Trotsky's Position on the Peasantry

[Cyberwave]

I'm looking for specific quotes in particular. I know what he believed (e.g. dismissing the need for alliance between proletariat and peasantry at the time of the revolution), but quotes would help.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

With his pretension to be a better Leninist than Lenin, Trotsky vehemently denied that he wanted to 'skip over the peasantry' or that he underestimated its revolutionary potential. He accused Lenin of having criticised him on this point without having read his work. In reality, in the chapter of 'Results and Prospects' devoted to relations between the proletariat in power and the peasantry, he openly showed his contempt for the latter. A few quotations will prove it:

Many sections of the working masses, particularly in the countryside will be drawn into the revolution and become politically organised only after the advance-guard of the revolution, the urban proletariat, stands at the helm of the state. Revolutionary agitation and organisation will then be conducted with the help of state resources.

In such a situation, created by the transference of power to the proletariat, nothing remains for the peasantry to do but to rally to the regime of the workers' democracy.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

It will not matter much even if the peasantry does this with a degree of consciousness no larger than that with which it usually rallies to the bourgeois regime.

END QUOTE

[Sendo]

Basically Trotsky believed that rural workers and peasants cannot be trusted to join the revolution in any meaningful way and they must be proletarianized and organized by a central government, rather than organize them into work teams and other associations to raise their consciousness. He doesn't advocate for the peasantry to partake in revolution, but expects them to submit to (or expects the worker's government to coerce them into submitting to) a workers' government. Trotskyism has always focused more on ideological purity than on making alliances, using available human resources, etc.

[Adi Shankara]

Here, rather than relying on 3rd party accounts of Trotsky's views, you should read this, it has his entire view on rural peasantry and how they fit into the revolutionary movement:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/09/china.html (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/09/china.htm)

(Marxists.org is an EXCELLENT resource for anything relating to communism)

[Hit The North]

This question appears to lack any contemporary significance. I'm therefore moving it to History.

[Sendo]

Here, rather than relying on 3rd party accounts of Trotsky's views, you should read this, it has his entire view on rural peasantry and how they fit into the revolutionary movement:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/09/china.html (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/09/china.htm)

(Marxists.org is an EXCELLENT resource for anything relating to communism)

He advocates the disarming of rural people. This isn't the only time he's said this.

[graymouser]

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp05.htm) is the actual chapter of Results and Prospects that details Trotsky's theory that the peasantry will not be an independent political actor and will politically follow the leadership of the proletariat - exactly as it did in the October Revolution, as the Bolsheviks took up the program of land to the peasants. The idea that this is some tremendous difference from Bolshevism is a fantasy invented after the fact by Stalinist distorters of history. Every Marxist knew that the peasantry was not the main revolutionary class - by its sheer atomization (everyone working by themselves) it could not have been, as was seen by the failure of the 16th century peasant wars and the historical fact that feudal relations were destroyed not by the peasants but by the bourgeoisie.

In a world where the peasantry is in sharp decline (much more agricultural work is done by farm workers who have a wage-relationship to production rather than the land-relationship that peasants historically have) and this is mostly a historical question, and mostly for Stalinists to bash on Trotsky's theories. Trotsky correctly estimated exactly what the peasantry could and could not do in the revolution.

[Sendo]

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp05.htm) is the actual chapter of Results and Prospects that details Trotsky's theory that the peasantry will not be an independent political actor and will politically follow the leadership of the proletariat - exactly as it did in the October Revolution, as the Bolsheviks took up the program of land to the peasants. The idea that this is some tremendous difference from Bolshevism is a fantasy invented after the fact by Stalinist distorters of history. Every Marxist knew that the peasantry was not the main revolutionary class - by its sheer atomization (everyone working by themselves) it could not have been, as was seen by the failure of the 16th century peasant wars and the historical fact that feudal relations were destroyed not by the peasants but by the bourgeoisie.

In a world where the peasantry is in sharp decline (much more agricultural work is done by farm workers who have a wage-relationship to production rather than the land-relationship that peasants historically have) and this is mostly a historical question, and mostly for Stalinists to bash on Trotsky's theories. Trotsky correctly estimated exactly what the peasantry could and could not do in the revolution.

A Maoist might not argue that an all-proletarian socialist revolution is not the only revolution. Anti-feudal, anti-colonial, (and New Democratic, if one is Maoist) revolutions are revolutions too.

The essence of Trotsky is that the peasantry have no part to play. If you're country isn't mostly populated by urban steel mill workers, you shouldn't be preparing for revolution. When I was mulling over joining the ISO a big part of the reading was on how the USA is not even ready for any socialist parties (not only was revolution out of the question, but a mere political party). So Trotskyists are quite selective about who is ripe for revolution.

[RED DAVE]

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp05.htm) is the actual chapter of Results and Prospects that details Trotsky's theory that the peasantry will not be an independent political actor and will politically follow the leadership of the proletariat - exactly as it did in the October Revolution, as the Bolsheviks took up the program of land to the peasants. The idea that this is some tremendous difference from Bolshevism is a fantasy invented after the fact by Stalinist distorters of history. Every Marxist knew that the peasantry was not the main revolutionary class - by its sheer atomization (everyone working by themselves) it could not have been, as was seen by the failure of the 16th century peasant wars and the historical fact that feudal relations were destroyed not by the peasants but by the bourgeoisie.

In a world where the peasantry is in sharp decline (much more agricultural work is done by farm workers who have a wage-relationship to production rather than the land-relationship that peasants historically have) and this is mostly a historical question, and mostly for Stalinists to bash on Trotsky's theories. Trotsky correctly estimated exactly what the peasantry could and could not do in the revolution.
The essence of Trotsky is that the peasantry have no part to play. If you're country isn't mostly populated by urban steel mill workers, you shouldn't be preparing for revolution. When I was mulling over joining the ISO a big part of the reading was on how the USA is not even ready for any socialist parties (not only was revolution out of the question, but a mere political party). So Trotskyists are quite selective about who is ripe for revolution.Comrade, did you read what Comrade GM wrote above? It directly quotes Trotsky's actual opinion, which informs actual Trotskyist practice.

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

A Maoist might not argue that an all-proletarian socialist revolution is not the only revolution. Anti-feudal, anti-colonial, (and New Democratic, if one is Maoist) revolutions are revolutions too.
Well, yes, but Trotsky's essential point is that none of them can actually solve the basic bourgeois-democratic tasks of development, as the local bourgeoisie is fundamentally too weak to proceed with it. And if we look at the world, the countries that experienced anti-feudal or anti-colonial revolutions but not a socialist revolution are underdeveloped. China has caught up to a degree - precisely by having a socialist revolution, albeit a deformed one led by a Stalinized Communist Party. But Africa, Asia, Latin America - all overwhelmingly victims of combined & uneven development.


The essence of Trotsky is that the peasantry have no part to play. If you're country isn't mostly populated by urban steel mill workers, you shouldn't be preparing for revolution. When I was mulling over joining the ISO a big part of the reading was on how the USA is not even ready for any socialist parties (not only was revolution out of the question, but a mere political party). So Trotskyists are quite selective about who is ripe for revolution.
Well, the ISO is not the group I'd advocate joining, but they're essentially correct: the basis is not there for a genuine vanguard Leninist party. This is why many Trotskyists (not specifically the ISO but a lot of us) talk about things like the Labor Party question - not because we want a reformist labor party like in Britain, but because once a political vehicle of that sort is developed, we will actually be at a level where we can build the revolutionary party. Until then we can only train cadres who will be able to build this party. Being realistic is hardly a political question.

As for the "essence of Trotsky," you're wrong. Full stop. Trotsky understood the atomization of the peasantry (really, this is a material force, peasants are literally out there in small groups on the land and moreover they can't fight all year long as they have to get back to their crops) and the fact that they could never be a consistent revolutionary force; he knew they were a majority and knew they would have a role in the revolution but only inasmuch as the proletariat was able to capture their support. And he was exactly right. The Bolsheviks won the peasants to their cause with "Land, Bread and Peace" - and won the revolution.

Again this is an increasingly irrelevant question, as peasants as such are declining in favor of agricultural workers, literally hired hands instead of tenants working the land. These are workers to the core and attempting to approach them as peasants is deeply misguided.

[Hit The North]

Being realistic is hardly a political question.



Actually, being realistic is one of the decisive questions which divide serious revolutionaries from the gun-fetishist, faux-guerilla, voluntarists we often find in first world Maoist sects.

[Crux]

A Maoist might not argue that an all-proletarian socialist revolution is not the only revolution. Anti-feudal, anti-colonial, (and New Democratic, if one is Maoist) revolutions are revolutions too.

The essence of Trotsky is that the peasantry have no part to play. If you're country isn't mostly populated by urban steel mill workers, you shouldn't be preparing for revolution. When I was mulling over joining the ISO a big part of the reading was on how the USA is not even ready for any socialist parties (not only was revolution out of the question, but a mere political party). So Trotskyists are quite selective about who is ripe for revolution.
A reformist might argue for a peacefull transition through the bourgeoisie stage to socialism. So?

Utter nonsense. In which country do you think Trotskij was active? Or do you mean to say russia had a majority of proeltarians when the czardom and the provisional government was overthrown? Which brand of hisorical revisionism do you adhere to? And this isn't about "purity", it is about how to win.

[Adi Shankara]

Actually, being realistic is one of the decisive questions which divide serious revolutionaries from the gun-fetishist, faux-guerilla, voluntarists we often find in first world Maoist sects.

This--why is it always the Western Maoists (not all Maoists, mind you) who openly applaud the most authoritarian, most violent means possible to a revolution? It's almost like they grew up their entire lives in peaceful surroundings (the ones in the west at least), and want to start war to cure their dissatisfaction with the lack of violence and death they think should be the hallmark of revolution--I don't see why they're all so ready to spill blood for no reason, and defend tyranny.

That, and they have a terrible track record when it comes to defending state capitalist or totalitarian dictatorship nations (9/10, if someone is defending the PRC as a "bastion of Communism", it's a Maoist)