"Re: Dealing with Trotskyists" September 3 2002 www.changetheworld.info "The Road to Revolution" forum Trotskyist Doug responds to "RCP-USA" overtures www.2changetheworld.info "RCP-USA" says: 3. Trotskyites have not accomplished anything. As far as I know there has not been one major struggle openly led by a Trotskyite party or group. Not one and Trotsky has been dead for over 60 years. In contrast there were Maoist stirrings during Mao's lifetime in Turkey, India, the Philippines, etc. and there have been Maoist People's Wars in Nepal and Peru after Mao died along with militant struggles elsewhere. Despite their presence Trotskyites are a comatose trend. [Trotskyist Doug says:] This is not entirely true (although it is close to the truth). Trotskyism has achieved influence in Sri Lanka, Boliva, and France (the recent elections showed 3 Trot parties gain 10% of the vote). Trotskyists in France also fougt alongside Maoists in the 1968 upheaval. However, most of these advances have disappeared. Trotskyism is a neglegable force in Sri Lanka and Boliva now. The French parties hardly seem to be in a position to start any revolutionary struggle for power. ["RCP-USA" says:] 5. Unlike a place like Nepal (with its so-called United Marxist Leninist party) revisionist parties in this country do not have political power nor do they seem to enjoy support from the bourgeoisie. So what drives US Trotskyites? Despite everything I have said I feel that there must be some sincerity among Trotskyites all the way from their top leadership to the rank & file. How else can you explain their continued existence (in this country at least). Its not like it is paying off for them (as far as I can tell). Assuming this sincerity exists some Trotskyites may be won over to MLM. The CPN(M) in Nepal has often won over the rank & file of revisionist parties there. It may seem impossible here but one should be open to this and not discourage it. [Trotskyist says:] I can't speak for Trotskyists here only myself. As an independent Marxist (basing myself on Marx but not limited to him), I support all revolutionary struggles from Nepal to Argentina. Whether led by Maoist, Trotskyist, etc. In closing, I'd like to point out that although I have reservations about the RCP, I do not rule out working on common points of interest. Comradely Greetings, Doug ******************************************************** MIM rebuts "RCP-USA" on Trotskyism: Doug says the Trotskyists fought "alongside Maoists in the 1968 upheaval." Indeed, it is true that the anarchists, Trotskyists and "RCP-USA" type "Maoists" shared slogans in the French vacillation of 1968. After all, they shared the same labor aristocracy demands. Together, the Trotskyists and pseudo-Maoists used the threat of siding with the revolution in Vietnam and China to obtain huge double-digit raises and improvements in classroom conditions. That's what the factory occupations and huge marches accomplished--a sudden loosening of purse strings by the employers. After the French "rebels" obtained those raises, they gave up the struggle, simple as that. Oh sure, they had the military opportunity to cause U.$. troops to come to France instead of Vietnam, but they passed on it. As sell-out anarchist "Danny the Red" himself admitted at the time, not a single persyn thought of actually seizing or smashing the government ministries that they strolled past in the midst of the upheaval. We can hardly think of better proof of the old saying that the exception proves the rule. Revisionists point to France in 1968 as some sort of exception, but what it proves is that there was a physical opportunity for revolution, but there was not even one persyn in the huge and key demonstration in Paris who really thought in internationalist terms. It proves in the most dramatic and thorough way possible that the "seal of parasitism" was on the whole country. The only contrary proof would have been upheaval that occurred by the same generation later. Instead, it is well-known how quickly May, 1968 arose and how quickly it disappeared. The only explanation is petty- bourgeois vacillation, a fad, a very useful one for the petty-bourgeoisie at that time. In contrast, in 1905, Russia had an upheaval that served as a dress-rehearsal for 1917. Such a failed rebellion deserves a different attitude than one that arose for superprofit sharing and ended with superprofit sharing. Mao did not live long enough to sum that up. In 2002 it is safe to say that the 1968 generation in France is not gathering its tactical wherewithal to stage another upheaval. The gap since then is too long. More important is the "RCP-USA" attitude toward Trotskyism above. It shows a complete disregard for all of Mao's teachings regarding revisionism and leaves the struggle stuck at the stage Stalin left it at. It was Mao who said starting in the late 1950s that the sugar-coated bullet was more important than the regular bullet. The regular bullet only kills its victim. The sugar-coated bullet converts the victim to enemy, in some cases without anyone noticing. Some people are born and die spiritually asleep to the proletariat thanks to the sugar-coated bullet: they never even knew there was a struggle. As far as the proletariat is concerned, the sugar-coated bullet not only kills a friend, but it often makes an enemy. This has to be made known and combated. On this question, even counter-revolutionary and Deng cohort Bo Yibo was better than the "RCP-USA." While Bo Yibo opposed the particular instance of class struggle called the "Cultural Revolution," he drew attention to himself to explain how he witnessed the development first-hand of Mao's theories of restoration of capitalism and "peaceful evolution" via the sugar-coated bullet, that it was possible for the imperialists to buy people off instead of attacking frontally with the military. Even Deng Xiaoping flip-flopped on this question to the end of his life. The last flip by Deng admitted "peaceful evolution" and that the problem would come from "inside the party." It's ridiculous to show how Bo Yibo and Deng Xiaoping are more loyal to Mao than the "RCP-USA," which supposedly upholds the Cultural Revolution, but that's what happens in the imperialist countries. The "RCP-USA" claims it is defending the most advanced science of the international proletariat, but the people attracted to that organization have not thought for even a good hour about surplus-value, except how to consciously evade the question. So we end up with the trappings of the advanced science with a complete omission of the basic teachings of Marxism and Maoism. The whole term "social-imperialism" so important to Maoism did not arise with Mao and the Soviet Union but referred first of all to the ideology of those in England seeking to trade loyalty to imperialist war for pensions and other benefits for the labor aristocracy. The whole concept of "bourgeoisie in the party" arose in and from that context--going beyond seeing CIA payrolls to seeing the whole possibility of a "sugar-coated bullet." When exploited people choose Trotskyism, we can guess that it was a mistake from ignorance. In fact, it hardly happens. The reason Trotskyism occurs somewhat often in the imperialist countries is that its demands are objectively for Western "working-class" sharing of superprofits. Otherwise, we would find Trotskyism as much a success in the Third World as here, but even Doug admits that France is the only country Trotskyists can hang their hats on, and that is only electoral success. After France, Trotskyists are actually most successful in other imperialist countries. So saying "its not like it is paying off for them" is typical labor bureaucrat thinking that pervades the whole "RCP-USA." In fact, May 1968 shows that labor aristocracy "revolutionaries" can serve a purpose for their class when the Third World proletariat is shaking the whole imperialist system. What the above is doing is subordinating class questions to recruiting questions. The "RCP-USA" recruits from Trotskyists. For this reason, they abandoned Mao's whole contribution to fighting revisionism on behalf of Trotskyist "sincerity." It's not surprising, because both are sincerely fighting for labor aristocracy demands. If MIM adopted the same policy toward Trotskyists, it's important to understand that it would actually be a case of sectarianism. Yes, there is such a thing as "friendly sectarianism." Sectarianism is putting your organization's needs above those of the international proletariat. Doing something that helps us recruit and may actually seem "friendly" can thus be sectarian. People trying to "people manage" instead of "line managing" often end up in friendly sectarianism. Trotskyists can work with or eventually join MIM, but we are not going to take the mechanical and vulgar approach that since there is no payroll stub from the CIA/FBI that we can find, Amerikan Trotskyists are "sincere." That is leaving the struggle at the level Stalin left it, because Stalin listed the motivations for enemy politics as largely being the work of spy agencies and police. People in MIM circles go through self-criticism and transformation with regard to parasitism. We do not easily accept people who were only yesterday advocating loudly for parasitism. This again is a difference of the "RCP-USA" goals and the MIM goals. MIM is seeking real change, not just taking down the 1% of imperialists but also eliminating parasitism throughout imperialist society. Without the MIM Thought approach, the restoration of imperialism in another name is inevitable.