1997 Polaris Indy Windsheild

counter-Leninism / Leninist (or Trotskyism)

Leninism / Leninist (or Trotskyism)

Written by "Worker" (From Kaos en la Red)

1) About the Match (art / "masses")

The Leninist approach on this important issue, we can compare abundant throughout the and large work of Lenin, notably in the "What to do?" in "One step forward, two steps back" or "Where do I begin?", to name just three small examples.

Leninist Party's conception is based on the historical necessity by the working class, to create and organize a vanguard organization, a "Staff of the working class" that be able to lead it into the wall of political and economic power. A cadre organization of professional revolutionaries. Building the vital organ the working class to organize and educate the working class, primarily for the seizure of power.

In this conception, supported by history, opposed, opposed, Economists, Mensheviks, liquidators, August block, oztovistas ... Whether it was because they despise / despised the "political struggle" (Economic / unionism), either because they wanted to transform the party into a reformist body and interclass (Menshevik / Social), either directly because they wanted to liquidate the Party (settlement / anarchism). We must remember that Trotsky, before 1917, was econimic, Menshevik and liquidator. It is no coincidence, then, that all was fiercely opposed to the concept of the Leninist vanguard party.

And the Trotskyist conception, inherited from the Mensheviks, is based on the theory of "mass party", "MNR", "full", "spontaneity" in the "Any striker" (Trotsky dixit) can be a member. The antagonism is absolute.

But ...

Leninist "vanguard party or anti-Leninist party of the masses?

Lenin said about it;

"But you can not exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat through an organization covering the whole of this class, because all capitalist countries, not just ours, one of the most backward, the proletariat is still divided, so degraded and so corrupted in parts-by imperialism, in some countries, an organization encompassing the entire proletariat can not directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. You can only exercise the art that concentrates the revolutionary energy of the class. The set is something like a gear system. This is the basic mechanism of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the essence of the transition from capitalism to communism. "

He added,

" One who recognizes the class struggle, but does not accept the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be called a Marxist. "

Therefore, we have not two mere "divergent views", but two clear and obvious antagonisms, on one hand the Bolshevik conception of a party, covering the front of class, has a thousand links with the masses. On the other hand, the Menshevik conception of an organization where "all strike" may be a member of the party.

If the Bolsheviks had followed the Trotskyist conception of the party, it is certain that there had been a socialist revolution in Russia, because the Party had been destroyed well before 1917.

2) About the building of socialism (in one country / Permanent Revolution)

Returning to the written legacy he left us Lenin, particularly in "military program the proletarian revolution, the Bolshevik leader again leaves no room for doubt about their approaches;

"(...) Thirdly, the triumphant socialism in one country does not, of way, suddenly all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes. The development of capitalism continues course extremely uneven across countries. Can not be otherwise under the regime of commodity production. Hence the undeniable conclusion that socialism can not succeed in all countries simultaneously. First triumph in one or several countries, while others will remain for some time, or pre-bourgeois bourgeois countries. This will not only cause arguments, but even the direct attempt of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the victorious proletariat of the socialist state "

Development uneven rhythms economic growth, political expansion in the fight for space and markets ... This is the famous "law of uneven development", enunciated by Lenin and empirically verified by history, which characterizes the monopoly capitalism, imperialism. For the Communists, to Lenin, this was and is a principal Act is essential to understand the present stage of capitalism.

In her role covers the development by leaps, both imperialist and revolutionary processes that history is determined to prove. From the British Empire as a point imperialism's lance through Germany, reaching the U.S.. It is obvious that there has been a permanent improvement in the ranking of the imperialist countries, and that is what has led to wars and revolutions.

This is, in essence, the Leninist conception about the "construction of socialism in one country," As we have been repeating, has ratified the historical event itself.

The Trotskyist thesis, however, try to eliminate the design and analysis Leninist drinking directly from the sources of Rosa Luxemburg (curiously, this colossal revolutionary communist finished signing, point by point, the analysis of Lenin), Hilferding and Kautsky, who preferred to speak of "ultra-imperialism."

Leninism emphatically asserts that there is a double imperialism contradictory trend, dialectics: on competition and struggle, on the other side to monopolization. And this monopoly generates certain levels in the imperialist countries are matching each other. But just this monopoly and this tendency to the equalization between countries imperialist (a trend some), far from being the disappearance of the conflict, aggravating the phenomenon of inter-imperialist struggle, which often ended in World War. ("Law of unequal development of countries").

Trotskyism, instead, pamphlets based on the "renegade" Kautsky, states that "the law of unequal development of countries" was older than imperialism and that the capitalism in the developed countries is extremely unevenly. He claimed that in the nineteenth century this disparity was more significant than in the twentieth century. And precisely because financial capital that was an older form of capitalism, imperialism trends developed more "leveling" in the pre-monopoly capitalism.

fundamentaba Hence Trotsky's exotic theory of "Permanent Revolution." She should cover the whole industrialized countries, or at least simultaneously (hence the slogan of "United Socialist States of Europe"), to advanced Europe, Western and capitalist.

Trotsky said literally that;

"the triumph of the socialist revolution is inconceivable within national borders."

And to support a vision that was ultimately defeatist - isolation of the USSR in the years 19 and 20, after reflow and the defeat of the revolution in Hungary and Germany - insisted on this view, there was no alternative, or revolution in the whole of Europe or destruction of the revolution in a country isolated.

claimed that "the división mundial del trabajo, la subordinación de la industria soviética a la técnica extranjera, la dependencia de las fuerzas productivas de los países avanzados de Europa respecto de las materias primas asiáticas, hacen imposible la edificación de una sociedad socialista independiente en ningún país del mundo".

Lenin apostaba firmemente por la Revolución Socialista Proletaria Mundial, con un criterio  netamente internacionalista, pero basándose en realidades materiales, no en utopías esquizofrénicas. Lenin, los bolcheviques, pronto entendieron que este avance de la revolución tenía to be a jump, breaking the chains of the weakest links, first in some places earlier than others. And firmly maintained a position not defeatist, offensive, even in years when the USSR was completely isolated.

Against these conceptions, Trotskyism speculated about his, sucking the kautskyano ultraimperialism on the United Socialist States of Europe. Of course, when these crazy ideas were not realized (as almost always happens to the followers of Trotsky), they themselves, with the head teacher, became deeply defeatist, no quibble turned right, positions bet on liquidation, and secured and swearing that the possibilities and prospects of the new Soviet regime could consolidate were nil. And the story was to agree with Lenin, and the story was forcefully refute Trotsky.

Peace of Brest-Litovsk is a clear example of this issue, where again collide head-Leninist principles (of Lenin) and Leninist (or Trotskyites) in this case. Even Trotsky came to be called "traitor" to Lenin (and Stalin) to sign an armistice with the warlike Prussia, while the Petrograd workers barely resisted ... the infantilism is incurable for some.

The problem arises when the "well intentioned" infantilism gives rise to the "malicious" LOSS OF SOVIET TERRITORY AND DEATH OF SOVIET SOLDIERS AND CITIZENS. Perhaps there ceases to be the childishness that to become open counterrevolution.

3) About the peasantry (worker-peasant / workers' state)

The slogan that captured the Leninist thesis was to; " government democratic revolutionary workers and peasants ", a slogan taken from certain Leninist analysis of imperialism and the" weak links ", more if possible in a country like Russia in 1917, where 160 million Soviet citizens were farmers and only 2 million workers.

But again other slogans opposing preferred Trotsky to Lenin, guided by their limited assimilation of "ultra-imperialism" kautskyano. So Trotsky read, "No czar, for a workers' .

And that Trotskyism is considered "wrong and reactionary" Lenin's slogan, once again proven by history, the need for worker-peasant alliance. In fact, Trotsky himself even states the following, "The trend of the Communist International to prescribe the Oriental peoples the slogan of the democratic dictatorship (worker-peasant), surpassed in history for years, can have no more than a reactionary character. "

Your Leninist conception, did not distinguish Stages in the Revolution, which led him to assert that "the peasantry is a reactionary class. " His principled opposition to this alliance, proposed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, lead to Trotskyism to say that anyone who advocates training (regardless little economic, political or demographic of the country concerned, anti-Marxism), "renunciation of socialism" . It should be noted at this point, that "renounced socialism" as Trotskyism, would Lenin, Fidel, Che, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, etc, etc, etc ... in short, all revolutionary processes programmatically included the "worker-peasant alliance" proposed by Lenin.

Lenin himself, again responding forcefully;

"Trotsky maintains its 'original' theory of 1905, refusing to think about the reasons why over 10 years, life has gone by when this great theory. The 'original' copy theory of the Bolsheviks Trotsky's call for the proletariat to a resolute revolutionary struggle and the conquest of political power, and the Mensheviks, the denial of the role of the peasantry "(...)" It's about (the power Soviet) is not a fully working state. Here Comrade Trotsky is where you make one of its fundamental errors. First ours is not really a workers' state but a state workers and peasants ".

insist, in a country like Russia in the 20's, where there was overwhelming Most farmers, Trotskyist thesis was a simple suicide for the worker and the Bolshevik revolution. Fortunately Leninist theses majorities were imposed, allowing the survival of the Revolution.

Throughout this, the head of the Soviet revolution made concessions to the peasants and the peasant party (Socialist Revolutionaries). And not only did the pre-revolutionary context, but when the workers' revolution took power, one of the first things he did was the adoption of the Decree on Land (as happened in Cuba, China ...). That was the first decree of the new Soviet power. Later would come the Peace Act, signed by Lenin and the Board of Commissioners of the new Government of the People. This is due to the Bolshevik slogan, "Bread, peace and land", clearly influenced by the worker-peasant alliance, which attracted millions of poor farmers (peasant) next to the Revolution. (About they saw that the new government really gave them land, others because finally returning from the slaughter of World War I).

The worker-peasant alliance that Lenin applied rightly said and did advance to the Revolution itself. He had a line for farmers, especially after taking power, thanks to which it could maintain power in Soviet times that developed extreme difficulties caused by foreign intervention, civil war, blockade and military intervention against the nascent Soviet power.

Again, this is not a mere matter "theoretical", but of principles, practice and transcendent. The story was commissioned again to load reasons to refute Leninists and Trotskyists. Here is the programmatic coherence of Lenin and the Bolsheviks on this point (and the rest). Whether in the "What to do?", Either in the "April Theses, Lenin and the Bolsheviks clearly show the position of the Communists, the vital need for a Democratic Revolution and a Workers and Peasants Government.

The duality of powers created in Russia in February 1917, where one side was the Kerensky Provisional Government (bourgeoisie) and the other the soviets (workers, peasants and soldiers), which culminated in the Bolshevik slogan "All Power to the Soviets" and "worker-peasant alliance" irrefutably demonstrated the validity of the proposals of Lenin.

Meanwhile, preferred to play totskismo isolation, sectarianism, the weakening of the working class, in what became the typical and topical position petty "leftist." And in the bottom of the issue is a confrontation between the Leninist stage revolution and the revolution "all or nothing" Trotskyist. It is not known if any of revolutions that have not passed through in their fight this preparatory stage of socialist revolution based on worker-peasant alliance that both repugnant to Trotsky. Absolutely all the revolutions which had so far, even in some cases such as Russia, which was not a typical country of the Third World, colonial or semi-colonial, there was always STAGES.

frontism ABOUT

If Trotsky and his few followers, opposed to union with the peasantry, can you imagine what the reaction of these men regarding the structure of anti-fascist Popular Front, in full Nazi expansion, which included workers, peasants and petty bourgeoisie, fascism?

In opposition to the proposals of the Third International, Trotsky said, in the year 1938, "The precondition for the revolutionary struggle against fascism is the unmasking of the theory and practice Popular Front. " "Popular fronts on the one hand and fascism on the other are the last political resources of imperialism in the struggle against the proletarian revolution. "

history again showed that the Popular Fronts, launched by the Leninist Comintern, served effectively to fight against fascism. This tested in Spain, China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe. These were not just opposing fronts with fascism, they were also antagonistic, once again, to the principles of Trotsky suicide. And as a button:

We are located in English Civil War (1936), a bourgeois republic and progressive militarily threatened by fascism. Look at those who said the Leninist (Communist), which said the Trotskyists and what they said the fascists

-Leninists, the PCE opt for the Popular Front and the unbreakable bond all anti-fascists to confront the fascist barbarism. Throw the slogan;
"against fascism, defend the Republic!"
RESULT; The PCE multiplies its militancy, feeding on many small bourgeois paintings are at the service of the Party of the working class, increasing the chances to cope with fascism ..

-Trotskyists, the POUM (a ghostly party militancy ridiculous), follows the premises of his master Trotsky. Throw the slogan;
"Down with the bourgeois Republic"!
RESULT; The POUM is completely isolated, reaching into the arms of intelligence Franco.

-Fascists, the big bourgeoisie and its military apparatus, with Franco at the helm, launched the slogan;
"Down with the republic!"
RESULT: The objective FASCIST militarily seeking to overthrow the Republic, is the same as shouting Trotskyism.

History will never cease to amaze ...

In the fall of the USSR

The socialism, and therefore the Soviet Union, domestic debacle began with the celebration of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU in 1956. From here, with Stalin dead by the way, the USSR degenerate and disappear. Just do a historical chronology ever, we realize that the USSR and the international communist and workers' movement had more influence than in the period 1917-1956;

-first socialist revolution in history (1917-1921)

-Home of socialist construction (1929-1936)

-Defeat of international fascism (1936-1945)

-Emergence of many socialist republics national liberation movement (1945-1956)

Powerful -Western PC growth (1939-1956)

This is a historical truth, objective, evidence-based testable.

After all, we have only stated quite clearly that Trotskyism is not only alien to socialism, communism, and revolutionary labor movement ... but is opposed to them all!

Trotskyism is a "theory" (never practiced in any country), that not only is directly contrary to Leninism, Marxism also, and thus is essentially anti-communist.

matters little that Trotsky and his few followers continue to use roughly the figure of Stalin to deny Lenin.

When contradicts and denies absolutely essential foundations of Marxism-Leninism, as we have seen, the Communist vaccine is already inoculated. When Trotskyism viscerally opposed to any revolutionary process, repeating the same propaganda anti-inherited from the bourgeoisie ("bureaucracy" "Lack of material prosperity and economic development", "totalitarianism", "crimes of hundreds of millions" ...), we are vaccinated.

Leninist principles in ALL your program, anti-Marxist in every sense, counter-revolutionaries in all processes that have existed and still exist (from the USSR to the DPRK, through Cuba, Vietnam, China, Nicaragua ...), sectarian and subjective in their grievances "tactical and strategic."

Lenin devoted 400 pages to criticize Trotsky ("Against Trotskyism"-Lenin).

matters little, they insist on bashing Stalin as an "enemy of Lenin and Trotsky," precisely because they can not bear that Stalin was ruthless in defense of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism

" Trotsky represented only his personal hesitations, and nothing more. 1903 was a Menshevik, left the Mensheviks in 1904, returned to the Mensheviks in 1905, boasting an ultra-revolutionaries wording in 1906 turned away again, at the end of 1906 defended the electoral agreements with the Cadets (that is, in fact, was back with the Mensheviks). And in the spring of 1907, told Congress in London that diverged more about Rosa Luxemburg 'individual nuances of the ideas on political trends. " Plagiarism today Trotsky ideological baggage of a fraction, the other morning and as a consequence, it proclaims located above both fractions. Trotsky In theory you disagree at any point with the liquidators and otzovists, but in practice is in full agreement with them. "

VIUlianov, Lenin.