: : I don't understand this scorn for Trotskyists that seems to be floating around. Is the scorn aimed at Trotsky himself or at Trotskyists? : well, both.
: I've read a bit of Trotsky and it's not significantly different from Lenin or Marx as far as I can see. I've also spoken to other
: he's quite different from Marx, but yes, he is in teh same league as Lennin. My basic objection to both is their vanguardist approach- a minority coup d'etat, which will lead the workers to soocialism. My big beef with trotsky is the inherent mendacity and duplicity of his tactics, and the trouble it causes for the rest of the left. Yes his aims may be the same as Marx's, but his means are more than a little dubious. My personal feeling is that if he had become the head of the uSSR instead of Stalin bureaucratic dictatorship would be called Trotskiism, and the hero of the left would be STalin...
: Trotskyists and haven't been able to discern any backwardsness in their arguments. I've talked to those not calling themselves Trotskyists and their arguments are equally valid for the most part. Most socialists I know have also read Trotsky and greatly respect and value his contributions. Understand I'm not including the Spartacists(I don't understand why they are called orthodox Trotskyists at all, they seem to have more in common with Mormons than anything.) Write back, Trotsky bashing just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
: 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 torts 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. 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.
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.)
As for your attacks on transitional demands your argument is flawed. Trotskyists never have any leverage with the establishment, 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, full medical benefits for all is right, descrimination based on sex, age, race or religion is wrong and finally a popular revolution is right. The only role Trotskyists can play at this time is the voice of reason. We have to wait for the rest of the working class to be put in such a poor position that they will be willing to listen to us. But until then we need to work at being in the consciousness of the people as much as possible, that is why we are willing to stick our nose into any group that is interested. Just because our message is a little too radical to be fully embraced today doesn't mean its not listened to. And when the time for revolution comes along the working class will remember who fought for them all those years.
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.
Know the facts before you continue to bad mouth Trotsky.
GlennyRed
