Trotskyism

[adipocere12]

What is it that defines Trotskyism as a tendency? There are plenty of Trotsky parties here in the UK and they all seem to focus on nationalisation and high progressive taxation. There's no mention of eradicating money and markets.

The only real thing I know about Trotskyism is "no socialism in one country" and yet none of these same parties mention a simultaneous world revolution.

[Tim Cornelis]

What is it that defines Trotskyism as a tendency? There are plenty of Trotsky parties here in the UK and they all seem to focus on nationalisation and high progressive taxation. There's no mention of eradicating money and markets.

This is related to minimum demands, transitional demands, and maximum demands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_demand

[Q]

It's actually a few things which defines 'orthodox' Trotskyism:

- The already mentioned 'transitional method', although I'm unsure how much of 'Marxism-Leninism' distanciates itself from it, as the terminology was actually developed not by Trotsky, but in the early Comintern.
- Opposition to Stalinism, yet seeing the USSR as a genuine (if 'degenerated') workers state.
- 'Permanent Revolution', which developed as from a specific Russian take on an internationalist stance that was considered orthodoxy to a stance against 'socialism in one country'.

[robbo203]

This is related to minimum demands, transitional demands, and maximum demands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_demand

In other words, Trots are about advocating unrealistic reformist demands in the vain hope that this will somehow act as a bridge to workers embracing the maximum programme :rolleyes:

[Art Vandelay]

In other words, Trots are about advocating unrealistic reformist demands in the vain hope that this will somehow act as a bridge to workers embracing the maximum programm

Stunning insight robbo, such a compelling contribution to the discussion. Yeah its the Trots that are vain and unrealistic, not the folks of the WSM who keep plugging away in their attempts to utilize the bourgeois parliament as a vehicle for the revolutionary transformation of society.
---
As pointed out by Q, there are a few elements of Trotskyism which differentiate it from other Marxist tendencies.

(1) Permanent Revolution.

In opposition to the traditional and more popular stagist positions of the time, Trotsky advocated the theory of permanent revolution; the premise of which, is that in late developing capitalist countries, the bourgeoisie is too weak to accomplish all of the tasks associated with the bourgeois-democratic revolution. In other words, they prove to be incapable of developing the productive forces to the point where a fully developed industrial proletariat emerges. Trotsky argued that these unfinished tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, would have to be accomplished by the proletariat, in conjunction with their own communistic revolution. It is in this sense, that the revolution is permanent.

(2) The Transitional Method.

In opposition to the traditional minimum-maximum program associated with the 2nd international and classic social democracy, Trotsky advocated what is known as the transitional method/program. The issue with the min-max program, is that the call for socialist revolution remained as an abstract demand which was always pushed off to a later date; all it amounted to was a lifeless and cosmetic facade used to pretty up reforms. Trotsky argued, insted, for communists to deploy a series of transitional demands, stemming from the conditions currently in existence and which unalterably lead to 'one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.' Through this process, communists succeed in peeling workers away from bourgeois hegemony and to the program of socialist revolution; an example of a transitional demand, employed by the Bolsheviks, would be the call for 'peace, bread, and land.'

(3) Critique of post-'24 leadership of the USSR.

Trotskyists argue that the post 1924 leadership of the USSR, which was the ruling strata consolidated around Stalin, represented a bureaucratic caste. Trotsky characterized it as a caste, and not a new ruling class, due to the fact that their political control did not extend to economic ownership of the means of production; the bourgeoisie had been desposed by the proletariat and the means of production socialized, as a result of the October revolution. Trotsky argued that the DWS did not represent a new form of society, but rather was a transitional state of affairs between capitalism and socialism, which eventually would collapse into one or the other. As a result of this, post-1933, Trotskyists call for political revolution within the USSR. It should be noted, though, that not all Trotskyists uphold the USSR as a DWS throughout the entirety of its existence.


Trotskyism is not a new movement, a new doctrine, but the restoration, the revival of genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practiced in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International. - James P. Cannon; History of American Trotskyism, 1942.

[adipocere12]

Interesting stuff, especially (3). Most, if not all, Trotskyist groups I can think of characterise the USSR as "state capitalist" but it sounds like that was never something Trotsky himself believed. Is that right?

[robbo203]

Stunning insight robbo, such a compelling contribution to the discussion..

Indeed it is and one whose implications you deftly attempt to sidestep. The constant postponement of the maximum programme on the spurious pretext that there is an urgent need to push for a bunch of reforms differentiated from other reforms only by being less capable of realisation within capitalism is a load of utter tosh.

So pushing for a minimum wage of £8 ph is an ordinary reform; pushing for £15.75 ph is a ...ahem...transitional demand. Of course it would be nicer to have £15.75 than £8 ph but most workers when presented with this choice, have enough savvy to realise that £15.75 is totally unrealisable and unaffordable under capitalism and that it would be a complete waste of time even trying to push it. This is especially true under conditions of capitalist recession when hanging on to your job becomes a more important priority than getting higher wages. Far better to go on strike for something that you stand a realistic chance of getting than pursuing some will o'the wisp

The net result is that protagonists of so called transitional demands appear to the overwhelming majority of workers as mere dreamers making hopelessly unrealistic demands on employers and quite possibly even jeopardising what little gains they have been made. That is the unpalatable fact of the matter which our blinkered Trots refuse to accept.

Far from acting as a so called "bridge" to the maximum revolutionary programme the reformism of the transitional demand actually contributes to the process of undermining and tainting the latter by associating it with something that is unrealisable and utopian - that is insofar as Trots even talk about a genuine socialist society in between busily advocating this or that pressing reform. Most don't and a good many describe socialism in terms of a so called "socialist government" nationalising the "commanding heights of industry". In other words state capitalism. Further evidence of the reactionary fundamentally pro-capitalist character of most Trot groups.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And the sort of sub-reformism exemplified in the above post (here mixed with the stunningly stupid literary maximalism of the SPGB) is precisely what the transitional programme was supposed to fight. To quote the old man himself:

The strategic task of the next period – prerevolutionary period of agitation, propaganda and organization – consists in overcoming the contradiction between the maturity of the objective revolutionary conditions and the immaturity of the proletariat and its vanguard (the confusion and disappointment of the older generation, the inexperience of the younger generation . It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.


Classical Social Democracy, functioning in an epoch of progressive capitalism, divided its program into two parts independent of each other: the minimum program which limited itself to reforms within the framework of bourgeois society, and the maximum program which promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite future. Between the minimum and the maximum program no bridge existed. And indeed Social Democracy has no need of such a bridge, since the word socialism is used only for holiday speechifying. The Comintern has set out to follow the path of Social Democracy in an epoch of decaying capitalism: when, in general, there can be no discussion of systematic social reforms and the raising of he masses’ living standards; when every serious demand of the proletariat and even every serious demand of the petty bourgeoisie inevitably reaches beyond the limits of capitalist property relations and of the bourgeois state.


The strategic task of the Fourth International lies not in reforming capitalism but in its overthrow. Its political aim is the conquest of power by the proletariat for the purpose of expropriating the bourgeoisie. However, the achievement of this strategic task is unthinkable without the most considered attention to all, even small and partial, questions of tactics. All sections of the proletariat, all its layers, occupations and groups should be drawn into the revolutionary movement. The present epoch is distinguished not for the fact that it frees the revolutionary party from day-to-day work but because it permits this work to be carried on indissolubly with the actual tasks of the revolution.


The Fourth International does not discard the program of the old “minimal” demands to the degree to which these have preserved at least part of their vital forcefulness. Indefatigably, it defends the democratic rights and social conquests of the workers. But it carries on this day-to-day work within the framework of the correct actual, that is, revolutionary perspective. Insofar as the old, partial, “minimal” demands of the masses clash with the destructive and degrading tendencies of decadent capitalism – and this occurs at each step – the Fourth International advances a system of transitional demands, the essence of which is contained in the fact that ever more openly and decisively they will be directed against the very bases of the bourgeois regime. The old “minimal program” is superseded by the transitional program, the task of which lies in systematic mobilization of the masses for the proletarian revolution.


Now, of course, certain ostensibly Trotskyist political groups have taken this as a plan for tricking the workers into class consciousness - Trotsky meant nothing of the sort. We openly say to the workers who have not yet been won over to socialism: your demands go against the basis of capitalist society. A sliding scale of wages for example - that endangers capitalism itself, not just the profit of one or more groups that exist in the bourgeoisie. So even if you're granted this reform because you put sufficient pressure on the bourgeois state, it will be rescinded as soon as possible. But we will not abandon the struggle for such demands, we will fight alongside you and show you practically the futility of reformism, the need for a socialist revolution.

[robbo203]

In other words, the strategy of so called "transitional demands" is akin to inviting workers to bash their heads against a brick wall in the expectation that it might "raise their consciousness". Actually there is only one outcome that flows from such a course of action - a severe case of concussion!

[Blake's Baby]

Interesting stuff, especially (3). Most, if not all, Trotskyist groups I can think of characterise the USSR as "state capitalist" but it sounds like that was never something Trotsky himself believed. Is that right?

The only Trotskyist groups that have a state-capitalist analysis of the USSR that I know of are those associated with the Cliffites (SWP in Britain). The majority of Trotskyist groups have a 'degenerated workers' state' analysis.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The only Trotskyist groups that have a state-capitalist analysis of the USSR that I know of are those associated with the Cliffites (SWP in Britain). The majority of Trotskyist groups have a 'degenerated workers' state' analysis.

There are (at least) three broad groupings of Trotskyist groups that have a (state-)capitalist analysis of the former Soviet Union.

First, of course, are the Cliffists, the International Socialist Tendency and ISO (and some minor groups not affiliated with the IST, I think).

Second, the groups inspired by C. L. R. James. I think these are mostly defunct, though.

Third, a group breaking from Third-Campism to the left, the LRP and similar organisations (the ISL in Palestine).

Then, of course, there are people who think the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist but the glacis states were. This is the case for Lutte Ouvriere, if I'm not mistaken, many mutations of Healyism, and so on.

[Per Levy]

The only real thing I know about Trotskyism is "no socialism in one country" and yet none of these same parties mention a simultaneous world revolution.

i just want to write something to this, no one in their right mind argues for a "simultaneous world revolution" since something like that is absoloutly impossible. the point is that if socialism/commuism is to be achived the revolution must spread and cant stagnate and isolated in one country or region. if the latter happens the revolution is dead.

[Homo Songun]

Lenin believed that there was no single defining characteristic of Trotsky's ideology (and thus by extension Trotskyism):


Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.

Partisans of Stalin like to remind us that Lenin had pretty harsh words for Trotsky as a person. Lenin called Trotsky a "bell" (ie., noisy and empty), a "pig", a "political prostitute", and so on. Frankly, my personal belief was this could be chalked up more to Lenin's vituperative polemical style more than some kind of objective assessment. That said, the Stalin camp seems to have disagreed with Lenin on whether there are truly core tenets of Trotskyism:


Firstly. Trotskyism is the theory of "permanent" (uninterrupted) revolution. [...]
Secondly. Trotskyism is distrust of the Bolshevik Party principle, of the monolithic character of the Party, of its hostility towards opportunist elements.[...]
Thirdly. Trotskyism is distrust of the leaders of Bolshevism, an attempt to discredit, to defame them. [...]

and so on and so forth: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm#s3)

[Per Levy]

Lenin believed that there was no single defining characteristic of Trotsky's ideology (and thus by extension Trotskyism)

well trotskyism is leninism as interpretet by trotsky, so ja.


Partisans of Stalin like to remind us that Lenin had pretty harsh words for Trotsky as a person.

wich had lenin also for stalin, wich in the end tells us nothing.

[Homo Songun]

well trotskyism is leninism as interpretet by trotsky

Nah, that's just mythologizing, albeit understandably so. Trotsky joined the Russian Social Democrats in 1898, and met Lenin in 1902. In 1903 the Leninists split from the Mensheviks. He joined Lenin in 1917. That means that if we are as generous as possible to Trotsky, that still means that for 2/3's of the time that both (1) the Bolsheviks existed and (2) Trotsky was a relevant player in Russian politics, he and Lenin were bitter rivals.

The hatred certainly went both ways. Here's Trotsky on Lenin in 1913:



The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.


Inb4 trot rebuttals

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin believed that there was no single defining characteristic of Trotsky's ideology (and thus by extension Trotskyism)...

Yeah, and even though he died in 1924, he totally knew what was going to happen 10, 20, even 30 or more years after his death, being like some mystic egg-head seer who could totally see the future.

He was right about Stalin being a total cock, for instance.

[Creative Destruction]

The only Trotskyist groups that have a state-capitalist analysis of the USSR that I know of are those associated with the Cliffites (SWP in Britain). The majority of Trotskyist groups have a 'degenerated workers' state' analysis.

in fact, a lot of former Trots broke with their groups over the intransigence of Trotskyists using a "degenerated workers' state" analysis rather than developing an analysis of USSR as state-capitalism.

[Remus Bleys]

Lenin's criticism of Trotsky there is kinda like Dauve's criticism lol. Trotsky is an opportunist bureaucrat who represents anything to get in the know. Thing was, he got dedicated to these random political flings.

Trotsky had his problems, and was kind of a goof, but so were Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky, Bordiga, Damen, the list goes on. Trotsky may have been an oscillating political opportunist symbol of bureaucraticism, during his Bolshevik years, the force he represented was actual Bolshevism (maybe flawed, but still, principled Communism). In this regard, I think the Italians were right to defend Trotsky, especially over Stalin. Later, however, whilst Trotskyism had some okay theory, it was largely the "stalinist leadership in exile," and the Italians were right to split with them, and Camatte's criticism in Origins and Function is a pretty good criticism of Trotskyism, albeit extremely short (a couple sentences or so).

That being said, my favorite type of leftist is the tankie-trot who's not afraid to hail the red army in afghanistan.

[Geiseric]

Nah, that's just mythologizing, albeit understandably so. Trotsky joined the Russian Social Democrats in 1898, and met Lenin in 1902. In 1903 the Leninists split from the Mensheviks. He joined Lenin in 1917. That means that if we are as generous as possible to Trotsky, that still means that for 2/3's of the time that both (1) the Bolsheviks existed and (2) Trotsky was a relevant player in Russian politics, he and Lenin were bitter rivals.

The hatred certainly went both ways. Here's Trotsky on Lenin in 1913:



Inb4 trot rebuttals

The only thing being "mythologized" is your ethos in talking about soviet history. Especially when they both made political issues into personal ones. Let me know when you read about Stalin's glorious role in the october revolution (spoiler alert: he was against it happening).

[Geiseric]

Lenin's criticism of Trotsky there is kinda like Dauve's criticism lol. Trotsky is an opportunist bureaucrat who represents anything to get in the know. Thing was, he got dedicated to these random political flings.

Trotsky had his problems, and was kind of a goof, but so were Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky, Bordiga, Damen, the list goes on. Trotsky may have been an oscillating political opportunist symbol of bureaucraticism, during his Bolshevik years, the force he represented was actual Bolshevism (maybe flawed, but still, principled Communism). In this regard, I think the Italians were right to defend Trotsky, especially over Stalin. Later, however, whilst Trotskyism had some okay theory, it was largely the "stalinist leadership in exile," and the Italians were right to split with them, and Camatte's criticism in Origins and Function is a pretty good criticism of Trotskyism, albeit extremely short (a couple sentences or so).

That being said, my favorite type of leftist is the tankie-trot who's not afraid to hail the red army in afghanistan.

How were they the "stalinist leadership in exile" when they advocated completely different politics?

[Remus Bleys]

How were they the "stalinist leadership in exile" when they advocated completely different politics?
Most of that post is facetious, but its based off of the fact that the trotskyists commonly supported the USSR and many of the actions that it did, but not really though, because its degenerate, but remember guys, WORKERS STATE.

[Illegalitarian]

Does the idea of permanent revolution really apply anymore? I could see it applying to certain African nations and a few southeast Asian areas, but the vast majority of the world has a strong bourgeois that have, indeed, developed the forces of production into the modern democratic bourgeois state, long ago.

Though I was under the impression that he was against stagism in general, this idea that first comes "socialism" which is really just radical social democracy and then comes "communism" somehow, this very marxist-leninist idea.


I also find odd the idea of standing in solidarity with workers until they somehow "wake up" and realize "bourgeois reformism" isn't the answer.. there is a very very long and painful history of reformism and piecemeal worker's rights that have been rendered absolutely ineffective due to bourgeois attempts to offset these rights (raising prices along side minimum wage raises) or very weak "rights" that seemed like short-term solutions but in the end turned out to just be pacification that did not make the lives of average people better in the long run.

If you want to try and point this out to people and be evangelical about your ideas, that's fine and it's historically been how we've grown our movements. Even if you want to sit back and let them try and figure this all out on themselves so a spontaneous movement arises, that's fine too, as it will most likely eventually develop in such a way anyways.. but struggling along side of them to achieve these pointless reforms is an exercise in futility, because if they can't see it for themselves after being reached out to by a socialist program, they're never going to. I think most people can only be "won over by socialism" as the facade of equality and prosperity being achievable under the current mode of production becomes thinner and thinner as time goes by and things get worse. Most people know there's a problem, it just has to get undeniably worse before they recognize what it is, along of course with an advocated socialist program by a union, party, affinity group, take your pick.