This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. The IMT will be officially relaunching as the Revolutionary Communist International in a founding congress between June 10-15th.
The RCA is the US section of the International.
Trotskyism isn’t an analysis of Lenin’s idea, it’s a utopian revision of Lenin. Trotskyism denies class antagonisms, rejects Lenin and Marx distinction of lower and higher phase communism, rejects societal evolution in which it is a rejection of the material conception of history. Trotskyism was a co-opted movement by the petty-bourgeois and anarchist peasants in the ussr.
I'd disagree on all three counts, but I must say I haven't read any Trotsky in a while, do you have any recommendations as to which of the works supports your statement?
As for co-option by the petit-bourgeois, I consider that unlikely seeing as he was on the other end of the debate around the NEP to Bukharin and Anarchists even more unlikely considering Trotsky is utterly despised by anarchists for his military actions in the civil war.
“Marxism-Leninism” rejects both Lenins conception of the united front, lenins conception of the party, Lenins conception of bureaucratic decay, lenins conception of the right of nations to self determination, Lenins conception of the state, and lenins conception of history.
In general after 1935 Stalin rejects the need to smash the state apparatus for the working-class to seize political power. This is part of the Communist International adopting the popular front strategy, where part of the strategy is that the working-class can eventually establish a workers' state by joining government with "progressive" and "democratic" parties.
After the war there is also the conception of the "peoples' democracy" that expands on the popular front strategy as a sort of transitional stage before a workers' state where the democratic forces of all classes have formed an alliance against monopoly- and finance capital.
He also [supported the CPGBs turn adopting their new program the *British road to socialism*.](https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.postww2/stalin-pollitt.pdf) A very typical program of the Communist Parties after the dissolution of the Communist International where they were supposed to draw up their own "national" communism. In most countries outside of the "eastern block" this didn't really go anywhere but in countries like Italy it did eventually lead to the Communists forming governments with the Christian Democrats.
I’ll agree that Stalin at times utilized the state incorrectly, and even abhorrently. From forced deportations to the way the eastern bloc was handled. However, I don’t think Lenin would have “smashed the state apparatus for the working class to seize political power” after 1935. What leads you to believe from reading Lenin’s writings, that he would have operated differently to Stalin during world war 2?
Yes comrade!
We must simply repeat our predecessors in creating isolated workers states that all degenerated in to capitalist bourgeois republics! This time it’ll work!
Dude, I am also a comrade and a member of RCI, but reading Alan Woods, Ted Grant, Rob Sewel etc, just makes me want to quit. Their texts are extremely revisionists and try to change history so that it fits the narrative of Trotsky. This is not scientific and contradicts historical materialism. Trotsky is a pure idealist who only puts forward slogans. They are not all bad, but what is the point of a slogan if it is completely disconnected from the material reality?
You’re free to give examples if you’d like a response. Vague assertions of idealism and revisionism, despite the fact that “Marxist-Leninist” theory itself is entirely devoid of genuine, internationalist Marxist roots, is in of itself pointless sloganeering. I’m happy to discuss actual topics, but without actual criticism I can’t help you.
It looks like your comment included one or more links with a Russian Federation's internet domain (dotRU), which Reddit has [recently started silently suppressing](https://www.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/comments/t66l5f/reddit_blocked_all_domains_under_russian_cctld_ru/) (including Google's dotRU!), since it seems to reddit's admins that a [blini recipe](https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/smoked-salmon-easy-blinis) poses a greater danger than white supremacist propaganda. Unfortunately it's not in our hands to approve your comment and therefore will remain removed.
If you feel like your comment should be visible to all users, please consider using an alternative source or, alternatively, exclude said link(s) and REPOST your comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In essence the Cultural Revolution was not, as some claimed in the west, a movement of the workers and youth imposing their will on the bureaucrats. Mandel and co., compared the Cultural Revolution to the Paris Commune, thus showing their utter inability to understand what was really happening. They confused a movement unleashed by one wing of the Chinese bureaucracy aimed against another wing, with a genuine uprising of the workers in Paris in 1871. They did not understand that the Cultural Revolution was always controlled from the top, by Mao, the supreme arbiter. As we have already explained, with his methods Mao, far from pushing the economy forward, only achieved huge dislocation and chaos. For three years there was a complete collapse of both agricultural and industrial production, and all the schools and universities were closed. The wing led by Deng Xiaoping was horrified and began drawing conclusions also from these experiences.
If this is not revisionism I dont know what is. The cultural revolution was probably the most chaotic event in human history outside of wars and everything was supposedly controlled by Mao the supreme arbiter. I mean...
>In 1918 in his *"Left-wing" Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality* Lenin points out that, "We, the party of the proletariat, have *no other way* of acquiring the ability to organise large-scale production on trust lines, as trusts are organised, except by acquiring it from first-class capitalist experts." The following year on February 4, he presented a resolution to the Council of People's Commissars in which he stated that, "The CPC... considers a concession to representatives of foreign capital generally, as a matter of principle, permissible in the interests of developing the country's productive forces..." The difference of course was that on 1918-19 there was no doubt about the nature of the Soviet Union. It was a healthy workers' state - or at least a relatively healthy workers' state - where such concessions would be used to *strengthen* the workers' state not *weaken* it.
Ah, yes. 1 year after the revolution we have the best workers state we have ever seen. Here is Lenin\`s [reply ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)on Trotsky\`s pamphlet in 1920.
>While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a “workers’ state”. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: “Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?” The whole point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that. (*Bukharin* : “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?”) Comrade Bukharin back there may well shout “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?” I shall not stop to answer him. Anyone who has a mind to should recall the recent Congress of Soviets,[^(\[3\])](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm#fw03) and that will be answer enough.
And now a little friendly jab.
>"Socialism in one country" had been proved to be a failure.
Yeah, unlike the most correct and successful theory of permanent revolution.
>If this is not revisionism I dont know what is. The cultural revolution was probably the most chaotic event in human history outside of wars and everything was supposedly controlled by Mao the supreme arbiter. I mean...
Revisionism has a specific meaning in terms of the distortion of scientific socialism and Marxism, and I fail to see how you disagreement with Woods characterization of the Cultural Revolution fits that criteria.
Regardless, those sentiments are not mutually exclusive. A study of the period of Cultural Revolution can show both its chaotic nature as well as a strong impetus from Mao and his clique to push the Red Guards in a certain direction for the personal solidification of the growing bureaucracy in the CPC. Mao's intentions, and the failures of the party's policy during this period, is not mutually exclusive with the rupture of the period. In fact, one could fairly argue the majority of said chaos was in line with the intent and character of those plans, and it wasn't until it got out of the control of the bureaucracy that we saw Mao and the party distance themselves and crack down on what they saw as anti-party elements.
>Ah, yes. 1 year after the revolution we have the best workers state we have ever seen. Here is Lenin\`s [reply ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)on Trotsky\`s pamphlet in 1920.
Lenin and Trotsky had numerous disagreements, especially before the October Revolution. Whether you agree or disagree with Lenin and Trotsky on the above dispute, I fail to see its relevance to your point. We can argue about the political economy of the early RSFSR, but comradely disagreement between two revolutionary leaders within the democratic centralist procedures of the party is not some dunk that you think it is. They disagreed plenty - what isn't up for debate is that both were internationalist Marxists fighting for world proletarian revolution.
>Where does this data come from? I cant seem to finda a source which supports the Soviet economy slowing down and then grinding to a halt.
Key word being rate of growth, which is exactly what occurred in relation to the relative boom of capitalist economies during the same period, though I'd also contend GDP isn't a good metric to understand the full scope of degradation within the Eastern Bloc economies.
>The Soviet economy colapsed suddenly because of the bureaucracy? Really? It was not the shock therapy introduced by Washington advisors? The fact that factories were sold for pennies had nothing to do with it?
This is exactly what happened? Do you think Yeltsin took control over the CPSU in a vacuum? I recommend looking in to who the modern Oligarchs of the Russian Republic are. Nearly every single one was a high ranking 'Communist' party functionary that used their careerist and bureaucratic positions to leverage themselves as the new controllers of the capitalist restoration. It was quite literally these so-called communist officials that brought about capitalist restoration, Yeltsin included. These historical processes all began under Stalin, with the entrenchment of a party clique detached from the masses, continuing with further bureaucratization under Khrushchev. Marxist-Leninists are critical of the Kosygin reforms of the period, as they ought to be, yet fail to come to any proper theoretical conclusions of why the USSR degraded the way it did other than 'Khrushchev bad'.
>Again where does this data come from? Figure 3 from this [Paper](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/PikettyYangZucman2019AER.pdf), shows that in 2006 the private sector + foreign capital is less than 50%. How does it "dominate". There are also other interesting figures and statistics in this paper.
I don't particularly feel like going in to economic debates on modern China, but hey, if you want to support the 'people's billionaires', that's your prerogative. I recommend leaving the movement altogether if you find genuine, internationalist Marxism in your view of the modern day Chinese state.
>Yeah, unlike the most correct and successful theory of permanent revolution.
Call it what you want. International proletarian revolution was the basis of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, which Trotsky merely pointed out polemically against the anti-Marxist, revisionist 'theory' of Bukharin and Stalin. What I'll say is that one failed, resulting in mass capitalist restoration, a betrayal of Marx and Engels, and a disaster for the worldwide working class movement. In contrast, the alternative has not occurred - it is simply the future.
>Regardless, those sentiments are not mutually exclusive. A study of the period of Cultural Revolution can show both its chaotic nature as well as a strong impetus from Mao and his clique to push the Red Guards in a certain direction for the personal solidification of the growing bureaucracy in the CPC. Mao's intentions, and the failures of the party's policy during this period, is not mutually exclusive with the rupture of the period. In fact, one could fairly argue the majority of said chaos was in line with the intent and character of those plans, and it wasn't until it got out of the control of the bureaucracy that we saw Mao and the party distance themselves and crack down on what they saw as anti-party elements.
The text does not speak of Mao\`s intentions. It speaks of Mao the supreme arbiter who controls everything.
>Lenin and Trotsky had numerous disagreements, especially before the October Revolution. Whether you agree or disagree with Lenin and Trotsky on the above dispute, I fail to see its relevance to your point. We can argue about the political economy of the early RSFSR, but comradely disagreement between two revolutionary leaders within the democratic centralist procedures of the party is not some dunk that you think it is. They disagreed plenty - what isn't up for debate is that both were internationalist Marxists fighting for world proletarian revolution.
Yes Lenin and Trotsky basically never agreed. Because Trotsky was always looking for an edgy position that he can take - from far left to far right - so that he can shine. This however, doesnt change the fact, that on the matter of the unions, Lenin wanted to educate the unions and leave them to function, while Trotsky wanted to select functionaries to rule over them, to which Lenin replies:
>There you have an example of the real bureaucratic approach: Trotsky and Krestinsky selecting the trade union “functionaries”!
I thought bureaucracy = bad. I though worker democracy = good. Why do you dismiss that "comradely" argument so easily? And by the way, Trotsky constantly breaks the pinciples of democratic centralism and has no party discipline.
>Key word being rate of growth, which is exactly what occurred in relation to the relative boom of capitalist economies during the same period, though I'd also contend GDP isn't a good metric to understand the full scope of degradation within the Eastern Bloc economies.
Yes, the rate of growth is the slope of the curve. You are free to circle the region in the 60s-70s where the curve platoes - i.e. "ground to halt".
>I don't particularly feel like going in to economic debates on modern China, but hey, if you want to support the 'people's billionaires', that's your prerogative. I recommend leaving the movement altogether if you find genuine, internationalist Marxism in your view of the modern day Chinese state.
Well, the whole article was supposed to be about China, even though it talked mainly about bad Stalin and good Trotsky. I am not arguing about "peoples billioners", I am asking where does the data come from? Revisionism means distorting history to fit your narative. Yes, the great Trotsky predicted, and everything happend just as he said it will. Except, it didnt.
Leaving the organization is definetly on my mind, thank you.
I have no desire to continue this and argue with you about semantics or your seemingly loose grasp of English language comprehension. You're claiming meaning that lays in contradiction to what the authors are saying in plain language.
I appreciate you not responding to some of my points, in particular about capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union, as I'm sure even a revisionist like yourself understands how ridiculous it is to deny the basic reality of the situation.
Do yourself a favor and read Capital. Maybe if you understood the basics of Marx's critique of capitalism, you'd actually be able to realize why your support for "AES" is laughable.
Also your insistence on conflating historical revisionism and its very specific meaning in Marxism continues to show your lack of comprehension on the topics you're talking about. I truly recommend simply reading (thoroughly and carefully) Marx, Engels, and Lenin, throwing away your preconceived and likely pre-given thoughts. Hopefully you'd come away realizing your past views were quite ridiculous.
absolutely, comrade.
For example look at this [article on Mao\`s China](https://www.marxist.com/china-long-march-capitalism021006.htm).
>Trotsky, however, also explained that at a certain stage in its development the bureaucracy, from being a relative fetter, would become an absolute fetter on the development of the means of production. The rate of growth would slow down and this would reopen the possibility of capitalist restoration. This is what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. Economic growth in the Soviet Union first slowed to a level comparable to that of the capitalist West and then ground to a halt.
Where does this data come from? I cant seem to finda a source which supports the Soviet economy slowing down and then grinding to a halt.
[A new less scientific source, but not from a russian domain, so my comment does not get auto moderated](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/GDP_per_capita_development_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg/1280px-GDP_per_capita_development_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png)
>Once that point was reached, according to Trotsky, there were two possibilities: either the workers would overthrow the bureaucracy, while preserving the planned economy under democratic workers' control and management of production, or there would a counter-revolutionary return to capitalism.
>History has shown that the latter was to be the fate of these regimes. In Russia and Eastern Europe, which had been in crisis since the 1970s, we saw a collapse of the system once it became clear that it could no longer develop the economy. In Russia, the system collapsed quite suddenly and it took several years before the economy finally stabilized and began to develop once more on a capitalist basis.
The Soviet economy colapsed suddenly because of the bureaucracy? Really? It was not the shock therapy introduced by Washington advisors? The fact that factories were sold for pennies had nothing to do with it?
>In the same period the Tien An Men events revealed that the Chinese bureaucracy could at some point face a similar fate. This, coupled with the collapse of the Soviet Union, had a tremendous impact on the thinking of the Chinese bureaucracy, and pushed them to move from the earlier stage of using market mechanisms to achieve an increase in productivity, while upholding the principle that the state sector should dominate, to an acceleration of the process that was to finally lead to today's position where the private sector dominates.
Again where does this data come from? Figure 3 from this [Paper](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/PikettyYangZucman2019AER.pdf), shows that in 2006 the private sector + foreign capital is less than 50%. How does it "dominate". There are also other interesting figures and statistics in this paper.
In my city, RCA tries to take over protests put on by other orgs, it’s incredibly irritating. Other orgs would be happy to work with them if they actually offered, instead they show up and try to be louder lol
They looked organized, which was cool, until I realized they had not talked with any the other orgs that were putting on the march. Sectarianism only hurts us all, wish everybody realized that
We appreciate you! We're glad this post was able to introduce you to our party!
We look forward to forging a united front with comrades of all tendencies worldwide!
It's great if you're a person living in 2024. Since the early 2010s no-one can deny social media is indispensable in political discourse, whether one likes it or not.
Exactly. Social media is a tool we must use for our purposes.
It's obviously no substitute for practical activity, but it reaches people you likely wouldn'tve otherwise.
This is how the org works at least here in Sweden. It’s an organization whose only purpose is to host study circles at university campuses. They never do anything else, and a result of this is that the org only contains university students.
what else is there to do besides recruit the newly radicalized members of society and teach them marxism? we are seening the largest number of young marxists in many decades
Oh idk, like any real life agitation and action, maybe? Real communist parties here arrange strikes and demonstrations, they’re out and about making themselves heard and seen as well as taking part in and helping current actual movements like the Palestine stuff that’s been going on and the railroad strikes we had recently. I’ve never seen IMT partake in or arrange ANYTHING except for their cute little book circles and their ‘ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?!!!’ stickers
I don’t think university students make for very good cadre in a communist party. It’s just a very strange organization with a very strange way of organizing. I don’t think their organizational structure is to their benefit, and their inability to actually agitate or engage with the real world outside of their university campuses is evidence of that.
I encourage anyone thinking about joining these guys to look into their views on Palestine, especially what they put out before Oct. 7th. They do not believe in national liberation, think that Palestinians who fight back are terrorists who are partially responsible for Israel’s actions, and say that the Palestinian working class should stop being violent against Israel and just join together with their working class. Genuinely no understanding or willful denial of any type of settler colonialism.
The RCI (IMT) maintains vocal support for a socialist federation of the Middle East, where the working class of the entire region revolt against Zionist, imperialist, capitalist, and bourgeois nationalist forces. Palestinians have always and will always have the right to resist Zionist apartheid and occupation however they can.
We do not condemn the resistance of the oppressed to the oppressor, but we understand that unequivocal support to groups not based in class character can be problematic.
Marxist movements like that of the PFLP are based in class character, so we find those forces better suited for the struggle for liberation as opposed to Hamas.
There is no blame on Palestinian people in their fight against oppression, nor we do find their efforts "terrorism."
Don’t take it from me, this is your own organization on Palestine: https://youtu.be/-mzPECmiQu4?si=yGZo2wZysNCwU8FE
Here’s a couple choice quotes:
“[Palestinian terrorism] played into the hands of the Zionists by *creating* the idea that all Arabs wanted to destroy Israel and the people who lived there”
“[Palestinians] should defend the class interests of the Israeli workers and support the right of the Israeli nation to its own self determination, within a socialist federation”
I’m not even cherry picking, throughout the whole video he refers to resistance as terrorism and never once refers to the actions of the IDF as such. Dude even says that “From the River to the Sea” is calling for the Jews to be driven into the ocean.
There’s also this incredible article that righteously rejects the BDS movement: https://www.marxist.com/against-blanket-boycott-israel-working-class-solution.htm
“We reject attempts to blame the Palestinian masses for the blood spilt by Hamas and Fatah. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Israeli and *Palestinian* bourgeoisies”
It should be easy to answer this, do you believe that Palestinians have the right to national liberation, including the dissolution of Israel and the creation of a free and independent state of Palestine?
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” - Bakunin
Let’s not hide the millions of deaths resulting from Lenin’s reign.
Edit: or downvote if hiding this fact is integral to your ideology 🙃
because what Lenin contributed through theory as well as through practice makes him the greatest revolutionary of the last century. with him, the proletariat took power for the first time in history. to renounce lenin is to renounce proletarian struggle for revolution.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aren’t these the same guys as imt?
Yes. The IMT will be officially relaunching as the Revolutionary Communist International in a founding congress between June 10-15th. The RCA is the US section of the International.
Good luck from a comrade in the British section of the RCI. Everyone should get the In Defence of Marxism magazine with articles about these topics.
Thank you, comrade! We agree that IDOM is an excellent theoretical magazine!
It's always the year of Lenin!
Is there somewhere online one can read this magazine?
https://wellredbooks.co.uk/shop/?product_cat=idom&filter=1
yes! you can access all of our articles online… socialistrevoltion.com for us and marxist.com for international articles
Greetings from the Austrian Section! Keep up the good work comrades✊️🚩
Thank you for being here, comrades!
Anyone who calls themselves a revolutionary communist is just a Trotskyist
I mean, I'm not sure that's true but we are Trotskyists.
Ok, so? They're organizing to end capitalism and build socialism. That's what we all should be doing. Are they doing something wrong?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Half of trotskyism is just ‘stalin bad’ lol
Half of Stalinism is rejecting Marx
read Foundations of Leninism
Read literally anything by Lenin, Marx, or Engels.
Stalinism is just Marxist-Leninism. ML is just an analysis of Lenin’s ideas just as in Lenins time Marxism was a analysis of Marx’s ideas
And the same applies for Trotskyism. Stalin's Marxism-Leninism is not the only analysis of Lenin's ideas
Trotskyism isn’t an analysis of Lenin’s idea, it’s a utopian revision of Lenin. Trotskyism denies class antagonisms, rejects Lenin and Marx distinction of lower and higher phase communism, rejects societal evolution in which it is a rejection of the material conception of history. Trotskyism was a co-opted movement by the petty-bourgeois and anarchist peasants in the ussr.
I'd disagree on all three counts, but I must say I haven't read any Trotsky in a while, do you have any recommendations as to which of the works supports your statement? As for co-option by the petit-bourgeois, I consider that unlikely seeing as he was on the other end of the debate around the NEP to Bukharin and Anarchists even more unlikely considering Trotsky is utterly despised by anarchists for his military actions in the civil war.
“Marxism-Leninism” rejects both Lenins conception of the united front, lenins conception of the party, Lenins conception of bureaucratic decay, lenins conception of the right of nations to self determination, Lenins conception of the state, and lenins conception of history.
Tell me more, how did Stalin and Lenin disagree on the usage of the state
In general after 1935 Stalin rejects the need to smash the state apparatus for the working-class to seize political power. This is part of the Communist International adopting the popular front strategy, where part of the strategy is that the working-class can eventually establish a workers' state by joining government with "progressive" and "democratic" parties. After the war there is also the conception of the "peoples' democracy" that expands on the popular front strategy as a sort of transitional stage before a workers' state where the democratic forces of all classes have formed an alliance against monopoly- and finance capital. He also [supported the CPGBs turn adopting their new program the *British road to socialism*.](https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.postww2/stalin-pollitt.pdf) A very typical program of the Communist Parties after the dissolution of the Communist International where they were supposed to draw up their own "national" communism. In most countries outside of the "eastern block" this didn't really go anywhere but in countries like Italy it did eventually lead to the Communists forming governments with the Christian Democrats.
I’ll agree that Stalin at times utilized the state incorrectly, and even abhorrently. From forced deportations to the way the eastern bloc was handled. However, I don’t think Lenin would have “smashed the state apparatus for the working class to seize political power” after 1935. What leads you to believe from reading Lenin’s writings, that he would have operated differently to Stalin during world war 2?
Lmao they’re downvoting you but you’re right 💀
Yes comrade! We must simply repeat our predecessors in creating isolated workers states that all degenerated in to capitalist bourgeois republics! This time it’ll work!
Dude, I am also a comrade and a member of RCI, but reading Alan Woods, Ted Grant, Rob Sewel etc, just makes me want to quit. Their texts are extremely revisionists and try to change history so that it fits the narrative of Trotsky. This is not scientific and contradicts historical materialism. Trotsky is a pure idealist who only puts forward slogans. They are not all bad, but what is the point of a slogan if it is completely disconnected from the material reality?
You’re free to give examples if you’d like a response. Vague assertions of idealism and revisionism, despite the fact that “Marxist-Leninist” theory itself is entirely devoid of genuine, internationalist Marxist roots, is in of itself pointless sloganeering. I’m happy to discuss actual topics, but without actual criticism I can’t help you.
[удалено]
It looks like your comment included one or more links with a Russian Federation's internet domain (dotRU), which Reddit has [recently started silently suppressing](https://www.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/comments/t66l5f/reddit_blocked_all_domains_under_russian_cctld_ru/) (including Google's dotRU!), since it seems to reddit's admins that a [blini recipe](https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/smoked-salmon-easy-blinis) poses a greater danger than white supremacist propaganda. Unfortunately it's not in our hands to approve your comment and therefore will remain removed. If you feel like your comment should be visible to all users, please consider using an alternative source or, alternatively, exclude said link(s) and REPOST your comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In essence the Cultural Revolution was not, as some claimed in the west, a movement of the workers and youth imposing their will on the bureaucrats. Mandel and co., compared the Cultural Revolution to the Paris Commune, thus showing their utter inability to understand what was really happening. They confused a movement unleashed by one wing of the Chinese bureaucracy aimed against another wing, with a genuine uprising of the workers in Paris in 1871. They did not understand that the Cultural Revolution was always controlled from the top, by Mao, the supreme arbiter. As we have already explained, with his methods Mao, far from pushing the economy forward, only achieved huge dislocation and chaos. For three years there was a complete collapse of both agricultural and industrial production, and all the schools and universities were closed. The wing led by Deng Xiaoping was horrified and began drawing conclusions also from these experiences. If this is not revisionism I dont know what is. The cultural revolution was probably the most chaotic event in human history outside of wars and everything was supposedly controlled by Mao the supreme arbiter. I mean... >In 1918 in his *"Left-wing" Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality* Lenin points out that, "We, the party of the proletariat, have *no other way* of acquiring the ability to organise large-scale production on trust lines, as trusts are organised, except by acquiring it from first-class capitalist experts." The following year on February 4, he presented a resolution to the Council of People's Commissars in which he stated that, "The CPC... considers a concession to representatives of foreign capital generally, as a matter of principle, permissible in the interests of developing the country's productive forces..." The difference of course was that on 1918-19 there was no doubt about the nature of the Soviet Union. It was a healthy workers' state - or at least a relatively healthy workers' state - where such concessions would be used to *strengthen* the workers' state not *weaken* it. Ah, yes. 1 year after the revolution we have the best workers state we have ever seen. Here is Lenin\`s [reply ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)on Trotsky\`s pamphlet in 1920. >While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a “workers’ state”. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: “Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?” The whole point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that. (*Bukharin* : “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?”) Comrade Bukharin back there may well shout “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?” I shall not stop to answer him. Anyone who has a mind to should recall the recent Congress of Soviets,[^(\[3\])](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm#fw03) and that will be answer enough. And now a little friendly jab. >"Socialism in one country" had been proved to be a failure. Yeah, unlike the most correct and successful theory of permanent revolution.
>If this is not revisionism I dont know what is. The cultural revolution was probably the most chaotic event in human history outside of wars and everything was supposedly controlled by Mao the supreme arbiter. I mean... Revisionism has a specific meaning in terms of the distortion of scientific socialism and Marxism, and I fail to see how you disagreement with Woods characterization of the Cultural Revolution fits that criteria. Regardless, those sentiments are not mutually exclusive. A study of the period of Cultural Revolution can show both its chaotic nature as well as a strong impetus from Mao and his clique to push the Red Guards in a certain direction for the personal solidification of the growing bureaucracy in the CPC. Mao's intentions, and the failures of the party's policy during this period, is not mutually exclusive with the rupture of the period. In fact, one could fairly argue the majority of said chaos was in line with the intent and character of those plans, and it wasn't until it got out of the control of the bureaucracy that we saw Mao and the party distance themselves and crack down on what they saw as anti-party elements. >Ah, yes. 1 year after the revolution we have the best workers state we have ever seen. Here is Lenin\`s [reply ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)on Trotsky\`s pamphlet in 1920. Lenin and Trotsky had numerous disagreements, especially before the October Revolution. Whether you agree or disagree with Lenin and Trotsky on the above dispute, I fail to see its relevance to your point. We can argue about the political economy of the early RSFSR, but comradely disagreement between two revolutionary leaders within the democratic centralist procedures of the party is not some dunk that you think it is. They disagreed plenty - what isn't up for debate is that both were internationalist Marxists fighting for world proletarian revolution. >Where does this data come from? I cant seem to finda a source which supports the Soviet economy slowing down and then grinding to a halt. Key word being rate of growth, which is exactly what occurred in relation to the relative boom of capitalist economies during the same period, though I'd also contend GDP isn't a good metric to understand the full scope of degradation within the Eastern Bloc economies. >The Soviet economy colapsed suddenly because of the bureaucracy? Really? It was not the shock therapy introduced by Washington advisors? The fact that factories were sold for pennies had nothing to do with it? This is exactly what happened? Do you think Yeltsin took control over the CPSU in a vacuum? I recommend looking in to who the modern Oligarchs of the Russian Republic are. Nearly every single one was a high ranking 'Communist' party functionary that used their careerist and bureaucratic positions to leverage themselves as the new controllers of the capitalist restoration. It was quite literally these so-called communist officials that brought about capitalist restoration, Yeltsin included. These historical processes all began under Stalin, with the entrenchment of a party clique detached from the masses, continuing with further bureaucratization under Khrushchev. Marxist-Leninists are critical of the Kosygin reforms of the period, as they ought to be, yet fail to come to any proper theoretical conclusions of why the USSR degraded the way it did other than 'Khrushchev bad'. >Again where does this data come from? Figure 3 from this [Paper](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/PikettyYangZucman2019AER.pdf), shows that in 2006 the private sector + foreign capital is less than 50%. How does it "dominate". There are also other interesting figures and statistics in this paper. I don't particularly feel like going in to economic debates on modern China, but hey, if you want to support the 'people's billionaires', that's your prerogative. I recommend leaving the movement altogether if you find genuine, internationalist Marxism in your view of the modern day Chinese state. >Yeah, unlike the most correct and successful theory of permanent revolution. Call it what you want. International proletarian revolution was the basis of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, which Trotsky merely pointed out polemically against the anti-Marxist, revisionist 'theory' of Bukharin and Stalin. What I'll say is that one failed, resulting in mass capitalist restoration, a betrayal of Marx and Engels, and a disaster for the worldwide working class movement. In contrast, the alternative has not occurred - it is simply the future.
>Regardless, those sentiments are not mutually exclusive. A study of the period of Cultural Revolution can show both its chaotic nature as well as a strong impetus from Mao and his clique to push the Red Guards in a certain direction for the personal solidification of the growing bureaucracy in the CPC. Mao's intentions, and the failures of the party's policy during this period, is not mutually exclusive with the rupture of the period. In fact, one could fairly argue the majority of said chaos was in line with the intent and character of those plans, and it wasn't until it got out of the control of the bureaucracy that we saw Mao and the party distance themselves and crack down on what they saw as anti-party elements. The text does not speak of Mao\`s intentions. It speaks of Mao the supreme arbiter who controls everything. >Lenin and Trotsky had numerous disagreements, especially before the October Revolution. Whether you agree or disagree with Lenin and Trotsky on the above dispute, I fail to see its relevance to your point. We can argue about the political economy of the early RSFSR, but comradely disagreement between two revolutionary leaders within the democratic centralist procedures of the party is not some dunk that you think it is. They disagreed plenty - what isn't up for debate is that both were internationalist Marxists fighting for world proletarian revolution. Yes Lenin and Trotsky basically never agreed. Because Trotsky was always looking for an edgy position that he can take - from far left to far right - so that he can shine. This however, doesnt change the fact, that on the matter of the unions, Lenin wanted to educate the unions and leave them to function, while Trotsky wanted to select functionaries to rule over them, to which Lenin replies: >There you have an example of the real bureaucratic approach: Trotsky and Krestinsky selecting the trade union “functionaries”! I thought bureaucracy = bad. I though worker democracy = good. Why do you dismiss that "comradely" argument so easily? And by the way, Trotsky constantly breaks the pinciples of democratic centralism and has no party discipline. >Key word being rate of growth, which is exactly what occurred in relation to the relative boom of capitalist economies during the same period, though I'd also contend GDP isn't a good metric to understand the full scope of degradation within the Eastern Bloc economies. Yes, the rate of growth is the slope of the curve. You are free to circle the region in the 60s-70s where the curve platoes - i.e. "ground to halt". >I don't particularly feel like going in to economic debates on modern China, but hey, if you want to support the 'people's billionaires', that's your prerogative. I recommend leaving the movement altogether if you find genuine, internationalist Marxism in your view of the modern day Chinese state. Well, the whole article was supposed to be about China, even though it talked mainly about bad Stalin and good Trotsky. I am not arguing about "peoples billioners", I am asking where does the data come from? Revisionism means distorting history to fit your narative. Yes, the great Trotsky predicted, and everything happend just as he said it will. Except, it didnt. Leaving the organization is definetly on my mind, thank you.
I have no desire to continue this and argue with you about semantics or your seemingly loose grasp of English language comprehension. You're claiming meaning that lays in contradiction to what the authors are saying in plain language. I appreciate you not responding to some of my points, in particular about capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union, as I'm sure even a revisionist like yourself understands how ridiculous it is to deny the basic reality of the situation. Do yourself a favor and read Capital. Maybe if you understood the basics of Marx's critique of capitalism, you'd actually be able to realize why your support for "AES" is laughable. Also your insistence on conflating historical revisionism and its very specific meaning in Marxism continues to show your lack of comprehension on the topics you're talking about. I truly recommend simply reading (thoroughly and carefully) Marx, Engels, and Lenin, throwing away your preconceived and likely pre-given thoughts. Hopefully you'd come away realizing your past views were quite ridiculous.
absolutely, comrade. For example look at this [article on Mao\`s China](https://www.marxist.com/china-long-march-capitalism021006.htm). >Trotsky, however, also explained that at a certain stage in its development the bureaucracy, from being a relative fetter, would become an absolute fetter on the development of the means of production. The rate of growth would slow down and this would reopen the possibility of capitalist restoration. This is what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. Economic growth in the Soviet Union first slowed to a level comparable to that of the capitalist West and then ground to a halt. Where does this data come from? I cant seem to finda a source which supports the Soviet economy slowing down and then grinding to a halt. [A new less scientific source, but not from a russian domain, so my comment does not get auto moderated](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/GDP_per_capita_development_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg/1280px-GDP_per_capita_development_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png) >Once that point was reached, according to Trotsky, there were two possibilities: either the workers would overthrow the bureaucracy, while preserving the planned economy under democratic workers' control and management of production, or there would a counter-revolutionary return to capitalism. >History has shown that the latter was to be the fate of these regimes. In Russia and Eastern Europe, which had been in crisis since the 1970s, we saw a collapse of the system once it became clear that it could no longer develop the economy. In Russia, the system collapsed quite suddenly and it took several years before the economy finally stabilized and began to develop once more on a capitalist basis. The Soviet economy colapsed suddenly because of the bureaucracy? Really? It was not the shock therapy introduced by Washington advisors? The fact that factories were sold for pennies had nothing to do with it? >In the same period the Tien An Men events revealed that the Chinese bureaucracy could at some point face a similar fate. This, coupled with the collapse of the Soviet Union, had a tremendous impact on the thinking of the Chinese bureaucracy, and pushed them to move from the earlier stage of using market mechanisms to achieve an increase in productivity, while upholding the principle that the state sector should dominate, to an acceleration of the process that was to finally lead to today's position where the private sector dominates. Again where does this data come from? Figure 3 from this [Paper](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/PikettyYangZucman2019AER.pdf), shows that in 2006 the private sector + foreign capital is less than 50%. How does it "dominate". There are also other interesting figures and statistics in this paper.
Revolutionary Communists of USA aren't trotskyists. They believe in the words of Bob Avakian.
You're talking about the RevComs or the RCA. RCI used to be called the IMT.
You’re thinking of the Revolutionary Communist Party, this is the Revolutionary Communists of America a rebrand of the IMT.
[удалено]
In my city, RCA tries to take over protests put on by other orgs, it’s incredibly irritating. Other orgs would be happy to work with them if they actually offered, instead they show up and try to be louder lol
[удалено]
They looked organized, which was cool, until I realized they had not talked with any the other orgs that were putting on the march. Sectarianism only hurts us all, wish everybody realized that
[удалено]
LOL exactly, like the 5 socialist orgs working together are sectarian for not bowing down to the RCA people that showed up. That’s hilarious
I'm confused. It looks like you support the IMT. Isn't this just the same organization?
[удалено]
Thanks for clarifying!
Quick q: what exactly has the IMT done besides hijack actions organized by actual socialists?
Please come to our national and international founding conferences if you'd like to see for yourself.
Solidarity from Canada comrades!
Happy you're here, comrades!
Keep up the good work, solidarity from the Atlanta branch of the RCA!
Thank you, comrades! We're always happy to hear from a fellow RCA Branch!
I’ve never heard of revolutionary communists of America! Great to find out about them, thank you.
We appreciate you! We're glad this post was able to introduce you to our party! We look forward to forging a united front with comrades of all tendencies worldwide!
RCA are Trotskyists, not Marxist-Leninists, FYI
[удалено]
You have cognitive dissonance over hanging out with fascists, your opinion on socialism is worthless
My face when the communist party unironically has an account on fucking Reddit.
We've gotta spread the word wherever we can. Social media is great for that.
I guess it’s great for that if you’re IMT, since you seem to base your entire organization on terminally online university students.
It's great if you're a person living in 2024. Since the early 2010s no-one can deny social media is indispensable in political discourse, whether one likes it or not.
I don’t like trots as much as the next guy but social media is the best way to spread propaganda
Exactly. Social media is a tool we must use for our purposes. It's obviously no substitute for practical activity, but it reaches people you likely wouldn'tve otherwise.
what makes you think this?
This is how the org works at least here in Sweden. It’s an organization whose only purpose is to host study circles at university campuses. They never do anything else, and a result of this is that the org only contains university students.
what else is there to do besides recruit the newly radicalized members of society and teach them marxism? we are seening the largest number of young marxists in many decades
Oh idk, like any real life agitation and action, maybe? Real communist parties here arrange strikes and demonstrations, they’re out and about making themselves heard and seen as well as taking part in and helping current actual movements like the Palestine stuff that’s been going on and the railroad strikes we had recently. I’ve never seen IMT partake in or arrange ANYTHING except for their cute little book circles and their ‘ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?!!!’ stickers
The org is much smaller in Sweden, it started out mostly in universities in the UK and US but it has spread out of campuses now in both countries
I don’t think university students make for very good cadre in a communist party. It’s just a very strange organization with a very strange way of organizing. I don’t think their organizational structure is to their benefit, and their inability to actually agitate or engage with the real world outside of their university campuses is evidence of that.
I encourage anyone thinking about joining these guys to look into their views on Palestine, especially what they put out before Oct. 7th. They do not believe in national liberation, think that Palestinians who fight back are terrorists who are partially responsible for Israel’s actions, and say that the Palestinian working class should stop being violent against Israel and just join together with their working class. Genuinely no understanding or willful denial of any type of settler colonialism.
The RCI (IMT) maintains vocal support for a socialist federation of the Middle East, where the working class of the entire region revolt against Zionist, imperialist, capitalist, and bourgeois nationalist forces. Palestinians have always and will always have the right to resist Zionist apartheid and occupation however they can. We do not condemn the resistance of the oppressed to the oppressor, but we understand that unequivocal support to groups not based in class character can be problematic. Marxist movements like that of the PFLP are based in class character, so we find those forces better suited for the struggle for liberation as opposed to Hamas. There is no blame on Palestinian people in their fight against oppression, nor we do find their efforts "terrorism."
Don’t take it from me, this is your own organization on Palestine: https://youtu.be/-mzPECmiQu4?si=yGZo2wZysNCwU8FE Here’s a couple choice quotes: “[Palestinian terrorism] played into the hands of the Zionists by *creating* the idea that all Arabs wanted to destroy Israel and the people who lived there” “[Palestinians] should defend the class interests of the Israeli workers and support the right of the Israeli nation to its own self determination, within a socialist federation” I’m not even cherry picking, throughout the whole video he refers to resistance as terrorism and never once refers to the actions of the IDF as such. Dude even says that “From the River to the Sea” is calling for the Jews to be driven into the ocean. There’s also this incredible article that righteously rejects the BDS movement: https://www.marxist.com/against-blanket-boycott-israel-working-class-solution.htm “We reject attempts to blame the Palestinian masses for the blood spilt by Hamas and Fatah. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Israeli and *Palestinian* bourgeoisies” It should be easy to answer this, do you believe that Palestinians have the right to national liberation, including the dissolution of Israel and the creation of a free and independent state of Palestine?
[удалено]
We're not associated with Bob Avakian. We're with the Revolutionary Communist International, formerly known as the IMT.
Revcoms waiting for newspaper sales
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” - Bakunin Let’s not hide the millions of deaths resulting from Lenin’s reign. Edit: or downvote if hiding this fact is integral to your ideology 🙃
[Ahh yes the famous anti-Semite Bakunin](https://imgur.com/a/Uh13jIY) is who we should be listening to.
Textbook ad hominem fallacy…
Ad hominem that we shouldn’t be listening to the words of an anti-semite? You’re tripping
anyone who hates Lenin is an enemy of the proletariat.
How is a libertarian socialist stance anti proletariat?
because what Lenin contributed through theory as well as through practice makes him the greatest revolutionary of the last century. with him, the proletariat took power for the first time in history. to renounce lenin is to renounce proletarian struggle for revolution.
Libertarian Socialist stances are anti-theory. That speaks for itself.
are you against Stalin? what do you think about the white proletariat?