So we've basically got to the point where Trotskys ideas are discredited in the party where the CC can garner 724,000 votes for its program and Trotskys opposition can only get 4000 votes
So the only thing we can do here is "magic" Trotsky to becoming leader and instead of the Bolshevik party being full of Marxist-Leninists being full of Trotskyites (otherwise they'd have chosen a different leader to Trotsky)
So if he's leader of the Bolsheviks I don't see him executing a successful revolution under his leadership. He was unable to unify one of the many parties he was in or led during that period as actual history so why would it be any different if he was leader of the bolsheviks at any point? We saw Lenin characterise him as having "no ideological definiteness" and merely "flitting from one group to the next with high sounding and pompous phrases".
But lets magic him into producing a successful revolution.
So lets see they go all in on Permanent REvolution - with the collapse of all the revolutions across Europe which are stamped out by reaction in the early 1920s (Finland/Hungary/Germany/Romania etc. etc.) you would likely see a demoralised Communist Party due to the Trotskyite eurocentric belief no socialism can survive on its own and they were dependent on revolution breaking out in the West.
At this point it means either the Communist Party dies a slow death starting in 1927 due to this demoralisation or we go on Trotskyite adventurism and Trotsky decides to use the Red Army to invade neighbouring countries.
This was tried in 1920 and the Red Army suffered a resounding defeat in Poland which resulted in Poland annexing parts of Ukraine/Belarus and Lithuania from the Soviet Union. Given the state of the USSR in 1927 (only just recovering from World war, civil war then the 1921 famine). So Trotsky is successful in uniting the disparate Capitalist forces in 1927 instead of Stalins Socialism in One Country which is a masterplay at foreign policy
If somehow Trotsky makes it to 1936 the USSR would be full of terror and paralysed defeatism due to Trotskys defeatism in his REvolution Betrayed where he states that
Can we, however, expect that the Soviet Union will come out of the coming great war without defeat? To this frankly posed question, we will answer as frankly: If the war should remain only a war, the defeat of the Soviet Union would be inevitable. In a technical, economic, and military sense, imperialism in incomparably more strong. If it is not paralyzed by revolution in the West, imperialism will sweep away the regime which issued from the October revolution.
Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed, 1936
Compare this to Stalins speech of 1941
The enemy is not so strong as some frightened little intellectuals picture him. The devil is not so terrible as he is painted. Who can deny that our Red Army has more than once put the vaunted German troops to panic flight? If one judges, not by the boastful assertions of the German propagandists, but by the actual position of Germany, it will not be difficult to understand that the German-fascist invaders are facing disaster. Hunger and impoverishment reign in Germany to-day; in four months of war Germany has lost four and a half million men; Germany is bleeding, her reserves of man-power are giving out, the spirit of indignation is spreading not only among the peoples of Europe who have fallen under the yoke of the German invaders but also among the German people themselves, who see no end to war. The German invaders are straining their last efforts. There is no doubt that Germany cannot sustain such a strain for long. Another few months, another half-year, perhaps another year, and Hitlerite Germany must burst under the pressure of her crimes.
In 1939 Trotsky was writing on the indepence of Ukraine. This is despite the fact the Pro independence forces were bourgeois natinonalists and fascists (who would go on to setup their own SS divisions and collaborate with the Nazis). Whislst the Pro Communist forces were pro Stalin.
This is full knowing that Hitler had demanded conquering Ukraine for the oil fields and Lebensraum in Meinkampf which Communists had meticulously studied for obvious reasons.
In the Moscow Trials (dismissed as frame ups by bourgeois and trotskyite historians) it's asserted Trotsky wanted to carve off a huge section of the Soviet Union for Hitler, specifically the Ukraine for assistance for Trotsky and Tukhachevksy coming to power. If Trotsky had been in charge of the Soviet Union the defeatism that coloured his outlook would mean capitulating to Hitler and gifting Ukraine to the Nazis
The Nazis would now have the caucas oilfields to expand and be almost unhindered in their war in the West against Britain.
With a hacked off Ukraine to the Nazis the Soviets are no longer in a feasible position to move millions of troops into Bessarabia in 1940 to deter the Nazis invading Britain nor do they now have the oil capacity (having lost Ukraine) to sustain a long war.
There is little now to stop General Plan Ost (which was basically to elimate the slavic race and settle their lands with Germans).
In short the Communist party collapses in the late 20s due to demoralisation or adventurism which unites the bitterly anti-Communist forces. It's well known now that Britain colluded with Hitler under Chamberlain with Lord Halifax making statements like "Hitler and Britain will be a staunch bullwark against Communism". By trying to wage war for spreading Communism this would've ended the USSR there and then
If somehow it doesn't Trotsky would've carved off the Ukraine and left the Soviet Union a rump state leaving Hitler free to wage war on the West. Once Britain is defeated he almost certainly would've turned east but never having to have waged a war on 2 fronts. With a now diminished Soviet Union (Probably just a hacked back Russia as the Nazis had envisaged), the oil fields under Nazi control the Hitlerites do not come within 22km of Moscow - they take it.
So ironically, Trotskys statement in 1936 becomes prophecy in Ww2
"Briefly" good god man it's quite an indepth topic
I'll have a go though
Trotsky occupied a middle position between the Bolsheviks and Menshiviks but in essence was closer to the Mensheviks.
He agreed with the Bolsheviks that the liberal bourgeois would have nothing to do with the coming revolution. At the same time he agreed with the Mensheviks that the peasantry could not be a dependable ally.
Tsarism, according to Trotsky could be replaced by a workers government. On no account could it be replaced by a joint dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry. And on coming to power it would be the function of the Workers government to attack private property, including the peasant holdings. By its attack on private property by the Workers government would alienate and arouse the hostility and resistance (thanks to Trotsky) of the majority of the population.
The resistance of the peasantry would endanger the workers government. But on the other hand the workers government would stimulate the working class of the industrially advanced European countries to wage ruthless struggle against their own bourgeoisie, seize state power and establish socialism.
In return Western europe, would now come to the aid of the Russian workers government in Russia to crush by force the resistance of the peasantry. This is permanent revolution.
“In the absence of direct State support on the part of the European proletariat, the Russian working class will not be able to keep itself in power and to transform its temporary rule into a stable socialist dictatorship. No doubt as to the truth of this is possible.”(“Our Revolution,” Russian Edition, Pg. 278.
Trotsky, Our Revolution 1906
“A steady rise of socialist economy in Russia will not be possible until after the victory of the proletariat in the leading countries of Europe.”
Trotsky, (“Collected Works,” Vol. 3, Part I, Pgs.92-93.)
What this would mean in practice is Permanent Counter-Revolution. By the negation of the peasantry as a revolutionary role that the peasantry could play (and did play) it would mean depriving the Russian working class of a dependable ally and turning the peasantry into a tool of the liberal bourgeois. There would have been no revolution in Russia had this line followed and Lenin was to reject it for a second time in 1915 in the following:
To bring clarity into the alignment of classes in the impending revolution is the main task of a revolutionary party. This task is being shirked by the Organising Committee, which within Russia remains a faithful ally to Nashe Dyelo, and abroad utters meaningless “Left” phrases. This task is being wrongly tackled in Nashe Slovo by Trotsky, who is repeating his “original” 1905 theory and refuses to give some thought to the reason why, in the course of ten years, life has been bypassing this splendid theory.
From the Bolsheviks Trotsky’s original theory has borrowed their call for a decisive proletarian revolutionary struggle and for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, while from the Mensheviks it has borrowed “repudiation” of the peasantry’s role. The peasantry, he asserts, are divided into strata, have become differentiated; their potential revolutionary role has dwindled more and more; in Russia a “national” revolution is impossible; “we are living in the era of imperialism,” says Trotsky, and “imperialism does not contra pose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”
Here we have an amusing example of playing with the word “imperialism”. If, in Russia, the proletariat already stands contra posed to the “bourgeois nation”, then Russia is facing a socialist revolution (!), and the slogan “Confiscate the landed estates” (repeated by Trotsky in 1915, following the January Conference of 1912), is incorrect; in that case we must speak, not of a “revolutionary workers’” government, but of a “workers’ socialist” government! The length Trotsky’s muddled thinking goes to is evident from his phrase that by their resoluteness the proletariat will attract the “non-proletarian [!] popular masses” as well (No. 217)! Trotsky has not realised that if the proletariat induce the non-proletarian masses to confiscate the landed estates and overthrow the monarchy, then that will be the consummation of the “national bourgeois revolution” in Russia; it will be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry!
A whole decade—the great decade of 1905-15—has shown the existence of two and only two class lines in the Russian revolution. The differentiation of the peasantry has enhanced the class struggle within them; it has aroused very many hitherto politically dormant elements. It has drawn the rural proletariat closer to the urban proletariat (the Bolsheviks have insisted ever since 1906 that the former should be separately organised, and they included this demand in the resolution of the Menshevik congress in Stockholm). However, the antagonism between the peasantry, on the one hand, and the Markovs, Romanovs and Khvostovs, on the other, has become stronger and more acute. This is such an obvious truth that not even the thousands of phrases in scores of Trotsky’s Paris articles will “refute” it. Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal-labour politicians in Russia, who by “repudiation” of the role of the peasantry understand a refusal to raise up the peasants for the revolution!
It took only two years to prove Lenins correctness
To sum up
The rejection of the peasantry as a revolutionary force
The rejection of stages in the development of the revolution (Which amounted in practice skipping the first stage of the revolution: the majority of the Russian people, particularly the peasantry, against the Tsar. But only the working class who constituted a tiny minority at the time against the Tsar and the "bourgeois nation" including the peasantry)
It is noted that the Soviets did eventually wage a war against the nascent bourgeois elements in the peasantry which did seriously de-stabilise the Soviet government. But this was done in the early 1930s when a lot of the peasantry had been drawn into the cities and into the proletariat. Not as immediate fact against the "bourgeois nation" in 1917 which would've seen the peasantry side with the White guardists
If you wish to read further I recommend studying Lenin. If you're unsure where to start with Lenin then his Selected Works is organised in a timeline that makes some of the arguments easier to understand
Conclusion
So we've basically got to the point where Trotskys ideas are discredited in the party where the CC can garner 724,000 votes for its program and Trotskys opposition can only get 4000 votes
So the only thing we can do here is "magic" Trotsky to becoming leader and instead of the Bolshevik party being full of Marxist-Leninists being full of Trotskyites (otherwise they'd have chosen a different leader to Trotsky)
So if he's leader of the Bolsheviks I don't see him executing a successful revolution under his leadership. He was unable to unify one of the many parties he was in or led during that period as actual history so why would it be any different if he was leader of the bolsheviks at any point? We saw Lenin characterise him as having "no ideological definiteness" and merely "flitting from one group to the next with high sounding and pompous phrases".
But lets magic him into producing a successful revolution.
So lets see they go all in on Permanent REvolution - with the collapse of all the revolutions across Europe which are stamped out by reaction in the early 1920s (Finland/Hungary/Germany/Romania etc. etc.) you would likely see a demoralised Communist Party due to the Trotskyite eurocentric belief no socialism can survive on its own and they were dependent on revolution breaking out in the West.
At this point it means either the Communist Party dies a slow death starting in 1927 due to this demoralisation or we go on Trotskyite adventurism and Trotsky decides to use the Red Army to invade neighbouring countries.
This was tried in 1920 and the Red Army suffered a resounding defeat in Poland which resulted in Poland annexing parts of Ukraine/Belarus and Lithuania from the Soviet Union. Given the state of the USSR in 1927 (only just recovering from World war, civil war then the 1921 famine). So Trotsky is successful in uniting the disparate Capitalist forces in 1927 instead of Stalins Socialism in One Country which is a masterplay at foreign policy
Don't believe me though I'll let Stephen Kotkin explain why it's a masterpiece
If somehow Trotsky makes it to 1936 the USSR would be full of terror and paralysed defeatism due to Trotskys defeatism in his REvolution Betrayed where he states that
Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed, 1936
Compare this to Stalins speech of 1941
Stalin, Speech at the Red Army Parade on the Red Square, Moscow
In 1939 Trotsky was writing on the indepence of Ukraine. This is despite the fact the Pro independence forces were bourgeois natinonalists and fascists (who would go on to setup their own SS divisions and collaborate with the Nazis). Whislst the Pro Communist forces were pro Stalin.
This is full knowing that Hitler had demanded conquering Ukraine for the oil fields and Lebensraum in Meinkampf which Communists had meticulously studied for obvious reasons.
Trotsky, Independence of the Ukraine and Sectarian Muddleheads
In the Moscow Trials (dismissed as frame ups by bourgeois and trotskyite historians) it's asserted Trotsky wanted to carve off a huge section of the Soviet Union for Hitler, specifically the Ukraine for assistance for Trotsky and Tukhachevksy coming to power. If Trotsky had been in charge of the Soviet Union the defeatism that coloured his outlook would mean capitulating to Hitler and gifting Ukraine to the Nazis
The Nazis would now have the caucas oilfields to expand and be almost unhindered in their war in the West against Britain.
With a hacked off Ukraine to the Nazis the Soviets are no longer in a feasible position to move millions of troops into Bessarabia in 1940 to deter the Nazis invading Britain nor do they now have the oil capacity (having lost Ukraine) to sustain a long war.
There is little now to stop General Plan Ost (which was basically to elimate the slavic race and settle their lands with Germans).
In short the Communist party collapses in the late 20s due to demoralisation or adventurism which unites the bitterly anti-Communist forces. It's well known now that Britain colluded with Hitler under Chamberlain with Lord Halifax making statements like "Hitler and Britain will be a staunch bullwark against Communism". By trying to wage war for spreading Communism this would've ended the USSR there and then
In Our Time: The Chamberlain/Hitler Collusion
If somehow it doesn't Trotsky would've carved off the Ukraine and left the Soviet Union a rump state leaving Hitler free to wage war on the West. Once Britain is defeated he almost certainly would've turned east but never having to have waged a war on 2 fronts. With a now diminished Soviet Union (Probably just a hacked back Russia as the Nazis had envisaged), the oil fields under Nazi control the Hitlerites do not come within 22km of Moscow - they take it.
So ironically, Trotskys statement in 1936 becomes prophecy in Ww2
TL:DR?
Can you briefly summarize the main ideas of the “absurdly-left“ theory of permanent revolution?
"Briefly" good god man it's quite an indepth topic
I'll have a go though
Trotsky occupied a middle position between the Bolsheviks and Menshiviks but in essence was closer to the Mensheviks.
He agreed with the Bolsheviks that the liberal bourgeois would have nothing to do with the coming revolution. At the same time he agreed with the Mensheviks that the peasantry could not be a dependable ally.
Tsarism, according to Trotsky could be replaced by a workers government. On no account could it be replaced by a joint dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry. And on coming to power it would be the function of the Workers government to attack private property, including the peasant holdings. By its attack on private property by the Workers government would alienate and arouse the hostility and resistance (thanks to Trotsky) of the majority of the population.
The resistance of the peasantry would endanger the workers government. But on the other hand the workers government would stimulate the working class of the industrially advanced European countries to wage ruthless struggle against their own bourgeoisie, seize state power and establish socialism.
In return Western europe, would now come to the aid of the Russian workers government in Russia to crush by force the resistance of the peasantry. This is permanent revolution.
Trotsky, Our Revolution 1906
Trotsky, (“Collected Works,” Vol. 3, Part I, Pgs.92-93.)
What this would mean in practice is Permanent Counter-Revolution. By the negation of the peasantry as a revolutionary role that the peasantry could play (and did play) it would mean depriving the Russian working class of a dependable ally and turning the peasantry into a tool of the liberal bourgeois. There would have been no revolution in Russia had this line followed and Lenin was to reject it for a second time in 1915 in the following:
-Lenin, Two Lines On The Revolution
It took only two years to prove Lenins correctness
To sum up
The rejection of the peasantry as a revolutionary force
The rejection of stages in the development of the revolution (Which amounted in practice skipping the first stage of the revolution: the majority of the Russian people, particularly the peasantry, against the Tsar. But only the working class who constituted a tiny minority at the time against the Tsar and the "bourgeois nation" including the peasantry)
It is noted that the Soviets did eventually wage a war against the nascent bourgeois elements in the peasantry which did seriously de-stabilise the Soviet government. But this was done in the early 1930s when a lot of the peasantry had been drawn into the cities and into the proletariat. Not as immediate fact against the "bourgeois nation" in 1917 which would've seen the peasantry side with the White guardists
If you wish to read further I recommend studying Lenin. If you're unsure where to start with Lenin then his Selected Works is organised in a timeline that makes some of the arguments easier to understand
Lenin - Selected Works in Two Volumes - Volume 1
If you are still getting your bearings on studying this history I can recommend the following resources
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/index.htm#Trotskyism
https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/trotskyism/
Against Trotskyism was released by the Soviet government and compiled Lenins polemics against Trotskyism
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/AgainstTrotskyism.pdf
As well as Carl Davidsons excellent, Trotskyism:Left In Form, Right In Essence
thank you for this
No problem comrade glad you liked it