Comments on: Maoists and the paradox of development http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2009/10/25/maoists-and-the-paradox-of-development/ Journal Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:11:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: johng http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2009/10/25/maoists-and-the-paradox-of-development/comment-page-1/#comment-22968 johng Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:17:17 +0000 http://radicalnotes.com/journal/?p=415#comment-22968 Its worth emphasising that Lenin placed Trotsky on the CC in 1917 and he was the leader of the Red Army during the civil war. Lenin in his April theses effectively ditched his earlier position (or at least its programatic consequences), hence the reconciliation with Trotsky. Its very hard to reconcile this with the kind of schematic and misleading presentation of Trotsky's theory of permenant revolution outlined above. Its not as if Trotsky's theory envisaged skipping anything. The October Revolution happened and between Febuary and October no fundemental change in productive forces occured. However its also true that much water has passed under the bridge since then and dogmatic presentations of either Trotsky's earlier theory or the responses of the Soviet Bureacracy have little to teach us in the present situation in my view. On the other hand sticking to what were self-evidently falsehoods retrospectively constructed by the CPSU under Stalin make clarifying contemporary arguments even harder. I think it would be much better if all these arguments were related to the mainstream of arguments going on about the complications of the present situation rather then exchanging slogans of little interest to any but the participants. Its worth emphasising that Lenin placed Trotsky on the CC in 1917 and he was the leader of the Red Army during the civil war. Lenin in his April theses effectively ditched his earlier position (or at least its programatic consequences), hence the reconciliation with Trotsky. Its very hard to reconcile this with the kind of schematic and misleading presentation of Trotsky’s theory of permenant revolution outlined above. Its not as if Trotsky’s theory envisaged skipping anything. The October Revolution happened and between Febuary and October no fundemental change in productive forces occured. However its also true that much water has passed under the bridge since then and dogmatic presentations of either Trotsky’s earlier theory or the responses of the Soviet Bureacracy have little to teach us in the present situation in my view. On the other hand sticking to what were self-evidently falsehoods retrospectively constructed by the CPSU under Stalin make clarifying contemporary arguments even harder. I think it would be much better if all these arguments were related to the mainstream of arguments going on about the complications of the present situation rather then exchanging slogans of little interest to any but the participants.

]]> By: baby http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2009/10/25/maoists-and-the-paradox-of-development/comment-page-1/#comment-22420 baby Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:11:14 +0000 http://radicalnotes.com/journal/?p=415#comment-22420 Trotskyism is the theory of "permanent" (uninterrupted) revolution. But what is permanent revolution in its Trotskyist interpretation? It is revolution that fails to take the poor peasantry into account as a revolutionary force. Trotsky's "permanent" revolution is, as Lenin said, "skipping" the peasant movement, "playing at the seizure of power." Why is it dangerous? Because such a revolution, if an attempt had been made to bring it about, would inevitably have ended in failure, for it would have divorced from the Russian proletariat its ally, the poor peasantry. This explains the struggle that Leninism has been waging against Trotskyism ever since 1905. How does Trotsky appraise Leninism from the standpoint of this struggle? He regards it as a theory that possesses "anti-revolutionary features." What is this indignant opinion about Leninism based on? On the fact that, at the proper time, Leninism advocated and upheld the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. But Trotsky does not confine himself to this indignant opinion. He goes further and asserts: "The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay" (see Trotsky's letter to Chkheidze, 1913). As you see, we have before us two opposite lines. Trotskyism is the theory of “permanent” (uninterrupted) revolution. But what is permanent revolution in its Trotskyist interpretation? It is revolution that fails to take the poor peasantry into account as a revolutionary force. Trotsky’s “permanent” revolution is, as Lenin said, “skipping” the peasant movement, “playing at the seizure of power.” Why is it dangerous? Because such a revolution, if an attempt had been made to bring it about, would inevitably have ended in failure, for it would have divorced from the Russian proletariat its ally, the poor peasantry. This explains the struggle that Leninism has been waging against Trotskyism ever since 1905.

How does Trotsky appraise Leninism from the standpoint of this struggle? He regards it as a theory that possesses “anti-revolutionary features.” What is this indignant opinion about Leninism based on? On the fact that, at the proper time, Leninism advocated and upheld the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

But Trotsky does not confine himself to this indignant opinion. He goes further and asserts: “The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay” (see Trotsky’s letter to Chkheidze, 1913). As you see, we have before us two opposite lines.

]]>