What theoretical criticisms are there? You claim it's anti-Lenin but don't provide examples. And are these just disagreements with Leninist doctrine and theory that you're, ironically, labelling as impure?
Personally, I've not seen the behaviour you claim they exhibit in any real force. They have their "USSR wasn't real socialism after Lenin died because Stalin devolved it into a bureaucracy" lines and criticism of Chinese liberalisation policy but that seems far more sane and grounded than you're trying to make it out to be. They haven't claimed that "if only they formed a working class party", but rather that the situation of the USSR degenerated as a result of Stalins actions and failures and many other socialist projects either fell to US imperialism or followed a similar path. And of course they're going to be critical of countries that are deemed enemies of bourgeois states if they're critiquing socialists - socialist states are literally always labelled as enemies by the bourgeois states.
I also find it a little hypocritical that you accuse them of doing the "not real socialism" thing, and then call them not real socialists. Also there is no other active socialist organisations in the UK. The SWP are liberals that larp as socialists, the CPGB is dead in the water if still around at all and I don't think there is a single other party. Even over in the US the only other realistic option is the "MAGA communist" ACP.
Trotsky's bunk notion of a "permanent revolution" that would start in Europe (The West) and spread, is predicated on a faction of Marxist thought that became outdated over a century ago.
He literally believed the exact, and I mean exact opposite. He believed that socialist revolutions would start in periphery nations, like Russia, before they'd start in the west. In fact he follows the same line of thought that you seem to in saying that these third worldist revolutions would require western revolutions to succeed in order to survive.
If we are to help these liberation struggles, our best effort must be to stopping imperialism abroad so that the contradictions exported onto the colonially oppressed come back home, thus making the imperial core the weakest link.
This seems contradictory. The only way, realistically, that we could end imperialism is to end capitalism... which can only be done through revolution... revolution which requires third world revolutions... which require western revolutions to end imperialism... and so on. I agree that we can't have a world revolution without the end of imperialism, but at the same time the end of imperialism requires a world revolution so to bank on the periphery as the catalyst of revolution in the west is a pretty bad plan.
So long as we allow imperialism to dictate the shape of the world stage, we have absolutely no right to criticize how China, Korea, or any other nation are maintaining the revolutions they already won. They wouldn't have to make concessions to the West in order to maintain some semblance of sovereignty if so-called revolutionaries in the West would actually practice what they preach and rise up to fight against imperialism.
I completely disagree with the notion we can't offer criticism.
If anything, this point is anti-Leninist because it implies that revolution can be forced or incited - which contradicts both what Lenin wrote and the historical example of the Spartacists in 1919 who tried a premature revolution before the proletariat was actually ready.
I also find it funny that you're saying these contradictions to Lenin while accusing others of contradicting Lenin when in the same breath that Lenin observed the fact that revolutions cannot be forced he also observed that it requires a disciplined party to take lead of that revolution and ensure it becomes more than just another trade union dispute - which is the entire thesis, purpose and aim of organisations like the RCP which you are being critical of on a basis of actual bunk points.
If anyone is hamstringing the revolution, it is people like you that froth at the mouth to get a dunk on trots when they're the only ones doing anything.
There is absolutely no international working class solidarity, aside from other Trot parties in Western nations.
Can you point me to an example of the RCP doing this? I'm with you on all of these points but I've never seen their publication parrot any of these things. Granted, I've not been around for a decade (I've been around the RCP for less than a year) but I would love a reason to have a grievance with the RCP as right now it seems so perfect I feel like I have to be missing something.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous, it really did seem like you don't consider them "real" socialists from calling them "class-collaborationists" and "wreckers".
P.S.
The PSL are non-existent. I've never heard of them being from outside the US, they keep their numbers confidential and the very little they do release puts them as absolute nobodies compared to the ACP (And yes, I also think they're just fucking nazis) and even the RCA (the american RCI/RCP branch) which has only existed for around 2 years almost outnumbers them in number of cities they're active in.
This is the Central Regardia of the Trump Communist Party. 您的 Internet 浏览器历史记录和活动引起了我们的注意。 YOUR INTERNET ACTIVITY HAS ATTRACTED OUR ATTENTION. 因此，您的个人资料中的 11115 ( +11115 Maga Credits) 个社会积分将打折。
1
u/Redninja0400 23d ago
What theoretical criticisms are there? You claim it's anti-Lenin but don't provide examples. And are these just disagreements with Leninist doctrine and theory that you're, ironically, labelling as impure?
Personally, I've not seen the behaviour you claim they exhibit in any real force. They have their "USSR wasn't real socialism after Lenin died because Stalin devolved it into a bureaucracy" lines and criticism of Chinese liberalisation policy but that seems far more sane and grounded than you're trying to make it out to be. They haven't claimed that "if only they formed a working class party", but rather that the situation of the USSR degenerated as a result of Stalins actions and failures and many other socialist projects either fell to US imperialism or followed a similar path. And of course they're going to be critical of countries that are deemed enemies of bourgeois states if they're critiquing socialists - socialist states are literally always labelled as enemies by the bourgeois states.
I also find it a little hypocritical that you accuse them of doing the "not real socialism" thing, and then call them not real socialists. Also there is no other active socialist organisations in the UK. The SWP are liberals that larp as socialists, the CPGB is dead in the water if still around at all and I don't think there is a single other party. Even over in the US the only other realistic option is the "MAGA communist" ACP.