Explain Trotskyism in short.. and some other stuff

No, why? What's that?:laugh:

That's interesting, I thought Swedes hated Russians :lol: (I was in Gavle a few months ago visiting a friend)

Well, obviously communists don't..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Nilson

No. Trotsky was developing the theory of Permanent Revolution even before the Bolshevik-Menshevik split. Lenin's April Theses is the implimentation of the theory of Permanent Revolution as the line of a party, and notably, Trotsky was the only person willing to fight for the April Theses alongside Lenin upon his return. Almost the entire Central Committee and other leadership were opposed to the April Theses when they were presented.

Anton Nilson. :wub:

Stalin didn't "took control". The majority of the party defended Stalin's views and that's why he was elected. Who tried to took control? Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev... this opportunistic group which after some years made a plan to murder Stalin.

It's not coherent to call Trotsky a Marxist-Leninist. He was a Menshevik who disguised his counter-revolutionary POV saying he was "true Bolshevik". Trots don't like remember the ideological struggle between Trotsky and Lenin, huh?

And Marx was no spontaneist.

Orly? I think someone needs to reread Lenin's What Is to Be Done? as he addresses that this is what Marx thought and is considered incorrect by Lenin. Hence the need for a Vanguard.

"trotskyists" don't think that socialists should sell out their movement to nationalists for their "national bourgeois revolution" like what happened in china, which is in itself perminant revolution. trotskyists believe that the revolution needs a political party for all workers, and this party is to coordinate the revolution and build a workers state. trotskyists know that socialism in one country is the biggest load of theoretical horse shit that has ever been conceived in human history as well. stalin's foreign policy with revolutions was plain menshevism, I can't see why anybody in good consiousness would support the CCP's subserviance in the KMT, or Chaing Kai Shek's entrence into the 3rd international. Stalinists before WW2 also either ignored fascists as a political threat or straight up marched with them. In france, stalinists were seen as collaberators.

Comrade rodrigo, Stalinism is menshevism. Two Stage theory was implemented in the CCP, under instructions from the 3rd international! minor ideological clashes between Lenin and Trotsky are overshadowed by the two's dual leadership over the revolution, and their attempts to fight the oppurtunist and conservative wing of the bolsheviks, which included Kamanev, Zinoviev, and Stalin. Lenin and Trotsky were the only ones who supported the october revolution out of the central commitee. lenin said on many, many occasions that socialism in one country is impossible, and he said like any true marxist that any revolution won't achieve any of its goals unless another revolution is to happen in another country. Stalin made sure that revolutions didn't happen, or that they were destroyed internally. He wanted an alliance with Nazi Germany!

Prove it.

It's not an "implemented theory". That what happened. Either in the Chinese Revolution or the Russian Revolution and some other proletarian revolutions as well.

???

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/brartoc.htm

http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/harpa...yism/index.htm

Good reading and learning! :)

Trying to equal Trotsky to Lenin? LMAO

Actually Trotsky, who theoretically turned Bolshevik in 1917, defended the DELAY of the Revolution. Stalin opportunist? Prove it.

Later Trotsky was in contrivance with Zinoviev and Kamenev, against Stalin.

And who said socialism "in one country" is possible? :confused: Lenin's views on the exportation of revolution in truth put him much closer to Stalin than Trotsky.

Where? When?

So sending equipments, soldiers, weapons, war vehicles, clothes, food and money to aid other communist movements is nothing to you, right?

This "alliance with Germany" thing again? Study the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a little more before saying such bullshit, please. :closedeyes:

people, really this is not a trosky/stalin thread ok? there are more then enough of those allready so dont turn this into anotherone.

@rodrigo: you allready have your own antitrosky thread, why dont you invide syd there and you both can have your "disscussion" there is that an idea?

Marx and Engels recognized that revolution and communism does not arise from the spontaneous movement but from science, the science of social movements in society. The first crucial thing that they did, beginning with the Communist Manifesto, was to put socialism on a scientific basis. From that time on we speak of "scientific socialism." This theory does not just come out of the mass movement.

You Stalinists do not have a monopoly on the term "Marxism-Leninism".

Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism are all branches of the original Leninist tendency.

To answer OP's question:

Trotskyism is an extended branch of Marxism-Leninism which focuses on the theories/beliefs of Leon Trotsky. These include permanent revolution, Democratic Centralism, his analysis of the USSR under Stalin, etc.

You do know that Pravda took a conciliatory line with the provisional government when Stalin was an editor of the paper while Trotsky was one who was pushing for the revolution (read: permanent revolution)?

"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans. They have mad a fetish of democratic principles. They have places the workers' right to elect representatives above the party, as it were, as if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy .... It is necessary to create among us the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party. The party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering in the spontaneous moods of the masses, regardless of the temporary vacillations even in the working class. This awareness is for us the indispensable unifying elements. The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principles of a workers' democracy...." - Trotsky, on page 509 of the Vintage Edition (1965). The footnote for this quote is Desyatyi Syezd RKP, pp. 192.

"We are now heading towards the type of labour [he stated] that is socially regulated on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory for the whole country, compulsory for every worker. This is the basis of socialism.... The militarisation of labour, in this fundamental sense of which I have spoken, is the indispensable basic method for the organisation of our labour forces.... Is it true that compulsory labour is always unproductive?.... This is the most wretched and miserable liberal prejudice: chattel slavery too was productive.... Compulsory serf labour did not grow out of the feudal lords' ill-will. It was [in its time] a progressive phenomenon." On page 501 of the same edition. The foot note indicates it was made in a report to the Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions. The source given is Tretii Vserossiskii Syezd Profsoyuzow pp 87-96.

"The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers. Compulsion of labour will reach the highest degree of intensity during the transition from capitalism to socialism. Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps." - Trotsky

Wow, I was vaguely familiar with Trotsky's views on the militarization of labour, but this...shit.

I'm not necessarily defending this because I haven't done any research on it, however in order to grasp the quote you need to put it in the context where people in the countryside are starving to the point of cannibalism, and the country is so torn up from the war and cut off from the world to the point where everybody is willing to steal and kill for food. Trotsky was saying that an organisation to this chaos is necessary if society is to function in the U.S.S.R. and through militarisation of labor, everybody will be doing something productive in order for their substinance, which needs to be organised and rationed.

If you didn't notice, I didn't extrapolate anything with regard to the broad current of Trotskyism from these quotes, but still I think that such a comparison (which I isolated in the post) is beyond disgusting, frankly. Arguing for the harshest of the methods in securing compulsory labour, one revolutionary resorts to arguing that the efficiency of such methods is the subject of "the most wretched of liberal prejudice", reinforcing the poinjt by means of a comparison to...slave labour. Wow.

Yeah this is a really touchy subject, i'm gonna do some research on Marxists.org

NHIA, old chum. :glare: If you read the very bit you quoted again, you may notice that I said 'trotskyists', not 'Trotsky'. Just like I tried to explain in another post in this thread, I'm perfectly aware that during the civil war and in the years immediately after that, the bolshevik leaders (Lenin, Trotsky etc) did divert from democracy in order to do what they perceived as necessary to ensure victory.

Most of their advocates today don't at all defend all of the things they did during those years of extreme struggle for the survival of the revolution. After all, they were only human beings in a very pressing situation, not gods that always did the right thing.

Some of the decisions Trotsky made were right, others no doubt weren't. This does, however, not negate the fact that he later on was the foremost critic of the bureaucratic development in the USSR and that his followers today always make a point of condemning anti-democratic tendencies within the socialist movement.

In other words, what matters in this context is the ideology he left behind, not all of his actions or everything he wrote.

The CWI, for instance, declares it's support of economic and political democracy. It supports independent and fighting trade unions, it's leaders are electable and recallable, and if elected to public offices they refuse to take out more than an average workers salary. Etc, etc, the list goes on.

So yeah, you post was a bit pointless.

You have to take into account the context of that sentence. Consider the one after it: "Compulsory serf labour did not grow out of the feudal lords' ill-will. It was [in its time] a progressive phenomenon." Emphasis on the key words added by me. That's just basic historical materialism from Trotsky: the slave society was an improvement from the hunter and gatherer society, in the sense that it led towards the next form of society, which is called feudalism and in it's turn was an improvement.

Which of course doesn't mean that it in any sense of the word would be a desirable society for humanity today. Just a stage in human progress, a painful step in the development of our species that in turn led to a more advanced society.