I'm curious to know.

The same things you do, preparing for revolution

Last I checked, factionalism is not a Trotskyist problem. Maoists and Stalinists split too.. in fact you guys sometimes stab each other to death on college campuses when you split..

If you want to know what a particular Trotskyist group is doing check out their website. Most are probably running in elections or calling for united front campaigns. www.wsws.org is a good Trotskyist site for exposing the bourgeoisie and their agents.

We have a local trotskyist party here. They are working quite hard and actually have a few seats in the municipal council. They are generally very friendly types.

While Orthodox Trots may argue if these are actually Trotskyist groups, here are my favorite US Trot organizations, both of which are engaged in active organizing inside the labor movement.

Solidarity

ISO

RED DAVE

But what do you do specifically? I'm interested in knowing if Trotskyists have achieved anything significant at all or if they are in the process of doing anything. From what I have read, their parties in the imperialist countries have spent the past several decades trying to infiltrate the imperialist social democratic parties, but apart from this, I have heard precious little. Can any Trotskyist enlighten me on this?

lol, neither of these groups is doing a god damn thing worth mentioning in the labor movement. ISO is the Amway of the Left, a cult devoted to a handful of people on the steering committee who get students to sell their books. Solidarity is a useless Refo-group that literally doesn't do anything, except the occasional wrecking and trying to get together with other idiotic Refo groups.

Sigh.

As an American in the Trotskyist tradition, the answer in the US is something like this (this is not precise or a complete program, so please don't nit pick):

The primary strategy is to work inside the working class, especially inside the organized section of the class, to build rank and file movements to challenge the existing leadership and thus to build up the fighting strength of the working class. Outside of the organized parts of the working class, we fight for unionization. We also participate in all popular movements, such as the movements of various immigrant groups, the antiwar movement, the movement protesting the effects of globalization, ecology, etc.

Here are the websites and programs of two groups that I support.

Solidarity

International Socialist Organization

RED DAVE

I was really having a hard time deciding what to do with this thread, for now I deleted the spam posts and moved it to Learning since the OP's question seems to be serious but if the thread goes on this way it will end right in the Trashcan.
Everybody stop the spam and the flamebait, if you have nothing worthy to add besides of "Trots suck, lolz!" and "No, Stalinistz suck much more!" then don't post. The next one who will come up with troll posts which contribute nothing to a serious debate on the actions of Trotskyists will recieve a warning.

Thanks. I probably could have gotten that from those websites, but can you also elaborate on the significant achievements of Trotskyists in the past? What makes you proud of being a Trotskyist and what makes people become Trotskyists?

Note to the moderator: please note I want this to be a Trotskyist history thread, not a troll thread.

The question to me is, what does any leftist political party do, politically? I think the lack of activity can't just be penned on Trotskyists.

Personally, I don't think any political party that exists in america right now will matter when the revolution comes. They are pretty much useless. Maybe I am being too harsh, but it just seems obvious to me that all these factions of factions of parties, all opposed to each other, are rigged to fail. I envision the socialist party of the future to be born from the working masses themselves. The formation of a revoultionary party will be an organic process. The working class will see the necessity of exerting their presence politically as well as economically.

But maybe thats just me. I can see the worth of parties as organizers, and educators, and in that sense all of these trotskyist "cults" are of as much worth as any other leninist party. Maybe if all political parties in america worked together, and focused solely on getting anti-capitalist and pro-communist messages on the airwaves and in the open, free from any recruitment incentive and solely for the purpose opening peoples eyes, something can be accomplished. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the motivation of any party out there at the moment.

trots probably do more than stalinists politically. in my experience they organise protests (10-30 people tops), attend protests (organised by other people), try to take over protests (rarely successful, but sometimes they say a lot of shit to the media), stand for various governmental positions, sell shit like papers, and attack other groups.

whether any of what they do is useful is a different question. but then again, i don't know of any maoist or stalinist group anywhere i've lived that has done more than the trots (if there has even been a maoist or stalinist group in that area).

Let me say this re Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Anarchists, etc.:

TIME WILL TELL.

As the global struggle heats up, and the various groups put forth their programs and engage in action, the working class and oppressed peoples will decide who is red and who is brown (full of shit).

RED DAVE

Let me start by saying that since the late 1970s, when the working class began to began to move into a period of defeat and relative inactivity, no left-wing political tendency, especially in the US, has had much presence. Splits, tiny new groups, etc., fraternal rivalry, etc., has kept political groups marginalized.

Now, let me give an example.

During the 1970s, I was a member of the International Socialists (which Orthodox Trotskyists might argue was not a Trot group, but that's another discussion). We engaged in an active program of sending our largely white, middle-class comrades, myself included, veterans of various struggles (including union activity) in the 60s, into various unionized industries. These included Teamsters, auto, telephone, teachers and post office (me). Our efforts began to bear fruit just as the wave of working class militancy of the mid-70s reached its peak, and we worked in and/or organized rank-and-file groups that ranged in influence from the local level up to the national level.

Our major success was in the Teamsters Union, where we helped build a group called, eventually, Teamsters for a Decent Union (TDU). This group, based most strongly in UPS, still exists, and has engaged in Teamster struggles up to this day, including the recent victory of an opposition group in a large Chicago local.

http://transportworkers.org/node/1285

This is the kind of work I'm talking about. I believe that this kind of work has been the hallmark of the kind of Trotskyism I support there are other varieties), and the struggle goes on.

RED DAVE

Ok I guess I can be "the trotskyist". To be frank Trotskyists have not accomplished much, but neither has the left over the last 30 years. Until recently, trots and anarchists have been much smaller in numbers compared to Marxist-Lenninist and Maoist groups. So the comrade who said "the same thing other revolutionaries do" is largely correct. Trotskyists have been trying to build union militancy and radical alternatives in the US since the 30s... read any of the Farrell Dobbs' first-hand accounts of trotskyists trying to build militancy in the teamsters during the depression. The main difference is when the US CP had members as the leadership of the CIO, the trotskysits were small and often (sometimes violently) prevented from having any interactions in CP dominated unions. In the 760s, it was the Maoist groups who largely dominated the radical left but groups like the US SWP were involved in civil rights organizing and the rank and file radicalism within the unions that began to develop at the end of the 60s.

Well I'm in the ISO, so of course I am partial to what we have been doing to help try and rebuild working class radicalism, independent mass movements, the borad left in general, and hopfully laying the groundwork for future vanguard party that can rally working class militants and argue for worker's power.

I feel that for the most part we have the most realistic assessment of the limitations as well as the potential for a strong new left (with radical politics being the core that holds it together) in the US. Our commitment to building grassroots coalitions and struggles that can stand on their own (while also trying to build our organization as well as promote a revolutionary marxist, anti-stalinist politics to wider numbers of people) is also something that attracted me to the ISO when I was trying to figure out if I was a socialist or syndicalist or whatnot.

I also have a lot of respect for organizers and members of Solidarity, and Socialist Alternative even though politically we are closer to Solidarity than SA. I haven't had much interaction with other US trotskyist groups (other than bad interactions with the Sparts) so I can really speak to what other groups are doing.

In regards to the "infiltrating" dem-soc parties: This is a strange way to present the ups and downs and long history of radicals trying to figure out how to work with or against reformist groups at different times under a variety of circumstances. I think among US trots you can find the whole range of attitudes regarding radical groups and their relation to reformist groups. There are trots who believe that a Labor party in the US is needed, trots who reject any electoral involvement as a principle and groups like the ISO who try and decide this strategically based on the balance of class forces and the wider political situation.

The ISO worked with the Green Party and Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo - far from infiltrating it, we argued support for the left-wing (anti-Democratic Party) section within the party, but the left ultimately lost. We were open about being revolutionaries who were working with the electoral campaigns in order to try and organize a left-alternative to the Democrats that could then help break the hold of the Dems on left-leaning politics.

Internally we have had a lot of reflection and debate on our first foray into supporting an electoral candidate and I think the organization learned a lot (both positive and negative lessons). I think we were wrong to work with Nader in 2004 (but I think that was a misreading of the political mood at the time and a kind of mechanical view that the anti-war movement and people who were questioning the Democratic party in 2000 would not be swayed by the anybody but Bush sentiment). I think we were right to support the campaign in 2000 because we were able to meet a lot of activists and present a revolutionary and class analysis of the Democratic party rather than the main "progressive" view that somehow the Democratic party is just run by "blue dog" and we need "better Democrats".

I'll take that as a backhanded sectarian way of saying that we are the largest revolutionary organization in the US. Since your politics don't appeal to anyone, we must be so large and appealing because we somehow "brainwash" our members. How political your analysis is. By the way, we are small - we are the biggest, but we are still small and this is a problem... it's like being the biggest gnat: not much to brag about.

So, what power does this "cult" have over members? Could it be that our members actually support and are involved in what our organization is doing? I'm proud that we are helping to create a radical left book distributor because the US needs many more of them. Also Haymarket books was designed not to be solely a party press (we use the ISR and our website and paper to present our organization's arguments) Mike Davis is on the editorial board, and we have published books by him as well as other Marxists who are not members or even part of the International Socialist tradition.

Like I said we, and the rest of the US left, is too small for the tasks ahead of us. An organization of "followers" is the exact opposite of what we are trying to do - we think that if there is someday going to be a vanguard party in the US, there needs to be a lot more people who know how to organize, and fight and lead rank and file struggles. We hope our organization can take part in building that vanguard party one day and so we place a high priority on building of leadership within the organization as well as with activists we meet in movements.

Aside from the sectarian bile, this is unfortunately correct. Our organized presence in the labor movement is small right now and we are doing all we can to change that subjective situation as well as change the objective situation of weak unions in the US. Our organized participation in labor something that will develop as our organization does as well as with a new upsurge in the labor movement. Right now mostly our involvement is on an individual level (one or two members of the ISO working at a job-site trying to organize their fellow rank and file members in the union and provide radical arguments to other workers about what the union should be doing or what the bosses are trying to do and how this fits into a bigger picture of capitalism). Where we do have a presence and have been able to win allies or recruit some co-workers we are very active: we had members inside the Republic Door and Windows shop occupation (not working there, but with organic connections to the fight) and members in the Teamsters who were involved in the big strike in the 1990s and members central to a democratic opposition group inside the LA teacher's union who are involved in fighting the cutbacks there. The ISO has only existed in a time of union decline so if you can point to an organization that is actually achieving headway within the labor movement at a time when the winds are blowing the the opposite direction, I'd love to know the secret and share it with my comrades as well as the rest of the left.

I think this is the best attitude to have regarding tendency arguments today. With no confident working class movements to test or various theories against, we might as well be arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

If workers are leading wildcats and radicalizing and joining radical groups then there is a fairly obvious way to see what politics are making the most sense to people at that time... also being able to put the ideas into practice exposes who has the right ideas and who is jumping the gun or being overly conservative and so on.

lol, Jesus Christ, ISO taking credit for Local 743, lol.

You are so unbelievably full of shit.

How about pre-70's? What are the significant points about Trotksyist history from the 30's to the 70's? For some reason, you seem to be intent on focusing purely on the events of the past 30 years.
I may be mistaken but from this, am I to understand that you excluded Blacks and other minorities from your activism?

How about before the last 30 years? I understand your particular Trotskyist tendency is a recent one but I don't understand why you ignore the pre-70's history.

Its accurate nevertheless. The UK Labour Party has always been an imperialist party.

Though I want to thank the people who responded with their organizations' activities, I have to ask in what way are any of these revolutionary or Marxist at all? Forgive me if I'm mistaken. but they seem more social democratic or liberal in nature.

It is well known ISO is the largest group on the Left, with roughly 1,000 members. Groups a quarter of your size do much, much more relevant work though.

Marxism-Leninism appeals to literally millions more people than your shit little Cliffite ideology.

You're not large or appealing to anyone but petty-bourgeois anti-communist white college liberals.

No. Your members drop off like flies, as people learn what your Amway cult is about (or they graduate from college and move on to other petty-bourgeois pursuits). If you had any ability (or even concern for) retention, you'd be 5 times larger than you are.

LOL, what a crock of shit. Your organization doesn't tolerate dissent. Your "steering committee" people call people Stalinists for disagreeing over minor shit. You lead workshops on how to sell more papers and books, not how to lead the masses in struggle.

No the fuck you're not. You organize students to the exclusion of all else. The people on your steering committee have admitted to this over and over again. You consciously choose not to do a fucking thing in the labor movement as an organization. Several ISO members I know describe it as downright anti-working class.

lol, to someone who actually knows these people, this is a blatant load of shit. What person in UE local 1110 is an ISO member?

Does that sound like taking credit?

Seriously, do you know how to read or has your sectarianism caused your eyes to develop cataracts? Where in that Socialist Worker article did it say that the ISO was solely responsible?

The article doesn't even mention the ISO's participation or the strike much at all, it's an editorial about what was going on in the union.

Ok, so let me get the gist of this thread:

People accuse Trotskyist groups of not being involved in the labor movement, some Trots list some things and then get accused of "taking credit" for victories in the labor movement.

...Comrade Stalinist, how do we know if he really is a trotskyist?

Hmmm... throw him in the water and if he floats, he's a Trotskyist and should be killed. If he drowns, I guess he was innocent.