Trotsky's Militarization of Labor

[Jacob Cliff]

Trotsky's labor militarization pretty much reduced the entire workforce to the status of slave-laborers -- I'm not sure how it can be said any other way, even if the intentions were well meant. I can see how forcing workers to locate to certain places and work certain jobs (IE stripping them of the "freedom to choose") would have been a necessity in a turbulent, revolutionary period where it could be used to kickstart the economy, but was this intended to be a permanent policy? Or was it merely temporary -- only intended to last until War Communism had finished it's job of rebuilding the infrastructure necessary for a functioning economy?

On an unrelated note: Marx mentions the establishment of industrial armies in the Communist Manifesto -- is this the same concept? If not, what did Marx mean by this?

[olahsenor]

http://www.amazon.ca/Prophet-Life-Leon-Trotsky/dp/1781685606/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447448135&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Prophet+Trotsky

I am currently reading Trotsky's biography. I took interest in them because I compared my life with his and found something in common. Trotsky started as a pessimist. His love affair with Slovaskaya was colorful because of the love-hate relationship. Trotsky was a Nadornyk. Nadornyks are not Marxists. It was through Slovaskaya that the dilly-dallying Trotsky opened his eyes to realities. Through open debate his ex-wife, Slovaskaya clashed with Trotsky. Trotsky as we all knew was a son of a landlord. So it took him several years to get enlightened. But his annoyance with his father when it came to workers' wages were already signs of him becoming an ultimate Marxist. The rest was history.

No revolution is possible without disagreement among members, comrade Marxian. Who would not be surprised when the young Trotsky was coddled by Lenin in exile in London only to be disowned by the former when the Central Committee called a conference to elect its members. Lenin did not deserve the vitriolic vituperatives Trotsky casted on him when Lenin resigned from the Committee. Not until later did the Russian intelligentsia finally realized the fault. Nonetheless, they set aside differences and let bygones be bygones. You should read the book, comrade Marxian. The psychological analyses on Trotsky is excellent.

[Jacob Cliff]

http://www.amazon.ca/Prophet-Life-Leon-Trotsky/dp/1781685606/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447448135&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Prophet+Trotsky

I am currently reading Trotsky's biography. I took interest in them because I compared my life with his and found something in common. Trotsky started as a pessimist. His love affair with Slovaskaya was colorful because of the love-hate relationship. Trotsky was a Nadornyk. Nadornyks are not Marxists. It was through Slovaskaya that the dilly-dallying Trotsky opened his eyes to realities. Through open debate his ex-wife, Slovaskaya clashed with Trotsky. Trotsky as we all knew was a son of a landlord. So it took him several years to get enlightened. But his annoyance with his father when it came to workers' wages were already signs of him becoming an ultimate Marxist. The rest was history.

No revolution is possible without disagreement among members, comrade Marxian. Who would not be surprised when the young Trotsky was coddled by Lenin in exile in London only to be disowned by the former when the Central Committee called a conference to elect its members. Lenin did not deserve the vitriolic vituperatives Trotsky casted on him when Lenin resigned from the Committee. Not until later did the Russian intelligentsia finally realized the fault. Nonetheless, they set aside differences and let bygones be bygones. You should read the book, comrade Marxian. The psychological analyses on Trotsky is excellent.
Thanks for the answer but you literally didn't answer a single thing I put forth. This isn't meant to be a question about anything other than labor militarization.

[olahsenor]

I would not mind being militarized or my labour militarized, sir. I was clinically diagnosed by my psychiatrist to be an idiot. I can only change my clothes, do simple work like shovelling snow, cutting grass, etc. If I were to live those Trotskyte days, I would not mind the commissar asking me to sweep the floor, hoe the garden or dig a grave. I want to be dictated. Not to dictate because truly I would not know how to dictate. There are people like that. No kiddin.

[Rafiq]

The notion that the militarization of labor could be enforced at gunpoint: that is, without the mass participation of the working masses themselves energetically is beyond silly.

They were slave laborers? And to which masters were they slaving for, and how exactly was this bondage enforced? The red army? Made up of whom, and why?

[Rafiq]

The socially compulsory nature of labor during this period was NOT one of direct domination or violent coercion. It is a self imposed DISCIPLINE, merely giving labor a dimension of organization and direction. As Trotsky notes:

We say directly and openly to the masses that they can save and revive the socialist country and bring it to a flourishing condition only by means of hard work, unquestioning discipline, and the greatest care shown in the assiduous performance of his duties by every worker. Our chief means is ideological influence – propaganda not only in words but also in deeds. Labour service is compulsory, but this does not mean at all that it is coercion of the working class. If labour service were to encounter opposition from the majority of the working people, it would be shipwrecked, and with it the whole Soviet order. Militarisation of labour when the working people are against it is Arakcheyevism. Militarisation of labour by the will of the working people themselves is socialist dictatorship. That labour service and miitarisation of labour do not violate the will of the working people, as ‘free’ labour did, is best shown by the flourishing, unprecedented in the history of mankind, of voluntary labour in the form of subbotniks. Such a phenomenon has never been seen before, anywhere. By their own voluntary, disinterested labour, once a week and even more often, the workers are clearly demonstrating not only their readiness to assume the burden of ‘compulsory’ labour but also their eagerness to give the state a certain amount of additional labour over and above that. The subbotniks are not only a splendid manifestation of Communist solidarity, they are also the most reliable guarantee of successful introduction of labour service. These truly Communist tendencies must be publicised, extended and developed by means of propaganda.

[Jacob Cliff]

The socially compulsory nature of labor during this period was NOT one of direct domination or violent coercion. It is a self imposed DISCIPLINE, merely giving labor a dimension of organization and direction. As Trotsky notes:

We say directly and openly to the masses that they can save and revive the socialist country and bring it to a flourishing condition only by means of hard work, unquestioning discipline, and the greatest care shown in the assiduous performance of his duties by every worker. Our chief means is ideological influence – propaganda not only in words but also in deeds. Labour service is compulsory, but this does not mean at all that it is coercion of the working class. If labour service were to encounter opposition from the majority of the working people, it would be shipwrecked, and with it the whole Soviet order. Militarisation of labour when the working people are against it is Arakcheyevism. Militarisation of labour by the will of the working people themselves is socialist dictatorship. That labour service and miitarisation of labour do not violate the will of the working people, as ‘free’ labour did, is best shown by the flourishing, unprecedented in the history of mankind, of voluntary labour in the form of subbotniks. Such a phenomenon has never been seen before, anywhere. By their own voluntary, disinterested labour, once a week and even more often, the workers are clearly demonstrating not only their readiness to assume the burden of ‘compulsory’ labour but also their eagerness to give the state a certain amount of additional labour over and above that. The subbotniks are not only a splendid manifestation of Communist solidarity, they are also the most reliable guarantee of successful introduction of labour service. These truly Communist tendencies must be publicised, extended and developed by means of propaganda.
But what is voluntary about stripping them of their right to choose a job? Was it just that the majority supported it, or what?

[Rafiq]

But what is voluntary about stripping them of their right to choose a job? Was it just that the majority supported it, or what?

What actual "right" is it to choose a job? To what ends would you like to "choose" a job at the expense of the survival of the proletarian dictatorship? Some arbitrary and worthless preference?

Tell me, if the majority of workers put trivial preferences before the survival of their own collective emancipation, as a collective dictatorship, what would that have said about the state of the working class at this time? It is naive and silly to think the two can coincide - like no, you can't unconditionally demand to bake pink cupcakes as a means of survival and have your freedom too. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Freedom is not free. We are talking about a situation where no, you don't have some big state to fall back on to "allow" you to freely choose your job (How would you 'freely' choose a job? Using what currency? Using what means of being compensated and how? Using what machinery, using what tools, what factories, what equipment?), you don't have some autonomous process to that can self-regulate and just "allow" things to go on while you 'freely' choose this or that. That is the price of freedom, it is the responsibility of FULLY assuming the ramifications of your power as a collective and not an individual.

This is why Lenin could not stress enough the necessity of self-sacrifice: That even if in the short term living standards would decline for the western working class, they ought to be prepared for it. Sacrifice, austerity and discipline - these are necessary for the survival of the proletarian dictatorship.

Now, to speak of things which are "voluntary", that depends on what this means. If voluntary refers to workers spontaneously, as individuals, deciding to work for their own common emancipation through some autonomous process then no, there was nothing really voluntary about it. Labor was organized in an extremely - disorganized - way, and not because workers had no enthusiasm or were disloyal to their own revolution, but because individuals do not magically have the capacity to organize socially at the level of whim at a local level (i.e. concerning its relation to a wider totality). If "voluntary" merely refers to the absence of coercion, domination then yes, it was voluntary. The difference is that workers were (from workers themselves) bombarded with propaganda, engaging in huge ideological campaigns, ETC. So compulsion as Trotsky is using it does not refer to physical force. Leading up to the militarization of labor, you have to remember that things were kind of just "left" to their own devices for workers.

Put it this way. A monk must use self-discipline. A voluntary unit in an army must impose self-discipline for each of its constituent members who deviate from the collective standards. But if a monk, or if a voluntary unit, or armed group decided they no longer want to fight for whatever they are fighting for, then the discipline couldn't be imposed.

[Emmett Till]

Trotsky's labor militarization pretty much reduced the entire workforce to the status of slave-laborers -- I'm not sure how it can be said any other way, even if the intentions were well meant. I can see how forcing workers to locate to certain places and work certain jobs (IE stripping them of the "freedom to choose") would have been a necessity in a turbulent, revolutionary period where it could be used to kickstart the economy, but was this intended to be a permanent policy? Or was it merely temporary -- only intended to last until War Communism had finished it's job of rebuilding the infrastructure necessary for a functioning economy?

On an unrelated note: Marx mentions the establishment of industrial armies in the Communist Manifesto -- is this the same concept? If not, what did Marx mean by this?

Well yes, pretty much the same concept. Building a socialist society in Germany in 1848 would have been a difficult task, and would have required that sort of measure most likely.

Yes indeed, it was intended by Trotsky to be a temporary kickstart, in a situation where millions of people were starving to death and the railroads, the main arena he wanted to militarize, were simply not functioning with disastrous consequences for workers, peasants and indeed everyone.

A good idea in theory, in practice didn't work, which is why Lenin, Zinoviev and Stalin came out against it, correctly in retrospect.