https://x.com/randomposter33/status/1992705011915104334?s=46
https://x.com/randomposter33/status/1992718806553178527?s=46
It is insightful to compare how MLK Jr.’s privileged treatment compared to the treatment of BPP women. The canonization of MLK Jr. did not just begin after his death but in 1965, a few years earlier. The late preparation of the revolutionary movement for the revolutionary year 1968 produced a violence directed at its own leadership as a means of overcoming ideological issues that had been put off earlier. The rise of Healy in 1964 and Marcy in 1959, as well as other Fourth International leaders did not produce unified Fourth International because Trotsky’s own limitations stood in the way of a democratic foundation for the party.
Trotsky opposed the founding of the Fourth International until 1938, one year before the outbreak of WWII and after he defeated the Spanish revolution with the help of Nin and Munis. The Comintern had a valuable ally in Trotsky as its loyal opposition, an erasure and replacement of the Workers’ Opposition of Kollontai and the Fourth International of Sylvia Pankhurst. Healy responded to Trotsky’s open betrayal in 1921, his parallel Battle of Blair Mountain against the workers of Petrograd, with a cover-up. This cover-up inadvertantly hid the motive of his assassins, who had prepared for his death since 1921. This further kept in the dark the membership of Trotsky’s International so they could not recognize the real threat to false leadership comes from the revolution itself, the mobilized working class attempting to punish the ruling class inside the Fourth International, and not a ruling class or state counter-revolution. From this perspective, Stalin’s purges represented the last opportunity before the war with the Nazis for the workers to punish the Soviet Bureaucracy for its suppression of democracy, proletarian relations of production, and an internationalist policy for the revolution.
Marcy’s positions on Trotsky filled in for the large hole in the memories of the Trotskyist cult, especially as seen in his opposition to the SWP over their imperialist, chauvinist approach to the Hungarian movement, when US workers were supposed to intervene in Eastern European and Russian affairs rather than confront their own government over its support for “democracy” in Europe. As they condemned the USSR in 1956 for the same actions Trotsky took in 1921, they actively suppressed democracy for the workers in their own country through McCarthyism as it played out within the Fourth International through the work of agents. Trotsky’s own Munis and Natalia Sedova, Trotsky’s widow, had, in 1947 and 1948, already condemned the undemocratic Congress procedures, the bureaucratic Stalinist methods, and the abandonment of revolutionary strategy in the work of the Fourth International. So Marcy’s acceptance of Stalinist positions and Stalinist states flowed naturally from his commitment to the party organization, which had themselves taken up the cause of “deformed workers’ states.” The simplification of this idea to unconditional support, regardless of differences of opinion over correct policy, provided for the party a more consistent Trotskyist view than Trotsky’s own.
It is the height of absurdity to claim that Trotsky led the opposition to Stalin. He opposed Stalin’s resignations on various occasions, opposed a Fourth International until 1933, and led his followers into Labor Camps as a service to Stalin. His 1921 actions, his placement of gas weapons in the hands of Tsarist military officials under anti-Marxist Tukhachevsky and, with Tukhachevsky his suppression of the Petrograd Workers, their leaders holed up at Kronstadt, and the Tenth Congress that he militarized as he banned factions, all this occurred in alliance with Stalin. This also includes his “alleged” 1925 assassination of General Frunze, in which Stalin seems to use a stronger poison to finish the job by Trotsky, whose anti-Marxist legacy came under attack under Funze’s leadership.
Healy’s conflict with Grant seemed to build upon this suppressed and sanitized history. This contributed to Marcy leaving the Fourth International, since Healy as the new leader would not break from either Stalinist bureaucratic methods or the anti-Marxist position that British and American workers must support the overthrow of the Soviet Union. Healy could not break from Trotsky’s failed strategy. Trotsky’s support for “State Capitalism” also meant replacing internationalism with de-nationalization, not only as government policy about also through the stripping of the nationality of the revolutionary from the revolutionary so that they could transcend their historical, material, and political self-interest and self-determination. This would lead to an abstraction of the international proletariat that would create an absolute, all-encompassing Marxist program.
Healy remained mired in this orthodoxy, while both Grant and Marcy escaped Pabloite liquidation by really questioning the root cause behind Pablo’s rise to the top. This lies in Trotsky’s own liquidationist perspective that broke up the Fourth International into the Comintern from 1921-1937. Marcy’s rejection of political revolution in the USSR as a destabilizing view that benefits imperialism makes sense, since Trotsky had reason to submit to imperialist views. These were not only his physical detention in imperialist prisons but also his use of the Left Opposition to extend Russia’s power through the Comintern into geopolitics. Russian Marxism as intellectual property gave him power inside imperialist capitals, since his well-known association with Lenin and his leadership of the Red Army could be exploited for personal gain. He could adapt his view on Marxism to favor imperialist assault through the guise of a political revolution.
Marxism arose with Marx in Germany and England, where Marx produced his greatest works. Russian Marxism developed through Engels’ and Kautsky’s connection to Plekhanov, who brought in Lenin after his return to Russia. Trotsky both followed and opposed Lenin to gain his position in the Russian organization.
Decades later, Healy followed Grant, while Marcy followed Cannon in the US. Each of these Marxists had a specific historical context and belonged to imperialist nations. Their views had to have limitations, despite attempts to rationalize their rise to power the world over. Rather than revolutionizing the economy in their own country, they found themselves drawn into an international conflict between conflicting empires, each with their own Marxist movement. The inter-imperialist conflict over leadership of the Marxist movement brought them into conflict with the natural development of Marxist theory as necessitated by the proletariat in their country. Allegiance to Trotsky meant allegiance to the Russian empire, the Tsarist officials who came to dominate the Bolshevik government and Red Army, and in the end, the destruction of their own revolutionary potential to satisfy the Stalinist bureaucracy of the Comintern and the USSR.
Marcy attempted to correct for this by breaking from Trotsky’s theory of a political revolution in the USSR, but he did not make this a specifically North American or British proletarian position. In that sense, he found a way to make peace with Trotsky’s crimes and betrayals of Marxism, as exposed by Munis and Sedova more than ten years before his split, and five years before Healy and Cannon split from Pablo. In the imperialist-Marxist view, the Russian Marxist view, another five or ten years lining up with the wrong side only extends the life of the empire, which after the revolution will serve to favor Marxism by extending its reach into new territory. Stalin extended the territory of the USSR, and so Trotsky seemed to have erred by opposing Stalin too early. The could be said about the long wait imposed by Healy, Grant, and Marcy’s organizations, who may believe that extension of the life of the British-American empire will profit US interests that later would convert to Marxist property, ostensibly under the control of the working class. Though Marxist organizations in the US and the UK have already been discovered by the conquistador corporations, banks, and oligarchs. So the bureaucratic mechanism will reign through the party’s long wait and through the revolutionary process according to the rules imposed on the party by the ruling class and its empire. Marcy’s acceptance of Trotsky and Stalin as the dialectic of the revolution in fact eliminates the real life of the revolutionary dialectic, which also included non-Russian defenders of the revolutionary theory of the proletariat. Trotsky replaced Marxist leaders everywhere with his Left Opposition bureaucracy, and Marcy’s rebellion against the structure of Trotsky’s organization did not include a full exposure of the damage consciously inflicted by Trotsky against the Marxist left. He hinted at this exposure by supporting Trotsky and Stalin, showing his understanding of Trotsky’s policies as equally repressive of free association and free thought, yet more freely marketed under conditions of imperialist police surveillance.
In bringing this perspective to the workers, we hope not to recreate the same failed state as the Russian Marxists, who as early as 1906 revealed their conditional suffragism. British Marxists had alligned with universal suffrage as the most pressing issue until the outbreak of WWI, because the disenfranchised workers had no means of opposing the empire built by their labor, by the export of their surplus value as capital into the colonies, as long as they had no right to vote for a policy to determine the appropriate use of the products of their labor. Russian Marxists did not get involved in this debate, but instead pointed to Russia as the origin of the revolution due to its economic weakness under capitalism. Russian Marxism turned halfway against the proletariat, while Chinese Marxism turned fully in favor of the peasantry. This turn, which left out the proletariat as an international class organized by capitalism, made Marxism nationalist and favored the middle class peasant at the expense of the landless and other poor peasants. As Sylvia Pankhurst explained, the Bolsheviks had a dual nature, both capitalist and socialist. The spread of Marxist revolution in a westward direction depends on the assimilation of Marxists like Sylvia Pankhurst, as well as Gramsci, Bordiga, Munis, CLR James and others that openly broke with Trotsky to support the workers in their struggle for the right to choose their own leaders.
In our work, we see that someone can dedicate untold hours and years to find themselves excommunicated and exiled from the party by a jealous bureaucrat or a sycophant that submits to unfit authority on behalf of the working class, leaving them without the resources to organize for open rebellion. At the same time, factions made up of exiles and dissidents who meet through engagement with the press end up divided and prevented from growing by the work of agents who clearly favor other factions, as the FBI favored King over Malcom X and Malcom X over the Black Panthers. In returning to Marcyism, under the PSL, we only refrain from criticism of the USSR as means of placing the blame on the workers’ organizations and political organizations of the socialist movement and their bureaucratic degeneration. We can only raise the standard for workers’ organizations if we reach the workers and convince them to participate with enough energy to outnumber the financed and the privileged few and outstay their management on workplace property to claim the capital for ourselves, to resist their ignorant assault, and to deny them any escape from the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is not incitement or sedition but the restoration of stolen property to the workers robbed daily through capitalist exploitation. The wealth of the capitalist is not a sign of superiority but guilt for slavery.
The RandomPoster33 Press Page 
Leave a comment