difference between:

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

what are the differences between Stalinism, leninism, and trotskyism?
and dont make me feel bad, i already feel like an idiot for asking:crying:

[Tim Cornelis]

The only thing stupid is calling yourself stupid, it's annoying really.

I'm no expert on the subject, so if anyone could elaborate.

A brief 'explanation':

Leninism argues as vanguard party is necessary in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotskyism are theories related to Trotsky (duh) attempting to explain the seeming failure of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Stalinism argues for Socialism in One Country, which Trotskyists ((and other Marxists reject who argue for internationalism)

Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers'_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

(and of course wikipedia on Leninism, etc. itself)

[Ilyich]

Leninists describe Leninism as a Marxist political theory in which the dictatorship of the proletariat is established through a revolution led by the vanguard party or the most class conscious of the working class. Trotskyism and Stalinism are the two main branches of Leninism. Their differences are ambiguous but I believe Trotskyists usually conduct democratic centralism within the vanguard party better than the Stalinists.

Do not take my word for it though because I am not a Leninist.

Edit: I almost forgot this: Stalinists argue for proletarian internationalism, while Stalinists for socialism in one country.

[Leftsolidarity]

Leninism is, like others have said, the idea of the vanguard party and democratic centralism.

Trotskyism is the Leninist branch which puts forth the idea of permanent revolution and is very internationalist.

Stalinism is the branch that, well not really much to say about it since Stalin didn't put anything forward besides the idea of socialism in one country.

These are all very basic overviews and I don't call myself any of these things. I am pretty much a Leninist but my I am to anarchist in my tendencies to call myself anything other than Marxist.

[Rooster]

There is no real difference between the revolutionary practice of Lenin and Trotsky. Trotsky's main beef with Stalin, as far as I can tell, revolves around Stalin declaring the USSR socialist and saw that as retarding the communist movement from that point on. All the old Bolsheviks realised that for the revolution in Russia to succeed, then it had to spread. Trotsky and Lenin both realised that a revolution could happen in Russia, that it could skip the capitalist stage (or bourgeois revolution) because the bourgeoisie was incapable of doing it themselves at that point. Stalin did not want to do this and opted to work with the provisional government until Lenin made it clear that the plan was not work with it. Trotsky put forward the ideas of ending the NEP, going for industrialisation and starting the first five year plan while Stalin called these things utopian pipe dreams and favoured going on with the NEP, causing instability, which eventually forced that bloc to go a course of adventurism and adopting these proposals after that bloc had consolidated it's position.

[Comrade Crow]

Stalinism argues for Socialism in One Country, which Trotskyists ((and other Marxists reject who argue for internationalism)

I don't really agree with how you're framing this here. You're making it seem like it's Stalin < All other Marxists. The theory of SIOC (Socialism in One Country) can be traced to the work's of Lenin for example, whether or not Lenin would agree with said theory, this can be debated. Further I don't think SIOC negates internationlism rather it stresses (as the name implies) the need to build Socialism within a given nation before spreading the revolution elsewhere, this was in wake of the failures of the revolution in other European countries like Germany. So, logically, this would make sense.

I'm just saying, I don't see why "other Marxists," would reject this while Trotsky's theories are cool and this little tid bit has been left off. Not meaning to get pissy, I get the feeling you could be a Trotskyist, I'm just saying.


Their differences are ambiguous but I believe Trotskyists usually conduct democratic centralism within the vanguard party better than the Stalinists.

Ugh, what? Explain.

[Ilyich]

Ugh, what? Explain.

Stalin hardly conducted "democratic" centralism at all. His entire rule over the USSR was an autocracy.

[Comrade Crow]

Stalin hardly conducted "democratic" centralism at all. His entire rule over the USSR was an autocracy.

This may or may not be but my question is more, on what basis could you logically say Trotsky or Trotskyists have conducted democratic centralism better?

[Uncle Rob]

what are the differences between Stalinism, leninism, and trotskyism?
and dont make me feel bad, i already feel like an idiot for asking:crying:

Firstly; there is no political trend known as "Stalinism" it's a derogatory term used against Marxist-Leninists who uphold Stalin as a legitimate Marxist. As for "Leninism" I'm not sure if this constitutes it's own poltical trend either, If it does it's for those who simply uphold the theory of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

Marxism-Leninism ("Stalinism", as you deem it) differs from Trotskyism in the following ways:

1- Socialism in one country- The idea that socialism can be victorious in one or several countries. It is not a repudiation of the internationalist character of Marxism but the only practical way to bring about socialism on a world scale. As Marx said:


Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

And Lenin:
“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of Socialism is possible first in a few or even in one single capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own Socialist production, would rise against the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself the oppressed classes of other countries, raise revolts among them against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity come out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.” For “the free federation of nations in Socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the Socialist republics against the backward States.” (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russian Edition, Vol. XVIII, p. 232-3.)


2. Two "Stage" Theory

This is In regards to the National and Colonial question. It is well known that Imperialism seeks to dominate "weaker" nations by means of Capital. Such exploitation of nations usually leads to national liberation movements. What as regarded as a nation seeking self-determination we deem the "national-democratic revolution" This "stage" if you will can involve one or several classes depending on the national circumstance. The case for Korea for example involved the Proletariat, Peasants, and the National Bourgeoisie against the Japanese imperialists, and comrador capitalists (The capitalists who supported Japanese Imperialism for their own benefit) However once the nation was one it's independence conditions are then ripe for the socialist revolution in which the proletariat can then win it's fight against the national bourgeoisie in which it formally aligned with. This process however does not have to be interrupted as Lenin said :


"From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and precisely in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass over to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half-way."
V. I. Lenin, "Social-Democracy’s Attitude toward the Peasant Movement", 14-9-1905, in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 9, Moscow, 1962, pp. 236-7.

3. Trotskyism differs also in the conception of the Party. For Trotskyists, it is seen that factions are inevitable therefore it is fine and well to form them within one party (Which explains why they split so often). Marxist-Leninists on the other hand see this as detrimental to the progress of a party and see it as a breach of the unified and disciplined character the vanguard is supposed to take. The following is an excript from Stalin's "The Foundations of Leninism" regarding the matter.


5) The Party as the embodiment of unity of will, unity incompatible with the existence of factions. The achievement and maintenance of the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible without a party which is strong by reason of its solidarity and iron discipline. But iron discipline in the Party is inconceivable without unity of will, without complete and absolute unity of action on the part of all members of the Party. This does not mean, of course, that the possibility of conflicts of opinion within the Party is thereby precluded. On the contrary, iron discipline does not preclude but presupposes criticism and conflict of opinion within the Party. Least of all does it mean that discipline must be "blind." On the contrary, iron discipline does not preclude but presupposes conscious and voluntary submission, for only conscious discipline can be truly iron discipline. But after a conflict of opinion has been closed, after criticism has been exhausted and a decision has been arrived at, unity of will and unity of action of all Party members are the necessary conditions without which neither Party unity nor iron discipline in the Party is conceivable.

"In the present epoch of acute civil war," says Lenin, "the Communist Party will be able to perform its duty only if it is organised in the most centralised manner, if iron discipline bordering on military discipline prevails in it, and if its Party centre is a powerful and authoritative organ, wielding wide powers and enjoying the universal confidence of the members of the Party" (see Vol. XXV, pp. 282-83).

This is the position in regard to discipline in the Party in the period of struggle preceding the achievement of the dictatorship.

The same, but to an even greater degree, must be said about discipline in the Party after the dictatorship has been achieved.

"Whoever," says Lenin, "weakens in the least the iron discipline of the Party of the proletariat (especially during the time of its dictatorship), actually aids the bourgeoisie against the proletariat" (see Vol. XXV, p. 190).

But from this it follows that the existence of factions is compatible neither with the Party's unity nor with its iron discipline. It scarcely needs proof that the existence of factions leads to the existence of a number of centres, and the existence of a number of centres means the absence of one common centre in the Party, the breaking up of unity of will, the weakening and disintegration of discipline, the weakening and disintegration of the dictatorship. Of course, the parties of the Second International, which are fighting against the dictatorship of the proletariat and have no desire to lead the proletarians to power, can afford such liberalism as freedom of factions, for they have no need at all for iron discipline. But the parties of the Communist International, whose activities are conditioned by the task of achieving and consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, cannot afford to be "liberal" or to permit freedom of factions.

The Party represents unity of will, which precludes all factionalism and division of authority in the Party.

Hence Lenin's warning about the "danger of factionalism from the point of view of Party unity and of effecting the unity of will of the vanguard of the proletariat as the fundamental condition for the success of the dictatorship of the proletariat," which is embodied in the special resolution of the Tenth Congress of our Party "On Party Unity." 2

Hence Lenin's demand for the "complete elimination of all factionalism" and the "immediate dissolution of all groups, without exemption, that have been formed on the basis of various platforms," on pain of "unconditional and immediate expulsion from the Party" (see the resolution "On Party Unity").

4. Miscellaneous historical questions such as the question of "Lenins testament", who played a more crucial part in the Russian civil war, etc etc.