difficult to discern what exactly Trotskyism is.
In general, I'd consider Trotskyism to be an economist and reformist tendency that is incapable of organizing for revolution due to basic organizational and line issues.
There is a good series of essays on Marx2Mao about Trotskyism by Kostas Mavrakis. It is a criticism from a Maoist perspective.
On Trotskyism Part I
On Trotskyism Part II
On Trotskyism Part III
Single Spark has a good summary of Mao's criticisms and analysis of Stalin.
Basically, Maoists uphold Stalin's leadership as being fundamentally socialist, although we acknowledge that he handled many things incorrectly.
Actually, Trotskyists opposed the tactics of the CCP against the KMT and especially Japanese Imperialism.
The Orthodox Trotskyists thought the popular front against japanese imperialism was "class collaborationist" and was a betrayal to the chinese proletariat. They thought, instead, that there should have been an anti-imperialist movement built in Japan to dismantle Japanese imperialism, instead of the KMT being forced (quite literally) to unite with the CCP and combat imperialism.
No no no. I understand that. I don't see Trotsky as a reformist. My question is why is it that some people believe that Trotsky was reformist.
I also understand that Trotsky supported the CCP. But I know that some Maoists criticize Trotsky.
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
Which is why I never said Trotskyism. I was referring to what Trotsky said, not what others said (which may well have been revisionist).
I have heard people say that. Why? While Mao upheld Stalin as a socialist (for largely political reasons I think) I don't see why Maoism necessarily precludes Trotsky.
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
What Trotsky said constitutes what Trotskyism is. I'd consider groups like the Spartacist League to take an orthodox Trotskyist line (ie, if trotsky were alive today he'd probably be a spart).
Trotskyism and Maoism are mutually exclusive for the fundamental reason that Trotskyism is not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.
There are innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Stalin to Mavrakis to Mao and beyond) that criticize Trotsky and explain why Trotsky's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.
There are also innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Trotsky to Cannon to Grant and beyond) that criticize Stalin and explain why Stalin's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.
Yeah, but they're wrong so we ignore them.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
Trotsky was definitely not a reformist.
Anyone who makes arguments of the such clearly has a misconception of Trotsky himself.
There, indeed, are many different tendencies within "Trotskyism" which is particularly why I avoid using this term, and even though there are certain tendencies which could be considered "reformist" that doesn't mean Trotsky himself was a reformist.
In regards to the argument of "socialism in one country" and the argument for "permanent revolution" (world-wide socialist revolution)-- these are two very different arguments (in regards to Stalin and Trotsky).
Marxism-Leninism is definitely not the same as "Stalinism", this being why not all Marxist-Leninists supported Stalin. Marxist-Leninist became a term used by Stalinists (and sometimes Maoists) but Stalinism doesn't necessarily determine Marxism-Leninism and the other way around. Not all Marxist-Leninists support(ed) Stalin and/or didn't necessarily advocate for Stalinism.
Stalinism rejects many foundations of Marxism.Yeah, but they're wrong so we ignore them.
"proletarians of the world unite" I don't think that is a phrase Stalin or a "Stalinist" would use.
[FONT=Verdana]The "special coercive force" for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a "special coercive force " for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat). [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin [The State and Revolution][/FONT]
WHY?! What is the inconsistency?
I think you are wrong. Why don't you back up your arguments with some substance?
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
I don't necessarily think Stalinism is the only varient of Marxism-Leninism, therefore it isn't necessarily true-- Stalin's line wasn't necessarily consistent.
Regardless, I find the arguments for "socialism in one country" to be the least bit marxist by any means- at least in regards to marx's arguments and the arguments of Marxists (including Lenin).
[FONT=Verdana]The "special coercive force" for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a "special coercive force " for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat). [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin [The State and Revolution][/FONT]
Comrade, the Sparticists have a bizarre fetishization toward Trotsky and his works that is fundamentally incorrect, along the line of he could never make mistakes. Trotsky himself never took that attitude toward his own position.
I don't think anyone is claiming that Trotsky was a reformist. However, many (including myself, though I could be considered one) have criticized the reformist tendencies of various Trotskyist organizations.
I don't think Trotsky had that attitude either-- as I don't think all "trotskyists" see Trotsky in that way in regards to that matter, just as I find Stalinists' arguments in regards to Stalin representing Marxism-Leninism to be incorrect. Not all Marxist-Leninists support Stalin or Stalinism.
[FONT=Verdana]The "special coercive force" for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a "special coercive force " for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat). [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin [The State and Revolution][/FONT]
That would be a ridiculous dogmatic error to make. We should by all means study it, criticize it where necessary. Get our facts straight and study your opponents. By all means, of course one needs the ideological capacity's before doing so. But that is no reason to ignore them De-Facto.
“We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view.” - Mao Tse-Tung
| NCPN | Voorwaarts! | WFDY |
Uh, yeah, they would including me. Why wouldn't they? Unless you mean "Socialism in one country" in which case Cuba must be a bourgeois, "Stalinist" bureaucratic nightmare.
Socialism in one country isn't in conflict with Marxism. Look at Enver Hoxha. Was his nation isolated? Sure it was. But he did his best to make active Marxist-Leninist parties across the world. Look at the DPRK. Isolated? More than Albania. Thing is, the DPRK isn't really spreading revolution. (Unless you count Juche, which I believe has fatal flaws)
I don't see how socialism in one country caused the death of socialism either. I see flaws from various other things, not the fact that the USSR, Albania, etc had socialism each in their own countries. Besides this, Socialism doesn't even need to be isolated (at least not to extent of Albania and the DPRK).
It was a joke. This is the second time this has happened where someone took a joke post completely serious. ("Hoxha built up Albania with his bare hands" with a sarcasm smiley being the other)
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
I never mentioned Cuba-- I never made such a claim, nor would I argue that in any regard. That wasn't part of the argument which I stated in this topic, either, and the arguments I have made in the past in regards to the "Stalinist bureaucracy" had nothing to do with Cuba.Originally posted by Mrdie+November 04, 2007 05:40 pm--> (Mrdie @ November 04, 2007 05:40 pm)Uh, yeah, they would including me. Why wouldn't they? Unless you mean "Socialism in one country" in which case Cuba must be a bourgeois, "Stalinist" bureaucratic nightmare.
Socialism in one country isn't in conflict with Marxism. Look at Enver Hoxha. Was his nation isolated? Sure it was. But he did his best to make active Marxist-Leninist parties across the world. Look at the DPRK. Isolated? More than Albania. Thing is, the DPRK isn't really spreading revolution. (Unless you count Juche, which I believe has fatal flaws)
I don't see how socialism in one country caused the death of socialism either. I see flaws from various other things, not the fact that the USSR, Albania, etc had socialism each in their own countries. Besides this, Socialism doesn't even need to be isolated (at least not to extent of Albania and the DPRK).[/b]
Yes, my argument was in regards to "socialism in one country", but I am not arguing that "socialism in one country" causes a Stalinist bureaucracy-- however, it seems relevant to bring up the fact that the purpose of revolutionary movement is not with the intention to eliminate a small portion of the conditions which cause exploitation but with the intention of eliminating all exploitive conditions.
I will define my argument, as it seems you have misunderstood it.
I am arguing that it conflicts with Marxism simply because "socialism in one country" defeats the entire point of revolutionary movement in the first place-- the such isn't even an attempt at eliminating exploitive conditions and the forces causing their existence world-wide. Therefore, it seems relevant to argue that "socialism in one country" isn't likely to succeed in regards to attaining communism because it only eliminates the exploitive conditions and the causes of those conditions in one country- to successfully attain communist society there has to be world-wide movement towards it, otherwise it is simply defeating the purpose. There are other bourgeois states in existence, monopolist capitalist powers, etc. which will make it impossible for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to lead to the attaining of communist society-- what you have is a socialist movement in one country and the necessity for eliminating threats to it will never diminish unless there is world-wide revolution-- it just doesn't work otherwise. World-wide socialist revolution allows for communist society to be attained, and it would be much more sustainable in that regard. "Socialism in one country" can't go on forever, and there is reason for this-- exploitive conditions are still existent across the world, imperialism can't possibly diminish if there isn't a world-wide revolutionary movement. Ultimately certain exploitive forces will still be existent, therefore, it seems relevant to conclude that it conflicts with Marxism.
"socialism in one country" cannot possibly lead to communist society being attained-- as I have explained above-- there will be no possible end to the elimination of threats.
[FONT=Verdana]The "special coercive force" for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a "special coercive force " for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat). [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin [The State and Revolution][/FONT]
Trotskyism is neither reformist nor economist; economism seems to be your latest political swearword. I have been reading What is to be Done?, and so far, I have concluded that you never understood it. You write off working with unions as "workerism" and "economism," when Lenin clearly states in a footnote in What is to be Done that communists need to work within trade unions to convert their trade union consciousness to socialist consciousness.
Personality cults are also anti-Marxist to the core.
And why would an economist play the leading role in the construction and victory of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War? Something does not stack up here. Gunning down reactionaries and being Lenin's "right-hand man" in a certain sense is going far beyond trade union consciousness! Trade union consciousness does not build up a Red Army or have the same positions as Lenin on important aspects!
Mao, on the other hand, adopted Menshevism, the two-stage theory. This has wrecked a good deal of revolutions, and as we can see in the case of Nepal, the two-stage theory in many cases amounts to de facto reformism. They fought for something like a decade only to enter a bourgeois government when they could have easily seized power. To refuse to seize power when you have the chance plays a highly reactionary role, as it passively lets the bourgeoisie continue their dictatorship.
Mao was able to take power due to peculiar circumstances: the inability of the Chinese bourgeoisie to carry society forward, the inability of US imperialism to intervene, and the presence of a powerful deformed workers' state on China's borders. Without such peculiar circumstances, Mao may have very well let the bourgeoisie continue to rule China.
People should read the works of Lenin and compare them to those of Trotsky or Stalin or Mao. It will quickly become clear that Lenin and Trotsky have the most in common.
Raise your theoretical level here! * Wellred USA - Leftist buttons, pins, shirts, stickers, T-shirts, books, pamphlets Wellred Online Bookshop
Insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people.
-V.I. Lenin
Bureaucracy and social harmony are inversely proportional to each other.
-Leon Trotsky
What the fuck?
Where in hell's name have we stated that it is 'class collaborationism' to resist imperialism? The critics of the regime still considered the expulsion of foreign capital in China to be the most progressive event of the century, but understood what the nature of the nascent "Worker's and Peasant's Government" truly was.
The policies of the Center-Right in Comintern had lead to the destruction of two-thirds of the entire party, which was facillitated by peasant guerillas that Mao lead. It was not "usurped," but democratic discussion within the party disappeared. There was a short power struggle over the position of party chairman, which was won by Mao and his faction. There was only one Party Congress in the first seventeen years that his party was in power. The “Great Leap Forward”, as well as the “Proletarian Cultural Revolution” was not democratically discussed and decided by the party, nor were the even discussed by the Central Committee. If anyone raised concerns against Mao, they became “capitalist restorationists” and “enemies of the people.”
I am not saying that I agree with Trotsky. I am against many of his positions for the most part, but his analysis of the Chinese revolution is correct.
Look at 'em run, too scared to pull they guns
Outta shape from them coffees and them cinnamon buns
This shit is fun, how I feel when the tables is turned
Dead Prez
