Why is Trotsky Loathed on Revleft? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why is Trotsky Loathed on Revleft?

Euronymous

24th July 2011, 19:42

Tablo

24th July 2011, 20:21

You could say Stalin is loathed on Revleft too. Different groups despise different individuals. I dislike Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, and several other people upheld here.

Le Socialiste

24th July 2011, 20:27

^ This. I personally don't have anything nice or good to say about Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, and several other major figures that people admire around here. That's why I'll usually steer clear of questions or debates that involve any of these guys - especially when it's on Revleft. I doubt my opinion would be missed anyway, there's more than enough flame/tendency wars on here. My contribution would simply be yet another log on an already blazing bonfire.

Jose Gracchus

24th July 2011, 20:35

Its because it really often has more in common with a fan club of a political figure than an internally consistent ideological current.

Kiev Communard

24th July 2011, 20:37

In numerous posts regarding different marxist beliefs, it seems as though Trotskyism is by far the least favored out of all. Is it because of his somewhat fascist actions, such as crushing the 15,000 Czechoslavakian "Counter-revolutionaries" during the peak of the October Revolution? Or because of his actions post-exile?

The Czechoslovaks you referred to were actual counter-revolutionaries, though, as they rose up in May 1918 against the Soviet power that was still (relatively) intact. The other actions of Trotsky that he should be really "loathed" for include:

(1) The advocacy of Party dictatorship and one-man management, with bureaucratically appointed "leaders" replacing workers' self-management;

(2) The disregard for freedom of speech and freedom of tendencies (until, of course, he was repressed himself);

(3) The "militarization of labour" stance during the "trade union discussion";

(4) His dictatorial behaviour in the Red Army and his intrigues against the independent-minded authentic working-class/peasant commanders, which resulted in the false allegations and deaths of some of them.

thesadmafioso

24th July 2011, 20:38

I would certainly not consider Trotsky the most loathed figure on RevLeft, though he does obviously receive a great deal of flak from the Stalinist's of the board and to a lesser extent and for different reasons the left coms and anarchists.

Stalinist's view him as a counter revolutionary and a opportunist, and for political reasons they generally nurse a notable amount of loathing for his actions in the years after the revolution. As far as policy goes, they adhere more to the 'socialism in one country' concept and support the more moderate approach to historical internationalist leftist popular fronts which emerged in the late 20's and 30's because of such. This conflicts which Trotsky's view of the pressing need for international revolution and leads to the inevitable tendency wars between the two factions.

As for the left com and anarchist types, they generally critique him for his position in support of the repression of the Kronstadt uprising and the methodology embodied in that action. The Bolsheviks also took to suppressing anarchist groups in the post revolutionary period, something which Trotsky was in favor of more so than not. They hold him to be in the same vein of Stalin in many ways so far as policy goes on matters of collectivization and industrialization, and thus they tend to hold in him a rather negative regard.

The Man

24th July 2011, 20:39

Does this mean the Marxist-Leninist get a cease fire for a while, while everyone else is going to attack Trotsky? :laugh:

thesadmafioso

24th July 2011, 20:41

Does this mean the Marxist-Leninist get a cease fire for a while, while everyone else is going to attack Trotsky? :laugh:

Trotsky was a Marxist-Leninist as well, so no.

Le Socialiste

24th July 2011, 20:41

Don't forget his role in crushing the Free Territory, either.

Zanthorus

24th July 2011, 21:20

To begin with, it's probably worth distuinguishing between the idea of Trotsky the man and Trotskyism as a political doctrine. Trotsky died in 1940, whereas the codification of much of what became known as Trotskyism largely occured in the post-WWII period. By that point the world had changed significantly since Trotsky's death, it was increasingly clear that capitalism had not entered it's 'death agony' and was in fact undergoing a period of renewed prosperity at least in the 'western' countries, and the Soviet Union remained a fairly stable political formulation contrary to Trotsky's prediction that it would soon either collapse or give way to a reinvigorated workers' state, and in fact the Soviet Union had even managed to acquire large swathes of territory in Eastern Europe which it attempted to model after it's own image. All of these were problematic for those seeking to continue working in the tradition which Trotsky began, and large parts of 'Trotskyism' consisted of attempts to respond to the play of events after Trotsky's death. It's impossible to say whether Trotsky the man would've agreed with what became known as Trotskyism, although I think it's fair to hypothesise that he would have had a double take upon hearing Michael Pablo declare that the world was in for another couple of hundred years of 'degenerated workers' states'.

Trotsky was a Marxist-Leninist as well, so no.

No, he wasn't. Despite the fact that people on Revleft seem to be incapable of not taking anything at face value, the doctrine known as 'Marxism-Leninism' was codified by the Soviet state and the Comintern. It is a codeword for Stalinist or pro-Soviet politics. The actual parties that called themselves 'Marxist-Leninist' which sprung up during the 50's and 60's were all exclusively anti-revisionist, and hence pro-Stalin, groups, the majority being Maoist. Trotsky called himself sometimes a Marxist, sometimes a Leninist, sometimes both. A common signifier of the International Left Opposition was 'Bolshevik-Leninist'. But to the best of my knowledge he never referred to himself as a 'Marxist-Leninist'.

bricolage

24th July 2011, 21:26

I don't think people really dislike Trotsky as a person but what has emerged as modern day 'Trotskyism' which seems to get flack from both sides as a) Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and that lot think they are all useless scum for not supporting TEH PEOPLES WARZ and b) anarcho-whatevers think they all just sell papers and are against DIEREKT AKTIONNNNNNN!!!!.

Amongst that you get some more nuanced and worthwhile critiques but they are few and far between.

Or it could just be cos they are the left wing of capital;)

RED DAVE

24th July 2011, 21:33

Does this mean the Marxist-Leninist get a cease fire for a while, while everyone else is going to attack Trotsky? :laugh:Hopefully not. :D

By the way, here's the best way to get to know Trotsky. It's a long read but a great one.

HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION - by Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/)

RED DAVE

Flying Trotsky

24th July 2011, 21:46

As you can see, there's a lot of debate around Trotsky- as there is around any major political figure. I'm not going to try to defend the guy, or offer my own criticisms of his actions, so I'll try to give you a basic idea of why so many people take issue with him.

I. Stalinists and Maoists
Stalinists and Maoists obviously dislike Trotsky due to his rivalry with Stalin. After Lenin's death, there was question as to who would fill in his place- Trotsky or Stalin. Stalin, as you know, won and decided to exile Trotsky and his followers (eventually having Trotsky assassinated). While in exile, Trotsky continued to challenge Stalin's policies and legitimacy. Some Stalinists and Maoists allege that Trotsky was cutting deals with the Nazis to overthrow Stalin, while Trotskyists asserted that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (USSR and Nazi Germany non-aggression pact) was evidence of Stalin's abandonment of true socialism. Maoists, having gained much of their initial support from the USSR, consider Stalin to have been the rightful leader of the USSR, and similarly claim Trotsky was a usurper.

It's more complicated than that, but there's the basic idea for you.

II. Anarchists and "Left" Communists
Even the Trotskyism is, by any standards, pretty leftist on the Marxist scale, Trotsky still gets quite a bit of flack from orthodox Anarchists and similar tendencies who view him as having been too brutal or autocratic. Now considering most of the actions left-socialists take issue with were committed during the revolution, one might argue that some rigidity is necessary in war, but that's a discussion for another time.

So you can see why Trotsky and Trotskyists get a lot of vitriol in Rev Left. They're not liberal (in the Communist sense) enough for the Anarchists and not conservative (again in the Communist sense) for the Maoists and Stalinists.

Red Commissar

24th July 2011, 22:00

I never really got an idea that Trotsky is hated, at least any more than your other figures like Stalin or Mao, by people who oppose them. I'm pretty sure Trotskyists have just as much of a presence here as anyone else.

Now Chairman Bob, he's one that I think is nearly universally loathed here, as a person and the thought he advances.

thesadmafioso

24th July 2011, 22:09

No, he wasn't. Despite the fact that people on Revleft seem to be incapable of not taking anything at face value, the doctrine known as 'Marxism-Leninism' was codified by the Soviet state and the Comintern. It is a codeword for Stalinist or pro-Soviet politics. The actual parties that called themselves 'Marxist-Leninist' which sprung up during the 50's and 60's were all exclusively anti-revisionist, and hence pro-Stalin, groups, the majority being Maoist. Trotsky called himself sometimes a Marxist, sometimes a Leninist, sometimes both. A common signifier of the International Left Opposition was 'Bolshevik-Leninist'. But to the best of my knowledge he never referred to himself as a 'Marxist-Leninist'.

I was not referring to the connotative political value of the term and to how it has been applied by various different political organizations on the left, my remark was geared towards theory more so than anything else. As Trotsky was clearly an adherent of Marx and was in agreement with the brunt of the revolutionary theory exposed by Lenin, the term is still fitting enough. I see no reason to allow Stalinist's to have a monopoly on the term, as it denotes nothing which would be specific to their political holdings. It is not necessary for an individual to proclaim themselves to be in line with a certain ideology for such to be true, it doesn't necessarily matter if Trotsky never actually affiliated himself with the literal title of Marxism-Leninism.

Flying Trotsky

24th July 2011, 22:20

scarletghoul

24th July 2011, 22:23

Avakian's not really hated he's just a joke

LewisQ

24th July 2011, 23:11

The people who give Trotskyists the hardest time are other Trotskyists. Here and everywhere else.

Sir Comradical

24th July 2011, 23:36

The Dark Side of the Moon

25th July 2011, 00:49

its like a movie, some people liked Adam sandler, and some people hate him.
its like a leader, some people absolutly hate obama, while others loath him

twenty percent tip

25th July 2011, 01:38

becoz he cheated on his ewife with frida khalo while dtelling all his followwrs to bethe most moral expamples. and cause hes the boreacrat that lost. winners write history. weiners write books.

Lenina Rosenweg

25th July 2011, 01:44

Sometimes weiners also send inappropriate text messages. You can't pin that one down on Lev Davidovich.

I think Trotsky was the greatest human being ever.

Ballyfornia

25th July 2011, 01:45

Cause he's bad ass.

twenty percent tip

25th July 2011, 01:51

"I think Trotsky was the greatest human being ever.'

yeah?

the primacy of the party is what matters not the "waverings"of the workingclass. workingclass democracy is a sham. the dicttaorhsip of the party is what were after. that was his politics.

if hehas less blood on his apron than stalin its onlycause he god the boot.

fuck em all

thesadmafioso

25th July 2011, 01:54

twenty percent tip

25th July 2011, 01:57

are those myonly two choices? i pick to die then.thanks for ruining life tragic comic

Ballyfornia

25th July 2011, 01:59

He also looks like Colonel Sanders,

twenty percent tip

25th July 2011, 02:01

Remember kronerstradt!

PolskiLenin

25th July 2011, 02:17

Trotsky is in no way fascist, and he committed no such fascist atrocities. I don't see Trotskyism any more despised than other tendencies of Marxism.

If an army invaded you to strip away your freedom would you fight them? That's what Trotsky and his 5 million VOLUNTEER Red Army soldiers did. And it wasn't only Czechoslovak troops...the U.S. and other powerful nations contributed hundreds of thousands of troops to the White Army.

Lenina Rosenweg

25th July 2011, 02:18

Remember weinerstradt!

Corrected it for ya!

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

25th July 2011, 02:27

I haven't seen much hatred for Trotsky as a person apart from some intermittent nonsense by Stalin kiddies, usually involving ice picks and some sort of strange sense of superiority they seem to espouse, which seems to go along the lines of, "well, we won, your guy got killed!". Then again their knowledge and understanding tends to be embarrassing to see displayed.

MarxSchmarx

25th July 2011, 03:57

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that in a lot of communities, esp. around educational institutions where a large fraction of the board's posters come from, Trots are the only game in town.

Among the most visible and often, to their credit, active groups Trots are impressive because they aren't made up exclusively of students but have some ties to an external org.

What is also true is that they come across somewhat quaint and even abrasive in public. To most students, it seems as if their talks drag on and on and the only activism they really see is selling uninspired newspapers, hawking opportunistic front groups and putting up fliers with slogans from 150 years ago.

Now let's be clear - every leftist org does this, even the hippest anarchist crowd. What differentiates them from the Trots is that the Trot organizations, esp. in educational settings, seldom branch beyond these formulas and also are more numerous and organized.

I think to the extent that there is some disdain about Trotsky, a lot of it has to do with real-world encounters with the individuals of the sort we've all met. much of it is unfair, but understandable

Who?

25th July 2011, 04:02

Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary and nothing else.

La ComÃ©die Noire

25th July 2011, 04:06

I think it has something to do with the fact that Trotsky has always been seen as the "good guy" standing up against the "Evil Stalin."

Nothing in real life is that simple.

thesadmafioso

25th July 2011, 04:07

Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary and nothing else.

[insert hated leftist ideology of choice here] is counter-revolutionary and nothing else.

Geiseric

25th July 2011, 04:22

eric922

25th July 2011, 04:28

I think Trotsky's pretty awesome, he and Lenin had identical views and they were just as devoted to the class struggle as the other. I can't see how wanting to support external revolutions is counter revolutionary...

Anyways, Trotsky was just as angry and vengeful at the Tsars as anybody else was, he and the rest of the Russians who supported the Bolsheviks knew that crazy shit was going to be happening.

When people criticise Trotsky and Lenin's "Authoritarian" actions, let me ask you how you would manage a country of 120 million when many parts of the countryside have turned to cannibalism in order to survive. Try working it without any state authority.
I agree completely especially with your last point. I'm in favor democracy, I think it is necessary for socialism, however in the middle of a civil war when you are still putting your government together and trying to figure things out you may need to be a bit authoritarian to make sure things survive long enough for you to institute democracy. I think in the long term Lenin and Trotsky never meant for them to hold that much power, but it was a necessary evil in the short term.

MagÃ³n

25th July 2011, 04:42

Commissar Rykov

25th July 2011, 05:10

KRONSTADT FLAME WAR.... BEGIN!!!!!

Seriously though, I think Stalin gets just as much hate and loathing as Trotsky. I mean, if it's not the Anarcho-Trot Conspiracy duking it out with the Stalinists one minute, it's the Anarchists, Stalinists, etc. duking it out with the Trotskyists.

Ah the never ending circle of hate that the Far Left thrives on. Without it we would be lost without all that perpetual motion.

Nothing Human Is Alien

25th July 2011, 05:12

Ah yes, Trotsky, the anti-bureaucratic hero...

"The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship...regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class...The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy..."

"The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers. Compulsion of labour will reach the highest degree of intensity during the transition from capitalism to socialism.Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps."

Savage

25th July 2011, 08:20

it's because revleft is full of anti-semites

Nox

25th July 2011, 11:00

it's because revleft is full of anti-semites

Wasn't Stalin also part jewish?

Volcanicity

25th July 2011, 11:37

Wasn't Stalin also part jewish?
Lenin had some Jewish ancestry not Stalin.

Jose Gracchus

25th July 2011, 12:12

Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary and nothing else.

So says the Western armchair Maoist in a revived failed petit bourgeois student movement. Give me a break.

scarletghoul

25th July 2011, 12:23

becoz he cheated on his ewife with frida khalo while dtelling all his followwrs to bethe most moral expamples. and cause hes the boreacrat that lost. winners write history. weiners write books.
Oh god, this really is the greatest post I have even seen on RevLeft. So fucking awesome.

Nox

25th July 2011, 12:26

scarletghoul

25th July 2011, 12:27

Sir Comradical

25th July 2011, 13:24

And yeah Trotsky is pretty widely disliked because on the one hand he makes opportunistic criticisms of the Stalinists and on the other hand he acted just as brutal and authoritarian when he had power, so the more libertarian commies dont like him either. that only leaves the trotskyists, who are pro-trotsky, but their in-fighting effectively functions as a scizophrenic ghost of trotsky criticising himself.

(I do respect Trotsky for his role in the revolution and civil war btw, but yeah.)

Just as brutal? Come on now. Trotsky did what needed to be done during the civil war and he took responsibility for Kronstadt although he wasn't directly responsible. Stalin on the other hand carries out his purges and then blames it on Yezhov & Yagoda. I defend many of Stalin's policies (industrialisation & collectivisation) but to say Trotsky was just as brutal is inaccurate.

Jose Gracchus

25th July 2011, 16:34

Trotsky was War Commissar, how was he not ultimately top hat on Kronstadt?

Though the scale of the 1930s bloodletting puts anything in the Civil War and 1920s to shame. However I don't really think Trotsky's 'early' industrialization would've been much kinder to the peasantry and workers. I think pretty strong material factors would've made any primitive accumulation under any leadership subject to an 'elephantine' bureaucracy and considerable brutality. The Soviet state was pretty consolidated into a new regime of exploitation by shortly after the Civil War, so I do not see magically different outcomes.

Ingraham Effingham

25th July 2011, 21:35

Trotsky's got the heart, stalins got the reach.

Imposter Marxist

25th July 2011, 21:51

Hate Trotsky? Hell no. Infact, I think my favorite "timeperiod" trotsky is when he's crushing Counter-Revolutionaries in the White Army, Black Army, and counter-revolutionaries at home. :trotski:

Luc

25th July 2011, 22:03

Just thought I would ask the M-Ls.

Why do you support an ideaology created for the conditions of Tsarist russia?
and by support I mean think it is a viable alternative for the modern world.

I'm not trying to be clever or insulting, I'm intrigued by this.

Sir Comradical

26th July 2011, 00:58

Geiseric

26th July 2011, 04:13

What my opinion of this is that if russia wanted to survive as a workers, or semi workers country, and advance to the point of a modern state, everybody needs to go to work. I mean how would you of built up russia? Letting all the deserters run away? how would you of won the civil war, if every one out of three soldiers and officers were running away? I mean the end justifies the means, as long as something justifies the end. And to my knowlege,

Le Socialiste

26th July 2011, 04:19

Hate Trotsky? Hell no. Infact, I think my favorite "timeperiod" trotsky is when he's crushing Counter-Revolutionaries in the White Army, Black Army, and counter-revolutionaries at home.

Okay, I'll bite: why was the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine counterrevolutionary?

Geiseric

26th July 2011, 06:09

agnixie

26th July 2011, 06:24

He supported the Bolsheviks, the Ukrainian Directory, the Bolsheviks again, and then turned to organizing the Free Territory of Ukraine, an anarchist society, committed to resisting state authority, whether capitalist or communist..- Wikipedia

Umm, it seems like he wanted a country seperate from Red Russia, and was so against state power that he was willing to seperate. That is very different ideologically from Lenin, so it makes sense that they wouldn't cooperate.

I don't know much about the Black Army, but from just looking at what Wiki said, it seems that he would be labeled as a counter revolutionary by Lenin.

That's because the plan is not to form a worker's state, but to abolish the state along with private property. It's not separating if you don't believe in the legitimacy of state power - all that leninist bullshit of tacked on supreme soviets, party bureaucracy, it had nothing to do with what the free territory wanted, and nothing to do with actual communism.

You seem utterly unable to apprehend things from a point of view other than your own, in fact you seem utterly unable to even begin to understand what other people's points of view may have been even in the most abstract sense just as soon as it lightly steps off the marxist-leninist ideological carcan.

AnonymousOne

26th July 2011, 06:28

He supported the Bolsheviks, the Ukrainian Directory, the Bolsheviks again, and then turned to organizing the Free Territory of Ukraine, an anarchist society, committed to resisting state authority, whether capitalist or communist..- Wikipedia

Umm, it seems like he wanted a country seperate from Red Russia, and was so against state power that he was willing to seperate. That is very different ideologically from Lenin, so it makes sense that they wouldn't cooperate.

I don't know much about the Black Army, but from just looking at what Wiki said, it seems that he would be labeled as a counter revolutionary by Lenin.

Because clearly, the answer to a disagreement about the governance of society is not to have the people choose, but to impose your own will on that society. :rolleyes:

So says the Western armchair Maoist in a revived failed petit bourgeois student movement. Give me a break.

I just won Leftist Buzzword Bingo!

Tablo

26th July 2011, 06:32

So says the Western armchair Maoist in a revived failed petit bourgeois student movement. Give me a break.
Are you another idiot thinking college students are petite-bourgeois? I can say for a fact that the vast majority are working class. Why hate on a broad left group like SDS?

Geiseric

26th July 2011, 06:46

Aurora

26th July 2011, 08:28

Jealousy simple as, to create the Red Army and lead it to victory in the Civil War and to perfect an original blend of 11 herbs and spices. Who wouldn't be jealous?

The_Outernationalist

26th July 2011, 09:04

Trotsky? disliked? seriously, you must be trolling bro.

scarletghoul

26th July 2011, 11:57

hes also a hypocrite for going on about the evils of capitalism then starting up a successful US fried chicken chain in his old age

caramelpence

26th July 2011, 12:19

RED DAVE

26th July 2011, 15:55

Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary and nothing else.Somebody needs to do some studying. Lenin criticized Trotsky and Stalin. But he only wanted Stalin replaced.

RED DAVE

Kiev Communard

26th July 2011, 16:01

hes also a hypocrite for going on about the evils of capitalism then starting up a successful US fried chicken chain in his old age

The same can be said about commercially successful Mao's portrait series by Andy Warhal:D.

agnixie

26th July 2011, 19:14

Ok I did some research, and isn't the Ukrainian Free Territory basically a state?

My logic behind this, is that a State in my eyes is little more than an army who rules the country, keeping whoever's intrests in mind with their actions.

Makhno was going to rule as a military dictator, as was his clique. He personally shot Girgoriev, and executed his kinds of state terror against counter revolutionaries, and used torture, which shows that Makhno and the Blacks were willing to excersise state power.

Your logic behind this is flawed, a state is a very specific socio-political construct, not just "a territory and an army", by which definition every single thing involving humans and a few warriors is a state. Which it isn't.

He personally shot Grigoriev for starting a violently anti-semitic poster campaign in the middle of a war and with the white and green army committing progroms left and right. Also, execution and ostracism happens in non-state societies, too.

CommieTroll

26th July 2011, 20:50

Its really down to my hero is better than you're revisionist false God!:rolleyes:

DaringMehring

26th July 2011, 23:08

Its really down to my hero is better than you're revisionist false God!:rolleyes:

Troll is right. The mind-set of heroes, villains, idolization and demonization, is infantile and any serious Marxist and/or revolutionary worker should rise above it. Programs, actions, and results are what any serious person should use to judge historical politics.

In the case of L. Trotsky there is a plethora of programs, actions, and results to analyze, from his pre-Bolshevik days, to the Civil War, to his exile. There are a number of lessons to be learned, mistakes to be avoided and success to be replicated.

Of course, when one takes the cartoon view of the world, for instance saying that L. Trotsky was a villainous egomaniac agent of Imperialism and the bourgeoisie, then there is no possibility of conducting this kind of analysis.

Unfortunately, the cartoon view, in general, has a certain power that is hard to break -- try asking a teenager to reevaluate their mindset that has their room's walls plastered with Justin Bieber or rock band posters.

A Marxist Historian

27th July 2011, 07:13

Trotsky? disliked? seriously, you must be trolling bro.

I'd say there are quite a few folk who dislike Trotsky on Revleft, many quite intensely.

Why? IMHO because he was the real thing, a real revolutionary, and let's face it, there's a lot of folk on Revleft who just ain't.

-M.H.-

Le Socialiste

27th July 2011, 07:37

I'd say there are quite a few folk who dislike Trotsky on Revleft, many quite intensely.

Why? IMHO because he was the real thing, a real revolutionary, and let's face it, there's a lot of folk on Revleft who just ain't.

-M.H.-

And what, exactly, did he do that qualifies him as being a "real revolutionary"? Because frankly, using authoritarian systems of repression to stifle certain segments of the population (even those beyond Russia's borders) doesn't quite strike me as revolutionary. In fact, it represents the oppressively autocratic character of his and the Russian Communist Party's state ideology. Nevermind the dismantlement of free soviets set up by revolutionized areas of the proletariat, or the disdain for revolutionary leftists who despised state oversight regardless of ideology - oh, and let us put aside the methods by which he and the rest of the Party ascended the post-tsarist political scene. I cannot consider those figures in history who used their power to crush fellow comrades and revolutionaries simply due to the fact that they resisted their authority worthy of praise. What of the comrades who, while actively seeking a revolutionary society based on a stateless, classless platform, were ruthlessly crushed for resisting Soviet Russia's ideological line? IMHO Trotsky, along with those who oversaw the creation of the Soviet state, was a ruthless man who - while steeped in the ideals of what constitutes the revolutionary endgame - was far too authoritarian and dictatorial to qualify as a liberator of the people.

A Marxist Historian

28th July 2011, 07:49

And what, exactly, did he do that qualifies him as being a "real revolutionary"? Because frankly, using authoritarian systems of repression to stifle certain segments of the population (even those beyond Russia's borders) doesn't quite strike me as revolutionary. In fact, it represents the oppressively autocratic character of his and the Russian Communist Party's state ideology. Nevermind the dismantlement of free soviets set up by revolutionized areas of the proletariat, or the disdain for revolutionary leftists who despised state oversight regardless of ideology - oh, and let us put aside the methods by which he and the rest of the Party ascended the post-tsarist political scene. I cannot consider those figures in history who used their power to crush fellow comrades and revolutionaries simply due to the fact that they resisted their authority worthy of praise. What of the comrades who, while actively seeking a revolutionary society based on a stateless, classless platform, were ruthlessly crushed for resisting Soviet Russia's ideological line? IMHO Trotsky, along with those who oversaw the creation of the Soviet state, was a ruthless man who - while steeped in the ideals of what constitutes the revolutionary endgame - was far too authoritarian and dictatorial to qualify as a liberator of the people.

Well, I guess you go down in the column of those who don't like Trotsky 'cuz he was a revolutionary whereas you aren't, and the folks you admire in the Soviet Union were counterrevolutionaries.

Dismantling of "free soviets" that were "free of Communists and Jews" as the slogan usually went, I have no problem with that at all.

Or Makhno's murderous bandits, or Kronstadt sailors mutinying hand in glove with White Guard counterrevolutionaries, well, I wouldn't call them "comrades."

-M.H.-

Le Socialiste

28th July 2011, 07:54

Well, I guess you go down in the column of those who don't like Trotsky 'cuz he was a revolutionary whereas you aren't, and the folks you admire in the Soviet Union were counterrevolutionaries.

Dismantling of "free soviets" that were "free of Communists and Jews" as the slogan usually went, I have no problem with that at all.

Or Makhno's murderous bandits, or Kronstadt sailors mutinying hand in glove with White Guard counterrevolutionaries, well, I wouldn't call them "comrades."

-M.H.-

Of course, because you are clearly the authoritative voice that determines one's revolutionary credentials. Please. :rolleyes:

agnixie

28th July 2011, 08:35

Or Makhno's murderous bandits

Well I guess that's a change from stalinist apologia...

black magick hustla

28th July 2011, 09:25

i dislike more trotskysts than trotsky. i like red dave tho, he is cool. i like some splits from trotskyism like the johnson forrest tendency.

Kronstadt sailors mutinying hand in glove with White Guard counterrevolutionaries, well, I wouldn't call them "comrades."

-M.H.-
god you would say that

Jose Gracchus

28th July 2011, 09:42

[snip]

A real revolutionary, through and through, eh?

Can you explain this:

“All information on the situation in Khiva, in Persia, in Bukhara and in Afghanistan confirm the fact that a Soviet revolution in these countries is going to cause us major difficulties at the present time…Until the situation in the West is stabilized and until our industries and transport systems have improved, a Soviet expansion in the east could prove to be no less dangerous than a war in the West…a potential Soviet revolution in the east is today to our advantage principally as an important element in diplomatic relations with England. From this I conclude that: 1) in the east we should devote ourselves to political and educational work…and at the same time advise all possible caution in actions calculated to require our military support, or which might require it; 2) we have to continue by all possible channels at our disposal to arrive at an understanding with England about the east.”
Leon Trotsky
Secret memo to Lenin,
Zinoviev et al. June 1920

chegitz guevara

28th July 2011, 17:24

The Czechoslovaks you referred to were actual counter-revolutionaries, though, as they rose up in May 1918 against the Soviet power that was still (relatively) intact. The other actions of Trotsky that he should be really "loathed" for include:

True. The Czech uprising occurred because the Brits promised them independence in return for helping overthrow the Bolsheviks. Nor did Trotsky suppress the uprising, as the Czechs were gone by the time the Soviets were able to defeat the Siberian "government" that was able to establish itself once the Czechs overthrow workers rule there.

(1) The advocacy of Party dictatorship and one-man management, with bureaucratically appointed "leaders" replacing workers' self-management; This had to do with the particular situation in which the revolution found itself. As President of the Petrograd Soviet, in both 1905 and 1917, he acted differently.

(2) The disregard for freedom of speech and freedom of tendencies (until, of course, he was repressed himself); True. And even in his subsequent political life, the groups that made up the 4I were never all that big on such. Not like the Bolsheviks at all.

(3) The "militarization of labour" stance during the "trade union discussion"; This is just #1 again.

(4) His dictatorial behaviour in the Red Army and his intrigues against the independent-minded authentic working-class/peasant commanders, which resulted in the false allegations and deaths of some of them.Given that where he was in charge, the whites were defeated, and where he wasn't, they weren't, this ain't a bad thing. Stalin and his cronies around Tsaritsyn (later Stalingrad, today Volgograd), opted for a more independent style, and were having their asses handed to them by the Whites until Trotsky showed up and removed them from command and reorganized the region.

As for Makhno, I know anarchist love him, but if he'd been all that and a bag of chips, the Poles wouldn't have captured Kiev in 1919, and Wrangel wouldn't have been able to advance on the same in 1920.

History proved Trotsky correct on this point, and it was his leadership and victories that made the Red Army leadership so unreliable to the Stalinist bureaucracy. Hence the purges.

I think it's important to point out the contingent nature of both Trotsky's positions during the revolution, as well as Lenin's. They, along with every other socialist believed that unless there was a revolution in Germany, their revolution was doomed to fail. They also understood that their revolution made it more likely for a revolution in Germany, and their defeat would most likely mean there would be no revolution in Germany. As Lenin said, we make the revolution for Germany, not for Russia. Everything they did was in order to hang on, to give the Germans the best chance at revolution and victory. They were not rewarded for their gamble with history, but they were not wrong to try! Had they succeeded, we'd likely be living in an communist/anarchist world today.

chegitz guevara

28th July 2011, 18:07

Because a simultaneous world revolution, with countries of all levels of development ranging from fairly developed capitalism to undeveloped capitalism to feudalism to slavery (in some places), is virtually impossible.

I find it amazing how many MLs repeat this tripe. No Trotskyist, nor Trotsky himself, every said anything like this, not even remotely. It is pure, unadulterated slander.

The theory of permanent revolution may be wrong, it may be outdated, but it never posited that the revolution must be world wide and simultaneous, only that attempts to build socialism in one country are ultimately doomed to fail. Doesn't mean the next day, or next year, but eventually capitalism will undermine and destroy the revolution. This is what we've seen in every single revolution so far.

DaringMehring

28th July 2011, 19:55

A real revolutionary, through and through, eh?

Can you explain this:

I have not been able to find verification of this quotation on the internet.

I would be particularly interested to see, what the "..."s are.

Trotsky was a precise person and omitting sections of some political argument of his could distort the meaning or spirit.

Within the quotation itself, there is the idea that should the east rise in revolution, the USSR would have to aid it militarily, would automatically aid it, undoubtedly creating a war with Britain. That seems like dedicated internationalism. Saying "we can't fight Britain now" -- and meaning we to be the revolutionary workers of Persia and Russia -- is an assessment of an unfortunate objective situation, but not a violation of internationalism.

Kiev Communard

28th July 2011, 20:20

True. The Czech uprising occurred because the Brits promised them independence in return for helping overthrow the Bolsheviks. Nor did Trotsky suppress the uprising, as the Czechs were gone by the time the Soviets were able to defeat the Siberian "government" that was able to establish itself once the Czechs overthrow workers rule there.

The Czechoslovak Corps in Russia (as it was officially caused) was actually a nationalist quasi-mercenary formation that helped right-social-democratic government of Komuch (The Committee of Members of Constituent Assembly) to massacre workers in Volga Region in summer 1918, so I do not think anybody should weep tears for them.

This had to do with the particular situation in which the revolution found itself. As President of the Petrograd Soviet, in both 1905 and 1917, he acted differently.

Then why didn't Makhno silence all socialist opposition in the RIAU-controlled territories? After all, he was also facing major difficulties, yet he did neither outlaw nor shoot the members of "rival" left-socialist organizations (and even did not proscribe Right Mensheviks, who openly agitated for Constituent Assembly and against the Soviet power).

As for Makhno, I know anarchist love him, but if he'd been all that and a bag of chips, the Poles wouldn't have captured Kiev in 1919, and Wrangel wouldn't have been able to advance on the same in 1920.

Contrary to the popular myth, the Makhnovists did not control the entirety of Ukraine's territory, so I do not think how they should be held responsible for Kiev's capture in August 1919 by the Denikinites (the Poles took it in June 1920, not in 1919), given that they operated much farther to the south. Wrangel also faced not the Makhnovist, but strictly Bolshevik-led troops (allegedly well prepared by Trotsky) during his initial successful offensive. On the contrary, the Makhnovists were rather courageous during the attack on Wrangel's fortifications in November 1920.

Zanthorus

28th July 2011, 20:25

I have not been able to find verification of this quotation on the internet.

It's from '“Socialism in One Country” Before Stalin, and the Origins of Reactionary “Anti-Imperialism”: The Case of Turkey, 1917-1925 (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/turkey.html)' by Loren Goldner. The footnote is as follows:

From Jan M. Meijer (org.), The Trotsky Papers,

1917-1922, 2 vols., London, The Hague and Paris: Mouton,

1964, 1971, vol. II, pag. 209.

The information in the rest of the text regarding Bolshevik support for the murderous Ataturk against the Turkish Communist Left is equally damning.

DaringMehring

28th July 2011, 22:38

It's from '“Socialism in One Country” Before Stalin, and the Origins of Reactionary “Anti-Imperialism”: The Case of Turkey, 1917-1925 (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Elrgoldner/turkey.html)' by Loren Goldner. The footnote is as follows:

The information in the rest of the text regarding Bolshevik support for the murderous Ataturk against the Turkish Communist Left is equally damning.

Thank you for the citation. I will look it up when I can get to the library.

I don't condone support of any national bourgeoisie nor the suppression of Kronstadt *in historical retrospect* but I think in 1920 things were not so clear. But by now the lessons of those actions should be crystal clear.

ProletarianResurrection

28th July 2011, 22:47

I think Trotsky was the greatest human being ever.

I rrrly hope you are being ironic, are you? :confused:

DaringMehring

29th July 2011, 06:31

And what about this Trotsky?

Background:
The defeat of the revolutionary mass strikes of 1905.

In the strikes, workers formed Soviets to direct themselves. The premier Soviet was the St. Petersburg Soviet, of which 26 year old Trotsky had been elected head.

Rather than fleeing, Trotsky stayed for trial, knowing that he would likely be executed. He wanted to present the case of the revolution against Tsarism in open court, part of his pattern of behavior of valuing his historic role over his life.

However, he so badly showed up the Tsarist prosecutors, that they could only abort the trial and send him and the co-defendants to Siberia.

This is the text of his speech.

(as a note, the Manifesto of October 17 "on the improvement of state order" was issued by the Tsar on the advice of Count Witte and promised -- though of course never delivered -- certain rights as a way to try to draw down the unrest)

The speech is thought of as a shining example of a defense of the revolutionary right to insurrection against tyranny.

The last paragraph -- "automaton for mass murder" -- is just a great closing.

---------------------------------------------

Gentlemen of the bench, gentlemen representatives of the estates! The question of an armed rising — a question which, however strange this may seem to the Special Court, occupied no place whatever on the agenda of the meetings of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies throughout the 50 days of its existence — is the principal object of this court inquiry, as it was of the preliminary investigation. The subject of an armed rising as such not raised or discussed at any of our meetings; more than that, neither was the question of a Constituent Assembly, nor of a democratic republic, nor even of a general strike as such or its fundamental significance as a method of revolutionary struggle, discussed at any meeting. These central issues, which for a number of years were debated first in the revolutionary press and later at various meetings and assemblies, were on no occasion considered by the Soviet. Later I shall explain why this was so, and define the Soviet’s attitude to an armed rising.

But before passing to this matter, which from the court’s viewpoint is the central one, I will permit myself to draw the attention of the Chamber to another question which, compared with the first, is more general but less acute — namely, the question of the Soviet’s use of force in general. Did the Soviet consider itself entitled through the agency of one or another of its organs to use force or repressive measures in certain eases? My answer to this question put in such general terms is: Yes! I know as well as the representative of the prosecution that in any “normally” functioning state, whatever its form, the monopoly of brute force and repression belongs to the state power. That is its “inalienable” right, and of this right it takes the most jealous care, ever watchful lest any private body encroach upon its monopoly of violence. In this way the state organisation fights for its existence. It is enough to have a concrete picture of modern society, that complex and contradictory cooperative system — for example in a country as vast as Russia — for it to become immediately clear that, given the existing social structure with all its antagonisms, repression is quite inevitable.

We are not anarchists we are socialists. The anarchists call us “Statists,” because we recognise the historical necessity of the state and hence the historical necessity of state repression. But under the conditions created by a political general strike, whose nature consists in the fact that it paralyses the state mechanism — under such conditions the old power which had long outlived its day and against which, precisely, the political strike was directed, found itself ultimately incapable of action, quite unable to regulate and maintain public order, even by the barbaric means which were the only ones at its disposal. Meanwhile, the strike had thrown hundreds of thousands of workers from the factories into the streets, and had freed these workers for public and political life. Who could direct them, who could bring discipline into their ranks? What organ of the old state power? The police? The gendarmerie? The secret police? I ask myself: who? and I can find no answer. No one, except the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. No one!

The Soviet, which directed this colossal elemental force, saw its immediate task in reducing internal friction to a minimum, preventing excesses and making sure that the inevitable victims of the struggle were as few as possible. And, that being so, the Soviet, in the political strike which had created it, became nothing other than the organ of self-government of the revolutionary masses: an organ of power. It ruled the parts of the whole by the will of the whole. It was a democratic power and it was voluntarily obeyed. But inasmuch as the Soviet was the organised power of the overwhelming majority, it was inevitably compelled to use repressive measures against those elements among the m
asses who brought anarchy into its united ranks.

The Soviet, as a new historical power, as the sole power at a time of total moral, political, and technical bankruptcy of the old apparatus, as the sole guarantee of personal immunity and public order in the best sense of that term, considered itself entitled to oppose its force to such elements. The representatives of the old power, which is wholly based on murderous repression, has no right to speak with moral indignation of the Soviet’s violent methods. The historical power which the prosecutor represents in this court is the organised violence of a minority over the majority. The new power, whose precursor was the Soviet, is the organised will of the majority calling the minority to order. In this distinction lies the Soviet’s revolutionary right to existence, a right that stands above any legal or moral doubt.

The Soviet recognised its right to use repressive measures. But in what cases, and to what degree? We have heard a hundred witnesses on this point. Before passing to repressive measures the Soviet used words of persuasion. That was its true method, and the Soviet was tireless in applying it. By revolutionary agitation, by the weapon of the spoken word, the Soviet continually brought new masses to their feet and subordinated them to its authority. If it met with resistance on the part of ignorant or corrupted groups within the proletariat, it said to itself that the time to render them harmless by physical force would always come soon enough.

As you have seen from the testimony of witnesses, it sought other ways. It appealed to the good sense of factory administrations in calling upon them to stop work, it brought influence to bear on ignorant workers through technicians and engineers who were sympathetic to the general strike. It sent deputies to the workers to “bring them out,” and only in the most extreme cases did it threaten strike-breakers with the use of force. But did it ever actually use force?

Gentlemen of the bench, you have not seen any examples of this in the materials of the preliminary investigation and it proved impossible, despite all efforts, to establish such examples during the court investigation. Even if we were to take seriously those examples of “violence,” comic rather than tragic, that did pass in review before the court (so-and-so entered someone’s apartment without removing his cap, so-and-so arrested someone else by mutual consent…) we need only compare this cap which somebody forgot to remove with the hundreds of heads which the old power so often “removes” by mistake, for the Soviet’s violent actions to assume their proper proportions in our eyes… that is all we want. To reconstruct the events of that time in their true form is our task, and for its sake we, the defendants, have taken an active part in this trial.

Let me pose another question which is of importance to this court. Did the actions and declarations of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies possess a legal basis, in the manifesto of October 17 (30)? What was the relationship between the Soviet’s resolutions on the Constituent Assembly and the creation of a democratic republic and the October manifesto? The question — let me state it bluntly — simply did not occur to us at the time, but today it is undoubtedly of major importance to this court.

We have heard here, gentlemen of the court, the testimony of the witness Lukanin, which struck me personally as extremely interesting and, in some of its conclusions, both pertinent and profound. Among other things, Lukanin said that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, being a republican body in its slogans, its principles and its political ideals, did actually, directly, and concretely put into effect those freedoms which were proclaimed in principle by the Tsar’s manifesto of October 17 and which those responsible for the manifesto actually fought against with all their strength.

Yes, gentlemen of the bench and gentlemen representatives of the estates! Yes, the revolutionary, proletarian Soviet, actually put into effect and implemented the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and personal immunity — all those things that had been promised to the Russian people under pressure of the October strike. Whereas all that the apparatus of the old power could do was to tear these lawful attainments of the people into pieces. Gentlemen of the bench, that is indubitable, objective fact that has already be an income part of history. It cannot be disputed because it is indisputable.

If I am asked, however — and if my comrades are asked — whether we subjectively based our actions and declarations on the manifesto of October 17, we must categorically answer: No. Why? Because we were deeply convinced — and we were not mistaken — that the manifesto of October 17 created no new legal basis whatever, that it did not create the foundations of a new legality, for a new legal system is not created — we are convinced of this, gentlemen of the court — by means of manifestos, but by a real reorganisation of the entire state apparatus. Because we adopted this materialist standpoint, the only correct one, we had no confidence whatever in the immanent force of the manifesto of October 17. And this we openly declared.

But I do not believe that our subjective attitude as party men, as revolutionaries, determines for the court our objective attitude, as citizens of a state, to the manifesto: For the court, inasmuch as it is a court, is bound to see the manifesto as a foundation of a new legality, or else it must cease to exist. We know that in Italy there exists a bourgeois parliamentary republican party operating on the basis of the country’s monarchical constitution. Socialist parties which are revolutionary by their nature legally exist and fight in all civilised countries.

The question is: does the manifesto of October 17 leave any room for us Russian republican socialists? That is the question which the court must answer. The court must say whether we social-democrats were right when we argued that the constitutional manifesto was merely a list of promises which would never be voluntarily fulfilled; whether we were right in our revolutionary criticism of those paper guarantees; whether we were right when we called upon the people to engage in open struggle for true and complete freedom. Were we right, or were we not? Let the court tell us that the manifesto of October 17 is a real legal foundation upon which we republicans could exist as persons of legality, persons who acted within the law, despite our opinions and intentions. Let the manifesto of October 17 tell us here, through the verdict of this court: “You denied my reality, but I exist for you as well as for the rest of the country.”

I have already said that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies never once raised the question of a Constituent Assembly and the creation of a democratic republic at its meetings; nevertheless, as you have seen from the speeches of working-class witnesses, its attitude to those slogans was clearly defined. How could it be otherwise? After all, the Soviet did not come into being on virgin soil. It was created when the Russian proletariat had already lived through the events of January 9 (22), through Senator Shidlovsky’s commission, through the whole long. too long, school of Russian absolutism. Long before the Soviet existed, the demand for a Constituent Assembly, for universal franchise, for a democratic republic, together with the eight-hour working day, had become the central slogans of the revolutionary proletariat. That is why the Soviet never had occasion to raise these issues as matters of principle: it simply included them in its resolutions as matters which had been decided once and for all. The same, in substance, was also true of the idea of an insurrection.

What is an insurrection, gentlemen of the court? Not a palace revolution, not a military conspiracy, but an insurrection of the working masses! The president of this court addressed the following question to one of the witnesses: did he consider a political strike to be an insurrection? I forget what the witness replied, but I believe and affirm that a political strike, despite the president’s doubts, is indeed, in its substance, an insurrection. That is not a paradox, although it may seem to be one from the point of view of the indictment. I repeat: my notion of an insurrection — and I shall presently demonstrate this — has nothing in common but its name with the construction which the police and the prosecution put on the term. A political strike is an insurrection, I say. For, in point of fact, what is a political general strike? It has only one thing in common with an economic strike — namely, that in both cases workers cease to work. In no other respect do the two resemble one another. An economic strike has a definite, narrow aim, that of bringing pressure to bear upon an employer by putting him, for that purpose, temporarily outside the competitive field. It interrupts work at a factory in order to achieve certain changes within the limits of that factory.

The nature of a political strike is profoundly different. It exerts no pressure on individual employers, it does not as a rule make any specific economic claims; its claims are directed, over the heads of the employers whom it hits so hard, at the state power itself. How, then, does a political strike affect the state power? It paralyses its vital activity. A modern state, even in so backward a country as Russia, is based on a centralised economic organism turned into a single whole by the skeleton of the railways and the nervous system of the telegraph. And although the telegraph, the railway, and all the other attainments of modern technology may not serve Russian absolutism for cultural or economic ends, they are all the more essential to it for the purposes of repression. The railways and the telegraph are irreplaceable weapons for transferring troops from one end of the country to another, uniting and directing the administration’s activities in suppressing sedition.
What does a political strike do? It paralyses the economic apparatus of the state, disrupts communications between separate parts of the administrative machine, isolates the government, and renders it powerless. On the other hand, it politically unites the mass of workers from the factories and plants and opposes this workers’ army to the state power.

Therein, gentlemen of the court, lies the essence of an insurrection. To unite the proletarian masses within a single revolutionary protest action, to oppose them as enemies to the organised power of the state — that, gentlemen of the court, is insurrection as the Soviet understood it and as I understand it too.

We saw such a revolutionary clash between two hostile sides during the October strike which broke out spontaneously, without the Soviet, which occurred before the Soviet, indeed which gave birth to the Soviet. The October strike created “anarchy,” and as a result of that anarchy came the manifesto of October 17. I hope that the prosecution will not deny this, any more than do the most conservative politicians and journalists, including those of the semi-official Novoye Vremya. Only a few days ago Novoye Vremya wrote that the manifesto of October 17 was the result of governmental panic created by the political strike. But if this manifesto is the foundation of the whole new system in force, we must recognise, gentlemen of the court, that our present state system is based on panic, and that the panic, in turn, was based on the political strike of the proletariat. And so you see that a general strike is something more than mere cessation of work.

I have said that a political strike, as soon as it stops being a demonstration, becomes, in substance, an insurrection. It would be more accurate to say that it becomes the principal, most general method of proletariat insurrection: the principal, but not the only method. The method of the political strike has its natural limits. And this became evident as soon as the workers, following the Soviet’s call, resumed work at noon on October 2 (November 3).

The manifesto of October 17 was received with a vote of no confidence; the masses feared, and with good reason, that the government would fail to introduce the promised freedoms. The proletariat saw the inevitability of a decisive struggle and instinctively turned to the Soviet as the centre of their revolutionary power. On the other hand, absolutism, on recovering from its panic, began to reconstruct its half-demolished apparatus and put its regiments in order. As a result it transpired that after the October clash there were two powers: a new, popular power based on the masses — the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies was such a power — and the old, official power based on the army.
These two forces could not exist side by side: the strengthening of one threatened the other with extinction.

The autocracy, founded as it is on bayonets, naturally tried to bring the maximum confusion, chaos, and disintegration into the vast process, whose centre was the Soviet, of unifying the popular forces. On the other hand, the Soviet, founded as it was on the confidence, the discipline, the active effort, the unanimity of the working masses, could not fail to understand the terrible threat to popular freedom, civil rights, and personal immunity embodied in the fact that the army and all material weapons of power remained in the same blood-stained hands that had wielded them up to October 17. And so a titanic struggle for influence over the army begins between these two organs of power — the second stage of the growing popular insurrection.

After the mass strike which has opposed the proletariat to the autocracy there arises a powerful movement to bring the army over to the workers’ side, to fraternise with the soldiers, to win over their minds. From this movement naturally springs a revolutionary appeal to the soldiers, on whom absolutism rests. The second November strike was a powerful and splendid demonstration of solidarity between the factory and the barracks. Of course, if the army had gone over to the side of the people, there would have been no need for insurrection. But is a peaceful transition of the army into the ranks of the revolution conceivable? No, it is not. Absolutism is not going to wait with folded arms for the army, freed from every corrupting influence, to become the friend of the people. Before all is lost, absolutism will take the initiative and launch an offensive. Did the Petersburg workers realise this? Yes, they did. Did the proletariat, did the Soviet believe that open conflict between the two sides was inevitable? Yes, it did; it had no doubt of it, it knew, knew for certain, that sooner or later the fatal hour would strike.

Of course if the organisation of popular forces, uninterrupted by any attacks of the armed counter-revolution, had continued to advance along the path on which it had entered under the leadership of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, the old system would have been destroyed without the use of any force whatever. For what did we see?

We saw how the workers rallied around the Soviet, how the peasants’ union, embodying ever-increasing masses of the peasantry, sent its deputies to the Soviet; how the railway and postal unions united themselves with the Soviet; how the organisation of the liberal professions, the Union of Unions, was drawn towards the Soviet; we saw how tolerant, how almost benevolent, was the attitude towards the Soviet even of the factory managements. It was as though the whole nation were making a heroic effort, trying to produce from its very deepest core an organ of power that might really and unchangeably lay the foundations of a new social system pending the convening of a Constituent Assembly. If the old state power had not intervened in this organic effort, if it had not introduced real anarchy into national life, if this process of the organisation of forces had been able to develop in complete freedom, the result would have been a new, reborn Russia, without the use of force and without bloodshed.

But the point is precisely that we never for a moment believed that the process of liberation would follow a smooth course. We knew too well the real nature of the old power. We social-democrats were convinced that, despite the manifesto which looked like a definitive break with the past, the old state apparatus would not withdraw of its own free will, would not hand over power to the people or surrender a single one of its principal positions; we foresaw, and openly warned the nation that absolutism would make many more convulsive attempts to keep such power as it still possessed in its hands and even to regain what it had solemnly relinquished. That is why insurrection, armed insurrection, gentlemen of the court, was inevitable from our point of view. It was and remains a historical necessity in the process of the people’s struggle against the military and police state.

Throughout October and November this idea reigned at all meetings and assemblies, dominated the entire revolutionary press, filled the entire political atmosphere and, in one way or another, was crystallised in the consciousness of every member of the Soviet; and that is why, quite naturally, it formed part of the Soviet’s resolutions, and why, too, there was never any need for us to discuss it.

The tense political situation we inherited from the October strike — a situation in which a revolutionary organisation of the masses struggling for its existence, not founded on legality because legality did not exist, but on strength, which did exist, confronted an armed counter-revolution waiting for its moment of revenge — was, if I may put it that way, the algebraic formula of insurrection. New events merely introduced new numerical values into the formula.

The idea of armed insurrection, the prosecution s superficial conclusions notwithstanding, is not only to be found in the Soviet’s decision adopted on November 27, ie, a week before our arrest, where it is expressed clearly and unequivocally: no, the idea of armed insurrection, in different forms but essentially the same, runs like a red thread from the very beginning of the Soviet’s existence, through all the Soviet’s decisions — in its resolution cancelling the funeral demonstration, its resolution proclaiming the end of the November strike, and in many other resolutions which spoke of armed conflict with the government, and of the final assault or the final battle as an inevitable stage in the struggle.

But what was the Soviet’s own interpretation of these decisions? Did it believe that armed insurrection is an enterprise that can be prepared underground and then brought out, ready-made, into the street? Did it think that insurrection can be acted out in accordance with a preconceived plan? Did the Executive Committee elaborate a technique of street fighting?

No, of course not. And this is bound to puzzle the author of the indictment when faced with a modest few dozen revolvers which, in his eyes, are the only stage properties of an armed rising. But his view is only the view of criminal law, which knows all about conspiratorial associations but cannot understand the concept of a mass organisation, which knows about assassinations and mutinies but does not and cannot know revolution.

The legal concepts on which this trial is based are decades behind the development of the revolutionary movement. The modern working-class movement in Russia has nothing whatever in common with the notion of conspiracy as interpreted by our criminal code — a notion which has not substantially changed since Speransky, who lived at the time of the Carbonari. That is why the attempt to squeeze the Soviet’s activities into the narrow definition of Articles 101 and 102 is so hopeless from the point of view of legal logic.

And yet our activities were revolutionary. And yet we really were preparing for armed insurrection.

An insurrection of the masses, gentlemen of the bench, is not made: it accomplishes itself. It is the result of social relations, not the product of a plan. It cannot be created; it can be foreseen. For reasons which depended on us as little as they did on Tsardom, an open conflict became inevitable. It drew closer day by day. To prepare for it meant, for us, doing everything possible to minimise the casualties of this inevitable conflict.

Did we think that for this purpose we had first of all to lay in stocks of arms, prepare a plan of military operations, assign the participants of the rising to particular places, divide the town up into sectors — in other words, do all the things which the military authorities do in anticipation of “disorders,” when they divide Petersburg up into sectors, appoint colonels in charge of each sector and equip them with a certain number of machine guns and ammunition? No, that is not how we interpreted our role. To prepare for an inevitable insurrection — and, gentlemen of the court, we never prepared an insurrection as the prosecution thinks and says; we prepared for an insurrection — meant to us, first and foremost, enlightening the people, explaining to them that open conflict was inevitable, that all that had been given to them would be taken away again, that only might can defend right, that a powerful organisation of the working masses was necessary, that the enemy had to be met head on, that the struggle had to be continued to the end, that there was no other way. That is what preparing for an insurrection meant to us.

Under what conditions did we think an insurrection might lead us to victory? The condition of the army's sympathy. The first requisite was to bring the army over to our side. To force the soldiers to recognise the shameful role they were playing, to persuade them to work with the people and for the people — that was the first task we set ourselves.

I have already said that the November strike, a disinterested impulse of direct fraternal solidarity with the sailors under threat of the death penalty, also had tremendous political significance in that it drew the army's sympathetic attention towards the proletariat. That is where the prosecutor should have looked for preparations for armed insurrection.

But, of course, a demonstration of sympathy and protest could not, by itself, settle the matter. Under what conditions, then, did we think — and do we think now — that the army can be expected to pass over to the side of revolution? What is the prerequisite for this? Machine guns and rifles? Of course, if the working masses possessed machine guns and rifles they would wield great power. Such power would even largely remove the inevitability of an insurrection. The undecided army would lay down its arms at the feet of the armed people. But the masses did not, do not, and cannot possess arms in large quantities. Does that mean that the masses are doomed to defeat? No, it does not. However important weapons are, it is not in weapons that the most essential strength lies. No, not in weapons. Not the capacity of the masses to kill, but their great readiness to die, that, gentlemen of the court, is what we believe ensures, in the last count, the success of a people's rising.
When the soldiers, sent out into the streets to repress the masses, find themselves face to face with the masses and discover that this crowd, the people, will not leave the streets until it has got what it wants; that it is prepared to pile corpses upon corpses; when they see and are convinced that the people have come out to fight in earnest, to the end — then the soldiers' hearts will falter, as they have always done in all revolutions, for they will be forced to doubt the stability of the order which they serve, they will be forced to believe in the triumph of the people.

It is customary to connect the idea of an insurrection with barricades. Even leaving aside the fact that barricades may loom too large in our notion of a popular rising, we should not forget that a barricade — clearly a mechanical element in the rising — plays, above all, a moral role. In every revolution, the significance of barricades is not at all the same as that of fortresses in a battle. A barricade is not just a physical obstacle. The barricade serves the cause of insurrection because, by creating a temporary barrier to the movement of troops, it brings them into close contact with the people. Here, at the barricades, the soldier hears — perhaps for the fist time in his life — the talk of ordinary honest people, their fraternal appeals, the voice of the people's conscience; and, as a consequence of such contact between citizens and soldiers, military discipline disintegrates and disappears. This ensures a popular rising. And this is and only this, the victory of why, in our opinion, a popular rising has been “prepared,” not when the people have been armed with rifles and guns — for in that case it would never be prepared — but when it is armed with readiness to die in open street battle.

But, of course, the old besieged power, seeing the growth of this great feeling, this readiness to die for the interests of one's country, to give one's life for the happiness of future generations, seeing the masses becoming contaminated by such an enthusiasm as it could never feel or understand for itself — it could not calmly watch the moral regeneration of the people taking place before its eyes. To look on passively would have meant, for the Tsarist government, to let itself be scrapped. That much was clear. What, then, could it do? It had to fight the political self-determination of the people with its last forces, with every means at its disposal. The ignorant army, the Black Hundreds, the secret police, the corrupt press, all had to be sent into action. To set people against one another, to cover the streets in blood, to loot, rape, burn, create panic, lie, cheat and slander, that is what the old, criminal power had to do. And it did these things and is still doing them to this day. If an open conflict was inevitable, it was certainly not we but our mortal enemies who sought to bring it closer.

You have heard here many times that the workers in October and November armed themselves against the Black Hundreds. If one knew nothing of what is happening outside this courtroom it would seem totally incomprehensible how, in a revolutionary country where the vast majority of the population supports the ideals of liberation, where the popular masses openly show their determination to fight to the end, how, in such a country, hundreds of thousands of workers can arm themselves to fight the Black Hundreds who represent a small and insignificant part of the population. Are they, then, so dangerous, these outcasts of society, this scum, whatever their social position? No, of course they are not. The problem would be small if it were only the pitiful gangs of the Black Hundreds that stood in the people's way. But we have heard, not only from the lawyer Bramson who appeared as a witness, but also from hundreds of workers who testified here, that the Black Hundreds are backed by a large number of government aut horities, if not by all of them; that behind the gangs of thugs who have nothing to lose and who stop at nothing — neither an old man's grey hairs, nor a helpless woman, nor a child — there stand agents of the government who undoubtedly organise and arm the Black Hundreds out of the funds of the state budget.

And, finally, did we not know this before the present trial? Did we not read the papers? Did we not hear the reports of eye witnesses, did we not receive letters, did we see nothing with our own eyes? Were we not aware of Prince Urusov’s shattering disclosures? But the prosecution does not believe any of it. It cannot believe it, for if it did it would have to direct its accusations against those whom today it is defending; it would have to admit that a Russian citizen who arms himself with a revolver against the police is acting in the interests of necessary self-defence. But whether the prosecution believes or not in the pogrom activities of the powers-that-be is ultimately unimportant. For this court it is sufficient that we believe in them, that the hundreds of thousands of workers who armed themselves at our call were convinced of them. We believed beyond any doubt that the powerful hand of the ruling clique guides the picturesque activities of the Black Hundreds.
Gentlemen of the court, we can see that sinister hand even now.

The prosecution invites us to admit that the Soviet armed the workers for the struggle against the existing “form of government.” If I am categorically asked whether this was so, I shall answer: Yes! Yes, I am willing to accept this accusation, but on one condition only. I do not know if the prosecution and the court will accept my condition.

Let me ask: what does the prosecution mean by “form of government”? Do we really have a form of government? For a long time past the government has not been supported by the nation but only by its military-police-Black Hundreds apparatus. What we have is not a national government but an automaton for mass murder. I can find no other name for the government machine which is tearing into parts the living body of our country. If you tell me that the pogroms, the murders, the burnings, the rapes . if you tell me that everything that happened in Tver, Rostov, Kursk, Siedlee… if you tell that Kishinev, Odessa, Bialystok are the form of government of the Russian Empire — then I will agree with the prosecution that in October and November last we were arming ourselves, directly and immediately, against the form of government of the Russian Empire.

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 07:10

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 07:41

I would contend that it is possible to admire BOTH Trotsky & Stalin. They aren't mutually exclusive.

If their positions had been reversed, then they both would have probably resembled the other in my opinion.

They both are the result of their circumstances.

Trotsky helped win the Revolution, and then Stalin helped preserve it from the European Fascists and Western Capitalists.

Both broke eggs to make omelettes ... but then again we need more breakfast imo, not less. :hammersickle:

They both represented policy which was entirely divergent from the others, it really isn't possible to reconcile the ideology of the two given the vast political discrepancies in their theories. Trotsky stood for internationalist solidarity whereas Stalin stood for 'socialism in one country' and hollow support for the leftist fronts of the world. Trotsky defended the Bolshevik tradition of democratic centralism within the party whereas Stalin destroyed that concept with bureaucratic centralism. Ideologically, it is not possible to admire both, as they are directly opposed.

Even from a purely historical perspective, Stalin had Trotsky dispatched with the GPU. Who do you admire in that situation? Stalin for defending the revolution from the European fascists who he supported over the SDP of Germany?

A Marxist Historian

29th July 2011, 07:46

A real revolutionary, through and through, eh?

Can you explain this:

Easily. A revolution in those countries at that time would have been the Red Army marching in and imposing Soviet power on countries that just plain weren't ready for it, with the domestic revolutionary forces just coming into existence.

In short, it would have been like Afghanistan in the '80s but much worse, for then at least you did have a domestic Afghan revolution that Brezhnev was trying to rescue from the Islamic fanatic counterrevolution about to overwhelm it.

They did in fact forcefully Sovietize Khiva and Bokhara, and the results were not good.

Trotsky advice to concentrate on political and educational work and not send the Red Army marching in was excellent. He had similar advice about Georgia, where again he was overruled, as Lenin assumed that Stalin as a Georgian understood the situation better than he did. And you had a national Georgian uprising vs. the Soviets a few years later.

In fact, I'd endorse every word of Trotsky's advice, in the concrete situation all of it was very sensible and wise. The very last thing Soviet Russia needed in June 1920 was for the British to *join* the Polish assault on the Soviet Republic. *Threatening* to march into Persia or Afghanistan could be a useful card to play to get the Brits to behave themselves. Actually doing it would have been a disaster for a lot of reasons, including the ones that Trotsky points out.

Now, Bolshevik support for Ataturk *against* the Turkish communists, that would be another thing altogether. But that is in no way implied by the quote from the Trotsky papers.

-M.H.-

P.S.: For anybody who is wondering, I've seen the Meijer "Trotsky Papers" compilation, glanced through it many years ago. My impression is that everything in it is completely accurate and it is an excellent source. Meijer took it from the Trotsky Papers at Harvard, which is where Trotsky's personal papers ended up. It's Lenin and Trotsky's personal correspondence mainly.

RedTrackWorker

29th July 2011, 07:54

A real revolutionary, through and through, eh?

Can you explain this:

“All information on the situation in Khiva, in Persia, in Bukhara and in Afghanistan confirm the fact that a Soviet revolution in these countries is going to cause us major difficulties at the present time…Until the situation in the West is stabilized and until our industries and transport systems have improved, a Soviet expansion in the east could prove to be no less dangerous than a war in the West…a potential Soviet revolution in the east is today to our advantage principally as an important element in diplomatic relations with England. From this I conclude that: 1) in the east we should devote ourselves to political and educational work…and at the same time advise all possible caution in actions calculated to require our military support, or which might require it; 2) we have to continue by all possible channels at our disposal to arrive at an understanding with England about the east.”
Leon Trotsky
Secret memo to Lenin,
Zinoviev et al. June 1920

I think it is pretty self-explanatory: "Until the situation in the West is stabilized and until our industries and transport systems have improved, a Soviet expansion in the east could prove to be no less dangerous than a war in the West" and "at the same time advise all possible caution in actions calculated to require our military support, or which might require it"

* The whole assumption of Trotsky's statement here is that if revolutions did break out, they would of course support them and so the issue is: can they do so effectively--can they take responsibility for trying to make that happen? (Remember Marx argued against a workings uprising in France in 1870-1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_09_12.htm) but supported it once the Commune was formed--is this so different? Or is that just as anti-revolutionary?)
* The other implicit understanding is that revolutions in those countries would require significant aid to maintain themselves--unlike a revolution in Germany. To agitate for revolution at that time when they didn't have the possibility of providing the military aid, food, etc. would have been irresponsible.

Consider this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/PBW_June_1920.png/782px-PBW_June_1920.png

That's a map showing how far the Polish armies had advanced in the month June 1920, taking Kiev. The Red Army took it back that same month--if at the same time revolutions had been breaking out in Khiva, in Persia, in Bukhara and in Afghanistan, would they been able to defeat the Polish attack, continue to gain ground against the other White armies, as well as defend these new territories--which would have possibly invited further international and national counterrevolutionary interventions? I hope they would've been able to and again, the assumption behind Trotsky's message is that they would've tried to, but I don't think it would've been responsible to agitate for that situation to exist.

CommunityBeliever

29th July 2011, 07:57

Stalin stood for 'socialism in one country' and hollow support for the leftist fronts of the world

That is not true, socialism in one country was a necessity of the circumstances of the time not because Stalin was a super-overlord who could direct the course of world revolution.

It does seem to be in an outdated ideology in a world that is increasingly defined in terms of globalisation, but it was necessary at the time.

A Marxist Historian

29th July 2011, 07:59

The Czechoslovak Corps in Russia (as it was officially caused) was actually a nationalist quasi-mercenary formation that helped right-social-democratic government of Komuch (The Committee of Members of Constituent Assembly) to massacre workers in Volga Region in summer 1918, so I do not think anybody should weep tears for them.

Then why didn't Makhno silence all socialist opposition in the RIAU-controlled territories? After all, he was also facing major difficulties, yet he did neither outlaw nor shoot the members of "rival" left-socialist organizations (and even did not proscribe Right Mensheviks, who openly agitated for Constituent Assembly and against the Soviet power).

Contrary to the popular myth, the Makhnovists did not control the entirety of Ukraine's territory, so I do not think how they should be held responsible for Kiev's capture in August 1919 by the Denikinites (the Poles took it in June 1920, not in 1919), given that they operated much farther to the south. Wrangel also faced not the Makhnovist, but strictly Bolshevik-led troops (allegedly well prepared by Trotsky) during his initial successful offensive. On the contrary, the Makhnovists were rather courageous during the attack on Wrangel's fortifications in November 1920.

Well, the opinion of Trotsky, the commander of the Red Army who was somewhat of an expert on this subject, was that *the reason* the front collapsed and Denikin was able to seize just about all of Ukraine in the summer of 1919 was that Hryhoriev (or Grigoriev, if you prefer the Russian spelling) and Makhno abandoned their posts, took their forces back to their home areas and started insurgencies, leaving a big gaping hole in the front.

From a military standpoint I think that's almost inarguable. M and H(G)'s defenses were that the Bolsheviks pushed them into this disastrous step.

(I'm trying to wear my objective historian hat here the best I can, being as the article I posted on Makhno and Jewish pogroms conveyed why my feelings about the Makhnovshchina are what they are quite adequately.)

The fact that Makhno tolerated anti-Bolshevik socialists who collaborated with White Guards and other counterrevolutionaries, but his forces killed every communist they could whenever they got their hands on one, somehow does not seem to me to be an argument in Makho's favor.

-M.H.-

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 09:04

it really isn't possible to reconcile the ideology of the two given the vast political discrepancies in their theories.
Who said I was "reconciling" their ideology - that isn't possible. However, that shouldn't stop all self-respecting Marxist-Leninists from admiring both of their struggles and sacrifices against capitalism. You can admire their desired ends, without agreeing with all of their means.

Trotsky stood for internationalist solidarity whereas Stalin stood for 'socialism in one country' and hollow support for the leftist fronts of the world.
Talk about revisionist over-simplification.

Trotsky defended the Bolshevik tradition of democratic centralism within the party whereas Stalin destroyed that concept with bureaucratic centralism.
That is obviously your opinion, but like assholes, everyone has one.

Ideologically, it is not possible to admire both
Sure it is. I admire them both as enemies of capitalism and fascism. No person in the history of the World is perfect or without flaws. I also don't need to agree with every facet of someone's ideology to admire their sacrifices or efforts to propagate Marx's ideas - which are the roadmap to our collective salvation and ultimate liberation.

Kiev Communard

29th July 2011, 09:20

The fact that Makhno tolerated anti-Bolshevik socialists who collaborated with White Guards and other counterrevolutionaries, but his forces killed every communist they could whenever they got their hands on one, somehow does not seem to me to be an argument in Makho's favor.

-M.H.-

How was he "killing every Bolshevik he could lay hand on" if there were 4 members of Bolshevik Party on the very Revolutionary Military Council of him?:confused:
Also, about "tolerating right-wing socialists" (from Shubin's book I have referenced you to before):

...На съезде прошли довыборы в ВРС. Вошедший в этот орган вместе с другими новыми членами коммунист Новицкий, утверждает, что вскоре под его влияние перешло большинство членов этого органа[438]. Но подобное «коммунистическое подполье» в ВРС почти никак себя не проявило, что заставляет заподозрить представителя коммунистов в преувеличении своего влияния. По данным Белаша ВРС на 42,5% состоял из анархистов (85 человек — в том числе все командиры и начальники военных управлений), на 10,5% - из левых эсеров (21 человек — командиры и делегаты от сел), 2% - большевики (4 человека — от рабочих и военных), 35% беспартийных крестьян (70 человек) и 10% - беспартийных рабочих (20 человек). Меньшевики, народники, эсеры и националисты в ВРС не пошли[439].

Поскольку Махно не имел времени реально заниматься делами ВРС, он сложил с себя полномочия его председателя, и «гражданскую власть» возглавил Волин[440]. Отношения военных и ВРС оставалось напряженным. Волин вспоминает, что «Реввоенсовет и часть командного состава были на ножах; и между ними стоял и Махно, и я»[441]. Возможно, эту оппозицию военщине Новицкий и отождествил с большевистcким влиянием.

Продолжался и конфликт с меньшевистскими профсоюзами, который начался на съезде. Резкая отповедь Махно сторонникам «учредилки» дала меньшевикам повод расширить фронт оппозиции. 1 ноября собралась конференция части завкомов Александровска, которая приняла следующую резолюцию: «Обсудив допущенные 30 октября выпады против рабочего класса и его представителей, делегированных рабочими организациями, и обращая внимание съезда, что эти выпады становятся систематическим явлением со времени занятия города повстанцами, …подчеркиваем, что с рабочими организациями, уцелевшими от разгрома, опираясь на грубую военную силу, совершенно не желают считаться». Упоминание грубой военной силы было связано с кратковременными арестами некоторых рабочих активистов. Меньшевики пытались своим уходом лишить съезд в Александровске полномочий рабоче–крестьянского. «Делегаты рабочих могут вернуться в состав съезда только в том случае, если общее собрание публично снимет с рабочей делегации брошенное ей оскорбление… В отсутствие рабочих делегатов съезд явится не рабоче–крестьянским, а только крестьянским, и постановления его не смогут иметь для рабочих г. Александровска никакой моральной ответственности»[442]. Но в составе съезда оставалась почти половина рабочей делегации, которая поддержала Махно вместе со всем съездом, спокойно закончившим работу 2 ноября. Чувствуя за собой эту поддержку, Махно уже 1 ноября обрушился на оппозицию, но не грубой военной силой, а статьей «Иначе быть не может»: «Допустимо ли, чтобы рабочие города Александровска и его окружений, в лице своих делегатов — меньшевиков и правых эсеров, — на свободном деловом рабоче–крестьянском и повстанческом съезде держали оппозицию деникинской учредилки?» Созыв конференции ФЗК Махно называет просто «закулисным предательством», воскрешая в памяти весну 1919 г., когда Дыбенко называл контрреволюцией махновский съезд.

В отличие от большевиков, Махно, правда, никому не грозил расстрелом, но тучи над оппозицией сгущались. Взывая к рабочим, батька вопрошал: «Правда ли, что эти ублюдки буржуазии вами уполномочены, чтобы, прикрываясь именем вашей пролетарской чести, на свободных деловых съездах призывать к старому идолу — учредилке?»[443]. Часто во время гражданской войны за такими эпитетами следовали аресты и расстрелы. Но ничего этого не случилось — меньшевики продолжали свою работу в рамках махновской многопартийности, проводили на профсоюзных конференциях резолюции о преждевременности социалистической революции.

In addition, Makhno pretty much tolerated Bolshevik propaganda among his troops:

...Все социалистические партии действовали легально (кадеты считались партией Деникина).

4–го ноября ВРС принял решение об относительной свободе печати в районе: «1. Всем, без исключения, социалистическим, политическим партиям, организациям и течениям предоставляется полнейшая свобода распространять свои взгляды, идеи, учения и мнения, как устно, так и печатно. Никакие ограничения свободы социалистического слова и социалистической печати не допустимы, и никакие преследования в этом направлении не должны иметь места.

Примечание: 1. Сообщения военного характера допускаются к опубликованию лишь при условии получения их из редакции главного органа революционной повстанческой армии «Путь к Свободе», или в Революционном Телеграфном Агентстве (Ретаг).

2. Предоставляя всем социалистическим партиям и организациям полнейшую свободу своих идей, военное командование Повстанческой Армии в то же время предупреждает все партии, что ПОДГОТОВКА, ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ И НАВЯЗЫВАНИЕ ИМИ ТРУДОВОМУ НАРОДУ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ВЛАСТИ, ничего общего со свободой распространения своих идей не имея, РЕВОЛЮЦИОННЫМ ПОВСТАНЧЕСТВОМ НИ В КОЕМ СЛУЧАЕ допущено не будет»[486].

На самом деле пресса Екатеринослава кто во что горазд — и за власть, и против. Выходили коммунистическая «Звезда», резко критиковавшая каждый шаг махновцев, правоэсеровская «Народовластие» и левоэсеровская «Знамя восстания». Активно действовали анархисты, выпускавшие официальные газеты «Путь к свободе» («Шлях до волi») и «Повстанец» — соответственно органы штаба и культпросвета ВРC. На местах издавались газеты «Вольный Бердянск», «Вольный Александровск», «Вольное Гуляй–Поле», «Вольный Мелитополь» и т.д.

Дела большевиков в условиях этого плюрализма были не блестящи — меньшевики укрепляли свое влияние среди рабочих, в ущерб большевикам[487]. Но неудачи на ниве борьбы за пролетариат не смущали коммунистов — главным направлением их деятельности оставалась «борьба за войско» — эта сила понадобится, когда в район придут красные. Бывший член Екатеринославской комсомольской организации вспоминает: «При махновцах работалось легче. Была «полулегальная» работа… Наш союз принялся горячо за разбрасывание листовок среди махновских отрядов»[488]. Свобода агитации есть свобода агитации, хотя содержание большевистских материалов не могло не раздражать руководителей движения: «Революционное значение повстанчества исчерпывается постольку, поскольку вместо власти рабоче–крестьянских советов оно выдвигает… власть кучки представителей военного командования, власть всякого рода штабов, комендантов и прочее и прочее," — писала газета «Звезда». «Нужно утвердить железный революционный порядок. Установить строжайшую революционную дисциплину. Положить предел бесшабашной, безвластной анархии и бессмысленной несогласованности действий, единственным результатом которой может быть только усиление контрреволюционных элементов… Идея безвластия, обеспечивающая имущим слоям деревни свободу от всякого давления со стороны пролетариата и союзной ему крестьянской бедноты, как нельзя более пришлась по вкусу деревенским кулакам и прижималам. Анархическая система организации промышленности также не могла не найти сторонников в отсталости и не вполне дожившей даже до степени капиталистической организации деревни», — писал в «Звезде» П. Горенев[489].

Махно было обидно читать подобные строки, и иногда он был готов перейти к репрессиям[490]. Но как политическая система движения, так и личные качества командарма удерживали его от ударов по прессе. Она не закрывалась, хотя иногда тиражи конфисковывались как клеветнические. Анархистские издания азартно полемизировали со «Звездой». Махновские патрули спокойно относились к распространителям коммунистических материалов[491].

So no, just stop hating those who are to the left of your "Spartacist" League and who were, just like you said of Trotsky, "real revolutionaries, unlike some people on RevLeft" (presumably including yourself).

A Marxist Historian

29th July 2011, 09:42

How was he "killing every Bolshevik he could lay hand on" if there were 4 members of Bolshevik Party on the very Revolutionary Military Council of him?:confused:
Also, about "tolerating right-wing socialists" (from Shubin's book I have referenced you to before):

In addition, Makhno pretty much tolerated Bolshevik propaganda among his troops:

So no, just stop hating those who are to the left of your "Spartacist" League and who were, just like you said of Trotsky, "real revolutionaries, unlike some people on RevLeft" (presumably including yourself).

Relations between Makhno and the Bolsheviks seesawed back and forth between conflict and cooperation. Naturally during periods when the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists were not at war, repression of Bolsheviks in Makhno controlled areas was relatively mild--though it continued, as Shubin concedes in your quote. Just as Bolshevik repression of Mensheviks and SRs was fairly mild during those periods when they were supporting the Bolsheviks vs. the White Guards more or less, for example after Kolchak started jailing and shooting them.

Your quote refers to the period when his troops occupied Ekaterinoslav, which had been a major Bolshevik bastion before Denikin seized Ukraine.

This was a period when the Bolsheviks and Makhno *were not* at war. Makhno had executed Hryhoriev a few months before, if I remember right, and Trotsky was sending out peace feelers in his direction.

But when the Bolshevik-Makhno conflict broke out into warfare again, this relative tolerance came to an abrupt end, and any communist in the Makhno camp or encountered when Makhno's soldiers entered a village was shot on the spot without a trial ... that is unless Makhno's secret police wanted them for "interrogation." In which case they wished they had been.

-M.H.-

PS: when I get around to it, yes I will look at the Shubin book. I have some other commitments I need to take care of first, even here on Revleft, notably my promise to translate Kaganovich's statements on torturing Trotskyists.

Grainz the Vegzom

29th July 2011, 10:06

What I really want to know is why anyone would approve of any dictators. The whole point of communism was to eliminate class! Alot of these people get high off of power and start reading Marx through their brown eye.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 16:16

That is not true, socialism in one country was a necessity of the circumstances of the time not because Stalin was a super-overlord who could direct the course of world revolution.

It does seem to be in an outdated ideology in a world that is increasingly defined in terms of globalisation, but it was necessary at the time.

The primary issue with this premise is that it is completely without truth to it, Stalin was the head of the worlds first socialist state and was in a position wherein he could easily of assisted and properly directed the various different communist parties of the world in a much more effectual manner. Instead of using his absolute control of the Comintern for efforts of international revolution he choose to use it to bolster his nationalistic 'socialism in one country' policy. He directed the Chinese Communists in 1927 to pursue an alliance with the nationalists and even allowed for Chiang Kai-shek's entry into the 3rd International, he forced the German communist party into a horribly failed position which had them form a united front with the Nazi's which eventually led to their complete liquidation while greatly aiding the rise of fascism. He was timid in supporting the Spanish Revolution and eventually destroyed its momentum by fueling infighting which crippled the popular front there, which lead to the rule of a fascist dictatorship in the nation for decades to come.

Socialism in one country was not arrived at out of a necessity of circumstance, as such would demand such the opposite approach to foreign policy from the CCCP. Had the proper popular fronts against fascism been supported, it is incredibly likely that the course of history would of taken a course far more welcoming to leftism.

Who said I was "reconciling" their ideology - that isn't possible. However, that shouldn't stop all self-respecting Marxist-Leninists from admiring both of their struggles and sacrifices against capitalism. You can admire their desired ends, without agreeing with all of their means.

Talk about revisionist over-simplification.

That is obviously your opinion, but like assholes, everyone has one.

Sure it is. I admire them both as enemies of capitalism and fascism. No person in the history of the World is perfect or without flaws. I also don't need to agree with every facet of someone's ideology to admire their sacrifices or efforts to propagate Marx's ideas - which are the roadmap to our collective salvation and ultimate liberation.

They both desired different ends, you cannot admire the two of them in a manner which is contradictory. Trotsky sought the encouragement of revolution across the world, Stalin sought to run counter to the traditions of Marxist theory and attempted to build it in a single nation. These incredibly varied approaches have different ends to them. We have seen that Stalinism is not maintainable and that it only leads to deviation away from the attainment of the aims of communism, whereas the ends of Trotsky's approach to international relations to the left would of been much more beneficial to the movement.

And how am I revising anything with that assertion? It was a brief summary of the massive difference between the two in a tremendously significant field of policy, that is not revisionism. It would seem that you are just abusing the age old tactic of calling your opponent a revisionist for not falling into agreement with your argument, which doesn't exactly bear well for the legitimacy of your position nor does it assist you in any discernible way.

That is not my opinion, it is a key aspect of the split between these two figures. You cannot factually argue that the CPSU was a legitimate governing body from the late 1920's and on that could be characterized by free debate, disagreement, and democratic centralism.

Once more, you can only admire the two figures if you gloss over the major substantive differences in policy held by the two, and by that point you have an incredibly deluded amount of support to provide each with. The fact that they are both well known and that they were each 'enemies of capitalism and fascism.' is not enough to justify this precarious position.

The fact that one of these figures was an actual opponent of fascism while the other allowed and merely watched the rise of fascism throughout Europe while refusing to take the proper measures which would of allowed for its destruction before it ever rose to prominence makes it an insult to adopt such a crude position. Stalin denounced the German SDP as social fascists and joined the actual fascists in their political efforts against them, regardless of the necessity of popular fronts against fascism during the time. Then you have the Molotov-Ribbentrop, where he literally sign a pact stating that the CCCP would not take the role of the aggressor against Nazi Germany. His disastrous internal purges also deprived the Soviet military of its most experienced officers on the even of war, only multiplying the destruction brought about by the Germany army.

Stalin was certainly quite the anti fascist, yeah.

chegitz guevara

29th July 2011, 18:24

Consider this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/PBW_June_1920.png/782px-PBW_June_1920.png

This does not accurately represent the situation, as the border was much further to the West.

This was the original border, before the Poles invaded.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/PBW_March_1919.png

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 20:04

you cannot admire the two of them in a manner which is contradictory.

Sure I can. I am complex and can hold contradictory views at the same time. Plus, I admire many historical figures that weren't even leftist at all (Spartacus, Hannibal, William Wallace, Geronimo etc)

Trotsky sought the encouragement of revolution across the world, Stalin sought to run counter to the traditions of Marxist theory and attempted to build it in a single nation. These incredibly varied approaches have different ends to them.

Not "ends" but means. Which was my point. Both wanted the eventual eradication of global capitalism.

We have seen that Stalinism is not maintainable
From where Russia started when he took over, to where it was when he left it, I would disagree.

the ends of Trotsky's approach to international relations to the left would of been much more beneficial to the movement.
Possibly, but that is theoretical. Stalin was hamstrung by the messiness of reality.

free debate, disagreement, and democratic centralism.

Post-revoluion, I don't care about "free debate" or "disagreement" - which is a Bourgeoisie construct and breeding ground for counter-revolution.

The fact that one of these figures was an actual opponent of fascism
I don't believe that Russia would have held off Fascist Nazi Germany had Stalin not industrialized the nation at such a fast pace in the 30's, nor defeated Hitler without Stalin (and all the good and bad that came with him) at the helm. Ironically, WWII was won by the Red Army at Stalingrad imo.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 20:34

Sure I can. I am complex and can hold contradictory views at the same time. Plus, I admire many historical figures that weren't even leftist at all (Spartacus, Hannibal, William Wallace, Geronimo etc)

Not "ends" but means. Which was my point. Both wanted the eventual eradication of global capitalism.

From where Russia started when he took over, to where it was when he left it, I would disagree.

Possibly, but that is theoretical. Stalin was hamstrung by the messiness of reality.

Post-revoluion, I don't care about "free debate" or "disagreement" - which is a Bourgeoisie construct and breeding ground for counter-revolution.

I don't believe that Russia would have held off Fascist Nazi Germany had Stalin not industrialized the nation at such a fast pace in the 30's, nor defeated Hitler without Stalin (and all the good and bad that came with him) at the helm. Ironically, WWII was won by the Red Army at Stalingrad imo.

Global capitalism would not be eliminated by the policy adopted by Stalin as it held the concept of international revolution in contempt. The ends which would of been attained by Stalinist policy would not be comparable to those achieved by the internationalist tendencies represented by Trotsky.

The progress of the Soviet Union under Stalin domestically was only the result of Stalin's blatant move to co opt the policy of Trotsky and the left opposition, and it could of been made without nearly as much death and chaos had it been properly applied in its original form, free of the Stalin's brutal hand in internal politics.

I don't refer to the freedom of discourse in the bourgeois manner and largely agree with you on that point, but I was referring to the basic tenants of democratic centralism within the party. I don't think the operational procedures of the Bolshevik party can really be considered bourgeoisie constructs, quite frankly.

And once more, the concept of rapid industrialization was one which was proposed by the Left Opposition and haphazardly applied by Stalin. Had it been applied free of the Stalinist lack of nuance, it would of provided the same outcome without the senseless abuse of labor. The Soviet Union would of overcome the threat of Nazism with or without Stalin. Had Trotsky been behind the policy of the CCCP during the era, it is likely that there wouldn't of even been a Nazi Germany in a position to mount an invasion circa 1941, as he would of seized upon the chance to form a united front with the German SDP in order to crush Nazism in its fragile youth. Even if such was not possible, the Soviet Union would of been much better off under the leadership of a former commissariat of war who led the Red Army to victory in the civil war. Trotsky could also of maintained the effective and proven combination of political commissars and professional officers, which would of put the Red Army in a much more advantageous position to handle a Nazi invasion.

And as a side note, I would say that the real turning point was at Kursk as opposed to Stalingrad, as it was during this battle that the war was firmly decided for the Soviets. Stalingrad certainly dealt a crushing blow to the Nazi's, but it wasn't a full on turning point.

agnixie

29th July 2011, 21:30

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 21:34

There's a difference between complexity and wilful mental dissonance. There's a difference between ignorant opinion and established fact.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 21:43

There's a difference ignorant opinion and established fact.

I think we have dealt with the facts of this matter in good detail, or I have tried to do as much. I am also fairly sure that most everyone does not doubt that there are major ideological differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism, to a point where involves a health dose of cognitive dissidence to hold the two tendencies as equally valid.

CHE with an AK

29th July 2011, 21:50

I am also fairly sure that most everyone does not doubt that there are major ideological differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism, to a point where involves a health dose of cognitive dissidence to hold the two tendencies as equally valid.
Nowhere do I say that their tendency's are equally valid. I'm not a Stalinist or a Trot.

I said that I admire both men and understand both of their "faults" or "mistakes" as being a result of circumstance.

RedTrackWorker

29th July 2011, 21:57

This does not accurately represent the situation, as the border was much further to the West.

This was the original border, before the Poles invaded.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/PBW_March_1919.png

I think I presented it in a confusing way. I was making both the point that at the very month Trotsky wrote the note, their was a significant advance by the Polish army which captured Kiev (which the map I linked shows) and was also making the more general point that the war front was long and revolutions in those countries would've extended the front greatly.

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 22:13

Nowhere do I say that their tendency's are equally valid. I'm not a Stalinist or a Trot.

I said that I admire both men and understand both of their "faults" or "mistakes" as being a result of circumstance.

You are correct, you never directed said such. That is not however to say that my inference is necessarily invalid, given you initial post.

I would contend that it is possible to admire BOTH Trotsky & Stalin. They aren't mutually exclusive.

You say that you admire both, an act which would require a great deal of cognitive dissidence to be possible given the wide array of disparity between the ideals represented by the two. This doesn't have to refer to the actual theory of the two tendencies and the historical conflict between them embodies enough conflict over approach to revolutionary politics to make the positions exclusive if ones seeks to avoid glaring contradictions in their views on the matter.

CommunityBeliever

29th July 2011, 22:40

The primary issue with this premise is that it is completely without truth to it, Stalin was the head of the worlds first socialist state and was in a position wherein he could easily of assisted and properly directed the various different communist parties of the world in a much more effectual manner. Instead of using his absolute control of the Comintern for efforts of international revolution he choose to use it to bolster his nationalistic 'socialism in one country' policy. He directed the Chinese Communists in 1927 to pursue an alliance with the nationalists and even allowed for Chiang Kai-shek's entry into the 3rd International, he forced the German communist party into a horribly failed position which had them form a united front with the Nazi's which eventually led to their complete liquidation while greatly aiding the rise of fascism. He was timid in supporting the Spanish Revolution and eventually destroyed its momentum by fueling infighting which crippled the popular front there, which lead to the rule of a fascist dictatorship in the nation for decades to come.First, of all, Stalin wasn't some overlord who could direct the course of the entire world. If those countries didn't have a revolution it is because conditions weren't ready there, not because Stalin personally fucked everything up.

All of the decisions made by the Soviet Union had a good strategical basis in combating their enemies, the capitalists, the imperialists, the fascists, and the Nazis. They weren't because Stalin didn't want revolution to happen across the world. Furthemore, it is easy to say what they should have done now that we have perfect knowledge of history.

Had the proper popular fronts against fascism been supported, it is incredibly likely that the course of history would of taken a course far more welcoming to leftism. It seems to me that all you doing is saying what if a flawless leader (which you label Trotsky) was in power in the Soviet Union? That is all just idle speculation.

Rooster

29th July 2011, 22:49

All of the decisions made by the Soviet Union had a good strategical basis in combating their enemies, the capitalists, the imperialists, the fascists, and the Nazis.

How well did that play out?

thesadmafioso

29th July 2011, 22:49

First, of all, Stalin wasn't some overlord who could direct the course of the entire world. If those countries didn't have a revolution it is because conditions weren't ready there, not because Stalin personally fucked everything up.

All of the decisions made by the Soviet Union had a good strategical basis in combating their enemies, the capitalists, the imperialists, the fascists, and the Nazis. They weren't because Stalin didn't want revolution to happen across the world. Furthemore, it is easy to say what they have done now that we have perfect knowledge of history.

It seems to me that all you doing is saying what if a flawless leader (which you label Trotsky) was in power in the Soviet Union? That is all just idle speculation.

I never stated or implied that Stalin had any powers which he did not. He did have the ability to assist popular fronts all throughout the world, and he choose either not to do so or to do so in a limited fashion with the goal of helping to further his objective of 'building socialism' in the CCCP.

Do not pretend that Stalin was some shining beacon of opposition against fascism, he allowed them to rise to power in Germany without offering any sort of substantial resistance. In Spain he destroyed the momentum of the revolution to an extent which essentially crushed the movement against fascism. He distorted the course of Chinese communism in 1927 to such an extent that it was not able to seize power until 1949, and even then it did so through the skewered wreckage of Maoism, which more or less tainted the course of Chinese socialism to an irretrievable point.

Stalin put the breaks on any revolution which would not work towards the favor of his image of the Soviet Union, that was the aim of his foreign policy. Do not delude yourself into thinking that he was a revolutionary hero in the fight against fascism, he was a hero of a false socialism in a single nation, nothing more.

CommunityBeliever

30th July 2011, 01:12

He did have the ability to assist popular fronts all throughout the world, and he choose either not to do so or to do so in a limited fashion with the goal of helping to further his objective of 'building socialism' in the CCCP.

If you are talking about the WW2 era, he had to stop supporting foreign revolutions to maintain the alliance with the allies which the Soviet Union depended upon.

Do not pretend that Stalin was some shining beacon of opposition against fascism, he allowed them to rise to power in Germany without offering any sort of substantial resistance.What sort of substantial resistance are you talking about? A Soviet invasion of Germany? Stalin actually wanted to do that to depose Hitler before WW2 but its not like you can go through other countries and meddle in the international scene freely when all the other countries oppose you.

In Spain he destroyed the momentum of the revolution to an extent which essentially crushed the movement against fascism.Stalin and his comrades support the anti-fascists, so what are you talking about? And how could he "destroy" the entire movement, if it didn't work there it is because the conditions weren't ready not because Stalin had the power to control the entire world.

He distorted the course of Chinese communism in 1927 to such an extent that it was not able to seize power until 1949, and even then it did so through the skewered wreckage of Maoism, which more or less tainted the course of Chinese socialism to an irretrievable point.No the imperial Japanese did that themselves.

thesadmafioso

30th July 2011, 01:32

If you are talking about the WW2 era, he had to stop supporting foreign revolutions to maintain the alliance with the allies which the Soviet Union depended upon.

What sort of substantial resistance are you talking about? A Soviet invasion of Germany? Stalin actually wanted to do that to depose Hitler before WW2 but its not like you can go through other countries and meddle in the international scene freely when all the other countries oppose you.

Stalin and his comrades support the anti-fascists, so what are you talking about? And how could he "destroy" the entire movement, if it didn't work there it is because the conditions weren't ready not because Stalin had the power to control the entire world.

No the imperial Japanese did that themselves.

Why would we be talking about the WWII era? I figured it would be easy enough to imply that the popular front reference was meant to be taken in the context in the 1930's, for obvious reasons. Mind you that during this era the west had no interest in allying itself with the CCCP, so it hardly should of been considered a valid strategy at the time. Even if the west did show interest in allying itself with the CCCP, it shouldn't of had any impact on its support for international revolutionary movements. It is not as if alliance with the western superpowers helps the international proletariat in their struggles much.

I was referring to resistance in the form of urging the Communist Party of Germany to actually oppose the Nazi's seizure of power, and before that to the formulation of a popular front against fascism with the likely allies in the Germany Social Democratic Party. If you remember correctly though, Stalin was to caught up in his efforts to plaster the nonsensical title of social fascism too the German SDP and with staging show trials against Trotskyism at the time to actually be concerned with the rise of fascism across the continent.

No, he didn't though. At all. He oversaw the liquidation of the entire wing of the anarchist movement and watched the dismantlement of the workers militias. It failed due to selective intervention, where Stalin only supported those who were willing to tow his party line without any resistance. He put the promotion of his own domestic policy before the success of an entire revolution.

Imperial Japan? What? I am referring to Stalin's support of the Chinese nationalists and Chiang Kai-shek, who was made a member of the Third International. This tremendous error led to the destruction of the urban workers movement of the era and set back the progress of revolution in China considerably, not even to take into account the dramatic impact it had on the ideological content of Chinese socialism.

Geiseric

30th July 2011, 04:59

Everything Stalin did could be summed up in one word: Oppurtunism. He thought and acted, in terms of politics, as any other western leader. You have to look at what happened, not his possible motivations, and you have to think HOW DID THIS EFFECT THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR STRUGGLE?

CHE with an AK

30th July 2011, 08:12

Geiseric

30th July 2011, 08:16

Jose Gracchus

30th July 2011, 08:40

I think that some of the anti-Stalinism on the left is also psychological. Since most on the left are pre-dispositioned to root for the underdog - they aren't sure how to accept it when someone representing their side becomes the bully and starts kicking ass and taking names.

imo Stalin also held up a mirror to the idealistic left by proving to them that lofty ideals are useless, unless they are backed up by force. Since capitalism preys on our worst primal impulses, you don't extract or defeat that sort of "evil" with placards, marches, and sit ins ... Sometimes you have to literally scare the greed out of people.

Yeah and clearly you've just substituted he-man national-patriotism for some distorted idea of what 'communism' is about. Its clearly about tough-guy TEH AWESOME for you. Too bad all that military hardware turned out to be good for nothing in the 80s, but to ruin the economy of your HE MAN AK WIELDING WARRIORZ

Joseph S.

30th July 2011, 09:51

In numerous posts regarding different marxist beliefs, it seems as though Trotskyism is by far the least favored out of all. Is it because of his somewhat fascist actions, such as crushing the 15,000 Czechoslavakian "Counter-revolutionaries" during the peak of the October Revolution? Or because of his actions post-exile?

Sadly I don't know much about him during the October Revolutions or his actions before or after crushing those "Counter-revolutionaries". Currently reading "Downfall of a Revolutionary" by Bertrand M. Patenaude. Pretty good read about after his exile.
Tbh i think you are wrong its the stalinists who are discriminated here on this forum iv bin jumped on bij around 15 posterd trying to make me twist my opinion about why i understand that stalin hed good reasons not to trust the brit's. so please stop crying

Zanthorus

30th July 2011, 13:33

To agitate for revolution at that time when they didn't have the possibility of providing the military aid, food, etc. would have been irresponsible.

You're still ignoring the context in which that statement occured though. The Russian state was not only not actively aiding revolutions in other countries, which I agree is not itself a crime when carried out by a state just emerging from a catastrophic civil war with a pressing need to carry out economic reconstruction, it was actively aiding the counter-revolution by sending arms to Ataturk who used them to massacre Turkish left communists. They were not only not helping revolutionaries in foreign countries they were sending resources to crush them. The significance of this should be obvious to anyone without ideological blinders on. It means that already by 1921 the tendency for Moscow to subordinate the interests of the international revolution to the interests of the Russian state was in existence. I hypothesise that this was also a big motivation factor behind the Comintern's drive against the 'ultra-left' and it's insistence on the creation of mass parties, all the better for serving Russian diplomatic interests.

I think this is the real crux of the issue. There was nothing necessarily 'opportunistic' about Trotsky's criticism of Stalinism but rather it was incomplete. If the Left Opposition had carried out a really thorough critique of the tendency to subordinate the international revolution to the Russian state it would've had to go back before the official declaration of 'socialism in one country' to events as early as the 1919 and Levi's publication of the Heidelberg thesis which expelled the German Left from the KPD. It would've had to recognise the faults in the practice of building 'mass' parties through 'tactical' maneveurs and alliances with social-democrats and the absorption of inexperienced cadre whose political education was carried out by the party and which as a consequence formed a social basis which allowed for the rule of the apparatchiks to go uncontested. It's criticism of the revolutionary movement would have had to go all the way back to the Second World Congress of the Comintern in 1920.

Instead it's clear that the Trotskyists never learned the lessons that needed to be learned. The history of the confrontation between the Left Fraction of the PCd'I and the International Left Opposition provides ample evidence of this. The Fraction from 1930-33 participated in the work of the ILO's secretariat but criticised the idea of forming a new, Fourth International in the period at the time, which was characterised as counter-revolutionary and unfavourable to the formation of new parties. Instead it was asserted that the necessary work was one of political confrontation and drawing a balance sheet of events which had led to the triumph of the counter-revolution. To that end it called for the publication of a joint bulletin by the Italian, French and Belgian sections of the ILO which would carry out the necessary work. Instead, the Trotskyists refused the work of clarification and Trotsky even attacked the Fraction for apparently dogmatic clinging on to their platform, which he himself had originally regarded as one of the best documents coming out of the Left Opposition. As the final nail in the coffin, the ILO allowed the 'New Italian Opposition' into it's ranks, consisting of former Stalinists who had opposed the Italian Left in 1926 and rejected the 'sectarian' Left Fraction of the PCd'I, which went on to publish the prospective bulletin on it's own.

I think we need to recognise that their was a degeneration that occured within the Left Opposition, and the LRP-COFI is here correct, but at the same time it needs to be noted that the degeneration was to a certain extent contained within the framework of it's foundations. In particular, the idea that the world situation was still revolutionary, and all that was needed to do was to create a new Fourth International, even on an opportunist basis, and without the necessary work of poltiical clarification, was profoundly mistaken. And to a certain extent this was the result of the personality of Trotsky himself, who although a formerly great revolutionary leader, had also participated in the degeneration of the revolution, and was therefore personally wedded to the decisions of the Comintern and the Russian state up until the point where he himself came into conflict with them. The political clarification could therefore, and in actual fact did not, come from the Trotskyist Opposition, but from the work of the International Communist Left, the political descendants of Bordiga's (And not Gramsci, Tasca or Togliatti's) PCd'I.

RED DAVE

30th July 2011, 15:02

I think that some of the anti-Stalinism on the left is also psychological. So, therefore, is the Stalinism.

Since most on the left are pre-dispositioned to root for the underdogI would hope it would be all on the left.

they aren't sure how to accept it when someone representing their side becomes the bully and starts kicking ass and taking names.I know how to deal such: revolutionary opposition. Death to all tyrants.

imoiyo. Better be able to back you o with facts.

Stalin also held up a mirror to the idealistic left by proving to them that lofty ideals are useless, unless they are backed up by force.And where did you come up with this little nugget of insanity. The notion of leftism as composed of lofty ideals is hardly countered by Stalinism. Stalin's crudity and brutality are nothing more that the flip side of this.

Since capitalism preys on our worst primal impulses, you don't extract or defeat that sort of "evil" with placards, marches, and sit ins ... Sometimes you have to literally scare the greed out of people."[P]lacards, marches, and sit ins" are part of the way that a movement is built. Are you saying that the sit-in strikes of the 1930s were futile?

I suggest that you put your fantasy AK down for awhile, or if you have a real one, put it down in the basement, and reading, say, Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/).

RED DAVE

Commissar Rykov

30th July 2011, 18:53

You're thinking of Lenin. Stalin didn't "kick ass" any more than any other bolshevik, he was the counter revolution inside the revolution. For example, why did Stalin bring back the russian orthodox church? and also, I see Stalinists bash on trotsky for formerly being a menshevik untill he sided with Lenin, but if I recall correctly, didn't Pravda, when Stalin was editor of it, take a pro Kerensky stance?
Why use the Russian Orthodox Church as an attack on Stalin? The reality is the Bolsheviks violated their own ideals by propagating atheism so militantly which they claimed they would not since they viewed religion as a private matter. While I realize that the Russian Orthodox Church was more an arm of the Czarist Regime than it was a church. If you are going to attack Stalin for things I wouldn't do it based on relaxing Freedom of Religion I would attack him on his cracking down on Homosexuals, Bureaucratization, increasing of autocracy and further isolating the Workers from their government.

thesadmafioso

30th July 2011, 19:06

Why use the Russian Orthodox Church as an attack on Stalin? The reality is the Bolsheviks violated their own ideals by propagating atheism so militantly which they claimed they would not since they viewed religion as a private matter. While I realize that the Russian Orthodox Church was more an arm of the Czarist Regime than it was a church. If you are going to attack Stalin for things I wouldn't do it based on relaxing Freedom of Religion I would attack him on his cracking down on Homosexuals, Bureaucratization, increasing of autocracy and further isolating the Workers from their government.

Given the preferential treatment which was directed towards the Orthodox Church, I think that this is a perfectly valid critique. This move also represents a clear and concise attempt to reconcile the objectives of the revolution with the reactionary thought of nationalism and of religion, it shows a regression from the original aims of the Bolsheviks.

Of course, this is not to say that the other areas of critique which you have raised are any less valid, it is just that we should not forsake this significant act of reaction and not allow it to slip away from this discussion unscathed.

Commissar Rykov

30th July 2011, 19:13

Given the preferential treatment which was directed towards the Orthodox Church, I think that this is a perfectly valid critique. This move also represents a clear and concise attempt to reconcile the objectives of the revolution with the reactionary thought of nationalism and of religion, it shows a regression from the original aims of the Bolsheviks.

Of course, this is not to say that the other areas of critique which you have raised are any less valid, it is just that we should not forsake this significant act of reaction and not allow it to slip away from this discussion unscathed.
Aye and that is why I even raised the point that the Russian Orthodox Church was largely a political faction and not really a church in the most common sense. I see the banning of it as perfectly acceptable but bringing it back wouldn't be my first attack on Stalin to be honest there was more heavy and damning evidence before that IMHO. When you look at the entire combined picture it becomes obvious that Stalin had abandoned the ideals he had originally fought for that is if he ever held them in the first place.

RedTrackWorker

30th July 2011, 21:16

You're still ignoring the context in which that statement occured though. The Russian state [snip] was actively aiding the counter-revolution by sending arms to Ataturk who used them to massacre Turkish left communists.

I think that you (and Goldner) ignore the context--the context in which the debacle with Turkey happened. Addressing that whole document is not something I can do off the top of my head, but a few things are clear:
* Sending Radek meant that Lenin and Trotsky felt like they just didn't have any else more reliable to send.
* What happened was in many aspects and perhaps the most important aspects inexcusable.
* This is partly due to the failure of the Comintern to "internationalize" the perspective of permanent revolution, which Trotsky only did a few years later under the impetus of enormous class struggle in China.
* Other keys to the context are that Marxists learn from the experience of class struggle--no one had yet to internationalize the perspective of permanent revolution and that's partly because of the level of class struggle in such countries at that time--and given that one of the best positioned to do it (Trotsky) was consumed with urgent tasks. The workers in China showed their capability to lead society in revolution in action before anyone recognized it in theory.
* There is no evidence that the Soviet policy to Turkey was a worked out political position on the part of the Bolshevik leadership, namely Lenin and Trotsky.

And the final point is the key point in this debate on political perspectives. In the case of China years later, Stalin and his supporters wrote documents in defense of their political position, in response to the documents from Trotsky and his supporters in defense of theirs, all in the context of enormous workers' struggles in China. Where is one such document from Lenin or Trotsky or such that works out a political and theoretical defense of their position on Turkey? There isn't one--because it was a fucked up policy decided upon in the course of a civil war that they couldn't hit "pause", stop and debate the issue but had to make a decision, and yes, they made a wrong decision, and made many other wrong decisions.

Where is your evidence that it was a worked out political position that formed the seeds of a tendency?

Further, on the particular point we're debating, how does the context of Turkey help interpret Trotsky's position on Afghanistan, etc.--which was not to send arms to suppress an uprising, but based on the assumption, that if there were an uprising, the Soviets would support it arms in hand? Explain how the context of Turkey changes my explication of Trotsky's quote.

In particular, the idea that the world situation was still revolutionary, and all that was needed to do was to create a new Fourth International, even on an opportunist basis, and without the necessary work of poltiical clarification, was profoundly mistaken. [snip] The political clarification could therefore, and in actual fact did not, come from the Trotskyist Opposition, but from the work of the International Communist Left, the political descendants of Bordiga's (And not Gramsci, Tasca or Togliatti's) PCd'I.

I've never looked into Bordiga's tendency much, because whenever I did, I found nothing to motivate me to study further. Point me to the documents that perform the necessary political clarification that the Trotskyists did not. And specifically, what was the opportunist basis of founding the Fourth International in 1938?

Zanthorus

30th July 2011, 21:57

There is no evidence that the Soviet policy to Turkey was a worked out political position on the part of the Bolshevik leadership, namely Lenin and Trotsky.

I will grant that there was never any theoretical defence of the policy of subordination of the world revolution to the interests of the Russian state in Lenin or Trotsky. Having said that, I think this is irrelevant to my point. Which was that consciously not there was already a tendency to subordinate the class struggle to Russian national interests. The further evidence is the supression of strikes in Moscow, the rebellion in Kronstadt, and the drive of the Comintern to create 'mass' parties by absorbing social-democratic and other politically inexperienced elements, with the concomitant slogan of the 'workers' and peasants' government', which if it had ever been put into practice would have meant communists taking up governing positions in a capitalist state - the popular front policy in embryo.

I've never looked into Bordiga's tendency much, because whenever I did, I found nothing to motivate me to study further.

That's a shame, I think the Italian Communist Left represented everything that was revolutionary about the Communist International but obviously that is open for debate.

Point me to the documents that perform the necessary political clarification that the Trotskyists did not.

First of all there is the Lyons theses, of which Trotsky himself remarked that "it is one of the best documents published by the international opposition, which preserves its significance in many things to this very day." (Letter to the Italian Left Communists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1929/09/ital-lc.htm)):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1926/lyons-theses.htm

Here is the text of Bordiga's intervention at the sixth enlarged executive of the Comintern in the same year:

http://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/26EnlCCI.htm

Bilan (Journal of the Fraction which was originally supposed to be published jointly by the Italian, French and Belgian Left Oppositionist groups) on the Popular Front in Spain:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2547
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/006_bilan_36_dont_betray.html

And on the opportunist foundations of Trotskyism and the Fourth International:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2517

And specifically, what was the opportunist basis of founding the Fourth International in 1938?

The absence of a revolutionary situation and entryism into the social-democratic parties were the two main issues.

RedTrackWorker

30th July 2011, 22:38

Geiseric

31st July 2011, 02:58

Commissar Rykov

31st July 2011, 04:40

Comrade Rykov, Didn't mean to offend you, but I read the thing about the church, and interpreted it as something more than he allowed religeon, I read it as a symbolic extension of the mind control the Tsars had over the population. it is hardly my first critique, just one I've never heard an attempt of justification by Stalinists.

And you are right it seems he allowed the church to return for Nationalist reasons and not for any sake of "freedom." Don't worry Comrade Barrett you didn't offend me at all I was merely suggesting that him reinstating Czarist Institutions like the Russian Orthodox Church wouldn't have been my first complaint against Stalin.;)

A Marxist Historian

31st July 2011, 06:24

I will grant that there was never any theoretical defence of the policy of subordination of the world revolution to the interests of the Russian state in Lenin or Trotsky. Having said that, I think this is irrelevant to my point. Which was that consciously not there was already a tendency to subordinate the class struggle to Russian national interests. The further evidence is the supression of strikes in Moscow, the rebellion in Kronstadt, and the drive of the Comintern to create 'mass' parties by absorbing social-democratic and other politically inexperienced elements, with the concomitant slogan of the 'workers' and peasants' government', which if it had ever been put into practice would have meant communists taking up governing positions in a capitalist state - the popular front policy in embryo.

That's a shame, I think the Italian Communist Left represented everything that was revolutionary about the Communist International but obviously that is open for debate.

First of all there is the Lyons theses, of which Trotsky himself remarked that "it is one of the best documents published by the international opposition, which preserves its significance in many things to this very day." (Letter to the Italian Left Communists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1929/09/ital-lc.htm)):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1926/lyons-theses.htm

Here is the text of Bordiga's intervention at the sixth enlarged executive of the Comintern in the same year:

http://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/26EnlCCI.htm

Bilan (Journal of the Fraction which was originally supposed to be published jointly by the Italian, French and Belgian Left Oppositionist groups) on the Popular Front in Spain:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2547
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/006_bilan_36_dont_betray.html

And on the opportunist foundations of Trotskyism and the Fourth International:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2517

The absence of a revolutionary situation and entryism into the social-democratic parties were the two main issues.

The situation not revolutionary in 1938, with the world about to plunge into a Second World War which would destroy much of the world and generate revolutionary explosions everywhere, from Italy to China? Just five-six years after the FI was founded, Mussolini and his mistress were hung by their heels by Spanish partisans. The ultra-tiny band of Italian Trotskyists were able to involve themselves in the mass revolt, and win a following. Did the Bordigists? Not as far as I have heard.

I think opposing entryism into the social democratic parties in the mid '30s, which responded to the treacherous collapse of the Socialist parties by for a while at least moving dramatically to the left, was sectarian.

In Spain, the Spanish Socialist Party moved dramatically to the left, and its youth group, many of whom were *extremely* interested in Trotskyism, ended up leaving the SP for the Spanish Communist Party. And the leader of the Spanish SP was running around calling himself the "Spanish Lenin."

In the United States, the US Socialist Party officially came out for the dictatorship of the proletariat, thereby putting it to the left of most Revleft posters.

Ignoring that and plunging into total irrelevancy like Bordiga did would have been a great mistake.

As for Kronstadt etc., well, my opinion is that the suppression of a petty bourgeois reactionary sailors revolt by the vanguard of the proletariat was a vital and important chapter of the class struggle.

As for the strikes by Moscow workers, firstly striking for more money and freedom of trade while the economy was collapsing, industry was nonfunctional and the country was on the edge of starvation was not exactly the vanguard of the class struggle. And secondly, the strikes *stopped* as soon as the Kronstadt revolt broke out, as the workers in Petrograd knew what that meant.

The workers wanted nothing to do with the Kronstadt movement, and the Mensheviks leading the strike movement, who believed the solution to Russia's problems was restoring capitalism, heavily emphasized to the workers following them that they had nothing to do with Kronstadt.

On government slogans, the Bolshevik revolution was a workers and peasants revolt, and the Bolshevik-Left SR coalition of the first months can reasonably be described as a workers and peasants government.

It is true that much opportunist misuse was made by such formulas in the Comintern by Zinoviev in particular, and Trotsky was not perhaps totally immune to that. His failure to oppose a Communist-Left Socialist coalition government in Saxony in 1923 was an error. The Spartacists made a very good critique of the Comintern waverings and misuse of the "workers government" slogan, especially in Germany.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/esp/56/germany1923.html

It would not surprise me to find out that Bordiga may have been clearer than Trotsky on this particular question. Trotsky did try to find a common language with them, and praised some of their statements. But Trotsky knew how to learn from his mistakes, whereas the Bordigists, as Trotsky I believe once put it, had "learned nothing and forgotten nothing."

-M.H.-

PS: Check out Bordiga's position on the Kronstadt rebellion and Menshevik-led strikes in Russia. If it was any different from Trotsky's at the time, which I doubt, it would likely have been thinking that the Bolsheviks were too soft. Perhaps he changed that in his old age, but that simply would have been opportunism on his part.

black magick hustla

31st July 2011, 07:16

The situation not revolutionary in 1938, with the world about to plunge into a Second World War which would destroy much of the world and generate revolutionary explosions everywhere, from Italy to China? Just five-six years after the FI was founded, Mussolini and his mistress were hung by their heels by Spanish partisans. The ultra-tiny band of Italian Trotskyists were able to involve themselves in the mass revolt, and win a following. Did the Bordigists? Not as far as I have heard.

dawg, if anything that only said that the working class was weak enough to be rallied in the worst inter-imperialist conflict of the history of capitalism without any significant element of it opposing the war on internationalist grounds. the counterrevolution was so steep that by that time all the comintern parties were lead by fucking moscow bootlickers. who could imagine french communists singing the "marseillase" when workers have no country. there was no "revolutionary" situation, what there was was a pile of corpses and a retreat of working class militancy that did not emerge until the 70s.

A Marxist Historian

1st August 2011, 04:21

dawg, if anything that only said that the working class was weak enough to be rallied in the worst inter-imperialist conflict of the history of capitalism without any significant element of it opposing the war on internationalist grounds. the counterrevolution was so steep that by that time all the comintern parties were lead by fucking moscow bootlickers. who could imagine french communists singing the "marseillase" when workers have no country. there was no "revolutionary" situation, what there was was a pile of corpses and a retreat of working class militancy that did not emerge until the 70s.

Forming a revolutionary party *during* a revolutionary situation is too damn late. A day late and a dollar short, as the saying goes. And a revolutionary party is ultimately an international party or not really a revolutionary party at all.

You want to form one beforehand. And it was pretty obvious to any revolutionary that when world war broke out, as it inevitably would, WWII would lead to revolution just as WWI did. And that is exactly what happened.

Apparently you're not familiar with what happened after WWII ended, with revolution breaking out first all over Europe and then not too much later the whole colonial world. Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, China, Korea, Vietnam. Even France pretty much. The Japanese CP, for example, going from a group smaller than the Spartacist League to the mass party of the working class with hundreds of thousands of members, practically overnight. And by the end of the 1950s, the old European colonial empires were largely gone, as colonial revolutions threw off the old shackles.

Made Portugal or what have you in the 1970s look like no big deal.

In fact, you always want to have a revolutionary party, can't leave home without one. If one does not exist, you form one ASAP. Right now unfortunately ASAP could be a while, such is life.

In 1938 it was possible, exactly because the Trotskyists had *gone through* the French turn thing the Bordigists hated, and some of the best revolutionary Socialist youth had been recruited by the Trotskyists in the process. But in any case it was obvious to everybody by then that *nobody else* except the Trotskyists were revolutionaries, with the Stalinist doing what you describe, left Social Democracy having disappeared, the anarchists having flopped in Spain, and the centrist London Bureau falling apart, with its most important section, the POUM, clearly a failure in Spain too. And hardly anybody outside of Italy was even aware of the Bordigists.

So the Trotskyists had just barely enough forces to form a more or less functioning international party, and all competitors had discredited themselves sufficiently that the claim to form the new world revolutionary party was credible.

Waiting one second after that point would have been disastrous in retrospect, as trying to do so during WWII would have been totally impossible, for practical reasons.

-M.H.-