Tiny trot groups: any future?

[chilango]

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

Do Trostkyists have any influence in struggle?

yes or no.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do Trostkyists have any influence in struggle?

yes or no.

yes. they bore people to fuck, and drive away support that would otherwise be offered.

 

[LLETSA]

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.

No - what I am asking is why Leninism, in all its forms, failed full stop.

This really is Trotskyism for Infants stuff. Simple-minded little sound bites like this might do for curious and well-meaning eighteen year-olds at freshers week, but the experienced Trots should be able to come up with something more sophisticated.

If 'Moscow could not be challenged from any other sections of the Communist International,' the task of the Trotyskist movement was to prove its theory that Stalinism was a distortion of Leninism, rather than its outcome. While the authority enjoyed by Moscow in the international Communist movement was definitely an obstacle to any developments to the left of it, surely the Trotskyists, as the 'true Leninists', should have benefited far more than they did from the disillusion with Soviet Communism that set in during the decades after WW2 among people who nonetheless remained Marxists. As it happened, no Trotskyist organisation was ever elevated above the status of a sect.

It is no accident that the Stalinists, as you acknowledge, were able to christen their emasculation of the international Communist movement 'Bolshevisation':their methods were taken straight from Lenin's democratic centralism and involved the suppression of political currents more sceptical about the wholly Russian phenomenon of Bolshevism than the Trotskyists ever were. In attempting to relaunch a 'true Leninist' movement, the Trotskyists used those exact same methods. They failed, in the same way that international communism failed, because the Leninist ideology common to both of them made them unable to adapt to conditions wholly unlike those under which Leninism was born.

Do you really believe that Leninism failed because a majority of Soviet Communist leaders simply realised that they didn't, after all, approve of the ideas of the father of their movement and decided to wipe out those who did? Are you really so simplistic as to believe that the revolution in the west failed to materialise simply because Leninism didn't develop quickly enough in western Europe and 'the western ruling classes backed fascist movements to stop revolution from spreading'? Do you really not understand how the conditions of nineteenth century Tsarist Russia that gave rise to Lenin's ideas made them entirely unsuited to any other country, particularly the much more complex societies of western Europe and the USA?

 

[rebel warrior]

Do you really not understand how the conditions of nineteenth century Tsarist Russia that gave rise to Lenin's ideas made them entirely unsuited to any other country, particularly the much more complex societies of western Europe and the USA?

Menshevik mendacity. I suppose it was stupid of revolutionaries in the West to even think about revolution?

 

[LLETSA]

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.

Both the rank-and-file and the leadership of the international communist movement genuinely believed themselves to be revolutionary and were wholly committed in their actions. The problem was in their acceptance of the Russian ideology of Bolshevism and the concept of the vanguard party which knew best at any and every occasion; an idea that is common to both the Stalinist and, however much they try to disguise it, the Trotskyist interpretations of Bolshevism.

 

[butchersapron]

...just quickly pointing out that bolshevisation' of the european parties doesn't start, as is often claimed, in 1924, but in 1920. When Lenin was still alive and very firmly intervening in the business of the comintern.

 

[LLETSA]

& 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?

That, for the most part, they hid in the shadow of the hulking elder brother that they professsed to hate but, in reality, ultimately completely depended on.

 

[chilango]

Both the rank-and-file and the leadership of the international communist movement genuinely believed themselves to be revolutionary and were wholly committed in their actions. The problem was in their acceptance of the Russian ideology of Bolshevism and the concept of the vanguard party which knew best at any and every occasion; an idea that is common to both the Stalinist and, however much they try to disguise it, the Trotskyist interpretations of Bolshevism.

But they don`t disguise their vanguardism.

Why are there so many little Trot groups? Because they all think that they are the One True Voice as it were. If there is a struggle happening they see ita as their duty to lead it. If they can`t lead it they`ll wreck it.

This has been a consistent story from Kronstadt to the Socialist Alliance. If the general strike had moved in a more revolutionary direction. Workers starting set up councils etc. what would`ve happened? The CP would try and take them over. If they couldn`t as happened in France during 1968 they will denounce them ,and manouvere against them.

In this respect the Trots and the Stalinists are identical.

 

[chilango]

Where`s Rebel gone?


...stick around RW. you could learn something here.

 

[Pickman's model]

he always does this, fucks off when he realises he can't answer any of the questions and retain any credibility.

 

[Sorry.]

...stick around RW. you could learn something here.

He never has in the past ...

 

[LLETSA]

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

True enough - that various revolutions were destroyed simply by Bolshevik machinations and sabotage is an anarchist myth as simplistic and pernicious as the ones perpetrated by the Trots with whom too many of them are obsessed.

 

[chilango]

True enough - that various revolutions were destroyed simply by Bolshevik machinations and sabotage is an anarchist myth as simplistic and pernicious as the ones perpetrated by the Trots with whom too many of them are obsessed.

Fair point. Lets face it, with a few exceptions the anarchist movement has been unabale to provide a counterpoint to Leninist manipulations anyway.

 

[LLETSA]

Menshevik mendacity. I suppose it was stupid of revolutionaries in the West to even think about revolution?

Hmm.... Interesting....

Revolution arises out of revolutionaries thinking about it?

Ever considered dealing directly with the criticisms put to you?

 

[chilango]

he always does this, fucks off when he realises he can't answer any of the questions and retain any credibility.

Reminds of a vocal ANL oragniser in the 1990s. Always giving it the big man, loads of Mockney mouth about "samshing the BNP" etc. the first time he ever encountered one, he dropped everying and ran. laving a young female student to take a kicking, and the dropped adress book full of ANL contacts in the fash `s hands.

The local cops knew this guy as "trainers" for his Rebel like habit of legging when the going got tough.

Can we trace this trotskyist tendancy back anywhere?

maybe Lenin`s decision to buggger off to Switzerland until the revolution actually got started?

 

[Pickman's model]

Reminds of a vocal ANL oragniser in the 1990s. Always giving it the big man, loads of Mockney mouth about "samshing the BNP" etc. the first time he ever encountered one, he dropped everying and ran. laving a young female student to take a kicking, and the dropped adress book full of ANL contacts in the fash `s hands.

The local cops knew this guy as "trainers" for his Rebel like habit of legging when the going got tough.

Can we trace this trotskyist tendancy back anywhere?

maybe Lenin`s decision to buggger off to Switzerland until the revolution actually got started?

that's it!

rw's the urban trainers!

 

[LLETSA]

...just quickly pointing out that bolshevisation' of the european parties doesn't start, as is often claimed, in 1924, but in 1920. When Lenin was still alive and very firmly intervening in the business of the comintern.

Exactly. And the Stalinists could justifiably claim that they were carrying on the work of The Boss. *



*Not B. Springsteen.

 

[rebel warrior]

That, for the most part, they hid in the shadow of the hulking elder brother that they professed to hate but, in reality, ultimately completely depended.

They did not 'hide in the shadow' of the Stalinists - they were often killed by Stalinist agents in the GPU, alongside anarchists for that matter. But lets not let little facts like that get in the way...

 

[Pickman's model]

They did not 'hide in the shadow' of the Stalinists - they were often killed by Stalinist agents in the GPU, alongside anarchists for that matter. But lets not let little facts like that get in the way...

it doesn't sound like you've really got to grips with the soviet repression structure.

 

[rebel warrior]

it doesn't sound like you've really got to grips with the soviet repression structure.

I was talking about those Trotskyists outside Russia

 

[chilango]

Hey rebel, you`re back!

are you gonna deal with some of the above points (many of which are entirely serious, feel free to ignore the cheap jibes! )?

 

[chilango]

I was talking about those Trotskyists outside Russia

such as...?

 

[Pickman's model]

I was talking about those Trotskyists outside Russia

don't you think most people in the gpu &c were stalinists, rather than there being just one or two stalinist agents in it?

 

[LLETSA]

They did not 'hide in the shadow' of the Stalinists - they were often killed by Stalinist agents in the GPU, alongside anarchists for that matter. But lets not let little facts like that get in the way...

I'm not talking about the Russian and various other Trotskyists at the time.

I am talking about western Trotskyism and its dependence on the myth of 'real' or 'true' Leninism and the workers' state theory - which, as Joe Reilly points out above, died along with the USSR fifteen years ago.

 

[LLETSA]

don't you think most people in the gpu &c were stalinists, rather than there being just one or two stalinist agents in it?

What they all were was Leninist.

 

[rebel warrior]

Both the rank-and-file and the leadership of the international communist movement genuinely believed themselves to be revolutionary and were wholly committed in their actions. The problem was in their acceptance of the Russian ideology of Bolshevism and the concept of the vanguard party which knew best at any and every occasion; an idea that is common to both the Stalinist and, however much they try to disguise it, the Trotskyist interpretations of Bolshevism.

But the only successful workers revolution in the world involved such a Leninist Party, which might explain why Trotskyists stuck to Bolshevism.

 

[LLETSA]

They did not 'hide in the shadow' of the Stalinists - they were often killed by Stalinist agents in the GPU, alongside anarchists for that matter. But lets not let little facts like that get in the way...

And they lost their lives at the hands of the structures devised and put in place by Lenin and his followers - among whom the Trotskyists and left oppositionists could be numbered until a short time before they were murdered.

 

[rebel warrior]

I'm not talking about the Russian and various other Trotskyists at the time.

I am talking about western Trotskyism and its dependence on the myth of 'real' or 'true' Leninism and the workers' state theory - which, as Joe Reilly points out above, died along with the USSR fifteen years ago.

The 'workers state' theory is the theory of Marxism, which is declared dead every year as a matter of course but somehow still keeps kicking...

 

[rebel warrior]

What they all were was Leninist.

So a Leninist, not a Stalinist, killed Trotsky. Right.

 

[Pickman's model]

But the only successful workers revolution in the world involved such a Leninist Party, which might explain why Trotskyists stuck to Bolshevism.

and look where it got those unfortunate workers.