Trotskyism or Leninism:
An Historical Outline by Tim
Logan (CPGB-ML) to the Stalin Society (UK)
November 2005.
In the modern world a hard and keen struggle has been waged between different political trends and theories, many of which in one way or another reflect the fact that since capitalism first established itself the political consciousness of the masses has changed. Trotskyism has a special place among the political phenomena of social life today. The Trotskyites seek to divert from a correct path those members of non-proletarian sections, in particular students and intellectuals, who become increasingly involved in the political struggle and who could and should join hands with the working class, unite with scientific socialism, and follow the example set forth by the great teachers Lenin-Stalin, and the USSR. Trotskyism as an ideological and political trend was resolutely rejected by the communist and working-class movement in the late 1920s and early 1930s thanks to the efforts of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties which exposed the pseudo-revolutionary and defeatist essence of Trotskyism. As a result, Trotskyist organisations disintegrated and degenerated into sectarian groupings interminably wrangling among themselves.
Recent years have witnessed a revival of Trotskyism, this revival has occurred in tandem with the collapse of revisionism in the USSR and has been aided by the capitalists in the imperialist countries, and in particular by the growth in these nations of a labour aristocracy funded by imperialist super-profits. The Trotskyist organisations have become active in a number of imperialist countries in Europe, and the United States, and the flow of Trotskyist publications has increased. The Trotskyists have begun the loud and strident propagation of their views. Now that contradictions and cataclysms in capitalist society have become extremely acute the monopoly capitalists are seeking to prevent the growth of the working people’s political activity and to channel their revolutionary energy in the wrong direction. Various pseudo-revolutionary ideas, including Trotskyism, are being eagerly used for these purposes. It is no accident that the numerous writings of Trotsky and present-day Trotskyists are widely circulated by bourgeois and liberal newspapers, magazines and publishers. The Trotskyists, reflecting to some extent the views of certain groups of students, intellectuals and lower paid employees, try to foist distorted political concepts on them and to incite them to acts of political adventurism. They harp incessantly on about “untapped possibilities” which could allegedly speed the revolution. They put forward strident “revolutionary” slogans that often contradict one another! They do not care whether the conditions for revolution exist or not. This is ‘Leftist’ opportunism, which has always been one of the most dangerous enemies of the revolutionary movement. ‘Leftist’ opportunism is a typical offshoot of petty-bourgeois revolutionarism. ‘Leftist’ and Rightist opportunism are two sides of the same coin. Right-wing opportunists weaken the revolutionary movement because they renounce struggle against the imperialist bourgeoisie for the sake of coming to terms with it. The ‘Left-wingers’ loudly denounce collaboration with the bourgeoisie but in fact weaken the militant movement by involving some of its groups in ruinous adventures. Right wing and ‘Leftist’ opportunism have the same ideological basis - lack of trust in the revolutionary strength of the working class and its political vanguard, in particular the truly Marxist-Leninist Parties which are today re-forging themselves. In their propaganda today’s Trotskyist’s every now and then resort to political demagoguery. Like Trotsky, they seek to replace Leninism by Trotskyism while using phrases about “Loyalty to Lenin” as a cover. They describe Trotsky as Lenin’s comrade-in-arms and a loyal and even the only continuer of his cause.
What does this gross deception count on? - Evidently, on the fact that many participants in the working-class and national liberation movement, especially young people, know little about the origin of Trotskyism, the historical experience of the ideological and political struggle against it and the basic political and theoretical arguments which were put forward by Lenin and the Communist Party in the course of this struggle.
This presentation will include some of Lenin’s articles, letters and speeches which reconstruct the irreconcilable struggle against Trotskyism and expose the essence of Trotsky’s anti-Marxist concepts.
The initial period in Lenin’s struggle against Trotsky’s ideological position began at the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democrat Labour Party (RSDLP) in 1903. There were two points of view that clashed during the discussion of its programme and rules: the revolutionary one and the opportunist one. Trotsky found himself among the opportunists. He opposed Lenin’s revolutionary line on the questions of the programme and organisational questions. The Draft Programme of the Party contained an important Marxist proposition on the dictatorship of the proletariat, the political power of the working class. Trotsky did not object to this proposition in words but in fact opposed it. He expressed a view that coincided with the views of West European and Russian opportunists. In his opinion, the dictatorship of the proletariat was only possible if the proletariat constituted the majority of the nation. In Russia this meant that the solution of the problem would be put off indefinitely. It is well known that the victory of the 1917 October Revolution fully refuted this thesis. The USSR managed to not only survive in isolation, to build up a mighty Socialist economy, to overthrow Fascism, but it also held out and grew powerful enough to help spread the revolution and bring into being after the Second World War, a Socialist Camp that constituted a third of the worlds population! What a dismal failure the dictatorship of the proletariat was! What a dismal failure socialism in one country turned out to be! Trotsky’s opportunistic position was manifested clearly at the Second Congress on the question of the organisational structure of the Party. Lenin believed that a party member must belong to a Party organisation, work under its guidance, obey its decisions and observe party discipline. Only in such a case would the party as a whole become the organised detachment of the working class and its political leader. Unlike Lenin, Martov and Trotsky who backed Martov’s wording of the first paragraph of the rules believed that any striker who was not a member of a party organisation and who, consequently, did not obey party discipline could be a party member. At the Second Congress the Party split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
In January 1905, a revolution broke out in Russia. The Mensheviks and Trotsky evaluated the revolution and its motive forces differently. The Mensheviks believed that the revolution in Russia, like the previous bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe, had to be led by the bourgeoisie that had to take political power in the event of victory; the proletariat should not oppose its class goals in this revolution to those of the bourgeoisie and its only task was to fully support the bourgeoisie. In this period Trotsky went to the other extreme and came out with an absurd ‘leftist’ theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’, which he had borrowed from Parvus. This theory completely ignored the objective conditions of the revolution-taking place in Russia. Trotsky believed that the working class could take power alone without allies. He put forward the slogan: “A workers’ government without the tsar”. That slogan meant the isolation of the proletariat from the many millions of peasants who were a powerful revolutionary force because they were vitally interested in eliminating the remnants of old pre-capitalist relations in the countryside. Thus Trotsky rejected the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. In fact Trotsky opposed the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’ to Lenin’s analysis of the character and motive forces of the 1905-1907 revolution.
This revolution was defeated. Years of brutal reaction began. Tsarism struck its main blow at the party of the working class. The conditions under which it had to work radically changed. It was necessary skilfully to combine both illegal and legal forms of party work to promote the strengthening of the party’s ties with the masses.
The Bolsheviks were accomplishing these tasks while fighting against Right wing and ‘Left-wing’ opportunists. The Menshevik liquidators, frightened by reactionary forces, demanded the dissolution of the revolutionary proletarian party and its replacement by a legal reformist party. The ‘Left-wing’ of opportunists - the Otzovists - sought to recall the representatives of the working class from the Duma and other legal organisations. What was Trotsky’s position in this critical situation? Trotsky, who then supported the Centrists, claimed that he was “above factions”. This was not so, however. Trotsky insisted that there was no difference in principle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and that the struggle between them was one between two groups of the intelligentsia for influence over “the politically immature proletariat”. Lenin wrote in his “Announcement of the publication of Rabochaya Gazette”,
“A worker who does not want to be spoken to in childish tones cannot fail to understand that liquidationism and otzovism are just as much non-accidental, deep-rooted trends as Bolshevism and Menshevism. Only inventors of fairy-tales "for workers" explain the difference between these two last factions as due to disputes between "intellectuals". In reality these two trends, which have left their mark on the whole history of the Russian revolution, on all the first years (in many respects the most important years) of the mass workers' movement in Russia, were produced by the very process of the economic and political reconstruction of Russia from a feudal into a bourgeois country, were produced by the influences exerted on the proletariat by various bourgeois classes, or more correctly, were produced by the situation of various strata of the bourgeoisie within which the proletariat acted. It follows that Social-Democratic unity in Russia is not possible through the destruction of one of the two trends which took shape in the period of the most open, most extensive, mass, free and historically important actions of the working class during the revolution. But it follows also that the foundations for a real rapprochement between the two factions are not to be found in well-meaning phrases about unity, about the abolition of factions, etc., but only in the internal development of the factions.”
This is in brief how the argument unfolded. Trotsky took his group and then actively set about to split the Party in two. Lenin charts this development with references to Trotsky’s manoeuvres with a letter to the ‘Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the RSDLP’. The following is a very brief excerpt and exposition by Lenin on Trotsky’s actions and the possibility of a split.
“On the 26th November 1910, Trotsky carried through a resolution in the so-called Vienna Party Club (a circle of Trotskyists, exiles who were pawns in the hands of Trotsky) that he published as a separate leaflet. I append this leaflet. Open war is declared on Rabochaya Gazeta…the arguments are not new. The statement that there are not now no “essential grounds” for a struggle against the Golos and Vperod groups is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy. Everybody knows that the Golos and Vperod People had no intention of dispersing their factions and that the former in reality support the liquidators, Potresov and Co., that the Vperod group organised the factional school abroad. Where they teach Machism, where they teach that otzovism is a ‘legal shade of opinion’ etc. Trotsky’s call for ‘friendly’ collaboration by the Party with the Golo’s and Vperod groups is disgusting hypocrisy and phrase-mongering. Everybody knows that for the whole year since the plenary meeting the Golos and Vperod groups have worked in a ‘friendly’ manner against the Party (and were secretly supported by Trotsky). Actually, it is only the Bolsheviks and Plekanov’s group who have for a whole year carried out friendly party work in the central organ, Rabochaya Gazeta, and at Copenhagen, as well as in the Russian legal press. Trotsky’s attacks on the Bolsheviks and Plekanov’s group are not new; what is new is their outcome of the resolution: the Vienna Club has organised a general Party fund for the purpose of “preparing and convening a conference of the RSDLP”. This indeed is new. It is a direct step towards a split. It is a clear violation of party legality and the start of an adventure in which Trotsky will come to grief. Trotsky’s action, his ‘fund’, is supported only by the Golo’s and Vperod groups. There can be no question of participation by the Bolsheviks and Plekanovs group.
It is clear that this undertaking violates party legality, since not a word is said about the central committee, which alone can call the conference. In addition, Trotsky, having ousted the central committee representative on Pravda in August 1910, himself lost all trace of legality, converting Pravda from an organ supported by the central committee into a purely factional organ. The liquidators in Russia sabotaged the work of the Russian Central Committee. The liquidators abroad wanted to prevent a plenary meeting abroad-in other words, sabotage anything like a central committee. Taking advantage of this breach in Party legality, Trotsky seeks an organisational split, creating ‘his own’ fund for ‘his own’ conference. You will understand why I call Trotsky’s move an adventure; it is an adventure in every respect.
Trotsky unites all to whom an ideological decay is dear, all who are not concerned with a defence of Marxism; all Philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think, and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the ‘hero of the hour’ and gather all the shabby elements around himself. The open this attempt is made the more spectacular will be his defeat. A conference held with Trotsky’s funds is a split; let the initiative remain with Trotsky. Let his be the responsibility. Three slogans bring out the essence of the present situation within the Party,
1. Strengthen and support the unification and rallying of Plekanovs supporters and the Bolsheviks for the defence of Marxism, for a rebuff to ideological confusion, and for the battle against liquidationism and otzovism.
2. Struggle for a plenary meeting-for a legal solution to the party crisis.
3. Struggle against the splitting tactics and the unprincipled adventurism of Trotsky”
The above statement demonstrates quite clearly the Bolsheviks led by Lenin resolutely rejected unification with the opportunists and that Trotsky was seeking to unite his opportunists in a new organisation with his factional and splitting activities. Trotsky was on a course of self-destruction and at a plenary meeting of the CC he declared his loyalty to the Party and how resolutely he had fought against liquidationism! Lenin had had enough when he wrote his piece entitled “Judas Trotsky’s blush of shame”, I reproduce it now.
“At the Plenary Meeting Judas Trotsky made a big show of fighting liquidationism and otzovism. He vowed and swore that he was true to the Party. He was given a subsidy.
After the Meeting the Central Committee grew weaker, the Vperyod (Trotsky’s gang) group grew stronger and acquired funds. The liquidators strengthened their position and in Nasha Zarya [26] spat in the face of the illegal Party, before Stolypin's very eyes.
Judas expelled the representative of the Central Committee from Pravda and began to write liquidationist articles in Vorwärts.[27] In defiance of the direct decision of the School Commission[28] appointed by the Plenary Meeting to the effect that no Party lecturer may go to the Vperyod factional school, Judas Trotsky did go and discussed a plan for a conference with the Vperyod group. This plan has now been published by the Vperyod group in a leaflet.
And it is this Judas who beats his breast and loudly professes his loyalty to the Party, claiming that he did not grovel before the Vperyod group and the liquidators.
Such is Judas Trotsky's blush of shame.”
It is not important in this meeting for us to chart the meagre rise and dismal failure of Trotsky’s attempt at forming a new organisation. The ‘August Bloc’ which he created for this very job crumbled unceremoniously and Lenin in a number of his articles (‘The Historical Meaning of the Inner Party Struggle in Russia, ‘Trotsky’s Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform’, The Break-up of the August Bloc’) lays bare the class essence of the inner-party struggle and the failures of Trotsky’s group. Now to move on to a new period, with new treachery and wrecking by the Trotskyists, even in their finest hour.
The Period of the First
Imperialist World War.
During the First Imperialist World War (1914-1918) the Russian Bolsheviks and the consistent revolutionary internationalists in European countries faced a new opportunist trend in the international working-class movement - social chauvinism - which formed a bloc with the Left-Wing’ sectarians and the centrists. In those years, not going beyond Menshevism, Trotsky advocated Centrism and Kautskyism. It was at the height of the World War that Lenin wrote his fundamental work ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ in which he analysed the economic and political foundations of the system that caused unjust predatory wars and gave a scientific explanation of the laws of the world revolutionary process. The main conclusion of the book was that at the beginning of the 20th century capitalism had reached a stage when features of the period of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had emerged. It was during the War that Lenin sharply criticised Trotsky’s view of the prospects of the forthcoming socialist revolution in Russia and its motive forces. He showed that under the guises of “revolutionary phraseology” Trotsky had actually espoused Kautsky’s theory of “ultra-imperialism” which denied the fundamental contradictions of imperialism and essentially confirmed the inviolability of that system. This ‘theory’ concluded that the imperialist countries would eventually sit around a table and over a cup of tea peacefully share out amongst themselves whatever little was left of the world and then plan economic development in monopolist unity!
By 1917, by the very logic of the course of mounting revolutionary events in Russia, Trotsky and his followers found themselves politically isolated. Lenin noted that they did not have and do not have any basis in the working class.
The October Revolution
and building Socialism.
Immediately after the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917, Trotsky came to Petrograd and joined the ‘Inter-District organisation of the United Social Democrats’. In August 1917, the Mezhraiontsy declared that they had no differences with the Bolsheviks and joined the RSDLP (Bolsheviks). This merger took place at the 6th Congress of the Bolsheviks, convened in secrecy and directed by Stalin in Lenin’s absence. But, as later events showed, for Trotsky joining the Bolshevik Party was yet another act of political hypocrisy. Pseudo-revolutionaries usually hide the un-tenability of their ideology behind ‘Leftist’ and ‘ultra-revolutionary’ phrases. This was typical of Trotsky’s position too.
At the crucial moment of the October Revolution, i.e., when preparations for an armed uprising were under way, Trotsky proposed that it should not begin before the convocation of the Second Congress of Soviets. Trotsky in later years talked about the ‘legality’ of the Congress of Soviets that took place on October 25th. When he does this he does it not to strengthen the legality of the Soviets, but to undermine Leninism, to undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat, not to uphold any universal principles of legality and working class power. To “wait for the Congress of Soviets would be utter idiocy”, Lenin wrote in his article ‘The Crisis has Matured’, for it would mean losing weeks, at a time when even days decided everything. On precisely this issue Stalin summed up Trotsky’s position and that of Lenin.
“Trotsky is absolutely wrong in asserting that Lenin underrated Soviet legality, that Lenin failed to appreciate the great importance of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets taking power on October 25, and that this was the reason why he insisted that power be taken before October 25. That is not true. Lenin proposed that power be taken before October 25 for two reasons. Firstly, because the counter-revolutionaries might have surrendered Petrograd at any moment, which would have drained the blood of the developing uprising, and so every day was precious. Secondly, because the mistake made by the Petrograd Soviet in openly fixing and announcing the day of the uprising (October 25) could not be rectified in any other way than by actually launching the uprising before the legal date set for it. The fact of the matter is that Lenin regarded insurrection as an art, and he could not help knowing that the enemy, informed about the date of the uprising (owing to the carelessness of the Petrograd Soviet) would certainly try to prepare for that day. Consequently, it was necessary to forestall the enemy, i.e., without fail to launch the uprising before the legal date. This is the chief explanation for the passion with which Lenin in his letters scourged those who made a fetish of the date -- October 25. Events showed that Lenin was absolutely right. It is well known that the uprising was launched prior to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. It is well known that power was actually taken before the opening of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, and it was taken not by the Congress of Soviets, but by the Petrograd Soviet, by the Revolutionary Military Committee. The Congress of Soviets merely took over power from the Petrograd Soviet. That is why Trotsky's lengthy arguments about the importance of Soviet legality are quite beside the point.”
Even after the victory of the October Revolution and the consolidation of the power of the workers and peasants, Trotsky found it necessary to create myths and reinvent history. Stalin dealt with these lies in his work Trotskyism or Leninism and it is worth quoting the following section by Stalin where he deals with new Trotskyism, i.e. the development of so-called Trotskyist thought in the early 1920’s. This development is a basic charting of the contortionist Trotsky and the theoretical convulsions Trotskyism suffered as it found itself ideologically bankrupt in the face of the proletarian victory.
“What are the characteristic features of the new Trotskyism?
1) On the question of "permanent" revolution. The new Trotskyism does not deem it necessary openly to uphold the theory of "permanent" revolution. It "simply" asserts that the October Revolution fully confirmed the idea of "permanent" revolution. From this it draws the following conclusion: the important and acceptable part of Leninism is the part that came after the war, in the period of the October Revolution; on the other hand, the part of Leninism that existed before the war, before the October Revolution, is wrong and unacceptable. Hence, the Trotskyites' theory of the division of Leninism into two parts: pre-war Leninism, the "old," "useless" Leninism with its idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, and the new, post-war, October Leninism, which they count on adapting to the requirements of Trotskyism. Trotskyism needs this theory of the division of Leninism as a first, more or less "acceptable" step that is necessary to facilitate further steps in its struggle against Leninism.
But Leninism is not an eclectic theory stuck together out of diverse
elements and capable of being cut into parts. Leninism is an integral theory,
which arose in 1903, has passed the test of three revolutions, and is now being
carried forward as the battle-flag of the world proletariat.
"Bolshevism," Lenin said, "as a trend of political thought and as a political party, has existed since 1903. Only the history of Bolshevism during the whole period of its existence can satisfactorily explain why it was able to build up and to maintain under most difficult conditions the iron discipline needed for the victory of the proletariat" (see Vol. XXV, p. 174).[1]
Bolshevism and Leninism are one. They are two names for one and the same thing. Hence, the theory of the division of Leninism into two parts is a theory intended to destroy Leninism, to substitute Trotskyism for Leninism.
Needless to say, the Party cannot reconcile itself to this grotesque theory.
2) On the question of the Party principle. The old Trotskyism tried to undermine the Bolshevik Party principle by means of the theory (and practice) of unity with the Mensheviks. But that theory has suffered such disgrace that nobody now even wants to mention it. To undermine the Party principle, present-day Trotskyism has invented the new, less odious and almost "democratic" theory of contrasting the old cadres to the younger Party members. According to Trotskyism, our Party has not a single and integral history. Trotskyism divides the history of our Party into two parts of unequal importance: pre-October and post-October. The pre-October part of the history of our Party is, properly speaking, not history, but "pre-history," the unimportant or, at all events, not very important preparatory period of our Party. The post-October part of the history of our Party, however, is real, genuine history. In the former, there are the "old," "pre- historic," unimportant cadres of our Party. In the latter there is the new, real, "historic" Party. It scarcely needs proof that this singular scheme of the history of the Party is a scheme to disrupt the unity between the old and the new cadres of our Party, a scheme to destroy the Bolshevik Party principle.
Needless to say, the Party cannot reconcile itself to this grotesque scheme.
3) On the question of the leaders of Bolshevism. The old Trotskyism tried to discredit Lenin more or less openly, with out fearing the consequences. The new Trotskyism is more cautious. It tries to achieve the purpose of the old Trotskyism by pretending to praise, to exalt Lenin. I think it is worthwhile quoting a few examples.
The Party knows that Lenin was a relentless revolutionary; but it knows also that he was cautious, that he disliked reckless people and often, with a firm hand, restrained those who were infatuated with terrorism, including Trotsky himself. Trotsky touches on this subject in his book On Lenin, but from his portrayal of Lenin one might think that all Lenin did was "at every opportunity to din into people's minds the idea that terrorism was inevitable." The impression is created that Lenin was the most bloodthirsty of all the bloodthirsty Bolsheviks.
For what purpose did Trotsky need this uncalled-for and totally unjustified exaggeration?
The Party knows that Lenin was an exemplary Party man, who did not like to settle questions alone, without the leading collective body, on the spur of the moment, without careful investigation and verification. Trotsky touches upon this aspect, too, in his book. But the portrait he paints is not that of Lenin, but of a sort of Chinese mandarin, who settles important questions in the quiet of his study, by intuition…. The Party knows that Lenin was the greatest Marxist of our times, a profound theoretician and a most experienced revolutionary, to whom any trace of Blanquism was alien. Trotsky touches upon this aspect, too, in his book. But the portrait he paints is not that of the giant Lenin, but of a dwarf like Blanquist who, in the October days, advises the Party "to take power by its own hand, independently of and behind the back of the Soviet." I have already said, however, that there is not a scrap of truth in this description. Why did Trotsky need this flagrant . . . inaccuracy? Is this not an attempt to discredit Lenin "just a little"?
Such are the characteristic features of the new Trotskyism.
What is the danger of this new Trotskyism? It is that Trotskyism, owing to its entire inner content, stands every chance of becoming the centre and rallying point of the non-proletarian elements who are striving to weaken, to disintegrate the proletarian dictatorship.
You will ask: what is to be done now? What are the Party's immediate tasks in connection with Trotsky's new literary pronouncements?
Trotskyism is taking action now in order to discredit Bolshevism and to undermine its foundations. It is the duty of the Party to bury Trotskyism as an ideological trend.
There is talk about repressive measures against the opposition and about the possibility of a split. That is nonsense, comrades. Our Party is strong and mighty. It will not allow any splits. As regards repressive measures, I am emphatically opposed to them. What we need now is not repressive measures, but an extensive ideological struggle against renascent Trotskyism.”
This struggle was fought and won by Stalin and the Bolsheviks and Russia embarked upon the building of the world’s first socialist state whose ultimate goal was the complete transformation of the political and economic life of the country on entirely new principles. Throughout the early phase of proletarian dictatorship Trotsky was tolerated despite the fact that he continued on his own selfish course in the face of the wishes of the masses. He claimed that the future of the Soviet Republic was wholly dependent on the victory of revolution in Europe. Categorically denying that socialism could be victorious in one country, he said: “It is only a European revolution that can save us in the full sense of the word”. Such was Trotsky’s faith in the Revolution, faith in the Russian workers and peasants, faith in the possibilities opened up by the abolition of exploitation of one man by another.
He conducted Peace Talks with Germany in Brest-Litovsk this is well documented. Soviet Russia was going through a difficult time. The World War was still continuing and a very urgent task was to stop it. The newly born state of workers and peasants vitally needed a respite from the war. In view of the situation the Soviet Republic found itself in, Lenin favoured the signing of a Peace Treaty. Lenin’s strategy and tactics on this question encountered fierce resistance from Trotsky. Trotsky, heading the Soviet delegation at the Peace Talks, ignored Lenin’s specific instructions and in reply to the German ultimatum of 27 January 1918 (9 February - new style), declared “neither war nor peace”, which meant: We are not going to sign the Peace Treaty; we are no longer waging war and we are going to demobilised the army. At the same time he sent a telegram to the Commander-in-Chief demanding that he order demobilisation of the army.
When Lenin learned about this he gave instructions to cancel Trotsky’s unauthorised directions. Stressing the direct relationship between the anti-imperialist struggle of the proletariat in other countries and the revolutionary transformations in Russia, in direct contrast to Trotsky’s prognostications, Lenin set the working people of Russia as their main task that of preserving the Soviet Republic as the bulwark of the world liberation movement. He considered that the downfall of Soviet Power would be a mortal blow to the cause of socialism in the whole world.
During the Brest-Litovsk Peace Talks, the party also had to resist fierce pressure from ‘Left communists’ whom Lenin dubbed “heroes of the Leftist phrase”. They called for the immediate launching of a revolutionary war against German and world imperialism. The ‘Left’ phrasemongers accused the Party of opportunism and of betraying the interest of the Russian and world proletariat. Trotsky justified the activity of the ‘Left communists’ and sided with them. He claimed that the rejection of peace with Germany would make it possible “to exert a revolutionising influence on the German proletariat”. The Trotskyists tried to strengthen their position by referring to the rising tide of revolution in Western Europe. They even predicted the exact dates when imperialism would collapse and revolution would begin in other countries. All these statements were based on the anti-Marxist idea of the possibility of “giving a push” to world revolution by war and hastening the downfall of the imperialist system. Lenin resolutely opposed the adventuristic slogan of a revolutionary war and proved its un-tenability in the specific situation of 1918… It was yet another manifestation of the Trotskyist and other ‘Left’ phrasemongers ignoring reality. The Brest Treaty was signed in March 1918.
Despite resistance from the Trotskyists there came a breathing space of peace that made it possible to strengthen Soviet rule and start forming its own armed forces - the Red Army, capable of defending the gains of the revolution. But this respite was ended by the start of foreign military intervention and the Civil War (1918 -1920).
It was only in the early 1920s that the country was finally able to start peaceful construction. However more problems arose and Trotsky was largely to blame for the sharpening of the inner-party struggle. At that time he put forward the idea of putting the trade unions under state control, proposing that they be merged with economic management bodies. Trotsky insisted on introducing emergency, in fact military, methods of administration. Lenin took account of the sum of the problems facing the party and the state. He showed that for the party the question of the trade union was a part of the general question of the role of the working masses in socialist construction. In giving leadership to the masses the party used methods of persuasion and education and these methods should be applied also in the work of the trade unions. Lenin explained that the trade unions educated and organised the working class, they were a school for the masses where they acquired the necessary experience in management and administration. Through the trade unions, workers were drawn into active socialist construction and exercised control over the activities of the managers of economic bodies. The Trade Unions were a mass-organisation of the proletariat and had an instrumental role in the practical carrying-out of the dictatorship, this was their special role and they couldn’t possibly be merged! After the overwhelming majority of the party members had rejected the erroneous line of Trotsky and other oppositionists, the Tenth Party Congress upheld and endorsed Lenin’s course. In his speech at the Congress Lenin warned of the danger of factionalism in the Party. He submitted a draft resolution he had written - on Party Unity - which was approved by the Congress.
In 1929, Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union. He was expelled because he had consistently ignored the calls for Party unity, he had undermined the decisions of the workers and peasants organisations and consistently presented anti-Bolshevik and anti-Leninist propositions. Later it emerged that he was involved in all manner of wrecking and sabotage. The struggle waged by Lenin and the Leninist Party against Trotskyism teaches all genuine revolutionaries how to discern what lies behind loud pseudo-revolutionary phrases. This struggle shows that only creative Marxism-Leninism can serve as a guide to action for the revolutionary forces. Any attempt openly or secretly to revise Marxism-Leninism or to distort it in a dogmatic way, any reluctance to reckon with objective reality, which calls for adjustments to revolutionary theory, inevitably lead to a departure form the revolution and betrayal of the revolutionary cause.