Trotskyism?

[Il Medico]

I have some basic knowledge about Trotskyism, but would like to know more. I know that Stalinist are the OI of Trotskyism, but what are the Major differences between the two? Please explain. Also can you explain Permanent Revolution?
NOTE: This post is for Trotskyist, I would prefer that Stalinist do not post, because I want to keep the discussion on Trotskyism and not which is better. Stalinist I am not singling you out, if I post a tread on Stalinism I will request that Trotskyist do not post. Other communist who know anything about Trotskyism are welcomed to post as well. Thanks!;)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Ok, considering you've asked about permanent revolution i'll first attempt to answer that question the best I can. You can also feel free to ask any other ones you may have. Anyway, Permanent Revolution is basically a theory stating that in underdeveloped countries the working class would have to seize the means of production in a revolution in order to develop them further. This gives the workers more industry to build up the economy in order to allow Socialism to survive.

[Yehuda Stern]

Anyway, Permanent Revolution is basically a theory stating that in underdeveloped countries the working class would have to seize the means of production in a revolution in order to develop them further. This gives the workers more industry to build up the economy in order to allow Socialism to survive.

I'm sorry, but this isn't right at all. Workers would always seize the means of production in a socialist revolution.

I'll try and give a concise answer. Historically, the countries of Western Europe and the USA have went through revolutions in which the old feudal ruling class was either overthrown or co-opted into the new ruling class. These were democratic revolutions, which brought the bourgeoisie to political power, and which in return gave the masses - the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty-bourgeoisie, etc. - certain democratic rights, such as the right to organize, unionize, equality before law, and so on.
The common conception is that a democratic revolution led by the bourgeoisie is a precondition for a socialist revolution of the working class. However, Marxists have seen problems with this since 1848, when Marx wrote quite clearly that the democratic revolution in Germany failed because the German bourgeoisie betrayed - it was too afraid of the working class to rally them against the feudalists. It already had its economic power and position in the existing state and class structure, and simply did not have an interest in disturbing that.

Permanent Revolution expresses the understanding that in the age of imperialism, the bourgeoisie of the countries that have not been through the democratic revolution can't lead the democratic revolution. The democratic tasks, then, fall on the shoulders of the workers - they must lead the revolution and complete in it both the democratic and the socialist tasks.

The Bolshevik revolution was a perfect example of the permanent revolution - the working class came to power and started treating both the democratic and socialist tasks of the revolution.

[Code]

how's the bolshevik revolution "perminent" :confused:
I mean it didnt really last forever.

[Random Precision]

I agree with Yehuda, and I also posted this in the Trotskyist group, in response to a question about what the main differences were between Trotskyists and Anti-Revisionists:

I think the main difference between Trotskyism and Anti-Revisionism begins with the theory of combined and uneven development, which applied Lenin's theory of imperialism to the prospects for revolution in the countries today known as the "third world". Trotsky pointed to the way to the bourgeoisie in underdeveloped countries being tied up with imperialism, which made them unwilling to accomplish the tasks of their own revolution, including the transition to democracy and land reform for the peasants. He said that the bourgeoisie in third world countries was incapable of completing its own tasks and would always seek collaboration with imperialism, for the fear of losing its power to the masses under it, the working class and the peasantry.

Growing out of this is the theory of permanent revolution, which proposed that the working class of underdeveloped nations would have to make the revolution to accomplish those tasks that in Western countries were handled by the bourgeoisie. I think this is really the distinguishing thing of Trotskyism, which makes it today's revolutionary Marxism.

In contrast, Stalinism regressed to the position of the Second International, which advocated working-class collaboration with the bourgeoisie: you have the Comintern calling Chiang Kai-shek a revolutionary and hastening his butchery of the Shanghai communists, the CP in India falling into lockstep behind Congress and abandoning revolutionary politics altogether during the struggle for independence. This is a sort of politics that requires the working class to give up its own independence and trap it within a national prison.

Trotsky expresses this better than I could in these works:

Results and Prospects (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm), pamphlet where he first proposed the permanent revolution
The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/pcr/01.htm), a critique of the Stalinist-engineered butchery of the Chinese Communists
The Third International After Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm), specifically Part III which draws lessons from the Chinese debacle

[Black Sheep]

Growing out of this is the theory of permanent revolution, which proposed that the working class of underdeveloped nations would have to make the revolution to accomplish those tasks that in Western countries were handled by the bourgeoisie. I think this is really the distinguishing thing of Trotskyism, which makes it today's revolutionary Marxism.
I still cannot understand how this applies to 1st world countries, and how trotskyism is different to anti-revisionism in a country where capitalism has been solidified and the democratic revolution has happened for good.

[Random Precision]

I still cannot understand how this applies to 1st world countries, and how trotskyism is different to anti-revisionism in a country where capitalism has been solidified and the democratic revolution has happened for good.

Theoretically, it wouldn't be. But "Anti-Revisionist" (in quotes since the term wasn't invented yet by the time I'm talking about) parties betrayed the workers' struggle countless times: during the struggle against fascism in Germany, the Popular Fronts of the late thirties, supporting the no-strike policy in Allied nations during WW2, the open sabotage of revolutionary situations after the war.

Of course, I'm not so foolish as to think that all Stalinist parties or militants are still committed today to the counter-revolutionary dictates of Moscow. I think a lot of productive work could be done in cooperation.

[Il Medico]

Thanks comrades for all the help!:thumbup1: RP thanks for the suggestions I'll put them on my books list for my next trip to the book store!

[Agrippa]

what are the Major differences between the two?

None.

[RED DAVE]

The way this applies to "first world countries" is this: Trotskyists, classically, seek to be a part of the overthrow of the ruling classes. Stalinists seek to become them.

RED DAVE

[cb9's_unity]

The way this applies to "first world countries" is this: Trotskyists, classically, seek to be a part of the overthrow of the ruling classes. Stalinists seek to become them.

RED DAVE

Even as someone who hates stalin and doesn't identify at all as a stalinist I have to point out the serious problems with this statement. There is no precedent for stalinist action in the first world and no Stalinist party I know about openly talks about itself becoming the ruling class. All stalinists are guilty of IMO is stubbornly believing in a seriously revised history and trying to explain away even the most obviously flawed parts of the soviet union.

As much as I am annoyed with them when it comes to history stalinists believe in working class revolution and must be considered allies in the fight against capitalism. When dealing with them we should just deal with 21st century America instead of 20th century russia.

[Led Zeppelin]

I still cannot understand how this applies to 1st world countries, and how trotskyism is different to anti-revisionism in a country where capitalism has been solidified and the democratic revolution has happened for good.

Just a short comment to clarify; Yehuda Stern was correct in his description of Permanent Revolution but I believe he forgot to mention that the theory also posits that socialism cannot exist or be built in one country (or a collection of countries) alone and therefore the process of building socialism must be a permanent one, until it becomes global and has progressed to socialism, and thereby nullifies its own permanence.

In other words, Trotskyists don't believe Cuba has "built socialism" or that the USSR ever "built socialism", while some anti-revisionists/Stalinists believe they did (or can) because they believe that it can be built in a single or a collection of countries.

The term originated with Marx, who provided a pretty simple and concise explanation of it:


While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

[Black Sheep]

Theoretically, it wouldn't be. But "Anti-Revisionist" (in quotes since the term wasn't invented yet by the time I'm talking about) parties betrayed the workers' struggle countless times: during the struggle against fascism in Germany, the Popular Fronts of the late thirties, supporting the no-strike policy in Allied nations during WW2, the open sabotage of revolutionary situations after the war.You mean the accusation that these CPs instead of encouraging the workers to seize power,they held them back, waiting for an election and stuff, so as the democratic revolution would happen?

So the dispute is history-based?
Also,such CPs think that a proletarian revolution is doomed to fail (by material conditions) if it doesn't happen that way?
Also,can that view be expanded to 'if you have a non-democratic regime,then you must establish democracy first and then the proletarians must seize power'.Like if a coup is established.



Originally Posted by Marx
While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers.
Justification for that? (and no,claiming 'oh,just see USSR', or 'but Marx said it', wont do)

[Random Precision]

You mean the accusation that these CPs instead of encouraging the workers to seize power,they held them back, waiting for an election and stuff, so as the democratic revolution would happen?

This is exactly it. For example the Portuguese Communist Party helped to defuse a revolutionary situation in the wake of the "Carnation Revolution" by shuttling all its energy into coalition-building in politics rather than a truly revolutionary path.


So the dispute is history-based?

To a certain extent I think so. Whether it is or not depends on the situation in each country where it occurs. In the United States for example I think Trotskyists and Anti-Revisionists could work together in a unified revolutionary workers' party, along the lines of the Bolshevik model, while in other countries where Anti-Revisionists are still committed to upholding union bureaucracy and the "democratic struggle", such work would be dangerous and end in opportunism.


Also,such CPs think that a proletarian revolution is doomed to fail (by material conditions) if it doesn't happen that way?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.


Also,can that view be expanded to 'if you have a non-democratic regime,then you must establish democracy first and then the proletarians must seize power'.Like if a coup is established.

This of course was the attitude of Communist Parties from Portugal to Spain to Greece to Argentina and beyond. In our view supporting the establishment of bourgeois democracy in and of itself is a distraction of the class struggle that channels its energy to support the "democratic" section of the bourgeoisie and its government.

[BobKKKindle$]

Just to expand a bit on the theory of permanent revolution, it's worth pointing out that what forces the proletariat to immediately conduct the socialist revolution (i.e. the abolition of capitalism through the seizure of the means of production) after the democratic tasks have been completed is the fact that the socialist revolution is the only way in which these democratic tasks can be applied consistently, due to the resistance of the bourgeoisie in underdeveloped countries. In this sense, speaking of the democratic tasks as having been completely doesn't really convey how the fight for these demands plays out. For example, when workers took to the streets demanding a limit on the length of the working day during the 1905 revolution in Russia the response of the employers was to declare a lockout, and so in that situation the only way the demand could have been enforced successfully was if the workers had expropriated the bourgeoisie, at which point what had initially been a struggle for a democratic demand, theoretically obtainable within the framework of capitalism, would become integrated into the overthrow of the capitalist system. In this respect Trotsky was somewhat different from Lenin, who accepted the desirability of a permanent revolutionary process, but believed that whether it would be possible to make permanent revolution a reality would be contingent on a set of other factors.

[Blackscare]

None.


YAY, another pointless and content-free post where you pretend to know what you're talking about and fall flat on your face.


This, coming from someone who is neither Stalinist or Trot.

[ZeroNowhere]

The way this applies to "first world countries" is this: Trotskyists, classically, seek to be a part of the overthrow of the ruling classes. Stalinists seek to become them.

RED DAVE
I always thought that Trotsky was a classical Trot. Apparently not.


Justification for that? (and no,claiming 'oh,just see USSR', or 'but Marx said it', wont do)
Wait, wasn't the OP just asking about what Trotskyism is, rather than for justification of it?


While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers.
Just saying, but this is basically saying that the workers are to try to turn the bourgeois revolution into a socialist one, as Engels later said when talking about their beliefs back in 1848, "And when, as Marx showed in his third article, in the spring of 1850, the development of the bourgeois republic that arose out of the “social” Revolution of 1848 had even concentrated real power in the hands of the big bourgeoisie-monarchistically inclined as it was into the bargain — and, on the other hand, had grouped all the other social classes, peasantry as well as petty bourgeoisie, around the proletariat, so that during and after the common victory, not they but the proletariat grown wise from experience had to become the decisive factor — was there not every prospect then of turning the revolution of the minority into a revolution of the majority?" Anyways, I don't really see too much of a relation between that and what Yehuda said, presumably because it wasn't written in capitalism's period of decadence... Age of imperialism, that is.


None.
Oh, come on, there's whether socialism in one country is possible and whether Russia was a 'degenerated workers' state' or a 'healthy workers' state' (or state capitalism, but that's not ortho-Trot, and actually lost Trotsky a few friends, such as Ciliga) with Stalin in charge. So not quite none, there's actually two.

[gilhyle]

This question was about what differentiates Trotskyism from Stalinism Trotskyism is (classically) identifiable by the belief in

- Permanent Revolution
- Transitional Demands
- the Rank and File Tactic
- Building of the Fourth International
- United Front not popular front
- defence of the Soviet Union as a degenerate workers state

None of which views were held by Stalinism. In the forty or so short pages of the Transitional Programme you will find it all succinctly presented - although not nearly as elegantly or persuasively as Trotsky usually was.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yehuda Stern was correct in his description of Permanent Revolution but I believe he forgot to mention that the theory also posits that socialism cannot exist or be built in one country (or a collection of countries) alone and therefore the process of building socialism must be a permanent one, until it becomes global and has progressed to socialism, and thereby nullifies its own permanence.

This is exactly true and I thank you for the correction. Only serious lack of sleep explains why I failed to mention this very important aspect of PR.

[RED DAVE]

The way this applies to "first world countries" is this: Trotskyists, classically, seek to be a part of the overthrow of the ruling classes. Stalinists seek to become them.
Even as someone who hates stalin and doesn't identify at all as a stalinist I have to point out the serious problems with this statement. There is no precedent for stalinist action in the first world and no Stalinist party I know about openly talks about itself becoming the ruling class. All stalinists are guilty of IMO is stubbornly believing in a seriously revised history and trying to explain away even the most obviously flawed parts of the soviet union.There is plenty of precedent for "stalinist action in first world": the behavior of Communist parties. And while stalinists do not openly talk about becoming the ruling class, their actions in countries where they have come to power, even relatively recently, such as Vietnam, show what the outcome is.

My observations of stalinists in the US over a period of about 45 years is that in various struggles, they will always show bureaucratic tendencies, which reveal a deep flaw in their approach to class struggle.


As much as I am annoyed with them when it comes to history stalinists believe in working class revolution and must be considered allies in the fight against capitalism. When dealing with them we should just deal with 21st century America instead of 20th century russia.I am all for working with stalinists and have often done so in the past. However, my opinion, and I see no reason to revise it based on my very limited contact with the CPUSA over the past ten years, is that this particular leopard has not changed its spots.

I have to say that, often, I have seen the same bureaucratic tendencies in so-called orthodox trotskyists. In trade union struggles, I have seen that, again and again, rather than participating in the supplanting of the bureaucracy of various unions I've been involved in, they seemed to want to become the bureaucracy.

I also have to say, in all honesty, that I have not been involved in a major union struggle involving either stalinists or orthodox trotskyists in quite a few years, so either of these tendencies may have gone through radical changes in this regard.

RED DAVE

[Il Medico]

I would like to thank all who have replied, you helped me better understand Trotskyism. I would like to give special thanks to the people who explained permanent revolution, thank you.