PDA

View Full Version : "Nothing dramatic or revolutionary".



RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 09:40 PM
Trotskyites often attack "Stalinists" for being reformists, not revolutionary, etc despite the numerous "Stalinist" revolutions and armed struggles from Greece, Vietnam, Peru, Columbia and Nepal to same some since WWII. Yet Trotskyites in Ireland have stated that they stand for nothing dramatic or revolutionary....What gives?

"I feel the ULA has very common sense policies. When people think of socialists, they think of communism, which is not the case. There is nothing dramatic or revolutionary about our policies. A lot of countries have functioning social democracies, especially in Scandinavia. They have great health, transport and childcare systems. This is the direction we want to take, a direction this Government failed to follow."

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-03-08/reflections-on-the-irish-election

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 09:52 PM
Trotskyites often attack "Stalinists" for being reformists, not revolutionary, etc despite the numerous "Stalinist" revolutions and armed struggles from Greece, Vietnam, Peru, Columbia and Nepal to same some since WWII. Yet Trotskyites in Ireland have stated that they stand for nothing dramatic or revolutionary....What gives?

"I feel the ULA has very common sense policies. When people think of socialists, they think of communism, which is not the case. There is nothing dramatic or revolutionary about our policies. A lot of countries have functioning social democracies, especially in Scandinavia. They have great health, transport and childcare systems. This is the direction we want to take, a direction this Government failed to follow."

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-03-08/reflections-on-the-irish-election

The ULA and SF both put forward candidates essentially on the basis that they would manage capitalism more successfully than the other parties.
As far as I remember, there was mention of nationalisation in their programme, but it was not a programme that required revolution for its implementation.

Do you think any Irish Stalinist party put forward a revolutionary alternative? What was it ?

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 10:00 PM
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/more-from-the-cpi-m-l/

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/the-left-archive-spirit-of-freedom-leaflet-communist-party-of-ireland-marxist-leninist-1987/

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/the-cpi-ml-albania-ireland-and-me/

Well there isnt a Communist Party in Ireland at the moment but this was the nearest thing we had to one....Miles from the ULA!

Sam Lord
25-03-2011, 10:02 PM
Do you think any Irish Stalinist party put forward a revolutionary alternative?

What is a "stalinist" party? There is no such political ideology to my knowledge. Do you mean Marxist-Leninist?

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 10:06 PM
What is a "stalinist" party? There is no such political ideology to my knowledge. Do you mean Marxist-Leninist?

Excellent point...I meant those labeled "Stalinist" by Trots.

Trots accuse Marxist-Leninists and Maoists of being reformists...And than they come out with this? Hypocracy much? :mad:

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 10:15 PM
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/more-from-the-cpi-m-l/

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/the-left-archive-spirit-of-freedom-leaflet-communist-party-of-ireland-marxist-leninist-1987/

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/the-cpi-ml-albania-ireland-and-me/

Well there isnt a Communist Party in Ireland at the moment but this was the nearest thing we had to one....Miles from the ULA!

Any views on Eírígí ?

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 10:19 PM
Excellent point...I meant those labeled "Stalinist" by Trots.

Trots accuse Marxist-Leninists and Maoists of being reformists...And than they come out with this? Hypocracy much? :mad:

What is a "Trot" ?

Sam Lord
25-03-2011, 10:20 PM
What is a "Trot" ?


It is an abbreviation of Trotskyite....:)

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 10:35 PM
Any views on Eírígí ?

Eírígí have a lot of good people in them and supporting them....But the whole thing about "Democratic Socialism" is pretty vague, they havent got much of a programme, however I would rate them much higher than the ULA.

But the topic is that Trotskyites accuse Revolutionary Communists/Marxist-Leninists/Marxist-Leninist-Maoists of being reformist and than they come out with an election programme that doesnt mention socialism or communism. Clearly the ULA is more reformist than the British Labour Party was prior to the ending of clause 4.

Kildare North
25-03-2011, 10:56 PM
ULA are not a party, they are an alliance for everyone left of Labour in an attempt to mobilise a mass left movement. The ULA is NOT a revolutionary socialist organisation. Revolutionary socialist tendencies (SP/SWP etc.) exist within it and independent of it in their own right.

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 10:57 PM
It is an abbreviation of Trotskyite....:)

I believe the correct spelling is Trotskyist.

Perhaps some time you would point me to anything Marxist and/or Leninist in Stalin's oeuvre. I'm open to be convinced. :)

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 11:00 PM
Eírígí have a lot of good people in them and supporting them....But the whole thing about "Democratic Socialism" is pretty vague, they havent got much of a programme, however I would rate them much higher than the ULA.

But the topic is that Trotskyites accuse Revolutionary Communists/Marxist-Leninists/Marxist-Leninist-Maoists of being reformist and than they come out with an election programme that doesnt mention socialism or communism. Clearly the ULA is more reformist than the British Labour Party was prior to the ending of clause 4.

I'm struggling with this, because if as you say the Trotskyist ULA are reformists, of the British Labour Party type, they are not Trotskyists, plain and simple.

There are plenty of so-called Communists of the Stalin variety who have followed the same route.

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 11:19 PM
I'm struggling with this, because if as you say the Trotskyist ULA are reformists, of the British Labour Party type, they are not Trotskyists, plain and simple.

There are plenty of so-called Communists of the Stalin variety who have followed the same route.

They call themselves Trotskyites/Trotskyists. They are represent the largest Trotskyite/Trotskyist organizations in the world.

No party that actually up holds Joseph Stalin has ever been as reformist as the ULA, plain and simple.

Therefore Trots are hypocrites.

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 11:21 PM
I'm struggling with this, because if as you say the Trotskyist ULA are reformists, of the British Labour Party type, they are not Trotskyists, plain and simple.



No the trots in Ireland are worse than the British Labour Party in the 80s and before because at least it held to some form of Socialism in its party programme.

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 11:27 PM
They call themselves Trotskyites/Trotskyists. They are represent the largest Trotskyite/Trotskyist organizations in the world.

No party that actually up holds Joseph Stalin has ever been as reformist as the ULA, plain and simple.

Therefore Trots are hypocrites.

The "actually" is a problem. Who decides ?

I'm interested in looking at the ULA and its programme, but it could be an amalgam of the Beano and Mein Kampf, and that would not tell me anything about how revolutionary, or not, any other movement is.

Sidewinder
25-03-2011, 11:27 PM
How many Trotskyites can dance on the head of a Lenin/Stalinist pin?

Seriously, listen to yourselves. This is complete nonsense.

Until the left stops having entirely theological schisms, and starts dealing with the actual corruption of the world before us, and stops dreaming about some centuries-hence global internationalist socialist utopia where the peasantry have got over their need for nationalism, they ye are going nowhere. And rightly so.

I'm from a Nordie Republican Socialist background and reading this rubbish makes me want to scoop out my eyes with a rusty spoon and spread them on toast.

The ideological rantings of 200-years-dead spoofers and alienated 17-year-old angry teens are not going to overthrow the evil psychotic regime we live under. In fact most of this stuff I view as a cop-out. Sure it's easy to waffle away about some utopian nonsense rather than have to come up with a realistic roadmap from here to there.

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 11:30 PM
The "actually" is a problem. Who decides ?

I'm interested in looking at the ULA and its programme, but it could be an amalgam of the Beano and Mein Kampf, and that would not tell me anything about how revolutionary, or not, any other movement is.

Its not who decides....Im talking about actual parties or organizations that say Joseph Stalin was alright, that he was a genuine Communist..The Communist Party of Ireland havent done that since the 50s for instance. Hence the Communist Party of Ireland-Marxist-Leninist was set up.

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 11:32 PM
How many Trotskyites can dance on the head of a Lenin/Stalinist pin?

Seriously, listen to yourselves. This is complete nonsense.

Until the left stops having entirely theological schisms, and starts dealing with the actual corruption of the world before us, and stops dreaming about some centuries-hence global internationalist socialist utopia where the peasantry have got over their need for nationalism, they ye are going nowhere. And rightly so.

I'm from a Nordie Republican Socialist background and reading this rubbish makes me want to scoop out my eyes with a rusty spoon and spread them on toast.

The ideological rantings of 200-years-dead spoofers and alienated 17-year-old angry teens are not going to overthrow the evil psychotic regime we live under. In fact most of this stuff I view as a cop-out. Sure it's easy to waffle away about some utopian nonsense rather than have to come up with a realistic roadmap from here to there.

I would think that looking at the ULA's programme would be a useful thing to do, in terms of seeing if it does or doesn't provide a roadmap.

But I'm not sure if that's what the OP writer wants to do.

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 11:32 PM
The ideological rantings of 200-years-dead spoofers and alienated 17-year-old angry teens are not going to overthrow the evil psychotic regime we live under. In fact most of this stuff I view as a cop-out. Sure it's easy to waffle away about some utopian nonsense rather than have to come up with a realistic roadmap from here to there.

So what is? The boys with their guns? :confused:

Seriously action without thought is as dead as thought without action.

How can you come up with a realistic road map without learning from the past?

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 11:37 PM
I would think that looking at the ULA's programme would be a useful thing to do, in terms of seeing if it does or doesn't provide a roadmap.



It provides a road map to cushy jobs. Trotskyites have never led a revolution anywhere. After the Poll Tax riot they went of TV to offer to shop people to the police...That is Trotskyism.

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 11:39 PM
There is also the question of where the road leads to. If people are being asked to change a regime, they won't do it without in some way envisaging something Utopian in the sense of very much better than we have now. It doesn't mean necessarily better in the sense of more cash for everyone, but a better society in which people lead more fulfilled and sane lives.

We know it won't be perfect, but if we're not trying for perfection we'll end up with something no better than we have now.

RedSunRising
25-03-2011, 11:39 PM
I would think that looking at the ULA's programme would be a useful thing to do, in terms of seeing if it does or doesn't provide a roadmap.
.

At best the ULA programme is a road to Social-Democracy...But without state power all is illusion and state power is only grasped through armed struggle/revolution.

Griska
26-03-2011, 12:08 AM
The Workers Party was quite Stalinist - Democratic Centralism, hatred of "trots" etc.
(I only use the past tense, as I have no idea what they are like these days).
Any party who openly states that Stalin "was ok" is on a hiding to nothing.

@RedSunRising:
Why is armed struggle the only way forward?
And what is Stalinist about this notion?

RedSunRising
26-03-2011, 12:57 AM
@RedSunRising:
Why is armed struggle the only way forward?
And what is Stalinist about this notion?

The Workers Party certainly had centralism but Im not sure how democratic it was...LOL...Its not necessarily a "Stalinist" notion, and you only have to look around Ireland today with its super managed media and repressive laws, the way that the Trade Unions help capitalists **** people over, etc to see that armed struggle is only the really hope for working people in Ireland...

RedSunRising
26-03-2011, 12:59 AM
The Workers Party sucked up to the state capitalist Stalin hating regime in the USSR...Some Stalinists!

Holly
26-03-2011, 01:15 AM
Regardless of labels, even obsolete historical ones such as Stalinist, Throtskyist, Marxist-Leninist (all utterly discredited), the folly of the far left is believing in these dogmas while ignoring human nature. Politicians everywhere are liable to be corrupt, power-hungry, and concerned primarily with their own interests. Only a system of just laws, efficiently enforced, to keep them answerable to the people can help keep us safe from the harm they cause.

Griska
26-03-2011, 01:17 AM
The Workers Party sucked up to the state capitalist Stalin hating regime in the USSR...Some Stalinists!

The Workers Party sucked up not only to the Soviet Union, but also to North Korea. Money can do funny things to people.

The SWP, a Trot organisation, used to call the USSR "state capitalist".
I see you have some common ground.

RedSunRising
26-03-2011, 01:32 AM
The SWP, a Trot organisation, used to call the USSR "state capitalist".
I see you have some common ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Soviet_economic_reform

But the SWP never explained how Stalin was different from Lenin...:mad:

Kildare North
26-03-2011, 01:35 AM
How many Trotskyites can dance on the head of a Lenin/Stalinist pin?

Seriously, listen to yourselves. This is complete nonsense.

Until the left stops having entirely theological schisms, and starts dealing with the actual corruption of the world before us, and stops dreaming about some centuries-hence global internationalist socialist utopia where the peasantry have got over their need for nationalism, they ye are going nowhere. And rightly so.

I'm from a Nordie Republican Socialist background and reading this rubbish makes me want to scoop out my eyes with a rusty spoon and spread them on toast.

The ideological rantings of 200-years-dead spoofers and alienated 17-year-old angry teens are not going to overthrow the evil psychotic regime we live under. In fact most of this stuff I view as a cop-out. Sure it's easy to waffle away about some utopian nonsense rather than have to come up with a realistic roadmap from here to there.

Spot on. Less rhetoric, more action. (except for the part about nationalism)

RedSunRising
26-03-2011, 02:05 AM
Spot on. Less rhetoric, more action. (except for the part about nationalism)

LOL....We have had plenty of action that has got nowhere!

Kildare North
26-03-2011, 02:11 AM
LOL....We have had plenty of action that has got nowhere!

Keep debating 1920's Russian politics so and see where that gets us...

RedSunRising
26-03-2011, 02:22 AM
Keep debating 1920's Russian politics so and see where that gets us...

Uh the OP was about Irish politics in the last election...:confused:

Kildare North
26-03-2011, 02:24 AM
Uh the OP was about Irish politics in the last election...:confused:

Fair enough, but it seemed to me that the thread had deviated into discussions about Stalinist, Trostskyist and Leninists and various other -ists that have little or no relevance to todays situation.

Seán Ryan
26-03-2011, 06:42 AM
This is a mad thread.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are committed to repeating the mistakes of it. Or something like that.

I love all these antiquated terms: "Leninist," Trotskyites," etc. etc. I must complain that I've not seen the word "proletariat" yet. Such a discussion, it seems to me, must contain that word to fully be an example of the same ole same ole.

In my most assuredly not so humble opinion, to fully understand and appreciate the past, one only needs to understand and appreciate the present. To build a roadmap to the future, one only needs to put one foot in front of the other. And knock the living shíte out of the first person who tries to stop you, metaphorically, intellectually or physically. Repeat as often as necessary...

One can apply one's gift for reasoning and eloquence to the great issues of the past present and the future. We can make up loads of new words to replace the old ones. And we can formulate loads of approaches to utopia, once we've defined it. And that's all lovely. But you'll always end right back at the very simple and self evident road map I've described in the last paragraph. And this leads me to believe that most thought and debate with regard to this particular issue, is not only redundant, it's an outright impediment.

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 09:53 AM
Threads about the history, programmes and theories of the left are always visited by people who don't think these things matter or who are actively opposed to the left. The option is open to them to ignore these threads.

I'm not talking about the issue of what alliances could and should be made on the left. That's an important debate in itself and has been lively on this forum.

Of course we need to learn from the past -otherwise we would still be putting our hands into fire and wondering why it hurts.

The difficulty with this particular thread imo is that the OP writer is trying not only to criticise the ULA but wants to generalise from this to say that this proves that the pro Stalin strand of left politics is revolutionary and Trotskyism is not.

It is a straightforward logical fallacy and its hard to see how the thread can go anywhere because of it.

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Seán Ryan
26-03-2011, 10:38 AM
I both agree and disagree. I agree with the logical fallacy point. I disagree with the idea that because folks have the option to ignore that they should do so. Not quite what you said, but it was politely implied :)

I see the left as always looking for a fight with their friends before they set about their enemies. It's always bothered me. And I'd ignore it at my peril.

I have lots of common interests with most lefties and few common interests with those on the right. To me it's all very simple: These common interests are goals. Achieve the common goals first and then have the inevitable and necessary bloodbath. Not the other and wrong way.

Some say "Revolution!" I say "Evolution!"

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 10:53 AM
I both agree and disagree. I agree with the logical fallacy point. I disagree with the idea that because folks have the option to ignore that they should do so. Not quite what you said, but it was politely implied :)

I see the left as always looking for a fight with their friends before they set about their enemies. It's always bothered me. And I'd ignore it at my peril.

I have lots of common interests with most lefties and few common interests with those on the right. To me it's all very simple: These common interests are goals. Achieve the common goals first and then have the inevitable and necessary bloodbath. Not the other and wrong way.

Some say "Revolution!" I say "Evolution!"

There is no way that people will ignore lol - evrry left debate will always be interspersed with posts saying - why do the Left fight each other. The same question is rarely asked of other political tendencies because of course all political groupings fight like cat and dog not just the left.

What would bother me sometimes is when people seem locked into internal left debate and who don't engage with cross party debate on the main plitical issues of today.

Seán Ryan
26-03-2011, 11:15 AM
There is no way that people will ignore lol - evrry left debate will always be interspersed with posts saying - why do the Left fight each other. The same question is rarely asked of other political tendencies because of course all political groupings fight like cat and dog not just the left.

What would bother me sometimes is when people seem locked into internal left debate and who don't engage with cross party debate on the main plitical issues of today.

I agree there. The infighting on the left is more serious though. The mass of people involved is smaller and we are being actively marginalised all the time. The fights are usually based on the finer points of intricacies. Marginalisation and the difficulty for newbies at getting to grips with these intricacies stops growth. The left has a very bad habit of attracting intellectual types who have as their greatest passion, the repetition and honing of complex arguments that for the most part, have nothing to offer in as far as progress is concerned.

It's like a pride of lions and a streak of tigers running through a herd of antelope to gut and eat each other.

Sam Lord
26-03-2011, 11:42 AM
I believe the correct spelling is Trotskyist.



It's not a misspelling it is a different term for an adherent of Trotsky. "Ite" is used instead of "ist" because "ist" might imply the involvement of a science, i.e. physicist or biologist or chemist.

One of the finer points of left wing discourse for the uninitiated. :)

Sam Lord
26-03-2011, 11:57 AM
I agree there. The infighting on the left is more serious though. The mass of people involved is smaller and we are being actively marginalised all the time. The fights are usually based on the finer points of intricacies.

I think that many people do not realise that the biggest damage to the working class movement historically has been done by those presenting themselves as "left". Look at social democracy for one glaring example or the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. It is a lack of understanding of this that leads people to look at arguments on the "left" as "infighting".

Seán Ryan
26-03-2011, 12:00 PM
It's not a misspelling it is a different term for an adherent of Trotsky. "Ite" is used instead of "ist" because "ist" might imply the involvement of a science, i.e. physicist or biologist or chemist.

One of the finer points of left wing discourse for the uninitiated. :)

:D
I just spilt/spilled my coffee. The mouthful I was enjoying went all over the shop too.

Note to self: See if I can purchase windscreen wipers for my screen...

Seán Ryan
26-03-2011, 12:04 PM
I think that many people do not realise that the biggest damage to the working class movement historically has been done by those presenting themselves as "left". Look at social democracy for one glaring example or the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. It is a lack of understanding of this that leads people to look at arguments on the "left" as "infighting".

Well said. It's the cuckoo phenomena. Look at all the little sticky eggs that the cuckoos laid in Labour's nest.

antiestablishmentarian
26-03-2011, 01:09 PM
Couple of points to make here:

The ULA is not a revolutionary socialist organisation- it is an electoral alliance which hopes to form the nucleus of a new mass workers party which will give workers a voice in political battles. The SP are the only current in the ULA who are revolutionary socialists, PBPA are not and neither are Séamus Healys group, however the SP didn't take a sectarian position towards working with those organisations due to the fact they both contain layers of genuine working class activists and also that there is a need for unity on the left at this moment when we are all under attack from the capitalist class- if you took a look at the manifesto put out by the SP during the election, you would know that they stood on their own programme which called for nationalisation under democratic workers control and for the planning of the economy, as well as on the minimal ULA programme. That doesn't mean there hasn't been or that there won't be disagreement on political positions- there has been and there will continue to be. But to criticise the ULA for not being something which it never claimed to be in the first place is quite frankly bizarre.

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 02:10 PM
It's not a misspelling it is a different term for an adherent of Trotsky. "Ite" is used instead of "ist" because "ist" might imply the involvement of a science, i.e. physicist or biologist or chemist.

One of the finer points of left wing discourse for the uninitiated. :)

So the correct term for the other tendency would be "Stalinite" so.. ;)

My personal view is that name-calling drags down the level of political debate, rather than refines it.

Sam Lord
26-03-2011, 02:36 PM
So the correct term for the other tendency would be "Stalinite" so.. ;)

My personal view is that name-calling drags down the level of political debate, rather than refines it.

There is no such political ideology as "Stalinism", as I have pointed out many times so it does not really apply.

But sure, if you find someone calling themselves a Stalinist feel free to use Stalinite if you wish .... I would not argue with it.

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 02:48 PM
There is no such political ideology as "Stalinism", as I have pointed out many times so it does not really apply.

But sure, if you find someone calling themselves a Stalinist feel free to use Stalinite if you wish .... I would not argue with it.


Stalin and his followers had no political ideology ? Everyone has one. And of course many named political tendencies and groups lack a distinct ideology of their own, but are defined by leadership, time and place. Most of them have an ideology which is a variant on the dominant bourgeois ideology of the day, whether or not they dress it up in left or marxist terminology.

But I won't be descending to abuse;), for the reason given. When I see it, it always makes me suspect that the user isn't able to stand over their position in a more coherent way.

Sam Lord
26-03-2011, 05:15 PM
Stalin and his followers had no political ideology ? Everyone has one.

Of course they did. It was known as Marxism-Leninism. Stalin added nothing to it that would deserve it being renamed in his honour, and not even the most ardent admirer of his would claim that (well I have never come across such a thing anyway).



But I won't be descending to abuse;), for the reason given. When I see it, it always makes me suspect that the user isn't able to stand over their position in a more coherent way.

I'm not sure why you consider Trotskyite a term of abuse. It simply contains a criticism of Trotskyism from the point of view of those who do not agree with it. Seems fairly legitimate to me.

Holly
26-03-2011, 05:25 PM
Of course they did. It was known as Marxism-Leninism. ...

Well, if mass deportations of ethnic groups to Siberia, a police state, gulags and murder by the millions is to be equated with Marxism-Leninism, I for one am glad it is a defunct ideology from the last century.

Sam Lord
26-03-2011, 05:37 PM
Well, if mass deportations of ethnic groups to Siberia, a police state, gulags and murder by the millions is to be equated with Marxism-Leninism, I for one am glad it is a defunct ideology from the last century.

Dream on ....:)

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 07:48 PM
[QUOTE=Sam Lord;133566]Of course they did. It was known as Marxism-Leninism. Stalin added nothing to it that would deserve it being renamed in his honour, and not even the most ardent admirer of his would claim that (well I have never come across such a thing anyway).

Many would say that he took away from it. To lead a workers state for decades and to add or substract nothing from an ideology is not possible. Nothing stands still. And of course, many non-Stalinist parties also claim to be Marxist-Leninist.



I'm not sure why you consider Trotskyite a term of abuse. It simply contains a criticism of Trotskyism from the point of view of those who do not agree with it. Seems fairly legitimate to me.....Semantics ;)


-ite = A suffix denoting one of a party, a sympathizer with or adherent of, and the like, and frequently used in ridicule; as, a Millerite; a Benthamite.

Sam Lord
26-03-2011, 08:16 PM
Many would say that he took away from it.


People say all sorts of things.



To lead a workers state for decades and to add or substract nothing from an ideology is not possible. Nothing stands still.


**Shrug**

I know he did some work on the question of nationalities and also linguistics that are often referred to ... but there is nothing that I know of (in termes on new thesies) that would merit renaming Marxism-Leninist after him or even adding his name to it like the Maoists did with Marxist-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought. I have never heard this claim made.



And of course, many non-Stalinist parties also claim to be Marxist-Leninist.


What exactly do you mean when you refer to a Stalinist party as "Stalinism" is not an ideological trend. The term is, of course, used by the bourgeoise to denote tyrrany and terror but I am sure this is not what you mean.

With regard to "ite" I note that your definition says "frequently used in ridicule". This, of course, does not make it synonymous with ridicule. And, in any case, I'm not sure that ridicule and abuse are the same thing.

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 08:54 PM
People say all sorts of things.



**Shrug**

I know he did some work on the question of nationalities and also linguistics that are often referred to ... but there is nothing that I know of (in termes on new thesies) that would merit renaming Marxism-Leninist after him or even adding his name to it like the Maoists did with Marxist-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought. I have never heard this claim made.

What exactly do you mean when you refer to a Stalinist party as "Stalinism" is not an ideological trend. The term is, of course, used by the bourgeoise to denote tyrrany and terror but I am sure this is not what you mean.


The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

Griska
26-03-2011, 10:16 PM
The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

Yes, the international revolution wasn't for Uncle Joe.

There seems to be an inordinate effort, not just on this issue, to categorise views or positions.
I suspect this practice centres around people's fear of the unfamiliar.

RedSunRising
26-03-2011, 10:24 PM
The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

There is much more a personality cult around Trotsky (which he encouraged, and his overly authoritarian style through out his career is plain for all those who care about the truth, something most followers of Trotsky do not) than there ever was around Stalin. Plus Stalin wasnt a fan of his "personality cult" which arose out of material conditions (a country just coming out of feudalism). Opposition to Stalin at the end of the day is very connected to attitudes towards violence. Read Lenin on guerrilla warfare and than read the likes of the CWI/Socialist Party on it. Just a thought.

No Admirers of Joseph Stalin, whether Maoist, supporters of the line of the Albanian Labour Party or "tankies" refer to themselves as Stalinist.

Sam Lord
26-03-2011, 10:52 PM
The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism.


I don't think anyone really viewed that "theory" as any great new elaboration of Marxism-Leninism. It was a thesis, sure, but it was also a necessity given the failure of proletarian revolution anywhere else in Europe. To me it looked more like a practical question rather than one of theory.



That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

Stalin was well know to have not agreed with the outlandish boosting of his "personality". He was actually a very humble man. So possibly this trait could be accorded the names of those who actually indulged in it.

Why would you frequently use a term, as in "stalinist parties" for example, for which you say there is no accepted definition?

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 11:02 PM
Yes, the international revolution wasn't for Uncle Joe.

There seems to be an inordinate effort, not just on this issue, to categorise views or positions.
I suspect this practice centres around people's fear of the unfamiliar.

What do you have in mind?

This was an answer to a question btw...

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 11:08 PM
There is much more a personality cult around Trotsky (which he encouraged, and his overly authoritarian style through out his career is plain for all those who care about the truth, something most followers of Trotsky do not) than there ever was around Stalin. Plus Stalin wasnt a fan of his "personality cult" which arose out of material conditions (a country just coming out of feudalism). Opposition to Stalin at the end of the day is very connected to attitudes towards violence. Read Lenin on guerrilla warfare and than read the likes of the CWI/Socialist Party on it. Just a thought.

No Admirers of Joseph Stalin, whether Maoist, supporters of the line of the Albanian Labour Party or "tankies" refer to themselves as Stalinist.

I agree that Trotsky set out to foster an image. But the idea that Stalin was immune from this and was powerless to prevent in his own case I dont find at all credible. It was a pattern across CPs generally and I would say also in Trotkyist Parties. I don't view these leaders as victims of this trend. They benefitted from it

Summerday Sands
26-03-2011, 11:20 PM
The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

Certainly one of the most dislikable aspects of the Communist regimes in the 20th century was the whole "personality cult" thing. However Trotskyists were not averse to fostering a cult of the leader around Trotsky. I've heard about British Trotskyists parading Trotskys death mask at party conferences, they also made quite a ballyhoo over Trotskys relatives.

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 11:23 PM
I don't think anyone really viewed that "theory" as any great new elaboration of Marxism-Leninism. It was a thesis, sure, but it was also a necessity given the failure of proletarian revolution anywhere else in Europe. To me it looked more like a practical question rather than one of theory.



Stalin was well know to have not agreed with the outlandish boosting of his "personality". He was actually a very humble man. So possibly this trait could be accorded the names of those who actually indulged in it.

Why would you frequently use a term, as in "stalinist parties" for example, for which you say there is no accepted definition?

Well, in this case I've used the term as it was used by RedSunRising in his/her opening post.

C. Flower
26-03-2011, 11:26 PM
I don't think anyone really viewed that "theory" as any great new elaboration of Marxism-Leninism. It was a thesis, sure, but it was also a necessity given the failure of proletarian revolution anywhere else in Europe. To me it looked more like a practical question rather than one of theory.



Stalin was well know to have not agreed with the outlandish boosting of his "personality". He was actually a very humble man. So possibly this trait could be accorded the names of those who actually indulged in it.

Why would you frequently use a term, as in "stalinist parties" for example, for which you say there is no accepted definition?


Certainly one of the most dislikable aspects of the Communist regimes in the 20th century was the whole "personality cult" thing. However Trotskyists were not averse to fostering a cult of the leader around Trotsky. I've heard about British Trotskyists parading Trotskys death mask at party conferences, they also made quite a ballyhoo over Trotskys relatives.

Our posts crossed. I agree with you about this.

Summerday Sands
26-03-2011, 11:31 PM
Our posts crossed. I agree with you about this.

Yeah C, I noticed your earlier post after I sent mine:):)

unspecific
26-03-2011, 11:32 PM
The ULA is in an open-ended process of being deepened over the coming months. If you were not happy with the state of the electoral pledge/alliance, get involved and argue your case. It is a collection of activists and ideas, not some external/abstract entity. Moments like this come along once every 20 years, don't waste it.

RedSunRising
29-03-2011, 10:53 PM
Certainly one of the most dislikable aspects of the Communist regimes in the 20th century was the whole "personality cult" thing. However Trotskyists were not averse to fostering a cult of the leader around Trotsky. I've heard about British Trotskyists parading Trotskys death mask at party conferences, they also made quite a ballyhoo over Trotskys relatives.

Coming out of feudal societies created severe distortions in the USSR and PRC. No one can deny that...But to compare those to the cult of Trotsky among power seeking middle class, labour aristocrat and declassed elements in the advanced west is crazy!

Come on....The vast majority of Communists are more than happy to say Stalin did this wrong and Mao fucked here, etc or more accurately the CPUSSR and the CPC messed up....Trotskyites paint Trotsky as a living saint and brush under the carpet things such as his advocation of the militarization of labour which included ideas of shooting people if they turned up late for work. Trotsky tried hard to make himself a tryannt and when he failed he turned against the USSR. He ran his "Fourth International" in an extremely dictatorial manner.

C. Flower
29-03-2011, 11:18 PM
Coming out of feudal societies created severe distortions in the USSR and PRC. No one can deny that...But to compare those to the cult of Trotsky among power seeking middle class, labour aristocrat and declassed elements in the advanced west is crazy!

Come on....The vast majority of Communists are more than happy to say Stalin did this wrong and Mao fucked here, etc or more accurately the CPUSSR and the CPC messed up....Trotskyites paint Trotsky as a living saint and brush under the carpet things such as his advocation of the militarization of labour which included ideas of shooting people if they turned up late for work. Trotsky tried hard to make himself a tryannt and when he failed he turned against the USSR. He ran his "Fourth International" in an extremely dictatorial manner.

Lenin of course didn't welcome the split at all, although he could see it coming before he died. Certainly, both Stalin and Trotsky can be portrayed as unlikeable (or likeable) characters, but doesn't that just reduce this most important political division to a personality question ?

And surely, the distortions were not just out of Russia's historical backwardness as a society, but also because of its isolation and it being surrounded by hostile capitalist powers ?

RedSunRising
30-03-2011, 02:51 AM
Well, if mass deportations of ethnic groups to Siberia, a police state, gulags and murder by the millions is to be equated with Marxism-Leninism, I for one am glad it is a defunct ideology from the last century.

The USA has more people in its gulags now per capita by a good bit than were in USSR's gulags during Stalin's leadership.

While Stalin didnt add anything significant to Marxism, he has become a symbol and dividing line that seperates the women from the girls and men from boys. That is something! :)

RedSunRising
30-03-2011, 02:55 AM
Couple of points to make here:

The ULA is not a revolutionary socialist organisation- it is an electoral alliance which hopes to form the nucleus of a new mass workers party which will give workers a voice in political battles. .

So its a social democratic party out to compete with Shame Fein and the Labouring on the golf course party....Ireland has two social democratic parties why does it need another?

What was Trotsky's views on the Popular Front? Anyway your little joke is to the right of the Irish Labour Party in the 80s....LOL!

RedSunRising
30-03-2011, 03:04 AM
Lenin of course didn't welcome the split at all, although he could see it coming before he died. Certainly, both Stalin and Trotsky can be portrayed as unlikeable (or likeable) characters, but doesn't that just reduce this most important political division to a personality question ?

And surely, the distortions were not just out of Russia's historical backwardness as a society, but also because of its isolation and it being surrounded by hostile capitalist powers ?

Second point is true.

As to the first point, Stalin fought against Trotsky's line for proletarian democracy against Trotsky's dictatorial technocratic views, when Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union he quickly became an agent of Imperialism...but the point is that NOW the dividing line between Trotsky and Stalin is that between reform and revolution. If you side with Trotsky over Stalin you are more than probably going to side against any working class violence or armed struggle.

Sam Lord
30-03-2011, 03:05 AM
The USA has more people in its gulags now per capita by a good bit than were in USSR's gulags during Stalin's leadership.



Indeed. I read this somewhere recently. The USA today has a greater proportion of its population incarcerated than the Soviet Union did at the height of the "terror".

It's hilarious that they call it the "land of the free .......":)

C. Flower
30-03-2011, 10:03 AM
Second point is true.

As to the first point, Stalin fought against Trotsky's line for proletarian democracy against Trotsky's dictatorial technocratic views, when Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union he quickly became an agent of Imperialism...but the point is that NOW the dividing line between Trotsky and Stalin is that between reform and revolution. If you side with Trotsky

over Stalin you are more than probably going to side against any working class violence or armed struggle.

What do you base that on?
Trotskyists make the same kind of statements about Stalinism.
Both sides are great at the soundbites.

Then sometimes you find out that they have never read anything by Trotsky /Stalin, which ever they are opposing, and base their view on propoganda tracts.

antiestablishmentarian
30-03-2011, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE]So its a social democratic party out to compete with Shame Fein and the Labouring on the golf course party....Ireland has two social democratic parties why does it need another?

It's not a social-democratic organisation, but neither does it have a developed socialist programme. It is essentially reactive, a party of protest against issues which affect the working class like the cuts, proposed privatisations which has to still put forward a clear programme of alternatives, not the tax-the-rich, 'we won't pay' style sloganeering that it's been engaged in.


What was Trotsky's views on the Popular Front? Anyway your little joke is to the right of the Irish Labour Party in the 80s....LOL

I fail to see the parallel between an electoral alliance composed of different working class left-wing organisations and coalition government with right wing parties which is what the Popular Front entailed, which the ULA have said they will never do. Also, who said I was a member of the ULA? I can objectively analyse it without being a member or supporter. At this moment in time, there is a greater need for unity on the left than ever before, but I have severe doubts that the ULA will put forward a clear alternative programme and I think that it is doomed to repeating the mistakes of the NPA in France.

Garibaldy
30-03-2011, 03:22 PM
[quote=RedSunRising;134389]

It's not a social-democratic organisation, but neither does it have a developed socialist programme. It is essentially reactive, a party of protest against issues which affect the working class like the cuts, proposed privatisations which has to still put forward a clear programme of alternatives, not the tax-the-rich, 'we won't pay' style sloganeering that it's been engaged in.



I fail to see the parallel between an electoral alliance composed of different working class left-wing organisations and coalition government with right wing parties which is what the Popular Front entailed, which the ULA have said they will never do. Also, who said I was a member of the ULA? I can objectively analyse it without being a member or supporter. At this moment in time, there is a greater need for unity on the left than ever before, but I have severe doubts that the ULA will put forward a clear alternative programme and I think that it is doomed to repeating the mistakes of the NPA in France.

What do you see as the mistakes of the NPA, just out of interest?

C. Flower
30-03-2011, 03:28 PM
Indeed. I read this somewhere recently. The USA today has a greater proportion of its population incarcerated than the Soviet Union did at the height of the "terror".

It's hilarious that they call it the "land of the free .......":)


I hope you're not setting this as your benchmark....

Richardbouvet
30-03-2011, 03:56 PM
There is a communist party in Ireland, the CPI. However, they are nowadays locked into a little world of their own based in Connolly Books in temple Bar.

Their main obsession seems to be ensuring that absolutely everything on their web page is in Irish as well as English. Uncle Joe meets Eamon O'Cuiv?

Sam Lord
30-03-2011, 08:23 PM
Their main obsession seems to be ensuring that absolutely everything on their web page is in Irish as well as English.

Not sure if it is their main obsession but it is a great policy, imo.

Sam Lord
30-03-2011, 08:23 PM
I hope you're not setting this as your benchmark....

You might be missing the point.

C. Flower
30-03-2011, 08:50 PM
You might be missing the point.

I don't think so. The proportion of Americans who spend time in jail is unbelievable. People serve very long terms for trivial offences. Effectively, a lot of jails are privatised labour camps.

I was chatting on an Admin board mainly used by Americans and there was a thread asking "Have you been to jail". Plenty had been, and these were smart, tech. happy people. It surprised me that a good number had been in jail in the army - again for trivial behaviour offences.

My point was that I wouldn't view "better than the US" as much of a recommendation in itself, given the above.

RedSunRising
01-04-2011, 04:10 AM
I fail to see the parallel between an electoral alliance composed of different working class left-wing organisations and coalition government with right wing parties which is what the Popular Front entailed, which the ULA have said they will never do. Also, who said I was a member of the ULA? I can objectively analyse it without being a member or supporter. At this moment in time, there is a greater need for unity on the left than ever before, but I have severe doubts that the ULA will put forward a clear alternative programme and I think that it is doomed to repeating the mistakes of the NPA in France.

No it didnt. It was a mistake though, however Trotsky had been advocating basically the same thing expect he called it the "United Front".

The ULA is a social-democratic group, what do you think a social-democratic organization is?

Sam Lord
01-04-2011, 02:21 PM
My point was that I wouldn't view "better than the US" as much of a recommendation in itself, given the above.

I think the point is that people assert that the Soviet Union was a police state that filled the jails with people whereas under capitalism there is freedom. The truth, in fact, is that in the greatest capitalist country on earrth there is a higher proportion of the population incarcerated today than in the Soviet Union at the height of what is described by bourgeois commentators as "the terror".

The point was to highlight this contradiction not to assert that something was good in the Soviet Union simply because it was better than the USA.

Richardbouvet
01-04-2011, 02:36 PM
Or to give that old cold war aphorism:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, its the other way round!

bolshevik
08-04-2011, 02:31 PM
The ULA is in an open-ended process of being deepened over the coming months. If you were not happy with the state of the electoral pledge/alliance, get involved and argue your case. It is a collection of activists and ideas, not some external/abstract entity. Moments like this come along once every 20 years, don't waste it.

Here is my contribution to that process - http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme/

bolshevik
08-04-2011, 02:37 PM
The ULA is not a revolutionary socialist organisation- it is an electoral alliance which hopes to form the nucleus of a new mass workers party which will give workers a voice in political battles. The SP are the only current in the ULA who are revolutionary socialists...

What makes you say the SP are revolutionary socialists when the programme they are presenting to the working class excludes any attempt to argue for the key question of building militant class struggle organisations in opposition to the capitalist state?

This is after-all the key distinction between the politics of reformist socialism and revolutionary socialism.