Trotskyism - What is it?

[CubanFox]

An online test told me I was a die hard Trotskyist. Now I know that it's just an online test and probably not very accurate it got me thinking. What is Trotskyism? I only know that it speaks of a world revolution. While a feel that perhaps two or three nearby countries might go commie at once, I don't really believe in "world revolution". Could someone explain the basic beliefs of Trotskyists?

btw: I like Trotsky's hairdo.

[The Feral Underclass]

what was the online test?

[CubanFox]

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php...lient=UltraSect (http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=UltraSect)

Then again I didn't understand several of the questions so it probably wasn't accurate.

[Kez]

what you mean you dont belive in world revolution?

[CubanFox]

I don't think that the entire world will rise like yeast all at once.

[Cassius Clay]

Trotskyism is a Rascist, Imperialistic and Militaristic ideolology which has only survived the 20th Century because the forces of the extreme right kept it alive for 70 years, through propaganda and lies.

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 1:17 pm on June 28, 2003
Trotskyism is a Rascist, Imperialistic and Militaristic ideolology which has only survived the 20th Century because the forces of the extreme right kept it alive for 70 years, through propaganda and lies.

Explain, please.

[commie kg]

Quote: from CubanFox on 7:06 am on June 28, 2003

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 1:17 pm on June 28, 2003
Trotskyism is a Rascist, Imperialistic and Militaristic ideolology which has only survived the 20th Century because the forces of the extreme right kept it alive for 70 years, through propaganda and lies.

Explain, please.

Cassius is a "Stalinist," what do you expect him to say?

CubanFox, read some of Trotsky's stuff, it might help.
I was going to post a link to the Trotsky Archive on marxists.org, but their server seems to be down.

[redstar2000]

Trotskyism is usually contrasted with Stalinism, since those guys were the two main associates of Lenin and both of them always claimed to be carrying out "Marxism-Leninism" in theory and practice.

I rather doubt that in practice today that you would find any consistent political differences...that is, if you picked out a random Trotskyist party and a random Stalinist party, you'd be as likely as not to find that their current views are quite similar. Of course, their views of history would be as far apart as you can get, each accusing the other of "counter-revolutionary treachery". It is a real morass.

There is one significant difference in their organizational practice...at least in theory.

Both groups claim to be the "vanguard of the proletariat" and both claim that the leadership of their particular party is essential to the victory of the revolution. Both claim to practice "democratic centralism"--wherein lower bodies in the party elect higher bodies and policy is made by those higher bodies and carried out by the lower bodies.

Here's the difference, at least in theory. In a Stalinist party, you are not permitted to form a "faction" within the party...an organized group with an overall program that is different from the official party program. In a Stalinist party, you can only petition the leadership for a change in the program as an individual member.

In a Trotskyist party, you are allowed to form a "faction" that advocates an overall change in the party program within the party. In other words, you can't take your dissident views to the public (the working class), but you can organize for change within the Trotskyist party.

From what I have read of such matters, in practice the leadership of Trotskyist parties is just as arrogant and bureaucratic as is the case in Stalinist parties...the nominal right to form a "faction" rarely (if ever) translates into a victory for the dissident faction and an altogether new party platform. At least, I've never heard of such a thing happening.

When you become a member of a Leninist party (Stalinist, Trotskyist, or Maoist), you are fundamentally expected to "shut up and do what you're told". You are like a soldier that has joined an army and your duty is to carry out your orders.

Needless to say, that has all the appeal of a bucket of shit for dinner...to me.

But some people like it.

:cool:

PS: CubanFox, I went to that site you posted and was bombarded by so many pop-up ads that it crashed my computer. What a bunch of turds!

[RedComrade]

I got a Shactmanite(3rd Campist) on that test, what in the hell does that mean?, what is a Shactmanite?

[Cassius Clay]

CubanFox if you go to the 'Why Trotskyism is Reactionary' thread you'll get your answers in more detail.

In short it's rascist because it beliefs only those 'advanced' and 'civilised' enough can build Socialism. It's Imperialist because first of all Trots belief in throwing a nation that has just had a revolution against other nations, even if those other nations aren't ready for a revolution. Also Trotskyites are only interested in setting up a Social-Imperialist states in the west which will just go oppression 90% of the world. Look at Jospin in France, he was a Trot and France continued to oppress millions in Africa. It's militaristic because Trotsky wanted to throw workers into camps for merely turning up late.

Pol Pot would of been proud.


Redstar. May I ask what particular party you were a member of which made you so angry with 'Leninism'. I've been a member of the NCP here in the UK for a few weeks now and I haven't experienced (so far) any of the dreaded lack of 'democracy' in the party. You seem to oppose authority (if it can even be called that) simply because it is authority. Why the need to form 'factions' which are 'oppossed' to the will of the majority of the party?

Maybe fun for a rebellious school boy in a Year 7 class room but not for a Communist. Fact is I haven't been told to 'shut up and follow orders' infact the opposite since belief it or not I'm quite hesitant. Maybe I'll experience this dreaded 'soldier' routine in the months and years to come. In the sense and context you describe it like I would probably oppose it the same as you, but at the same time what do you think this is? You think Marx would of wanted us to sit around all day discussing things just to make sure everybody had gotten there point of view across on every single issue.

[The Feral Underclass]

The NCP...that's a new one...when did that start. Is it the new name for CPGB or a merge of the RCP and the CPGB?

tell me more?

[Cassius Clay]

I'm pretty sure it started in 1977. Stands for New Communist Party, the old CPGB broke up in 1991 I think but it's actually growing though now days. The RCP?

[Sandanista]

Cassius has obviously never read the permanent revolution by lev davidovich bronstein i.e LEON TROTSKY, it's the theory that small, undeveloped nations can carry the revolution but that it must move onto the surrounding countries.

The fact that u said that trotskism is racist etc shows how little u actually know u stalinist bastard, remembr the purges??? they killed most ot the religious clerics in russia showing that stalin was an athiestic bigot who didnt believe in freedom. also many asian soviets populations were also decimated during the purges not to mention stalins campaign of get the ukraines out of the ukraine famine.

[redstar2000]

I've been a member of the NCP here in the UK for a few weeks now and I haven't experienced (so far) any of the dreaded lack of 'democracy' in the party.

I'm not familiar with the "New Communist Party" in the UK; why don't you post a link and let us have a look.

But I suggest that a few weeks is hardly time enough to make a reasonable evaluation...bring it up again in a year or two.

You seem to oppose authority (if it can even be called that) simply because it is authority.

Not necessarily. I rarely take it upon myself to oversee brain surgeons or airline pilots. They have special skills that I am not qualified to supervise, much less over-rule.

Politics is a different matter. When someone gets up in front of people and says (in effect) "follow me and I'll set you free", my suspicions go right off the chart. In what possible sense could I be "free" by surrendering my right to think and act regarding social concerns to the will of another?

You can say that, "oh, this leader is different; he's really sincere; he will really set us free, not like all the rest, who were fake, blah, blah, blah." But why should I or anyone believe you?

The common rationale for this sort of thing is: "Our Great Leader has truly mastered Marxism-Leninism-Bigturdism" and "therefore" will deliver on his promises. This goes all the way back to Lenin's proposal for a cadre of "professional revolutionaries" who, like lawyers, are "trained specialists" that ordinary people are supposed to just accept and obey. Since Lenin's own degree was in law, it's no surprise that he came up with the idea.

What depresses me is how many people have accepted it.

...only those 'advanced' and 'civilised' enough can build Socialism.

That not only follows directly from what Marx observed, it's actually what he said. Pre-capitalist countries become capitalist; highly delevoped capitalist countries move on to socialism/communism. You can disagree with that if you wish...but then you've left historical materialism behind and entered the murky realm of idealism, where social orders "can" be constructed "by command" without regard for material conditions.

You think Marx would of wanted us to sit around all day discussing things just to make sure everybody had gotten their point of view across on every single issue.

A common Leninist stereotype; without a boss, workers would just sit around all day and bullshit.

If you actually believe that to be the case, there's little I can say. There's historical evidence to the contrary, but it's fragmentary and the primary sources are not easily accessible. And how does one respond to a claim that "I am more 'qualified' than you...you must obey me or nothing will get done"?

Because that's the core of the matter...where Leninism breaks with Marx and Engels altogether. If you think that you are or will become "qualified" to give people orders--"for their own good" of course--then the only criticism you will accept from "the lower orders" is armed rebellion...and then only because you have no choice.

If successful, the Leninist party creates the nucleus of a new ruling class...inspite of its most sincere professions to the contrary. When the state owns and manages the means of production and a small group of "professional revolutionaries" controls the state machinery...what can they become but another ruling class? Better in some ways, worse in other ways...but with all the attributes that we associate with the term ruling class.

If the emancipation of the working class is not done by the workers themselves, then the net effect is simply a change of masters.

That's not good enough.

:cool:

[Eastside Revolt]

Apparently I'm a Libertarian communist whatever that means.

[elijahcraig]

I think libertarian communist is anarchist.

Trotskyism is international revolution, permanent revolution. The opposite of Stalin's National Revolution. I follow Trotsky, he was the correct strand of Lenin, if he had taken power instead of Stalin, the world we be much closer to a communist society.

[RedComrade]

One should only move on to Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism etc. when one has undergone a thorough and advanced research on Marx and his ideals. To often yound comrades such as myself begin to call themselves Marxist-Leninists etc before having even worked out a basic understanding of Marx by himself.

[kylie]

A very odd test, it gave me Trotskyist first, but then in second place was Stalinism.

[Cassius Clay]

''That not only follows directly from what Marx observed, it's actually what he said.''

Where did he say this? Pacificly where did Marx declare that 'only' those 'advanced' nations could set about building Communism? He may of observed it and his judgement was correct given the social-conditions that prevailed in the western-world in 1850 and the conditions in the rest of the world. But to declare that his word is still gospil more than a century afterwards is doing what you claim to so hate, following the 'great leader' unquestionably.

Anyway here's what Marx said.

""Apart from Germany and Austria the country on which we should focus our attention remains Russia., The government there, just as in this country is the chief ally of the movement. But a much better one that our Bismarck, Stieber and Tessendorf. The Russian court party, which is now firmly in the saddle, tries to take back all its concessions made during the years of the "new era" that was ushered in 1861, and with genuinely Russian methods at that. So now again, only "sons of the upper classes" are to be allowed to study, and in order to carry this policy out all others are made to fail in the graduation examinations. In 1873 alone this was the fate that awaited 24,000 young people whose entire careers were blocked, as they were expressly forbidden to become even elementary school-teachers. And yet people are suprised at the spread of "nihilism" in Russia. … It almost looks like the next dance is going to start in Russia. And if this happens while the inevitable war between the German-Prussian empire and Russia is in progress- which is very likely-repercussions in Germany are also inevitable." Written London October 15th, 1875; Engels, Frederick; "Letter to August Bebel in Leipzig; In: "Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence"; Moscow; 1982; p.282.

and here is another....

"Such events are however maturing in Russia where the vanguard of the battle will engage in battle. This and its inevitable impact on Germany is what one must in our opinion wait for., and then will also come the time for a grand demonstration and the establishment of an official, formal International which however can no longer be a propaganda society but only a society for action".
Written London February 10th, 1882; Engels, Frederick; "Letter to Johann Phillip Becker in Geneva; In: "Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence"; Moscow; 1982; p.328-329.

and one more....

"I am proud to know that there is a party among the youth of Russia which frankly and without equivocation accepts the great economic and historical theories of Marx and has definitely broken with all the anarchist and also the few existing Slavophil tendencies of its predecessors…. What I know or believe I know about the situation in Russia makes me think that the Russians are fast approaching their 1789. The revolution must break out any day. In these circumstances the country is like a charged mine which only needs a single match to be applied to it. Especially since March 13 (Editor- the assassination of Tsar Alexander 3rd) This is one of the exceptional cases where it is possible for handful of people to make a revolution, i.e., by giving a small impetus to cause a whole system (to use a metaphor of Plekhanov’s) is in more than labile equilibrium, to come crashing down, and by an action insignificant of itself to release explosive forces that afterwards becomes uncontrollable. Well, if ever Blanquism – the fantastic idea of overturning an entire society by the action of a small group of conspirators – had a certain raison d’être, that is certainly so now in St.Petersburg. Once the spark has been put to the powder… the people who laid the spark to the mine will be swept along by the explosion …. Suppose these people imagine they can seize power, what harm does it do? .. To me the important thing is the impulse in Russia should be given, that the revolution should break out. Whether this or that faction gives the signal, whether it happens under this flag or that is a matter of complete indifference to me. If it were a palace conspiracy it would be swept away tomorrow. In a country where the situation is so strained, where the revolutionary elements have accumulated to such a degree, where the economic conditions of the people become daily more impossible, where every stage of social development is represented, from the primitive commune to the modern large scale industry and high finance, where all these contradictions are arbitrarily held in check by an unexampled despotism, a despotism which is becoming more and more unbearable to the a youth in whom the dignity and intelligence of such a nation are united-when 1789 has once been launched in such a country, 1793 will not be far away." Written London April 23 1885;
Engels, Frederick; "Letter to Vera Ivanovna Zasulich in Geneva"; In: "Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence"; Moscow; 1982; pp.361-363.''

You see Marx towards the end of his life did begin to regonise that the hope lay in the 'weakest link' so to speak. It is being very dogmatic by not allowing any change in your ideology to take into acount circumstances and change, especially when it's over a hundred years of change.

Clearly Marx thought the 'material conditions' existed in Russia and I'm sure as can be that he today would regonise that the 'material conditions' exist in India today, as well as the U$A.


Anyway the NCP has some four websites, if you go to Google and just type in 'New Communist Party' then you'll find it. Your right I may experience this 'Leninist' nihgtmare, and if I do I'll be the first to admit it. But so far I haven't and there is no talk of the 'great leader', infact the GS's name hasn't even been bought up.

Oh yes and I'm not saying that the workers or anyone needs a 'boss', I'm just pointing out that the sought of 'unlimited democracy' which I described has it's drawbacks. You can't do anything if your sitting around talking all day to the point where everybody is happy (which doesn't happen anyway). But I am by no means in favor of bossing people around, especially the workers. Fact is there's going to be somesought of heirachy and beuracracy if you cant deal with that then it's plainly obvious that your not going to get on with anyone except Anarchists.

No one wants to boss people around and command a army, where you get this idea from I don't know.

[RedComrade]

Cassius I couldnt help but notice your definition of Trotskyism seems a bit contradictory..... on one level you say Trotsky beleives only advanced nations could undergo revolution (a beleif that originated with Marx) and then you go on to say Trotskyism imposes revolution on nations that arent ready. Make up your mind comrade!

[redstar2000]

What I know or believe I know about the situation in Russia makes me think that the Russians are fast approaching their 1789. The revolution must break out any day.

Yes, Marx and Engels were sometimes remarkably perceptive about forthcoming events (note that line about the Russian Revolution breaking out in the course of a war with Germany).

But, Cassius, what do you think they meant by Russia's "1789" and Russia's "1793"?

What happened in those years in France? (Hint: it was not proletarian revolution.)

Yes, Marx and Engels predicted a capitalist revolution in Russia...and, after many twists and turns, guess what we have in Russia today?

Those quotations, admirable as they are, say nothing about "weakest links" leading to "proletarian revolution" at all--they say, in fact, the opposite.

I'm surprised you didn't notice the forecast of Leninism, though...or maybe you did, and didn't want to mention it.

This is one of the exceptional cases where it is possible for handful of people to make a revolution, i.e., by giving a small impetus to cause a whole system to come crashing down, and by an action insignificant of itself to release explosive forces that afterwards becomes uncontrollable. Well, if ever Blanquism – the fantastic idea of overturning an entire society by the action of a small group of conspirators – had a certain raison d’être, that is certainly so now in St.Petersburg. Once the spark has been put to the powder… the people who laid the spark to the mine will be swept along by the explosion …. Suppose these people imagine they can seize power, what harm does it do?

Well, Fred, you'd be surprised...!

Fact is there's going to be some sort of hierarchy and bureaucracy, if you can't deal with that then it's plainly obvious that you're not going to get on with anyone except Anarchists.

No one wants to boss people around and command a army, where you get this idea from I don't know.

Fact is? Says who? And when you say that "no one wants" to boss people around or command an army, that doesn't mean very much...if they are willing to do it anyway.

If memory serves me, the "military metaphor" of revolutionary organizations is in the core classic work by Lenin himself: What is to be Done?. But I think it pops up all over the place--the "vanguard party" as the "General Staff" of the proletariat (that was a popular conception in 1900...the German General Staff had enormous prestige due to its exceptionally well-planned and methodical victory over Napoleon III's French Empire.)

Finally, how does a communist "deal with hierarchy and bureaucracy"? Do you accept it as "the price that must be paid"? Do you feel essentially indifferent to the matter? Are you enthusiastic about the career opportunities that it offers? Or do you feel that it's a deadly enemy of everything we struggle for?

Makes a difference.

:cool:

[Cassius Clay]

redstar it's not a question of 'says who' it is what happens, no one wants it and I'm sure very few actually work to keep it. I just made the point that a ultimante 'democracy' will never get anything done. Now it seems that your interpretating this as I'm in favour of this 'Leninist Army' with all the 'Discipline' and 'Bossing around' that comes with it. You couldn't be further from the truth.

Want to set up your group intent on being free of a 'Leninist Heirachry' and with 'Democracy' go ahead. But you would of split into half a dozen factions arguing over petty details within a month. Now maybe with a dozen members to this group your get away with it for a month or two maybe longer. But say this group spreads to a few hundreds with branches spread out over the country or whatever state your from. What are you going to do? Spend time money and resources to make sure one branch agrees with the a minority in the other on a minor point.

You see this is what I'm against, I'm not in favour of the way you portray a 'Leninist Party'. And who says we 'are willing to do it anyway'? The 'it' being boss people around. No one, the reason somesought of 'beaucracy' is inevitable or what have you is because that's how the world goes round. You may not like it but in a large party intent on actually acheiving something sometimes you have to stop talking (which from my expereince, 'so far' you do alot of anyway) and take decisive action. Don't beleif a certain discipline and a decree of decision making which isn't allways going to be up for discussion is going to be necessary come revolution and Civil War time then go and join the Anarchists who sat around playing football in Spain and were subsequently butchered.

Now doubtless you may highlight or mistinterpretate (spell?) something I've written above. So I'll make this clear I hate those things as much as you do probably, I and I'm sure many people like me would put 100% into limiting this heirachy's power. How do you do that? You use this beuracracy to your advantage, like I said sometimes it will come in handy most of the time it's the nightmare you to a certain extent rightly describe. Involve the people as much as possible, let them become part of the beuracracy if you will. Highlight the bad elements and let the people pick out the opportunists and carrerists who are using the beuracracy to become little miny dictators and smash them. Criticism and Self-Criticism, all the way from bottom to top. May not get rid of this dreaded 'Heirachy' or what have you but it does weaken it's infulence dramatically.

Now where is the rest of this discussion going? I would take a guess at the whole 'inevitability' of Capitalism returning to what you perceive as 'Feudal societies'. You know my point of view on it, I know yours we ain't going to agree.

Just one point though Comraderedstar. what's your view the Mensheviks? Since your view on both the 'Leninist' form of party and Russia in 1917 seems to be the same as Mr Martov.

[redstar2000]

...the reason some sort of 'bureaucracy' is inevitable or what have you is because that's how the world goes round.

Well, the great founder of bourgeois sociology, Max Weber, would agree with you...so I hope you won't mind if I don't. The world "goes around" in many ways, some of the most important of which relate to class.

You may not like it but in a large party intent on actually achieving something sometimes you have to stop talking (which from my expereince, 'so far' you do a lot of anyway) and take decisive action.

Yes, it's been noted that I have a "black belt" in mouth and I cannot deny the truth of that. Why do I yap so much and place such importance on yapping? "Decisive action" has a certain emotional appeal; it's, well...decisive.

Perhaps I could put it this way: what's the difference between someone who acts from personal conviction and someone who is just going along with the crowd or even carrying out orders?

I think the differences are obvious. People who have thought about various kinds of "decisive actions", talked over the strengths and weakness of each at length, voted agreement by a wide margin, etc., are people prepared to move forward with real conviction and are therefore most likely to be successful.

People who just "go along" and "don't want to cause a fuss" are most likely to not persevere in the "decisive action" because, in fact, they're really undecided. They say "Oh, I agree" but what they're really saying is "whatever!".

Those who are "carrying out their orders" will do so until such time as the orders cease to make sense altogether, when they will do what sensible soldiers have always done when commanded by idiots...desert.

If you actually look at what goes on in revolutionary situations, it is an explosion of talk...millions of people who've been silent all their lives now do nothing but talk, and read, and talk some more.

In fact, to speak of "decisive action" in such a situation is a misnomer...there are millions of "decisive actions" and people arguing about them constantly the whole time.

Did the Bolsheviks "make" the revolution of February 1917? The Mensheviks? The Kadets? The anarchists? Nevertheless, decisive action was certainly taken by the working class and the peasantry; the Czar was deposed and the aristocracy sent running for their lives.

The Leninists do have a "Blanqui-ist" conception of seizing power (I'm speaking of those who are serious; not the "Leninist" parties that have degenerated into parliamentary cretinism). A small group of "professional revolutionaries" gives the signal to strike...and capitalism is overthrown by a working class that "follows its leader and carries out his orders".

That ain't how it's gonna happen...but if it did, the result would be a very unhappy one, to say the least.

Just one point though Comraderedstar. what's your view the Mensheviks? Since your view on both the 'Leninist' form of party and Russia in 1917 seems to be the same as Mr Martov.

Then? Or now?

If I were a young fellow in Petrograd in the summer of 1917, I would have been a "left-Bolshevik" most likely...perhaps a "Kollontai-ist". I would have thought the Mensheviks were a bunch of capitalist ass-kissers, Marxists in words and Kadets in deeds.

That was then; this is now. As I have never read or even seen a Menshevik text, I can only assume that the common summary of their views is accurate--they are reputed to have maintained that only a bourgeois revolution was possible in the Russia of that period.

Well, they were right.

As to their practice, that is clearly a different matter. I see no reason why communists should not "push" a bourgeois revolution as far "left" as they can...it does not logically follow, from a communist standpoint, that simply because the bourgeois revolution is on your country's historical agenda, that you must therefore subordinate your own goals to those of the new ruling class...which is what I gather the Mensheviks did.

Am I clear here? The communist always fights for communism even when s/he knows that capitalism is "on the agenda" in his/her particular country. We are not trying to simply "be on the winning side"...we are trying to "push" history in the direction we think it will ultimately go and we don't stop pushing just because the train has made a regularly-scheduled stop.

:cool: