Date
1 - 20 of 26
Transitional Programme | A Transition to Nowhere | Prometheus
|
Andrew Stewart
-- Best regards, Andrew Stewart
|
|
|
|
Louis Proyect
On 8/12/20 12:53 PM, Andrew Stewart
wrote:
This article is crap. There is not a single citation of Leon Trotsky's Transitional Program, only characterizations. For example, it states: "The idea that a small vanguard party, without any mass basis in the working class, will be able to arise victorious out of a revolutionary crisis is laughable." Yes, it is laughable but Leon Trotsky never said anything like that. It is useful to study Lenin's
polemics that are permeated by citations. For example, from
"The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky": The fundamental question that Kautsky discusses in his pamphlet is that of the very essence of proletarian revolution, namely, the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a question that is of the greatest importance for all countries, especially for the advanced ones, especially for those at war, and especially at the present time. One may say without fear of exaggeration that this is the key problem of the entire proletarian class struggle. It is, therefore, necessary to pay particular attention to it . Kautsky formulates the question as follows: “The contrast between the two socialist trends” (i.e., the Bolsheviks and non-Bolsheviks) “is the contrast between two radically different methods: the dictatorial and the democratic” (p. 3). Let us point out, in passing, that when calling the non-Bolsheviks in Russia, i.e., the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, socialists, Kautsky was guided by their name, that is, by a word, and not by the actual place they occupy in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. What a wonderful understanding and application of Marxism! But more of this later.
|
|
|
|
Joseph Green
On 12 Aug 2020 at 13:03, Louis Proyect wrote:
This article [by Cornelis van Vliet--JG] is crap. There is not a single citation of LeonThis is the first time I've heard of Cornelis van Vliet and the Communist Platform, so I can't say much about them. But as for citations from Trotsky showing many of his errors, they are readily available to those who are willing to seriously study the experience of Trotskyism.. My own critique of Trotsky's version of the transitional program is backed by abundant citations to "The Transitional Program: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International" and other of Trotsky's writings. Part one of an overall critique of Trotsky's views can be found at www.communistvoice.org/30cTrotsky.thml. It is divided into subjects such as the following, and backed by numerous citations: Permanent revolution --Denigration of the democratic revolution --Trotsky versus "the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" --Overlooking the non-socialist revolutionary trends --The issue of the provisional revolutionary government --"Left" rhetoric leading to subordination to the bourgeoisie The transitional program --Trotskyist repudiation of the minimum program --Claiming reforms go beyond the bounds of capitalism --An inconsistent and muddled stand towards various demands and struggles --A strong element of manipulation --The problem isn't the term "transitional demand" The colonial and semi-colonial world --Nothing to say about class relation in undeveloped countries- --Ludicrous suggestions about China- --In judging wars, a mechanical rule rather than class and political criteria The hypocrisy of "military but not political support": backing reactionary regimes at war Betraying the right to self-determination --Implying the right to self-determination is outdated --Holding that independence would lead directly to socialism --Ignoring the national oppression of a number of nationalities, including the Moroccan people during the Spanish Civil War- --Seeing nothing but the struggle for independence- --Trotskyist justifications for oppressing certain nationalities Democratic struggles and the fight against fascism --Worried about taking anti-fascist struggle too seriously --Unable to fight fascism except with immediate socialist revolution --Embracing social-democracy in the name of opposing fascism --The "French turn": embracing social-democracy -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
Joseph Green
Oops. That's www.communistvoice.org/30cTrotsky.html
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
not thml.
On 12 Aug 2020 at 16:50, jgreen@... wrote:
Part one of an overall critique of --
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
Ken Hiebert
One of the issues dealt with in the article cited is Ethiopia. For those who want to pursue this question I am offering this link to an article by Trotsky on Ethiopia.
ken h https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm
|
|
|
|
Joseph Green
On 12 Aug 2020 at 17:55, knhiebert@... wrote:
> One of the issues dealt with in the article cited is Ethiopia. For
> those who want to pursue this question I am offering this link to an
> article by Trotsky on Ethiopia.
> ken h
>
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm
Yes, that is Trotsky's main article on the Italo-Ethiopian war, and I have cited it
repeatedly in my articles on Trotskyism. It is definitely worth looking at. It's
especially important to compare it to a history of what happened in the
Italo-Ethiopian war, and afterwards.
In the "Outline of Trotsky's Anti-Marxist Theories" I wrote:
"...during the Italian fascist invasion of Ethiopia in the mid-30s, the most that
Trotsky could do was call for support for Emperor Haile Selassie. The theory of
'permanent revolution' had nothing to say about the class relations in Ethiopia, so
Trotsky compared Haile Selassie to Cromwell and Robespierre, who he described
as 'dictators' who have played a 'very progressive role in history'. He put forward
the perspective of Selassie striking 'a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism
but at imperialism as a whole'. Just over a week later, Selassie fled Ethiopia,
leaving the Ethiopian people to resist Italy by themselves. Far from Selassie
striking a blow at imperialism as a whole, discontent with his absolute monarchy
simmered among the Ethiopian fighters, called 'patriots', who continued the fight
against Italian occupation from inside Ethiopia. (14)"
The quotes from Trotsky are from "On Dictators and the Heights of Olso". I had
discussed this in more detail earlier in an article "Anti-imperialism and the class
struggle". In the sections on "Trotsky and the Emperor of Ethopia" and "Trotsky's
mechanical rules", I quoted Trotsky's article, and I talked about it at length. Part of
what I wrote was:
"The Italo-Ethiopian war was the continuation of a long struggle by Italian
imperialism to enslave Ethiopia. Trotsky was right to denounce the ide0a that the
outcome of this war was irrelevant to the working masses, just as Stalin was right
to defend the Soviet policy of relations with Afghanistan. But Trotsky was wrong
to sing psalms of praise to the Ethiopian dictatorship and speculate over
revolutionary dictators, just as Stalin was wrong to theorize about the 'objectively'
revolutionary nature of the Emir of Afghanistan. Trotsky ignored the 'social
foundations' of the Ethiopian dictatorship, and he ignored the tragedy which this
dictatorship was bringing to the Ethiopian people. The class nature of this
dictatorship would hamstring Ethiopian resistance to the Italian invasion.
"Trotsky was so enthusiastic about the supposed 'very progressive' nature of
absolutist dictatorship that he envisioned an autocrat like Haile Selassie leading a
revolt in India against British colonialism. India, unlike Ethiopia, had a significant
proletariat, substantial class movements of the toilers, and an active communist
movement, which was faced with the issue of dealing with a powerful bourgeois
nationalist movement. But Trotsky envisioned that the Indian revolt might be led,
and in a progressive manner, by an absolutist despot. This underlines the fact
that Trotsky, in this passage, utterly separated the class struggle from
anti-imperialism. He converted anti-imperialism into simply supporting this or that
dictator or regime."
I continued
"Selassie's departure was a sign of the defeat of the official armies and the upper
nobility by the Italian fascists, yet his absence didn't mean the war was over. The
Italians ended up controlling all the towns and main roads, but Ethiopian
resistance continued in the countryside. It was carried on by people who were
called the Patriots. It was mainly led by local landowning chiefs in the countryside
(balabats), although some members of the nobility took part. It was not a
revolutionary movement of the peasantry and was not aimed against the old
exploitation, as the Patriots were led by chiefs and landowners, although mainly
not the nobility. But its existence showed the fallacy of dreaming that Haile
Selassie would be the revolutionary dictator liberating the Ethiopian people.
Indeed, during the war, there was grumbling among the Patriots against the
failures of the Selassie regime, and some talk of eliminating the absolute
monarchy or, at least, cutting down Selassie's powers."
I also discussed this in the article "The sad story of Leon Trotsky and Haile
Selassie", part one (http://www.communistvoice.org/DWV-150831.html), and I
gave a list of important events in the Ethiopian struggle in part two ("From the
history of Ethiopian resistance to Italian occupation",
http://www.communistvoice.org/DWV-150908.html) This history can help one
make one's own judgment about Selasssie role in history. It shows how the first
thing Selassie did, upon returning to Ethiopia with British help, was to suppress
various revolts, such as the Woyane uprising in Tigray in 1943. And, a few years
after World War II, he took over Eritrea, which eventually led to three decades of
bloody warfare. It also referred to his backward role in the general anti-colonial
movement in Africa.
As of yet, I have never seen any Trotskyist source evaluate Trotsky's stand in the
light of what actually happened in Ethiopia. Who needs facts after Trotsky has
spoken?
Instead of studying Ethiopian history, it's easier to repeat dogma and lie about
other people. Take, for example, the RCIT's Yossi Schwartz. He is the author of
a big pamphlet entittled "The National Question: The Marxist Approach to the
Struggle of the Oppressed People" (September 2019 -
https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-national-question). He claims that I
have supposedly denounced the struggle against Italian aggression and the
anti-imperialist struggle, and have the same stand as the pacifist Maxton.
Now, what is truly pathetic is his method of argumention. Although he quotes me
defending the Ethiopian struggle, he regards this as irrelevant. In essence, he
argues that since I criticize Trotsky 's views, by definition I am opposing the
Ethiopian struggle. For him, the only thing that matters is whether one agrees with
what he calls "Trotsky's method" of defending the struggle.
And one lies follows another. He pretends that Trotsky talked about Selassie
being a reactionary, when in fact Trotsky said in "On Dictators and the Heights of
Oslo" that Selassie was a dictator who might "play a very progressive role in
history". "Very progressive" gets translated as "reactionary". It's truly ludicrous.
Here's his passage about me:
"The middle class reformists and centrists who refused to defend the
semi-colonies because of their reactionary leadership, attack Trotsky’s method of
defending the semi-colonies when they are led by reactionaries while they fight
imperialism, have the same argument that the ILP, led by Maxton, had in 1936.
For example, Joseph Green, a leading member of the pseudo-revolutionary
group that publishes Communist Voice wrote in 2015: 'Selassie was one of the
absolute rulers of the Ethiopian Empire; he was Regent from 1916 to 1930, and
Emperor from 1930 to 1974. Trotsky was right to back Ethiopia against Italian
invasion and occupation during the latter 1930s, but wrong to prettify Selassie’s
absolutism and wrong to regard Ethiopia as a blank slate, without significant
internal struggles. On April 22, 1936, Trotsky wrote that workers faced 'making a
choice between two dictators', either Mussolini or Haile Selassie. He didn’t look
towards the victory of the Ethiopian people, but the 'victory of the Negus'; 'Negus'
referred to Haile Selassie, and Trotsky was saying something like 'victory of his
royal majesty'. Trotsky held that 'the victory of the Negus... would mean a mighty
blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend
a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples.' [44]"
(Yossi Schwartz, "The National Question", p. 17,
https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-national-question) <>
|
|
|
|
Ken Hiebert
You believe that Trotsky's response to Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia was incorrect. And I doubt that you would support the position of the ILP, who Trotsky criticized. Do you think that anyone at that time had a correct approach to this struggle? Did the Soviet Union have a correct approach? In your opinion, how should Trotsky have responded at that time?
ken h
|
|
|
|
Chris Slee
Trotsky's article was not intended as a comprehensive analysis of Ethiopian society. It was just dealing with the question of whether socialists should support Ethiopia against the Italian invasion, despite the fact that Ethiopia was under the dictatorship
of Haile Selassie. Trotsky's answer was yes.
Trotsky did not "sing psalms of praise to the Ethiopian dictatorship", as Joseph Green claims. What he said was that a victory by Ethiopia over the Italian invaders would have a progressive impact on world politics, by weakening Italian imperialism and by
encouraging revolts against imperialism elsewhere:
Trotsky would not have been very surprised by Haile Selassie running away. He did not discuss this possibility in this particular article, because he was responding to
the argument that socialists should not support Ethiopia because of Haile Selassie's dictatorial rule.
I am not an uncritical defender of Trotsky. The theory of permanent revolution sometimes led him to a schematic approach. But in this case I think the criticism is invalid.
Chris Slee
From: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io> on behalf of Joseph Green <jgreen@...>
Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2020 5:52 PM To: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io> Subject: Re: [marxmail] Transitional Programme | A Transition to Nowhere | Prometheus On 12 Aug 2020 at 17:55, knhiebert@... wrote:
> One of the issues dealt with in the article cited is Ethiopia. For
> those who want to pursue this question I am offering this link to an
> article by Trotsky on Ethiopia.
> ken h
>
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm
Yes, that is Trotsky's main article on the Italo-Ethiopian war, and I have cited it repeatedly in my articles on Trotskyism. It is definitely worth looking at. It's especially important to compare
it to a history of what happened in the Italo-Ethiopian war, and afterwards.
In the "Outline of Trotsky's Anti-Marxist Theories" I wrote:
"...during the Italian fascist invasion of Ethiopia in the mid-30s, the most that Trotsky could do was call for support for Emperor Haile Selassie. The theory of 'permanent revolution' had nothing
to say about the class relations in Ethiopia, so Trotsky compared Haile Selassie to Cromwell and Robespierre, who he described as 'dictators' who have played a 'very progressive role in history'. He put forward the perspective of Selassie striking 'a mighty
blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole'. Just over a week later, Selassie fled Ethiopia, leaving the Ethiopian people to resist Italy by themselves. Far from Selassie striking a blow at imperialism as a whole, discontent with his
absolute monarchy simmered among the Ethiopian fighters, called 'patriots', who continued the fight against Italian occupation from inside Ethiopia. (14)"
The quotes from Trotsky are from "On Dictators and the Heights of Olso". I had discussed this in more detail earlier in an article "Anti-imperialism and the class struggle". In the sections
on "Trotsky and the Emperor of Ethopia" and "Trotsky's mechanical rules", I quoted Trotsky's article, and I talked about it at length. Part of what I wrote was:
"The Italo-Ethiopian war was the continuation of a long struggle by Italian imperialism to enslave Ethiopia. Trotsky was right to denounce the ide0a that the outcome of this war was irrelevant
to the working masses, just as Stalin was right to defend the Soviet policy of relations with Afghanistan. But Trotsky was wrong to sing psalms of praise to the Ethiopian dictatorship and speculate over revolutionary dictators, just as Stalin was wrong to
theorize about the 'objectively' revolutionary nature of the Emir of Afghanistan. Trotsky ignored the 'social foundations' of the Ethiopian dictatorship, and he ignored the tragedy which this dictatorship was bringing to the Ethiopian people. The class nature
of this dictatorship would hamstring Ethiopian resistance to the Italian invasion.
"Trotsky was so enthusiastic about the supposed 'very progressive' nature of absolutist dictatorship that he envisioned an autocrat like Haile Selassie leading a revolt in India against British
colonialism. India, unlike Ethiopia, had a significant proletariat, substantial class movements of the toilers, and an active communist movement, which was faced with the issue of dealing with a powerful bourgeois nationalist movement. But Trotsky envisioned
that the Indian revolt might be led, and in a progressive manner, by an absolutist despot. This underlines the fact that Trotsky, in this passage, utterly separated the class struggle from anti-imperialism. He converted anti-imperialism into simply supporting
this or that dictator or regime."
I continued
"Selassie's departure was a sign of the defeat of the official armies and the upper nobility by the Italian fascists, yet his absence didn't mean the war was over. The Italians ended up controlling
all the towns and main roads, but Ethiopian resistance continued in the countryside. It was carried on by people who were called the Patriots. It was mainly led by local landowning chiefs in the countryside (balabats), although some members of the nobility
took part. It was not a revolutionary movement of the peasantry and was not aimed against the old exploitation, as the Patriots were led by chiefs and landowners, although mainly not the nobility. But its existence showed the fallacy of dreaming that Haile
Selassie would be the revolutionary dictator liberating the Ethiopian people. Indeed, during the war, there was grumbling among the Patriots against the failures of the Selassie regime, and some talk of eliminating the absolute monarchy or, at least, cutting
down Selassie's powers."
I also discussed this in the article "The sad story of Leon Trotsky and Haile Selassie", part one (http://www.communistvoice.org/DWV-150831.html), and I gave a list of important events in the
Ethiopian struggle in part two ("From the history of Ethiopian resistance to Italian occupation", http://www.communistvoice.org/DWV-150908.html) This history can help one make one's own judgment about Selasssie role in history. It shows how the first thing
Selassie did, upon returning to Ethiopia with British help, was to suppress various revolts, such as the Woyane uprising in Tigray in 1943. And, a few years after World War II, he took over Eritrea, which eventually led to three decades of bloody warfare.
It also referred to his backward role in the general anti-colonial movement in Africa.
As of yet, I have never seen any Trotskyist source evaluate Trotsky's stand in the light of what actually happened in Ethiopia. Who needs facts after Trotsky has spoken?
Instead of studying Ethiopian history, it's easier to repeat dogma and lie about other people. Take, for example, the RCIT's Yossi Schwartz. He is the author of a big pamphlet entittled "The
National Question: The Marxist Approach to the Struggle of the Oppressed People" (September 2019 - https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-national-question). He claims that I have supposedly denounced the struggle against Italian aggression and the anti-imperialist
struggle, and have the same stand as the pacifist Maxton.
Now, what is truly pathetic is his method of argumention. Although he quotes me defending the Ethiopian struggle, he regards this as irrelevant. In essence, he argues that since I criticize
Trotsky 's views, by definition I am opposing the Ethiopian struggle. For him, the only thing that matters is whether one agrees with what he calls "Trotsky's method" of defending the struggle.
And one lies follows another. He pretends that Trotsky talked about Selassie being a reactionary, when in fact Trotsky said in "On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo" that Selassie was a dictator
who might "play a very progressive role in history". "Very progressive" gets translated as "reactionary". It's truly ludicrous.
Here's his passage about me:
"The middle class reformists and centrists who refused to defend the semi-colonies because of their reactionary leadership, attack Trotsky’s method of defending the semi-colonies when they are
led by reactionaries while they fight imperialism, have the same argument that the ILP, led by Maxton, had in 1936. For example, Joseph Green, a leading member of the pseudo-revolutionary group that publishes Communist Voice wrote in 2015: 'Selassie was
one of the absolute rulers of the Ethiopian Empire; he was Regent from 1916 to 1930, and Emperor from 1930 to 1974. Trotsky was right to back Ethiopia against Italian invasion and occupation during the latter 1930s, but wrong to prettify Selassie’s absolutism
and wrong to regard Ethiopia as a blank slate, without significant internal struggles. On April 22, 1936, Trotsky wrote that workers faced 'making a choice between two dictators', either Mussolini or Haile Selassie. He didn’t look towards the victory of
the Ethiopian people, but the 'victory of the Negus'; 'Negus' referred to Haile Selassie, and Trotsky was saying something like 'victory of his royal majesty'. Trotsky held that 'the victory of the Negus... would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism
but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples.' [44]" (Yossi Schwartz, "The National Question", p. 17, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-national-question) <>
|
|
|
|
Joseph Green
On 13 Aug 2020 at 17:54, knhiebert@... wrote:
In your opinion, howHe should have supported the Ethiopian side of the Italo-Ethiopian war, but refrained from glorifying Haile Selassie. Trotsky's stand with regard to Haile Selassie has been an important part of the Trotskist canon for decades. It is repeatedly cited in the Trotskyist movement during discussions on the attitude to various wars. It was even cited by both (!) sides during a public debate among British Trotskyists over whether to support the struggle of the Taliban as anti-imperialist. (See http://www.communistvoice.org/28cTaliban.html and http://www.communistvoice.org/29cEmir.html) So, given the importance of the example of the Italo-Ethiopian war to Trotskyist theorizing, it is astonishing that it is hard to find any Trotskyist discussion of what happened in Ethiopia during the war and as a result of the war. Indeed, so far I haven't found any example of that. This shows something fundamentally wrong, even deeper than simply a wrong stand on a particular issue. One would think that revolutionary theory should be checked and rechecked against what actually happens in the world. To fail to do so is gross irresponsibility towards the workers and activists who pay the consequences if the theory is wrong. But instead the Trotskyist movement, while repeatedly citing "On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo", has not only ignored, but hid the facts of what went on. The article is cited over and over without even mentioning that Selassie fled Ethiopia ten days later, to say nothing of later developments. The RCIT's Yossi Schwartz makes a big point of Trotsky's article, but says nothing about Selassie fleeing Ethiopia. Pathfinder Press has published a collection of Trotsky's articles which adds an abundance of explanatory notes, but is quiet in these notes on Selassie fleeing. Lengthy Trotskyist articles can be found on an abundance of events and countries, but somehow not on what happened in Ethiopia during the Italo-Ethiopian war. This shows a guilty conscience, to say nothing of a disdain for the people and national groups of Ethiopia and Eritrea whose history is important. African history matters! -- Joseph Green -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
Joseph Green
On 14 Aug 2020 at 2:30, Chris Slee wrote:
Trotsky's article was not intended as a comprehensive analysis ofIt has no analysis of Ethiopian society. The vaunted theory of "permanent revolution" had nothing to say with regard to the struggle of the peoples of Ethiopia. Trotsky had no idea of what should be done with respect to the complex internal situation of Ethiopia. He ranked Selassie alongside Cromwell or Robespierre, which for Trotsky -- who ignores certain things about these "dictators", such as Cromwell's butchering of the Irish people -- was very high praise. He said that Selassie might play a "very progressive role in history". He imagines that someone similar to Selassie might "place himself at the head of the next uprising of the Indian people in order to smash the British yoke". He dreams that Selassie might strike "a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole". (https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm) It's ludicrous when the RCIT's pamphlet says that Trotsky regarded Selassie as a "reactionary" and when you deny that Trotsky praised Selassie to the skies. > Trotsky would not have been very surprised by Haile Selassie running away.You are just inventing this out of your head. You don't bother looking into what really happened in Ethiopia or what Trotsky really wrote; instead you just do spin control. From "On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo" it is abundantly clear that Trotsky expected Selassie to lead the resistance to the Italian invasion. (Did Cromwell run away from England and let someone else do the fighting against the Royalists?) And the Trotskyist movement's silence for over 80 years about Selassie fleeing Ethiopia, a silence from Trotsky to the present, shows that the Trotskyist movement was profoundly embarrassed by Selassie fleeing. And also profoundly unwilling to check theory against fact. --- Joseph Green -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
John Reimann
There is no such thing as "The Transitional Program by Leon Trotsky". He never wrote and never would have written anything by that name. There is a reason why he never would have written anything by that name: A program is an approach to a real-life state of affairs. Unless you think that nothing ever changes in the world, how can there be "the" program that is good for all times and all places?
What "The Death Agony of Capitalism" does do is bring a certain method - the transitional method. Those who insist on branding "The Death Agony of Capitalism" as "The" Transitional Program adopt the demands while they kill the method.
|
|
|
|
Louis Proyect
On 8/14/20 3:43 AM, Joseph Green wrote:
He ranked Selassie alongside Cromwell or Robespierre, which for Trotsky -- who ignores certain things about these "dictators", such as Cromwell's butchering of the Irish people -- was very high praise. So what? Mustafa Kemal also played a progressive role by uniting the Turks against English imperialism that was using Greece as a proxy. That same impulse also led to the suppression of Armenians and Kurds. Lincoln was the quintessential bourgeois revolutionary but he directed his military to slaughter native peoples exactly like George Washington did. Trotsky wrote an article titled "Learn to Think"
that I reference in my CounterPunch article today about the U.
of Utah fiasco. Joseph might find Trotsky's article useful.
|
|
|
|
Dayne Goodwin
Good advice for Joseph. Appreciate the excellent responses from Ken,
Chris and John. On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:42 AM John Reimann <1999wildcat@...> wrote: There is no such thing as "The Transitional Program by Leon Trotsky". He never wrote and never would have written anything by that name. There is a reason why he never would have written anything by that name: A program is an approach to a real-life state of affairs. Unless you think that nothing ever changes in the world, how can there be "the" program that is good for all times and all places?On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:30 PM Chris Slee <chris_w_slee@...> wrote: Trotsky's article was not intended as a comprehensive analysis of Ethiopian society. It was just dealing with the question of whether socialists should support Ethiopia against the Italian invasion, despite the fact that Ethiopia was under the dictatorship of Haile Selassie. Trotsky's answer was yes.On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 6:54 PM <knhiebert@...> wrote: You believe that Trotsky's response to Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia was incorrect. And I doubt that you would support the position of the ILP, who Trotsky criticized. Do you think that anyone at that time had a correct approach to this struggle? Did the Soviet Union have a correct approach? In your opinion, how should Trotsky have responded at that time? On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:51 AM Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote: On 8/14/20 3:43 AM, Joseph Green wrote:He ranked Selassie alongside Cromwell or Robespierre, which for Trotsky -- whoSo what? Mustafa Kemal also played a progressive role by uniting the Turks against English imperialism that was using Greece as a proxy. That same impulse also led to the suppression of Armenians and Kurds. Lincoln was the quintessential bourgeois revolutionary but he directed his military to slaughter native peoples exactly like George Washington did.
|
|
|
|
Patrick Bond
Comrades, isn't the point here a simple one: certain programmatic
opportunities arise now and again. We may be at the cusp of having
such opportunities now, what with the ceiling so obvious on
capitalist approaches, and the resistance rising so impressively
across the world over the past decade? In which case, a 'transitional program' is much like the 'non-reformist reforms' approach of the likes of Andre Gorz, John Saul, etc. That would stand in distinction from the reformist reforms that you'd normally find in the U.S. Democratic Party, which emphasize technological fixes and market-oriented 'solutions' to crises such as climate chaos. A transitional program would work against the market at every opportunity, strengthening workers and other dominated groups. Isn't that the gist of the contribution by those coming to
practical politics with a revolutionary Marxist orientation?
On 8/15/2020 2:41 AM, Dayne Goodwin
wrote:
Good advice for Joseph. Appreciate the excellent responses from Ken, Chris and John. On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:42 AM John Reimann <1999wildcat@...> wrote:There is no such thing as "The Transitional Program by Leon Trotsky". He never wrote and never would have written anything by that name. There is a reason why he never would have written anything by that name: A program is an approach to a real-life state of affairs.
|
|
|
|
Peter Turner <karlrosa1919@...>
In response to <knhiebert@...> I would say Sylvia Pankhurst. She condemned Italy without equivocation, and the rest of the League of Nations, for not condemning the invasion. She is buried in Addis Ababa as a national hero for it.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:41 PM Dayne Goodwin <daynegoodwin@...> wrote: Good advice for Joseph. Appreciate the excellent responses from Ken,
|
|
|
|
Peter Turner <karlrosa1919@...>
John: I'm in trouble. I find myself agreeing with you. -Pete T.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:41 PM Dayne Goodwin <daynegoodwin@...> wrote: Good advice for Joseph. Appreciate the excellent responses from Ken,
|
|
|
|
Ken Hiebert
The only article by Trotsky i could find regarding Ethiopia is this one.https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm
Those who are interested can read it for themselves and decide if Trotsky was glorifying Haile Selassie. My thanks to Peter Turner for the history of Sylvia Pankhurst and Ethiopia. There's a lot I don't know about Ethiopia and this was a fascinating part of the story. She started her own newspaper. called New Times and Ethiopia News. She is honoured in Ethiopia to the present day.
|
|
|
|
Peter Turner <karlrosa1919@...>
There is actually more to the story of the Pankhursts. Sylvia's mother (sorry, but her name escapes me) was a founder of the women's suffragist movement in the UK. Her story was featured in a television series on the U.S. suffragist movement, which she influenced. I watched it a month or so ago, maybe on netflix or PBS. Sylvia was also a left communist and a critic/supporter of Lenin. Eventually the left communist current faded and she took up the cause of anti-fascism. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with her politics, she showed courage and principle at a difficult time.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:54 PM Ken Hiebert <knhiebert@...> wrote: The only article by Trotsky i could find regarding Ethiopia is this one.https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm
|
|
|
|
Alan Ginsberg
Occasional marxmail contributor Barbara Winslow has written a biography "Sylvia Pankhurst: Sexual Politics and Political Activism".
https://www.amazon.com/Sylvia-Pankhurst-Politics-Political-Activism/dp/1857283457
|
|
|
|
Mark Lause
|
|
|
