Date: 15 Mar 96 03:09:14 EST
From: "Chris, London" <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com>
To: marxismlist a <marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: Critique of Trotskyism


This l'st has become so self-disciplined about pointless 
flame wars, and the pace has calmed so much, that so far I 
have only seen Kevin's request on gopher, when I was checking
why I had not got any mail this morning.

It is a fair question, plainly put, without sarcasm or spin 
on the ball. It will have to be faced sooner or later, even 
though there will be no definitive solution.

One or two observations.

I would suggest that even with Kevin's attempt to define
the aspects of Trotskyism he wishes to see clarified, we will 
find that on close examination, just as there are many different
readings of Marx, so are there of Trotsky'ism, (as there are of
"Stalinism" and "Maoism"). It would be best if participants just
state their analysis as to how they see it, without getting 
into a zero sum game that their interpretation is the only one
any sane person is entitled to have.

I would also suggest we just have to be realistic about the 
years of bitterness. Let us assume some denunciations will 
occur, let us take them as read. For example, could we 
acknowledge that someone is going to assert that all supporters
of Trotsky are petty-bourgeois, all supporters of Stalin are 
labour aristocrats, all supporters of Mao have strangely
shining eyes, all Marxists without party affiliation are
Menshevik masturbators, all those with anarchist deviations
are off the wall, and those who compromise with the 
capitalist market, are members of the treacherous intelligentsia
who are agents of the bourgeoisie within the working class 
movement.

I trust I have been a) scrupulously fair, b) concise. If not 
please do not bother to elaborate.

If we can take all this for granted there is nevertheless space for
reexamination. When a big tree falls, the undergrowth shoots up.
The paradox is that the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe has
provided a space for the total reexamination of what Marxism means.

Many are prepared to reapproach this in a new and less dogmatic way.
I note for example, Carl Davidson's reflective post a week or two back.


The book "The Ideas of Leon Trotsky by Ticktin and Cox, which I quoted
last night, appears to be trying to put the *development* of Trotsky's
ideas in a historical context, and includes Trotsky's own self-
criticisms. Without wishing to endorse any of the conclusions in the 
book, which I have only just dipped into, this is surely much closer
to a marxist style of analysis. 

So if anyone dares to respond to Kevin's question, can I suggest
the best frame of mind is to accept that perhaps everyone was wrong at 
one time or another, or to attempt to put it in a more scientific way,
ideas do not exist in abstract and pure form, but are historical products
of their time, and to be used again, must be adapted to the developing
historical conditions as we see them unfolding. Good luck to all of us.


Chris
London.


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