>>Let me first clarify that I am not a Trotskyite. The aim of writing the above article on the debate was not to uphold Trotsky and condemn Stalin. But I was definitely a Stalinist earlier, before I read Trotsky. I was surprised by the facts given by Trotsky about the Stalin period. I had no answer to his criticisms of the policies adopted during that period. In my discussions within my group I got no answer to my questions. So I decided to summarise what I had understood of the debate and circulate it to get a reply. It is true that my article tilts towards the view that Trotskyâs criticisms were correct, because at present I do not have a reply to his criticisms.<<
Reply Of course the author above does not have an answer to Trotsky's criticism because he cannot pose the questions as a materialist, much less one that has assimilated political Leninism. The issue was never Leon Trotsky criticism but his policy and underlying theoretical assumptions. Comrade Lenin would say that everyone has the right to criticize their judges. The political question is always "what is one's policy" - not ones criticism. If you want to understand the political evolution of Trotskyism as a current you have to begin with Lenin and his battle against the "Worker's Opposition" or the anarcho syndicalists and his criticism of the slogan for a United States of Europe. The "ML's" thinking is profoundly subjective, bourgeois and narrow minded. His approach to issues is outside political Leninism and elementary Marxism. Listen to this: >>The earlier impression I had was that as during the Stalin period the revolution was advancing, the position of women must have been advancing too. Tony Cliff gives facts contradicting this view. So I quoted the facts and interpretation given by Trotsky and Cliff on the position of women in the Soviet Union during the Stalin period for the purpose of getting a reply from you or anyone else, either contradicting these facts or giving a different interpretation of these facts.<< Comment Basically what is said is "I thought the revolution was advancing." What revolution is the authoring talking about? The answer is obvious: the revolution in the corridors of the interior of his mind. The revolution advanced at a breath taking pace and we are talking about first of all the revolution in the mode of production, on whose basis the question of political power emerges and class rule. There is a real reason American Marxists or rather a sector approach the evolution of the Soviet Union using the "objective" - "subjective" dichotomy as a primary form of presentation. The most elementary reason is that we have had to wage an uncompromising battle to prove that the "revolution" is in the mode of production and not simply the superstructure - or the legal expression of the same thing, with the property relations within. This is how Marx directly presents the question of "the revolution advancing." The "Revolution" - according to every one of earth with a little materialist instinct, was from agricultural society to industrial society or what every generation of Marxists has called "from feudalism to capitalism." This is the revolution that was advancing. It is called the Soviet Revolution because the advance was to an industrial society without private owners of capital and a legal system was created to prevent anything other than means of consumption from passing into the hands of the individual. In fact the revolution advance at a pace unprecedented in human history. There is an objective logic to society and revolution. The subjective Stalin period or his imprint on history as an individual is important but who but a petty bourgeois intellectual unable to assimilate Leninism would confuse these two general sides of the social process? This is also Trotsky's fundamental political and theoretical error. The specific political and ideological forms of this objective process or forms of political compliance and legal status of individuals is of course important. The status of women was dramatically changed in the massive territory that was the multinational state system of the Soviet Union. Just the struggle over the veil, was historic and well over 100 million people were at the social and economic conditions of the serf and semi-slave. The status of women cannot be reduced to abortions or simply the transition to industry without talking into account of the fact that most people lived outside the industrial areas and what was being uprooted was ancient feudal social relations. Not some mystical petty bourgeois socialist ideas of emancipation of women. Just the struggle to print books and then shatter the barrier preventing and not encouraging women to read was monumental. Then of course books had to be printed in several languages with preference to technical materials keeping pace with the real advance of industry - THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION, and another conflict arose concerning the weight of literature in Russian. The position of women in the Soviet Union needs to be compared with the position of women in America during the same period and I have in mind the women of the rural South or the black belt, whose social conditions - to a degree, mirrored that of the majority of women in the real Soviet Union and not the fictional and idealized picture in the head of the individual. The sad part of the entire article on Stalin-Trotsky debate is that it was not a Stalin Trotsky debate in the first place. The debate in history was political Leninism versus various socialistic trends and ideology. Trotsky was always outside Bolshevism and recruited into the party in 1917. No one denies his contributions but Lenin and then Stalin fought against his policy statements concerning what to do next. Now our "ML" author section on Women is an affront to the most naive Marxists with a little time under their belt. The starting point on the family and women is always the transition from feudal economic and social relations to industrial relations - with the property relations within. What defines the status of women in the Soviet Union begins (BEGINS) with their relationship to property. This by no means exhaust the question but merely the starting point which is totally absent from the "ML's" presentation. What about Marxism Comrade? Pardon, but I am just figuring out the author, who I thought was an Indian comrade. I did finally read all of the material several times and it is the same junk peddled by the Trotskyists since their radical defeat at the hands of Stalin. MP _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
