Re: [Marxism] On my "rejection" of Permanent Revolution

[Walter Lippmann <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Writing from Cancun, in an internet cafe, on my way back to Los Angeles...

While I have also written the same formulation any number of times, it is
necessary to repeat it for the umpteenth time. I suspect some people just
don't want to hear it, but voluntary deafness is a problem in some specimens.

Calling myself a Trotskyist ended because the Trotskyists misuse the theory of
Permanent Revolution. They see it as PRESCRIPTION while it makes much
more sense to understand it as DESCRIPTION. In other words, the process
of revolution is an ongoing, uninterrupted or permanent one. It cannot be
compressed into or collapsed into a single moment or "stage" such as the
insurrection, the act of nationalization or whatever. That is where those who
today call themselves Trotskyists go wrong, today most clearly in Bolivia.
The first impulse of those following such an approach is to find fault with
(in Bolivia, Evo Morales), and thus to open up a hail of criticism of this
first indiginous president elected in Latin America. Whatever flaws, and
whatever challenges, weaknesses, problems or contradictions exist in that
country and its struggle, the first duty of everyone who would call themselves
a Marxist is to express solidarity with the process. That´s what missing in so
many of the remarks by people like Petras, the Spartacists and the others
of that pursuasion.

Trotskyism exists as a reaction to and a product of the degeneration and
overthrow of the Russian Revolution of 1917, which can no longer be usefully
seen as the model, particularly not the "only" model through which socialist
revolutions and struggles must pass to obtain "approval". This idea has been
the source of innumerable mistakes, and is the historical basis for Trotskyism
as a distinct current, counterposed to all other currents. This I don't reject, 
as
I have also explained repeatedly. Trotskyism was a gestational stage which
must be passed in order to move on to full adulthood.

This virulent form of "criticism-ism" which we see exemplified in the way some
foreign radicals look at the Bolivian process is a sub-varian of Trotskyism 
which
is a further sub-variant of perfectionism. Perfectionism spells paralysis, as 
has
been famously said, by that eloquent reactionary Winston Churchill. The way
these "criticism-ists" approach Bolivia, like much else, is that if they do not
criticize, they do not exist. Thus, such "criticism-ism" becomes a justification
for existence. In my opinion, that isn't a very good reason. A mind is a 
terrible
thing to waste. This, in the end, is such sectarianism's, fatal flaw.


Walter Lippmann
http://www.walterlippmann.com

=================================================
From: Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Jan 8, 2006 2:14 AM
To: 'Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition' <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Marxism] On my "rejection" of Permanent Revolution

Again, you're free to argue that I've got a completely wrong
understanding of Permanent Revolution or that I apply it incorrectly in
one or more cases; but stating that I "reject" that which I've defended
consistently over a period of many years with an ample and documented
record is not a serious way to discuss matters.

On "Trotskyism," yes, I'm one of those people who is "post Trotskyist."
The time when a specifically Trotskyist movement made sense --and there
was such a time-- has long receded into the past. Which doesn't mean I'm
going to stop trying to rescue the Old Man's legacy from the
Trotskyists. Ditto for Lenin vis a vis not just the Leninists of the
Trotskyist variety, but of all varieties.




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism