Monday, August 20, 2007

 

Caracas commemorates Trotsky on the anniversary of his assassination

From a site entitled In Defense of Marxism, apparently Venezuela is now the only government to acknowledge the event as one of significance.
The ideas of Leon Trotsky have already been referred to on a number of occasions by president Chávez, who has said he is a follower of the permanent revolution, and commented favourably on the Transitional Programme.

Now, on August 20th, the Venezuelan authorities have organised a public meeting to commemorate 67 years since the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico. This is certainly an historic event. It is the first time in 67 years that this date has been commemorated officially by a government institution anywhere in the world.

Amongst those invited to take part in the event are Esteban Volkov, Trotsky's grandson, who has dedicated most of his efforts to the rehabilitation of the figure of the Russian revolutionary from the pile of slanders and lies of the Stalinists; Celia Hart, the Cuban communist who has played a key role in reintroducing the debate on Trotsky on the island and reclaimed his ideas; and Ricardo Napurí, a Peruvian army officer who became a revolutionary, collaborated with Che Guevara and is also a Trotskyist.

Che Guevara was NOT a Trotskyist by the way. Trotskyists in Cuba have mostly been jailed or exiled. Or killed.

Anybody curious about Trotsky would do well to read from Isaac Deutscher's biographic trilogy. Although the history was bogus, the film Frida portrayed Trotsky in a very thoughtful manner. A complex figure, and if I start typing about him I won't make it to bed. Maybe later.


Comments:
hi erik, Che Guevara was certainly not a Trotskyist and Celia Hart explains that in the interview, however he a firm proponent of international revolution (like Trotsky) and that revolution in Latin America could not be done in stages (like Trotsky) and in these two points he opposed firmly the Stalinist line at the time

cheers
 
I appreciate and share your appreciation, and would add that Deutcher's biography is one swell read. I wonder if you would agree that Trotskyites are western civilization's Shias? The pure, the robbed, the resentful and repressed. Unlike the Shia, I'm not convinced they're in ascendence yet. But since their ideas haven't been tested, I much prefer them to those of the other thugs.
 
"Omninus Gallia est divida in partes tres."
The opening lines of Caesar's Gallic Wars.
Back in high school Latin class we had to translate the whole wretched thing. The Trotsky had the English translation already done. Everybody had one, but you never took it to class. You weren't supposed to have one.

"All Gaul is divided in three parts." JC

Thanks Trotsky, could never have done it without you.
 
Testing to see if your comments are down, too. I can't even edit posts.

Testing 1,2,3...
 
Wordpress is calling you, Fred.
 
I wonder if you would agree that Trotskyites are western civilization's Shias? The pure, the robbed, the resentful and repressed. Unlike the Shia, I'm not convinced they're in ascendence yet. But since their ideas haven't been tested, I much prefer them to those of the other thugs.

Actually, I argue that they're the Protestants of Marxism as opposed to the "Stalinists" which are Catholics. Catholicsim and Moscow-allied Marxists focus on the institution, while the Protestants/Trotskyists focus on the purity of doctrine as evidenced by the writings.
 
hi erik, Che Guevara was certainly not a Trotskyist and Celia Hart explains that in the interview, however he a firm proponent of international revolution (like Trotsky) and that revolution in Latin America could not be done in stages (like Trotsky) and in these two points he opposed firmly the Stalinist line at the time

I don't remember that in his writings, which isn't to say it wasn't there. I do remember that he differed from classical Marxist theory in that he believed in the guerrilla foco theory - the snowballing of a revolution beginning with a small group of rural-based rebels as opposed to organizing the industrial working class, etc. This was articulated in Regis Debray's Revolution in the Revolution. It fit in with "new left" views of the third world as the vanguard, a rejection of the "old left" view of the industrial proletariat as the vanguard.

The Guevara/Debray thesis was ultimately defeated by the geography of Bolivia. Of course, the old left would argue that Bolivia simply lacked the "objective social conditions" for revolution.

Debray was captured with Guevara, spent some time in jail, returned to France and ultimately served in Mitterand administration. I'm actually going to make a post sometime soon about something he wrote in opposition to militant atheism.
 
"Wordpress is calling you, Fred.".

A rugged individualist, like me, following the crowd? Nope.

At least not yet. I'll probably be the last hold out.
 
Debray was also responsible for Mitterand's opposition to Reagan's policy in Nicaragua, and France continued to do business with the Sandinistas throughout the 1980s.
 
I wouldn't say he was the one cabinet member responsible, but he certainly advocated for it and his side prevailed even though Mitterand went along with Reagan and Bush in all sorts of ventures - whereas the conservatives in France tend to resist alliances with us. One of the big ironies in French politics.
 
Shane Brinton must feel bad for missing out on another chance to commiserate with his hero Fuhrer Chavez.
 
Trotsky died because he refused to bow down to the One True God! Trotsky refused to humble himself before our Lord and Savior Nick Bravo! Truly the fury of GOD was upon him and his days were numbered! Had he humbled himself he may still be here serving humanity in the way our Lord God Nick Bravo had meant for him to do!
 
" Protestants/Trotskyists focus on the purity of doctrine as evidenced by the writings."

Trotsky is hard to pin down. He
was indeed a complex person. When he was building the Red Army he insisted on recruiting officers to lead the army from the experienced military class regardless of their political persuasion. He included many from the royalist army. Stalin felt that the army should be led by dedicated revolutionists.
Trotsky was a contradiction. He could be very pragmatic in one area and doctrinaire in another.
 
Well, there's Trotsky and then there are the Trotskyists. Fundamentalist Protestantism is premised on the inerrancy of the Bible, but Martin Luther wanted James and Revelations removed from the Bible.

When you talk to Trotskyists they will tell you that Stalin's chief crime was to vary from doctrine. That he tried to establish socialism in one country while Marx was talking about a worldwide revolution, or at least a continental one. That the institution of Moscow, the head of the 3rd International, heretically became an institution defining the revolution rather than serving it, and so the whole International's activities served the national interests of one or a few countries. This of course leads to alliances in other countries such as the US in which they make compromises with bourgoise politics, as in the CP "popular front" with New Dealists in the 30s.

The Third International betrayed the Revolution, and the Trotskyists have the quotes from sacred texts to prove it.
 
Log Cabin Republican Nick Bravo is Anon.R.Mous.
 
Ah Charles....I see the attacks on your former friend continue.
 
Haven't you noticed the obvious similarities between not only their blogs, but topics and writing styles? Not to mention the fact that Nick Bravo has these obviously faked arguments online with himself as Anon.R.Mous. And they're both Republicans.
 
Haven't you noticed the obvious similarities between not only their blogs, but topics and writing styles? Not to mention the fact that Nick Bravo has these obviously faked arguments online with himself as Anon.R.Mous. And they're both Republicans.
 
I confess. I am Anon.R.mous.
 
I've been Anon.R.mous for ages now and no one has ever caught on. Now that I'm leaving for Arizona I think its time to drop the charade and let everyone know.

However, I like the Anon.R.mous character so much that I think I will continue doing it regardless of whether or not people know its me.

Now the only question is...what shall I post on the Anon.R. blog? Perhaps a denial? a piece about myself? something completely unrelated like CR?

Wait and see. wait and see.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for www.electoral-vote.com