When building the RCI, revolutionaries will almost be guaranteed to meet these slanders against Trotsky and Marxism and I think this podcast answered these slanders perfectly
This was a great talk, and very enlightening. I've been reading all things left from Marx to Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin (yes, even him), Luxemburg, etc for more decades that I care to remember, and this was proof that as long as you can keep an open and enquiring mind, you can never stop learning. Excellent! Well done.
Also, I forgot to add, this was a fantastic episode! Really great stuff. I'd love to see the 21st century Stalin brigade folks reply to what y'all are saying here.
There are plenty of earnest communists with misconceptions about the theory of Permanent Revolution: hopefully this will be useful in dispelling those!
Not really. He was basically one of the first ultra leftists. The cool thing is nobody cares since Trotskyism is so self-defeating. Guess you guys share that in common with the anarchists
@@musicdev Thanks for commenting! Did you watch the video? We would be curious to hear what aspects of Trotsky's ideas are ultraleft or in common with anarchism.
Lenin's writing in The Development of capitalism in Russia, neatly implies that Russia was so dire for most people that no wonder it had so many revolutions.
Those forces who are currently in power are playing around with your podcast,at the 22minute mark I lost phone coverage yet a dozen or more people near me still had coverage.... Thanks guy's. .
I feel like yall would do better by synthesizing with the tendency of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism bc it has a lot more potential for actually functioning well for working class people, due to the concept of The Mass Line. and also most Marxists I talk to pretty much hate Trotsky by default, and regardless of if you think that is valid, its pretty hard to get people on board with someone that many consider to be a traitor to socialism. just some advice.
Hi there! We would say that if a lot of Marxists you speak to (which, remember, is still a minority of people) 'hate Trotsky by default', that is because of the slander poured on his ideas. The purpose of this video is to clear up some common misconceptions about what he actually argued. Our position is that Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution accurately describes the dynamics of revolution in the modern world. If communists want future revolutions to succeed, it is important that we internalise the lessons contained in these ideas.
What is the trotskyist position on national liberation movements that are not also socialist ? For example many former colonial territories in the mid 20th century wanting to break free of french or british colonial rule (some still struggle with this). These movements may not be socialistic, but they are nationalistic. Would a trotskyist support those movements ? I think it's important to support them whether socialist or not because anything that weakens imperialism and therefore also begins to break up and weaken international capitalism is good for any socialist movement anywhere in the world
In a nutshell, yes, but we would emphasize the need to lend a proletarian class character to these movements as a prerequisite for their success. Basically, we want these movements to succeed, and in the era of imperialism, the only way for small oppressed nations to gain true independence is for them to move in a socialist direction. Even if the old regime was kicked out, whatever new regime arises will be faced with the choice of capitulating to the international credit institutions of imperialism, or nationalizing the land and moving in a socialist direction. Unless they continue immediately towards socialism, imperialism will easily re-assert its influence. They may gain political independence, but so long as the foreign capitalists hold control over industry, they can always force the new government to do their will. That is the condition that small nations like Haiti find themselves in. They are independent on paper, but it's the Americans who really rule. I think a very plain example of that was the Cuban revolution. Many do not remember, but before the 1959 revolution, Batista himself was brought to power in a nationalist revolutionary movement. However, failing to move in a socialist direction, Batista quickly became the strongest enforcer of American imperialism. When Castro came to power, the revolution faced the same exact choice. Initially, the j26 movement was nationalist in character, and not explicitly communist. However, once in power, Castro saw that recognizing the claims of the American capitalists to Cuban land would just mean a continuation of US domination over the island. It's precisely because of the socialist turn made by Castro and the movement that Cuba still largely enjoys its independence today. So in summary, we support movements for the national independence of oppressed countries, and it's for precisely that reason that we argue that the revolution cannot stop at political independence under capitalism, because that would quickly collapse back into naked subservience to imperialism. In order to gain true independence, the revolution must continue to abolish capitalism itself.
Check out The Transitional Program by Trotsky, written in 1938/9. It has a section on fighting colonialism and how revolutionary communists should orient and participate in such movements. The section is called 'Backward Countries and the Program of Transitional Demands'. You're basically right, we need to fight colonialism even if the movement hasn't developed socialist consciousness, but definitely it's our job to emphasize the class question and need for socialist revolution.
I would recommend comrades read Harpal Brars Trotskyism or Leninism. The CPGB-ML have released a new pamphlet too. Trotsky was a wrecker of the USSR, he organised the assassination of Kirov, he didn't submit to party discipline and he didn't see the peasant class as an ally of the working class. He was therefore anti-Leninist. Stalin was the greatest Leninist. There is no such thing as Stalinism.
Very good video. Thank you for your effort. Having been a member of the fourth but leaving due to the misdirected energy towards left bashing, but that's another and regional story, I've since then explored early Sovjet history and its progression until today as well as many other aspects that seem "unpopular" within the organisation of the 4th. My conclusion is that we have 3 levels of communist development. Marx and others that contribute with deep analysis and theory are the "scientists", next come the "engineers" that make some sense of these findings in a regional adaptation, such as Lenin and Mao. However, I see no point in calling the contributions at this stage "theories" because there are no new findings but more like adaptation and realisation. Then we come to implementation, the "operators". This is where Fidel and Stalin would fit in. They continually adapt the works of engineers to reality. I'd place Trotsky in or between the latter two. Either way, this is still history. We should learn from it, all of it, without preconceptions but we seem to get stuck on a who said what and where and laying words in mouths of people no longer among us. This is why I'm hoping for a uniting international (whichever one in order it will be). I agree that for communism to be completely successful, the world revolution is necessary but I also think that the change must come from within each nation until they are willing to resolve as a state and join the global communist community. And that effort must be supported. But not primarily by physical force. I feel it should be a good point to discuss further "how" a Trotskyist permanent revolution would look like in actual actions? One can't call a communist a tankie in one moment and then turn around and say that the USSR should have brought revolution to the world by force - because that is maybe what this discussion sounds like to a lot of people. Either way, it's time to put all differences behind us and restart the communist project (in the west). History - good, future - better. Discussing historic conditions - good, actually defining present day conditions and planning - better. Arguing about who, what and why 100 years ago - interesting but sometime borderline pointless. Thank you to all the dead people that went before us. Now let's move on to practice, please.
Trotsky's Permanent Revolution thingy is not even Trotskys idea, he "appropriated" it (no lie, look it up) Trotsky is always for it (an idea or political position) before he's against it and vice versa. Trotskyism due to Trotsky's own schizophrenic "theories/positions", is replete with splits and factions. All these factions, even though diametrically opposed to each other, cite different parts of Trotsky's "work" as the fundamental justication for their differences and split. 😂😂😂😂
Guessing you mean from Parvus? That’s actually false. Certainly, Parvus had some influence on Trotsky on the run up to 1905. He was quite advanced at the time, recognising that capitalism would break not at its strongest but weakest link (Russia), and could be the spark for a Europe-wide revolutionary process. However, his model for the aftermath of the Russian Revolution was the Australian Labor Party: a Social Democratic Party operating as part of a bourgeois democratic government. Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution held that the revolutionary working class would not ‘stop’ at this stage, but continue to the overthrow of capitalism and the beginning of socialist reconstruction. Parvus wrote an introduction to Trotsky’s ‘Up to January Ninth’ pamphlet (available in English from a 2009 Haymarket collection) that makes the distinction rather stark when compared with, say, Results and Prospects.
Or, if you mean from Marx and Engels - this is addressed in the episode. And rather reinforces the view that it’s just the application of Marxism to the analysis of how revolutionary processes unfold under capitalism :)
Thanks for commenting! Please watch the video and indicate what aspect of the theory of Permanent Revolution is revisionist or anti-Leninist, and we will be happy to offer further explanation.
I went to Yugoslavia in 1986. Total lack of freedom, intimidating, and for 100ff I got a pile of useless notes. Worst experience I have ever had. I was listening to a man playing the guitar in Zagreb and was kicked in the head by a soldier for daring to sit on the floor. People who like communism are usually middle or upper class intellectuals who have never experienced in first hand. Believe me, communism is not the way forward, and if it happens they won’t let go of the power. Everyone equal, but some more equal than others.
When building the RCI, revolutionaries will almost be guaranteed to meet these slanders against Trotsky and Marxism and I think this podcast answered these slanders perfectly
Glad to hear it!
loving the audio quality. The new office space is really showing its value
We hope the setup will continue to improve in coming weeks!
This was a great talk, and very enlightening. I've been reading all things left from Marx to Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin (yes, even him), Luxemburg, etc for more decades that I care to remember, and this was proof that as long as you can keep an open and enquiring mind, you can never stop learning. Excellent! Well done.
Thanks! Glad you found it useful.
I think that it might possibly be useful to link, or at least to list, the written works referred to in this episode.
Good idea! Added to the description.
i like the white & red colour scheme as opposed to yellow & red, feels modern yknow
Long live RCI from Pakistan section 🚩🚩
REVINIST!
Also, I forgot to add, this was a fantastic episode! Really great stuff. I'd love to see the 21st century Stalin brigade folks reply to what y'all are saying here.
There are plenty of earnest communists with misconceptions about the theory of Permanent Revolution: hopefully this will be useful in dispelling those!
Trotsky - a most misunderstood historical figure
Not really. He was basically one of the first ultra leftists. The cool thing is nobody cares since Trotskyism is so self-defeating. Guess you guys share that in common with the anarchists
True, most bourgeois historians love him but in reality he’s a revisionist and betrayer of the revolution
@@musicdev Thanks for commenting! Did you watch the video? We would be curious to hear what aspects of Trotsky's ideas are ultraleft or in common with anarchism.
STOP YOUSELV REVINIST
Finished the book and now im back to finish the POD.
Lenin's writing in The Development of capitalism in Russia, neatly implies that Russia was so dire for most people that no wonder it had so many revolutions.
GOOD WORK, JOSH
Those forces who are currently in power are playing around with your podcast,at the 22minute mark I lost phone coverage yet a dozen or more people near me still had coverage.... Thanks guy's.
.
Thank you for this. ❤
Nice!
✊
STOP WATCHING REVINIST ANTI MAOSITS. THEY WASH YOU BRAINCELL
I feel like yall would do better by synthesizing with the tendency of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism bc it has a lot more potential for actually functioning well for working class people, due to the concept of The Mass Line. and also most Marxists I talk to pretty much hate Trotsky by default, and regardless of if you think that is valid, its pretty hard to get people on board with someone that many consider to be a traitor to socialism. just some advice.
Hi there! We would say that if a lot of Marxists you speak to (which, remember, is still a minority of people) 'hate Trotsky by default', that is because of the slander poured on his ideas. The purpose of this video is to clear up some common misconceptions about what he actually argued. Our position is that Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution accurately describes the dynamics of revolution in the modern world. If communists want future revolutions to succeed, it is important that we internalise the lessons contained in these ideas.
What the heck is a "com-raid?"
What British communists call one another.
another pronounciation of comrade
What is the trotskyist position on national liberation movements that are not also socialist ? For example many former colonial territories in the mid 20th century wanting to break free of french or british colonial rule (some still struggle with this). These movements may not be socialistic, but they are nationalistic. Would a trotskyist support those movements ?
I think it's important to support them whether socialist or not because anything that weakens imperialism and therefore also begins to break up and weaken international capitalism is good for any socialist movement anywhere in the world
In a nutshell, yes, but we would emphasize the need to lend a proletarian class character to these movements as a prerequisite for their success.
Basically, we want these movements to succeed, and in the era of imperialism, the only way for small oppressed nations to gain true independence is for them to move in a socialist direction. Even if the old regime was kicked out, whatever new regime arises will be faced with the choice of capitulating to the international credit institutions of imperialism, or nationalizing the land and moving in a socialist direction. Unless they continue immediately towards socialism, imperialism will easily re-assert its influence. They may gain political independence, but so long as the foreign capitalists hold control over industry, they can always force the new government to do their will. That is the condition that small nations like Haiti find themselves in. They are independent on paper, but it's the Americans who really rule.
I think a very plain example of that was the Cuban revolution. Many do not remember, but before the 1959 revolution, Batista himself was brought to power in a nationalist revolutionary movement. However, failing to move in a socialist direction, Batista quickly became the strongest enforcer of American imperialism. When Castro came to power, the revolution faced the same exact choice. Initially, the j26 movement was nationalist in character, and not explicitly communist. However, once in power, Castro saw that recognizing the claims of the American capitalists to Cuban land would just mean a continuation of US domination over the island. It's precisely because of the socialist turn made by Castro and the movement that Cuba still largely enjoys its independence today.
So in summary, we support movements for the national independence of oppressed countries, and it's for precisely that reason that we argue that the revolution cannot stop at political independence under capitalism, because that would quickly collapse back into naked subservience to imperialism. In order to gain true independence, the revolution must continue to abolish capitalism itself.
Check out The Transitional Program by Trotsky, written in 1938/9. It has a section on fighting colonialism and how revolutionary communists should orient and participate in such movements. The section is called 'Backward Countries and the Program of Transitional Demands'. You're basically right, we need to fight colonialism even if the movement hasn't developed socialist consciousness, but definitely it's our job to emphasize the class question and need for socialist revolution.
TROSTKY WAS ANGRIST MAO REVINIST
MAO AND HOXHA
I would recommend comrades read Harpal Brars Trotskyism or Leninism. The CPGB-ML have released a new pamphlet too. Trotsky was a wrecker of the USSR, he organised the assassination of Kirov, he didn't submit to party discipline and he didn't see the peasant class as an ally of the working class. He was therefore anti-Leninist. Stalin was the greatest Leninist. There is no such thing as Stalinism.
Hi! This is all nonsense :) The question about Trotsky’s attitude towards the peasantry is specifically addressed in the episode.
WE NEED PARTY STATE TO CONTROL PRODUCTION
MAKE TRANSLATION REVINIST
FORGET ADD UZBEK TRANSLATION
Maybe you should have talked a bit more about contemporary similar instances like the NPF in France?
When will Communism will come back in its former glory seems like everyone is sacred of it?
PEAS REVOLT IN CHINA
Very good video. Thank you for your effort. Having been a member of the fourth but leaving due to the misdirected energy towards left bashing, but that's another and regional story, I've since then explored early Sovjet history and its progression until today as well as many other aspects that seem "unpopular" within the organisation of the 4th. My conclusion is that we have 3 levels of communist development. Marx and others that contribute with deep analysis and theory are the "scientists", next come the "engineers" that make some sense of these findings in a regional adaptation, such as Lenin and Mao. However, I see no point in calling the contributions at this stage "theories" because there are no new findings but more like adaptation and realisation. Then we come to implementation, the "operators". This is where Fidel and Stalin would fit in. They continually adapt the works of engineers to reality. I'd place Trotsky in or between the latter two. Either way, this is still history. We should learn from it, all of it, without preconceptions but we seem to get stuck on a who said what and where and laying words in mouths of people no longer among us. This is why I'm hoping for a uniting international (whichever one in order it will be). I agree that for communism to be completely successful, the world revolution is necessary but I also think that the change must come from within each nation until they are willing to resolve as a state and join the global communist community. And that effort must be supported. But not primarily by physical force. I feel it should be a good point to discuss further "how" a Trotskyist permanent revolution would look like in actual actions? One can't call a communist a tankie in one moment and then turn around and say that the USSR should have brought revolution to the world by force - because that is maybe what this discussion sounds like to a lot of people. Either way, it's time to put all differences behind us and restart the communist project (in the west). History - good, future - better. Discussing historic conditions - good, actually defining present day conditions and planning - better. Arguing about who, what and why 100 years ago - interesting but sometime borderline pointless. Thank you to all the dead people that went before us. Now let's move on to practice, please.
READ HOXHA HE GAVE CORRECT IDEALS FOR EUROP
READ MAO
YOUR START FROM FEUDAL PEAS NATS NOT I INDUSTRY
YOU HAVE NO MEANING OF MARXKSISM
these dudes dont look like they can overthrow a government but they definitely look like they can toss a salad
Bravo nothing-knower!
One can imagine and live
Aint people living with imagination of god?
Trotsky's Permanent Revolution thingy is not even Trotskys idea, he "appropriated" it (no lie, look it up)
Trotsky is always for it (an idea or political position) before he's against it and vice versa.
Trotskyism due to Trotsky's own schizophrenic "theories/positions", is replete with splits and factions. All these factions, even though diametrically opposed to each other, cite different parts of Trotsky's "work" as the fundamental justication for their differences and split. 😂😂😂😂
Guessing you mean from Parvus? That’s actually false. Certainly, Parvus had some influence on Trotsky on the run up to 1905. He was quite advanced at the time, recognising that capitalism would break not at its strongest but weakest link (Russia), and could be the spark for a Europe-wide revolutionary process. However, his model for the aftermath of the Russian Revolution was the Australian Labor Party: a Social Democratic Party operating as part of a bourgeois democratic government. Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution held that the revolutionary working class would not ‘stop’ at this stage, but continue to the overthrow of capitalism and the beginning of socialist reconstruction. Parvus wrote an introduction to Trotsky’s ‘Up to January Ninth’ pamphlet (available in English from a 2009 Haymarket collection) that makes the distinction rather stark when compared with, say, Results and Prospects.
Or, if you mean from Marx and Engels - this is addressed in the episode. And rather reinforces the view that it’s just the application of Marxism to the analysis of how revolutionary processes unfold under capitalism :)
@@josephattard3964 I appreciate that you go through the comments and reply. I have a lot to look up now.
revisionism and anti Leninism
no, it is not. Stalinism is anti Leninist and revisionist
Thanks for commenting! Please watch the video and indicate what aspect of the theory of Permanent Revolution is revisionist or anti-Leninist, and we will be happy to offer further explanation.
Would you ever tell why?
EXACTLY REVINISM ANTI MAOSISM
@@flintinsects permanent revolution is an anti Leninist idea.
I went to Yugoslavia in 1986. Total lack of freedom, intimidating, and for 100ff I got a pile of useless notes. Worst experience I have ever had. I was listening to a man playing the guitar in Zagreb and was kicked in the head by a soldier for daring to sit on the floor. People who like communism are usually middle or upper class intellectuals who have never experienced in first hand. Believe me, communism is not the way forward, and if it happens they won’t let go of the power. Everyone equal, but some more equal than others.
That'd be very interesting if you were capable of honesty.
Wrong channel.