Troskyism?

[Exovedate]

It seems to me that many people on this site are very anti-Troskyism. I have just recently gotten into leftist political theory am was wondering if someone could explain to me exactly what Troskyism is and why so many leftists seem to be against it.

[Pirate Utopian]

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/t/r.htm#trotskyism - description

people are usually against it because trots are sectarians

[The Grey Blur]

I'd say the majority of active, sane posters on this board are actually Trotskyists.

There is a kind of "unfashionable" edge projected onto Trotskyism but I think you'll find working-class politics is less about fashion than realistic class struggle. ;)

[guydebordisdead]

Trotsky Protests Too Much (http://libcom.org/library/trotsky-protests-too-much-emma-goldman)

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 24, 2006 07:57 pm
I'd say the majority of active, sane posters on this board are actually Trotskyists.


Even us Anarchists, Left-Comunists, Council Communists, and Technocrats? Or are we just inactive madmen who don't count?

Come on, the majority of revleft posters are not trots.

Trotskyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism)

[combat]

Trotskysm is very demanding at the theoritical and militant levels. It takes years to fully understand what real marxism-that is trotskysm-represents. Most people here are young and lack a strong knowledge of history; not surprisingly they tend to follow the easiest way to express their frustration- anarchism or stalinism. But in the long run you either become a marxist(trotskyst) or give up.

[Leo]

Trotskysm is very demanding at the theoritical and militant levels. It takes years to fully understand what real marxism-that is trotskysm-represents. Most people here are young and lack a strong knowledge of history; not surprisingly they tend to follow the easiest way to express their frustration- anarchism or stalinism. But in the long run you either become a marxist(trotskyst) or give up.

:rolleyes: I was always amused by how arrogant each of the 56 species of Trotskyists were.

[Louis Pio]

"trotskyism" which is a word actually invented by stalinists, since trotskyism is basically marxism. Is not hard to understand, actually it's pretty clear and obvious. But some people can of course cloud everything...

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:08 pm
"trotskyism" which is a word actually invented by stalinists, since trotskyism is basically marxism. Is not hard to understand, actually it's pretty clear and obvious. But some people can of course cloud everything...
I concur - Marxism is not some voodoo to be "understood" by only a few intellectual clergy after years of studying the apostles in some convent. Its basic idea and basic message (organizing the workers, the immense majority as the ruling class for the benefit of the immense majority) can be understood by just about anyone.

Now if you are talking about reading every single Marxist author/text around, to gain some "full" understanding of Marxism, then yea that does take time. As reading virtually every text of every major political philosophy would take lots of time, but that doesn't mean that just about everyone won't be able to understand its goal and its fundamental message.

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree with the general sentiment of Lenin's law, socialist ideas don't have to be complicated, they can be taken into the form of basic slogans to an extent, workers of the world unite, land peace bread all power to the soviets etc. However I think that it is important that as marxists we have an understanding of theory so that we can correctly analyse situations and how best it is for us to react to situations and plan our interventions in the labour movement at a paticular time and place.

Trotskyism comes under attack because it differs from the anarchist view that the dictatorship of the proletariat is unescessary and advocates an internationalist revolutionary policy rather than stalinist socialism in one country.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Trotskyism is basically Leninism that claims everything that didn't follow trotsky's ideas is a defomed worker state or state-capitalist.

Trotskyism has no merits, like anarchism and left-communism, as it has never achieved anything resembling a worker's revolution.

I used to be a trot but then I realized that it has less of a chance of acheiving a revolution than anarchism. In every 1st world country, there are about 50 trot parties. Look at what they have done to the 4th international, they have made the ICFI, the LFI, the CCRFI, the COFI, the list goes on and those are just fourth international groups. Don't get me started on 5th international groups and than non-international groups. Meanwhile in the third world, there are no trot groups.

[cb9's_unity]

i actually like trotsky alot and consider him somewhat of an idol but i really don't consider myself a trotskyist. i'm still trying to learn as much as i can about marxism and the russian revolution. But from what i understand about him it seems to me as though he might have tried to follow marx to closely (this comes from my limited knowledge of that whole peasent conflict) and that he may have thought a little too much of himself.

i really got turned off to trotskyism when i heard one of them talking about how the only workers revolution is a trotskyist revolution. I hate sectarianism and it also sounded a little too much like something i had read on a stalinist site. Except ofcourse instead of workers conflict only showing itself in trotskyism they used the word "marxist-leninist".
if someone wants to correct me on something feel free.

[cenv]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 12:17 am
Trotskyism is basically Leninism that claims everything that didn't follow trotsky's ideas is a defomed worker state or state-capitalist.
Incorrect. Trotskyism is basically Leninism plus Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution as well as his analysis of the USSR's transition from socialism to Stalinism. Actually, I think most self-described Leninists could just as easily call themselves Trotskyists because Trotsky didn't make any major theoretical additions. Personally, I don't like the use of labels such as "Trotskyism" or even "Leninism", as they tend to promote sectarianism... I just call myself a communist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by cenv+November 26, 2006 01:06 am--> (cenv @ November 26, 2006 01:06 am)
[email protected] 26, 2006 12:17 am
Trotskyism is basically Leninism that claims everything that didn't follow trotsky's ideas is a defomed worker state or state-capitalist.
Incorrect. Trotskyism is basically Leninism plus Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution as well as his analysis of the USSR's transition from socialism to Stalinism. Actually, I think most self-described Leninists could just as easily call themselves Trotskyists because Trotsky didn't make any major theoretical additions. Personally, I don't like the use of labels such as "Trotskyism" or even "Leninism", as they tend to promote sectarianism... I just call myself a communist. [/b]
Yeah there's the permanent revolution but that isn't actually trotskyist. Marx was the first one to bring that up.

I'm a Leninist, but I'm not a trot (anymore), Leninist includes Maoism, Marxist-Leninism ("Stalinism"), Trotskyism, and Titoism. All differ from one another.

Everyone is sectarian... It&#39;s just the truth. Something I&#39;ve learned on this forum <_< anarchists and Leninists just want to rip each other&#39;s balls off.

[Redmau5]

Marx was the first one to bring that up.

Then you clearly don&#39;t understand Trotsky&#39;s theory of Permanent Revolution.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+November 26, 2006 11:12 pm--> (LeftyHenry &#064; November 26, 2006 11:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 01:06 am

[email protected] 26, 2006 12:17 am
Trotskyism is basically Leninism that claims everything that didn&#39;t follow trotsky&#39;s ideas is a defomed worker state or state-capitalist.
Incorrect. Trotskyism is basically Leninism plus Trotsky&#39;s theory of permanent revolution as well as his analysis of the USSR&#39;s transition from socialism to Stalinism. Actually, I think most self-described Leninists could just as easily call themselves Trotskyists because Trotsky didn&#39;t make any major theoretical additions. Personally, I don&#39;t like the use of labels such as "Trotskyism" or even "Leninism", as they tend to promote sectarianism... I just call myself a communist.
Yeah there&#39;s the permanent revolution but that isn&#39;t actually trotskyist. Marx was the first one to bring that up.

I&#39;m a Leninist, but I&#39;m not a trot (anymore), Leninist includes Maoism, Marxist-Leninism ("Stalinism"), Trotskyism, and Titoism. All differ from one another.

Everyone is sectarian... It&#39;s just the truth. Something I&#39;ve learned on this forum <_< anarchists and Leninists just want to rip each other&#39;s balls off.[/b]
And you very happily take part in it .......


Most people here are young and lack a strong knowledge of history; not surprisingly they tend to follow the easiest way to express their frustration- anarchism or stalinism. But in the long run you either become a marxist(trotskyst) or give up

and also take part in flame wars in this board like this thread....

Guys we should really cut this crap. IMHO instead of attacking each other for some dead leaders and their ideologies we must learn about them . they are all dead . they will not come back to lead us again. we must read every past leaders and their ideologies take all that is good and put all that is bad and move on. Taking part in stupid flame wars,justifying the mistakes of our leaders will not help anyone. :angry:


Meanwhile in the third world, there are no trot groups

And there are no genuine Maoists too. In my experience all the Mao worshipers in 3rd world do nothing more than worshiping Mao, breaking worker movements along sectarian lines and extort money from poor farmers etc. Calling them Maoists is Clearly a great insult to Mao(at least for what he did in early stages).

[Louis Pio]

Meanwhile in the third world, there are no trot groups.


That depends on what you label the "3. world", Pakistan? Marroco? Nigeria?. Btw isn&#39;t that description kinda outdated, what exactly should the 3. world be today?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 02:08 pm

Meanwhile in the third world, there are no trot groups.


That depends on what you label the "3. world", Pakistan? Marroco? Nigeria?. Btw isn&#39;t that description kinda outdated, what exactly should the 3. world be today?
I think everyone knows which countries it refers to: Africa, Latin America, Asia except Japan. That&#39;s the only advantage of "Third World" - its not exactly scientific terminology. The Marxist terms for the same countries is "semicolonial." And I don&#39;t think the category&#39;s become outmoded.

Of course, there are in fact parties calling themselves "Trotskyist" in the Third World. If that matters.

Anyway, what is Trotskyism? To repeat an answer:

"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&#39;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&#39;s no longer the case; new revolutionary tendencies have arisen.

IMO "Trotskyism" doesn&#39;t really mean anything definite today.

The different groups calling themselves Trotskyist don&#39;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&#39;ve never been sure what these people were saying about me, exactly.

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&#33; At the head of all the toilers and the exploited—for Socialism&#33; 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&#39; 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&#39;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&#39;s the main, lasting political difference between Lenin and Trotsky. If you read those two booklets I linked (yes, you can get &#39;em in paper editions), you&#39;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&#39; 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&#39;s required, of course, including explaining that the apparatchik regimes headed by Stalin and his successors were in no way communist.

But explanation&#39;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.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Then you clearly don&#39;t understand Trotsky&#39;s theory of Permanent Revolution.

No shit trotsky expanded on it, but seriously who doesn&#39;t agree with the permanent revolution? Socialism in One Country was no different than what Trotsky would&#39;ve done if he had come into power.


And you very happily take part in it .....

Of course, but not happily. I&#39;m not a dogmatic maoist. I definately think there are many good things in trotskyism and I definately agree with "socialism needs democracy like the human body need oxygen" etc, etc.. who here doesn&#39;t agree with worker democracy other than a few idiots?

however trotskyism has no merits. Trots don&#39;t take into account the situation past marxist states have faced. It also isn&#39;t a developed theory like maoism. Its basically leninism + &#39;Fuck all socialist states that have exsisted&#39;.

Cultural Revolutionary China was probably the most democratic and socialist state to exsist so far but all I hear is criticism.


And there are no genuine Maoists too. In my experience all the Mao worshipers in 3rd world do nothing more than worshiping Mao, breaking worker movements along sectarian lines and extort money from poor farmers etc. Calling them Maoists is Clearly a great insult to Mao(at least for what he did in early stages).

Well there is you sectatianism coming out g.ram,

They are not Mao worshippers. That term "Mao worshippers" "Trotsky worshippers" "Stalin Worshippers" is very ignorant. No real Maoist, trot, or Marxist-Leninist worships these guys. We just follow their theory and ideas which is what we are left with and it is not worshiping.

In fact, the Maoists in the 3rd world are not dogmatic at all. The CPN-M is taking a very undogmatic gamble right now after having established democracy from monarchy.

I don&#39;t know about them &#39;extorting money&#39; but its a people&#39;s war, not a tea party. Bad things and mistakes will happen but the end result is often alot better. Farmers who struggle every day for crumbs will now be provided with the basic human rights like education, food, healthcare, sanitaton and etc...

Civil wars are not often peaceful...

[Wanted Man]

In my experience all the Mao worshipers in 3rd world do nothing more than worshiping Mao, breaking worker movements along sectarian lines and extort money from poor farmers etc. Calling them Maoists is Clearly a great insult to Mao(at least for what he did in early stages).
Well, a Russian menshevik could have whined about the Bolsheviks in a similar way, about how they were just a bunch of ruffians threatening order by robbing banks and running brothels(or so I&#39;ve been told... correct me if I&#39;m wrong here, because that IS a bit much&#33; :D) to get funds. Oh, and they got monetary support from imperial Germany, too. One could argue that that just made them a bunch of pawns in WW1. :rolleyes:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I&#39;d say the majority of active, sane posters on this board are actually Trotskyists.


I guess if you consider future social-democrats sane then I guess you&#39;re right.



There is a kind of "unfashionable" edge projected onto Trotskyism but I think you&#39;ll find working-class politics is less about fashion than realistic class struggle. ;)

It&#39;s not unfashionable. It&#39;s unrealistic and has never led a revolution. The masses overwhemingly choose Marxist-Leninism. Just look at Peru, Columbia, India, and of course Nepal where monarchy has been replaced with democracy.

[Vargha Poralli]

LeftyHenry:

Don&#39;t believe your what you hear from your sources about the 3rd world for 100%.I live in one of those countries and have personal xperince with ML and maoists.you talk about sectarianism among Trotkyist groups but you are unaware about the so-called Unity of Maoists here .... there are roughly a dozen naxal groups here MCC,CPI(ML unity),CPI(ML liberation),CPI(Maoist),PWG,ULFA to mention a few. Each all have some strongholds in some states and in their strong holds they do nuthing but extort money from poor farmers to conduct their " People&#39;s war".They are conducting it for about 30 yrs and had accomplished nuthin.More of them had died because of the infighting than the police actions of the govt.i 100% right in saying calling them maoists in any way is a clear insult to Mao.There is big difference between what Mao did and what they are doing....

Nepalese Maoists are nothing but an another version of Indian Naxals...

And you guys are repeatedly saying there is no trotskyist group in 3rd world countries . The big problem if the people here had known who Trotsky is ,What is his contribution to Marxism then they might take a trotskyist path. after all the ML and maoism has done nothing for past 30 - 40 years here....

[combat]

There are trotskyst groups in India, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mauritius, Algeria, Morroco, Tunisia, Bolivia and most latin american countries. So what are you talking about???
On the contrary show me an example of a maoist group in Africa? There is almost none except the PCRCI, PRCV, PCOT, PCB and PCD which are Hodjaists and on the path of social democratisation.
Obviously trotskysm arises where there is a mininal working class movement; it can not be based on nothing.

[rebelworker]

Back to the original question.

Many people, like myself, joined Trotskyist groups when we were younger because they were more visible.

With age and political maturity I began to realise the anti wroking class element of all vanguardist party politics.

First off Trotsky practiced an extreemly authoritarian form of "revolutioary" politics.

He advocated a militarisation of Labour, essentially replacing the old ruling class with a new one, this time wearing red hats.

He also while head of the read army violently repressed all revolutionary elements which fell outside the Bolshevik vision of change.

Trotskyist parties tend to promote a vision of revolution which places a new "specialist class" above the working classes and is not compatable with genuine workers controll.

Within te party itself is a centralised leadership that tends to favor intelectuals and folks with more money and free time over working class members.

In the example of the russian revolution there where huge sections of working class oposition within the party who were continually ignored or margianalised through burocratic manuvering.

I could go on but there have been any threads on the oposition to vanguard parties.

[The Grey Blur]

I still think it&#39;s such a shame you take the SWP as a fair representation of all Trotskyist parties :(

[BreadBros]

Well Cliffite organizations do tend to be among the biggest and most active Trotskyist groups. SWP, ISO, etc. The reason for that is that Cliff managed to see the post-Lenin USSR for what it was: a class society with essentially capitalist relations, but at the state level. Thats far more appealing than having to come up with multi-levels of reasoning to justify the "degenerated workers states" which most people are capable of recognizing as having not much semblance to a socialist or communist society.

In my opinion the huge appeal of Trotskyist groups is that they at least aim at returning to the original appeals of Leninism, that is making "All power to the soviets" reality instead of a mere slogan. Disillusionment ensues because we have yet to see a real sustained communist revolution and because every pre-capitalist social revolution quickly descends into capitalism and class society (which is an inherent development, not a mistake or wrong turn as Trotskyists would contend it is). Trotsky and Lenin were correct in seeing that the revolutionary class in imperialist-dominated agrarian societies was the proto-proletariat/peasants, but failed to see that their destruction of property relations was only a segueway to capitalist property relations.

As for the sectarianism bit, its a bit hackneyed. In non-revolutionary times when theory becomes more of a focus because action is less clear, all tendencies tend to split up into theoretically opposing groups. There are a shitload of Maoist, Stalinist, Leninist, anarchist, etc. etc. groups in the US, its not just a phenomenon of Trotskyists.

[The Grey Blur]

Yeah I understand and agree with what you&#39;re saying, the SWP&#39;s over-simplified analysis is useful for snaring new-comers to revolutionary politics unfortunately.

Good post also, it&#39;s hilarious that we&#39;re accused of sectarianims when there are just as many if not more splits amongst Stalinists, Antichrists, etc

[A.J.]

Here&#39;s what someone wrote on another forum, which I think holds true....

"The anti-communist capitalist critique is that the USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship and the whole movement was a homogenous monolithic block under Stalin&#39;s orders to take over the world.

The anti-communist Trotskyist critique is that the USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship and the whole movement was a homogenous monolithic block under Stalin&#39;s orders to NOT take over the world.

So they can be mutually re-inforcing but have a slight tension,
but at the end of the day each takes what they find convenient of the other and basically props the other up. Or at least that would be the case if there was an equal balance of forces. But given that capitalism is near hegemonic in the west and Trotskyism is nothing, all Trotskyism really does is provide a cathartic release for teens going through a rebellious phase that really doesn&#39;t require them to fundamentally re-think much of what they were taught about the world from a reactionary/liberal education system and mass media. It may also pick off and "disillusion" some good potential activists who get burnt by one of the multitude of ever splitting cults that comprise "organized Trotskyism" and feed a little more confusion and anti-communism into other progressive forces. Also it deflects any support they may have offered to real revolutionary movements (who are invariably all "Stalinists") struggling in the third world while they go through this phase. When they get out of it, they can basically keep the bulk of what they "learned" only change the accent slightly - and VOILA&#33; Christopher Hitchens. So factoring in the reality of power - Trotskyism really just helps capitalism and imperialism. "

[Louis Pio]

Thanks for the laugh AJ, seriously...

To tired to take yourself seriously or what?

[gilhyle]

Not only are there trotskyist groups in &#39;third world&#39;countries, lets not forget the occasions (unfortunatey few) when in South America and SOuth East Asia trotskyism has had a mass following.

I dont think Stalinism invented &#39;Trotskyist&#39; but it did invent &#39;Trotskyite&#39;.

There are a set of key ideas identified with Trotsky:

Transitional demands
Propaganda International
United Front
Bureaucratic Degeneration
Permanent Revolution
Critical Support
Entryism

These are complex and powerful ideas. You can argue for them or against them. But they are a set of ideas.

There is also an organisational tradition, continuous (from splinter to split to splinter) down the years.

Unfortunately, revolutionary politics aint easy and wishing wont make it easy.

But the harder question is whether it is worth calling yourself a trotskyist - what is the political point ? On this (and I hate the thought) I almost have some sympathy for the fence sitting approach of the Cliffite SWP.... cliff/fence.

[Fawkes]

I used to be a trot but then I realized that it has less of a chance of acheiving a revolution than anarchism.

I&#39;d rather have no revolution at all than have revolutions where workers gave their lives just so a state-capitalist bordering on fascist society could be set up.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 01, 2006 10:28 pm

I used to be a trot but then I realized that it has less of a chance of acheiving a revolution than anarchism.

I&#39;d rather have no revolution at all than have revolutions where workers gave their lives just so a state-capitalist bordering on fascist society could be set up.
How arrogantly sectarian can one get?

Do you know the conditions people pre-revolution were in? Do you know about the advancements/acheivements made *that directly and immensly benefited the working class? Please explain yourself;

How do you advocate capitalism and feudalism over socialism?

Look at Cuba now for example, workers there live ten times better than workers in the DR or Haiti. Cuba has the lowest undernourished rate of any nation south of America, the closest nations have at least double that of Cuba. Cuba has the third lowest poverty index despite the embargo, yet you tell us that you&#39;d prefer the workers live in twig houses, but bandaids on what ever hurts when they&#39;re sick, eat dirt and trash when they can&#39;t afford food, be suppressed by CEOs rather than organize in Committees? :wacko:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 01:49 pm
I dont think Stalinism invented &#39;Trotskyist&#39; but it did invent &#39;Trotskyite&#39;.
Probably true. On the other hand, Trotsky didn&#39;t invent "Trotskyism". He referred to the political tendency he led as "Bolshevik-Leninists".

The point is, that he tried not to start a new tendency, a new doctrine, in short: a sect. In this, he did not succeed.

As Marx pointed out: "The sect sees the justification for its existence and its "point of honour"--not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from it."

To cling on to a particular, distinctive "Trotskyism" is sectarian and contrary to what Trotsky set out to do - which was to continue communism in the face of its rejection by Social Democracy and Stalinism.

That&#39;s his lasting significance, IMO. What can usefully be learned from Trotsky today: communism, not "Trotskyism." The point is not just terminology: it&#39;s openness to fighters coming from other origins. And the willingness to learn which is always choked off by sectarianism.


There are a set of key ideas identified with Trotsky:

Transitional demands
Propaganda International
United Front
Bureaucratic Degeneration
Permanent Revolution
Critical Support
Entryism


Strange. Of that list, only bureaucratic degeneration and permanent revolution (in a particular form) were developed by Trotsky. I&#39;d add his analysis to fascism to that.

His analyses of Stalinism and fascism are, well, analyses of new phenomena by means of the Marxist theory. In that, he&#39;s simply continuing communism.

Permanent Revolution is the only thing that&#39;s distinctively "Trotskyist" - but IMO problematic, as I went into more earlier.

Transitional demands, united front, critical support: all of those were worked out by the early communist international - their roots go back to Marx and Engels. In promoting those, Trotsky was continuing communism, not founding something new.

"Entryism" was certainly not advocated by Trotsky: he thought it was necessary to construct independent revolutionary parties like the Bolshevik party. Whatever else you might accomplish within a social-democratic party, it won&#39;t be that.

He did advocate temporary entries, but that&#39;s a very different thing than entryism. A temporary tactic on the road to a revolutionary party - vs a permanent strategy which certainly cannot take you there.

I&#39;m not totally sure what you mean by "Propaganda International". It&#39;s true that the Fourth International was the first purely propaganda international - but that&#39;s a weakness, not a strength.

[gilhyle]

I&#39;d like to think you were correct about Trotsky not inventing Trotskyism as a sect. But I dont think that is quite true and it is linked to the propaganda international point.

When the third international was founded part of the rationale was that there was mass support for communist parties.

When Trotsky started the 4th it was a deeply shocking move for many that, with the support merely of propaganda circles, you would found an international &#33; Trotsky&#39;s arguments for this were linked closely to the particular, crisis ridden moment in history. Many of those arguments no long apply.

As a tactical matter, Trotsky allowed himself to rely on untra-leftist trends with whom he was personally somewhat out of sympathy and its often evident from his recorded conversations that many of his followers were more sectarian than he - but he chose to work with them.

ON the more general point of united front etc., while it is quite true that the origin of these tactics goes right back to Marx there was a process of codification of the approach that went on in the documents of the early congresses of the Third International and then went further in Trotsky&#39;s writings.

ON entryism you take what Trotsky advocated in &#39;The Crisis of the French Section&#39; i.e. temporary entry not to be &#39;entryism&#39; I call that &#39;entryism&#39; - its only a wording difference.

His doctrine of transitional demands was, I think, new. While the Third International developed similar ideas there is an element of processism in the concept of Transitional Demands which is absent in earlier views.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 28, 2006 04:56 pm
Yeah I understand and agree with what you&#39;re saying, the SWP&#39;s over-simplified analysis is useful for snaring new-comers to revolutionary politics unfortunately.

Good post also, it&#39;s hilarious that we&#39;re accused of sectarianims when there are just as many if not more splits amongst Stalinists, Antichrists, etc
It&#39;s interesting that you consider Cliff&#39;s analysis "over-simplified".

First of all, it may seem simple because it&#39;s concise, clear and well argued, whereas the Orthos tend to go on and on about total bollocks.

Secondly, it uses "traditional" Marxist terminology, like "relationship to the means of production" and "capital accumulation" whereras the Orthos, when not getting teary eyed about Stalingrad ("they only had each other") spend aeons practising neologism.

"State Capitalism in Russia" is the best and most "simple" analysis for one reason: it was, and has been proven to be by History, the correct one.

Every prediction Cliff made came true, every one Trotsky made in the Fourties (dogmatically followed by the Pabloite cults) has been shown to be rubbish.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 01:15 pm
Trotsky&#39;s arguments for this were linked closely to the particular, crisis ridden moment in history. Many of those arguments no long apply.
Right. Particularly the point from the 1938 Transitional Program that "outside the Fourth International there is not a single revolutionary organization worthy of the name." Fortunately no longer true - while many groups in the FI or otherwise calling themselves Trotskyist - cannot be accurately described as revolutionary.

So the term "Trotskyism" or the special existence of such a trend no longer has any justification.

And clearly, all the propaganda circles who try to declare new internationals based on their very limited forces do end up looking pretty grotesque, pretty self-important.


As a tactical matter, Trotsky allowed himself to rely on untra-leftist trends with whom he was personally somewhat out of sympathy and its often evident from his recorded conversations that many of his followers were more sectarian than he - but he chose to work with them.

True. A lot of the problems of the FI and its successors have more to do with the material he was working with than anything. It attracted the elements that were willing to "swim against the stream" - often middle-class, and alienated from the masses. I&#39;m certainly not trying to blame everything on PR.


ON entryism you take what Trotsky advocated in &#39;The Crisis of the French Section&#39; i.e. temporary entry not to be &#39;entryism&#39; I call that &#39;entryism&#39; - its only a wording difference.

I&#39;ll try not to argue about words. But certainly the long-term strategic approach of entryism, adopted by some "Trotskyist" groups, was not developed by Trotsky. And it seems odd to put a particular, situational tactic alongside the larger strategic concepts in that list.


His doctrine of transitional demands was, I think, new. While the Third International developed similar ideas there is an element of processism in the concept of Transitional Demands which is absent in earlier views.

I think it&#39;s more just a further development, or even just formulating the ideas more concisely, putting them all together in one document. Stating some things explicitly that were implied earlier.

The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie. Every action, for even the most trivial everyday demand, can lead to revolutionary awareness and revolutionary education; it is the experience of struggle that will convince workers of the inevitability of revolution and the historic importance of Communism.
To quote a 1922 Comintern resolution. (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/tactics.htm)

All that stuff from the first 4 Congresses is well worth studying; I think it&#39;s often been neglected by many Trotskyist groups. Yes, you get a lot of it from later Trotsky, sometimes more developed or better written. But also mixed in with some Permanent Revolution errors.

Lenin also looks subtly different if you go back and look at his stuff more directly, less through the lens of what the post-1928 Trotsky had to say about him. (&#39;28 is when Trotsky really started to revive PR.) A thread with some examples of how Lenin&#39;s often misrepresented (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=50710&view=findpost&p=1292092433)

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 07:20 pm


Every prediction Cliff made came true, every one Trotsky made in the Fourties (dogmatically followed by the Pabloite cults) has been shown to be rubbish.
Interesting take on things - given that the whole purpose of State Capitalism in Russia was to argue that individualist capitalism would not be restored in the USSR, that Trotsky was (supposedly) wrong to consider the USSR so unstable that restoration was likely and to argue that statist capitalism would survive in the USSR (unless invaded) ...... Cant get more accurate than that &#33;

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by gilhyle+December 13, 2006 11:52 pm--> (gilhyle @ December 13, 2006 11:52 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2006 07:20 pm


Every prediction Cliff made came true, every one Trotsky made in the Fourties (dogmatically followed by the Pabloite cults) has been shown to be rubbish.
Interesting take on things - given that the whole purpose of State Capitalism in Russia was to argue that individualist capitalism would not be restored in the USSR, that Trotsky was (supposedly) wrong to consider the USSR so unstable that restoration was likely and to argue that statist capitalism would survive in the USSR (unless invaded) ...... Cant get more accurate than that &#33; [/b]
No, Cliff argued that if "individualist capitalism" (itself an absurd term in the modern era) was to be restored, it would be functionally no different to state capitalism - which is correct. He said that since the proletariat had already been dispossessed, no great "struggle" would be required for "capitalism" to be restored, which was also correct. There was more struggle in Britain during the 1980&#39;s than there was in the whole history of Stalinism&#39;s collapse - how do you explain that?

Was this the "nicest" counter-revolution in history?

As for Trotsky - yes, he predicted the collapse of Stalinism. But he didn&#39;t expect the Stalinist bureaucracy to survive the war&#33; In fact, it grew to twice its former size. Cliff used to say how James. P Cannon was claiming, in 1947&#33;, that the second world war couldn&#39;t have ended because the Stalinist bureaucracy was still standing.

That&#39;s the absurdity it reaches when you treat Trotsky as scripture, rather than as one perspective amongst many.

[Honggweilo]

Cliff used to say how James. P Cannon was claiming, in 1947&#33;, that the second world war couldn&#39;t have ended because the Stalinist bureaucracy was still standing.


was to be restored, it would be functionally no different to state capitalism - which is correct.
A so the cliffites decided to take the side of the free market western imperialist countries, which was preferable :wacko: ? I&#39;m not sure what you are trying to get at here. I totally agree with severian about the "over-simplified" ISO theory, and thats an understatement in my opinion. "One Solution, (counter)Revolution&#33;"


I&#39;d rather have no revolution at all than have revolutions where workers gave their lives just so a state-capitalist bordering on fascist society could be set up. Typical ISO rant <_<


There are a set of key ideas identified with Trotsky:

Transitional demands
Propaganda International
United Front
Bureaucratic Degeneration
Permanent Revolution
Critical Support
Entryism

A United Front is not a trotskyist keypoint, the most united revolutionairy united fronts where set up by Marxist-Leninist and Maoists. There a numerous situations where some trotskyist movements refused the united fronts.


Originally posted by Permanent Revolution
I still think it&#39;s such a shame you take the SWP as a fair representation of all Trotskyist parties
Even i tend to agree with that :lol:

[gilhyle]

In the Trotskyist tradition a distinction is drawn between the Stalinist tactic of the &#39;Popular Front&#39; and the (supposedly) correct tactic of the United Front, the key distinction (which can be traced back to quotes from Marx) being that Trotskyists will provide unconditional but not uncritical support to a common platform. There is a strong tradition within Stalinism (often replicated in practice by Trotskyists because of the practical difficulties of the Unitied Front Tactic) of suppressing criticism of Front Allies - that (in summary) is the difference.

As to Cliff, I know that is how Cliff is NOW portrayed but State Capitalsm in Russia is clear: "THe internal forces are not able to restore individual capitalism in Russia".

[Severian]

Originally posted by YKTMX+December 15, 2006 07:51 am--> (YKTMX &#064; December 15, 2006 07:51 am)
[email protected] 13, 2006 11:52 pm

Interesting take on things - given that the whole purpose of State Capitalism in Russia was to argue that individualist capitalism would not be restored in the USSR, that Trotsky was (supposedly) wrong to consider the USSR so unstable that restoration was likely and to argue that statist capitalism would survive in the USSR (unless invaded) ...... Cant get more accurate than that &#33;
No, Cliff argued that if "individualist capitalism" (itself an absurd term in the modern era) was to be restored, it would be functionally no different to state capitalism - which is correct. [/b]
Nope. Turns out Gilhyle&#39;s right. Cliff claimed "The internal forces are not able to restore Individual capitalism in Russia". I&#39;m quoting one of the section headings in his book. (http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/ch01.htm#s7) Read the section: he&#39;s saying that Trotsky was wrong to suggest that private capitalism could be restored due to internal forces - therefore - he was wrong. Of the remaining choices, Cliff favors state capitalism.

Now, are you amazingly ignorant of what your tendency&#39;s founder wrote, or are you trying to rewrite history? Probably someone in the British SWP is trying to do the latter. Either way, you&#39;re quite wrong to suggest the "state capitalism" theory has been supported by events. On the contrary, it&#39;s chief prediction has turned out 100% wrong.

Heck, why don&#39;t we just admit that the events of 1989 caught everyone by surprise? And I don&#39;t just mean everyone on the left.


it would be functionally no different to state capitalism - which is correct. He said that since the proletariat had already been dispossessed, no great "struggle" would be required for "capitalism" to be restored, which was also correct. There was more struggle in Britain during the 1980&#39;s than there was in the whole history of Stalinism&#39;s collapse

Are you blind? Functionally no different to state capitalism? Life expectancy in Russia has plummeted so fast that the population actually declined for a while. It was and is a wrenching transformation, as the capitalists admit, as everyone in the world knows.

No great struggle? Your blind spot here is the same one "state capitalism" has always had: you can&#39;t distinguish between the regime and and the property relations. Yes, working people showed no desire to defend those regimes; in fact, the opposite, there were significant mass movements against &#39;em.

But the fight to defend the property relations is still ongoing. There&#39;s been all kinds of workers actions across Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It comes into even clearer focus in China - where there&#39;s been no change in regime. But there&#39;s plenty of mass actions by workers and peasants opposing the ongoing change in property relations.

***

About Popular Front vs United Front: lemme try to bring that into clearer focus. It&#39;s about united class collaboration vs united class-struggle action. The Popular Fronts have often involved coalition with bourgeois parties, even joining coalition governments.

The United Front as proposed by the early Comintern, and continued by Trotsky, was a proposal for united action - while not committing revolutionaries to go along with reformists&#39; sellouts - which means leaving us free to criticize the reformists.

[YKTMX]

Nope.

Yes

First of all, I never said whether Cliff thought "individual capitalism" would be restored in Russia, so I can hardly see how I could be "wrong" on the subject. I said he argued that this form of capitalism is not functionally different from the form operating in Russia, and therefore a move from one to other would not be a qualitative change.


Life expectancy in Russia has plummeted so fast that the population actually declined for a while. It was and is a wrenching transformation, as the capitalists admit, as everyone in the world knows.


This is not a Marxist analysis. Arguing that a shift in the form of property "caused" a change in life expectancy? Seriously.

The collapse in living standards has been disastorous, yes. I don&#39;t see how it disproves the theory of state capitalism.


But the fight to defend the property relations is still ongoing.

This is absurd. The level of class struggle in Eastern Europe is lower than most places in Western Europe&#33; The idea that there is some mass, class conscious effort to defend "existing property relations" in the East is just a fantasy, dreamt up by you to suit your conclusions.

[Honggweilo]

About Popular Front vs United Front: lemme try to bring that into clearer focus. It&#39;s about united class collaboration vs united class-struggle action. The Popular Fronts have often involved coalition with bourgeois parties, even joining coalition governments.
Hans Sneevliet was the one behind the Kuomintang-CPC coalition, which also lead to the long march. The kuomintang was a popular organisation but was also chauvinistic and bourgeois. So class collaberation isnt the distiction between a trotskyist and an ML&#39;ist popular/united front.

I partly agree with gilhyle analysis. Its supression of bourgeois class interests in the cause of a popular font, ofcourse. The goal is mostly bourgeois democratic revolution after the defeat of the feudalist/militarist/imperialist/fascist ect.. system and after succes agitate a socialist revolution. In relation to other progessive allies in a front, critizism isn&#39;t supressed in exept in some exclusive situations. The carnation revolution and the role of the Portuguese Communist Party is a good example.