An End to Sectarianism

Chegitz Guevara mluziett at shrike.depaul.edu
Fri Oct 27 13:47:11 MDT 1995


On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Chegitz Guevara wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Adam Bandt wrote:
> > > 
> > Uhm Pat . . . ? There's this time issue thingy here. Trotsky was 
> > advocating an alliance with the Social Democrats before the rise of 
> > Hitler (ala the United Front strategy adopted by the Comintern in 1921 
> > and again in 1922). Trotsky thought Stalinism could be reformed back to 
> > the path of workers' democracy *UNTIL* Stalin had the Communists ignore 
> > the "flash in the pan" of real fascism to fight "social-fascism." This is 
> > one of the great crimes against humanity and the socialist tradition. 
> > What ever else you might be able to defend Stalin on, you can't here.
> 
> Pat for MIM replies: By the way, thank you C.G. for admitting that
> Trotsky was for armed force against the Soviet Union (albeit
> supposedly just its leadership) only after Hitler came to power.
> (We'll take your word for it, though Stalin claimed Trotsky
> was masterminding terrorist blows all over the Soviet Union
> and some of Trotsky's supporters in the military did support
> a coup.) We find Trotsky's change of position as reported by C.G.  
> convenient for Hitler, but believe 
> it or not that isn't even the main complaint here in this context.

Trotsky could have overthrown the Stalinist bureaucracy while he was 
still Commissar of War. Loyalty to Trotsky was still high among the 
military until the late '30's, necessitating the military purges, which 
later nearly destroyed the Soviet war effort. Trotsky believed that it 
would be pointless to replace a bureaucratic dictatorship with a military 
one.

> If you admit that it was after Stalin supposedly botched
> the fight against Hitler that Trotsky hardened into a
> line for civil war in the Soviet Union, then you are
> simply historically wrong in the rest of your assertion.
> Trotsky CONTINUED to support united front with social-democrats
> at the same time that YOU ADMIT that he wanted civil
> war against the Stalin-led Bolsheviks. Most notably in France
> after Hitler seized power, Trotsky still wanted a united front
> with social-democrats and only complained that Stalin-
> admiring communists 
> went too far in letting bourgeois parties into the united front.
> We think that's clear enough: despite appealing to those
> who thought he was so "principled," Trotsky preferred
> alliance with labor aristocrats and labor bureaucrat leaders
> over alliance with supposed "degenerated workers' state" leaders.

Pat, your amazing distortion of facts is almost to confusing to follow. 
The fact that Trotsky felt that the SOVIET bureaucracy was no longer 
capable of being reformed, does not mean that Trotsky felt the same way 
about the CP's outside of the Soviet Union whom he continued to appeal to 
in the fight against fascism. Trotsky tried to get, both the CP's and the 
SD's to work together against the fascists, while you keep on talking 
about the importance of fighting the SD's, and IGNORING FASCISM. 
Meanwhile you talk of alliances with the bourgeoisie over alliances with 
the backwards aspects of the labor movement. Oh, and the only Stalin led 
Bolsheviks were the ones who were led to the grave. The Bolshevik party 
was murdered by the Stalinist bureaucracy. I'm gonna have to drag out 
that old picture of the 1919 Bolsheivk leadership. Of the 42 people in 
the picture, by 1941, only Stalin and Kollentai were still alive. A 
handful died of natural causes, but the vast majority mysteriously turned 
traitor to their revolution and were executed.

> Anyone who reads Trotsky with one-tenth the critical eye
> that is applied to Stalin will see that Trotsky spewed
> some good Marxist rhetoric at times, but whenever it came
> to issues of timing or strategy, he always made it clear
> whose side he was really on--the imperialists'--as movement
> history this century amply proves in its total lack of 
> Trotskyist revolution against imperialism.

This is a bald faced lie. I challange you to substatiate it, with quotes 
from Trotsky himself. And nothing from before the revolution either.

> Just as an example, in his published English writings of
> 1939-40 published by Merit, Trotsky called for self-determination
> for one country in three articles.  Nope, it wasn't the
> Asian immigrants in the United Snakes. He said the
> communists need not write publications in Chinese or Japanese to
> reach these workers to oppose imperialism. No Trotsky
> was for nationalism of a certain strategic kind: the Ukraine's.
> Funny thing was that the Nazis were also calling for independence
> of the Ukraine at the same time! Though of course that
> pretense was dropped in the course of the genocidal war.
> Luckily for the Soviet Union, it never experienced
> what Trotsky really intended for it either.

Funny thing is, the Nazi's were also calling for the expropriation of the 
capitalists. I guess we're all just Nazi's then, Pat. You, me, and the 
rest of the left.

Marc, "the Chegitz," Luzietti
http://shrike.depaul.edu/~mluziett

P.S. . . . United Snakes? Can we possibly be a little more puerile?


	"Behold, they are as one people, and they all have one language;    
and this is only the begining of what they will do; and nothing that they 
propose to do will now be impossible for them." -- GOD, on solidarity



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---



More information about the Marxism mailing list