[lbo-talk] Robert Frost Defends Robespierre, Lenin, Mao

[Mike Beggs]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:12 AM,  <wrobert at uci.edu> wrote:
>  What I have found fascinating with this conversation is that the option
> that Trotsky was a profoundly contradictory individual seems to be off
> the table.

I think this is right. And I also think a lot of people have been
attracted to Trotsky for the right reasons, i.e. that he was a
anti-Stalinist.

I find James's argument really annoying though. It seems to follow
these well-worn lines:

1. There are two kinds of people: those who are willing to do what it
takes for a socialist revolution, and others.
(1a) The 'others' can be further split into the following
sub-categories: vegetarian pacifists, anarchists, Hayekians.
2. A socialist revolution takes forced labour, Kronstadt, and anything
else Trotsky asserted was necessary.
3. Therefore, anyone not willing to support foced labour, etc., is a
vegetarian pacifist, anarchist or Hayekian.

Even if you maintain the necessity of breaking these particular eggs
after 1917 in the particular Russian conditions, isn't it questionable
whether the organisational models and political worldview is a good
model for today in our particular conditions?

Mike Beggs