Forums ~ View topic

Joined: 25 Nov 2005 Posts: 116

"A socialist Europe will proclaim the full independence of the colonies, establish friendly economic relations with them and, step by step, without the slightest violence, by means of example and collaboration, introduce them into a world socialist federation. . . . The economy of the unified Europe will function as one whole."

"The World Situation and Perspectives," St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1940
Writings of Leon Trotsky (NY: Merit Publishers, 1969), p. 25.

So based on the above, can we say that being deluded is harmless?

How did things work out after Trotsky said this in 1940?

Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 1062

You know, I can actually imagine some gullible Trotskyists who'd cite that as proof of the prescience of their prophet. Prescience? Pre-science is more like it!

When Trotsky wrote those words, in 1940, World War II was already in progress. (Amerikkkans who believe that it didn't start until 1941 need to read some history.) A large part of €urope united against socialism and invaded the socialist Soviet Union, killing more people in one country than ever before.

After the war, which the Soviet Union won almost single-handedly, most of Eastern Europe fell into the socialist camp, though whether any of those countries (other than Albania) ever really implemented socialism is debatable. Eastern G€rmany had to be put under the occupation of the Soviet proletariat.

The big colonial powers in Western €urope were so weakened that they could no longer hold onto their colonies, especially during the rising tide of anticolonial struggle that swept Africa and Asia. But the liberation of those countries did not happen "without the slightest violence." No colonial power ever "proclaim[ed] the full independence of [its] colonies"; on the contrary, they all fought hard to keep the colonies under their jackboot and left only when they were thrown out by the occupied peoples.

Nominal liberation led to neocolonialism, which persists today. Far from serving as an "example" of socialism, €urope struggled to subvert the socialist or pseudo-socialist movements that did arise. Franc€ and the U$ tried to prevent the socialist liberation of Vietnam, going so far as to disallow democratic elections that the communists were bound to win and later launching a massive invasion to shore up a puppet regime that was hated by the people. In Congo-Kinshasa, the former B€lgian colonialists and the U$ arranged to have pseudo-communist Patrice Lumumba killed off by a comprador pig named Mobutu.

Who really set the example for socialism in the formerly colonized countries? China. It was China that sent her soldiers to fight the Yankkkee invaders in Korea. It was China that sent aid of all sorts to numerous African countries. €urope and the U$ fought to crush socialism wherever it broke out. Unfortunately for the former colonies, the We$tern reactionary powers usually succeeded.

Trotsky turned out, predictably, to be completely wrong. His white chauvinism and idealist outlook prevented him from seeing that €urope was leaning towards fascism, not towards socialism.

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 685

Joined: 25 Nov 2005 Posts: 116

Joined: 27 Dec 2005 Posts: 75

Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 1062

Sure, Trotsky spouted a bit of socialist-sounding rhetoric that occasionally was right or almost right. No one here has ever claimed that every single word of Trotsky was wrong.

Joined: 27 Dec 2005 Posts: 75

Joined: 15 Nov 2005 Posts: 58

One thing you have to remember Body Count is that even Lenin was somewhat eurocentric up until very late in his career and followed orthodox marxism. His thesis on imperialism was written as a shocked reaction to the first world workers and the 2nd international pushing to war. Lenin also criticized Indian communist M.N.Roy who adopted a third worldist position similar to Lin Biao and MIM. Lenin's eventual position was one that straddled Trotsky's eurocentrism and M.N.Roy's "thirdworldcentrism". This same eurocentrism can be seen in the application of urban working class centred strategies in China and other majority peasant societies by the Comintern during the Stalinist period. It seems eurocentrism has been a tough error to shrug for many communists, and arguably nobody until Lin Biao made a clear theoretical break from the idea that Europe was going to be one of the main factors in world revolution (unless you count M.N.Roy who I think had a lot of foresight, but degenerated into some kind of pseudo-spiritualist nonsense when his positions were rejected within communist circles).

Joined: 25 Nov 2005 Posts: 116

One thing I do not mean to imply is that marked exiles like Luis Arce Borja or Joma Sison should go back. Our criticism of Trotskyists applies to the much more numerous influence on people who could go back to their countries and lead revolution with real revolutionary material.

Ho Chi Minh was marked too, but he knew he was 1 and a half steps ahead of his repressors, so he went back to Vietnam.

On the overall topic, it's not that Trotsky's idea has no surface appeal. It's too bad things don't work the way he said. That's what it means to be a scientist. We absorb our lesson and move on. We can't go on wishing forever that what Trotsky said will turn out true.

We can't do things the way Trotsky envisioned. So we have to make use of what strengths we do have. I'm posting this thread wth an article on the role of sojourners in communist history at the etext site.