Talk:Trotskyism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
Trotskyism is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Mexico

I was amazed to note that there seems to be little or nothing on Frida and the Mexican connection... (unsigned comment)

This is an article about Trotskyism. The biography is at Leon Trotsky. --Duncan 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revolutionary role of Trotskyists

Even if we assume that followers of Trotsky were "physically exterminated", the point that they failed to lead any successful revolution after that still holds true. Srijon (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course Trotsky did play a leading role in the Russian revolution, and Michel Pablo played a central role in the Algerian revolution, working with the European Trotskyists to arm the FLN, and was a minister in the FLN government. I have removed a reference to the failure to lead revolutions you have added to the definition section. It's not part of the definition of Trotskyism, to not lead revolutions. --Duncan (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I am talking about AFTER 1920's. Trotsky couldn't have done anything for U.S.S.R. after that because he was exiled in 1929. As for Michel Pablo, smuggling arms from a different country cannot be called "playing a central role" or "leading the revolution" as such. Srijon (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted that claim from the introduction. Not relevant or notable enough for the introduction. We do ot note for example that despite War On Want that poverty remains. --Duncan (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The correctness and importance of a revolutionary socio-political theory is largely understood by considering the amount of revolutionary practice dependant on it. So this fact happens to be the most important one in the introduction. Srijon (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You have reverted without addressing the problem of notability. That doesn't address the problem of notability. I don't see why it should be in the introduction. It is hardly notable for the body of the article. --Duncan (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand what else should be a criterion for being "notable" in an article about a political ideology. I am restoring my edits for now. Please explain your opinion clearly.Srijon (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Srijon, Wikipedia works by consensus. You should not reintroduce a disputed edit when you know there is not consensus. That is pointless, and disruptive. You are trying to add, into the summary of the article, a point which is not notable enough to be in the body of the article: there are not notable references to support this aspect. If it is not notable to be in the body, then it does not belong in the introduction. As I pointed out above, we don't point out on the pages of other current social movements that their continued existence points to their failure, which is the POV your edit implies. --Duncan (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Unlike many other current social movements, Trotskyism is one of the very few which claim to be the correct continuation of Marxism-Leninism. As the results of Marxism-Leninism are derived from revolutionary practice and revolutionary practice alone, it is necessary here to give an account of the practical status of the Trotskyist movement. Also, since Trotskyists are fiercely critical of all other successful revolutions that claimed to be conducted on the lines of Marxism-Leninism, it is necessary to point out where Trotskyists themselves have been led by their own theory. Please leave a reply in my talk-page. Srijon (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on your user page to say that this page is the right place to discuss the article. Can you respond to my comments? My feeling is that since this is not yet mentioned in the body of the article, it would be mistaken to add it into the summary, which is where you are trying to include it. If you want to include it into the body, for example as a new sub-section on 'criticism', then you would need references. When you say that Trotskyists are fiercely critical of all other successful revolutions that claimed to be conducted on the lines of Marxism-Leninism, I should say that I am looking forward to seeing your references. The Fourth International welcomed revolutions in China, Korea and elsewhere. Material aid and political solidarity to Yugoslavia, Cuba, Algeria, Nicaragua and Vietnam are well documented. Certainly it made many comradely criticisms of bureaucratic errors made in some of these countries, and many of these comments were also made by the Yugoslav, Chinese, Albanian and Cuba comrades. Thanks. --Duncan (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Trotskyism and Neoconservatism"

The section "Trotskyism and Neoconservatism" seems extremely strange to me. The opening claim "The neoconservative or "neocon" movement has been widely associated with Trotskyism..." is especially strange, as the political distance between Trotskyism and Neoconservatism is about as large as it gets. It seems utterly improbable that these two ideologies are associated by anyone other than the occasional fruitcake, and the suspicious phrase "has been widely associated" only adds to that. Anecdotes about ex-Trotskyists who became neocons are irrelevant and serve only to illustrate the confusion and/or opportunism of those individuals. The supposed link between Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and neoconservative ideology is demonstrated only by some wordplay from some bullshitting political shapeshifter. I propose removal of the entire section. Jon Sneyers, 128.250.33.84 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. How should we correct that form of words? --Duncan 09:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This whole article is very POV and needs careful review. Unsigned comment from 4.231.230.60
Can you give some examples of the non-neutral POV?--Duncan 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Fourth Internationalist Trotskyisms?

Hmm. This is just one flavour of trotskyism - there are many, many organisations calling themselves 'the fourth international' Secretlondon 17:42, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

  • Not really: the USFI calls itself the FI, the others are committees or movements for rebuilding or reconstructing it. --DuncanBCS 21:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Trotskyism article

First time post to wikipedia--which is great, I love it--but this article is pretty bad so I had to respond. First of all Trotskyists would never refer to themselves as "Trotskyites"--a word which this article seems to use interchangeably. "Trotskyite" is a slur a Stalinist would use, often inaccurately, to describe an enemy; "Trotskyist" is a political ideology many people claim. Calling Trotskyists "Trotskyites" is like calling communists "commies" or calling the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party"--it's an insult that is used to amuse or enrage, depending on the context.

Secondly I laughed to see the Socialist Workers Party (US) listed with the Socialist Workers Party (Britain) as a prime example of Trotskyism. First of all these two organizations come from very different branches of Trotskyism. Second, the SWP (US) was the main Trotskyist organization in the US up until (arguably) the early 80s, when it imploded and split into several competing tendencies. What is left of the SWP is arguably not Trotskyist; at the very least it represents a non-orthodox form of Trotskyism that more or less rejects Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. The most emblematic representatives of Trotskyism in the US are the International Socialist Organization (a relatively large, fairly white, group based mainly around college campuses and recent ex-students which positions itself slightly to the left of reformism; the ISO differs from orthodox Trotskyism in that it considers the former Soviet Union and other "communist" countries as "state capitalist" rather than "deformed or degenerated workers' states") and the Spartacist League (a relatively medium-small group which prides itself on doctrinal purity, fights with other Trotskyists, and tries to take over meetings).

I'm a little intimidated of trying to edit the article myself, but I would be happy to try in conjunction with some other people. What's there now isn't a very full picture and is inaccurate in some respects.

Kod65red 03:11, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've rewriten the first sentence of the last para which contained a reference to a 'communist state'. While one might get away with using such an expression in everyday life it won't do in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. For the simple fact that the very idea of a communist state is a contradiction in terms. Communism is the abscence of a state and of classes in Marxian theory. Lenin went so far as to describe a workers' state as a bourgeois state minus the bourgeoisie. This was in order to indicate that the workers' state was the beginning of the transition to communism and a society that was truly egalitarian and therefore stateless. How anyone can write such guff is beyond me.

Jock Haston


I agree with this poster. This article says a great deal about nothing. It doesn't in any way explain the key tenets of Trotskyism and how they relate to other offshoots of communism. It is confusing and poorly written. Someone should go through this article and completely rewrite it, this time focusing on what Trotskyism is and how it compares to other kinds of socialism.

This is my opinion as a reader of this article. 128.2.237.8 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

[edit] Contentious area

Given what the article itself establishes—that Trotsky's heirs and epigones are notoriously argumentative—it is surely impossible to define this 'ism' in a way which appears to everyone as an NPOV. One suggestion, though: for some people involved or associated with that movement, it is less a specific theory of Leon Trotsky's and more a tradition of political opposition to Stalinism that they identify with. Focusing on the tradition, not the theory, might make more sense. Adhib 08:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The section below seems to be clearly taking a political stance:

The International Socialist Organization supported Ralph Nader, an anti-socialist candidate in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Britain's SWP supported George Galloway, an establishment Labor politician, in his campaign under the Respect Coalition, which included Islamist groups. Like Nader's campaign was meant to influence the Democrats, the Respect Coalition means to push the discredited Labor Party to the left rather than replace it with a party truly representing the working class. Both Nader and Galloway accept money from right-wing groups to help their campaign, Nader from Republicans and Galloway from Arab nationalist governments.

Calling Orwell a socialist writer is probably a stretch, too


Each group went through evolutions. Communist support to the British LP goes back to 1919, the Trotskyists called for a vote for Labour in the 1930s and onward, off and on, etc. You contribution here is not historical but really pollemical. --David Walters Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On Line

[edit] Trotskyism in the Third World

Why is the claim of few Trotskyists in the Third World disputed? It doesn't make sense to demand "support" of a statement that few Third World revolutionaries embrace Trotskyism. Point to some Trotskyist parties in the Third World if you can. I don't know of a single one, though I do know of various other Marxist trends that are active there.

I have restored the sentence, with "rejected by Third World revolutionaries" changed to "rare among Third World revolutionaries". Shorne 16:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the "rejected" part is precisely the one I demanded some support for. That is because "rejection of Trotskyism" may imply an active opposition to Trotskyism or Trotskyist ideas, which is certainly not the case for Third World Marxist revolutionaries. I agree with the current version of the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that "rejected" was a bit too strong, and I thank you for objecting to it. Shorne 18:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With regard to Bolshevik Leninist tendencies in the former colonial world—note the term Third World is not to be found in the Trotskyist lexicon—there were many. For example the largest workers party in ceylon was the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. there remains a large milieu of Trot groups in ceylon to this day. In Vietnam the Bolshevik Leninism was a large tendency in Siagon until it was persecuted and its leaders murdered by the Stalinists who were working with the imperialists. Again in Bolivia the POR was a mass party among the indistrial working class and played a major role in then revolution of 1952. Trotskyism is till influential there too. oif brazil and Argentina are considered Thjird World thjere too are large influential groups There was a sizeable Trotskyist group in Cuba before it was repressed by Castro. Finally there is a large trotskyist group in Algeria with considerable representation in parliament.

Jock Haston

Jock, welcome to wikipedia! Why don't you register yourself? It is fast and easy and free of monthly charge, and gives you a number of conveniences, such as the way of keeping track of your contributions and more. Mikkalai 08:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So I did another edit on the Trotskyism in the Third World bit. As it was written, it made it sound like Sri Lanka was the only less-developed country with a significant Trotskyist presence, which is false. Without going into long comparisons with other tendencies, perhaps this is an improvement? --Kod65red 23:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually the second largest section of Committee for a Workers' International is the Nigerian one. --Dalen 23:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Same about the International Marxist Tendency: the biggest section is the Pakistani one. The tale of Trotskyism as a West-centered trend has no foundation. --MauroVan 09:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are sections of respective internationals in countries with very large populations. I think that it is correct to say that Trotskyism is West-centered in the sense that 1) the movement originated in Europe, 2) its theoretical and political leadership is based in Europe and 3) establishment of Trotskyist movements in the 3rd world tend to follow colonial patters (London-based internationals has sections in former British colonies, UCI or FI-Verité has sections in former French, etc.). Notably the Latin American-based internationals (essentially Morenoists) differ from this pattern (and do in some ways constitute a political microcosm of their own). I think one can say that Trotskyism did not get a mass following in the 3rd world compareable to the official Soviet m-l, antirevisionist interpretations of m-l (maoists, pro-albanians) or radical nationalism. Trotskyist groups, of a variety of international affiliations, are widely represented in virtually all Western countries, but the situation is hardly the same in the 3rd world. This of course has its historical explanation. --Soman 10:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important not to discount memberships in large countries; it's more important to took at the nature of the party; whether it has a cadre-structure of whether its membership norma are more like social-democratic parties. For example, it's not unfair to say that the very largest Trotskyist parties have included the LSSP and NSSP in Sri Lanka; the Trotskyist organisations in Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru and Argentina have been very large; the Revolutionary Workers Party of Mindanao is also a mass organisation, with whose armed wing the Philippino government has negotiated.--Duncan 10:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

''''May'''' I add something more? Obviously it was only in the developing world that the Trotskyist movement ever developed anything close to a mass base: 1. Vietnam had a Trotskyist party, organized mostly in southern Vietnam that actually WON the colonial elections in 1945. It had 10s of thousands of supporters and probably close to 3,000 members over two groups. 2. Sri-Lanka did have a mass trotskyist party, about 7,000 members at one point but an influence into the millions really. 3. The Bolivian POR was never a 'mass party', ever. It probably topped out at 800 members in and around 1951. But again, it *defined* Marxism in that country and again had a mass base, mostly among the 100,000 tin miners at the time, most of whom looked to the Fourth International as "their" vanguard. 4. The MAS in Argentina in the mid-1980s claimed to have topped out at 14,000 members, bigger than any left group but the official CP (albeit it too was more influential). 5. The official FI-La Verite group in Algeria, topped out at 8,000 members during the election about 6 years ago. members of that group told me that over 40,000 had actually asked to join in the wake of a succesful election campaign that saw the group there get 8% of the vote and 20 MPs.

David Walters

[edit] Reorganizing this article

I wonder if this article needs a substantial reorganization. I get the impression that at each phase, someone has written another few sentences and then someone of the opposite viewpoint has edited them. So we have a positive presentation of Trotskyism and critiques of Trotskyism meshed together, and every line reads differently.

My proposal is that we reorganize the article more systematically, with a new section entitled "Critiques of Trotskyism" or something like that. Then the pejoratives and so forth could be organized under that header, and it might be easier to read. --Kod65red 23:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Till then, I've fixed the final sentence that referred to "communist states".--Che y Marijuana 01:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality dispute

Could the person who has slapped a neutrality dispute label on this article have the decency to explain this action?

As it stands the article is messy and shows all too clearly the signs of many hands. Some of whom lack any real degree of knowledge about the topic. But there is very little in the article that goes beyond the simple reporting of what Trotskyism is. Albeit it does that none too well but thats another matter.

The only real stuff that crosses the line re NPOV concerns Stalin and that will be gone very soon.

Jock Haston

While I can't take credit for the correct placement of a neutrality label here, I found that an easy request. "Trotskyists are mostly ignored by historians and politicians except when they faced police repression and slander. It is unusual for them to get a fair hearing of their views." Is the author stating a fact, editorializing, or crazed with Troskyitis? -- ChiJoker

Hi, new to wikipedia myself, just thought I could present an example of the above point.

In Great Britain, the Guardian, a newspaper generally seen as left-leaning, recently reported how PM Tony Blair had compared the actions of right-wing political Islam to those of Militant (the former Marxist tendency within the Labour Party, the members of whom formed the Socialist Party upon their expulsion from Labour), without pointing out that the SP are "opposed to all acts of state and individual terrorism" ('state terrorism' refers to warfare conducted by any government).

Perhaps the above instance could be quoted so as to provide a context for the passage in question? -- Lindsay

[edit] Urgent need for urgent revisions.

I'm new to Wikipedia and the farthest thing from an expert on Trotskyism, but I've studied the history and the discussion threads about this article, and I don't understand why it's still such a grammatical, syntactical and factual nightmare.

There simply must be an introductory paragraph that gives an otherwise uniformed reader some idea of what Trotskyism actually "is". Further explanations of vastly different perspectives on Troskyism, as well as how its views changed over time, are good and necessary—but only AFTER some sort of factual and dispassionate defining of the main idea.

Otherwise, this is all just a dog chasing its tail. And it's terrible for Wikipedia's credibility.--BrentDanzig 28 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to above

Since the above was written a large parrt of the article has been substantially rewritten and greatly expanded. Theres more to follow including reference, further reading and so forth. In a sense there can be no definition as to what trotskyism was because it was not and is not a "thing in itself". Trotskyism began as a defence of the Marxist Leninism of the Comintern. It continued as an evolving set of ideas and political tactics as it was forced to respond to events. For Trotskyists it was and is simply the Marxism of today nothing more noting less. I'll add an introd=uctory note making this point, in an NPOV fashion, asap. Probably after I've completed the final section.

Anyhow I hope the grammatical problems and so forth are less now than was the case. but feel free to correct my spelling and so forth. heck you are free to do so what am i saying! Silly me hum?

Now a question would it be a good idea to make the new section - Trotskyism in Literature - an entry in its own right?

Jock Haston

[edit] a basic definition

Most wikipedia articles start with a basic definition. This one starts out with an outline. Then like everything else in communism "The first fourth of the ten year period of the five year plan...blah blah blah." My understanding of the average user that would come to this page is this: One sees the word in print, looks it up and goes back to what one was reading. I would like to find out what it is. I don't want to read 10 pages on the history of something that I have no idea what it is. I'm such a scatterbrain that if the definition is remotely interesting I would probably read it anyway though. I was looking up Albert Camus. He was denounced by his friends as a "Trotskyite". I will have to look elsewhere to find out what it is. How about a 2 sentence definition at the top of the page.


Ahem. Came here trying to find out what type of communist might be a trotskyite. I still have no idea, because there are way to many loooong paragraphs and no concise definition at the start. "follower of trotsky's ideas" doesn't cut it- that tell me nothing.:-) Piyrwq 00:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your request for a definition is that Trotskyism is whatever someone wants it to be, since Trotsky is dead and is unlikely to argue the case. To judge from the contributions to this article, the political idea of Troskyism cannot be abstracted sufficiently from the man himself. Perhaps this article should be moved to a more relevant place, like "History's Political Dustbin". RIP, Leon! -- ChiJoker

I agree. I have only briefly skimmed the page so maybe I shouldnt be jumping to conclusions, but it seems to me this is more about Trotsky than his political ideologies and/or any solid political movement based on his ideas. 138.217.179.154 12:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"the average user that would come to this page is this: One sees the word in print, looks it up and goes back to what one was reading. I would like to find out what it is. I don't want to read 10 pages on the history of something that I have no idea what it is." - This describes exactly what happened to me just now. Can someone qualified please provide a clear, concise definition? It would be greatly appreciated. CanadianMist 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this is an excellent article, since this complaint has re-occurred over a few years, here's an attempt at a bullet point answer.
  • Trotskyism is a distinct trend of Marxist thought and action associated with Leon Trotsky, who with Vladimir Lenin led the Russian Revolution of 1917.
  • Trotskyism arose as a distinct trend of Marxism in 1924 in contrast to the ideas of Joseph Stalin, who had developed the 'theory' of "Socialism in one country".
  • Whilst Stalin’s ‘theory’ argued that it was possible to build socialism in Russia in isolation from the rest of the world, in contravention, Trotskyists argue, to the most basic principles of Marxism, Trotsky opposed this idea, and championed the idea of international revolution. (This is a perhaps insufficient first approximation.)
  • Whilst Communists praised the Soviet Union, Trotskyists claimed that the 1917 Russian revolution "degenerated" due to the economic backwardness of the country, and its isolation due to the failure of revolution to spread to the advanced capitalist countries. (See section: Trotsky, the Russian Revolution, and Stalin)
  • Trotskyism argues that there arose a bureaucracy in the Soviet Union which took power as a reflection of the backwardness of the country and as part of the process of the degeneration of the revolution. It examined the process by which this took place in great detail.
These bullet points are far from satisfactory, and do not really even approach the question of Trotsky's 'permanent revolution' by which he became known. But I doubt whether a two sentence definition is possible, simply because Trotskyism resulted from a criticism of a deviation from Marxism, but I'd be interested in whether it makes the ideas more accessible to those who have time for five sentences.
Andysoh 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I have made a similar attempt below, under Attempt at a basic definition. I don't agree with your idea that Trotskyisy emerged as a distinct trend of Marxism in 1924. Trotskyism was coined as a label by opponents of Trotsky, who was keen to stress that the 'novelty' was in socialism in one country: 'Trotskyism' was simply the continuity of Bolshevism and Leninism. Therefore, it is mistaken to reduce Trotskyism to a critique of Stalinism.
What do you think of my definition, below? --Duncan 07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Duncan, Ooops, should have spent more time studying the talk!
I have spent the last three hours looking at this, but have not got very far. There are a number of problems, and I'm sure you've been through them all already. I must apologise for my wordiness, I just don't seem to be able to concise.
Firstly I tried for a much simpler definition for a much younger or less informed audience than you, who would not cope with your definition, but perhaps with some major correcting to my points, the two definitions are not in competition as much as at first seems.
We don't have to have a simple intro suitable for (say) school students, but it might be worth a try. That's a question of style and I'll only pursue it if you think its worth seeing if we can get anything good out of it.
I thought that the term Trotskyism - or else Trostkyist - was used in 1905 and that I saw it in Trotsky's 1905 or something else of that date - used by his enemies, of course. I would argue that the previous uses of the term are a separate issue. It could be added later in the article. I personally wouldn't credit Stalin with originating the term. I think when it arose again in 1924 it was Zinoviev and Kamenev in the troika who admitted to devising the idea of using the term and the petty bourgois deviation accusation, etc. The Leon Trotsky wiki article footnote 35 says that "The term "Trotskyism" was first coined by the Russian liberal politician Pavel Milyukov, the first foreign minister in the Provisional Government..." I have a feeling this is wrong, and the term was in occasional use amongst political people in 1917, died out for a bit, and then brought back by the troika in 1924.
In a sense, perhaps you could say that Trotskyism is both a distinct trend and a continuation of Leninism. As a poitical organisation, only Trotskyism, it could be argued, by 1924 followed the most elementary priciples of Marxism, that socialism requires the joint efforts of workers in a number of advanced capitalist countries, as Lenin put it. (at least of the main trends, e.g. as distinct from marxism-leninism and social democracy, and later Maoism, etc.) But that makes it a distinct trend. I can see that this may be misleading though. But then, of course, Trotsky did make many contributions to Marxist thought, after Lenin's death, particularly his analysis of the degeneration of the Russian revolution which also define it as a distinct trend, even if his followers don't necessarily embrace any number of them.
THis is as far as I have got in taking your points and applying them to try to put across to an audience unfamiliar (and not able to cope with) with the terms you use.

I now have a three sentence opening for those who won't read more:-

“ Trotskyism is a trend of Marxist thought and action associated with Leon Trotsky, who with Vladimir Lenin led the Russian Revolution of 1917. One of Trotskyism's defining characteristics is its critique of the leadership of the Soviet Union. With various exceptions Trotskyists tend to criticse what they call the growth of a bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, which took power as a reflection of the backwardness and isolation of the country and as part of the process of the degeneration of the Russian revolution.

Whilst Stalin’s ‘theory’ of socialism in one country argued that it was possible to build socialism in Russia in isolation from the rest of the world, Trotskyists argue that this negated the most basic ideas of Marxism. Trotskyists claim to defend the basic ideas of Marxism and of Lenin. Whilst Communists praised the Soviet Union, Trotskyists claimed that the 1917 Russian revolution "degenerated" due to the economic backwardness of the country, and its isolation due to the failure of revolution to spread to the advanced capitalist countries. Trotskyists championed the idea of international revolution. (See section: Trotsky, the Russian Revolution, and Stalin)

The term 'Trotskyism' was used as a term of abuse by opponents of Trotsky in 1924, particularly in contrast to the ideas of Joseph Stalin, who had developed the 'theory' of "Socialism in one country". Trotskyists tend to defend the theory of Permanent Revolution.

 ”
But this is just exploratory. Andysoh 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anything but Neutral

I have editited the below passage somewhat as it seemed anything but impartial:

The International Socialist Organization supported Ralph Nader, an anti-socialist candidate in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Britain's SWP supported George Galloway, an establishment Labor politician, in his campaign under the Respect Coalition, which included Islamist groups. Like Nader's campaign was meant to influence the Democrats, the Respect Coalition means to push the discredited Labor Party to the left rather than replace it with a party truly representing the working class. Both Nader and Galloway accept money from right-wing groups to help their campaign, Nader from Republicans and Galloway from Arab nationalist governments.

Firstly, the claim that Galloway's aim was to "push the discredited Labor Party to the left rather than replace it". I do not know enough about Nader to comment on that part, but I have yet to see any evidence that this was Galloway's stated aim or any general consensus on this. It is an opinion (and a valid one) but it should be stated as such.

Islamic (or Muslim) is a far more appropriate term than Islamist for the groups involved in Respect.

Labour is spelt wrong (either labor or Labour, please (proper noun of a British group, therefore it's still spelt as such even when written by an American)).

"establishment labor politician" wreaks of bias, and isn't even true (though it arguably once was). "Former Labour MP" is far more accurate, and an undisputed fact.

I don't know whether the last sentence is true (if it is I suspect there's a lot more too it than meets the eye). Either way, I think it was only put there to disparage Nader/Galloway, but I've left it in... for now.


Yes, this should be deleted hastily. It is outrageously POV... how did an article about Trotskyism lead into Ralph Nader and Islam?

--4.152.102.39 13:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the POV dispute is over... So removing the template now.--So Hungry 21:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: Pablo, ICFI

Sorry to re-open this. The entry into the CPs was adopted at the 51 World Congress: before the ICFI and ISFI separated. The entire FI accepted the positions of the 48 and 51 world congresses. Pablo didn't argue for doing deals, but for long term entry. All of this is much better explain on the ICFI, USFI, ICFI and Pablo pages. --DuncanBCS 18:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • A quick comment on those looking for a definition of Trotskyism: Trotskyism was a word coined by the Stalinists to describe some of its opponents: not only supporters of Trotsky but also others. Only after Trotsky's death did a plurality of his followers call themselves Trotskyists. Today, Trotskyism means more than those positions that differentiated Trotsky from Stalin - it also reflects a range of sometimes contrary opinions. If we assembled the range of those who feel they broadly defend Trotsky's thought -- the Spartacists, the USFI, the ICFI, the SWP and Workers Liberty say -- then it's possible that they could agree to any definition of any one of those positions that differentiated Trotsky from Stalin. --DuncanBCS 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: "Stalinism"

While "Stalinism" is a term used by Trotskyists, I feel it is inappropriate for Wikipedia as it almost always carries a pejorative connotation. "Trotskyism" is often used by the latter-day followers of Trotsky but those who identify with Stalin would never describe themselves as "Stalinists" but as Marxist-Leninists as they consider that Stalin continued Lenin's work. In addition many of those labeled "Stalinists" renounced Stalin decades ago.

As for "Stalinist betrayal" this is far from neutral.

  • Good point. And, of course, Trotskyist is a phrase invented by Stalin's co-thinkers. What phase would you suggest we use? Marxist-Leninist is a phrase identified with followers of Mao. --DuncanBCS 21:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

  • To be pedantic, followers of Mao call themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, some call themselves Maoist.
  • If you look at any of the literature of those who describe themselves as "anti-revisionist" (ie for Stalin against Khrushchev), but associate more with Stalin than Mao, they call themselves Marxist-Leninist, (see CPGB-ML for example), though many are not totally adverse to be described as Stalinist (eg. Bill Bland)
  • Trotsky described himeself, and the Left Opposition, as Bolshevik-Leninists. (in fact I edited the Trotsky page to change it from something like "Trotsky described himself as a Leninist", to "...Bolshevik-Leninist"
  • Despite your description of "Trotskyist" as being a Stalin-inspired phrase, I contend that most of those who see themselves in the M-E-L-T tradition would not baulk as being described as Trotskyist - the unnacceptable phrase is, of course, "Trotskyite".
    • Those in the M-E-L-T tradition wouldn't describe themselves as Marxist-Leninist, as it leaves out the answer to the question: are you for Trotsky or Stalin?
  • "Stalinism" (for want of a better word) is now seeing a resurgence, or at least the reclaiming, re-asserting of Stalin as a great Marxist-Leninist is seeing a resurgence - see www.mltranslations.org, CPGB-ML, Laskar, Stalin Society etc. etc.

Camillustalk|contribs 23:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Thank you. I think most supporters of Trotsky call themselves Trotskyists, so that's okay to use. However, I am still curious to see if there might be an alternative to "Stalinist" that might not offend those who, in general, consider there to more good in Stalin's contribution than bad (to paraphrase Mao's comments on Stalin). Few Eurocommunists would have used the phrase "Marxist-Leninist". Any ideas? --DuncanBCS 23:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

More:

Duncan (I presume that's your name?), thanks for your aknowledgement.

Yes, those who see themselves as in the M-E-L-Stalin trend are not keen on the phrase "Stalinist", they prefer "Marxist-Leninist" - the problem is, what do others call them, as I said above, "Marxist-Leninist" leaves out the "Trotsky/Stalin" question? Probably the best description which they won't mind, and is more accurate is "anti-revisionist".

As for the Eurocommunists, I would contend that they're all "dead" anyway (as far as this discussion goes), as most of them have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, and wouldn't even call themselves Marxists any more...

However, maybe we're getting off-point, as this is the Talk page for Trotskyism...just a thought...

Camillustalk|contribs 00:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Sadly the challenge is to find a term which is neutral, rather than one that supporters of Stalin won't mind. Similarly, we still have to be neutral about those trends that are no longer around, otherwise terrible slanders creep in: for example, the views of Michel Pablo, who led many Trotskyist parties to conduct entryism within some of the Communist parties, are systematically distorted. Since supporters of Trotsky and of Stalin each regard the other as revisionist, 'anti-revisionist' will not work as a neutral term. I think one excellent work-around is to reword these sentences to talk about "the Communist Parties" rather than "the Stalinists" (Yes, my name is Duncan).--DuncanBCS 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

Yes, you're right, "anti-revisionist" is ambiguous. Thinking about it, I imagine if a Trotskyist and a "Stalinist" met in the pub, the Trotskyist could call the "Stalinist" a "Leninist/Stalinist" without getting a punch on the nose. It's acceptable for the Trotskyist, and it's accurate for the "Stalinist", almost even a compliment! Because the pro-Stalin anti-revisionist's main aim is to assert the continuity between Lenin and Stalin...

Camillustalk|contribs 11:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Actually, the terms "Trotksyite" and "Trotskyism" go at least back to Lenin: 'Hence it is clear that Trotsky and the “Trotskyites and conciliators” like him are more pernicious than any liquidator; the convinced liquidators state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where they are wrong, whereas the Trotskys deceive the workers, cover up the evil, and make it impossible to expose the evil and to remedy it. Whoever supports Trotsky’s puny group supports a policy of lying and of deceiving the workers, a policy of shielding the liquidators. Full freedom of action for Potresov and Co. in Russia, and the shielding of their deeds by “revolutionary” phrase-mongering abroad—there you have the essence of the policy of “Trotskyism”.' (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, pp. 242-244) One could easily say, based on a huge array of Lenin's writings (including this quote), that Lenin was opposed to "Trotskyism," and therefore the phrase still originated with Trotsky's opponents, but the terms can hardly be suggested to have originated with Stalin, as this runs completely counter to the historical record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.50.226 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that passage was written in 1911, so the "Trotskyists" being described show no continuity with the Trotskyism discussed in this article. It might be of some interest as a prehistory of the term. Out of interest, I wonder what term Lenin used in the original (Russian?) text? Warofdreams talk 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: Ignored

NPOV: "Trotskyists are mostly ignored by historians and politicians except when they faced police repression and slander. It is unusual for them to get a fair hearing of their views."

Amusing as this sort of POV pushing is, it ought to be revised.

  • As it's an unsupported, sweeping statement, I've removed it. Does anyone has references to back up a rephrased version of this? I suspect probably not. Warofdreams talk 11:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "Trotskyists argue that their views are mostly ignored or slandered by politicians and the media. Examples which could be cited are that in Great Britain the Guardian, a newspaper generally seen as left-leaning, printed an article containing the following statement:

'At last week's cabinet meeting, Mr Blair likened Islamic extremism to the Trotskyist Militant Tendency that infiltrated Labour in the 80s...' <http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1531397,00.html>

The insinuation that Militant and Trotskyists in general utilise terrorism was not challenged in the body of the article. A letter of protest from the Socialist Party (formerly Militant) general secretary was subsequently printed:

'You report that Tony Blair, "likened Islamic extremism to the Trotskyist Militant Tendency" (Report, July 19). This is an outrageous slur. Militant Tendency, now the Socialist party, has always condemned terrorism, both of individuals and groups and the state terrorism of the US and British governments that is estimated to have resulted in the death of 100,000 civilians in Iraq. It does not bode well for civil liberties in the wake of 7/7 that the prime minister is prepared to malign socialists who have opposed his neoliberal, warmongering policies by equating them with terrorists.' <http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1533025,00.html>

The SP's right to reply was observed, but the fact remains that they were originally misrepresented. Additionally, during the general election the SP supported its claim that 'in general there is a media blackout at national and local levels of our campaign':

'We thought we might get a better opportunity to show how our policies could appeal to voters, given a proper airing, by participating in Newsnight’s film on political speed dating which went out on Monday 24 April. Nancy Taaffe, the Socialist Party candidate in Walthamstow appeared for us and did spectacularly well. Nancy came joint second beating all the establishment parties and groups like UKIP or Respect, which have had far more national media coverage because of the high profile of former MPs Robert Kilroy-Silk or George Galloway.

'However, our hopes of seeing this fantastic performance on TV, albeit at the late time of 11pm in a light-hearted piece on the election, were bitterly disappointed.

'Although we had some reservations that the piece may have over-trivialised the election and that we would not be given a fair bite of the cherry, we were reassured by the producer that every candidate would be featured. Out of all the candidates, Nancy was given the least time, just three seconds, and was the only one not to get mentioned by name.' <http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/389/index.html?id=np3c.htm>

Lindsay

  • I understand Lindsey's point of view, but I'm not sure if it's helpful. Every organisation, political or not, would say that is is ignored and misrepresented by the media. I just don't think that it's worth elaborating - especially since the article is already long. The case that Lindsay raises could be worth adding to the Socialist Party page. --DuncanBCS 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche: An Achievement of Trotsky?

I am sure lyndon LaRouche is not looked upon with much warmth, given the fact that he is no longer a Trotskyist, or a Marxist of any sort (and, of course, the altercations during his Operation Mop-Up days). But he has retained much of his Socialist outlook nevertheless (bassically, he supports strict government restrictions on corporate activity and trade, as well as government investment in said corporations, particularly for large-scale poblic works and engineering projects, such as energy, water distribution, and space travel), and he did not outright denounce Marx or even Lenin when he changed, just that Marx used some faulty reasoning concerning the nature of the class struggle (an ancient cabal of aristocrats, centered around the Babylonian cult, and remember, is not religion/magick, second to prostitution, the oldest proffession?).

Some people go so far as to call him a Stalinist, or even a full blown Nazi (though, I want to make it clear, Dennis King is, inevitably, more fascist than LaRouche, given the recent information regarding that gangster Mao Tze-Tung, who improved upon Stalin's penchant for abusing a governmental structure).

Is their any reconciliation possible? 69.248.43.27 05:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see the problem here. LaRouche isn't significant to Trotskyism, so the article need not mention him (any more than it need mention Bob Dylan or John Lennon, who also passed through the orbit of the movement). What you describe as LaRouche's views don't seem to be essentially Trotskyist, let alone socialist (government control of corporates, government investment, public works: this could be Peronism, Brazilian-style autarchy, fascism, people's democracy, Sandinism or Bonapartism. In short, I think we can limit discussion of LaRouche to the article about him. --DuncanBCS 08:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Good response. That is a part of the arbitration decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Remedies. Information about LaRouche belongs in the LaRouche article. Fred Bauder 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out; I should hace guessed that this would be covered already! --Duncan 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Although unlike John Lennon or Bob Dylan he actually engaged in the party until the schizm with Wohlforth and James Robertson, and the whole mess with Gerry Healy (which may have started the whole "British" thing in his conspiracies). But I understand. 69.248.43.27 00:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Hook

Could we possibly discuss Sydney Hook? I recall reading that he was still very loyal to Trotsky. --Again, thank you, you where all very cordiel, in conrast to the steriotype presented from both right and left, stay on track,69.248.43.27 00:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • With Sydney Hook we need to walk before we can run. As the entry on him suggests, the case still remains that there's little basis on which to reference him in an article on Trotskyism, since he made little distinctive contribution to it. A possible place to reference him would be in the Leon Trotsky, as a sponsor of the Dewey Commission. He could also be mentioned for his work in the Socialist Party (US): Cannon's opposent Weisbord, from the CLS, suggests that Hook helped the Trotskyists to enter the SP, however this does not square with Cannon's account. Nor does it seem likely that Weisbord would have had any special insight into the discussions with the SP leaders. Even if this were the case, it would be a passing note on the SWP (US) page at most, and would not be relevant to the article on Trotskyism. --Duncan 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: ICFI

I have removed the following sections, which are unsupported and replaced sections in which the views of the antagonists had been summarised in their own words.

They hoped that they could influence sections of the Stalinist bureaucracy to adopt an anti-imperialist stance. Pablo's followers considered that the Communist Parties, in so far as they were placed under pressure by the real workers' movement, could escape Stalin's manipulations and follow a revolutionary orientation: Yugoslavia was their test case. The 1951 Congress argued that Trotskyists should start to conduct systematic work inside those Communist Parties which were followed by the majority of the working class. They also argued that sections in Western Europe and the United States should disolve themselves permanently within the Communist Parties. However, the ISFI's view that the Soviet leadership was counter-revolutionary, they claimed, remained unchanged. The 1951 Congress argued that the Soviet Union took over these countries because of the military and political results of World War II, and instituted nationalized property relations only after its attempts at placating capitalism failed to protect those countries from the threat of incursion by the West. The ISFI would later uncritically hail Castro, Gorbachev, Mao, and other Stalinists throughout the world.

A neutral recasting of this could be: Pablo's view was the the masses could push some communist parties into anti-imperialist actions, as was evidenced by the overturns in China and Yugoslavia. In their opinion, the threat of a Third World War would also polarise the labout movement, and would send a wave of radical militants into the Communist and Social Democratic parties. The 1951 World Congress concluded that sections in countries with mass workers party should conduct entrism of a special type: while not dissolving their organisations or the International, they should work as secretly as necessary in order to develop a revolutionary current in those parties. The 1951 Congress argued these parties could be pushed to different conclusions. The Soviet Union overturned capitalism in the buffer states countries because of the military and political results of World War II, and only after its attempts at placating capitalism failed to protect those countries from the threat of incursion by the West. However, the overturns in China and Yugoslavia were conducted against the wishes of the Soviet bureacracy.

Any suggestions on how to move forward? --Duncan 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a directory of URLs

There are other pages which list the Trotskyist groups; and each group's listing includes its URL. From time to time supporters of one group or another add links to their group to the external links page, ofen citing that the new URL includes material by Trotsky. While this is done in good faith, the nett effect is both to add no new material by Trotsky [since everything online is at marxists.org] and to open the route for every group to list its URL on every page that touches on Trotskyism. This would introduce substantial duplicated information into Wikipedia, which is not a directory. If you are thinking of adding a link to this page, or similar pages, feel free to raise the suggestion on the Talk page first. Thanks. --Duncan 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] George Orwell - Trotskyist?

I find it very doubtful that Orwell was a Trotskyist. As far as I know he never claimed such a thing. If there are sources for this then they should be listed, otherwise it should be removed.

He's been a Trotskyist or something very similar to a Trotskyist for a while. George Orwell fought with the POUM in Spain (which were considered as Trots even if the leadership of this small party broke with Trotsky on some tactical issues) and wrote an important book on this experience (It's called Homage to Catalonia in English). --MauroVan 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But he fought with the POUM not because of their Trotskyist origins, but largely by chance. He did respect the Trotskyists, but was closer to the London Bureau and is usually said to have been suspicious of Trotsky himself. Warofdreams talk 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. --MauroVan 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too. --Duncan 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on "Trotskyism Today" too long

This is now too long, and is even listing organisations about which there is no Wikipedia entry. I propose to limit the organisations mentioned to those listed in the Trotskyism template, and to link to the list of Trotskyist Internationals for the rest. The only alternative would be for this section to get longer and longer, until it duplicates the list of internationals. --Duncan 17:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there's no disagreement to my propose above, I will move ahead with it. The sections on 'others' lists some of the more imprortant international grouping. I have cut Bill's entry about the PR group. While this is accurate, PR can't count as one of the more important groups. We have no entry for far larger tendencies, and the L5I and AWL partly gain prominance because of their oddball lines [Fifth International, Third camp]. --Duncan 09:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Disagreement with above

I disagree with the above proposal and think that any group that calls itself Trotskyist should be included. I personally don't think that how long an article is is really relevent. Leon Trotsky 11:52, 2 November 2006

I appreciate that is your view, however, Wikipedia's policy is that the length of articles is something we should consider as a variable. Rememember that all the Trotskyists groups are on pages linked from this one. We should not duplicate material betwene pages unless we can't avoid it. --Duncan 08:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Farm

I don't think Animal Farm is an allegory. It is more of a satire.

What makes you think that? Warofdreams talk 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive 82.45.163.18 11:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More like anti-Soviet rantings "made for children".

-G

[edit] Attempt at a basic definition

There are requests for a definition of Trotskyism. How about this.

Joseph Stalin, who coined the term Trotskyism, contrasts it to Marxist-Leninism on three points [1]
In What is Trotskyism (1973) Ernest Mandel also counts permanent revolution as one of "the four pillars of Trotskyism". In his opinion, the others are:

What you you think? --Duncan 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this, to be honest. May even be worth putting a bit more weight to Stalin's definaition than to Mandel's as Stalin coined the term. I think the quote in the first paragraph needs shifting, to be prefectly honest. Or at least changing to a 'some scholars(footnotes) think that Trotskyism is blah blah blah' or 'one scholar (footnote) thinks that blah blah blah'. As it stands it seems to be pushing the viewpoint that Trotskyism is 'pure' marxism a wee bit too much for my liking. NatashaUK 08:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Natasha. I agree with you. But.., won't it be hard to find a non-trotskyist or non-stalinist academic who attenmpts to define Trotskyism in a non-eponymous way? --Duncan 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Haven't looked, tbh. I gotta be in the library anyway tomorrow so I'll have a quick poke round the politics section and see if anything miraculously falls into my hand. If not then maybe have a trotskyist scholar's quote and a stalinist scholar's quote giving both sides or even just do aware with the quote and try to rephrase the intro to give more information. NatashaUK 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No Joy.NatashaUK 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trotsky's ideas "differed sharply from those of Stalinism"

We have a little flurry of reverting. Let's talk. I think there's a problem with the term Stalinism. It's POV, since none of the people Trotsky disagreed with called themselves a Stalinist. They would call themselves Marxist-Leninist, which is the accepted term for Moscow/Beijing communism. I suggest we use M-L as a term, rather than Stalinist. Soman had wisely added in a form of words like ', although Trotsky's ideas also stemmed from Marx and Lenin,'. That also beens helpful to me. --Duncan 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure sure that you are right when you say "Marxist-Leninist, which is the accepted term for Moscow/Beijing communism." It might depend at what point in history you are talking about and who you are talking to. Since the Sino-Soviet split I have always understood the 'M-L' tag to refer to those of the Maoist persuasion whereas 'Stalinist' would have been the understood label for those who supported the 'socialism in one country' theory of Stalin and hence would have included those who supported the Soviet, Chinese and Albanian models. It may be that those who supported the Soviet model would not have been so comfortable with the 'Stalinist' description (specially after 1953, although this might not have been so true before that) but it is certainly one that the Trotskyist oriented organisations would have used. The 'M-L' tag is certainly used to distinguish between the pro-Soviet and pro-China elements. Look at the names of the Communist Parties in India, for example, and this M-L tag is frequently used to make this distinction. - Dave Smith 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case. For example, the Communist Party of Britain is Marxist-Leninist. --Duncan 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just glanced through the earlier posting on this page and noticed that his debate is not new :-) - Dave Smith 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There are examples of Stalinists using the term "Stalinist", although "Stalinism" I've found more often than "Stalinist". AT any rate, Zinoviev coined this term, "Marxist-Leninist" in 1923, at least that is the earliest reference to the term I'm aware of. Trotskyists and other Leninists don't like 'giving' Stalinists the imprimatur of "Marxist-Leninist" because it implies they have the lock on Bolshevism, which clearly the do not, at the same time, it's rare, although it's happens, that Trotskyists use "M-L".I 've used it also. The there are, of course, multiplie uses of the term, including the religeous "canon" of M-Lism that Maoists and other Stalinists use the term, as a term of idolotry. Trotskyists try to use the term in a scientific way. Ergo, no one has the lock on it. DavidMIA 06:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose to cut 'Former Trotskyists within Neoconservativism'

The section should be cut. I have removed it an put it below

- Sources such as independent internet authors do not mean Wikpiedia's standards.
- Some of people noted as former Trotskyists are not notable, for example, not even all of their profiles on Wikipedia mention their involvement in Wikipedia
- This seems like a minor trend in trotskyism. I am sure that more Trotskyists have ened up in the Catholic Church, or in ayslums, but that doesn't in itself warrant attention.--Duncan 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Former Trotskyists within Neoconservativism: The neoconservative or "neocon" movement has been associated with Trotskyism by independent Australian Internet author Peter Myers, South American analyst Sergio Mendez, paleoconservative Justin Raimondo, and others because of the Trotskyist background of some key neoconservatives, such as Irving Kristol. [2], [3], [4]

The supposed desire of the neocons to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class.'" He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution." He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism," which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence, as he differed with them on many issues. [5]

The association of former Trotskyists like Christopher Hitchens - once a member of the International Socialists (UK) - with neocons since 2001 has contributed to neoconservativism's association with Trotskyism. [6] Other former Trotskyists associated with neoconservativism include Willmoore Kendall (William F. Buckley, Jr.'s mentor) and Stephen Schwartz (a former member of the Fomento Obrero Revolucionario). Schwartz has stated, "To a great extent, I still consider myself to be [one of the] disciples of L.D (the initials from Trotsky's birth name, Lev Davidovich Bronstein)." [7]

However, Stephen Schwartz has claimed there is an anti-semitic motive behind this association: "The U.S. neofascists who have thrown this accusation around use the term 'Trotskyist' the same way they use the term 'neoconservative': as a euphemism for 'Jew.'" [8]

[edit] 'Trotskyism' in 1905

It may be of interest to the editors that the term 'Trotskyism' dates back at least to 1907. The term was used by Pavel Milyukov, the ideological leader of the Constitutional Democratic party (Kadets) in Russia, in a postscript to his book, The elections to the second state Duma published no later than May 1907.

Trotsky quoted from Milyukov's The elections to the second state Duma in a speech in May 1907. Milyukov explains that even the Kadets were moved to the left under the spell of the 1905 revolution, saying

“ ...Those who now reproach the Kadets with failure to protest [in 1905] by organising meetings against the 'revolutionary illusions' of Trotskyism and the relapse into Blanquism, simply do not understand - or have forgotten - the mood of the democractic public at meetings during that period." (Milyukov, quoted by Trotsky in 1905, Pelican Books, (1971) p295) ”

Trotsky says that "Mr Milyukov does me too much honour by connecting my name with the period when the revolution reached its highest point." But in fact Trotsky is defending his leadership of the 1905 revolution, when he became Chairman of the Soviet or workers' council in Saint Petersburg, against the criticsm of the Menshevics, who argued that Russia was not ripe for revolution. Trotsky argues that Milyukov uses much the same arguments but in a blunter, plainer form. Trotsky rejects Blanquism, however, in favour of his theory of Permanent Revolution.

Trotsky's speech is given the title The Party of the Proletariat and the Bourgois Parties in the Revolutions in the book 1905, and was made at the London congress of the "Russian Social-democractic revolutionary Party" of 12 - 25 May 1907 according to the footnote appended on p290 of 1905, (Chapter 23, p290).

I have no idea whether or how this information may be of use in the article. Andysoh 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Amazing! We should certainly reference this. --Duncan 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It certainly appears that Milyukov indicates that the term "Trotskyism" - at least by Trotsky's opponents - is in general use at the time of 1905. Trotsky must have been a striking figure.
This 'Trotskyism' was certainly already some way towards a position of the permanent revolution, standing out against Plekhanov and the Mensheviks.
OK, Not sure where it can go. In the article's chronology it comes first, but I'm not sure about undue weight, and what the editors think about working it in to the section, or before the section, Trotsky, the Russian Revolution, and Stalin. Usually the editors of a well established article are not happy about that kind of thing! One possibility is to use it in relation to work into the article the theory of permanent revolution in its historical context (this could possibly make it more accessible), showing how Trotsky's experience of 1905 led to the formulation of it.Andysoh 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The obvious places to put this is in a new section giving a definition. What did you think of my definition, above? --Duncan 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The first problem is that the theory of permanent revolution is not easy to explain in one sentence, if one is to satisfy the needs of those who want a two sentence definition comprised of common words rather than technical terms such as 'permanent revolution'. So, on this assumption, the permanent revolution is not a good place to start, whereas Trotkyism's opposition and analysis of the rise of the bureaucracy is both a defining characteristic and a good place to start. But your apporach, which is equally valid (but won't satisfy our critics) is to introduce the technical terms with wiki links (so that people can then look them up). Both are valid apporaches, and whilst I prefer the first I would be happy to work with the latter. Now the Stalin reference I think is not correct, and by the way, we should tell the editors of the Trotsky article about the reference in 1905 of Milyukov to 'Trotskyism' as they seem to be unaware of it.
A combination of your approach and mine might be,
1. --remove Stalin reference --
2. First / second para: One of Trotskyism's defining characteristics is its theory of Permanent Revolution, first developed by Trotsky during and after the 1905 revolution in Russia // Milyukov footnote ref goes here, plus footnopte giving Results and Prospects // (explanation here or refer to section) // Possibly add: This theory contrasts with Joseph Stalin's theory of socialism in one country.
3. First / Second para: Another defining characteristic, first developed after 1924, was Trotskyism's critique of the leadership of the Soviet Union, calling for a political revolution to overthrow the bureacracy
4. third para Mandel references as given.
This would bring the theory of Permanent Revolution to the fore, as per your definition.
Just rushed thoughts, anyway. Andysoh 15:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should use the earlieest reference, so we should use Milyukov instead of Stalin. I will draft the new section below. --Duncan 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition - comments please on this draft section

There are requests for a definition of Trotskyism. How about this.

Trotskyism is defined by four key elements.

What you you think? --Duncan 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's great. Readable and consise. I've suggested one or two amendments.
Trotskyism can be defined by four key elements.
I'm not sure we have found the earliest recorded use of the term trotskyism - it just shows it was in use in 1905. Andysoh 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would take a look at my article Two Stage Theory and make corrections as necessary. Andysoh 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's good to go. Always more we can do, but it's betteet han ntoher. I'll wait a day and then post in your definition. --Duncan 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me.Andysoh 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Will add in now. --Duncan 12:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Duncan, good work on all this. I approve of the additions/changes. DavidMIA 06:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to insert section on neoconservatism

Someone keeps trying to add in this section, which is seems mainly to be based on comments by bloggers, and is not a notable aspect of trotskyism. Unless we find noteable, reliable references, this section does not belong in the article. --Duncan 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian economic achievements in the 1920s & 30s?

"Trotskyists, in their own defense, point to the best days of the early Soviet State and to the economic achievements of the planned economy during the 20's and 30's (despite the "misleadership" of the Stalinist bureaucracy.)"

I really do doubt that Trotsky himself approved of the NEP after the Civil War until 1927/28, especially with its re-introduction of partial capitalism. This is shown in Lenin's disapproval of Trotsky's stance in his Last Testament (amongst other things). Nor, do i belive he would have advocated the introduction of wage differentials at the expense of Egalitarianism. Both of these appear to cross over into a liberal free-market economy which Trotsky was full-heartedly against. I suggest removing this statement. 82.18.226.41 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But this statement says that Trotsky defended the system of planning, not the NEP - he was the first to suggest the five year plans, etc. It is not perhaps clear enough.
The "In their own defence" is a short hand which doesn't work well, however. How about:
  • Most Trotskyists defend the economic achievements of the planned economy in the Soviet Union during the 20's and 30's, despite the "misleadership" of the Stalinist bureaucracy, and the loss of democracy.) [5]

Andysoh 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i agree with alteration. thanks for clearing that up. 82.18.226.41 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re request for references

A wiki editor has posted a series of requests for references history. I am sure he has done us a favour. We should supply plentiful references, demonstrating clearly the factual nature of the article and the struggle against Stalinism. I am happy to help supply them. Andysoh 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to provide sources, in a variety of ways, although more could be done, and better.Andysoh 10:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on permanent revolution

This is getting too long, especially since there's a perfectly good page on Permanent Revolution already. Can we consolidate these and simply provide 100 words and a link? --Duncan 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Duncan, some initial thoughts on this: I'd like to keep it as it is - no longer, but a clear and accessible exposition on the Trotskyism page. The treatment attempts to avoid or explain terms and terminology which the ordinary reader might not be familiar with, giving an insight into the development of this aspect of Trotskyism in its historical context.
I think this theory is one of the central tennets and aspects of Trotskyism, which as you know, has significance both in 1905, 1917, and again after the death of Lenin and with the rise of Stalin. The excellent article on the Permanent Revolution, which improved immensely after you pointed out its weakness with respect to the imbalance it had with little mention of Trotsky's treatment of the theory - itself is necessarily more demanding of any new reader, as it is more specialised. It is extremely informative and will develop the readers' understanding of the subject in far greater detail. But I don't think it precludes a proper treatment of the subject on the Trotskyism page.
Incidentally, a very minor point on the Permanent Revolution page, which we should look at, where it makes the statement: "After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks, now including Trotsky, did not discuss the theory of Permanent Revolution as such". To what extent is this true? As it stands, this could also be misleading, suggesting it only gained importance after Lenin's death, although Preobrazhensky and Nikolai Bukharin's ABC of Communism is mentioned. As we state in the Trotskyism article, with a reference to Deutscher, "In 1917, Lenin changed his attitude to Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution and after the October revolution it was adopted by the Bolsheviks." The reference for this is where Deutscher says, "In 1917, it will be remembered, Lenin changed his mind. In all essentials the thesis of the permanent revolution (though not, of course, its somewhat bookish nomenclature) was adopted by [Lenin's] party." (why bookish??!)
Trotsky's theory was consciously adopted as the official policy of the party, as our own article on Trotskyism shows, not only with the publication of material by Trotsky, but with the example of Bukharin, which was a state / party publication, who was doing no more than reflecting the widely accepted outlook in the party when he wrote, "Thus, the permanent revolution in Russia is passing into the European proletarian revolution".
The real weakness of the Permanent Revolution article, which can't be helped, is the point that you made on the talk page, and that any editor would say: 'Balance'. The theory of the Permanent revolution is essentially associated with Trotsky, and yet it is still the case that the first half of the Permanent revolution article is devoted to a thorough and valuable examination of its scattered precedents in Marx. On the other hand it is full of references to material the reader can delve into, whereas our treatment in the Trotskyism article keeps to the bare basics, leaving further expansion to the main article. Andysoh 00:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trotskyism and the 1917 Russian Revolution

I was having a quick scan through this section and notice a glaring mistake. 'Despite the fact that most, like Stalin, saw Trotsky's role in the October 1917 Russian revolution as central...' Rather than dispute the arbitory use of like most, there is solid evidence that Stalin did not see Trotsky's role in the October Revolution as central. The proof of this is in Stalin's 1924 speach Trotskyism or Leninism?. Stalin's accusses Trotsky of creating this myth along with several others.

Also the The 'legend of Trotskyism' is also borderline of incorrect. The first bloc was Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin, it was Zinoviev in particular that waged war against Trotskyism,during this period Stalin was very moderate in his attacks of Trotsky, it was not until the issue of perminate revolution and socialism in one country did Bukharin and Stalin come together, although this mentioned, the lack of information between Lenin's death and 1926 leaves a large gap in why and how Trotskyism was an issue. Bukharin was not the singlar figure against Trotsky in deciding which way the Soviet Union would proceed. Zinoviev once again played a prominate role in this arguement and the ideal of Socialism in One Country is Stalin's

Continually quoting Trotsky's later works in perpetuating the myth that Trotsky's view was the correct one. Nothing in Bolshevk or Soviet History is as simple as this. The likes of Sarah Davies, James Harris and Adam Ulam have re-examined both old and more recent archives and have established that the view of those such as Trotsky, Conquest and Service are starting from a particular premise that has no guarantee of being correct. Soviet History no matter which figure is viewed is largely based on assumption and hearsay, especially when dealing with anything Trotsky had to say on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kytekay (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trot bordering as a weasel word?

i see no other reference to it than right in the begining and it claims to be cheifly british and canadian. i question the people who may use this word and how they would use it with out anyother claims being laid to its use or origin.--i am a fan of any and all contributers to wikipedia, espically the ones devoting time to categories!!--Dieselweasel (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You could ask him about it? Shenme (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if examples count as citations, but I came across this a bit ago.

"(And I may be being unfair to Trots)."

They's definitely Brits dere! :-) Shenme (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In my Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus one can find

Trot n. Inf. a follower of Trotsky; Trotskyite.

Therefore, it seems acceptable. --MauroVan (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trotskyism and religion

User: Political Dweeb here with a question. I think I may have put this question on this page before but it is a question on Trotsky who said on one of the paragraphs on his Final months he called himself “an irreconcilable atheist” meaning being completely and personally opposed to religion.

With Trotsky being personally opposed to religion does that mean the ideology representing his ideas called Trotskyism promotes either separating religion from all communities and states? Or is it to believe in the world existing without all of its religions?

I put these questions up so someone on Wikipedia can clarify this political position of Trotskyism so I or anyone else could learn this position in politics.I will be thankful for any reply thank you. Political Dweeb (talk)

Dweeb, Torskyism doesn't have a view of this that is distinct from that of Marxism. Marxism is generally atheist and secular yet opposes the suppression of religions. It consideres religion to be a form of false consciousness that will wither away under socialism. --Duncan (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)