Trotskism isn’t wrong, it’s not even wrong. Trotskyists do not even believe in anything. They do not have a coherent ideology at all.
Trotskyists will complain about “bureaucracy” in the Soviet Union, but being anti-something is not sufficient to qualify as an “ism.” What is their actual solution to bureaucracy? They either present none, or vaguely talk about “permanent revolution,” yet cannot explain how permanent revolution will supposedly solve bureaucracy problems.
In fact, they cannot even explain what “permanent revolution” even entails. As far as I’ve read from Trotskyists as well as discussed this with them, it seems to be nothing more than pure quibbling over definitions. Marxist-Leninists describe a workers’ state that has collectivized most industries to be “socialist” (the notion that it is possible for a country to be socialist is called “socialism in one country”). Trotskyists argue that because capitalism is a global socialism, you can only apply these kinds of labels globally. Hence, it is meaningless to call the Soviet Union “socialist.” You can only describe the global system as still “capitalist,” and could at best just say the USSR was a “workers’ state.”
Okay, a difference in definitions. What’s the practical consequences? None. Trotskyists will sometimes say that, “a workers’ state in a capitalist system is bound to regress back to capitalism unless it achieves international victory.” Sure, but again, this is just language. If you replace “workers’ state” with “socialist state,” then even Joseph Stalin said literally the same thing in Foundations of Leninism. Again, recall that the countries like the USSR that Trotskyists call a “workers’ state” is in practice the same as what Marxist-Leninists have called “socialist states.” So, despite the difference in language, they are talking about the same thing, and advocating the same things as well.
So what is the practical difference? What practical difference is there to shifting the language so that you can only talk about the international system, especially when Marxist-Leninists already believe that socialist revolutions cannot neglect the international system as they are part of a global economy and will inevitably regress back to capitalism if they do not eventually achieve global socialist victory? Indeed, the USSR especially funded an enormous amount into supporting establishing socialist countries — sorry, I mean “workers’ states” — all around the globe, so it is not like they somehow ignored the international arena.
The only implication I could draw from this is maybe the Trotskyists wanted Marxist-Leninists to be even more aggressively internationalist than they already were, yet if you propose this, they immediately get defensive and accuse you of “straw manning” them. Trotsky, laughably, called Stalin a “pacifist” for trying to stall a war with western countries, and even stated that the Bolshevik revolution was “bound to bring war to European soil.” It does seem like Trotsky wanted the USSR to go on a suicide mission against the west, but if you suggest that this maybe is what Trotskyists wanted, in my experience, they always deny it.
So what do they want? They are never clear about it. If they are not crying about how evil the “Stalinists” are for a difference in definitions, they are crying about the so-called “stageists” who are supposedly a group of people that think all countries should go through a complete capitalist phase before they can have a proletarian revolution. Where are these supposed “stageists”? Are they in the room with you right now? The Bolshevik revolution defied “stageism” as well as the communist revolution in China, and in most Marxist-Leninist revolutions defied stageism. What they call “stageism” just seems to be some temporary policy of the now defunct Comintern that they constantly cry about as if it is actually relevant in the modern day world and there are adherents to it everywhere. I’ve never met one.
I am not even entirely sure what it means to be opposed to “stageism” as some universal principal. If, for example, the people of Palestine are able to fight off Israel and build a strong and prosperous country, I really doubt it will be socialist. Sure, that would be nice, but if we want to be realistic, it would probably be a capitalist country. Should we not support their cause just because, if the Palestinians are freed, they likely won’t conduct “permanent revolution” for global socialism? Ridiculous.
Again, if you said this to a Trotskyist they would accuse you of “straw manning.” They do this all the time. They criticize something but never state what they would do as an alternative. You take a guess, and they accuse you of “straw manning,” but then never clarify what they would actually do as an alternative. You can guess forever and they will always respond with it being a “straw man,” and you’ll be left with no idea what they are even advocating for.
Indeed, I’m not aware of any Marxist who would not prefer a workers’ revolution when feasible. The support for capitalist revolutions in the 19th century was more of a practical thing, like with the example with Palestine, where it did not seem feasible that there would be a workers’ revolution any time soon, the USSR supported the “lesser evil,” i.e. revolutionary national bourgeoisie that would still be historically progressive. They did not hold this position as some sort of “ism,” outside of pragmatism.
Take China, for example. The Bolsheviks did initially supported the KMT not because they had some sort of deep ideological commitment to so-called “stageism.” They supported the KMT because they did not take the Chinese communists very seriously. Yet, they later abandoned this position when it was clear they were a serious force and began to back them. It does not even make sense to accuse the Bolsheviks of being “stageist” as Trotskyists do, as the Bolshevik revolution itself was not “stageist.” Even if somehow they were “stageist,” modern day China and Russia are not semi-feudal countries anymore. In fact, how many countries can even be qualified as feudal these day? It is a complaint that just, again, seems hardly relevant today at all in much of the world.
Trotskyists also complain about the peasantry, and maybe this was a genuine disagreement, like, in the 1930s, but I don’t really see its relevance today. The reason Trotsky talked about the peasantry was because they were a majority at the time in Russia. He feared a reactionary backlash from the peasantry which, if this came from a majority class, could divert the revolution away from socialism. By the time the Soviet Union dissolved, however, the peasantry were a small minority, so clearly the peasantry were not the cause of the USSR dissolving and returning to capitalism and that fear was proven to be misguided by history.
Even if somehow you want to bend over backwards and try to argue that “lingering effects” of the peasantry are what caused the USSR to later dissolve even once they were a minority, well, today they are a minority in Russia, so if Russia were to have another socialist revolution, this would not be a problem either. In other words, again, even if we grant this argument as true, it would have no relevance in many countries today. It could only possibly have relevance in some of the poorest of the poor countries where peasants are still a majority. Even many developing global south countries, like China, they have become a small minority.
It seems to me that Trotskyists don’t have a solid “ism” that actually unites them together. They don’t have a coherent and consistent ideology. Rather, they are more united by just being opposed to any country that calls itself socialist. They quibble like it’s some big deal and a big betrayal of the socialist cause to use language in a particular way where you say it is possible for a country to be socialist, and from this basis, call everyone who thinks it is possible for a country to be socialist a “Stalinist.”
The term “Stalinism” is something you see repeated over and over again. Open any Trotskyist paper or journal and Ctrl+F the term. They repeatedly use it over and over again, multiple times per page. For them, again, “Stalinism” is merely defined as simply a person who believes it is possible for a country to be socialist. Despite Nikita Khrushchev having led the destalinization campaign, they call him a Stalinist too. Despite Deng Xiaoping having criticized and abandoned the Stalin Model, they call him a Stalinist as well.
What unites Khrushchev and Deng? Well, both believed it was possible for a country to be socialist. Deng described China as a socialist country and Khrushchev described the USSR as a socialist country. Simply using the term “socialist country” is all that Trotskyists consider to be sufficient to qualify a person as a “Stalinist,” and then they act like this simple disagreement over definition makes you some great enemy and betrayer of the proletariat.
It is just so silly. They believe nothing. They have no solution to anything. I have more respect even for left-communists like the Bordigists because at least they can outline a genuine ideological disagreement. Trotskyists cannot express any sort of coherent disagreement with Marxist-Leninists. They constantly quibble over language or rant about things that are largely irrelevant.
I think the appeal of Trotskyism really just is the fact they are opposed to everything that that calls itself socialist. If you are raised in a capitalist country and taught socialism is evil, then later read Marx and realize he is actually very reasonable, you might resolve this contradiction in your brain by coming to believe that countries like the USSR were “not true socialism” (and thus still bad) and “abandoned Marxism.” What is even better about Trotskyism is that, because it has no coherent ideology, you do not even have to think beyond this.
You don’t actually have to sit down and try to come up with potential solutions to their problems. You can just repeat meaningless slogans about “stageism” and cry over the specific language used as if it is meaningful while not actually offering any useful criticism. You can set yourself up as some sort of moral paragon of virtue and the one “true Marxist” by labeling anyone and everyone who has actually tried to build socialism a “Stalinist” and denounce them as morally bad people while you are the good one who really understands Marxism and are on the side of the working class.
I have also seen Trotskyists argue that Trotskyism must have some merit because “Trotsky predicted the USSR would return to capitalism.” I see this claim a lot and it is often used as a justification to why Trotsky must’ve been right. Yet, this is a poor justification, because many people were saying the same thing. Mao was saying the USSR would return to capitalism for not having a Cultural Revolution and that Khrushchev represented a coup by the bourgeoisie. Che Guevara had written in his Critical Notes on Political Economy that the USSR would return to capitalism because any decentralized enterprises at all contributes to a capitalist superstructure, and the Soviet Union practiced decentralization a lot in state enterprises and in the kolkhoz sector without acknowledging the recognizing the dangers of it.
If simply predicting the USSR was returning to capitalism ahead of time makes you right, then why aren’t these people Maoists or Guevarists? The USSR was a very flawed country, and in order to not repeat its mistakes, it should be heavily criticized. Yet, Trotskyists seem to offer nothing helpful in terms of criticism. Even an anarchist could at least make a coherent point I could understand when criticizing the USSR. When I hear their criticisms, I can at least imagine what they are suggesting a possible solution, in their minds, would look like. Yet, when I listen to a Trotskyist, I legitimately have no idea what they are advocating at all, and whenever I try to question them on it, they get defensive, constantly throw out “straw man,” but then never bother to correct the so-called “straw man” to tell me what they are actually advocating. I am always left completely confused as to what they practically even want as an alternative.
