How Trotskyites criticised so-called "Stalinism" in order to conceal the counter-revolutionary role of  social-democracy in the working-class movement.

Notes for a presentation to the Stalin Society, 23^rd September 2007 By Tony Clark

A BRIEF OUTLINE OF TROTSKYISM

Trotskyism arose out of the 1905 revolution in Russia after Trotsky developed his theoretical version of permanent revolution. The basic outlines of this theory was suggested by Parvus and taken over by Trotsky. The theory was presented in a purely abstract way, in that the transition from the bourgeois democratic revolution to the socialist revolution was envisaged as proceeding according to its own internal logic independent of concrete circumstances and in which, to one degree or another, Trotsky underestimated the role of the peasantry.

 From 1924 Trotsky opposed Stalin over socialism in one country, claiming that Stalin was against world revolution. But Lenin had previously explained on several occasions that socialism was possible in one or several countries as part of world revolution, and furthermore, in January 1918, in his report to the Third Congress of Soviets, Lenin again defended this position arguing that

'…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The "final" victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible'. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.26; p470)

In other words, Lenin saw the difference between the victory of socialism in one country and the final victory on a world scale.

 Another area where Trotsky came into conflict with the party was over the question of  industrialisation and collectivisation. Trotsky wanted this policy to be implemented before the dictatorship of the proletariat and the party had sufficiently strengthened itself in the country.

Later Trotsky developed a critique of Soviet bureaucracy, calling it 'Stalinist', and putting forward the line that what was needed was a ‘political’ revolution to overthrow it. This went against Lenin's correct view that the struggle against bureaucracy was a long-term process. In any case for Marxist-Leninists it was never a question of overthrowing the bureaucracy but rather of purging it of counter-revolution elements. In reality the bureaucratic elements were more anti-Stalinist than Stalinist.

 On the international scene, Trotsky blamed Stalin for the defeat of the British 1926 General Strike, but this was a strike which the TUC leaders did not want and which the Baldwin Tory government had carefully prepared for. About half of the Communist Party membership of about 5000 was arrested, including Saklatvala.

 The defeat of the Chinese revolution of 1927 led Trotsky to step up his attack on Stalin, but his criticism was based on Trotsky's desire to impose his theoretical version of permanent revolution on the revolutionary process in China. Trotsky ignored the anti-imperialist nature of the first stage of the revolution. In colonial type countries, Trotsky put the socialist revolution before the bourgeois national revolution directed against imperialism. This would have required that the weak Chinese working class take on all its enemies at once, the feudalists, the national bourgeoisie and the various imperialist powers that sought to divide up China in their own interests.

 Following these events Trotsky blamed Stalin for the victory of fascism in Germany, although of  course he avoided blaming Lenin for the victory of fascism in Italy in 1922 when he himself was in the leadership of the communist movement. The defeat of the working class and the left in Germany by fascism in my view resulted from a combination of social democratic treachery and third period communist sectarianism, expressed in the theory of social-fascism. Fascism does not mean simply attacking the working class and murdering working class leaders. Fascism means the complete suppression of bourgeois democracy and the labour movement including  social-democracy, which paves the way for it. The theory of social fascism made it easier for the social democratic leaders to avoid a united-front against fascism. However, since genuine supporters of Stalin were in a minority on the ECCI at this time, it is wrong to place the blame for the defeat in Germany at Stalin’s door.

Trotskyists blamed Stalin for the defeat of the Spanish Republic by Franco. Here again they wanted to impose their theoretical version of permanent revolution on the revolutionary process in Spain. In the view of Trotskyists an immediate socialist transformation would have saved the situation. I beg to differ; the Republican side would have still been faced with the military question of defeating the right, led by Franco. The only difference would be that instead of being supported directly by Hitler and Mussolini, Franco would have enjoyed more direct support from the other imperialist powers.

In the immediate post-war period, when the imperialists had a monopoly of the nuclear bomb up until 1949, Trotskyites blamed Stalin for betraying revolution at this time, although the presence of the Red Army in Eastern and Central Europe made it possible for several countries to go over to socialism.

In the past, opposing defeatism was the essence of the struggle against Trotskyism. Today it cannot be said that the essence of the struggle against Trotskyism remains the same. Today the essence of the struggle against Trotskyism consists of the fact that it helps to conceal the counter-revolutionary role of  social-democracy in the working class.

We need to understand Trotskyism’s relationship to  social-democracy. To some extent we can get a clue about Trotsky’s attitude when we turn to his critique of the draft programme of the Comintern in 1928, entitled ‘The third international after Lenin’. Here Trotsky writes, in a work that is regarded as seminal by his followers, that

‘…the possibility of betrayal is always contained in reformism’. (P.98 New Park edition)

The dictionary definition of possibility means ‘perhaps’ but ‘not necessarily’. This is not a Marxist-Leninist understanding of reformism.

In 1934 Trotsky put forward a new policy, carried out in France, and known as the French turn, when he called on his followers to enter the French socialist party and it seems that this policy was related to the development of what became Trotsky’s main political line. This line required a rejection of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism regarding the economic and political character of the latest stage of capitalism, imperialism, and its relation to opportunism in the working class movement.

The most important political understanding of Marxism-Leninism is the recognition that the capitalists, with the super profits from imperialism, had succeeded in dividing the working class. A section of the working class, a labour aristocracy, has deserted socialism and has sided with the capitalists against revolution. This section defends imperialism and imperialist wars; they have become social chauvinists and social imperialists. This division gave rise to the main contradiction in the working class, to which all the other contradictions are subordinated. These pro-imperialist elements in the working class, represented by  social-democracy, are the most counter-revolutionary elements in the working class movement.

Any attempt to conceal, in any way, the counter-revolutionary role of  social-democracy serves the interest of the capitalist class and imperialism. This is precisely what Trotskyism does.

Does anyone know what the main political line of Trotskyism is?

Trotskyites, since about the middle of the 1930s, have put forward the anti-communist, pro-social democratic line that Stalinism is the greatest counter-revolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class (The speaker at this point begins to explain that contrary to the claims of Trotskyism, social-democracy not Stalinism is the greatest counter-revolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class movement.)

 The following is a brief account of the points made by the speaker:

 If we remain on the basis of Leninism we see that Trotskyism, at least openly, began to play a counter-revolutionary role within the Soviet Union from about 1924 onwards. Lenin regarded those who argued that socialism was possible only on a world scale as representing the voluntary and involuntary supporters of the bourgeoisie in that they confused the victory of socialism in a single country with the final victory on a world scale.

Thus we see that it is not Stalin but rather Leninism that condemns Trotskyism. This ideological trend, Trotskyism, became the involuntary supporters of the bourgeoisie. Trotskyism then proceeded to invert reality or turn it up side down, so to speak. Those who defended Leninism on this point were increasing regarded as ‘counter-revolutionary’. Thus, eventually, the supporters of Stalin, the ‘Stalinists’, not only became ‘counter-revolutionary’, but even the greatest counter-revolutionary force in the working class.

This, indeed, is the main political line that sums up Trotskyism. Thus we read in Marxist Review for June, 2006, an article, which made the following observation

‘Fifty years on from Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in his 20^th Congress speech it is important to look back at it, not out of historical interest, but because Stalinism remains the most counterrevolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class movement today’.

Here, presented with pristine clarity, is the main argument, the main political line and theory of Trotskyism….and we see that it is opposed, fundamentally, to Marxism-Leninism, which argues that  social-democracy is, and remains, the greatest counter-revolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class. This latter view is basic Leninism, which is being challenged by Trotskyism with their argument that it is “Stalinism” which represents the greatest counter-revolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class.

But it was so-called ‘Stalinism’ that gave the most support to the former Soviet Union, and the other socialist countries, and they also gave support to the anti-imperialist, national liberation movements to one degree or another around the world, not to mention that they also supported anti-imperialist regimes and they led anti-fascist struggles around the world.

Yet according to Trotskyism, Stalinists represent the greatest counter-revolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class movement. The movement that supported the former Soviet Union, the other socialist countries, the anti-imperialist fighters and the anti-imperialist regimes became, within Trotskyist ideology, the greatest counter-revolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class. We must ask, therefore, why did Trotsky not assign the greatest counter-revolutionary role in the working class to  social-democracy?

Within Trotskyism, those who were, and still are, the faithful servants of imperialism, who opposed the Russian revolution and the Soviet Union, who opposed the anti-imperialist movements and regimes are not regarded as the greatest counter-revolutionary agents of imperialism in the working class. So we clearly see that the historical role of Trotskyism is to cover up the counter-revolutionary role of  social-democracy in the working class. This is a good example of the meaning of the term left in form, right in essence.

Those who support Trotskyism cannot escape the dilemma that Trotsky has placed them in without rejecting Trotskyism. This is because to reject Trotsky’s argument that ‘Stalinism’ is the greatest counter-revolutionary agency of imperialism in the working class is to reject the essence of Trotskyism. Some Trotskyists trying to hold on to Trotskyism may conceivably try to argue that  social-democracy and ‘Stalinism’ are equally counter-revolutionary, but this argument would be as false and nonsensical as the previous one. How can a movement or ideological trend which gave support to the former Soviet Union and other socialist countries, and the anti-imperialist struggles and regimes be as equally counter-revolutionary as a movement which has defended imperialism up to the hilt, including imperialist wars and counter-revolution?

Those who conceal the counter-revolutionary role of  social-democracy by claiming like Trotsky that ‘Stalinism’ plays the greatest counter-revolutionary role in the working class, are themselves playing a counter-revolutionary role.