Trotsky's plan of Permanent Revolution rested on the idea that the peasantry would erode socialism, because he thought they could not be truly aligned with the proletariat.

Isn't that just in the case of later developing capitalist countries? My understanding was that he believed later developed capitalist countries would be unable to build the industrialized economy that creates a large proletariat class. So in these countries the existing proletariat would have to seize control and then later form an alliance with the peasantry down the road.

However, I don't think that means he only wanted to develop socialism with western nations. I mean Stalin and him had a major rift develop over Trotsky wanting to support the Chinese communist and Stalin siding with the kmt. One of the things I kinda agree with when it comes to Trotsky was his opposition to the socialism in one country policy.

This is kinda dependent on what year it is of course, Trotsky was kinda all over the place once he fell from grace.

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, forcing collectivization early, hoping that would inspire the western proletariat. Stalin wanted to build up socialism domestically, rather than attack the peasantry. The peasantry turned out to be capable allies, and thus Stalin was correct.

Stalin's insistence on supporting the KMT even later as a bullwark against Japan ended up being wrong, but it's also worth noting that the 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.

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.

Reply to a Letter from the Trotskyites

Your “theory” is certainly much loftier than that of Mao Zedong; yours is high in the sky, while his is down-to-earth. But admirable as is such loftiness, it will unfortunately be just the thing welcomed by the Japanese aggressors.

^redsails.org

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.

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.

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.

Ignore the genocide that y’all love to lie about.

That's the one who's only sources is literal CIA radio free Asia cutouts and one Mr Adrian, "I am on a mission from God to destroy Beijing" Zenz, correct? The one funded by NED money? Whose "local" front organization is straight-up headquartered in Washington DC?If we're lying about that, shouldn't you be able to prove it? Gaza is the most heavily controlled and censored place on earth, yet I still see daily video of the killing. Xinjiang is an open tourist mecca that saw 300 million visitors from around the world last year, yet nobody has seen one shred of violence. Make it make sense for me, cultist.

Ignore the oppression of their own citizens.

I watched four riot cops break a college kid's arm right in front of me for being against Palestinian genocide. And then shitlibs like you insisted I had to vote for the genocide to continue, or else I wanted the genocide to continue. Choke on your hypocrisy, fascist-in-denial.

fascist takeover of Hong Kong

It's so cute when you try to use big words you don't understand. Fascism is when you legally take reposession of your own territory that was taken from you by open, rapacious colonialists. Fascism is when ethnic Russians in Ukraine call for help against the literal US-backed nazis terrorizing them for a decade. If you were around for WW2, your smug, know-nothing supremacist ass would have been calling every allied victory fascist, because you don't know shit about shit.

Ignore that only their approved candidates can hold office.

What the fuck does this mean?? Yeah, you have to be voted into office to hold it. No shit? "Oh but the CCP-" shut up. The CPC has over nine million members, and is the largest of nine political parties in the People's Republic of China. It enjoys a 95% satisfaction rate among the people there so unless you want to argue that they're all just too stupid to understand how bad their lives actually are without the freedoms of crushing medical debt and gambling app, I suggest you look to Occam's Razor and entertain the notion that perhaps you have been propagandized to thoughtless repeat these vague and sinister-sounding canards, that you and I who live in the biggest anticommunist propaganda bubble history has ever seen, actually know very little for sure about the enemies of the rich pedophiles who own us.

Both are godawful nations

And here we reach the inevitable conclusion of liberal analysis, the ultimate course of liberal praxis: do nothing, sit smugly in despair, make no practical choices, shit our pants and wait for fascism to kill us all. But hey, at least by doing nothing but symbolic art-protests at the gestapo as they kneel us before the trench, we can await the bullet with the knowledge that we were never tainted by the dirty work of actually building an alternative, unlike those filthy tankies.

Liberal epistemology is a joke, liberal ideology is a genocidal self-deluding joke, and the reason liberalism is being eaten alive from both ends by both communists and fascists is because it's not actually designed to understand power, only to hypocritically excuse it when it's exercised against humanity by a handful or western billionaires and condemn it when it's exercised against the billionaires by the organized masses of humanity. Free Palestine, long live the Chinese People's Revolution, Death to America.

So both sides bad. Good media consumer; stay paralyzed by hopelessness.

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

The reason the rich & powerful put so much effort into shoving that bullshit down our throats is that the truth threatens their legitimacy. We’re not supposed to see that a better world is possible.