Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

Liu Shanshan and Huang Qihong: On the Development, Basic Characteristics, and Trends of American Trotskyism

Marxism Abroad

Since its inception, the American Trotskyist movement has maintained a consistently high level of activity, possessing an influence among grassroots American laborers and left-wing intellectuals that cannot be underestimated. It has become a quintessential representative of radical leftist thought in advanced Western nations. In recent years, domestic and international scholarship on American Trotskyism has focused on several areas: first, the developmental trajectory, factional distribution, organizational status, and practical activities of major American Trotskyist parties and groups prior to the 1990s, such as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP); second, the analysis and reflection on its historical evolution and influencing factors, beginning with the origins, resurgence, and decline of American Trotskyism; third, research on key representative figures such as James Cannon, the founder of the American Trotskyist movement, with particular emphasis on his pivotal status within the movement; and fourth, transnational comparisons and contrastive analyses between the American Trotskyist movement and the French radical left, examining the conflicts between radical leftist theory and the political realities of various nations. These studies offer important reference value for understanding the rise and fall of American Trotskyism, as well as its periodic factional struggles and organizational splits. However, academia has seldom addressed the major extant Trotskyist groups in the United States and their development over the past twenty years; research on the theoretical content, periodic characteristics, and developmental trends of American Trotskyism remains relatively weak. Based on the objective background of the American political, economic, social, and cultural environment, this article will systematically analyze the evolutionary trajectory of American Trotskyism from its rise to its decline. It will focus on the stage-specific characteristics presented by the interaction of theory and practice during its historical evolution, its current developmental trends, and the underlying reasons for this status quo. Furthermore, it aims to provide a case study for the scholarly understanding of the development of the American socialist movement to promote the study of American Marxism.

I. Reasons for the Rise and Existence of Trotskyism in the United States

The ability of Trotskyism to rise and develop in the United States was stimulated and influenced not only by external factors such as the international Trotskyist movement and the Fourth International but also by the unique economic, political, social, and cultural environment and the popular psychology of the United States, which provided fertile soil for Trotskyist activities.

1. International Trotskyism provided theoretical and ideological support for the American Trotskyist movement

Trotskyism is an ultra-left [1] opportunist trend within the international communist movement. The original Trotskyist movement was born in the 1920s during the internal power struggles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, critiquing the bureaucratization of the party apparatus and opposing the doctrine of "Socialism in One Country." Following Trotsky's expulsion from the Soviet Communist Party and the Comintern in 1929, the Trotskyists shifted their theater of struggle to the international stage. In 1930, representatives of Trotskyist organizations from the United States, Germany, and elsewhere met in Paris, marking the starting point for Trotsky's establishment of the International Left Opposition. In 1938, the Fourth International was founded, giving Trotskyism an international scale for the first time and establishing a unified organizational and leadership core for the American Trotskyists. The Fourth International integrated fragmented Trotskyist forces and proposed unified slogans and programs of action, providing theoretical guidance and an ideological foundation for the American movement.

Trotsky pinned his hopes for the development of the Fourth International on the United States. He personally visited the U.S. to expand the spread of Trotskyism there. In the view of James Cannon, the leader of the American Trotskyists, Trotsky’s theories not only answered the questions encountered in the early American communist movement but also provided the possibility for realizing his own political propositions. Consequently, Trotsky’s "Permanent Revolution" and his vision of "World Revolution" not only attracted leftists like Cannon to the Trotskyist camp but also became the "insightful truths" upon which the early American Trotskyists based their faith. In 1934, Trotsky also provided support for the magazine The New International, founded by Cannon, creating a megaphone for the "New International" then under preparation. The United States effectively became a laboratory for Trotskyism and has since remained one of the strongholds of the Trotskyist socialist movement.

2. The emergence of the American Trotskyists' revolutionary power and mass base under economic crisis

The state of American economic development and the living standards of its citizens are objective factors influencing the Trotskyist movement. As Trotskyism belongs to the category of radical social revolutionary movements, and poverty is the primary breeding ground for revolution, the impoverished living conditions of a segment of the American people laid the foundation for the emergence and development of American Trotskyism. The Great Depression of 1929 left a massive number of Americans displaced. Large numbers of unemployed workers, driven by the need for survival, openly participated in illegal activities, exhibiting a high degree of radicalism and revolutionary spirit. Farmers and Black Americans, due to the extreme deterioration of their living conditions, also displayed a strong spirit of resistance. American society during the Great Depression was filled with various injustices; sections of the masses were extremely dissatisfied with reality, hoping to change the status quo as quickly as possible and unable to accept the propositions of gradual reform. The collapse of the economy prompted a situation where "the masses urgently needed any guide or organizer to help them end this state of disorder."

The American Trotskyists' distinct anti-capitalist stance catered to the psychology of groups such as workers, farmers, and Black Americans. It viewed capitalism as an absolute evil, blaming it for all the ugly phenomena of American society, including war, unemployment, and famine. Although the Trotskyist critique of capitalism was not entirely accurate—and was even extreme and one-sided—it was precisely this quality that allowed it to consistently oppose capitalism, making it a highly attractive political organization to a segment of the masses. Groups such as American workers, farmers, and Black Americans exhibited radical, revolutionary, and resistant qualities, becoming the revolutionary force and mass base of the Trotskyists in the United States.

3. The birth of the American Trotskyist movement was the direct result of Cannon’s political turn

At the dawn of the American communist movement, factional struggles for control existed ranging from the left wing of the Socialist Party of America (hereinafter "Socialist Party") to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). After the CPUSA formed two factions in 1924—the Foster-Cannon faction and the Pepper-Ruthenberg-Lovestone faction—serious differences emerged between the two sides regarding struggle tactics. Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union, Stalin had already launched the struggle against Trotskyism. The CPUSA adjusted its own position based on the internal struggles of the Comintern. Cannon, however, was dissatisfied with the Comintern’s practices and the Soviet Communist Party’s expulsion of Trotsky; this became the primary motivation for his turn toward Trotskyism.

During the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928, Trotsky’s The Draft Program of the Communist International: A Criticism of Fundamentals deeply convinced Cannon. Cannon believed that Trotsky’s critique could explain the reasons for the sluggish state of the American communist movement. He stated: "When I first read Trotsky’s Criticism of the Draft Program, I was immediately and forever convinced that the theory of 'Socialism in One Country' was fundamentally counter-revolutionary. Trotsky and the Russian Opposition represented the true, original Marxist revolutionary program." Cannon subsequently turned toward the line represented by Trotsky, and American Trotskyism began to germinate. That same year, Cannon and others were expelled from the CPUSA for defending Trotsky, which indirectly led the revolutionary group headed by Cannon to develop its own organization around Trotskyism. The factional struggles and organizational splits caused by internal disagreements within the CPUSA also gave Trotskyist parties a certain space to "play their part." Therefore, the American Trotskyist movement was not only the direct result of Cannon's political turn but also a product of the power struggles within the CPUSA.

4. The radical labor union movement created a practical arena for the American Trotskyists

When the United States entered World War I in 1917, workers were plagued by the rapid rise in the cost of living, leading to an increasing mood for struggle and prominent labor-capital conflicts. During this period, the United States became a "disaster zone" of labor riots. After the victory of the October Revolution, a storm of revolution swept through Europe. At this time, immigrants to the U.S. primarily came from Eastern and Southern Europe; they were deeply inspired by the October Revolution and, faced with economic difficulties and various injustices in large American industrial cities, began to pay attention to trends such as socialism and communism that aimed for drastic social transformation. Starting from the 1920s, the radical sentiment of American workers reached unprecedented heights, and the labor union movement gained strong momentum.

The labor movement was the primary arena for the American Trotskyists to propagate and practice their theories. The first and second generations of Trotskyists were loyal to the proletariat, advocating for the awakening of labor's consciousness of struggle, the dismantling of the bourgeoisie's counter-offensive forces, and the promotion of the labor movement's development. For example, they supported actions by workers to fight for their own rights, calling for increases in real wages and reductions in actual working hours; when Trotskyist members had the opportunity to enter legislatures, they would often push for bills favorable to workers. It is evident that the early Trotskyists provided a strong leadership and organizational core for the development of the labor movement. The birth of Trotskyism also laid a certain theoretical foundation for the arrival of the peak of the labor movement. Therefore, even if the Trotskyist propositions were somewhat detached from reality, so long as they could do practical work for the bottom-level laborers, they would inevitably attract followers; this was the source of the American Trotskyists' vitality.

Through the combined effect of these factors, the American Trotskyists obtained favorable internal and external conditions and survival space, experiencing a period of development.

II. The Developmental Process and Periodic Characteristics of American Trotskyism

Since its rise, the American Trotskyist movement has long maintained a distinct anti-capitalist stance, aiming for the "Americanization" of socialism, and conducting both legal struggles and underground activities, exerting a significant influence on American society. Based on the differences in theoretical propositions and practical effects across different periods, the developmental process of American Trotskyism can be roughly divided into five stages.

1. The sudden rise of American Trotskyism and the construction of the "Theory of Political Revolution" (1928–1938)

In 1928, Cannon’s political turn served as the prelude to the birth of American Trotskyism. Unlike traditional left-wing parties such as the CPUSA, the Trotskyists, from their inception, tended to interpret American social problems through Trotskyism, advocating for the revitalization of American socialism and the labor movement through political revolution rather than reform. During this period, the Trotskyists started with three aspects—the phenomenon of bureaucratism within the Communist Party, its roots, and methods for its eradication—to analyze the problems existing in the American bureaucratic system, constructing the core content of the "theory of political revolution."

First, "substitutionism" was the direct expression of bureaucratic political degeneration. Cannon linked the suppression of ideological and programmatic struggle within the CPUSA to bureaucratism, condemning the method of substituting ideological and political leadership with bureaucratism as "substitutionism"—an attempt to control the will of the proletariat. Second, "Socialism in One Country" was the theoretical root of bureaucratic political degeneration. The Trotskyists believed that the root of the degeneration of the Comintern and its American branch lay in their substitution of the principle of revolutionary "internationalism" with the pseudo-socialist theory of "Socialism in One Country." This theory overestimated the strength of capitalism and its duration, representing a pessimistic view of the proletarian world revolution. Third, political revolution was the only way to eradicate the phenomenon of bureaucratism. The Trotskyists believed that the Comintern and its American branch were "stumbling blocks" hindering the labor movement and could not be eradicated through democratic reform. Therefore, they opposed all tendencies to compromise with reformism and bureaucratism, calling on the proletariat to establish a new revolutionary party and overthrow bureaucratic regimes through political revolution. Fourth, the "unionization" of the revolutionary party was the tactical direction of political revolution. The Trotskyists emphasized that labor unions were the primary medium through which socialist ideas could be accepted by the masses and thus become a real force. The new Marxist party had to develop in the direction of "unionization" and establish a united front with political groups of the working class.

Based on this, Cannon, Max Shachtman, and Martin Abern began to vigorously promote "political revolution" and were expelled from the CPUSA. In 1928, they established the first Trotskyist organization, the Communist League of America (CLA), and carried out activities centered on political revolution. These included: (1) Turning to labor unions to recruit members. After the labor movement recovered in the early 1930s, the CLA recruited members in Minneapolis and St. Paul based on labor unions. They actively reached out to the unemployed, organized labor movements, and established a foothold in the union movement by leading the 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters strike. (2) Implementing the "entryist" strategy. As the core figure of the early Trotskyists, Cannon stipulated a series of regulations for political entry and party-building development. In 1934, he pushed for the merger of the CLA with the American Workers Party, increasing membership to approximately 1,000. Influenced by Trotsky’s "French Turn" (entryist strategy), the Trotskyists joined the Socialist Party in 1936, expanding their ranks and organizational network. (3) Establishing the Socialist Workers Party. The Trotskyists founded the SWP in 1938, making it the American section of the Fourth International, which laid the organizational foundation for the development of Trotskyism in the United States. By this point, the American Trotskyists had become an independent political party, marking the formal formation of the American Trotskyist movement.

The 1920s and 30s were the golden age of American Trotskyist development, with the Trotskyists achieving considerable results in political revolutionary work. The movement grew rapidly, following a constant upward trend. By 1938, American Trotskyism had approximately 2,000 members and briefly became the center of the global Trotskyist movement, possessing a momentum that could not be underestimated.

02 Slow Development of American Trotskyism and the Emergence of the "Capitalist Eschatology" Crisis (1938–1949)

During the second stage, Trotskyists used a "capitalist eschatology" to create public opinion in favor of a socialist revolution in the US; this theory contained two basic points.

First: an eschatological view that American capitalism had fallen into crisis. Influenced by the global economic crisis, American Trotskyists believed that unplanned capitalist economies could not escape periodic crises; by contrast, the Soviet Union confirmed the superiority of nationalization and the planned economy. When these foundations are struck by social crises, the superstructure and traditional democratic politics begin to totter. "American Exceptionalism" was merely an illusion held by reformists regarding the long-term stability of American capitalism. Second: the determination that the conditions for a socialist revolution in the United States were ripe. American Trotskyists believed that American capitalism itself provided the prerequisites for social revolution: the capitalist economic and social crisis created an objective revolutionary situation, while the blind action of capitalism's internal laws created its "grave-diggers"—the American working class, forming the main force of the revolution. Once these objective and subjective conditions were both present, the conditions for a socialist revolution in America were mature.

Accordingly, the American Trotskyists asserted that the American socialist revolution would erupt during the course of the war. In this sense, the Second World War was a comprehensive test of "capitalist eschatology." However, the actual situation differed vastly from their projections, leading to an extremely unfavorable position for the American Trotskyists. First, "capitalist eschatology" encountered practical difficulties. In 1939, a wave of anti-Soviet sentiment swept across Western democratic nations. James P. Cannon and others believed that although the Soviet Union was a "degenerated workers' state," a Soviet defeat would mean a restoration of capitalism. Therefore, they advocated the "unconditional defense of the Soviet Union" and called on workers to pursue the principle of "revolutionary defeatism," but this anti-war propaganda from the American Trotskyists received little response. In the latter half of WWII, although the scale of strikes in the US soared to 116 million man-days, workers' activity fell to its lowest ebb, and there was absolutely no possibility of arousing a socialist revolution. Second, "capitalist eschatology" fell into a theoretical crisis. After WWII, the United States ushered in a new period of prosperity and development, and reformism won the recognition of the majority of workers. However, the American Trotskyists still insisted that "the world revolution is about to break out," emphasizing that "the war has not ended, nor has the revolution launched from Europe died; it has only been delayed." Clearly, the American Trotskyists misjudged the situation once again and could not provide a reasonable explanation for new phenomena. For a group claiming to uphold a Marxist standpoint, this undoubtedly presented a theoretical embarrassment. The problem for American Trotskyists lay in their emphasis on producers seizing the means of production for themselves and shortening the working day, but these propositions had to be realized through revolutionary means at the current stage. The Trotskyists always maintained a hostile attitude toward private property and the market economy; when discussing how to replace capitalism, they remained unable to escape their utopian coloring. Third, the organizational development of American Trotskyism was not optimistic. After the outbreak of WWII, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) remained a target for US government crackdowns due to its radical stance. Factional struggles also exposed latent weaknesses; roughly 40% of the membership, including Max Shachtman, were expelled from the party due to their stance on "bureaucratic collectivism." SWP membership dropped from approximately 1,000 to under 500. Furthermore, dissident organizations like the "Marxist Workers League" and the "Marxist Workers Party" split from the party, resulting in a serious loss of members.

Generally speaking, American Trotskyism developed relatively slowly during this period, characterized by factional struggles, splits, and realignments. Notably, the SWP maintained its influence among the working masses by participating in elections, promoting labor strikes, and organizing in the Black civil rights struggle, remaining the largest Trotskyist party in the world.

03 The Low Ebb of American Trotskyism and the Severe Setback of the "Americanization of Socialism" (1950–1970)

The third stage was a period in which American Trotskyists explored the "Americanization of socialism." they focused on two main threads: establishing the vanguard status of the Trotskyist party in the labor movement and reconstructing the subjective power of the working class. However, during this period, American Trotskyism suffered heavy blows from all sides and fell into a low ebb.

First, regarding the political environment, the 1950s in the United States was a decade dominated by conservatism. After WWII, the US economy continued to grow, and the living standards of the working class generally improved. The failure of the socialist revolution in Western Europe and the international economic superiority of the United States enabled large American corporations to make wage concessions to workers and cooperate with union bureaucracies to end the wave of strikes. The American working class did not quickly become the subjective force for the Americanization of socialism as the SWP had predicted; instead, it exhibited conservative and passive characteristics. The Trotskyists' political propositions could only garner support from a tiny minority of workers. Meanwhile, with the prevalence of McCarthyism, American anti-communist political persecution reached its peak. Trotskyists suffered government suppression and were criticized and reviled by liberals, union bureaucrats, and the radical left. Facing the challenges of the Cold War and the frenzy of McCarthyism, the American socialist movement nearly died in its tracks, and SWP activities were confined to the political margins.

Second, the extremity and closed nature of the American Trotskyist "vanguard party theory" limited the development of the movement. According to vanguard party theory, only through the intervention of the vanguard party can the unconscious class consciousness of the working class be transformed into conscious awareness. This theory exhibited self-closing characteristics: the American Trotskyists took Lenin’s slogan "the party is the vanguard of the proletariat" to an extreme, viewing themselves as the "vanguard of the vanguard" and operating as a cosiddetto "cadre party." The American Trotskyists viewed their organization as the only correct revolutionary party and saw the broad masses as scattered "material" to be integrated, believing that if the "cadre party" could control a "vanguard of the vanguard," the masses would follow. But this approach differed vastly from the view that socialism is the work of millions; it resulted in the "closed-doorism" [2] of the Trotskyist organization. The American Trotskyists' emphasis on being the "vanguard of the vanguard" focused on the quality rather than the quantity of members; this practice actually demanded that all workers meet narrow and harsh membership standards. At the same time, the highly centralized leadership system dictated that it could only be a self-closed organization, ultimately divorcing it from the broad American working class.

Third, a new round of sectarian strife caused large-scale splits. In 1953, influenced by Pabloism, Bert Cochran argued that under the posture of US-Soviet confrontation, the SWP should join the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) to form a broad organization. He accused Cannon’s stance against joining the CPUSA of being "Stalinophobia." Because the positions of the Cannon and Cochran factions were irreconcilable, about 20% of the members, represented by Cochran, were expelled from the SWP. After being forced out, the Cochranites formed the "Socialist Union" and took most of the active elements of the union movement with them, weakening the SWP's foundation in the trade unions. After the victory of the Cuban Revolution, judgments regarding its nature became another point of theoretical divergence. The mainstream SWP view classified Cuba, which had radicalized rapidly under the Castro regime, as a workers' state, praising measures such as Cuban land reform and the nationalization of industry and agriculture as a genuine socialist revolution. However, a minority within the SWP argued that the Cuban Revolution resulted in a deformed workers' state forced to accept a pseudo-Marxism, which was an ideological reflection of a bureaucratic system rather than a true socialist revolution. Constant debate between the two led to a situation of ideological confusion within the SWP; to maintain party unity, some minority members were expelled.

Finally, the American Trotskyists lost their traditional stronghold in the labor movement. The SWP repeatedly emphasized linking the Black civil rights movement with the Americanization of socialism, viewing the Black liberation movement as a nationalist movement for self-determination. Based on these considerations, the SWP nominated Black candidates Clifton DeBerry and Paul Boutelle for president in 1964 and 1968, respectively. Simultaneously, the party participated in the powerful women's liberation movement, advocating for the improvement of women's status through workers' power and collective ownership of the means of production. Throughout the 1960s, the SWP concentrated its primary energy on identity politics—Black and female issues—placing almost no attention on the labor movement, and ultimately losing this traditional territory.

The social composition of American Trotskyism underwent significant changes during this period. The Black movement, women's movement, and student movement rose in succession, while the labor movement was gradually declining. Replacing proletarian struggle with identity politics became the central task of American Trotskyism during this period. The subjective status of the proletariat was replaced by various "situational subjects." The American socialist revolutionary movement entered a low ebb.

04 The Repositioning of American Trotskyism and the New Direction of "Cuba-Centrism" (1970–1985)

In the 1970s, as the first generation of Trotskyist leaders like Cannon and the second generation like Farrell Dobbs passed away or retired, leadership of the SWP shifted to a group of young leaders headed by Jack Barnes. This new generation repositioned the SWP's direction of struggle and political stance, formulating a new direction of "Cuba-centrism."

On the one hand, Barnes and other leaders believed that the center of the world socialist revolution had shifted to Cuba, thus proposing the "Cuba-centrism" of world revolution. In their view, a socialist revolution must adhere to the principle of public ownership of the means of production and the revolutionary subjective status of the proletariat. In the Soviet Union at that time, the subjective status of the proletariat had vanished, and the principle of public ownership had been undermined to some extent. In contrast, Cuba had achieved nationalization of the means of production, and the Cuban worker-peasant alliance government had re-established the revolutionary subjective status of the proletariat; Cuba had become a socialist workers' state. Under Cuba's influence, Grenada and Nicaragua also established the two great principles of socialism. Accordingly, the new generation of leadership headed by Barnes abandoned traditional Trotskyist political propositions and views, turning instead to support the Castro regime in Cuba. They expressed deep approval of Cuba’s planned economy, nationalization, and support for revolutions in Latin American countries, declaring themselves a "sister party" to the Communist Party of Cuba. Barnes also pointed out that the global class struggle was primarily manifested in the struggle between US imperialism and Caribbean nations; Central American countries led by Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada had become the front line of world revolution, realizing the principle of proletarian internationalism and representing the revival of the communist movement. Therefore, American Trotskyists should unite with the communist parties of these countries to establish a new proletarian international organization.

On the other hand, the SWP drifted further away from international Trotskyism. During this period, new organizations and groups opposing Barnes, such as the "Trotskyist Tendency" and the "Fourth Internationalist Caucus," began to form within the SWP. In response, the SWP leadership conducted large-scale purges, causing serious damage to intra-party democracy and organizational norms. Hundreds of members left the party during the wave of expulsions from 1983 to 1984. The SWP opposition in California subsequently formed three independent groups: the "Fourth Internationalist Tendency," "Socialist Action," and the "North Star Network." This struggle with internal opposition was one of the most serious setbacks the SWP experienced; it caused the party, as a Trotskyist organization, to largely abandon the consistent characteristics of international Trotskyism, terminate its links with the "Fourth International," and draw a clear line between itself and other Trotskyist organizations worldwide.

The repositioning of the SWP indicated its increasing distance from Trotskyism. Evidently, although the SWP claimed to be the backbone of the socialist revolution in the US and the world, its actual strength was extremely disproportionate to its claimed mission, and its revolutionary theory could find no foothold in the United States.

05 The American SWP Under Siege and the Spreading Crisis of Survival (Since 1985)

After 1985, although the SWP still regarded Trotskyism as one of its ideological sources, it actually leaned more toward Cuban Castroite communism. Traditional Trotskyist thought has been continuously marginalized within the American left-wing camp, declining day by day.

First, the SWP has been marginalized within the American Left, buffeted by new American Left-wing political organizations such as the "Democratic Socialists" [3] and new social movement organizations including the feminist movement, the ecology movement, and the anti-war peace movement. In the early 1980s, the Democratic Socialists were deeply popular among young people from all walks of life; they consequently supplanted the Trotskyists to become the dominant Left-wing force on American campuses and the most active participants in the labor movement. Since the mid-1980s, the importance of anti-apartheid organizations, feminist groups, and gay rights organizations within the American political landscape has grown daily. The SWP failed to penetrate these movements or establish links with them, becoming a marginalized entity within the new social movements.

Second, the SWP is mired in a crisis of survival, and its influence is waning. Following the intra-Party splits and purges of the early 1980s, the SWP underwent a relatively long period of internal peace, during which its membership numbers and political influence on the American Left steadily declined. Most members gradually departed amidst low morale. By 1990, the SWP had only about 500 members remaining. In 2003, the Party sold its headquarters building in New York City for $20 million and moved to Manhattan. SWP leaders Jack Barnes and Mary-Alice Waters subsequently sold their West Village apartment for $1.87 million to alleviate the Party’s financial crisis. In the U.S. presidential elections of 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020, the SWP only received 12,467 votes in 2016; in all other years, its vote count failed to exceed 10,000. This demonstrates the SWP's poor electoral performance.

However, although American Trotskyism is currently in a marginalized state, it has never quite vanished; every so often, it bursts forth with a certain amount of political energy, attracting public attention. Despite the low percentage of votes garnered by Trotskyist activists in elections, Trotskyist thought still maintains a degree of appeal among specific groups such as grassroots laborers and Left-wing intellectuals. The SWP now concentrates most of its energy on running for public office, hosting radical labor forums, distributing the socialist weekly The Militant, and publishing related books through Pathfinder Press. Beyond theoretical propaganda, they remain organizers of or participants in several important political activities—for instance, organizing picket lines for striking workers and movements against racism and police brutality. In short, although it is impossible for Trotskyism to become a mainstream political force in the United States today, its advocacy and activities continue to influence American political life.

III. An Analysis of the Developmental Trends and Causes of American Trotskyism

Looking across the developmental history of American Trotskyism, the periodic factional struggles and splits within Trotskyist parties—eventually leading them to abandon the Trotskyist tradition in favor of the positions of the Communist Party of Cuba led by Castro—indicate that American Trotskyism has gradually declined. What, then, are the specific manifestations and causes of this school of thought’s decline?

  1. Diversification of Trotskyist Ideology and the Dilution of Trotskyist Characteristics

In practice, American Trotskyism has repeatedly contradicted itself or been falsified, leading Trotskyist parties to begin diluting their own Trotskyist characteristics, resulting in an increasingly diverse ideological stance and system of thought. This is mainly manifested in two points. First, "Cuba-centrism" has become the guiding ideology of the Socialist Workers Party, the primary Trotskyist party in the United States. Although the Party continues its activities today, it no longer represents the intellectual tradition of Trotskyism. Second, other Trotskyist organizations outside the SWP no longer identify themselves as Trotskyists. While some organizations retain vestigial Trotskyist elements, these American organizations—once rooted in international Trotskyism—have developed in different directions. After breaking away from the Trotskyist camp, they adopted various positions, sometimes leaping from the Far Left to the Far Right. Typical examples include the Workers World Party, which transformed into a Maoist entity, and the National Labor Federation [4] caucus, which became a Far-Right organization.

This change is nothing less than the manifestation of the difficulties American Trotskyism has encountered in practice. On one hand, American Trotskyism is a self-enclosed system of thought. The advocacies of the Trotskyists have never moved beyond the shackles of Trotsky’s theories; they totally negated the decades of development in post-war American capitalism and remained convinced that the conditions for socialist revolution were ripe. By promoting Trotskyism in a dogmatic and absolutist manner, they were unable to make corresponding adjustments based on changes in the situation and thus lacked vitality. On the other hand, the highly developed American capitalist economy and its capacity for self-adjustment weakened the potential radicalism of the masses. This left the Trotskyist theory of capitalist crisis with no foothold in the United States, depriving the dissemination and development of Trotskyism of a mass base and determining its inevitable fate of decline.

  1. Marginalization of Trotskyist Parties and Waning Influence

As an influential Trotskyist party, the SWP once boasted nearly 2,000 members and held a degree of influence within the American radical movement. Today, the SWP has been gradually marginalized in American political life, with its influence waning daily. This is primarily because the unique American political environment has constrained the development of Trotskyist parties. As a bastion of Western liberalism, the United States has long maintained a hostile attitude toward radical Left-wing ideologies like Trotskyism, and Trotskyist parties have often become the primary "targets" of government crackdowns and suppression.

First, the American bourgeoisie manipulates the state apparatus and political life through the alternating rule of the Democratic and Republican parties, obstructing Trotskyist parties from promoting their views; these parties also find it difficult to compete in terms of funding and sources of votes. Meanwhile, the U.S. single-member district plurality system is unfavorable to the growth of Trotskyist parties. Consequently, Trotskyism—with the SWP as its organizational vehicle—has no market within the American mainstream ideology, and its influence on the public is generally limited. Second, the legal framework of American capitalism restricts the development of Trotskyist parties. In its depictions of Trotskyism, the U.S. government propagates it as a school of thought advocating revolutionary violence and terrorism, subjecting it to constant surveillance and strikes. Therefore, even the SWP, which has attained legal existence, must conduct its activities according to the regulations issued by the bourgeois government. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for Trotskyist organizations and parties to achieve a "breakthrough" in the process of striving for socialism. Finally, since World War II, anti-communist ideology has become deeply rooted in the United States, making it difficult for Trotskyist parties to gain a substantial mass base. Trotskyism is diametrically opposed to the American mainstream ideology in terms of value systems; the latter views radical socialist ideas like Trotskyism as the greatest obstacle to achieving the goals of American imperialist expansion. Furthermore, the Trotskyist parties have long maintained a radical revolutionary stance and failed to achieve a united struggle with traditional Left-wing parties such as the CPUSA, naturally making them unable to integrate into mainstream American society.

  1. Fragmented Trotskyist Organizations and Obvious Centrifugal Tendencies among Members

Sectarian splitting is the most prominent characteristic of the evolution of American Trotskyist organizations. Currently, various Trotskyist organizations act in their own ways; their ranks are extremely unstable and display an uncoordinated state, with members exhibiting obvious centrifugal tendencies.

First, American Trotskyist organizations have moved from relative unity toward fragmentation. Since the founding of the SWP—once the largest Trotskyist party in the U.S.—in 1938, Trotskyist organizations have undergone numerous splits, leaving the organizational state like a "tray of loose sand." [5] Before 1985, due to the presence of the SWP, Trotskyism maintained a state of relative unity. After 1985, an average of one new Trotskyist organization appeared every three years, resulting in a situation where more than ten organizations—including the Socialist Equality Party, the Internationalist Group, Socialist Organizer, and the Workers International League—exist simultaneously and attack one another. In terms of scale and influence, none of the surviving organizations have reached the peak level of the SWP in its heyday; a dominant Trotskyist organization has never again emerged in the United States.

Second, the number of American Trotskyist members has declined sharply, with an obvious centrifugal tendency. With the end of the anti-Vietnam War movement and the retreat of the Black civil rights movement, Trotskyist supporters began to take interest in immediate, tangible benefits and gradually inclined toward working within the established capitalist order. Young students, in particular, became generally concerned with daily issues such as grades, further education, and employment, and their interest in radical political activities dropped precipitously. For example, looking at the membership numbers of the main American Trotskyist organizations, since 1981, the number of formal SWP members plummeted from 1,250 to 500. Changes in the environment led to a sharp drop in membership, creating a centrifugal trend between organizations and their members, making it difficult for them to unite.

There are three reasons for this situation. First, American Trotskyist parties often emphasize factional freedom and promote intra-party democracy, which leads to a proliferation of factions. Disagreements over ideology and strategy become difficult to bridge, making it impossible to form a unified intellectual foundation. Second, individualism is prevalent within American Trotskyism. For instance, even when Cannon was imprisoned during World War II, he maintained tight control over the minutiae of the SWP. This led to constant conflicts among core laboratory leaders with differing opinions, causing severe "internal consumption" [6] of organizational strength. Third, periodic organizational splits and intra-party purges have caused the strength of Trotskyist organizations to shrink continuously. On one hand, waves of purges and destructive expulsions caused a massive loss of radical members and intensified fragmentation; on the other hand, frequent factional struggles and splits left organizations with no cohesion and an inability to reach unified action, seriously weakening their influence on the public and their capacity for social mobilization, thus lowering public identification with Trotskyism.

  1. The "De-proletarianization" of Trotskyist Ranks and the Moderation of the Main Force

From 1928 to 1978, the first and second generations of American Trotskyists were primarily composed of the working class, and the tradition of Trotskyist labor radicalism was characterized by continuity. However, after 1978, with the successive advancement of neoliberalism and financial capitalism in the United States, Trotskyist organizations gradually underwent "de-proletarianization." Adherents of identity politics gradually became the mainstay of Trotskyism, and the attitude of these new main forces toward struggle became increasingly moderate. The reasons for this phenomenon are as follows:

First, the new generation of SWP leadership prompted a decisive change in the Party’s organizational structure and general tone. As Trotskyist cadres with rich experience in the labor movement, such as Cannon and Farrell Dobbs, gradually left the political stage, leadership fell into the hands of younger cadres like Barnes and Peter Camejo. Barnes and his cohorts emphasized that orthodox Trotskyism ran counter to Leninism, and they criticized Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" for ignoring the importance of the worker-peasant alliance. They believed that the anti-capitalist revolution required the establishment of a "workers' and farmers' government," rather than the purely "workers' government" mentioned by Cannon and others. Cannon once criticized this tendency in the new leadership: "The main body of the movement today is the youth; do they fully realize that the power of the state is in the hands of the working class?"

Second, the focus of Trotskyist work exacerbated the isolation of Party members from workers. Since the 1960s, the SWP believed that a new wave of revolution would come from middle-class groups, and that the focus of work should be concentrated on middle-class movements such as Black civil rights and feminism. They focused their recruitment efforts on upper-middle-class youth, ethnic minorities, and special interest constituencies with no overall connection to the working class, causing the Party to become a middle-class group organization with only a tiny minority belonging to the organized labor movement. From that point on, identity politics replaced class struggle as the top priority of the SWP's work, causing the Party to deviate from its self-proclaimed historical mission as the vanguard of the working class. Furthermore, the "turn to the unions" [7] initiated by the SWP in the 1970s was limited to the manufacturing sector, and it prohibited members from seeking any responsible union positions, such that the Party failed to gain the influence in unions it had previously enjoyed. Of course, the reason American Trotskyists chose to drift away from the labor movement also relates to the condition of the contemporary American working class. After the 1970s, the phenomenon of the "privatization/entitlement" of native workers and "labor aristocracies" [8] appeared within the American working class, providing a deep foundation for reformism. Workers were concerned with economic and interest-based issues, and the aristocratic unions catered to these demands. The Trotskyists failed to propose worker policies that advanced with the times and matched the characteristics of the era, and thus could not gain the identification of the working class.

Third, a new generation of youthful vigor has replaced the working class as the main body of Trotskyism. With the rise of student movements, Trotskyism became a beneficiary of the radicalization of youth and students. Youth groups were added to the Trotskyist ranks as a new force, becoming the source of strength for Trotskyist organizations; the center of Trotskyist activity also shifted from labor unions and Communist parties to student groups. Because the newly joined youth and students mostly came from middle-class families or above, their values and life experiences were diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat. Most young members did not understand Trotskyism, and their activities were confined to campus political movements. Lacking experience in struggle, they caused the Trotskyist movement in the new period to trend toward moderation.

IV. Critical Reflections on American Trotskyism

American Trotskyism is essentially a utopian radical trend of thought divorced from American political reality. The transition of American Trotskyism from prosperity to decline is the result of the combined effect of its inherent flaws in theory, organization, and practice.

First, the first and second generations of the American Trotskyist leadership were excessively constrained by Trotsky’s original theoretical shackles [9]; their theoretical conceptions lacked timeliness, rendering them unpersuasive when explaining American reality. They turned Trotskyist theory, which emerged under specific historical conditions, into a rigid dogma divorced from American national conditions and situational changes. They blindly denied the active role played by new changes in capitalism in mitigating conflict and prolonging revolution, causing their "capitalist eschatology" to take on an intensely utopian character. Furthermore, the first and second generations of Trotskyist leaders repeatedly emphasized that the objective conditions for the American socialist revolution were ripe and that it was only the revolutionary consciousness of the working class that was immature. Consequently, they unrealistically persisted in the position of the proletariat as the subject of revolution and resorted to "class consciousness" to achieve the "Americanization of socialism." In fact, however, the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat and the vitality of the capitalist mode of production are organically unified. That the American proletariat was content with the status quo was itself a reflection of the powerful self-regulatory capacity of American capitalism. At this time, American Trotskyism ignored the decisive reshaping of the working class’s consciousness by the new changes in capitalism, resulting in a trans-historical application of the "Theory of Permanent Revolution," causing them to sink into the quagmire of utopianism.

Second, there was an extreme and dogmatic application of Marxism. According to American Trotskyist theory, the importance of class far outweighs that of the nation-state; world revolution could break through the boundaries of nation-states, triggering the outbreak of an American socialist revolution. However, the situation in the United States is relatively complex. When class antagonism is severe, national struggle is temporarily subordinate to class struggle; this was one of the root causes of the Trotskyists winning widespread support from workers and achieving their moment of glory in the 1930s and 40s. Once this special period passed, national interests became prominent, and "world revolution" became difficult for the masses to accept due to its stance of transcending the nation-state. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx described the trend of capitalism expanding globally, but he reached no final conclusion as to when the proletarians of all countries would be able to transcend the boundaries of state and nation to achieve union. In an era where the concept of the nation-state remains deeply rooted, American Trotskyists ignored their own national and ethnic interests and blindly followed internationalist principles. They failed to grasp that Marxism is a theory that advances with the times and distorted Marxism in its true sense, leaving their propositions without the necessary mass base.

Third, inherent flaws in American Trotskyist theory led their organizations to constantly hit a wall in practice. The inherent sectarian tendencies of Trotskyist organizations weakened their already meager party strength and mass base. From the perspective of American Trotskyist practice, it is undeniable that they responded to "American Exceptionalism" [10] from a Trotskyist perspective, attempted the possibility of the Americanization of socialism, and explored the path of conducting proletarian revolution and establishing workers' political power in a developed capitalist country, protecting the interests of ordinary laborers to a certain extent. However, the Trotskyists lacked a clear understanding of American domestic political reality and were never able to escape their utopian character—merely repeating abstract rhetoric about the "Theory of Permanent Revolution"—nor could they provide a set of immediate, feasible reform plans to effectively solve the real problems of the United States. After the 1960s, American Trotskyists pinned their revolutionary hopes on identity politics, deviating from the original intent of the proletarian struggle. This determined that they could not complete the mission of thoroughly transforming capitalism in practice.

Clearly, the decline of American Trotskyism is the inevitable result of its theoretical and organizational weaknesses being centrally exposed in practice. In view of this, the urgent direction for contemporary American Trotskyists is to break free from the shackles of rigid dogma theoretically, propose theoretical propositions that advance with the times, strengthen problem-awareness, end the fragmented state of Trotskyist organizations, strengthen democratic centralism, follow the mass line, and subsequently establish a broad mass base in practice. American Trotskyism is not only an important component of international Trotskyist socialist politics but also an important part of contemporary world socialist trends; it provides experiences and lessons for the development of socialism and Marxism in the 21st century. In the 21st century, although socialism still faces severe challenges, the inevitable demise of capitalism and the inevitable victory of socialism are equally unavoidable. The historical trajectory and decline of American Trotskyism provide the following enlightenments for us as we continue to develop socialism in the 21st century.

First, we must correctly understand the nature, active roles, and negative drawbacks of the world's major socialist trends, correctly handle the relations between various trends, parties, or organizations, and achieve the unity of socialist forces. Currently, the forces of socialist trends sharing the political left are scattered; in particular, the communist parties in developed capitalist countries have long been unable to break out of their marginalized state. Various trends should take the socialist ideal as a common value pursuit, actively face common problem domains, break the hostile situation of mutual attacks, establish multilateral links and coordination mechanisms, and expand the breadth of mass mobilization and the depth of social influence. At the same time, they must not be limited to the level of meaningless political protests but should coexist and co-prosper with the overall struggle of the world socialist movement, reconstruct a "Grand Left" force against capitalism, and push the world socialist movement out of its trough.

Second, while advancing with the times and improving the theoretical vitality and contemporary adaptability of leftist parties, we must adhere to the general direction of socialism. In the present era, new social movements and identity politics have entered a new period of activity due to their sensitive response to the developments of the age, becoming important reference systems for gaining insight into the new changes in contemporary capitalism. However, one cannot be limited to new social movements and identity politics at the local level. It is necessary to combine micro-level struggles with macro-level struggles, and combine empirical analysis of society with structural analysis of society. One must not forget or obscure class struggle because of a focus on new social movements and identity politics, thereby losing the way forward for socialism. If leftist parties can integrate the propositions of new social movements and identity politics—which contain "destructive adaptations"—into the scope of their critique of capitalism, they can find a realistic foothold once again when exposing the various new phenomena of alienation in capitalism, further tearing open the cracks in the capitalist system.

Third, the Communist Party of China has created a new path of Chinese-path modernization. This path is clearly superior to the Western modernization path; it has absorbed the positive achievements of Western modernization while solving the domestic and international problems brought about by the Western modernization path. This path is not only of reference value for the left in developing countries but also holds certain reference value for the left in Western developed capitalist countries. In particular, the principles of party building such as democratic centralism, the principle of unifying ideological Party building, political party building, disciplinary party management, and organizational party management, as well as the concepts of building innovative, learning, and service-oriented parties, can all provide precious experience for Western leftist parties.

In short, the rise and fall of American Trotskyism provides a typical case for studying the laws of development of socialist movements in Western developed capitalist countries. Systematic reflection on this, alongside summarizing the successes and failures of the Western left including American Trotskyism, can not only advance the academic enterprise of studying American Marxism and the world communist movement in our country, but also help us deeply understand and grasp the new changes in US-led Western capitalist society. This allows us to explore possible paths for socialist revolution in Western developed capitalist countries, provide theoretical resources, and offer forward-looking and constructive opinions and suggestions for the possible development of socialism in the Western developed capitalist world.