IMLR:  How did Marxist-Leninists arrive at the concept of ‘Stalin Against the Soviet Bureaucracy’, and what is the actual meaning of this concept?

TC:  Marxist-Leninists arrived at the concept of ‘Stalin against the Soviet bureaucracy’ from studying many works on the Russian revolution. You are right to ask what is the actual meaning of this concept because it is not as self-explanatory as it appears. One can speak of Stalin being against Soviet bureaucracy, or Stalin being against ‘the’ Soviet bureaucracy, this would be to speak of two different although related concepts. To speak of Stalin being against Soviet bureaucracy means to be against such things as red tape, bureaucratic inefficiency and, indeed, everything, which can go wrong with a bureaucracy. On the other hand, to speak of Stalin being against ‘the’ Soviet bureaucracy is to regard the bureaucracy as a collective entity. To be against the Soviet bureaucracy in this sense is to view it, or rather its higher stratum, as a caste, or potential caste. However, the concept of ‘Stalin against the Soviet bureaucracy’ actually entails the struggle against the shortcomings of bureaucracy on the one hand, and on the other, the fight against a certain stratum of bureaucrats. The former is what can be referred to as the technical opposition to the negative sides of bureaucracy, which is common in all societies, while the latter represents a ‘political’ opposition to a section of the bureaucracy.

IMLR: So you are saying that Stalin’s opposition to the Soviet bureaucracy had both a functional aspect to it, as well as a political side?

TC:  This is true. We should not confuse Stalin’s opposition to the negative aspects of Soviet bureaucracy with the political struggle against a certain stratum of the bureaucracy. Stalin’s political struggle against the bureaucracy refers primarily to the struggle against the potential consolidation of a caste in the process of formation.

IMLR:  Were you in any way influenced by Lars Lih’s concept of Stalin’s anti-bureaucrat scenario, and did this lead to the related concept of ‘Stalin against the Soviet bureaucracy’? There seems to be an affinity between these two concepts.

TC:  No. I was not actually influenced by Lih’s perspective concerning Stalin’s anti-bureaucrat scenario. I came across Lih’s views in the introduction to ‘Stalin’s Letters to Molotov’. However, I was surprised by the similarities between Lih’s views and the one that Marxist-Leninists had already arrived at including myself mostly it seems independently of each other. I decided to give this conceptualisation a name and I choose ‘Stalin Against the Soviet Bureaucracy’ after about five years of reflection and research on the matter. It was while I was developing the notion of ‘Stalin Against the Soviet Bureaucracy’ that I discovered the amazing confirmation of this notion in Lih’s arguments.

IMLR:  What similarities did you notice between the concept you have presented and Lih’s?

TC:  The essence of Lih’s view is that in Stalin’s anti-bureaucrat scenario, ‘class-motivated hostility is the main reason bureaucrats do not follow directives’. (Lars Lih: Stalin’s Letters to Molotov; p.15)

Thus for Stalin there was a concealed class struggle going on at the level of the state bureaucracy where the Marxist-Leninists were in combat with the masked enemies of the party and of socialism. Some of these masked enemies were in the party itself. This, in essence, is what the concept of ‘Stalin Against the Soviet Bureaucracy’ refers to. This is basically the same as Lih’s ‘Stalin’s anti-bureaucrat scenario’, although the concept I put forward contains a more multi-dimensional content. Lih shows that this view of the bureaucracy, which was held by Stalin, was derived from Lenin,

‘Since Lenin also viewed public administration as a dramatic struggle against the class enemy’. (Op. cit. p.16)

In other words, for both Lenin and Stalin there was a class struggle going on at the level of public administration. Some members of the Soviet public administration bureaucracy were, in fact, hidden enemies of the revolution and socialism, and the Bolsheviks knew this all along, indeed from the very first days of coming to power.

IMLR:  When you say the Bolsheviks knew this all along, what actions did they take?

TC:  Well, we know that from the earliest days of the ‘October’ revolution the Communists found themselves in charge of the old Tsarist government bureaucracy. Certain elements within this bureaucracy tried to subvert the directives and policies of the new government. Therefore, the contradictions between sections of the old bureaucracy and the new communist leaders was bound to lead to trouble, resulting in dismissals and purges and so on. What is more, the contradiction between sections of the bureaucracy and the leaders of the revolution never completely went away. Sometimes this struggle was open; at other times it was hidden, but it was always there to one degree or another.

IMLR:  Was there a stage where this struggle ever reached a climax, or turning point?

TC:  We see a climax or a turning point in the 1930s.  This was of course facilitated by the introduction of the 1936 Soviet Constitution. The Marxist-Leninists around Stalin upheld the principle of the secret ballot, which was in favour of the masses. It was with this Constitution in the background that the new wave of purges unfolded and was directed against corrupt elements in the bureaucracy and party.

IMLR:  So you are saying that the ‘Stalin Constitution’ of 1936 gave the masses and the radicals the green light to take on sections of the Soviet bureaucracy?

TC:  The 1936 Constitution certainly helped. The provision of the secret ballot made the masses and the pro-Stalin radicals more confident in taking on those members of the government administration and other institutions that were regarded as rotten enemies of the people and of the revolution, without fear of reprisals from the bureaucrats.

IMLR:  The notion that the purges in the 1930s were aimed at the enemies of the revolution is the exact reverse of the Trotskyist view. How do you account for this; what is the explanation, in your opinion, of this contradiction?

TC:  You only need to look statistically at the type of elements who formed the majority of those purged in the higher and middle level administration to determine who the purges were aimed at, and we need only add to this the Bolshevik or Leninist view of public administration

‘…as a dramatic struggle against a class enemy’. (Lars Lih: Stalin’s Letters to Molotov; p.16)

to see concretely that the 1930s purges were directed in their essence at the enemies of the revolution.

The view, promoted by Trotsky, that the purges of the 1930s were Thermidorian in character was the exact opposite to the reality. The facts show that the purges were against the Thermidorian elements in the Soviet bureaucracy. If some Trotskyist, leftist elements were removed by these purges, it was because the hidden bloc of ‘Rights and Trotskyites’ objectively served the Thermidorian elements.

IMLR:  So how did Trotsky arrive at his conclusion, which found expression in his Major theoretical work, ‘Revolution Betrayed’, and what do you consider to be the aim of this work?

TC:  In the 1930s, following the gains in the advance towards socialism, which Trotsky himself openly recognised, Trotsky was faced with the real possibility of isolation and losing the support of his sympathisers outside of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union itself, many of his supporters had already deserted him. This was also a time when western progressive opinion was running in favour of the Soviet Union and its leadership, especially after the counterrevolution coming to power in Germany, followed by the outbreak of the Spanish civil war between left and right in 1936. Simply put, Trotsky wrote  ‘Revolution Betrayed’ in a desperate effort to prevent himself losing further support at the level of progressive opinion internationally. This was in essence a damage limitation exercise on the part of Trotsky.

IMLR:  What do you consider to be the central theme of this work, i.e. ‘Revolution Betrayed’?

TC:  I think the central theme of this work is connected to its basic motive, this being to undermine support for the Soviet Union and Stalin at an intellectual level.

IMLR:  How does Trotsky go about doing this?

TC:  Due to the successes of the Soviet Union in this period, which were not without sacrifices, Trotsky was afraid of losing support, so he ended up  distorting Marxism and presented the result as a scientific, i.e., Marxist critique of the Soviet Union. For instance, we all know that in this period, the Soviet Union was a society undergoing socialist transformation, but Trotsky’s critique is based on the view that the Soviet Union was not socialist. Trotsky’s position was helped by the claims of the leadership that the society was socialist. The correct view, in my opinion, was that the Soviet Union was in a process of socialist transformation.

IMLR:  So you are saying Trotsky’s work was made easier when the leadership made premature claims that the Soviet Union had reached socialism?

TC:  When such claims were made it was not so much that they were wrong as such, but rather that they were one-sided. I think the term one-sided is a far more correct concept than ‘premature’. Thus, such a claim was one-sided in the sense that the process of socialist transformation of society proceeds at different tempos in the different spheres of society. A society undergoing socialist transformation is a contradictory society, combining features of the past and features of the future. The Soviet Union was such a society. Marx says the new society is stamped with the birthmarks of the old society. Trotsky’s criticism of the Soviet Union in ‘Revolution Betrayed’ is primarily a criticism of these birthmarks and there is no point in denying that these birthmarks existed. The point is that Trotsky presented this criticism as justification for his campaign to remove the leadership, or more pertinently, to hold on to his dwindling support.  Another point about the Soviet Union in the 1930s is that it was a society preparing for war not peace. Thus if there is any meaning to the term ‘Stalinism’ I would suggest it be considered in connection with the idea of the country preparing for war in a specific concrete historical situation. This was, in many respects, a new continuation of war communism after the abandonment of NEP. In this preparation for war, Trotsky predicts in ‘Revolution Betrayed’ that

‘If the war should remain only a war, the defeat of the Soviet Union would be inevitable’. (L. Trotsky: Revolution Betrayed; New Park; p.227)

IMLR: But surely, Trotsky recognised the Soviet Union as a transitional society?

TC:  Yes, Trotsky recognised that the Soviet Union was a transitional society, but it seems mostly in an abstract sense, because in the ‘Revolution Betrayed’ we find him, believe it or not, denouncing Marx’s view on the nature of economic laws under socialism which is the first stage of communist society. This stage is characterised by bourgeois right, which means unequal reward for unequal work, which continues in the distribution and exchange under socialism. This is the principle of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work. Trotsky confuses this stage with the higher stage of communism where the principle becomes, ‘from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs’. This is what Trotsky has to say about the former principle for socialism put forward by Marx in the ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’

‘This inwardly contradictory, not to say nonsensical, formula has entered, believe it or not, from speeches and journalistic articles into the carefully deliberated text of the fundamental state law. It bears witness not only to a complete lowering of the theoretical level in the lawgivers, but also to the lie with which, as a mirror of the ruling stratum, the new constitution is imbued’. (L. Trotsky: Revolution Betrayed; New Park; p.258)

If Trotsky confuses the economic distinction between the two stages of communist society, its lower and higher stage it can only be concluded that his recognition of the transition period was, from the economic standpoint, of an abstract character. This confusion introduced by Trotsky has pervaded the thinking of other ultra-left writers. A good example of this is the Japanese ultra-left writer, Kan’ichi Kuroda who is critical, but sympathetic to Trotsky, and who in his work ‘Stalinist Socialism: A Japanese Marxist’s Perspective’ claims that the dictatorship of the proletariat does not exist under socialism and confuses the whole question of the transition period, in truly Kautskyan fashion. This work, translated by the ‘Anti-Stalinism Study Group’, amongst other things, claims that in a socialist society  ‘…even the workers’ state is withered away’. (Kan’ichi Kuroda: Stalinist Socialism: A Japanese Marxist’s Perspective; p.61)

IMLR:  But Trotskyists nevertheless present ‘Revolution Betrayed’ as a theoretical masterpiece of Marxism when in fact it clearly refutes Marx himself. How do you generally regard this work?

TC:  This work may be a masterpiece of Trotskyism, but it is no masterpiece of Marxism, as the above passage quoted from Trotsky clearly shows. This confusion about the basic principle of socialism as distinct from the higher phase of communist society is so amazing that I had to read it several times over to make sure my eyes were not deceiving me. As I said this work was written to undermine support for the Soviet Union, or more specifically, Stalin, in an attempt to forestall the collapse of Trotskyism.

IMLR:  How was Trotsky able to make such a blatant error, which amounts to an open repudiation of Marxism, and get away with it?

TC:  I may be wrong, but it is hard to believe that this was a conscious distortion by Trotsky, although I cannot entirely rule this out. Yet, it is hard to imagine that anyone claiming to be a Marxist could perpetrate such a distortion while knowing it could be so easily exposed. I do not put this past Trotsky however because we know that in a similar vein he attacked Stalin for upholding Lenin’s view of the possibility of socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process, implying that Stalin was the author of this view. What this suggest, if we give Trotsky the benefit of the doubt, is that he had a relatively superficial knowledge of some Marxist text. However, we do find in Trotsky a tendency to distort what his opponents have said, or had written in the interest of factional considerations. This seems to be a tendency in other pro-Trotsky writers. Take Daum, for example, he writes that Stalin declared in 1927

‘ “…only a civil war could oust the bureaucracy from power’. (Walter Daum: The Life and Death of Stalinism- A Resurrection of Marxist Theory: p. 155)

Now, what Stalin said, if I remember correctly, in referring to the  pro-Trotsky oppositionists was something to the effect of ‘…only a civil war can remove these cadres’.

And in the same work, Daum, who claims to have resurrected Marxist theory, not only from Stalinists but also from orthodox Trotskyists, quotes a passage from Stalin referring to the 1936 constitution, which said that

‘…our working class, far from being bereft of the instruments and means of production, on the contrary possess them jointly with the whole people’. (J. V. Stalin: On the Draft Constitution of the USSR: Problems of Leninism; pp. 382-395. Quoted in Daum: Op. cit. p.178)

Daum says about the above passage: ‘So much for the Maoist claim that the “State of the whole people” was a counterrevolutionary Khrushchevite invention that overturned everything that Stalin stood for’. Daum refers to the above passage from Stalin as a ‘lying and convoluted theory’. But any fool can see that Stalin, referring to the working class possessing the means of production jointly with the whole people is not the same as, and cannot be confused with, the Khrushchevite revisionist talk about the ‘State of the whole people’.  If Trotsky can openly repudiate Marx on the question of the basic economic principle under socialism as distinct from the higher phase of communism why should anyone be surprised if we find him attacking Stalin for defending Lenin on socialism in one country as the initial stage of the world revolutionary process. We should therefore be even less surprised if a pro-Trotsky writer like Daum distorts Stalin in two instances and in the latter case falsely accusing Stalin of originating the Khrushchevite revisionist theory of the ‘State of the whole people’.

IMLR:  We are in fact looking at the concept of ‘Stalin Against the Soviet Bureaucracy’. How does this concept stand in relation to Trotsky’s concern for the increase of social differentiation in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and the question of the Soviet bureaucracy?

TC:  Firstly let me say that the theory of  ‘Stalin Against the Soviet Bureaucracy’ is derived from facts. All the serious bourgeois writers mention it in one form or another. Stalin was in an almost constant state of conflict with the Soviet bureaucracy. No one who writes history seriously disputes this. In fact, the Trotskyists can hardly disputes this either. What they can do is distort the facts to support their argument that Stalin was the ‘leader of the counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’.

IMLR:  What I want firstly is your view on the question of social differentiation in the Soviet Union. This is a major point Trotsky is making in ‘Revolution Betrayed’.

TC:  Faced with the successes of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, which is recognised by Trotsky himself, although he chooses to call this counterrevolution and betrayal, Trotsky, as I previously said, wrote ‘Revolution Betrayed’ to prevent the collapse of his movement because many people began to desert Trotsky at this time. However, this did not mean Trotsky made no valid points, or observed certain negative facts, but these facts were, in my view, interpreted from an incorrect theoretical standpoint. I have already mentioned Trotsky’s open break and rejection of Marx’s view concerning the economic difference between the lower and higher stage of communist society. So, what does Trotsky have to say about social differentiation in the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 1930s? In ‘Revolution Betrayed’ we find him making the following remark:

‘The distribution of this earth’s goods in the Soviet Union, we do not doubt, is incomparably more democratic than it was in Tsarist Russia, and even than it is in the most democratic country of the West. But it has little in common with socialism’. (L. Trotsky: Revolution Betrayed; New Park; p.143)

There are two things of interest in this statement. Although Trotsky claims that Stalin was promoting counterrevolution, he contradicts this claim by the confession that under Stalin the distribution of goods were more democratic than under Tsarism and ‘…even than it is in the most democratic country of the West’.  This is not a pro-Stalin writer speaking or making pro-Soviet propaganda. This confession comes from the pen of Trotsky himself. He says clearly that the distribution of goods was more democratic than even in the most advanced democratic country of the west. Yet, according to Trotsky and his followers Stalin was supposed to be leading a counterrevolution. This makes no sense to me at all. And what does Trotsky mean when he says this has little in common with socialism? Trotsky is wrong on this point, but even those who agree with him would have to confess that his remark about things being distributed more democratically than even in the advance west would suggest that under Stalin things were certainly moving in the direction of socialism. Anyone who agrees with the above confession by Trotsky would have to reject the claim than Stalin was leading counterrevolution. The question of which general direction was the Soviet Union moving under Stalin’s leadership is the decisive test concerning revolution and counterrevolution. Trotsky refutes his own claim that Stalin was on the wrong side. The issue of social differentiation must be approached from within this general context.

IMLR:  For Trotsky social differentiation had led to a privileged bureaucracy, alienated from the masses, with it’s own selfish material interests. How was this possible?

TC:  I think the very backwardness of the society inherited by the communists made social differentiation to one degree or another inevitable. Other factors were involved as well, such as the need to encourage the development of a skilled labour force. Anyone who imagine it is possible to rid society of social differentiation overnight cannot be taken seriously. But as I indicated, even Trotsky points out that the distribution of goods in the Stalin period was more democratic than in the most advance western countries at the time. So although the Soviet Union was moving in a socialist direction in this period there was still significant evidence of the existence of privileges in that society.

IMLR:  Why was social differentiation unavoidable at that stage in relation to bureaucracy and how did it find expression?

TC:  The Soviet Union was undergoing a process which was dual in nature. The process of modernisation was combined with the process of socialist transformation, under very backward conditions; furthermore, this was taking place under the constant threat of imperialist invasion. This is the general background, which we need to have in mind when we come to consider social differentiation in the Soviet Union. Neither the working class, the party, or socialism was strong enough to prevent the process of social differentiation leading to the emergence of a privileged stratum in the Soviet bureaucracy. This elite enjoyed certain privileges based on seniority and status. Socialism cannot dispense with administrative and technical specialists. The backward conditions in which the revolution occurred meant that these people had to be won over, so to speak, to work for the state and socialism, to develop the material conditions for socialism. Privilege found expression in special shops, better housing for leading officials, etc.

IMLR:  When did all this begin, that is, the emergence of this privileged layer within Soviet society?

TC:  Some writers argue that it began in the civil war period when the survival of the Bolsheviks was hanging on a thread. The survival of the regime depended on attracting military and technical specialists. I think this is as good a place to start as any if we are considering the origins of privilege in the Soviet Union. Contrary to the image which the Trotskyists like to display on the left, Trotsky was one of the leading pioneers in supporting certain privileges for the commanding stratum in the Red Army. Thus, it is important to expose the argument or the idea that the existence of a privileged elite began with the Stalin period.

IMLR:  So you are saying that Trotsky promoted privilege when he was in power?

TC:  What I am saying is that he stood for privileges for the officer level in the Red Army. Eventually this Trotskyist system was extended to the top key personnel in the Soviet State bureaucracy. In fact when Stalin and some of his supporters was against even the use of the former military servants of the Tsarist regime, Trotsky was not only staunchly in favour of using them, which was necessary, but also in favour of extending certain privileges to the officer class to help ensure loyalty.

IMLR:  In other words you are saying what Trotsky applied to the officer ‘class’ in the army was also applied to the officer ‘class’ in the Soviet bureaucracy?

TC:  Precisely. What I mean is that neither Soviet bureaucracy, or the existence of a privilege elite was the creation of Stalin. In Trotskyist narratives, it is easy to walk away with the opposite conclusion. The influence of the Red Army in Soviet political culture has been commented on by several writers. For instance, although she writes from a bourgeois perspective, Professor Sheila Fitzpatrick remarks that

‘To a considerable extent, the Red Army had to fill the gap left by the breakdown of the civilian administration: it was the largest and best functioning bureaucracy the Soviet regime possessed in the early years with the first claim on all resources’. (S. Fitzpatrick: The Russian Revolution; p.68)

So that in the early years of the revolution, the Red Army, with Trotsky at its head, with a rank-and-file and a privileged officer class, became a model for the Soviet State bureaucracy, and Sheila Fitzpatrick argues that

‘In fact, the rationing system under War Communism favoured certain categories of the population, including Red Army personnel, skilled workers in key industries, Communist administrators and some groups of the intelligentsia’. (Sheila Fitzpatrick; op. cit. p.73)

IMLR:  Nevertheless, in his ‘Revolution Betrayed’, Trotsky argues that it is not the structures of the army which determine the social structures of the state. Do you agree with this proposition?

TC:  I think here Trotsky presents the argument abstractly. What is necessary is look at the concrete origins of a particular State. What we find in the case of Russia is that the old Tsarist State collapsed as a result of war and revolution. Soon the Red Army became the largest and most powerful institution in the Soviet State. After the civil war, many military people went over to work in the civilian administrative apparatuses. So contrary to what Trotsky says, in this particular concrete case, the Red Army was one of, if not the most important influences determining the structures of the state. One aspect of the structure of the Red Army was that, in order to gain the co-operation of the former military servants of the Tsarist regime, the officer class in the army, with the approval of Trotsky, who was the acting chief of the army at the time, was granted certain privileges and this was considered as an expediency.

IMLR:  What you seem to be saying is that the question of social differentiation in the Soviet Union cannot be understood abstractly outside of the real historical context, and that a concrete approach is necessary. Am I right that you are suggesting that this approach show that the leader of the Red Army at the time, Trotsky, developed the policy of granting privileges to the officer class in the army. This policy was then generally applied to key officials in the state bureaucracy, to its ‘officer class’ so to speak.

TC:  Yes. The origins of the system of granting privileges to certain key personnel can partly be traced right back to Trotsky. I am not making a moralistic point here, because this could hardly have been done without Lenin’s knowledge who would have regarded it as a temporary necessity. Yet, there can be little doubt that Trotsky was one of the original authors of granting such privileges back in the civil war days.

IMLR:  So the emergence of a privileged elite in the Red Army and in the other parts of the top echelons of the State apparatus can be traced back to Trotsky?

TC:  Privilege was granted to certain select groups, as Fitzpatrick shows, in order to save working class political power from collapsing under the strain of the civil war. This can be justified as a short-term measure if it saves working class power from collapsing. However, viewed long term, it turns into its opposite, promoting the downfall of this power. This is because if a privileged stratum emerges in a country undergoing socialist transformation, parts of this stratum can become the vehicle for revisionist ideology and restorationist tendencies if the balance of forces changes against socialism. The former Soviet Union is living proof of this process in action. Yes, the origin of granting privileges can be traced back to Trotsky.

IMLR:  The Trotskyists would argue that the point about privilege leading to counterrevolution was the very point that Trotsky was later to make. How do you answer this?

TC:  After losing power Trotsky warned that the emergence of a privileged stratum in the Soviet Union would form the basis for capitalist counterrevolution, but his explanation of this process was, in my view, of an abstract nature. No one can doubt the danger of a privileged stratum in a society undergoing socialist transformation, but one needs the right approach in reacting to it. Lenin wrote that

‘specialists – as a separate stratum, which will persist until we have reached the highest stage of development of communist society…’(See: Lenin: Vol. 33; p.194) should be given better conditions than they enjoyed under capitalism, thus win them over to the building of socialism. But, beyond a certain point, under certain conditions, this can work against socialism, and we need to keep this in mind.

IMLR:  What do you mean by ‘abstract’ in the above context and how does this relate to the notion of ‘Stalin Against the Soviet Bureaucracy’?

TC:  Well, Trotsky employs the category of a ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’ but Marxist-Leninists argue that this is an abstract presentation of the issue. Furthermore, it is this type of abstraction which tends to characterise Trotsky’s theoretical thought. These types of generalised statements and ideas can lead to unfortunate consequences if not given concrete content. What in fact emerges is a contradiction between Trotsky’s foundational categories and actual concrete reality.

IMLR:  Yes, but what is this contradiction are you referring to?

TC:  What I am referring to is that there was never such a thing as a ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’, or ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’.

IMLR:  In view of what has happened in the former Soviet Union I can almost hear Trotskyists laughing at you here. Elaborate your point.

TC:  Well let them laugh. A sense of humour never did anyone any harm. This concept of Trotsky’s was abstract, too abstract to be of any use to communists. If Trotsky had spoken of counterrevolutionary elements within the Soviet bureaucracy whom needed to be unmasked and purged, no Marxist-Leninists could disagree with him. However, to speak of a counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy was nonsense. On the other hand, to speak of counterrevolutionary, revisionist elements in the Soviet bureaucracy and the need to purge them would be to make a concrete statement.

IMLR:  Are you therefore saying that Trotsky was not aware of the different elements that made up the Soviet bureaucracy?

TC:  Of course he was aware that the bureaucracy, even at the highest level, contained different elements, but he lacked a theoretically concrete understanding of the significance of this recognition for political purposes. That is why Trotsky and the Trotskyists speak of a counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy, failing to realise the theoretical importance of distinguishing the revolutionary from the counterrevolutionary elements. To prove my point I need only add that in some of his writings Trotsky speaks of the ‘dual’ nature of the bureaucracy, but does not draw the right conclusions which would have provided the basis for a correct political strategy. His recognition that the Soviet bureaucracy was not homogeneous was secondary to his view about a counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy. So that his proposals and admonition to his followers that in the event of counterrevolutionary attempts they should join with the Stalinists against the Right was negated by his concept of a ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’. The term ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’ was a political statement that Trotsky, in practice, if not in theory, regarded the Soviet bureaucracy as homogeneous.

IMLR:  You are therefore suggesting that on this question, the basic difference between Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyism is that the former recognised the heterogeneous nature of the Soviet bureaucracy as a main determinant for strategy towards it, while the Trotskyist, in practice, failed to take this heterogeneity into account?

TC:  This is true. That is why while Marxist-Leninists refer to the need to purge the bureaucracy, unmasking the concealed enemies of socialism; Trotskyism, on the other hand, refer to the need to make a ‘political’ revolution against the bureaucracy. This is to throw the baby out with the bath water. In his letter to M.F. Sokolov, Lenin challenges this pseudo-left approach to fighting bureaucracy. He explained that while it was possible to throw out the capitalist and the landowners, bureaucracy was another matter because

‘…you cannot “throw out” bureaucracy in a peasant country, you cannot “wipe it off the face of the earth”. You can only reduce it by slow and stubborn effort’. (V. I. Lenin: Vol. 35; p. 492; May 16, 1921)

Lenin argued against Sokolov that

‘To “throw off” the “bureaucratic ulcer”, as you put it in another place, is wrong in its very formulation. It means you don’t understand the question’. (Ibid.)

And continuing to press his point home, Lenin observed

‘To “throw off” an ulcer of this kind is impossible. It can only be healed. Surgery in this case is an absurdity, an impossibility; only a slow cure – all the rest is charlatanry or naïveté…You are naïve, that’s just what it is, excuse my frankness’. (Ibid.)

Lenin advised Sokolov that the struggle against bureaucracy must be pursued

‘…according to the rules of war’. (Ibid.)

This was because, in Lenin’s view at the time

‘The struggle against bureaucracy in a peasant and absolutely exhausted country is a long job, and this struggle must be carried on persistently, without losing heart at the first reverse’. (V. I. Lenin: Vol. 35; p.493; May 16, 1921)

Lenin concluded

‘ “Throw off” the “chief administration”? Nonsense. What would you set up instead? You don’t know. You must not throw them off, but cleanse them, heal them, heal and cleanse them ten times and a hundred times. And not lose heart’. (Ibid.)

Already in this letter by Lenin we see a rejection of what would become the later Trotskyist line; the call for political revolution as a solution to the problems of Soviet bureaucracy. Trotsky was to justify this line with the argument that the Soviet bureaucracy had become a new ruling caste.

IMLR:  The Trotskyist narrative paints Stalin as being the representative of the Soviet bureaucracy. How does this relate to their views of the bureaucracy?

TC:  Well, as I explained previously, in Trotskyism the Soviet bureaucracy is presented as a pure abstraction. It is not only ‘conservative’ but it is also Thermidorian and therefore thoroughly counterrevolutionary. For Trotsky the Soviet bureaucracy was the ‘most counterrevolutionary force in the international working class movement’. How absurd can you get? Where for Lenin the most counterrevolutionary force in the working class was the Social Democracy, the watchdogs of imperialism, for Trotsky it was the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’. In Trotskyism, Stalin was supposed to be the leader of this abstraction, the ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’. Even one of the most anti-Stalin bourgeois writers rejects this Trotskyist view of the bureaucracy. For instance, R. C. Tucker writes that

‘Trotsky’s theory of the Soviet Thermidor, although not without elements of truth, was seriously flawed. As later events showed it erred in its image of the Bolshevik ruling stratum as a soddenly conservative if not counterrevolutionary force’. (R. C. Tucker: Stalin: p.391)

Therefore, we see that even for a writer who writes with a bourgeois and anti-Stalin perspective, Trotsky’s theory of a counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy was an ‘abstraction’, that is to say a superficial way to go about looking at things. Thus, the anti-Stalin Tucker can argue that

‘…the ruling bureaucracy, in which many old Bolsheviks were still represented in leading positions, was not accurately described as “Thermidorian”. Its unresponsiveness to Trotsky’s position was not rooted in counterrevolutionary inclinations. Nor was its receptivity to “socialism in one country” a sign of indifference to socialism as a universal goal’. ( Tucker:  Op. Cit. p.392)

These views, although containing distortions, are closer to the truth than the views of the Trotskyists.

Tucker, although writing from an anti-Stalin perspective, challenges some of the core assumptions of Trotskyism. For instance, he argues that

‘Not without justification did Stalin, for example, still find it expedient in 1926 to speak to his party audience of the impetus that the USSR could give the world revolution by its success in building a socialist society’. (Tucker: ibid. p.392)

We can disregard the word ‘expedient’ here because Stalin’s position was not based on expediency as regard the possibility of building socialism in one country as part of the revolutionary process. Tucker writes that

‘If Trotsky’s picture of the bureaucracy as a Thermidorian group was inaccurate, he was likewise mistaken in his view of Stalin as its mere instrument and personification, who owed his political success to his mediocrity’. (Tucker: ibid. p.392)

Therefore, to answer your question about how Trotsky viewed Stalin and how this relates to their conception of the Soviet bureaucracy, I would argue the following: Trotsky was defeated by Stalin in the struggle over policies in the 1920s, which was also a struggle for power; this made the latter ‘counterrevolutionary’ in Trotsky’s eyes, and the Soviet bureaucracy which Stalin was trying to direct had to become counterrevolutionary too.

IMLR: But nevertheless you are not saying the same as what Tucker is saying, are you?

TC:  Tucker, although anti-Stalin, comes closer to the truth on this issue than the Trotskyists. Obviously, one reason for this is that he is not motivated by factional considerations as such. He recognises that Trotsky’s theory that the Soviet bureaucracy was a counterrevolutionary group was inaccurate, in other words an abstraction. He comes closer to the truth without reaching it. In fact, there are two possible abstractions. The first is the Trotskyist one that the Soviet bureaucracy was ‘counterrevolutionary’, and the opposite abstraction that the Soviet bureaucracy was ‘revolutionary’. Those who adopt the latter position are faced with the problem of explaining why both Lenin and Stalin found it necessary to promote purges of the bureaucracy. Therefore, Marxist-Leninists do not speak of a ‘revolutionary’ or ‘counterrevolutionary’ Soviet bureaucracy as such. They recognise that the Soviet bureaucracy contained counterrevolutionary elements that wore a communist mask, therefore it was the duty of the party leadership to unmask these elements within the bureaucracy and purge them.

IMLR:  The general Marxist-Leninist consensus is that when Stalin was leading the Soviet Communist Party, the counterrevolutionary, revisionist elements were not in the ascendancy. Do you subscribe to this view?

TC:  Generally I subscribe to this view, although of course, in reality the picture was somewhat more complex. Marxist-Leninists criticise Trotsky for presenting simplistic pictures, such as a ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’. What was closer to the truth was that the Marxist Leninists were on many issues in a minority in the party and some of the organs of state power, but they were able to hold on to some decisive key positions. Forget what you read in bourgeois or Trotskyist literature about the ‘Stalinist’ hold on the Soviet State. Nothing would have been easier than to drive the ‘Stalinists’ from power had the working class masses not stood behind them. I use the term ‘Stalinist’ here simply to refer to those who supported Stalin.

IMLR:  This seems to be the opposite of the Trotskyist position, which argues that the ‘Stalinists’ were able to defeat Trotsky and come to power because they had the support of the Soviet bureaucracy. How do you reply to this?

TC:  If I was presenting my case on this simplistic level I would argue that most, or at least enough of the top bureaucrats supported the Rightists and that consequently if success in the inner party struggle depended on support from the bureaucrats, the Rightist would have come to power. If you defend the Trotskyist view that most of the bureaucrats supported the pro-Stalin people, you arrive at the absurd position of having to explain why the constant purges. Stalin would be a very inexplicable individual and leader indeed, if, unlike other political leaders, and contrary to normal reasoning, he thought that the best way to remain in power was to devote so much time purging and removing from office his ardent supporters. Trotskyism is responsible for the simplistic and incorrect view that the Soviet bureaucracy was composed of mainly enthusiastic supporters of Stalin. This view, however, is clearly contradicted by the repeated purges, especially the purges of the 1930s. We are told by Tucker, who, as I said is an anti-Stalin writer, that the Bukharinist right ‘…had considerable influence in the Soviet government bureaucracy, over which Rykov presided as premier and in Tomsky’s trade union hierarchy’. (Tucker: Stalin: 411)

IMLR:  What, in your view, was the extent of support for Stalin in the Soviet bureaucracy?

TC:  It is not possible to give a precise figure about the extent of support for Stalin and his group in this context. Only general statement can be made as to the extent of support at the level of the bureaucracy. I will only say that the extent of support was probably highest among those office holders closer to the working people.

IMLR:  Trotsky promoted the theory of a ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’, but Marxist-Leninists while rejecting this theory recognised that there were counterrevolutionary elements to be found within the bureaucracy and that it was necessary to unmask them. Where did these counterrevolutionary, or Thermidorian elements come from?

TC:  They came from Russia’s past and this past had a long bureaucratic tradition, which was of the subject of social satire for generations of Russian writers. Bureaucracy was considered one of the constant banes of Russian life. J. N. Westwood remarks that

‘Bureaucracy and bureaucratic practice were (and remained) a pervasive and depressive feature of Russian life’. (J. N. Westwood: Endurance and Endeavour- Russian History, 1812-1986. Third Edition; p.163)

Stalin in debates with the Trotsky and Zinoviev oppositions explains very clearly the nature of the Thermidorian danger to the revolution. It is important to mention this because in Trotskyism the impression is always given that that Stalin and his supporters were not aware of the thermidorian danger. Thus in 1927 Stalin remarked in referring to the opposition that

‘They say that there are certain elements in the country who betray tendencies towards a restoration, towards a Thermidor. But no body has ever denied that. Since antagonistic classes exist, since classes have not been abolished, attempts will always, of course, be made to restore the old order’. (J. V. Stalin: Works 10; Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954; p. 92)

After the Russian socialist revolution, the Bolsheviks inherited this huge bureaucratic apparatus, made up of former servants of the Tsarist regime. In 1919, Lenin made the observation that

‘The Tsarist bureaucrats began to join 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 of the Russian Communist Party…’ (V. I. Lenin, March 1919; CW. Vol. 29; p.183)

And as we know, for Lenin the Soviet State was a bureaucratically distorted State,

‘…a workers state with bureaucratic distortions’. (See Lenin, Vol. 32; p.48)

However, after the revolution increasing numbers of workers were promoted into the administration. But, the question of who was directing who was still of concern to Lenin and this led him to remark that

‘If we take Moscow with its 4, 700 communists in responsible positions, and if we take the huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom.’ (See Lenin, Vol. 33; pp. 288-289)

For Lenin the answer was clear enough and he observed that

‘I doubt very much whether it can be said that the communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth, they are not directing, they are being directed’. (Lenin: ibid.)

Having taken over the administrative apparatus from the former Tsarist State, the Bolsheviks had to restructure this ‘huge heap’ and promote worker communists to it. Measures were proposed to fight bureaucracy and create a more efficient system, but the bureaucracy still grew and the ‘Workers and Peasants Inspection’, which had Stalin as its nominal head, had marginal influence in combating the bureaucratic malady. Lenin refused to put its failure on Stalin, which the Trotskyists attempted to do at a later stage. Lenin recognised that Stalin could not be blamed for the failure of ‘Rabkrin’ because his other duties in the civil war period and after prevented him from giving Rabkrin his full attention. In fact, Lenin blamed the failure of the Workers’ and Peasants Inspection on Russia’s low cultural level inherited from the past, and in exonerating Stalin for its failure, Lenin remarked in a letter to Joffe that

‘…fate had not allowed [Stalin] even once in three and a half years to be either People’s Commissar of Workers’ and Peasants Inspection or of Nationalities. That’s a fact’ (Lenin. Vol. 45; p.100)

We can only assume that since Joffe was a supporter of Trotsky, Lenin, even at this early stage was attempting to nip in the bud mendacious rumours that the failures of Rabkrin should be placed at Stalin’s door. The Trotskyist attacks on Stalin over this question collapses ignominiously for all to see. The author of this collapse is Lenin himself.

IMLR:  What was the brief of the Workers and Peasants Inspection; how was it to go about fighting what Lenin considered the evils of bureaucracy?

TC:  Lenin sponsored a decree on February 7, 1920 which created the ‘Peoples’ Commissariat of Workers and Peasants Inspection’, otherwise known as Rabkrin. It was given full powers to begin the struggle against the evils of bureaucracy. The Peoples Commissariat for this department, was Stalin, who, as I said, because of the pressures of other duties was unable to give the work his full attention, or according to Lenin, any attention at all.

Lenin wanted Rabkrin to enlist the help of non-party workers and peasants in the task of fighting bureaucracy, but he regarded this as a difficult task because

‘It is no easy matter to enlist for the state administrative work rank-and-file workers and peasants who for centuries have been downtrodden and intimidated by the landowners and capitalists’. (Lenin: Vol. 30, p.64)

For Lenin, therefore, part of the key in the struggle against the evils of bureaucracy was, through Rabkrin, to enlist non-party people, and he remarked that

‘At a time when hostile elements are trying by every method of warfare, deceit and provocation to cling to us and take advantage of the fact that membership of the government party offers certain privileges, we must act in contact with the non-party people’. (Lenin: Vol. 30; pp. 415-416)

Therefore, it is absolutely clear that Lenin’s strategy for fighting what he considered to be the evils of bureaucracy was partly based on a strategy of gaining the support of the masses of non-party people. Some will debate whether this was a utopian strategy at the best of times let alone in the conditions which the Soviet masses found themselves in after the civil war. However, what is not debatable is that Lenin based the struggle against the evils of bureaucracy on a long-term perspective, which even Trotsky recognised before he turned the matter into a factional issue.

IMLR:  Why do you say some may regard this struggle, involving the enlistment of the non-party masses, as utopian?

TC:  Well for Lenin the struggles against the evils of bureaucracy meant, firstly, the need to rectify its dysfunctional aspects. Mass involvement in the fight to rectify the negative aspects of bureaucracy in the immediate post civil war period may have been based more on rhetoric than anything else, and as I said above Lenin himself recognised that it would be a difficult to get the masses involved in this project. It is not surprising that Rabkrin had little success in this respect and it is no use putting the blame for this at Stalin’s door, as the Trotskyist attempted to do, disregarding the fact that Lenin completely exonerated Stalin from being responsible for the shortcomings of Rabkrin. What is more probable is that the conditions of the Soviet masses at the time made them politically indifferent to the question of bureaucracy in any active way. This is one reason why Lenin’s call for a long-term strategy to combat bureaucracy makes sense. However, Lenin soon came to realise not only the long-term aspect of this struggle but also the complicated nature of the fight against the evils of bureaucracy. In his article ‘Better Fewer, But Better’ Lenin had moved a long way from the view he took in ‘State and Revolution’ that any cook could administer the state. In fact now he proposed that there should be an exam for prospective candidates who wanted to work in Rabkrin. (See Lenin: volume 33; p. 493) and he wanted Rabkrin to be

‘…the model for our entire state apparatus’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 33; p.492)

Also, Lenin suggested that candidates to work in this Commissariat should be drawn from

‘…our Soviet higher schools’. (Lenin: ibid. p.493)

He argued that this was because

‘…it would hardly be right to exclude one or another category beforehand’. (Lenin: ibid. p. 493)

For Lenin Some of Rabkrin’s appointees would also be required to study the theory of organisation, and he suggested sending them to the advanced Western European countries to familiarise themselves with the technique of modern administration. (See: Vol. 33; p.494) In short, Lenin seemed to have moved to the position that administration was something which required professionalism and a relative high level of culture. It was this element which the Soviet workers were lacking at the time. Indeed, Lenin came to regard administration as a science, thus appointees to Rabkrin would be expected to

‘…undergo a special test as regards their knowledge of the principles of scientific organisation of labour in general, and of administrative work, office work, and so forth, in particular’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 33; p.485)

The Lenin in ‘Better Fewer, But Better’ observed that, the Soviet workers at the time were mostly not sufficiently educated to take on the task successfully, and he remarked that

‘They would like to build a better apparatus for us, but do not know how’. (Op. cit. p.488)

Thus, it was necessary to bring in and train a professional cadre for this work, who would be fused with the masses. Improving the state apparatus would require great patience, and Lenin argued that the Soviet Union

‘…lacked enough civilisation to enable us to pass straight to socialism, although we have the political requisites for it’. (Vol. 33; p.501)

And he suggested that

‘…in matters of our state apparatus we should now draw the conclusion from our past experience that it would be better to proceed more slowly’. (V. I. Lenin: ‘Better Fewer, But Better, in: CW. Vol. 33; p. 487)

To fight the bureaucratic defects of the state apparatus, Lenin noted, would

‘…take many, many years’. (Vol. 33; p. 488)

This is a central hallmark of Marxism-Leninism, in contrast to Trotskyism, the recognition that the struggle against the negative side of Soviet bureaucracy would require a long period.

He argued that in the struggle for a better State apparatus

‘…we must not make the demands that are made by bourgeois Western Europe, but demands that are fit and proper for a country which has set out to develop into a socialist country’. (V. I. Lenin. Vol. 33; p.489)

In fighting for a better administration, he noted that in this struggle

‘…devilish persistence will be required, that in the first few years at least work in this field will be hellishly hard’. (See: Vol. 33; p. 490)

For Lenin, when considering the question of improving the state apparatus

‘…there can scarcely be anything more harmful than haste’. (Vol. 33; p. 490)

This was a lesson which the Trotskyists were to caste overboard in their bid for power.

Lenin called for the new Rabkrin to reject the approach

‘…which plays entirely into the hands of our Soviet and Party bureaucrats’. (See: Vol. 33. P.494)

And he insisted that

‘…we have bureaucrats in our Party offices as well as our Soviet offices’. (Ibid. p. 494)

Lenin argued that the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection should be given universal powers so that

‘The function of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection cover our state apparatus as a whole, and its activities should affect all and every state institution without exception: local, central, commercial, purely administrative, theatrical, etc.-in short all without exception’. (V. I. Lenin: Vol. 33; p.496)

The conclusion Lenin came to was that

‘…only by thoroughly purging our government machine, by reducing to the utmost everything that is not absolutely essential in it , shall we be certain of being able to keep going’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. Pp. 501-2; March 2, 1923)

IMLR:  But Trotsky, having first supported the Leninist view on how to fight bureaucracy, later departed from this view. Do you think this was only out of factional motives?

TC:  Yes. I think we are dealing here with factional motives. I do not think it is possible to separate Trotsky’s position on bureaucracy from his other political considerations and these considerations led to Trotsky changing is position and opposing the realistic view that the fight against Soviet bureaucracy should be based on a long-term strategy. Another point is that although Trotsky did not call the bureaucracy a class, nor did he ever regard it as a class, nevertheless his whole approach to the struggle against bureaucracy was as if it was a class. The Soviet bureaucracy was not a class; rather they were employees of the state. These employees could be sacked, purged or demoted at any time by the party, and many were. Therefore, Trotsky was right to say that the bureaucracy was not a class, but he was wrong to treat it as if it was a class. I am of course speaking of bureaucracy as a whole. That is to say the bureaucracy as a whole was not a class but this does mean to say it did not contain members of former classes and the possibility for the rise of new bourgeois elements within the state and industrial apparatus and even in the communist party itself. Of course, the political representatives of the new bourgeois elements who rise in the communist movement are the revisionists on the right.

IMLR:  How did Trotsky actually view the Soviet bureaucracy theoretically?

TC:  I think it is necessary to make a distinction between Trotsky’s critique of Soviet bureaucracy and Trotsky’s theory of Soviet bureaucracy. The two are not the same thing. When Trotsky criticises the excessive privileges of the top bureaucrats, I think such criticism is valid. This is where many of those who call themselves Marxist-Leninists fall down. They have nothing to say about the existence of a privileged stratum in the Soviet Union and how it came about. They idolise the Russian socialist revolution, rightly praising its achievements, but completely ignore its shortcomings. This is especially the case with the revisionists in the communist movement. Some Marxist-Leninists also shied away from the issue because they feared giving the enemies of communism a stick to beat the Soviet Union with. Trotsky’s theory simply says that a privileged bureaucracy came to power in the post Lenin period and led a reaction to the October revolution. This was summed up, Trotsky explained, in the theory of socialism in one country. A privilege social stratum certainly emerged after the revolution. Trotsky should certainly know about it because as I explained earlier, he sponsored its formation in regard to the top leaders in the Red Army. The revolution in a backward country was forced to make a concession to these elements, to buy their services, so to speak. All the Bolshevik leaders recognised this openly, particularly Lenin who viewed the matter with his characteristic sobriety. He also recognised, that specialists, as a separate stratum would continue to exist until we reach the highest stage of communism

‘Now we have to resort to the old bourgeois methods and agree to pay a very high price for the “services” of the bourgeois experts. All those who are familiar with the subject appreciate this, but not all ponder over the significance of this measure being adopted by the proletarian state. Clearly this measure is a compromise, a departure from the principles of the Paris Commune and of every proletarian power, which call for the reduction of all salaries to the level of the average worker, which urge that careerism be fought not merely in words, but deeds’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. 27; PP. 248-9)

For Lenin paying high salaries to experts was

‘…a step backward on the part of the socialist Soviet State power, which from the very outset proclaimed and pursued the policy of reducing high salaries to the level of the wages of the average worker’. (V. I. Lenin: Vol. 27; p. 249)

Lenin remarked that our enemies

‘…will giggle over our confession that we are taking a step backward. But we need not mind their giggling’. (ibid; p.249)

Lenin openly admitted this retreat from communist principles and wanted the masses to know, because

‘To conceal from the people the fact that the enlistment of bourgeois experts by means of extremely high salaries is a retreat from the principles of the Paris Commune would be sinking to the level of bourgeois politicians’. (ibid; p.249)

It is not possible to have a socialist revolution in a backward society, where 80 or 90 percent of the population is made up of the peasantry without making concessions. NEP was a concession to the capitalists; privileges were a concession to the bureaucrats and other experts. In other words, material conditions forced the communists to act against their principles and views in order to save the revolution. Can anyone seriously believe that Lenin or Stalin wanted capitalists or privileged bureaucrats, of course they did not, but they had to put up with them, keeping them in check, thus saving the revolution until such time that they could dispense with them. But in spite of all these concessions, which were alien to the ultimate aims of the revolution, we find Trotsky conceding in ‘Revolution Betrayed’ that under Stalin this worlds goods were more democratically distributed than even in the most advanced capitalist countries of the west. That this was written by Stalin’s archenemy speaks volumes.

IMLR:  Marxist-Leninists reject the view that a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy came to power in the Soviet Union, and you say that Trotsky’s position on bureaucracy raises important points. Can you elaborate on this?

TC:  What Marxist-Leninists reject is the view that a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy came to power in the period of Stalin. Under Stalin, the bureaucracy was kept in check, just as under Lenin the NEP capitalist were kept in check. The picture begins to change in the post Stalin period. I think the criticism of Stalin by the Trotskyists is so unfair that I cannot take it seriously. Honestly, look at the problems Stalin had to face, or for that matter, anyone in a similar position. Firstly the problem of industrialising a backward country, which thankfully Stalin achieved in record time to thwart the intentions of imperialist fascism. Secondly, the problem of fighting the internal counterrevolution. Thirdly the problem of educating millions of peasants and workers. Fourthly, the problem of building up strong armed forces. Fifthly, the problem of starting to bring socialism to millions of people under adverse conditions. Sixthly, the problem of fighting sabotages. Seventhly, the problem of trying to stop an imperialist united-front against the Soviet Union from emerging. Eighthly, the problem of preventing the disintegration of the Soviet Communist Party, Ninthly, the problem of holding a multi-national Soviet Union together. Tenthly, the problem of innovation, of being the first to lead the transition to socialism with no previous models or experience. These are some of the problems which Stalin had to face and find solutions to. And, finally, we should not forget the aid Stalin gave to the development of the international communist movement. Whom, may I ask would want to be in Stalin’s position? Yet, in spite of all these multitude of problems Trotsky admits that under Stalin material goods were more democratically distributed than under Tsarism and than under the most advance capitalist countries of the west. Read Trotsky’s description:

‘Gigantic achievements in industry, enormously promising beginnings in agriculture, an extraordinary growth of the old industrial cities, and a building of new ones, a rapid increase in the numbers of workers, a rise in cultural level and cultural demands-such are the indubitable results of the October revolution, in which the prophets of the old world tried to see the grave of human civilisation. With the bourgeois economists we have no longer anything to quarrel over. Socialism has demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of  Das Kapital, but in an industrial arena  comprising a sixth part of the earth’s surface-not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity. Even if the Soviet Union, as a result of internal difficulties, external blows and the mistake of its leadership, were to collapse-which we firmly hope will not happen-there would remain as an earnest of the future this indestructible fact, that thanks solely to the proletarian revolution a backward country has achieved in less than ten years successes unexampled in history’. (Trotsky: Revolution Betrayed; New Park; p.8; 1936)

What Trotsky could not bring himself to admit is that all this was achieved under J. V. Stalin’s leadership. In one breath, Trotsky praises the achievements of the Soviet Union, but because this was all achieved by his rival he calls this ‘the revolution betrayed’. Trotsky fails to explain how a counterrevolutionary leadership could have brought these ‘successes unexampled in history’.

IMLR:  What other interesting points Trotsky’s position on bureaucracy raise, in your view?

TC:  Well, for Trotsky, bureaucracy resulted from the isolation of the revolution. Lenin attributed bureaucracy to the backward, petty bourgeois character of Russia. In my view both proposition are debatable. The fact is that bureaucracies run all modern societies. There is little reason to suppose that a socialist society, the first stage in the transition to communism, will be very different in this respect. The ‘bureaucracy’ is an agency for the implementation of government policies and decisions. It is the servant of the state and the ruling class in power. The bureaucrats, regardless of their status, are paid employees.

In fact, the First Congress of the Comintern, held in 1919, advocated that<