The politics of modern day new class revisionism is that the bolshevik revolution was not a working class revolution because the productive forces didn't include many robots. It was a "palace coup", as trots and revisionists have revealed before. So List people, prepare for that surprised announcement soon.
Soon it'll be "goodbye Marx", since Marx predicted proletarian revolution according to the means of production available then. The 1920's and '30's could have been ripe for revolution......but we'll never know. In fact, the working class was more rebellious then, and there were many more relative to the whole population, than during the Russian revolution. But the communist party then, liquidated. Liquidators have no intention of leading a proletarian revolution. Even if we had a chance at an insurrection of any sort, at least like the heroic Spanish attempt, the subjective factor turned treacherous. There is a thin line between treachery and cowardice. Revisionists today are not so different than the older days [what has changed?] They'd still prefer a social democratic type labor party over a Leninist one, remember: "goodbye Lenin"? Imperialism will go about its way destroying and killing; and the world's people will die and fight and die and win; and the modern day social chauvinists of all "color factors" will display their white supremacist imperialist ideology. But the people of the world will defeat monopoly finance capital, as they are indeed doing...... China will eat the U.S. up, despite its more advanced state capitalism or slight socialism, and because of it!! The results are what we're living today here in this shitty USA. Please do not be offended, ye patriots. No amount of inflated money will bail the speculators out. You would need more than the hopes of "economic communism" to overthrow capitalism, you would need a true communist party, no rhetoric intended; something that the revisionist pinkos couldn't maintain. Flood the ranks of a communist party with the working class, impoverished, destitute, skilled, intellectual, or technician.... and we'll prepare rightly: shop nuclei, union fractions, and all; and we'll give you a revolution the bourgeoisie will never forget. Revisionism is such a drag. f580 --- On Sun, 1/23/11, waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> Subject: [MLL] Trotskyism: socialist revolution not possible during the great depression To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 11:23 AM Note on political Trotskyism as history. WL The US was not ripe for socialist revolution in 1928 up to America's entry into the war. Past generations of Trotskyism differs from the parties of the Third International in assessment of the proletarian movement, its stage of maturation and its ripeness for the seizure of state power. "The working class movement in the advanced capitalist countries was ripe for socialist revolution during the Great depression but Stalinist groups - the CPUSA; single handedly prevented the proletariat from seizing political power in America." Such is the historic political line of Trotskyism. Trotskyism pre-1917 class roots are the decaying petty bourgeois, as this class advances an ideology expressing the logic of being crushed by the advance of large scale industry. Trotskyism declared for "International insurrection," even in countries not ripe for such, and all those rejecting this proposition were declared Stalinist and enemies of revolution. Trotskyism as a political trend rest on the political proposition that the world was ripe of proletarian insurrection between 1914 and 1940, but the parties of the Third International - Stalinism, betrayed the cause of communism. American Trotskyism fundamental assessment is that our country was ripe for political insurrection after 1928 and up to America's entry into the war but was singled handed diverted by the CPUSA. The parties of the Comintern and Comrade Stalin define "ripe" for political insurrection very different from political Trotskyism. Unfortunately, sections of the anti-revisionism movement of the 1970's adopted this same view. There are complex reasons why the proletariat at the front curve of capitalist-industrial development was not ripe for political insurrection, while the hundreds of millions of slaves of the imperialist order, constituting the weak link in the imperialist chain were ripe and overripe. Based on Lenin's assessment the Comintern advanced a political slogan of "Workers and oppressed Peoples Unite," with a strategic view of drawing these reserves of imperialism - the hundred of millions of slaves of imperialism, into the Soviet orbit. "Socialist revolution" can happen in the mouth of spokespersons of the petty bourgeoisie as a class is an emotional-ideological statement; a nebulous concept of "revolutionary change" and "manning up," rather than political insurrection under conditions where such can happen. Political insurrection in America could not and did not happen because a class that is part of and constituting "the system" cannot overthrow it. No class that constitutes the system can overthrow or carryout political insurrection against the system it constitutes. One can only "overthrow" a political grouping within the system, when reform of the system is needed. Our system has traveled all its boundaries of quantitative expansion today. The idea that one can lead a successful political insurrection - in 1928 or 1933, on the basis of a quantitative adjustment or reform of the system is petty bourgeois ideology. Hence, a thousand years of serf rebellions could not overthrow feudalism no matter how destitute it became and no matter how many acts of violent was reaped upon the feudal ruling class. One hundred and fifty years of proletarian revolt and attempts at political insurrection could not bore fruit as overthrow of the political order in the advanced capitalist countries because the "fruit was not ripe." What is required for insurrection that overthrow a system, rather than a palace or military coup that reshuffles political groups, is emergence of new classes created by qualitatively new means of production. The reason insurrection - social revolution, erupted at the back curve of capitalist development it was BECAUSE IT WAS THE BACK CURVE," i.e., those societies advancing from agricultural relations to industrial relations or from feudalism to capitalism or from one mode of production to the next, with its new classes connected to the new means of production. This is not to suggest the CPUSA under Browder was anything other than "what it was." "What it was" is a different discussion because the CPUSA problems - revisionism, go back to its roots in the American populist movement, with its abject ignorance AND CHAUVANISM on the Negro Question. II. Political Trotskyism contains a proposition called "uneven development." For Marxists of the Comintern heritage "uneven development" does not mean "things develop unevenly within a system." Uneven development in any social system - mode of production, is an absolute law of development. Qualitatively new means of production are applied quantitatively within a system, "here and there," in one area after another and then exported as the imperial relation, inciting another wave of uneven development. Uneven development for the heirs of the Comintern means simultaneous existence of two mode of production. In the era of Lenin this meant existence of societies that have not completed the political-economic leap to a new mode of production - industrial society, alongside countries and societies having completed the leap and now develops on a new quantitative basis or a based on new classes and new property relations. In Standard American English this meant political insurrection was ripe in countries like Russia struggling to complete the political leap from feudalism. During a period of leap it is possible to impose a different political form of property on the new social order, but never is one free to skip a stage of means of production development. In America crisis meant resolution of the crisis through completion of another boundary of development of the new mode of production. Here is one Trotskyist presentation to the list. "What is the difference between Tunisia today and the US 81 years ago? What is the difference between Cuba prior to the 1960's and the US 81 years ago? What is the difference between every poor and oppressed country today and the US 81 years ago? Basically nothing. What is my point? It is that the US was ripe for socialist revolution during the depression but the CPUSA misled the working-class then and steered them away from revolution to tail after Roosevelt and his ilk much like revisionism today, like the revisionist ********* would mislead the working-class into alliances and dependence on the bourgeoisie and steer them away from socialist revolution." The US was not ripe for socialist revolution in 1928 to Americas entry into the war. To answer the question "What is the difference between Tunisia today and the US 81 years ago?," the difference is between America today - not in 1931, and Tunisia today, rather than America 81 years from today - 2092. The difference is American development of means of production and the political superstructure as it was being reshaped to accommodate finance capital at the front curve of capitalist development - in 1931. Once the industrial bourgeoisie achieves its political hegemony over society the struggle of the proletariat is locked into a fight to reform the system. Some call this fight class struggle but it is an economic struggle for reform or over shares of the social product and political liberty with the system being able to bend and give concessions until its reaches its limit of reform. The limit of reform is reached when qualitative new means of production are introduced into the production process and blocks any further reform of the system. Then social revolution is placed on the agenda. The difference is the meaning of an imperial power and a colony and former colony. The difference is Tunisia place in the international division of labor or the world market. The difference is Tunisia has a population the size of Cuba (11 million) or New York City and the eruption of political revolt is being carefully steered to conform to a post-industrial form of finance capital. The difference is that American was emerging as the leading imperial power on earth 81 years ago. The difference is America's founding absent feudalism and our war of independence in 1776 versus Tunisia independence in 1957. Tunisia today does not occupy a position akin to America in 1931. Tunisia today - right now, occurs in a new epoch of social revolution. III. Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
