How does Trotskyism differ from plain Marxism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I've been getting really into Trotskyism recently however I don't completely understand how in which ways it differs from plain Marxism. So I'd like to hear from other communists, especially Troskyists. Thanks! :)

[JAC0BIN]

Any of the -ism's, whether it be Lenninism, Stalinism, Anarchism or Trotskyism is just a continuation of a conversation that started long before Marx and Engles put a pen to paper really. Marx called the 'socialists' before him Utopians, because they believed things would naturally gravitate towards socialism. Marx understood thats not the case, and that the bourgeoisie would resist, at times violently, any move towards worker control of the economy.

So, Trotskyism is just another page in Marxian works that follows immediately after Marxist-leninism took root. Its not in conflict nor is it in accordance to Marxism, its just elaborates (or interprets) what Marx wrote over his liftetime. As a matter of fact, Marx wrote not as much ad you think on actual communism and instead focused on describing and analyzing capitalism.

Trotskyism just elaborates that when a revolution occurs;

1) It must be a permanent, international war until the capitalists are defeated, globally
2) Utter defiance of all things Stalinist

There's more, but Im too lazy to bust my books out. Also, by strict definition, Trotsky and Lenin were both revisionists. Since they both essentially contradicted most of Marxists main pillars of what describes 'material conditions necessary for change.'

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Trotskyism is a form of Marxism and Leninism(!) that believes that Stalinism (usually known as Marxism-Leninism) was an opportunistic misreading of the Bolshevik Revolution and the ad-hoc things Lenin had to do in order to keep the worker's state in tact. Trotskyists vary on their degree that they defend the Soviet-style Communist states, with comrades on both extremes: exalting them as worker's states (albeit degenerated [USSR] or deformed [other Communist states]) that deserve support against imperialism, or rejecting them as a form of state-capitalism. Fortunately, there are also comrades in the middle that have a more nuanced view.

Trotskyism sees "socialism in one country" as impossible, and sees the desperate authoritarian measures instituted after the Russian Civil War as the degenerative effects of a) the lack of a material basis for socialism, despite the best efforts of the Bolsheviks and b) the consequence of a bureaucratic caste (degenerated worker's state) or class (state-capitalism) taking control over the worker's state, represented by the ascendancy of Stalin and 'Stalinism.'

[subcp]

There's no such thing as 'plain Marxism'. Marxism is a living science; constantly evolving, constantly being altered and built upon (which has resulted in both authentic revolutionary class positions and communist politics, or reformism, or plain counter-revolutionary ideology).

Trotskyism is just a specific set of ideas and practice from a period of time after the 1920's, associated with the legacy of what the left opposition did, leading up to Trotsky's forming the 4th International and beyond (the enormous scale of how many different versions there are of 'Trotskyism' today). Many tendencies argue that Trotskyism has violated class lines and is thus part of the problem. Revolutionary Marxism is not revolutionary when it tries to lead the working-class down the road of representation and legal channels.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I would agree that plain Marxism does not exist, but is always revised and interpreted. Trotskyism is an aspect of Marxism, which heavily advocates internationalism, and the permanent revolution in particular.
The theory of permanent revolution tries to explain how a socialist revolution can occur in a non-industrialized society like Imperial Russia, which Marx and Engels originally thought impossible.
The revolution is thought to be permanent if it is to succed, as in world revolution. This is the antithesis of Stalin's socialism in one country which asserted that it is possible to build socialism within the boundaries of one country, i.e. Soviet Russia.

But to summarize Trotskyism is not only its own thing, but also incorporates Marxism and Leninism. Trotsky himself used the term Bolshevik-Leninism

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

To a large extent, Trotskyism is basically Orthodox Marxism with a theory of state capitalism. This is a point of both admiration and criticism depending upon which perspective you have

[Ostrinski]

Trotsky didn't believe in state-capitalism, and neither do most Trotskyists.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Trotsky didn't believe in state-capitalism, and neither do most Trotskyists.

The SWP, the ISO, and the International Socialist Tendency uphold State Capitalism and the only other large Trotskyist international is the CWI, which does uphold the degenerated worker's state line. So I'd say it's about a fifty fifty split. Unless you count the IMT. But No One counts the IMT.

[Art Vandelay]

The SWP, the ISO, and the International Socialist Tendency uphold State Capitalism and the only other large Trotskyist international is the CWI, which does uphold the degenerated worker's state line. So I'd say it's about a fifty fifty split. Unless you count the IMT. But No One counts the IMT.

Boom tendency jab. ;) Ha I think its important to include the DWS theory in the classification of orthodox Trotskyism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There are lots of different Trotskyist sects so when dealing with a "who believes what" and trying to apply that generally one isn't going to receive a straight answer. I would focus instead on their theories such as Permanent Revolution and their analysis on the M-L states.

I am in the process of making a study guide for Trotskyism as a tendency. If when finished this thread is still alive I will post a link up here or send you, the OP, a PM with the link as soon as it is in a polished state.

[blake 3:17]

The SWP, the ISO, and the International Socialist Tendency uphold State Capitalism and the only other large Trotskyist international is the CWI, which does uphold the degenerated worker's state line. So I'd say it's about a fifty fifty split. Unless you count the IMT. But No One counts the IMT.


Within the Trotskyist tradition, which is largely gone, only a relatively small number of people put forward the not so coherent theory of state capitalism.

The point we can agree on is that the Soviet Union, or other "socialist" states, did not achieve socialism. How we understand that exactly is largely pedantic, and sometimes kind of interesting, but largely irrelevant from the standpoint of contemporary socialist struggle.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Boom tendency jab. ;) Ha I think its important to include the DWS theory in the classification of orthodox Trotskyism.

I try to stress anti-sectarianism, but hey, they're kinda asking for it with the whole "Lets practice entyrism into capitalist parties until the Inevitable Crisis of Capitalism makes them revolutionary again (as if they were ever so since they were reformed). Lenin once uttered a sentence that kinda justified entryism in a single context 80 years ago so obviously entryism is the only possible tatic for acheiving a revolution and anything other than entryism is revisionism!1!!1!

There are only a couple parties that I am unabashedly sectarian towards. The Socialist Equality Party, otherwise known as the "Red Klan" for the reasons described here: http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1005/sep-trayvon.html

The Communist Party USA for it's pandering to the democrats, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization for claiming that China and it's kin are socialist states and for advocating a vote for Obama, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) for trying to force peasants off of their land in Bengal so they could sell it to multi-national corporations, and for collaborating with the state against the Naxals.

But other than that I try not to tendency bash. That's not to say that I don't ever tendency bash, you've seen first hand that when I am in a shit mood that I go all out with my sectarianism.

But yea, back to the point, you are right, there is definitely a divide between Orthdox Trotskyism and contemporary Trotskyism and I shouldn't have neglected that. Still I do feel that both tendencies are in essence a form of Orthdox Marxism with theoretical reactions to the development of the Soviet Union under Stalin. That's not to say that they are theoretically unoriginal, but that most new theorizations are based in the framework of Orthodox Marxism. Or at least that's how I perceive it. Though I do agree with you that contemporary Trotskyism has evolved into something different from what Trotsky originally exposed, not only with the theories of State Capitalism but also with the idea of "Worker's Democracy". Not that this is a bad thing, since MLM has probably evolved further from Mao than contemporary Trotskyism has evolved from Trotsky.


Within the Trotskyist tradition, which is largely gone, only a relatively small number of people put forward the not so coherent theory of state capitalism.

The point we can agree on is that the Soviet Union, or other "socialist" states, did not achieve socialism. How we understand that exactly is largely pedantic, and sometimes kind of interesting, but largely irrelevant from the standpoint of contemporary socialist struggle.

I wouldn't say that the Troskyite tradition is gone, if anything they've grown exponentially since the fall of the Soviet Union. However I feel that their failure to spread as a working class movement is due to a failure to grasp the distinction between the vanguard of the proletariat and the labor aristocracy and the fact that the form of democratic centralism these parties practice isn't close to what Lenin practiced and really could only be effective if it was used to establish a culture of security to accumulate arms and clandestine links for illegal work, which considering most Trotskite parties probably isn't true. Of any of the Western European socialist movements I have the most hope for the trots. And although the British and Irish Trotskist movement collapsed recently I still think that there is hope for the American Trotskyist movement

[Aurora]

The SWP, the ISO, and the International Socialist Tendency uphold State Capitalism and the only other large Trotskyist international is the CWI, which does uphold the degenerated worker's state line. So I'd say it's about a fifty fifty split. Unless you count the IMT. But No One counts the IMT.
Actually the Cliffites are a definite minority, there's the Cliffites on one side and theres the CWI, IMT, USFI, Lambertists, ISL-FI, IBT, IG and every other Trotskyist group on the other.


I wouldn't say that the Troskyite tradition is gone, if anything they've grown exponentially since the fall of the Soviet Union.

....

And although the British and Irish Trotskist movement collapsed recently I still think that there is hope for the American Trotskyist movement
I would think that Trotskyism has definitely shrunk since the collapse of the SU, if you look at Britain where Trotskyism is strongest today the Militant had about 6000 members in the 80's today the SPEW has about 2000 to 2500.

British and Irish Trotskyism haven't collapsed, in Ireland a broad unprincipled alliance of socialists has disintegrated but the membership of each group is no doubt higher than before, i actually think the collapse of the ULA could be a positive step if the CWI recognises the problems with a broad left group and changes tactics accordingly.
In Britain there may be a crisis in the largest group but it hasn't been catastrophic, the SWP is about half of British Trotskyism but the majority of those leaving the SWP will remain in Trotskyism as those who have left before them have like the AWL, ISG and Counterfire.