Trotsky quote..eludes me

[Brotto Rühle]

I've been looking, but I've given up... it's a quote where Trotsky basically states that the USSR would prove to NOT be a workers state (DWS) if the bureaucracy lasted past 1941 or 2 or something.

Help me out.

[Art Vandelay]

I've been looking, but I've given up... it's a quote where Trotsky basically states that the USSR would prove to NOT be a workers state (DWS) if the bureaucracy lasted past 1941 or 2 or something.

Help me out.

Hmm I don't think I've ever come across such a quote. Have you tried looking in 'The USSR in War'? Its been a while since I've read it, but it would be a good place to check. If you go to MIA, you could just press control + f and search a word or two you know is in the quote. I don't think he says anything like that in the revolution betrayed, I re read that a couple months ago, but my memory isn't always the best so I guess it could be.

e: If you end up finding it, you should send it my way, cause I'd be interested it in proper context.

[Geiseric]

He said the bureaucracy would likely be overthrown due to their role in enabling fascism as well as counter revolutionaries for so long. Also for the obvious stuff they messed up such as collective farming. Khrushchev was also afraid of this which is why he delivered the secret speech.

[Devrim]

I can't remember where it is from, but I do remember the bit you are referring to. I know somebody who will know the source, and if nobody gets it in the next few days, I will ask him.

He basically says that either the Stalinist regime will be overthrown by the Germans, or by the workers themselves. He didn't think the regime was strong enough to manage to defeat the Germans whilst remaining in that form.

Obviously, he was very wrong on this.

Devrim

[Sea]

I know a really good Trotsky quote about how certain parts of the Trotsky haven't stood up straight in a long-ass years.

[Geiseric]

I can't remember where it is from, but I do remember the bit you are referring to. I know somebody who will know the source, and if nobody gets it in the next few days, I will ask him.

He basically says that either the Stalinist regime will be overthrown by the Germans, or by the workers themselves. He didn't think the regime was strong enough to manage to defeat the Germans whilst remaining in that form.

Obviously, he was very wrong on this.

Devrim

Not necessarily, there were chronic strikes inside of the fSU and in the eastern bloc from the end of WW2 onwards. Hungary, Poland, and the rest of the eastern bloc got very cLose to getting rid of Stalinism.

[Red Economist]

had to look it up in 'Main Current of Marxism'; doesn't say anything about 1941/2, so it might be the wrong one.

Can't post links but it's "In Defense of Marxism: The USSR in War (September 1939) See under heading; The Present War and the Fate of Modern Society, 4th and 5th paragraphs


An analogous result might occur in the event that the proletariat of advanced capitalist countries, having conquered power, should prove incapable of holding it and surrender it, as in the USSR, to a privileged bureaucracy. Then we would be compelled to acknowledge that the reason for the bureaucratic relapse is rooted not in the backwardness of the country and not in the imperialist environment but in the congenital incapacity of the proletariat to become a ruling class. Then it would be necessary in retrospect to establish that in its fundamental traits the present USSR was the precursor of a new exploiting régime on an international scale.

We have diverged very far from the terminological controversy over the nomenclature of the Soviet state. But let our critics not protest: only by taking the necessary historical perspective can one provide himself with a correct judgment upon such a question as the replacement of one social régime by another. The historic alternative, carried to the end, is as follows: either the Stalin régime is an abhorrent relapse in the process of transforming bourgeois society into a socialist society, or the Stalin régime is the first stage of a new exploiting society. If the second prognosis proves to be correct, then, of course, the bureaucracy will become a new exploiting class. However onerous the second perspective may be, if the world proletariat should actually prove incapable of fulfilling the mission placed upon it by the course of development, nothing else would remain except openly to recognize that the socialist program based on the internal contradictions of capitalist society, ended as a Utopia. It is self evident that a new “minimum” program would be required for the defense of the interests of the slaves of the totalitarian bureaucratic society.

[Devrim]

Not necessarily, there were chronic strikes inside of the fSU and in the eastern bloc from the end of WW2 onwards. Hungary, Poland, and the rest of the eastern bloc got very cLose to getting rid of Stalinism.

Well firstly the events in Hungary were over a decade over the war, and didn't overthrow the USSR and the rest of the eastern block.

Secondly though that wasn't what he was talking about. When somebody finds the piece, it says that he believes that Stalinism couldn't defeat Germany. It did. He was wrong. He believed that the only way the USSR could win was if it changed its political system. The change in the system was a precondition for the victory for Trotsky. He didn't even conceive that not only could Stalin win but also he would spread his dominance across Central and Eastern Europe.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Stalin nearly lost the war, and Trotsky didn't count on the US sending material aid to Russia. Stalingrad was the only thing that stopped the German advance which had nothing to do with anything Stalin did. Hitler also lost the war for Germany by invading a few months before winter started, instead of starting earlier which was impossible due to the Battle of Britain and operation sea lion (could have the name wrong) starting an un neccessary two front war with England who hardly had a standing army. Lol but do you know what the Molotov ribbentrop pact was? Or how that was the cause for millions of un necessary deaths and the loss of half the red air force?

[Devrim]

Stalin nearly lost the war,

You don't really get this, do you? Marxist analysis is not like being a sports tipster. It doesn't matter that the USSR 'nearly lost' the war. They didn't. They won. It's not like backing somebody to win in the football, and saying that we would have won the title if City just hadn't scored that last minute winner against QPR. Trotsky thought that the USSR in its political situation at the time, would not be able to defeat Germany in the war. He thought this because he believed that what he called the 'bureaucracy' acted as a fetter upon the productive forces which unless it was removed would prevent the USSR from winning.

He wasn't nearly right. He was totally wrong. The USSR came out of the war with the bureaucracy unchallenged and in control of half of Europe.


and Trotsky didn't count on the US sending material aid to Russia.

In which case he had a poor analysis of international relations too.


Stalingrad was the only thing that stopped the German advance which had nothing to do with anything Stalin did.

I really don't think that you understand Trotskyist politics. He didn't think this because he thought that Stalin was a good, or bad, leader, but because of the system that was in place at the USSR at the time, and contrary to Trotsky's view, the Soviet state did manage to defeat the German army at Stalingrad, and then to triumph in the war as a whole.


Hitler also lost the war for Germany by invading a few months before Lol but do you know what the Molotov ribbentrop pact was? Or how that was the cause for millions of un necessary deaths and the loss of half the red air force?

Well yes, of course I do. What I don't understand here is why you think this helps your point whereas in fact it argues directly against what you are putting forward.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Stalinism's impact on the 3rd international and the political failures in compliance with "socialism in one country, " are what led to the isolation of the fsu. Trotsky was wrong about when but correct as to why the SU dissolved.

[Devrim]

Stalinism's impact on the 3rd international and the political failures in compliance with "socialism in one country, " are what led to the isolation of the fsu.

What led to the isolation of the Soviet Union was the failure of the German revolution. Bly the time Stalin came to power the revolutionary moment had passed. It wasn't Stalinism that led to the isolation of the Soviet Union rather than the isolation, which led to Stalinism.


Trotsky was wrong about when but correct as to why the SU dissolved.

Everybody said that the revolution was doomed if it remained isolated. What Trotsky said here was much more specific, and he was utterly wrong about it, utterly.

I don't really understand the need to politically defend things when they see so completely wrong.

Devrim

[Art Vandelay]

What led to the isolation of the Soviet Union was the failure of the German revolution. Bly the time Stalin came to power the revolutionary moment had passed. It wasn't Stalinism that led to the isolation of the Soviet Union rather than the isolation, which led to Stalinism.

I think it was more reciprocal than that. In a sense you are right, that the failure of the revolution to spread was the principle cause of Stalinism, but at the same time Stalinism played a role in the revolution failing to spread. The German revolution was the best opportunity, however I don't think you can discount Spain in 36' as a revolutionary situation. Had the left not pissed it away, the rest of the 20th century would have been much different. The role played by the Stalinists and the anarchists was treasonous.

[Devrim]

I think it was more reciprocal than that. In a sense you are right, that the failure of the revolution to spread was the principle cause of Stalinism, but at the same time Stalinism played a role in the revolution failing to spread. The German revolution was the best opportunity, however I don't think you can discount Spain in 36' as a revolutionary situation. Had the left not pissed it away, the rest of the 20th century would have been much different. The role played by the Stalinists and the anarchists was treasonous.

The role played by the Stalinists and the leadership of the anarchist organisations in Spain was clearly anti-working class. I think though that by 1936 the revolutionary tide had receded, and the working class was clearly no longer in power in Russia. By this point even if the situation in Spain had initiated a new revolutionary wave (and it is a big if), there was no revolution left in Russia to break out of isolation.

Devrim

[Art Vandelay]

The role played by the Stalinists and the leadership of the anarchist organisations in Spain was clearly anti-working class. I think though that by 1936 the revolutionary tide had receded, and the working class was clearly no longer in power in Russia. By this point even if the situation in Spain had initiated a new revolutionary wave (and it is a big if), there was no revolution left in Russia to break out of isolation.

It certainly is a big 'if' and I don't mean to suggest it was a certainty. I'm not much for alternative history, but I think its an interesting thing to ponder. The working class was certainly not in power in the USSR in the 30's, I consider that to be the decade when the counter-revolution finally hammered the last nail in the revolutions coffin, but that's not really the point. Trotsky's defense of the USSR was premised on a defense of its relations of property, what would have been needed was a political rather than social revolution. Had Spain been able to kick start a new revolutionary wave coinciding with WWII, I think the history of Stalinism would be quite different.

[Brotto Rühle]

It certainly is a big 'if' and I don't mean to suggest it was a certainty. I'm not much for alternative history, but I think its an interesting thing to ponder. The working class was certainly not in power in the USSR in the 30's, I consider that to be the decade when the counter-revolution finally hammered the last nail in the revolutions coffin, but that's not really the point. Trotsky's defense of the USSR was premised on a defense of its relations of property, what would have been needed was a political rather than social revolution. Had Spain been able to kick start a new revolutionary wave coinciding with WWII, I think the history of Stalinism would be quite different.

The problem is Trotsky was wrong about the property relations in the USSR. He, like Preobrazhensky, saw them from a purely juridical standpoint. The fact that the former bourgeoisie had lost it's property to "the state", it had lost it's capitalist form. What he doesn't hold, is a Marxian viewpoint on property relations, which is based on alienation. Inherent in this as well, was a view of the state as a neutral entity -- at least after the proletarian revolution.

On the point of the working class having political power, I take the standpoint contrary to even most Marxist-Humanists, that a dotp was never truly concretized.

However, back to my original point...the quote... I vaguely remember it used by Tony Cliff (Yeah, I know), but I could be wrong.

[Art Vandelay]

The problem is Trotsky was wrong about the property relations in the USSR. He, like Preobrazhensky, saw them from a purely juridical standpoint. The fact that the former bourgeoisie had lost it's property to "the state", it had lost it's capitalist form. What he doesn't hold, is a Marxian viewpoint on property relations, which is based on alienation. Inherent in this as well, was a view of the state as a neutral entity -- at least after the proletarian revolution.

I've never heard anyone accuse Trotsky of conceiving of the state as a 'neutral entity' before. Could you elaborate a bit? Cause I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Trotsky's argument, however, was not that since the former bourgeoisie had been disposed, property lost its capitalist form. His argument was that the USSR bore the hallmarks of a society in transition, obviously containing within it, remaining elements of capitalist society.


On the point of the working class having political power, I take the standpoint contrary to even most Marxist-Humanists, that a dotp was never truly concretized.

Interesting.