Do Trotskyists believe that modern capitalism is progressive?

[jacobin1949]

According to the wikipedia article on "decadence", many Trotskyists dispute points of Lenin's thesis on imperialism, particularly the idea that western capitalism has served its historical usefulness and thus is as of 1916, an entirely reactionary force in world affairs. Is there any truth to this claim? And if so would anyone care to elaborate.

[jacobin1949]

From wikipedia:

Leninist use
Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin) continued and extended the use of the word "decadence" in his theory of imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) to refer to economic matters underlying political manifestations. According to Lenin, capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) had reached its highest stage and could no longer provide for the general development of society. He expected reduced vigor in economic activity and a growth in unhealthy economic phenomena, reflecting capitalism's gradually decreasing capacity to provide for social needs and preparing the ground for socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist) revolution in the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world). Politically, World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) proved the decadent nature of the advanced capitalist countries to Lenin, that capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) had reached the stage where it would destroy its own prior achievements more than it would advance.
Followers of Trotsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky) have split over the extent to which to uphold Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin) as against Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution). However, followers of Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin) have generally defended the "decadence" thesis of Lenin's theory of imperialism against Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyists). Trotskyists tend to stress that capitalism in the West is still progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) and marching forward technologically with the steady accumulation of capital. Followers of Lenin such as Mao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao) and Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin) have argued that there is nothing left for imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) to do but die, because it has nothing progressive to contribute anymore.
One who directly opposed the idea of decadence as expressed by Lenin was José Ortega y Gasset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ortega_y_Gasset) in The Revolt of the Masses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses)(1930 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930)). He argued that the "mass man (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_man&action=edit)" had the notion of material progress and scientific advance deeply inculcated to the extent that it was an expectation. He also argued that contemporary progress was opposite the true decadence of the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire).

[Holden Caulfield]

i think it is far past the apex of its progression and this can be seen by the decreasing living standards, and unfair distribution of wealth in the UK and other developed capitalist nations...

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes - the concept of "decadence" is a major part of the theory of Permanent Revolution. States which have only recently (relative to the more advanced states) entered the capitalist epoch are unable to develop within the confines of imperialism, due to the competition posed by foreign imports. However, foreign investment creates en embryonic working class in the urban centers, although most of the population is still engaged in agricultural labour. These states can only develop through the state expropriation of all productive resources as part of a socialist revolution, which must immediately follow from a democratic revolution led by the proletariat, due to the inability of the bourgeoisie to fulfill its historic political tasks of national independence and land reform.

[gilhyle]

The wikipedia article does not make much sense. There is nothing in the Theory of Permanent Revolution which suggests that capitalism is still progressive. There is, on the contrary, something in the popular front strategy of stalinism which suggests that. Stalinism explicitly articulated the arguments for the continued existence of the progressive bourgeoisie - even in imperialist countries - and sought alliances with them within which Stalinists have been quite willing to suppress to revolutionary programme in the interests of 'progressive' reform.

[All that said, my own view is that the question of the decadence of capitalism in its imperialist epoch has become far more complex than it was in 1916 BECAUSE of the strategic defeat of the workers revolution in the 20th century.]