Early Trotskyist Theory: Before October 1917

[Magón]

To be honest, I don't really know much about Trotsky, or Trotskyism before the October Revolution, but from what little I do know about him, or have gotten from his early mindset, and his theories from the internet, is that before he allied with Lenin on the need for "Democratic Centralism", Trotsky was more of an actual Libertarian Socialist, sort of I guess, like Luxemburg was in her theory. (sort of.)

Is this a fair statement? I mean, at least, from what I've known of Trotsky's early works, which isn't much again, he seems to have been more sort of in between Democratic Centralism, and Libertarian Socialist thought.

The reason I ask this, is because I met this guy who's a friend of a friend, and claims to a Trotskyist, and while we were chatting on about some theory and the like, he mentioned Anarcho-Trotskyism. (which I know isn't a real theory in the world), but then he told me about Trotsky's earlier works and the like, and it got me to thinking maybe that there could be some strange actual form of Anarcho-Trotskyism if someone were to focus solely on Trotsky's earlier theories and works.

I'd also like to know what sources and sites, all of you might have on early Trotskyist theory, and of course, insight into what I stated above.


NOTE: I don't want this to turn into a tendency war between ML and Trotskyists, because I just want some reasonable answers that are sound and factual, with sources to back them up.

[28350]

To be honest, I don't really know much about Trotsky, or Trotskyism before the October Revolution, but from what little I do know about him, or have gotten from his early mindset, and his theories from the internet, is that before he allied with Lenin on the need for "Democratic Centralism", Trotsky was more of an actual Libertarian Socialist, sort of I guess, like Luxemburg was in her theory. (sort of.)
Not really. Luxemburg was more "libertarian" than Trotsky (even as a menshevik) and Lenin, but their positions were pretty similar.



Is this a fair statement? I mean, at least, from what I've known of Trotsky's early works, which isn't much again, he seems to have been more sort of in between Democratic Centralism, and Libertarian Socialist thought.
Democratic centralism is a method of organization, not an ideology. Trotsky became a bolshevik and supported democratic centralism. Trotsky wasn't a libertarian socialist.



The reason I ask this, is because I met this guy who's a friend of a friend, and claims to a Trotskyist, and while we were chatting on about some theory and the like, he mentioned Anarcho-Trotskyism. (which I know isn't a real theory in the world), but then he told me about Trotsky's earlier works and the like, and it got me to thinking maybe that there could be some strange actual form of Anarcho-Trotskyism if someone were to focus solely on Trotsky's earlier theories and works.
Yeah, no one who knows what they're talking about calls themselves anarcho-trotskyists. It's an insult at platformists.

[tbasherizer]

Check out http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm from the beginning of his writing to 1917. That's a great site for non-Stalinist Marxist writing.

EDIT: Ope, there's some Mao and Stalin too, my bad!

[iskrabronstein]

Trotsky's early theory was mostly unformed; he was heavily influenced by Zasulich and Axelrod during his time on the board of Iskra. Politically he tended toward centrism, writing multiple polemics against Lenin's organizational principles and political analysis. He floated between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, personally attached to many of the former, but more politically in line with the analysis of the latter.

His formed theoretical opinions were heavily influenced by Alexander Parvus, who arguably was the first to propose the developed theory of permanent revolution, though I would argue that Trotsky's formulation is not only more descriptive, but more in line with genuine Marxist analysis.

Deutscher's first volume, The Prophet Armed, contains a detailed discussion of Trotsky's intellectual development up until 1917. I think you would be best served by reading two works, Results and Prospects from 1906, and The Lessons of October from 1924.

Read between the lines, note the differences in argument and analysis, and I think you will have a good idea how Trotsky's ideas developed from 1900-1925.

Results and Prospects:
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm

The Lessons of October:
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lessons/index.htm

[Magón]

Not really. Luxemburg was more "libertarian" than Trotsky (even as a menshevik) and Lenin, but their positions were pretty similar.

I knew Luxemburg was more libertarian than Trotsky, but I just didn't know in his earlier days.


Democratic centralism is a method of organization, not an ideology. Trotsky became a bolshevik and supported democratic centralism. Trotsky wasn't a libertarian socialist.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply Democratic Centralism as a ideology. I don't know why I stated the two like I did, I just meant for those who are for Democratic Centralism (Leninists, etc.) and those for a more decentralized democracy (Libertarian Socialists, etc.)


Also thanks for the links guys, I'll look into them.

[Zanthorus]

Nin, where did Luxemburg declare herself in favour of 'decentralised democracy'? I think that is an obvious misreading. It seems clear to me that for the majority of her life Luxemburg's position on the state was the same as that of Second International orthodoxy which promoted a radical republican type regime in the vein of the Paris Commune as the specific form of state appropriate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Her critique of the Bolsheviks was a critique of their belief in the Soviet movement as the legitimate source of governmental authority and a defence of republican democracy not 'decentralised democracy'. In fact, 'libertarian socialism' was a term originally used by Bakunin to denote those factions of the IWMA which opposed the 'German Communists' and their emphasis on working-class political action, so I don't see how it would make sense to say that any Marxist was ever a 'libertarian socialist'.

I have to go right now, so I'll have to come back to the main question (Was Trotsky ever a 'libertarian socialist') later, but I think the above gives an idea of what I generally think about the issue.

[Jose Gracchus]

In practice, Luxembourg therefore advocated not workers' councils, a commune-state federation building up from a Paris Commune model, and taking into account norms of republican democracy? Could you explain further?

Also, on Bakuninites in the IWMA, could you be explicit as to what was exactly did they oppose in the character of "political action"? How was this broader than opposition merely to electoral agitation?

[Gorilla]

In practice, Luxembourg therefore advocated not workers' councils, a commune-state federation building up from a Paris Commune model, and taking into account norms of republican democracy? Could you explain further?

Also, on Bakuninites in the IWMA, could you be explicit as to what was exactly did they oppose in the character of "political action"? How was this broader than opposition merely to electoral agitation?

In Luxemburg's writings on the national question she argued against not only independence but even against federation or autonomous region status for Poland and the Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia. I'm not up on the rest of her work as much but I have a hard time swallowing her as an avatar of decentralized democracy or any kind of 'libertarian' stance.

[Jose Gracchus]

Its pretty hard to imagine a state on the nation scale, based on the Commune form, that didn't involve some form of 'federation', even if what mean is different in practice from bourgeois republican 'federalism'. But I could be wrong. Hence my query for elaboration.

[Zanthorus]

To pick up where I left off from last time...

With regards to the possibility of a 'libertarian' Trotsky, you mention a conflict between 'Democratic Centralism' which is identified with 'Leninism' and 'decentralised democracy' which is identified with 'libertarian socialism'. It's false to say, however, that Democratic Centralism is a defining feature of Leninism or Bolshevism. In fact, Lars Lih notes that Democratic Centralism was a term originally used by the Mensheviks, and the resolutions on the role of the Central Committee were approved by a fairly large majority. The original Bolshevik/Menshevik split was not about the level of centralism in the party but about the definition of a party member, with the Mensheviks favouring a slightly broader definition, while the Bolsheviks were in favour of a narrower definition. I don't see what a dispute about membership criteria really has to do with any libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy. Later, Lenin did criticise the Mensheviks for violating the rules of inner-party democracy, and used a lot of 'dangerous' references to Jacobins to back up his point, but since Lenin is the one defending democracy here this is also not really relevant. So Trotsky's support of the Mensheviks after the second congress is not evidence of any 'libertarian' streak.


In practice, Luxembourg therefore advocated not workers' councils, a commune-state federation building up from a Paris Commune model, and taking into account norms of republican democracy? Could you explain further?

Unfortunately not really. I don't recall Luxemburg ever going into detail on her view of the state, probably because as I said, it was inherited from SI Orthodoxy, so she would have expected the arguments to be familiar to most from Kautsky's writings. One of Kautsky's books on the state is actually in the process of being translated at the moment. I don't know how far they've got on it, the translator told me he was aiming to get the thing done in time for the Royal Wedding, but I'm currently sitting in France on a very poor internet connection so I can't use my e-mail account. You should ask DNZ about that.

I should emphasise what I said in my last post about Luxemburg's position 'for the majority of her life'. Near the end, during the German revolution, when workers' councils started forming in her own homeland, it seems she came over to the side of the councils as against the National Assembly. As I said previously though, this would have been a move towards the Bolshevik position, not in opposition to it. Although it's difficult to say what Luxemburg's considered view of Lenin and the Russian question would have been because of her untimely death at the hands of the freikorps goons.


Also, on Bakuninites in the IWMA, could you be explicit as to what was exactly did they oppose in the character of "political action"? How was this broader than opposition merely to electoral agitation?

Working-class political action means that rather than ignoring the state machinery of opression, the working-class actively combats it, fights for the various political freedoms which it needs to organise and mobilise itself against capitalist society (Freedom of the press, association etc) and involves itself in the day to day questions of capitalist society. Going from Marx and Engels' texts, it seems evident that their concern over the opposition to political struggle was that if the working-class did not actively combat the existing state regime and fight for it's own independent programme, the movement would be repressed by the state machine, or else the lack of an independent working-class politics would subordinate the workers' movement to bourgeois politics. "Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics... The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them?" (Engels, Apropos of Working-Class Political Action) And by the way, yes, it is fairly clear that for Marx and Engels political action involves the workers' movement running candidates in elections on an independent workers' platform: "...the immediate result of the overthrow of the existing governments will be the election of a national representative body. Here the proletariat must take care: 1) that by sharp practices local authorities and government commissioners do not, under any pretext whatsoever, exclude any section of workers; 2) that workers’ candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates. As far as possible they should be League members and their election should be pursued by all possible means. Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention." (Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League) Although Marxists who are against electoral action tend to agree that it was appropriate for the time, but subsequent developments have rendered it a harmful tactic. For the record I'm personally becoming less convinced that Marx and Engels position here is as horrific as Anarchists make it out to be, nor as horrific as Left-Communists seem to think it would be if applied today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In fact, Lars Lih notes that Democratic Centralism was a term originally used by the Mensheviks

Wrong. Democratic centralism was a term used first by Jean-Baptista von Schweitzer, a Lassallean comrade in the ADAV. Engels criticized his use of "democratic centralization."


One of Kautsky's books on the state is actually in the process of being translated at the moment. I don't know how far they've got on it, the translator told me he was aiming to get the thing done in time for the Royal Wedding, but I'm currently sitting in France on a very poor internet connection so I can't use my e-mail account. You should ask DNZ about that.

The most thorough Marxist take on the state, the REAL State and Revolution :D

[Zanthorus]

Wrong. Democratic centralism was a term used first by Jean-Baptista von Schweitzer, a Lassallean comrade in the ADAV. Engels criticized his use of "democratic centralization."

Forgot about that one. Marx was also critical of Schweitzer's centralism in his letters, although it should be noted that here 'democratic centralisation' refers to the election of a single leader of the workers' movement, whereas the policy of the Eisenachers was to elect multiple leaders. I believe comrade Rakunin had posted a good quote somewhere from Bebel on the subject.

[Jose Gracchus]

Although Marxists who are against electoral action tend to agree that it was appropriate for the time, but subsequent developments have rendered it a harmful tactic. For the record I'm personally becoming less convinced that Marx and Engels position here is as horrific as Anarchists make it out to be, nor as horrific as Left-Communists seem to think it would be if applied today.

So you're opposed to blind abstentionism of the kind advocated by some "class struggle anarchists" but also including even mainstream Left Communists?


The most thorough Marxist take on the state, the REAL State and Revolution :D

Got any more to chomp on? Are you in contact with this fellow?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Forgot about that one. Marx was also critical of Schweitzer's centralism in his letters, although it should be noted that here 'democratic centralisation' refers to the election of a single leader of the workers' movement, whereas the policy of the Eisenachers was to elect multiple leaders. I believe comrade Rakunin had posted a good quote somewhere from Bebel on the subject.

Yes, comrade, but given demarchy and such, do recall that I did pose the possibility of one possible exceptional exception for the worker-class movement with regards to elections:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/value-electing-certain-t144804/index.html


So you're opposed to blind abstentionism of the kind advocated by some "class struggle anarchists" but also including even mainstream Left Communists?

Where spoiling is possible, spoil. It's better to organize spoilage campaigns too.

Comrade Zanthorus and I debated awhile back about the usefulness or lack thereof of agitating for "communal parliaments" such that they'd have as little power as the czarist Duma, but where more populist and radical policies can be presented.


Got any more to chomp on? Are you in contact with this fellow?

Indeed I am with regards to Republik und Sozialdemokratie in Frankreich. Comrade Rjevan has chomping on this, too.