: : 1:Transitional demands: This is the idea that if we talk about the minimum wage et al, and get the workers to want it, when they don't get it (As we know they won't, at least not at the levels the trots ask for) then they will obviously turn to socialism. Now, not only is this a decietful tacvtic, and slightly patronising, but it also dosn't work as people have tendancy to go right when the left fails.
: : Further, many trots get stuck into the trap of believeing that the transitional demands are an end in themselves, and give up fighting for proper socialism.
: : 2:Entriism. ANother dishonest ploy- join a grass roots party and try and influence it to adopting transitional demands. A fairly dubious tactic and prone to the problems above.
: : 3:Party structure: The Trots often follow the leninist principle of democratic centralism- ie the central committe tells teh passive membership wht to do, nd any approximation of democracy is just that, and approximation...
: : 4:Socialism in Russia: They all (trots and Lenininists) maintain that socailism occured in Russia at least for a time, which is not true...
: : 5:Leadership- they want to lead the working class, as an exterior group, which I think in itself is inherently flawed....: : Basically its a problem with their behaviour.....
: : Red Deathy
> First of all, historically, you've failed to mention something. Trotsky and
> Lenin were forced to fight a revolution without the full backing of the
> Russian populace but pretty damn close to all.
Then they should not have been leading a revolution- or not a proletarian revolution in an econiomically backward state. Their whole problems came from their idea that they could lead the proles to revolution, rather assist the proles in having their own- according to Lenin the russian proles wouldn't have had a revolution for another 500 years without their help- well perhaps they shouldn't have helped- russia could not sustain a prole revolution, or socialism, and that is how stalinism devloped...
> The Bolsheviks were strongest in the major cities in Russia and had backing
> from the Revolutinary SRs, a group strong in the country-side. This meant a
> majority of the nation supported revolution and a large percentage actually
> participated in it. If they hadn't driven a revolution forward the only other
> alternative would have been Russia being drawn-and-quartered by invading
> imperialist armies or a puppet government being set up by the imperialist
> nations under the leadership of Kerensky.
Perhaps, but Lenin originally wanted a russian nationalist bourgeoise revolition, which is pretty much what they got (Trotsky demanded that the proelatariate be put in charge, but they weren't...) in the end the country was subsumed uner a single imperialist, the USSR....
> As to Trotsky's leadership in Russia instead of Stalin, things would have
> turned out much differently. The most important difference would have been
> the lack of this phenomenon of the Iron Curtain. Trotsky would have made the
> number one issue of foreign policy the constant and relentless attempt to
> empower the working classes of other states to revolt. This would come in the
> way of financial aide, and the opening of Russia to all. Russia would have
> become the least intimidating country in the world to the people of other
> states (to the governments of other states it would be the most intimidating
> country.)
Is this the same Trotsky that wanted to militarise the Unions (brining more power to himself)- this falls for the great man thory of history- Stalin was not alone in building Stalinism, its roots lay in the formations of Leninism....
> As for your attacks on transitional demands your argument is flawed.
> Trotskyists never have any leverage with the establishment,
There were a number of Trotskist MP's in parliament and on city councils in this country several years ago, before the establishment purged them....
> unless through the unions, simply by virtue of what they are. Because of this
> Trotskyists really only have one thing to offer the working class, the
> knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. A ten dollar an hour
> minimum wage is right, destroying the environment in the name of capitalism is > wrong.......
No, no wage is right.. thats the point, soacialism is a moneyless propertyless system, and the tactics of the trots detract from this...
> Incidently what's wrong with a revolutionary vanguard party made up of people
> belonging to the working class? They're just the more politically
> sophisticated members of the working class. When the next revolution rolls
> around everyone in the vast majority working class will join the vanguard
> party until it is a complete representative of the working class.
Because the way the trots and leninists envision it, it is basically a party to lead a coup d'etat- take over, and bring the rest of the people to socialism. Read a trot mag, its full of "There would have been a prole revolution in Brateslavia in 1876, but the leadership of the central union command for higher wages (CUCHW) backed down in the face of the bosses- in 1907 in Lower gaaGooGoo there would have been a prole revolutyion but the leadership of the centralised command council for trade unions (CCCTU) backed down against teh bosses....."ad nauseum...
You cannot lead the revolution- yes there must be a party, with the ideas, and the ovoice, but its must be subordinate to the people, one cannot seize power, one must end it...
Red Deathy
