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

wrobert at uci.edu wrobert at uci.edu
Sun Apr 26 17:27:05 PDT 2009


I think that you're right about the tendency of James towards a particularly frustrating revolutionary absolutism (making him a very good trotskyist), but the valuable part of his critique is the critique of the particular party form that Trotsky seemed to hold on to (although this may have been changing in the last couple of years... take a look at what his wife writes after his death... I think that its instructive) I think that James actually agrees with you about the need for a new approach to the revolution, in fact, he sees the party form itself as an inherently problematic one. I think this makes it worth cutting through the bullshit. robert wood


> 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list