Permanently Deleted
Like many splits, the theoretical justifications came after the interpersonal ones. Trotsky lost out on the top job, and fled to the west. He and his tendency were broadly allowed to exist by the west, as they aligned with the US foreign policy line on everything.
Their tactics of selling newspapers is partly a survival mechanism. It doesn’t really threaten the bourgeoisie, it’s good for recruiting, and it gets them funds. They’re basically tiny NGOs with consistently bad takes on AES.
That said, their analysis of things that aren't AES isn’t bad. Trotsky’s work on fascism is considered pretty stellar.
As they aligned with the US foreign policy line on everything
yeah okay
Anti-USSR, anti-Cuba, occasionally anti-China pre-reform, definitely anti-China post-reform. Pro-colour-revolution. Occasionally pro-ISIS.
Maybe ‘everything’ is the wrong word. ‘The vast majority’?
Don't know much about trotskyists today, but Trotsky pretty famously supported the CCP over the KMT while Stalin was still pro KMT. how do they justify the switch?
The Soviet (and even CPC) line was ‘work with the national bourgeoisie in a united front against Japanese imperialism’.
The Chinese trot line was ‘fight reaction all the time’.
anti whatever tankies dont like being critizised thanks now i understand
Enver_hoxha, I will die for you. Say the word, and I will retreat to the mountains and declare a protracted people’s war against the moderators of chapo.chat
youre posting this again why havent you done it already despite me telling you to
So, in my personal experience, a lot of it comes down to IRL Trotskyist orgs having a bizarrely cultist mindset. I have a friend who’s in the org that runs the world socialist website, and she is completely doctrinaire , she won’t deviate from the party line on anything.
This includes a lot of weird beliefs like “Stalin was poisoned by the CIA” even though he was a decrepit aging alcoholic by the time he finally but the dust.
That’s in addition to the other (largely valid) criticisms of Trotsky that come from tankies that point out that he ultimately functioned as a tool of western capital for the rest of his life after leaving the USSR.
With all that being said, “The Revolution Betrayed” is still a great read, and honestly I suspect things would have gone better for the USSR if he had been running the show, but with these historical hypotheticals it’s hard to know :back-to-me-shining:
Some of the Trotskyist microsects got so out of whack they wounded up back at Stalinism, see WWP.
Yeah PSL split from WWP, it's basically Gloria La Riva's section of WWP that broke off. They're not quite as off kilter as WWP though.
I'm not a Trotskyist, or really any -ist beyond a Marxist, but I do know people who were in ISO before it dissolved.
Part of it is that the online left has tendency to overrepresent ML lines that are either from
-
A former Trotskyist group that turned on all the other Trotskyists and so is fervently anti-Trotskyist now (WWP, and it's slightly better split PSL)
-
Remnants of old communist parties (that split just as badly as the Trotskyist parties did, and have the same problematic views of older Trotskyist groups like the people who run WSWS) which have historical baggage against Trotskyists (see Grover Furr twisting over every single thing published that somehow Trotsky was a Nazi collaborator which is in sync with some of the old british communist parties and the old CPUSA). This also gets discovered organically by people self radicalizing, because that literature and older Stalinist era anti-Trotskyist stuff will come up if you start googling and how are you a fledging leftist supposed to figure out if its accurate or not. For example I've seen people cite Trotsky the Traitor by Bittleman, which is a very old CPUSA publication written at the height of Stalinist influence and paranoia, and the author later repudiated all of it and was expelled from CPUSA for advocating reform.
-
Other non aligned left groups that mock Trotskyists for some of the more culty aspects of some of the sects (and this includes both ML and non ML groups), and turning the general anti Trotskyist rhetoric into speech where anything a group doesn't like immediately gets derided as Trotskyist (or Trotskyite as -ite just cuts deeper I guess. This also happens with things getting called Stalinist willy nilly), no matter the relation what was done had anything derivable from Trotsky or Trotskyist writers. That or they will take real issues with a group that identified as Trotskyist and then changed, see Max Shachtman or the Marcyites, and then apply that to all Trotskyists from all time when in reality Trotskyism has a lot of different positions from different groups, including ones that broke with Trotsky and a lot of other Trotskyists. The Marxist Humanists for example, who I think have a lot of good insights and are more of a position to take in another group than form a group around, are a split from Trotskyism and calling it Trotskyist doesn't make sense, and lumping it in with the cults makes even less.
Also, the Trotskyist tradition was always marginalized because of the conditions created by Stalinism, and so now it has a reputation of being marginal / sectarian / prone to splits etc. which is fair in some ways but it has nothing to do with anything inherent in the theoretical orientation itself and is entirely a product of the historical trajectory of socialist movements in the 20th century. and also overlooks some of the really important historical accomplishments of Trotskyists in the US like 1) the Minneapolis General Strike and 2) keeping the Marxist tradition alive in some sense at a time when it was all but dead in the U.S (International Socialist Review and later Haymarket books for example have proved indispensable for keeping socialist publishing going) . Abroad, Trotskyists due to opposition to the USSR found it very difficult to organize and were actively purged in certain countries but even then there were some large successes like in Bolivia in the 1950s or the Sri Lankan Lanka Sama Samaja Party which was instrumental in Sri Lanka getting its independence from Britain (though the party is today marginal, holding only 1 governorship).
Today, I don't think it makes much sense to identify as a Trotskyist in a super formal way, as it's a legacy of the USSR's birth and 20th century communist movement, and also steeped in a bunch of cold war rationality. This does not mean that Trotskyist authors or Trotsky himself do not have important insights, but as a political movement it does not make much sense to me to harp on it in any way. That's one reason why a lot of the remaining orgs seem culty, how else do you keep existing when there's no clear reason to, that's one reason ISO as one of the better orgs rightfully dissolved as it recognized its form of organization was not expedient anymore.
I also maintain that the 4th international logo looks like it's from an anime.
This all seems like a solid, comprehensible explanation, but didn't the ISO dissolve because it came out that the leadership had engaged in a systematic cover up of sexual assault by one of its own?
That was the straw that broke the camel's back, but there was talk of dissolving before that happened. Many of the ex ISO members have now joined DSA.
I mean kinda, I don't mean that the bad iso members who were covering up stuff joined, but a fair number of members did end up joining dsa instead of another Trotskyist group, which to me signals that they figured that the old stereotypical model of organizing wasn't working and they want to do something else. My own ydsa chapter we converted from an iso one, and it's flourishing now much better than it was before.
I say this because DSA has a problem with covering up sexual harassment
I am aware of a single instance of national leadership facing an assault accusation in 2017. While the process took longer than it should, the NPC member was removed, and DSA bylaws were changed at the following convention to make the process easier if it ever happened again. In single chapters the only one I'm aware of is Lawrence KA DSA, which was also resolved fairly quickl (by the chapter I think disbanding, not sure), and frankly also had a lot of other intra-chapter sectarian fighting stuff going on (including one member who had quit, joined PSL, and then been so obscene that they were kicked out of PSL, and some kansas city redguard chicanery).
Compare this to the ISO where the entire national leadership covered up an assault.
Oh okay then. I know that news of sexual assault coverups have really turned off my local YDSA chapter from working with the National org. This is a lot more context. Thanks for the good faith response
"Trotskyism" is only useful as a cynical way to alienate contemporary political dissent from any identification between attempts at creating proletarian states & anti-capitalist "theorizing" today
Yeah some groups definitely call everything they don't like Trotskyite, and it gets appropriated osmotically into other spaces (like Ben Norton using it as an insult in grayzone articles lol).
i remember being called a "Kautskyite" by a much more staunch ML person on the sub and it made me do a double take.
I really think that's a better catch-all term hehe
Get back at them by saying that in fact Lenin was more of a Kautskyite than Kautsky (which is kinda true).
-
The neoconservative movement was founded by former trots, and a lot of former trots are now neocons. Especially in Britain.
It makes sense though
Trots are typically enamoured with capitalist dictatorship (ie. bourgeois democracy)
So they run around clucking about "dictatorships!" in 3rd world countries and insisting if the people rise up they will have a socialist revolution. So they destroy people like Gadaffi and oh "whoops!" the entire country is destroyed and jihadis fight over ruble and sell Africans at slave markets
They then go onabout " Stalinism in Syria" in 2018 - long after the opposition that had initially opposed Assad had returned to become fervent supporters of Assad by 2012 due to the proxy armies and jihadis entering Syrian soil.
Everything is stalinism to them. They're punching smoke.
You can see how - losing faith in socialism you instead move your permanent revolution to exporting bourgeois democracy
Bam! You're 50 and waving a vial of white powder in parliament telling everyone Iraq is 45 minutes ready to launch
Shortly after he joined "a small but growing post-Trotskyist Luxemburgist sect"
Heh.
An org I'm a part of is currently dealing with a group of trots attempting to turn our organization into a newspaper publishing house. Never mind we're a federally recognized organization and our turning into a newspaper publishing house would be in violation of our mission as an organization and would also violate a lot of laws.
At least there's plenty examples of why trots get dunked on in the thread now
Trotskyites have extremely low tolerance for splitting and at the same time try to maintain demcent, which results in splintering like a tree struck by lightning. Because his positions oscillated wildly through 1900s, 1910s, 1920-1925, 1925-1935, you can find any reading of him you like which results in incoherency of ‘his’ groups.
Extremely broadly speaking his initial (circa 1923-26) critique was correct, but like, Stalin adopted similarly left positions later, in 1929(?), after nep sunset.
I honestly think there is also value in his later systematic critique, because it came largely true, but like 30-50 years later.
Ah, thanks. I thought it was a bizarre typo.
My other theories were:
- A value of 50 (demi-cent, or half of one hundred)
- A hip-hop artist
- A subsidiary of Tencent Holdings Ltd. that reddit is freaking out about
Me too! Are you in my trot org or are you a bourgeois reformist?
Just kidding, but yeah, the hate for us is pretty hilarious.
Yeah Idgaf about the past splits or even really the takes on existing states, I'm just tryin to do some local praxis and we do pretty cool shit so shrug
This. Lots of tankies haven't stepped outside their door to do praxis.
The trots here in Argentina aren't leftists at all. In Congress, they voted against the law unbanning abortions and they are gonna abstain from voting on the new tax on the rich. Oh, and also they said people should abstain from voting back in the 2015 elections, which facilitated the election of the Neoliberal Mauricio Macri as President. They are either very stupid or reactionaries. Which is stupid. So if trots outside here are like that, they should be dunked on thrice as much as it is done currently.
and they are gonna abstain from voting on the new tax on the rich.
Lmfao did you even read the project elevated by the Government? The Trotskyist elevated their own tax plan against the rich which was completely ignored by the Oficialists and the Opposition. Do you want the Trots to support a largely meaningless tax on the rich whose funds go straight towards the private sector and fracking projects? Lmao, just lmao.
Oh, and also they said people should abstain from voting back in the 2015 elections, which facilitated the election of the Neoliberal Mauricio Macri as President.
Literally Biden vs Trump scenario, did you vote for the lesser evil? because that is what Scioli was. Also there's no evidence that backs up your claim, the Left doesn't owe the Peronists their vote, did the Peronists ever offered anything to the left for that? No, they did not, they're anti-leftism, they just wanted someone to blame for their defeat, and you're right there playing their game. Literally you're on full lib mode "Trump won because Bernie".
they voted against the law unbanning abortions
What do you mean by this? In 2018 they were the most consistently in favour of it, organising protests, mass propaganda, writing the draft of the law and voting for it. I wish they were half as competent on anything else.
socialist thinks the only real "anti-capitalism" is anti-communism
It's frankly a counter-revolutionary ideology with the distinguishing feature that it is LEFT IN FORM BUT RIGHT IN ESSENCE and since even Trotskys day has been a useful ideology by the intelligence services to turn revolutionaries against Actually Existing Socialism (and by this I mean the socialism built my men and women on this planet in this lifetime not in the perfect, unblemished realm of our beautiful dreams)
I spent a bit of time answering the question "What would happen if Trotsky came to power" cos it was fun which you can find here https://hexbear.net/post/44077/comment/391013
TROTSKY WAS A TROTSKYIST UNTIL LENINISM HAD PROVEN ITSELF SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT AT WHICH POINT HE WAS A BOLSHEVIK-LENINIST
In 1913 Trotsky called for destruction of Leninism. We see here how pathetic it is later for the Trotskyites to refer to themselves as "Bolshevik-Leninists" only when it became clear after the revolution that Lenin was held in such high esteem of the Communist movement
In a word, at this moment, all that Leninism consists of is based on lies and falsifications, and bears in itself the seeds of its own decay.
Two policies may now be applied: to destroy ideologically and organically the fractional walls which still exist, and thus destroy the very foundations of Leninism, which is incompatible with the organisation of workers into a political party, but which can perfectly grow on the manure of splits; or, on the contrary, to conduct a fractional selection of anti- Leninists (Mensheviks or liquidators) by a complete liquidation of the divergences on tactics.
Trotsky, 1913, Letter to Chkeidze
Lenin was to characterise Trotsky in 1914 as the following (please note his assessment of PERMANENT REVOLUTION):
Trotsky, however, possesses no ideological and political definiteness, for his patent for “non-factionalism”, as we shall soon see in greater detail, is merely a patent to flit freely to and fro, from one group to another.
- Trotsky does not explain, nor does he understand, the historical significance of the ideological disagreements among the various Marxist trends and groups, although these disagreements run through the twenty years’ history of Social Democracy and concern the fundamental questions of the present day (as we shall show later on);
- Trotsky fails to understand that the main specific features of group-division are nominal recognition of unity and actual disunity;
- Under cover of “non-factionalism” Trotsky is championing the interests of a group abroad which particularly lacks definite principles, and has no basis in the working-class movement in Russia.
All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless.
Lenin, Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity
Further
Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as “Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.
In the period of disintegration, after long “non-factional” vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas.
Such types are characteristic of the flotsam of past historical formations, of the time when the mass, working-class movement in Russia was still dormant, and when every group had “ample room” in which to pose as a trend, group or faction, in short, as a “power”, negotiating amalgamation with others.
The younger generation of workers should know exactly whom they are dealing with, when individuals come before them with incredibly pretentious claims, unwilling absolutely to reckon with either the Party decisions, which since 1908 have defined and established our attitude towards liquidationism, or with the experience of the present-day working-class movement in Russia, which has actually brought about the unity of the majority on the basis of full recognition of the aforesaid decisions.
(Ibid)
In May 1917 Trotsky was to declare, only a few months away from the Russian Revolution
I cannot be called a Bolshevik... We must not be demanded to recognise Bolshevism
-Trotsky, May 1917
Wasn’t Trotsky’s left opposition and criticism of Stalin correct?
I'm not sure why the Left Opposition would be correct. They put their platform to the Bolshevik party in 1927 and it was re-soundly rejected.
In 1927 the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites were to put their platform of the opposition to the Bolshevik party at the 15th party congress. 724,000 members voted for the Central Committee and 4000 voted for Trotskys Opposition. I'm not sure how correct this can be if you can put your platform to the most well read and battle hardened communists and have them reject it?
Further this congress was the ruination of Trotskys political career as a bolshevik
At the Fifteenth Party Conference, Trotsky and Zinoviev finally destroyed themselves politically. Trotsky made a lengthy speech and had to ask repeatedly for more time. He was interrupted constantly by ridicule and laughter. Zinoviev grovelled and begged forgiveness for his errors. He, too, was heckled and ridiculed. Both had been arrogant in power and now they were humiliated and defeated. It was left to Bukharin to make the final savage attack on them; the delegates, thirsting for blood, applauded loudly.
The main discussion at the conference was not on the opposition, but on Stalin’s new theory of “socialism in one country.” It bore the stamp of his mind and outlook, and it marked the beginning of the Stalinist era. The Russian revolutionary drive had been losing momentum since the end of the Civil War and the process had accelerated after Lenin’s death. A new policy was needed that would inspire the Russian people to undertake the superhuman task of carrying their country on from the October Revolution towards socialism and communism. That policy was “socialism in one country.” Its emotional appeal was overwhelming. It aroused a new fervor in the party, and pride in the revolu tion spread beyond the party ranks. It was a declaration of independence from the West and of faith in the capacity of their country to forge ahead, creating its own future alone and unsupported. Backward Russia, for so long treated as lagging on the outskirts of Western civilization, would show herself to be advanced and at the center of civilization in the coming millennium.
-Ian Grey, Stalin p.215
PERMANENT REVOLUTION IS GARBAGE AND WOULD HAVE LED TO THE IMMEDIATE COLLAPSE OF THE REVOLUTION
Please see here https://hexbear.net/post/44077/comment/391412
Socialism In One Country was a masterpiece of foreign policy. Don't believe me though watch this short video of anticommunist conservative historian Stephen Kotkin explain how Trotsky lied about Socialism In One Country
DEFEATISM IN WORLD WAR 2
In Revolution Betrayed he tells the world there's no difference between Stalin and Hitler and that the Soviet Union won't last a day if the Nazis invaded - giving a huge morale boost to the Nazi army and demoralising Communists inside the Soviet Union
In 1939 when Nazi Germany was carving up Europe left right and centre he calls for the Independence of Ukraine. This is despite knowing the following facts: Hitler had called for taking Ukraine in MeinKampf for the oil fields and that the only people wanting independence were Ukrainian Nazis whilst the Communists were pro-Stalin.
The Ukrainian Nazis would go on to collaborate with Nazis, setup their own SS divisions and murder jews, socialists and communists as well as fight alongside Nazi Germany
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/ukraine.htm
Trotskyists are not anti-imperialists
The 20th Century battle ground was between actually existing socialism and imperialism.
With the rollbacks of the 1990s this has now shifted between Imperialism and the Right of nations to Self-Determination
Unable to distinguish between who is and isn't their enemy trot groups have found themselves in the ridiculous situation of supporting "self determination" for South Vietnam. In case anyone has forgotten Vietnam was going to reunify but when the US saw that South Vietnam was going to vote for communism they then invaded. "South Vietnam" was a hated US puppet state
It is a distinguishing feature of Trotskyism to give out fulsome gushing Left phrases whilst supporting imperialism (Left in form, right in essence). 'In the below articles you can see exactly what I mean.
On surveying the upcoming destruction of Libya these "socialist parties" denounce Gadaffi as a "dictator" and urge the people to rise up and build socialism.
The problem? The forces rising up against Gadaffi are astroturfed cia/mi5 sponsored jihadi terrorists who are being armed and funded by the West not so the Libyans can build socialism. But so Libya can be destroyed. Now why did the West want to destroy Gadaffi and Libya? Because Gadaffi was going to use the stock piles of Libyan gold to create a pan-African currency backed by Libyan gold.
This act by Gadaffi would've lifted the African continent from its knees into a formidable united economic power bloc which would've weakened imperialism and strengthened those on the most hyper-exploited continent.
The poorest people right now - if Gadaffi had succeeded - would be lifted off their knees for the first time in maybe 500 years.
We see here what I mean "left in form, right in essence". They demand the immediate building of socialism with no communist forces. They demand the overthrow of a man that led Libya under his leadership to be the country on the Highest Human Development Index on the continent of Africa.
If they cannot be bothered to properly survey the class forces of a conflict they should shut their mouths
The only other reason they consistently come out with this is because of infiltration by intelligence services - but seeing as Trotsky had oppposed the Soviet Union with batshit ideas like independent Ukraine in 1939 it's not hard to see where they get their ideological wavering and confusion from
Socialist Worker Party were shitting on Gadaffi as NATO ruined Libya
I mean you get the idea - somehow they are always justifying supporting imperialism but with "left" phraseology. In the terms of Gadaffi they literally are like "Gadaffi sucks the people should push for revolution!" Not understanding the protests were astroturfed by NATO seeking to ruin the country. Either the Trotskyists are too lazy to study each conflict in depth before coming to a conclusion they ask their members and supporters to support or they are deliberately aiding imperiailism - either way they serve reaction.
Taking payment from the Hearst press
William Randolph Hearst is the name of a multi-millionaire who sought to help the Nazis in their psychological warfare against the Soviet Union. Hearst was a well-known US newspaper proprietor known as the ‘father’ of the so-called ‘yellow press’, i.e., the sensationalist press. William Hearst began his career as a newspaper editor in 1885 when his father, George Hearst, a millionaire mining industrialist, Senator and newspaper proprietor himself, put him in charge of the San Francisco Daily Examiner
This was also the start of the Hearst newspaper empire, an empire which strongly influenced the lives and thinking of North Americans. After his father died, William Hearst sold all the mining industry shares he inherited and began to invest capital in the world of journalism. His first purchase was the New York Morning Journal, a traditional newspaper which Hearst completely transformed into a sensationalist rag. He bought his stories at any price, and when there were no atrocities or crimes to report, it behoved his journalists and photographers to ‘arrange’ matters. It is this which in fact characterises the ‘yellow press’: lies and ‘arranged’ atrocities served up as truth.
These lies of Hearst’s made him a millionaire and a very important personage in the newspaper world. In 1935 he was one of the richest men in the world, with a fortune estimated at $200 million. After his purchase of the Morning Journal, Hearst went on to buy and establish daily and weekly newspapers throughout the US. In the 1940s, William Hearst owned 25 daily newspapers, 24 weekly newspapers, 12 radio stations, 2 world news services, one business providing news items for films, the Cosmopolitan film company, and a lot of others. In 1948 he bought one of the US’s first TV stations, BWAL – TV in Baltimore. Hearst’s newspapers sold 13 million copies a day and had close to 40 million readers. Almost a third of the adult population of the US were reading Hearst newspapers every day. Furthermore, many millions of people throughout the world received information from the Hearst press via his news services, films and a series of newspapers that were translated and published in large quantities all over the world. The figures quoted above demonstrate how the Hearst empire was able to influence American politics, and indeed world politics, over very many years – on r issues which included opposition to the US entering the Second World War on the side of the Soviet Union and support for the McCarthyite anti-communist witch-hunts of the 1950s.
William Hearst’s outlook was ultra-conservative, nationalist and anti-communist. His politics were the politics of the extreme right. In 1934 he travelled to Germany, where he was received by Hitler as a guest and friend. After this trip, Hearst’s newspapers became even more reactionary, always carrying articles against socialism, against the Soviet Union and especially against Stalin. Hearst also tried to use his newspapers for overt Nazi propaganda purposes, publishing a series of articles by Goering, Hitler’s right-hand man. The protests of many readers, however, forced him to stop publishing such items and to withdraw them from circulation.
After his visit to Hitler, Hearst’s sensationalist newspapers were filled with ‘revelations’ about the terrible happenings in the Soviet Union – murders, genocide, slavery, luxury for the rulers and starvation for the people, all these were the big news items almost every day. The material was provided to Hearst by the Gestapo, Nazi Germany’s political police. On the front pages of the newspapers there often appeared caricatures and falsified pictures of the Soviet Union, with Stalin portrayed as a murderer holding a dagger in his hand. We should not forget that these articles were read each day by 40 million people in the US and millions of others worldwide!
-http://mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html
The above is to give you an exposition of the Hearst Press. Imagine tabloids talking about Princess Diana and UFOs today except it's the Soviet Union and about a disfigured frog boy only allowed to eat meat. A lot of the Hearst presses lies still exist today used to attack the Soviet Union (and now Russia)
Upon Trotskys exile the Hearst Press - led by an actual nazi - starts championing Trotsky as the "true communist". Why on earth does the Hearst press champion Trotsky as the true communist? Well anyone with half a brain can see Hearst press has seen a rivet in the communist movement and is now sticking a crow bar into it
“He received $10,000 for his first articles for the Daily Express, New York Herald Tribune, New York Times, and other newspapers. Soon he would receive an advance of $7,000 from an American publisher for his autobiography, and for a series of articles entitled ‘The History of the Russian Revolution’ the Saturday Evening Post paid him $45,000.”
-Volkogonov’s Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, page 323.
This is in money from the 1920s and 30s, of course, so $62,000 in 1935 is about $1,170,000 in 2020.
The Failure to produce a revolution in a century
If we are to understand revolution as a science then Trotskyism has existed for a long time now and we see the failure of the Trotskyists to produce a revolution. The fact they end up tailing social-democrats means they have basically become Social democrats
So do you actually organize among the working class or do you just post "umm ackshually" for daddy Stalin?
USSR is one of the best things to happen in human history
so unless you're trying to equate "socialism" with the re-establishment of God's paradisaical kingdom on Earth, then I do not see your point
ignoring 20th century history and glossing over the achievements (or focusing solely on the contradictions/miscalculations) of former & existing ML projects is also fallacious & divorces the putative future of socialism from its very real & important past insights
sorry this is wrong
and I would say that if you feel that way about Soviet history in the aggregate, then you are buying biased Western historiography & anti-communist propaganda
Stalin & Lenin didn't accomplish everything for the Soviet Union, the Soviet people did. The same is true of Mao & the people of PRC. I do not buy Great Man theory for a second, this is a bourgeois tendency &is intellectually bound up in capitalist/idealist notions.
Demonizing the past and looking for ways to skirt around the very real obstacles that previous ML & socialist projects contended with is a recipe for proceeding in a pointless & doomed manner
i agree great man theory is garbage, which is why the achievements of the Soviet & PRC & Vietnamese & Burkinabe & Cuban and other people were not the achievements of a few "important" individuals
i hope you can see how you're making a straw man argument here against me tho
Fightback is more big tent though. At least in my experience with Fightback, the group has members of various branches of communism, and doesn't like... vibe check you at the door to make sure you're a Trot or whatever. That was my experience anyway.
Also they ran some dope lecture and Q&A sessions which for a babby Marxist is good. It's better to have a group - any group, really - of mostly like-minded people politically to springboard ideas off of, and to interpret theory with. Cause reading it is one thing, discussing it is another.
Now if you'll excuse me I've gotta read the rest of this struggle session, let's goooooo
I'm guessing the difference is my level of involvement. I wasn't a card-carrying member, nor was I part of the organization. I went to a number of events and reading groups, which I think is why it was more big tent there - draw in the interested first, then hit 'em with the Trotsky stuff down the line? I dunno. It's entirely possible this branch (not going to dox myself with it) was a bit different.
You are right about the theory though. A point of contact I had with the group did ask me a lot about how much theory I'd been reading, which isn't much because I was a working stiff at the time. It did kinda bug me. I'm not anti-theory by any means, but the last thing I wanna do after a shit week of work is crack open a dusty old issue of Das Kapital for the third time.
I'll fully admit to not even being close to an authority on this, or even knowing enough about the org to make a full call.
My experience with them has been a little more mixed and they struggle with some #metoo stuff.
I guess. I'm still kind of a babby Marxist myself, and having somewhere that didn't just throw books at you and say "read theory nerd" but actually explained it, held reading groups, and would interpret theory into modern language and situations is great. I'm dealing with a Discord server full of people right now who are literally all theory and no real world experience, and it's incredibly frustrating.
They're not a perfect group but I'll take it.
No I completely understand that. Right now I'm lucky enough to have a radical COVID bubble and we've been meeting weekly to go through lectures, texts, etc. so I really do appreciate the value in having IRL comrades with whom you can study. In my city Fightback's presence is mainly on campus and most of us are workers and not students.
I organized with fightback for a little, the org grew until it just about needed a north side and south side kind of split (like, 40 members meeting once a week was getting to be too much).
We never ended up doing anything. We went to protests and hosted lectures for the general public, which was cool, but other than that zilch. We also had a weekly chat about theory and it seemed like most people blew it off. And they were always hitting us up for money so they could send a few people to the general meeting. Plus they insisted on selling theory and newspapers all the god danm time, lol. I heard bad things about fightback in Quebec (like, sexpest stuff) but didnt encounter anything bad in that vein at that my local fightback.
I got discouraged because while it seemed cool that we were growing, everyone was a student or a downwardly mobile student. I was the only non university educated person there and it seemed like they weren't serious about doing stuff in the community or recruiting wider than university kids.
Fightback/IMT is explicitly Trotskyist. We'll work alongside other groups and welcome anyone interested, but membership does require general political agreement and we are a MELT org