On Trotsky

[Dear Leader]

I consider myself a Trotskyist, but from reading Trotsky. I agree with the transitional program, permanent revolution, theory of the degenerated workers state, etc. Are there any articles ABOUT Trotsky, about his role in the Russian Revolution, any critiques that I should look at?

Thanks!:)

[subcp]

This article is a re-print (with a new introduction) of an article published in the journal Internationalisme, publication of the French Communist Left; originally a part of the Italian communist left in exile. It's from 1947 and deals with Trotsky and Trotskyism, and is a series of criticism's of Trotsky and Trotskyism which are still relevant:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism

Hal Draper's "Roots of American Communism" contains a chunk about Trotsky's stay in the United States before the February revolution broke out. There was speculation that Trotsky would be a leader in the Socialist Party of America (makes sense only if you remember that the foreign language federations made up a sizeable part of the core of the party) before he got on a boat back to Russia. It's all very interesting.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well here is a critique of Trotskyism from a Maoist perspective. I think this is a very useful critique because it actually engages Trotskyism at the level of it's theory while most critiques of Trotksyism focus on insulting Trotsky as an individual or on misrepresenting his views. Or there is the attempt to argue that Trotsky was revising Marxism, when in fact his fault was that he was so insistent on not revising Marxism that what he produced was a theoretical dead end.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/10/maoism-or-trotskyism-free-download.html


It's a little over twenty pages long but JMP is a pretty good writer so you should be able to get it done in about half an hour. If you have any questions on why I object to Trotskyism than feel free to ask me.

Also I would like to learn about Permanent Revolution. I have a feeling that I won't be swayed by it, but I think it's important to know the positions of a person who disagrees with you. So could you give me a link to an article? I'd prefer something that is relitivly short if you don't mind.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

.
Also I would like to learn about Permanent Revolution. I have a feeling that I won't be swayed by it, but I think it's important to know the positions of a person who disagrees with you. So could you give me a link to an article? I'd prefer something that is relitivly short if you don't mind.

Nothing short but I made a study guide to Results&Prospects (http://leftiststudyguides.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/results-and-prospects/), a major work by Trotsky which deals with PR if you are interested in giving it a go before heading into his primary text, The Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr-index.htm).

[Leftsolidarity]

You might be interested in Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution". It's not focused on him but it does talk about everything going on so that will give you some of his background during the revolution.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The History of the Russian Revolution is a towering and wonderful work, and reveals a great deal about Trotsky. Isaac Deutscher's three part biography of Trotsky, The Pophet Armed; The Prophet Unarmed; and The Prophet Outcast, is good, although I would say that Deutscher was sympathetic, but not really a Trotskyist.

If you are already familiar with the events of the Russian Revolution, The Lessons of October is excellent. Trotsky's Autobiography is also excellent -- it is incomplete as he wrote it around 1930.

Most of the the Stalinist critiques of Trotsky (including Maoist/Marxist-Lennists) are filled with BS -- partial or wholesale lies. Read them, by all means, but take everything they say with a huge grain of salt. The Left Coms critique I would treat more seriously. I don't usually agree with them, but they don't falsify history on a massive scale, they just draw the wrong conclusions.

Finally, among Trotsky's most important works besides those already mentioned by me and other comrades would include: The Revolution Betrayed, The First Five Years of the Communist International, In Defense of Marxism and The Struggle Against Fascism in German. The last is a collection of articles written mostly before Hitler came to power.

E.H. Carr's writings on the Russian Revolution are good solid works, from an academic who was not exactly a Marxist, but very thorough and illuminating. You could start with The Bolshevik Revolution, a three volume set. It deals with the whole enchilada, including Trotsky.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Most of the the Stalinist critiques of Trotsky (including Maoist/Marxist-Lennists) are filled with BS -- partial or wholesale lies. Read them, by all means, but take everything they say with a huge grain of salt. The Left Coms critique I would treat more seriously. I don't usually agree with them, but they don't falsify history on a massive scale, they just draw the wrong conclusions.


In all fairness, despite being a Maoist, I do admit that you are correct here, there is a massive tendency to misrepresent Trotsky as some sort of CIA agent or a blood hound, both misrepresentations aren't really critiquing Trotskyism, they're just Ad Hominen attacks. Which is why I linked to the article above because I feel that it deals with trotskyism as a theory rather than a man. I also believe that Mike Ely has written a critique of Trotksyism's history that might be worth reading, but to be honest I haven't read it myself and these critiques are always limited because they tend to attack people rather than the theory.

And on the topic, here is another critique of the Trotsky vs Stalin debate.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/05/trotsky-stalin-mimesis.html

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This article is a re-print (with a new introduction) of an article published in the journal Internationalisme, publication of the French Communist Left; originally a part of the Italian communist left in exile. It's from 1947 and deals with Trotsky and Trotskyism, and is a series of criticism's of Trotsky and Trotskyism which are still relevant:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism

Hal Draper's "Roots of American Communism" contains a chunk about Trotsky's stay in the United States before the February revolution broke out. There was speculation that Trotsky would be a leader in the Socialist Party of America (makes sense only if you remember that the foreign language federations made up a sizeable part of the core of the party) before he got on a boat back to Russia. It's all very interesting.
That would be THEODORE DRAPER. Hal, was his brother, I think, a Shachtmanite who founded the International Socialist group in the US. Theodore was the historian (whose first two books about the American Communism were rather good, although his political views are for shit).

As for the Left Comm article against Trotskyism, it lumps a lot of stuff together from groupings that were breaking to the right, from Trotskyism. I would agree that some of what they are saying might have a point. I don't know enough about the participation of ostensible Trotskyists in the Resistance to refute it. I am sure it would have been a real danger to abandon an independent, Leninist program in favor of some kind of Stalinoid/nationalistic perspective at the time. But the article has it all wrong about Soviet Defensism. That was (and remains) the big disagreement they had with Trotsky and Trotskyism. And any support to any bourgeois country during WWII was class treason. Military defense of the USSR, against the imperialist powers and against the Nazis was a given for Trotskyists.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

In all fairness, despite being a Maoist, I do admit that you are correct here, there is a massive tendency to misrepresent Trotsky as some sort of CIA agent or a blood hound, both misrepresentations aren't really critiquing Trotskyism, they're just Ad Hominen attacks. Which is why I linked to the article above because I feel that it deals with trotskyism as a theory rather than a man. I also believe that Mike Ely has written a critique of Trotksyism's history that might be worth reading, but to be honest I haven't read it myself and these critiques are always limited because they tend to attack people rather than the theory.

And on the topic, here is another critique of the Trotsky vs Stalin debate.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/05/trotsky-stalin-mimesis.html
Thanks for the article, comrade. It is smarter than many, but very deeply flawed. The writer seems to completely misunderstand Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, somehow drawing the exact opposite conclusion from it than Trotskyists do. The theory of combined and uneven development speaks exactly to the influence and effect of imperialism on developing nations. And the program issuing from it actually pushes the proletariat in developing countries to "skip" the bourgeois revolution and go straight to the proletarian revolution (excuse me for condensing this down so much). It is not about postponing the revolution "in permanence," but of making the revolution go FURTHER.

The author also is either lacking in knowledge or a bit cynical about the fight between Stalin and the Left Opposition in the twenties. Yes, Stalin crudely took up the program of the LO in collectivizing agriculture and supporting rapid industrial development. But he did it reactively, in a ham-fisted manner that was extraordinarily costly. Soviet agriculture did not recover from this for almost three decades. And the crisis that precipitated Stalin's move, was caused by Stalin and Bukharin's pro-peasant policies that created a situation of famine in the cities, even though there had been two years in a row of excellent harvests.

And China? Trotsky initially gave support for the entry into the KMT in China, but quickly changed his mind and was forceful in fighting for the independence of Chinese Communism. It was Stalin who insisted on maintaining this entry, which was a disaster for China and the world revolution. A book of Trotsky's writings about China in the 20s, called something clever like Trotsky on China, was published by Pathfinder Press.

Of course the biggest difference between Trotsky and Stalin is on the question of Internationalism. Stalinism, at its core is nationalistic -- hence Stalin's theory of building Socialism in One Country. Maoism is similar -- insofar as:
1. It is based on a top down party that is run bureaucratically in which democratic discussion is thoroughly stifled.

2. It is nationalistic, prefrencing its "own" revolution over the international proletarian revolution. This includes the selling out of revolutions in other countries to buy some space for itself from imperialist attack (e.g., The Spanish Civil War, The Indonesian Revolution). Or in other cases, supporting reactionaries for some kind of realpolitik advantage (e.g., China's support of UNITA in Angola, and their support of Afghan Reactionaries fighting the USSR, USSR's support of Nasser in Egypt)

3. It champions all kinds of political combinations that include alien class forces (e.g., the "People's Front," The "Bloc of Four Classes.")

[subcp]

That would be THEODORE DRAPER. Hal, was his brother, I think, a Shachtmanite who founded the International Socialist group in the US. Theodore was the historian (whose first two books about the American Communism were rather good, although his political views are for shit).

I had to dig up the book after I saw your post- you're right; Hal is the only Draper I knew of so just automatically assumed that it was him. Odd how that worked out. Agreed about his politics and that the nuts and bolts of the history are good.



As for the Left Comm article against Trotskyism, it lumps a lot of stuff together from groupings that were breaking to the right, from Trotskyism. I would agree that some of what they are saying might have a point. I don't know enough about the participation of ostensible Trotskyists in the Resistance to refute it. I am sure it would have been a real danger to abandon an independent, Leninist program in favor of some kind of Stalinoid/nationalistic perspective at the time. But the article has it all wrong about Soviet Defensism. That was (and remains) the big disagreement they had with Trotsky and Trotskyism. And any support to any bourgeois country during WWII was class treason. Military defense of the USSR, against the imperialist powers and against the Nazis was a given for Trotskyists.

That's the thing; if the USSR is believed to be a capitalist country, Trotskyists were de facto in support of a 'bourgeois state'. I'm inclined to believe contemporary accounts, since the militants in the Italian, French and Belgian left were also involved during the war and had to have come into contact with Trotskyists. The other main criticism of the Trotskyists, from that period, was over the nature of the regroupment that became the Fourth International and the Trotskyist conception of the party- I've seen more text on this from that period (1920's-1940's) than over anything else about Trotskyism. An article on that topic from the same group (GCF and the journal Internationalisme) talks about 2 Trotskyist groups which were to the left of 'mainstream' Trotskyism- one, the RKD from Austria, agreed with some of the left communist criticisms of regroupment etc.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I had to dig up the book after I saw your post- you're right; Hal is the only Draper I knew of so just automatically assumed that it was him. Odd how that worked out. Agreed about his politics and that the nuts and bolts of the history are good.



That's the thing; if the USSR is believed to be a capitalist country, Trotskyists were de facto in support of a 'bourgeois state'. I'm inclined to believe contemporary accounts, since the militants in the Italian, French and Belgian left were also involved during the war and had to have come into contact with Trotskyists. The other main criticism of the Trotskyists, from that period, was over the nature of the regroupment that became the Fourth International and the Trotskyist conception of the party- I've seen more text on this from that period (1920's-1940's) than over anything else about Trotskyism. An article on that topic from the same group (GCF and the journal Internationalisme) talks about 2 Trotskyist groups which were to the left of 'mainstream' Trotskyism- one, the RKD from Austria, agreed with some of the left communist criticisms of regroupment etc.
As I said, I'm not terribly up on what was going on in the Trotskyist movement during WWII. I do know that there was a great deal of disorientation. I would say that a correct Trotskyist position never includes political combinations with class alien forces. We leave that to the Stalinists and Social Dems. I do know that some of the Trotskyist forces remained consistent. While it might be acceptable for a Trotskyist to be in the Resistance forces led by the CP (while fighting for a revolutionary policy) -- any combination with DeGaulle, would have been class treason. And I agree, if the USSR was capitalist than Trotsky and his followers would have been massively wrong in their defense. Remember it was never a political defense, btw, but a military one. I do not want to come of as avuncular here, but have you read In Defense of Marxism? It might at least get you thinking about Trotsky's defense of the USSR. I think we agree that this is the biggest difference between Trotskyists and Leftcomms.

[Leo]

This article from the same left communist source, would make issues clearer I think: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm

[ind_com]

1. It is based on a top down party that is run bureaucratically in which democratic discussion is thoroughly stifled.

2. It is nationalistic, prefrencing its "own" revolution over the international proletarian revolution. This includes the selling out of revolutions in other countries to buy some space for itself from imperialist attack (e.g., The Spanish Civil War, The Indonesian Revolution). Or in other cases, supporting reactionaries for some kind of realpolitik advantage (e.g., China's support of UNITA in Angola, and their support of Afghan Reactionaries fighting the USSR, USSR's support of Nasser in Egypt)

3. It champions all kinds of political combinations that include alien class forces (e.g., the "People's Front," The "Bloc of Four Classes.")

I smell anarchism.

[Art Vandelay]

I smell anarchism.

Don't post non-constructive one liners please.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This article from the same left communist source, would make issues clearer I think: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm
Again, this article makes some excellent points, but gets a lot wrong. Let me begin by saying Trotsky's PMP was a mistake. And it is repudiated by the Tendencies that represent, IMO, the continuity of Trotskyism. I really don't understand why the author criticizes Trotsky for opportunism around the Spanish Civil War. Trotsky, in fact, split with the POUM because they were involved in an opportunist lash-up with Right-Oppositionists. The Bolshevik Leninists (i.e., Trotskyists) in Spain fought as hard as they could against the popular front government -- something that was supported by Stalinists and most Anarchists. This was not an opportunist position -- it really muddies the water to say that. Same thing about France. Trotsky opposed Blum's pop front government. Trotskyists never participated in that.

It is sad to read the quotes from N. Sedova attacking the Trotskyist policy defending N. Korea in its war with the South. There were, in fact, some Trotskyist that abandoned Soviet defensism at that time -- the Cliffites -- I bet you would agree they were a rightward split -- That was a capitulation to bourgeois public opinion.

As to whether the USSR represented a new class system, that seems highly unlikely given it evaporated in 1992 and became a capitalist country.

[Leo]

I really don't understand why the author criticizes Trotsky for opportunism around the Spanish Civil War. Trotsky, in fact, split with the POUM because they were involved in an opportunist lash-up with Right-Oppositionists.

To be fair, while Trotsky's expectations from the Spanish situation is criticized in the article, there isn't much focus on Trotsky's position on Spain specifically. Aside from the proletarian military policy which you too admit was a mistake, the reasons for us to criticize Trotsky are his policy of the united front and his approach towards social democracy, entryism a la the French Turn - as well as his position regarding the defense of the Soviet Union.

Specifically on Spain, given his position on the United Front which envisaged a front of the social democratic parties, the communist parties and the groups close to his own positions, we would say this position is an opportunist one, and its difference with the policy of the popular front is a formal, not a real difference. Obviously, since we believe that there was virtually no difference in regards to the class basis of their positions between the social democratic, Stalinist and left-republican parties - namely that they were all bourgeois parties.


The Bolshevik Leninists (i.e., Trotskyists) in Spain fought as hard as they could against the popular front government -- something that was supported by Stalinists and most Anarchists. This was not an opportunist position -- it really muddies the water to say that.

Nor do we say it. However it is in my opinion significant that the said group, the Bolshevik-Leninist Section in Spain lead by Grandizo Munis, rejected Trotskyism entirely on the grounds that it betrayed as a current by taking sides in World War 2, and evolved into a left communist organization called the Workers Revolutionary Ferment.


Same thing about France. Trotsky opposed Blum's pop front government. Trotskyists never participated in that.

Yet they did participate in his party.


It is sad to read the quotes from N. Sedova attacking the Trotskyist policy defending N. Korea in its war with the South. There were, in fact, some Trotskyist that abandoned Soviet defensism at that time -- the Cliffites -- I bet you would agree they were a rightward split -- That was a capitulation to bourgeois public opinion.

The position of Natalia Sedova has nothing to do with that of the Cliffites. Indeed, she split from Trotskyism on a line close to that of Munis. Nor was the position of Natalia - or that of Munis for that matter - a capitulation to bourgeois public opinion.

Even the position of the Cliffites couldn't really be described as such, though they weren't a revolutionary split like Munis, Sedova and others, given the fact that their slogan of "Neither Washington nor Moscow" soon would be completed with "...but Tehran!".

All in all, this is a Stalinist way to deal with differing views, accusing and labeling rather than seriously discussing the positions.


As to whether the USSR represented a new class system, that seems highly unlikely given it evaporated in 1992 and became a capitalist country.

I'd say it never ceased to be a capitalist country.

Trotskyists take their opposition to socialism in one country too lightly. One can take political power in a single country but can't change the mode of production in a single night. When was capitalism abolished in Russia? Not in Lenin's time, at least he never thought so, as he stated quite openly again and again, going as far as arguing that state capitalism would a step forward given the situation in Russia (not that he turned out correct on that last point, but that's a different point). Did Stalin's policies abolish capitalism then? These fallacious arguments depend on the mistaken position that state ownership is somehow in opposition to the capitalist mode of production - completely ignoring the fact that the state itself is an organ of capitalism and a capitalist machine itself.

The proletarian revolution, above all, is a political question. When the workers take political power, they don't magically change the mode of production economically - and when they lose it everything goes back how it used to be, no matter the color of the flags flying from the state buildings.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

To be fair, while Trotsky's expectations from the Spanish situation is criticized in the article, there isn't much focus on Trotsky's position on Spain specifically. Aside from the proletarian military policy which you too admit was a mistake, the reasons for us to criticize Trotsky are his policy of the united front and his approach towards social democracy, entryism a la the French Turn - as well as his position regarding the defense of the Soviet Union.

Specifically on Spain, given his position on the United Front which envisaged a front of the social democratic parties, the communist parties and the groups close to his own positions, we would say this position is an opportunist one, and its difference with the policy of the popular front is a formal, not a real difference. Obviously, since we believe that there was virtually no difference in regards to the class basis of their positions between the social democratic, Stalinist and left-republican parties - namely that they were all bourgeois parties.



Nor do we say it. However it is in my opinion significant that the said group, the Bolshevik-Leninist Section in Spain lead by Grandizo Munis, rejected Trotskyism entirely on the grounds that it betrayed as a current by taking sides in World War 2, and evolved into a left communist organization called the Workers Revolutionary Ferment.



Yet they did participate in his party.



The position of Natalia Sedova has nothing to do with that of the Cliffites. Indeed, she split from Trotskyism on a line close to that of Munis. Nor was the position of Natalia - or that of Munis for that matter - a capitulation to bourgeois public opinion.

Even the position of the Cliffites couldn't really be described as such, though they weren't a revolutionary split like Munis, Sedova and others, given the fact that their slogan of "Neither Washington nor Moscow" soon would be completed with "...but Tehran!".

All in all, this is a Stalinist way to deal with differing views, accusing and labeling rather than seriously discussing the positions.



I'd say it never ceased to be a capitalist country.

Trotskyists take their opposition to socialism in one country too lightly. One can take political power in a single country but can't change the mode of production in a single night. When was capitalism abolished in Russia? Not in Lenin's time, at least he never thought so, as he stated quite openly again and again, going as far as arguing that state capitalism would a step forward given the situation in Russia (not that he turned out correct on that last point, but that's a different point). Did Stalin's policies abolish capitalism then? These fallacious arguments depend on the mistaken position that state ownership is somehow in opposition to the capitalist mode of production - completely ignoring the fact that the state itself is an organ of capitalism and a capitalist machine itself.

The proletarian revolution, above all, is a political question. When the workers take political power, they don't magically change the mode of production economically - and when they lose it everything goes back how it used to be, no matter the color of the flags flying from the state buildings.
Comrade, I think you confuse Trotsky's conception of a United Front (something quite a few ostensible Trotskyists have done over the years) with that of a Popular Front. United Fronts are about specific defensive actions with other leftist organizations that can be agreed upon. There is no political combination -- nor any muting of political line including criticism between the groups participating. "March separately, strike together," is the battle cry.

As for the "French Turn," of some Trotskyist groups into the SPs for a brief period -- this was really a raiding party that greatly increased the size of the Trotskyist Parties in the US and France. It was not unlike what groups should have done in SDS in the 60s in the US -- maintain a separate leadership but go in and recruit! It did not, to my understanding, in any way meant that Trotskyists were suddenly endorsing the path of the Second International.