I live in the UK and nearly every older Communist you meet is a Trot and all the protests that I've been to that have had communists at them were mostly Trot orgs but online everyone just seems to shit on them for no clear reason. Am I missing something? Or is it just regular leftist infighting

  • Bedandsofa [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I’m also not going to watch that video, given the group is not yours and you’ve also not watched the video, but the article you posted lays out a position based on the “right” to “normalized relations” with the imperialist powers, which 1) is laughable and 2) is not a Marxist perspective.

    I particularly enjoyed this very serious take: “Cuba’s strength and its steadfastness, coupled with a supple but firm diplomatic perspective (lol), changed the relationship of forces and succeeded in forcing the United States to begin the process of diplomatic and economic normalization.” Again an example of just wholesale abandoning anything resembling a Marxist analysis through some handwaving about “changing the relationship of forces” that is never actually explained because it cannot be explained.

    And finally, you embody my OP: radicalized on the internet without real life political activity. You’re like the 8th M-L on this website who has given me some variation of “the PSL sounds good” while having zero actual connection to the organization.

    • PhaseFour [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I'd like to frame this response in the context of our conversation. My problem with Trots is that they uncritically push far-right and imperialist lies. Anyone serious about dialectical & historical materialism would not do that. MLs do not have this problem.

      the article you posted lays out a position based on the “right” to “normalized relations” with the imperialist powers, which 1) is laughable and 2) is not a Marxist perspective.

      The right to self-determination of nations is not Marxist? Ending the economic blockade on the DPRK requires normalized relations with the US. If the DPRK chooses to go down that path, I support them. It's not my position to say their people should suffer from the blockade.

      Cuba’s strength and its steadfastness, coupled with a supple but firm diplomatic perspective, changed the relationship of forces and succeeded in forcing the United States to begin the process of diplomatic and economic normalization.

      None of this is wrong. If the Cuban state was weak, the US would not bother negotiating with it. One of their countless coup attempts would have worked. Speaking kindly of a government is not anti-Marxist lmao

      “changing the relationship of forces” that is never actually explained because it cannot

      What are the forces which impact the US-Cuban relationship? There have been attempted military coups, economic blockades, etc. And there has been a change in these forces:

      1. The US has given up on brazen regime change.

      2. Cuba has become more economically independent that the blockade is less impactful.

      3. Cuba is widely recognized by the international community, and has strong relationships with US allies.

      The relationship of forces changed. That is why the US began talking about normalized relationships.

      Maybe that could have been wording better. I thought it was pretty clear, but I understand the confusion. Your criticism is with wording. My criticism is with Trots publishing far-right propaganda.

      I've talked pretty openly about my political work here. I never said I wasn't a member, I said I agree with their political lines. You have not said you are a member of IMT. All I know is that you are defensive of their far-right myths about socialist countries.

      You can't respond to the merits of what I'm saying, so you need to make up shit about me.

      • Bedandsofa [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        The National Question is a question taken up by Marxists. It also is not a question that applies to "normalizing relations" with imperial powers, which is just a conception of politics lifted directly from bourgeois political science. Obviously there is no peaceful coexistence between imperialist powers and workers states or between imperialist powers and the periphery they exploit.

        The "opening up" to Cuba under the Obama administration had literally nothing to do with Cuba changing the balance of forces. If anything Cuba has already begun the slide back into capitalism, the US identified sympathetic forces and processes within Cuba, and "normalization" in this context just means opening up for US capital investment.

        widely recognized by the international community

        A "Marxist" - "Leninist" talking about the "international community" of bourgeois nations, jesus christ.

        My criticism is with Trots publishing far-right propaganda. you are defensive of their far-right myths about socialist countries.

        And I'm making the baseless claims here? I laid out above our basic position on the workers' states, which all exist in transitional forms today, meaning they will either move backwards into capitalism or forwards to socialism via a deepening of the revolutionary involvement of the masses. This is not a "far-right" position. It would be one thing to disagree and present a counterargument, but all you're doing is willfully mischaracterizing.

        Believe it or not, I don't know who you are or pay attention to what you say about your political work, but from what I can gather from this conversation you definitely fit the model of internet Stalinist.

        • PhaseFour [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          It also is not a question that applies to “normalizing relations” with imperial powers, which is just a conception of politics lifted directly from bourgeois political science

          Lenin's essay analyzes the creation of an independent bourgeois state in Poland. That did include the state's right to pursue "normalized relations", e.g. trade and diplomatic relations, with any country they see fit. That is not "bourgeois political science." It is an objective summary of the powers that an independent state has.

          Here is a good summary of my approach to self-determination:

          The question of the “right to self-determination” is of course not so important to the Polish Social-Democrats as it is to the Russian. It is quite understandable that in their zeal (sometimes a little excessive, perhaps) to combat the nationalistically blinded petty bourgeoisie of Poland the Polish Social-Democrats should overdo things. No Russian Marxist has ever thought of blaming the Polish Social-Democrats for being opposed to the secession of Poland. These Social-Democrats err only when, like Rosa Luxemburg, they try to deny the necessity of including the recognition of the right to self-determination in the Programme of the Russian Marxists.

          My country has established a colony of their southern border, and turned the peninsula into the most militarized place in the world. The situation rhymes with the Russian Empire's control of Poland.

          Communists in the DPRK can chart whatever path they see fit. American communists must recognize the right of the DPRK to manage this contradiction as they see fit, and agitate for the complete withdrawal of the US occupation from the peninsula.

          Obviously there is no peaceful coexistence between imperialist powers and workers states or between imperialist powers and the periphery they exploit

          I agree. Normalized relationships are not peaceful. But it is one of the two options available. Their other option is to endure the economic blockade, which is also not peaceful. There is no peaceful option for the Korean peninsula until the US occupation is ended.

          A “Marxist” - “Leninist” talking about the “international community” of bourgeois nations, jesus christ.

          There is an international community of states. There are bourgeois states and worker states. They interact with each other on the global stage. I don't understand what you are even criticizing here.

          This is not a “far-right” position.

          I am specifically talking about the reliance on far-right propaganda to craft the Trotskyist understanding of socialist states. I have cited examples of this.

          I have said nothing about your abstract understanding of a workers state. I generally agree with that. My problem with Trotskyists is not their ability to recite Marxist definitions.

          You keep changing the subject to avoid valid criticism.

          Believe it or not, I don’t know who you are or pay attention to what you say about your political work

          You have seemed particularly obsessed with that so far.