Re: [OPE] One party state?

Hi Jerry ... what on earth lead you to say

"I don't identify with Trotskyism (for a variety of reasons) but I don't
find it at all
surprising that there are some who identify with this tradition. I'm
surprised that you do." ?????

Who said I did... how on earth did I give that impression???
I certainly never have called myself such... I feel quite pained!

As for the caracature 'Stalinism'.. etc..
I simply don't use these labels, and don't really understand
what people mean by them... its a sort of expletive for many.
Other than that I usually give up wondering at discussions that use
such terms.That is why I ask 'why use Trotskist' today.?.
I can only see that those who use the term as a label are
VERY keen to distance themselves from Lenin. That's about all.

Cheers

paul

If you oppose Stalinism and identify with the 'Old
 Left (and the history of the first three Internationals), it has some
 appeal. Like Maoism, though, I think that ultimately it is part of a
tradition of the authoritarian Left.
----- Original Message -----
From: "GERALD LEVY" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: [OPE] One party state?

>
>
> . In Britain however the one remaining
>> Trotskyist group the SWP has always given a platform to really
>> disgraceful
>> attacks on the Cuban revolution, published pamphlets attacking Chavez,
>> called black youth 'lumpen', never really supported Irish republicanism,
>> (Troops Out was similar in tone and reasoning to the annual 'Daily
>> Mirror'
>> national newspaper calls) was always been stridently anti-Soviet (and of
>> course has been absolutely silent about the disastrous consequences of
>> the
>> collapse of the USSR) and so on.... .It finds itself in a really dificult
>> position now since its beloved labour party really can't be its object of
>> reconciliation for youth...
>
>
> Hi Paul B:
>
> I'm sure that some other Trotskyist groups in Britain would take exception
> to
> your saying that the SWP is the one remaining Trotskyist group, but no
> matter:
> they are all miniscule, irrelevant sects, imo. In any event, what is
> called
> the SWP now, and which used to be called the International Socialists
> (from 1962
> to 1977), believed in a theory of state capitalism. That perspective was
> significantly different from Trotsky's and the majority of what became the
> Fourth International - although there have been debates among Trotskyists
> since the 30's over the question of the character of the USSR (especially
> whether it was a 'degenerated workers' state' or state capitalist). I only
> mention this now so as to put some of the above in context: e.g. they
> claim
> that Cuba is state capitalist (see Bins and Gonzalez "Cuba, Castro, and
> Socialism"). Their analysis of Castro and Castroism seems also to color
> their
> perspective on Chavez and the PSUV. I would say that historically those
> who
> have adopted a state capitalist theory have also tended towards
> sectarianism and have isolated themselves from unfolding revolutionary
> movements.
>
> As for the other questions you mention, this seems to be largely a
> consequence of their perspective on nationalism. They clearly, imo, take
> a position on the relation of nationalism to imperialism which is
> different
> from Lenin's, but I don't want to go into a critical analysis of each
> perspective now other than to say that a miss-guided perspective on the
> relation of different sorts of nationalism to imperialism can lead to
> sectarian (or opportunistic) positions, imo. The SWP's position on these
> matters is significantly different from the perspective of some other
> Trotskyist groups internationally - but that is hardly surprising given
> the fragmented character of international Trotskyism.
>
>
>
>> the fact that organisations
>> actually set them selves up as 'Trotskyist' in the West is the
>> peculiarity..
>> why???
>
>
> Why is there Trotskyism today? Well, because there are still some who
> identify with Trotsky's political perspectives (including support for
> a world-wide revolution [the theory of permanent revolution], opposition
> to Stalinism and social democracy, support for a Leninist-style
> revolutionary
> party [vanguard party; democratic centralism, etc.). I don't identify
> with Trotskyism (for a variety of reasons) but I don't find it at all
> surprising that there are some who identify with this tradition. I'm
> surprised that you do. If you oppose Stalinism and identify with the 'Old
> Left (and the history of the first three Internationals), it has some
> appeal. Like Maoism, though, I think that ultimately it is part of a
> tradition of the authoritarian Left. Whether Marx, or Lenin, or Stalin,
> or Trotsky, or Mao, or Dunayevskaya, or Guevara, et al, most socialists
> today identify with and appeal to _some_ authority - it's just that the
> authorities chosen and the political perspectives they represent are
> different.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Jun 11 08:23:15 2009