The Problem with Trotskyism

[Awful Reality]

Nowhere else to post this...

Extremely short post due to time. Long post to follow.

In any case, I have come to believe that Trotskysim is not Marxist as it is Reactionary Socialism under the definition of German or "True" Socialism in the Communist Manifesto. This is because Trots support the Permanent revolution, of promoting the idea of proletarian rule where bourgeois rule does not yet exist.

[Bud Struggle]

Let me piggy back on this a bit (if AR doesn't mind.) I've been thinking about Trotskyism quite a bit. And I don't get it. When you kind Communists answer AR's question please fill things out a bit--how is Trotsky different than Marxism? Is the end different? The means? Why are so many Communist groups Trotskyists?

[Die Neue Zeit]

In any case, I have come to believe that Trotskyism is not Marxist as it is Reactionary Socialism under the definition of German or "True" Socialism in the Communist Manifesto. This is because Trots support the Permanent revolution, of promoting the idea of proletarian rule where bourgeois rule does not yet exist.

I'm not a Trot, but I don't think you got the point regarding "true socialism":

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm


By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement.

[Redmau5]

Nowhere else to post this...

Extremely short post due to time. Long post to follow.

In any case, I have come to believe that Trotskysim is not Marxist as it is Reactionary Socialism under the definition of German or "True" Socialism in the Communist Manifesto. This is because Trots support the Permanent revolution, of promoting the idea of proletarian rule where bourgeois rule does not yet exist.

This is from the preface of the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto.


The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/b.htm#obshchina), though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.



So Marx believed that a revolution in an under-developed country such as Russia could act as a catalyst for revolution in the more industrialised countries. As did Lenin and Trotsky.

[Random Precision]

To sum things up rather quickly- if you have a longer post I'll come around to that one:

Trotsky's theory began from the peculiarities of capitalist development in Russia. Whereas in Western Europe, the bourgeoisie had emerged as a strong, confident class that in its own revolutions came to supplant the aristocracy and take state power during the 17th and 18th centuries, the Russian bourgeoisie had only begun to emerge toward the end of the 19th century as a result of the autocracy encouraging (but not so much) the development of industry. Thus, from the beginning, it was "weak and oscillating" as Trotsky put it- while it sought increased power like its Western cousins had, it was dependent on the autocracy for its existence and continued development. Furthermore, with the growth of Social Democracy in the West, many ideas of proletarian power found their way to Russia, and had their first major expression during the 1905 Revolution. In this crisis, the Russian bourgeoisie found itself caught in a bind- while they supported the mass demands for democracy and land reform (bourgeois tasks which had ensured the stable development of capitalism in the West), they were afraid of the power of the masses who made the demands. Thus, they took refuge in the power of the autocracy, and fully supported the suppression of the 1905 revolution.

So, the bourgeoisie in Russia was too weak to carry out its own tasks- this was confirmed in 1917 by the failure of the Kerensky government to carry out meaningful land reforms (demand of the peasantry), ensure democracy by convening the Constituent Assembly (democratic demands) or end Russian participation in the disastrous imperialist war. Where did that leave prospects for capitalism (and then socialism) in Russia?

Trotsky realized that this meant another force would have to break the deadlock and ensure the goals of bourgeois revolution were carried out. He identified this force as the proletariat of Russia, which had shown clearly its revolutionary potential in 1905. The Russian proletariat, a strong, vibrant class, would be able to carry out the basic demands of democracy and land reform. The large peasantry would support them in reaching these goals. However, once in power the proletariat could not simply declare that the bourgeois revolution was accomplished and leave the way open for the development of capitalism- the bourgeoisie, as ever, would be weakened to the point of annihilation by a workers' revolution, and would be unable as ever to take command of the country. So, the workers would have to carry the revolution further, into socialism- what Trotsky called "making the revolution permanent".

Here, the force of Russia's peasantry would become a problem. As a middle class, peasants only sought the land reforms of capitalism and did not see their immediate interest in socialist development, which would require the collectivization of land. By the act of taking power, the Russian proletariat would ensure a future conflict with the peasantry. As the peasantry vastly outnumbered the proletariat, the latter would need help in developing the economy so as to strengthen its command of the country. This is where the revolution in more developed countries would come in handy- the proletariat of the West would help its Russian brethren by providing raw materials and the like for the development of native industry, to take Russia toward the industrial economy that is required for socialism.

Although Trotsky thought of permanent revolution as a theory solely applicable to Russia, after the failure of the Chinese Revolution in 1927 (caused mainly through the errors of Stalin/Bukharin) he came to apply it to all nations in what would become known as the "third world". He reasoned that the advent of imperialism had the effect of retarding the development of those nations, as the imperialists had no interest in fully developing the economies of their new colonies- they would develop certain sectors that would make profitable exports to the mother country, but not others, resulting in a nation dependent on its imperialist power for its livelihood. The native bourgeoisie of developing nations would be in essentially the same bind as the Russian bourgeoisie found itself in: while it desired the full development of the economy under its own capitalism, it was afraid of the forces of the working class that developed under it, and in a conflict would always choose foreign capital over native labor. Democracy and land reform (the historical tasks of the bourgeoisie) were, of course, impossible under imperialist rule- but just like in Russia, the bourgeoisie would be too weak to take power and ensure those reforms. Accordingly, Trotsky's solution to this problem was the same as he prescribed for Russia (and which was carried out in October 1917, completely vindicating his theory): proletarian revolution. This would follow the same path, for the most part, as he saw it taking in Russia, with the revolution relying partly on successes of socialism in more developed nations.

So, that's pretty much a brief explanation of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in terms of the stage of bourgeois development. I think that, rather than being un-Marxist in prescribing a worker's revolution before it was "meant" to occur in certain countries, he found the only way late-developing nations could develop themselves through capitalism and into socialism- he developed Marxist theory to take into account the uneven path of capitalism in the world.

[Random Precision]

how is Trotsky different than Marxism?

His theory of permanent revolution deals with revolutionary prospects in underdeveloped nations, whereas Marx for the most part dealt with such prospects in developed nations. But his work was built on that of Marx and should not be regarded as un-Marxist in any sense. This goes for the rest of his theory as well.


Is the end different?

The end is world revolution, so not really.


The means?

In the case of the permanent revolution, as I explained the proletariat must take care of the tasks historically given to the bourgeoisie, but otherwise, no.


Why are so many Communist groups Trotskyists?

That's a pretty broad question. I'd say that the collapse of Stalinism has in the long run given us a great amount of strength, as people in search of revolutionary solutions have begun to see the validity of Trotsky's ideas, and we no longer have to deal with the monopoly of Stalinist parties on the working-class movement in many countries. Also, the impending collapse of Social Democracy as a system of government has left many disillusioned and searching for new ideas on the left. Trotskyism, despite its long period in the wilderness, is seen as a fresh perspective to these people (or at least we hope it is). There is also our tenacious work in the working class movement, of course.

Also, unfortunately many have ended up Trotskyists as kind of a reaction to the historical legacy of Stalin and Stalinism; they see Trotsky as kind of a hero figure. This is obviously un-Marxist and we discourage it. I see it on this site all the time: people begin posting, saying they're Trotskyists, but don't bother to read anything by the man himself, and don't know much about him besides a few details of his struggle against Stalin. At the nearest opportunity, they'll move on to some form of Stalinism (siding with the historical victor) or anarchism (reasoning that there was something wrong with Bolshevism from the start). If they never develop an understanding of Marxism, especially Trotsky's Marxism, then they're bound to develop an un-Marxist perspective.

Hope that helps. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Hope that helps. :)

Indeed it does--thank you so much. Sometimes I get into the argument part of RevLeft so much I forget why I am really here--to learn this stuff.

Something I've noticed about Communists takeovers in general--a king (or something similar) always gets deposed either with the "revolution" or shortly before it. Nepal, Cambodia, China, Russia, and more. Revolutions don't take place in real functioning Capitalist societies.

So Trotskyism should be the preferential course in these kinds of situations to rectify the lack of a real Bourgeoise in these countries. If I understand you correctly. (I know my time line is a bit off.)

[Kronos]

of a real Bourgeoise in these countries.

There are many different kinds of cases of property ownership. It is the abolition of this that is the purpose of the process Marx discovered in economics. The revolutions in Russia and China were revolutions against the same conditions as those in a capitalism, in principle, but the property was not owned by "business owners", but rather feudal lords, monarchs, emporers, dynasties, etc.

Same song different dance.