Question for Trotskyists

[JimmyJazz]

Why do you support the opposition of Trotsky and his allies, but not that of other opposition groups, including (but not limited to):

-The Workers' Opposition (1920)?
-The Mensheviks (the revolutionary ones)?
-The Krondstadt Sailors?
-The S-Rs?
-The Makhnovists?

All of those groups were socialist, some of them more Marxist than others and some of them less, but all socialist. To support the brutal (often bloody) political repression of all of these groups, and then to turn around and passionately support the right of Trotsky to make a principled dissent from the party line, seems to betray a rather incoherent stance on the role of dissent in a revolution. What exactly is the dividing line between opposition which should be met with bloody repression and that which should be met with loyal support?

Because I have a feeling that many will respond only to the anarchist/agrarian socialist examples and say "because they weren't Marxists", I'd like to explicitly ask anyone who responds to deal with the examples of the Mensheviks and (even more so) the Workers' Opposition.

Also, truth be told, "they weren't Marxists" isn't a good enough answer about any of the groups.

I agree that Trotsky was a phenomenally talented and prolific writer, but that's clearly not a reason to accept his take (and no one else's) on a whole long series of historical events.

[Yehuda Stern]

There's a difference between the Workers' Opposition and the other groups. The WO was a faction of the Bolshevik Party, and made certain proposals on how to prevent bureaucratization, some of which were better than others, but at bottom was a semi-syndicalist tendency.

As for the others, they were all socialists in name, but in essence served the counterrevolution. I would like to say that none of these groups faced and suppression before they became a real military threat to the revolution (the left SRs were allowed to function and govern in coalition with the Bolsheviks until their attempt on Lenin's life).

[Devrim]

There's a difference between the Workers' Opposition and the other groups. The WO was a faction of the Bolshevik Party, and made certain proposals on how to prevent bureaucratization, some of which were better than others, but at bottom was a semi-syndicalist tendency.

The Workers' opposition did have its roots in the trade union bureaucracy, but then the Left opposition had its roots in the state bureaucracy.

One could rephrase your sentence like so;

"The Left Opposition was a faction of the Bolshevik Party, and made certain proposals on how to prevent bureaucratization, some of which were better than others, but at bottom was a semi-bureaucratic tendency."

There were of course many other oppositions on the left wing of the Bolshevik party, including the 'Left Communists', the'Workers' Group of the RCP(B)', the 'Group of Democratic Centralism', 'Workers' Truth, as well as others.

An article on various Russian left communist groups in the 1920s can be found here. (http://libcom.org/library/communist-left-russia-after-1920-ian-hebbes)


As for the others, they were all socialists in name, but in essence served the counterrevolution.

I don't agree with this at all. I don't see the Kronstadt sailors and workers as counter revolutionaries for example.

Devrim

[h0m0revolutionary]

As for the others, they were all socialists in name, but in essence served the counterrevolution.

see here for the Kronstandt demands:
http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/history/russia/kronstadt.html

And tell which which ones particually posed a military threat to the revolution?
And exactly which ones, ahem, served the counterrevolution?

[Yehuda Stern]

The Workers' opposition did have its roots in the trade union bureaucracy, but then the Left opposition had its roots in the state bureaucracy.

One could rephrase your sentence like so;

"The Left Opposition was a faction of the Bolshevik Party, and made certain proposals on how to prevent bureaucratization, some of which were better than others, but at bottom was a semi-bureaucratic tendency."One could - however, the left opposition was mostly hunted down and murdered by the Stalinists while the WO mostly capitulated to Stalin (that some, like Shlyapnikov, were later murdered by Stalin is irrelevant - many Stalinists suffered the same fate as well). So one could make the argument you're making, but it would really reek of dishonesty.


I don't agree with this at all. I don't see the Kronstadt sailors and workers as counter revolutionaries for example.Well, that's a debate of its own. In my opinion, all the evidence points clearly to the fact that Kronstadt was instigated by the counterrevolution. At any rate, it does explain why Trotskyists support its suppression, which is what the OP asked. EDIT: This goes to HR as well. We can have the Kronstadt debate again if you want, and I understand your eagerness to lose it like others before you, but please do not let your enthusiasm to shout "Kronstadt" at every turn derail the thread.

[Devrim]

One could - however, the left opposition was mostly hunted down and murdered by the Stalinists while the WO mostly capitulated to Stalin (that some, like Shlyapnikov, were later murdered by Stalin is irrelevant - many Stalinists suffered the same fate as well). So one could make the argument you're making, but it would really reek of dishonesty.

Actually many members of the left opposition capitulated. I doubt that you have any statistics regarding the workers' opposition and capitulation beyond a few leaders. There is no argument at all here that addresses the point of whether the Trotskyist opposition was a bureaucratic one. The fact that some members of the left opposition were murdered doesn't prove that it wasn't a bureaucratic opposition because as you say 'many Stalinists suffered the same fate'.


Well, that's a debate of its own.

Yes, it is. The last time we had it on RevLeft was here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/kronstadt-t80959/index.html


In my opinion, all the evidence points clearly to the fact that Kronstadt was instigated by the counterrevolution.

I have never seen any believable evidence that it was 'instigated by the counterrevolution'. Even Lenin accepted that.


We can have the Kronstadt debate again if you want, and I understand your eagerness to lose it like others before you, but please do not let your enthusiasm to shout "Kronstadt" at every turn derail the thread.

We (you, I, or HR) have never had it. It is not derailing to deal with a subject which the opening post refers to.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Certain leaders of the LO capitulated, yes, but as a whole the opposition was murdered by the Stalinists in the late 1930s. Not so with most members of the WO, which counted among its leadership later arch-Stalinist Kollontai. As for the point that the LO was a bureaucratic tendency, I'm afraid you have yet to show this, so I really have nothing to "adress."

Regarding Kronstadt - we actually had that debate before, but me and HR didn't - which is why I wrote "like others before you."

[Devrim]

Certain leaders of the LO capitulated, yes, but as a whole the opposition was murdered by the Stalinists in the late 1930s.

Many Trotskyists capitulated. I would imagine it was the majority.


Not so with most members of the WO, which counted among its leadership later arch-Stalinist Kollontai.

One leader proves nothing. I don't know about the majority of their members, so if you would like to inform us do so, but as yet you haven't.


As for the point that the LO was a bureaucratic tendency, I'm afraid you have yet to show this, so I really have nothing to "adress."

I haven't tried to. I think that it would be quite possible to show that the LO had its origins within the bureaucracy as much as the WO had its origins within the trade unions. What my point was was that the way you dismissed them could be equally done with the LO.

Devrim

[JimmyJazz]

was a faction of the Bolshevik Party, and made certain proposals on how to prevent bureaucratization, some of which were better than others

How does this differ from Trotsky?

I'll admit I don't know the timeline of Trotsky's dissent perfectly (other than that his "feud" with Stalin began while Lenin was still alive, from what I've read). But weren't his original public objections related to bureaucratization (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/xx/opposition.htm)?


As for the others, they were all socialists in name, but in essence served the counterrevolution. I would like to say that none of these groups faced and suppression before they became a real military threat to the revolution (the left SRs were allowed to function and govern in coalition with the Bolsheviks until their attempt on Lenin's life).

This is a pretty hollow defense if you look at it.

So their dissent turned into military opposition? Well, that tends to happen when an agreement can't be reached - it doesn't say anything about which side was right (the dissenters or the dissentees).

The same logic applies to the fact that members of the Left Opposition were systematically murdered. How does this prove in any way that they were right? What, besides a martyr mindset, gives their persecution any significance in determining the merit of their ideas? Bukharin (http://www.yale.edu/annals/Reviews/review_texts/Walden_on_Getty_Ass._Newspapers_10.22.99.html) and the Right Opposition were murdered by Stalin loyalists too. In fact it would be logically impossible for both the LO and the RO--which collaborated with the purging of the LO--to be right, and yet both were systematically purged and murdered by Stalin loyalists.

Really, I'm not sure why your sentence "they were all socialists in name, but in essence served the counterrevolution" couldn't be coming directly from the mouth of a Stalinist party functionary regarding the Trotskyists. And that's what this thread is about.

Regarding the SRs: actually, from what I remember they were allowed a lot of leeway to exist and operate in Russia even after the assassination attempt. In Feb 1919 (just six months after the assassination attempt) they were allowed to rejoin the soviets on the conditions that they stop trying to overthrow the Bolsheviks and start a campaign against the White generals Kolchak and Denikin. And the obvious explanation would seem to be that the Bolsheviks liquidated whom they could, and didn't liquidate those they were afraid of, or who had showed that they could hit back.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree that Trotsky was a phenomenally talented and prolific writer, but that's clearly not a reason to accept his take (and no one else's) on a whole long series of historical events.

This is a straw-man against Trotskyism simply because people are not Trotskyists because he was a "great leader of the red army" or did this or that or had an "awesome personality" or because grain of freedom flowed from his hands into the mouths of pesants or any hero-worship BS. Just like I don't consider myself a Marxist just because Marx had an awesome beard or played a mean game of basketball.

I consider myself a Trotsyist in the sense that I think socialism without democracy is impossible, that socialism in one country is impossible, and that bolshevism means power to the soviets, not to a burocracy or party. I also disagree with Trotsky on many things. As an induvidual he was dead wrong about many things that happened after the Revolution.

[Random Precision]

This is a very good question, and one which I've grappled with quite a bit as a Trotskyist.

I think that most of the groups you mention saw at least a part of how the revolution was diverging from its original path. But it's one thing to point that out and another to engage in open violence against revolutionary forces rather than seeking to correct the divergences among fellow revolutionaries. I'll try to deal with each group you mention on its own:


The Workers' Opposition (1920)?

I think this group had a solid critique of the encroaching bureaucracy in the party, how it was preventing fulfillment of the most basic goals of the revolution, for example living standards and workplace democracy. However they emerged at a time when party unity was seen as the most important objective since the counter-revolution was still thriving. It's lamentable that the leaders of the party saw unity as excluding critiques of what certain segments of the party were doing, but we need to understand the context. And it's important to remember that while the WO was dissolved, some of its demands, like a party purge, were carried out, and its leader Shliapnikov was elected to the Central Committee. So the repression of that opposition group was not a dictatorial measure as some make it out to be.


The Mensheviks (the revolutionary ones)?

Well, the Left Mensheviks, who I assume you're referring to, cooperated with the Bolsheviks, but refused to break with the Right Mensheviks who were open counter-revolutionaries. Despite this they were not completely suppressed, and participated in Soviet elections for a time. Also they were a very small group, and most of the best ones became Bolsheviks. This is something that you have to recognize in a discussion about the Russian Revolution, that people for good reason saw the Bolsheviks as the party of the revolution and broke with anarchism, Menshivism, or whatever to join with the revolutionary party.


The Krondstadt Sailors?

Well, since my debate with Devrim, which has been mentioned, I've changed my opinion a bit about Kronstadt. I believe that the sailors' revolt was an authentic expression of working-class discontent against the party bureaucracy's growing stranglehold that was similar in many ways to the concerns of the Workers' Opposition (many of whom joined in crushing the revolt to prove their loyalty to the party), and it's important to note that, as with the WO, many of the key demands by the sailors concerning war communism were satisfied after the rebellion. But I do think we have to again look at the context of the event. Kronstadt was a powerful fortress on the Baltic Sea that could open an assault on Petrograd if captured by the counter-revolution. It may have been unreasonable for the Bolshevik leaders like Kosygin, Zinoviev, etc. to expect the sailors to turn over the fortress to the Royal Navy, but I think that given the Civil War this was a legitimate concern. Likewise with the Bolsheviks' unwillingness to hear out the demands of the soldiers and their general hostility. You have to look at the context. Kronstadt was a very unfortunate situation for everyone concerned. Victor Serge said this about it, and I agree with him 100%:


In these circumstances, the party should have beat a retreat by admitting that the existing economic set-up was indefensibe. It should not, however, have given up power. 'In spite of its faults, in spite of its abuses, in spite of everyrthing,' I wrote at the time, ' the Bolshevik party, because of its size, its insight, its stability, is the organized force to which we must pin our faith. The Revolution has at its disposal no other weapon, and it is no longer capable of genuine renewal from within'.

http://libcom.org/library/kronstadt-21-serge


The S-Rs?

Well, most of what I said about the Mensheviks applies to them. Like the Mensheviks, they split into left and right groups the latter of which was openly counter-revolutionary. Like the Mensheviks the Left-SRs participated in the Soviet elections for quite some time and were in coalition with the Bolshevik Party until they voluntarily left the government after the peace of Brest-Litovsk. And after this I don't think they were openly suppressed for quite a while, since they maintained their allegiance to the revolution. Like the Mensheviks also, many of the best ones became Bolsheviks.


The Makhnovists?

Now this is a special case. I think it's quite clear that the "anarchist" army of Makhno was based on the peasantry and as such often included many of the most reactionary political elements of that class. There was more than one anti-Jewish pogrom carried out by Makhnovist fighters in the towns they entered- not to say that this was endorsed by Makhno, who I think was principled in his opposition to anti-Semitism. But this did not stop him, a representative of the peasantry, from acting against the working class, like when he deprived Kiev's workers of their supplies and told them to fend for themselves.

In any case, his army was always an unreliable ally to the revolution, frequently raiding Red Army supply trains, refusing to cooperate in assaults against White forces, etc. When Makhno decided to organize an anarchist congress and leaflet Red Army troops to abandon their leaders, I think this was the last straw for Trotsky and the Bolshevik leadership. You just can't tolerate that when you need a united offensive against the enemy, and the sad fact was that at a certain point everyone had to either fall in behind the revolutionary vanguard or join the counter-revolution, no sitting on the fence.

This is to leave aside some of the quite anti-democratic measures adopted to secure his control over the Ukrainian countryside, which anarchists defend by pointing to the context of the civil war. I think we can do the same for the Bolsheviks, but place them above the Makhnovists because the former had a view of workers' liberation that was connected to the real world, while the latter's was unworkable utopianism.


Now as for the Bolshevik Party itself. I think that during the revolution and Civil War it was far more democratic than some people recognize. Trotsky said this about it to the Dewey Commission:


RUEHLE (through interpreter): Were there in the Central Committee, or in the Communist International, differences over the question of the differentiation of bureaucracy and administration in the proletarian dictatorship? Was the danger of Bonapartism foreseen, and what position did you take on these questions?

TROTSKY (answers in German and translates into English his own answer): These questions played the greatest rôle in the discussions in the Central Committee, and in personal discussions between Lenin and myself. Lenin had the finest sensitivity on this question, and he was the teacher of the future Left Opposition. He affirmed many times that the greatest danger for us was that we, as a backward country, isolated – that we could see our state, the proletarian state, degenerate into a bureaucratic, Bonapartist state. He proposed certain organizational measures, as, for example, his Control Commission of genuine workers from the shops, in order to control the bureaucrats and show the bureaucrats that they are only transitory workers of the state. I want to say that the Control Commission itself degenerated and became a worse instrument in the proletarian dictatorship – Lenin understood, however, that it was impossible to preserve the Soviet dictatorship only by organizational measures. It depended upon the world situation, the historic factors in the world arena. If the German proletariat, the most developed in Europe, if it had accomplished a victorious revolution – and we hope that it will do so yet – the combination of the Soviet state with the proletarian German state would have given us the possibility to avoid the degeneration of the Soviet state in Russia. Our isolation was the most important factor in our degeneration.

RUEHLE (through interpreter): What position did you personally take in the Central Committee of the Communist International on the question of the practical liquidation of the Soviets and their replacement by the bureaucratic administration and sovereignty which betrayed the slogans of the Revolution?

[...]

TROTSKY: During Lenin’s time? Yes, I can only repeat what I said.

I believe we did what we could to avoid the degeneration. During the Civil War the militarization of the Soviets and the Party was almost inevitable. But even during the Civil War I myself tried in the army – even in the army on the field – to give a full possibility to the Communists to discuss all the military measures. I discussed these measures even with the soldiers and, as I explained in my autobiography, even with the deserters. After the Civil War was finished, we hoped that the possibility for democracy would be greater. But two factors, two different but connected factors, hindered the development of Soviet democracy. The first general factor was the backwardness and misery of the country. From that basis emanated the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy did not wish to be abolished, to be annihilated. The bureaucracy became an independent factor. Then the fight became to a certain degree a struggle of classes. That was the beginning of the Opposition. For a certain time the question was an internal question in the Central Committee. We discussed by what means we should begin the fight on the degeneration and the bureaucratization of the state. Then it became not a question of discussions in the Central Committee, but a question of the fight, the struggle between the Opposition and the bureaucracy.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session02.htm

So in conclusion, we have to take each repressive action of the Bolsheviks in the context of the Civil War, which required unity of revolutionaries and the sacrificing of short-term goals for long-term goals. As for the Left Opposition, why I support it and none of the other groups you mentioned is because that Opposition presented a clear working-class critique of the bureaucracy and its role in strangling the revolution, and sought to put its program in practice through democratic means within the revolutionary party.

None of the groups you mentioned except the Workers Opposition really matched up- and for the record, I think their suppression was clearly a mistake. The Kronstadt sailors attempted to impose their demands on the party through means of violence, and the other groups attempted to split the revolutionary leadership and fight against the "dictatorship" or "tyranny" at a time when revolutionary unity was paramount. This approach could only have ended in tragedy, for everyone involved had they succeeded.

[Yehuda Stern]

But weren't his original public objections related to bureaucratization (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/xx/opposition.htm)?Sure, but from different points of view. The WO was formed before Stalin's rise to power - their ideas were designed to fight bureaucratization by giving more power to the trade unions as opposed to the party. Trotsky did not agree with that, nor do I think he should have.


So their dissent turned into military opposition? Well, that tends to happen when an agreement can't be reached - it doesn't say anything about which side was right (the dissenters or the dissentees).True, but then all evidence shows that these groups were on the side of the counterrevolution - the fact that they took up arms against the revolution only justifies their violent suppression.



Really, I'm not sure why your sentence "they were all socialists in name, but in essence served the counterrevolution" couldn't be coming directly from the mouth of a Stalinist party functionary regarding the Trotskyists. And that's what this thread is about.If you want to use insults, that's fine - as Trotsky used to say, people like you are all too interested in similarities in form and not in differences in content. Sure, the Stalinists said similar things about the Trotskyists, but they served very different class interests, as history shows.


And the obvious explanation would seem to be that the Bolsheviks liquidated whom they could, and didn't liquidate those they were afraid of, or who had showed that they could hit back.I'm sorry, that is "obvious" only to you. I see no proof that the Bolsheviks were or should have been afraid of the left SRs.

EDIT: I see RP has written a post on this subject which is better than mine in the actual details of the different groups. I'll have to be excused for that lack of that in my post - it is a bit rush as I am in a hurry. However, to counter his sympathy for Kronstadt, I suggest reading Hue and Cry (http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm), or these two very (http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1938/07/kronstadt2.htm) short (http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1921/military/ch62.htm) pieces.

[dez]

the workers oppositionI think this group had a solid critique of the encroaching bureaucracy in the party, how it was preventing fulfillment of the most basic goals of the revolution, for example living standards and workplace democracy. However they emerged at a time when party unity was seen as the most important objective since the counter-revolution was still thriving. It's lamentable that the leaders of the party saw unity as excluding critiques of what certain segments of the party were doing, but we need to understand the context. And it's important to remember that while the WO was dissolved, some of its demands, like a party purge, were carried out, and its leader Shliapnikov was elected to the Central Committee. So the repression of that opposition group was not a dictatorial measure as some make it out to be.




Couldnt you say the same about the left opposition?
Its not like imperialism had forgiven the soviet union and left it to solve its own matters...

[Random Precision]

Couldnt you say the same about the left opposition?
Its not like imperialism had forgiven the soviet union and left it to solve its own matters...

It's quite intellectually lazy to compare the international situation in 1921 to that in 1927, for example. A few years time had made quite a difference in the position of the imperialist powers relative to the Soviet Union: they were forced to accept the revolution as a fait accompli, and some of them like Germany had even made arms deals with the USSR and were moving toward rapprochement. Some of the concessions in the NEP opened up the country to foreign business from countries like the United States even. Another all-out imperialist assault like the previous one would be far too costly and require cooperation among rival imperialist interests, some of whom would still have liked to strangle the revolution themselves (France) and others who were concerned with nudging the Soviet government toward more concessions, which the Stalinist leadership would embrace fully during the Five Year Plans.

Furthermore, as I already said, the Left Opposition was organized on a basis that in no sense contradicted party unity in the Leninist sense. It drafted a program which it put before the party, propagandized for its position in party cells, tried to have its members elected to the Central Committee, etc. The Stalinist bureaucracy responded to this by censoring its main leader, Trotsky, preventing his writings from reaching the party, dissolving party and Communist Youth cells that had majorities of Opposition members, and shouting down and harassing Opposition leaders whenever they spoke. Tell me, which side did more to preserve party unity?

[JimmyJazz]

This is a very good question, and one which I've grappled with quite a bit as a Trotskyist.

Thanks. And let me say first of all that I agree 100% that the Workers' Opposition are in a class of their own among the groups I listed. But I didn't want the thread to start off as a narrow discussion of an obscure historical faction.


I think that most of the groups you mention saw at least a part of how the revolution was diverging from its original path. But it's one thing to point that out and another to engage in open violence against revolutionary forces rather than seeking to correct the divergences among fellow revolutionaries.

Except that, many of these groups represented social classes or were composed of social classes that the revolution claimed to represent. The WO, the Kronstadt sailors, and most of all, the Petrograd working class who just prior to Kronstadt were threatening a general strike if their demands were not met, to name a few examples. When classes whom the revolution claimed to represent can be said to be engaging in "counterrevolutionary" violence, how are you not getting well nigh into doublespeak territory?


I think this group had a solid critique of the encroaching bureaucracy in the party, how it was preventing fulfillment of the most basic goals of the revolution, for example living standards and workplace democracy. However they emerged at a time when party unity was seen as the most important objective since the counter-revolution was still thriving. It's lamentable that the leaders of the party saw unity as excluding critiques of what certain segments of the party were doing, but we need to understand the context. And it's important to remember that while the WO was dissolved, some of its demands, like a party purge, were carried out, and its leader Shliapnikov was elected to the Central Committee. So the repression of that opposition group was not a dictatorial measure as some make it out to be.

Well, I don't mean to focus the discussion merely on their repression, but also on the more important fact that their demands were ignored.

I agree that the civil war has to be taken into account when you're talking about an opposition that arose in 1920. That is not a minor point. But, the leaders of the WO and the workers who they represented were also aware of the civil war. I reject a view that says (or implies) that only the leaders of the Party were capable of seeing the big picture. The flip side of this, I suppose, is that Russian workers were just uninformed, self-centered automatons making totally unreasonable demands, or something. Obviously that is not your personal view, but how does your view not logically carry to that point if taken all the way?

I have no desire to side with the least-conscious workers over the most-conscious ones. But I'm also not convinced that the dissenters against the Bolshevik Party were any less advanced, any less a part of the vanguard of the working class, than the Bolsheviks were. In fact, some of the opposition groups seem to have been very organized and very conscious.


This is a straw-man against Trotskyism

Nah, you just read it as such. Read it again and see that I didn't claim this was any self-ID'ing Trotskyist's view.


I consider myself a Trotsyist in the sense that I think socialism without democracy is impossible, that socialism in one country is impossible, and that bolshevism means power to the soviets, not to a burocracy or party. I also disagree with Trotsky on many things.

It seems rather bizarre to me that you would latch onto one man who you disagree with about many things, even if just for the purposes of a handy label. "Anti-Stalinist Marxist" would seem to make a lot more sense, but hey - whatever floats your boat.

Also, "that bolshevism means power to the soviets, not to a bureaucracy or party" is not a position I have ever heard identified as a part of Trotskyism. Trotsky, just as much as Lenin, believed that direct rule of the soviets was untenable given Russia's isolation. He says so himself in the quote that Random Precision just gave.

Most importantly, you haven't explained why you identify with Trotsky's Left Opposition and not with other strains of left communism, or the Workers' Opposition, all of whom hold essentially all the same positions you just stated.


Sure, but from different points of view. The WO was formed before Stalin's rise to power - their ideas were designed to fight bureaucratization by giving more power to the trade unions as opposed to the party. Trotsky did not agree with that, nor do I think he should have.

From what perspective did Trotsky fight it? (Yeah, this is basic stuff - I already admitted I'm not an expert on Trotsky/ism).


True, but then all evidence shows that these groups were on the side of the counterrevolution - the fact that they took up arms against the revolution only justifies their violent suppression.

You've made this claim already, but you have yet to back it up except by a tautological equating of the Bolsheviks with "the revolution". At least RP tried to explicitly defend the view that only the Bolsheviks could see the revolution through to completion, and that they attracted to themselves everyone with the same revolutionary mindset. I'm not convinced, but he did try.

[JimmyJazz]

the Left Opposition was organized on a basis that in no sense contradicted party unity in the Leninist sense.

This is a nice, clean way to think about it. Whoever dissents in a democratic-centralist way should be accepted, whereas whoever doesn't leaves themselves open to repression. But two objections do spring instantly to mind:

(1) Why should Russian workers in 1917 necessarily have been expected to know or give a damn about Lenin and his "democratic centralist" ideas? For one thing, the Bolsheviks were not the only Marxist party in Russia before 1917, so it's perfectly possible that some advanced workers simply didn't know or care about Lenin's writings on how a party should organize itself. For another, the Bolsheviks were not always a mass party (http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Liebman.html) open to all workers. I can't remember my history for sure, but I think that between 1905 and 1917 the Bolsheviks occasionally restricted their membership again as they had before 1905. Was Bolshevik Party membership open to all workers and soldiers after October 1917? I honestly don't know, but it's certainly a question that needs to be answered, especially when the claim is being made that the Bolshevik Party attracted all true revolutionaries out of other organizations and to itself. Yeah, all professional revolutionaries would have read Lenin and known his positions, but it's unreasonable to necessarily expect the same thing of (even advanced) workers. And even those that had read it didn't need to agree with it to be good revolutionaries.

(2) The Left Opposition followed democratic centralist principles, and how exactly did that work out for them? ...then how can you condemn groups that went other routes (such as violent opposition to the party from outside it)?

[dez]

It's quite intellectually lazy to compare the international situation in 1921 to that in 1927, for example.


Arbitrary.



A few years time had made quite a difference in the position of the imperialist powers relative to the Soviet Union: they were forced to accept the revolution as a fait accompli, and some of them like Germany had even made arms deals with the USSR and were moving toward rapprochement.


More or less true.
Nevertheless west germany still celebrated the fall of the berlin wall decades afterward and the fall of soviet union.
That is far from legitimization.



Some of the concessions in the NEP opened up the country to foreign business from countries like the United States even. Another all-out imperialist assault like the previous one would be far too costly and require cooperation among rival imperialist interests, some of whom would still have liked to strangle the revolution themselves (France) and others who were concerned with nudging the Soviet government toward more concessions, which the Stalinist leadership would embrace fully during the Five Year Plans.


My take is that the economic crisis was the only thing preventing an openly hostile policy against the soviet union as well as the consequent threat to the bourgeois democracy system on europe.
Openly hostile does not necessarily mean military incursion, even more because military incursions in strategical terms are costly and have few to no success. The proper way to wage war is to destroy an enemys internal cohesion first, and later to march over an already defeated enemy. Read Sun Wus art of war.



Furthermore, as I already said, the Left Opposition was organized on a basis that in no sense contradicted party unity in the Leninist sense. It drafted a program which it put before the party, propagandized for its position in party cells, tried to have its members elected to the Central Committee, etc. The Stalinist bureaucracy responded to this by censoring its main leader, Trotsky, preventing his writings from reaching the party, dissolving party and Communist Youth cells that had majorities of Opposition members, and shouting down and harassing Opposition leaders whenever they spoke. Tell me, which side did more to preserve party unity?

The stalinist side.

[Random Precision]

Except that, many of these groups represented social classes or were composed of social classes that the revolution claimed to represent. The WO, the Kronstadt sailors, and most of all, the Petrograd working class who just prior to Kronstadt were threatening a general strike if their demands were not met, to name a few examples. When classes whom the revolution claimed to represent can be said to be engaging in "counterrevolutionary" violence, how are you not getting well nigh into doublespeak territory?

This is also a very good point. I don't mean to imply that the Petrograd workers or the sailors of Kronstadt were less class-conscious than the Bolshevik leadership. What I'm saying is that their demands were unrealistic, and in the context of the situation they still should have worked within the party to realize what could be done.


Well, I don't mean to focus the discussion merely on their repression, but also on the more important fact that their demands were ignored.

But that isn't true. A purge of the party targeted against bureaucratic and careerist elements was carried out, for instance. And as Trotsky said in the quote I provided, workers committees to monitor bureaucracy were established to keep a tight control on its actions by the party base. Many of their concerns were not dealt with, true, but you once again have to look at what the Civil War had done to the country- there were simply not the resources under control of the government to realize the demands of the Opposition where the living standard was concerned, for instance.


I agree that the civil war has to be taken into account when you're talking about an opposition that arose in 1920. That is not a minor point. But, the leaders of the WO and the workers who they represented were also aware of the civil war. I reject a view that says (or implies) that only the leaders of the Party were capable of seeing the big picture. The flip side of this, I suppose, is that Russian workers were just uninformed, self-centered automatons making totally unreasonable demands, or something. Obviously that is not your personal view, but how does your view not logically carry to that point if taken all the way?

I've already said that it was wrong for the party leadership to suppress the WO. As for party leaders seeing the "big picture", I did not imply that- in fact, I believe that the party leaders very scared, simply paranoid about the prospect of counter-revolution, which ironically caused them to take counter-revolutionary actions themselves. Not the big picture in any sense. We can condemn them for suppressing Kronstadt, the Workers' Opposition, the Left SRs- but we can do this while understanding why they did it, too.


I have no desire to side with the least-conscious workers over the most-conscious ones. But I'm also not convinced that the dissenters against the Bolshevik Party were any less advanced, any less a part of the vanguard of the working class, than the Bolsheviks were. In fact, some of the opposition groups seem to have been very organized and very conscious.

You cannot just generalize here. Which groups were part of the vanguard, which ones weren't any less advanced? The Workers' Opposition, and the Kronstadt sailors, you'll say. True. But then, I've already dealt with each of these groups, and pointed out how we can condemn that they were suppressed, and yet understand why they were, and say that, as Victor Serge did, that the Bolshevik Party still had to be dealt with as the only vehicle for the revolution at that point.


Also, "that bolshevism means power to the soviets, not to a bureaucracy or party" is not a position I have ever heard identified as a part of Trotskyism. Trotsky, just as much as Lenin, believed that direct rule of the soviets was untenable given Russia's isolation. He says so himself in the quote that Random Precision just gave.

Please don't misrepresent what Trotsky said. He meant that the imperialist war against the Soviet Republic required centralization of power. But if you find out more about his history, you will understand how he fought for the return of Soviet democracy when the imperialist assault was over, when he was leader of the Opposition.


(1) Why should Russian workers in 1917 necessarily have been expected to know or give a damn about Lenin and his "democratic centralist" ideas? For one thing, the Bolsheviks were not the only Marxist party in Russia before 1917, so it's perfectly possible that some advanced workers simply didn't know or care about Lenin's writings on how a party should organize itself. For another, the Bolsheviks were not always a mass party open to all workers. I can't remember my history for sure, but I think that between 1905 and 1917 the Bolsheviks occasionally restricted their membership again as they had before 1905.

First, I think that you have some key misunderstandings of the nature of the Bolshevik Party. It may have not always been a mass organization, but it clearly was at the time of the revolution and afterwards, and the party's base in the working class often exercised far more control over it than any of its leaders, as ComradeOm's excellent article pointed out.


Was Bolshevik Party membership open to all workers and soldiers after October 1917? I honestly don't know, but it's certainly a question that needs to be answered, especially when the claim is being made that the Bolshevik Party attracted all true revolutionaries out of other organizations and to itself.

It was open to them and many other people, so open that many opportunist elements came to join it to advance their own careers, which was a main root of the bureaucracy.


(2) The Left Opposition followed democratic centralist principles, and how exactly did that work out for them? ...Then how can you condemn groups that went other routes (such as violent opposition to the party from outside it)?

But this was years later, when the bureaucracy had a firm grasp on the party. During and immediately after the Civil War, I believe the party was democratic enough so that you could still affect change by working within it.

Plus you simply cannot get around how perilous the situation was for everyone during the Civil War. As I said, violently splitting the revolutionary leadership in that period would have necessarily ended in tragedy for everyone concerned.

[Enragé]

Just to scream kronstadt! one more time ^^

The demands were just, they should have been met. If the bolsheviks had done so, they would also have eliminated any support for collaboration with the counter-revolution. Period.

Though i can understand why the bolsheviks thought it was necessary to crush any dissent in times as though as they were.

That said, i don't think we need to go on and on and on about it. In spain, the left and right opposition united into the POUM, and went on to fight alongside the anarchists against the stalinists. So that, along with some things other people just said, just proves these are useless debates.

[ComradeOm]

Was Bolshevik Party membership open to all workers and soldiers after October 1917?Very much so... with one important caveat. The increasing 'deproletarianization' of the Party was of constant concern to policy makers during the early 1920s and a number of major recruitment campaigns (the 'Lenin Enrolment') were launched to address this specific issue

Interestingly enough however this was largely an effort to repair the damage caused by the sharp decay of the Bolshevik organisation in the immediate post-1917 years. As early as 1918 the political ascendency of the soviets, coupled with an acute shortage of capable personnel (the need to strengthen the Revolution in the countryside being a constant drain on urban party organisations), saw local Bolshevik bodies almost fade into irrelevancy. It wasn't until the later Civil War years, and specifically the shifting of power away from Sovnarkom, that party membership suddenly became pressing issue

[JimmyJazz]

I've made most of my points, but I will play devil's advocate:


But that isn't true. A purge of the party targeted against bureaucratic and careerist elements was carried out, for instance.

OK, but clearly not enough of a purge to prevent the Left Opposition from decrying the bureaucratization of Soviet life some years later. Perhaps even meeting the WO's demands would not have been enough to prevent this, but it would have been a step closer.


As for party leaders seeing the "big picture", I did not imply that- in fact, I believe that the party leaders very scared, simply paranoid about the prospect of counter-revolution, which ironically caused them to take counter-revolutionary actions themselves. Not the big picture in any sense.

At the risk of beating a dead horse (yet this is the point of this thread) - how is this different from Stalin's leadership, and its purges of the LO? I have heard Trotskyists use these exact words to describe Stalin's purges - paranoid, etc. - so I really don't know what the difference is, other than that the target of Stalin's paranoia was Bolshevik Party members and the target of the Trotsky's/Lenin's paranoia during the civil war was non-Party members.

I don't know much detail at all about the era of Stalin's purges, so I would like to be enlightened here.


We can condemn them for suppressing Kronstadt, the Workers' Opposition, the Left SRs- but we can do this while understanding why they did it, too.

Same as my last comment.


Please don't misrepresent what Trotsky said. He meant that the imperialist war against the Soviet Republic required centralization of power. But if you find out more about his history, you will understand how he fought for the return of Soviet democracy when the imperialist assault was over, when he was leader of the Opposition.

So, the Left Opposition began in 1922?


First, I think that you have some key misunderstandings of the nature of the Bolshevik Party. It may have not always been a mass organization, but it clearly was at the time of the revolution and afterwards, and the party's base in the working class often exercised far more control over it than any of its leaders, as ComradeOm's excellent article pointed out.

ComradeOm's article only covered the period up to October 1917 (the Second All-Russian Congress of the Soviets). But if you're sure that membership was open to all even during the civil war and after, I'll believe you until I read something that contradicts it.

Of course, formal ability to change a system by playing by the rules does not always translate into actual ability to do so. That much is clear to anyone familiar with the socialist critique of liberal democracy.


During and immediately after the Civil War, I believe the party was democratic enough so that you could still affect change by working within it.

Hmm. Well, to be totally accurate, you seem to believe this with a few caveats. Namely, that only "realistic" changes could be effected by working within it. Any demands that contradicted the overall goal of winning the civil war could not be achieved. The overall goal of winning the civil war was not, in itself, something up for questioning. And yet, many advanced working class groups did make these very "unrealistic" demands. I don't think that's really been explained sufficiently. How could they do this, and still be genuine socialists (which you acknowledge they were)?

Yet, to someone who sides with these non-Bolshevik groups, I do think a pretty good explanation has been produced for how the Bolsheviks could have been genuine socialists and yet violently clashed with other socialist groups: they wanted to maintain their personal hold on their power. Yes, they were genuine socialists, but they also very badly wanted to be the ones to achieve it, and they wanted to achieve it their way.


you once again have to look at what the Civil War had done to the country- there were simply not the resources under control of the government to realize the demands of the Opposition where the living standard was concerned, for instance.


He meant that the imperialist war against the Soviet Republic required centralization of power.


Plus you simply cannot get around how perilous the situation was for everyone during the Civil War. As I said, violently splitting the revolutionary leadership in that period would have necessarily ended in tragedy for everyone concerned.

Here are my thoughts on the civil war justification.

The civil war was a fight to keep the Bolsheviks in power. It was not a fight against tsarism; the tsar and his family were dead. It was not a fight against military rule or some other form of autocracy; the Bolsheviks were not the only group that stood between Russia and that (the same Petrograd working class and soldiers that forced the tsar from power in February would have made it equally impossible for another autocratic, nationalistic, militaristic government to govern Russia). The alternative outcome, at least early on, would have been a liberal democratic government in the form of the Constituent Assembly, most likely headed up by a reformist socialist like Kerensky.

Certainly, advanced workers are always willing to make some sacrifices to achieve socialism. But if the sacrifices amount to a decimation of their class, the physical annihilation of almost all workers in the country, doesn't the working class have the right to say that the sacrifices are not worth it?

It seems that constantly invoking the civil war begs the question of whether Marx was right, and that the advanced capitalist countries simply had to go first. Perhaps Russia 1917 simply was not the time and place for a working class revolution.

Because, you are saying that most of what was done was necessary to win the civil war, and I agree. Yet we're faced with the historical fact of advanced working class opposition to these same policies. How can you reconcile that?

Some people seem to think that necessity is the only argument that needs to be made with regard to actions taken by the Bolsheviks during the civil war. But history shows that argument didn't fly with the entire Russian working class. And more importantly, it doesn't fly with most working people today. If the most that socialists can promise them is a civil war that kills most of them off, then they aren't going to give socialists another chance. I don't know if this sounds defeatist to you or whatever, but to me it's just realistic.

However, the alternative is not to simply accept capitalism. One could also believe (as I think Marx did) that when the productive forces in a country have become advanced enough, the working class will constitute the vast majority of society, and be capable of carrying out a social revolution without serious opposition.

[Random Precision]

Arbitrary.

It's not. There were very real changes in the international situation, and in the policy of certain imperialist governments to the Soviet Union, that I have pointed out and you have to address.


More or less true.
Nevertheless west germany still celebrated the fall of the berlin wall decades afterward and the fall of soviet union.
That is far from legitimization.

This is not 1921 or 1927 but 1989. The international situation by then was of course vastly different, and so I don't think that merits a response.


My take is that the economic crisis was the only thing preventing an openly hostile policy against the soviet union as well as the consequent threat to the bourgeois democracy system on europe.

Well you should provide evidence for your take then.


Openly hostile does not necessarily mean military incursion, even more because military incursions in strategical terms are costly and have few to no success. The proper way to wage war is to destroy an enemys internal cohesion first, and later to march over an already defeated enemy. Read Sun Wus art of war.

How does a democratic movement within a revolutionary party threaten internal cohesion? And as for your implication that the Opposition could be used by outside forces, well, they were much more friendly to the Stalinist faction and hostile to the Opposition. You may note, for example, that Trotsky was denied asylum at some point or another by all the imperialist powers, and only Turkey and Mexico offered him long-term residence.

As for Sun Tzu, he is ancient and irrelevant to this discussion.


The stalinist side.

In fact, they were doing all they could to ensure a split in the party in the ways that I have pointed out.

[Random Precision]

Ah, I'd like to continue this so very much, but 30 pages of Kant by tomorrow says otherwise- I'll try to make it tomorrow then. :)

[Devrim]

None of the groups you mentioned except the Workers Opposition really matched up- and for the record, I think their suppression was clearly a mistake.

The Workers' Opposition was different in that it was a faction within the Bolshevik party. It was, however, neither the first nor last faction to be suppressed. As far as I am aware the first ban on a faction in the post revolutionary Bolshevik party occurred in April 1918 when the left communists were banned. The interesting point in the banning of the WO is not that it was the banning of a particular faction, but that it was the banning of all factions.


The Kronstadt sailors attempted to impose their demands on the party through means of violence,

As we discussed before, the violence wasn't begun by the Kronstadt sailors, but by the state.


. This approach could only have ended in tragedy, for everyone involved had they succeeded.

It is good to see that your crystal ball is working well again.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The thing that always amazes me about the Trotskyist approach is that all factions that protested about the degeneration of the revolution prior to their were wrong yet many of them had raised exactly the same points as Trotsky himself later raised. Why were they wrong then, but right when Trotsky raised them?

Devrim

[Cumannach]

Certainly, advanced workers are always willing to make some sacrifices to achieve socialism. But if the sacrifices amount to a decimation of their class, the physical annihilation of almost all workers in the country, doesn't the working class have the right to say that the sacrifices are not worth it?

It seems that constantly invoking the civil war begs the question of whether Marx was right, and that the advanced capitalist countries simply had to go first. Perhaps Russia 1917 simply was not the time and place for a working class revolution.

You'll be a long time waiting for the perfect time and place.

Turn the clock 30 years forward now and take a look at what was happening. Now, in Russia you had an enormous proletariat, with vast advanced industry, with the state in the hands of the working class. Western capital launched the most destructive war in history to crush such a country. If the working class in an advanced capitalist country like France should manage to pull off a working class revolution and seize control of the state tomorrow, what will be the reaction of international capital on the next day? Who's to say it will be worth it for the French workers to even bother?

[Pogue]

You'll be a long time waiting for the perfect time and place.

Turn the clock 30 years forward now and take a look at what was happening. Now, in Russia you had an enormous proletariat, with vast advanced industry, with the state in the hands of the working class. Western capital launched the most destructive war in history to crush such a country. If the working class in an advanced capitalist country like France should manage to pull off a working class revolution and seize control of the state tomorrow, what will be the reaction of international capital on the next day? Who's to say it will be worth it for the French workers to even bother?

How could a state made up of unelected officials ever be in the hands of the working class?

[dez]

It's not. There were very real changes in the international situation, and in the policy of certain imperialist governments to the Soviet Union, that I have pointed out and you have to address.

This is not 1921 or 1927 but 1989. The international situation by then was of course vastly different, and so I don't think that merits a response.


So, what you are saying is that in 1917 there was a "civil war", and that in 1989 1991 capitalists, monarchists and all kinds of reactionary maggots celebrated the downfall of the soviet union, and you still think there was no hostility towards "real socialism"? (even though they were revisionists and imperialists themselves, it still hurt the capitalist elites to know that a state had been created by the proletariat to the proletariat) I'm sorry, but I dont think there was ever a really favourable international situation towards the revolution, a situation that would permit all those liberal freedoms that the capitalist regimes currently can afford to give their citizens.



How does a democratic movement within a revolutionary party threaten internal cohesion? And as for your implication that the Opposition could be used by outside forces, well, they were much more friendly to the Stalinist faction and hostile to the Opposition. You may note, for example, that Trotsky was denied asylum at some point or another by all the imperialist powers, and only Turkey and Mexico offered him long-term residence.


Trotskysm?
Democratic?
Are you sure?

And what did you expect, the imperialists to receive trotsky with open arms and ask him to incite the proletariat on their respective countries to promote a revolution? What do you think they would do to stalin, in case trotsky was the one doing the purging?
Give him a friendly hug and call him my Tovarishch?




Let us begin by posing the question of the nature of the Soviet state not on the abstract sociological plane but on the plane of concrete political tasks. Let us concede for the moment that the bureaucracy is a new “class” and that the present regime in the USSR is a special system of class exploitation.
.
.
.
Needless to say, the distribution of productive forces among the various branches of economy and generally the entire content of the plan will be drastically changed when this plan is determined by the interests not of the bureaucracy but of the producers themselves. But inasmuch as the question of overthrowing the parasitic oligarchy still remains linked with that of preserving the nationalized (state) property, we called the future revolution political. Certain of our critics (Ciliga, Bruno, and others) want, come what may, to call the future revolution social. Let us grant this definition. What does it alter in essence? To those tasks of the revolution which we have enumerated it adds nothing whatsoever. Our critics as a rule take the facts as we long ago established them. They add absolutely nothing essential to the appraisal either of the position of the bureaucracy and the toilers, or of the role of the Kremlin on the international arena.

In all these spheres, not only do they fail to challenge our analysis, but on the contrary they base themselves completely upon it and even restrict themselves entirely to it. The sole accusation they bring against us is that we do not draw the necessary “conclusions.” Upon analysis it turns out, however, that these conclusions are of a purely terminological character. Our critics refuse to call the degenerated workers’ state – a workers’ state. They demand that the totalitarian bureaucracy be called a ruling class. The revolution against this bureaucracy they propose to consider not political but social. Were we to make them these terminological concessions, we would place our critics in a very difficult position, inasmuch as they themselves would not know what to do with their purely verbal victory.

It would therefore be a piece of monstrous nonsense to split with comrades who on the question of the sociological nature of the USSR have an opinion different from ours, insofar as they solidarize with us in regard to the political tasks. But on the other hand, it would be blindness on our part to ignore purely theoretical and even terminological differences, because in the course of further development they may acquire flesh and blood and lead to diametrically opposite political conclusions. Just as a tidy housewife never permits an accumulation of cobwebs and garbage, just so a revolutionary party cannot tolerate lack of clarity, confusion and equivocation. Our house must be kept clean!
.
.
.

By the very march of events this question is now posed very concretely. The second world war has begun. It attests incontrovertibly to the fact that society can no longer live on the basis of capitalism. Thereby it subjects the proletariat to a new and perhaps decisive test.
If this war provokes, as we firmly believe, a proletarian revolution, it must inevitably lead to the overthrow of the bureaucracy in the USSR

.
.
.

We shall very soon devote a separate article to the question of the relation between the class and its leadership. We shall confine ourselves here to the most indispensable. Only vulgar “Marxists” who take it that politics is a mere and direct “reflection” of economics, are capable of thinking that leadership reflects the class directly and simply. In reality leadership, having risen above the oppressed class, inevitably succumbs to the pressure of the ruling class. The leadership of the American trade unions, for instance, “reflects” not so much the proletariat, as the bourgeoisie. The selection and education of a truly revolutionary leadership, capable of withstanding the pressure of the bourgeoisie, is an extraordinarily difficult task. The dialectics of the historic process expressed itself most brilliantly in the fact that the proletariat of the most backward country, Russia, under certain historic conditions, has put forward the most farsighted and courageous leadership. On the contrary, the proletariat in the country of the oldest capitalist culture, Great Britain, has even today the most dull witted and servile leadership.
The crisis of capitalist society which assumed an open character in July, 1914, from the very first day of the war produced a sharp crisis in the proletarian leadership. During the 25 years that have elapsed since that time, the proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries has not yet created a leadership that could rise to the level of the tasks of our epoch. The experience of Russia testifies, however, that such a leadership can be created. (This does not mean, of course, that it will be immune to degeneration.) The question consequently stands as follows: Will objective historical necessity in the long run cut a path for itself in the consciousness of the vanguard of the working class; that is, in the process of this war and those profound shocks which it must engender will a genuine revolutionary leadership be formed capable of leading the proletariat to the conquest of power?
The Fourth International has replied in the affirmative to this question, not only through the text of its program, but also through the very fact of its existence. All the various types of disillusioned and frightened representatives of pseudo-Marxism proceed on the contrary from the assumption that the bankruptcy of the leadership only “reflects” the incapacity of the proletariat to fulfill its revolutionary mission. Not all our opponents express this thought clearly, but all of them – ultra-lefts, centrists, anarchists, not to mention Stalinists and social democrats – shift the responsibility for the defeats from themselves to the shoulders of the proletariat. None of them indicate under precisely what conditions the proletariat will be capable of accomplishing the socialist overturn.
If we grant as true that the cause of the defeats is rooted in the social qualities of the proletariat itself then the position of modern society will have to be acknowledged as hopeless. Under conditions of decaying capitalism the proletariat grows neither numerically nor culturally. There are no grounds, therefore, for expecting that it will sometime rise to the level of the revolutionary tasks. Altogether differently does the case present itself to him who has clarified in his mind the profound antagonism between the organic, deep going, insurmountable urge of the toiling masses to tear themselves free from the bloody capitalist chaos, and the conservative, patriotic, utterly bourgeois character of the outlived labor leadership. We must choose one of these two irreconcilable conceptions.

.
.
.


What do we defend in the USSR? Not that in which it resembles the capitalist countries but precisely that in which it differs from them. In Germany also we advocate an uprising against the ruling bureaucracy, but only in order immediately to overthrow capitalist property. In the USSR the overthrow of the bureaucracy is indispensable for the preservation of state property.

.
.
.

We are not a government party; we are the party of irreconcilable opposition, not only in capitalist countries but also in the USSR. Our tasks, among them the “defense of the USSR”, we realize not through the medium of bourgeois governments and not even through the government of the USSR, but exclusively through the education of the masses through agitation, through explaining to the workers what they should defend and what they should overthrow. Such a “defense” cannot give immediate miraculous results. But we do not even pretend to be miracle workers. As things stand, we are a revolutionary minority. Our work must be directed so that the workers on whom we have influence should correctly appraise events
.
.
.
In order that nationalized property in the occupied areas, as well as in the USSR, become a basis for genuinely progressive, that is to say socialist development, it is necessary to overthrow the Moscow bureaucracy.
.
.
.
We do not entrust the Kremlin with any historic mission. We were and remain against seizures of new territories by the Kremlin. We are for the independence of Soviet Ukraine, and if the Byelo-Russians themselves wish – of Soviet Byelo-Russia. At the same time in the sections of Poland occupied by the Red Army, partisans of the Fourth International must play the most decisive part in expropriating the landlords and capitalists, in dividing the land among the peasants, in creating Soviets and Workers’ Committees, etc. While so doing, they must preserve their political independence, they must fight during elections the Soviets and factory committees for the complete independence of the latter from the bureaucracy, and they must conduct revolutionary propaganda in the spirit of distrust towards the Kremlin and its local agencies.

As you see, trotsky intended to promote a new revolution in the soviet union for him (and his cronies) to be empowered. He was thoughtful enough to specifically say that he wanted to overthrow the "parasitic oligarchy" and that "his critics were wrong" and would be dealt with in time. Basically.
:D

Oh, yeah, he totally smashed the "democratic" aspect of trotskysm with his section about leadership (I should really say elitism), but somehow I think most people have not read that article:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm

Considering the context (world war and all), that sort of places trotsky in the nazi camp (even though temporally. Mentioning that the nazis are a bigger threat does not take away the disruptive character of his activities/ideas). Its not like he was an innocent to military affairs and didnt know what he was doing.



As for Sun Tzu, he is ancient and irrelevant to this discussion.


War is ancient, and considering that we are talking about war, knowing its basics would help.

[Yehuda Stern]

As you see, trotsky intended to promote a new revolution in the soviet union for him (and his cronies) to be empowered. He was thoughtful enough to specifically say that he wanted to overthrow the "parasitic oligarchy" and that "his critics were wrong" and would be dealt with in time. Basically.

That is of course true, if for you Trotsky's cronies are the Soviet workers. At any rate, no one is trying to claim that there would've been less violence had Trotsky won the faction fight - the lesson Trotsky learned from his struggle with the Stalinists is that they have become irredeemable counterrevolutionaries, and that there could be no sort of peace or unity with them.


Oh, yeah, he totally smashed the "democratic" aspect of trotskysm with his section about leadership (I should really say elitism), but somehow I think most people have not read that article:

Actually, any good Trotskyist has read "The USSR at War," as it is part of one of Trotsky's most important works (In Defence of Marxism). As for the ancient, stupid slander that advocating revolution is the same as being on the other side, in this case on the side of the Nazis, it is slander one hears from all imperialist chauvinists in all wars. The truth is, Trotsky saw revolution as paramount to defending the USSR because he did not trust Stalin to do so. He was right - thanks to Stalin, the Nazi armies advanced much further than they could have had the Red Army been prepared for the fight.

[MarxSchmarx]

Oh, yeah, he totally smashed the "democratic" aspect of trotskysm with his section about leadership (I should really say elitism), but somehow I think most people have not read that article:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...9/ussr-war.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm)

Considering the context (world war and all), that sort of places trotsky in the nazi camp (even though temporally. Mentioning that the nazis are a bigger threat does not take away the disruptive character of his activities/ideas). Its not like he was an innocent to military affairs and didnt know what he was doing.

Huh? Are you joking, dawg?

It sounds like you are suggesting Trotsky (a Jew, after all) was a Nazi sympathizer because the Nazi's were against the government of Stalin.

[dez]

Huh? Are you joking, dawg?

It sounds like you are suggesting Trotsky (a Jew, after all) was a Nazi sympathizer because the Nazi's were against the government of Stalin.


I never said he was a nazi simpathizer (because before a jew, he was a communist, you know), but he temporarily was allied with them.
Again, claiming that the nazis are a bigger threat and then inciting people to sabotage the soviet government does not make one fight against fascism.

[dez]

I dont even know why am I answering this.


That is of course true, if for you Trotsky's cronies are the Soviet workers. At any rate, no one is trying to claim that there would've been less violence had Trotsky won the faction fight - the lesson Trotsky learned from his struggle with the Stalinists is that they have become irredeemable counterrevolutionaries, and that there could be no sort of peace or unity with them.


Less violence... But lets select leaderships properly and purge those that disagree with us, hmmk?




Actually, any good Trotskyist has read "The USSR at War," as it is part of one of Trotsky's most important works (In Defence of Marxism). As for the ancient, stupid slander that advocating revolution is the same as being on the other side, in this case on the side of the Nazis, it is slander one hears from all imperialist chauvinists in all wars. The truth is, Trotsky saw revolution as paramount to defending the USSR because he did not trust Stalin to do so. He was right - thanks to Stalin, the Nazi armies advanced much further than they could have had the Red Army been prepared for the fight.


So, there are good trotskysts and bad trotskysts, right?
I would like a nametag or something on the pawns.

Anyway, its not an ancient slander to claim that advocating a new revolution in the soviet union when it is waging war against nazi germany is siding with nazi germany temporarily. In world war one, even though the soviet government did not agree with imperial germany in terms of politics, it did sign a peace treaty with it easing its burden in the war, and germany wanted that so much that they sent lenin to moscow to fasten that process.
I recognize stalins lack of prepare to modernize the red army implementing tukhachevsky's deep combat suggestion, and his own political bias on his execution, yet I havent seen trotsky criticizing the soviet government in that ground and I am 100% sure that his reasons to call for a sabotage of it werent "to defend the soviet union properly" (because sabotage is definetely not the same as improvement of military organization/doctrine) but to empower himself and his comrades. It is easy to use of past historical events to propagate your agenda with completely unrelated arguments, but it is also a sophistry technique.

[Devrim]

I dont even know why am I answering this.

No, neither do I. The thread is about opposition to the Soviet state before the Left Opposition. You haven't addressed the issue at all.

You did manage to butcher the thread though, congratulations.

Devrim

[dez]

No, neither do I. The thread is about opposition to the Soviet state before the Left Opposition. You haven't addressed the issue at all.

You did manage to butcher the thread though, congratulations.

Devrim

I am pretty sure that text I quoted from trotsky gives the soviet state a valid casus belli against the left opposition (well, how valid it is debatable, but perhaps on the same ground that it gave it (if it gave it) against the workers opposition), even though that text was written after the purging its not like the mentality was any different years before, yet butchering the thread seems to be a priority to me.

[Jack]

[QUOTE=Random Precision;1414472] Now this is a special case. I think it's quite clear that the "anarchist" army of Makhno was based on the peasantry and as such often included many of the most reactionary political elements of that class. There was more than one anti-Jewish pogrom carried out by Makhnovist fighters in the towns they entered- not to say that this was endorsed by Makhno, who I think was principled in his opposition to anti-Semitism. . QUOTE]

There were no progoms performed by the Black Army, the Red, White, and Green armies were all accused of anti-semetic activities by the Ukranian Zionist Organization, but never the Black Army.

[Jack]

Also, if the troops in the Red Army were happy with their leadership, why did so many mutiny and turn to the Black Army? How about Trotsky trying to assassinate makhno, and killing non combatant peasants who supported him?

There was an antisemetic group with a name similar to that of Makhno's army. Called the Black Hundreds, it was probably mixed up with Makhno to discredit him.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

There was an antisemetic group with a name similar to that of Makhno's army. Called the Black Hundreds, it was probably mixed up with Makhno to discredit him.

Many of the Black Hundredists joined the Bolsheviks when they saw which way the wind was blowing because they saw Lenin and Trotsky's technocratic project as the best way to ensure a STRONG Russia. The same reason many of the "Right" Slavophiles admired Peter the Great.

Makhno's army defended as best it could communist social relations against the left technocratic faction of the emergent bourgious order.

[ComradeOm]

There were no progoms performed by the Black Army, the Red, White, and Green armies were all accused of anti-semetic activities by the Ukranian Zionist Organization, but never the Black Army.Seez you. The violence directed against Jews by Makhno's men is relatively well documented. Makhno himself comes out of this relatively untarnished, save for a refusal to curb his peasant soldiers' violent prejudices, but he was also willing to make use of popular 'Judo-Bolshevik' conspiracy theories. As a result, "troops of Makhno devastated Jewish settlements and killed innocent people". Which is not to even mention the even more unrestrained behaviour of other anarchist groups

See, 'Klier, J.D., and Lambroza, S., (1995), Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History'


There was an antisemetic group with a name similar to that of Makhno's army. Called the Black Hundreds, it was probably mixed up with Makhno to discredit him.Except that the Black Hundreds had been first organised by Tsarist police over a decade before the Civil War


Many of the Black Hundredists joined the Bolsheviks when they saw which way the wind was blowing because they saw Lenin and Trotsky's technocratic project as the best way to ensure a STRONG Russia. The same reason many of the "Right" Slavophiles admired Peter the Great.You're thinking of the National Bolsheviks. Black Hundredists were on the extreme right of the White movement and their anti-Semitism precluded any meaningful role in the Soviet state. A member of the Black Hundreds was even worse than a 'Kornilovite' While few individual members may well have slipped into the Soviet ranks (while keeping their past activities secret of course) the assertion that "many" crossed over to the Reds is impossible to take seriously

The reality is that no party during the Civil War (or indeed few states since) have combated anti-Semitism as staunchly as the Bolsheviks

[PeaderO'Donnell]

You're thinking of the National Bolsheviks. Black Hundredists were on the extreme right of the White movement and their anti-Semitism precluded any meaningful role in the Soviet state. A member of the Black Hundreds was even worse than a 'Kornilovite' While few individual members may well have slipped into the Soviet ranks (while keeping their past activities secret of course) the assertion that "many" crossed over to the Reds is impossible to take seriously

The reality is that no party during the Civil War (or indeed few states since) have combated anti-Semitism as staunchly as the Bolsheviks

You are probably correct that no other party combated anti-semitism as much as the Bolsheviks. Infact I would be surprised given the circumstances to find out otherwise.

However I think we should remember that there existed two "Rights" in Russia at the time. One that was supportive of the feburary revolution and wanted to develop Russia along western lines and one that was monarchist, integralist and very anti-western. Even today there is more hatred of "the west" in Russian integralists circles then there is of the "Soviets". Anti-semitism is often (if not usually?) tied in with a confused anti-capitalism (not necessarily the same thing as a confused socialism). You also forget the role of the Romanov dynasty in undermining if not trying to violently destory traditional Russian Orthodox culture in the course of the 18 th century and the lingering wound of the great schism in the 17 th century made them unpopular in many Russian "integralist" circles.

"Red Flags and Black Hundreds

The Union of the Russian People, known also under the names of Black Hundreds, represents a form of Russian proto-fascism. A pro-German, anti-English, and anti-Yankee movement fearing the expansion of the yellow peoples, it condemned with force capitalism, parliamentarism, and liberalism, and envisaged a violent anti-Romanov revolution. Its militant base was formed in the most part by industrial workers. Contrary to current opinion, this group was not in violent opposition with the Russian communists but in concurrence and a certain admiration existed on its part for them, driving them to timely alliances and creating passages of militants from one camp to the other.
Plexanov estimated that the URP's (SRN po-russki) ranks were 80% made up of proletarians and that they "would become ardent participants of the revolutionary movement", Peter Struve affirmed that the URP was a revolutionary socialist party, at the congress of the Social Democratic Party of 1907, Pokrovsky that one will find in the extremist Bolshevik fraction "Forward 1" insisted on the positive sides of the URP. Lenin was firstly reticent on these positions, and then was convinced of their good foundation by Maksim Gorky who had been in correspondence with the Black Hundreds since 1905.
On the side of the URP, this led to numerous changes in strategy for the future communists in order to bring the downfall of the liberals. For one of the leaders of the Black Hundreds, Apollon Maikov, they "pursued the same objectives as the revolutionaries, that is to say the betterment of the conditions of life, a goal which coincides in a certain way with the teaching of the social anarchists . . . The consitutionalists call the armed revolutionaries 'left-wing revolutionaries', and the Black Hundreds 'right-wing revolutionaries'. From their point of view this definition has a certain legitimacy . .. Because we all think that the consititutional form of government brings the total domination of capital, and in such conditions when power will be exclusively in the hands of the capitalists, who will only hold it for their own advantage in order to oppress and exploit the population." Another leader of the URP, Viktor Sokolov accused the ruling bureaucracy of wishing to incite its members "to struggle against the revolutionary elements, and thus to weaken the two parties by this struggle".
Starting in march 1917, most of the 3,000 members of the URP (at the same time the bolsheviks were only 10,000), started either to join the Bolshevik Party or to work for it after the Revolution. Thus one sees the journals of the Black Hundreds calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the head of the URP students in Kiev, Yuri Piatakov, becoming one of the heads of the Bolshevik extreme-left, some less known militants becoming responsible for Soviets or working in the Cheka (later-KGB), while numerous others became important membres of the Orthodox Church loyal to the regime (the head of the URP of Tiflis became also the Metropolitan Varfolomei and died of natural causes, at 90 years of age, in 1956)."


http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/russian_nb.php

[ComradeOm]

However I think we should remember that there existed two "Rights" in Russia at the time. One that was supportive of the feburary revolution and wanted to develop Russia along western lines and one that was monarchist, integralist and very anti-westernIndeed. And the most prominent figure for the latter was none other than Nicholas II. Contrary to your article (and I'll deal with that below) there was no proto-fascist movement in the vein of the NSDAP that presented some 'third position' stance. On the Russian political spectrum of 1917 the Black Hundreds lined up squarely alongside other monarchists who supported Nicholas II and later fought for a restoration of the monarchy. They were distinguishable only by their radicalism and official racism


You also forget the role of the Romanov dynasty in undermining if not trying to violently destory traditional Russian Orthodox culture in the course of the 18 th century and the lingering wound of the great schism in the 17 th century made them unpopular in many Russian "integralist" circlesExcept that the Black Hundreds were not products of the 17th or 19th C. They were formed in the first decade of the 20th C, by two Tsarist ministers no less, with the express aim of bolstering support for the Tsardom. Hence the Tsarist government lavished funds on the URP in the hope of constructing a popular monarchist movement with which to combat liberalism and socialism

As for the article presented, I've seen it before and remain unconvinced. Aside from the lack of sources, and complete misrepresentation of the URP, even I can spot a number of factual errors. A quick check of Figes, (1998), A People's Tragedy confirms this

In the first place the URP were only one of many groups labelled 'Black Hundredists' by the liberals and socialists. Secondly, the URP itself had dissolved years before the 1917 Revolution and splintered into over a dozen petty factions. The idea that any of these could have mustered 3K members in Petrograd 1917 is very unlikely. More to the point, the Black Hundreds did not recruit primarily from the urban proletariat (which had been the near exclusive preserve of Social Democrats from 1905 onwards) but rather from the petit-bourgeoisie, small artisans, the religious hierarchy, and lumpen elements. Indeed Gorky himself (far from supporting them) had been driven into hiding by the Black Hundreds during the events of 1905!

Probably the most damning hole in this entire theory is that the Bolsheviks, and indeed other socialists, never ceased to combat the Black Hundreds. Far from "calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat", the Black Hundredist paramilitaries were involved in street battles with Bolsheviks throughout the summer of 1917 and this escalated into open warfare during the Civil War years. Hardly signs of an alliance

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Indeed. And the most prominent figure for the latter was none other than Nicholas II.

True...But Nicholas II felt himself surrounded by traitors to use his own words (I cant remember the exact phrase that he used). Also are you going to suggest that the most conservative section of Russian society the Old Ritualists support Romanovs who were still up to the point of the revolution persecuting them? Didnt one of the weathliest members even finance the Bolsheviks (Marazov?)

Having said that the article doesnt exactly come from a trust worthy source and should be taken with a pinch of salt however much it does point to the existence of real phenomena usually ignored.

[ComradeOm]

True...But Nicholas II felt himself surrounded by traitors to use his own words (I cant remember the exact phrase that he used)Which is exactly what attracted him to the URP and distinguished the latter from other monarchists. Nicholas shared the Black Hundredist fantasy that Russia's problems largely stemmed from intellectuals and bureaucrats who disrupted the "direct communion between the Tsar and his people" (Figes). Both believed that the role of the Tsar should be that of 'Holy Father', a semi-divine monarch whose personal autocracy was derived from a mystical bond with the Russian people

Thus, unlike the national Bolsheviks, the position of the Tsar and the nature of the monarchy were central tenets for the Black Hundreds. Portraits of the Tsar almost invariably accompanied their marches and I simply cannot imagine them allying with a party that strongly denied the Tsar's right to rule

Incidentally Nicholas was suspicious as to his ministers' loyalties for good reason. The February Revolution probably pre-empted a palace coup by a matter of weeks


Also are you going to suggest that the most conservative section of Russian society the Old Ritualists support Romanovs who were still up to the point of the revolution persecuting them? Didnt one of the weathliest members even finance the Bolsheviks (Marazov?)I'm not sure what the Old Believers have to do with this but from 1905 onwards they enjoyed relative freedom as a host of restrictions were lifted and open discrimination against them largely ended

As for Marazov, the name is wrong but I can't recall the correct spelling right now. This was however an exceptional case in which the industrialist's son had been executed by the Tsarist police for being a Bolshevik (or partaking in some Bolshevik activities). As it was, a lump sum was left to the Bolsheviks on Marazov's (or whatever you call him) death but this caused plenty of controversy. The Mensheviks objected and German SPD members had to be brought in to arbitrate. IIRC the Bolsheviks didn't see a penny of that inheritance

[PeaderO'Donnell]

As for Marazov, the name is wrong but I can't recall the correct spelling right now. This was however an exceptional case in which the industrialist's son had been executed by the Tsarist police for being a Bolshevik (or partaking in some Bolshevik activities). As it was, a lump sum was left to the Bolsheviks on Marazov's (or whatever you call him) death but this caused plenty of controversy. The Mensheviks objected and German SPD members had to be brought in to arbitrate. IIRC the Bolsheviks didn't see a penny of that inheritance


No I think that is not exactly true. Given their repression by the Romanov dynstasy who they hated for religious, cultural and socio-economnic reasons many of the Old Ritualists supported the Mensheviks (Im not sure how many went further and supported the actual Bolsheviks...). Stalinism and Putinism didnt come out of thin air.

[JimmyJazz]

You'll be a long time waiting for the perfect time and place.

I agree. I did say I was playing the devil's advocate.

Still, no one really knows what would have happened in the more developed capitalist countries if Russia hadn't gone Communist. If, as Chomsky says, anti-communism is an "official religion" in America, much of that particular religion has to be seen as due to a Cold War mentality. It's very easy to manipulate public opinion of what is happening in a foreign country, and then to say, "see that? that's what the Socialist Party of wants to do [I]here!"

Imagine what might have happened in the U.S. and Europe during the Great Depression if not for the Cold War* mentality.


*hopefully everyone here knows their history enough to realize that the Cold War began in 1917, and that it was never "cold" even from the very beginning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War).

[Random Precision]

Finally I got some time to continue this.


I've made most of my points, but I will play devil's advocate:

OK, but clearly not enough of a purge to prevent the Left Opposition from decrying the bureaucratization of Soviet life some years later. Perhaps even meeting the WO's demands would not have been enough to prevent this, but it would have been a step closer.

I agree.


At the risk of beating a dead horse (yet this is the point of this thread) - how is this different from Stalin's leadership, and its purges of the LO? I have heard Trotskyists use these exact words to describe Stalin's purges - paranoid, etc. - so I really don't know what the difference is, other than that the target of Stalin's paranoia was Bolshevik Party members and the target of the Trotsky's/Lenin's paranoia during the civil war was non-Party members.


I don't know much detail at all about the era of Stalin's purges, so I would like to be enlightened here.

Well, to delve into the history of the Terror, the best materialist account of it that I've read comes from the historian John Arch Getty, most specifically in his The Road to Terror- which is made incredibly valuable by the fact that it contains many of the original documents of the purges. I'd definitely recommend giving that a read, but to state his thesis briefly, he describes the Terror as mainly an organic reaction from the party bureaucracy to the conditions of underdevelopment, collectivization and industrialization. Massive outbreaks of peasant and worker discontent accompanied both of those processes, which made the bureaucracy fearful of losing its control over the entire country, and little things, like the assassination of Kirov by a madman, were enough to cause a violent outburst to reassert their control. Getty describes Stalin as the person who manipulated the party's paranoia to solidify his control over it, eliminate many people he saw as threats to his power, etc.

So in answer to your question, I think we have to take both the purges and the Civil War in the context of the time. We can provide a materialist analysis for both, and at the end say that Lenin and Trotsky acted the way they did as representatives of the proletariat who made the revolution, and were forced to make incredibly difficult decisions by the Civil War that caused the decimation of the class they represented, while Stalin was a representative of the party bureaucracy who used its paranoia to solidify his own control over it and thus over the working class.


So, the Left Opposition began in 1922?

In 1923 to be precise.


Of course, formal ability to change a system by playing by the rules does not always translate into actual ability to do so. That much is clear to anyone familiar with the socialist critique of liberal democracy.

Quite true.


Hmm. Well, to be totally accurate, you seem to believe this with a few caveats. Namely, that only "realistic" changes could be effected by working within it. Any demands that contradicted the overall goal of winning the civil war could not be achieved. The overall goal of winning the civil war was not, in itself, something up for questioning. And yet, many advanced working class groups did make these very "unrealistic" demands. I don't think that's really been explained sufficiently. How could they do this, and still be genuine socialists (which you acknowledge they were)?

I think that the conditions of the Civil War entailed a situation in which many of the most basic goals of the revolution simply could not be fulfilled. Naturally there was a protest against this by sincerely revolutionary groups who wanted those goals fulfilled, which simply puts them on the wrong side, though perhaps the more pure side, of a tragic situation. The problem is that revolutions never happen under pure conditions. In Russia the Bolsheviks faced the choice of abandoning some of the basic goals of the revolution for as long as the conditions of civil war persisted, or to maintain the basic goals of the revolution, Soviet Democracy being the biggest one, and have it perish under the imperialist onslaught. And as ComradeOm said in another thread, they even managed to maintain Soviet democracy at the cost of depleting the party ranks for a full year after the revolution. Hard choices. I think that given what they were working with, they did the best they could.


Yet, to someone who sides with these non-Bolshevik groups, I do think a pretty good explanation has been produced for how the Bolsheviks could have been genuine socialists and yet violently clashed with other socialist groups: they wanted to maintain their personal hold on their power. Yes, they were genuine socialists, but they also very badly wanted to be the ones to achieve it, and they wanted to achieve it their way.

I partially agree with this. I don't think that the Bolsheviks saw themselves this way during October and even into the first months of the civil war. I think that yes, as they were forced to centralize power, they came to identify themselves as the sole representative of the working class. But you have to understand where that idea came from, once again.


The civil war was a fight to keep the Bolsheviks in power. It was not a fight against tsarism; the tsar and his family were dead. It was not a fight against military rule or some other form of autocracy; the Bolsheviks were not the only group that stood between Russia and that (the same Petrograd working class and soldiers that forced the tsar from power in February would have made it equally impossible for another autocratic, nationalistic, militaristic government to govern Russia).

I don't think you can judge the origins of a conflict on its outcome. I would say that the course of the Civil War transformed the Bolshevik Party from the workers' vanguard into the sometimes dictatorial repressor of the working class, already beginning to fall completely under the control of its own bureaucratic apparatus. But Lenin, Trotsky, etc. were representatives of the working class and they had never wanted this, and when they realized what was happening they fought against it as best they could. The Bolshevik Party emerged from the Civil War a quite contradictory organization, and I would argue that at that point the path to Stalinism was not yet completely clear.


The alternative outcome, at least early on, would have been a liberal democratic government in the form of the Constituent Assembly, most likely headed up by a reformist socialist like Kerensky.

I don't really think a liberal government was capable of solving any of Russia's problems- neither the war, nor the land question, nor sweeping away the remaining elements of feudalism and autocracy, as they proved themselves during their brief reign.


Certainly, advanced workers are always willing to make some sacrifices to achieve socialism. But if the sacrifices amount to a decimation of their class, the physical annihilation of almost all workers in the country, doesn't the working class have the right to say that the sacrifices are not worth it?

As I said before. Hard choices. I think the potential for renewal of the revolution was still a valid hope at that point, that justified the sacrifices.


It seems that constantly invoking the civil war begs the question of whether Marx was right, and that the advanced capitalist countries simply had to go first. Perhaps Russia 1917 simply was not the time and place for a working class revolution.

I don't think that this argument has much merit at all. A working-class revolution did happen in Russia, and the revolutionaries did attempt to put in place the basis of working class rule. That they were diverted by internal and external reaction doesn't say anything about their original goals. Besides, you have to remember that Lenin, Trotsky, etc. never expected Russia to clear the path to socialism itself, they always expected working class revolutions in Germany, in Italy, in France to take hold and shift the center of the revolution westward. There were even plans to move the Comintern to Berlin once the revolution took hold there IIRC.


Because, you are saying that most of what was done was necessary to win the civil war, and I agree. Yet we're faced with the historical fact of advanced working class opposition to these same policies. How can you reconcile that?

See above...


Some people seem to think that necessity is the only argument that needs to be made with regard to actions taken by the Bolsheviks during the civil war. But history shows that argument didn't fly with the entire Russian working class. And more importantly, it doesn't fly with most working people today. If the most that socialists can promise them is a civil war that kills most of them off, then they aren't going to give socialists another chance. I don't know if this sounds defeatist to you or whatever, but to me it's just realistic.

However, the alternative is not to simply accept capitalism. One could also believe (as I think Marx did) that when the productive forces in a country have become advanced enough, the working class will constitute the vast majority of society, and be capable of carrying out a social revolution without serious opposition.

I have an agreement and a disagreement. First I think that the conditions that produced Stalinism in Russia can never occur again, given that the productive forces in nearly every country in the world have advanced beyond Russia in 1917. Underdevelopment will not present as serious a problem for future revolutions, even in countries like India which have, as you say, a working class that forms the majority of the population and therefore is capable of sweeping the bourgeoisie aside without having to deal with the demands of the peasants in such a high order.

However, I think that any future revolutions will also have to face an even stronger external reaction than the Russians did, since global capitalism has consolidated itself that much more. It will be hard to exploit divisions in the international ruling class, as the Russians did between the Central Powers and the Entente, for instance. This is why I think the international organization of the working class must be made much stronger than it was in 1917. Revolutions breaking out and succeeding in several countries at once will be much harder for reaction to deal with than one in a single underdeveloped country coupled with temporarily successful or abortive attempts in a couple other countries.