[Marxism] Re Boliva Discussion

robert montgomery ilyenkova at gmail.com
Mon Jan 9 00:02:19 MST 2006


Cb:
>post-trotskyist maybe, but post-Leninist?

When he reoriented the Bolskevik perspective in the April Theses
Lenin's judgement was based on a reading of the Russian situation that
the democratic tasks: abolition of Tsarism, redistribution of landed
property to the peasants, a democratic republic, development of the
productive forces, and introduction of broad social reforms, could
only be acccomplished under the leadership of the proletariat, which
at the same time would take the first steps in its own name towards
socialism. Conversely, the liberal bourgeoisie had shown itself tied
to both imperialism and Tsarism and would play no progressive role in
the coming revolution. In this, Lenin was entirely consistent with the
position Trotsky had developed in the wake of the revolution of 1905.
At the same time Trotsky came to agreement with Lenin on the nature of
the revolutionary party-- As Larry Trainor used to put it, in April
1917 Lenin became a Trotskyist and Trotsky became a Leninist. So I see
no reason based in the actual historical experience to not see
Trotskyism as the extension  of Leninism. Confusion on this point has
resulted from a combination of the suddenness of Lenin's break with
the Bolshevik old Guard in April 1917, and the later distortions of
the positions of both Lenin and Trotsky by Stalin. So when I call
those who reject the perspective of the permanent revolution in this
debate post-Trotskyists, they are by logical extension, post-Leninist
as well, regardless of what they themselves may think in either case.
RM




More information about the Marxism mailing list