This video is an explanation of the ideology of Trotskyism. I go into all major aspects of the ideology while remaining as brief as possible. I explain Marxi...
Viki makes the argument that it’s basically the same as Leninism. Is it just because he hated Stalin?
There is a LOT of Stalinist butthurt, yes. But it isn't just that.
There are a number of specific differences from both Stalinism and "Orthodox" Leninism of both the War Communism and NEP eras. Most of these are specific points on Soviet policy. In fact, Trotskyism as a school of thought was initially formed more in opposition to the continuation of the NEP and the Bolshevik Right-faction than against Stalin.
Broadly, Trotsky wanted another crack at taking Poland and 1-tagging Europe in a wave of revolution, everyone else was concerned that the Soviet economy was in full collapse from 6 years of external and internal war, and had no allies and no prospects for revolution elsewhere. He lost, hard.
But there are some important theoretical differences. Permanent Revolution which is kind of complex and basically states that under Imperialism Bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the third world are impossible, and the peasants are passive, so the Socialist nations must militantly help the working classes of those countries to take power, including by openly supporting communist revolutions in the imperial core.
The pessimism with regard to Peasant revolutionary potential is why Maoists, who often otherwise broadly agree with some Trotskyist positions, have found it difficult to unite with them.
There's also a restricted role of the Nomenklatura and a (theoretically) expanded one for workers councils, which is why so many Trotskyist groups call Socialist states "Deformed/Degenerated/State Capitalist/Bureaucratic Collectivist" (depending on what split they are)
They weren't. Soviets had significant power and workplace democracy had at least some input over the entire life of the SU. This is even more true in places like Cuba that continue a real grassroots democratic program.
But the party largely had political power over them, especially at higher levels such as setting regional quotas. A Trotskyist would claim that this lead to a stifling Bureaucratic elite that prevented true worker democracy. A standard Marxist-Leninist would say that Party direction was needed due to consolidate the underdeveloped Socialist economy and prevent hostile elements from causing reaction, and any issues were caused by members of the Right Faction in the early 30s preventing an expansion of party membership to make it more democratic.
There is a LOT of Stalinist butthurt, yes. But it isn't just that.
There are a number of specific differences from both Stalinism and "Orthodox" Leninism of both the War Communism and NEP eras. Most of these are specific points on Soviet policy. In fact, Trotskyism as a school of thought was initially formed more in opposition to the continuation of the NEP and the Bolshevik Right-faction than against Stalin.
Broadly, Trotsky wanted another crack at taking Poland and 1-tagging Europe in a wave of revolution, everyone else was concerned that the Soviet economy was in full collapse from 6 years of external and internal war, and had no allies and no prospects for revolution elsewhere. He lost, hard.
But there are some important theoretical differences. Permanent Revolution which is kind of complex and basically states that under Imperialism Bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the third world are impossible, and the peasants are passive, so the Socialist nations must militantly help the working classes of those countries to take power, including by openly supporting communist revolutions in the imperial core.
The pessimism with regard to Peasant revolutionary potential is why Maoists, who often otherwise broadly agree with some Trotskyist positions, have found it difficult to unite with them.
There's also a restricted role of the Nomenklatura and a (theoretically) expanded one for workers councils, which is why so many Trotskyist groups call Socialist states "Deformed/Degenerated/State Capitalist/Bureaucratic Collectivist" (depending on what split they are)
Why were the Worker Councils abandoned? They seem like a good idea along with stuff like having an armed proletariat.
They weren't. Soviets had significant power and workplace democracy had at least some input over the entire life of the SU. This is even more true in places like Cuba that continue a real grassroots democratic program.
But the party largely had political power over them, especially at higher levels such as setting regional quotas. A Trotskyist would claim that this lead to a stifling Bureaucratic elite that prevented true worker democracy. A standard Marxist-Leninist would say that Party direction was needed due to consolidate the underdeveloped Socialist economy and prevent hostile elements from causing reaction, and any issues were caused by members of the Right Faction in the early 30s preventing an expansion of party membership to make it more democratic.
After the British massacres of communists in WWII Greece, the USSR liaison was nicknamed the Sphinx for his poker face.