Re: [Marxism] Lars Lih and Lenin’s April Theses | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentent Marxist
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I'm sorry, Luko, to have taken so long to reply, but other business intervened. Recall that we are discussing Trotsky's letter which says that the working class must choose between two dictators with regard to how to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. Lüko Willms wrote: You correctly call this text a _letter,_ and it begins with Dear comrade, so obviously a letter to someone of his cothinkers on Great Britain. The new principle of choosing between two dictators was not his, Trotsky's, but of the ILP conference or rather of John Alston Maxton, Baron Maxton, of Blackwaterfoot in Ayrshire and Arran who imposed this distorted view on the ILP party conference, .. by an ultimatum. In my comments on Trotsky's views, I quoted Trotsky's words,not Maxton's. Trotsky could have supported Ethiopoia against Maxton without endorsing the idea of choosing between two dictators. Instead he made a point of endorsing this principle. It is dishonest from your part then to project this view on Trotsky, whereas Trotsky is sharply arguing against this view. Not only were these Trotsky's words, but they have been cited repeatedly in the Trotskyist movement. It's one of the keystones behind the support of various Trotskyist groups for certain reactionary regimes during wars, such as Saddam Hussein's regime, or the Taliban. But you ignore all that, as if you lived on another planet. What an utter evasion. The fact is that you don't want to look at the serious issues raised by the criticism of Trotsky, so you pretend that any criticism is dishonest. The Stalinists use a similar method, accusing critics of being thugs, or CIA agents. The issue in this letter is not so much Italy's war to conquer Ethiopia, t the politics of the ILP and of revolutionary communists. You're just evading, evading, evading the issue. About the Italian war Trotsky wrote a letter to the International Secretariat, which is published in the Writings 1935-36 on page 41 July 17, 1935 To the International Secretariat Of course, we are for the defeat of Italy and the victory of Ethiopia, However, we want to stress the point that this fight is directed not against fascism, but against imperialism. When war is involved, for us it is not a question of who is better, the Negus or Mussolini; rather, it is a question of the relationship of classes and the fight of an underdeveloped nation for independence against imperialism.... At first sight, the 1935 letter might appear to contradict Trotsky's 1936 letter. In 1935, Trotsky says it is not a question of who is better, Mussolini or the Negus. But in the 1936 letter, he says that the proletariat must choose between dictators, and dreams of the victory of the Negus. So it looks like Trotsky is talking out of both sides of his mouth. However, even though I am a critic of Trotskyism, I think that these two letters are consistent. Trotsky's argument is that, with respect to war, he doesn't care about the internal nature of the conflicting regimes. That's why it isn't a matter of who is better. That's why he stresses that this fight is directed not against *fascism*, but against *imperialism*. (Trotsky's emphasis) For him, it doesn't matter whether the regimes are democratic or fascist or dictatorial. In the 1936 letter, he develops this idea more dramatically than in the 1935 letter: yes, he says, the working class must choose between dictators. But it's the same idea: it doesn't matter who's better, it doesn't matter whether they are both dictators, it doesn't matter what their relationship is to the class struggle, just choose one of the two dictators for other reasons. Trotisky claims in 1935 to be considering the relationship of classes involved, but this is empty verbiage. He says nothing about the class and national situation in Ethiopia and, in fact, is giving a rationale for not considering the relationship of classes.That's why he doesn't care about the oppression of the subject peoples in Ethiopia; he doesn't consider whether this hinders the resistance to Italian occupation; and he doesn't care about Selassie's absolutism at all. There is no criticism, no critical support, no support for the masses who want reform, no consideration of what is needed for the African peoples to unite in struggle -- just dreams about how great Selassie might be. So a careful reading of these letters shows that they are consistent. For the period of war, anti-absolutism and the opression of subject peoples was irrelevant to Trotsky. And outside the war, he didn't care
Re: [Marxism] Lars Lih and Lenin’s April Theses | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentent Marxist
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * DW, I'm sorry to have taken so long to reply. Other business intervened. But the subject is important, so I have come back to it.ti. DW wrote: If there were a workers movement or a peasant movement of some kind in Ethiopia I have no doubt he would of commented on it. That could well be why he was silent. I have thought something similar. But just because we may know *why* Trotsky ignored the internal situation in Ethiopia, doesn't mean that Trotsky was *right* to do so. There were few workers in the Ethiopian Empire, and there wasn't a revolutionary peasant movement. But that doesn't mean that Ethiopia was a blank slate, free of classes, conflicts, and politics. There were important class and political developments in Ethiopia, as in black Africa in general. I will list some of them later on. But first, some points on method. Trotsky didn't have to praise Haile Selassie to the skies. He didn't have to imagine that a revolutionary dictator would inspire the anti-imperialist movement. He could simply have supported Ethiopia against the Italian invasion and backed whatever resistance took place. But that's not what he did. Instead, he wanted to make a point about what anti-imperialism meant and what solidarity for Ethiopia meant. To do this, he compared Selassie to Cromwell and Robespierre (which he meant as praise), and he imagined that the dictator Selassie might galvanize the anti-imperialist movement. And at that point, one can no longer excuse ignoring the internal situation in Ethiopia. Trotsky was setting forward a path for anti-imperialism. As a result, it would be important for any serious progressive person to consider whether he was right in the light of how the war developed, and about Selassie's prospective role in the anti-imperialist movement. Indeed, it should have been especially important for *Trotskyists* to consider the experience of the war. Yet the Trotskyist movement has shown little if any interest in what happened. It didn't compare Trotsky's thought experiment with the real world. That's clear even on this internet list. While ignoring what happened in Ethiopia, the Trotskyist movement took his statement as an important guide. This has led some of them to put an anti-imperialist gloss on a number of other vicious dictators. Some even have gone so far as to support the Taliban. In 2002, I wrote an article about a debate among British Trotskyists on this issue, The socialist debate on the Taliban. See part one, where I reproduced material from Bob Pitt and Ian Donovan http://www.communistvoice.org/28cTaliban.html and part two, where I went into the issue of Trotsky's stand on Selasie, Stalin's on the Emir of Afghanistan, etc. http://www.communistvoice.org/29cEmir.html Trotsky's statement, akin to his hypothetical Democratic Imperialism (UK) vs Fascist Brazil is a similar thought experiment as well akin to the the real-world situation w/the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. Yes, it's a similar thought experiment, but it's not akin to the real-world situation. In fact, he had to make a thought experiment about *Brazil*, precisely because experience had disproved his thought experiment about *Ethiopia*. It was 1938 when he wrote about Brazil. At that time, everyone knew that Selassie had fled Ethiopia (he didn't return until 1941), and Trotsky would have looked ridiculous if he had repeated his ideas about Selassie. But instead of reconsidering his theory in the light of experience, he shoved experience under the rug and changed the subject to what his imagination said about Brazil. The fact is that, on this and other questions, Trotsky asserted a number of false things with absolute confidence. And he wouldn't go back and correct himself. You are not arguing so much here with Trotsky as it then entire Comintern from it's Second Congress onward. No offense, but that's bull. I've written on Lenin's stand on anti-imperialism many times, and on the difference between Leninist anti-imperialism and non-class anti-imperialism. If you want to pursue this subject seriously, start another thread on it, and I'll discuss it with you. But for the moment, I'm going to dwell on the real-world situation with Ethiopia. It's a serious issue. We have an interesting discussion on Permanent Revolution (PR) on Louis' blog. I'd suggest Joeseph you take a looksee there. I would be interested to see this discussion, although I don't have time to take part in it. Also, I have to admit the limits of my computer knowledge. Where can I find the blog? I thought that, being on the Marxism list, I was seeing Proyect's
Re: [Marxism] Lars Lih and Lenin’s April Theses | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentent Marxist
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 8/16/15 12:06 PM, Joseph Green via Marxism wrote: Most activists are familiar with Stalinist hostility to Trotskyism, but in fact Stalinism and Trotskyism are twin sides of the same coin. If we examine Trotskyism and Stalinism in the light of the experience of the many revolutionary movements since the death of Lenin, it turns out that Trotskyism and Stalinism have a lot in common. This is nonsense. Stalinism, except for the brief Third Period, has had the same basic strategy as the Mensheviks. Instead of seeking common cause with the Cadets, it oriented to FDR, the bourgeois parties in Spain and France in the 1930s, etc. The fatal flaw of Trotskyism was its assumption that by pointing out the errors of class collaboration, the scales would fall from the eyes of the masses and a new vanguard would emerge. This is fundamentally the illusion of Antarsya in Greece, which like the ineffectual Trotskyist movement in Spain during the Spanish Civil War was awfully good at pointing out the errors of the anarchists, the Stalinists et al, was just awful when it came to building a party. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Lars Lih and Lenin’s April Theses | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentent Marxist
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Lars Lih's and Proyect's views on this question center in large part on their evaluation of the Trotskyist version of permanent revolution. This is not just a historical argument about the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It concerns the tactics for movements in general. In brief, permanent revolution is the claim that the former Marxist distinction between bourgeois-democratic and socialist movements is outdated and obsolete. This theory is widespread because it dovetails with the naive view that any struggle can proceed to full liberation if only the people are militant enough and there are no betrayals. But the reality is different. Today we see democratic movements around the world which have no possibility of immediately bringing workers' rule or socialist revolution. Yet even if these movements are successful, they will not bring bourgeois-democratic social revolutions of the old type, because the extensive development of capitalism in the last century has generally eliminated the social basis for this. As a result, the democratic struggle, while essential if the working people are to be able to raise their voice and organize, will generally lead to disappointing results even when it overthrow the old tyranny. Yet any realistic appraisal shows that the socialist revolution isn't imminent either. The working masses are far too disorganized for this. The are faced with going through a series of struggles against oppression in which they will have to organize themselves as an independent class force. The theory of permanent revolution can't deal with this. It has resulted in euphoric declarations that workers' rule is near whenever a people rise up, and then a long period of depression when one sees what actually happens in the struggle. This is what has been seen in the reaction of many groups to the Arab Spring or other democratic movements around the world. It is one of the theoretical reasons for the devastating error of the Revolutionary Socialists group in Egypt, who didn't see what was really happening with the military overthrow of Morsi in Egypt until it was too late. In the midst of the revolutionary fervor of the struggle against various tyrannies, it is important that the most conscious section of activists have a sober picture of what is going on. Contrary to what the advocates of permanent revolution say, opposing their impatience doesn't mean upholding Stalinist theories and bowing down to the bourgeoisie. It is necessary to have a sober assessment of the ongoing movement in order to be able to uphold the specific class interests of the working masses against the bourgeoisie. When one recognizes that, even if the old tyranny is overthrown and even if socialist phrases are thrown around, the overall movement is not going to lead to socialism, one can understand the need for the working masses to form an independent section of the movement. The workers must fight against the local tyrannies and push the overall movement as far as possible, but also seek opportunities to build up their own section of the movement, a section with socialist interests separate from the simply democratic framework of the movement as a whole. This critique of the theory of permanent revolution is quite different from that of the Stalinists. Most activists are familiar with Stalinist hostility to Trotskyism, but in fact Stalinism and Trotskyism are twin sides of the same coin. If we examine Trotskyism and Stalinism in the light of the experience of the many revolutionary movements since the death of Lenin, it turns out that Trotskyism and Stalinism have a lot in common. I have worked with other comrades on developing a critique of Trotskyism from an anti-Stalinist standpoint. In part one of an extensive survey of Trotskyist theories, I dealt with the theoretical basis of permanent revolution. I wrote: 'Permanent revolution' was Trotsky's first major distinctive theory of his own, and it would become the banner of the Trotskyist movement. Indeed, this term is sometimes used in a general sense as a synonym for Trotskyism in general. But strictly speaking, it refers to Trotsky's view that the former Marxist distinction between bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolution is outdated and obsolete. Instead, Trotsky held that revolution in any country--no matter on what issues it breaks out, what the local alignment of classes was, and what the economic level of development is--would either be utterly defeated, or directly go on to a proletarian dictatorship and socialist measures. The only type of revolution possible in the current era
