Re: [Marxism] Re:Chavez and Trotsky

["acpollack2@xxxxxxxx" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>]

The mention of Trotsky's name is so highly significant because of the distinct 
approach of Trotskyism -- in ideas if not yet in organization -- as a 
continuation of Leninism. Which means, in Latin America, making the revolution 
all the way, as in Cuba, and not stopping short as the anarchists or Zapatistas 
or Morales have done in Argentina, Mexico and Bolivia. It means insisting that 
after the collapse of the Soviet Union another world is possible NOT by 
building NGO-based social forums but by building on the legacy of the early 
Soviet Union and trying to make modern-style working-class based revolutions. 
It means opposing imperialist war in the streets and not in support of 
warmongering Democrats. And to do all that means implementing the ideas of 
Trotsky and thus of Lenin.

Have Castro and other comrades done, or advocated, some of this? Yes. Have they 
done or advocated all of this? No. That's why the mention of Trotsky is so 
significant -- because it means completing the heroic yet partial legacy of 
revolutions after 1917 (China, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.) by bringing back the 
parts of 1917 forgotten or denied, and thus rebuilding a comprehensive, 
integrated communist movement in ideas and in practice.

-- "ameritech acoount" <stansmith44@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    That said, I question the importance of Celia Hart or Chavez mentioning the 
name Trotsky. This seems to get seized upon and made into a sort of cult thing. 
What Chavez says about Trotsky that comrade Fred mentions is no more 
significant that if Chavez said it about Lenin or Engels or Castro. "there are 
no national solutions to global problems, referring to the need for a global 
effort to deal with today's challenges." All Marxists, and millions of non 
self-described Marxists would agree with that idea. I fail to see the great 
significance that Chavez said Trotsky also agreed with it. What is important is 
that a global effort is being built to combat imperialism. How often Trotsky's 
name comes up, well, how exactly does that matter?
   If Castro said in 1959, that they made their revolution under the banner or 
Marxism-Leninism, or even under the banner of Trotskyism, rather than under the 
banner of Jose Marti, would that somehow change the character of the Cuban 
revolution?
   What role does the "Stalin-Trotsky" debate play today? The Cubans have had a 
living socialist revolution for 45 years. How often has the Stalin-Trotsky 
debate figured in their moving the revolution forward? Not once.
   And so Celia Hart wrote something about Trotsky. I don't see why that would 
deserve more play that speeches by other a little more important  Cubans like 
Fidel Castro or Felipe Perez Roque.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism