Development of Marxism, Trotsky and Trotskyism

John Paramo albatrosrojo2000 at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 5 14:07:39 MST 2003


Since there is a discussion on the list about
development of Marxism, Trotsky and Trotskyism, I take
the liberty to post here Chapter 3 and 5 of a longer
document (The Need to Develop a Revolutionary
Organization of a New Type), dealing precisely with an
assesment of Marxism, its development and Trotskyism.

Obviously, I do not agree with the assesment of Lou
that Trotskyism and Trotsky were social democrats of
an special kind, but rather with the premise that in
the existent Marxism movement, both represent the most
advanced section.

I apologize in advance for the extension of que
posting, but since I very seldom post message to the
list, people would be more charitable in judging the
number of bytes I used this time.

Hopefully, this will enrich the discussion by
presenting a dissident view from that of other members
of the list.


The rest of the document can be read at:
http://www.leftparty.org
by clicking on the "Documents" button.

---------  Chapters III and V of the Document ------

III. Development of Marxism

21. In the period of 1903-1924, Lenin, Trotsky and a
few others added to the initial parts and components
of the Marxist theory (historical materialism, Marxist
political economy and Socialist program). These
revolutionary breakthroughs helped the movement to
advance enormously and tackled the fundamental issues
of their time. Products of this period are, among
others, the Theory of the Permanent Revolution, the
institutionalization of the revolutionary masses in a
new, concrete form of government, the Soviets; the
theory of imperialism as a new stage of capitalism;
the integration of the fundamental law of uneven and
combined development to historical materialism; the
true meaning of internationalism and its concrete
representation in the formation of the 3rd
International; the theory and method of building the
revolutionary party adapted to concrete revolutionary
processes and a volume of working class legislation
that advanced the understanding of self-determination
for oppressed nations, womens rights, military
strategy of revolutionary movements, the
workers-peasant alliance, the government of the
workers and the oppressed as the popularized form of
the dictatorship of the proletariat ... 


22. After the death of Lenin, the defeat of
revolutionary processes, the isolation of the Russian
revolution and the ascent of Stalinism to power,
Trotsky, politically defeated and ostracized,
continued with this theoretical work in a much more
limited environment perfecting his theory of the
Permanent Revolution, developing his understanding of
the application of the law of uneven and combined
development, codifying the lessons of the Russian
revolution and advancing an explanation, a theory and
program against the bureaucratization of the
revolution in a way unmatched since. The analytical
dissection and characterization as well as the
definitions of their direction, dynamic and nature
even before they coalesced of fascism and Nazism
developed by Trotsky are unparalleled. Even arts and
literature had in Trotsky a superb contributor, as did
oppressed nations, women and oppressed ethnic
minorities with his volumes of writings.


23. With the assassination of Trotsky by an agent of
Stalin in 1940, theoretical development of Marxism
came to an almost complete halt. A period of over 60
years of confusion, theoretical weakness and
negligible advancements and a systematic work of
distortion, falsification and tergiversation of the
existent Marxist theory and the revolutionary lessons
of the previous period ensued.


24. When it emerged, the Marxist movement
revolutionized the world of politics, science,
economics, political action and organization. This is
because it was based in 1850s and continued to be
until 1940s on an open ended method to transform the
world based on its own evolution drawing from the
latest achievements of sciences (economy,
anthropology, history, economics and so on). After
Trotskys death, Marxist theory became this obsolete,
antique set of books and booklets, frozen in time and
space, for the most part six to fifteen decades ago,
and with a church of followers repeating axioms and
formulae, quoting extensively from books in which even
the language is a literary curiosity of a museum
category. These philistines managed to do the work
that the ruling classes of the world failed to
accomplish from 1848-1940: to make Marxism seem
irrelevant.

V. Trotskyism


38. Of all the movements of the working class that
opposed more than six decades of theoretical and
physical onslaught by Social Democracy and Stalinism,
only one remains relatively organized at the world
scale, counts on the most advanced (though also
antiquated) theoretical framework, and whose banners
are relatively clear of big, conscious,
counter-revolutionary betrayals: revolutionary
Marxism, or Trotskyism.


39. With parties, organizations and groups in well
over 90 countries, with at least five international
currents of Trotskyism with parties of significant
influence in their ranks and a dozen other
organizations with significant weight in national
politics in their respective countries and a myriad of
other groups with potential big opportunities in front
of them, Trotskyism is the only Marxist tendency that
can compete to fill the vacuum of leadership left by
the collapse of Stalinism and Social Democracy as the
dominant currents in the working class
internationally.


40. Trotskyism offers the most advanced theoretical
understanding to comprehend and guide the action of
revolutionaries and their work in the mass movement.
All other tendencies are light years away from the
understanding of theories such as uneven and combined
development, the theory of Permanent Revolution or the
critique of the rise and development of the Stalinist
bureaucracy and its historical role as capitalist
restorationists. These theories and theoretical
advantages and the role of all Trotskyist tendencies
to maintain the record of organization and history of
the Marxist movement as well as preserving the
alternative views of the opposition to Stalinism put
this movement in the best position to understand and
help radically change the situation in the working
class and mass movement of the 21st Century.


41. As the most advanced ideas in existence in the
arsenal of Marxism today, those are the ideas and
traditions upon which we are basing ourselves to
advance the movement in general and Marxism in
particular. It is very possible that in the
not-too-distant future, we will reclaim the terms and
names of our movement, and ‘Trotskyism’ will be
regarded as one more episode in the development of
Marxism. We learned as much from the method of Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. When that moment is
reached, it will not be at the expense of the advances
of the movement, but as a result of its further
development based on the historical lessons of its
vanguard, both theoretically and politically. Doing
otherwise would be as if Marx and Engels to develop
Marxism had ignored the British economists, the
utopian socialists and the dialectics of Hegel and
German philosophy in general.


42. This is not to say that the international
Trotskyist movement with its approximately 100,000
active members, few millions of different layers of
supporters and voters, its dozen or so of
international tendencies and hundreds of groups and
parties, sometimes more hostile among themselves than
with other political currents, are exempt from the
general problems, barriers, shortcomings, vices, and
bad habits of other sectors of the Marxist movement.
Quite the contrary. Marxists base their analysis on
living movements, both of the working class as a whole
and of the Marxist movement in particular, and on the
most advanced even if very limited sources of theory
and practical experience.


43. Many among us have experienced first hand the work
and program, the method of intervention in the mass
movement and the quality of their organizations of the
most important international currents of the present
day Trotskyist movement: the USFI, the CWI, the
Lambertist FI, the now defunct IC, Morenos LIT, Lutte
Ouvrieres ICU, the IST/SWP/ISO current, many of the
factions that emerged from them and other, smaller or
less significant tendencies. Most of them, at one
point or another played an important role in localized
or regional mass struggles and most of them, at one
point or another built significant forces in one or
more countries. All of them contributed in a
fragmented way to the preservation of the ideas,
texts, records and experiences of the movement. All of
them have in their ranks many conscious revolutionary
activists and cadre that made of the revolutionary
process if not their lifelong dedicated effort at
least the recipient of a great deal of their effort,
their time and their money. Many members from most of
these organizations played heroic roles during acute
revolutionary or counter-revolutionary periods, both
extremes at which the subjective value of militants
are tested.


44. Some among us were followers and members of one or
another of these tendencies, and now choose the path
of developing Marxism from an independent position
from all these tendencies. We are under the obligation
to explain to advanced workers and youth why and also
put forward what our distinctive contribution to
revolutionary Marxism intends to be in the near future
and in the long run. Some of the fundamental
differences are already spelled out in this and other
documents, many more are registered in our daily
practice, but there are plenty more, starting with an
open and sincere critique of our movement as it is and
not as we wish it were. If anything, the recent
failures of Trotskyists in several situations in which
they had enormous opportunities and a privileged
position to take advantage of them is a clear
indication of these problems (Britain, France,
Argentina.) 


45. Theoretical weakness: Since 1940, none of the
existing tendencies of the Trotskyist movement have
substantially advanced Marxist theory. This is not to
say that they failed to grapple with every new problem
or perfect the understanding of old ones. Some of them
did. But on the essential work of revolutionizing
Marxist theory feeding on the most advanced
discoveries and state of the different sciences, they
provided no significant breakthroughs. 


46. Trotskyists share with the rest of the Marxist
movement a number of outdated, sometimes obsolete
views in the light of new discoveries. These include
positions about historical materialism (as the
repetition of the almost mechanical stages of human
society, ignoring the uneven and combined development
that gave rise to different ‘civilizations,’ etc.);
the economic reductionism of the revolutionary changes
in society and the formation of classes and the
structural and infrastructural changes in the working
class and its role in the productive cycles of
society; the simplistic views of present-day economy
based on the mid-1800s definitions and analysis, even
the place that the economy and the cyclical crisis of
capitalism plays in present day society; the implicit
belief in certain inexorable historicisms about social
change that prevent them from seeing the periodic
regressive periods of human society etc.


47. The enormous present-day importance of todays and
upcoming environmental disasters (brown clouds, drying
up of potable sources of water, global warming,
pollution, ozone depletion, etc.) or the new, and old
problems inherited from colonialism (indigenous
peoples resurgence, devastation of the environment and
natural resources, social regression, fundamentalism,
etc.) or even womens and general sexual rights, arts
and science were ignored for decades by Marxists in
general and when Trotskyists attempted to tackle them,
it was generally as a pragmatic response to the
emergence of non-working class movements around those
issues and followed non-Marxist, middle class
approaches initiated by others.


48. In these areas, too, the Trotskyist movement did
not do more than follow the lead of the Stalinists and
Social Democrats. In charge of state apparatuses, the
Stalinists resorted to disastrous, antiquated,
obsolete forms and methods to develop the means of
production that essentially devastated the
environment; they exerted dictatorial power over
oppressed nationalities and preserved, as one of the
ways to keep the privileges of the bureaucracy
overwhelmingly male and for the dominant cultures the
main aspects of womens oppression. Arts and sciences
were only seen as utilitarian extensions of their
bureaucratic machines and were put under their yoke.
These were the material bases that prevented them from
developing any new proposals in those areas. As was
characteristic of Stalinism, they resorted to crude
‘theorizing,’ writing off all new advances and new
problems as ‘distractions’ from ‘proletarian science.’
For similar reasons, social democrats increasingly
administering the governments at the service of the
capitalist system ignored these issues that were in
contradiction with the system of which they had become
administrators.


49. In times of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky,
Marxism was credited with being the most advanced,
developed, cutting edge ideology and movement to which
nothing in the past, present or future of humankind
was alien but a matter of dissection, debate and
programmatic interest. With all the hindsight
criticisms and for all the shortcomings we can
visualize today in Marxist texts about the nature of
the state, historical materialism, the position of
women in society and so on, they were the most
advanced and clear ideas when they were formulated in
the second half of the 19th Century and the first two
decades of the 20th Century. One only has to take a
look at the most advanced bourgeois academic texts and
the absurd theories of other working class trends of
the time to realize the extraordinary advantage of
Marxism.


50. In the last 60 years, however, other movements and
intellectuals, with non-Marxist perspectives offered
explanations and offered solutions that put the
Marxist movement on the defensive and, in many cases
in the rearguard of social change in the fields of
economics, philosophy, womens rights, environmentalism
and so on. Environmentalists and Greens; petite
bourgeois radical economists; feminists and sexual
liberationists; indigenous peoples advocates and
nativists; bourgeois nationalists and populists
dominated the debate on a wide range of issues on
which Marxism was not only equipped, but was
responsible for being in the forefront of the analysis
and integration of those issues into a class
orientation and perspectives. Marxism, particularly
Trotskyism, lost the initiative in theoretical work
and ideological struggle that made Marxism the leading
revolutionary movement decades ago. As a result, many
Trotskyist tendencies now find themselves in the
embarrassing position of taking their analytical and
programmatic cues from quasi-liberal single-issue
non-profits or NGOs.


51. The theories of the Permanent Revolution, the Law
of Uneven and Combined Development; the method of the
Transitional Program and other theoretical weapons in
the arsenal of the Trotskyist movement gave them an
incredible advantage to understand and update Marxism
in all these areas and more. But, as the rest of the
Marxist movement mummified Marx, Engels and Lenin by
repeating the old line and verse of the treatises of
the 1800s and early 1900s, so did the Trotskyists with
the additional contributions of Trotsky. There were
attempts to develop theory, particularly in the realm
of the economy and the state (Mandel and others),
political definitions (state, regime, different forms
of revolutions by Moreno and others) and an incredible
amount of data preservation and historical research by
the Lambertists, the USFI and others. But certainly
they were insufficient, scattered, not systematized
and narrowed to the immediate interests of their
organizations, not the overall development of Marxist
theory.


52. Organizational Infestation: With all the
proclaimed hatred for the crimes of Stalinism its
suppression of dissent and glorification of the
organization for the organization itself the
Trotskyist movement mimicked some of the worst traits
of the Stalinist and social democratic movements.
True, they were saved from committing the same
physical crimes that the Stalinists and Social
Democrats committed, mostly because they never held
state power anywhere, so the degree and intensity of
their mistakes were never fully tested.


53. But every major international Trotskyist tendency
resorted to wholesale purges and expulsions of
internal opponents merely for tactical, or even minor
strategic differences at one time or another. The USFI
resorted to several massive expulsions and splits,
including the overwhelming majority of their Latin
American sections in the late 1970s. Let us not forget
the now-infamous book containing the names of hundreds
of members of the SWP who were purged in the 70s to
eliminate every trace of its former connections with
Trotskyism.


54. The Lambertist FI is notorious for intolerance and
quickness to expel internal critics of the leadership.
And for the latest on the IST/SWP tendency witness the
massive purge of its sections in a number of countries
(including the US) based on slight differences in the
analysis of the conjuncture. The LIT/MAS expelled
tendency after tendency that dared to raise doubts
about an alleged ‘worldwide revolutionary situation’
at the end of the 1980s and the assertion that the
Argentinean MAS was the ‘beacon of world revolution.’
Both assessments proved wrong shortly afterward.


55. We have our own recent experience in the CWI,
which would not discuss a document such as this
without proclaiming the apostasy of its authors and
expelling massively those who disagreed with the top
leadership in London on how to intervene in a living
struggle of the working class. Or Lutte Ouvrieres
periodic purges based on demands of absolute
homogeneity, not on principles but tactical issues. So
bad were some episodes of purges and expulsions that
the Lambertists, the LIT/MAS and others stand accused
of using physical violence against yesterdays comrades
who dared to criticize the leadership.


56. The most tragic example, ironically, came from the
most extreme Stalinophobic tendency of the Trotskyist
movement: the Healyite IC. It exploded in the mid 80s
amidst allegations and counter-allegations of secret
tapings, sexual abuse of young comrades by old
leaders, expulsions by beating up opponents, and a
system of mental and physical harassment to ‘correct’
failing Bolsheviks. Extortion, squeezing comrades into
poverty, appropriations of funds by the leadership to
pay for their personal expenses and a long list of
hundreds if not thousands of former members who became
pariahs of society are among the evidence of the
wreckage.


57. In spite of all the criticisms of the
‘Cominternism’ of the Stalinist movement, all
Trotskyist tendencies utilized the same methods of
intervention and control of their co-thinkers around
the world, minus the power of the state and the
‘Russian gold’ characteristic of the Stalinist Russian
bureaucracy. The latter being true only because of the
lack of resources, although some of these tendencies
are not above using their smallish purses to control
their sister parties in the semi-colonial world, as
was the case with the Healyite IC, and is the case
with Lambertists and the CWI.


58. All Trotskyist tendencies have their ‘mother
parties,’ allegedly almost-perfect parties after which
all other sections must model themselves. The IST have
the SWP; the USFI now has the French LCR but it
changes from time to time; the ICU put forward the LO
model; the LIT used to have the Argentinean MAS and
after its explosion, the honor was transferred to the
Brazilian PSTU. Healys British WRP was the obligatory
role model for the entire IC; the French section is
the historic point of reference of the Lambertists. .
For the CWI it is the British SP. This continues even
when most of these parties are now a shadow of what
they used to be in the 70s and even the 80s.


59. None of these parties ever became a mass party or
led a revolution. But they were assigned an air of
infallibility that made the bilateral dealings between
them and individual sections of the different currents
the central feature of their organizational
procedures. True, most of these organizations achieved
partial, sometimes important and temporary
breakthroughs at one time or another. But they were
very far from achieving a particle of the experience
and level of the Russian Bolsheviks.


60. Lately, some of the USFI sections have shifted to
a perverse bureaucratic internal regime, directly
taken from Social Democracy and middle class
organizations such as the Greens. Permitting the
multiplication of tendencies and factions over the
smallest of differences allows the better-organized
and closer guardians of the party apparatus to keep
its hegemony even if they constitute a minority in the
leadership. In this variance of the undemocratic
process of ‘consensus,’ not only does internal
democracy disappear, but also the program, which is
transformed into an amalgam of a series of
compromises.


61. Whether the center of a given tendency is in
Europe, as is the case with most of these tendencies
or in Latin America, as with the case of the LIT/PSTU
or elsewhere, they all preserve the euro-centrist
characteristics of the initial Trotskyist movement and
a condescending attitude, in the case of the sections
based in imperialist countries, toward the sections in
the semi-colonial world.


62. Democratic centralism is applied as if all the
organizations were constantly on the verge of the
struggle for political power; the central core of full
timers are de facto considered such for life and
usually operate as a super-leadership independent of
any consistent or effective control from the rank and
file and the bodies of the organization. Many even
utilize titles despised and criticized by Trotsky
himself. Like ‘General Secretary.’


63. These organizational methods in themselves are
almost an absolute barrier to the development of the
necessary theoretical work or the building of mass
influence in the working class. At times of upsurge,
acute class struggle and working class mobilizations,
these methods of organizing cannot but horrify
anti-capitalist fighters and the best and most
advanced elements among youth and workers. Overcoming
these methods and their stigmata is, therefore, one of
the key tasks of a revolutionary Marxist organization
in the current period.


64. The Effects of 60 years of Alien Pressure Took its
Toll: Of course, there is an explanation and
extenuating circumstances if you wish for the
theoretical confusion and weaknesses of the last 60
years and the organizational adaptation of the
different Trotskyist tendencies to the bureaucratic
habits which descended upon the working class during
the decades of domination of the Stalinists and social
democrats.


65. Trotskyists were under constant attack and
slandered by these tendencies and even when physical
attacks and murders stopped as a generalized method of
the Stalinists to silence them forced mostly by the
changing political situations and the changes in the
relationship of forces in some cases -- the
falsifications and attacks never subsided. But no
amount of hostility from the outside could possibly
justify the permanence of these bureaucratic methods;
no amount of pressure from the mass organizations
dominated by their opponents could explain the lack of
theoretical development or the adoption of
bureaucratic structures.


66. For only setting the long term example of a
different kind of organization and widening the gap of
theoretical understanding and analysis could help
overcome their opponents advantage in numbers and
resources, not building a rival, more efficient
machine with the same methods of functioning.


67. Indeed that was the main emphasis of the different
tendencies of the Trotskyist movement. As the
Stalinists forged their ridiculous ‘peaceful
co-existence’ with Stalinism (one based on the
theoretical absurdity that capitalism could be
convinced of its historic irrelevance in a world
dominated by it in reality an Stalinist policy of
appeasement to preserve its own bureaucratic gains),
Trotskyists for the most part developed the theory
that ‘being the best activists’ in a movement
dominated by Stalinists and social democrats would
suffice. Trotskyists tried to substitute themselves
for the democratic organization of the working class
itself. They counter-posed an attempt to build a
machine more efficient than the powerful reformist
apparatuses, and mimicked their political positions to
close the gap in consciousness between their
organizations and prospective recruits among members
of their opponents. Is it any surprise then that when,
on occasions where they actually succeeded and changed
the relationship of forces with the Stalinists, their
organizations themselves crumbled under the pressure
of more powerful adversaries the ruling classes and
the method of adaptation and low common denominator
for membership?


68. That is the way one can understand the collapse of
the Bolivian POR after playing a pivotal role in the
proletarian revolution of 1953; or that of the Lanka
Sama Samaja Party in Ceylon in the mid 60s; the
disappearance of the extraordinary Trotskyist-led
FOCEP coalition in Peru in the 70s; the explosion of
the powerful hegemonic left party in Argentina, the
MAS in the late 80s; the disarray of the French
Trotskyists in failing to take audacious decisions
before and after their colossal vote at the recent
Presidential elections; or more recently, the lack of
massive influx of working class forces that afflicts
the Argentinean Trotskyist organizations that, put
together, represent the overwhelming majority of the
active membership of the left and of all political
forces for that matter -- in that country but are
unable to command or decisively influence the
situation.


69. Another aspect of this adaptation to pressure is
the periodic capitulation to middle class or
non-working class movements, or even to Social
Democracy or radical Stalinists or simply to the labor
aristocracy. (Capitulation is the failure to develop
an independent, class-based position to diverse
political movements.) Good examples of this include:
Healy to Khadafy and Arab nationalism; Lambert to
Social Democracy for over 20 years; the USFI to Black
nationalism, guerrilla warfare in the 70s in Latin
America, the FSLN, the FMLN and Castroism, later to
feminist and environmental movements. LO sacrifices a
great part of the revolutionary program in the name of
workerism and an approach to the ranks of the PCF; the
CWI adapts its program to the lowest common
consciousness of the aristocracy of labor in Britain
in their program on the Middle East, immigrants, the
national question and other related issues.


70. Via these theoretical weaknesses and lack of
development, organizational infestation and
adaptationist policies, a number of organizations
ended up following the logical conclusion of such
general orientation and left revolutionary Marxism
altogether: the SWP in the US, the LSSP in Ceylon
(today Sri Lanka), the DSP in Australia, among others.
Others, while still nominally calling themselves
Trotskyists, like the British SWP or the American ISO,
are on record rejecting the essential programmatic
basis of Trotskyism: the theory of the bureaucracy;
the method of the Transitional Program; the theory of
the Permanent Revolution and the Law of Uneven and
Combined Development. 


71. Trotskyists are NOT Alone: The vacuum of
leadership after the collapse of the Stalinist and
Social Democratic influence among workers and the
oppressed internationally will not last forever, much
in the same way that revolutionary situations do not
last forever. As in warfare, where prolonged military
campaigns tend to help the armies with more resources,
largest reserves of manpower and better technology, in
the class struggle, revolutionary situations that are
not resolved quickly in favor of the working class
will tend to leave the ruling class to exert its
resources to resolve it in its favor, which can count
on firmer and stronger international support and
assistance and more homogeneous class consciousness,
both nationally and internationally and the advantage
of state power.


72. There are other forces competing with Trotskyism.
For starters, the residual, working class groups and
parties of Stalinism and Social Democracy (the most
important of which are the Brazilian PT, the Cuban CP
and others, particularly in Africa and Asia); the
centrist and broad formations of the type of the
Italian PRC, the Spanish IU, the Portuguese LB, the
Bolivian MAS and a number of others many of which
count on the participation of strong Trotskyist
factions in their midst. There are other, non-working
class, populist formations, such as the Bolivarian
Movement of Chavez in Venezuela. One cannot exclude
the potential for the emergence of other similar
movements or middle class, guerrilla type movements,
particularly in the semi-colonial world. Neo-anarchism
is also a factor, even though minor and more oriented
as a life-style than a coherent movement and
essentially centered and fragmented in a handful of
industrialized countries.


73. Trotskyism, as we stated above, as a theoretical
architecture of revolutionary Marxism, remains the
most advanced expression of the movement; even the
rich experience accumulated from the rise and fall of
powerful organizations could very well serve as
accumulated and collective experience; the relatively
unscathed banners of its program and history puts them
in a privileged position on the eyes of workers and
young fighters; and its international scope as well as
its relative strength in numbers makes it for the
first time in history a competitor for the hearts and
minds of advanced workers and youth worldwide. The
next ten years are critical, not only for the working
class as a whole to prevent capitalism to from sinking
civilization into barbarianism, but also for the
Trotskyists to fight to resolve the crisis of
revolutionary leadership, to which is reduced the
crisis of humankind in the present epoch.


74. There is not a single tendency in the Trotskyism
movement however, able or even willing to resolve the
existing problems of the Marxist movement through
developing and updating Marxist theory, establishing a
method of intervention in the working class to gain
mass influence and to radically change the concept of
what kind of revolutionary organization is needed for
the present epoch.


75. Moreover, the challenge of the Trotskyist movement
is not reduced to changing and advancing itself, but
must find the road by participating in all living mass
movements to hundreds of thousands of young fighters,
particularly among the most oppressed and exploited
sectors of society. In that sense, we set ourselves
the task of not only following the development of our
movement, strengthening its theoretical understanding,
but also striving to win over new and fundamental
forces that will make possible the epoch of
revolutionary Marxism. We are conscious of our
minuscule initial forces. We are under no illusions of
overnight success since our whole method is that of
rebuilding the movement from the bottom up. However,
we are confident in the forces of the class struggle
and the direction we are adopting. The formation of a
solid nucleus of cadre who can not only quote the
classics but critically update them and at the same
time throw themselves into the living struggles of
workers and the oppressed will go a long way toward
influencing others and reaching the necessary
agreements, both nationally and internationally.





Ahora podés usar Yahoo! Messenger desde tu celular. Aprendé cómo hacerlo en Yahoo! Móvil: http://ar.mobile.yahoo.com/sms.html

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list