Trotsky's Communism and Terrorism

[The Feral Underclass]

"Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands. In this sense, the Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents. The State terror of a revolutionary class can be condemned “morally” only by a man who, as a principle, rejects (in words) every form of violence whatsoever – consequently, every war and every rising. For this one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker."

Written in 1920, this was Trotky's justification for the suppression of everything anti-Bolshevik, including workers movements and organisations. Is this a dictatorship of a proletariat, or a dictatorship of a party?

Terrorism and Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm)

[Awful Reality]

I've read this already, many times, and it was justification for the use of terrorism to suppress the bourgeoise in the period shortly after the revolution. And remember that terrorism in 1920 had a very different connotation than it does today.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yes Trotsky openly argued for substitutionism and repression of the workers movement. doh!

[Tower of Bebel]

"Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands. In this sense, the Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents. The State terror of a revolutionary class can be condemned “morally” only by a man who, as a principle, rejects (in words) every form of violence whatsoever – consequently, every war and every rising. For this one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker."

Written in 1920, this was Trotky's justification for the suppression of everything anti-Bolshevik, including workers movements and organisations. Is this a dictatorship of a proletariat, or a dictatorship of a party?

Terrorism and Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm)


Conclusion or interpretation?

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes Trotsky openly argued for substitutionism and repression of the workers movement. doh!

Of course he didn't openly talk about it, but he clearly justifies his actions against such movements above.

[The Feral Underclass]

Conclusion or interpretation?

The whole document is essentially Trotsky justifying state terror against his enemies and as history demonstrates that Trotsky and the Bolsheviks attacked and destroyed workers movements in Russia then the conclusion is quite clear.

[BobKKKindle$]

The whole document is essentially Trotsky justifying state terror against his enemies and as history demonstrates that Trotsky and the Bolsheviks attacked and destroyed workers movements in Russia then the conclusion is quite clear.A distinction should be made between the suppression of the bourgeoisie and the suppression of workers movements - the former is justified, to secure workers power, as allowing the ex-bourgeoisie to organize freely would allow them to pose a thread to the power of the working class, by calling upon other countries which have not undergone revolution to intervene, and creating their own military forces from other opponents of Socialism - as occurred in the case of the Russian Revolution. The Russian experience shows that, after the initial seizure of power, one cannot expect a peaceful transition to socialism, there will be a prolonged violent struggle.

As Trotsky wrote: "You do not understand this, holy men? We shall explain to you. The terror of Tsarism throttled the workers who were fighting for the socialist order. Out Extraordinary Commissions shoot landlords, capitalists and generals who are striving to restore the capitalist order. Do you grasp this... distinction? Yes? For us communists it is quite sufficient." (Terrorism and Communism, pages 78-79)

Trotsky advocated no such similar repression of workers movements. Although it is true that he was a leading advocate of one-man management during the civil war, (I presume this is the core of your accusation that Trotsky was opposed to workers movements) this decision should not be separated from the problems that the Bolsheviks faced at this time - analyzing a policy as an isolated idea, solely in terms of whether this policy is consistent with our pre-conceived notions of how an ideal post-revolutionary society should be organized, is anti-materialist. This policy was necessary at the time because the Bolsheviks faced economic pressures, and allowing for full workers self-managed would not have produced the level of discipline (in terms of wage demands and the production of goods) required during the civil war, when it seemed as if the revolution would be destroyed. Without this policy, a section of the ex-bourgeoisie would have been able to seize power, and all workers organisations would have been destroyed. This policy was implemented by the most class conscious section of the Russian proletariat - who comprised the Bolshevik party - as only they saw the need for this repressive economic policy. Uneven consciousness will still persist in the post-revolutionary epoch, which means that the vanguard party must continue to play a guiding role.

Therefore, this position was not based on ideological opposition to workers movements, but due to the pragmatic needs of a dangerous situation. After the civil war, Trotsky consistently argued for a renewal of party democracy, as he realized that party democracy was being undermined by the growth of the bureaucracy, which had been able to develop due to the civil war, which resulted in the displacement of workers and a dramatic fall in the urban population, thus destroying the social base of the revolution.


The whole document is essentially Trotsky justifying state terror against his enemies and as history demonstrates that Trotsky and the Bolsheviks attacked and destroyed workers movements in Russia then the conclusion is quite clear.The Bolsheviks always raised the slogan "All Power to the Soviets" - this suggests that the Bolsheviks did not aim to destroy workers movements, but rather the reverse, they recognized that democratic bodies arising from economic struggles - the soviets - should form the administrative basis of a socialist society. In "The Revolution Betrayed" Trotsky also analyzes the degeneration of the Soviet Union in detail and explains how this degeneration can be reversed - through a political revolution to destroy the bureaucracy and restore power to the soviets. Your accusation is thus totally invalid.

[RNK]

It is an interpretation, and one that relies upon the fallacious conception that workers in groups larger than 10 are absolutely infallable.

Of course, leave it to an anarchist to fail to understand the challenges that face a revolutionary movement and classless society. There will come a time where bodies of workers, be they factory workers or, more likely, middle-class, relatively well-off workers, will through internal agitation and manipulation, become hostile to revolutionary ideals. This is nothing new; most workers in the first world today are hostile towards communism, even if only because they've been taught to be. The problem with trying to institutionalize classlessness a week after revolution is that everyone will still have that egging voice in the back of their head warning them against the evils of communism. It's only logical that a minority, a sizable minority at that, will maintain hostility for some time.

So what do you suppose be done with groups of workers who adopt counter-revolutionary stances?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Simply put, there is a post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism (the mode of production itself, based on labour-time). Lenin said this in "Economics and Politics":

Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialised; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm)



RNK, I'd like to know on the side where Stalin developed his own post-revolution aggravation "theory" ("under socialism" or "along with the development of socialism" plain SUCKS). Any particular works?