Trotskyism

[Comrade Kurtz]

I identify myself as a democratic socialist, but I'm beginning to lean somewhat towards adopting a Trotskyist world outlook. However, the two aspects most important to Trotskyism, the vanguard party and the permanent revolution, are bugging me. I'm having a hard time visualizing what form these would take in the modern, 21st-century world.

Let me see if I have this correct: The permanent revolution is one in which the road to socialism must start in a single nation and then move outwards, such as the Guevarian idea of exporting the revolution. It's goal is to keep revolutions occuring throughout the world until an entirely socialist globe exists. In this sense, Trotskyism is essentially internationalism, in the belief that socialism at a national level only will fail. If I am correct, this would explain the chief difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism, in that Stalin believed the revolution could continue and thrive in the USSR only without the aid of other, continual revolutions.

A vanguard party is one that leads the proletariat's revolutionary efforts. However, Trotsky's understanding of it makes it sound as if he desired a one-party state in order to ensure counter-revolutionaries cannot halt progression. If this is correct, clearly my democratic socialist ideals have some ideological conflicts.

Anyone care to affirm/correct/add to what I have said? Also, I'm wondering what sources I should use to become better read on Trotskyism. Any definitive biographies? Any essential Trotsky readers? I would sooner not read his complete works on the internet, simply because I perfer hard copies of longer reading material.

Thanks.

[combat]

Permanent revolution means that the bourgeoisie is no more capable of fulfilling its democratic tasks under imperialism(agrarian reform, etc). As a result, the revolution cannot occur in the traditional two-stage framework, a conclusion reached by Lenin in 1917(read his book on Imperialism). It means that a revolution that starts with a democratic agenda will either go straight to the dictatorship of the proletariat or fail. It is not that Trotskysm "advocates" internationalism, it just develops what has always been the point of view of Marx, Engels and Lenin; in fact marxism has always claimed that socialism can only success if the proletariat seize power in advanced countries. Otherwise, because of scarcity, the revolution will degenerate in a backward isolated country, giving rise to a bureaucratic elite. This does not mean that workers should not rise in poor nations(on the contrary); it simply means that the final stage of a victorious revolution will be the fall of capitalism in rich countries.

Trotskyism stands for a multi party proletarian system.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22, 2006 09:52 pm
Let me see if I have this correct: The permanent revolution is one in which the road to socialism must start in a single nation and then move outwards, such as the Guevarian idea of exporting the revolution. It's goal is to keep revolutions occuring throughout the world until an entirely socialist globe exists. In this sense, Trotskyism is essentially internationalism, in the belief that socialism at a national level only will fail. If I am correct, this would explain the chief difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism, in that Stalin believed the revolution could continue and thrive in the USSR only without the aid of other, continual revolutions.
No, that's not permanent revolution. Here's an old post where I went into that complex question a bit. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40806&st=0&#entry1291942537)

But you have accurately described the main difference between communism and Stalinism.

Revolutionary internationalism, whose highest priority is to aid revolutionary movements in other countries (by whatever means the situation demands)

vs the narrowly nationalistic interests of an apparatchik regime, which uses the Communist Parties in other countries as pawns.

There's nothing specifically "Trotskyist" about that - it goes back to Marx, as combat accurately says.

What else? The "vanguard party" doesn't automatically have anything to do with only one party. It's a statement about what kind of party we should be working to build - not a call for banning all others.

The Bolsheviks eventually ended up banning all other parties - except for some they had merged with. That was more situational, that other parties went over to the armed counterrevolution.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Gah! Can no one answer the question without using Marxist rhetoric? Can someone explain Trotskyism using real examples of how it would be established without using all the revolutionary vocabulary? I'm getting tripped up on your idea of democratic tasks accomplished by the bourgeois.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Nevermind. I think I've figured it out.

Just keep this in mind: some of you get over-zealous with the Marxist rhetoric and that works dandy in hardxcore theoretical discussions but this is the learning section. Try and be more accomidating for the common person. Pretend like the people in here have never read Marx. How do you explain something like the vanguard party?

That's part of the problem with the wikipedia articles.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Trotskyism is basically an extentsion of Leninism which sees Stalinist Russia as a perversion of socialism and Trotskyists disapprove of it. They also are for the worldwide revolution which is part of the Permanent Revolution and agree with the vanguard party and democratic centralism.

Check out Wikipedia's article on it to get a better feel. I've heard one person call it moderate leninism.

[Vanguard1917]

'Trotskyism' is a historical political label, as people like Severian have pointed out elsewhere. How relevant such a political label is today - with the fall of the Soviet Union and with the disintegration of the official (Stalinist) Communist parties - is debatable. My hunch is that it's not very relevant at all.

What we need to do is to recapture the spirit (if you like) of 'Trotskyism' - that revolutionary tradition of Marxism that never ceased to question everything. In order to do this, however, you have to educate yourself about those 'hardxcore theoretical discussions'. This takes hard work and dedication, because the fact of the matter is that revolutionary sense is not 'common sense'. The ideas that are 'common' are the ideas of the ruling class.

If you want to learn about 'Trotskyism', this is a good place to start: link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/sw/index.htm).

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23, 2006 01:32 pm
Just keep this in mind: some of you get over-zealous with the Marxist rhetoric and that works dandy in hardxcore theoretical discussions but this is the learning section. Try and be more accomidating for the common person. Pretend like the people in here have never read Marx. How do you explain something like the vanguard party?
You're right, and I try, but it's not always easy. The jargon is always shorter....

But yeah, often incomprehensible. And different people - different trends claiming to be communist - mean different things by the same jargon.