(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Denouncing Cuba for revisionism over their weed policy everyday Anyway this thread has made me give up anarchism as a viable political project
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
tokin opposition posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 10:53
|
|
|
oh hey, what happened to the old thread? something stupid i bet anyway, just wanted to share this thing right here: quote:The features of Trotskyism which appear in this book (partly thanks to very candid description by [Chinese Trotskyist Wang Fan-hsi]) are dogmatism, heavy emphasis on ideology as against practical action, and factionalism. For example, after a formal Trotskyist Chinese Communist party was founded in 1931, it immediately broke into four sub-parties, each with hardly a hundred members, and despite a short period of “unification”, done at Trotsky’s insistence, the factions continued to exist. This made Trotskyists almost entirely irrelevant in the great struggle that opposed the Japanese, KMT and CCP. Wang mentions that other than for two small units, Trotskyists never managed to field any military force against the Japanese. Trotskyist activity during the war against Japan consisted in translations of Marxist classics and their distribution to Shanghai’s workers. It does not take much imagination to see that Shanghai’s workers might not have been in 1941 extremely keen to spend their time reading Plekhanov and Trotsky. The total failure of Trotskyist parties, frankly analyzed by Wang in the last section of the book, is rooted in that sterile intellectualism. you can't make this stuff up
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:oh hey, what happened to the old thread? something stupid i bet The mods happened to it, basically
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:oh hey, what happened to the old thread? something stupid i bet What is the appeal of trotskyism? It can't be results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:What is the appeal of trotskyism? It can't be results. Tendency hipsterdom is it's own reward
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:oh hey, what happened to the old thread? something stupid i bet quote:After 1929 when Wang returned to China, he could observe (and suffer) first-hand from the disastrous decisions made by Stalin that led to disarmaments of Communists while they “worked together” with KMT and before Chiang Kai- shek turned against them and massacred them. The Comintern line, here like in many other instances as Wang argues, was extremely timid, “petty-bourgeois” and directly responsible for the decimation of Communist parties. During the entire period that he was in power, Stalin’s international policy was always dominated by excessive caution, numerous mistakes and unwillingness to help indigenous revolutionary forces. Only those, like Mao and Tito, who ignored his blandishments succeeded in taking power. this is spot on. the USSR was pretty terrified of invasion and was insanely cautious about supporting world revolution under the pressure it was facing during its infancy. it's understandable because they had pretty justifiable fears (cf, the genocidal invasion that occurred) and also needed to trade with capitalists for basic survival while trying to get industrialization, defense and even basic services jumpstarted, but trying to get the CCP to work with the KMT despite numerous betrayals was boneheaded poo poo of course when they started to do their duty post WW2 that led to a cold war, staring down nuclear annihilation, and an economic blockade that ultimately did them in and cries of playing foul from ultraleftists. "you can't win" - donald "getfiscal" hughes
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:What is the appeal of trotskyism? It can't be results. used to wonder this too, seems like one trait is universal criticism of all actually existing socialism as not doing it right which can be annoying online but becomes really obnoxious when it comes to internationalism irl but idk
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:What is the appeal of trotskyism? It can't be results. from what i have seen it's mainly that you can justify to yourself going around being a smug piece of poo poo while not actually doing anything of value
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
it's p close to shitlib mentality to be honest, pretending that you would have done everything perfectly while not having to face any real-world problems whatsoever
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Speaking as someone who flirted with Trotskyism for a short while about 10 years ago, Trotskyism is an easy fit for any western liberal who's radicalising but doesn't want to confront a lot of anti-communist propaganda directed at states like the USSR or China. It lets you position yourself firmly at Real Communism Hasn't Been Tried. Also a basic grasp of 'permanent revolution' is appealing because of its urgency and call-to-action; even though no action has ever followed from it, it gives a compelling extra 'socialist' dimension to add on to the anti-communist critiques of Stalin etc; that they didn't do enough to spread the revolution. Also a lot of Trotskyist arguments and positions are very similar to those advanced by 'democratic socialists' like George Orwell who I was also into for a bit in my early twenties. It's a kind of left-wing viewpoint that doesn't challenge too much liberal orthodoxy; much like anarchism, it's attractive in places like the UK and USA for that reason. I don't want to universalise my own experience but I've talked to quite a few Former Trots or other people who found it compelling at first and their experiences lined up with my own pretty closely. Once I started learning more about the history of socialist states and the actual events rather than reheated Robert Conquest pablum, as well as trying to develop a genuine internationalism rather than one that was mainly based on Well I Could Have Done It Better And Purer, the appeal of Trotskyism fell away pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
it makes sense why the anti-communist, chauvinist american left would find his ideas so appealing, and why so many actual trots became neoconsTrotsky posted:We cite word by word. The theory of revolution in one country is the natural next step after the theory of socialism in one country [...]. We have proclaimed an infinite number of times that the proletariat in the country with the victorious revolution is morally obligated to help the revolting and oppressed classes, and not only in the realm of ideas, but also with weapons, if possible. And we haven’t limited ourselves to declaring it. We have defended with weapons the workers of Finland, Estonia and Georgia. We tried, by marching on Warsaw with the Red Army, to offer the Polish proletariat the opportunity to have an insurrection. Black Legend posted:Having exhausted the vision of an “International Soviet Republic”, and with it the final disappearance of state and national borders, Stalin makes use of the principle of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. But this new principle, that was the result of a learning process and that guaranteed the Soviet Union the right to independence in a world that was hostile and militarily stronger, in the eyes of Trotsky appeared to be a betrayal of proletarian internationalism, as well as the abandonment of the duty of mutual and active solidarity between the oppressed and exploited around the whole world. His polemic against the political turn is unending, against the transformation of the initial “internationalist revolutionary” program into a “conservative-national” program; against “the national pacifist foreign policy of the Soviet government”; against ignoring the principle based on the idea that a single workers state should alone carry out the role of “leading the world revolution." In any case, since the peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism is impossible, “a socialist state can’t peacefully integrate and develop (hineinwashsen) within a world capitalist system." It’s a position that Trotsky stresses still in 1940: it would have been better not to have started the war against Finland, but once started, it should have been “seen through until the end, that is, until the sovietization of Finland.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Well I Could Have Done It Better And Purer great post
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
i don't understand how Trotskyists square the desire for a permanent revolution , and for any existing socialist states to intervene and provide support on behalf of local populations, with their labelling of any country who actually does this "imperialist".
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
In Training posted:i don't understand how Trotskyists square the desire for a permanent revolution , and for any existing socialist states to intervene and provide support on behalf of local populations, with their labelling of any country who actually does this "imperialist". by rhetorically shifting your stance depending on the argument and time period. the ussr is simultaneously bad for not supporting communists and appeasing the capitalist world when it did so pre ww2, and for supporting communists and standing up to the capitalist world after
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
In Training posted:i don't understand how Trotskyists square the desire for a permanent revolution , and for any existing socialist states to intervene and provide support on behalf of local populations, with their labelling of any country who actually does this "imperialist". theyre very dumb people, hth
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Wouldn't assisting global revolution provoke nuclear war?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Wouldn't assisting global revolution provoke nuclear war? posadists will win
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Trotskyism is an easy fit for any western liberal who's radicalising but doesn't want to confront a lot of anti-communist propaganda directed at states like the USSR or China. It lets you position yourself firmly at Real Communism Hasn't Been Tried. Also a basic grasp of 'permanent revolution' is appealing because of its urgency and call-to-action; even though no action has ever followed from it, it gives a compelling extra 'socialist' dimension to add on to the anti-communist critiques of Stalin etc; that they didn't do enough to spread the revolution. Also a lot of Trotskyist arguments and positions are very similar to those advanced by 'democratic socialists' like George Orwell who I was also into for a bit in my early twenties. It's a kind of left-wing viewpoint that doesn't challenge too much liberal orthodoxy; much like anarchism, it's attractive in places like the UK and USA for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
I'm halfway through Blackshirts and Reds. just wanna say g*d drat i woulda been owned if i read this a year or two ago
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
Parenti mentions in blackshirts and reds that Trotsky took on his pro worker cause after losing in the struggle to come to power after the death of lenin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
In Training posted:i don't understand how Trotskyists square the desire for a permanent revolution , and for any existing socialist states to intervene and provide support on behalf of local populations, with their labelling of any country who actually does this "imperialist". it’s imperialism unless I do it
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Wouldn't assisting global revolution provoke nuclear war? in the USSR’s case it almost certainly would have in the period between Hiroshima and when they tested their first bomb. past that I think they had a little more leeway (as evidenced by them helping Vietnam and Cuba more) but it was still a delicate balancing act
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
i really like how this tweet puts it: https://twitter.com/saoirsegowan/status/1400504086756274176?s=20 trotskyists basically believe that it is impossible to make no mistakes and still lose, so the lack of world revolution can be laid at the feet of the people in charge being either stupid or traitorous. it basically amounts to "if hillary had won we'd be at brunch right now" but with different aesthetic signifiers
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i really like how this tweet puts it: Interesting. I assume they believe china doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Interesting. I assume they believe china doesn't count. china doesn't count for a bunch of silly reasons going all the way back to stuff like "mao used peasants instead of workers so the revolution wasn't even marxist" Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 21:13 on Aug 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
....???? Isn't that what the sickle's for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Mao op plz nerf
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:....???? Isn't that what the sickle's for? nuh uh, the point of the image is that you need a hammer to make a sickle in the first place!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Are there enough differences in the needs and interests of peasants and workers that it's useful from a class analysis perspective to differentiate them? Especially if you would then compare these now-distinct groups to the interests of capitalists? I assume the answer is "no, not really" but if there is i'd be interested in reading more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
copy posted:Are there enough differences in the needs and interests of peasants and workers that it's useful from a class analysis perspective to differentiate them? Especially if you would then compare these now-distinct groups to the interests of capitalists? I assume the answer is "no, not really" but if there is i'd be interested in reading more. I think the key difference is when it comes to peasants who own large plots of land, whose class interests don't fully coincide with landless peasants/workers
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:china doesn't count for a bunch of silly reasons going all the way back to stuff like "mao used peasants instead of workers so the revolution wasn't even marxist" Ironically enough it would be Mao that proved bakunins assertstion that the peasants had revolutionary potential
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
I thought the key difference was that traditionally they didn’t believe peasants had any inherent revolutionary potential due to being irrelevant to capitalist exploitation. The peasantry could be easily manipulated by either bourgeois temptation or reactionary rage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Peasants are completely different from workers - peasants work land they have established use rights to and produce their own means of subsistence and sell any surplus. They live an extremely hard and precarious life but aren't exploited except by their landlords. Their economic mindset wants low rents and high prices for the goods they sell at markets. Workers, having to go to those markets for food, want low prices and low rents. The political union between workers and peasants is jointly against rent extraction and a delicate balance over agricultural prices which hopefully keeps both sides fed and happy. Many peasants were/are also agricultural workers though who were exploited just like industrial workers in large estates so the union often came easier than it could have been.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
copy posted:Are there enough differences in the needs and interests of peasants and workers that it's useful from a class analysis perspective to differentiate them? Especially if you would then compare these now-distinct groups to the interests of capitalists? I assume the answer is "no, not really" but if there is i'd be interested in reading more. fair warning, this is a personal interpretation, not some high level theorycrafting in the context of the industrial revolution - and especially in Western Europe - this difference was somewhat more evident to people in that period who were observing the peasantry being uprooted through several measures (enclosures, parish annulments, prohibition of medieval customs, etc) to be forced into becoming urban working class, the proletariat. The trick, the way I see it, is to understand that when the people closer to that time talk about peasantry, they are talking about the way of living rather than "rural working class", which is something more sophisticated that comes later on. This is why early Marxism (and to be fair communists up to and including the bolsheviks) has a prejudice against the peasantry, because that preliminary understanding
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
the distinction between peasants and agricultural workers is one that went over my head at first and which helps me think about the prole vs. peasant divide. the basic fact of being self-sufficient but parasitized from above, rather than literally having nothing but yourself and your fellow workers, mean the two classes are going to have different immediate needs and ideological tendencies
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm understanding the criticism of those quotes above (Trotsky/Wang). It kind of sounds like Stalin could have indeed helped in China against the KMT? That seems like a valid complaint. Is this the 'socialism in one country' vs 'all countries' thing. I don't really understand it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
peasants also tend extremely conservative. any disruption to the cycle of things will see you in deep debt or starving and so it's very important not to gently caress around too much. you also see this with peasant reluctance to employ new methods, and you see it somewhat vindicated with the failure of agriculture westernisation on the horn of africa and the recent emphasis on native plant and agricultural traditions. mostly, though, it's that peasants cannot effectively withdraw their labour without starving to death and aren't naturally very organised. this changes with the industrialisation of agriculture, but what mao did was basically a complete innovation and extremely impressive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
Kaedric posted:I'm not sure I'm understanding the criticism of those quotes above (Trotsky/Wang). It kind of sounds like Stalin could have indeed helped in China against the KMT? That seems like a valid complaint. the cpc under mao worked with the kmt per the comintern's advice and got blown the gently caress out. then, ten years later, they worked with the kmt and, were ready for the inevitable turn, and routed the kmt to take national power. coalition politics are an inevitable part of development and revolution; the mistake wasn't a tactical alliance with the nationalists, but a failure to keep one's guard up and maintain a certain distance within that alliance
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 23:23
|
|