Trotskyism

[ComradeOm]

Hi there

While I’m relatively new to the whole socialist/communist scene I do have some grasp of the range of ideologies. One question that has been bugging me though is with regards to Trotskyism and its place within the socialist spectrum, particularly in regards to Marxist-Leninism (or Leninism, see below).

I understand and fully agree with Trotskyite criticisms of the USSR and Stalinism, but I don’t find these concepts to be unique to Trotskyism. Both Engel’s and Lenin argued for permanent revolution (unless there’s a difference between world and permanent revolution) and the flaws of the Stalinist model are clear for all to see. So really, beyond criticisms of the Soviet state and Stalin, is there anything to differentiate Trotsky from Lenin? And, in a world where Stalinism has been so thoroughly discredited, do people still use the term Trotskyism?

As a bonus question: is there a difference in terms in Leninism and Marxist-Leninism?

Cheers
Om

[h&s]

So really, beyond criticisms of the Soviet state and Stalin, is there anything to differentiate Trotsky from Lenin?

Now that depends on who you talk to! :lol:
If you talk to us Trots, we would say no, and that Stalin perverted the ideas of Lenin.
If you talk to a Stalinist they would say that Trotsky betrayed everything that Lenin stood for, and that Trotsky was some sort of borgeois infiltrator and 'revisionist.' They kind of forget Trotsky's importance in the revolution, and Stalin's lack of that.
Anarchists would say no, but then say that Trotsky Lenin and Stalin were essentially the same.


And, in a world where Stalinism has been so thoroughly discredited, do people still use the term Trotskyism?

Its only used within the left. To everyone else we are socialists.

[Reds]

Why do trot not call themselves communists is there a reson for this.

[Lord Testicles]

trots call them selfs trots the same way leninists call themselfs leninists there both communist but just another sub division.

P.s im not a trot so if a trot has the proper awnser please correct me

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:51 AM
Hi there

While I’m relatively new to the whole socialist/communist scene I do have some grasp of the range of ideologies. One question that has been bugging me though is with regards to Trotskyism and its place within the socialist spectrum, particularly in regards to Marxist-Leninism (or Leninism, see below).

I understand and fully agree with Trotskyite criticisms of the USSR and Stalinism, but I don’t find these concepts to be unique to Trotskyism. Both Engel’s and Lenin argued for permanent revolution (unless there’s a difference between world and permanent revolution) and the flaws of the Stalinist model are clear for all to see. So really, beyond criticisms of the Soviet state and Stalin, is there anything to differentiate Trotsky from Lenin? And, in a world where Stalinism has been so thoroughly discredited, do people still use the term Trotskyism?

As a bonus question: is there a difference in terms in Leninism and Marxist-Leninism?

Cheers
Om
A "Marxist-Lenninist" is the term used for a Stalinist. The "official" ideology of the USSR was "marxist-Lenninist". So if you don't think the USSR was an example of socialism, then don't use this term to describe yourself.

Trotsky only called himself a bolshevik, and I think you are correct, historically, the term trotskyist was either used as a perjorative against anti-stalin bolsheviks or for trotskyists to differentiate themselves from stalinism.

I call myself a socialist because I think it is more accurate and it is what I am directly fighting for.

Stalinism has been thouroughly discredited, but bad politics produced by stalinism remain alive within the left (although I have never actually met a true stalinist under the age of 60). And outside the left the first thing people think of when they think of communism is still stalinism. Unfortunately I don't think this concept will really die out in the west until there is a revolution (which could be soon looking at latin america) which isn't on a stalinist or maoist basis and people go, "Oh, so socialism is about mass democracy and workers power, not eliete gurellas and state power".

[ComradeOm]

Yikes. I knew there were subdivisions within communism but they’re not as clear cut as I’d hoped. I’m trying to figure out which label applies to me.

So basically, Trots call themselves that to differentiate themselves from Stalinists. But there’s no actual difference between Trotsky’s and Lenin’s theories. So are Marxists simply divided between the Stalin and Trotsky (ignoring Mao for the moment) or is there a body who, like myself, simply subscribes to the ideas of Lenin without bothering to label themselves according to a 70 year old feud?

I mean I’m definitely no Stalinist but I’ve never thought of myself as a Trotskyite. Is Leninism a usable alternative?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:23 AM
I’m trying to figure out which label applies to me.
Try not to label yourself because it just causes more division

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:23 AM
So basically, Trots call themselves that to differentiate themselves from Stalinists. But there’s no actual difference between Trotsky’s and Lenin’s theories. So are Marxists simply divided between the Stalin and Trotsky (ignoring Mao for the moment) or is there a body who, like myself, simply subscribes to the ideas of Lenin without bothering to label themselves according to a 70 year old feud?
There's a lot more divisions than that. There are Marxists who think both Trotsky & Stalin were wrong, but Lenin was right. There are Marxists who aren't Leninists, who think Lenin botched the revolution. There are also Communists who aren't Marxists (like me). Stalinism vs. Trotskyism is far from the only dispute among Marxists or Communists. In the '30s & '40s it was probably the biggest issue among Marxists, but today there are numerous other disputes.

Whether there were any substantive differences between Trotsky & Lenin is a matter of debate among Marxists. Followers of Trotsky claim that Trotsky basically just continued Lenin, but other Leninists (including Stalinists & others) disagree. The best way to find out is to read their writings and decide yourself. Part of the problem is that Lenin died, so we don't know with 100% certainty what he would have thought about things that happened after he died. You can attempt to apply his ideas to later events, but not everyone agrees on the best way to do that. This is more than just a 70 year old feud because the issues involved in that feud will affect how you think we should go about creating the revolution and what you think should be done after the revolution. If you think Stalin's ideas were right then you'll likely advocate doing similar things to achieve the revolution and similar things after the revolution. If you think Trotsky was right then you'll advocate a different set of things to do to achieve the revolution and to do after the revolution. If you think they're both full of it then you'll advocate a different set of things to do. What you think should be learned from history has an impact on what revolutionary strategy we should use today.


I mean I’m definitely no Stalinist but I’ve never thought of myself as a Trotskyite. Is Leninism a usable alternative?

Yes. Usually calling yourself a "Leninist" (and not a Trotskyist, STalinist, Maoist, etc.) implies that you agree with most of Lenin's ideas, think Russia was mostly or entirely on the right track while he was in charge, that Russia stopped being on the right track after he died, and that neither Trotsky nor Stalin were entirely correct. Search the web and you'll find many people advocating ideas along those lines, often very different ideas. I would recommend you avoid labelling yourself any "ism" named after a person unless you've read enough of that person's writings so that your'e confidant you actually agree with a large majority of that person's ideas. Until you've had a chance to study the issues involved with many of these disputes in sufficient depth a vague term that indicates your'e on the revolutionary left but doesn't imply you take a specific stance on things your'e undecided or unsure about (like the Trotsky/Stalin dispute) would probably be the best way to label yourself. "Leninist" might work, or so could "Communist" or even just "anti-capitalist." Remember, the purpose of labels is to quickly give a general idea of what your politics are without having to go into pages and pages explaining what you think. Since your'e on the revolutionary left you want a label that reflects that, but you don't want a label that's implies you have a position on certain issues that you don't have. As you study leftist theory & history more you'll probably change your position on some things, even if it's just taking a position on issues you previously hadn't really thought about. When that happens, just change your label so it most accurately reflects whatever your current beliefs are at the time. Most open minded people change their label more than once in their lifetime, often fairly frequently when they're new and still learning.

[More Fire for the People]

Trotskyism differs from traditional Leninism on that Trotskyist advocate a "permanent revolution"(forced world revolution) as opposed to Lenin's "world revolution" (support of socialist revolutions when the material conditions for one develops). Trotskyist usually wind up being reformist, though I doubt Trotsky himself was really a reformist.

[Severian]

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

Well, that's what Trotskyism once meant, anyway. And at that time Trotskyists were the only people in the world seeking to do that. It was true in 1938, what Trotsky wrote, that outside the Fourth International "there does not exist a single revolutionary current on this planet really meriting the name". Fortunately, that's no longer the case; new revolutionary tendencies have arisen.

IMO "Trotskyism" doesn't really mean anything definite today.

The different groups calling themselves Trotskyist don't necessarily have a lot in common with each other, or with the political course practiced by Trotsky himself. The same is true of the various tendencies which get labeled Trotskyist by others.

Others often describe me as Trotskyist, though I rarely use the term myself. I've never been sure what these people were saying about me, exactly.

Probably something totally inaccurate, like Diego Armando's: " Trotskyism differs from traditional Leninism on that Trotskyist advocate a "permanent revolution"(forced world revolution)". What? Trotsky wasn't an advocate of invading countries to make them socialist or any such nonsense.

ComradeOm wrote:

Both Engel’s and Lenin argued for permanent revolution (unless there’s a difference between world and permanent revolution)

Permanent revolution is actually a different question than world revolution. You're right that Engels and Lenin - all communists - recognized that socialism could only be achieved on a world basis. As late as April 1924, even Stalin said so. (He wrote the opposite in August. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.)

Trotsky fought to continue and apply that idea, the basis of revolutionary internationalism, but he certainly didn't invent it...or want to put a brand name on it.

Permanent revolution has to do with the relationship between the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions. An important question everywhere, this was especially important in tsarist Russia, which had so much semifeudal crap to get rid of.

Trotsky argued:"The Perspective of permanent revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry."
link (http://www.marxists.org//cd/cd1/Library/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/index.htm)

Lenin called for a "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry." and wrote: " At the head of the whole of the people, and particularly of the peasantry—for complete freedom, for a consistent democratic revolution, for a republic! At the head of all the toilers and the exploited—for Socialism! Such must in practice be the policy of the revolutionary proletariat, such is the class slogan which must permeate and determine the solution of every tactical problem, every practical step of the workers’ party during the revolution."
link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch13.htm#v09zz99h-104-PAGE_BREAK_GUESS)

A nuanced difference, since both rejected the Mensheviks' idea that the capitalists - liberals like the Kadet party - would lead the revolution against tsarism. They both recognized that in the 20th century, the capitalists had outlived their revolutionary role and were too scared of the workers to do any such thing. But Lenin placed more emphasis on the democratic tasks, made a clearer separation between the two elements of the revolution.

IMO Lenin was right here. It is necessary for a revolutionary government - especially under Russia's conditions - to initially concentrate on the democratic tasks of the revolution. And democratic, anti-imperialist, and agrarian-revolution elements are often very important for mobilizing the masses for the fight for power - certainly in Russia.

A lot of "Trotskyist" groups have made ultraleft and sectarian errors, in part IMO because of the implications of the theory of permanent revolution. Trotsky himself had the experience and flexibility to avoid most such errors, but those who have the theory without those qualities....

In any case, that's the main, lasting political difference between Lenin and Trotsky. If you read those two booklets I linked (yes, you can get 'em in paper editions), you'll have a good idea of what that difference was.

Much better than most people who consider themselves Leninists or Trotskyists.

(In contrast to both Lenin and Trotsky, Stalin was to adopt the Mensheviks' old policy and promote it worldwide. For example:
"When will it be necessary to form Soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies in China? Soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies will necessarily have to be formed in China at the moment when the victorious agrarian revolution has developed to the full, when the Kuomintang, as a bloc of the revolutionary Narodniks of China (the Kuomintang Left) and the Communist Party, begins to outlive its day, when the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which has not yet triumphed and will not triumph so soon, begins to manifest its negative features, when it becomes necessary to pass step by step from the present, Kuomintang type of state organisation to a new, proletarian type of organisation of the state."link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/05/09.htm))


I mean I’m definitely no Stalinist but I’ve never thought of myself as a Trotskyite. Is Leninism a usable alternative?

Yes.

I usually just describe myself as a communist.* Some explanation's required, of course, including explaining that the apparatchik regimes headed by Stalin and his successors were in no way communist.

But explanation's required with any label.

*small c. Large C implies member of an official Moscow-franchised Communist Party.

A brief article by Lenin on his differences with the Mensheviks on the one hand and Trotsky on the other (1915) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/nov/20.htm)

Past thread where this and other questions were debated (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35417&st=20&hl=leninism)

Damn, that turned out to be a long post. But the questions involved are both important and nuanced.