A lot of the Trotsky hate online seems like a meme, but this video was the first legitimate explanation of the problems with Trotskyism. Thank you!

Trotsky's main point about the peasant class was that it could not play an independent role. Like Lenin, Trotsky recognized that there were layers of the peasantry that were closer to the proletariat (the poorer and middle peasants) and others that would surely be hostile (the wealthier propertied peasants). Even in Results and Prospects Trotsky understood that the workers would need to win over the peasantry, but he denied that the peasantry (or the petty-bourgeois for that matter) could play an independent class role. He argued, as did most Communists in the early Comintern period, that the contradictory position of the petty-bourgeoisie meant that as a group, their politics would be led either by the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. I think even in the Chinese Revolution this is born out, as the changes implemented by the CCP after 1949 (The three and five antis campaigns especially) certainly went beyond bourgeois property relations, despite the fact that the CCP at the time proclaimed to limit itself to a "people's democracy" as opposed to a Soviet or socialist democracy. Despite originally intending to preserve the national-bourgeoisie in the interests of the worker-peasant alliance, even this bourgeois class soon proved to be an obstacle and were by 1956 (rightly) counted as counterrevolutionary as well. All I'll say about the critique of Stalinism is that while I think Trotsky was basically right in his analysis of the problem of bureaucracy, I don't think that he came up with a viable alternative of reform. Essentially I would differ with Trotsky's later position on the need for a "political" revolution in places like the USSR, and would instead emphasize reform as he and the Left Opposition did pre-1933. It's also important to separate Trotsky from some of his self-proclaimed students, who he actually fell out with over the question of the USSR. Despite his severe criticisms, Trotsky held that the Soviet Union was nevertheless of proletarian state that needed to be defended, and he vigorously rejected the claim that the Soviet Union under Stalin had morphed into "state-capitalism" some new mode of production. I would argue that this is the point where most MLs and Trotskyists butt heads, but I think that it honestly the hatchet should be buried on this point. Trotsky's critique of Soviet society was essentially similar to what Mao and many other MLs in the post-Stalin period were coming around to: that even in a socialist state, class contradictions (between proletariat, peasants and intelligentsia) continue, and that class struggle is still relevant even when Communists have won power. If we leave out Trotsky's later call for "political revolution," I don't think that there's anything particularly controversial in this, as such a concept of the proletarian state can be found in Lenin and even in Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism" as well. And today even most "anti-revisionist" MLs recognize bureaucracy as a problem within socialist states. The thing I think that this critique of Trotsky leaves out is that Trotsky's main argument against socialism in one country was that the world forces of production have outgrown the outdated relations of nation states. I think this is more true today than when Trotsky wrote, as high-speed rail and nuclear energy projects like ITER by their very infrastructure transcend national boundaries. But the his original point was that autarchy is unsustainable as a policy for a workers' state, just as it is really unsustainable for bourgeois states as well. Socialism requires productive forces that cannot be contained within national boundaries, and this means ultimately bringing world productive forces to bear. This doesn't mean a defeatist attitude (Trotsky was accused of being a "super-industrializer" by Bukharin and Stalin after all), but it does frankly place limits on how far socialist construction can go in a single country, especially ones that have a lower level of productive forces development. I think there's plenty to criticize and even perhaps reject within Trotsky's work, but I think that most of the controversies-if placed in historical context and analyzed by all sides in good faith-are moot, and there is basis for reconciliation.

Thank you! I am a Marxist-Leninist myself but have pondered the question of Permanent Revolution for a while without understanding it's historical context. This answered a lot of my questions. Keep up the amazing work!

In the late sixties and seventies I worked hard as a mechanic but also went to college when I had the funds or the interest. It was always curious to me how the workers were discussed in college by students who were most definitely not workers, so it was all theory and verbal exercise and I remember being ejected out of a marxist discussion at school when I noted this issue.

That was an excellent presentation of your thought on the subject, it helped me comrade, thanks

To me socialisme in one country is a necessary step for world-wide révolution.

Sir , please respond ... I am a student from India ... I learnt many things from your Das capital lectures ... Sir please continue that series ... Thank you ...love from India .... Lal Selam

I have just came across your channel and I think it is simply great. This video in partiular is an excellent lecture on this subject, clear and straightforward explanation without loss of indepth analysis. I'm just a learner of the theory of scientific socialism and and want to say thank you for these contributions.

Thank you sir. These new sessions are very helpful. One would otherwise need to read plethora of books to get along with all these overlapping concepts.

Excellent video, it made me understand better the topic. Greetings from Brasil

This is very good, thank you for this! Subscribed!

you're a really good teacher, highlighting key points and showing why the fit together

Thank you very so much for clearing my doubts regarding trotsky, bcs i was so confounded, and i still don't get the time to read the trotsky yet, i have his literature, but i am busy in reading marx, lenin, and Che. So your video would help me alot. Thanks once again taimoor.

Hey dr. Rahman, I’m interested in watching more of your videos and lectures on English. I stumbled across you 4 years ago. I was wondering if you could do this and your lectures are very informative and enlightening

For months I was trying to get my head around Trotskyism, and then youtube recommended me this. You might just be the best teacher from the Subcontinent. Thanks!

i m hearing this word first time in my life and i m 38 year old

Hello sir Can you please provide an in-depth critique of societal and political structure in Islam.( Quran and Hadees)

A powerful and compelling analysis! 👍

Great video comrade

Thank you for this talk.

I’m a member of the SWP in England, however I completely respect your opinion you are very fair and logical.

Lenin clearly says in april thesis that all production must be socialized under control of workers. it was workers in soviet who did permenent revolution bourgious in russia was just bargaining with tsar they were not ready to do thier own demecratic revolution. workers broke down feudal structures in russia.

I mean did the proletariat and the peasantry not come into conflict pretty quickly in the civil war? To the point where it was a danger to the revolution?

can you explain the trotsky to neocon pipeline

Thanks, from Sacramento California.

Excellent! ...I had no idea that Lenin supported revolution in one country, despite "Troterian" claims to the contrary. Very informative.

Also, I would like to learn more about Stalin, and how propaganda and disinformation has put a negative stain on his name in history.

Have you read Anwar Shaikh's book Capitalism? And what did you think of it if you have?

Nice talk, and thanks for the thoughts. @4:10 gross. I've heard that "oh, they're not ready for it," garbage from so many bourgeois "philanthropists" is sickens me, even when you are just recounting the history of thought!

This is the Marxist channel I've been waiting for. Thank you!

A good lecture. One could discuss it or argue it to death on the internet but it would not have much value. I always think of Trotsky's death in a walled in house in Mexico city where he continued to write about his own fantasy of reality, more than likely knowing that his end was near.

The only reason, that I can see, for arguing, at that time, that european Revolution was essential, was that at the time the more developed countries had military might that could crush them; of course, Mao's Peoples War delt with this.

(1/4) "the peasants are reactionary" is classist, it paints an entire group with a single brush. If only a small percent of "peasants" are revolutionary you have enough seed for movement towards more socialism less capitalism. The main obstacles will likely come from elsewhere.

Great sir

In my opinion , there should not be a one size fits all approach for all nations . While I grant what you have said about such countries as Pakistan , and India to have arguable merit , in a first world bourgeois nation , such as the United States of America , I feel that in my observation Marx and Trotsky would be largely correct in their assessment of the character of the peasantry . I expect that if some sort of revolutionary insurrection were to transpire in the west , namely the U.S.A. , the largely white agrarian class would not be naturally inclined to take up not the red flag of socialism , but rather that of the Confedederate battle flag , to symbolically embody their cause of right-wing populism .

(4/4) To finish up: it is foolish to over theorize revolutionary movements towards greater socialism. There can be good lasting sudden revolutions and good gradual transitions. You take what you can get. The Lenin-Trotsky debates are facile, they assume too much, on each side. They make idealistic assumptions just like the neoclassical political economics of neoliberals. Not all peasants are equal. Not all capitalists are regressive reactionaries, some are socialists compromising their ideals within a neo-liberal world system.

Very informative. Thank you for your lectures. Please make a video about political correctness

I think a lot of good points have been made in the comments about idealism and all. An additional point I want to make is a lot of Marxists in the haste of building theories tend to take a particular characteristic and make it general and even apply it worldwide. Trotsky seemed to have made that mistake when putting forward his "theory" and his followers even more absurdly take that as a generally applicable theory even today. I am also from a third world living in the first world and I agree with your assessment of the left here mostly white left because again in a place like the US left isn't one uniform bloc.

What is you view on the on going Farmers Protest in India? Can it be transformed into a Socialist Revolution?

well, i don't know much about the details, but these are - to be sure - logical criticisms based on what you presented.

great video

Sir, at 23:45 you talked about CPIM govt in Bengal to say that peasants voted for the CPIM. But today the same peasants are supporting fascist parties like BJP and TMC. It gives us a message that even after 35 years of uninterrupted rule in Bengal the Communists were unable to bring changes in the social outlook of the common bengalis especially peasant class. Dont you think that trotsky was right somehow. Even in present Russia the same old soviets are voting for Putin who patronizes conservative ideologies.

Will you ever be doing a video on Leninism and it's various criticism?

Very well argued. A good teacher.

Great video btw

That picture of Ali Nasir was such a pleasant surprise. My best friend from my teen years. May Allah rest his soul in heaven.

I think the correct position on socialist revolution in the 21st century in more economically underdeveloped and militarily less powerful countries is that even if a socialist party should come to power, they should prioritize industrialization and developing economic independence WITHIN the framework of capitalism until either a) they become economically developed enough and militarily powerful enough to resist western imperialism or b) another socialist superpower emerges to play the same role that the USSR played in the 20th century. There have been heroic efforts to build socialism in the 21st century in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc., but their people have suffered due to the sheer economic isolation they face in the post-Soviet world and constant American imperialist aggression. I think socialists should be seriously paying attention to the China model. More dogmatic "anti-revisionist" types dismiss Deng Xiaoping as a "capitalist roader" who destroyed socialism in China, but I happen to believe that he was a wise statesman who understood that after the Sino-Soviet split, the only choices left were North Korean style autarky or making concessions to the West. However, despite embracing a form of state capitalism, China has been very careful to ensure that foreign investment only be allowed on the condition that it served to help industrialize China with the ultimate goal of China developing its own Chinese owned industries, which can be seen today with the emergence of companies like Huawei. Meanwhile, the Chinese state continues to directly own key industries like banking and natural resources (oil, coal, etc.). These policies have protected China's economic sovereignty and prevented China from falling into the IMF/"free trade"/profit and resource extraction trap most third world capitalist countries fall into. The CCP's plan is to wait until they feel confident that the balance of global power has swung decisively in their favor before attempting to restore socialism. I believe the rest of the third world would be wise to follow suit. There needs to be another socialist superpower before the rest of the world attempts socialist revolution and I'm about 95% sure that China will become that superpower. I'm giving a 5% chance that a coalition of the oppressed ethnicities of the United States (African Americans, Indigenous people, Mexican-Americans, etc.) and the downwardly mobile white working class will successfully overthrow capitalism and transform the United States into a socialist superpower.

Great video! For the last quote why does Trotsky say an isolated revolution in even Germany would fail, given that Germany had one of the highest percentage of proletarianized workers and a rather small peasant population? It seems that given Germany’s proletarian majority it wouldn’t require being ‘saved’ and thus by that logic could survive on it’s own? Am I missing something here? The video was great, I would love more videos from you and to hear your other critiques of Trotskyism that you mentioned at the end! Many thanks.

Nice. Great. Well said.

I don’t think anyone can overthrow the aristocracy, third or first world. I think the aristocracy has to destroy themselves which will probably destroy us all.

Remarkable

Excellent Sir.Your lectures are very informative but after studying Marxism following questions are frequently raised, 1 It's a common stance in Pakistan that Mr. Bhutto's nationalization policy adversely affected country's economy then how socialism will be different from Bhutto's policy as its whole building stands on the nationalization of resources. 2 According to Marx, after the era of feudalism there will be captalism and after which world would enjoy the era of socialism then how did Russian revolution jumped directly from feudalism to socialism.Molana Wahiddudin khan in his book writes that as "Lenin created a temporary captalistic state for 8 months" it's more or less like a parent's restriction for a child to play cricket after the completion of his homework. 3)According to Marx,In socialism the control of resources will be in the hand of masses.But as the communist party ever came into power in past the resources were in the hand of the communist party leaders.As they came in the hands of stallin it led to a worst dictatorship. 4)Capitalism is in full swing in Europe then why did the world wide socialist revolution not started from Europe or progressed there till the date as anticipated by Marx. 5)How communism ensures freedom of speech?In case of communist government how Marxism ensures that any criticism on Marxism or communist party will be accepted.As in past(For instance China) such examples are very rare.

(3/4) From my previous comments you can see how both Lenin and Trotsky had good points, a proper move to socialism has to consider them all, the need for support from everyone in your society (no classism) and international support too (solidarity to prevent CIA/economic hitmen type overthrow or destabilization), but then with this you can get going in a single country. (I'd say pure Trotksy-ish thought is a bit elitist and classist, maybe not even "a bit".)

sir make others more videos on das kapital thanks

Yes, my problem is also that it's not practical, and for us who have roots or family in the so called "third world", we want to see the a liberation and not wait for the enlightment of the first world and also not wait to be led by them.

You make quite a lot of sense, sometimes. However I feel like some of your arguments are erroneous, at least when considering what was presented. You talk a lot about "degenerating into Stalinist dictatorship" and such, but what was presented does not give a single clue about that. It would've maybe been good if you could link this peasantry thing and the Eurocentric stuff to "Stalinist bureaucratic dictatorship" through texts of the time. I don't know much about Trotsky's works, I will read those sometime, and I was hoping this video would clarify more, but you made some arguments that aren't backed in the video so I find it hard to really take those in.

This was a great watch and taught me a bunch about Trotskyism and just how distanced it was from Leninism. Thanks!

What's your opinion on current Chinese economy?

I believe the socialist revolution will be born in the 3rd world. Capitalism and its antagonisms are far far greater in the 3rd world. If you ask an prolétariat in Somalia about capitalism they will see the antagonisms so much more as the riches of exploitation are exported to the first world, while if you ask a British prolétariat they are far more interested in reform as the antagonisms are weakened by them also benefiting from capitalist imperialism. Once Africa, Latin America and Asia are socialist the first world will be launched into far stronger capitalist antagonisms which will wake up the European and North American prolétariat to the reality of capitalism. Consumerism within the first world is the new opium of the people. It is a powerful tool of class control.

Even with all Trotsky's assumptions, even if we assume they're all true, I still don't see how Trotsky reaches his conclusion. In order for a proletariat to "bring the revolution to European soil", this already makes he assumption the DOTP can exist temporarily in order to have time to do this. If the reason the DOTP will degenerate is because of lack of proles, then there's no reason to assume they cannot use this temporary period to build the productive forces and thus increase the number of proles. Even if we agree 100% that peasants are reactionary and that a DOTP will inevitably degenerate given enough time, I do not get what the logical connection is from that to therefore the only conclusion is to invade Europe and spread the revolution as rapidly as possible. It seem to me it would still make sense that the inevitable conclusion is to proletarianize the country as a rapidly as possible, i.e. to build the productive forces. Saying we should invade western Europe, like, I don't even get the point in this. If western Europe becomes socialist and "supports" poor countries, then those poor countries would still have a minority proletariat forced onto them by richer countries, it would still be a minority rule government and I'm not sure how it still wouldn't have problems with degeneration. I don't get how Trotsky's assumptions lead to the conclusion even if you fully accept them.

One more thing you are ignoring trotsky all struggle against capitalism just due to one disagreement with Lenin for limited time but his permanent revolution theory was right and has right

Yes you are

When you brought the Cpim Government of West Bengal into the discussion, I must inform you that it were some peasants in Bengal who protested against the government (bhumi andolon, 2007) which overthrew the Left Front Government in Bengal.

Sir my request of Das kapital, I requested u in Muzafarabad, Plz upload next videos

What are those 'even more problematic aspects of Trotskyism' you discovered, if you don't mind my curiosity?

I am not sure why my two comments are not visible here, especially after you replied to one and they contained nothing obnoxious, but I guess discourse here is a bit of a waste of time.

You based af comrade! Greetings from Italy 🚩

Taimur, your reading is not correct. This 'clever sages' remark of Lenin is not directed at Trotsky but at Zinoviev. Lenin and Trotsky both agree that a socialist revolution cannot survive for long in one country. This was not the point of debate at all. The point is altogether different. The point is: If a socialist society can be constructed in an isolated country? Did Lenin ever say that a socialist society can be reared in a separate country?

You had me until 33.40.

Lenin and Trotsky both agree that there can be socialist revolution in one country. Trotsky, on the contrary, was the only leader who first declared that Russian proletariat would lead a socialist revolution in Russia. This was not at all a point of debate between Lenin and Trotsky. The question was- What constitutes the focal task for the victorious proletariat in a single country- Construction of socialism in one country or the World Socialist Revolution!

worst thing is people who are responsible for man made famines caring about peasants

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on and what Trotskyism is according to you, but it made me like his theory even more!

Where is democracy in Mr Rahman's view of socialism? Is democracy not essential to socialism? Capitalism was overthrown in several East Asian countries by CP led peasant armies it is true. The parties which came to power, however, modelled themselves on Stalin's Russia and were bureaucratic to the core. Had these parties based themselves at least in part on the democratic traditions of the working class this might have been different. As such the peasantry did not prove reactionary but they were unable to check the bureaucracy's power. China's CP originally had a vibrant working class base but it was slaughtered by Kumintang forces. China's CP had followed bad advice from the USSR (then under increasingly Stalinist) and allied with the "progressive bourgeoisie" of the Kumintang. Eventually the bureaucratic CPs in countries such as Vietnam and China in particular have restored capitalism. With regards to West Bengal, the CPI is a party which has relegated overcoming capitalism to the distant past, it is in no ways revolutionary.. So to me the arguments made by Mr Rahman don't seem to have a sound footing.

I think religion is barer to revolution if yes, how to come up with it From india

I've identified as an orthodox Marxist for awhile, & I guess I've always felt that I'm essentially a Trotyskiest as well, though I wouldn't have led with that even though I take the Trotskyist side, because I feel like it's too restricting to a time and place, but after watching this video I feel much more enthusiastic about proudly proclaiming Trotskyism all of the sudden. This very much reinforces for me the notion of Trotkyism as continuing in the tradition of orthodox Marxism. To my mind, most of the world is now in what Marx would have thought of as advanced stage capitalism, so claims of Trotskyism being "eurocentric" since it focused on a need for revolution in Europe back then, given it was the most advanced state of capitalism, are no longer applicable. If socialism occurred in Pakistan or India for example.. first I'd be all for them leading the way. I don't see them as not having the capacity to advance to socialism, but a "socialist revolution" led by Stalinists will almost certainly result in socialism in name only from all I can tell from all that history has shown. They do not have a good conception of what socialism is: not viewing economic democracy or the transition towards it as a necessary condition. The working class needs to lead the way in emancipating itself. Stalinism has never produced socialism (as in economic democracy) as it relies on putting faith in the leadership of the communist party to bring about socialism when material conditions are judged to be advanced enough putting faith in the leaders to act in the interest of all workers. I don't see any reason to put my faith in it, nor do I see any reason to believe that it's even any closer to socialism than liberal democracy is. Both advance material conditions, yet liberal democracy has tended to be more democratic more greatly empowering workers. Also socialism being linked with Stalinism has done great damage to the cause of socialism as it's easy for the enemies of socialism to simply tar us all with the same Stalinist brush in their propaganda. And if you look at the idea of mounting a socialist revolution in a place like Stalinist (of the Dengist variety) China, for example, the task seems almost insurmountable now as it would immediately be crushed by the government before it even got off the ground. At least under a liberal system you still have freedom to organize, and publicly disagree with the government while freely sharing information. At least you were polite and were pretty fair in your presentation of Trotskyism it felt like, but I don't see how you can come to your conclusions given today's circumstances.

Interesting but your reasoning is based on a strawman(based on Lenin's I guess), is it not? Essentially what you are saying is that you are not a Trotskyist because Trotsky was against revolution. Now If that were the case he wouldn't have lead the red army. So he was for revolution but his point was that it would not be successful. I'm not a Trot by the way. I just found it odd that your reasoning was pretty weak here compared to your other work.

Isn't it highly simplicitic to see peasants as one class? It's sounds really to me that Trotsky is basically saying 1st world power will always destroy any thrid world revolution, ergo without atleast a section of the west itself having a revolution there is no hope for success, it is certainly what we have seen in countries like Iran and chile. I don't think Trotsky is saying third world countries are too backwards to make a successful revolution, but I could be wrong.

Most of my knowledge of Trotsky comes from Issac Doicher's arguments in his 3 Volume biography, The Profit. The notion of socialism as an internationalist struggle versus the one nation design is vitally important to analize. I saw Trotsky's argument as an affirmation of an internationalist struggle against capitalism rather than the Stalinist narrow and extremely difficult process of socialist nationalism, which evolved in the Soviet Union and China. Rather than waiting for developed nations to become socialist and lead a revolution, developing nations along with China should take part in an internationalist struggle against capitalism. This struggle is exemplified by Cuban solidarity as well as, many left groups, in numerous nations. Every socialist victory cuts off the tentacles of capitalism so that surplus labor exploitation, resources, finalization and markets become limited and the needs to constantly expand the capitalist process is choked off.

Interesting that you went through the SWP (US). I'm not a member but I'm in their orbit. I've learned some critiques of "Socialism in one country" theory, of the bureaucratic caste that degenerated the Russian revolution and the deformation of the world communist movement from them and their books. But they don't claim that socialist transition can't be constructed in the semi-colonial nations. In fact they are huge promoters of the Cuban Revolution, so much so that I even ended up going to Cuba and learning the truth first-hand. Along with the Cuban Revolution they promote and have taught me about the popular revolution led by Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso in the 80s, revolution in Grenada led by new jewel movement, Nicaraguan revolution led by Sandinistas, Malcolm X's revolutionary leadership. So plenty of promotion and defense of the semi-colonial nations' socialist and popular revolutions. IMT (US) is more of an orthodox Trotskyist group that defends certain revolutionary gains in the semi-colonial nations but doesn't promote them as the way forward for the exploited and oppressed masses worldwide. I don't find either group to be eurocentric in any way. IMT has a section in Pakistan. Pathfinder press regularly visits Iraq and Iran with books in Arabic and Farsi. Both groups seek international unity of the working class. A white worker in Michigan has naturally common material interests with a worker in Karachi, Kiev, Buenos Aires, Abuja etc. And diametrically opposed material interests to the billionaire ruling families in the US. As someone who agrees with Trotsky's critique of stalinism I can honestly say I 100% believe semi-colonial nations can begin the transition to socialism, this will weaken world imperialist forces and make it easier for the working classes inside the imperialist bellies of the beasts to conquer power. It's a battle on two fronts for the international working class, inside and outside the belly of the beast. We need to international solidarity on both fronts.

The SWP stopped being a Trotskyist party in the early 1980's, so your opinion was formed by a non-Trotskyist party, and the party had already adopted anti-Trotskyist positions by then, so I don't see how you had an actual interaction with a Trotskyist party

But you didn't mention about emergence of bureaucratic scourge under Satalin's dictatorship which was unlike proletariat dictatorship through democratic centralisation of workers unions. . .

Firstly, I'm not a Trotskyist and never have been. Now, this argument sounds like a strawman to claim Trotsky was Eurocentrist. Wouldn't a more charitable reading suggest Trotsky was more emphasising the need for a revolution within the most advanced and hegemonic states first, not necessarily claiming that only White Europeans could bring about revolution. For example, I would think that today, Trotsky would have no trouble suggesting that Revolution in Asia couldn't be successful without Revolution in China first, or likewise, that Revolution in America would be doomed without the overthrow of the Bourgeois in the USA first. And yeah, I'm not surprised that Trotskyist groups aren't popular in the Third World with that sort of analysis, it doesn't however, follow that Trotsky's theory is therefore wrong, just maybe that Trotskyist groups are bad at Rhetoric and propaganda.

*Reads quote where Trotsky perfectly predicts 20th Century history* "So here we see the flaw of Trotsky's theories." jk good video, very much appreciated.

Sorry Taimur but this is mostly rubbish. Marx even said that Socialism could not survive in one advanced European country ...even less a backward country. Ultimately the revolution is distorted by the international pressure of Capitalism. Marx believed that the victory of socialism would require multiple revolutions in the advanced west in order to survive. So Trotsky is not alone here. It is not about eurocentrism...but about economic and hegomonic domination. I think your denunciation is, as it stands...very weak and childlike. As for your claim that trotskyists dont support revolutions in non advanced countries...are you crazy. I remember the Spartacist Leaugue calling..."All Indo China must go communist!". ..but that may not matter to you ...because it contradicts a chosen myopia perhaps. Seriously , this is an awful untruth to be peddling. Sure there are plenty who call themselves Trotskyists ..who are completely the opposite...people like the ISO for example. Trotsky continued to defend the Soviet Union against counterrevoltion...but according to Stalinists , and apparently you...his call for a political revolution against Stalinism...is tantamount to being opposed to the socialist gains of the October revolution. The Trotskyist defence of the Soviet Union contradicts your claims that Trotsky was opposed to revolutions in backward countries. Like all good Marxists...he called a spade a spade and rightly believed that revolutions require revolutionary leaderships and definately require revolutions in the ADVANCED west to survive and approach a truely Socialist democracy and economy. Otherwise they remain distorted and in danger...that is as true to this very day.

This content is created concerning a revolutionary struggle. That is good. There is no black propaganda of Trotskyism, however as a Trotskyist, i cannot agree with you. 1) The term socialism is vulgarized by Stalinist Socialism in one country theory and used out of context. Marxisms view of progression of history, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, has in its core the class relationships AND THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORCES OF PRODUCTION. Capitalist society cannot turn back to feudalism because it represents a higher level of development of the forces of production than the feudal society, meaning it would be irrational for the masses to turn back to feudalism. The same can be said about socialism and capitalism. Socialism MUST represent a higher level of development of the forces of production than capitalist societies. Now, did the USSR had higher level of development of the forces of production than lets say, the USA? No it did not, take any statistics, from car production to milk production. Socialism means a society of abundance, given that it has a higher level than capitalism. In the USSR at 1930s there were no milk to give to children, what kind of socialism is this? So, socialism was never built in the USSR, stalinist view vulgarize socialism as just abolishing private property. It is not just that, as i have stated above. The logical conclusion of this theory would be that some very backward country can make a socialist revolution and build socialism. It cannot. 2)So what then, what was the USSR? Well the USSR was a transition society, neither capitalist nor socialist, but aiming and going towards socialism. Trotsky states in the transition programme that there are 2 possible outcomes for the USSR. Through a political revolution it will overthrow the bureaucracy and go towards socialism, or the bureaucracy will restore capitalism. So USSR can become socialist, or fall into capitalism. A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND BUILDING SOCIALISM IS NOT THE SAME THING. A backwards country can make a socialist revolution, however that does not make it a socialist country. 3)This does not mean that revolutionaries in a backwards country should wait for capitalism to grow, or do nothing. A socialist revolution is possible in every single country, and the October Revolution did many great things to the USSR and the international proleterian movement , however it never meant that socialism was build there. In fact this was Trotsky's position through 1905, when the Bolsheviks disagreed with him at that time. However after April 1917 with Lenin's April Theses, the Bolsheviks themselves made a socialist revolution in a backwards country. BUT IF SOCIALISM IS TO BE ACHIEVED, THAN A SOCIALIST REVOLUTON ON A HIGHLY DEVELOPED CAPITALIST COUNTRY MUST OCCUR, LIKE EUROPE OR USA. That is not Eurocentric, that is a fact if we look at history as a Marxist perspective. 4)Internationalism here takes the big role. If you defend that socialism is built in one country, then the logical conclusion of it would be that the USSR is on the right track and with the exception of war, USSR cannot fall because socialism represents a higher level than capitalism, as capitalism does to feudalism. So the international communist parties of Comintern became Institutions of defending Soviet Union, and not spreading revolution towards other countries. France in 1930s, the French Communist Party told that the general strike which millions of workers joined was too radical, Spain civil war is another story, China in 1920s, Stalinist party says that revolutionaries must pass over the power to Kuo Min Tang, a bourgeois nationalist. World revolution could not spread because of Stalinism. The examples could go on and on. Never forget that Stalin himself dissolved the Comintern in 1943. Never forget! I suggest you to read Trotskys "The Revolution Betrayed" again. Especially Socialism and State part. Thanks for reading.

My advice to you read out trotsky again without any bias

I'm really struggling to understand your argument. It sounds like you think Trotskyism is wrong because it's a bit mean?

You just convinced me to become a Trotskyist.

Sorry, Taimur sir, I have listened to many of your lectures but from the arguements you have provided in this lecture, it becomes more evident that Trotsky was correct. Many countries where revolution has occurred are deferring towards capitalism because of imperialist forces are forcing them to do so. Examples are Cuba, Vietnam. As long as proletarians do not take charge in Developed countries, whenever third country establishes socialism, they will be forced to abandon it after some time by imperialist forces. Replies are appreciated.

I don't think you can be a Nationalist and a Socialist at the same time.

Of course because you believe in Mao

Well...when you see what Trots do, who they are, etc, you soon wake up. These people have wrecked every effort to develop a serious and genuine revolutionary movement. I happen to know many ex Trots who were very active in the 60s to the 90s. They all agreed that the aim was to prove your sect right, theoretical perfection, rather than actually winning. Many Trots were middle class and reviled by workers. The theory of permanent revolution is nonsense in practice because revolutionary developments are different in each scenario. There are innumerable cultural and societal differences. You need a strong base, Soviet Russia, that can support revolutionary activity elsewhere. Bureaucracy is inevitable, whether you like it or not. Huge projects, building houses, schools, infrastructure, workers military, can't be organised on a decentralised local basis. Then we have transitional demands, which are not only irrelevant to Worker's needs but nearly always a childish shopping list of nearly impossible demands. You need to read Marx. And Stalin's Foundations of Leninism. Which is the most successful country with any type of "Communism"? China. No doubt. But then we have Cuba, Vietnam, even NK. Trotskyists are always promoting the transgender agenda, too, which is a bourgeois, non working class issue. Find a Marxist Leninist party and stick with it.