STALIN ON TROTSKYISM.
INTRODUCTION.
THE following extract, under the title "The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now", is an excerpt from J. V. Stalin's address delivered at a meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the C.P.S.U. (B) on October 23, 1927. This joint plenum also voted for the expulsion of Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Central Committee for deceiving the party and waging a factional struggle against it. It also decided to submit to the Fifteenth Party Congress all the material on the divisive activities of the Trotsky-Zinoviev Joint Opposition. The struggle against Trotskyism in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the struggle bearing on the question of the survival of working class political power. In the Soviet Union, after the death of Lenin, Trotsky began to pursue an anti-Leninist defeatist political line, the consequences of which was to demoralise the Soviet working class and working peasantry with the argument that socialism was impossible in one country, although in his article on co-operation, written in 1923 Lenin had suggested the opposite to Trotskyism. The following passage shows that from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism the struggle against Trotsky's political line was a real historical necessity, waged by Stalin to protect the working class from this insidious Trotskyist defeatism.
'...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 peasantry, the assuredly 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 we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have a 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 a socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building'. (In: V. I. Lenin: Vol. 27; p. 392)
Although Lenin had upheld the possibility of socialism in one country as a general theoretical postulate as a consequence of the uneven development of capitalism, in regard to the Russian October revolution, at first he doubted whether the revolution could survive for long. However, by 1923 he firmly held out the possibility for the Soviet Union marching towards socialism. This act alone would encourage the extension of the world revolution. For the Marxist-Leninists who supported Stalin, the struggle against the Trotskyist defeatist political line, which was leading to the demoralisation of the Soviet working people, that is, to the collapse of their confidence, was an urgent necessity. Trotsky's seemingly ultra-radical line, was not only in opposition to Lenin's conclusions, but more importantly this line was also throwing a life-line to the capitalist elements in the economy who had not lost all hope for a restoration of capitalist power. This is the general theoretical background to the excerpt from the speech by J. V. Stalin, which we present below, regarding the attempts to replace Leninism with Trotskyism in the CPSU (B), with the assistance of Zinoviev and Kamenev.
T. Clark.
From The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now.
VI
FROM LENINISM TO TROTSKYISM.
'... In his speech Zinoviev touched upon the interesting question of the "mistakes" in the Party's line during the past two years and of the 'correctness' of the opposition's line. I should like to answer this briefly by clearing up the question of the bankruptcy of the opposition's line and the correctness of our Party's line during the past two years. But I am taking up too much of your attention, comrades. (Voices: "Please go on!" The chairman: "Anyone against?" Voices: "Please go on!")
What is the main sin of the opposition, which determined the bankruptcy of its policy? Its main sin is that it tried, is trying, and will go on trying to embellish Leninism with Trotskyism and to replace Leninism with Trotskyism. There was a time when Kamenev and Zinoviev defended Leninism from Trotsky's attacks. At that time Trotsky himself was not so bold. That was one line. Later, however, Zinoviev and Kamenev, frightened by new difficulties, deserted to Trotsky's side, formed something in the nature of an inferior August bloc with him and thus became captives of Trotskyism. That was further confirmation of Lenin's earlier statement that the mistake Zinoviev and Kamenev made in October was not 'accidental'. Fighting for Leninism, Zinoviev and Kamenev went over to the line of fighting for Trotskyism. That is an entirely different line. And that indeed explains why Trotsky has now become bolder.
What is the chief aim of the present united bloc headed by Trotsky? It is little by little to switch the Party from the Leninist course to that of Trotskyism. That is the opposition's main sin. But the Party wants to remain a Leninist party. Naturally, the Party turned its back on the opposition and raised the banner of Leninism ever higher and higher. That is why yesterday's leaders of the Party have now become renegades.
The opposition thinks that its defeat can be "explained" by the personal factor, by Stalin's rudeness, by the obstinacy of Bukharin and Rykov, and so forth. That is too cheap an explanation! It is an incantation, not an explanation. Trotsky has been fighting Leninism since 1904. From 1904 until the February revolution in 1917 he hung around the Mensheviks, desperately fighting Lenin's Party all the time. During that period Trotsky suffered a number of defeats at the hand of Lenin's Party. Why? Perhaps Stalin's rudeness was to blame? But Stalin was not yet the secretary of the Central Committee at that time; he was not abroad, but in Russia, fighting Tsarism underground, whereas the struggle between Trotsky and Lenin waged abroad. So what has Stalin's rudeness got to do with it?
During the period from the October Revolution to 1922, Trotsky, already a member of the Bolshevik Party, managed to make two "grand" sorties against Lenin and his Party: in 1918 - on the question of Brest Peace; and in 1921 - on the trade-union question. Both these sorties ended in Trotsky being defeated. Why? Perhaps Stalin's rudeness was to blame here? But at that time Stalin was not yet the secretary of the Central Committee. The secretarial posts were then occupied by notorious Trotskyists. So what has Stalin's rudeness got to do with it?
Later, Trotsky made a number of fresh sorties against the Party (1923, 1924, 1926, 1927) and each sortie ended in Trotsky suffering a fresh defeat.
Is it not obvious from all this that Trotsky's fight against the Leninist Party has deep, far-reaching historical roots? Is it not obvious from this that the struggle the Party is now waging against Trotskyism is a continuation of the struggle that the Party, headed by Lenin, waged from 1904 onwards?
Is it not obvious from all this that the attempts of the Trotskyists to replace Leninism by Trotskyism are the chief cause of the failure and bankruptcy of the entire line of the opposition?
Our Party was born and grew up in the storm of revolutionary battles. It is not a party that grew up in a period of peaceful development. For that very reason it is rich in revolutionary traditions and does not make a fetish of its leaders. At one time Plekhanov was the most popular man in the Party. More than that, he was the founder of the Party, and his popularity was incomparably greater than that of Trotsky or Zinoviev. Nevertheless, in spite of that, the Party turned away from Plekhanov as soon as he began to depart from Marxism and go over to opportunism. Is it surprising, then, that people who are not so "great", people like Trotsky and Zinoviev, found themselves at the tail of the Party after they began to depart from Leninism.
But the most striking indication of the opposition's opportunist degeneration, the most striking sign of the opposition's bankruptcy and fall, was its vote against the Manifesto of the Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R. The opposition is against the introduction of a seven-hour working day! The opposition is against the Manifesto of the Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R.! The entire working class of the U.S.S.R., the entire advance section of the proletarians in all countries, enthusiastically welcome the Manifesto, unanimously applaud the idea of introducing a seven-hour working day - but the opposition votes against the Manifesto and adds its voice to the general chorus of bourgeois and Menshevik "critics", it adds its voice to those of the slanderers on the staff of Vorwärts. [1]
I did not think that the opposition could sink to such a disgrace.
(This excerpt is from J. V. Stalin's Works: Volume 10, pp. 198-201, for August-December, 1927. Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow. 1954.
For the full text, see: The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now
1. Vorwärts, (forward) a newspaper and the central organ of the German Social Democracy, which was published from 1876 to 1933. Vorwärts fought the October Russian revolution.
