What is Trotskyism?

[CommiePhilosiphy]

Hello,
another question. What is Trotskyism and how does it differ from other ideologies?

[Brosip Tito]

Hello,
another question. What is Trotskyism and how does it differ from other ideologies?Trotskyism is the Marxist and Leninist (not Marxist-Leninist) ideology, which is based around the theories and works of the Bolshevik Revolutionary Leon Trotsky.

His theories include:

Permanent Revolution - an extension, of sorts, of Marx/Luxemburg/Plehkenov's Permanent Revolution idea.

Degenerated Workers State - the idea that the USSR was a workers' state, but with bureacratic malfunctions, and whatnot. Trot would explain it better, im too lazy to explain.

Focus on Democratic Centralism.

United Front- idea of uniting the proletarian left against fascism.

I consider him a great revolutionary, and an influence in my politics. I am, however, critical of him/his theories and ideas as well.

[Aurora]

Trotskyism is a current that developed in the Bolshevik Party around an analysis that the workers state was becoming more and more separated from the mass of workers and poor peasants and that the soviet power was being concentrated in a stratum of bureaucrats.

The main points of Trotskyism are that the workers states no matter how bureaucratically degenerated or deformed can be won back by the working class and set on the path of socialist construction and helping revolutions internationally.

That socialism cannot be built in one country, it can only be created by the action of the workers of the world.

That in todays world the capitalists cannot play a revolutionary role and the workers must not ally with them, the workers must put forward their own program for the capturing of state power and the transition to socialism.


That's very basic i'll try to add more when i have time.

[Blanquist]

I would recommend reading on Wikipedia, and then asking any specific questions when they arise.

[CommiePhilosiphy]

I hear Wikipedia is an unreliable scource
:lol:

[Brosip Tito]

I hear Wikipedia is an unreliable scource
:lol:
Take it with a grain of salt.

But it's stil informative.

Also, you can read his works.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You also might wish to check out the Trotskyist usergroup here on rev-left...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=13

[The Hong Se Sun]

Depends on who you ask, he is one thing to stalin supporters and something completely different to trotskyist. He jumped from party to party til he reached the bolsh party then he was a general against the white armys and was kind of a jerk to his men and would have them executed for retreating without orders to do so (I would call this stalinism) he then ran against stalin for leader of the USSR and lost big time. He then did some questionable things that can not be proven then he left the USSR and created a huge split in the communist movement. Even though democratic centralism ruined his life and political career he still made the argument for DCism, although he went against DCism in the USSR and that is why he was called so many bad names and eventually murdered. But he also made many contributions.

I had to give an alternate view than others listed here. I have no problem with trotsky. But without hind sight I would have also placed my vote for papa Joe at the whatever numbered congress (I think 13 but don't care enough to go check) because he was in the party longer and did the grimmy work before the bolsh ever were relevant. I also believe that Trotsky would have been just as authoritarian as Stalin. See his authoritarian behavior as general for my reason for believing this.

I don't actually care for either, I am a poor proletarian who needs socialism so that I know if I randomly die some day that my kids will be taken care of educationally and food and shelter and health care wise. Dogmatics who constantly bicker about Stalin vs Trotsky delay that need of mine and do a great discredit to the movement as a whole. I need socialism, period. I don't like anyone who stands in the way of it. The split theses figures created greatly hampered the movement forward.

[Prometeo liberado]

Depends on who you ask, he is one thing to stalin supporters and something completely different to trotskyist. He jumped from party to party til he reached the bolsh party then he was a general against the white armys and was kind of a jerk to his men and would have them executed for retreating without orders to do so (I would call this stalinism) he then ran against stalin for leader of the USSR and lost big time. He then did some questionable things that can not be proven then he left the USSR and created a huge split in the communist movement. Even though democratic centralism ruined his life and political career he still made the argument for DCism, although he went against DCism in the USSR and that is why he was called so many bad names and eventually murdered. But he also made many contributions.

I had to give an alternate view than others listed here. I have no problem with trotsky. But without hind sight I would have also placed my vote for papa Joe at the whatever numbered congress (I think 13 but don't care enough to go check) because he was in the party longer and did the grimmy work before the bolsh ever were relevant. I also believe that Trotsky would have been just as authoritarian as Stalin. See his authoritarian behavior as general for my reason for believing this.

I don't actually care for either, I am a poor proletarian who needs socialism so that I know if I randomly die some day that my kids will be taken care of educationally and food and shelter and health care wise. Dogmatics who constantly bicker about Stalin vs Trotsky delay that need of mine and do a great discredit to the movement as a whole. I need socialism, period. I don't like anyone who stands in the way of it. The split theses figures created greatly hampered the movement forward.

Very interesting point comrade. Thank you for the passion. Having said that, unfortunately the differences are the result of having learned from past mistakes so the OP's question remains very valid.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I'd agree to an extent but I'd take it forward and say that the differences are a past mistake. Or a mistake of the past that the left loves to recreate everyday

[Anderson]

I don't actually care for either, I am a poor proletarian who needs socialism so that I know if I randomly die some day that my kids will be taken care of educationally and food and shelter and health care wise. Dogmatics who constantly bicker about Stalin vs Trotsky delay that need of mine and do a great discredit to the movement as a whole. I need socialism, period. I don't like anyone who stands in the way of it. The split theses figures created greatly hampered the movement forward.

This is what should be the spirit of all members at Revleft :)

Its in very bad taste that we see debates between so called Stalin or Trotsky supporters. They are only serving the capitalists by this useless division in the ranks of the leftists, all of whom want to change the rotten system and make Socialism happen.

[Anderson]

We have been outsmarted by the anti-communist propaganda machine :(

[Rooster]

There's a small selected works of Trotsky that is worth a read even if you disagree with him. May as well read something by him if you're interested in the subject. It's called Permanent Revolution and should be found quite easily on amazon for really cheap.

[Robespierres Neck]

There's a small selected works of Trotsky that is worth a read even if you disagree with him. May as well read something by him if you're interested in the subject. It's called Permanent Revolution and should be found quite easily on amazon for really cheap.

There's this link as well:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr-index.htm

This site is a great learning source for revolutionary history. I suggest you look into other theories besides Trotskyism, for sure.

[Offbeat]

What is Trotskyism? Stalin don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...

On a more serious note, think of it as to the left of Marxism-Lenininism and to the right of Left Communism and Anarchism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What is Trotskyism? Stalin don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...

On a more serious note, think of it as to the left of Marxism-Lenininism and to the right of Left Communism and Anarchism.

What do you mean by to the left of ML?

[Robespierres Neck]

Yeah, that's a very confusing statement. Wrong, as well.

[Offbeat]

What do you mean by to the left of ML?
Trotsky was part of the Left Opposition against Stalin, and advocated a more democratic, worker orientated version of DotP than Stalin.

[ed miliband]

What do you mean by to the left of ML?


Yeah, that's a very confusing statement. Wrong, as well.

i swear your sort love any opportunity to (wrongly) denounce trot-types as "ultra-leftist"

[Ocean Seal]

What is Trotskyism? Stalin don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...

On a more serious note, think of it as to the left of Marxism-Lenininism and to the right of Left Communism and Anarchism.
Lol, lefter than thou.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

i swear your sort love any opportunity to (wrongly) denounce trot-types as "ultra-leftist"

Where do we do this?
We just said that his statement that trotskyism is to the left of ML doesn't make sense.

[ed miliband]

Where do we do this?
We just said that his statement that trotskyism is to the left of ML doesn't make sense.

i've seen, or at least encountered, it a lot irl

of course, for all its faults, trotskyism is to the left of stalinism

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

i've seen, or at least encountered, it a lot irl

of course, for all its faults, trotskyism is to the left of stalinism

Again explain what you guys mean with to the left of "stalinism".
And just because you've seen people do it in real life makes us the same?

[ed miliband]

Again explain what you guys mean with to the left of "stalinism".
And just because you've seen people do it in real life makes us the same?

stalinism is marked by nationalism and reformism

so is trotskyism, but ever so slightly less so

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

stalinism is marked by nationalism and reformism

so is trotskyism, but ever so slightly less so

I disagree but I'm not even going to bother.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think he means "to the left of Stalinism" in the sense that Trotskyism is suppose to be "less authoritarian" than Marxism-Leninism.

[ed miliband]

I disagree but I'm not even going to bother.

good for you, if i was a stalinist i'd find it hard to prove my ideology was anything but highly reformist too

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

good for you, if i was a stalinist i'd find it hard to prove my ideology was anything but highly reformist too

That's not the reason.
The reason is that I, unlike you trotskyites and ultra-leftists, don't want to make every thread into a discussion about Stalin or Marxism-Leninism.

[Bostana]

A Great Book on Trotskyism.

I would recommend reading it:

Trotskyism: Counter Revolution in Disguise. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

good for you, if i was a stalinist i'd find it hard to prove my ideology was anything but highly reformist too

Lay off the flame bait! This thread was actually going semi-decently.

Next time its a verbal.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Of course if you ask 20 different Trotskyists, sadly, you might get 20 different answers. For what it is worth, imho, Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism. Key features:

Permanent Revolution: A poorly labeled theory that holds that in underdeveloped countries since the turn of the 20th century, there will be no more bourgeois revolutions as there had been in Western Europe and the US. The native bourgeoisie being too tied to international imperialism to act independently. So even so-called democratic tasks, like land reform and universal suffrage can only be carried out by proletarian revolution. Trotsky at first put this forward as being applicable specifically to Russia (in 1905). Later, he generalized this to China and other less-developed countries.

No to Popular Fronts: Trotskyists will not enter nor support governments that administer capitalism. They do not support "popular front" governments such as the UP in Chile under Allende or the Republican government in Spain. This also means no support to any bourgeois parties, including electoral support period.

Yes to United Fronts: United Fronts are alliances between proletarian parties or organizations based on specific limited actions -- such as strike action or demonstrations. The groups involved are free to criticize each other as they choose.

Internationalism: No to any kind of nationalism. The only road to socialism is through world revolution.

Okay that's some key points -- there is a lot more to it. You've got some fun reading to do, comrade!

[Brosip Tito]

Trotsky was part of the Left Opposition against Stalin, and advocated an actual DotP unlike Stalin.

Fixed.

Trotsky is to the left of Stalin, the same way any Marxist is to the left of a capitalist.

Now, who the fuck called Trotsky a reformist? Seriously, you actually believe he advocated getting to socialism via reform? Are you some sort of eejit?

Also, if you're going to take a suggestion of a book on Trotskyism that's written by an ML, and suggested by an ML, i'd suggest you smoke a dust joint and mix it with cyanide for being so daft.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

stalinism is marked by nationalism and reformism

so is trotskyism, but ever so slightly less so

Of course, you have nothing to prove this with. Marxism-Leninism is of course international, which explains Comintern, Stalin's support for the people's partisans of Eastern Europe, and his support for the Chinese revolutionaries (ignore daft punk's stupid out of context quotes) and Korean national liberators, just to name a few of the many examples. And we are totally reformist because we advocate proletarian revolutions, national liberation struggles, and cultural revolutions. Stop being stupid and making brooster jerk off to your bullshit posts.

[Geiseric]

A Great Book on Trotskyism.

I would recommend reading it:

Trotskyism: Counter Revolution in Disguise. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm)

I'm sorry but that book is absolute trash and I read a bit into it and it doesn't say anything that can directly be attributed to Trotsky doing anything other than knowing Zinoviev.

Stop being so gullible, this book has names that you don't know, that I don't know, it has referances that neither of us could actually understand unless we were there, and it has no actual proof against Trotsky for doing anything wrong.

Do you even know anything that he's written or why he's different from Stalin? I don't even think you've read any Trotsky if you're coming to these conclusions.

Anything that happened pre 1917 doesn't matter since at the point when the proletariat wanted the overthrow of the Bourgeois Menshevik and SR government, he was supporting that with the Bolsheviks. But for most of his life he and Lenin were in different regions and countries altogather since both of them were exiled from Russia. He was popular however as an organizer of the working class that he was the president of the Petrograd soviet.

He changed his views on pretty much everything once he published perminant revolution though, you need to read that if you want to understand modern trotskyism.

[Geiseric]

Of course, you have nothing to prove this with. Marxism-Leninism is of course international, which explains Comintern, Stalin's support for the people's partisans of Eastern Europe, and his support for the Chinese revolutionaries (ignore daft punk's stupid out of context quotes) and Korean national liberators, just to name a few of the many examples. And we are totally reformist because we advocate proletarian revolutions, national liberation struggles, and cultural revolutions. Stop being stupid and making brooster jerk off to your bullshit posts.

Flame magnet? Whatever.

Stalin dissolved Comintern though and rubbed the back of the league of nations supporting its disarmament policy.

Stalin may of supported the CPC at one point but at another he oversaw the CPC's orders from Comintern to be allied with the KMT (Nationalists) who had nothing in common with Communism nor were even a social democrat party, it was a thoroughly bourgeois party like the SRs in Russia. This at one point culminated in the Shanghai Massacre in which the CPC leadership was slaughtered by the KMT, crippling the workers movement and leaving it under the command of the class collaborationist, bloc of four classes supporting opportunists like Mao.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Here is Trotsky pissing people off even as early as 1925, before all of Stalin's evil purges and while quite a lot of Old Bolshiveks were still in the Central Committee:
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/resolution.htm

His counterrevolutionary actions pushed them too far.

P.S. Don't make the bullshit argument that this was all Stalin's evil idea.

The Central Committee of the RCP was not a one man show, so don't be an idiot without evidence and pretend that it was.

[Brosip Tito]

Here is Trotsky pissing people off even as early as 1925, before all of Stalin's evil purges and while quite a lot of Old Bolshiveks were still in the Central Committee:
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/resolution.htm

His counterrevolutionary actions pushed them too far.

P.S. Don't make the bullshit argument that this was all Stalin evil idea.

The Central Committee of the RCP was not a one man show, so don't be an idiot without evidence and pretend that it was.
:laugh:

Man, this is the funniest shit I've ever read.

You actually believe it? Sad...

Also, Comrade Commistar, League of nations was around until 1946...I see the comment you made to the contrary has been deleted...

[Geiseric]

The league of nations was formed after WWI, what are you talking about? It was in direct opposition to Comintern, which if anything should of been aiming at arming the workers for a revolution. Instead, Stalin supported "disarmament," of all of the ex German, Turkish, and Czarist areas in Eastern Europe, clearing the way for Imperialism in the region throughout the 1930s.

In 1934, the USSR joined the League of Nations. Look at their policies after that and see if there's any correlation between that and the defeat of the workers movements and the rise of fascism.

Btw what does "Pissing people off," even mean? Do you know that Trotsky organized the Red Army and led alongside Lenin throughout the entire revolution and civil war? How could you seriously call him a counter revolutionary when he was sticking with the working class throughout the entire time? I don't even think that Stalin was counter revolutionary untill the mid-late 20's, and overall he was with the Bolsheviks throughout the Civil War, and I admit to that. But you seriously have a sense of denial.

Perminant Revolution is what Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks all believed in at the point of october, after the inner fighting ended between the Lenin and Trotsky(pro october) and Kamanev + Zinoviev (anti-october)'s blocs fighting was put to an end. Stalin even believed in Perminant revolution if he participated in the Bolshevik party throughout October. He abandoned it as soon as an opportunity rose for a perminant political position as the political arm of the Bureaucracy in the U.S.S.R. as production and the czarist bureaucracy were revived once the economy was back intact.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

:laugh:

Man, this is the funniest shit i've ever read.

You actually believe it? Sad...

I do, and I have researched every issue brought up in it........ The trade union issue, the desire to undermine the Soviet state at all costs, and Trotsky's disregard for the union between the peasantry and proletariat.

Do you actually believe that as early as 1925, Stalin was already the supreme autocrat you guys pretend he was in the 1930s and 40s? Sad.... Do you also really believe that the CCRCP was a one man show? Even sadder......

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The league of nations was formed after WWI, what are you talking about? It was in direct opposition to Comintern, which if anything should of been aiming at arming the workers for a revolution. Instead, Stalin supported "disarmament," of all of the ex German, Turkish, and Czarist areas in Eastern Europe, clearing the way for Imperialism in the region throughout the 1930s.

In 1934, the USSR joined the League of Nations. Look at their policies after that and see if there's any correlation between that and the defeat of the workers movements and the rise of fascism.

Ohhhhhh noooooo, I made a fucking mistake! Purge me.

For some strange reason, I thought for a second that Comintern was disbanded after WWII, which is admittedly a stupid mistake.

[Grenzer]

Lol, lefter than thou.

Well the simple fact is that Stalinism is further to the right than other tendencies via its popular front antics and coalitionism, which openly urges collaboration with the bourgeois in the guise of "anti-fascism". The class collaborationist issue is also a problem with Trotskyism's so-called "united front", but it doesn't go nearly as far as Stalinism's policy of supporting reactionaries against fascism.

The most right-wing revolutionary tendency is Maoism, which holds that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be built out of class-collaboration with the bourgeoisie via "New Democracy".

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well the simple fact is that Stalinism is further to the right than other tendencies via its popular front antics and coalitionism, which openly urges collaboration with the bourgeois in the guise of "anti-fascism". The class collaborationist issue is also a problem with Trotskyism's so-called "united front", but it doesn't go nearly as far as Stalinism's policy of supporting reactionaries against fascism.

The most right-wing revolutionary tendency is Maoism, which holds that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be built out of class-collaboration with the bourgeoisie via "New Democracy".

1. The Nazis were a much bigger threat than a few members of the bourgeoisie that the communists easily took advantage of. Fascism was a threat that was impossible to defeat with only the small communist parties of Europe in action.

2. Most Marxist-Leninists don't agree with New Democracy, especially in this industrialized and globalized modern world.

[Geiseric]

There is no class collaboration in Trotskyist politics... It's why we're isolated as Trotskyists... That's the entire thing, if you're actually a Bolshevik and not even identify as a Trotskyist there should be no class collaboration, so I don't even know how that grew to be an option in the 20's.

[Geiseric]

1. The Nazis were a much bigger threat than a few members of the bourgeoisie that the communists easily took advantage of. Fascism was a threat that was impossible to defeat with only the small communist parties of Europe in action.

2. Most Marxist-Leninists don't agree with New Democracy, especially in this industrialized and globalized modern world.

The bourgeois still owned production both in Fascism and in Capitalism, there is no difference! You're describing the Liberalism vs. Fascism conflict which was an imperialist conflict through and through.

There were MASS PARTIES in Germany, China, Italy, Spain that were made to be useless by the disasterous politics laid out by Comintern. And those led for the rise of Fascism in most of those countries and the victory of the Nationalist Bourgeois politicians in China for a few more decades.

[Grenzer]

The United Front policy with social-democrats is class collaboration. Social-democracy is a faction of the bourgeoisie; and as such, there is no reason to be cooperating with them. One of the primary goals of a Marxist should be building the party as the class-for-itself and ensuring the social-political independence of the proletariat. Collaborating with bourgeois social-democratic parties is contrary to this. It's class collaboration.

I'd say this is the real fatal flaw with Trotskyism; though individual Trotskyist parties occasionally have right-of-reformist views on trade unions, but it's not specifically part of Trotskyism as an ideology. Still, despite it's flaws, I'd say that Trotskyism is the most correct mainstream tendency as opposed to the economism and Neo-Bakuninism of Left Communism and the reformist inclinations of Stalinism.

The success of fascism is due to the victory of social-democracy and its destruction of the workers movement as a union with Marxism in 1914. Third period politics don't really have anything to do with it; as the only alternative is political opportunism which leads to reformism. Popular Frontism and United Frontism with bourgeois "labour" parties are simply repeating the strategies that led to the rise of fascism in the first place.

[RedTrackWorker]

Here is Trotsky pissing people off even as early as 1925, before all of Stalin's evil purges and while quite a lot of Old Bolshiveks were still in the Central Committee:
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/resolution.htm

His counterrevolutionary actions pushed them too far.

P.S. Don't make the bullshit argument that this was all Stalin's evil idea.

The Central Committee of the RCP was not a one man show, so don't be an idiot without evidence and pretend that it was.

Right, it's says all you need to know about Stalinists that they offer up as evidence a resolution that was passed by people who by and large didn't know the issues involved.

Not to mention it's obviously wrong: the fundamental basis of Bolshevism is not discipline. That doesn't even make sense. You have to be disciplines for something. Oct 1917 only happened because Lenin waged a political fight against the majority of the leadership and didn't just accept the majority view, which is what the resolution is condemning Trotsky for not doing. Stalin is the one who resurrected Menshevism.

It is a litany of errors. Consider just one: "describes the role of Comrade Lenin in the October Revolution very ambiguously. Lenin is made to appear as if advocating the seizure of power by conspirative methods behind the back of the Soviets, and that the practical proposals made by Comrade Lenin arose from his failure to under stand the conditions prevailing". Lenin did recommend an insurrection not tied to the soviets again and again in September and October. You can read it on marxists.org. The idea that this document which was used to bureaucratically persecute the Trotskyists in 1925 based not on a mutual understanding of the path to revolution but the growing control of a caste in Russia--the fact that this is being used today in a discussion on Trotskyism says everything you need to know about Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism/Maoism--whatever you want to call it: it is based on lies, deception and murder and so cannot chart a course for the liberation.

[Geiseric]

The United Front policy with social-democrats is class collaboration. Social-democracy is a faction of the bourgeoisie; and as such, there is no reason to be cooperating with them. One of the primary goals of a Marxist should be building the party as the class-for-itself and ensuring the social-political independence of the proletariat. Collaborating with bourgeois social-democratic parties is contrary to this. It's class collaboration.

I'd say this is the real fatal flaw with Trotskyism; though individual Trotskyist parties occasionally have right-of-reformist views on trade unions, but it's not specifically part of Trotskyism as an ideology. Still, despite it's flaws, I'd say that Trotskyism is the most correct mainstream tendency as opposed to the economism and Neo-Bakuninism of Left Communism and the reformist inclinations of Stalinism.

The success of fascism is due to the victory of social-democracy and its destruction of the workers movement as a union with Marxism in 1914. Third period politics don't really have anything to do with it; as the only alternative is political opportunism which leads to reformism. Popular Frontism and United Frontism with bourgeois "labour" parties are simply repeating the strategies that led to the rise of fascism in the first place.

Social Democracy in itself couldn't hold back the masses of workers, it was collapsing due to its reformism and the Communists weren't in a position to pick up the ashes.

The failure of the KPD to capitalize on the decay of the old leaders of the German proletariat is the fault of Comintern's zig-zagging of the KPD's politics to match whatever popular front strategy that the Stalinists wanted. Before the Nazis came around, the KPD was aiming at an alliance with the SPD against the old German capitalists, which didn't work because of the SPD's grasp on the government a little like the role the provisional government in Russia had towards the proletariat.

However at the point when the German economy was collapsing and the rank and file, daily worker who was going unemployed should have looked at the KPD as the organization of the working class, it only saw an organization that never stood on its own as a Bolshevist organization that had revolution as its sole aim. As soon as Paul Levi became leader, he threw away the idea of a revolution to gain power, which was tantamount to Stalin allowing anybody to join the Bolshevik party in terms of changing the party's politics for the future.

Frontism with what "Bourgeois Labor Parties," are you talking about? The SPD was the party of the proletariat not in the same way as the Labour party in England, it actually fought for the workers for a long time untill the leadership with the 2nd international changed their politics to a social cheuvanist stance, taking the rest of the proletariat with them. A large section was breaking off and going to Nazism because of how incapible the KPD was as a proletarian party.

Btw i'd say that Trotskyism is less mainstream than anarcho syndicallism as of 1930.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

says everything you need to know about Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism/Maoism--whatever you want to call it: it is based on lies, deception and murder and so cannot chart a course for the liberation.

It is totally about murdering everybody. I'm already making blueprints for Alaskan gulags.

[RedTrackWorker]

It is totally about murdering everybody. I'm already making blueprints for Alaskan gulags.

You can reply to the charge with sarcasm but not with facts.

[Brosip Tito]

The United Front policy with social-democrats is class collaboration. Social-democracy is a faction of the bourgeoisie; and as such, there is no reason to be cooperating with them. One of the primary goals of a Marxist should be building the party as the class-for-itself and ensuring the social-political independence of the proletariat. Collaborating with bourgeois social-democratic parties is contrary to this. It's class collaboration.

I'd say this is the real fatal flaw with Trotskyism; though individual Trotskyist parties occasionally have right-of-reformist views on trade unions, but it's not specifically part of Trotskyism as an ideology. Still, despite it's flaws, I'd say that Trotskyism is the most correct mainstream tendency as opposed to the economism and Neo-Bakuninism of Left Communism and the reformist inclinations of Stalinism.

The success of fascism is due to the victory of social-democracy and its destruction of the workers movement as a union with Marxism in 1914. Third period politics don't really have anything to do with it; as the only alternative is political opportunism which leads to reformism. Popular Frontism and United Frontism with bourgeois "labour" parties are simply repeating the strategies that led to the rise of fascism in the first place.
The idea of the united front, is strictly for fighting fascism. It is not a strategy for pre or post, which you seem to be suggesting.

As well, I would like to note that the idea is of uniting workers from these "bourgeois" parties, not uniting the entire party structure.

In my opinion, it seems another way of also bringing solidarity and worker class consciousness to the front under the nose of a fascist regime.

[Magón]

Marxism-Leninism is of course international, which explains Comintern

The Comintern was nothing more than the USSR's international wing of bullying other revolutionary movements. If a potential revolution didn't go the way the Comintern/USSR wanted or agreed with, they'd smash it and replace those eager to please them.

Great form of showing solidarity internationally. :rolleyes:

[marl]

I think he means "to the left of Stalinism" in the sense that Trotskyism is suppose to be "less authoritarian" than Marxism-Leninism.

Stalinism is riddled with hierarchy and authoritarianism, and leftism is dedicated towards equality. So, yes.

[Crux]

Depends on who you ask, he is one thing to stalin supporters and something completely different to trotskyist. He jumped from party to party til he reached the bolsh party then he was a general against the white armys and was kind of a jerk to his men and would have them executed for retreating without orders to do so (I would call this stalinism) he then ran against stalin for leader of the USSR and lost big time. He then did some questionable things that can not be proven then he left the USSR and created a huge split in the communist movement. Even though democratic centralism ruined his life and political career he still made the argument for DCism, although he went against DCism in the USSR and that is why he was called so many bad names and eventually murdered. But he also made many contributions.

I had to give an alternate view than others listed here. I have no problem with trotsky. But without hind sight I would have also placed my vote for papa Joe at the whatever numbered congress (I think 13 but don't care enough to go check) because he was in the party longer and did the grimmy work before the bolsh ever were relevant. I also believe that Trotsky would have been just as authoritarian as Stalin. See his authoritarian behavior as general for my reason for believing this.

I don't actually care for either, I am a poor proletarian who needs socialism so that I know if I randomly die some day that my kids will be taken care of educationally and food and shelter and health care wise. Dogmatics who constantly bicker about Stalin vs Trotsky delay that need of mine and do a great discredit to the movement as a whole. I need socialism, period. I don't like anyone who stands in the way of it. The split theses figures created greatly hampered the movement forward.
Personally I think "Who was Trotsky?" and "What is trotskyism?" are two different questions.

[Brosip Tito]

Well the simple fact is that Stalinism is further to the right than other tendencies via its popular front antics and coalitionism, which openly urges collaboration with the bourgeois in the guise of "anti-fascism". The class collaborationist issue is also a problem with Trotskyism's so-called "united front", but it doesn't go nearly as far as Stalinism's policy of supporting reactionaries against fascism.

The most right-wing revolutionary tendency is Maoism, which holds that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be built out of class-collaboration with the bourgeoisie via "New Democracy".This is where I defend Trotsky's United Front.

It isn't class collaborationist. It's goal is to unify the working class of all "workers" parties (be they the utopians, reformists, etc), not the party structure in totality or the non-worker elements.

As well, unlike the popular front, the united front made it so the parties did not merge ideas, but stayed critical of each other's policies and theory.

Party Cooperation, but not class collaboration...perhaps.