From: mim3-AT-mim.org
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:58:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: M-G: BEAT BACK THE COUNTEREVOLUTIONARY SABOTEUR AND FBI


Before I comment on Gershom's defense of Trotsky,
I want to say one thing about the Trotskyist campaign
to petition the CP-USA and the University of Virginia
over Godena's moderation of Marxism-International. I will
have nothing to do with that list, but petititioning the
University of Virginia is petitioning the state to control
"Marxism Space." State universities are government-run.

I said:
>If Stalin is guilty of promoting "communism in one country," what can we
>say about Trotsky? Trotskyism can be said to boil down to "abandoning
>socialism in one country." Meanwhile it was the tradition of Lenin,
Stalin
>and Mao that resulted in socialist revolution in several countries --
>Albania, Yugsoslavia, China, the Soviet Union. It was also the tradition
>of Lenin and Stalin making inroads in Eastern Europe, Korea and Vietnam.
>Trotskyism has proved itself nothing but an historical diversion from the
>communist movement.

Gershom said:

Lenin yes. Stalin no. It was the tradition of Stalin that led to the
abdication of Germany and other deformed worker's states as sacrificial
lambs to the wolves of capitalism. And it was Stalinism which eventually
carried through the Russian counter-revolution in order that it's
parasites could pass on their wealth to their children. Revolution in
China took

MIM3 replies: Again, this persyn just does not understand materialism and
how s/he just condemned him/herself. The whole post is FULL of
double-standards--one of action that applies to Stalin and none of action
that applies to Trotsky. 

IF Gershom were interested in a fair appraisal of the question from a
materialist angle, there would need to be another paragraph added in here
about as follows: "The tradition of Trotsky never led to anything in
Germany (though it did result in ceding territory to it at the end of
World War I). It was Trotskyism which split the communist movement and
served as the vanguard of counter-revolution. It did not prevent the
passing of wealth to children of party members crystallized aptly under
Khruschev." (I'm sure 90 % of the Trots and other scum on this list still
does not get it, while the rest of us 10% are liable to go crazy with
them, so I continue below.) 

Gershom said:
place COUNTER to the wishes of the Soviet governemnt at the
time, although it too ended up with a stalinist clique in power. And you
need merely to look at Yugoslavia and Albania today to see what conditions
for the general population arose through their "socialist" governments.
They had socialist


MIM3 replies: To paraphrase the above in MATERALIST fashion:  "Trotskyism
never contributed anything to revolution in Yugoslavia or Albania and so
is responsible for the virulent nationalism and capitalism there today." 

Gershom said:
property forms, yes. But with such a corrupt and
counter-revolutionary bonapartist government, they lacked the benefits
that come from INFORMED central planning. 

MIM3 replies: Trotskyism never carried out "INFORMED central planning
anywhere."

Gershom said:
  As for equating Stalin and Lenin, why is it that under
Stalinist Russia, people never read Lenin? Instead, they read Lenin AS
INTERPRETED BY Stalin.  There was a clear break between Lenin and Stalin
-- a river of blood.  Stalin systematically and purposefully expelled all
of Lenin's supporters from power, and often had them killed. It's crazy to
assert that Stalin is somehow heir to the legacy of such great
revolutionary thinkers as Marx and Lenin. 

[MIM3: Above is simply factually untrue. Read MIM Theory "The Stalin
Issue."]
>If you were serious about this question, though, you would find plenty of
>material already posted in the archives here. You could start by
rebutting
>my post on Trotsky's self-published admissions on aiding Japanese
>intelligence during World War II. None of your plethora of buddies
>who also can't tell the difference between words and
>action rebutted it, ever.

Gershom says:

First, that's simply a personal attack against and individual, not a
political attempt to refute a position. Second, Trotsky was indeed a man
of proper action. He led the Red Army to victory and he founded the
revolutionary fourth international which has carried the torch of
communism for over half a century. Stalin and Mao, on the other hand,
beneath all their lip-service to the working class, carried out
extrordinarily reactionary policies. How to explain the turn to
Nationalism? The repeal,

MIM3 replies:
"How to explain why Trotsky left the party in a minority
huff just when it needed help against would-be nationalist currents and
revisionism? How could Trotskyism be so sterile as not to stop the arising
of fascism in the ex-Soviet Union?" See in the above, not only does
Gershom retreat from responsibility for Trotskyism's lack of proletarian
impact in history (except in one country), s/he even retreats from what
Trotsky did in practice! Trotskyism = Escapism. It constantly attacks
real-world socialism in the name of ideas, not other real-world practices.
In this way, it justifies not committing to the revolutionary movement. 

Gershom continues:
in Russia, of the laws passed which provided free abortion on demand and
ensured complete equality for homosexuals? The thuggism and police-state
tactics used against any who criticized? If you want to talk words and
action, you'd better look at your own hypocrites first.

MIM3 replies:
As we can see, Gershom is still holding up Trotsky as some
mythical upholder of PRINCIPLE against a Stalin of ACTION. No where does
Gershom feel obliged to take responsibility for the world of action. It's
a double-standard from beginning to end. 

Baby-kissing opportunist grand-standing -- that is what Trotskyism is
today. It is nothing more than a contest to write poetry of revolution by
which beautiful sounds condemn real-world actors. You think we
"Stalinists" couldn't write this sort of drivel against you? "Trotsky
didn't create the perfect communist society with no classes, borders or
gender oppression. We can imagine a better society in PRINCIPLE (read
God's Word) than what Trotsky created. Hah, so there." This sort of verbal
one-upmanship is all there is to Trotskyism.  That's why it splinters
endlessly and produces nothing. 

Shoot, a while back there was an anarchist on this list more willing to
consider reality than these Trots. At least he admitted "Stalin got the
job done" and no one else did outside of his tradition. It's a lot easier
to play one-upmanship on PRINCIPLES (word of God/Trotsky) than to actually
COMMIT to action and get concrete things done (Lenin, Stalin and Mao). 







     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---