Results and Prospects (Study Guide)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The following is a study guide to Leon Trotsky’s Results and Prospects (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm) which I have made myself. As always if while reading the text you find any mistakes please comment below. This guide is for the common use and may be reproduced freely.For ease of access each chapter consists of one post.


~ ~ ~



Chapter One: The Peculiarities of Russian Historical Development

Q1: What does Trotsky mean when he says, “Marxism teaches that the development of the forces of production determines the social-historical process.”?

A1: When comrade Trotsky says this he means the development of the labor force will determine the historical development of the nation, in what direct the nation leans and what kind of rulers and policies will inevitably result from this development. Under different conditions the working classes (“Forces of production”) will respond differently and embrace different ideologies and courses for their home.

Q2: What are the “…fundamental propositions of social development… formulated by Adam Smith.”?

A2: To quote Trotsky at length:

“Estate and class differentiation, which is determined by the development of the division of labour and the creation of more specialized social functions, presupposes that the part of the population employed on immediate material production produces a surplus over and above its own consumption: it is only by alienating this surplus that non-producing classes can arise and take shape. Furthermore, the division of labour among the producing classes themselves is possible only at a certain degree of development of agriculture, capable of ensuring the supply of agricultural produce to the non-agricultural population.”

These above mentioned phenomena are the Fundamental Propositions of Social Development.

Q3: What caused Russia’s slow pace of economic development and what were the results of this impairment?

A3: Simply put Russia’s retarded economic development was a direct result from the unfavorable geography as well as the sparse population during the beginning of this process. The natural result from this hampered growth was that the class formations succumb to primitiveness (I.E the need to play “catch up” to their more advanced neighbors).

Q4: What was the end-result when the economically backward Russian state encountered the highly advanced apparatuses of their neighbors?

A4: The only two options which could have resulted in this situation were that the Russian state fell prey to their neighbors influence or that the Russian state was to absorb, and overtake their neighbors thereby growing substantially. Since at this moment in time the Russian state was developed to the point where a takeover was impossible the latter happened with the Russian Economy growing by leaps and bounds. It is of importance to note that this pressure exerted on them was the sole “external” force in the unusual development.

Q5: The external pressure for Russia to develop was great yet in what way was the infant Russian state able to survive without being overtaken?

A5: In the words of Trotsky, “In their mutual struggle for existence, these states depended upon more or less identical economic bases and therefore the development of their state organizations was not subject to such powerful external pressure.” So it is now we see that it is more akin to a shared struggle for advancement than a lone free for all. It is also here which we see the base for future economic conflict.

Q6What forces caused the Russian state to subvert its own foundation and what were the results of this subversion?

A6: The pressure of Western Europe was the primary cause for Russia’s militarization as well as the reason for the state’s ensuing campaign aimed at “swallowing up an inordinately large part of the surplus produce.” This as well as “The State pounced upon the ‘necessary product’ of the farmer, deprived him of his livelihood, caused him to flee from the land upon which he had not even had time to settle – and thus hampered the growth of the population and the development of the productive forces.” Such actions ultimately undermined the bases of production for which it depended.

Q7: Though they initially undermined their own economic base in what ways did the burgeoning Russian state compensate?

A7: In order to compensate for the draining of its base the rising state encouraged a series of “hierarchical organization of estates.” This organization was subject to “specialized financial and military interests.” Such interests strove to use the state to consolidate their own “estate privilege” (a perk which only that estate controlled). To this degree the state obliged them and guided this development along lines which were favorable to them.

Q8: How was the Russian state’s weakness shown in their relationship with the estates?

A8: An estate cannot be formed by law or decree but rather through natural economic development. Though the state, with the vast resources at its disposal, can assist in this process, the Russian state, though in need of the benefits provided by estate organization, found itself unable to assist greatly as beforehand they had drained away so much in their previously growth campaign.

It is here which we see the Russian state attempting to force social development (“social differentiation”) on a primitive basis. However in using brute power the state reveals the desire for it to direct development along friendly lines. This way we see not only the primitiveness of Russian social-structure, but also of why capitalism, the rising force of great economic development, “…seemed to be an offspring of the state.” The state, in its haste to break free of their primitive character encouraged big capital to pour in.

Q9: In what manner was Russia “…compelled to set up factories, organize navigation schools, [and] publish textbooks on fortification…”?

A9: Because trade with foreign countries were poor and Russia still relied primarily on a natural-economy (one based on what was within Russia’s borders) the relations Russia had with other countries were that only of the state. This resulted in economic competition. As a matter of necessity to survive the potential assault of better armed neighbors Russia was compelled to militarize.

Q10: During this time of crucial development how did the natural-economy react?

A10: At this moment in history the natural-economy reacted “…only to those measures of the Government which corresponded to its development and only to the extent that they corresponded to it.” This is to say that the national economy was gradually advancing towards a money-economy platform.

Q11: Why did the Russian government enact the developmental polices they did?

A11: Though the government set up factories and various industrial institutions this was not done in order to develop the industrial forces, but rather, it was done purely to receive fiscal and military returns.


Q12: Trotsky write, “At the moment when developing bourgeois society began to feel a need for the political institutions of the West, the autocracy proved to be armed with all the material might of the European States.” What were these “material might”?

A12: First and foremost this was a centralized bureaucracy which rested on an enormous military base. This institution was capable of repressing the citizenry if revolts in reaction to the decisions made by the rulers occurred.


Q13: It is normal to assume that because of the might of Russian military, financial, and political absolutism, any revolution would be impossible. Yet, as Trotsky write, “…in reality just the opposite proved to be the case.” Why is this so?

A13: This is because “The more a government is centralized and the more independent it is of society, the sooner it becomes an autocratic organization standing above society.” The sooner this happens the sooner the people begin to become agitated. Agitation leads to unrest so it is a natural reaction for the ruling body to repress this uprising. However in repressing this discontent the ruling power has revealed the ultimate truth that when such happens the only way out for the people is precisely revolution; for otherwise, the might of the army and state will continue to oppress.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Two: The Towns and Capital

Q14: In the early 1800’s the growth of urban Russia was insignificant to the whole of the population’s total but by 1897 this had changed, how had it changed?

A14: Numbers reveal that during the first quarter of the 18th century the urban population numbered around three percent of the total population. However, by the later part of the century this same number had sky rocketed to thirteen percent, or over sixteen million persons.

Q15: The drastic increase in the number of people living in urban areas, however, is not the only factor which was fundamentally changed, however. What was this second change which benefited the state in manners which was useful to the new bourgeoisie?

A15: Under the Old Russian culture towns were places of military and administrative importance which helped in ruling class in maintaining power but little else. Under the new economic form towns have thus become “centers of economic and industrial life.” Such an increase in trade while also preserving their military strongholds could only be seen as a boon.

Q16: Though these towns were centers of new economic life they still played only the role of consumer, where then were the manufactory jobs and crafts?

A16: As odd as it sounds the manufactory occupations were located in the countryside. These positions, because of low economic level and influence from the state, “did not permit of any accumulation of wealth or social division of labour…” Which “Owing to these factors, manufacturing industry was never separated from agriculture and was not concentrated in the towns, but remained in the countryside as an occupation auxiliary to agriculture.” This resulted in the shared route of Russia’s neighbors when capitalism began to develop thus making Russian development on par with their neighbors without any interference from them in any direct way.

Q17: After capitalism began to promote development, what was the result of this productivity?

A17: As in any developing capitalist society this meant a social division of labor. However when this growth was snared by the capitalist class of neighboring nations the resulting effect was that the handicraftsmen who entered the guild en mass had little time to grow and eventually was frozen out of social life thus influencing the October Revolution by lack of their participation.

Q18: What is the nucleus for the modern industrial town?

A18: The large scale factory system (an essential feature of capitalism).

Q19: How does this nucleus affect the extraction of natural resources?

A19: Though it is important to mention that the railroad system is important to the growth of towns and countries the factory system is still the heart. When this heart is properly operating the extraction of natural resources increases on par with the industrial jobs being created (at least in its initial state). This, in turn, is vital in forming the modern working class.

Q20: How does the growth of the factory system “also cuts the ground from under the feet of bourgeois democracy”?

A20: Bourgeois democracy is given a direct challenge in stature because with the growth of the factory system also comes the growth of the proletariat and revolutionary upswing; which, in turn, eventually leads to the destruction of bourgeois rule and the creation of working class democracy. This growth also is done in greater numbers than what the bourgeoisie finds as its support (petty-bourgeoisie, shopkeepers, craftsmen, etc).

Q21: In what way did the Russian proletariat find its political role greatly disproportionately?

A21: Since the creation of the Russian working class was in large part financed by foreign capital this growth outpaced the development of Russian bourgeois liberalism which had to develop on its own without aid from foreign capital.

Q22: How did capitalism conquer Russia and what was the reservoir of labor-power?

A22: As previously said capitalism developed in Russia thanks in part due to the influx of foreign capital. Taken to its logical conclusion we can say that the whole of Western Europe used its cultural force to ripen the Russian stage and allow bourgeois ideas to take hold. But like any capitalist country there always needs to be a pool of labor to call upon in times of emergency, Russia was no stranger to this and kept “…the helpless village craftsman or the wretched town craftsman, and it had the half-beggared peasantry as a reservoir of labour-power.” As expected this pool would remain consistent for a long time hereafter.

Q23: How did foreign capital infiltrate the Russian economy?

A23: Through foreign loans and money payments, which returned to Russia in the form of industrial-capital aimed at natural resource extraction, the bankers of foreign lands greedily sought to influence and control the Absolutism of the Russian Tsars thereby maintaining a stronghold for its uninterrupted growth.

Q24: How did Russian Absolutism develop?

A24: Russian Absolutism manifested under immense pressure from Western European states. With the influx of their capital coupled with the great payments Russia was forced to repay upon borrowing large sums of money to enhance their own development, the Russian mode of government copied wholesale the methods of government and administration. This is important to note as had Russia developed on its own, without outside assistance, these milestones of development would not have occurred for some time more, especially when Russian towns proved to be of little economic help.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Three: 1789-1848-1905

Q25: What two ways can revolution be attained?

A25: Trotsky writes…

“Revolution can be achieved either by a nation gathering itself together like a lion preparing to spring, or by a nation in the process of struggle becoming conclusively divided in order to free the best part of itself for the execution of those tasks which the nation as a whole is unable to carry out. These are two opposite sets of historical conditions, which in their pure form are, of course, possible only in logical contraposition.”

This means that revolution-socialist or otherwise-can develop out of natural class struggle or a class collaborationist policy of the people rising against despotism. To this end Trotsky describes a “middle course” as the worse possible result as no satisfactory conclusion is determined.

Q26: During this chapter the experiences of the Great French Revolution of 1848 serves as his inspirational source: in what ways was this revolution a national revolution?

A26: The answer to this question lies in the revolution’s driving force: the bourgeoisie. In any nation the capitalist class always strives to forge a national identity. This is because such a course strengthens their class position. To use a example from Trotsky’s example, “The bourgeoisie, consistently, in all its factions, regarded itself as the leader of the nation, rallied the masses to the struggle, gave them slogans and dictated their fighting tactics…” which led to “…Democracy [binding] the nation together with a political ideology.” Such is the primary characteristics of a national revolution.

Q27: In 1848 what role did the bourgeoisie have in revolution?

A27: In comparison to the frenzied efforts of Jacobinism the bourgeoisie, in comparison, where rolling back. Because the masses were pressing forward toward goals which the capitalists were opposed to they resorted to introducing into the old system power sharing devices meant to divert energy away from proletarian uprisings. This is exemplified when the German bourgeoisie disassociated itself from revolution and democratic institutions.

Q28: List the weaknesses of each class during this pivotal moment in history and the effects of such weakness.

A28: The “Urban Petty-Bourgeoisie” were unable to be the revolutionary class for they were still enamored in the feudal relations of the past and in utter subservience to the large bourgeoisie. The peasantry, meanwhile, was unorganized and chained to politically dependence. Lack of education wasn’t helping either. The Intellectual Democrats, busy with taking up several positions and then abandoning those positions, were too divided to become much of anything. All of this while the proletariat was not sufficiently developed in order to bring about revolution; they lacked organization, experience as well as knowledge. To bring this concept to the forefront Trotsky elaborates with a story in which because of this lack of development the working class was misled by the student intellectuals and missed an opportunity to take power. It was this event in Vienna that led Lassalle to the conclusion that revolutions could only be brought forward by class struggle

Q29: How are the revolutions of 1906 (Russia) and 1848 (Vienna) different?

A29: Quoting Trotsky…

“The Russian working class of 1906 in no way resembles the workers of Vienna of 1848. The best evidence of this is the springing up all over Russia of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. These were not previously-prepared conspirative organizations for the purpose of seizure of power by the workers at the moment of revolt. No, these were organs created in a planned way by the masses themselves for the purpose of co-ordinating their revolutionary struggle. And these Soviets, elected by the masses and responsible to the masses, are unquestionably democratic institutions, conducting a most determined class policy in the spirit of revolutionary socialism.” (sic)
Comrade Trotsky later goes on to say that the Militia concept is also a great different in that in general the bourgeoisie have used militias only to suppress the working class while during the Russian revolution the militia was used and organized by the working class as a means of seizing power.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Four: Revolution and the Proletariat

Q30: In this chapter Trotsky says that the state is not an end in itself and that it is more like a machine; what are this machine’s component parts?

A30: Early one he says, “The driving force of the State is class interest; its motor mechanism is agitation, the press, church and school propaganda, parties, street meetings, petitions and revolts.” With its other parts, such as “The transmitting mechanism is the legislative organization of caste, dynastic, estate or class interests represented as the will of God (absolutism) or the will of the nation (parliamentarism).” With the last and final part being “…the executive mechanism is the administration, with its police, the courts, with their prisons, and the army.” It is in this manner that the state is akin to a machine, never resting in its quest to quell class conflict.

Q31: Does the victory of the working class depend on the maturity of the forces of production, why or why not?

A31: Though it is in some ways a phenomena the working class needs not to be chained to how advanced the forces of production are. This is because “…power will pass into the hands of the working class… directly not upon the level attained by the productive forces” Argues Trotsky “but upon relations in the class struggle, upon the international situation, and, finally, upon a number of subjective factors: the traditions, the initiative and the readiness to fight of the workers.” This is shown clearly in Tsarist Russia where though the population was much larger it was dwarfed by the more industrialized and greatly smaller, population of the United States.

Q32: How does the fighting spirit and cultural significance of the proletariat compensate for its lack of numbers?

A32: By sheer militancy and “Between the productive forces of a country and the political strength of its classes there cut across at any given moment various social and political factors of a national and international character,” Which enables “…these displace and even sometimes completely alter the political expression of economic relations.” This is followed up by a more through analysis in the next paragraph which comrade Trotsky quotes Kautsky at length in establishing the duel states of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in their scramble for power. This stands firmly in line with previous chapters uncovering of how weak the native Russian bourgeoisie was in comparison to the strength of the working class; naturally such an outcome would naturally favor a working class dictatorship despite its lack of numbers in comparison to the more advanced capitalist economies of Western Europe.

Q33: How does this phenomena of the weaker but more militant working class not contradict Marxist modes of examination?

A33: This is revealed thanks in part to Kautsky who wrote, “The fact that this Russia is the most backward of the large states of the capitalist world would appear”, observes Kautsky, “to contradict the materialist conception of history… but really”, he goes on to say, “this only contradicts the materialist conception of history as it is depicted by our opponents and critics” Which view it “…not as a method of investigation but merely as a ready-made stereotype.” In conclusion, it must be remembered that replacing “…independent analysis of social relations by deductions from texts, selected to serve every occasion in life…” is contradictory to Marxist practice.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Five: The Proletariat in Power and the Peasantry

Q34: When talking of a workers government what is actually described?

A34: Often times in leftist discourse the term workers state and workers government are used interchangeably yet the truth is that both are different. In regards to a workers government the difference is that representatives of non-proletarian interests are included in the decision making process. This means the urban-petty-bourgeoisie as well as the peasantry.

Q35: Here Trotsky talks about class dominance, what does he mean when he talks of this?

A35: He is referring to the proper methods in which proletarians may participate in parliamentary bodies. Here he says that only when they dominate through their willpower is it appropriate. This means the inclusions of other forces which aim to expand the power base of the revolution (not necessarily the socialist aspects but the revolution in general). Once this consolidation has been made, and the working class has enforced its will on the other parties, has class dominance been fortified.

Q36: The peasantry consist of a major force in the promulgation of the revolution yet if the forces of the bourgeoisie entrench themselves before the working class they can divert their energy and render them useless in the struggle, how?

A36: Simply by establishing a constitutional order which solves the basest problems present in the peasants’ lives can the bourgeoisie render them useless. Once this happens, the peasantry loses all interests in the activity of the urban proletariat.

Q37: What is the proletariat’s outlook in regard to the peasantry?

A37: The primary mission of the proletariat is to keep peasantry in the political movement and away from bourgeois agendas. This means…
“The proletariat in power will stand before the peasants as the class which has emancipated it. The domination of the proletariat will mean not only democratic equality, free self-government, the transference of the whole burden of taxation to the rich classes, the dissolution of the standing army in the armed people and the abolition of compulsory church imposts, but also recognition of all revolutionary changes (expropriations) in land relationships carried out by the peasants.”

This translates to a “democratic dress” for the proletariat, one which fully garners the peasants support for the workers democracy. Under such an arrangement where a country has yet to be heavily industrialized the agricultural support given by the peasantry, as well as their imminent inclusion into proletarian ranks, would clear a great burden off of the working class’s shoulders.

Q38: Is it than possible for the Peasantry to take up independent roles?

A38: No, it is not possible. As Trotsky wrote, “The history of capitalism is the history of the subordination of the country to the town.” This means “…the countryside itself never produced a class which could undertake the revolutionary task of abolishing feudalism.” Because “The town, which subordinated agriculture to capital, produced a revolutionary force which took political hegemony over the countryside into its hands and spread revolution in state and property relations into the countryside.” This means that when the bourgeoisie have been trounced and are forced to surrender the revolutionary position to the proletariat “In such a situation… nothing remains for the peasantry to do but to rally to the regime of workers’ democracy.” Such a process renders it completely infeasible for the peasantry to take power into their hands.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Six: The Proletarian Regime

Q39: As the proletariat enters a radical government and gains power what are the first measures which it takes in securing its class position?

A39: The list is lengthy but it generally goes like this:

1. “The first measures of the proletariat, cleansing the Augean stables of the old regime and driving out its inmates…” This means opening up the prisons and freeing inmates who were unjustly convicted of “crimes” under the old order. It has a double meaning in cleansing the government of corrupt officials.

2. “This political cleansing will be supplemented by a democratic reorganization of all social and state relations. The workers’ government will be obliged… to intervene decisively in all relationships and events ...” Such means that whenever the working class is being attacked the revolutionary proletariat will take decisive action and side with the workers no matter where said workers are.

3. “Its first task will have to be the dismissal from the army and administration of all those who are stained with the blood of the people, and the cashiering or disbandment of the regiments which have most sullied themselves with crimes against the people.” This passage is self-explanatory but means that those officers and corps in the military that assaulted the working class during the previous regime will be punished with the full force of the revolutionary democratic law. As comrade Trotsky says such will have to be done within the first days of the revolution

4. The finale objective to be tackled by a revolutionary proletarian government will be workers control, working day length, unemployment, as well as Agrarian concerns.

Q40: Trotsky writes, “The proletariat will find itself compelled to carry the class struggle into the villages”. Why so?

A40: As demonstrated from the proletariat’s previous efforts when attaining power there will be much political reforms and measures to undertake. Though many of these measures, abolishing feudalism, a progressive income tax, will be met with cheers, some will be met with resistance. One such measure is enacting laws which protect the agricultural proletariat. Because this proletariat is under assault from the agricultural bourgeoisie and finds itself at the behest of the urban-proletariat in the class struggle (who wishes it to join forces), the revolutionary proletariat in power finds itself unable to anything but intensify the class struggle between the rural poor and rich. In doing so the revolutionary government is also taking a practical step in solving the Agrarian question.

Q41: What are the two main features of proletarian policy which will meet the most resistance?

A41: The two main policies of proletarian policy which will most are resisted by the reactionary hordes are: Collectivism and Internationalism. In regards to the Peasantry Trotsky says, “The primitiveness and petty-bourgeois character of the peasantry, its limited rural outlook, its isolation from world-political ties and allegiances, will create terrible difficulties for the consolidation of the revolutionary policy of the proletariat in power.” Such difficulties will only be overcome after fierce struggle.

Q42: Why is the division of a revolutionary programme into maximum and minimum segments “of tremendous importance” when the capitalist class reigns in government?

A42: Comrade Trotsky clears this up rather well when he writes…
“The very fact of the bourgeoisie being in power drives out of our minimum programme all demands which are incompatible with private property in the means of production. Such demands form the content of a socialist revolution and presuppose a proletarian dictatorship.”
[…]
“Immediately, however, that power is transferred into the hands of a revolutionary government with a socialist majority, the division of our programme into maximum and minimum loses all significance, both in principle and in immediate practice. A proletarian government under no circumstances can confine itself within such limits.”

The reason for this is because different polices operate differently under varying governments of varying agendas. Trotsky highlights this by using the example of shortening the work day; he explains how under a capitalist government it would be used to dispel revolutionary upsurges while under a socialist government it would to factory expropriation and socialization.

Q43: Why is factory communalization the only acceptable path forward when class struggle reaches a zenith?

A43: During the course of revolution when radical governments enact measures which threaten the bourgeoisie’s immediate interests they respond by locking out and shutting down the factories; they do this because they are able to live while the factories are closed much longer than the working class is able to. The only solution to this is decisive action on part of the government. Trotsky outlines:

“But if the government undertakes to maintain the unemployed… this would mean an immediate and quite substantial shift of economic power to the side of the proletariat. The capitalists… always relied upon the existence of a reserve army of labour, would feel themselves economically powerless while the revolutionary government, at the same time, doomed them to political impotence.”

Continuing onwards Trotsky says,

“In undertaking the maintenance of the unemployed, the government thereby undertakes the maintenance of strikers. If it does not do that, it immediately and irrevocably undermines the basis of its own existence.”
Such is what leads the capitalists to perform the lockouts and such is why the revolutionary government has no choice but to communalize the factories and farms (as similar events happen when land is expropriated).

Q44: Why can’t social-democrats enter a revolutionary government?

A44: This is due to the social-democratic tendency to make promises to the working class while voicing support for bourgeois measures. “The very fact of the proletariat’s representatives entering the government, not as powerless hostages, but as the leading force, destroys the border-line between maximum and minimum programme; that is to say, it places collectivism on the order of the day.” Social-democracy rejects collectivism and hence cannot be suitable material for such a government.

Q45: Under such conditions can any special form of proletarian dictatorship be formed?

A45: Trotsky explains that it is impossible for any special form of the proletarian dictatorship to consolidate itself as “The working class cannot preserve the democratic character of its dictatorship without refraining from overstepping the limits of its democratic programme.” This translates to a compete break with all exploiting classes and the full implementation of proletarian policy.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Seven: The Pre-Requisites of Socialism

Q46: Rozhkov argued that there must be three pre-requisites before socialism can be ushered in. What are these pre-requisites and why are they wrong?

A46: The first pre-requisite is the economic foundation for the elimination of personal gain, cash, enterprise which is linked to control of large-scale production in all economic sectors, the second sign is the domination of worker co-operations, while the third sign is the psychological base which allows for class consciousness to unite the whole of the masses.

In regards to the first pre-requisite, such is incorrect as Trotsky explains:
“It is rather difficult to find the meaning of this passage. Apparently Rozhkov wishes to say… that modern technique has not yet sufficiently ousted human labour-power from industry and, secondly, that to secure this elimination would require the ‘almost’ complete domination of large state enterprises in all branches of the economy, and therefore the ‘almost’ complete proletarianization of the whole population of the country.”

This is a bourgeois theory in essence because “…there is nothing to prevent us from being logical and imagining a state of affairs in which the whole of production consists of a single automatic mechanism, belonging to a single syndicate and requiring as living labour only a single trained orang-outang.” The workers in such a place would be living at the expense of the state. This belief negates the need for a proletarian dictatorship and revolution and is thus incorrect form of “Marxism.”

The reason why the second pre-requisite is incorrect lies in the fallacy of theoretical guessing.

“The co-operatives cannot take the lead in industrial progress, not because economic development has not gone far enough, but because it has gone too far ahead.” Trotsky continues “Undoubtedly, economic development creates the basis for co-operation, but for what kind of co-operation? For capitalist co-operation, based on wage-labour – every factory shows us a picture of such capitalist co-operation.” This belief supports the concept of such co-operatives becoming so large that they push out their rivals and grow to be able to expropriate the capitalists. Again, no revolution is involved.

The final and third reason comrade Trotsky de-bunks in detail…
“The third pre-requisite is a psychological one: the need for ‘the class-consciousness of the proletariat to have reached such a stage as to unite spiritually the overwhelming majority of the people’. As ‘spiritual unity’, in this instance, must evidently be regarded as meaning conscious socialist solidarity, it follows therefore that Comrade Rozhkov considers that a psychological pre-requisite of socialism is the organization of the ‘overwhelming majority of the population’ within the Social-Democratic Party.” Says Trotsky “Rozhkov evidently assumes therefore that capitalism, throwing the small producers into the ranks of the proletariat, and the mass of the proletarians into the ranks of the reserve army of labour, will create the possibility for Social Democracy spiritually to unite and enlighten the overwhelming majority (90 per cent?) of the people.”

Trotsky finishes this mistaken idea off by saying...

“This is as impossible of realization in the world of capitalist barbarism as the domination of co-operatives in the realm of capitalist competition. But if this were realizable, then of course, the consciously and spiritually united ‘overwhelming majority’ of the nation would crush without any difficulty the few magnates of capital and organize socialist economy without revolution or dictatorship.”

In all three pre-requisites we see that neither revolution nor the proletarian dictatorship is possible and so each are incorrect methods for organization and conditions for socialism.

Q47: Though Rozhkov traits have been proven to be incompatible with genuine socialism Trotsky nonetheless says, “…the concentration of production, the development of technique and the growth of consciousness among the masses are essential pre-requisites for socialism.” In what way are these compatible?

A47: Trotsky writes that “these processes take place simultaneously, and not only give an impetus to each other, but also retard and limit each other.” And that “…each of these processes at a higher level demands a certain development of another process at a lower level. But the complete development of each of them is incompatible with the complete development of the others.” So while Rozhkov was incorrect in specific regards he was, inadvertently, correct in the base sense. In this section Trostky explains how though each system, as outlined by Rozhkov, is possible in a utopian theoretical sense, it is not possible in a realist sense. All three pre-requisites, after all, would require uninterrupted development yet this is something which will never happen in the class conflict.

Q48: Define socialism as Trotsky outlines it in this chapter.

A48: To quote his first paragraph in his first bulleted line…

“Socialism is not merely a question of equal distribution but also a question of planned production. Socialism, that is, co-operative production on a large scale, is possible only when the development of productive forces has reached the stage at which large enterprises are more productive than small ones. The more the large enterprises outweigh the smaller, i.e., the more developed technique has become, the more advantageous economically does socialized production become, and, consequently, the higher must the cultural level of the whole population be as a result of equal distribution based upon planned production.”

This view is in line with conventional thinking of the past which viewed collective producing as more efficient than solitary producing. So we see here that Trotsky takes those theories from the past, adds some revolutionary improvement to them, and incorporates them into his own theory.

Q49: What would be the outright result of socialist production?

A49: Generally speaking the result would be an increase in society’s wealth and a drastically shorter work day (as great as half according to the German socialist Atlanticus). This would of course be secondary towards the massive increase in necessary goods demanded by society.

Q50: Though advocates as far back as the 17th century had promoted the idea of a centrally planned economy such visions were never carried out, why?

A50: This is a simple question for any revolutionary to answer: The chief reason as to why these ideas were never put into practice was because there was no force capable of carrying them out. Such reforms rested on the heels of a class which had yet to exist (the proletariat).

Q51: In socio-economic terms the calculations of the German socialist Atlanticus are incorrect, why?

A51: Another simple answer: Atlanticus’s economic calculations began on a base which presumed no class antagonisms. If such a society existed than his scribbling would be more than acceptable. However, in a society where class antagonisms do exist, his writings are little more than wishful dreaming. For in order to carry out the ultimate goal the antagonisms must be overcome, but before they can be overcome they must be recognized.

Q52: What percentage of the population must be proletarian before revolution seems likely?

A52: This is a trick question and one which is impossible to realize. Ignoring that it is impossible to accurately determine at what point revolution becomes likely it is also impossible to determine what constitutes a proletarian and what each person’s class influences the whole of the movement.

Q53: How important are the role of towns in the course of the revolution?

A53: As the towns are the hallmarks of capitalism, the overlords of the peasantry, and the source of great wealth creation, the towns are of great importance to the revolution. As Trotsky explains when he uses Germany as an example…

“When, in Germany, the population of the towns was only 15 per cent of the whole population of the country… there could be no thought of the German towns playing that role in the economic and political life of the country…
The occupied population of Germany in 1895 was 20,500,000 (not including the army, state officials and persons without a definite occupation). Out of this number there were 12,500,000 proletarians (including wage-workers in agriculture, industry, commerce and also domestic service); the number of agricultural and workers being 10,750,000. Many of the remaining 8,000,000 are really also proletarians, such as workers in domestic industries, working members of the family, etc. The number of wage-workers in agriculture taken separately was 5,750,000. The agricultural population composed 36 per cent of the entire population of the country.”

In the following paragraphs Trotsky outlines the statistics of other Western European nations eventually rising to the conclusions that “the growth of industry, the growth of large enterprises, the growth of the towns, and the growth of the proletariat in general and the industrial proletariat in particular – has already prepared the arena not only for the struggle of the proletariat for political power but for the conquest of this power.” Such means that the natural evolution of capitalism sets the stage for the bourgeoisie’s eventual demise.

Q54: Though when attempting to establish a proletarian dictatorship the working class is greatly empowered they are also under several objective factors, what are these forces?

A54: To quote Trotsky the working class encounters “…the policy of the ruling classes and the existing State institutions (such as the army, the class schools, the State church) [as well as] international relations” All of these serve to impound the working class’s efforts while attempting to build their force at the complete conquest of political power.

Q55: What is socialist psychology and how is it built?

A55: This is a tricky question for it has many theories, yet, for convenience I will stick to the most conventional. Simply put socialist psychology is how humanity will act under collectivized society. Unlike some vulgar theorists who believe that the secret to ensuring a successful socialist society lies in making such a psychology existent while capitalism still reigns, the answer to “how it is built” is that is not built: rather, it is something which arises once socialist conditions to life have been realized.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Eight: A Workers Government in Russia and Socialism

Q56: In a revolutionary government the proletariat divides their programme into minimum and maximum sections where the former is what can be accomplished with bourgeois participation while the latter is what can be accomplished after they have won majority control. Yet, when the proletariat comes to power this distinction disappears, why?

A56: This has to do with the class position of the proletariat and its struggle to attain power. Once this happens, as Trotsky explains, it would be unthinkable that the proletariat could fall into any category other than that which is opposed to capital. Even if this position is short lived their relationships with the workers and actions towards the reserve labor army nearly guarantee that the proletariat in power can do nothing but the full force of their programme when possible; their symbiotic relationship with the working masses is simply too great to ignore.

Q57: When the working class comes to power the first question which will need to be solved is the question of land distribution. In Trotsky’s time the suggestion was so-called “black distribution.” Would such a program be suitable to solve the question of private property?

A57: No, such a measure would not go very far in solving the issue of private property. As it was envisioned “black redistribution” was for the equalization of all lands. This meant all lands, whether communal, state, private, peasant or farmer, were placed under state control. Such a radical means so early in the revolutionary’s proletariat’s career would be difficult to carry out as they would face opposition from various parties who only recently came into being property holders. For this reason it would be better to implement gradual expropriation as the development of the rural lands progress.

Q58: When tackling the land issue what should the revolutionary proletariat carry out first?

A58: As comrade Trotsky explains “It is of course understood that the intervention of the proletariat in the organization of agriculture will begin not by binding scattered labourers to scattered patches of land, but with the exploitation of large estates by the State or the communes.” And that “Only when the socialization of production has been placed well on its feet can the process of socialization be advanced further, towards the prohibition of hired labour.” Under such auspices the road to complete socialization will be greatly eased.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Nine: Europe and Revolution

Q59: Trotsky explains how once the Russian revolution has been victorious it would need to spread to the European mainland if it hoped to survive. What method would enable this revolution be spread?

A59: As mysterious as it is, and in opposition to Stalinist claims about use of force, Trotsky, at the time of writing, never theorized an idea for the spreading of the revolution to Russia’s neighbors. He simply claimed that there were many different possible methods.

Q60: To illustrate how national rulers react to revolutions what does Trotsky say about nations entering into war with one another?

A60: Essentially he says that only because of “Only a government which has the backing of the nation whose vital interests are affected, or a government that has lost the ground from under its feet and is inspired by the courage of despair, can send hundreds and thousands of men into battle.” And that “Under modern conditions of political culture, military science, universal suffrage and universal military service, only profound confidence or crazy adventurism can thrust two nations into conflict.” When saying this comrade Trotsky, of course, is referring to two advanced bourgeois countries and not what we are familiar with in the modern day where one industrialized nation will attack a weaker non-industrialized nation.

Revolutions, by their very nature of fundamentally altering a nation’s primary interest, can provoke intervene by hostile others. It is also for this reason that the proletariat must not shy away from such violence.

Q61: Why was the Russian revolution so important to the revolutions of Russia’s Western European neighbors?

A61: In part because it had to do with Russia’s stringent history of submission and integration with their neighbors. Because of Russian capitalism’s development, their large population and territory, their debt and involvement in previous conflicts, the governments which would so be threatened by Russia’s example would be historically enemies of Russia. This would be an inspirational event for the working classes of other nations and be a reason for such classes to rise up and throw off the bourgeois chains of oppression; for at such a point the idea of socialism wasn’t just an idea but a developing reality. Another factor which made revolution in other nations a necessity was that if Russia remained isolated than it would be only a matter of time before Russia’s revolution degenerated into capitalism; just as capitalism is an international system so must socialism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Chapter Ten: The Struggle for Power

Q62: Why was in 1905 a Russian national bourgeois revolution impossible?

A62: Such was impossible precisely because at the time there was no genuinely revolutionary bourgeois force. As Trotsky said “The time for national revolutions has passed – at least for Europe – just as the time for national wars has passed.” It was now Imperialism’s moment in the sun and the conflict between the working class and bourgeoisie to take form.

Q63: What role does the intelligentsia have?

A63: For the bourgeois column “The social significance of the intelligentsia is wholly determined by its functions in organizing capitalist industry and bourgeois public opinion.” While “Its material connection with capitalism has saturated it with imperialist tendencies… We shall hardly increase the ranks of ‘democracy’ by painting-up the character of the intelligentsia.” Though the question of the socialist intelligentsia is slightly different this is an important section as the aforementioned can only contribute towards revolution and not initiate it.

Q64: How does the proletariat attain power?

A64: This question can be answered in a variety of ways but suffice to say...

“The less the proletariat waits upon the appearance of bourgeois democracy, the less it adapts itself to the passivity and limitations of the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry, the more resolute and irreconcilable its fight becomes, the more obvious becomes its preparedness to go to ‘the end’, i.e., to the conquest of power, the greater will be its chances at the decisive moment of carrying with it the non-proletarian masses.”

Thus the higher the opportunity will be that the working class will negate any such “help” from other, reactionary, sources and lean on their own power to disintegrate the military and assume complete political dominance.