Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[ReindeerThistle]

My experience is that followers of Trotsky are in favor of every revolution until it wins.

And they have such a hate on Stalin.that they do not see past it.

 

[_random_]

But since the revolution hasn't happened yet, what are the obstacles toward working with them? Trots and Marxist-Leninists have such a stark divide, but I can't figure out what separates them practically in present circumstances. Or, for that matter, why Trots are so insistent on forming independent parties rather than working in broader leftist coalitions- which I recognize they also do sometimes, but still.

Also, what was with the widespread communist support for Henry Wallace back in 1948? Was it more about protecting existing communist states from American aggression, or was there real hope about the role his Progressive party could play in shaping American politics?

 

[W|M]

There are two problems with Trots (not including the problems with Leninism in general):

1) They split constantly; If you put three Trotskyists together in a room, there will end up being 4 parties and an international

2) All they do is make newspapers

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So my Wikipedia-level understanding is that Trotsky's chief deviation from the Soviet party line was on the question of how to best transition from Russia's agrarian economy to a socialist system. So with that, what makes Trotskyist parties distinct in modern, fully developed capitalist societies?

Trotsky's chief disagreement was that things weren't run Lev Trotsky's way.

By the way, there were many disagreements about how to handle economic development. Bukharin favored extending NEP instead of the Five Year Plan, for example. Trotsky's primary disagreement was with how economic planning was conducted: he felt that more autonomy should be given to firms instead of being centrally planned, although he agreed with the basic idea of a planned economy. He still supported the Five Year Plan, just not the specific way it was conducted. And of course forced collectivization was his idea. He favored something even more aggressive than what happened: in reality, collectivization began as an activist campaign conducted on a voluntary basis, but Trotsky favored forced collectivization from the beginning and utter ruthlessness in dealing with the reactionary elements of the peasantry.

After he was exiled from the USSR, Trotsky began referring to it as a Deformed Workers' State. However, he never denied that it was socialist. It was his followers who took up the mantle and developed all manner of theories about Bureaucratic Collectivism and State Capitalism and the bureaucratic class and so on. There's nothing that unites Trotskyists of any type apart from a hatred of the USSR and Stalin specifically, which is why their organizations have so many splits. And to be honest, Trotskyist parties in the West (there are none anywhere else lmfao) have the same basis as Eurocommunists (ultra-left opposition to the USSR and Marxism-Leninism) and their politics flow from the distortions that such a mindset creates. This is why Trots are all over the place; some, like the Spartacist League, give critical support to ISIS. Others like the Cliffites made the mistake of supporting the Ukrainian coup. And then there are the Marcyites, who stuck with orthodox Trotskyism and so adamantly defended Actually Existing Socialism from imperialist encirclement that today the two Marcyite parties, the Worker's World Pary and the Party of Socialism and Liberation, have returned to Marxism-Leninism!

 

[caketastydelish]

I hope this doesn't come off as a troll question (I certainly don't intend it to be such)

I find that almost every self-identified communist (at least here in the United States) is someone with a bachelors degree or more in a humanities subject.

People that studied STEM, or people with no college degree at all are more likely to not be communist, or even fiercely against communism.

Do you agree with this? If yes, what could be the reason?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I do not. Most of the communists I know do not have college degrees. I know some who do, though.

 

[Agent327]

Actual Communist historians such as Eric Hobsbawm tend to have college degrees.

I hope this doesn't come off as a troll question (I certainly don't intend it to be such)

I find that almost every self-identified communist (at least here in the United States) is someone with a bachelors degree or more in a humanities subject.

People that studied STEM, or people with no college degree at all are more likely to not be communist, or even fiercely against communism.

Do you agree with this? If yes, what could be the reason?

I don't think the US would be a good example for Communists at large. For one, the Communist Party in the US has generally been small.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actual Communist historians such as Eric Hobsbawm tend to have college degrees.

The question said communists, not communist historians. Anyway yes, historians have college degrees because their trade requires it of them.

I don't think the US would be a good example for Communists at large. For one, the Communist Party in the US has generally been small.

Hmm, yes, small, hmm...

 

[aelf]

I hope this doesn't come off as a troll question (I certainly don't intend it to be such)

I find that almost every self-identified communist (at least here in the United States) is someone with a bachelors degree or more in a humanities subject.

People that studied STEM, or people with no college degree at all are more likely to not be communist, or even fiercely against communism.

Do you agree with this? If yes, what could be the reason?

One part of the answer is because some form of conservatism tends to offer the simplest answers to human questions, and people with degrees (especially in more expensive fields like STEM) tend to be in a good position in life, and therefore the simple answers have the advantage of being simple while having consequences that probably won't affect them too badly. For example, 'survival of the fittest' is a more appealing maxim to those who think or know that they can survive.

The other part is students of the humanities are taught to critique and question, so simple answers may not appeal to them as much. Marxism, being a critical subject, therefore holds more appeal for them.

 

[Agent327]

I think it would be more adroit to point out that (in Europe) Communism has shrunk from being a mass movement to being an intellectual movement. Of course, the Cold War played its part in that.

The question said communists, not communist historians. Anyway yes, historians have college degrees because their trade requires it of them.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. The point was that historians may also be Communists, ergo have university degrees. Which wasn't the point. The point, rather, would be that the perception of Communism being an intellectual movement may be misleading. At least, this wasn't always the case.

Hmm, yes, small, hmm...

Indeed. Sometimes statistics say more than pictures. Perhaps you should check some on the CPUSA, and compare those with CP voters and memberships in (Western) Europe. (Well, at least one might expect that from a historian.) Then again, the pictures might just be showing some intellectual meetings. Kind of hard to tell without context.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think it would be more adroit to point out that (in Europe) Communism has shrunk from being a mass movement to being an intellectual movement. Of course, the Cold War played its part in that.

I think that might have been more true in the early 1980s, when the Right was triumphant and the Left still reeling from the great defeats of '68, when postmodernism was bursting onto the scene and proclaiming that the individual was the only viable unit of struggle since mass movements were doomed to fail and their claims of truth were impossible (as were all such claims).

But that was more than thirty years ago. The world has changed, and so has socialism and communism. We are once again on the rise, and thankfully, your statement that communism is an intellectual and not a mass movement is false. Webster's Online Dictionary recorded "socialism" as the most searched-for word of 2015. Socialists are winning city council seats and unions are organizing and striking in ways not seen in decades. Every leftist organization has seen its numbers balloon substantially in the last 10 years.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Don't be rude. You're commenting in a thread you're not even allowed to comment in. Be gracious that we are so forgiving right now.

Indeed. Sometimes statistics say more than pictures. Perhaps you should check some on the CPUSA, and compare those with CP voters and memberships in (Western) Europe. (Well, at least one might expect that from a historian.) Then again, the pictures might just be showing some intellectual meetings. Kind of hard to tell without context.

A forgiveness that you seem determined to wear out quickly...

 

[Flying Pig]

Webster's Online Dictionary recorded "socialism" as the most searched-for word of 2015. Socialists are winning city council seats and unions are organizing and striking in ways not seen in decades. Every leftist organization has seen its numbers balloon substantially in the last 10 years.

Do you think any of that had something to do with people looking up a word they'd heard associated with Bernie Sanders and Yanis Varoufakis?

Google, incidentally, keeps its own list of the top 10 most-searched phrases in 2015:

1. Lamar Odom
2. Charlie Hebdo
3. Agar.io
4. Jurassic World
5. Paris
6. Furious 7
7. Fallout 4
8. Ronda Rousey
9. Caitlyn Jenner
10. American Sniper

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you think any of that had something to do with people looking up a word they'd heard associated with Bernie Sanders and Yanis Varoufakis?

Yes I'm sure it is. And if that's what they think socialism is that's a problem. But it shows an openness to the concept of socialism. In the US this sort of thing would be unthinkable 20 or 30 years ago. It's not a dirty word any more, even if the casual connotation has changed (we have a problem in the US with liberals using it to mean snowplows and the post office ).

 

[daft]

I vote for Democratic Socialism.

 

[_random_]

After he was exiled from the USSR, Trotsky began referring to it as a Deformed Workers' State. However, he never denied that it was socialist. It was his followers who took up the mantle and developed all manner of theories about Bureaucratic Collectivism and State Capitalism and the bureaucratic class and so on. There's nothing that unites Trotskyists of any type apart from a hatred of the USSR and Stalin specifically, which is why their organizations have so many splits.

It still seems weird to me that Trotskyist organizations still exist when the central issues of Trotskyism are mooted by the nonexistence of the USSR, but trying to figure out why leftists are so damn sectarian is probably beyond me. Then again there are Trotskyists participating in big tent parties like Die Linke and Syriza, so perhaps things are changing. Do you see that as a good thing?

And to be honest, Trotskyist parties in the West (there are none anywhere else lmfao)

I recall reading that Malala Yousafzai has been involved in an apparently quite active Pakistani Trotskyist movement, but I can't find a ton of info on her level of involvement or exactly how big it is. Perhaps whatever article I read was misleading? Or maybe I should teach myself Urdu and try to get to the bottom of it. But why do you suppose Trotskyist parties are generally more prolific in the West?

 

[W|M]

There are some parties here (PSOL, PSTU) who call themselves Trotskyists, but PSOL's main priority is to get elected to government (which doesn't exactly scream ''revolutionary''), while PSTU gives lists of names and addresses of anarchists to the police

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It still seems weird to me that Trotskyist organizations still exist when the central issues of Trotskyism are mooted by the nonexistence of the USSR, but trying to figure out why leftists are so damn sectarian is probably beyond me. Then again there are Trotskyists participating in big tent parties like Die Linke and Syriza, so perhaps things are changing. Do you see that as a good thing?

Trots participating in elections is hardly a new thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Turn

Anyway, I don't really approve of socdems like Die Linke or of revisionist Eurocomms like SYRIZA. So they can associate with Trots all they like, it's just nonsense and more nonsense.

I recall reading that Malala Yousafzai has been involved in an apparently quite active Pakistani Trotskyist movement, but I can't find a ton of info on her level of involvement or exactly how big it is. Perhaps whatever article I read was misleading?

I was being facetious when I said there are no Trotskyists outside of the West.

Or maybe I should teach myself Urdu and try to get to the bottom of it. But why do you suppose Trotskyist parties are generally more prolific in the West?

Because Trotskyism is a kind of fashionable way to be anti-communist while appearing not to be. It's idealistic and liberal in ways that really only First Worldists can afford to be: perfectionists about Actually Existing Socialism. The non-European world has long looked to the Soviet Union and China as models of freedom, development, and anti-imperialism, even with its warts.

There are some parties here (PSOL, PSTU) who call themselves Trotskyists, but PSOL's main priority is to get elected to government (which doesn't exactly scream ''revolutionary''), while PSTU gives lists of names and addresses of anarchists to the police

Gross.

 

[Hygro]

Sounds like Trotskyism blows.

 

[_random_]

So what's with the big Lincoln portrait in that CPUSA picture?

Also, the Henry Wallace question still stands.

 

[Hygro]

So what's with the big Lincoln portrait in that CPUSA picture?

I was wondering what the portraits of non-Americans were doing there, communists or not.