Picture: Revolutionary sailors in the 1905 revolution
Home
| News | Donate
| Join
Part Three:
"Socialism in One Country"
11. The
Invention of "Trotskyism"
The party bureaucracy
resorted to vote-rigging to exclude Opposition delegates from the
thirteenth conference in January 1924, where the inner-party
debate was to be decided.
In Moscow, for example, the Opposition had
majority support in most of the cells (branches). In the regional
elections, despite ruthless weeding out of Opposition supporters by
Stalin's appointed secretaries, 36 percent of the vote still went to
the Opposition. Yet, at the provincial level, this vote was
mysteriously halved.
From the whole of the USSR, only three Opposition delegates managed
to get into the conference!
Then came the news of Lenin's death. The mass of workers and youth
were plunged into even deeper gloom, while the bureaucracy immediately
felt themselves in a stronger position.
The triumvirate now set out to defeat the Opposition's power base
among the party activists. Supposedly in tribute to Lenin, they threw
the party open to workers - had not Trotsky criticized the fact that
only 15 percent of the membership were workers?
Between February and May 1924 some 240,000 workers were admitted.
This so-called "Lenin levy" was, in fact, a mockery of the method of
party-building that Lenin had developed.
As the party congress had explained in 1919:
"The Communist Party is the organization which unites in its
ranks only the vanguard of the proletariat and the poorest peasantry
- that part of these classes which consciously strives to realize in
practice the communist program.
"The Communist Party makes it its task to win decisive
influence... in all organizations of workers..."
Flooding the party with raw recruits went directly counter to this
task - but it served another purpose. The "Lenin levy", the trio
calculated, would in the first place provide them with voting fodder
to swamp the Opposition. Inexperienced members, confronted with
unfamiliar problems, will tend to follow the lead they are given. Very
few would feel able to challenge the Politbureau.
As in Russia, there was strong support for the Opposition in the
Communist parties internationally. The central committees of the
mass-based French and Polish parties, for example, protested against
the attacks on Trotsky.
The triumvirate could not tolerate this. Zinoviev, as Comintern
president, ruthlessly abused his position, disbanding the leading
bodies of national parties to get rid of Trotsky's supporters - under
the slogan of "Bolshevization"!
Yet the bureaucracy could not feel secure as long as Trotsky, with
his giant authority as theoretician and co-leader of the October
revolution, continued to subject their opportunism and blunders to
merciless Marxist criticism. It was essential for the Zinovievites and
Stalinists to rewrite history and cover Trotsky's name in mud.
Their tactic was to invent "Trotskyism" (a phrase coined by
Zinoviev in December 1923). This consisted of raking up each and every
past difference between Lenin and Trotsky in order to insinuate that
Trotsky had "always" been opposed to Bolshevism.
Trotsky was reviled as a Menshevik (after the confusing split
between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903 he had, for a few
months, found himself in the Mensheviks' camp before the political
differences between them became clear) and also as an ultra-left! In
particular his theory of permanent revolution was seized on to
demonstrate his "petty-bourgeois deviation from Leninism".
In face, Trotsky's fundamental disagreement with the Mensheviks was
precisely the basis for his political alliance with Lenin in 1917 and
after.
The Mensheviks, Trotsky explained, "took as their point of
departure the idea that to the liberal bourgeoisie... belonged the
leading role in the bourgeois [democratic] revolution. According to
this pattern, the party of the proletariat was assigned the role of
Left Wing of the democratic front." (Introduction to The Permanent
Revolution, page 3).
From this it followed that the revolution should be carried out in
two stages: first, a "democratic" stage (on the basis of capitalism);
and only at some point in the future would "socialism" be on the
agenda.
Trotsky rejected this mechanical formula and developed his own
analysis of the character of the revolution in a backward country such
as Russia. This analysis, brilliantly confirmed by the October
revolution, became known as the theory of "permanent revolution".
"In the event of a decisive victory of the revolution," Trotsky
wrote in 1906, "power will pass into the hands of that class which
plays a leading role in the struggle - in other words, into the hands
of the proletariat... The political domination of the proletariat is
incompatible with its economic enslavement. No matter under what
political flag the proletariat has come to power, it is obliged to
take the path of socialist policy." (Results and Prospects,
pages 201, 233).
He added: "Should the Russian proletariat find itself in power...,
it will encounter the organized hostility of world reaction, and on
the other hand will find a readiness on the part of the world
proletariat to give organized support... It will have no alternative
but to link the fate of its political rule, and, hence, the fate of
the whole Russian revolution, with the fate of the socialist
revolution in Europe." (page 247)
Lenin, in April 1917, came to identical conclusions. By 1924, the
term "permanent revolution" had not been an issue for years, and the
debate about it was purely historical.
For the bureaucracy, however, the party's commitment to
revolutionary internationalism - defended above all by Trotsky - was
becoming an intolerable thorn in the flesh.
With the defeat of the German revolution it became clear that the
Soviet Union faced a period of prolonged isolation. To the
bureaucracy, the perspective of world revolution became more and more
wishful thinking. They wrote off the working class in the west, and
settled down to the "practical" task of managing the Soviet Union in
the midst of a capitalist world.
Material conditions call forth ideas. In the 1890s, Bernstein had
developed the "theory" of reformism to justify the real-life retreat
from the program of class struggle by the right wing of social
democracy.
Similarly, in 1924-25, Stalin produced a "theory" which reflected
the conservatism of the Soviet bureaucracy, expressing their
opposition to the Marxist position that Trotsky represented, and
attempting, in "Marxist" terms, to justify their break with it: the
"theory" of "socialism in one country".
12.
"Socialism in One Country"
On the strength of three quotations plucked
from Lenin's voluminous writings, Stalin in December 1924 put forward
the unheard-of idea that socialism could be built in Russia without
the victory of the working class in the developed countries.
This idea went counter to everything Lenin had tried to explain,
even in the documents Stalin quoted. Lenin went no further than to
point out that in Russia the political conditions for socialist
transformation (a workers' regime supported by the peasantry) had been
created by the October revolution. At no stage did Lenin entertain the
illusion that the economic preconditions existed in backward Russia.
As late as February 1924, Stalin himself had still preached the
exact opposite of "socialism in one country":
"...can the final victory of socialism in one country be
attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several
advanced countries? No, this is impossible... For the final victory
of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the
efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as
Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians
of several advanced countries are necessary." (Stalin, Foundations
of Leninism)
Yet, within months, Stalin took a completely different line:
"If we knew in advance that we are not equal to the task [of
building socialism in Russia by itself], then why the devil did we
have to make the October revolution? If we have managed for eight
years, why should we not manage in the ninth, tenth or fortieth
year?" (Quoted in Carr, Socialism in One Country, Volume 2,
page 181)
What made Stalin turn his ideas upside-down?
Basically, it was the changing balance of forces that emboldened
the non-theorist Stalin to throw down the gauntlet to all the
theorists of Marxism. The Opposition, the ideas of Marxism and the
class demands of the workers were being silenced while the
bureaucracy, increasingly arrogant, was prevailing.
The idea of revolutionary struggle against capitalism
internationally ("permanent revolution") was entirely alien to the new
masters of the Soviet Union. Stalin's thoroughly dishonest argument
was not a theory in the true sense of the word (an attempt at
explaining reality). It was nothing more than an attempt at burying
the program of permanent revolution, of Marxism itself.
To cover their tracks, the bureaucracy increasingly "altered" party
history, and Marxist textbooks, to make it appear to the workers that
their policy was the consistent continuation of Bolshevism. By
November 1926, for example, Stalin felt able to declare:
"The party always took as its starting point the idea that the
victory of socialism in one country means the possibility to build
socialism in that country, and that this task can be accomplished
with the forces of a singly country"! (Quoted by Woods and Grant,
page 109)
Taken to its conclusions, Stalin's "theory" denied the need for a
revolutionary International. Defence of "socialism" in the Soviet
Union, in contrast to the building of socialism through world
revolution, now became the primary task of the Communist parties
internationally.
In practice, this meant uncritical support for the policies and
national interests of the Soviet bureaucracy. (In 1943, Stalin himself
confirmed this in the most blatant manner when he dissolved the
Comintern - by then a bureaucratic shell - at the stroke of a pen, in
order to prove to his wartime allies, the imperialist leaders
Roosevelt and Churchill, that the Soviet leadership had abandoned all
thought of world revolution.)
The Opposition were denounced as "pessimists" and "cynics" for
questioning the bureaucracy's crude, anti-Marxist ideas.
In reality it was the Opposition who had consistently explained the
need for industrialization to strengthen the basis of workers' rule in
the Soviet Union. (For this, in turn, they were denounced as "super-industrialisers"!)
But they had also explained that this in itself would not be enough to
complete the transition to socialism.
On the other hand, cutting loose from the program of
internationalism meant writing off the perspective of reconstruction
in Russia in any real sense - i.e., as part of a socialist Europe. The
bureaucracy's alternative was to rely more openly on the kulaks as
mainstay of the "national" economy. Bukharin, in April 1925, went so
far as to blurt out:
"To the peasants... we must say: Enrich yourselves, develop your
farms, do not fear that constraint will be put on you." (Quoted in
Carr, Socialism in One Country, Volume 1, page 280) This slogan
came under attack because it was too blatant and it was dropped by the
central committee, byt the general idea became party policy.
Before the year was out, Stalin was even considering whether to
denationalize the land!
By this time the triumvirate was breaking up. Its purpose had been
accomplished. Zinoviev and Kamenev had joined forces with the mediocre
Stalin out of hostility towards Trotsky; now they recoiled from the
ruthless Stalin who had taken virtually all power into his own hands.
Political difference among the trio now began to surface.
At the party congress in December 1925, Zinoviev and Kamenev began
to raise questions about Stalin's ideas. It was left to Trotsky,
however, to develop a fundamental Marxist refutation of "socialism in
one country", and expose its inherent dangers.
Today the question has taken on even greater importance than in the
1920s. The powerful present-day Soviet regime has enormous influence
in the mass movement internationally, especially in the underdeveloped
countries. The bureaucracy's philosophy of "socialism in one country"
(or "national roads to socialism") has become the conscious or
unconscious starting point for many of the leaders.
Trotsky's reply to Stalin remains the clearest basis for answering
these ideas and working out the Marxist way forward.
13. Why Marxism Stands for Internationalism
Trotsky demonstrated that the program of internationalism (now labelled
"permanent revolution") had never been challenged in the Bolshevik Party
prior to 1924. Stalin's crude challenge, however, made it necessary to
once again explain the question fundamentally.
Trotsky started with the basic ideas of Marxism. Civilization, he
explained, advances through the development of the productive forces -
through the struggle by people and classes in society to supply their
material needs, in the process stimulating the development of science,
technology, politics and culture.
Social systems come into existence on the basis of the organization
of production. A social system can only be swept away when it has come
to the limits of its development, and a new revolutionary class, with
the capacity to reorganize and further develop the forces of
production, is prepared to take power.
The necessity for socialism arises out of the obstacles created by
the capitalist system to the further development of the productive
forces. The historical purpose of socialism is to develop society
beyond the economic and political limits of capitalism, to new levels
of abundance and freedom.
"Socialist society", as Trotsky explained, "can be built only on
the most advanced productive forces, ... on combining, generalizing
and bringing to maximum development the highest elements of modern
technology... Socialism, however, must not only take over from
capitalism the most highly developed productive forces but must
immediately carry them onward... and give them a state of
development such as has been unknown under capitalism." (The
Third International After Lenin, pages 40-41)
The struggle and sacrifice to end capitalism and build socialism,
in other words, could have no justification - and no attraction for
the mass of working people - if it represented no advance (or a step
backward) from the standards of living that capitalism is able to
offer.
Why does socialist transformation make possible a huge leap forward
even from the highest achievements of capitalism? On the one hand,
because it frees production from the anarchy of market forces, the
distortions of private ownership and the limits of national states. On
the other hand, it liberates the collective ingenuity and creativity
of the mass of working people from the repressive discipline of
capitalist production.
Workers' democratic rule, in other words, is an essential political
precondition for the transition to socialism and communism.
Why can this transformation not be carried through within the
borders of one country? Precisely because capitalism has developed as
a world system. The "most advanced productive forces" are not
contained in any single country; they depend on the combined efforts
of the working class in whole series of countries, tied together
through world trade. Certainly they could not exist in an
underdeveloped country, such as Russia in 1917.
The transition to socialism - for control of the "most advanced
productive forces" - can only be an international process, depending
on the conquest of power by the working class in at least a number of
industrialized countries (which would seal the doom of the capitalist
class on a world scale).
As long as workers' rule remains confined to a single country, it
will face the combined hostility of the capitalists of the world, with
vast economic and military resources at their disposal.
Stalin's crude argument, that the October revolution could have no
other aim than the construction of socialism in Russia, therefore
completely missed the point. Lenin, in one of many statements on the
question, answered him in advance:
"Single-handed, the Russian proletariat cannot bring the
socialist revolution to a victorious conclusion. But it can give the
Russian revolution a mighty sweep that would create the most
favorable conditions for a socialist revolution, and would, in a
sense, start it. It can facilitate the rise of a situation in which
its chief, its most trustworthy and reliable ally, the European and
American socialist proletariat, could join the decisive battles." (Collected
Works, Volume 23, page 372)
14. What "Socialism in One Country" Really Meant
The Soviet Union could not overtake capitalism and advance to socialism
because it did not dispose over the "highest productive forces" within its
boundaries. Even basic necessities for survival could only be obtained
through trade with the imperialist powers.
The immediate challenge was to catch up with capitalism, to conquer
the "commanding heights" of the world economy, and so lay the basis
for constructing socialism as an international system.
The Soviet Union's fundamental weakness, in other words, lay in its
economic and technical backwardness compared with the advanced
capitalist countries. Backwardness was the root of bureaucratization (see
Section 6); bureaucratic rule excluded workers' democracy, and
formed an absolute barrier to socialist transformation.
The bureaucracy persisted in seeing the international problems of
the revolution in essentially military terms, and gambled on the
ability of the Soviet Union to defeat future imperialist invasions.
As Trotsky pointed out, even the military threat of imperialism
resulted from its technical superiority. But, he added, "it is not so
much military intervention as the intervention of cheaper capitalist
commodities that constitutes perhaps the greatest immediate menace to
the Soviet Union. (The Third International After Lenin, page
37)
In other words: the Soviet masses would defend their gains, and
fight the threat of open counter-revolution. But demoralized and
disillusioned by bureaucratic rule, they could not be expected to
defend their own backwardness against a capitalist enemy apparently
offering them a superior way of life.
In the event it was not the armies of capitalist democracies that
invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 but those of Hitler. With them,
instead of "cheaper commodities" for the Russian masses, they brought
barbed wire and the gruesome paraphernalia of slave labour and
extermination camps.
Subjected to barbarous racial repression by the Nazis, the Russian
workers rallied heroically in defence of the Soviet Union.
Today the balance of forces internationally have swung massively
against the imperialist powers, and there is no longer any possibility
of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union. The bureaucracy have
diverted huge resources into military development, and transformed the
Soviet Union into a nuclear superpower. The threat of imperialist
invasion has effectively been ended.
But even this spectacular economic progress, possible only on the
basis of a state-owned and planned economy, could not overcome the
distortions in Russian society created by the rule of a privileged
elite.
Bureaucratic repression stifled all initiative from below. The
workers were driver forward through a combination of bribes and
compulsion. The bureaucracy's soothing phrase of building socialism
"at a snail's pace" (in Bukharin's phrase) made a mocker of workers'
aspirations.
All it meant, in real terms, was the laborious struggle to develop
the state-owned economy in a backward country - under their own rule.
Marx and Engels, as early as 1845, had anticipated why socialism
could not be built under conditions such as these:
"this development of productive forces... is an absolutely
necessary practical premise [of socialism] because without it want
is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for
necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be
reproduced." (From The German Ideology, in Selected Works,
Volume I, page 37)
This insight was starkly borne out by the bureaucratic degeneration
of the Russian workers' state. The bureaucracy could only build a
society of inequality. With inequality came increasing corruption and
police repression on the part of the bureaucracy and, among the
masses, a grim battle of "each one for himself".
A letter from a kolkhoz (collective farm) worker, written in April
1930, summed up the new relations being created between the working
people and their bureaucratic masters:
"The members of the kolkhoz have for two months received no
pay... Fifty percent of the revenue goes to the kolkhoz treasury,
fifty percent for taxes and rent. What remains for the workers? No
one knows. The president pays himself several flour certificates
each month and refrains from all physical labor..."
A factory worker in March 1930: "They are squeezing us, and how!
Twenty-five percent increase in the productivity of labour and 1.9
percent increase in wages. For three years wages have not varied,
though production has very much increased. Five men to the brigade
instead of six, without change of equipment. The system of bonuses
is applied in such a way that... they should be paid every six
months, but in reality no one hopes to receive any..." (Quoted by
Serge, From Lenin to Stalin, pages 60, 61)
Socialism cannot be built under these conditions. The essential
political condition for the development of socialism, created by the
October revolution and destroyed by the bureaucratic
counter-revolution, has still to be re-conquered: democratic
working-class rule.
|
