What are the major differences between Leninism and Trotskyism?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I'm new to Revleft and I have a lot to learn. Could you guys give me a basic lverview of the differences between these two political ideologies? Thanks:laugh:

[Q]

Perhaps you mean Marxism-Leninism (more commonly referred to as Stalinism by pretty much everyone but the Stalinists) and Trotskyism? Both claim to be Leninist political currents.

It has to be noted that "Leninism" did not exist as a political current until after Lenin died in 1924, starting with Stalin's Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/). Lenin regarded himself and the Bolsheviks to be a continuation of the Second International "Marxist center" that mostly collapsed during WWI.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Ah, okay, I understand. So Marxism-Leninism actually refers to Stalin's political beliefs, not Lenin's.

Well, that leads me to three new questions:

1. How does Trotskyism differ from Stalinism?

2. How does Stalinism differ from Lenin's ideas?

and

3. Were Lenin's beliefs identical to those of Marx, or were there any minor changes in the ideology?

[Skyhilist]

You can be a Marxist-Leninist without being a Stalinist, although it seems that most tend to be Stalinists. But suppose you supported the actions of Lenin when he ran the USSR but not Stalin... then you'd be a M-L but not a Stalinist. But, again most M-Ls do tend to be Stalinists, at least on here. Trotskyism is also called Bolshevik-leninism, so it's also technically a type of "leninism" (a term which doesn't really mean much).

I couldn't objectively tell you if Lenin was a good embodiment of Marx's ideas... that's really an opinion based thing. I would say that Lenin certainly made some additions in his ideology to what Marx wrote, but I'll keep it at that.

Trotskyism differs from Stalinism in that it's against "Socialism in One Country" and places "proletarian internationalism" at the forefront of its goals. There are some other differences too I believe although I'm no expert on them.

[Sudsy]

Both Trotsky and Stalin claimed to be the evolutionary continuation of Leninism, but Stalin and Trotsky differed on the concepts mentioned above. Like he said, Trotsky placed proletarian internationalism first, but Lenin wasn't alive for this ideological dispute, so now we have to discuss the difference and make our own conclusions.

[Marxaveli]

Lenin's views were very similar to Marx's, and had they met, they would have agreed on much I'm sure, but there was one fundamental aspect that they would have disagreed on for sure: Lenin believed that workers could only develop what was/is called 'trade union consciousness', and not the class consciousness that is required for the proletarian to endeavor a successful revolution. Because of this view, Lenin developed the concept of the Vanguard Party, and this is one of the key central themes of Leninism that distinguishes it from other sects of Marxism. The Vanguard was to be a group of professional revolutionaries, preferably a more 'enlightened' sect of the working class, that would lead the revolution and act on the working classes behalf to achieve socialism. This is what the Bolsheviks did in the 1917 Revolution.

The Vanguard Party is still a hotly debated topic among Marxists today, though most (including myself) are opposed to it, because it smacks of elitism. I would go as far to say that it is little better than Blanquism, but thats just my opinion. Lenin was a brilliant theorist and I have respect for his contributions to the socialist movement, but I disagree with many of his positions. There is no legitimate reason to believe that workers cannot achieve class consciousness without some elitist group acting on their behalf. The Paris Commune itself was evidence of this. The solutions for making the working class a revolutionary force are difficult to be sure, but one thing for sure is that workers must not only understand what socialism really is (and is NOT), but knowing what CAPITALISM is, (and is not).

[evermilion]

The Paris Commune itself was evidence of this.

That worked out.

[Marxaveli]

Care to elaborate with a material analysis, or you just going to make generalizations without understanding WHY it didn't work?

[evermilion]

Care to elaborate with a material analysis, or you just going to make generalizations without understanding WHY it didn't work?

You used as much material analysis to determine that the Paris Commune disproves Leninist vanguardism. I don't see what I owe you beyond what you got.

[Marxaveli]

Thats because the Paris Commune was comprised directly by and for workers, who obviously had enough class consciousness to make revolution possible. They didn't need some elitist vanguard party to carry out or enact the revolution on their behalf - so therefore the whole notion that workers can only obtain trade union consciousness is disproved by the fact the Paris Commune took place at all. The reasons for the Commune's failing are very much a separate issue. And in the big scheme of things, I consider a much more successful and desirable example of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' than I do the Russian Revolution, which ended up an elitist top-down, bureaucratic nightmare. Elitism, which is inherent in Vanguardism, kind of undermines the whole principle and essence of being a socialist, does it not?

[evermilion]

Thats because the Paris Commune was comprised directly by and for workers, who obviously had enough class consciousness to make revolution possible. They didn't need some elitist vanguard party to carry out or enact the revolution on their behalf - so therefore the whole notion that workers can only obtain trade union consciousness is disproved by the fact the Paris Commune took place at all. The reasons for the Commune's failing are very much a separate issue. And in the big scheme of things, I consider a much more successful and desirable example of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' than I do the Russian Revolution, which ended up an elitist top-down, bureaucratic nightmare. Elitism, which is inherent in Vanguardism, kind of undermines the whole principle and essence of being a socialist, does it not?

I think you're basing your judgments about the vanguard on a misunderstanding of Lenin. I'm not familiar with any aspect of Leninism that declares a non-proletarian element necessary for the dictatorship of the proletariat. I've never thought the vanguard to be distinct from the proletariat.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Interesting. So Lenin basically believed that a small, educated political elite had to rescue the people from the oppression of a small, educated political elite. Then, as soon as the proletariat became more "educated," this ruling class would be happy to give up all of their power and influence.

Sounds legit:laugh: Now I know why the Soviet Union bellyflopped.

I've read a bit about the Paris Commune. It seems to me like the Communards really had something interesting going on--if only they had crushed the Versailles government quickly instead of drawing themselves in and focusing on their social experiments. That's like trying to paint the Mona Lisa during a flashflood! Wrong place, wrong time xD

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Interesting. So Lenin basically believed that a small, educated political elite had to rescue the people from the oppression of a small, educated political elite. Then, as soon as the proletariat became more "educated," this ruling class would be happy to give up all of their power and influence.

Sounds legit:laugh: Now I know why the Soviet Union bellyflopped.
No, that's a misunderstanding of the concept of the vanguard and the vanguard party. A vanguard is still a part of the whole. In an army, the vanguard would be at the front of any advance, scouting ahead and springing traps, but it would be no more or less important than the main bulk or even the rearguard. The concept of a vanguard in terms of the proletariat assumes that there is a segment of the working class with a level of class consciousness driving them to dismantle capitalism and simultaneously encouraging the rest of the proletariat to drive on as well. This doesn't mean that they are not part of the proletariat. A vanguard party is just an attempt to organise this vanguard into the most productive manner in order to be as effective at dismantling capitalism as possible and bringing about communism.

Whether or not this organisation is a success or not is another matter entirely. In the case of Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks were democratically voted into power in the soviets and it was through their organisation of the revolution that the White armies were defeated. The material conditions in Russia, with the revolution being isolated and attacked on multiple fronts by foreign and domestic counter-revolution, lead to the bureaucratisation and, in my opinion, the establishment of a defacto-bourgeoisie who built a state-run capitalism in response to the imperialist threat from the major capitalist powers (and, in doing so, becoming an imperialist threat themselves). The vanguard is neither inherently elitist or inherently successful; that depends entirely on the material conditions in which the vanguard finds itself engaging in the revolution.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

The vanguard is neither inherently elitist or inherently successful; that depends entirely on the material conditions in which the vanguard finds itself engaging in the revolution.

I would tend to disagree with the statement that the vanguard is not inherently elitist. The vanguard idea exists because allegedly, the majority of the proletariat cannot develop beyond trade union conciousness, and so need to be led by the politically enlightened vanguard. This assumption is in itself elitist.

[JPSartre12]

The concept of a vanguard in terms of the proletariat assumes that there is a segment of the working class with a level of class consciousness driving them to dismantle capitalism and simultaneously encouraging the rest of the proletariat to drive on as well. This doesn't mean that they are not part of the proletariat. A vanguard party is just an attempt to organise this vanguard into the most productive manner in order to be as effective at dismantling capitalism as possible and bringing about communism.

This is a correct interpretation of the Leninist notion a vanguard party. The party is not "separate" from the proletariat; it is not a political organ that is distinct and apart from it. The vanguard does not "lead" the proletariat per se, but rather is a section of the proletariat. The vanguard represents the the most enlightened, revolutionary strata of the working class that has already obtained class consciousness and is working to instigate the revolution and educate the rest of the proletariat.

I think that Amadeo Bordiga (the major figurehead of the Italian wing of left-communism) put in well in his 1921 essay Party and Class:


When the mass is thrust into action, only these first groups can foresee a final end, and it is they who support and lead the rest. When referring to the modern proletarian class, we must conceive of this process not in relationship to a trade category but to the class as a whole. It can then be realised how a more precise consciousness of the identity of interests gradually makes its appearance; this consciousness, however, results from such a complexity of experiences and ideas, that it can be found only in limited groups composed of elements selected from every category. Indeed only an advanced minority can have the clear vision of a collective action which is directed towards general ends that concern the whole class and which has at its core the project of changing the whole social regime. Those groups, those minorities, are nothing other than the party.

He also explains how, during non-revolutionary periods (periods of sustained economic growth, support for the capitalist mode of production, etc) the vanguard will be small - as revolutionary consciousness grows (say, from a severe economic depression), the vanguard will grow. The size of the vanguard is inversely proportional to the strength of capitalism.


Whether or not this organisation is a success or not is another matter entirely. In the case of Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks were democratically voted into power in the soviets and it was through their organisation of the revolution that the White armies were defeated. The material conditions in Russia, with the revolution being isolated and attacked on multiple fronts by foreign and domestic counter-revolution, lead to the bureaucratisation and, in my opinion, the establishment of a defacto-bourgeoisie who built a state-run capitalism in response to the imperialist threat from the major capitalist powers (and, in doing so, becoming an imperialist threat themselves). The vanguard is neither inherently elitist or inherently successful; that depends entirely on the material conditions in which the vanguard finds itself engaging in the revolution.

I would agree with the idea that vanguardism is élitism only in the sense that applications of vanguardism have occurred in areas that had not been able to overcome material scarcity. Vanguardism itself is not inherently élitist or not, but the conditions in which it were applied gave it an élitist character. The historical dialectic tells us that socialism can not actualize itself unless the means of production are sufficiently industrialized and sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity; that is, if the proper economic conditions are not met, then socialism cannot be applied. This is what Lenin realized when he and his Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP took control of Russia's State political apparatus - that Russia had not been subject to the same degree of capitalist industrialization as other western States, and did not have the economic preconditions necessary for socialism. Lenin and the vanguard enacted state-capitalism in the attempt to utilize the State to induce rapid industrialization in Russia so that those preconditions could be met.

In his 1921 pamphlet The Tax in Kind: The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions, Lenin said:


The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

The élitist vanguard that existed in Russia was there because Lenin new that it was enlightened enough to speed up the historical dialectic so that socialism could be met. Lenin's vanguard was only élitist because that is what was required at that particular historical moment, with those specific material conditions; vanguardism is not inherently élitist or non-élitist.

[Lokomotive293]

I'm new to Revleft and I have a lot to learn. Could you guys give me a basic lverview of the differences between these two political ideologies? Thanks:laugh:

Although my knowledge is limited, I would say the main difference is in the understanding of proletarian Internationalism. While Lenin believed that, when the proletariat had managed to gain power in one part of the world, it should strengthen its dictatorship and start building socialism in that part of the world, so it could be a help for other peoples on their way to emancipate themselves, Trotsky thought this to be treason to proletarian Internationalism, and wanted to wage a permanent revolutionary war, forcing revolution on those countries where the proletariat had not yet managed to emancipate itself.

[Geiseric]

Trotskyism and Marxism Leninism are the same thing. Stalinism is Not Marxist Leninism, they made that term up in the 30s as stalin codified the theory for bureaucrats to immediately run the fSU. Thus supporters of socialism in one country which is doublespeak for the russian state apparatus and planned economy with the eastern bloc, were ML. They killed most historical Leninists In the purges, so now they are Stalinoids.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

What I don't understand here is the relationship between the concept of the vanguard party and the real vanguard parties that have existed.

Vanguard parties that have existed at some point in history have consisted of the most class conscious of the proletariat due to a combination of competent organisation and understanding of theory/practice. Theoretically speaking, vanguardism does not endorse or point to elitism as Leninists have argued that the vanguard party would be constructed in such a way that it would have open membership for all who would accept the party principles. This party would ideally be open to the public eye as it conducted its business which would mainly consist of educating the proletariat to remove the false consciousness that had been instilled in them. As a result, the party (as a vanguard) would not be able to maintain a sense of elitism as long as it accepted proletarians who were not fully class conscious.

Now, the word elite is defined as something which has a higher quality than average, the best in a certain category. It would seem that a Vanguard party fulfils this definition as it has the highest class consciousness out of all the proletarians and it is part of the same 'certain' category - the proletariat. The vanguard party structure utilised by Lenin added to the notion of elitism by not including and opening the organisation for the public, thus maintaining a gap between the professional revolutionaries and the non class conscious proletarians facilitating the categorical superiority as mentioned above.

Therefore, we could argue that the concept of the vanguard party ideally lacks any notion of elitism but the reality is the opposite.

[Nevsky]

Care to elaborate with a material analysis, or you just going to make generalizations without understanding WHY it didn't work?

Marx and Lenin themselves were among the first to provide material analysis why the Paris Commune was a failure. That insight gave birth to the whole vanguardism idea in the first place.

[evermilion]

Now I know why the Soviet Union bellyflopped.

I love how people say this when discussing the Soviet Union as compared to the Paris Commune. The Union "failed" despite having lasted 296 times the entire lifespan of the Commune. I can't find any good population data for the Paris Commune, but I doubt it was larger than 100,000 people by the end of its existence. Compare that to the nearly 300,000,000 people living in the Soviet Union at its end. That's 3000 times the population. This isn't even considering that, over the course of 74 years, many more than 300,000,000 different individuals lived in the Soviet Union, where a population of 100,000 is going to remain more or less consistent over three months. And if you multiply 296 and 3,000, you get 888,000. I'm not sure exactly what that measures, but I'm willing to take it and call it a measurement of by what percentage the Soviet Union was more successful than the Paris Commune.

Now, just because the Soviet Union was bigger and lasted longer doesn't mean it was "better" than the Paris Commune. But, really, in order to reach the conclusion that it was a failure where the Commune was a success, you have to accept that the Soviet Union was the red-fascist nightmare as it's described in bourgeois and opportunist histories. Not only that, but you have to accept that the Commune was as capable of fulfilling the needs of its population as the Union was as a world superpower.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

You all have made some good points, and hopefully I'm more "class-conscious" by now.

So my new understanding is that the vanguard party is still supposed to be composed of the proletariat--just members of the proletariat that have a more advanced understanding of their situation than, put simply, the rabble. They're not some elite at the top of the pyramid that has total authority over those at the bottom. They're more like drum majors--they walk at the front of the band, but are still a part of it.

Am I correct?

[TheEmancipator]

No, that's a misunderstanding of the concept of the vanguard and the vanguard party. A vanguard is still a part of the whole. In an army, the vanguard would be at the front of any advance, scouting ahead and springing traps, but it would be no more or less important than the main bulk or even the rearguard. The concept of a vanguard in terms of the proletariat assumes that there is a segment of the working class with a level of class consciousness driving them to dismantle capitalism and simultaneously encouraging the rest of the proletariat to drive on as well. This doesn't mean that they are not part of the proletariat. A vanguard party is just an attempt to organise this vanguard into the most productive manner in order to be as effective at dismantling capitalism as possible and bringing about communism.

Whether or not this organisation is a success or not is another matter entirely. In the case of Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks were democratically voted into power in the soviets and it was through their organisation of the revolution that the White armies were defeated. The material conditions in Russia, with the revolution being isolated and attacked on multiple fronts by foreign and domestic counter-revolution, lead to the bureaucratisation and, in my opinion, the establishment of a defacto-bourgeoisie who built a state-run capitalism in response to the imperialist threat from the major capitalist powers (and, in doing so, becoming an imperialist threat themselves). The vanguard is neither inherently elitist or inherently successful; that depends entirely on the material conditions in which the vanguard finds itself engaging in the revolution.

Was Lenin working class? Were the majority of Bolsheviks working class?

[Geiseric]

Was Lenin working class? Were the majority of Bolsheviks working class?

Yes 70 percent of the Bolsheviks were wage workers by the time they joined the rest were peasants. Only about a percent came from wealthy backgrounds but that when they became revolutionaries.