What is trotskyism?
Trotskyism can be summarized in three main ideological errors:
Error 1:
Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism primarily derives from an economic error of all trots, which is viewing socialist states, fascist states, and social democratic states as "state capitalist". To put it very briefly, "state capitalism" is the idea that the USSR and other existing socialist states functioned as corporations on an international level. The USSR, as an isolated socialist state, was forced to compete militarily with the world capitalist market, and therefore accumulated capital and subsumed the workers to the means of production under a beuracratic elite (whose unique relation to the means of production has never been made fully clear). The buildup of heavy industry and the shift to war time production of weapons and machinery preceding WWII was at the expense of the living standards and real wages of the people. Once again to be brief, this is just straight up wrong. I would advise everyone to read Farm to Factory by Robert C. Allen, the buildup of production at the expense of consumption in the first 5 year plan was quite purposeful and quite successful under a socialist system of development, and much of the economic data trots use is bourgeois propaganda is designed to obstuficate. Also, there was a fundamental difference between the economy of the Stalin era and the Gorbachov era, which "state capitalism" ignores. Something to discuss in the thread and one of the most important historical tasks for current Marxists, though sadly I have to return my copy of the book to the library tomorrow :/
This leads to the ideological error of being unable to choose sides in world affairs, since Marxists do not choose sides in bourgeois conflicts. This is a vulgarization of Lenin and his policies during WWI, but basically it is what Max Schatman calls "third camp" politics in which trots choose the "workers" rather than sides between Stalinism and Capitalism and generally between sides in any conflict (no direct relation to the "third alternative" in fascism though it's something to think about). In the past, this led to waffling about NAZI Germany, neutrality towards the Korean war, opposition to Castro and the cuban revolution, indifference towards the Vietnam War, and countless contemporary examples of ignoring inter-imperialist and anti-imperialist struggles and instead supporting the mythical "third camp." These are the good trots, neutrality and irrelevance are the best one can hope for from a trot.
Finally, this leads to the practical error of seeing "totalitarian" states as those capitalist states with no political freedoms, while western democracies have free speech and free press and the right to unionize, therefore leading to the practical implementation of Trotskyism as support for western imperialism, bourgeois propaganda, and CIA infiltration of the left. This is the logical conclusion to Trotskyism, which either becomes CIA disruption in left wing movements (often taking the form of "entryism", another terrible trot invention), neo-conservativism, or straight up working for the CIA.
Trotskyism]At a meeting of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas rang Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence, successfully to plead for funds to keep the committee going (Bloom 1986: 264).
This is the end point of totalitarian ideology, which includes but is not limited to trots (though for polemical purposes it is acceptable to refer to all liberal deviations from Marxism trotskyism) including Noam "the fall of the Soviet Union was a victory for socialism" Chomsky, Hannah "the USSR is the 'ultimate evil'" Arendt, Bertrand "Marx's...thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred' Russel, and that's just the most intelligent ones.
Tl;dr: Trotskyism inevitably leads to either CIA ideology, supporting "free" capitalist states over "totalitarian/Stalinist" ones, either through supporting western imperialism explicitly, supporting a third option that doesn't exist, or obsession with Stalin over any objective analysis.
Edited by babyhueypnewton ()
Error 2:
Trotskyism as religion. Trotsky made four predictions based on his theories, all of which were proven false. First, that Stalinism was a temporary abberation, a degeneration of what was still fundamentally a "workers state", and would collapse after the end of WWII along with fascism and other attempts to preserve capitalism from its terminal crisis. Not only was this wrong, as the regime of Stalin was strengthened by the war, but other "Stalinist regimes" in China, Albania, Cuba, Vietnam, Burkina Faso (to name some of my faves) were able to create new socialist states. After the war, it appeared that 'Stalinism' was the future. Second, that WWII was the terminal crisis of capitalism, and that capitalism was incapable of growth (and the world revolution was around the corner). To quote Callinicos again:
Typically involved in these attitudes was a refusal to contemplate the possibility that Trotsky was mistaken in assuming that future capitalist economic expansion was ruled out. This bred an economic catastrophism of which Healy and his followers provide the classic case. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s they ignored the abundant evidence of a world-wide boom to announce an imminent, and drastic slump. For the Healyite WRP the actual onset of global recession in the early 1970s was greeted with a fervour almost comparable to that of a Christian fundamentalist in the face of the Second Coming.
Third, the theory of 'permament revolution', which is basically the idea that the peasants and petit-bourgeoise, led by the proletarian vanguard, would be capable of fulfilling the role of the bourgeoisie (making a bourgeois revolution) but could not make socialism until the advanced countries had revolutions. Clearly, within the restrictive definition of socialism advanced by trots (of which no country has ever qualified) this theory of true, but in the face of the third world socialist revolutions and the success of the Maoist theory of the 'bloc of four classes' for third world revolution in the 60s were quickly condemning trots to the dustbin of history (to quote Trotsky :p). Fourth, the theory of the 'degenerated workers state', which posited that the USSR was still socialist in character but deformed by beuraucracy. If this was the case, then all of the USSR satellite states like Yugoslavia,Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Kazakh SSR, etc were also workers states, and the Stalinist beuracracy was a revolutionary force capable of installing workers states without a grassroots revolution. That's obviously one step too close to supporting Stalin.
None of these predictions were true, some were vague enough to support at the cost of real world proletarian movements, while some were directly contradictged by economic facts. This wing of trotskyism is not as strong as the 'state capitalist' school, and I would argue is the least terrible form of trotskyism. More of a religion than anything else, it's mostly neutered by 50 years of irrelevancy and terrible strategy unchanged from Troktsky's last 'transitional program' from 1938. What it does do is scream about Stalin and argue about the nature of the USSR, but support for actually existing socialism over capitalism is a rare trait in trots, even if it requires detachment from reality.
Tl;dr: Trotsky himself was completely wrong about everything, continuing the tradition requires a religious devotion to his ideas, an obsession with the Russian revolution and the past, and an increasing irrelevancy. This is the best limit of Trotskyism, it can only go to the right or else simply dissapear into actually existing socialism.
Trotskyism as slave-morality. Trotskyism is primarily centered on Stalin. Since Trotsky's economic recommendations for the Soviet Union (rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture) were followed by Stalin, we can begin Trotskyism at his personal dispute with Stalin and his bitterness at losing out on the 'power struggle' in the politburo. Trotsky, being the first and last trot to have ever been involved in a real life revolution, is the ideological inpiration of the movement even as his theories have been abandoned by contemporary trotskyist parties. To understand all modern trots, we must understand that what unites them is not a set of beliefs or a common political program, but a common character of envy and resentment. This obviously begins with trotsky, and has only grown over 70 years. A few things are important to stress here. First, every single trot group in the world has lost out. Trots love to point out the trotskyist party of Vietnam which was wiped out by Ho Chi Min and the 'Stalinists'. The same is true of the trots in France (at the expense of the 'Stalinist PCF), the trots in Cuba, and every revolution throughout the world has had a trot party that was "betrayed". Inter-trot politics are always in the language of 'betrayal', and 'Stalinist oppression'. Trotskyism was always the ideology of being a noble loser, and 90 years after the death of Lenin and countless defeats, that resentment has become the ideology itself.
Second, everything is 'Stalinist'. What Stalinism is has never been fully clear, as I pointed out eocnomic theories of the USSR have been lacking in rigor and the analysis of the beuraucracy as a class (in the Marxist sense) has never been well articulated. Even so, if we grant that the USSR under Stalin was Stalinist, what is truly remarkable about the trot character is that Maoist China was 'Stalinist', Fidel's Cuba was 'Stalinist', North Korea is 'Stalinist', Hugo Chavez is 'Stalinist', Qaddafi was 'Stalinist' (RIP :/ )and as we get further from the conditions of 1920s Russia and the death of Stalin, more and more things become 'Stalinist'. Along with this, all revolutions are analyzed based on the Russian revolution, which was the only legitimate proletarian movement ever in history. Third, trots hate each other. As I pointed out, there is no better place to go for criticism of trots than other trots. This is partly the result of the religious worship of Trotsky, but it is also the result of the general character of being oppressed. As a fundamentally negative ideology, trotskyism can only lead to isolation even among "comrades", and trots only work together because that is the party model passed from Trotsky himself.
Ironically, trots will defend anything as long as it doesn't win. Trots are on the front lines of the Chicago teachers strike, at the front lines of the fight against racism, the first to ally with Occupy Wall St. and the Arab Spring. The French 1968 was a victory, while the Chinese 1968 was a failure. SYRIZA losing was a victory, while the KKE's mass strikes (under PAME) and the greek civil war were failures. The victory of Obama was a positive for the workers, while the victory of Chavez was a setback. Many have accused trots of white supremacy, which may be true historically, but it is a historical accident that people of color have been the force of socialism in history while white people have been the labor aristocracy. A fundamental inversion of values lies behind this, and only the snake known as a trot could find defeat in the jaws of victory.
Tl;dr: When one finds a trot, make sure an ice-pick is at the ready.
jools posted:Fucks I give about completely un-nuanced boo boo baby objections to trotskyism based on misreadings and misrepresentations of an already shoddy theoretical body... Zero
im glad you said it because im not really allowed to say things liek that anymore
jools posted:Have you read the people youre writing about. Like, read their names. Im pretty sure its Max Schachtman
no its not
babyhueypnewton posted:jools posted:Have you read the people youre writing about. Like, read their names. Im pretty sure its Max Schachtman
no its not
http://www.marxists.org/archive//shachtma/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman
http://www.workersliberty.org/category/marxist-theory/history/marxists/max-shachtman
Ironicwarcriminal posted:have you read darkness at noon huey?
no
jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:jools posted:Have you read the people youre writing about. Like, read their names. Im pretty sure its Max Schachtman
no its not
http://www.marxists.org/archive//shachtma/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman
http://www.workersliberty.org/category/marxist-theory/history/marxists/max-shachtman
you're right, i misspelled it. so did you though. i'll fix it thanks
babyhueypnewton posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
have you read darkness at noon huey?
no
‘k
It’s not directly relevant but I always kind of wonder about the language of these leftist sectarian battles and the true believers. Do you sincerely believe that Trotskyists are snakes? Do you believe that your way is objectively Correct and theirs is not? Would you murder people who adhere to that particular strain of Marxism, and if so, when?
littlegreenpills posted:itt we ask hard hitting questions about the definition of Trotskyism, such as "who gives a shit"
To be fair, isn’t this a legitimate response to leftist sectarian battles? Communists wielding any sort of state power is largely anachronistic apart from arguably Cuba, DPRK and some subcontinental, subnational jurisdictions or whatever.
Learning the theoretical nuances between the Sunni-Shi’ite tensions seems like a far more useful and contemporary debate.
subversion.....
babyfinland posted:youre a nice guy huey on a real level but politically youre like if Glen Beck's Nightmare Obama's Acorn Stalinist Thug materialized irl grunting and half-literate
i am this, literally
babyfinland posted:youre a nice guy huey on a real level but politically youre like if Glen Beck's Nightmare Obama's Acorn Stalinist Thug materialized irl grunting and half-literate
that is what is needed though haha
babyfinland posted:this is fun. we have a good time here on the rhizzone.
it would have been interesitng being a college student in the 60s or 70s where you discussed these things irl and such ideas actually seemed like they could be relevant to the world you were shaping
babyfinland posted:this is fun. we have a good time here on the rhizzone.
Edited by babyfinland ()
Ironicwarcriminal posted:babyfinland posted:this is fun. we have a good time here on the rhizzone.
it would have been interesitng being a college student in the 60s or 70s where you discussed these things irl and such ideas actually seemed like they could be relevant to the world you were shaping
that might have been fun but i prefer the awkward desperate nihilism of our period because that signifies closer proximity to the Real. something is happening
babyfinland posted:i'm almost 26 years old and i still feel about the same as a person as i did when i was like 17 or whatever i.e. stupid, awkward, nervous, repulsive, existentially alone, waking up sad every morning, but in general enjoying life anyways. i think that probably is how life goes. you don't really change inside. you just grow older and start doing things that people see as adult-like instead of child-like and then you can fake being a Man outside your bedroom. on the inside though.........
inside yes, inside? believe it or not Bryce we're actually listening to you....