Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
Gorojovsky at SPAMarnet.com.ar
Tue Oct 3 16:50:46 MDT 2000
En relación a Re: Trotskyism,
el 3 Oct 00, a las 11:12, Louis Proyect dijo:
> Lueko Willms:
> > On the other hand, I don't see any theoretical contribution by Mao
> >Tse Dong to retain, except two practical contributions:
> I would concede this point to Lueko. The Fourth International excels
> at theoretical contributions. That and party building. Lots of
> theoretical contributions, lots of parties.
> Mao was merely practical and never wrote about anything that did not
> relate immediately to the conquest of power in China. Clearly there
> are two different methodologies at play here. I would urge those who
> are interested in making theoretical contributions and launching
> proletarian parties to study the Fourth International. Those who are
> interested in the conquest of power would be well-advised to study
> Mao's writings.
There is no sound revolutionary practice without sound revolutionary
theory, as we all know. I think that Lüko has stated an important
thing about Trotsky, and it is that his was the deepest contribution
to the understanding of the first post-capitalist society ("post"not
in the current sense, simply in the general sense that it was a
society that was beginning to try to get out of barbarism). His
_Revolution Betrayed_ is obviously a must reading. It is also a must
overcoming, because lots of things happened afterwards. But Trotsky
saw, in 1936, what mainstream commentators could not see in 1986:
that the Soviet Union was a basically unstable formation, always in
danger of destruction. Not a minor point.
The relationship between Third World revolutions and Trotsky, by the
way, is similar to that existing between the English and French
revolutions and German philosophy, particularly the English with its
absolute poverty of new ideas as compared to others.
It was a tragedy for all of us that this division took place.
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar
More information about the Marxism