Tiny trot groups: any future?

[Pickman's model]

So you are asking why Leninism failed in the West in the period around the time of the Russian Revolution? In other words, why the revolution failed to spread?

The answer objectively speaking is that the ruling classes of the West learnt about counter-insurgency after the Russian Revolution and backed fascist movements if necessary to stop revolution spreading. Subjectively, tragically 'Leninism' was only really born as an international movement after the Russian revolution, and so it was a new and untested force really in the early stages. That explains why Stalin was able to 'Bolshevise' the CPs so easily, as the authority of Moscow could not be challenged from any other sections of the Communist International.

wait up...

fascism was a new and untested force in the period of which you speak.

 

[rebel warrior]

wait up...

fascism was a new and untested force in the period of which you speak.

But it had some ruling class backing, especially after 1929 when the economy collapsed.

 

[Pickman's model]

But it had some ruling class backing, especially after 1929 when the economy collapsed.

is that "around the time of the russian revolution"?

 

[chilango]

But it had some ruling class backing, especially after 1929 when the economy collapsed.

Surely, by 1929, Leninism was no longer a "revolutionary" movement, but had for some years been a counter revolutionary current in Russia and elsewhere.

 

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Binkie
I think the Trotskyist answer would be that Trotskyism, the true incarnation of Leninism, suffered major temporary setbacks in the West due to
- the crisis of leadership
- the treachery of Stalinism
or something..

In other words they speak of the problem in the jargonistic, and ultimately meaningless, language of avoidance.

I think they're meaningful points. Don't know whether they're the complete truth though. Or whether they're decisive. I think some groups on the Left spend time on questions like these merely to identify the group and justify its (and its leaders') existence. The resulting divisions in the Left are of course welcome to the State.

 

[Pickman's model]

Surely, by 1929, Leninism was no longer a "revolutionary" movement, but had for some years been a counter revolutionary current in Russia and elsewhere.

chilango

it's wicked to mock the afflicted.

 

[rebel warrior]

is that "around the time of the russian revolution"?

It is in the crucial period before Stalin's counter-revolution in Russia became apparent though.

 

[chilango]

chilango

it's wicked to mock the afflicted.

Cruel to be kind

 

[Pickman's model]

It is in the crucial period before Stalin's counter-revolution in Russia became apparent though.

hmm...

hmm...

the leninist counter-revolution was apparent for all who had eyes to see by the time the bolsheviks crushed the kronstadt rising. which was well before 1929.

 

[chilango]

It is in the crucial period before Stalin's counter-revolution in Russia became apparent though.

what about Lenin`s counter-revolution?

...sorry Pickmans beat me to it.

I`ll add in the Tambov peasants for good measure though.

 

[rebel warrior]

Surely, by 1929, Leninism was no longer a "revolutionary" movement, but had for some years been a counter revolutionary current in Russia and elsewhere.

The defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927 was a bit of a turning point, agreed. I am less sure that the CP 'sold out' the British General Strike directly.

 

[chilango]

The defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927 was a bit of a turning point, agreed. I am less sure that the CP 'sold out' the British General Strike directly.

I wasn`t talking about China.

...and you know it.

From its very inception Leninism (as opposed to the revolutionary soviets of 1917) was a counterrevolutionary current. Reigning back, and then crushing all non bolshevik revolutionary moments and movements.

 

[Pickman's model]

I wasn`t talking about China.

...and you know it.

From its very inception Leninism (as opposed to the revolutionary soviets of 1917) was a counterrevolutionary current. Reigning back, and then crushing all non bolshevik revolutionary moments and movements.

don't hold y'r breath waiting for an answer.

i asked rw some questions a couple of days ago and i'm still waiting for a response.

 

[rebel warrior]

From its very inception Leninism (as opposed to the revolutionary soviets of 1917) was a counterrevolutionary current. Reigning back, and then crushing all non bolshevik revolutionary moments and movements.

Okay - lets look at an example - Britain. Did the British CP act like a 'counter-revolutionary current' that 'crushed a revolutionary movement' in the period 1918 - 1929? I would suggest not, whatever was going on in Russia.

 

[chilango]

don't hold y'r breath waiting for an answer.

i asked rw some questions a couple of days ago and i'm still waiting for a response.

does bring us back to the original point though.

Seeing as Trotskyism emerged from a counter revolutionary source, it was never actually going to be succesful as a revolutionary force. As its record of holding back workers initiatives during periods of struggle amply illustrates.

 

[Pickman's model]

Okay - lets look at an example - Britain. Did the British CP act like a 'counter-revolutionary current' that 'crushed a revolutionary movement' in the period 1918 - 1929? I would suggest not, whatever was going on in Russia.

where did the british cp get their money and orders from?

was it a) moscow;

or

b) moscow?

 

[rebel warrior]

does bring us back to the original point though.

Seeing as Trotskyism emerged from a counter revolutionary source, it was never actually going to be succesful as a revolutionary force. As its record of holding back workers initiatives during periods of struggle amply illustrates.

Any examples of a Trotskyist movement holding back a revolutionary struggle? Care to answer my question about the British CP as well?

 

[rebel warrior]

where did the british cp get their money and orders from?

was it a) moscow;

or

b) moscow?

I can just picture you cheering on the Tories who forged the Zinoviev letter...

 

[Pickman's model]

I can just picture you cheering on the Tories who forged the Zinoviev letter...

i can just picture you posting it.

 

[chilango]

Okay - lets look at an example - Britain. Did the British CP act like a 'counter-revolutionary current' that 'crushed a revolutionary movement' in the period 1918 - 1929? I would suggest not, whatever was going on in Russia.

Was the general strike actually a "revolutionary movement" though?

I would suggest not. It may have contained some potential, and indeed some revolutionary currents. but it had a long way to go before it was a genuine "revolutionary movement". The CP, if Leninism was a revolutionary force at the time, which as you know I say wasn`t, failed to lead/create or whatever you see its job was, to do this.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can just picture you cheering on the Tories who forged the Zinoviev letter...

does this mean you want a clue?

 

[chilango]

Any examples of a Trotskyist movement holding back a revolutionary struggle? Care to answer my question about the British CP as well?

France 1968.

 

[rebel warrior]

France 1968.

I thought the French CP were the chief culprits there...The French Trotskyists were sadly too small to challenge their hegemony.

 

[Pickman's model]

I thought the French CP were the chief culprits there...The French Trotskyists were sadly too small the challenge their hegemony.

& the spanish trots in the 1930s were too small to do anything.

it's the same fucking story time and again - the trots were too few and far between to do a fucking thing. doesn't this tell you something?

 

[butchersapron]

Bolivia and Sri Lanka/Ceylon.

 

[rebel warrior]

it's the same fucking story time and again - the trots were too few and far between to do a fucking thing. doesn't this tell you something?

Yes - they cannot be blamed for destroying revolutionary movements of the working class as anarchists claim...

 

[chilango]

I thought the French CP were the chief culprits there...The French Trotskyists were sadly too small to challenge their hegemony.

They didn`t even try!

Trotskyists by this measure have surely been too small on any occasion ever to do anything.

Tsk.

How about yer man himself then?

willing and eager participant in the crushing of the russian revolution. Only dissented when he lost out in the succesion. Trotsky himself held back and destroyed revolutionary movements.

Or, if you like, we could look at the record of British trotskyists whenever they have gotten involved in struggle?

how about it?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes - they cannot be blamed for destroying revolutionary movements of the working class as anarchists claim...

The bosheviks can though - and you claim to be bolsheviks.

 

[Pickman's model]

Or, if you like, we could look at the record of British trotskyists whenever they have gotten involved in struggle?

they retarded the poll tax, the anti-fascist struggle in the 1980s and 1990s, the anti-war movements of the 1980s and 1990s... &c ad infinitum!

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes - they cannot be blamed for destroying revolutionary movements of the working class as anarchists claim...

oh yes they can.