Trotskyism

[Orange Juche]

I've never really been able to get a good grasp on what Trotskyism is all about. I understand the whole socialism in one country v. world revolution, and permanent revolution.

I just want to get an idea of what Trotskyism would be like. For example, in what kind of ways would being a worker in a Trotskyist society differ from some kind of "Stalinist" or such else? How would it differ from anything we've seen thus far?

Would Trotskyism be less prone to corruption?

Say someone was handing out flyers on a street corner handing out flyers advocating against socialism... how would the state's approach to him be different than Stalin's or Lenin's, if at all?

I just want a kind of jist on what living in Trotskyism would be like for the average person, as compared to what we've historically seen.

[Fawkes]

Thread about the differences between Trotskyism and Leninism. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60831)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:06 am
I just want to get an idea of what Trotskyism would be like. For example, in what kind of ways would being a worker in a Trotskyist society differ from some kind of "Stalinist" or such else?
There is no such thing as a "Trotskyist society". Trotskyism is about methods to attain socialism, not about how would a socialist society be organised.


Say someone was handing out flyers on a street corner handing out flyers advocating against socialism... how would the state's approach to him be different than Stalin's or Lenin's, if at all?

You ask that as if there was no difference between Lenin's and Stalin's approach. That is not true.

Luís Henrique

[Q]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 11, 2007 12:42 pm
You ask that as if there was no difference between Lenin's and Stalin's approach. That is not true.
What have you been smoking? May I have some?

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Q-collective+January 11, 2007 05:19 pm--> (Q-collective @ January 11, 2007 05:19 pm)
Luís [email protected] 11, 2007 12:42 pm
You ask that as if there was no difference between Lenin's and Stalin's approach. That is not true.
What have you been smoking? May I have some? [/b]
If it would make feel the same way then... hit it! :lol: ;)

[gilhyle]

I think there were key differences. Trotsky would not have expropriated the peasantry, but would have focused on developing state farms in competition with peasant agriculture, collectivising landless agricultural labourers and the smallest farms by their choice. He would have focused investment on light and medium rather than on heavy industry to balance consumer goods with industrial production. He would have subordinated (in so far as practical) national foreign policy to the goal of international revolution rather than vice versa. He would have had tighter recruitment policies for the party so the bureaucracy could not swamp it.......

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Q-collective+January 11, 2007 05:19 pm--> (Q-collective @ January 11, 2007 05:19 pm)
Luís [email protected] 11, 2007 12:42 pm
You ask that as if there was no difference between Lenin's and Stalin's approach. That is not true.
What have you been smoking? [/b]
What have I been smoking?

Let's see...

In no particular order, and probably missing some brands,

Memories of a Revolutionary, by Victor Serge
Class Struggle in the Soviet Union, by Charles Bettelheim
10 Days that Shook the World, by John Reed
Revolution Betrayed, by Leon Trotsky
Stalin, by Dmitri Volkogonov

Good for your lungs, good for your brains.


May I have some?

Sure, be my guest.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:37 pm
I think there were key differences. Trotsky would not have expropriated the peasantry, but would have focused on developing state farms in competition with peasant agriculture, collectivising landless agricultural labourers and the smallest farms by their choice. He would have focused investment on light and medium rather than on heavy industry to balance consumer goods with industrial production.
Maybe. That's not what was predictable through the debate in the CP in the late twenties, though. If anything, Trotsky's positions were more anti-peasantry than Stalin's, and he was also very oriented towards heavy industry. The position you seem to be describing was Bukharin's, not Trotsky's.


He would have subordinated (in so far as practical) national foreign policy to the goal of international revolution rather than vice versa. He would have had tighter recruitment policies for the party so the bureaucracy could not swamp it.......

This sounds more adequate.

Still, the expression "Trotskyist society" is meaningless. Trotsky made no blueprints for future perfect socialism like Fourier, and isn't associated with the practical creation of a murderous dictatorship like Stalin.

Luís Henrique

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:37 pm
He would have had tighter recruitment policies for the party so the bureaucracy could not swamp it.......
Wow, that must be damned tight (considering how tight they already were). But i dont see how this would keep the 'bureaucracy' out?

[Louis Pio]

Wow, that must be damned tight (considering how tight they already were). But i dont see how this would keep the 'bureaucracy' out?


It depends what years we are talking about. In later years there were the socalled "Lenin admitances" I think they were called. Were the party was basically opened up. And a good deal of carrerists could come in.

[Zeruzo]

You mean WW2?

Yes, that wa snot a smart thing to do... they should have had permanent purges in my opinion. Something which Trotsky opposed as i can recall, quite odd for someone that strict on CP participation.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:37 pm
I think there were key differences. Trotsky would not have expropriated the peasantry, but would have focused on developing state farms in competition with peasant agriculture, collectivising landless agricultural labourers and the smallest farms by their choice. He would have focused investment on light and medium rather than on heavy industry to balance consumer goods with industrial production. He would have subordinated (in so far as practical) national foreign policy to the goal of international revolution rather than vice versa. He would have had tighter recruitment policies for the party so the bureaucracy could not swamp it.......
Trotsky blaimed Stalin for doing the thing that you said that he [Trotsky] would do before the collectivisation. Trotskyists are more often than not projecting everything they think is good on Trotsky.

[Coggeh]

Indeed ... he was great :) ...


Trotsky advocated proletarian revolution as set out in his theory of "permanent revolution", and he argued that in countries where the bourgeois-democratic revolution had not triumphed already (in other words, in places that had not yet implemented a capitalist democracy, such as Russia before 1917), only the proletariat were capable of achieving the tasks of that revolution.

The bourgeoisie opposed the creation of any revolutionary situation, fearing to stir the large, organized proletariat. As such, it was necessary for the bourgeoisie to ally with reactionary elements in order to protect their property, and necessary for the proletariat, according to Trotsky, to create a revolution of their own to accomplish both the traditional bourgeois and the socialist revolutions.

Trotsky believed that a new socialist state and economy would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well.

Which is true, trotskyism is a progessive form of socialism (basically ;) )

On the political spectrum of Marxism, Trotskyists are considered to be on the left. They supported democratic rights in the USSR, opposed political deals with the imperialist powers, and advocated a spreading of the revolution throughout Europe and the East. The Left Opposition, led by Trotsky, grew in influence throughout the 20s, until Stalin used force against them in 1928, sending Trotsky into internal exile and jailing his supporters. The Left Opposition, however, continued to work in secret within the Soviet Union. Trotsky was eventually exiled to Turkey, then Norway, and finally to Mexico.

[Zeruzo]

Trotsky advocated proletarian revolution as set out in his theory of "permanent revolution", and he argued that in countries where the bourgeois-democratic revolution had not triumphed already (in other words, in places that had not yet implemented a capitalist democracy, such as Russia before 1917), only the proletariat were capable of achieving the tasks of that revolution.

Yes, how silly nobody else ever thought of THAT!



The bourgeoisie opposed the creation of any revolutionary situation, fearing to stir the large, organized proletariat. As such, it was necessary for the bourgeoisie to ally with reactionary elements in order to protect their property, and necessary for the proletariat, according to Trotsky, to create a revolution of their own to accomplish both the traditional bourgeois and the socialist revolutions.

wow, just brilliant...



Trotsky believed that a new socialist state and economy would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well.

Which is plain giberish...



Which is true, trotskyism is a progessive form of socialism (basically wink.gif )

Very funny... No, i'm not amused... sorry.


On the political spectrum of Marxism, Trotskyists are considered to be on the left. They supported democratic rights in the USSR,

A. that would be left-communists...
B. Name me 1 marxist that opposed democratic freedoms in the USSR?


opposed political deals with the imperialist powers

Yes, Trotsky never tried to sign a pact with the germans about peace and all...


, and advocated a spreading of the revolution throughout Europe and the East.

How unique <_<


The Left Opposition, led by Trotsky, grew in influence throughout the 20s, until Stalin used force against them in 1928

Yes, he beated the hell out of them, the thug&#33;


sending Trotsky into internal exile and jailing his supporters.

Undermining democratic centralism, the law and participating in a terrorist organization are of course the most normal things EVA.


The Left Opposition, however, continued to work in secret within the Soviet Union.

Finally, a Trot that admids it&#33;

[Coggeh]

Yes, how silly nobody else ever thought of THAT&#33;

Im explaining what it is not debating it.


Which is plain giberish..

Makes perfect sense ... read again maybe ? ....


Very funny... No, i&#39;m not amused... sorry.

Im very sorry ... shall i write a note of apology before you send me to a gulag ?


How unique

Indeed , Great job by the soviet union in the 30&#39;s by ruining the revolutionary movement in spain.

[Louis Pio]

Zeruzo considering your post seems to consist of nothing more than oneliners it&#39;s hard to debate, I will try however.

The theory of the permanent revolution was actually quite unique nomatter what you think and it sure beats Stalins picking up of the old discredited menshevic stage theory. Instead of succumbing to a mythical "progressive national bourgiosie", it says that the workers need to go directly into building socialism. The russian revolution is a good example of it in practice. The right wing of the bolshevics (which included uncle joe) only saw it as a bourgios revolution. In fact at the march party congress of the bolshevics Stalin asserted that the government under Prince Lvov had: in fact taken the role of fortifier of the conquests of the revolutionary people and that it should be supported.
And the end of the conference Lenin arrived and was naturally not pleased with this, in his april theses he said that the bolshevics should give no support to them what so ever. This was of course the same line as Trotskij held.


Yes, Trotsky never tried to sign a pact with the germans about peace and all...


You mean the boshevics I presume, Trotskij was just carrying out what the party wanted. And the truce was unfortunately quite needed.
But theirs a long way from that to toasting to Hitlers health as Uncle Joe did after the signing of the non-aggressionpact (which among others included the physical liquidation of the polish communistparty)

[Severian]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+January 11, 2007 12:50 pm--> (Luís Henrique &#064; January 11, 2007 12:50 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:37 pm
I think there were key differences. Trotsky would not have expropriated the peasantry, but would have focused on developing state farms in competition with peasant agriculture, collectivising landless agricultural labourers and the smallest farms by their choice. He would have focused investment on light and medium rather than on heavy industry to balance consumer goods with industrial production.
Maybe. That&#39;s not what was predictable through the debate in the CP in the late twenties, though. If anything, Trotsky&#39;s positions were more anti-peasantry than Stalin&#39;s, and he was also very oriented towards heavy industry. [/b]
Yes. But Trotsky did emphasize the need for industry to produce more for exchange with the peasantry. If you&#39;ve read what he wrote about the "scissors". That does fit with Gilhyle&#39;s point about consumer goods (I&#39;d add farm equipment and inputs.)

But the larger point is that all Marxists had always advocated gradual, voluntary, collectivization. From Marx on, everyone had disavowed the idea of forcibly expropriating the lands of the small and middle peasants.

Stalin suddenly switched from a more "pro-peasant" position, and an alliance with Bukharin, over to forced collectivization, which no Marxist had ever advocated. (And crushing Bukharin&#39;s faction.) That rapid forced collectivization had disastrous effects on Soviet agriculture.

Forced collectivization has since proved a common feature of Stalinism and bureaucratic rule, everywhere but maybe southern Vietnam.

In contrast, Cuba&#39;s pursued gradual and voluntary collectivization, and in fact there are still many individual peasants in Cuba.

The point of more modern relevance isn&#39;t "Trotskyism" versus Stalinism, it&#39;s communism versus Stalinism (that is, apparatchik rule.)

***

Seems like everybody and their cousin is starting threads on this stuff lately.

I recommend this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40806&st=0&#entry1291942537) on "Trotskyism".

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:32 pm

On the political spectrum of Marxism, Trotskyists are considered to be on the left. They supported democratic rights in the USSR,

A. that would be left-communists...

Nope. Left Communists supported the overthrow of the USSR, together with the rest of the capitalist world. They weren&#39;t interested in handouts such as "democratic rights".

[gilhyle]

THe lenin levy was 1924 if I recall correctly. During the 1924-26 period there was (figures from memory) about 200 k party members of whom about 20k were the leadership cadre. Stalin (supported by Bukharin) had about 12k of those and Trotsky & Co. had about 8k of those.

Bukharin&#39;s policy differed critically from Trotsky&#39;s inthat Bukharin set the need to maintain conditions for peasant prosperity as a condition limiting all other policies, while Trotsky argued that there was an optimum policy which would partially disadvantage the so-called Kulaks, while still facilitating the supply of agricultural product to the cities (the key concern of all parties)

I&#39;ve read an article by Trotsky from 1926 on the need to focus on medium rather than heavy industry - but it is true that this period of Trotsky&#39;s writings (i.e. before 1927) when he was advocating a particular view of NEP is not well represented in English - and I dont really know what exists in Russian.

The underlying strategy is a balancing strategy that maintains workers power while conserving forces to take advantage of movements in the capitalist cycle and progressively building up soviet forms of government, industrial capacity and the socialisation of agriculture.

The bottom line proved to be that Trotsky recognised the centrality of a healthy revolutionary cadre operating within a democratic centralist structure to implement those policies that could gain majority support among the militant layer - while Stalin was happy to sacrifice that miltant layer to his (misconceinved idea) of what the USSR needed.

BTW its hard to suggest that Trotskyists ever denied that the left opposition was active in the USSR - the Bulletin of the Left Opposition would never have been produced if Trotsky was trying to deny the existence of a Trotskyist left opposition. However, given that the left opposition operated openly they were all available to be rounded up in 1927 - what was always potentially embarrasing for the regime was the whole new layer of trotskyists who emerged in the late 1920s and early 1930s - not the party leaders later purged as &#39;Trotskyites&#39; - and with amazing bravery operated openly and were all quickly arrested and died bravely in Vorkuta and other camps. Serge writes with a great sense of loss about these brave young men and women.

[Orange Juche]

Basically, someone answer me this:

I&#39;ve read a few places that with socialism, Trotskyists want it to be "more democratic." What does that specifically mean? Does it also include the western concept of "free speech?" That seems a vague statement to me, and I&#39;d like to hear what people have to say.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:42 am
Basically, someone answer me this:

I&#39;ve read a few places that with socialism, Trotskyists want it to be "more democratic." What does that specifically mean? Does it also include the western concept of "free speech?" That seems a vague statement to me, and I&#39;d like to hear what people have to say.
Regardless what those Trotskyists say today what Trotsky thought about democarcy is especially murky. Certainly he had a more militant attitude than Lenin and advocated incorporation of Trade Unions with the State apparatus a position which almost split the party between Lenin and His supporters. He certainly advocated heavy Industrilisation the task carried out by Stalin once he ousted the Left opposition. He proposed abandoning of war communism as early as 1919 but party did not want to abandon it. Lenin&#39;s position too was unchanged about war communism until the Kronsdat rebellion.He generally supported NEP.He heavily criticised the collectivisation but we cannot assume what he would have done if he had been in power.