Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 15:22:47 -0800
From: iwp.ilo-AT-ix.netcom.com (CEP )
Subject: Re: Critique of Trotskyism-and Trotsky
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu


You(Adam) wrote: 
>
>
>I don't want to get into a long discussion of this, but 
>when Carlos writes :
>
>> I do
>> believe that Trotsky *never* resolved the question of the party
>> building process, democratic centralism, etc.  
>
    I think this is nonsense.
>
>In the "Lessons of October" he writes something like
>"without a party, behind the back of the party, using
>a substitue for the party, there can be no socialist
>revolution".
>
    Carlos:

    Sure, Trotsky understood the question and importance of the
    revolutionary party to achieve a revolutionary victory.  But
    what does that have to do with what I said?

    Adam:
>Not joining the Bolsheviks, he described as "the greatest
>mistake of my life".
>
    Carlos:
    Entirely possible he made that stament (would you please give
    the source?).  But this, again, is not related to my point.

    Adam:

>I think declaring the formation of the fourth international,
>the transitional programme etc, lead to problems at the time
>and later. But they were attempts to break out of the isolation
>his supporters found themselves in, in extremely difficult
>circumstances - what has been described as "the midnight of the
>century". I would describe them as "neccessary mistakes".

    Carlos:

    Uhmmmm .... what mistakes are you talking about here?  Maybe
    the failure of the "block of four"?  Or do you have Isaac
    Deutchscher position on this matter?  .... Curious to know.
    Again, unrelated to the issue at hand, but I will be interested
    in the info.

    Adam:

>When saying things like : "Trotsky *never* resolved the 
>question of the party building process, democratic centralism,"
>, you should bear in mind his role in the foundation of the Comintern.

    Carlos:

    As far as I know the role of Trotsky in the 3rd International was   
    one of writting several of the central theses and documents of the
    fist four congresses and a limited organizational activity.  He
    dealt with the problems of party and party line of about six
    countries (China -- very little besides the documents -, US,        
    Canada, Britain -- and, beleive it or not -- India!)  Again these
    activitites are complete;ly unrelated to my point.

    What I was trying to say -- and maybe I missconstrued my sentences
    or they were a little cryptic -- is that Trotsky *never resolved*
    the theoretical questions around the party building, democratic
    centralism and the utilization of "Leninism" and Leninist           
    organizational structures by Stalinism.  As a result, Trotsky and
    Trotskyism had and still have valuable insights about the           
    degeneration of the State, the raise and explanation of the         
    existence of the bureaucracy, and effective and thorough annalysis
    of the theoretical garbage (revisionism) of Stalinism and some
    general rules and parameters about party building (particularly
    the advise he gave to the US SWP).

    But he never ellaborated or counterposed to the existent "Russian"
    organizational patterns utilized by Stalin, any other oganizational
    theory.  As a result the Trotskyism movement is still embracing
    either menshevik organizational structures (Usec) or copycat,       
    confused organizational structures that resemble a lot those of the
    Stalinist movement.  I'm appalled to the fact, for example, that
    there are Trotskyist parties which still maintain the post of
    the "General Secretary" or that they do no have a theory of party
    buildingin accordance to the different stages of its building.

    Most Trotskyist parties do not differiantate between small org.;
    vanguard and mass revolutionary parties and tend to duplicate
    the Bolshevik model of 1917 in every organization, at every stage
    with whatever size they are working with.  Result: the trotskyist
    movement never could break the barrier of the 20,0000 militant
    (the highest organized gTrotskyist group's figure) on its history.

    Partially, to this fault, Trotskyism could not break the strata
    of simple propaganda groups and lead any revolution or
    compete for leadership anywhere.  The closest we got to it was in
    some examples in Latin America.

    Now, this is what I meant.

    Comradely,
    Carlos


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