Tony Clark.
Around the period of the first world war, Lenin’s
theory of the world revolutionary process was based on the idea that the
countries of the world would not all start the transition to socialism at the
same time. Some countries would take the socialist road before others. For a
time, these others would remain bourgeois or even pre-bourgeois.
The book the bourgeois anti-communist academics and
the Trotskyists hate the most, said of Lenin’s theory
‘This new and complete theory of the socialist
revolution, a theory affirming the possibility of the victory of Socialism in
separate countries, and indicating the conditions of this victory and its
prospects, a theory whose fundamentals were outlined by Lenin as far back as
1905 in his pamphlet, Two Tactics of
Social-Democracy in the Democratic revolution.’ (History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – Bolsheviks – Short
Course: Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow; 1939; p. 169)
Lenin had developed Marxism to take account of the new
imperialist stage of capitalism. He put forward a new theory of world
revolution, and the ‘Short Course’ explains that
‘This theory
fundamentally differed from the view current among the Marxists in the period
of pre-imperialist capitalism, when
they held that the victory of socialism in one separate country was impossible,
and that it would take place simultaneously in all the civilised countries. On
the basis of the facts concerning imperialist
capitalism set forth in his remarkable book, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin displaced this
view as obsolete and set forth a new theory, from which it follows that the
simultaneous victory of socialism in all countries is impossible, while the
victory of socialism in one capitalist country, taken singly, is possible’. (Short Course: ibid.)
The Short Course recognised that
‘The inestimable
importance of Lenin’s theory of Socialist revolution lies not only in the fact
that it has enriched Marxism with a new theory and has advanced Marxism, but
also in the fact that it opens up a new revolutionary perspective for the
proletarians of separate countries, that it unfetters their initiative in the
onslaught on their own, national bourgeoisie, that it teaches them to take
advantage of a war situation to organize this onslaught, and that it
strengthens their faith in the victory of the proletarian revolution’. (Op.cit.)
For Lenin, the concept of world revolution embraced a
period that would begin when only part of the world would be socialist, i.e.
the victory of socialism in one or several countries. This period would end
with worldwide socialism.
An incorrect understanding of this theory, or perhaps,
more correctly, no understanding of it at all, led to pseudo-left elements
adopting positions that serve the interest of bourgeois counterrevolution. This
is precisely the position Trotskyism found itself.
From the Marxist-Leninist perspective, therefore,
Trotskyism’s opposition to the Leninist theory of world revolution was an echo
of the Marxism before the period of imperialism.
The notion that the socialist revolution had to be
simultaneous in all the advanced countries was the current thinking before the
imperialist stage. This theory of simultaneous revolution, modified to some
extent by Trotsky, was very revolutionary in its time. Where Trotsky differed
from the old, pre-Leninist theory of revolution was that he rejected the idea
that that the socialist revolution must be simultaneous in the advanced
countries. In other words, Trotsky argued, workers in one country do not wait
on workers in other countries before they start their revolution. This position
he shared with Lenin. On the other hand, Trotsky denied that the victory of
socialism was possible in one country. Lenin held that it was, as part of the
world revolution.
Eventually the theory of simultaneous revolution in
the advanced countries was transformed into its opposite, and used to sabotage
revolution in separate countries. The opportunist opponents of revolutionary
Marxism, i.e. Bolshevism, now argued that revolution in one country was a bad
idea because socialism in one country was not possible.
This was the excuse they used to justify their failure
to struggle for the overthrow of capitalism in their own individual countries.
Trotsky later brought some these old ideas, which
Lenin had fought, over into the camp of Bolshevism.
Notwithstanding the revisionist counterrevolution in
the former Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, we are in fact
entering the period of the worldwide victory of socialism. As we approach the
collapse of world imperialism, centred on the American-British alliance, the
Trotskyist world revolution or socialism
in one country debate will become obsolete from a practical point of view. It
remains, however, important for other reasons. The first reason is that this
ideological polemic is a school of dialectics, which highlights the differences
between Lenin’s concrete thinking and Trotsky’s one-sided, anti-dialectical
form of reasoning.
In the post-Lenin period, this anti-dialectical
thinking of Trotskyism found expression most notably in their line of either socialism in one country or world
revolution. The either/or
dichotomy here is pressed into the service of a process, which is continuous
and dialectical. In other words, either/or
is applied to a situation to which it is completely unsuited. The
anti-dialectical thinking of Trotsky is applied to a highly dialectical process.
Thus, this debate provides training for dialectical
thinking. Those who do not reason dialectically on a conscious level usually
find themselves opposing Lenin’s theory of world revolution, although this will
be presented, in the case of Trotskyists, as opposition to ‘Stalinism’.
In the Soviet trade union debate of 1920-1921, (See
Lenin: CW. Vol. 32), Lenin had analysed the material presented by the Trotsky
led opposition, and found their approach to be opposed to dialectics.
In the debate over ‘socialism in one country’,
Marxist-Leninists came to the same conclusion as Lenin had reached previously
about Trotsky. His thinking did not approach the concrete level of dialectics.
Trotsky later took up ‘dialectics’ in his struggle with the opposition in the
Trotskyist American Socialist Workers Party, but this made no difference to his
views on the world revolutionary process.
The opponents of Lenin’s theory of world revolution
are opponents because they reason along anti-dialectical lines.
The struggle over this issue remains important
because, stripped of its particular historical form, at bottom it becomes a
struggle over dialectics, which as Lenin pointed out is also the theory of
knowledge of Marxism.
IN MARXIST
REVIEW, a journal of the Workers Revolutionary Party (Britain), the
following remark was made
‘The ICFI (International Committee of the Fourth
International, ed.) insists on the necessity of the struggle for the World
Socialist Revolution and fights against the Stalinist perspective that it is
possible to build socialism in a single country’. (Chris Eames: On the Anniversary of the Victorious Vietnamese
Revolution, in: Marxist Review,
May/June, 2005; p.15)
It is clear from the above, and from all previous
utterances of Trotskyists on this particular issue, that they viewed the fight
for world revolution and the struggle which was waged to build socialism in one
country, namely the Soviet Union, as two separate and unrelated issues.
Trotskyists, as every communist knows, have always
maintained that
represented a break from Bolshevism, a revisionist
departure from Leninism, which was first introduced into the cannons of Marxism
by Stalin in 1924.
Thus, Trotsky was able to convince his uninformed
followers that, in refuting Stalin on the question of socialism in one country,
he was in fact defending Lenin from Stalinist revisionism.
Towards this end, Trotsky even proceeded to call his
faction Bolshevik-Leninists. This was all nonsense of course since these
peculiar Bolshevik-Leninists founded their movement on a denial of Leninism on
the question of the nature of the world revolutionary process as Lenin had
theorised it more explicitly around the time of the first imperialist world war
of 1914-1918.
Consequently, Trotsky’s concealed struggle against
Marxism-Leninism, from 1924 onwards, was aimed at convincing the international
communist movement that Stalin had begun by revising Lenin on the question of
socialism in one country, and that all subsequent defeats and setbacks suffered
by the international communist movement can be explained by Stalin’s
‘revisionism’.
Although based on a false premise, this argument was
able to win many of those on the Left, both from the working class and the
intelligentsia, who had little or no knowledge of Lenin’s teaching on these
matters.
To the extent that leaders of Trotskyist circles
encouraged their members to read Lenin, this was confined to such works as: State and Revolution, What is to be done?
Imperialism, the highest Stage of capitalism, the latter which is not
studied in connection with Lenin’s new theory of revolution.
Trotsky therefore faced a complicated problem, which
was, while falsely claiming the mantle of Leninism he simultaneously had to
keep his adherents from a too close examination of Lenin’s writings, with even
some works being off limits.
The measure of Trotsky’s success in this delicate
operation can be seen in the total ignorance of Lenin’s theory of the world
revolutionary process as reflected in Trotskyist literature over the years.
Those who join Trotskyist groups are told that their
movement was started to oppose the ‘Stalinist theory of socialism in one
country’ and to promote world revolution.
So Trotskyists, one and all, are falsely educated to believe that world
revolution is opposed to the so-called Stalinist doctrine of socialism in one
country, while the latter, socialism in one country, is opposed to world
revolution. Consequently, generations of activists are miseducated by
Trotskyists to believe that ‘socialism in one country’ had nothing to do with
Lenin or Bolshevism.
On the other hand, Marxist-Leninists have always
argued, with varying degree of sophistication, the irrefutable position that
socialism in one or several countries was not opposed to world revolution, as
the Trotskyists claim. Indeed, the very opposite is the truth: socialism in one
country is inseparable from world revolution and promotes the latter.
Consequently, Marxist-Leninists have always opposed
the line introduced by Trotsky that revolutionaries must choose between either socialism in one country or world
revolution. For Marxist-Leninists, it was never an either/or issue.
TROTSKYISM AND DEFEATISM
Furthermore, and very importantly, Marxist-Leninists, in
the 1920s and after, took the view that Trotsky’s admonitions about the
impossibility of building socialism in one country, particularly in the Soviet
Union, represented a defeatist political line, which played into the hands of
the Bourgeois-Menshevik and imperialist counterrevolution.
No one can challenge this analysis of the defeatist
role played by Trotskyism on this issue.
It was the defeatist potential contained in Trotsky’s
line, which alarmed the post-Lenin leadership of the party, which began to form
around J.V. Stalin.
By pointing out the defeatist consequences of
Trotskyism in regard to the Soviet Union, Stalin was able to win over an
increasing following, both within the country and internationally.
It was feared that Trotsky’s line (which was opposed
to Lenin’s) that socialism could not be built in one country would lead to the
collapse of working class leadership of the country. For this reason the group
around Stalin decided that Trotskyism must be crushed at all costs, and removed
from a position where it could influence and demoralise the Soviet working
class and its vanguard.
Was Stalin right to protect the Soviet Union from
defeatism or not? Readers must make up their own minds on this question. For
Marxist-Leninists, the answer is obvious.
Stalin saw clearer than most that Trotskyism would
lead to defeatism and that is why he was able to win the argument that
upholding ‘socialism in one country’ should become a condition for party
membership.
The Russian bourgeoisie could not believe their luck
when the Trotskyists made opposition to the policy of building socialism in one
country the central plank in their platform.
The Russian bourgeoisie was not interested in
Trotsky’s radicalism. What was of interest to them was how Trotsky’s opposition
to Stalin on the issue of building socialism in one country could promote
defeatism with the socialist project and lead to the collapse of working class
leadership of the country.
Thus, if the bourgeoisie could used Trotskyism to
bring down the dictatorship of the proletariat, all the better; Trotsky’s
ideological affiliation was of no importance to them.
In this sense, Trotsky became a sort of ideological
secret weapon for those interested in the collapse of working class power and a
return to capitalism and the ‘glories’ of the market.
The communist leadership that was beginning to form
around J.V. Stalin, not only had an intuitive, but also a theoretical
understanding of the implications of Trotsky’s opposition. In other words, an
increasing number came to realise with sufficient clarity that Trotsky’s
opposition to Stalin would inevitably lead to defeatism in the Soviet communist
party and working class and thereby play into the hands of the
counterrevolution.
If Trotsky was saying that socialism was impossible in
one country, in this case the Soviet Union, this would encourage the
imperialists to tighten the screws more and, as far as the internal
counterrevolution was concerned, to encourage sabotage of various kinds.
The Mensheviks, whom Trotsky had been previously
associated, were using similar arguments against the October seizure of power:
they claimed that socialism was impossible in Russia, the country was not ready
for socialism, etc.
However, like the later Trotskyist argument, the
Mensheviks defeatist line served the interest of the bourgeois
counterrevolution by demoralising the working class and its communist vanguard,
about the prospects for socialism.
In the case of Trotsky, no amount of optimism about
the world revolution could avoid the defeatist political consequences of his
line in relation to the Soviet Union.
In addition, Trotsky placed himself in an unenviable
position by advocating the modernisation of the country as soon as possible,
while arguing that socialism was impossible in the Soviet Union.
For the leadership group gathered around Stalin, and
other Marxist-Leninists, the delay of the world revolution, or more
specifically, its failure to spread to one of the advanced capitalist
countries, particularly Germany, in a situation where the Soviet Union was
isolated and subject to imperialist encirclement, against a predominantly
peasant dominated country, combined with the anti-Leninist teaching that
socialism in one country was impossible, meant that Trotskyism constituted a
real mortal threat to the Russian revolution and communist party
leadership.
What this means is that the struggle against
Trotskyism in the Soviet Union cannot be correctly understood, from a
Marxist-Leninist perspective, without taking this analysis into serious
consideration.
Marxist-Leninists had captured the essence of the
issue. In relation to the Soviet Union, and other countries, which took the
socialist path, Trotsky’s line was defeatist because it involved the claim that
it was impossible to build socialism in one country.
On the other hand, if working class leadership of the
country was to be preserved, the possibility of socialism had to be upheld,
even if the extension of the world revolution was delayed.
The Soviet Union, needless to say, would have
collapsed earlier had the Trotskyist argument gained the upper hand or even
widespread support in the communist and working class movement internationally.
This defeatist line was essentially a Trotskyist version
of the Menshevik argument, tailored to the class interest of the capitalist
counterrevolution, although the Trotskyists were incognizant of this basic
truth.
The question we need to ask now, taking the above into
consideration, is, what was the theoretical basis prescribed by
Marxism-Leninism, particularly in the writings of Lenin, which made it possible
to generate sufficient political opposition to Trotsky’s defeatist line that
socialism in one country is impossible?
For several decades, this claim has been repeated by
the intellectual leaders of Trotskyism out of a combination of ignorance and
conscious deceit. Regardless of where an individual stands on this issue,
Marxism-Leninism considers itself a science, so it behoves us to lay the facts
bare for the independent consideration of those who must be allowed to form
their own opinion on the basis of all the facts at our disposal relating to
this matter.
In short, the question of whether Stalin revised Lenin
or not, in the matter under consideration, can only be settled by Lenin’s own
writings on this issue.
Since the matter involves Lenin, the theoretical,
political, tactical and strategic leader of the worlds first socialist
revolution, where the working class took power and held it, in the most
difficult circumstances imaginable, no other source material is competent to
settle the question in total honesty, which is devoid of opportunism, without
examining the original source. All other sources are derivative and their
verisimilitude can only be determined to the extent that they bear witness to
the original.
Therefore, for this purpose we will stick exclusively
to Lenin’s writings without referring to Stalin’s.
The question of whether socialism could be established
in one country as part of the world revolutionary process was first addressed
in explicit terms by Lenin on August 23, 1915, when examining the slogan of a United States of Europe, which he
rejected in favour of another slogan, i.e., the United States of the World. However, although Lenin thought this
latter slogan was more correct, he thought such a slogan was premature in 1915.
Why did Lenin regard the slogan as inappropriate at
that time? Lenin gave his answer, which, needless to say, could hardly be
clearer; he pointed out that
‘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: On the slogan for a United States of Europe; Sotsial Democrat, No.44, August 23, 1915; in: CW. Vol.21; p.342)
Note in the above text that Lenin refers to the
victory of socialism in a single country and not merely the seizure of power.
This is important because some apologist for Trotsky and pseudo-leftism have
tried to confuse the two, implying that Lenin was here referring to the seizure
of power rather than socialism proper.
However, there are no scientific grounds for working
class leadership of a country unless this leadership can lead to socialism.
Lenin was a Marxist theorist and would never have used
the phrase ‘victory of socialism in a single country’, if what he had in mind
was merely a successful seizure of power by the working class.
‘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’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.21; p.342)
Lenin makes it perfectly obvious that during the world
revolutionary process socialism becomes possible in several ‘or even in one
capitalist country’.
Thus, Lenin’s theory of world revolution contains the
possibility of the victory of socialism in even one country, to begin with.
No honest textual analysis or scrutiny could possibly
come to any other conclusion. Lenin makes it clear that, one of the reasons why
the slogan of the United States of the World was premature in 1915, was because
it could lead, mistakenly, to the view that socialism in a single country was
impossible.
Some individuals, who may seek to defend Trotsky’s
errors on this issue, may be inclined to argue, or to think, that such
statements by the leader of the world’s first socialist revolution, regarding
the possibility of socialism in one country was a one-off by Lenin. In any
case, they might argue, even if such statements were not casual, Lenin could
not possibly have intended to include Russia, as a country were socialism was
possible, seen that Russia and the Soviet Union was too backward at that time.
Yet, Lenin’s position was not a one-off casual remark,
as can be seen in his 1916 article ‘Military
Programme of the Proletarian Revolution’ where he returns to the same
theme, noting that
‘…the victory of
socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in
general’. (V.I. Lenin: The Military Programme of the Proletarian
Revolution; September, 1916: in: CW. Vol.23; p.79)
Thus, for Lenin, the victory of socialism in one
country did not eliminate the danger of wars, but rather presupposes war. This
would necessarily bear on the question of how socialist countries should
develop their relations with non-socialist countries.
Due to opposition from the Menshevik opportunists and
no doubt from the Trotskyist elements, Lenin forcefully insisted that because
of the extreme unevenness in the development of capitalism
‘…it follows
irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all
countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the
others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.’ (V.I.Lenin: CW. Vol. 23; p.79)
What Lenin is expounding in these passages, around the
period of the first imperialist world war of 1914-1918, is the Leninist theory
of the world revolution as it relates to the transition from capitalism to
socialism.
As we have said, Lenin viewed the world revolution as
a process, which has a beginning with the victory of socialism in one or
several countries and ending with worldwide socialism.
For Lenin, this process of world revolution was not an
arbitrary expression of political will but rather results from uneven
development, which is an absolute law of capitalism, and the contradictions of
imperialism.
How did Lenin’s theory of the world revolution apply
to Russia after the October seizure of power?
When the Bolsheviks led the working class to power in
October, they had hoped that the working class would come to power in at least
one of the advanced capitalist countries. This would have made the transition
to socialism in Russia easier. With the abdication of the Kaiser, the German
revolution of November 1918 brought the working class to the brink of power. However,
social democracy stepped in and gave the power to the bourgeoisie and the
reactionary pre-bourgeois representatives of the old regime. Thus began a
period of political isolation of the Russian socialist revolution on the one
hand, and on the other, the rise of German fascism, which would take full
advantage of Social Democracy’s betrayals of the working class.
By 1924 the European revolution was in full retreat,
with the Mensheviks baiting the Bolsheviks on the folly of seizing power in a
country which they argued was unripe for socialism. They ridiculed the idea
that socialism could be built in one country, especially such a backward
country as Russia was at the time.
Surrounded by imperialism, and with the revolution in
full retreat, being baited by the Mensheviks and social democracy in general on
the folly of seizing power in a ‘backward’ country, and with the Mensheviks
rejecting the idea that socialism could be built in one country as part of
world revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks faced a daunting and perilous
situation.
Was socialism impossible in one country, especially a
country such as Russia, as both the Mensheviks and later Trotsky claimed? The
former argued that the material conditions had not been laid such as would make
the transition to socialism feasible. This, however, was a rather lifeless and
mechanical interpretation of Marxism, suggesting that Russia had too little or
no productive forces at all. The latter argued that Russia could only move
forward to socialism if the revolution was extended to at least one of the
advance countries.
Had the Mensheviks mechanical interpretation of
Marxism been the real reason why they opposed the Bolshevik seizure of power,
they would have remained a ‘loyal’ opposition and argued their case and not
joined in with the counterrevolution.
Additionally, those who defend Trotskyism may also
argue that Trotsky did not deny that the transition to socialism could begin in
a single country. What he denied was that it was possible to build a complete
socialist society in the Soviet Union.
LENIN AND THE COMPLETE SOCIALIST SOCIETY
Replying to the question as to whether socialism was
possible in Russia, Lenin gave his answer to the critics in his article On Co-operation, January 4, 1923, a year
before Trotsky came out openly and took up the struggle against Lenin’s idea
that socialism could be built in one country. To those who argued that the
Bolsheviks should not have taken power and rather should have given the power
to the bourgeoisie, and that anyway socialism was not possible in a backward
country as Russia, Lenin wrote
‘…the power of the
state over all large-scale means of production, the alliance of the proletariat
with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured
proletarian leadership of the peasants, etc. –is this not all that is necessary
to build a complete socialist society out of the co-operatives, out of the
co-operatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from
a certain aspect we have a right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not
all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is not yet the
building of a socialist society, but is all that is necessary and sufficient
for it’. (V.I.Lenin, in: CW. Vol.33; p.468)
Readers should take note here that Lenin claimed, in
1923, that the Soviet Union had all that was necessary to build a complete socialist society.
The idea that the Soviet Union had all that was
necessary to build a ‘complete’ socialist society was not Stalin’s idea, as the
Trotskyists falsely claim, but Lenin’s.
This passage is very revealing because a study of the
text reinforces the view that Lenin’s reference to socialism in one or several
countries in August 1915, and later, in September, 1916, a year before the
October revolution of 1917, were not isolated episodes. What we have here, in
the above passage, is the application of the idea of socialism in one country
to the specific, concrete conditions of the Soviet Union.
There are no intrinsic reasons why planned socialist
production for human needs (as opposed to unplanned capitalist production for
profit) should not be possible in a single country. Trotsky inferred an
impossibility from the domination of the world economy by capitalism, but this
simply means that a socialist country would need to regulate its relations with
the world capitalism through a monopoly of foreign trade.
While the enemies of working class leadership of the country
could, no doubt, turn to the Mensheviks or to Trotsky to find support for their
argument that socialism was not possible for various reasons in the country,
they will find no such theoretical substantiation of their views in the
writings of Lenin.
The above Leninist conception was what Stalin defended
against Trotsky. This formed the essence of the controversy between these two
men in the post-Lenin period.
Whether anyone agrees with Lenin or not, one cannot deny
that Stalin defended Lenin’s position.
In other words, Stalin defended Lenin’s view that the
unfolding of the world revolution, based on uneven development, would lead, as
Lenin predicted, to the victory of socialism in several or even in one country to
begin with.
From 1924, this issue became the main demarcation line
between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. This can be summed up by contrasting
the two positions
Trotskyism states: either socialism in one country or
world revolution.
Leninism states: socialism in one country is part of
world revolution.
Trotsky’s ‘Fourth International’ was founded on the
basis of opposition to the Leninist teaching.
Trotsky thus placed himself in an absurd position by
accusing Stalin of revising Bolshevism by upholding Lenin. Therefore, in
Trotskyist logic those who defend Lenin are anti-Leninist, while those who
oppose Lenin are the real Leninists.
In the above passage from on co-operation, Lenin makes it clear that, providing the working
class holds political power and exercise State control over all large-scale
means of production, in alliance with the millions of small peasants, and on
the basis of the co-operatives, this was all that was necessary to build a
complete socialist society in the case of the Soviet Union. However, Lenin’s
complete socialist society was not in opposition to the world revolution.
We have found no evidence on record, no testimony, to
the effect that Trotsky opposed this view when Lenin put it forward in January
1923. But when Stalin defended the same view as Lenin, the Trotskyists, who
were relative newcomers to the Bolshevik party, accused him of revising
Bolshevism.
Stalin did not revised the theory of Bolshevism, but
rather updated Bolshevik perspectives, from a short-term expectation of revolution
in the advanced countries, to a more long term view, as Lenin himself had
already began to do.
Trotsky accused Stalin of revisionism when he,
Trotsky, in fact, was the one revising Lenin.
No one can criticise Trotsky for having different
views to Lenin, but Trotsky can be criticised for trying to conceal his
differences with Lenin for factional reasons.
More seriously, Trotsky can also be criticised for
pretending he was defending Leninism when, in fact, he was going against
Leninism.
Marxist political science is therefore faced with the
puzzle of Trotsky attacking Stalin as a reviser of Lenin and a gravedigger of
the revolution, when Stalin’s ‘crime’ was the defence of Lenin’s theory of
world revolution and the application of it to the concrete conditions of the
Soviet Union.
How was it possible for Trotsky to attack Stalin for
defending Lenin, and what type of political trend could produced such a patent
absurdity?
The Marxist-Leninist answer is that only an
opportunist trend could lead to such an absurdity. Left-opportunism to be
exact; revolutionary in words, opportunist in practice.
Before 1917, Trotsky had amply demonstrated this brand
of left-opportunism; his revolutionary words never prevented him from
gravitating to the Mensheviks in practice.
Trotsky was most certainly aware of Lenin’s theory of
world revolution, but instead of openly disagreeing with it, he chose to
conceal his opposition to Leninism with the claim that his opposition was
directed at Stalin.
This was a silly petty-bourgeois manoeuvre, which was
easily exposed by Stalin.
Lenin had regarded Trotskyism as a form of
petty-bourgeois opportunism; what we have examined above bares out this
characterisation. In complete opposition to the facts Trotsky proceeded to
argue that Stalin’s defence of Lenin’s views, which the latter expressed in
1915 and 1916, and later in 1923, when these views were applied to the Soviet
Union, gave expression to the conservative nature of the Soviet bureaucracy,
which the Trotskyists had now started to call ‘Stalinist,’ in a pejorative
sense.
Trotsky had begun to call the Soviet bureaucracy
‘Stalinist’ out of factional motives without any profound understanding of the
deep contradictions within the bureaucracy, or the contradictions between the
party leadership and the bureaucracy, which had been a feature of the
revolution from its earliest stage.
Trotsky only began to call the bureaucracy
‘Stalinist’, when he began to loose power. The truth is that, Trotsky’s ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’ had no real existence,
apart from in the imagination of the Trotskyists, a fact underlined by the
frequent purges.
So we are presented with a Trotskyist explanation that
the Soviet bureaucracy had become Stalinist because ‘it’ supported Lenin’s
theory that socialism was possible in one country as part of world revolution.
In defending Lenin’s theory of world revolution the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’,
according to Trotskyism, was therefore opposed to world revolution.
This ‘brilliant’ piece of Trotskyist logic has guided
Trotskyism from the post-Lenin period of the revolution to the present.
This is where Trotsky’s anti-dialectical, and
therefore anti-Marxist, thinking had finally led him and those who followed
behind.
That Trotsky tried to pretend that Lenin’s theory of
world revolution was a revisionist theory first formulated by Stalin simply
served to underline Trotsky’s opportunism in the eyes of those communists who
knew better.
This was especially the case with the advanced workers,
the proletarian intelligentsia, as Lenin called them, who form the nucleus of
every serious communist party.
By falsely ascribing the origins of Lenin’s theory to
Stalin, Trotsky undermined any claims he may have had to intellectual or polemical
honesty.
How defending Lenin’s theory of world revolution makes
a communist opposed to world revolution the Trotskyists do not say? To give
credence to this absurdity, Trotskyists are forced to interpret every setback
in the class struggle as an expression of Stalinist opposition to revolution,
although Lenin, as early as 1915, had written
‘The workers can
advance towards their world-wide revolution only through a series of defeats
and errors, failures and weaknesses, but they are advancing towards it’. (V.I. Lenin, in: CW. Vol. 21; p.131)
We do not cite the above to explain away defeats, but
to warn against one-sided, simplistic and ill-informed explanations.
Trotsky, due to his anti-Leninism, had developed a
unique theory, which perhaps could only have come from his pen, and it goes
something this:
For defending
Lenin’s theory of world revolution, which includes the possibility of socialism
in one country, Stalin became an anti-Leninist and gravedigger of revolution.
Likewise, the Soviet ‘bureaucracy’ supported Lenin’s theory of revolution,
which made it ‘Stalinist’ and therefore was opposed to world revolution.
Trotskyists are thus forced to fit every development
of the international class struggle into this preconceived theory. The logic contained in Trotskyism,
therefore, is that to defend Leninism leads to opposing world revolution.
Trotsky is therefore the father of the view that to
defend Lenin’s theory of revolution makes one a counterrevolutionary. This is a
basic line that Trotskyists have arguing in the workers movement since 1924.
According to Trotskyism, The Soviet bureaucracy
resting on its privileges and on the doctrine of socialism in one country
expressed its conservative and counterrevolutionary nature by trying to build
socialism in the Soviet Union in opposition to imperialism.
When we disregard Trotskyism’s use of the term
‘bureaucracy’ to describe the actions of the Soviet leadership, what
Trotskyists want people to believe is that the leadership of the Soviet Union,
in the time of Stalin, expressed its counterrevolutionary nature in the
struggle to build socialism in one country in opposition to capitalism and in
the fraternal support it gave to anti-imperialist struggles around the world.
Most people will agree that, this is indeed a strange
way for a communist leadership to express its conservatism and
counterrevolutionary nature.
Thus for Trotskyism, the struggle to build socialism
in any country, in opposition to imperialism, is a sign of conservatism and
Stalinist counterrevolution.
Thousands of people around the world, from the working
class, youth and intelligentsia, have been misled by this arrant nonsense.
This ideological nonsense, perpetrated on the workers
movement, is still adhered to by individuals in many left circles. Under the
banner of Trotskyism, these individuals have spent their lives fighting against
the dialectics of the world revolution process.
A clear example of forcing of facts to support the
theory of Trotskyism is seen in the Trotskyist argument that, when the
revisionists took over the leadership of communist parties, this was a direct
consequence of the Stalinist theory of socialism in one country. In other
words, the Trotskyists trace the rise of modern revisionism in the
international communist movement to adherence to Lenin’s theory of world
revolution.
Thus, it was Trotsky who started the argument that
Lenin’s theory of world revolution was the embodiment of counterrevolution. He
had, however, to pretend that the theory originated with Stalin.
Needless to say, in refutation of this Trotskyist
nonsense, Marxist-Leninists, starting from Lenin, trace the rise of revisionism
to the existence of imperialism.
The sources of modern revisionism, that is to say the
revisionism that developed in the international communist movement, has the
same fundamental sources as the revisionism which developed in the Second
International. This source is imperialism.
Imperialism, by providing privileges to a stratum of
the working class in the capitalist countries, fosters opportunism, which leads
to revisionism. In the case of the
Soviet Union, the pressures of imperialism, particularly the threat of nuclear
obliteration served the cause of revisionism. Thus, it is no accident that the
growth of Soviet revisionism roughly coincides with the nuclear pressure
directed against Soviet Union.
The common view in the Marxist-Leninist movement that
it was the Soviet communist party, after the death of Stalin, which led the
world communist movement into revisionism, is in fact the reverse of the truth.
Closer to the truth is that, it was the leading communist parties in the
advanced capitalist countries, and also the Titoite revisionists, which
provided one of the most important sources for the rise of Soviet revisionism,
under conditions of nuclear blackmail.
We have seen that the Leninist theory of world
revolution contains the possibility of the victory of socialism in one or
several countries to begin with. Stalin did no more than to uphold this aspect
of Marxism-Leninism.
On the other hand, Trotsky sought to attract support
by promoting the argument that in defending socialism in one country Stalin was
opposed to world revolution, because this would upset the ‘Stalinist
bureaucracy’s cosy relationship with imperialism.
Trotsky’s anti-Leninism even went further with the
claim that ‘Stalinism’ (not Social Democracy, with a right-wing which is the
open defender of monopoly capitalism) is the most counterrevolutionary tendency
in the workers movement.
The revisionist antics of Western communist parties
have been blamed on ‘Stalinists’ by Trotskyite radicals.
The revisionist wing of the communist movement did not
become revisionist because they adhered to Stalin, but because they rejected
the teachings on which Stalin stood on: Marxism-Leninism. These parties wore a
pro-Stalin mask behind which they peddled their revisionism.
For the revisionists there was no harm in adhering to
Lenin’s theory of world revolution, as long as it did not interfere with their parliamentary
road to socialism strategy.
For Trotsky and his follower’s the Stalinists were
more counterrevolutionary than pro-imperialist Social Democracy because they
defended Lenin’s theory of world revolution.
This political line has served imperialism and Social
Democracy well, and proves, if proof was needed, that Trotskyism represents
ideological sabotage of Marxism-Leninism, which serves the interest of Social
Democracy and imperialism by trying to miseducate the working class vanguard.
The Trotskyists did not begin with a weak Soviet Union
facing imperialism alone, with the latter supported by opportunist Social
Democracy, but rather with the notion that every mistake, set-back or defeat
for the international communist movement, resulted from socialism in one
country, and should be laid squarely at the door of Stalin.
This simplistic, uninformed view has its adherents but
distorts reality. That communists made mistakes is beyond question. However,
they made no mistakes, in the time of Stalin, which led to the collapse of
Soviet power. History had to wait for the coming to leadership of the Soviet
revisionists before imperialism could realise its dream of restoring capitalism
in the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, as early as 1920, Lenin had to reprimand
Trotsky in the trade union debate (1920-1921) for making
‘…mistakes bearing
on the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat’. (See Lenin, in: CW.Vol.32; p.22)
‘…will ruin the
Soviet power and topple the dictatorship of the proletariat’. (Lenin: CW.Vol.32; p.83)
Yet, it was not only promoting erroneous, eclectic
views, in regard to the trade unions, which could lead to the collapse of
Soviet power. The proletarian dictatorship could meet its Waterloo if wrong,
anti-dialectical views were promoted in regard to the world revolutionary
process. By defending Lenin’s views in regard to this process against the
dangerously defeatist views being peddled by Trotsky and his followers, Stalin
saved the Soviet power from collapse.
In other words, Stalin saved the Soviet Union from
collapse by fighting for Lenin’s view that socialism was possible in one
country as part of world revolution.
Trotskyists are oblivious to the logic of collapse and
defeat contained in Trotsky’s position, particularly if the extension of the
revolution was delayed for any reason.
Had Stalin not led the struggle against Trotskyist
defeatism, the content of which was that socialism is not possible in a single
country, the Soviet regime would probably have seen its demise in the 1920s or
1930s.
We have argued, so far, that in a world where the
Soviet Union was left isolated by the retreat of the revolution in the advanced
capitalist countries and surrounded by imperialism, in a state of backwardness,
those who went around undermining the confidence of the working class with
Trotskyist ideology about the impossibility of socialism in one country,
objectively speaking, served the interest of counterrevolution.
Trotskyism in reality became a movement for
demoralising the Soviet working class and communists regarding the possibility
for socialism in the Soviet Union.
Trotsky started his defeatist campaign in1924, and yet
he was allowed to continue openly with this work until 1927. How was this
possible? The leadership knew that Trotsky’s campaign was serving
counterrevolution within the country. They knew that if Trotsky’s idea that
socialism could not be built in one country became a widely held view, the
revolution and the regime would collapse.
In our view, the view of Marxist-Leninists, the main reason is that Stalin had to wait
until he could command enough support to remove Trotsky and undermine his
dangerous idea. Therefore, Stalin must be absolved from blame for the continuation
of Trotskyist disruptive activities.
Only those who upheld Lenin’s theory of world
revolution could come to the logical conclusion that Trotsky’s campaign was,
indeed, dangerous.
This is the conclusion, which suggest itself, based on
the understanding of Lenin’s theory of world revolution, and the application of
this theory to the concrete conditions of the Soviet Union. Without Lenin’s
theory of world revolution, it would not be possible to argue that Trotskyism
was playing a counterrevolution role after 1924.
By opposing the Trotskyist thesis of either socialism in one country or world
revolution, in favour of Lenin’s view that socialism is possible in one or
several countries as part of world revolution, we do not confuse theory with
perspective.
For instance, the early Bolshevik perspective that the
Soviet power would not last for long without revolution in at least one of the
advanced countries, was falsified by events. The Soviet Union had a longer
lease of life than was originally thought possible, at the level of
perspectives.
The retreat of the world revolution in the advanced
countries meant that by 1923 the Bolsheviks could no longer, in a one-sided
way, depend only on the world revolution to save Soviet power, at least not in
the short term. In fact, considering the short term, they could not depend on
world revolution at all.
This was a lesson which Trotsky, in practice, never
fully assimilated. For the Trotskyists only the immediate extension of the
world revolution could save the Soviet Union in the short term. This was an
aspect of Trotsky’s theory of the world revolution, which when attached to the
early Bolshevik perspective of imminence of world revolution after the
Bolsheviks came to power, gave it some sort of credibility in the eyes of those
unschooled in Marxism-Leninism.
Since Lenin and the Bolsheviks could no longer rely,
in a one-sided way, on the early development of world revolution to save the
Soviet regime, the communists were forced to look for other means of survival. On
the diplomatic front, the principal means was the policy of
peaceful-coexistence, aimed at discouraging war by imperialism against the
Soviet Union. Certain trade ties were sought, where the Soviet Union could
trade primary products and earn the currency to import machinery. The Soviet
Union had to learn to manoeuvre between the various imperialists States and
take advantage of the divisions between them in the interest of peace.
Trotskyism, being a semi ultra-left ideology, was
unable to take full account of the reality relating to the retreat of the
European revolution and even less of the greater difficulty, compared with
Russia, which the working class had to overcome in order to defeat capitalism
in the advanced countries. Lenin had recognised that the fight to defeat
capitalism in the advanced capitalist countries would be more difficult than in
Russia.
This, combined with Trotsky’s struggle against the
Leninist theory of world revolution, which as we have already noted, holds out
the possibility of socialism in one or several countries, brought out the real
dangers contained in the Trotskyist challenge to the leadership, particularly
between 1924-1927.
Trotsky’s past certainly did not recommend him as a
better tactician and strategist, compared to the ascending party leadership
around Stalin. Trotsky could appear radical on several issues, but this was no
more than the use of the ‘revolutionary phrase’ which Lenin had previously
condemned. Thus, Trotsky’s ‘left’ stance on certain issues could hardly be taken
as a sign of superior political wisdom.
Later, Trotsky was to compound his mistakes further
with his call for a ‘political revolution’ to overthrow what he had now, as we
have said, begun to call the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’.
Trotsky’s argument that Stalin had usurped the
leadership of the revolution at the head of a conservative Soviet bureaucracy,
which was opposed to world revolution, and whose conservatism found expression
in the doctrine of socialism in one country cannot stand up to criticism.
As we have explained Trotsky’s up-side-down logic
described as conservative and counterrevolutionary, those who defended Lenin’s
theory of revolution and who were building socialism in one country in
opposition to capitalism and, furthermore, who assisted the communist and
national liberation around the world.
Those who adhere to this view are simultaneously
rejecting Lenin’s theory of world revolution.
Trotsky also rejected the Marxist-Leninist line on
fighting against bureaucracy. For Lenin the struggle against bureaucracy was a
long term process. Trotsky portrayed the bureaucracy as a stratum, opposed to
revolution. To his anarchistic talk about overthrowing a counterrevolutionary
bureaucracy, Marxist-Leninists counterposed the need for purging the counterrevolutionary
elements from the Soviet bureaucracy. Without this purged the Soviet Union
could hardly have been expected to survive the coming confrontation with
fascism.
The purges directed against the bureaucracy were aimed
at weeding out enemies and subordinating this apparatus to the goals of
socialism and the defence interests of the State.
Trotsky’s call for ‘political revolution’ would have
most certainly led to the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. A new
revolution was not necessary in the Soviet Union, but Trotsky made this call
because this was the only hope he had of returning to power.
To conclude; Trotsky’s lack of dialectical training
led him to reject Lenin’s theory of world revolution, which contains the
possibility of the victory of socialism in one country.
Trotsky replaced this with his own anti-dialectical
thesis of either socialism in one country
or revolution. The leadership gathered around Stalin rejected this
anti-dialectical view and held on to Lenin’s position.
Trotsky began to denounce Stalin and his supporters
for defending Lenin’s theory of world revolution. But Lenin’s theory of world
revolution contains the possibility of socialism in several or one country.
Trotsky, unable to think dialectically, (he had given
examples of this weakness in the past) interpreted this to mean that the party
leadership, i.e., those gathered around Stalin, were opposed to world
revolution.
Trotsky did not take into any serious practical
consideration the consequence of the retreat of the world revolution in the
advanced countries and that defeating capitalism in these countries would be
more complex, a point which Lenin had made. Thus, he one-sidedly relied on
world revolution to save the Soviet Union in the short term.
He campaigned against the Leninist view that building
socialism in one country was possible. This dovetailed with the Menshevik
argument that Russia was too backward for socialism to work.
This campaign, had it succeeded, would have led to
defeatism in the Soviet Union and bring about the collapse of the Soviet power,
that is, the demise of working class political leadership of the country.
Defeatism was the logical result of Trotsky’s
rejection of the Leninist theory of revolution.
The party leadership tolerated Trotsky’s defeatist
campaign in regard to the Soviet Union from 1924-7.
Stalin had to wait until he could command a majority
for the removal of Trotsky and thus undermine the latter’s dangerous activities.
The struggle against Menshevik defeatism in the period
of Lenin, and Trotskyist defeatism in the period of Stalin, was essential for
the survival of the Soviet Union.
The scientific necessity to struggle against
Trotskyism flowed directly from the need to uphold Lenin’s theory of world
revolution and to save the Soviet Union from collapse. It was not a personal
vendetta by Stalin.
Led by Stalin, the Soviet leadership fought to put an
end to this dangerous defeatist campaign, which was begun by the Mensheviks,
and now was taken over by the Trotskyists, and placed on pseudo-left
foundations.
The essence of the leadership’s struggle against
Trotskyism was aimed at stopping the process of demoralisation, which
Trotskyism had introduced into the thinking of Soviet communists and the
working class.
Trotsky later compounded his mistakes by adopting the
anarchistic line of calling for political revolution against a bureaucracy,
which the Trotskyists had now begun to call ‘Stalinist’ for factional reasons.
Since Trotsky was essentially arguing that support for
Lenin’s theory of world revolution meant opposing revolutions, Trotskyism was
regarded by the party leadership around Stalin as an enemy of Leninism, an
ideological threat to the maintenance of Soviet power.
Having said all this, Trotsky was expelled from the
Soviet Communist Party not only for his defeatist views but also for breaking
party discipline in 1927.
Tony Clark, July 20, 2005
email: unity@oneparty.co.uk
BM LEO LONDON WC1N 3XX