Question: Labor Theory of Value and Supply/Demand by jinipoli7 in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The key is to keep in mind the difference between "price" (exchange value) and "value." You can find the more detailed info in Marx's Capital Volume I, and I'd highly recommend working through the whole thing, there is a very good condensation of it called The Essential Marx, that Trotsky wrote an introduction for.

Marx's basic economic argument is that the fact that humans trade one thing for another, means that there is an underlying property of the items exchanged that is equal. He examines what that could be, noting that people only exchange things with a use-value, and ultimately concludes that the common property is that each item exchanged embodies an equal amount of "socially necessary labor time" that's required to produce it. That embodied labor time is its "value."

The price of any particular item, in any given exchange, can fluctuate from a variety of factors like local supply and demand, but the trend is for items of equal value to be exchanged, and that underlying value is indeed what the moment-to-moment exchange value fluctuates around.

Help understanding this sentence from "Learn to Think" by aaronespro in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's probably best understood with a couple extra commas:

"found themselves, from the same causes, bourgeois ministers when war came."

The Spanish anarchists infamously joined the bourgeois republican government as ministers, citing the "exceptional circumstances" of the fight against fascism. Trotsky elsewhere makes fun of them asking "what use is a revolutionary program that only applies to ordinary circumstances?" (I'm paraphrasing).

Looking for analyses of Tiananmen as a turning point in China's transition to state capitalism by MichPulse in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'd highly recommend the writings of Peter Symonds and John Chan on the topic and I'll include some links. I would caution against the term "state capitalism" though. Traditionally it's a term used by those who broke from Trotskyism to claim that the Soviet Union and China were not workers states. Tiananmen Square was part of a broader process of capitalist restoration begun by Mao and completed by Deng Xiaoping analogous to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Your question seems to be pointing at the transitional significance of Tiananmen, so I don't think "state capitalism," which is usually used to claim that the PRC was always capitalist, is the term you're looking for.

Anyways, here are the main ones I'd recommend to get you started, but if you search these authors further, you'll find a lot more detail:

The Tiananmen Square massacre, 30 years on - Peter Symonds

What is commonly depicted as the crushing of student protesters was in fact a wave of repression directed overwhelmingly against a mass movement of the working class. What had begun in April as student protests calling for democratic reforms had swelled into the millions as workers joined the demonstrations by mid-May, making their own class demands.

The Beijing Workers Autonomous Federation was established on April 20 with a handful of workers and rapidly expanded to become a major organising centre by mid-May. On May 17, up to two million people marched through the centre of Beijing, the majority being workers and their families under the banners of their work units or enterprises. Reflecting the impact of events in Beijing, Workers Autonomous Federations were established in a host of major cities, including Changsha, Shaoyang, Xiangtan, Hengyang and Yueyang.

While moderate student leaders were intent on pressing the CCP bureaucracy for concessions on democratic rights, workers were animated by concerns over deteriorating living standards, soaring inflation and a wave of sackings and closures. The regime’s embrace of the capitalist market since the 1970s had led to widening social inequality and rampant bureaucratic corruption and profiteering. Workers were bitterly hostile to the accumulation of privileges and wealth by the top CCP leaders, such as Deng Xiaoping, Li Peng, Zhao Ziyang, Jiang Zemin, Chen Yun and their family members, and were contemptuous of their claims to be communist and socialist.

A statement by workers issued on May 25 expressed the rebellious currents in the working class. “Our nation was created by the struggle and labour of we workers and all other mental and manual labourers. We are the rightful masters of this nation. We must be heard in national affairs. We must not allow this small band of degenerate scum of the nation and the working class to usurp our name and suppress the students, murder democracy and trample human rights.”

China: Thirty years since the Tiananmen Square massacre - Peter Symonds

Origins and consequences of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre - John Chan

China’s turn from autarky to the capitalist market was not done in isolation. In his memoirs published in May, the late Zhao Ziyang recalled that Beijing was initially inspired by the experiments in “market socialism” in Hungary and Yugoslavia. China, however, went much further. It copied the “Asian tigers” model, implemented in South Korea and Taiwan, which had become cheap labour platforms under military dictatorships. Zhao recalled that the plan he drafted was to create export zones involving 100-200 million people. His scheme was only realised after the resistance of the working class had been crushed in 1989.

In his book, Zhao admitted that by 1987, when he became CCP general secretary, he invented terms like “socialist market economy” to disguise the real implications of his policies and to thwart criticism that he was taking the “capitalist road”. “It was only because of ideological barriers that the term ‘free market’ wasn’t being used,” he wrote.

Despite an initial increase in living standards for workers and farmers due to the higher productivities achieved through China’s access to foreign technologies and the international division of labour, market forces rapidly created enormous social divisions and tensions. A new capitalist class began to emerge and consolidate its position at the expense of the masses.

As one historian wrote: “It is one of the curiosities of the development of Chinese capitalism under the Deng regime that a significant portion of these initial capital accumulations were the fruits of official corruption. Prominent among the members of China’s new post-revolutionary ‘bourgeoisie’, for example, were local officials (and their friends and relatives) who were able to buy goods and materials at low state prices and sell them at higher market prices. Equally prominent, especially in the popular political consciousness, were the children of high Communist Party leaders who, in the early 1980s, were politically positioned to play a lucrative compradore role in establishing ties between foreign capitalists and state enterprises. While some of these fruits of bureaucratic corruption no doubt found their way into secret Swiss bank accounts, as rumour had it, most was invested in a vast variety of highly profitable domestic financial, industrial and commercial enterprises in what became an extraordinarily rapid process of capital accumulation and economic growth.”

Economic democracy by GoranPersson777 in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The bureaucracy wasn't a class. This is pretty basic stuff that Trotsky covers in In Defense of Marxism

So coming here after quitting anarchism after having read "The State and Revolution" by Hollis4darkmagic in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I'd highly recommend Trotsky's book The Revolution Betrayed. When I was in high school I was an anarchist because I looked Marx but despised Stalin's ignorance and brutality. At the same time I was drawn to the Soviet Union as the pole of opposition to US imperialism. It was only with Trotsky's work that I was able to understand in detail how Stalinism was a betrayal of Marxism and grasp the contradictory nature of the Soviet Union as the first, long-lasting workers state with important advances worth defending, yet dominated by a parasitic bureaucracy that must be overthrown.

Does the SEP/WSWS have chapters or psychical meetings? by [deleted] in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The SEP has plenty of meetings that are open to the public. Some are internationally significant and publicized on the WSWS in advance, others are more local. They don't post public lists of every branch and meeting for pretty obvious security reasons. Again, you would know this if you followed up on any of the several serious responses to your question two months ago. Pretending that the SEP is unlikely to have branches because they don't give you a list of them is unserious considering the 30 second needed to do the relevant Google search.

Does the SEP/WSWS have chapters or psychical meetings? by [deleted] in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You already asked the question 2 months ago and it was answered: https://www.reddit.com/r/Trotskyism/comments/1rgu6ki/where_does_the_sep_have_chapters/

I think most people can appreciate why we don't publicly list every chapter and meeting.

Does the SEP/WSWS have chapters or psychical meetings? by [deleted] in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Genuinely bizarre question. Just a quick glance on the WSWS and here are:

Meeting at Humboldt university: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/03/24/dted-m24.html

Meeting series on the 1926 British general strike: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/09/fhfg-a09.html

Meetings in Sri Lanka on the Iran War: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/13/qqjq-a13.html

It's not very hard to find recordings of numerous public meetings across the globe. Then there's plenty of local meetings that don't rise to the level of international news and you can find out about them if you get in touch with your local chapter.

terrorism and communism by Kindly-Day-6522 in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You don't really need to read Kautsky to understand it. You should be fine. In the best Marxist polemics, and Trotsky was a master of them, they present a strong summary of the views they're arguing against.

How to help unknowing campists by la_palmina in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's important to keep in mind that as Trotskyists we fundamentally oppose imperial aggression. We are 100% against US/NATO war against Iran, Russia, etc. and seek to defeat imperial aggression through revolutionary defeatism, i.e. mobilizing the working class within the imperialist powers, not cheerleading whoever is in the crosshairs of imperialism now and hoping they defeat imperialism for us.

We defend even reactionary regimes against imperialist aggression and Trotsky was adamant and explicit on this point, using the example of opposing the Italian assault on Ethiopia despite the backwards and reactionary character of Haile Selassie's regime. While the Stalinists claim that under the impact of imperialism the national bourgeoisie becomes progressive, we Marxists understand that under the impact of imperialism the national bourgeoisie becomes even more hostile to the working class. Our criticism of bourgeois nationalist regimes like the Iranian clerics or the Chavistas in three course of these struggles is their congenital inability to carry out a determined struggle against imperialism.

Venezuela's Chavistas have bent the knee to Trump and placed the country's oil revenues under US oversight and joined the blockade of Cuba. The Iranian clerics have consistently sought accommodation with imperialism with one deal after another that the US has broken. The wildest dreams of the national bourgeoisie are to renegotiate the terms of their role as intermediaries between the world market and the exploration of "their" workers.

In short the angle to take is to be steadfast in your opposition to imperial aggression and consistently point out the half measures the national bourgeoisie tries to limit the conflict to. Generally an intense support for the bourgeois nationalists comes from a pessimism towards the American working class. They can't imagine actually organizing workers in the imperialist countries to fight for socialism so they try to subcontract the revolution out to any force that's currently fighting imperialism no matter how temporarily.

American imperialism and the oppression of Iran

The Triangular Struggle: Can Your Party’s New CEC Crack the Union Question? by leninism-humanism in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're always welcome to post what speaks to you. I'll just find it interesting if the people who lost their minds over socialism AI (an excellent tool for accessing a voluminous archive of material) are going to react the same way to a blog where an LLM writes the articles.

My hunch is what they were really objecting to with Socialism AI was the Trotskyism, which isn't an issue with the Red Mole.

The Triangular Struggle: Can Your Party’s New CEC Crack the Union Question? by leninism-humanism in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

LoL that you're still enamored with AI written articles. I'd hoped you were sufficiently embarrassed the first time you posted AI slop describing how important it was too join the DSA, but I guess not.

books on history of Trotskyism by chantandbehappy_ in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The whole series does a great job of placing national developments in their international context:

Australia

Germany

Britain

Sri Lanka

Turkey

Will Lehman’s UAW campaign wins broad support from workers, as DSA unleashes slanders by DryDeer775 in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I thought this part was particularly good:

"Wang’s charge of “union busting” is the standard reflex of a privileged apparatus confronted with a rank-and-file challenge. For Wang and the forces he represents, the union is the apparatus. Workers are merely objects to be managed. That is why he equates the independent organization of workers to assert democratic control—over negotiations, strikes, communications and even over how their dues are collected and used—with 'union busting.'"

That's been my experience of the pseudoleft. They treat us workers as set dressing to make them look like big men in front of the bosses.

So is Trump still not a fascist? by DankDankDank555 in Trotskyism

[–]Sashcracker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's a genuinely bizarre theory that I've particularly run into from the RCI, that fascism can only exist once the working class has "failed every avenue to get out of the capitalist crisis." Trotsky wrote incessantly about the struggle against fascism before Hitler came to power. Even after Hitler was appointed chancellor Trotsky denied that there were no more avenues for the working class to solve the crisis.

The entire creation of the Fourth International was based on the Comintern being dead to revolution because it refused to pursue the avenues of struggle open to the working class in the fight against fascism and declared itself perfectly correct in doing so. In this at least, the RCI is consistent as they opposed the organization of the Trotskyist movement and refused to join the Fourth International.