Trotskyism

[Joby]

I would like to hear from any of the trots on this forum,

What do Trotskyists advocate?
Is it a democratic, or Stalin-type authoritarian political movement?
How do Trots believe the means of production should be run ie How should planning and distribution be carried out?

[Nusocialist]

What do you mean by democratic? Do you mean like representative republics or proper direct democracy ?

[Joby]

What do you mean by democratic? Do you mean like representative republics or proper direct democracy ?

I don't know, what was he for? Political control is what I meant, though, ie how do we decide who runs the state (until the utopia).

A republic is my personal preference, by the way. It's part of Jobyism :D

[Nusocialist]

I don't know, what was he for? Political control, is what I meant though, ie how do we decide who runs the state (until the utopia).

A republic is my personal preference, by the way. It's part of Jobyism :D
They are for representative, centralised gov't, which I wouldn't call democracy, it is always an oligarchy and largely unaccountable pretty soon whether it is the USSR or the USA.

[Holden Caulfield]

my own view,

i believe in a democratic centralised system, but one which is democratic more than it is centralised so that one man cannot hold power and so that the burecracy cannot manipulate the system or become corrupt,
i think that this system of governtment is vital for the transitional period after the revolution to consolidate the control of the people over the system,

when this control is established i (and at least one other guy on the Trotskyist forum) think that due to the nature of spiral progression, that the system will enevitably become less democratic or at least no longer nessacary and so an anarchic (the highest form of equality) revolution or reform shall take place and remove the system of centralisation and place the power directly in the hands of the people...

however the Trotskyist stage of democratic centralisation is needed as an anarchic state would be too weak and unorganised to consolidate the revolution

[Zurdito]

centrally planned economy under democratic workers control.

in other words, all power to the soviets!

[Demogorgon]

I don't think Trotskyism needs to advocate old fashioned centrally planned economies. One has to be able to see things in a modern context. What was relevant in the thirties is not necessarily relevant now for instance. Certainly any Trot worth his salt is going to demand democratic worker control of the economy. That need not be primarily through a central committee though. There are going to have to be a whole level of different institutions to a socialist economy depending on what best suits the circumstances. I think Trotskyism is going to go down the same foolish road as Stalinism though if it becomes too keen on central committees over more local workers committees though.

Resources should probably be allocated centrally for fairness' sake, but the details on how to use such resources are best left to those who are going to be working with them.

[Random Precision]

I would like to hear from any of the trots on this forum,

You got it!


What do Trotskyists advocate?

In one word, Marxism. Here is the marxists.org definition, which highlights some of our distinctive ideological features, and the course of our historical development:


Trotskyism is a Marxist theory whose adherents aim to be in the vanguard of the working class, particularly as opposed to Stalinism and Social Democracy. When opposed to Stalinism, Trotskyists place emphasis in their objective of eliminating Stalinist bureaucratic rule; in opposition to Social Democracy, Trotskyists advance the cause of militant workers revolution.

Trotskyist theory in the 20th century had three unique components, which set it apart from other Marxist currents:

Permanent Revolution: This theory stipulates that colonial/feudalist nations must engage in socialist revolutions, as opposed to the stagist theory of first having a capitalist revolution.
Political Revolution: The idea that the Soviet Union could be restored to a worker's democracy with a political revolution (as opposed to a social and economic revolution, in the traditional Marxist sense of the word.)
Transitional Programme: The use of "Transitional Demands" which can be introduced into workers' struggles with the possibility of receiving widespread support even in non-revolutionary times, but which lead into conflict with capitalism (forming a United Front, for example). Such demands are deemed to form a "bridge" between the "Maximum program" of revolution and the "Minimum program" of minor reforms under capitalism. (See the The Transitional Program).

In the 21st century, the theory of political revolution is no longer relevant, while the subject of permanent revolution has witnessed historical changes while retaining its relevance. The transitional programme remains valid for many Trotskyists, though to varying degrees.

Historical Development: Named after Leon Trotsky, the leader of the Left Opposition within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Trotskyism is the current of Marxism which originated in the International Left Opposition - those members of the Communist International who solidarised with Trotsky's positions in the late 1920s as opposed to Stalin's politics. After the victory of Hitler in Germany in the early 1930s (See Trotsky's writings on the subject), the Trotskyists went on to found a new, Fourth International in opposition to the Third (Communist) International. Though the Trotskyists remained very isolated for many years, in the 1960s many Trotskyist groups were able to build viable organisations at a time when Communist parties were in decline.

The Communist International was always an instrument of foreign policy of the Soviet Union, but in the earliest days this meant the building of communist parties whose aim was to emulate the Bolsheviks and make socialist revolution in their own country. Later, the Comintern became an instrument for bargaining and diplomacy rather than the fostering of revolution. The leaderships of national Communist parties were bureaucratically replaced by orders from Moscow and the serious disputes taking place within the Soviet party misrepresented to the young parties of the Comintern.

The first Trotskyists were people like James Cannon who had visited the Soviet Union as loyal delegates of their Communist Party, but then, having witnessed the struggle taking place within the Soviet party, returned to their home country and set up International Left Opposition groupings.

The issues at this time concerned the reasons for the failure of the German Revolution in 1923, the conduct of the 1926 General Strike in Britain, and whether the situation in Europe was ripe for revolution, and the tactics of the Chinese Revolution in 1926 and relations between the communists and nationalists.

Until the mid-1930s, these international supporters of Trotsky continued to argue within the Communist Parties of the different countries, even though they were all expelled from membership, vilified and often physically attacked if not murdered. The aim of the Trotskyists until the mid-1930s was to change the leadership and policies of the Soviet Union and the Communist International, and return it to a Marxist orientation, rather than to set up a rival organisation.

The failure of the Comintern to bring about a United Front between Communists and Social Democrats in Germany in the 1930s, opening the door to Hitler, was a turning point. Trotsky remarked, however, that it was not so much that this grave error had been made, but rather that within the ranks of both the leadership and the rank-and-file of the Communist International there was neither recognition of this mistake, nor any attempt to correct it. This, according to Trotsky, meant that the Comintern was "dead for the purposes of Revolution".

Accordingly, the Fourth International was founded in 1938. The aim of the Fourth International was to defend the Soviet Union as a workers' state, independent of the capitalist powers with nationalised means of production controlled by the working class, while at the same time, struggling to overthrow the Stalinist government of the Soviet Union.

The Fourth International suffered badly during World War Two. Not only was its leader, Leon Trotsky, assassinated by a Stalinist agent in August 1940, but many of its members were either murdered, died fighting fascism, or were betrayed to the Nazis by their Communist Party rivals.

After the War, the Red Army soon found itself in control of half of Europe. Despite Stalin's aim to restore capitalist governments in Eastern Europe as a buffer between the Soviet Union and the West, capitalism was soon overthrown in these countries and pro-Soviet, already-bureaucratised, "communist" governments installed.

This posed problems for the small remaining forces of Trotskyism. They had predicted that the War would be followed by revolutions, but they had not expected that the Red Army would be leading them. These new states were characterised as "deformed workers states" by analogy with the Soviet Union which they described as a "degenerated workers state."

The Fourth International grew only slowly for two decades after the War, while at the same time it had split into several competing factions. However, the Hungarian Uprising in 1956 and the subsequent Soviet invasion of Hungary, created an opening in which a number of leading Communist Party intelligentsia in countries around the world switched to Trotskyism. Later, when the Red Army invaded Czechoslovakia to put down the "Prague Spring" the Trotskyists made more gains. The events of 1968 in fact triggered widespread, new social movements and working class struggles, and the Trotskyist parties were well placed to intervene in these events, and grew in strength.

Surprisingly perhaps, the crisis in the Communist Parties in the late-1980s and early 1990s, which culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union itself, and accompanied by the dissolution of many Communist Parties around the world, also affected the Trotskyist parties. However, many have survived this change of terrain, and Trotskyist parties are to be found all over the world today, and in some countries are larger and more active than those remaining of the former parties of the Comintern.


Is it a democratic, or Stalin-type authoritarian political movement?

As Marxist-Leninists, we advocate workers control of the means of production through a fully democratic state after a revolution is made using Lenin's model of the workers vanguard. We oppose Stalinist bureaucratic rule of the economy and politics, such as the monolithic rule of the party and the control of the arts and sciences, and so on.


How do Trots believe the means of production should be run ie How should planning and distribution be carried out?

Central planning.

[Colonello Buendia]

what he said, though like Hewhocontrolstheyouth I believe thateventually after the revolution has been consolidated the state will dissappear and Anarchy will preside. I also believe that there should be a strong central government but alot of emphasis based on local decisions. a central government doesn't have as clear a picture as a local soviet so the soviet would decide on how to work though the main government will pass on guidelines and administer the military and the basic legal system.

[Dros]

Is it a democratic, or Stalin-type authoritarian political movement?

Just to clarify, Stalinists believe in democracy.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

'
this is how mandel summarised what trotskyists generally believe

For ten years from 1923 to 1933 Trotsky confronted the problem of the Soviet Thermidor – the political counter-revolution in the USSR. This analytical effort coincided with his struggle to clarify in a theoretical manner the link between ‘self-organisation of the class and the vanguard’, in the light of the degeneration of the first workers’ state.

But not only in the light of that experience. Partially, later on, from the rise of the fascist danger in Germany, partially from the experience of the English general strike in 1926, Trotsky formulates a number of conclusions on the relationships of class, mass unions, soviets and worker parties, which, as far as he was concerned, were definitively confirmed by the tragic experiences of the Spanish revolution of 1936-1939. They can be resumed in the form of the following theses:


1. The working class is not homogenous either socially or in terms of consciousness. Its relative heterogeneity at least implies the possibility, if not the fatality, of the formation of several political and party currents, which are supported by fractions of the class.

2. The struggle for victories in the daily life of the working class, as well as immediate economic and political demands (perhaps against the danger of fascism), demands a strong degree of unity in action of the class. The struggle thus demands organisations that include workers of differing political convictions and different organisational loyalties, that is, a party based on a united front of action between different parties and currents. Mass unions and workers’ councils are examples of such organisations. In the Spanish revolution, militia committees played the same role, above all in Catalonia.

3. Even when they are partially or, during some periods, totally lead by an apparatus which is strongly integrated in the bourgeois state (bourgeois society), mass organisations do not exclusively represent forms of integration and subordination. They still retain at least a dual character, and they at least remain potential instruments of emancipation and self-activity of the class. They are ‘the seeds of proletarian democracy inside bourgeois democracy’.

4. The revolutionary vanguard party distinguishes itself from other workers’ parties essentially by the fact that in its programme, its strategy and its current practice it totally represents and defends the immediate and historic interests of the working class, a defence oriented towards the overthrow of the bourgeois state and the capitalist mode of production and towards the construction of a socialist society without class. To attain this goal it must convince the majority of the working class of the justice of its programme and its strategy and its current practice. This can only be done by political rather than administrative methods. It demands, among other things, a correct application of the tactics of the united proletarian front. It demands respect for the autonomy and the freedom of action of all worker organisations.

5. The same rules of conduct apply mutatis mutandis for the construction of the workers’ state and in the exercise of political power (with the possible exception of during an active civil war). In the course of this process, the leading role of the revolutionary party is guaranteed by the success of its political conviction, not by administrative methods, and certainly not by repression of sections of the working class. It can only be realised by the principal of the effective application of politics; rigorous separation of party and state, direct exercise of power by the organs of the working population, elected democratically and not by the vanguard itself, multi-partyism: Workers and peasants must be free to elect who they want to the workers’ councils.

6. Socialist democracy, democracy in the soviet and the union ,democracy in the party (rights of tendencies, no banning of factions even if they are ‘in themselves’ undesirable) have need of each other. These are not abstract conditions but practical conditions for an effective workers’ fight and for the effective construction of socialism. Without proletarian democracy, the proletarian united front and thus the victorious workers’ struggle, is, in the best case, put in danger and, in the worst case, rendered impossible. Without socialist democracy an effective, planned socialist economy is equally impossible.

[Zurdito]

I don't think Trotskyism needs to advocate old fashioned centrally planned economies. One has to be able to see things in a modern context. What was relevant in the thirties is not necessarily relevant now for instance.


what differences exist that mean that advocating a centrally planned economy *was* right in Trotsky's time, but is not right now? To me, if you oppose it now, you should be honest and say that you think Trotsky was wrong at the time too.

If anything, a centrally planned global economy is much more viable now than it was in the 1930's. In fact as it stands, we pretty much have the world's economic policy decided in New York anyway, so it's not like some idealistic dream.

Also, central planning does not mean being unresponsive to localised Soviets. It means that the soviets co-ordinate at a regional level to set regional policy, and thenr egional delegates co-ordinate at a national level to set national policy, which is then co-rodinated at an international level through federations of nations. Otherwise, what? It seems to me that the alternative is no central government, ie anarchism, not trotskyism.

[Demogorgon]

what differences exist that mean that advocating a centrally planned economy *was* right in Trotsky's time, but is not right now? To me, if you oppose it now, you should be honest and say that you think Trotsky was wrong at the time too.

If anything, a centrally planned global economy is much more viable now than it was in the 1930's. In fact as it stands, we pretty much have the world's economic policy decided in New York anyway, so it's not like some idealistic dream.

Also, central planning does not mean being unresponsive to localised Soviets. It means that the soviets co-ordinate at a regional level to set regional policy, and thenr egional delegates co-ordinate at a national level to set national policy, which is then co-rodinated at an international level through federations of nations. Otherwise, what? It seems to me that the alternative is no central government, ie anarchism, not trotskyism.
It was clear at the time and I still think clear now that the Soviet Union HAD to use centralised planning to modernise. But that is not the be all and end all of Marxist economics.

We are not faced with the need for rabid modernisation in the western world at the present time however. And there is no need to simply try to emulate eighty year old Soviet policies now. References to Soviets and the like make me feel uncomfortable because it sounds like fetishising the Soviet experience to me (using Russian rather than English words even).

I am not saying no central government at the present time (obviously the state will eventually wither away, but not now). Rather I am saying the central Government should allocate resources as required to local Governments and then allow local Governments to in turn allocate resources to workers bodies according to local requirement.

It probably isn't even a huge difference, but it is likely to avoid many of the allocative problems faced by the Soviet Union.

[Zurdito]

It was clear at the time and I still think clear now that the Soviet Union HAD to use centralised planning to modernise. But that is not the be all and end all of Marxist economics.

I don't see how we can have equality and socialism on a global scale without a united and coherent economic policy.


We are not faced with the need for rabid modernisation in the western world at the present time however.

Firstly the "western world" is a tiny minorty of the world's nation's.

Secondly, in some country's the central workers government may have to be more busy than in others. However this doesn't invalidate the structures I talked about in my last post. There should still be a central body overseeing national economic policy, and co-ordinating at an international level to set international economic policy.

In Britain for example we need to adress issues of regional inequality and mis-distribution of people and housing. We can only do that through a central planning body with the ability to take priority over regional soviets.



And there is no need to simply try to emulate eighty year old Soviet policies now. References to Soviets and the like make me feel uncomfortable because it sounds like fetishising the Soviet experience to me (using Russian rather than English words even).


A "Soviet" is a workers council. What do you propose instead of that?

Or you just want the same thing with a different name?



Rather I am saying the central Government should allocate resources as required to local Governments and then allow local Governments to in turn allocate resources to workers bodies according to local requirement.


I agree. But if that government is in charge of allocating resources, then that's central planning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your concept of central planning has got too tainted by Stalinism, and you are conflating the two, even though they aren't the same. Unfortunately, as a trotskyist you almost certainly find yourself constantly having to overcome the terrible legacy Stalinism left us with when arguing with people. However, you shouldn't let Stalinism overshadow the lessons which the Soviets taught us from 1917-1928. That may have been a different situation but the fundamental principles were correct.

[Demogorgon]

I think we might just be quibbling over terms here. I seem to favour a more decentralised, "federal" planning system than you, but I don't think the difference is worth getting upset over just now.

It is plain to me though that the Soviet model shows that there are both advantages and disadvantages to planning. The eventual system that any functional society is going to settle on is ultimately going to have to take those parts that work and jettison those that don't.

Ultimately though, any socialist society is going to form out of the capitalist system that proceeded it. THe most prudent thing to do is to look at how such change will come about with reference to how capitalism is now and where we wish to get too. Any workers movement, not just a Trotskyist one will have to face all the decisions implicit there. Best not to be too dogmatic.

[Nusocialist]

Just to clarify, Stalinists believe in democracy.
The people have to alive for democracy.

[Dros]

The people have to [be] alive for democracy.

That's true. Which is why Stalinism is great.:D

Seriously: don't listen to everything you hear on the news.

[Nusocialist]

That's true. Which is why Stalinism is great.:D

Seriously: don't listen to everything you hear on the news.

Seriously Stalin killed millions of people, deal with it.

[Joby]

As Marxist-Leninists, we advocate workers control of the means of production through a fully democratic state after a revolution is made using Lenin's model of the workers vanguard. We oppose Stalinist bureaucratic rule of the economy and politics, such as the monolithic rule of the party and the control of the arts and sciences, and so on.

I also agree with keeping the beauracracy to a minimum. It waters down the politics, and seems to turn any 'democracy' into a sham.

That said, how would this be ensured? The only solution I can see (in the most common scenario, ie a nation cut off) is to break political power down to the smallest level. More responsibilty at the Provincial level, etc, limiting the power of the central government.

How does an 'orthodox' Trotskyist seek to guarantee, or at least make it very probable, that the State is unable to seize poitical and social liberties, and indeed die away?


Central planning.

That's what I've normally believed, but reading The Revolution Betrayed lately and I stumbled him saying that Central Planning in agricultue was a mistake, and that instead, they should have kept giving the peasants a profit-incentive until industrial production (especially consumer goods) could adequetly benefit them under a more socialist system.

Trotsky often said that the USSR was merely in the "prepatory stages" for socialism...do Trots believe economic development under socialism needs to be immediate (ie "5 Year Plan in 4 Years!"), or more gradual?

[Joby]

I think we might just be quibbling over terms here. I seem to favour a more decentralised, "federal" planning system than you, but I don't think the difference is worth getting upset over just now.


I agree, a federal system would be best.

By the way, thanks to everyone for responding.

[Axel1917]

It would literally take me hours of research and typing to make a decent post, but the following source has a very basic sweep of Marxist theory with a Trotskyist outlook:

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/129/63/

[careyprice31]

my own view,

i believe in a democratic centralised system, but one which is democratic more than it is centralised so that one man cannot hold power and so that the burecracy cannot manipulate the system or become corrupt,
i think that this system of governtment is vital for the transitional period after the revolution to consolidate the control of the people over the system,

when this control is established i (and at least one other guy on the Trotskyist forum) think that due to the nature of spiral progression, that the system will enevitably become less democratic or at least no longer nessacary and so an anarchic (the highest form of equality) revolution or reform shall take place and remove the system of centralisation and place the power directly in the hands of the people...

however the Trotskyist stage of democratic centralisation is needed as an anarchic state would be too weak and unorganised to consolidate the revolution

You cannot have a democratic centralised system. Its impossible. The term contradicts itself actually. The centralism with the oligarchy and or one person rule will cancel out the democratic part of it.

I agreed with the Trotskyite advocating that the revolutions that were to begin in Europe at the time would help aid the revolution in Russia. That was what Karl Marx had said, Russia was a behind peasant country, and Marxism was written for an urban industrialized Western society.

But I know Trotsky (and a lot of you Trotskyites here) maybe believe in more democratic centralism but understand that is just impossible to have. Trotsky also believed in a more militarized urban working condition where the factories were run on a more military level, which I think is just wrong. Maybe it was right for him, after all he had a military mind and was the founder of the Red Army and without him the reds would not have won the civil war. But if you introduce military tactics into the factories that would have resulted in less worker control, not more.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You cannot have a democratic centralised system. Its impossible. The term contradicts itself actually. The centralism with the oligarchy and or one person rule will cancel out the democratic part of it.

I agreed with the Trotskyite advocating that the revolutions that were to begin in Europe at the time would help aid the revolution in Russia. That was what Karl Marx had said, Russia was a behind peasant country, and Marxism was written for an urban industrialized Western society.

But I know Trotsky (and a lot of you Trotskyites here) maybe believe in more democratic centralism but understand that is just impossible to have. Trotsky also believed in a more militarized urban working condition where the factories were run on a more military level, which I think is just wrong. Maybe it was right for him, after all he had a military mind and was the founder of the Red Army and without him the reds would not have won the civil war. But if you introduce military tactics into the factories that would have resulted in less worker control, not more.

As a Trotskyist, I believe that Democratic centralism is the best way to have a revolutionary party that can both exchange and discuss and debate ideas and tactics (democratic) while havening unity of action and the ability to make generalizations of the political situation (centralism).

I don't believe that a worker state should be run this way, I think the exact form that a worker-run society will take will be based on the conditions of the revolution and what the workers decide. It will probably look like worker's councils (soviets) because most working class revolutions have created similar organizations - even the Argentinian working class created neighborhood councils during the revolt in the early 2000s.

I agree that Lenin and Trotsky (and many other Bols) were correct in their argument that socialism in Russia needed revolution in an advanced industrial country - I think history has proven them right (worker's power deteriorated and fell apart in Russia just years after the revolution) and Stalin's "socialism in one country" wrong (Stalin was able to accomplish a lot and change Russia a lot - none of it helped create a worker-run society).

Now, I think most countries would have a better shot at holding up if there was a revolution because places in the third world have resources as well as advanced industrialization and large a large working class.

[careyprice31]

As a Trotskyist, I believe that Democratic centralism is the best way to have a revolutionary party that can both exchange and discuss and debate ideas and tactics (democratic) while havening unity of action and the ability to make generalizations of the political situation (centralism).

I don't believe that a worker state should be run this way, I think the exact form that a worker-run society will take will be based on the conditions of the revolution and what the workers decide. It will probably look like worker's councils (soviets) because most working class revolutions have created similar organizations - even the Argentinian working class created neighborhood councils during the revolt in the early 2000s.

I agree that Lenin and Trotsky (and many other Bols) were correct in their argument that socialism in Russia needed revolution in an advanced industrial country - I think history has proven them right (worker's power deteriorated and fell apart in Russia just years after the revolution) and Stalin's "socialism in one country" wrong (Stalin was able to accomplish a lot and change Russia a lot - none of it helped create a worker-run society).

Now, I think most countries would have a better shot at holding up if there was a revolution because places in the third world have resources as well as advanced industrialization and large a large working class.
so are you saying to have democratic centralism, then scrap it when u start to make the workers state.

You do realize that democracy cannot exist alongside centralism, I hope? If you have your party, it will not be democratic because in centralism the power is still going to be limited to only a few. Debating ideas and tactics does not mean there is democracy. It does not mean your 'idea and tactic' will mean much of anything. The two things .....democracy and centralism - still would cancel the other one out.

anyway I had the bad judgement to intrude myself into a topic that was asked of Trots and about their ideas and what they think. I am not a Trot. I just felt I had to say something about "democratic centralism" when i read a post about it here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

so are you saying to have democratic centralism, then scrap it when u start to make the workers state.

You do realize that democracy cannot exist alongside centralism, I hope? If you have your party, it will not be democratic because in centralism the power is still going to be limited to only a few. Debating ideas and tactics does not mean there is democracy. It does not mean your 'idea and tactic' will mean much of anything. The two things .....democracy and centralism - still would cancel the other one out.

anyway I had the bad judgement to intrude myself into a topic that was asked of Trots and about their ideas and what they think. I am not a Trot. I just felt I had to say something about "democratic centralism" when i read a post about it here.

The party is not the state and shouldn't be. I believe that a revolutionary party works best through democratic-centralism because there is democratic debate as well as unified action.

Secondly, it's not autocratic-centralism or beurocratic-centralism like in the Chinese or Cuban states. If the party leadership is elected and can be replaced, then why shouldn't the rank and file of the party trust them? On the flip-side, why shouldn't the be able to replace their leadership if poor decisions are made or the rank and file believe the party is moving in the wrong direction? If an individual has a problem with the democratically elected leadership of a party they have joined of their own free will and they can not change the minds of anyone else in that party, then the individual should probably leave or find another party which is more aligned with their perspective.

A worker's state will be formed by workers. Even in the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks didn't invent the worker's councils, they just argued that the councils should be the organs that run the state. Ideally I think there should be as many parties in a worker society as there are blocks of revolutionarily-dedicated workers.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The people have to alive for democracy.

:lol:

[Sky]

Trotskyism is an ideological and political petit bourgeois trend that is hostile to Marxism-Leninism and to the international communist movement and that conceals its opportunistic essence with radical, "left-wing" slogans. Contemporary Trotskyism is not a political tendency in the working class, but rather an unprincipled, ideal-less band of accursed enemies of the working class and national liberation forces, acting for hire of intelligence organs of foreign regimes. Trotsky is the worst enemy of all toiling humanity, Trotskyites everywhere play the role of agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement.

The theoretical sources of Trotskyism are mechanical materialism in philosophy and voluntarism and schematism in sociology. The methodological basis of the trend is subjectivism, which is characteristic of the petit bourgeois world view as a whole. Trotskyism is a reflection of the antiproletarian views of the petite bourgeoisie. It is is characterized by abrupt shifts from an extreme revolutionary stance to one of capitulation to the bourgeoisie, by a misunderstanding of the dialectics of social development, and by dogmatism in evaluating the events and phenomena of social life. The views and principles of Trotskyism were formulated in opposition to those of Leninism on all fundamental questions concerning the strategy and tactics of the working class movement. Trotskyism took as its point of departure the rejection of the Leninist doctrine of a new type of party.

The existence of Trotskyism and its periodic activiation in individual countries are traceable to various causes, among which are the following: the attraction into the revolutionary movement of large numbers of petit-bourgeois minded and politically inexperienced intellectuals, students, and craftsmen, who easily fall under the influence of the "ultrarevolutionary" slogans of the Trotskyists, the antirevoultionary activity activity of "left-wing" and right-wing revisionists, whose views and actions often coincide with those of the Trotskyists; and the use and support of Trotskyism by forces of anticommunism and imperialism, which find in Trotskyism an ally in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism.

Trotskyists render substantial aid to the bourgeoisie in its efforts to cause schisms in working class and national liberation movements. During periods of mass demonstrations by working people, extremist factions among the Trotskyists carry out provocative acts that provide the forces of reaction with an opportunity to arouse the politically inexperienced portion of the population against the proletariat and its vanguard, the Communists. During the 1968 general strike in France, Trotskyists and other "ultrarevolutionaries" supported the adventuristic idea of an immediate armed uprising. In Japan the Trotskyists gave the reactionary forces a pretext for the bloody suppression of the demonstrations in Shinjuku in October 1968 and in Yokosuka in January 1969. Trotskyists have engaged in similar activities in other countries as well. Schismatic efforts of the Trotskyists in Chile aided the fascist coup there. Trotskyists attmept to penetrate mass revolutionary organizations for the purpose of destroying the organizations from within. They are particularly active in youth organizations, where they take advance of some of the youngsters' political immaturity and failure to recognize the true face of Trotskyism.

[RGacky3]

When Trotskists talk about beauracracy what exactly do you mean, in what way was Stalinist beauracracy the cause of the Stalinist horror?

Also is'nt beauracracy inevitable in a 'democratic and centralized' system, because for that to be the case information would have to filter both up and down on many levels, and be interpreted on many levels, for that to happen you need a big beauracracy.


If an individual has a problem with the democratically elected leadership of a party they have joined of their own free will and they can not change the minds of anyone else in that party, then the individual should probably leave or find another party which is more aligned with their perspective.


Would'nt that have been impossible under Lenins system?


when this control is established i (and at least one other guy on the Trotskyist forum) think that due to the nature of spiral progression, that the system will enevitably become less democratic or at least no longer nessacary

The problem with this is the basic concept of power corrupting, power existing (be it political or economic) has nothing to do with how necessary it is for Society, it has to do with consolidating itself, people with power want to keep it, and want to expand it, history has taught us that over and ove again.

One question I have to trotskyists myself, is if they agree with Lenins suppression of non-violent opposition, and of freedoms of speach.