Forums ~ View topic - The Third World is the Motive Force... (Avakian and Trotsky)

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 340

Here are some quotes from Peking Review #30, July 26, 1974. An article, "Third World is the Motive Force Pushing World History Forward" approvingly quotes from a Japanese organization that is reprinted in Mao's magazine.

Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 568

The Chinese comrades are right. I also agree with their point that it is imperialism that is dependent upon the Third World, not the reverse. Some comrades have the bad habit of speaking of the Third World countries as "imperialist-dependent." That's a peculiar, misleading, and chauvinist way to describe the exploitative relationship. I advise these comrades to break that habit, which smacks of Trotskyism, and call things as they are.

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 340

Yes, we have discussed that point before although in connection to speaking of "developed" and "developing" nations. It is interesting that you raise it, this exact point was made in Peking Review April 12, 1963 #15 in an article on India entitled "Farce of Nehru's 'Socialism'"

According to our Chinese comrades, Nehru had something like that view and heavily relied on aid for "development."

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 340

Quotations below from Peking Review #20, May 1969. "The Theory of 'International Dictatorship' Is a Gangster Theory of Social Imperialism" p 4-5

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 340

Quotes taken from Leon Trotsky's Permanent Revolution and Bob Avakian Conquer The World. Trotsky is a much clearer writer than Bob Avakian. But, once you penetrate his obtuse style, you will see what I am getting at. I would also like to add that Bob Avakian does qualify himself to give himself ways to distance himself from the obvious conclusions, but you have to look at his work overall - what ever qualifications he lays out amount to "one finger against the nine." And what it does add up to is a Trotskyist line under Maoist cover. Most of the rcp=u$aers aren't familiar with what is really going on with Avakian. However, it seems inconceivable that those in the leadership, and specifically Bob Avakian aren't consciously adopting straight up Trotskyism. This makes a lot of sense, after all, Trotskyism has always been more popular than Maoism in the West.

Basically what Trotsky says that revolution is at the socialist phase is a continuous global process that is not demarcated into any national stages of socialism. And a "backward" country may make revolution and set up dictatorship of the proletariat (allied with the peasantry), however, it will not be able to build socialism without such a revolution transforming into an international revolution that involves more technologically advanced nations that can come to the aid of the "backward." In the case of Trotsky's example, Russia can only go so far and can't really build socialism in a real way unless there is a continuation of revolution into advanced Europe and the world. Both Trotsky and Bob Avakian make the point that taking state power is easier in East, while construction of socialism is only really possible in the West or in the East with the West's help. Avakian on the other hand implies outright that construction of a sustained socialism in the East is impossible because of not only the limited ability of a single economy, but also, military and cultural encirclement. Trotsky and Avakian, contrary to Stalin and Mao, see the solution to socialism in the East as continuous revolution or permanent revolution from the Third World or "backward" to a worldwide revolution -- including the first world with its productive forces. This amounts to why both Trotsky and Bob Avakian argue against socialism in one country. And, they share a common solution to this problem of making global revolution: a Comintern or world party.

A few things to say here. 1. Both Avakian and Trotsky rely on a theory of productive forces that makes technology decisive and not the masses. Although, Avakian updates Trotskyism with the twist about military and cultural encirclement making socialism in single countries impossible. 2. It should be obvious that this is a complete attack on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as a way continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. For Mao revolution in the super structure is the means to advance socialism forward - even in one country. This also explains why Avakian has openly dropped key theories of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution like Mao's the theory on art. 3. Both Avakian and Trotsky look to the West of first world in terms of socialism. Along the way, they completely abandon the Marx's theory of surplus value and conception of the proletariat. They abandon Lenin's analysis of the labor aristocracy - that whole nations could be bought off by imperialism. They also abandon any real materialist analysis. 4. They explicitly go against Stalin and Mao who saw that the Comintern had become an obstacle to revolution. A Trotskyist-Avakianist world party cannot hope to actually be able to manage revolution around the world. Rather, it will be a breeding ground for police plots, opportunism, and chauvinism and hegemonism.

Joined: 25 Nov 2005 Posts: 59

What do you think of the other members of that party for letting B.A. plagiarize Trotsky and Ernest Mandel? Is it really so bad here inside u.$. borders of 290 million people that we only have one or two people responsible for reading Trotsky and knowing the difference with M-L-M? Shit, in a nation of 290 maybe! Out of 290 million people that party could not find a few people who know the difference between Trotsky and M-L-M.

For crying out loud, even on revolutionaryleft.com the youth know they're supposed to be debating Stalin and Trotsky, but we can't ask B.A.'s party to be ever so slightly more advanced and know when someone is applying Trotsky for our times and conditions? It's basically a dead dog subject, something they heard about to stuff in the museum section of the brain?

First blame has to go on the members there--and for more than 20 years now.

Second blame, internationally, parties that cannot unmask that--how good do you think they are going to be in fighting revisionism? Especially revisionism in newer forms?

Joined: 21 Dec 2005 Posts: 6

"Is it really so bad here inside u.$. borders of 290 million people that we only have one or two people responsible for reading Trotsky and knowing the difference with M-L-M? Shit, in a nation of 290 maybe! Out of 290 million people that party could not find a few people who know the difference between Trotsky and M-L-M."

I've been wondering the same as mim3...

We've got exactly the same problem in my country as well. Sure, there are young people who know something about Marxism from a couple high-school courses but the thing is that they have no capabilities to objectively appraise historical realities. Time and time again we run into this pig-headed naive lack of commitment. It results from a lack of knowledge that is the product of decades of We$tern propaganda. It's outright insulting to the massive majority of People on this planet how they choose to sit on the fence and blurt out pacifist cliches.

It's not suprising to see the avakians make outrageous lies, it's not as if they haven't done that before, but yeah... it sure is shameless.