Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism

[PeacefulRevolution]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Leninism, Marxism and Trotskyism? I understand some of the differences between Lenin and Marx, but I don't know much about Trotsky.

[Q]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Leninism, Marxism and Trotskyism? I understand some of the differences between Lenin and Marx, but I don't know much about Trotsky.

Trotskyists consider themselves Marxists, standing in the traditions of the Bolsheviks, be it that Trotsky developed and defended a particular form of the theory of Permanent Revolution (there were many Marxists that agreed with the conclusions of it though, going all the way back to Marx and Engels) and further developed a programmatical approach first adopted by the early comintern, called the transitional approach. Trotskyists have historically also defended workers democracy as opposed to the Stalinist dictatorship.

"Leninism" is a construct that arose after Lenin died and "Marxism-Leninism" was adopted as the official state ideology of the USSR. This is an artificial construct though in the sense that during his life Lenin always defended an "Erfurtian" approach, a reference to the Erfurt programme of 1891 of the German SPD, which Lenin sought to emulate within a Russian context. There is a lot of confusion in the movement around this issue as Trotsky, not wanting to be posed as an "anti-Leninist" adopted the term "Bolsheviki-Leninist" for the Left Opposition within the CPSU, before he was expelled.

[el_chavista]

A peaceful revolution?
Oh, yes, sure. Why not?
http://www.communistleague.us/images/league/201003teaparty.gif

[PeacefulRevolution]

I don't necessarily believe that communism can be achieved by peaceful means, but I think we could find an alternative to all-out war.

[Red Commissar]

"Leninism" is a construct that arose after Lenin died and "Marxism-Leninism" was adopted as the official state ideology of the USSR. This is an artificial construct though in the sense that during his life Lenin always defended an "Erfurtian" approach, a reference to the Erfurt programme of 1891 of the German SPD, which Lenin sought to emulate within a Russian context. There is a lot of confusion in the movement around this issue as Trotsky, not wanting to be posed as an "anti-Leninist" adopted the term "Bolsheviki-Leninist" for the Left Opposition within the CPSU, before he was expelled.

So can we see Trotskyism as a development of Lenin's thought(withstanding what the Soviet Union proclaimed "Marxist-Leninist" thought), or an independent line of thought all together?

[infraxotl]

Trotsky was an opportunist. Most modern trotskyists are simply confused individuals with a flawed understanding of history and a lazy and uncritical understanding of Trotsky's major contributions. I wouldn't question their revolutionary fervor, but they can be extremely irritating to deal with when they insist that socialism has never existed and that the projects of the 20th century were total and complete failures, regardless of evidence to the contrary. If a person has a materialist view of, say, the USSR, they're considered to be stalinist tankies by most trotskyists.

Leninism is confusing because aside from ultra-leftists, all communists fancy themselves disciples of lenin.

[Queercommie Girl]

Trotsky was an opportunist. Most modern trotskyists are simply confused individuals with a flawed understanding of history and a lazy and uncritical understanding of Trotsky's major contributions. I wouldn't question their revolutionary fervor, but they can be extremely irritating to deal with when they insist that socialism has never existed and that the projects of the 20th century were total and complete failures, regardless of evidence to the contrary. If a person has a materialist view of, say, the USSR, they're considered to be stalinist tankies by most trotskyists.

Leninism is confusing because aside from ultra-leftists, all communists fancy themselves disciples of lenin.

It's not the orthodox Trotskyist position to completely negate the gains made by socialist states of the 20th century like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic. The orthodox Trotskyist line is that these states are what is called "deformed worker's state", in that they still maintain the planned economy and public ownership at the level of the economic base, but at the level of the political superstructure they were severely deformed due to the lack of direct worker's democracy and control.

Some modern Trotskyists hold that countries such as the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were "state-capitalist", as do many anarchists. However, the concept of "state-capitalism" is not an orthodox Trotskyist line, Trotsky himself never used this term. He always saw the Soviet Union under Stalin as fundamentally still a worker's state, even after he was exiled. Unlike the social revolutions which are called for in capitalist countries, in deformed worker's states orthodox Trotskyists call for a political revolution so that democratic proletarian organisations can acquire political power at the expense of the bureaucratic caste, but keeping most of the economic and institutional structures of the worker's state intact.

The "state-capitalism" concept was introduced by a much later Trotskyist theorist called Tony Cliff. Although I agree with some of Cliff's contributions to Marxist theory, I strongly reject the entire concept of "state-capitalism" as essentially non-sensical.

Personally my political line is somewhere in between orthodox Trotskyism and contemporary Maoism. I'm heavily critical of Stalin, but unlike the orthodox Trotskyists, I do not completely reject Stalin. Also I believe generally speaking Trotskyists in the West do not have an adequate analysis of Maoism. They tend to think that Maoism is "just another kind of Stalinism", which is not actually true. They do not recognise for instance that the Cultural Revolution was an attempt by Mao to introduce more worker's democracy in China, partly because he recognised the fundamental flaws in the Soviet/Stalinist model. But I also believe that the kind of worker's democracy promoted by Maoism doesn't go quite enough.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Leninism, Marxism and Trotskyism? I understand some of the differences between Lenin and Marx, but I don't know much about Trotsky.

Trotskyism and Leninism are branches of Marxism.

Same with Stalinism, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

So can we see Trotskyism as a development of Lenin's thought(withstanding what the Soviet Union proclaimed "Marxist-Leninist" thought), or an independent line of thought all together?

Essentially yes. This is true at least for orthodox Trotskyism. "Newer" variants of Trotskyist thoughts may differ with Lenin in some fundamental ways. Some "newer" Trotskyists are inclining more towards the anarchists and essentially argue that even the original October revolution under Lenin was somewhat deformed. However, orthodox Trotskyist organisations/parties like the CWI have always recognised the October revolution under Lenin as a fundamentally genuine democratic worker's revolution. E.g. the CWI had published a book called "In Defence of October".

Basically, nothing in orthodox Trotskyist thought negates any Leninist line, but can be seen as further developments of Leninism. In CWI publications for instance, Trotsky is very often mentioned right next to and together with Lenin in the articles.

Essentially, many currently existing schools of Marxism and socialism, such as Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism and Hoxhaism etc, are all branches of Marxism-Leninism (in the original technical sense, not the later doctrinal Soviet sense), in a similar way to how later Judaism, Christianity and Islam were all branches of the original Abrahamic Judaism of antiquity.

The Trots don't usually use this term, but essentially you could say that Maoism is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Trotskyism is Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Trotskyism and Leninism are branches of Marxism.

Same with Stalinism, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, etc.

It's more accurate to say that Marxism and anarchism are branches of socialism; Marxism-Leninism, Luxemburgism and Council Communism are branches of Marxism; and Trotskyism, Maoism, Stalinism, Titoism and Hohxaism are branches of Marxism-Leninism.

There is nothing in orthodox Trotskyism that contradicts Leninism. In fact, many Trotskyists, such as Trotskyists in China, believe that actually Trotskyism is the most correct continuation of the original Marxism-Leninism, not Stalinism.

The Chinese Maoists have a saying, which traces the "lineage" of Maoist thought: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao; to which the Chinese Trotskyists would reply: it should be Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!

[Lyev]

So can we see Trotskyism as a development of Lenin's thought(withstanding what the Soviet Union proclaimed "Marxist-Leninist" thought), or an independent line of thought all together?From a previous thread on pretty much the same subject (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-form-marxism-t136752/index.html?t=136752 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-form-marxism-t136752/index.html?t=136752%29:)):
Urm, no. Trotskyists are Marxists-Leninists - both tendencies base themselves on the vanguard party and a socialist-communist transition, in the Leninist sense, as first espoused in the State and Revolution. A simplified definition is that Trotskyism is just anti-Stalin Marxism-Leninism. But with Trotskyism come the theoretical developments of anti-fascism, the transitional program, permanent revolution and of course anti-Stalinism. A member who sadly doesn't post here anymore has this take on it:
While I know that others are quite comfortable calling themselves Trotskyists, I'm not so content to have my political viewpoint placed into such a neat little box, even though about 90% of the time I agree with Trotsky's views.

[...]

Any self-labelled Trotskyist who does not understand that that also makes them a Leninist should read up more on Trotsky, or start using a different adjective to describe their politics. Although we do have an unnecessary amount of splits, I don't know of any that have occurred because one group didn't see itself as Leninist. If that were the case, they could just become Left Communists or Anarchists.

[...]

Well, I've always understood Trotsky's thought as a continuation and development of Lenin's. But if they do in fact accept Lenin and can call themselves Leninists, then I'm okay with that.Both Lenin and Trotsky were Bolsheviks. For information on his development of the theory of permanent revolution read this (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm), for the transitional program (TP for short) read either Trotsky's words here (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm) or an interesting essay here (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/TPSV8.html). For his analysis of fascism there is Fascism: what it is and how to fight it (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm) and lastly for getting an idea of anti-Stalinism (which entails opposition to his theory of socialism in one country and some of his more authoritarian measures) read the Revolution Betrayed (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm).

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's more accurate to say that Marxism and anarchism are branches of socialism; Marxism-Leninism, Luxemburgism and Council Communism are branches of Marxism; and Trotskyism, Maoism, Stalinism, Titoism and Hohxaism are branches of Marxism-Leninism.

There is nothing in orthodox Trotskyism that contradicts Leninism. In fact, many Trotskyists, such as Trotskyists in China, believe that actually Trotskyism is the most correct continuation of the original Marxism-Leninism, not Stalinism.

The Chinese Maoists have a saying, which traces the "lineage" of Maoist thought: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao; to which the Chinese Trotskyists would reply: it should be Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!


I give this reply a thumbs up.

:thumbup1:

[Weezer]

Trotsky was an opportunist. Most modern trotskyists are simply confused individuals with a flawed understanding of history and a lazy and uncritical understanding of Trotsky's major contributions. I wouldn't question their revolutionary fervor, but they can be extremely irritating to deal with when they insist that socialism has never existed and that the projects of the 20th century were total and complete failures, regardless of evidence to the contrary. If a person has a materialist view of, say, the USSR, they're considered to be stalinist tankies by most trotskyists.

Leninism is confusing because aside from ultra-leftists, all communists fancy themselves disciples of lenin.

cool story bro

Trotskyists, at least Orthodox Trots, believe the USSR and such states were socialist, but they were degenerated or deformed. It appears you have a flawed understanding of Trotskyist theory.

[infraxotl]

How many of the mainstream/popular trotskyist organizations and parties mirror your views? I doubt that most of them do, otherwise my experience with trotskyists would be vastly different.

[Crux]

Trotsky was an opportunist. Most modern trotskyists are simply confused individuals with a flawed understanding of history and a lazy and uncritical understanding of Trotsky's major contributions. I wouldn't question their revolutionary fervor, but they can be extremely irritating to deal with when they insist that socialism has never existed and that the projects of the 20th century were total and complete failures, regardless of evidence to the contrary. If a person has a materialist view of, say, the USSR, they're considered to be stalinist tankies by most trotskyists.

Leninism is confusing because aside from ultra-leftists, all communists fancy themselves disciples of lenin.
So trotsky was a tankie according to most trotskyists? Have you even read The Revolution Betrayed? But yes, stalinism, and the practice that flow from it, main characteristic is it's failure. I am sure there are some fresh comrades that have a rather crude view on this, but the basic assumption, the reactionary nature and failure of stalinism is correct.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So how come the KKE is more successful than most Trotskyist organizations, nationalistic left organizations with Stalin banners (CPRF), Maoist organizations, and even "Anti-Revisionist" organizations? Answer: Third Periodist opposition to social corporatism.

[Crux]

So how come the KKE is more successful than most Trotskyist organizations, nationalistic left organizations with Stalin banners (CPRF), Maoist organizations, and even "Anti-Revisionist" organizations? Answer: Third Periodist opposition to social corporatism.
Orrrrr longstanding historical massbase? Third Periodist? Really?

[Die Neue Zeit]

They did a rethink of their official ideology after the Soviet collapse, and have indeed moved further left than even a typical Hoxhaist organization. Couple that with their separate union front and the popular "social fascist" rhetoric employed by the likes of non-Marxist left intellectuals in that country to describe the main center-left party, and you've got Third Periodism or real "Anti-Revisionism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=552).

[Rainsborough]

Trotskyism is Leninism and Leninism is Marxism. All of them just continued what Marx started

Arguably, you could say the same for Stalin or any other Marxist revolutionary thinker. Marx's ideas, surely, provide a base from which other ideas develop.

[Thirsty Crow]

Arguably, you could say the same for Stalin or any other Marxist revolutionary thinker. Marx's ideas, surely, provide a base from which other ideas develop.
You cannot achieve socialism in one country. Period.

[scarletghoul]

You cannot achieve socialism in one country. Period.
Ya trotskyite fool, there's no choice. By 1920 it was obvious the revolution would not spread in the rest of Europe. Now if you were a leader of the CPSU, what would you have tried to do ? Just give up on socialism because there's no hope of doing it in one country ? Or would you try to consolidate socialism in the territory available, then using that as a base of support for future revolutionary movements ?
There is nothing in orthodox Trotskyism that contradicts Leninism. In fact, many Trotskyists, such as Trotskyists in China, believe that actually Trotskyism is the most correct continuation of the original Marxism-Leninism, not Stalinism.
I guess this depends on what you define as 'Leninism' ?

[Q]

And from here things get bad, again...


Ya trotskyite fool, there's no choice. By 1920 it was obvious the revolution would not spread in the rest of Europe. Now if you were a leader of the CPSU, what would you have tried to do ? Just give up on socialism because there's no hope of doing it in one country ? Or would you try to consolidate socialism in the territory available, then using that as a base of support for future revolutionary movements ?
I would argue that the Soviet leaders had little other option then to do what they did: retreat and entrench. I agree. But it is something else entirely to picture this as some kind of socialism or theorise it like Stalin did. On the contrary, the counter-revolution that had set in deserved every bit of opposition, especially when it became a pro-active blockade to revolutions elsewhere on the planet, as we saw in Spain in the 1930's and many times more later on.


I guess this depends on what you define as 'Leninism' ?
If you want to make a critical note, make it, or don't speak at all.

[Q]

...

Please remove the image spam or face a warning.

[Thirsty Crow]

Ya trotskyite fool, there's no choice. By 1920 it was obvious the revolution would not spread in the rest of Europe. Now if you were a leader of the CPSU, what would you have tried to do ? Just give up on socialism because there's no hope of doing it in one country ? Or would you try to consolidate socialism in the territory available, then using that as a base of support for future revolutionary movements ?

First of all, please refrain from tendency slurs. I don't identify my politics as trotskyist, and not all criticism of the Soviet leadership or the doctrine of socialism in one country pertains solely to trotskyism.
Secondly, I didn't suggest that the leadership of the CPSU should have given up on socialism. Hell, I wasn't even talking about real political decisions, but theoretical consequences of the proclamation that socialism was achieved in the Soviet Union. I should have elaborated on this, I guess.
One of these consequences is the "socialism in one country" doctrine, which is not Marxist, Now, one can argue that this proclamation was mere rhetoric, but as we see, it (the proclamation) produced a separate strand in the history of Marxist theory and practice, namely, Stalinism.
And as far as the support for other revolutionary movements goes, CPSU record track is dismal, perhaps mostly because there wasn't any basis for a successful support within the Party and the Comintern.
On this basis I tend to dispute what has been said, that Stalin is a legitimate Marxist.


And do note that I'm making a distinction between building and achieving socialism.

[Rainsborough]

You cannot achieve socialism in one country. Period.

I agree. :thumbup1:
However, I didn't suggest that you could, merely that Marx's ideas form a basis to which other thinkers such as Lenin added and extended. Marx always thought the revolution, when it came, would begin in an industrialised nation, Britain or Germany, his theories never fit the Russian system and had to be adapted by Lenin and so it has been throughout the world.

[scarletghoul]

If you want to make a critical note, make it, or don't speak at all.
I wasn't actually 'making a critical note', I was trying to ask Iseul what he understood by the term "Leninism". Is it just the main teachings of Lenin ? Is it everything he ever said ? Is it the collective wisdom of the Bolshevik party crystalised with Lenin at its core ? etc etc. What ideas define Leninism, and so on. This is a genuine question, as I think it's important to understand what these terms are used to mean. Also it may help answer the OP

[infraxotl]

You cannot achieve socialism in one country. Period.

Here's another reason trotskyists are hard to work with, the constant misrepresentation of other's views. I'd like to see a trotskyist criticism of Socialism in One Country that wasn't a gigantic strawman argument.

[Thirsty Crow]

Here's another reason trotskyists are hard to work with, the constant misrepresentation of other's views. I'd like to see a trotskyist criticism of Socialism in One Country that wasn't a gigantic strawman argument.
Read the thread. If you really did, you'd see that I am not a trotskyist.
And as far as this doctrine is concenred, would you enlighten us "trotskyites" "bourgeois agents" (see, this is a straw man of your positions)?
EDIT: Better yet, there's a test to see if I'm using straw man arguments: Was there a proclamation in the the USSR that socialism is achieved? During which period was the proclamation issued, if it ever was?

[infraxotl]

Read the thread. If you really did, you'd see that I am not a trotskyist.
And as far as this doctrine is concenred, would you enlighten us "trotskyites" "bourgeois agents" (see, this is a straw man of your positions)?
EDIT: Better yet, there's a test to see if I'm using straw man arguments: Was there a proclamation in the the USSR that socialism is achieved? During which period was the proclamation issued, if it ever was?

You might not be a trotskyist, but you're useful as an example for newcomers that do not understand the tensions between trotskyists and marxist-leninists.

You're close to transforming this topic into a discussion of whether or not the USSR was a socialist country, which is something I mentioned in my first post explaining why most popular trotskyist sects are irritating.

[Thirsty Crow]

You might not be a trotskyist, but you're useful as an example for newcomers that do not understand the tensions between trotskyists and marxist-leninists.

You're close to transforming this topic into a discussion of whether or not the USSR was a socialist country, which is something I mentioned in my first post explaining why most popular trotskyist sects are irritating.
So, you refuse to answers my question.
I thougth so.
And my intention is not to engage in a historical debate, but to check historical facts which produced theoretical development within Marxism, which I think is severely flawed.
And there is another point: one cannot really discuss theoretical aspects without placing them into a historical context.That would amount to abandonment of the materialist method (do you recall the last thesis on Feuerbach, running something like "The philosophers have been interpreting the world, but the task is to change it"?; going from here we can conclude that one has to examine the historical material conditions pertaining to the attempt to change it).

Given this simple explanation, would you try again or not?

[infraxotl]

So, you refuse to answers my question.
I thougth so.
And my intention is not to engage in a historical debate, but to check historical facts which produced theoretical development within Marxism, which I think is severely flawed.
And there is another point: one cannot really discuss theoretical aspects without placing them into a historical context.That would amount to abandonment of the materialist method (do you recall the last thesis on Feuerbach, running something like "The philosophers have been interpreting the world, but the task is to change it"?; going from here we can conclude that one has to examine the historical material conditions pertaining to the attempt to change it).

Given this simple explanation, would you try again or not?

I don't want to answer your question because it will lead to the same discussion which has been had countless times before to no avail.

As for the rest of that post, be honest, you can deduce what my basic answer to your yes/no question is without me saying so. I don't think your intentions here are so sincere.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't want to answer your question because it will lead to the same discussion which has been had countless times before to no avail.

As for the rest of that post, be honest, you can deduce what my basic answer to your yes/no question is without me saying so. I don't think your intentions here are so sincere.
OK, forget about it.

[Q]

Hi GracchusBabeuf,

Could you please explain the neg rep you gave me for my post here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-trotskyism-t140229/index.html?p=1835292#post1835292)? I find the reason you gave rather vague:


anti-Stalin anti-worker reactionary petit-bourgeois bourgeois imperialist capitalist fascist nationalist class traitor right wing imperialist ultra left opportunist
:rolleyes:

Edit:
Now infraxotl pulled the same stunt, although he is just too much of a failure to actually make any kind of impact, so his block is just grey.

This is how Stalinkiddies "debate" people; once faced with inconvenient facts, they'll turn to backhand methods to get their "right". These are the same people that spread gossip behind your back and conspire against you in real life. Such people ultimately have no problem putting a bullet between your eyes "purging" you if that makes them "right". Not only incredibly petty, but utterly reactionary scumbags they are.

Of course this is just a forum and rep points are pretty irrelevant, but it is telling that instead of engaging with me on a perfectly legitimate post, they'll revert to this.

[Crux]

That is Gracchus usual Stalintroll routine. Wasn't he banned?

[Q]

That is Gracchus usual Stalintroll routine. Wasn't he banned?

I was just told he was restricted. I can't check though.

[infraxotl]

Hi GracchusBabeuf,

Could you please explain the neg rep you gave me for my post here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-trotskyism-t140229/index.html?p=1835292#post1835292)? I find the reason you gave rather vague:


:rolleyes:

Edit:
Now infraxotl pulled the same stunt, although he is just too much of a failure to actually make any kind of impact, so his block is just grey.

This is how Stalinkiddies "debate" people; once faced with inconvenient facts, they'll turn to backhand methods to get their "right". These are the same people that spread gossip behind your back and conspire against you in real life. Such people ultimately have no problem putting a bullet between your eyes "purging" you if that makes them "right". Not only incredibly petty, but utterly reactionary scumbags they are.

Of course this is just a forum and rep points are pretty irrelevant, but it is telling that instead of engaging with me on a perfectly legitimate post, they'll revert to this.

I added "petty rep whore" to the end, and it was for this post. I'd say it was spot on, seeing how you're willing to derail a thread because of neg reps that hurt your ego more than your rep score.

e: thanks for the retaliatory neg rep, people like you are the exact reason the rep system is illegitimate. It's not like you're the second coming of Marx, yet we're to believe that you deserve to have a rep power so high, I'd need to have over twenty individuals thank a post to override it? lol

[S.Artesian]

I added "petty rep whore" to the end, and it was for this post. I'd say it was spot on, seeing how you're willing to derail a thread because of neg reps that hurt your ego more than your rep score.

Q's remarks derail this thread? That's hilarious. Every time anybody mentions Trotsky the thread is derailed by those who want to produce a TV series of the Moscow Trials with Judge Judy providing background commentary.


e: thanks for the retaliatory neg rep, people like you are the exact reason the rep system is illegitimate. It's not like you're the second coming of Marx, yet we're to believe that you deserve to have a rep power so high, I'd need to have over twenty individuals thank a post to override it? lol

Quit fucking whimpering. You use it to dis those you disagree with, so someone else used it on you. Payback is just nature's way of laughing at all of us, and our petty games, of which "neg rep-ing" must surely be one of the pettiest.

[S.Artesian]

Here's another reason trotskyists are hard to work with, the constant misrepresentation of other's views. I'd like to see a trotskyist criticism of Socialism in One Country that wasn't a gigantic strawman argument.


I'm not a Trotskyist, but here's a criticism of Socialism in One Country. It, SIOC, is the strawman in these discussions, since Trotsky, since nobody on any side of these debates was advocating that the Bolsheviks not take the necessary steps to consolidate their control of the economy; should not find mitigations to the contradictions between city and countryside until "after" some "rescue" by the international revolution; should not explore every avenue for rebuilding industry, infrastructure and agriculture.

At various times, the various players actually argue positions that their opponents held at some other time. So in the 1919-1921 period, you actually have Trotsky arguing that the Bolsheviks could only rely on their own resources to address the economic devastation of the civil war, while after 1920 and up through 1922, Lenin [and Stalin] are fantasizing about aid coming from the West; about Britain, or Sweden, or the US, or Germany being compelled to take advantage of the opportunities to trade and invest in revolutionary Russia, only to see that bubble burst in 1922.

And after years of hitching his wagon to Bukharin's donkey cart of "peasant enrichment" and socialism at a snail's pace, Stalin himself after 1926 [if I remember correctly], decides that it's time to trade in the donkey on that lean horse for a long race called industrialization, which Trotsky had been advocating, and for which he had been drawing up plans-- plans based on the internal reserves of the economy and not on the aid anticipated from the West, either by revolution or by capitalists.

And then Trotsky seems to catch the "Western investment fever" that Lenin had exhibited earlier, imagining that the international bourgeoisie would be eager to invest in concessions in the Soviet republic, forgetting apparently, as he hoped they, the capitalists, would forget, the millions in outstanding claims made against the Bolsheviks for expropriating their property after the revolution.

So...socialism in one country as a theory not only has nothing to recommend it as a program for revolution, for revolutionary development, it doesn't even have legitimate status as a real issue of debate. It's a stalking horse, designed actually to confuse, disorient the arguments and the arguers, and smear those who represented a danger to the bureaucracy's inability to fashion a program to resolve the problems between city and countryside.

[A.R.Amistad]

going back to the OP here's what Trotskyists have to say about 'Leninism' and its relation to Trotskyism:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1970/04/leninsher.html

Leninism was first coined by Zinoviev after Lenin's death. lenin never described himself as "Leninist," just as a Marxist, but this is a good short outline of the contributions Lenin made that we Trotskyists uphold.

[Paul Cockshott]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Leninism, Marxism and Trotskyism? I understand some of the differences between Lenin and Marx, but I don't know much about Trotsky.

The MIA have just put up a critique of Trotsky's programme that I typed in the 70s which may be on interest in this context: http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/commentsontp.htm

[S.Artesian]

Ya trotskyite fool, there's no choice. By 1920 it was obvious the revolution would not spread in the rest of Europe. Now if you were a leader of the CPSU, what would you have tried to do ? Just give up on socialism because there's no hope of doing it in one country ? Or would you try to consolidate socialism in the territory available, then using that as a base of support for future revolutionary movements ?
I guess this depends on what you define as 'Leninism' ?

The leader of the Bolsheviks in 1920 was Lenin, and it certainly was not obvious to Lenin that the revolution would not spread in the rest of Europe. Not at all. First and foremost, the Bolsheviks were still engaged in a civil war. Secondly, there was the war with Poland where the Bolsheviks most certainly did count on an uprising, a revolution to assist it in this struggle. And then there was Baku-- the Azerbaijan proletariat overthrew the government, and Lenin hoped this could revitalize the soviet industry.

Then there was this thing called the Communist International in which Lenin participated and we don't see any grand reassessment of the future, any downgrading of the ultimate prospects for revolution in the documents of the International. Nor do we find it in Lenin's articles and speeches. Now maybe Lenin and the ECCI were just putting on a brave face and secretly knew that the moment had already been lost. However not assessing things candidly, and arguing out the implications of such a reassessments, just doesn't sound like the Lenin I read, and read about.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not a Trotskyist, but here's a criticism of Socialism in One Country. It, SIOC, is the strawman in these discussions, since Trotsky, since nobody on any side of these debates was advocating that the Bolsheviks not take the necessary steps to consolidate their control of the economy; should not find mitigations to the contradictions between city and countryside until "after" some "rescue" by the international revolution; should not explore every avenue for rebuilding industry, infrastructure and agriculture.

OK... until the formation of the COMECON.


And then Trotsky seems to catch the "Western investment fever" that Lenin had exhibited earlier, imagining that the international bourgeoisie would be eager to invest in concessions in the Soviet republic, forgetting apparently, as he hoped they, the capitalists, would forget, the millions in outstanding claims made against the Bolsheviks for expropriating their property after the revolution.

Were there millions? The Bolsheviks repudiated the czarist debt, but privatized and accumulated new debt under NEP. Those foreign capitalists who took advantage of NEP were totally different capitalist enterprises than the ones that lost after the repudiation of czarist debts.

Anyway, it is indeed this "Western investment fever" that Stalin and his supporters used to their advantage.


So...socialism in one country as a theory not only has nothing to recommend it as a program for revolution, for revolutionary development, it doesn't even have legitimate status as a real issue of debate. It's a stalking horse, designed actually to confuse, disorient the arguments and the arguers, and smear those who represented a danger to the bureaucracy's inability to fashion a program to resolve the problems between city and countryside.

There was a program developed and carried out: socialist primitive accumulation. It wasn't exactly Preobrazhensky's plan, but the depression of workers wages, forced kolkhozization, up to and including those massive transfers of factories from Eastern European countries as imperialistic reparations for their role in supporting Operation Barbarossa.

I have a nice "bureaucratic" plan of my own re. the countryside:

1) Land value taxation
2) Use part of land value taxes collected to nationalize land ("tax-to-nationalize")
3) Extensive vertical farm development under public ownership (sovkhozy a la Lukashenko's "red directorial" stint, not kolkhozy) in the cities
4) Flood the food market with vertical farm produce, driving countryside owners to sell their capital property to the public