Trotsky's Dream About Dead Lenin

[Leo]

I wasn't exactly sure where to post this but finally decided to post it in the history forum.

Leon Trotsky noted in his diary a dream about dead Lenin he had on the night of June 25 1935:

“Judging by the surroundings, it was on a ship, on the third-class deck. Lenin was lying in a bunk; I was either standing or sitting near him, I am not sure which. He was questioning me anxiously about my illness. ‘You seem to have accumulated nervous fatigue, you must rest…’ I answered that I had always recovered from fatigue quickly, thanks to my native Schwungkraft, but that this time the trouble seemed to lie in some deeper processes… ‘then you should seriously (he emphasized the word) consult the doctors (several names)…’ I answered that I already had many consultations and began to tell him about my trip to Berlin; but looking at Lenin I recalled that he was dead. I immediately tried to drive away this thought, so as to finish the conversation. When I had finished telling him about my therapeutic trip to Berlin in 1926, I wanted to add, ‘This was after your death’; but I checked myself and said, ‘After you fell ill…’”

I found this rather fascinating. What is especially interesting is how in many ways there is a parallel between what Trotsky does in his dream and what he does in real life. Lenin being one of the most important militants of the Bolshevik Party and again one of the most important figures of the October Revolution itself, in real life Trotsky never said either were "dead" also but that they were "sick". Maybe behind Trotsky's theory of degenerated workers state lied a psychological, emotional refusal to admit a reality?

[Random Precision]

I certainly think that is plausible. Here is what Trotsky wrote after being expelled from the party, before he came up with the "degenerated workers' state" formulation:


There is no doubt that the degeneration of the Soviet apparatus is considerably more advanced than the same process in the party apparatus. Nevertheless, it is the party that decides. At present, this means the party apparatus. The question thus comes down to the same thing: is the proletarian kernel of the party, assisted by the working class, capable of triumphing over the autocracy of the party apparatus which is fusing with the state apparatus? Whoever replies in advance that it is incapable, thereby speaks not only of the necessity of a new party on a new foundation, but also of the necessity of a second and new proletarian revolution...

If the party is a corpse, a new party must be built on a new spot, and the working class must be told about it openly. If Thermidor is completed, and if the dictatorship of the proletariat is liquidated, the banner of the second proletarian revolution must be unfurled. That is how we would act if the road of reform, for which we stand, proved hopeless.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/borodai.htm

Emphasis mine. Unfortunately once he did abandon the road of reform, with the founding of the 4th International, he failed to remember those words.

I think that Trotsky, given his leading role in the revolution and afterward in the Soviet Republic, may have found it hard emotionally to admit that everything he had worked for was gone and things had to be started from scratch. Also considering that he at least consented to, if not directly supported, many of the abuses that paved the way for Stalinism during and after the civil war, he also may have felt bound to the Stalinist regime's repressive policies at least to a small extent.

On the subject of where this should be posted, I'm content to leave it in History so far as it remains a discussion about Trotsky. If it turns into a DWS versus state capitalism debate however, I'll move it along to Theory.

[Leo]

Emphasis mine. Unfortunately once he did abandon the road of reform, with the founding of the 4th International, he failed to remember those words.Well yes, although he was it seems trying to start questioning his old idea of the degenerated workers' state, albeit in a very confused, discouraged and demoralized way, near the end of his life, while he was rather unsuccessfully trying to predict a possible outcome of the war in which the working class would further decline:


But suppose that Hitler turns his weapons to the East and invades the territories occupied by the Red Army (...) The Bolshevik-Leninists will combat Hitler, weapons in hand, but at the same time they will undertake a revolutionary propaganda against Stalin in order to prepare his overthrow at the next stage( ...)

If however we consider that the present war will provoke, not the revolution but the decline of the proletariat, then there is only one possible outcome to the alternative: the further decomposition of monopolist capital, its fusion with the state and the replacement of democracy, where it still survives, by a totalitarian regime. In these conditions, the proletariat’s inability to seize the leadership of society could lead to the development of a new exploiting class emerging from the Bonapartist and fascist bourgeoisies. In all likelihood this would be a regime of decadence, and would signify the twilight of civilisation.

We would reach a similar result should the proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries take power and prove unable to hold on to it, abandoning it, as in the USSR, in the hands of a privileged bureaucracy. We would then be forced to recognise that the new decline into bureaucracy was due, not to one country’s backwardness and capitalist environment, but to the proletariat’s organic inability to become a ruling class. We would then have to establish retrospectively that in its fundamental traits today’s USSR is the precursor of a new regime of exploitation on an international scale.

We have strayed a long way from the terminological controversy on the definition of the Soviet state. But our critics should not protest: only by basing ourselves on the necessary historical perspective can we formulate a correct judgement on such a question as the replacement of one social regime by another. Taken to its conclusion, the historical alternative appears thus: either the Stalinist regime is an awful setback in the process of the transformation of bourgeois society into a socialist society, or else the Stalinist regime is the first step towards a new society of exploitation. If the second forecast proved correct, then of course the bureaucracy would become a new exploiting class. However dire this second perspective may appear, should the world proletariat indeed prove itself unable to carry out the mission entrusted to it by the course of historical development, then we would be forced to recognise that the socialist programme, based on the internal contradictions of capitalist society, has finally turned out to be a Utopia. It goes without saying that we would need a new “minimum programme” to defend the interests of the slaves of the totalitarian bureaucratic society.

Emphasis mine. Lots of former militants of the left opposition from all sorts of different places like China, Greece, Spain, Germany-Austria, France, Belgium, US, Mexico among other did break from it over the two questions of the capitalist nature of the USSR and the imperialist nature of the war both before and after the old man's death after all.


I think that Trotsky, given his leading role in the revolution and afterward in the Soviet Republic, may have found it hard emotionally to admit that everything he had worked for was gone and things had to be started from scratch. Also considering that he at least consented to, if not directly supported, many of the abuses that paved the way for Stalinism during and after the civil war, he also may have felt bound to the Stalinist regime's repressive policies at least to a small extent.Yes, I do agree with this, and that extent is not negligable at all. After all, every repressive policy Trotsky was involved in, from the banning of factions to the militarization of labor and the repression of the Kronstadt uprising, clearly paved the way for the Stalinist counter-revolution - they were all vital steps in the degeneration of the revolution.


On the subject of where this should be posted, I'm content to leave it in History so far as it remains a discussion about Trotsky. If it turns into a DWS versus state capitalism debate however, I'll move it along to Theory.Fair enough.

[Led Zeppelin]

found this rather fascinating. What is especially interesting is how in many ways there is a parallel between what Trotsky does in his dream and what he does in real life. Lenin being one of the most important militants of the Bolshevik Party and again one of the most important figures of the October Revolution itself, in real life Trotsky never said either were "dead" also but that they were "sick". Maybe behind Trotsky's theory of degenerated workers state lied a psychological, emotional refusal to admit a reality?

That's some great subjective psycho-analysis of Trotsky based on one dream he had and wrote down in his diary (some great parallels you draw as well, also something entirely subjective I might add), but I don't think it's really anything of value.

How about addressing his (valid) arguments instead of relying on subjective psycho-analysis of a dream he wrote down?


Well yes, although he was it seems trying to start questioning his old idea of the degenerated workers' state, albeit in a very confused, discouraged and demoralized way, near the end of his life, while he was rather unsuccessfully trying to predict a possible outcome of the war in which the working class would further decline:

Eh, yeah, that quote was from September 1939? Well here's one from December 1939:


If Burnham were a dialectical materialist, he would have probed the following three questions: (1) What was the historical origin of the USSR? (2) What changes has this state suffered during its existence? (3) Did these changes pass from the quantitative stage to the qualitative? That is, did they create a historically necessary domination by a new exploiting class? Answering these questions would have forced Burnham to draw the only possible conclusion the USSR is still a degenerated workers’ state.
Link (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/12/abc.htm)

I think I've already played this quotes game with you before and it was established that;

1. Trotsky was of the opinion that it was possible for the degenerated bureaucracy to become a new ruling and exploiting class.

And, 2. That Trotsky remained to his death of the opinion that this had not yet happened.

I believe this didn't happen until, well, it actually started happening in the late 80's, starting with the reforms initiated by the most pro-bourgeois wing of the bureaucracy, which found "no small number of ready servants among the present bureaucrats, administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general", as was written about as a hypothesis by Trotsky in his Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm).

History has vindicated him, no amount of subjective psycho-analysis of his diaries can change that.


Unfortunately once he did abandon the road of reform, with the founding of the 4th International, he failed to remember those words.

What do you mean? Trotsky supported a proletarian revolution in the USSR, he had stopped being a reformist (in relation to the Stalinists) a long time before the 4th International was made (around 1933).

Also, he considered Thermidor completed (and the dictatorship of the proletariat liquidated), and the era of Bonapartism taking its place in at least 1935 already. This didn't have anything to do with the system reverting back to capitalism though. He wasn't referring to that in the quote you posted, he was referring to the Thermidorian phase giving way to the Bonapartist phase (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm). Around the same time a call for a new political revolution was made, exactly because the Thermidorian phase was completed and had given way to the Bonapartist.

EDIT: I've had this discussion a lot of times before and don't really have the time to get involved in another one (which will end up like the other ones...inconclusive, with no side changing their minds), so I'll just post a link to the most in-depth previous debate I had on this issue (with Gulag Orkestar), here you go: On denegarated workers state, state capitalism, WW2, revolutionary defeatism, Trotsky (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=769)

[Leo]

That's some great subjective psycho-analysis of Trotsky Why thank you :)


How about addressing his (valid) arguments instead of relying on subjective psycho-analysis of a dream he wrote down?I think it has been obvious for decades that the actual arguements themselves were not valid at all and were quite contradictory. Anyway I did respond to his arguements as far as I recall, and if I recall correctly again it was in a thread responding to a very confused text by Trotsky on the question of the state you posted allegedly "refuting" the analysis that Russia was capitalist in reality.


Eh, yeah, that quote was from September 1939? Well here's one from December 1939:Please don't start a "quote the latest document from Trotsky" race again man. Yes, it is well known that Trotsky still described the USSR as a degenerated workers' state even when he wrote the previously quoted text from September 1939. The point was that he was saying that this situation could change soon, despite saying it in a very confused manner.

On the other hand, lets look at Trotsky's three questions:


(1) What was the historical origin of the USSR? (2) What changes has this state suffered during its existence? (3) Did these changes pass from the quantitative stage to the qualitative? That is, did they create a historically necessary domination by a new exploiting class? Well, lets answer these questions... 1) The historical origin of the USSR was the October Revolution which was a proletarian revolution. 2) In the beginning the state was directed by the workers' councils, the soviets, which were the organs of revolutionary power, organs on which the dictatorship of the proletariat was based on. The Stalinist counter-revolution completely turned these organs into empty shells, breaking the political power of the proletariat, and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is above all a political dictatorship. The state thus afterwards was not under the influence and the power of the soviets but the bureaucracy. The state was not a workers' state to begin with but an apparatus that was supposed to be under the control of the soviets, and when that political power of the proletariat over that state faded, it became simply ridiculous to argue that this state, now butchering working-class militants was a workers' state in any way - not even a degenerated one. The merger of the state with the party destroyed the party also, beginning with the banning of factions to the murder of tens of thousands of revolutionary communists, who spent their whole lives working for the revolutionary cause. Among these militants was almost the entire Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party of 1917. 3) Yes. As all communists, including Marx, Engels and even Lenin and lots of other Bolsheviks emphasized, socialism is not state-ownership, Russia never became socialist and establishing a new mode of production in a single country is impossible. When the proletariat lost it's own political power and it's self-organizations, it lost it's class rule with it. Russia was still a class society though and it was a class society that was not and could not have been isolated from the capitalist world market and the imperialist world order. All these conditions created a historically necessary domination by a new exploiting class. Thus the state bureaucracy, which managed to rule all the aspects of the society, from factories to the army, qualitatively became the new exploiting, bourgeois class after a few years of quantitative degeneration of the revolution. This qualitative change was certainly complete without no doubt when the political program of the proletariat, world revolution, was openly abandoned in favor of the bourgeois nationalist program of "socialism" in one country. The new ruling class of Russia had been realizing exploitation even before that, things like one-man management, Taylorism being steps in that direction. There was a working class in Russia which created surplus value, which was paid wages and there was a bourgeoisie in Russia which accumulated capital, managed the finances and so forth. It could even be said that the Russian state-bureaucrat wasn't much different from the CEO of a modern corporation. The bureaucracy collectively owned and individually controlled the means of production.

See, that wasn't so hard.


1. Trotsky was of the opinion that it was possible for the degenerated bureaucracy to become a new ruling and exploiting class.

And, 2. That Trotsky remained to his death of the opinion that this had not yet happened.This is clearly what the quote says anyway.

EDIT:
EDIT: I've had this discussion a lot of times before and don't really have the time to get involved in another one (which will end up like the other ones...inconclusive, with no side changing their minds), so I'll just post a link to the most in-depth previous debate I had on this issue (with Gulag Orkestar), here you go: On denegarated workers state, state capitalism, WW2, revolutionary defeatism, Trotsky (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=769)

This reminds me: you never responded, did you?

[Led Zeppelin]

This reminds me: you never responded, did you?

No, I decided to do the same thing you did and not respond to the content of your post. :p

My side of the discussion is pretty well laid out there in my opinion. I provided a lot of quotes and sources. It doesn't really matter if I didn't respond to your post. If you believe that your post sufficiently lays out our position on the matter and I believe mine does, there's no problem. For example, you didn't respond to my last post in the debate we had on national liberation and self-determination (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=774), but that doesn't matter since both our positions are clarified sufficiently (at least to me mine is).

[Leo]

I don't think having sufficiently established positions is a reason to avoid having further discussions on the subject. Anyway...

[Led Zeppelin]

No but not having time for it is...

[Leo]

Fair enough.