/edu/ - Education

>>17602
The label 'Trotskyist' just gets slapped on every communist critical of Stalin, it's not like it really means anything.

>>17602
Marxism with Anti-Communist Characteristics

tony blair

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-leon-trotsky-student-politics-hero-oxford-university-new-labour-leader-prime-minister-biography-a7885446.html

Anyone who adheres to one of the many splinters of Trotsky's Fourth International, generally the ideas of opposition to Socialism In One Country and permanent revolution, as well as more generally Orthodox Marxism and early Bolshevik theory

It doesn't really seem to mean much anymore, since Trotskyist groups spawned tendencies with completely contradictory positions. For example Cliffite Trots entirely fit the stereotype of the Trot-neocon pipeline, they saw the USSR as being equal to or worse than the Western powers, cheered its fall, have supported US regime change ops, etc. By contrast Marcyite Trots are the complete opposite, viewed the USSR as a worker's state which had degenerated, but was still a leasing revolutionary force (which was Trotsky's actual position). They spawned some of the most consistently anti-imperialist orgs like PSL.

99% hot gas

>>17609
1% evil

>>17608
When someone online says Trotskyite 90% of the time they are talking about Cliffites. Trotsky as an individual was brilliant in many more aspects than Stalin but just happened to lose the post-Lenin power struggle and the ensuing retardation is more akin to the Sunni-Shia split than an actual marker of anything significant. All it did was make "Stalinists" hardcore defenders of the worst aspects of the USSR and made "Trotskyites" proclaim the USSR had to be destroyed. Neither kneejerk position is productive at all.

>>17611
>>17608
>>17607
/thread
Should probably also specify that Trotsky the man is very much distinct from whatever the actual fuck his followers became, and even his own thought differs pre/post exile, especially as you get to the late 30's. He's written banger after banger though, with some exceptions, more people need to read him. Anyway time to jump thread before the guys telling you that the guy who was the Platonic ideal of the judeo-bolshevik menace was actually a Nazi collaborator and planned on dismantling the USSR even though he spent the latter part of his life defending them in writing

>>17605
Why is every criticism of Trotsky inane shit like this instead of actually dealing with why his original ideas are kind of shit. I guess that would entail actually engaging with his ideas and reading

>>17614
Wow you used the reaction image I posted in the OC thread lol
There is almost no tenet of Trotskyism that I don't disagree with, but the fact that Trotsky was a skilled writer is a simple reality you'd discover upon reading him. Stalin died with an annotated copy of Terrorism and Communism on his desk, full of personal notes expressing his approval. Was he a Trotskyite?

>>17613
True. I avoid this by not reading at all and staring at the ceiling, waiting for divine revelation to grant me the correct knowledge, like a true materialist anti-metaphysician

>>17602
>and with the modern Trotskyists?
Trotskyists tend to be rather weird and cultish in my experience. A bit like Jehovah's Witnesses. There's something about it that appeals to the evangelical type. There are different groups but I can't find a consistent thread between them, and that (in North America) it became something more like a reservoir for "anti-Stalinist" socialists with wildly different positions. Some seem like entirely olds, some entirely students.

>>17608
>It doesn't really seem to mean much anymore, since Trotskyist groups spawned tendencies with completely contradictory positions.
You know, if you look at stupidpol, the actual links to socialist groups that get posted there tend to either be to the WSWS, which is a Trotskyist paper, or the Platypus society and Chris Cutrone who is one of these odd academic post-left Trotskyist types. Or Douglas Lain. There's also an element of "workerism" within some of these Trot groups which I think explains the overlap. That's one reason why the LaRouchites were originally a weird offshoot of Trotskyism.

>>17611
>Trotsky as an individual was brilliant in many more aspects than Stalin but just happened to lose the post-Lenin power struggle and the ensuing retardation is more akin to the Sunni-Shia split than an actual marker of anything significant.
Stalin and Trotsky also contributed to this, with Stalin devising an unbelievably vast (literally so) conspiracy of Trotskyists depicted as wrecking all levels of society which justified what he wanted to do, which Trotsky was also happy to play up for his own purposes.

>>17612
Because /leftypol/ does not read.
Trotsky's educational program and relating aesthetics are fucking woeful though. Especially as his ideas were already proven wrong by the time he wrote them, by no other than the proletariat in Russia.

>>17602
You're going to get a lot of Stalinist dicksucking in this thread, which is to be expected.

Trotsky in the revolutionary period was a run of the mill second International Marxist with some theoretical contributions in Results and Prospects about the law of uneven development.

However, Trotskyism is really defined proper by the 1930s when the left opposition was purged from the USSR. Trotsky felt that the USSR was a "degenerated worker's state", "Thermidorian", and that the party no longer served revolution. He thought that the Stalinist popular front model was flawed and criticised it for the rise of fascism in Europe. He also turned more towards the United States in hopes that it would become revolutionary. The hope of the 4th International was that it would rejuvenate the "real Marxism" and turn away trade unionists in the west away from the stalinist communist parties.

What you make of this is up to you, unfortunately there is a lot thinly-veiled antisemitism thrown at Trotsky as a subverter and ruiner of the party. If you believe that the USSR had to do what it did in the name of social necessity then it becomes easy to see why a figure like Trotsky would be perceived as he is. Trotsky responded by stating that the party stalinists worshipped the accomplished fact, and no longer functioned as vehicle for self-criticism and overcoming capitalism.

These debates are pretty much fruitless these days. Trotskyist and Stalinist parties alike are sectarian remnants of the 1970s. They both had contributions to Marxist theory that can be interpreted in various ways, but unless you're debating a key theoretical point it doesn't really make much sense to identify one way or the other.

>How exactly would you define Trotskyism? How exactly would you summerise it's key differences from other Left wing political positions?

Trying as best as possible to remain neutral, here are some of the key principles of Trotskyism:

1. Internationalism: Trotskyists believe that workers have common interests across national boundaries, and therefore support global cooperation and solidarity among working class movements.

2. Permanent Revolution: Trotskyism holds that socialism cannot survive without spreading beyond national borders. Thus, Trotskyists argue that a successful socialist revolution must aim not only to transform internal politics and economics, but also foster a chain reaction of similar uprisings throughout neighboring countries.

3. Democratic Centralism: While many forms of governance can succeed in pursuing these goals, Trotskyism places strong emphasis on decentralized control underpinned by majority rule, with free speech, open discussion, and regular election of leaders from below. In this respect, they share much ground with libertarian socialism, though usually disagree on tactical matters like how centralization versus local autonomy should apply during transitional periods before power has been fully consolidated within labor organizations rather than the State.

>From my understanding most people here are Marxist-Leninsts, and even those who aren't certainly don't seem to look favourably at Trotsky.

most of the people on here have never done work or joined an organization, were children or not even born yet when the USSR collapsed, and learned theory through memes.

>So in your view what was wrong with Trotsky's ideas

a lot of the dunking on him around here is more about him as a person, which is what makes it a ridiculous thing to care too much about. People dislike Trotsky because he seems to them opportunistic. He was a Menshevik until the even of the October Revolution, then switched sides. There are some absurd things about him like his horny letters to his wife, the anecdote about his getting mad and failing to slam a door when arguing with other communists once, his getting owned by a random mexican dude with an ice axe on behalf of stalin, his annoying letters to pravda that lenin instructed his comrades at pravda not to publish. He can come across as a bit of a clownish figure sometimes. But he was essential to winning the Russian civil war.

I have at times seen slander on here that Trotsky supported the Nazis against Stalin. This is not true.

During the 1930s up until his assassination in August 1940, Trotsky held a fierce opposition towards Nazi Germany. His stance against fascism was rooted in his belief that the working class needed to take action against the threat posed by totalitarian regimes and right-wing forces. As an exiled leader at the time, Trotsky advocated for building a broad anti-fascist front that included all democratic, liberal, leftist, and progressive elements. He believed that combating Nazi expansion required unity and collective efforts from diverse factions, regardless of their ideologies.

In terms of specific actions, Trotsky called for boycotts of Nazi goods, strikes, demonstrations, and other acts of civil disobedience to bring attention to Hitler's regime. He encouraged the formation of anti-Nazi committees and organizations around the globe to raise awareness about the dangers of fascism. Furthermore, Trotsky supported the idea of supporting worker councils and other grassroots initiatives arising in occupied territories, hoping that they could turn against their oppressors and ignite revolts that would weaken the Nazi hold on Europe. Overall, Trotsky saw the fight against fascism as part of a larger battle between capitalist exploitation and the global triumph of communism.

>So in your view what was wrong with Trotsky's ideas, and with the modern Trotskyists?

Honestly, it's not that his ideas are "wrong" so much as they have proven very difficult to implement in reality, leading to compromises working a lot better in practice. Permanent revolution never took off due to linguistic, cultural etc. differences between workers across national borders. Also the bourgeoisie always working to divide and conquer the proletariat. Also identity politics, etc. I think we need a few more generations of "globalism" so to speak before traditions, national identities, etc. get melted down enough that it becomes easier for workers across borders to collaborate with each other towards permanent revolution. I unironically think the internet has a lot of potential, but that this potential is getting destroyed by the bourgeoisie every day. Machine Learning, Translation software, etc. has the potential to make communicating with proles in other countries a lot easier.

>>17620
>3. Democratic Centralism:
Lmao how did you get this wrong?
Trotskyism is against Democratic Centralism. The Mensheviks and Trotsky came out against the Bolsheviks over Democratic Centralism and was one of the items they split over

Democratic centralism means when the party debates a motion (at which point there is free speech, rigorous discussion etc) but when it moves to put that motion to a vote it becomes binding on every party member to uphold that motion even if they vehemently disagreed with it during the discussion stage

Here's Trotsky, who wrote an entire polemic in 1904 against Leninist methods of organising calling Lenins book on organising "long and boring"
<But Comrade Lenin keeps on advancing. After writing a whole book to tell us that revolutionary methods (“insurrection” and “overthrow”) were only acceptable during the circle period; that in a Party “one and indivisible” discipline must rule; and that elements who break discipline in the Party of the proletariat by that alone show their petty-bourgeois opportunism, Comrade Lenin, who in 500 pages has managed if not to convince his reader, a least to exhaust him with all this philosophy, suddenly throws at him this obscure aphorism:
…
<And as Lenin, unlike the anarchistic intellectuals of the “minority” represents (I use a quotation he takes from an article by Kautsky) ‘the ideal model of an intellectual, totally steeped in the proletarian outlook … who without complaining marches in line, and works at each post he is given’; as Lenin, following Marx’s example never ingratiates himself into first place and ‘submits to Party discipline in an exemplary manner’; as Comrade Lenin possesses all these absolutely inestimable qualities as a disciplined Party member, who is not afraid to remain in a “minority,” he judges it indispensable to “slip” into his work in advance the philosophical justification for the split in the Party made to retain the remnants of his army. And he does it in a bare-faced way which is the reverse of his deep mistrust of his own supporters.
<If anyone rebels against me, it is very bad. If I rebel, then it’s good. Such is the brief and joyous moral of a long and boring book(Lenin's book), abounding with quotations, “international” parallels, artificial diagrams and all the other means of mental anesthesia.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/ch04.htm

The only success of Trotskyism in 120 years of its existence is Project for New American Century and the Bush administration of 2000
(Trotsky did 9/11)

>>17608
"Marcyite Trots" applies to WWP, not to PSL, which broke from WWP. PSL has never been Trotskyist. Ask any PSL comrade about their "lord and savior Trotsky" and their ideology of "Marcyist-Trotskyism" and you will get a lot of confused expressions. Some of the older ones will likely have heard of Sam Marcy, but none of them would argue that they are Trotskyists. There were like ten people who joined PSL in like 2004 who were from WWP. PSL defending the legacy of the Soviet Union was not because of a complicated Marcyist Trotskyism development but, rather, something that is completely consistent with Marxist-Leninism, because they are Marxist-Leninists. I have never heard of any PSL comrade calling the USSR as "degenerated" worker's state and you will notice that their analyses of the Soviet Union are consistent with Marxist-Leninism.
But don't take it from me, a random jagoff on the internet, maybe read what PSL publications have actually said about the issue, like how I hope you would research any party and its position.
https://www.liberationnews.org/lessons-collapse-heroic-soviet-union/
https://www.liberationnews.org/10-11-30-why-we-continue-to-defend-soviet-html/
https://soundcloud.com/thesocialistprogram/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-soviet-union-lessons-for-socialists

Trotskyism is just anti-communism with a socialistic face, Trotskyists have fought against every socialist state that has ever existed and always supported re establishing capitalism

>>17624
>Trotskyists have fought against every socialist state that has ever existed and always supported re establishing capitalism
This is a plain lie.
While Trots have denounced Soviet backed revolutionary states as deformed workers states, they are still *revolutionary states* with the ability to do a lot of good and to be salvaged.
As such the Trotskyist position has always been to defend these states against Capitalist and Imperialist aggression first and foremost.
You cannot work with a degenerated/deformed worker's state to sow revolution within it to redirect it away from totalitarianism and state capitalism and back towards actual communism if you allow the Western capitalist to overthrow the state…
No matter how distorted their views might have gone away from actual communism you could say there heart is in right place. Why would you support the enemy of the working class whose heart isn't even in the right place, over those who mean well but fail in the execution?

>>17621
>binding on every party member to uphold that motion even if they vehemently disagreed with it during the discussion stage

ngl this sounds a little regarded, is this just for the sake of party unity/stability just seems like it would inevitably cause millions party splits and encourage factionalism

Trotskyism is just leninism with anti stalinism/bukharinism characteristics. It became big because the soviet apparatus made him the boogey man so a good chunk of communists critical of the USSR agglomerated around him.

>>17606
absolutely based jfc

I always found it fascinating how every communist hardliner I know curses him. Trotsky delivered full war communism more radical than Stalins collectivization ever was.

I want to have an honest look into what this man believed. Which of his works would you recommend and are there perhaps books of other authors that help you to understand his way of thinking and his opinions?

before or after 1927?

To understand Trotskyism
>Results and Prospects → The Permanent Revolution (keep in mind R&P was written in 1907, compare it vis-a-vis Menshevik stageism and with what ended up being the April Theses and it comes across as very prescient)
>The Revolution Betrayed → Stalin (the new IMT version, huge book)
>In Defense of Marxism

To undersand Trotsky the man
>My Life
>The Prophet trilogy by Deutscher

Bonus bangers, read these if nothing else
>Their Morals and Ours
>History of the Russian Revolution
>Terrorism and Communism

>>18008
Wow, someone actually recommending things Trotsky wrote order to understand Trotsky, I'm pleasantly surprised

>>18008
Also, for books not written by Trotsky
>Trotsky as Alternative
>Trotsky: A Study in the Dynamic of his Thought
Both by Mandel give you the gist of what you need to know

>>18008
>>18010
>>18011
Thank you

>>18008
Victor Serge goes at length on Trotsky in Memoirs of a Revolutionary. Might be an interesting read also, given that Serge became quite close to Trotsky during the Left-Opposition struggles.

Why? He and his politics were an abject failure, same as the rest of the Bolsheviks. At least Marx left behind something theoretically useful for those of us in the present day who aren't proletarian commissar CEOs of steel production. Maybe he's an historical oddity at best.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/11/stalin.htm

>>18008
With Trotsky in Exile by Jean van Heijenoort has an appendix at the end that corrects a ton of details in The Prophet.

>>18016
Yes, Marx was a huge fan of the theoretical, not to keen on practice, famously. I'd also be really curious what you do find worth studying if one of the most important events of the modern era, a workers revolution of world historic importance, is of no significance to workers organizing today, and how you arrived at that conclusion. What, we just chuck out every single revolutionary experience of the previous century and start over from scratch by reinventing the wheel?

If you have to read Trotsky the meme response is Terrorism and Communism but here have a serious recommendation in regards to your questions

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm

>>18201
I see sarcasm is not your strong suit

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm
<This system will be made to work not by bureaucracy and not by policemen but by cold, hard cash.
<Your almighty dollar will play a principal part in making your new soviet system work. It is a great mistake to try to mix a “planned economy” with a “managed currency.” Your money must act as regulator with which to measure the success or failure of your planning.
<Your “radical” professors are dead wrong in their devotion to “managed money.” It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm.
<There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes (…) Soviet America will possess supplies of gold big enough to stabilize the dollar – a priceless asset.
What did he mean by this?
<While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics.
?
<One final prophecy: in the 3rd year of the Soviet rule in America you will no longer chew gum!
??