Question for Trotskists

[matthewh427]

Do you have to be a Communist to be a Trotskist as I think I am a Democratic Socialist being slightly to the right of Lenin but to the left of Social Democrats. The only part I disagree with Communism is I agree with allowing small business to still exist.

I agree with The Socialist Party England & Wales and am thinking of joining them who I think are Trotskist. They only state the need for the nationalising the 150 largest business in the UK.

[matthewh427]

I mean I agree with Democratic Communism apart from I agree with allowing small business to exist.

[Socialistpenguin]

Well, I'd have thought the only thing you needed to do to be a Trotskyist was to follow Trotsky's political line and theories.

Also, bare in mind that Communism is a classless, stateless society. With any luck, there'd be no small businesses to shut down, as capitalism would cease to exist, and the profit motive along with it.

Just out of curiosity: is there any particular reason you would prefer small businesses to remain open?

[matthewh427]

Yes I think a privately run restaurant for example would be better to a corporate state run restaurant. Only the big business that shape the economy need to nationalised.

[Unicorn]

Trotskyists support the elimination of the petty-bourgeois class in a socialist society which means no small business.

[gilhyle]

Well, having tried to order a meal a few times in Stalinist States restaurants in Eastern Europe before the fall of the wall...waiters in an empty restaurant would hang on to the wall, stare at you at a table three metres away and not even move to come over....no menu, no way to know what was available....I have some sympathy for you. But that was stalinism for you and this whole way of looking at it ignores the key point: which is WHEN this is to be done. Your talking about the day one programme for immediate implementation. But what happens one year, ten years down the line is another story.

The Sociialist Party programme, if I recall, is based around a minimal set of 'transitional demands', at least what they think are transitional demands.

There have been plenty of 'Trotskyists' who took the same approach. Your safe, your a trotskyist.....whether youre a Marxist, now thats a whole new ball game. Good luck with that one...cos if you turn out to be a Marxist, wont matter whether or not you were a Trotskyist.

[matthewh427]

I agree with the main points of Marxism I know like the workers controlling the state democratically. The state and workers owning the majority of the economy and running it democratically for need not profit. I don't mean democracy by the supposed democracy we live under now but a real democracy.

I just think in the socialist society we must have before real communism can take place there is a place for small business, artisans and the self employed. Barbour shops and cafes for example there is no need in all of them being state run like corporations.

Transport, Banks, factory's, all major business and the majority of the economy needs owned by the workers and state and be democratically run for need and not profit. When this happens on a international scale war, poverty and 3rd world problems will end.

[Fedorov]

I agree with the main points of Marxism I know like the workers controlling the state democratically. The state and workers owning the majority of the economy and running it democratically for need not profit. I don't mean democracy by the supposed democracy we live under now but a real democracy.

I just think in the socialist society we must have before real communism can take place there is a place for small business, artisans and the self employed. Barbour shops and cafes for example there is no need in all of them being state run like corporations.

Transport, Banks, factory's, all major business and the majority of the economy needs owned by the workers and state and be democratically run for need and not profit. When this happens on a international scale war, poverty and 3rd world problems will end.

I can live with that and certainly think that allowing the petty-borgiosie to wither away naturally might be a less abrasive way of bringing about sympathy in a newly socialist system. After all, even in the communist manifesto it states that capitalism itslef already is in the process of eliminating small business which has proven true to the many monopolies we see today especially in America.

[nvm]

Do you have to be a Communist to be a Trotskist?

Yes because Trotskyism is the natural continuation of Marxism - Leninism. Trotsky advocated a classless stateless society(communism)


The only part I disagree with Communism is I agree with allowing small business to still exist.


They only state the need for the nationalising the 150 largest business in the UK.

Well that is the minimum program which is used to mobilize the workers for demands. The maximum program is socialism.A society with a state that fades away as classes are being eliminated eventualy reaching its highest stage;communism. Off course in the beggining we should only nationalize the biggest bussinesses but don't you think that petty bourgeois property has to be liquidated as it will be underproductive over the years? Of course you think that a state-company is underproductive and not efficient. That is because what you saw was Stalinism , despotism. It is different when there's democratic worker's , that is proven by history. So yea as history is going forward and we are trying to achieve communism through socialism the need of the dissolution of the small bussinesses is great. And no trotskyism is not social democracy it is nothing close to that.

[Q]

There have been plenty of 'Trotskyists' who took the same approach. Your safe, your a trotskyist.....whether youre a Marxist, now thats a whole new ball game. Good luck with that one...cos if you turn out to be a Marxist, wont matter whether or not you were a Trotskyist.

Trotskyists are Marxists by definition :sleep:
Trotsky added some theories to Marxism, it is not a complete new school of thought. Why you're making that distinction is beyond me and I would like to see some arguments here.


I mean I agree with Democratic Communism apart from I agree with allowing small business to exist.
Despite what Unicorn said, Trotskyists do allow small business. For a number of reasons. First of all small business tends to focus on the service sector which, from an economical perspective, doesn't add a surplus to society. The SP of England and Wales puts forward the demand of nationalising the biggest 150 companies because they dominate the producing sector, which does add surplus to society.

Secondly, these 150 companies include all the socalled keysectors: industrial, trade, infrastructure and the finance system, which are covering about 90% of the GDP.

Thirdly, socialism isn't just about nationalising the economy, it's about outgrowing capitalism in terms of production and development in order to solve the material inequalities inherited from capitalism. Nationalising the key 150 companies is a start to this, it lays the foundation of a society that produces according to the need of all. By capitalist logic the small business will eventually wither away as they simply can't compete to a democratically planned economy that is vastly superior to the archaic and blind free market.

Allowing small business doesn't however mean the capitalists can just do as they please. One of the first restraints will probably be the end of wage exploitation, which cripples capitalist economic logic in a very fundamental way.

Also, with nationalisation we don't just mean putting it under state control, but we first call for nationalisation under workers control and management. We recognise that a planned economy needs democracy in order to work and to truly serve the needs of all.


I just think in the socialist society we must have before real communism can take place there is a place for small business, artisans and the self employed. Barbour shops and cafes for example there is no need in all of them being state run like corporations.

Transport, Banks, factory's, all major business and the majority of the economy needs owned by the workers and state and be democratically run for need and not profit. When this happens on a international scale war, poverty and 3rd world problems will end.
Yes, that's the essence of the matter. We strive for a society that provides in its own needs in a democratic and efficient way. Barbershops and restaurants can simply be owned by the people that work there, sectors that are important for the (inter)national economy need a more centralised planning.

[chegitz guevara]

Eliminating private property doesn't mean eliminating small business. You don't have to own your business in order to run it.

Consider this scenario. A local chef decides she wants to run a small restaurant. She goes to the local council and asks permission to set one up. She still has to come up with a business plan, show how it will benefit the community, how they will deal with traffic, waste, show whether the community can support another restaurant or if it can't, why they should support her over an existing establishment, etc. If the council agrees, she can set up a small, community owned restaurant, produce the service she wants, and go from there. The community will then vote again, this time with their feet, to decide whether or not to keep it going. If she gets no business, the council re-evaluates and shuts the experiment down.

[gilhyle]

Trotsky added some theories to Marxism, it is not a complete new school of thought. That is definitely true.


Trotskyists are Marxists by definition :sleep:


If that were true, the history of Trotskyism would have been much better than it was......unfortunately it wasnt.


Why you're making that distinction is beyond me and I would like to see some arguments here.To do so at any length would be off topic this thread. Its a simple point - Trotskyism was never very healthy , the political culture of its leaders was low , it degenerated into some awful crap that would have had Marx turning in his grave and its elements rarely displayed a Marxist method in either their politics or their few attempts at theory. ....Mandel (the Kautsky of Trotskyism to Pablo's Bernstein) notwithstanding.

[Redmau5]

They only state the need for the nationalising the 150 largest business in the UK.

Yes, as a transitional step. Nationalising those 150 largest businesses wouldn't be the be all and end all.