A commenter writes "Do you have a blog post that explains Trotskyism? I just want to read it, if you have one."
The answer was No, I don't. Oddly, I never even thought to write one--I guess I figured that Trotskyists themselves should do the honors. Yes, there are books one can read (e.g., here and here, both by James P. Cannon). There are also the About Us tabs (e.g., here, here, here and here) on various webpages that give information about the individual grouplets. But I know of no reasonably objective, blog-length description of Trotskyism generally. So here goes.
This essay is not based on book learning or deep reading. Instead it is from my lived experience as a member of the Young Socialist Alliance and Socialist Workers Party (SWP) from 1969 until about 1977. In those days the SWP was by far the largest and most influential Trotskyist organization in the US (if not the world), with up to 3,000 members at its peak. Today their membership is likely on the order of 100.
Much has changed in the intervening 35 years. The Soviet Union collapsed, and China entered the global economy. The defining dispute between Stalinism and Trotskyism is thus no longer relevant. Trotskyism itself has splintered into myriad grouplets and tendencies, each smaller than the last, of which this blog follows a few.
Trotskyists are Marxists, and accordingly they believe that history is primarily the history of class struggle, today between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The boundary between the two is called the class line, and a core principle of Trotskyism is one should not cross it. In practical terms, as I'll describe below, this is the core difference today between Trotskyism and Stalinism.
The class line is muddied slightly by the presence of the petty bourgeoisie. In Marx's original conception this consisted of a middle class of self-employed individuals, e.g., shopkeepers, tradesmen, doctors, etc. Today many professions are imbued with petty bourgeois thinking, i.e., they believe they can improve their station through hard work and smarts. I'd define the modern petty bourgeoisie as people who have invested substantial human capital into their careers, e.g., college professors, lawyers, engineers, etc.
Petty bourgeois thinking leads to reformism. Reformism is an effort to make things better within the capitalist system, e.g., by lobbying for incremental reforms such as better medical care or cheaper housing. Reformists will want to work within the existing political establishment, i.e., they will tend to vote for the Democratic Party.
Trotskyists view reformism as a serious threat because it involves crossing the class line. Reformists believe that a fundamental improvement in the human condition can be had by appealing to various capitalist institutions. Therefore, for example, true Trotskyists never supported Bernie Sanders, despite agreeing with him on 90% of all issues. The problem with Bernie is that he supports the Democratic Party and is trying to achieve socialism by acts of Congress. In the Trotskyist world view this is impossible, and constitutes an unprincipled crossing of the class line.
All Trotskyist grouplets I cover advocate building an independent labor party, owned and operated by members of the working class, and oppose any support for the bourgeois Democratic Party. Unlike the US, other countries with parliamentary systems supposedly have working class parties, e.g., the New Democrats in Canada, and the Labour Party in the UK. If tactically expedient, Trotskyists will vote for and participate in those organizations.
The Stalinist tradition (Communist Parties around the world) are perfectly willing to work with capitalist parties in support of reformist objectives. The CPUSA, for example, supported Sanders in the primary election and Biden in the general election. In the past, not only did the CPUSA cross the class line, but they even tried to infiltrate the government to increase their influence. Trotskyists never did that--one doesn't get in bed with the class enemy. In their view, the CPUSA is a reformist organization.
Trotskyists advocate building united fronts with other working class organizations around demands they can agree on. The famous united front from the 1970s was the Student Mobilization Committee (SMC) that organized demonstrations against the Vietnam war. Their simple demand was Out Now!, by which they meant the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of all US troops. The SMC (which, stretching it a bit, could be called an SWP front organization) never negotiated with Congress or the Nixon administration, for that would have crossed the class line. On the other hand, we invited anybody to participate in the Out Now! demonstrations, regardless of whatever other political opinions they held. Most famously,
On April 24, 1971, 500,000 people demonstrated against the Vietnam War in Washington, D.C. It was the largest-ever demonstration opposing a U.S. war. Simultaneously, 150,000 people marched at a rally in San Francisco.
The SWP takes considerable credit for ending US involvement in Vietnam.
The opposite of a united front is a popular front, which involves an unprincipled alliance between working class organizations and a bourgeois political party. The Bernie Sanders campaign is a classic example of a popular front. As stated, Trotskyists only participate in united fronts, while Stalinists are big on popular fronts. This is a global trend, and is today the defining distinction between the two traditions.
The goal of a Trotskyist party is to lead a socialist revolution, which involves not just a change in government, but the root and branch overthrow of capitalist property relations. The bourgeois state will be overthrown and the new social order will be run by the working class. The way this will be accomplished is through mass mobilizations of workers, who make up the vast majority of the population, and if properly organized can put the capitalists out to pasture.
Achieving that level of organization is the job of the vanguard party--Lenin called them the praktiki--who will guide the mass movement toward their historical goal. Accordingly, Trotskyist parties regard themselves as the vanguard party, which will one day lead a mass mobilization against capital. The current goal is to make that party bigger and stronger.
A vanguard party has the following characteristics:
In a modern, democratic society, the Party always acts openly and legally. Unlike the CPUSA, there were never any Trotskyist secret cells or hidden conspiracies. While in the long term Trotskyists want to overthrow the state, in the short term they are meticulously careful to be legal in all they do. This led to the strict drug discipline enforced by the SWP, namely the complete ban on any use of illegal drugs by its membership, under pain of immediate expulsion. The Party remained open and legal even during the witch-hunts of the 1950s, despite the fact that some comrades went to jail.
Trotskyists unequivocally reject terrorism or vandalism as a tactic. Trotskyists were never a bunch of hippies, championing counter-culture. They aspire to be straitlaced and professional. Finally, Trotskyists never try to model socialism in miniature. They view themselves as revolutionaries, not as lifestyle coaches.
The internal governance of the Party is based on democratic centralism. Before every convention (typically held every two years) there is robust debate on all issues. Historically this is conducted via pre-convention discussion bulletins, in which any comrade can opine on whatever subject they want. During the pre-convention period, factions are legal and can compete for votes. That's the democratic part.
The centralism arises after the convention, where the majority vote determines the Party's program. Following the convention, factions are dissolved, everybody is supposed to fall in line and present the Party's positions to the public without disagreement. Freedom of discussion. Unity of action.
In practice, democratic centralism is very undemocratic. In my day conventions were delegated, i.e., not all comrades could vote on the convention floor. The convention elected a national committee that governed the Party between elections. The national committee elected a political committee that governed the Party between national committee meetings. And finally, the political committee elected an executive committee that ran the Party day to day. There was an informal thumb on the scale every step of the way, and that's how Jack Barnes, first chosen in 1972, remains National Secretary today!
The Party's strategy is guided by Trotsky's Transitional Program. The goal is to set forth popular demands (Out Now; Free Medical Care for All; Defund the Police) that seem obvious and practical to working people everywhere, but are such that the bourgeoisie can't fulfill them. As their demands are not met, the masses will become radicalized and flock to the Party's banner, eventually resulting in a revolution. The SWP's current list of transitional demands include these.
Demands that are far removed from where the masses are today--e.g., Revolution! Nothing Less!--are considered ultraleft, a term first used by Lenin. Some non-Trotskyist groups are both reformist and ultraleft at the same time.
In my opinion, Trotskyism is a dying ideology and has no future whatsoever.
Posted December 3rd, 2020
Further Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment