JimmyJazz
10th June 2009, 19:44
One of the main disagreements between Stalinism and Trotskyism is over what should be the overarching goal of the foreign policy of a socialist state: To push for revolution anywhere and at any time that it seems at all possible (Trotsky), or to try and increase the security of the existing socialist state(s) (Stalin).
On the basis of this difference, the more partisan Stalinists have been able to portray the Trotskyists as "abandoning the Soviet Union", and the more partisan Trotskyists have been able to portray the Stalinists as "abandoning the world proletariat".
Another way to characterize the difference is to say that Trotskyism applies to foreign policy the Bolshevik position of October 1917, which says that the proletariat in relatively backward countries can take a leading role in carrying out the tasks of a "bourgeois"-democratic revolution, whereas Stalinist foreign policy applies a rigid Menshevik-style stageism. But this is a Trotskyist characterization of the difference, and I don't really know what the Stalinist reply to it would be. I also happen to think that this way of characterizing it is less useful, since it seems likely to me that rigid stageism was not a genuine theoretical position held by the Stalinist government of the USSR, but an ideological cover for their actual goal, which was to increase their own security.
I don't like all aspects of the Trotskyist movement, but I would have to say that I generally agree with Troskyism on the foreign policy issue.
First of all, I agree with the general priniciple that the only thing which can guarantee the security of existing socialist states is for more states to go socialist, i.e., for there to be a world revolution as quickly as possible. Anything else is short-sighted. This seems like common sense as well as an obvious tenet of classical Marxism.
Second of all, in the specific historical instances I have read about--China 1925-27, Spain 1936-39, Greece 1947-early 1950s--the Soviet Union basically turned on revolutionary movements which otherwise had a good chance of succeeding.
So my questions are:
1. Do anti-revisionists today defend the foreign policy of the Soviet Union under Stalin in general? In the specific instances I listed? In other instances where Trotskyists claim that Stalin betrayed the world proletariat? If so, on what basis?
2. Did Maoist foreign policy follow in the Stalinist tradition of considering the security of the Chinese state paramount? (I don't know any real details of Chinese foreign policy, I just know general facts such as that they gave military aid to Korea and Vietnam; I also know that a lot of what they did was motivated by the Sino-Soviet split).
3. Would you consider this a moral/ideological difference between Stalinists and Trotkysists or merely a strategic difference? To me it seems like the latter.
On the basis of this difference, the more partisan Stalinists have been able to portray the Trotskyists as "abandoning the Soviet Union", and the more partisan Trotskyists have been able to portray the Stalinists as "abandoning the world proletariat".
Another way to characterize the difference is to say that Trotskyism applies to foreign policy the Bolshevik position of October 1917, which says that the proletariat in relatively backward countries can take a leading role in carrying out the tasks of a "bourgeois"-democratic revolution, whereas Stalinist foreign policy applies a rigid Menshevik-style stageism. But this is a Trotskyist characterization of the difference, and I don't really know what the Stalinist reply to it would be. I also happen to think that this way of characterizing it is less useful, since it seems likely to me that rigid stageism was not a genuine theoretical position held by the Stalinist government of the USSR, but an ideological cover for their actual goal, which was to increase their own security.
I don't like all aspects of the Trotskyist movement, but I would have to say that I generally agree with Troskyism on the foreign policy issue.
First of all, I agree with the general priniciple that the only thing which can guarantee the security of existing socialist states is for more states to go socialist, i.e., for there to be a world revolution as quickly as possible. Anything else is short-sighted. This seems like common sense as well as an obvious tenet of classical Marxism.
Second of all, in the specific historical instances I have read about--China 1925-27, Spain 1936-39, Greece 1947-early 1950s--the Soviet Union basically turned on revolutionary movements which otherwise had a good chance of succeeding.
So my questions are:
1. Do anti-revisionists today defend the foreign policy of the Soviet Union under Stalin in general? In the specific instances I listed? In other instances where Trotskyists claim that Stalin betrayed the world proletariat? If so, on what basis?
2. Did Maoist foreign policy follow in the Stalinist tradition of considering the security of the Chinese state paramount? (I don't know any real details of Chinese foreign policy, I just know general facts such as that they gave military aid to Korea and Vietnam; I also know that a lot of what they did was motivated by the Sino-Soviet split).
3. Would you consider this a moral/ideological difference between Stalinists and Trotkysists or merely a strategic difference? To me it seems like the latter.