When the Russian revolution failed to inspire successful revolution in the west, they reached a dillema. Trotsky feared the Russian peasantry would attack, and so wanted to go on the offensive first
What time frame are we referring too here, and what peasantry? Im guessing well before the implementation of the five year plan? Also, in his references to the peasantry I always kinda figured he was speaking about the kulaks.
Chinese Trotskyists were wrong, wanting to attack both the KMT and Japan before kicking out Japan. Mao and the CPC formed a temporary alliance against Japan, then kicked out the KMT, which ended up being correct.
I mean… Like most things in this time period, it kinda depends on when you are talking about. In the beginning most communist did not like the decision to form a united front with the kmt, but acknowledged it as necessary. There wasn’t really much of a delineation between trotskyists and stalinist until when it came to the kmt until the Shanghai massacre. And tbf it’s kinda understandable that people like chen duxiu would want to break/attack with the kmt afterwards.
Before the Russian revolution, and the experience and information gained by it, there was a wrong but prevalent idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary, as they would have more of a petite-bourgeois ideology based on their largely self-driven living conditions. This isn’t about kulaks, but the actual peasantry. Peasants are not proletarians, they are working classes but engage in fundamentally different relations.
Trotsky believed this wrong conclusion, which is why he believed that stable socialism could only come from developed capitalist countries, and that without their support Russian socialism was doomed. Trotsky also rejected that a country itself could be socialist, as he believed internationally the system being capitalist would cause a reversion to capitalism eventually. MLs don’t disagree that international socialism is necessary, but Trotskyists tend to use this point as a way to bitterly attack socialist countries for not being “pure,” which they can only believe will happen if global capitalism is eradicated. Basically, there’s a destruction of nuance.
As for the Chinese Trotskyists, Mao and other ckmmunists had written them off as suicidal due to their obstinancy and determination to attack the KMT and Japan at the same time. I recommend reading Lu Xun’s letter to Chen Duxiu, Reply to a Letter from the Trotksyites. This shows the sheer distrust of the peasantry the Chen Duxiu had, true to his Trotskyism, and again proven wrong by Mao when the peasantry was made red.
but prevalent idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary, as they would have more of a petite-bourgeois ideology based on their largely self-driven living conditions.
I guess hindsight 20/20, but I had always figured they were referring to the landed peasants like kulaks or sub-kulaks. Seems incongruous that peasants in poverty would be counterrevolutionary.
Trotsky also rejected that a country itself could be socialist, as he believed internationally the system being capitalist would cause a reversion to capitalism eventually.
A big part of Marxism is understanding that existing as a given class makes you more conducive to certain ways of thinking. The way we live shapes the way we think, essentially, and the peasantry are generally more individualist than the proletariat. However, without confirming in reality, some took it to mean that the peasantry would oppose socialism if they weren’t already proletarianized. It isn’t quite as stupid as it sounds.
As for a system reverting to capitalism by existing in a capitalist global economy, that’s partially true, but Trots take it to mean that all socialist countries are generally highly flawed to outright bad. The way to build socialism though requires building these countries up and eroding imperialism, like what China is doing, not by endlessly hoping and praying for a western revolution.
However, without confirming in reality, some took it to mean that the peasantry would oppose socialism if they weren’t already proletarianized. It isn’t quite as stupid as it sounds.
I can see how someone unfamiliar with the countryside could make the assumption. However, as a person who’s lived and worked on a farm it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Farming communities are extremely interdependent on the local community to get just about anything done. No one person or family can work the land by themselves, it really does take a community if you’re not a wealthy land holder.
Trots take it to mean that all socialist countries are generally highly flawed to outright bad
Yeah… He was a messy bitch about a lot of things. Really a mixed bag of conflicting ideas in that little dude.
What time frame are we referring too here, and what peasantry? Im guessing well before the implementation of the five year plan? Also, in his references to the peasantry I always kinda figured he was speaking about the kulaks.
I mean… Like most things in this time period, it kinda depends on when you are talking about. In the beginning most communist did not like the decision to form a united front with the kmt, but acknowledged it as necessary. There wasn’t really much of a delineation between trotskyists and stalinist until when it came to the kmt until the Shanghai massacre. And tbf it’s kinda understandable that people like chen duxiu would want to break/attack with the kmt afterwards.
Before the Russian revolution, and the experience and information gained by it, there was a wrong but prevalent idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary, as they would have more of a petite-bourgeois ideology based on their largely self-driven living conditions. This isn’t about kulaks, but the actual peasantry. Peasants are not proletarians, they are working classes but engage in fundamentally different relations.
Trotsky believed this wrong conclusion, which is why he believed that stable socialism could only come from developed capitalist countries, and that without their support Russian socialism was doomed. Trotsky also rejected that a country itself could be socialist, as he believed internationally the system being capitalist would cause a reversion to capitalism eventually. MLs don’t disagree that international socialism is necessary, but Trotskyists tend to use this point as a way to bitterly attack socialist countries for not being “pure,” which they can only believe will happen if global capitalism is eradicated. Basically, there’s a destruction of nuance.
As for the Chinese Trotskyists, Mao and other ckmmunists had written them off as suicidal due to their obstinancy and determination to attack the KMT and Japan at the same time. I recommend reading Lu Xun’s letter to Chen Duxiu, Reply to a Letter from the Trotksyites. This shows the sheer distrust of the peasantry the Chen Duxiu had, true to his Trotskyism, and again proven wrong by Mao when the peasantry was made red.
I guess hindsight 20/20, but I had always figured they were referring to the landed peasants like kulaks or sub-kulaks. Seems incongruous that peasants in poverty would be counterrevolutionary.
Kinda agree with this to an extent.
A big part of Marxism is understanding that existing as a given class makes you more conducive to certain ways of thinking. The way we live shapes the way we think, essentially, and the peasantry are generally more individualist than the proletariat. However, without confirming in reality, some took it to mean that the peasantry would oppose socialism if they weren’t already proletarianized. It isn’t quite as stupid as it sounds.
As for a system reverting to capitalism by existing in a capitalist global economy, that’s partially true, but Trots take it to mean that all socialist countries are generally highly flawed to outright bad. The way to build socialism though requires building these countries up and eroding imperialism, like what China is doing, not by endlessly hoping and praying for a western revolution.
I can see how someone unfamiliar with the countryside could make the assumption. However, as a person who’s lived and worked on a farm it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Farming communities are extremely interdependent on the local community to get just about anything done. No one person or family can work the land by themselves, it really does take a community if you’re not a wealthy land holder.
Yeah… He was a messy bitch about a lot of things. Really a mixed bag of conflicting ideas in that little dude.
Communalist, not collectivist. Tiny cells of interdependent local groups are different from the large, widespread connections of socialism.
Right… But one could say the same about the proletariat pre-revolution.
No, proletarian production is more socialized, as is proletarian ideology. It’s part of why cities and rural areas have different political views.