What is Trotskyism

8/23/2019 What is Trotskyism

1/34

WHAT IS TROTSKYISM?

A CRITIQUE OF TROTSKYS MAIN THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS

By Tony Clark:

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

TROTSKY was unable to think like a Leninist. This naturally applies to his followers, who although with hindsight,

may defend Lenins positions on this or that question, a situation which can be accorded to wisdom after the event,

generally show a tendency to adopt pseudo-left positions on present, concrete developments.

A good example of pseudo-leftism expresses itself over the issue of peaceful-coexistence between states with

different social systems. Most followers of Trotskyism have denounced the policy of peaceful-coexistence pursued

by the Soviet revisionists without making a distinction between Leninist peaceful-coexistence and revisionist

peaceful-coexistence.

The difference of course is that, unlike revisionist peaceful coexistence, Leninist peaceful-coexistence does not

sacrifice the class struggle within states, or the struggle of the national liberation movement against imperialism in

order to live in peace with imperialism. This does not mean of course that a socialist country should not do

everything possible to avoid nuclear war with imperialism without betraying the cause of human liberation from

exploitation. This is a point overlooked, or ignored by pseudo-leftist elements, Trotskyite and non-Trotskyite alike.

This relates to the question of the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the political leaders of imperialist capitalism

made it clear that they were prepared to heat up the cold war, and were prepared to plunge humanity into a nuclear

holocaust, when the Soviet revisionist leadership, which had come to power soon after the death of Stalin, had

reached the final stage of its ideological bankruptcy in the Gorbachev period. What generated revisionism is a

different question.

The above are important points to make because it illustrates the difference between Marxism-Leninism and

Trotskyism, the latter which argues that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the leadership of a

counterrevolutionary Stalinist bureaucracy, although when the revisionists first came to power in the early 1950s,

the supporters of Stalin were purged, and Stalin himself was downgraded and later denounced and his works

banned.

The difference, therefore, is between concrete Leninist reasoning and the abstract thinking characteristic of

Trotskyism. In other words when we consider the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question naturally arises: did the

Soviet Union collapse because the supporters of Stalin were in power, or because the revisionist leaders had purged

the supporters of Stalin?

The Trotskyites do not understand. their ideology prevents them from doing so. that it wasnt a Stalinist

bureaucracy which led the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, but rather a revisionist leadership which had

broken from Marxism-Leninism. Even bourgeois writers, supporters of capitalist exploitation of the masses, note

how, at every stage, soviet bureaucracy attempted to impede the return to capitalism and the barbarism of the

market. This was to be expected because bureaucracies by their very nature tend to resist change. There is no

reason why Soviet bureaucracy should be different in this respect. Only the top-most officials and members of the

nomenklatura positioned themselves in such a way as to benefit from the return to the market. Since bureaucracies

tend to be conservative, i.e., resisting change, rather than counterrevolutionary, Trotskys theory of a

counterrevolutionary bureaucracy is too abstract to provide an explanatory paradigm of the counterrevolutionary

process that had developed in the Soviet Union.

The argument we present below is basically about two approaches to thinking: the concrete reasoning of Leninism

in contrast to the abstract reasoning of Trotskyism. This difference at the level of thinking or reasoning, and

therefore, at the level of method and theory, is fundamental to explaining how these two trends, Leninism and

Trotskyism, came into existence and continue to oppose each other, not only in terms of historical interpretation,

but also on concrete issues as well.


2/34

The most poignant reminder of Trotskys abstract approach to the problems of revolution is, of course, his theory of

permanent revolution. Most Trotskyites will, no doubt, be completely flabbergasted by such a statement. They can

ask, did not the Russian revolution confirm Trotskys prognosis? Did not the Russian working class take power and

transform the bourgeois revolution against the Tsars into a socialist revolution against capitalism? Such a line of

argument also betrays the abstract reasoning of Trotskyism, which we will present in the article below.

By laying down, as a basis for argument, the theory that the contradiction between Marxism-Leninism and

Trotskyism is basically an opposition between the concrete and the abstract, we are able to follow the movement of

this contradiction in Trotskyisms struggle against Marxism-Leninism. This begins, of course, with Trotskys inabilityto grasp the contradiction between revolutionary Marxism and opportunism in the period before 1917.

In fact, for Lenin, the role of Trotskyism in the pre-1917 period was to act as a cover for opportunism in the Russian

revolutionary movement. For instance, Lenin could remark, only five years before the outbreak of the 1917

revolution, that Trotsky was shielding the deeds of the opportunists by

"revolutionary" phrase-mongering abroadthere you have the essence of the policy of "Trotskyism". (V.I. Lenin:

CW. Vol. 17; pp.242-44)

And later in his 1914 article, Disruption of unity under the cover of outcries for unity, Lenin could write that

we were right incalling Trotskyism a representative of the "worst remnants of factionalism. (V.I. Lenin: CW.

Vol.20; pp.327-47)

Also for Lenin, one of the features of Trotsky was that he

does not explain, nor does he understand, the historical significance of the ideological disagreement among the

various Marxist groups, although these disagreements run throughout the twenty years history of Social-

Democracy and concern the fundamental questions of the present day. (V.I. Lenin: op.cit.)

This was a damning criticism which amounts to saying that three years before before the 1917 revolution, Trotsky

did not consciously, that is concretely, understand what the real struggle was about in the Russian revolutionarymovement.

And in this same article Lenin remarked of Trotskyism

All that glitter is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotskys phrases, but they are meaningless. (V.I.

Lenin: op.cit.)

It is this glittering effect of Trotskyism which can serve to ensnare politically nave people, those untutored in

Marxism-Leninism, who have come over to the anti-capitalist movement. To them we can only say study the works

of Marxist-Leninists. This it is not possible to do in any of the Trotskyite groupings, where the works of Lenin, with a

few exception, is discouraged presumably because of the critical observations some of them contain on Trotsky. Asfor Stalins works the contents are quite unknown to most Trotskyites.

What follows, is we hope, a timely contribution to understanding Trotskyism from the Marxist-Leninist perspective.

London, July 24th

, 2001.

INTRODUCTION

The question, what is Trotskyism, could be answered on several different levels, political, theoretical and

methodological. Logically it would be possible to begin a discourse on Trotskyism by concentrating on the

methodological level and proceed to the theoretical foundations, and finally, ending with the political conclusionsassociated with Trotskyism. In other words, this means we would discuss the methodological approach of Trotsky,

then proceed to discuss his theoretical and political assumptions. On the other hand, we could discuss the political

and theoretical assumptions of Trotskyism, and finally trace their roots to Trotskys methodology.


3/34

Since people encounter Trotskyism, firstly as political and theoretical assumptions before any consideration of

methodology is sought, this, perhaps is the starting point we should adopt in an examination of Trotskyism as a

political trend. We shall begin at the level of political appearance, move to semblance, i.e., semblance being the

transition from essence to appearance, which dialectically correspond to the theoretical level. From this level of

semblance we proceed back to methodology, which, in philosophical terms, is essence. In other words, appearance,

semblance, and essence, or politics, theory and method, all interrelated and interacting on each other.

In order to proceed on this basis all non-essentials must be discarded as much as possible. Trotskyism can only be

understood in relation to Leninism, or what is now universally known as Marxism-Leninism if we proceed in thismanner, because what is intended is not to furnish the reader with an historical account of the differences between

Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism but rather to explain these differences by concentrating on the more important

issues, or contradictions which emerged between the two trends of thought.

That there are sharp differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism is something which participants in the

communist movement take for granted. On the side of Trotskyism there is a persistent attempt to conceal these

differences, or at least play them down. This exercise in concealment is undertaken, no doubt, with the aim of

promoting the claim that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism, a view which Trotsky himself encouraged, or, as

one Trotskyite group puts it, Trotskyism is the Marxism of today.

We, for our part, are more interested in the controversial claim that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism. Thefirst question is, of course, if Trotskyism is Leninism, why use the term Trotskyism?

There is no point in taking recourse to the old Trotskyite falsehood that it was Stalin, or Trotskys other opponents

who first coined the term Trotskyism after the death of Lenin. The impression which Trotsky and, indeed,

Trotskyites like to give is that the term Trotskyism grew out of the post Lenin controversy between Stalin and

Trotsky. Further, Trotskys claim that Zinoviev was responsible for its manufacture finds no factual historical support

whatsoever, as is shown in the preliminary remarks above.

It is on clear historical record that the term Trotskyism was used on several occasions by Lenin himself in the pre-

1917 revolutionary period. This period is where the differences between Leninism and Trotskyism began. The aim of

this contribution is to explain that the differences between Leninism and Trotskyism are of a methodological,theoretical and political character, and therefore any attempt to view these differences on the political level alone

will certainly remain superficial.

Any examination of Trotsky from the standpoint of scientific appraisal and not purely partisanship must look at

Trotskyism not only from a one-sided difference with Leninism. These differences were strong enough to keep

Trotsky outside of Bolshevism until 1917, but such an examination must explain how it was possible for Trotsky to

join Bolshevism in 1917. If we disregard the elements ofopportunism which no doubt was involved, or Trotskys fear

of finding himself in isolation, then we need to look at that aspect of Trotskyism which united him with Bolshevism in

1917. In other words, how was Trotsky able to integrate, to a certain extent, with Bolshevism and played a significant

if controversial role in Bolshevik proceedings. This document is not a criticism of Trotsky for having differences with

Lenin, but rather a criticism of the superficial claim of Trotskyites that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism.

To some communists this work may be mistakenly regarded as superfluous. They KNOW Trotskyism is not Leninism.

But their knowledge does not prevent other politically inexperienced people from being attracted to Trotskyism

because of the revisionist, right-deviation which has plagued the communist movement for such a long time. These

right-opportunist circles are a sort of recruiting agents for Trotskyism. These people oppose Trotskyism not because

they are Leninists but because they are right opportunists. This is why a Marxist-Leninist critique of Trotskyism is still

of considerable importance.

On joining the Bolshevik party in 1917, the relationship Trotsky had with the party was never without problems;

indeed, the relationship was quite stormy. Lenin and Trotsky had substantial differences, but Lenin had differences

with all the leading participants of the party. What gave notoriety to the contradictions between Lenin and Trotskywas not only the qualities of these differences, but also the later conflicts and disputes over a range of issues which

emerged between Stalin and Trotsky.

There will, of course, always be differences between revolutionaries, so we do not assume here that Trotsky was

wrong to oppose Lenin, rather it was his positions, which were usually to be found in error. It would also be true to


4/34

say that in joining the Bolshevik party, Trotsky toned down his opposition to Leninism. Later, with Lenin removed by

sickness and death, Trotskys full-blown opposition to Bolshevism re-emerged. Trotskyism was born in opposition to

Bolshevism and soon returned to this state of conflict. What was different, of course, was that this new stage of

opposition to Bolshevism, was claimed by Trotsky, to be directed at Stalin. This is not to argue that there were no

differences between Trotsky and Stalin unrelated to Lenin. The unity of such differences must be sought at the level

of methodology. In any event, Trotsky, for obvious political reasons, could not openly oppose Leninism. In fact the

guise was adopted that he was defending Leninism against Stalin.

To return to a previous point regarding the elements of identity which made it possible for Trotsky to join theBolshevik party. This was primarily about goals of a practical nature. There was never any theoretical subsumption in

Trotskys practical and tactical unity with Bolshevism. Not theoretical considerations but objective developments led

the Bolsheviks, under Lenins guidance, to proceed to the anti-capitalist stage of the revolution. For Trotsky, this was

the realisation of permanent revolution in practice, and on this basis he entered the ranks of Bolshevism. 1917 was

the closest Trotskyism came to Leninism, at the most general level. Before and after this period, the relationship was

dominated by hostile conflict, which Trotsky managed to contain in the period of Lenin, not without highly significant

episodes of conflicts. In fact, the period of Trotskys association with Bolshevism contains the richest source of

conflict, which makes Trotskys claim of defending Leninism pointedly absurd.

These old conflicts between Leninism and Trotskyism are still of relevance because they serve to undermine the

claim that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism in present day conditions. And also because Trotskyismcontains a method, thus those who adopt the forms of Trotskys ideology, also absorb his method. Form and content

cannot be separated.

In all essentials Trotskyism remains Trotskyism. From this standpoint we treat the tactical differences between Lenin

and Trotsky as of secondary importance even if they contained the germ of more significant disagreements.

The question, what is Trotskyism, could be simply answered by the reply that Trotskyism is a rival of Leninism.

Although this point would be obvious to those who have studied these differences, for those whose role is the

concealment of these differences such a reply would be woefully inadequate. Opportunism often assumes protective

coloration. So Trotskyism, although fighting against Leninism, does so under the banner of Leninism. The aim of this

article is to examine five areas of a theoretical political nature, which shows that the claim that Trotsky led thecontinuation of Leninism, is in fact the line of those who want to replace Leninism with Trotskyism, whether

consciously or unconsciously, as the ideological guide of the international communist movement.

It is important to add here that we do not have a conspiratorial theory about those who seek to replace Marxism-

Leninism with Trotskyism. Although it can be argued that Trotsky aimed at this quite consciously, it would be

simplistic if we assumed the same about his followers. In fact we are forced to adopt the opposite conclusions about

them. Not only does petty-bourgeois eclecticism make it easy for them to confuse Trotskyism with Leninism, but

they also arrive at this position because they subscribe to what they consider to be the explanatory credibility of

Trotsky.

The problem these people face, therefore, is one of promoting Trotskyism without seen to be opposing Leninism.This contradiction of theirs can be easily resolved if, in the first place, their grasp of Leninism leaves much to be

desired. For such elements there is no contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism, or, perhaps, what

contradiction there is, or was, can be safely relegated to the by-gone pre-revolutionary period of the Russian

revolutionary movement. This certainly was Trotskys own attitude, so we should not be surprised if his followers

adopt the same stance.

The Bolsheviks, or what became known as Marxism-Leninism, had opponents on the right and left of the

revolutionary movement. The rival of Leninism on the right was the Mensheviks, people like Martov and Plekhanov.

As a rival of Leninism, Trotsky was on the left, inspite of Trotskys occasional collaboration with the Mensheviks

against Bolshevism. It was the fact that his pseudo-left position often served the interest of Menshevism, which

Lenin subjected to criticism in the pre-1917 period.

The view of Trotskyism as a pseudo-left rival of Marxism-Leninism can be established, firstly, around the question of

the Russian revolution and the position Trotsky adopted towards it. Here we turn to the question of Trotskys

rendition of Marxs term: the revolution in permanence. Indeed, Trotskys theory of permanent revolution is the

intellectual starting point of what came to be called Trotskyism. This term, Trotskyism, was used, as we previously


5/34

indicated, by Lenin in pre-1917 times to mean something different. The term was used by Lenin to signify

opportunism. We are told by Lenin that, for instance,

the "Trotskyites and conciliators" like him are more pernicious than any liquidator; the convinced liquidators

state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where they are wrong, whereas the Trotskys

deceive the workers, cover upthe evil, and make it impossible to expose the evil and to remedy it. (V.I. Lenin: CW.

Vol. 17; pp.242-44; September, 1911)

The inner significance of the term Trotskyism was clearly for Lenin one of opportunism. It was the long-standingrivalry between Trotskyism and Leninism that gave rise to the term in the first place. As we have seen the term

Trotskyism, for Lenin, was associated with not only covering up for the liquidators, but also with revolutionary

phrase-mongering. It was not invented in the later Stalin Trotsky dispute, a legend devised by Trotsky himself.

Having got this particular contentious issue out of the way, we can say that the logical starting point for our analysis

of Trotskyism is Trotskys theory of permanent revolution, to which we will now turn.

TROTSKYS PERMANENT REVOLUTION

Trotskyism, ideologically, begins with his theory of Permanent Revolution. Trotsky, it must be said, never wavered

from this view. The question, what is permanent revolution? can be answered quite simply in the following way. The

theory of permanent revolution argues that the working class should lead the Russian bourgeois democraticrevolution, and on the basis of possession of state power would not stop at the democratic stage, that is to say the

minimum programme, but would continue the revolution to the socialist stage. This would awaken the working class

in the advanced capitalist countries to rise up against the bourgeoisie. These workers would then come to the aid of

the Russian working class, extending support to backward Russia, thus making the revolution permanent. This

answered the central question of the Russian revolution, that is, which class would lead it. On this question both

Lenin and Trotsky agreed that the working class would be the leader of the revolution.

Both Lenins and Trotskys views were radically different from the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks argued that a

bourgeois revolution had to be led by the bourgeoisie and the role of the working class was to support the efforts of

the bourgeoisie in the democratic revolution. In this scenario the workers must not be too radical for fear of scaring

off the bourgeois liberals. The Mensheviks argued for an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the working class foraccomplishing the democratic revolution. They ignored the lessons of history, which showed that the bourgeoisie

would recoil from their own revolution and was never interested in its radical completion.

For a radical solution to the bourgeois revolution, which would not stop at half measures, Lenin argued for an

alliance between the working class and the peasantry. These two classes were the most interested in the radical

completion of the bourgeois revolution. In sort, the Mensheviks stood for an alliance between the bourgeoisie and

the proletariat with the leadership in the hands of the former, whereas the Bolsheviks stood for an alliance between

the proletariat and the peasantry. It is over the question of the peasantry that their emerged a divergence between

Leninism and Trotskyism. While it can be said, without doubt, that Trotsky recognised the role of the peasantry, it

can also be argued that he underestimated its role. Trotskyites deny this, claiming that such accusations are nothing

but Stalinist slanders against Trotsky necessitated by factional considerations.

Marxist-Leninists, however, do not claim that Trotsky failed to recognise the role of the peasantry in the Russian

revolution, but rather that he underestimated its role, i.e., did not correctly grasp its significance To some extent,

Trotskyites are able to dispute this claim because in the light of experience Trotsky updated his theory. This is why it

is possible to find passages from Trotskys writings suggesting an underestimating of the role of the peasantry, while

other passages seem to refute this. Taken as a whole, however, after careful consideration, we have to agree with

the view that, within Trotskyism there was a tendency to underestimate the role of the peasantry in the Russian

revolution. To show that Trotskyism began with an incorrect tactical understanding of the role of the peasantry we

can turn to the preface Trotsky wrote in 1922 to his book, The year 1905, where he argued that the working class

having come to power

would be forced in the very early stages of its rule to make deep in-roads not only into feudal property, but into

bourgeois property as well. In this it would come into hostile collision not only

with all the bourgeois groupings that supported the proletariat during the first stage of the revolutionary struggle,

but also with the broad masses of the peasantry who had been instrumental in bringing it into power. The


6/34

contradictions in the position of a workers government in a backward country with an overwhelming majority of

peasants can be solved only on an international scale, in the arena of the world proletarian revolution. (In: Harpal

Brar: Trotskyism or Leninism? p.117)

It is clear that, if in the very early stages of its rule the proletariat proceeded with a policy that brought it into

hostile collision with the broad masses of the peasantry, communist leadership in the revolution, and working

class political power, would have been doomed from the start. So, who can argue when Marxist-Leninists say

Trotskyism began by not consciously grasping the significance of the peasantry in the Russian revolution?

Furthermore, the Marxist-Leninist argument that Trotskyism underestimated the role of the peasantry can be clearly

illustrated by another passage from Trotsky, where he argues that

The nature of our social-historical relations, which lays the whole burden of the bourgeois revolution upon the

shoulders of the proletariat, will not only create tremendous difficulties for the workers government but, in the

first period of its existence at any rate, will also give it invaluable advantages. This will affect the relations

between the proletariat and the peasantry. (L. Trotsky: Results and Prospects, 1906, in: The Permanent Revolution;

New Park Publications, July, 1962; p.203)

We need not point out that, it would be a travesty of Marxism-Leninism, generally, to argue that Russias historical

development laid the whole burden f the bourgeois revolution upon the shoulders of the proletariatEven with anelementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism it is possible to expose this assertion as completely opposed to

Leninism. Leninism taught that the burden of the bourgeois revolution in Russia rests on the proletariat and the

peasantry. Unlike Trotskyism, nowhere did Marxism-Leninism teach that the whole burden of the Russian

revolution rest on the shoulders of the proletariat alone.

If it were necessary to give more evidence that Trotskyism began by underestimating the role of the peasantry in

the Russian revolution, another quote from Trotsky would be sufficient, at least for the unbiased mind. In Result and

Prospects, Trotsky argues, regarding the defeat in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, that

The attempts of the Russia of 3rd

June to solve the internal revolutionary problems by the path of imperialism has

resulted in an obvious fiasco. This does not mean that the responsible or semi-responsible parties of the 3

rd

Juneregime will take the path of revolution, but it does mean that the revolutionary problem laid bare by the military

catastrophe, which will drive the ruling class still further along the path of imperialism, doubles the importance of

the only revolutionary class in the country.(L. Trotsky: op. Cit., p252)

This passage illustrates, absolutely clearly, by omission, that Trotskyism began by underestimating the role of the

peasantry in the Russian revolution. When Trotsky writes here of the ONLY REVOLUTIONARY CLASS IN THE

COUNTRY, he is speaking of the proletariat, while completely ignoring the peasantry. What more evidence is needed

to demonstrate that contained within Trotskyism, particularly early Trotskyism, there is an underestimating of the

role of the peasantry, alien to Leninism? Unlike Trotskyism, nowhere did Marxism-Leninism teach that the

proletariat was the only revolutionary class in the Russian revolution.

If to imply that the working class in the Russian revolution was the only revolutionary class, is not underestimating

the role of the peasantry, then what is? This one passage, alone, demolishes any attempt to oppose Marxism-

Leninism and argue, in support of Trotskyism, that Trotsky never underestimated the peasantry, and that therefore

such accusations are the invention of Stalinists. The view that the working class, or proletariat, was the only

revolutionary class in the country is the very opposite of Bolshevism, that is of Marxism-Leninism.

Another really astonishing remark by Trotsky shows, absolutely clearly, the complete absence of a Leninist

understanding of the significance of the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat. Trotsky openly claimed, in print, that

In order to understand the subsequent conflict between Stalinism and Trotskyism, it is necessary to emphasise

that, in consonance with all Marxist tradition, Lenin never regarded the peasant as a socialist ally of theproletariat; on the contrary, it was the overwhelming preponderance of the peasantry which had led Lenin to

conclude that the socialist revolution was impossible in Russia. ( L. Trotsky: What Is The Permanent Revolution-

Three concepts of The Russian Revolution; Published by Spartacist, 1970; pages un-numbered)


7/34

But it is ABC Leninism, and for anyone who has made even a cursory study of Lenins writings, that the alliance of the

proletariat and the peasantry was an absolute condition for the democratic revolution, whereas an alliance with the

middle and poor peasantry, was a precondition for upholding the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. For Trotsky

to say, shamelessly, that Lenin never regarded the peasantry as a socialist ally of the proletariat, would not only

make Lenin turn in his grave, but Marx and Engels as well. This is a blatant repudiation of Leninism and its

replacement with Trotskyism. If Trotsky made such utterances in ignorance it would only further undermine the

already impossible claim, by theoreticallyilliterate people, that Trotsky and his past and contemporary followers

represent the continuation of Leninism. These people are on such a low theoretical level that they are unable to

discern the differences between Leninism and Trotskyism.

Now the question is, did Lenin ever accuse Trotsky of underestimating the peasantry, or was this a later slander by

Stalin and those who supported him? We think it is best to let Trotsky reply to this vexed question.

On the occasions when Lenin accused me of "underestimating" the peasantry, he did not have in mind my failure

to recognise the socialist tendencies of the peasantry but rather my failure to realise sufficiently, from Lenins

point of view, the bourgeois democratic independence of the peasantry, its capacity to create its own power and

through it impede the establishment of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, (L. Trotsky: ibid.)

We have to say this passage is hogwash, possessing merit only in the frank admission that Lenin accused Trotsky of

UNDERESTIMATING THE PEASANTRY. Trotsky having confessed that Lenin did in fact level the charge ofunderestimating the role of the peasantry, returns quickly to the Trotskyite legend that the accusation about

underestimating the role of the peasantry began after Lenin, suggesting that

The revaluation of the question commenced only during the years of the thermidorian reaction, the beginning of

which coincided by and large with Lenins illness and death (L. Trotsky: ibid.)

On the contrary, it was after the death of Lenin that Trotsky made his failed bid to replace Leninism with Trotskyism

in the Soviet Communist Party and the international communist movement. The revaluation that Trotsky is referring

to is a vital question for Leninism, namely the role of the peasantry under the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.

For Trotsky, after Lenins death

the union of Russian workers and peasants was declared to be in itself sufficient guaranty against the dangers

of restoration and a firm pledge that socialism would be achieved within the borders of the Soviet Union. Having

substituted the theory of socialism in one country for the theory of international revolution, Stalin began to call

the Marxist evaluation of the peasantry "Trotskyism", and moreover not only with reference to the present but

retroactively to the entire past (L. Trotsky: ibid.)

Trotsky did say that Marxism never ascribed an absolute and immutable character to its estimation of the peasantry

as a non-socialist class, but he failed to present the question in a concrete way and draw the necessary conclusions.

Since Marxism, in the words of Trotsky, never ascribed an absolute and immutable character to its estimation of the

peasantry as a non-socialist class, this is a further exposure of Trotskyism. A close textual reading of Lenin reveals

that it is impossible to argue that there was a revaluation of the question of the peasantrys role under socialism.Enshrined in Trotskyism is its central legend that Stalin substituted the theory of socialism in one country for the

theory of world revolution. This bipolar notion of the existence of two theories, i.e., the theory of socialism in one

country, and the theory of world revolution is purely an invention by Trotskyism, in fact its most important legend,

which we will deal with later. For now we will consider Lenins views on the peasantry and socialism.

For Lenin, as long as the socialist state has power over all large-scale means of production, combined with the

alliance with the millions of small peasants, together with the leadership of the proletariat, and on the basis of the

co-operatives

Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist

society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building ( V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 27; p.392)

Without further ado, we can say, with some embarrassment for having to remind those who are confined to the

ideological parameters Trotskyism, that Marxism-Leninism was not revaluated, as Trotsky carelessly suggests, but

rather maintained that, the key condition for upholding the socialist dictatorship in the Soviet Union was the alliance


8/34

between the proletariat and the peasantry, the middle and small peasantry. This forms the most important teaching

of Marxism-Leninism concerned with the Russian revolutions strategic line.

In fact Trotsky reveals his anti-Leninism most clearly on the peasant question, which he always tend to present

abstractly, in the following remark

whatever the situation on that score today, after twenty-odd years of the new regime, the fact remains that

prior to theOctober revolution, and least of all Lenin, had regarded the peasantry as a factor of socialist

development. (L. Trotsky: ibid.)

Trotsky made out that for Stalin the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry was all that was necessary to

save the Soviet Union from capitalist restoration and therefore the extension of the world revolution was not

necessary, but there is nothing in Stalins writings to support this line of argumentation. The reality was that

Bolshevism fought Menshevism on the right and Trotskyism and other pseudo-left tendencies on the ultra-left over

the question of the role of the peasantry in the Russian revolution.

Trotskys permanent revolution theory was one of pseudo-leftism. It was referred to by Lenin as absurdly left. This

theory would have been consigned to the waste paper bin, but something happened which saved it, so to speak, and

gave it new life. This something was the 1914-1918 imperialist war.

In simple terms we can say that the imperialist war of 1914-18 worked, to some extent, in favour of Trotskys theory.

Without this war Trotskys theory would have been forgotten. The significance of the imperialist war was that it

made it possible for the Bolsheviks to progress from the democratic revolution against the Tsarist regime to the

socialist revolution. This gave the impression, to some people, that Lenin had gone over to Trotskys views. Indeed,

this was the essential argument of people like Zinoviev and Kamenev, who initially opposed Lenins April Thesis,

which outlined the struggle to lead the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution. Even Trotsky in his

autobiography could claim, in regard to Lenin, that

the course of events, by substituting arithmetic for algebra had revealed the essential identity of our views . (L.

Trotsky: My Life; Pelican, p.345)

The working class had, in deed, led the bourgeois democratic revolution and then transformed it into the proletarian

revolution. Lenin had already held to this possibility.

Our programme is not an old one but a newthe minimum programme of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour

Party. We have a new slogan: the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. If

we live to see the real victory of the democratic revolution we shall also have new methods of action in keeping

with the nature and aims of the working-class party that is striving for a complete socialist revolution. (V.I. Lenin:

Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution; Progress Publishers, Moscow, pp.54-56)

And again, in Two Tactics, Lenin argues that

We all contrapose bourgeois revolution with socialist revolution; we all insist on the absolute necessity of strictly

distinguishing between them; however, can it be denied that in the course of history individual, particular

elements of two revolutions become interwoven? Has the period of democratic revolutions in Europe not been

familiar with a number of socialist movements and attempts to establish socialism? And will not the future

socialist revolution in Europe still have to complete a great deal left undone in the field of democratism. (V.I.

Lenin: Op. Cit; pp.82-3)

Further Lenin argued that

The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry is unquestionably only a transient,

temporary socialist aim, but to ignore this aim in the period of the democratic revolution would be downrightreactionary. (V.I. Lenin: op. Cit.; p.83)

For Lenin, the bourgeois democratic revolution would establish the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and

the peasantry. This itself is a far cry from the view of Trotsky outlined above, suggesting that the proletariat was the


9/34

only revolutionary class, not to mention his view that the proletariat was to bear all the burden of the revolution.

In Lenins view the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry would carry out the minimum programme, the

demands of the bourgeois revolution. But from the text above, we see also that not only is the bourgeois stage of

the revolution separate from the socialist stage, but they are also interconnected.

In other words the minimum programme, the bourgeois revolution, and the maximum programme, i.e., socialism,

was for Lenin not two unrelated processes. Lenin argued that the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and

the peasantry has a past and future. Its past is the struggle against feudalism, its future the struggle against

capitalism, this would lead to the end of the single will of the peasantry as a whole with the proletariat which existedin the democratic stage.

The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end, and the period of democratic

revolution will have passed in Russia; it will then be ridiculous even to speak of "singleness of will" of the

proletariat and the peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall deal directly

with the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat and speak of it in grater detail. (V.I. Lenin: op. Cit.;

p.84)

In other words the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry would grow into the socialist

dictatorship of the proletariat. With certain modifications, this, in outline, is precisely what happened in the Russian

revolution. The revolution first led to the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry and wassubsequently turned into the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. Theory, which Lenin recognised was always

open to modification by concrete developments, did not predict the concrete form of the dictatorship of the

proletariat and the peasantry,

Nor could it be known beforehand that the opportunists would dominate the first stage of the revolution through

the Soviets of workers and peasants and work with the provisional government against the democratic revolution.

But this Eight months of preparation, from February to October, gave the masses the experience to throw out the

opportunists, support a new government of socialist dictatorship, and complete the democratic revolution. How was

this all made possible, and how did it differ from Trotskys prognosis?

Trotsky, inpermanent revolution, had argued that, having come to power, the working class would carry out theminimum programme and then proceed to socialism, that is to say the maximum programme. But the reality is that

this development was only made possible by the intervention of the imperialist war of 1914-18. Without this war,

the conditions that made it possible to transform the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution in such a

short space of time would not have existed.

Two factors would have worked against Trotskys permanent revolution prediction in the absence of the conditions

created by the First Imperialist War. (1) The peasantry as a whole would not have supported the immediate

transition to socialism. This means that the balance of class forces would have favoured the Mensheviks and the

bourgeoisie. (2) Intervention by world imperialism to support the counterrevolution would have certainly been more

successful, had an attempt been made to turn the democratic revolution into socialist revolution in the absence of

the peculiar conditions of wartime.

The war of 1914-18 made it possible for Trotskys supporters to conceal the pseudo-left nature of his version of

permanent revolution. In other words, to have attempted, or advocated Trotskys permanent revolution theory in

the absence of the conditions created by the war would have led to the certain defeat of the working class. That is

the point, which the Trotskyites ignore.

The Bolsheviks could transform the bourgeois into the proletarian revolution, in such a short space of time, not

because they had come over to the abstract thesis of Trotskys Permanent Revolution, but because conditions made

such a transformation possible. The revolution had confirmed Lenins position of the democratic dictatorship of the

proletariat and the peasantry, but as Lenin remarked in his April Thesis, this was done in a more original form, and

furthermore under wartime conditions.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not promote, at the level of abstract theory, the possibility of an immediate proletarian,

socialist revolution in Russian conditions. In fact he ruled out such a development in conformity with Marxism. The

Russian democratic revolution was to be bourgeois in nature, leading to a republic. The question of the

transformation of this democratic revolution into a socialist one would be determined by external and internal


10/34

factors, the latter among which was the degree of consciousness and organisation of the working class. The

intervention of the imperialist war of 1914-18 changed Lenins calculations. What the war achieved was to speed up

the revolutionary process, thus reducing the distance between the democratic and the socialist stage of the

revolution, making it possible to transform the first into the second.

In other words, Lenin argued for the transition to the socialist stage, not because Trotskys theory was correct, but

because wartime conditions speeded up the revolutionary process and created favourable conditions for the second

stage to begin. In the absence of the speeded up revolutionary process and favourable conditions, the

transformation into the socialist stage only on the grounds that the working class possessed power would have beenleftist adventurism. Here we see a clear demarcation between Leninism and Trotskyism. Whereas the premise of

Lenin is the concrete situation created by the imperialist war, for Trotsky the premise is the abstraction of

permanent revolution. The methodological polarity between them is the essence of the cognitive divergence

between Leninism and Trotskyism.

The methodological and ideological difference between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism is clear when we compare

Lenins April Theses of 1917 with Trotskys updated Permanent Revolution theory of 1928. The background and

basis of the policy outlined in the April Theses is the imperialist war of 1914-18. This war is at centre stage of the

theses, and is presented as the main contributory factor determining the progress of the bourgeois democratic

revolution into the socialist stage. But the situation is quite different when we examine Trotskys updated 1928

presentation of his theory. Trotsky completely fails to see the link between the imperialist war and the possibility itopened up for leading the revolution on to socialism. It is a remarkable fact that in his 1928 work on permanent

revolution Trotsky nowhere mentions the imperialist war in connection with the change of Bolshevik tactics, aimed

at overthrowing the bourgeoisie and capitalism. To separate the Russian socialist revolution from the imperialist war

is a mistake not even made by second rate bourgeois historians.

In fact, it is Trotskys 1928 work, which reveals the real contradiction in approach between Lenin and Trotsky. The

following will illustrate this. Even eleven years after the revolution in opposition to Leninism Trotsky could write

never in history has there been a regime of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

(L. Trotsky: The Permanent Revolution; New Park Publications, London, 1962; p.4)

Trotskys repudiation of Lenin here is probably the most open in all his post Lenin writings. But Marxism-Leninism

teaches the very opposite. The Lenin of the April Theses came to the very opposite conclusion to Trotskyism. In

1917 Lenin wrote and argued the position that

"The Soviet of Workers and Soldiers Deputies"there you have the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of

the proletariat and the peasantry" already accomplished in reality. (V. I. Lenin: April Theses; CW. Vol. 24; pp.42-54)

No other passage is necessary to demonstrate the opposition between Leninism and Trotskyism on matters relating

to the Russian revolution. When Lenin says plus, Trotsky says minus.

We can conclude this section by saying that Lenin agreed with Trotsky and the Mensheviks about the bourgeoisnature of the Russian revolution. While differing from the Mensheviks about the alliance of classes which would be

necessary for a successful revolution, and which of these classes should lead, he conceded that the revolution would

be capitalist, leading to a republic. For Lenin there was no Chinese wall between the first and second stage of the

revolution, but its further development would depend on internal and external factors. The first imperialist war of

1914-18 speeded up the revolutionary process, creating favourable conditions for the transition to socialism. This

brought about a change in Bolsheviks tactics. Trotsky, on the other hand underestimated the role of the peasantry,

suggesting that the proletariat was the only revolutionary class and that, the whole burden of the revolution was

on the shoulders of the workers, an argument which constituted a complete repudiation of Leninism, at least in the

early presentation of his theory. Trotsky also denied, in opposition to Leninism, the existence of the democratic

dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, saying it had never existed in history. In addition to all this he failed

to realise that it was the conditions generated by the first imperialist war which made the transition from thedemocratic to the socialist revolution possible in such a short space of time, incorrectly implying that Lenin came

over to his theory.

And it is quite ridiculous for a leading British Trotskyite, Alan Woods to argue that


11/34

The concrete realisation of the "democratic dictatorship" which history had actuallythrown up

was a capitalist government, waging an imperialist war of annexation, incapable of solving, or even of seriously

posing, a single one of the fundamental tasks of the democratic revolution. The algebraic formula of the

"democratic dictatorship" had been filled by history with a negative content (Alan Woods and Ted Grant: Lenin

and Trotsky, What they really stood for; p.75)

Although this was a reply to the revisionist, Monty Johnson, who tried to argue, incorrectly, that the provisional

government was the realisation of the democratic dictatorship, Woods and Grant themselves fail to understand and,indeed, confuse the provisional government with the democratic dictatorship. The essence of the latter was the

alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, as a whole, in the democratic revolution, whereas the

provisional government was in fact the realisation of the Menshevik policy of an alliance between the proletariat and

the bourgeoisie. This alliance, which the Bolsheviks devoted all their energy to exposing and breaking up, in essence

is no different from the present alliance between the Social Democracy and the bourgeoisie in all the advanced

capitalist countries. The contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism is further exposed when Woods and Grant

argues that the concrete realisation of the democratic dictatorship was a capitalist government waging an

imperialist war, etc. This compounds Trotskys mistake outlined above when he argued that a democratic

dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry has never existed anywhere.

Unlike Lenin, Trotsky deduced the possibility for the transition of the bourgeois revolution into the socialistrevolution, not from all the relevant concrete conditions but from the postulates of abstract theory, which saw the

workers possession of the requisite power as the only essential determination for this. This pseudo-leftism, if it had

been put into practice under different, unsuitable circumstances, would have led to the tragic defeat of the

revolution. Trotskys permanent revolution theory was a left distortion of Marxism in that it advocated a socialist

revolution as an immediate exigency, deduced from theoretical abstraction, possessing a high degree of cognitive

autonomy from all the interrelated processes leading to the seizure of power by the working class. In this sense

Trotskys theory is closer to intuitive prediction unconcerned with the processes of concrete and political

development.

It is interesting in this respect that even the anti-Communist bourgeois historian, Robert Service, makes the following

observation that

Except for the Great War, Lenin would have remained an migr theorist scribbling in Swiss libraries; and even if

Nicholas 11 had been deposed in a peacetime transfer of power, the inception of a communist regime order

would hardly have been likely. (R. Service: A History of Twentieth Century Russia; p.26)

This is not a remarkable insight by Service; it contains an element of truth mostly in regard to the socialist stage of

the revolution, but it does unintentionally expose the psuedo-left nature of Trotskys permanent revolution theory

and the potential tragedy, which would have been visited upon the working class, and peasantry had the situation

been different.

TROTSKY AND SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY

The Marxist, Communist struggle against the exploitation of the working people by heartless capitalists had its first

resounding success in the October revolution of 1917, which opened a new chapter in human history. But the retreat

of the world revolution, or at least, the European revolution meant that the Soviet revolutionaries would have to

continue with the process of building socialism in one country, holding on while waiting for the return of the

revolution. Although the civil war had been won at great cost, and the supporters of exploitation defeated, the

revolution nevertheless, had to face a world of capitalist encirclement in what was a backward semi-feudal, capitalist

country.

This is of course the key element in understanding the disputes between the leading personalities of the Russian

revolution. After the death of Lenin in 1924, the two leading contenders for the leadership of the soviet communistmovement emerged to be Stalin and Trotsky. While some bourgeois historians of the cruder type see the struggle

between these as merely a personal struggle by power hungry people Marxist-Leninists base their analysis on the

policy difference between them. The main demarcation came to be, on the one hand, those who believed that it was

possible to continue with the process of building socialism in one country and, on the other hand, those who

believed that it could not be done. The former lined up behind Stalin, while the latter rallied to Trotsky.


12/34

While Trotsky wanted the international communist movement to choose between socialism in one country, or world

revolution, for Stalin and his supporters this was a false, undialectical presentation of the question. In other words

the Marxist-Leninists who gave Stalin their backing rejected, resolutely the either, or thesis of Trotskyism. Stalin

fought against all attempts to split the international communist movement along Trotskyite line ofeither socialism in

one country or world revolution. For Stalin, to split the communist movement along these lines could only serve the

interest of the world bourgeoisie. For the Marxist-Leninists, building socialism in one country was in no way opposed

to the world revolutionary process, as the Trotskyites argued, but in fact, the opposite was the case, the building of

socialism in the Soviet Union would serve the process of world revolution. Those who defended socialism in one

country were in fact serving the interest of world revolution and thus the interest of the international working class.

The struggle against Stalin and those who defended the possibility of building up socialism in one country was

actually, that is, objectively, the struggle against the interest of the world working class. To oppose Stalin on this

issue, more than anything else, served the interests of imperialism.

The argument that socialism could be built in the Soviet Union brought Stalin into direct conflict with Trotsky and his

followers, who put around, and continue to do so, the argument that Stalin had broken from Leninism on this very

question.

There can be little doubt that in ranging himself against the building of socialism in the USSR, Trotskys role would

now be to use this issue to disrupt the unity of the international communist movement. This would be the inevitableeffect of asking communists to choose between socialism in one country, or world revolution. In 1928, in his work on

permanent revolution, Trotsky puts this choice absolutely clearly.

Either permanent revolution or socialism in one countrythis alternative embraces at the same time the internal

problems of the Soviet Union, the prospects of revolution in the East, and finally, the fate of the communist

international as a whole. (L. Trotsky: The Permanent Revolution; New Park Publications; 1962; p.11)

In effect Trotsky said, choose between socialism in one country or world revolution. This became the essence of

Trotskyism after the death of Lenin. On the other hand Stalin said, there is no need for such a choice because

socialism in one country and world revolution are not opposed, they are complementary; one serves the other.

For Trotsky, permanent revolution or socialism in one country was the two alternatives facing the communist

vanguard of the international working class. Stalin considered that this was another psuedo-leftist line being served

up by Trotskyism, which had now inveigled itself in the ranks of Bolshevism.

Although Lenin and the Bolsheviks had the perspective of a European wide revolution, these hopes were turned to

dust following the treachery of Social democracy, before and after the First World War. The defeat of the revolution

in Germany during 1918-19 served to isolate the Russian revolution. The 1923 uprising in parts of Germany

reinforced this isolation. Lenin had expected direct support from successful revolutions in the more advanced

capitalist countries. The Bolsheviks had to make do with the indirect support of the workers opposing their own

bourgeoisies anti-Soviet manoeuvres. All the Bolsheviks could do now was to hold on and wait for the revival of the

international revolution.

This meant doing everything possible to defend the Soviet Union from the machinations of imperialism. With the

working class in power in the Soviet Union, they could pursue a path, which led to surrender, or another path could

lead to building socialism in one country. Lenin certainly, at least on a theoretical level did not reject this possibility,

as Trotskyites like to claim. We can find several textual supports for this view. We must not confuse theory and

perspectives as the Trotskyites usually manage to do. For while in terms of perspectives the Bolsheviks clearly based

themselves on the early development of the world revolution, this perspective was not realised. It was therefore

necessary to go back to theory and produce new perspectives in the light of new developments.

Basically the new perspectives arrived at had a dualistic character. This was the defence of the possibility of building

socialism in one country combined with the support for the world revolution. In other words the new perspectivegave expression to Lenins previous theoretical notion that socialism in one country was not opposed to the world

revolution. The relationship between the two was complementary not antagonistic. It is interesting, in this respect,

that Lenins criticism of the United States of Europe slogan, which was at the time supported by Trotsky, gave

credence to the policy arrived at by Stalin and his supporters in their disputes with the Trotskyite opposition in the


13/34

party. Lenin had opposed the above slogan in 1915, firstly by comparing it to another slogan relating to the United

States of the World on the grounds that

A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the union and freedom of nations which

we associate with socialism until the complete victory of communism brings about the total disappearance of the

state, including the democratic state. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of the United States of the World

would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly

interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create

misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 21; also in: Marx, Engels,Marxism; Foreign Languages Press; pp. 334,339)

It is clear that Leninism not only recognises the possibility, theoretically, of socialism in one country, but also raises

questions as to the relation of such a country to the others. Trotskyism, on the other hand, is revealed as a

falsification of Leninism on the very question which Trotsky sought to split the world communist movement, the

false choice of socialism in one country or world revolution. If more textual evidence is required to refute the

Trotskyites, in the very same 1915 article, Lenin continues with the observation that

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is

possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken singly. (V.I.Lenin; ibid.)

How was it possible for Leon Trotsky to claim he was defending Leninism by opposing Stalin, who upheld, like Lenin,

the possibility of socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process? This contradiction, i.e., Trotsky

blatantly opposing Lenin, but at the same time claiming to defend him, clearly reveals the petty-bourgeois

opportunism of Trotskyism, and also, by the way, reveals the eclecticism associated with the petty-bourgeoisie. The

opportunism of Trotskyism consist in its not being prepared to fight Leninism openly, but has to pretend that it is

defending Leninism, while wearing mask in the struggle against Leninism. Trotsky, after the Bolsheviks assumed

power, became a concealed opponent of Leninism in the Communist Party.

In The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution, written in 1916, on the very eve of the Russian revolution,

Lenin again remarks that

the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. One the contrary, it

presupposes wars. (Marx, Engels, Marxism, p.385)

Unlike the Trotsky and his followers, it is absolutely clear that the foremost leader of the October 1917 Russian

revolution did not theoretically oppose socialism in one country to the world revolutionary process. This, in fact is

one of the most, if not the most important demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. The Trotskyites

constantly go on, like the bourgeois academics, about Stalin falsifying the annals of the revolution when pictures of

certain ex-leaders are removed from public view. What is far more serious in our view is the falsification of Lenins

theoretical legacy by Trotskyism: the question of socialism in one country and its relation to the world revolution is a

classical example of Trotskyite falsification.

We, for our part, do not think further textual evidence is needed to prove the point we are making, but for the sake

of the reader we will continue with the above passage by Lenin where he argues that

The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise

under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously

in allcountries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or

pre-bourgeois for some time. (V.I.Lenin: Op. Cit.; p385-86)

For Lenin, the unevenness of development of commodity production, that is, capitalism, creates the possibility for

socialism in one country. This would in turn raise the question of the relation of such a country to all the others. The

main contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism, after 1924, came to be between Stalin, who maintained thatsocialism in one country served the interest of the world revolutionary process, and consequently, the interest of

the working class, which had to be defended, and Trotskyism, which argued, contrary to all the facts, that socialism

in one country was UN-Leninist, was impossible, and harmed the international revolution. Since Lenin openly and

clearly defended the possibility of socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process, to say Stalins


14/34

defence of Lenin on this question was UN-Leninist and revisionist was the most vilest example of Trotskyite

deviousness and opportunism in the in the communist movement. For it is clear that on this issue it was Trotsky who

was the revisionist, as far as Marxist-Leninist theory is concerned.

In this contradiction, Trotsky was simply defending Trotskyism, which he had a right to do. Where he went wrong

was to pretend that his position was Leninist orthodoxy, while in reality, it was simply vintage Trotskyism. Todays

Trotskyites pursue the same line, which consist of promoting Trotskyism under the banner of Leninism. In this,

Trotskyism reveals itself as clearly left-opportunism of the most insidious kind. What is remarkable is that for

decades Trotskyites and semi-Trotskyites have sought to gain the leadership of the vanguard of the working class onthe clearly spurious basis, in complete opposition to Leninism on the issue of the relationship between socialism in

one country and the world revolutionary process. How was it possible to perpetrate such blatant, noisy, revisionism

of Marxism-Leninism, while at the same time claiming to defend the heritage of Bolshevism supposedly from the

ravages of Stalin? How was it possible for Trotskyism to attract an intelligentsia and use it against Marxism-Leninism

in such vulgar manner? This was possible for a number of reasons. The main reason, is of course, that, although

Trotskyism openly opposed Leninism in the pre-1917 days, after the success of Leninism in the October revolution,

particularly after, Lenins departure from the political scene, Trotskyism now came to represent concealed

opposition to Leninism.

There was always pseudo-left elements on the fringes of the communist movement so, it wasnt too difficult for

Trotskyism to attract a following. Trotsky had based his argument on the notion that it was impossible to build aneconomically self-sufficient society in one country. But this is a misleading argument, because no one had suggested

that there was no contradiction between socialism in one country and international capitalism. The contradiction is

obvious. In defending the possibility of socialism in one country Lenin had indirectly referred to these contradictions

with the remark that the slogan of the United States of the World was wrong, not only because it made socialism in

one country seem impossible, but also

it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others. (V.I. Lenin: op. Cit.; p338)

The contradiction between socialism in one country and international capitalism could be manipulated and turned

into a non-antagonistic contradiction on the economic plain to some extent. This was certainly the policy of Lenin.

The Soviet Union was able in some measure to trade with capitalist nations, after withstanding economic blockade,without compromising the goal of building socialism. No serious revolutionary would argue that the building of

socialism in one country was detrimental to the world revolutionary process. They can, of course, argue that it is

impossible to do this, although desirable. At any rate this question can never be posed abstractly. This must also lead

to the question of the nature of socialism, as understood by Lenin, particularly in the Soviet context.

For Lenin,

State power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of

this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry

by the proletariat, etc.- is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-

operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which were formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which froma certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for

building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary

and sufficient for this building (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 27; p.392)

Given the proletariat possessing state power, and the other preconditions, Trotsky, himself, defined socialism in

terms of the co-operatives. In his 1928 work on permanent revolution he remarked that

Socialism, that is co-operative production on a large scale, is possible only when the development of the

productive forces has reached the stage at which large enterprises are more productive than small ones. (

L.Trotsky: Permanent Revolution; New Park Publications; p.220)

But in his factional struggle against Stalin, he argued that socialism, that is, co-operative organisation of production,

was not possible in one country. Trotskyism was only able to arrive at this conception by not grasping correctly the

difference between the first stages of communist society with its later stages, and posing the question in a purely

abstract manner. Trotskyites fail to understand that socialism is a transitional society between capitalism and the


15/34

higher stage of communist society. To argue abstractly that co-operative production and working class political

power is not possible in one country is pseudo-left nonsense.

All communists must support the Marxist-Leninist thesis that socialism in one country is not opposed to the world

revolutionary process but complimentary to it. As we have explained, the major transformation of Trotskyism was

that from open opposition to Leninism it subsequently became concealed opposition to Leninism. After the

Bolsheviks came to power Trotskyism shakes the hand of Lenins with a knife hidden under its cloak. Trotskyism

remains as the Comintern resolutions described it, a petty-bourgeois deviation from Marxism, fighting to undermine

Leninism. All the lies of the Trotskyites will never change the fact, a fact which is recognised even by bourgeoisscholars, that for Lenin, socialism in one country was possible as part of the world revolutionary process. In this, as

on other questions, it is for the new generation of communists to expose Trotskyisms concealed opposition to

Leninism in front of the vanguard of the working class.

TROTSKY AND THE SOVIET BUREAUCRACY

On the question of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, Trotsky began his teaching by putting forward a false line of

argumentation. In the view of Trotsky, the Soviet Union went through a process of bureaucratic degeneration under

Stalin. Here it is necessary to look at the concept of degeneration. The term suggests a decline. Such a decline

would be from a higher to a lower level of existence. To degenerate means

having deteriorated to a lower mental, or moral, or physical level.. (Collins Gem English Dictionary; New Edition;

p. 141)

Alternatively, degeneration implies

to decline, etc, to grow worse in quality or standard ( The Chambers Dictionary; New Edition; p.426)

While another meaning of the term signifies to

decrease, deteriorated, relapse( The Original Rogets Thesaurus of English words and phrases; New Edition;

p.778)

So that to degenerate refers to a process of decline from a previous condition of excellence. This would certainly

suggest that the Soviet State enjoyed a period of former excellence, or near excellence before a period of

degeneration set in. But this account stands at odds with the known facts. For instance

The bureaucratic attitude, the subordination of the individual to the requirements of officials convenience,

routine, and obsessions, has been a constant theme in Russian history and a constant trial to the ordinary people

of Russia. In the Soviet period this bureaucratism persisted, despite sincere efforts to eliminate it. ( J.N.

Westwood: Endurance and Endeavour-Russian History, 1812-1986, Third Edition; pp. 48-9)

And concerning the economic aspect of the evils of bureaucracy Lenin remarked that

We see nothing of them on May 5, 1918. Six months after the Oc tober Revolution, with the old bureaucratic

apparatus smashed from top to bottom, we feel none of its evils. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.351, April 21, 1921)

But, of course the evil was still there because the Eighth Congress of the RCP (b) on March 18-19, 1919, adopted a

new programme which frankly spoke of

a partial revival of bureaucracy within the Soviet Union. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

Lenin praised this 1919 party programme arguing that where the problem of bureaucracy is concerned the

important thing was

not fearing to admit the evil, but desiring to reveal, expose and pillory it and to stimulate thought, will, energy

and action to combat it (V. I. Lenin: ibid.)


16/34

Also the Eight Congress of Soviets, in 1920 addressed the question of the

evils of bureaucracy ( V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

And following the Eighth Congress of Soviets, the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b), in March, 1921

Summed up the controversies closely connected with the analysis of these evils, we find them ever more distinct

and sinister. ( V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

It is clear that the argument that the Soviet Union started a process of degeneration under Stalin is factually

inaccurate. What Lenin speaks of is the revival [degeneration] of bureaucracy soon after the revolution. Lenin

grappled with the question of bureaucracy and tried to understand its economic roots. At one point Lenin remarked

that

The evils of bureaucracy are not in the army, but in the institutions serving it. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

Other writers even refer to the appearance of Soviet bureaucracy even before the Bolsheviks won over these

organisations. The reality was that the bureaucratic culture of old Russia was carried over into the new period,

confirming Marx view that the new society carries the birth marks of the old, in every respect

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developedon its own foundations, but, on

the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and

intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. (Karl Marx:

Critique of the Gotha Programme; Foreign Languages Press, Beijing; 1972)

That the new society would carry the birth marks of the old, overthrown society was therefore accepted by Marx

himself, the founder of modern, scientific socialism. This means that we cannot impose, in simplistic fashion, an

uncomplicated category of degeneration to explain a complicated process relating to the interaction between the

old and the new, the struggle between which continues right up until class society begins to fade away. On every

level the struggle between the old and the new takes place, in all its fundamental features at the socialist stage of

the transition to communist society. In fact, in every respect, revolution can be described as a struggle between theold and the new. The process of this struggle is dialectical. Thus Trotskys one-sided notion of a bureaucratic

degeneration excludes the struggle against it, which, due to the bureaucratic tradition of the old Tsarist Russia,

promised to be a protracted and difficult process, particularly in view of the backwardness which the revolution had

inherited.

For Lenin, the problems associated with Soviet bureaucracy were a result of the economic and cultural

backwardness of Tsarist Russia. The return of bureaucracy was therefore not surprising. Lenin noted even in 1919

how after the revolution

The Tsarist bureaucrats began to join the Soviet institutions and practice their bureaucratic methods, they began

to assume the colouring of Communists and, to succeed better in their careers, to procure membership cards ofthe Russian Communist party.. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 29; p.183)

As the former servants of the old regime were re-employed by the Soviet State they provided a fertile ground for the

growth of bureaucracy, and Lenin remarked that

We can fight bureaucracy to the bitter endonly when the whole population participates in the work of

government. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

In Lenins view

The results of this low cultural level is that the Soviets, which by virtue of their programme are organs ofgovernment by the working people, are in fact organs of government for the working people by the advanced

section of the proletariat, but not the working people as a whole (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)


17/34

Within the Soviet context, in the short term, this was unavoidable, or certainly difficult to avoid. On the other hand,

the struggle to overcome the negative sides of bureaucracy was viewed by Lenin as a long-term affair. As a result of

his view regarding the lengthy process of overcoming features of bureaucracy, Lenin came out against promoting

anti-bureaucratic platforms. By rejecting anti-bureaucratic platforms Lenin was not undermining the fight against the

dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, but rather signalling that a solution to the problem could not be found on a

political level alone. Consequently Lenin was not afraid to admit that

It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy . (V.I. Lenin: Report On the Role and Task of the Trades

Unions; CW. Vol.32; pp.56-7; January23, 1921)

For Lenin this was going to be a

very difficult struggle (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

And, furthermore, Lenin argued, in keeping with a long-term perspective when considering the fight against

bureaucracy, that

anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic

platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent forfine words. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

Nevertheless, he argued that

Bureaucratic excesses must be rectified right away. (V. I. Lenin: ibid.)

The whole problem of bureaucracy, which was gradually building up from the time of the revolution burst open in

the famous Trade Union dispute, when Lenin came out against Trotsky whose supporters were in control of theJoint

Trade Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers, headed by Tsektran. Lenin remarked that

There are excellent workers in Tsektran, and we shall appoint them, and correct their bureaucratic excesses. (V.I.

Lenin: CW. Vol.32; p.57)

Nevertheless

The first All-Russia Congress of Transport Workers in March 1921 called by the Central Committee of the Party

expelled the Trotskyites from the Tsektran leadership and outlined new method of work (See note 9, Lenin

Collected Works, Vol. 32; p. 530)

The famous Trade Union dispute began in 1920-21, when Trotsky accused the trade unionists of cultivating a spirit of

hostility to Trotskys supporters, whom he was using to take over the union. Having examined the issue more closely

Lenin came to the conclusion that such accusations were false, indeed, monstrous, and he retorted

Only someone in the lunatic fringe can say a thing likethat. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit. p.57

What the trade unionists were opposing was the bureaucratic methods Trotsky and his supporters was introducing

in their midst. For Lenin, Trotskys position would

lead to the downfall of Soviet Power. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.57)

Theoretically and politically, the struggle against bureaucracy by the Leninist leadership of the party began as a

struggle against Trotsky, who, after the civil war, had called for the militarisation of labour.

Trotskyites like to turn history on its head and pretend that the Leninist struggle against bureaucracy began as a

struggle against Stalin, but it actually began in opposition to the bureaucratic methods and excesses which had beenintroduced into Tsekran by Trotskys appointees. With the departure of Lenin, Trotsky soon began to pose as an anti-

bureaucrat. In his struggle to gain the leadership, Trotsky began to disregard Lenins view concerning anti-

bureaucratic platforms, which tended to reduce the question of combating bureaucracy to a simple, one-sided,

political matter.


18/34

The Bolsheviks had not expected to find any short-term solution to the question of overcoming the negative aspects

of bureaucracy, nor, as we have seen, did Lenin entertain any short-term remedy. He recounted that

Our Programme formulates the task of combating the evils of bureaucracy as one of an extremely long duration.

(V.I. Lenin: Tenth Congress of the RCP (b), March 8-16th

, 1921: CW. Vol. 32; p. 205)

Textually it is absolutely clear that Lenin regard the struggle against Soviet bureaucracy as one of an extremely long

duration. And it is precisely here that begins the contradiction between the Marxist-Leninist approach to the

question of fighting bureaucracy on the one hand, and on the other, the pseudo-left Trotskyite approach. In otherwords, when it comes to the question of opposing bureaucracy Trotsky was implicitly asking Communists to choose

between his approach, and Lenins approach.

In the Trades Union dispute Lenin had opposed Trotskys reference to Tomsky and Lozovsky for being trade union

bureaucrats, and he commented

I shall later on say which side in this controversy tends to be bureaucratic. (V.I. Lenin: CW, Vol. 32; p. 25)

On the trade union dispute, Trotsky wanted the party to choose between two platforms, a position which Lenin

thought would be damaging to the party. Replying to Bukharin, he said

it is strange to hear you say, like Trotsky, that the party will have to choose between two trend. (V.I Lenin: CW.

Vol. 32; p.26)

And for Lenin, Trotskys platform pamphlet entitled, The Role and Task of the Trade Unions, contained

mistakes bearing on the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.36; p.22)

In fact Lenin accused Trotsky of

bureaucratic projecteering. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.30)

Suggesting also that Trotskys position

looks more like a "reactionary movement" than "trades unionism" (V.I. Lenin: op. cit. p.31)

The word fascism was not in vogue at the time, but the content of Lenins rejoinder to Trotskys pamphlet clearly

indicate that Lenins use of the phrase reactionary movement suggest that this is what he was getting at, and he

said of Trotskys thesis

yours is not a Marxist approach to the question. This quite apart from the fact th at there are a number of

theoretical mistakes in the thesis. It is not a Marxist approach to the evaluation of the "role and tasks of the trade

unions", because such a broad subject cannot be tackled without giving thought to the peculiar, political aspectsof the present situations. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.p.32)

The RCP(b) had set up a commission to look into the trade union issue with a view to resolving the differences

between the disputants. Trotsky refused to serve on the commission and brought on himself accusations of

disruption from Lenin, who remarked

Trotskywalks out, refusesto serve on the commission, and disruptsits work. (V.I Lenin: ibid.; p.35)

Lenin was not amused, and he saw in Trotskys disruptive behaviour a dangerous precedent, remarking that

this business of disrupting the work of a commission is bureaucratic, un-soviet, un-socialist, incorrectandharmful. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.36)

And Lenin made clear that whatever differences Trotsky had with other members of the commission was


19/34

no reason to disrupt the work of a commission. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.36)

In the trade unions dispute, Lenin also chided Bukharin because

he should have demanded and insistedthat Comrade Trotskyremained on the commission. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.

p.36-7)

As we have already indicated, Trotskys appointees were in control of Tsektran, which was the Central Committee,

that is the leadership of theJoint Trade Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers. They brought into the union themilitary approach of Trotsky. To some limited extent, this approach was necessary to get the transport system on its

feet again after the break down contributed to by the civil war. And Lenin observed that

Heroism, zeal, etc., are the positive side of military experience; red tape and arrogance are the negative side of

the experience of the worstmilitary type. (V.L. Lenin: CW. Vol.32; p. 37)

But, as for Trotskys thesis, in Lenins view

whatever his intentions, do not play up the best, but the worst in militaryexperience. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.37)

For Lenin it was the negative side of Trotskys military experience, which was on display. His own supporters in theunions were putting this negative side into practice. Consequently Lenin remarked that

It must be borne in mind that a political leader is responsible not only for his own policy but also for the acts of

those he leads. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.37)

In other words, the military style of the Trotskyite Tsekran leadership had outlived itself and was leading to

bureaucratic excesses. In the Trade Union debate Lenin had spoken approvingly of Rudzutaks thesis: The Task of

The Trade Unions In Production, which Lenin had read to the Eight Congress of Soviets. Lenin praised Rudzutaks

thesis when he remarked

There you have a platform, and it is very much better than the one Comrade Trotsky wrote after a great deal ofthinking, and the one Comrade Bukharin wrotewithout any thinking at all. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.32; p.49)

For Lenin all would benefit from the study of Rudzutaks thesis

and this also goes for Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Bukharin. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.40)

Trotsky had called for a reorganisation of the unions, including the selection, or appointment of functionaries, and in

Lenins view this represented

an example of the real bureaucratic approach: Trotsky and Krestinsky selecting trade union "functionaries".

(V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.41)

As far as the trade union issue was concerned, Lenin remarked that

A study of our own practical experience would be a great deal more useful than anything Comrade Trotsky or

Bukharin had written. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.41)

In concluding the first phase of the trade union debate and the analysis of Trotskys thesis on, The Role and Task of

the Trades Unions, Lenin repeated his argument that

Trotskys thesis are politically harmful. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.42)

And as far as Lenin was concerned regarding Trotskys Role and Task of the Trade Unions

The

What is Trotskyism

Documents

Transcript of What is Trotskyism