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

[wrobert at uci.edu]

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
>
>