askchapo

22817 readers

267 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why do people here really not like Trotskyists? (hexbear.net)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

132 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Why do people here really not like Trotskyists? Is it just because of his beef with Stalin and not an actual criticism of his views? Do people really not think a global movement would be superior for the betterment of all people?

Edit: Thank you to everyone who provided context and history, y’all are a wealth of knowledge.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 31 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

As Samir Amin summarises in Revolution from North to South:

The central reality of the imperialist character of historical capitalism implies an inescapable correlate: the long transition to socialism occurs through unequal advances, mainly originating in the peripheries of the world system. There is no “world revolution” on the agenda whose center of gravity would be found in the advanced centers. Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro understood that and accepted the challenge of “constructing socialism in one country.” Trotsky never understood that. The limits of what was achievable in these conditions, beginning with the heritage of the “backward” capitalism found in the peripheries, accounts for the later history of the twentieth century’s great revolutions, including their deviations and failures.

Quite simply, the Trotskyist hypothesis of permanent revolution is in opposition to the idea of socialism in one country, which Stalin, and most subsequent revolutions, have followed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.

I’m sure I am just misunderstanding the broader definition of permanent revolution, but this seems to summarize the way I see it.

To me this doesn’t seem to oppose socialism in one country, but rather just make it the first step, which can be taken in tandem with an international movement.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

How does one make socialism "in tandem" with countries where socialist movements (if there are any at all) don't hold state power? Trotsky's solution was to make war on them. And this was directly after the devastation of the Russian civil war.

History has shown that the PRC's model of non-interference is the correct one: build your own industrial base and material conditions, make friendly relations with all countries regardless of their leaders and their politics, build international socialisms by respecting other people's autonomy.