Trotskyism today

[Lord Hargreaves]

Hello Comrades,

Am just wondering out loud here with this question: what do you think is the relevance of Trotskyism for today's struggles?

I mean by this specifically - if Trotskyism is seen as a reaction to and rejection of Stalinism, and a reaction to and rejection of the equating of socialism with actual existing socialism - what purchase can it still have on socialists who no longer live in the era of Stalinism and the actual existing socialisms?

It seems to me that the meaning of "Trotskyism" is so necessarily bound up with the man himself, with support for his own positions vis a vis the USSR, and with the need for socialists to retain a critical distance from the hysterics of the Cold War, etc, etc., that with the collapse of this world during the early 1990s comes a general crisis of Trotskyism itself.

So, what would be definable "Trotskyist" positions on, say, neoliberalism, or US adventurism in the Middle East, or the capitulation of Western social democracy in the face of "globalization", etc.? Or is such a question a misnomer from the start?

And just to clarify, so we can avoid any attempted fratricide : I am a Trotskyist with regards to all the orthodox questions - the nature of the USSR, the absurdity of "stagism" or "socialism in one country" etc. - but am wondering how this tradition can help inform us today, in 2011

[RED DAVE]

Hello Comrades,Hi.


Am just wondering out loud here with this question: what do you think is the relevance of Trotskyism for today's struggles?Quickly on the Sunday afternoon, very relevant.


I mean by this specifically - if Trotskyism is seen as a reaction to and rejection of StalinismTrotskyism actually predates Stalinism as Trotskyism, as its basic concepts were the concepts that led the working class and the Bolshevik Party to victory in 1917. Specifically, permanent revolution, the notion of the working class carrying out, simultaneously, the bourgeois evolution and the proletarian revolution in undeveloped countries is a concept of Bolshevism that Stalinists (and Maoists) reject to this day.


and a reaction to and rejection of the equating of socialism with actual existing socialismTrotskyism, in various ways, did in fact reject the notion that the USSR was socialist, yes. There were/are disagreements as to what it actually was.


what purchase can it still have on socialists who no longer live in the era of Stalinism and the actual existing socialisms?Great purchase, as Trotskyism retains the key Marxist notion of the primacy of the working class in world revolution.


It seems to meBased on what?


that the meaning of "Trotskyism" is so necessarily bound up with the man himself, with support for his own positions vis a vis the USSR, and with the need for socialists to retain a critical distance from the hysterics of the Cold War, etc, etc., that with the collapse of this world during the early 1990s comes a general crisis of Trotskyism, at its best itself.Actually, since Trotskyism involves, basically, a reliance on the working class as the vehicle for the anti-capitalist revolution, Trotskyism is more relevant today than ever.


So, what would be definable "Trotskyist" positions on, say, neoliberalismA particular ideology of capitalism in its stage of globalization and a deadly enemy of human freedom.


or US adventurism in the Middle East, or the capitulation of Western social democracy in the face of "globalization", etc.? Or is such a question a misnomer from the start?Why would you think that Trotskyists would be anything but against these?


And just to clarify, so we can avoid any attempted fratricide : I am a Trotskyist with regards to all the orthodox questions - the nature of the USSR, the absurdity of "stagism" or "socialism in one country" etc. - but am wondering how this tradition can help inform us today, in 2011Several quick examples. If you look, for instance, at Maoist strategy in, say, Nepal, you can see a very good example of stagism. Trotskyists oppose to this a strategy of a working class led revolution, which, in spite of lip service to it, the Maoists are obviously not following. (The Maoists, of course, claim that the Trotskyists are either nonexistent, irrelevant or sell-outs.) Likewise in the US, Trotskyists groups, at least the brand of Trotskyism that I hold to, were involved up to their belly-buttons in the recent events in Madison, from the very beginning.

I'm sure that the Maoists, Stalinists and Anarchists will now have their say. :D

RED DAVE

[Lenina Rosenweg]

"Trotskyism" is not just a negative critique of Stalinism but can be seen as a further development of revolutionary Marxism. The Trotskyist approach draws of the Theory of Permanent Revolution, developed from ideas of Marx, Parvus, Lenin, and Trotsky, the Law of Combined and Uneven Development, ideas of Marx further developed by Trotsky, rejection of class collaborationist "2 stage" theories of revolution in favor of a working class oriented approach.

Trotskyists, unlike social democrats and former Stalinists, are utterly opposed to neo-liberalism. Trotskyists are also opposed to imperialism and all imperialist interventions.

In the case of Libya as far as I know all Trotskyists organizations have opposed Western intervention while supporting or at least empathizing with the anti-Qaddaffi rebels, an easily misunderstood position.

Trotskyist organizations today are active in many, many countries around the world. Trotskyists have played or are playing n important role in developing countries such as Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, and many other countries,

[Gorilla]

I am a sort of Marxist-Leninist. Not on everything, but inter alia on how I see Trotskyism as purist/defeatist bullshit and tire easily of Trot grievance-nursing.

ALL THAT BEING SAID:

I think Trotskyism is more relevant to revolutionary politics than ever. Trotskyism is now the largest communist current in Britain and the United States, a lot of Latin America too. The kind of peasant-based revolutions that had brought most Marxist-Leninist regimes to power are less relevant now that the majority of earth's population is becoming urban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization#Movement); where Trotskyism's exclusive focus on organizing urban workers which had heretofore been a defeatist posture, is now a positive virtue. And since so-called knowledge workers are becoming a large and increasingly hegemonic part of the proletariat, Trotskyism's historical appeal to intellectuals is less of a niche attraction and more broadly important.

So, for those reasons and also a couple I can't think of at the moment, I think Trotskyism is tremendously important in today's struggles.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Thanks for replying

I have two points:


Trotskyism actually predates Stalinism as Trotskyism, as its basic concepts were the concepts that led the working class and the Bolshevik Party to victory in 1917. Specifically, permanent revolution, the notion of the working class carrying out, simultaneously, the bourgeois evolution and the proletarian revolution in undeveloped countries is a concept of Bolshevism that Stalinists (and Maoists) reject to this day.

I think this has to do with the relationship between Trotskyism and Leninism - to what extent are they the same? And what was the specific role of Trotsky's theories in the victory of 1917, as opposed to Lenin's?

Thinking through my own post now, I guess I had a sort of periodization in mind: the Leninist problematic up to the 1917 revolution and civil war, and then the gradual emergence and overtaking of this with a Trotskyist problematic, with the Left Opposition to Stalin, the birth of the Fourth International and of a delineated Trotskyist movement, the analysis of the USSR, etc.

So with this in my mind, Trotskyism fades in relevance while Leninism retains its. But I can recognise now that - as you point out, the role of Trotsky's theories in the victory of the Bolsheviks, and Trotsky's own explanation and defence of this victory, etc. - this periodization cannot take any account of all this, and so cannot hold (unless a distinction between Lenin and Trotsky could be drawn in the relevant period; I don't personally know enough about the details of their theories in this period to judge this)


Why would you think that Trotskyists would be anything but against these?

I didn't think they would be anything but against them. I just meant: is there anything specifically Trotskyist about the opposition to these things, rather than say Leninist or another tendency, Marxist etc. I mean, anyone of the most general or non-descript anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism (or even reformist) persuasion is against these things!

It would require an updating of the ideas of "permanent revolution", "combined and uneven development" for the current political conjecture, probably by combining them with some of the latest radical social science etc. I'm not sure this kind of thing exists yet.

[28350]

Hello Comrades,

Am just wondering out loud here with this question: what do you think is the relevance of Trotskyism for today's struggles?
The answer is none.


And just to clarify, so we can avoid any attempted fratricide : I am a Trotskyist with regards to all the orthodox questions - the nature of the USSR, the absurdity of "stagism" or "socialism in one country" etc. - but am wondering how this tradition can help inform us today, in 2011
I'm pretty similar except for the nature of the USSR. But you're right in asking, because it can't, really. The material conditions are completely different. Capitalism has continued to evolve.

[Jose Gracchus]

The Bolshevik party's rise to power was not via "Trotskyism".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I wouldn't get too hung up on "Leninism". Lenin applied or tried to apply the tools of revolutionary Marxism to the horrible conditions facing revolutionary Russia. He made some major blunders but he also got a lot of things right. The things he got right outweighed his mistakes. Lenin was a consumate pragmatist. "Leninism" is revolutionary Marxism.

Not to trivialize this, but I've always thought both the Paris Commune and the Bolshevik Revolution could have the same characterization that Bill Graham gave the Grateful Dead, "they're not the best at what they do, they're the only ones who do what they do". Both revolutions were the first time in history the working class had taken or come close to taking state power, no one had ever done this before.Mistakes were understandable.

[Lord Hargreaves]

The Bolshevik party's rise to power was not via "Trotskyism".

......presumably you have your own explanation?

[Lord Hargreaves]

I wouldn't get too hung up on "Leninism". Lenin applied or tried to apply the tools of revolutionary Marxism to the horrible conditions facing revolutionary Russia. He made some major blunders but he also got a lot of things right. The things he got right outweighed his mistakes. Lenin was a consumate pragmatist. "Leninism" is revolutionary Marxism.

This is kind of what I mean, but for Trotskyism. How much of it is inseparable from the history of its own formulation - from the spectre of Stalin, as I put it - and how much of it can be directly relevant to us today? Its not an unusual debate at all for Leninism, but seems rather less common for Trotskyism


Not to trivialize this, but I've always thought both the Paris Commune and the Bolshevik Revolution could have the same characterization that Bill Graham gave the Grateful Dead, "they're not the best at what they do, they're the only ones who do what they do". Both revolutions were the first time in history the working class had taken or come close to taking state power, no one had ever done this before.Mistakes were understandable.

Yes, that seems apt. The Bolshevik revolution is what we have: we can't do without it for what we must learn and how we must prepare for the future. For only a couple of precious years, the Russian revolution was a successful anti-capitalist insurrection; and this, as against a whole century or more of social democratic and reformist failure in the West. That cannot be dismissed.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What I think you're saying is, that while you recognize Troskyism and Stalinism are diffeent breeds of cats, are "separated by a river of blood" as Trotsky said, what, if anything is common in their blood stream that we should watch out for today? Perhaps Red Dave orGraymouser , who know more than I do could answer. Much of the historical course of the Soviet Union was conditioned by its early horrible birth pangs.

Trotsky himself said major mistakes were made.The ban on party factions, banning other worker's parties, even after the attempted coup by the left SRs, were mistakes. The over emphasis on "statism" possibly inherited from the German SPD and LaSalle could have been another mistake.The early Soviet Union was forced to act like a bourgeois state long before 1927. According to Loren Goldner Lenin and Trotsky cooperated with Kemal Ataturk in destroying the Turkish Communist Party for the benefit of the SU. Socialism in one country way before Stalin.

I don't know what I would have done in those situations. It seems likely that Lenin and Trotsky for the most part did the only thing they could do but I have had questions about Trotsky in the early revolution.

[Gorilla]

This thread is getting entirely too self-congratulatory.

How about this: Trotskyism will never make any progress at revolution until Trot parties reconsider their terrible policy of opposing national liberation for darker-skinned and Irish people.

It's no accident that the successful examples of Trots in revolution, viz:

The Trot miner's union in the Bolivian revolution of 1952.
Trots around the Bolivarian process currently ongoing.
Trot resistance against the Brazilian dictatorship through the Workers Party and independent unions.

Are precisely the ones where Trotskyists worked in popular fronts alongside "bourgeois" left-nationalists, as good Marxist-Leninists would.

[Jose Gracchus]

......presumably you have your own explanation?

I didn't know I am obliged to contradict unjustified assertions. I do not see a shred of evidence that Lenin and the majority of Bolsheviks adopted Trotsky's politics in 1917-1918. What happened wasn't "permanent revolution", either. Lenin oscillated on the question of advancing to socialism, and especially on class struggle in the ruralities considerably.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I didn't know I am obliged to contradict unjustified assertions. I do not see a shred of evidence that Lenin and the majority of Bolsheviks adopted Trotsky's politics in 1917-1918. What happened wasn't "permanent revolution", either. Lenin oscillated on the question of advancing to socialism, and especially on class struggle in the ruralities considerably.

Well, Lenin and Trotsky seem to have converged in their thinking in key areas in the years up to October. Although I'm sure you could point out some differences, drawing a strict line of demarcation between Lenin and Trotsky on all issues here would probably prove an impossible task (leaving aside Stalinist propaganda). Other than that, I don't know what you're referring to.

[Q]

Well, Lenin and Trotsky seem to have converged in their thinking in key areas in the years up to October. Although I'm sure you could point out some differences, drawing a strict line of demarcation between Lenin and Trotsky on all issues here would probably prove an impossible task (leaving aside Stalinist propaganda). Other than that, I don't know what you're referring to.

The crux of understanding Lenin's considerations are the April Theses, to which Canadian scholar Lars Lih gave some new insight using historical research. He gave three talks about them last year, which have been published in the form of articles:
Kautsky, Lenin and the 'April theses' (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=1002027)
'April theses': myth and reality (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=1004118)
The ironic triumph of 'old Bolshevism' (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=1004181)

[Jose Gracchus]

The fact is, permanent revolution is as much a failure as Maoists' cross-class alliances. No school of Leninist politics has credibly handled the peasant-worker/rural-urban question.

[28350]

The fact is, permanent revolution is as much a failure as Maoists' cross-class alliances. No school of Leninist politics has credibly handled the peasant-worker/rural-urban question.

What do you suggest?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Trotskyism retains the key Marxist notion of the primacy of the working class in world revolution

Oh yea?

"The working masses ... must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers." - Trotsky


with the collapse of this world during the early 1990s comes a general crisis of Trotskyism itself.

The crisis of "Trotskyism" began long before the 1990s.

[Jose Gracchus]

The only instance I know of relatively solidaritous revolutionary relations between the two dichotomies above is the expropriation and collectivization drive by the CNT and its supporters in Civil War Spain, 1936. Everything else has been social democracy/populism or an authoritarian scam.

[black magick hustla]

there were some good militants that came out of trotskyism, but had to break with trotskyism itself i think. i am talking about forrest-johnson tendency, the munis group, stirnaz, arguably the socialism ou barbarisme group, etcetera

[Lord Hargreaves]

The fact is, permanent revolution is as much a failure as Maoists' cross-class alliances. No school of Leninist politics has credibly handled the peasant-worker/rural-urban question.

Well by that logic, we have nothing to learn from any of the previous attempts to build socialism, because they have all failed.

And "permanent revolution" is not simply a tactic, it is also a way of analysing the ups and downs of the socialist movements in the 20th century. It can be a way of learning for the future.

[Proukunin]

We still don't know if Trotskyism would work anyway. There hasn't been a "Trotskyist" state yet. Permanent revolution hasn't been put into practice.


I read also in a book by Worker's Power that "Adolphe Joffe, a Bolshevik leader in 1917, claimed to the end of his life that in 1919 Lenin had told him that, on the question of permanent revolution, Trotsky had proved to be right."

[Queercommie Girl]

What I think you're saying is, that while you recognize Troskyism and Stalinism are diffeent breeds of cats, are "separated by a river of blood" as Trotsky said, what, if anything is common in their blood stream that we should watch out for today? Perhaps Red Dave orGraymouser , who know more than I do could answer. Much of the historical course of the Soviet Union was conditioned by its early horrible birth pangs.

Trotsky himself said major mistakes were made.The ban on party factions, banning other worker's parties, even after the attempted coup by the left SRs, were mistakes. The over emphasis on "statism" possibly inherited from the German SPD and LaSalle could have been another mistake.The early Soviet Union was forced to act like a bourgeois state long before 1927. According to Loren Goldner Lenin and Trotsky cooperated with Kemal Ataturk in destroying the Turkish Communist Party for the benefit of the SU. Socialism in one country way before Stalin.

I don't know what I would have done in those situations. It seems likely that Lenin and Trotsky for the most part did the only thing they could do but I have had questions about Trotsky in the early revolution.

I'm not sure the leading core of the CWI would agree with you here.

This is the thing with the CWI, the core and the rank-and-file simply do not possess coherent ideological lines. You have CWI rank-and-file members who label Stalin "just like another Hitler" while Peter Taafe has explicitly written against such ideas.

And on Maoism, while I've heard some CWI members say that genuine revolutionary Maoists are like left SRs which "we can definitely co-operate with to some extent", others say stuff like "never trust a Maoist, period".

Similarly, there are also vastly different positions on anarchism within the CWI membership. Some branches apparently have even allowed explicit anarchists and anti-Leninists to join the party.

I'm not saying the rank-and-file must "parrot" the core, but when you have such diverging ideas within the membership as a whole, one must wonder if there is indeed a lack of cohesion and indeed communication between the centre and the rank-and-file.

Remember, Leninism is all about democratic centralism, which means a degree of ideological cohesion and effective communication between the centre and the rank-and-file.

[Jose Gracchus]

Well by that logic, we have nothing to learn from any of the previous attempts to build socialism, because they have all failed.

And "permanent revolution" is not simply a tactic, it is also a way of analysing the ups and downs of the socialist movements in the 20th century. It can be a way of learning for the future.

I gave a counter-example: the CNT-FAI's organization of the agricultural proletariat and small/poor peasantry.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm not sure the leading core of the CWI would agree with you here.

This is the thing with the CWI, the core and the rank-and-file simply do not possess coherent ideological lines. You have CWI rank-and-file members who label Stalin "just like another Hitler" while Peter Taafe has explicitly written against such ideas.

And on Maoism, while I've heard some CWI members say that genuine revolutionary Maoists are like left SRs which "we can definitely co-operate with to some extent", others say stuff like "never trust a Maoist, period".

Similarly, there are also vastly different positions on anarchism within the CWI membership..

What did Bob Avakian say? "A solid core with infinite elasticity"?:)



Some branches apparently have even allowed explicit anarchists and anti-Leninists to join the party

We have recruited from former anarchists who were looking for what they felt would be a more productive activist approach.

The CWI actively campaigns for lgbt issues.



I'm not saying the rank-and-file must "parrot" the core, but when you have such diverging ideas within the membership as a whole, one must wonder if there is indeed a lack of cohesion and indeed communication between the centre and the rank-and-file.

Remember, Leninism is all about democratic centralism, which means a degree of ideological cohesion and effective communication between the centre and the rank-and-file.

In my experience and understanding there is a great deal of cohesion in the CWI. There is a wealth of literature that has been put out by Militant/CWI over the years. It seems to me on target, from the situation in Northern Ireland, to Sri Lanka, to Wisconsin to China, Nigeria, and many other places.The CWI essentially is continuing the orthodox Trotskyist tradition. Of course other Trotskyist organizations have done and are doing important work as well.

I have had a few questions about the early Bolshevik Revolution and I'm willing to "coquette" with left communist ideas. Overall though, it seems to me from analyzing history, and the history of past revolutions,from Portugal to Chile to Sri Lanka and elsewhere, that the Trotskyist approach is the correct one. Marxists should not engage in hero worship but it seems to me that Lev Davidovitch's writings and activism are a valuable gift to the human race. Of course I'd say the same about Marx.

[Gorilla]

It seems to me on target, from the situation in Northern Ireland, to Sri Lanka, to Wisconsin to China, Nigeria, and many other places.

Taking a complete punt on British troops in the six counties and agitating exclusive over economistic knick-knacks is not what I would call 'on target'.

[Johnny Appleseed]

Hello Comrades,

Am just wondering out loud here with this question: what do you think is the relevance of Trotskyism for today's struggles?




As a mate of mine once said: "It's just a different lot driving around in the black cars".

[Q]

As a mate of mine once said: "It's just a different lot driving around in the black cars".

I don't get it.

Also, where can I get my black car? Or a drivers license for that matter.