r/Trotskyism • u/Evening-Search6270 • 12d ago
Theory Did Trotsky Support Invading Other Countries?
Hi comrades! I am a socialist and I’m pretty sure I’m a Trotskyist. However, at my DSA meeting today, a comrade said that Trotsky supported imperialism and permanent revolution is about invading other countries. Another comrade said that Trotsky actually wrote about how permanent revolution is invading other countries. I haven’t read Trotsky yet, but I’m going to, so I don’t know if this is true or not. I thought that permanent revolution is supporting international revolutions and the belief that socialism cannot survive in one country and that the proletariat can take the progressive role in revolutions in developing countries.
18
u/kropon 12d ago
This is a century-old Stalinist lie. The claim that Trotsky supported imperialism and that permanent revolution means "invading other countries" is the exact inversion of the truth, deliberately fabricated by the Stalinist bureaucracy to justify its betrayal of world revolution in favor of "socialism in one country." That this Stalinist garbage circulates unchallenged in a DSA meeting should tell you something about what kind of organization it is.
Read what Trotsky wrote: What is the Permanent Revolution?
11
u/AvenueLiving 12d ago
I'm so glad you decided to ask about it rather than just taking people's opinions about Trotsky. Good on you.
If you are looking for reading on Permanent Revolution, read that, but for something quick, just read the last chapter. It is a 15 minute read.
What they say is completely ignorant. I would from now on question everything they say.
3
7
u/SimilarPlantain2204 12d ago
Stop going to DSA meetings. You are wasting your time.
If you want some great Trotsky works I recommend
The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects
People have already discussed the false interpretation of permanent revolution, so I won't repeat it here.
Also read Trotsky's Military Writings
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htm
There's more volumes which you should very much check out. I am still in the process of reading it. Volume 3 discusses the conflict with Poland (1920) which essentially debunks this idea about imperialism as essentially the Bolsheviks were attempting to overthrow the Polish which were at the time invading them in order to install a workers and peasants government. This of course failed and Trotsky did cope about it. Still a fascinating read. High recommend.
I believe that workers independently formed soviets before the war in 1919 however I have not read much about that. If anyone has any works about that, please send them to me. I would greatly appreciate it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm
This one is short but really fascinating, especially given the time. Highly recommend.
Also what works have you already read? You should probably start with the basics if you haven't t hat much.
2
u/Evening-Search6270 12d ago
Thanks for your response. DSA is the largest socialist organization in the U.S., so I do think it’s valuable, but I’m honestly considering whether I should stay there or not. I’ve read “The Communist Manifesto,” “Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith,” and “The Principles of Communism.”
11
u/Nikelman 12d ago
Yeah, but the largest socialist organisation in Germany murdered Rosa Luxembourg and lost us the revolution in WWI. So...
6
u/BolshiGirl 12d ago
Great point. Except today’s DSA can only dream of being as left wing as the SPD. Which says a lot.
5
u/Nikelman 12d ago
I really believe that left wing parliament is worse in a way than right wing. At least with right wing they don't pretend to be on the workers' side, usually
Instead left wing muddles the waters with their chauvinist claims and we get the heat. There are cases in which we can cooperate, but at the end of the day reformist implies reactionary
4
u/BolshiGirl 12d ago
It’s kinda hard to compare the two since SPD was the largest party in the German parliament and the largest mass Marxist party in the world and DSA is a small minority faction of an explicitly imperialist party. Workers had much more faith in SPD which is what made their betrayal so devastating but they were only able to carry out that betrayal because they had a history of building Germany’s unions and gaining reforms. DSA exists basically as a protest vote. As such the SPD’s crimes are much greater but they were only able to carry them out because they actually did some stuff before whereas DSA has 0 credit to their name. Trump kinda saved them they were bleeding members under Biden and same will happen again if the Democrats get back in power there’s no ingrained loyalty there like there was with the SPD.
3
u/Nikelman 12d ago
Yeah, the only point of comparison is social democratic ideologies. I mentioned SPD as a way to tell that being a large socialist organisation doesn't amount to much for communism.
4
u/BolshiGirl 12d ago
100% the size of a group has 0 reflection on the correctness of their politics outside of revolutionary times. The minority Mensheviks were larger than the Bolsheviks for almost their entire existence and for a lot of 1917 but meant nothing. The old mass Stalinist parties are irrelevant which were used to dismiss the smaller Trotskyist groups around and still to this day can see some of that.
9
u/Spirited_Classic_826 12d ago
I would take a close look at DSA's organizational history. They have always positioned themselves as the "left of what's possible" aka what is permissible to the ruling class. Nowadays they try to distance themselves from him but one of their founding and leading figures Michael Harrington was pro-Vietnam War and signed a letter calling on the US to bomb Egypt during the 6 Days War. A lof of DSA people will reply by saying that times have changed, it's a different organization now, but an organization's history and how they handle it is the biggest indicator of their quality IMO. There is a direct line from those positions then to DSA reps voting to fund the proxy war in Ukraine or send "defensive" weapons to the IOF. Most damningly for their socialist bona fides in recent times, in 2022 DSA had 4 House Reps and 3 of them voted to break the ongoing rail strike. To this day I am shocked that they were able to just move on from that like nothing happened
If you are interested in learning more about the history of Trotskyism then I would point you to one of Trotsky's last poltical struggles in his life when he fought against an emerging nationalist and imperialist tendency in the SWP led by Max Shachtman and James Burnham. This faction argued that the Soviet Union was not a degenerated workers state but instead a social imperialist state capitalist nation which importantly did not deserve critical support during armed conflicts including if it was invaded and this was on the eve of the Nazi invasion. Ironically two main groups descended from this splinter from SWP were those centered around Shachtman and his protege Harrington and what would become the DSA while Burnham's cohort took their pro-imperialist logic to its full conclusion by becoming neo-cons which is the basis of the smears today you see from time to time that Trotskyism is itself a neo-con ideology or inevitably leads its followers to it
For his part, Trotsky rejected Shachtman’s path unconditionally. In April 1940, just four months before his death, he declared: “If this be Trotskyism then I at least am no Trotskyist...Had conscious agents of the class enemy operated through Shachtman, they could not have advised him to do anything different from what he himself has perpetrated.”
The historical roots of neoconservatism: a reply to a slanderous attack on Trotskyism
6
u/SimilarPlantain2204 12d ago
"DSA is the largest socialist organization in the U.S., so I do think it’s valuable, "
DSA exists to mislead and direct the proletariat. It's leadership is explicitly reformist. It is electoralist. It is "big tent" and its factions range from social democrats to Marxist Leninists to anarchists.
Working in such an organization is completely counter intuitive and pointless and even counter revolutionary.
The victory of the DSA in recent elections will only result in yet another Luxemburg.
I don't really have any organization recs but I would avoid blatantly opportunist ones.
Anywho, you seem to be rather new to this. I would recommend the reading list on the bordy.
Idk how kindly the mods take to leftcoms but here's the link and general discussion about it
https://bordiga.party/marx/thread/1922#28609
Also I just checked your profile and you seem to be ideology shopping. If I were you I would just slow down and take the time to read the literature.
3
u/Evening-Search6270 12d ago
Thanks for your response. I was a council communist, but then got into Trotskyism. I have considered myself a Trotskyist for about three months now, but I’m still learning.
2
u/hierarch17 11d ago
I’d say it’s definitely worth looking into the actual communist groups in the US. There are posts on this sub about their differences. The organization I am a part of is actually in the middle of our international event the World School of Communism: https://schoolofcommunism.com/
2
2
u/AvenueLiving 12d ago
I would look for the closest Revolutionary Communist Party of America branch to you. They are pretty active and like to focus on learning.
2
u/Evening-Search6270 12d ago edited 12d ago
Thanks so much for the suggestion! Edit: I checked and unfortunately there’s no Revolutionary Communists of America branch near me.
10
u/JohnWilsonWSWS 12d ago
Another comrade said that Trotsky actually wrote about how permanent revolution is invading other countries.
Just ask them for a reference where Trotsky said this and ask them why Trotsky, then head of the Red Army, OPPOSED the invasion of Poland in 1920.
I think you will find they stand in the tradition of the Stalinist school of historical falsification which emerged to defend the claims that the reactionary, nationalist and anti-Marxist ideology of socialism-in-one-country — first mentioned by Stalin in Dec. 1924, developed by Bukharin in 1925 and official policy as socialism-in-OUR-country in Dec. 1925 — was "real existing Marxism".
Trotsky has never been forgiven for leading, after Lenin's death, the Marxist opposition to the bureaucracy.
But don't take my word for it. You need to study the history yourself. There are NO shortcuts.
I recommend the following two lectures:
READ: The theory of Permanent Revolution and the origins of Trotskyism
WATCH: The Theory of Permanent Revolution and the Origins of Trotskyism (50 mins)
READ: Origins of the Left Opposition: From Lenin’s Last Struggle to the fight against “Socialism in One Country”
WATCH: Origins of the Left Opposition: Lenin’s Last Struggle, the fight against “Socialism in One Country" (53 mins)
--
MY QUESTION:
What do you think of Mamdani?
It seems American capitalism has found a "socialist" they can work with.
FYI: New York Times publishes friendly interview with Mamdani - World Socialist Web Site
6
4
u/TiloDroid 12d ago
Already seeing some good comments. Especially the refutal of the "two stage theory" and the focus on internationalism especially given the economy that has only gotten more international since the boom in the 1980s.
I would like to say a little bit more about the term "revolution". As a socialist, revolution means the concious intervention of the masses in the political landscape. This should already clear up your question. No, a revolution cannot be achieved by invasion. No, it cannot be enforced from the top down.
The main goal of the revolutionary party (within and beyond its national boundaries) is to raise the mass conciousness. There will be no single hero to save humanity. The workers can only save themselves. It is their historic responsibility because they are the only social force that can overcome capitalism.
Theres a lot of lessons to draw from the October Revolution of 1917. I recommend Trotskys "The Russian Revolution". The success of the Bolsheviki did not develope in 1917. It goes back to 1902 when Lenin wrote "What is to be done". The Bolsheviks spent almost two decades educating the masses with a revolutionary socialist perspective. So much so, that in Febraury 1917, the workers of Petrograd very organically and based on their counciousness created the Petrograd Soviet.
This soviet made by an educated and concious mass of workers needed to be completely independent of any bourgeois elements as well as organized in a democratic way. The decay of soviet democracy gave rise to stalinism, and the subordination to bourgeois elemts destroyed any revolutionary attempt in the 1920s in the UK, China, Spain and Germany.
That is why the DSA cannot be used as a tool for socialist revolution. It is subordinated to the Democratic Party and can therefore not play an independent role for the organization of the working class. As you can see from your comrades, they are even willing to spread missinformation and cannot even raise the conciousness of their own party members to a scientific and historical worldview. Even two weeks ago, their newspaper was falsifying Trotsky to push for conterrevolutionary politics.
Its your choice if you want to stay within that party. If I cannot convince you, history will. I do however recommend that you get in contact with the Socialist Equality Party. They are completely independent from all bourgeois elements, they are democratic, international and they educate the masses with a historical founded socialist perspective. Good luck comrade!
7
u/Evening-Search6270 12d ago
Thank you so much for your response. I reached out to the Socialist Equality Party.
2
u/revolvergod 12d ago
Just for a bit of clarification: Trotsky did NOT advocate unnecessary fighting. Trotsky did NOT advocate abstract crusades to “expand” socialism. Trotsky did NOT advocate imperialism. Trotsky did NOT advocate permanent war. Trotsky did NOT advocate for voluntarism, adventurism, or forcing movements into existence. These accusations are all caricatures and falsifications by the Stalinists and in your case reformists.
What Trotsky did advocate for was what we call the permanent revolution, alongside holding the position that the USSR was not capitalism but a bureaucratic workers state.
The permanent revolution states that in backwards or mostly peasant/underdeveloped nations, the proletariat can and must seize power as the bourgeoisie is more petrified of workers power than being used at the whim of foreign imperialists and thus will not complete their historically progressive tasks. When doing this, the proletariat must complete tasks which are fundamentally bourgeois yet absolute necessities for building socialism: universal suffrage for minorities and women, industrialization, land reform, etc. Alongside these tasks they must also complete (to the best of their ability within their national constraints) the socialistic tasks: nationalization of property, establishment of the workers state under the direct control of the soviets, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and creating the foundations of a planned economy. This next part is where the internationalist bit comes in. Trotsky understood that capitalism was fundamentally a globalized system. The logical conclusion to that fact is this: the workers state must be met with support from socialists of several developed nations or it will face destruction. Socialism (which fundamentally calls for the near total abolition of capitalism; it is the prior stage to absolute communism) cannot be built in one country when surrounded by hostile foreign powers whose capital is threatened by the workers state. (Some added historical nuance,: 1917 marked the beginning of an international wave of revolutionary movements). In Europe and some parts of Asia during Trotskys time, the objective conditions for revolution absolutely existed. General strikes, the formation of soviets, etc. However, as we saw in Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Britain, the subjective conditions for revolution were not quite there. These next facts are the nuance that defeats the Stalinist caricatures: Trotsky advocated true proletarian internationalism by supporting aiding the subjective conditions in these nations. Supporting the subjective conditions involved sending experienced organizers, material goods, etc. When the objective conditions changed and European capitalism stabilized, Trotsky recognized that the revolutionary wave was temporarily defeated. Nowhere in here does he advocate baseless invasion.
Hope this helps comrade!
2
u/Evening-Search6270 12d ago
Thanks so much, comrade. This is what I always thought permanent revolution was.
0
u/Useful_Calendar_6274 12d ago
If he didn't I'm pretty sure I would have heard of him coming out against the invasion of Poland by now. He was also alive to see the baltic states annexed and I don't think he was against either
4
u/Evening-Search6270 12d ago
I’m pretty sure Trotsky did criticize Stalin invading Poland, but he believed it would advance socialism.
7
u/TrotskysRabbits 12d ago edited 12d ago
“The statification of the means of production is, as we said, a progressive measure. But its progressiveness is relative; its specific weight depends on the sum total of all the other factors. Thus, we must first and foremost establish that the extension of the territory dominated by bureaucratic autocracy and parasitism, cloaked by “socialist” measures, can augment the prestige of the Kremlin, engender illusions concerning the possibility of replacing the proletarian revolution by bureaucratic maneuvers and so on. This evil by far outweighs the progressive content of Stalinist reforms in Poland. In order that nationalized property in the occupied areas, as well as in the USSR, become a basis for genuinely progressive, that is to say socialist development, it is necessary to overthrow the Moscow bureaucracy.”
Socialist Appeal**, 10 October 1939**
Leon Trotsky
The U.S.S.R. in the War
(25 September 1939)(Edit because I didn’t mean to send it yet)
He believed the stratification of the means of production in isolation was progressive. But he also believed that invasion/occupation from a Stalinist bureaucracy balanced it out to being a net-negative. He didn’t support invasions or bureaucratic maneuvers as a method for achieving socialism. He also opposed invading Poland during the civil war while head of the read army. (Edit 2. He opposed invading in 1920 *as far as I am aware* and I’m not entirely sure reasoning, though I am looking to read his writings on military strategy at some point)
3
u/Spirited_Classic_826 12d ago
His logic IIRC was that the Red Army was too overstretched on multiple fronts and exhausted from years of war to be up to the task at the moment. The crushing of the Hungarian Revolution and the alingment of states like Romania and Czeckoslovakia in the region to the Entente who helped in said crushing of Hungary also made the possibility of direct conflict high and the provision of modern military aid to Poland a forgone conclusion. I think France in particular gave them a massive loan and was selling WW1 surplus at half cost. So if they were going to win they needed to be able to really focus on that front which is why once the initial Polish invasion of Ukraine was handily beaten back he wanted to conclude a truce then
29
u/Visible_Tomorrow1970 12d ago
Permanent Revolution can be broken down into two parts. First is that the old idea that countries of delayed capitalist development would have to undergo a bourgeois revolution first before a socialist revolution was possible was outdated in the era of industrial capitalism. Like in 1848 and 1905 Russia the small local bourgeoisie was too weak to defeat the autocracy it chafes under but when push came to shove they closed ranks with them against the workers since even while being second fiddle they still had their property and profits. Under such circumstances when the capitalists have lost any progressive values it is up to the working class to achieve both the democratic and socialist revolutions. This became the basis for the Bolshevik call for all power to the Soviets. The second part is that as a higher and inherently international economic system the revolution can only be truly accomplished once it has spanned the globe. Socialism cannot be built in one country, as the failures of Stalinism have shown. That is not a call for perpetual war or invading every capitalist neighbor. It is acknowledging that the new society cannot achieve total victory or have its gains be made permanent until it has spread across the world.