Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I've a few questions about these two. And no, I'm not trying to start a tendency war ... so please, try to stay calm.

I'm actually not very well read on the particulars of either of them. I've always viewed them as being inherently authoritarian.

How do they differ as far as their interpretation of "dictatorship of the proletariat"? I've been under the impression that Trotskyism is much more supportive of democracy than Marxism-Leninism and that Marxism-Leninism prefers bureaucracy? The economy - do they both support state . capitalism or just Marxism-Leninism? Or does Marxism-Leninism not actually support state capitalism, that's just how the USSR ended up?

I'm already aware of M-L's 'socialism in one country' and Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution ... Just FYI.

Perhaps someone can point me to good Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism FAQs? Maybe that would be easier.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to become an expert on either tendency as I'm happy with Anarchism and have been for several years ... I don't have any interest in reading large volumes of books by Trotsky and Stalin ... I just wish to be a little more educated on the two.

[Geiseric]

Well Leninism/trotskyism is the result of scientific marxism being put into effect by learning from past struggles and using the information of those struggles to support the theory of an organised workers/labor political party which is composed of the revolutionary working class, and whose goal is to spread revolutionary ideas through the population and to make sure progressive bourgeois and social democrats don't co-opt a revolutionary situation. It isn't that far "right" than "left communism," it's just a way that supports as much organisation and practicality as possible. We need a method that can withstand the bourgeois reaction to a revolutionary situation, and I believe Leninism/Trotskyism (perminant revolution, democratic centralism, vanguard party, internationalism) is the scientifically correct way to conduct a revolution. MLism is the result of menshevism and the conservative elements that formed during the civil war through beuracracy, the manipulators who took advantageof hard times to gain power

[RedZezz]

As a Trotskyist, I have my own biases, but this is how I view it:


Most Marxist-Leninists I know support support the theory that the dictatorship of the proletariat acts through the Communist Party. The Communist Party is the only legitimate political party of the workers, so they can have all government positions.

I do not know if Trotskyism has a universal line with the question of the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some I know believe that the party was too powerful in the Soviet Union, while others share a Marxist-Leninist line, but believe the CPSU was corrupted by Stalinist bureacracy.


Both would say they support democracy, but M-L's may see the SU as a healthy democracy under Stalin (more or less) and Trotskyists believe the bureacracy corrupted it.

Some Trotskyists view the Soviet Union under Stalin and beyond as "State Capitalist", so it is reasonable to assume they would not support it. I dont think M-L would support State Capitalism either, since some (mostly the so-called "non-revisionists") believe that the SU turned that way after Stalin and was no longer a genuine socialist country.

[Geiseric]

Socialism in One Country is impossible though, its only result was the consolidation of power by the beuracracy. besides, every single ml country, since mlism is the only leftist ideology which supports the idea of a socialist "country" has succumbed to imperialism. Thus supporting the same course of action has the same logic as libertarians trying to correct capitalism, because "oh MLism wasn't done right, revisionists ruined it. Its failure has nothing to do with its political nature and history."

[OHumanista]

I am not gonna answer for the MLs as I am STRONGLY against it.
But I can answer for trots like Syd and RedZezz.

Trots defend democratic centralism and are against the bureaucratization that took place in the USSR. We are also against state capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

Wikipedia is far from perfect but the page is nice indeed:)

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I never thought about checking Wikipedia. I feel kind of silly now. Thanks, OHumanista.

Anyone else who wants to add to the topic, please do.

Also, does anyone know what's up with Enver Hoxha? I know he's a M-L ... and he was from Albania. And he had a bunker fetish. Was he a significant contributor to M-L theory, or is Albania under Hoxha(ism) just considered a case study of Marxism-Leninism by most leftists?

[edit]
The Wikipedia article wasn't incredibly detailed. Perhaps I'm asking the wrong questions. Say ... what might the USSR have looked like if Trotsky were in charge, rather than Stalin? Best guess from the Trotskyists based on his theories.

[thefinalmarch]

I never thought about checking Wikipedia. I feel kind of silly now. Thanks, OHumanista.
Actually it's probably best that you don't look to wikipedia as a primary source of information.

It's generally shit when it comes to anything political.

[OHumanista]

Actually it's probably best that you don't look to wikipedia as a primary source of information.

It's generally shit when it comes to anything political.

On that page it isn't quite bad(so I recommend it), but I do agree that it is far below average regarding politics in general.
And that on the english wikipedia, the portuguese one is a monarchist/integralist playground.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I'm tolerant of Wikipedia for a quick reference, however anything important I find another source from somewhere else backing it up before I'll believe it.

[Geiseric]

Just read some trotsky or lenin lol, gotta read state and revolution, and perminant revolution, it sums up pretty much everything. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is also a must read.

[Commissar Rykov]

Just read some trotsky or lenin lol, gotta read state and revolution, and perminant revolution, it sums up pretty much everything. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is also a must read.
Agreed, I have recently been rereading Imperialism by Lenin and it is rather eerie especially when he describes the accumulation of capital through finance capital to the point you begin to have market fluctuations due to finance capital being such a driving force in the economy due to overspeculation.

[A Marxist Historian]

As a Trotskyist, I have my own biases, but this is how I view it:


Most Marxist-Leninists I know support support the theory that the dictatorship of the proletariat acts through the Communist Party. The Communist Party is the only legitimate political party of the workers, so they can have all government positions.

I do not know if Trotskyism has a universal line with the question of the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some I know believe that the party was too powerful in the Soviet Union, while others share a Marxist-Leninist line, but believe the CPSU was corrupted by Stalinist bureacracy.


Both would say they support democracy, but M-L's may see the SU as a healthy democracy under Stalin (more or less) and Trotskyists believe the bureacracy corrupted it.

Some Trotskyists view the Soviet Union under Stalin and beyond as "State Capitalist", so it is reasonable to assume they would not support it. I dont think M-L would support State Capitalism either, since some (mostly the so-called "non-revisionists") believe that the SU turned that way after Stalin and was no longer a genuine socialist country.

Some people who call themselves Trotskyist do view the USSR under Stalin as "state capitalist," but Trotsky himself opposed this idea very vigorously, writing quite a bit about how thoroughly he disagreed with it.

Trotskyists *do not* identify the rule of a Communist Party automatically with the rule of the working class, whereas all Stalinists (a much more accurate designation than the totally false and misleading designation of "Marxist-Leninists") always do.

Trotsky's own attitude was that in the particular circumstances of Soviet Russia during the first few years of the Russian Revolution before the Stalinist bureaucacy seized power, the rule of the working class was expressed through the rule of the Communist Party. But that this was an unusual historical exception.

Trotsky several times commented that multi-party rule would be preferable. Trouble is, all the competing parties in the 1920s in the USSR were counterrevolutionary and basically pro-capitalist.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I never thought about checking Wikipedia. I feel kind of silly now. Thanks, OHumanista.

Anyone else who wants to add to the topic, please do.

Also, does anyone know what's up with Enver Hoxha? I know he's a M-L ... and he was from Albania. And he had a bunker fetish. Was he a significant contributor to M-L theory, or is Albania under Hoxha(ism) just considered a case study of Marxism-Leninism by most leftists?

[edit]
The Wikipedia article wasn't incredibly detailed. Perhaps I'm asking the wrong questions. Say ... what might the USSR have looked like if Trotsky were in charge, rather than Stalin? Best guess from the Trotskyists based on his theories.

Trotsky basically thought that Stalinism was because of the isolation of the Revolution in a socially backward poor country. Like Lenin, he saw the Russian Revolution as a platform for world revolution.

And, without Stalinist misleadership and blunders, it would have been the Communists not Hitler who won out in Germany, and the whole world would be a very different place. In all probability we would have world socialism by now, and Russia would be just another branch of the world socialist republic, and far from the most important one.

My guess is you would have a world workers' democracy, multi-party, with the ecologists likely the opposition party and the party concentrating on rapid development to end poverty the majority party.

-M.H.-

[tir1944]

And, without Stalinist misleadership and blunders, it would have been the Communists not Hitler who won out in Germany
How can you be so sure?

[A Marxist Historian]

How can you be so sure?

Well, nothing is certain in life. But what is certain is that Germany in the early 1930s was going either Communist or fascist, one or the other. "Democracy" was simply toast, given the Great Depression and the utter discreditation of the Weimar Republic. Even the bourgeois German historians often admit that. That's why Germany, the most left wing country in Europe, with the strongest workers and socialist movement, could go Nazi. Only because there was no alternative.

The German Communist Party before the Depression hit had far more support than did Hitler and his tiny isolated band of Nazis. And by 1932, Social Democracy was collapsing so rapidly that the Communist Party was more popular.

This despite the insane policies ordered by Stalin of "social fascism," refusing to ally with the unions and the Social Democrats vs. the fascist menace, the infamous German CP slogan "nach Hitler uns," i.e us after Hitler.

It is hard to believe that Germany would not have gone communist given even a halfway intelligent policy followed by the German Communist Party.

And, be it noted, that at that moment there was absolutely *zero* possibility of any anti-communist powers intervening into German affairs, any more than they were able to do against Hitler.

Indeed, were it not for the simultaneous Ukrainian famine disaster Stalin was responsible for, Soviet military intervention on the German CP side would have been highly doable.

-M.H.-