Looking at Trotskyism

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I was looking in the stickied threads for anything on Trotskyism but all I could find was a 404 error. Could any Trotskyists (or otherwise) provide me with a suitable base about said tendency? The base being an explanation of Trotskyism's philosophy/theory etc and how it differs from the other tendencies. I would also like to know where to start literature wise with Trotsky. Thank you all.

[Peoples' War]

I was looking in the stickied threads for anything on Trotskyism but all I could find was a 404 error. Could any Trotskyists (or otherwise) provide me with a suitable base about said tendency? The base being an explanation of Trotskyism's philosophy/theory etc and how it differs from the other tendencies. I would also like to know where to start literature wise with Trotsky. Thank you all.
I'm not a Trotskyist myself, but I'm sure many would consider me one.

The basic point to start would be the Permanent Revolution. This is Trotsky's defining point, and counter to Stalin's "Socialism in one country". You can also look at his Revolution Betrayed, to learn of his "Degenerated Workers' State" theory, a theory many Trotskyists disagree with. His idea of the United Front and his Dedication to the Leninist Democratic Centralism, as opposed to Stalin's Bureaucratic Centralism.

I really haven't read too much Trotsky, so I'll leave it to a Trotskyist comrade to inform you.

[ed miliband]

if you can be bothered to 'em, i reckon these are pretty good:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1947/balance-sheet/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1947/invading/index.htm

[Peoples' War]

if you can be bothered to 'em, i reckon these are pretty good:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1947/balance-sheet/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1947/invading/index.htm
It would be a good look at american "Trotskyism", but the JFT distanced themselves quite a bit form traditional Trotskyism.

A good look at British Trotskyism, to go with what comrade milliband suggested, would be:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/higgins/index.htm

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotsky (in collaboration with others) developed ideas implicit in Marx. His most important ideas are the Theory of Permanent Revolution and the Law of Combined and Uneven Development.

The Theory of Permanent Revolution essentially said that the bourgoise of Czarist Russia because of its dependence on investment from the landowning aristocracy and from abroad, notably France, would not be able to fulfill the "historic role" of the bourgoise and further the development of Russia. This task would be up to the working class. This is a highly condensed version of TTPR but it can be used to analyze the development, or lack thereof, of many Third World nations.

There was a complicated interchange between the thought of Trotsky and Lenin.

The Law of Combined and Uneven Development basically said that elements of a society can develop at different rates. Russia in the early 1900s was a backward semi-feudal country but had an advanced working class.

Trotsky's History of The Russian Revolution is regarded as one of the best works on this event, even by many non-Trotskyists. The Revolution Betrayed gives Trotsky's view of the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union.

Trotskyism evolved as a critique of Stalinism. The collectivized economy of the Soviet Union is regarded as an important accomplishment but this was hijacked by a bureaucratic caste which, while parasitically basing itself on the gains of the revolution and to some extent even being forced to move it forward, also held back and retarded its development.

Trotskyists advocate what's called "workers democracy" that is, the economy democratically run by worker's councils.

Trotskyists also fight for the political independence of worker's movements and avoid the "two stage" theories of many Marxist-Leninists. Trotskyists would advocate a "united front" along a minimum program rather than subordinate worker's demands into what is regarded as class collaborationist "popular fronts"

Most Trotskyists respect the many gains of the Soviet Union,Maoist China and the "eastern bloc", termed "degfenerate or deformed" worker's states but also point out that they were based on the rule of a bureaucracy and not on rule of the working class, which is socialism.

Hope this helps.

For an unpaid political announcement

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5829

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Trotsky Archive has most of his stuff. His autobiography is a good read

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/index.htm

The two works I've mentioned are also there.

It can be fun randomly scanning the archive

[ed miliband]

It would be a good look at american "Trotskyism", but the JFT distanced themselves quite a bit form traditional Trotskyism.

A good look at British Trotskyism, to go with what comrade milliband suggested, would be:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/higgins/index.htm

of course, although at the time both pieces were written the jft considered themselves very much part of the trotskyist movement; i mean, dunayevskaya was one of trotsky's secretaries, and james was involved in personal debates with trotsky. imo that's what makes both pieces so interesting -- very criticial but still intimate.

for a funny, though not necessarily educational, look at british trotskyism i recommend these pieces:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/fourth-index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/pub-index.html

[cantwealljustgetalong]

as stated before, Trotskyists are basically supporters of the Russian Revolution who reject Stalin and his ideology (so-called 'Marxism-Leninism,' known to Trotskyists as 'Stalinism').
there are various levels of defense for the 20th century one-party states amongst Trotskyists, ranging from zealous support to almost complete disassociation.

there is a great series of talks that fall into the Trotskyist tradition at WeAreMany.org. the site is produced by the ISO, an org that doesn't defend the one-party states but does take the anti-interventionist line with Cuba.

[Geiseric]

The defining characteristic of actual trotskyism is the Transitional Programme. If a party or group doesn't adhere to this, they aren't in all honesty a Trotskyist.

Perminant Revolution and the Transitional Programme, both of which were fully verified as true theories during the Russian Revolution, are at the center of Trotskyism.

I'm in a trotskyist organization that is descended ideologically from the Cannonites who were purged from the CP-USA and formed the SWP in the U.S. And i've read all of these works within the past year or so since I just got into communism at the end of high school, so if you or anybody really wants to discuss any of these topics having to deal with Trotskyism, i've explained the theories to people before, so I'd be happy to help out.

[sixdollarchampagne]

....

I'm in a trotskyist organization that is descended ideologically from the Cannonites who were purged from the CP-USA and formed the SWP in the U.S. ....

I am just a little confused: You list your organization as La Verte, which I take to mean La Vérité, a French group, that, as far as I know, has no lineal connection with Cannon or the (pre-Barnes) SWP.

Could you explain your statement above in a bit more detail? That is, is there a connection between Cannon's SWP and La Vérité? If so, what is the nature of that connection?

As far as I can tell, only a few tendencies still existing have a descent from Cannon's SWP that I can think of – if you regard Barnes' current SWP as the negation of Cannon's work (which certainly appears to be the case) – like the Sparts, Socialist Action, and maybe a few more. If that's not the case, I would be interested to hear more. :o)

[Q]

Several comrades here note Permanent Revolution as a defining characteristic of Trotskyism. In reality, as Witnesses to Permanent Revolution: The Documentary Record (http://books.google.nl/books/about/Witnesses_to_Permanent_Revolution.html?id=pV5k-TvbSwQC&redir_esc=y) explains, Trotsky's take was from a specific Russian perspective. Contemporaries like Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Parvus and David Ryazanov all had a similar take, although with a different point of view in this debate. All agreed with the basic premise that we need a global revolution in order to defeat capitalism as a global system.

What signified Trotsky's narrative is his opposition to Stalin and his "socialism in one country" stuff he started spouting from 1924 onwards. This is why most identify "permanent revolution" with Trotsky to this day, despite that the Russian context has long since faded into a historical footnote.

[Hit The North]

Several comrades here note Permanent Revolution as a defining characteristic of Trotskyism. In reality, as Witnesses to Permanent Revolution: The Documentary Record (http://books.google.nl/books/about/Witnesses_to_Permanent_Revolution.html?id=pV5k-TvbSwQC&redir_esc=y) explains, Trotsky's take was from a specific Russian perspective. Contemporaries like Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Parvus and David Ryazanov all had a similar take, although with a different point of view in this debate. All agreed with the basic premise that we need a global revolution in order to defeat capitalism as a global system.

What signified Trotsky's narrative is his opposition to Stalin and his "socialism in one country" stuff he started spouting from 1924 onwards. This is why most identify "permanent revolution" with Trotsky to this day, despite that the Russian context has long since faded into a historical footnote.

Trotsky's distinctive take on permanent revolution, the core of the very idea, was not merely that a global revolution was necessary (a wholly uncontested idea among Marxists), but that the proletariat of underdeveloped nations could more readily seize power than their counterparts in more developed centres of the world economy.


Originally posted by Trotsky
It is possible for the workers to come to power in an economically backward country sooner than in an advanced country. In 1871 the workers deliberately took power in their hands in petty-bourgeois Paris – true, for only two months, but in the big-capitalist centres of Britain or the United States the workers have never held power for so much as an hour. To imagine that the dictatorship of the proletariat is in some way automatically dependent on the technical development and resources of a country is a prejudice of ‘economic’ materialism simplified to absurdity. This point of view has nothing in common with Marxism.http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp04.htm

Now, given the criticisms of the October revolution mounted by Mensheviks, such as Martov, and from Kautsky himself, it is clear that Trotsky's "take" was at odds with the opinion of these gentlemen. Or at least, in the case of Kautsky, as Trotsky argues in the preface of the 1919 reissue of 1906's Results & Prospects, if he once upheld this position, he had renounced it by 1917.

Trotsky's analysis and his conclusions were underwritten by his theory of "combined but uneven development (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm)" seen, by Trotsky, as a consequence of imperialism. This allowed the possibility that the stages of economic development laid out by the "economic materialists" of the 2nd International could be leapt.

So this is what "signifies Trotsky's narrative" and it dates right back to 1906. Also, although it was an attempt to analyse Russian conditions, it wasn't only that. It could be considered valid, as a general principle, for other nations struggling to develop economically in a world economy already dominated by imperialism.

[Q]

Trotsky's distinctive take on permanent revolution, the core of the very idea, was not merely that a global revolution was necessary (a wholly uncontested idea among Marxists), but that the proletariat of underdeveloped nations could more readily seize power than their counterparts in more developed centres of the world economy.

Yes, that is a useful summary on Trotsky's Russian take. However, central to this conception was the idea that the revolution had to spread to the core countries of capitalism. As Trotsky himself would later point out, the revolution failed because it was isolated in a backward country.

So, what would this mean today? To fully understand Trotsky's thesis, we have to understand that he lived in an era of mass parties. Almost every core capitalist country had a large Marxist party, consisting of hundreds of thousands if not millions of members.

The collapse of these parties, and thereby the prospect of revolution, in the period of 1918 to 1923 undermined Trotsky's thesis, about a start of the worldrevolution being more likely in Russia. Without the European mass workers movement to back them up, it was always doomed to fail. Despite the formation of Comintern, it was too little, too late.

Do we have such a mass movement today? No. Far from it even. The far left is small, splintered along confessional lines and therefore irrelevant.

So, posing the question of permanent revolution a la Trotsky today is highly abstract (i.e. putting a wager on a third world country being the ignition of worldrevolution). The task of the day of all communists is to rebuild the workers movement, firstly in their own countries.

[Geiseric]

I am just a little confused: You list your organization as La Verte, which I take to mean La Vérité, a French group, that, as far as I know, has no lineal connection with Cannon or the (pre-Barnes) SWP.

Could you explain your statement above in a bit more detail? That is, is there a connection between Cannon's SWP and La Vérité? If so, what is the nature of that connection?

As far as I can tell, only a few tendencies still existing have a descent from Cannon's SWP that I can think of – if you regard Barnes' current SWP as the negation of Cannon's work (which certainly appears to be the case) – like the Sparts, Socialist Action, and maybe a few more. If that's not the case, I would be interested to hear more. :o)

La Verite is the french press organ for the entire 4th international. The POI in France is part of the 4th international as well.

As for the SA deal, SA split from the SWP in the 80's, because it was turned Castroist, etc. However the majority of SA didn't believe in forming a mass party, nor forming a new international, so Socialist Organizer split and joined the committee for reconstruction. SA is now in CWI (If I remember correctly) and are basically focused on building their own organization, not founding a mass party. We're also focused on transitional demands.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Several comrades here note Permanent Revolution as a defining characteristic of Trotskyism. In reality, as Witnesses to Permanent Revolution: The Documentary Record (http://books.google.nl/books/about/Witnesses_to_Permanent_Revolution.html?id=pV5k-TvbSwQC&redir_esc=y) explains, Trotsky's take was from a specific Russian perspective. Contemporaries like Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Parvus and David Ryazanov all had a similar take, although with a different point of view in this debate. All agreed with the basic premise that we need a global revolution in order to defeat capitalism as a global system.

What signified Trotsky's narrative is his opposition to Stalin and his "socialism in one country" stuff he started spouting from 1924 onwards. This is why most identify "permanent revolution" with Trotsky to this day, despite that the Russian context has long since faded into a historical footnote.
Comrade, you are correct that Trotsky initially was only talking about Russia. Sometime in the late 20s, I think, he generalized the PR to colonial and semi-colonial countries.

[Hit The North]

So, posing the question of permanent revolution a la Trotsky today is highly abstract (i.e. putting a wager on a third world country being the ignition of worldrevolution). The task of the day of all communists is to rebuild the workers movement, firstly in their own countries.

Well, the law of combined and uneven development still runs its course in the system of global capitalism; and recent events during the global economic crisis bear out the insight that it is at the periphery of the system where the most strain appears and where the class struggle becomes more immediate, rather than in the most developed centres of the global economy. So we see the surge in struggle appearing in the Middle East and the Southern outposts of Europe in Spain and Greece rather than in the USA and North-Western Europe, where the crisis was hatched.

But, anyway, no one in this thread has argued that the theory of PP is the main determiner of modern Trotskyist organisations. In fact comrade Broody argued that it was the Transitional Programme that informed the strategic and tactical orientation of orthodox Trotskyism and this is certainly correct. Moreover, this is how they view the task of rebuilding the workers movement.

Q, as an aside, I was interested in the juxtaposition of these two claims of yours:


Do we have such a mass movement today? No. Far from it even. The far left is small, splintered along confessional lines and therefore irrelevant.

So, posing the question of permanent revolution a la Trotsky today is highly abstract (i.e. putting a wager on a third world country being the ignition of worldrevolution). The task of the day of all communists is to rebuild the workers movement, firstly in their own countries.


If we are relying on an irrelevant force to resurrect the workers movement what hope is there?

[Q]

You keep posts by default in case Revleft has an outage? :D


Well, the law of combined and uneven development still runs its course in the system of global capitalism; and recent events during the global economic crisis bear out the insight that it is at the periphery of the system where the most strain appears and where the class struggle becomes more immediate, rather than in the most developed centres of the global economy. So we see the surge in struggle appearing in the Middle East and the Southern outposts of Europe in Spain and Greece rather than in the USA and North-Western Europe, where the crisis was hatched.
I did not content this point. My quarrel is with the "common approach" lefts' strategy, not with the fact that class struggle happens in areas more prone to imperialist stress.


But, anyway, no one in this thread has argued that the theory of PP is the main determiner of modern Trotskyist organisations. In fact comrade Broody argued that it was the Transitional Programme that informed the strategic and tactical orientation of orthodox Trotskyism and this is certainly correct. Moreover, this is how they view the task of rebuilding the workers movement.
Perhaps I'll write about that a bit more later on. For now I'll just say that Trotsky's transitional programme was written in a certain context, and we have to question whether this context still applies.

Second, most Trotskyist organisations have dwindled to tiny proportions. Their conception of the transitional programme (or "method" as it is sometimes called) having a logic toward "movementism" or trade union bureaucracy. Most often these groups are mere miniature bureaucratic replications of larger workers organisations. This too calls for questioning.


Q, as an aside, I was interested in the juxtaposition of these two claims of yours:

If we are relying on an irrelevant force to resurrect the workers movement what hope is there?
Again, it is not the current state of the left what bothers me. It is the strategy that drove them into this position what I question.

[Hit The North]

You keep posts by default in case Revleft has an outage? :D


Ah, so that's what happened! I thought I dreamt it :unsure:. No, I'm writing from memory.


Perhaps I'll write about that a bit more later on. For now I'll just say that Trotsky's transitional programme was written in a certain context, and we have to question whether this context still applies.


Couldn't agree more, frankly.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

To clarify The Permanent Revolution is specifically about what the comrade above said about "combined and uneven development." It means that the nascent bourgeoisie in developing countries in this epoch will inevitably be tied to foreign capital and will be unable, as the French and English bourgeoisie, to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. Also, capital and industry will tend to be both concentrated, and often quite modern. The tasks of the democratic bourgeois revolution that were carried out in much of Western Europe, can only be implemented by the revolutionary working class. And, as in Russia, they will not make a revolution to simply hand over power to the bourgeoisie.

I think another critical aspect of Trotskyist thought is absolute rejection of popular front governments or coalitions with or support for any kind of bourgeois parties (this includes, for example, the Green Party). Some parties that claim a connection with Trotskyism do not adhere to this. I think it is central.

The Transitional Program is very important, I agree, but it has also been used by those with reformist appetites to justify many varieties of opportunism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

La Verite is the french press organ for the entire 4th international. The POI in France is part of the 4th international as well.

As for the SA deal, SA split from the SWP in the 80's, because it was turned Castroist, etc. However the majority of SA didn't believe in forming a mass party, nor forming a new international, so Socialist Organizer split and joined the committee for reconstruction. SA is now in CWI (If I remember correctly) and are basically focused on building their own organization, not founding a mass party. We're also focused on transitional demands.

Not to be nitpicking but Socialist Action (if that's the group you meant) is the US affiliate of the UCFI (now FI), not the CWI. The other SA-Socialist Alternative, is in the CWI (technically we're in "political solidarity" with the CWI).

As I unfderstand Socialist Action got the Trotskyist core of the SWP after Jack Barnes purged the Trots.

[Geiseric]

Did SO and SA (II) both split out of SA (I)? What was socialist alternative's split about?

Anyways, the task that SO presents is basically the call for a nationwide organized labor movement, which is to be a base for communists to push foward off of, and to connect with the working class, fighting for their demands. Saying "We need a communist party," at this point would be useless, and would alienate the entire working class, who have no idea what a communist party actually means. Demands such as "All rights to immigrants," "Free education," "Public healthcare,""End the war," actually MEAN something to millions of people.

A party fighting for real life, existing demands of the proletariat is what's needed. Class independence from bourgeois parties is the necessity that we face before an actual revolutionary party can be formed. The working class needs to learn that communists are on their side, and can be trusted, and this can only be done by fighting the battles that are capable of being fought, today, NOT after capitalism falls into a depression, and working class people are worried about survival as opposed to struggle.

[Drosophila]

Did SO and SA (II) both split out of SA (I)? What was socialist alternative's split about?

Entryism into social democratic and "labor" parties.

[Geiseric]

Entryism into social democratic and "labor" parties.

So was Socialist Alternative against that or for that? And does that mean that Socialist Action is for or against entryism?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Why has this thread turned into a massive discussion concerning Trotskyism? I only wanted a few books...

[Geiseric]

Why has this thread turned into a massive discussion concerning Trotskyism? I only wanted a few books...

Transitional Programme is where to start for Trotskyism in general. If you want his history of Stalinism read The Revolution Betrayed. If you want his views on Fascism, read "The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany." If you want his view on third world struggles (one of which was Russia) read "Perminant Revolution."

[Drosophila]

So was Socialist Alternative against that or for that? And does that mean that Socialist Action is for or against entryism?
Oh, Socialist Action? I'm not sure about them. I thought you were referring to the CWI-IMT split.

[Q]

Why has this thread turned into a massive discussion concerning Trotskyism? I only wanted a few books...

James P Cannon's The stuggle for a proletarian party offers a useful insight in how Trotskyist parties are organised, how they handle dissent, etc. As I wrote elsewhere:


The Struggle for a Proletarian Party pretty much defines Trotskyism. It's specific culture of paper sales, way of organisation, handling internal disagreement, etc can be found in that piece and did not exist before that work (at least, I couldn't find it).

Basically Cannon went to Russia after the revolution and interpreted on these experiences what Bolshevism was all about. Highly useful work if you want to understand where Trotskyism comes from.

[Q]

Did SO and SA (II) both split out of SA (I)? What was socialist alternative's split about?
Socialist Action/Organizer and Socialist Alternative are completely unrelated as far as I know (maybe there is some personal overlap though). SAlt started in the 1980's (if I'm not mistaken, could be later) as Labor Militant. It didn't knew a IMT split (the IMT section was founded much later), but had a split in 1998 when one of the founding members and a grouping around him went on to found Labor Militant Voice, which still exists (http://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com). At around the same time Labor Militant changed name to Socialist Alternative.

[Leo]

This is pretty good if anyone is interested in Trotskyism in Britain: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/index.htm

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Just to add what's already been said. Most of the dozen or so US Trotskyist organisations originated in splits from the (US) SWP, or splits from splits. As I understand Socialist Action originated from West Coast SWP comrades centered around Jeff Mackler.

Socialist Alternative is one of the few groups not originating from the SWP. It has its roots in the British Trotskyist movement in a group centered around Ted Grant, and later Alan Woods and Peter Taafe.For a time Grant provided a leading pole of British Trotskyism. He was dissed by James Cannon, sent to whip the UK Trots into shape and (as I understand) Gerry Healey came to dominate the fractious movement, with disastrous consequences.

Anywho...the Ted Grant faction was expelled from the FI. Militant Tendency came out of this. MT practiced entryism into the British Labour Party (a long time tactic of the Trotskyist movement) MT played a heroic role in Liverpool in the 80s, resisting Thatcher's austerity. Because of this they were fiercely disliked by the leadership of the Labour Party, even the supposed "left" around Neil Kinnock.

After a huge debate entryism was considered no longer a productive tactic in this period and MT left Labour. A group around Ted Grant split, continued entryism and formed the IMT.

US Socialist Alternative was started by CWI co-thinkers in the 1980s During the 90s SocAlt was active in trying to build a US Labor Party, a project which unfortunately fizzled out.


Also Unbroken Thread by Ted Grant discusses the debates within the British Trotskyist movement. Parts of it are kinda dry but its worth a read.

http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1989/tut/index.htm