Trotsky and Trotskyism

  1. Cryotank Screams
    Cryotank Screams
    I thought this would be an interesting topic and I think Mattick's essay Bolshevism and Stalinism would be a good introduction for this discussion. What are your thoughts on both Trotsky and Trotskyism?
  2. black magick hustla
    black magick hustla
    i identify more with the italian communist left, not that much with the german/dutch one, so i am not into demonizing the bolsheviks.

    the seed of the counterrevolution didnt lie in the "authoritarian" bolsheviks, but in the imperialist encirclment and isolation.

    regardless i think trotskyism is a silly current based in nothing more but nostalgia. why isnt there a degenerate/deformed bourgeois state?
  3. Cryotank Screams
    Cryotank Screams
    i identify more with the italian communist left, not that much with the german/dutch one,
    As do I however this doesn't really having anything to do per se with the German/Dutch tradition other than the author is of that tradition. I posted the essay as an introduction for the discussion because I think it makes an interesting point.

    In order to find other arguments against Stalinism than his personal dislike for a competitor in intra-party struggles, Trotsky must discover and construct political differences between himself and Stalin, and between Stalin and Lenin in order to support his assertion that without Stalin things would have been different in Russia and elsewhere.

    There could not have been any ‘theoretic’ differences between Lenin and Stalin, as the only theoretical work bearing the name of the latter had been inspired and supervised by Lenin. And if Stalin’s ‘nature craved’ the centralised party machine, it was Lenin who constructed the perfect machine for him, so that on that score, too, no differences could arise. In fact, as long as Lenin was active, Stalin was no trouble to him, however troublesome he may have been to ‘The Number Two Bolshevik’.

    Still, in order for Trotsky to explain the ‘Soviet Thermidor’, there must be a difference between Leninism and Stalinism, provided, of course, there was such a Thermidor. On this point, Trotsky has brought forth various ideas as to when it took place, but in his Stalin biography he ignores the question of time in favour of the simple statement that it had something to do with the “increasing privileges for the bureaucracy”. However, this only brings us back to the early period of the Bolshevik dictatorship which found Lenin and Trotsky engaged in creating the state bureaucracy and increasing its efficiency by increasing its privileges.
    If I may quote Libcom.

    Mattick analyses "the superficiality of the ideological differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism" and why "Trotsky's own past and theories", with his role in the construction of the Russian regime, "condemned 'Trotskyism' to remain a mere collecting agency for unsuccessful Bolsheviks".
    The above is why I find the essay interesting and why I selected it to be the intro for this discussion in that it rejects the claim that if Trotsky had taken the wheel instead of Stalin everything would have been rainbows and sunshine for the USSR. Though I don't want this thread to necessarily be confined to what the essay proposes it was meant to be an intro (of sorts) into how we the Communist left view Trotsky.

    so i am not into demonizing the bolsheviks.
    That's not what this thread or the posted essay is about.
  4. Entrails Konfetti
    Entrails Konfetti
    I go back and forth between Dutch and Italian currents.

    I do not agree with Mattick that the 1917 Russian revolution was inherently bourgeois, or that the MRC just walked into the winter palace one day and said "Boo!"

    No the MRC was elected by the Soviets, and similar events happened in other regions of the country. Petrograd may have been bloodless, but Moscow sure wasn't.

    The Bolsheviks did however try to wield control over the proletariat, it had the Cheka. Not to mention the policy of War Communism, where power of the soviets was cut off, only the Bolsheviks could rule-- all other factions were banned, and the conscription of the Red Army, which was under the command of the Bolsheviks. Suppression of workers organizing against the Bolsheviks-- Kronstadt.

    Here we see how Trotsky is an apologist for Stalin, saying these measures were necessary-- he was part of this process of terror, foreced labour
    repression and bureaucratization, yet, he acted like his shit don't stink, or Stalins was more oderous.

    Back to Matticks misconception of the revolution being bourgeois; I think its better explained that any proletarian revolution will be crushed if it remains isolated, as socialism is born from the womb of the world-wide producing imperialism; not a question posed against it like Lifestylism, or science fiction. This means the revolution has to spread, and take over the worlds resources, or it will be an island in the ocean of capitalism-- and the survivors on this dessert island will have to sell-out and fish from the ocean of capitalism.

    Overall, I think the revolution was Proletarian, but was squashed by some of the counter-revolutionary members of Bolshevism aswell as its isolation.
    The majority of the Bolsheviks did afterall vote for recognising the right to self-determination in areas of the former Czarist Empire where workers had a stronghold. Causing further isolation (Read Luxemburg on the Russian Revolution).
  5. Devrim
    Devrim
    The IBRP have a pamphlet, which I haven't read yet, on Trotsky, and Trotskyism: http://www.ibrp.org/english/books-an...-and-trotskysm
    Devrim
  6. al-Ibadani
    al-Ibadani
    The IBRP have a pamphlet, which I haven't read yet, on Trotsky, and Trotskyism: http://www.ibrp.org/english/books-an...-and-trotskysm
    Devrim
    That IBRP pamphlet was the very first left communist text I ever read, back in '03. It is quite good actually.It seems a bit more anti-Trotsky than the ICC's take on him, if I remember correctly.

    Perhaps Trotsky might have come around to positions closer to the communist left had he lived another decade or so, the way his widow did. We'll never know.

    What do Trots say about Sedova's political trajectory anyway?