What is Trotskyism? - Tony Clark,

What is Trotskyism? - Tony Clark,

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

TROTSKY was unable to think like a Leninist. This, as I will show, also applies to his followers. Today's Trotskyists, with the benefit of hindsight, may defend Lenin’s position on this or that past question (this is wisdom after the event). But they generally show a tendency to adopt pseudo-left positions on present, concrete developments.

Pseudo-Leftism.

A good example of pseudo-leftism is evident in the issue of ‘peaceful-coexistence’ between states with different social systems. Most followers of Trotskyism have denounced the policy of peaceful-coexistence pursued by the Soviet revisionists without making a distinction between ‘Leninist’ peaceful-coexistence and ‘revisionist’ peaceful-coexistence.

The difference of course is that, unlike ‘revisionist’ peaceful coexistence, Leninist peaceful-coexistence does not sacrifice the class struggle within states, or the struggle of the national liberation movement against imperialism, in order to live in peace with imperialism. This does not mean of course that a socialist country should not do everything possible to avoid nuclear war with imperialism without betraying the cause of human liberation from exploitation. This is a point that is ignored by pseudo-leftist elements, Trotskyist and non-Trotskyist alike.

This relates to the question of the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the political leaders of imperialist capitalism made it clear that they were prepared to heat up the cold war, and were prepared to plunge humanity into a nuclear holocaust, when the Soviet revisionist leadership, which had come to power soon after the death of Stalin, had reached the final stage of its ideological bankruptcy in the Gorbachev period. What generated revisionism is a different question.

The above are important points to make, because this illustrates the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, the latter which argues that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the leadership of a counterrevolutionary ‘Stalinist’ bureaucracy, although when the revisionists first came to power in the early 1950s, the supporters of Stalin were purged, and Stalin himself was downgraded and later denounced and his works banned.

The difference, therefore, is between ‘concrete’ Leninist reasoning and the ‘abstract’ thinking characteristic of Trotskyism. In other words, when we consider the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question naturally arises: did the Soviet Union collapse because the supporters of Stalin were in power, or because the revisionist leaders had purged the supporters of Stalin?

The Trotskyites do not understand (their ideology prevents them from doing so) that it wasn’t a ‘Stalinist’ bureaucracy that led the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, but rather a revisionist leadership, which had broken from Marxism-Leninism. Even bourgeois writers, supporters of capitalist exploitation of the masses, note how, at every stage, soviet bureaucracy attempted to impede the return to capitalism and the barbarism of the market. This was to be expected because bureaucracies by their very nature tend to resist change. There is no reason why Soviet bureaucracy should be different in this respect. Only the top-most officials and members of the nomenklatura positioned themselves in such a way as to benefit from the return to the market. Since bureaucracies tend to be ‘conservative’, i.e., resisting change, rather than counterrevolutionary, Trotsky’s pseudo-left theory of a ‘counterrevolutionary bureaucracy’ is too abstract to provide an explanatory paradigm of the counterrevolutionary process that had developed in the Soviet Union.

Two Approaches.

The argument we present below is about two approaches to thinking: the ‘concrete’ reasoning of Leninism in contrast to the ‘abstract’ reasoning of Trotskyism. This difference at the level of thinking or reasoning, and therefore, at the level of method and theory, is fundamental to explaining how these two trends, Leninism and Trotskyism, came into existence and continue to oppose each other, not only in terms of historical interpretation, but also on concrete issues as well.

The most poignant reminder of Trotsky’s abstract approach to the problems of revolution is, of course, his theory of permanent revolution. Most Trotskyites will, no doubt, be completely flabbergasted by such a statement. They can ask, ‘did not the Russian revolution confirm Trotsky’s prognosis? Did not the Russian working class take power and transform the bourgeois revolution against the Tsars into a socialist revolution against capitalism? Such a line of argument also betrays the abstract reasoning of Trotskyism, which we will present in the article below.

By laying down, as a basis for argument, the theory that the contradiction between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism is an opposition between the concrete and the abstract, we are able to follow the movement of this contradiction in Trotskyism’s struggle against Marxism-Leninism. This begins, of course, with Trotsky’s inability to grasp the contradiction between revolutionary Marxism and opportunism in the period before 1917.

In fact, for Lenin, the role of Trotskyism in the pre-1917 period was to act as a cover for opportunism in the Russian revolutionary movement. For instance, Lenin could remark, only five years before the outbreak of the 1917 revolution, that Trotsky was ‘shielding’ the deeds of the opportunists by

‘ "revolutionary" phrase-mongering abroad…there you have the essence of the policy of "Trotskyism"’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 17; pp.242-44)

And later in his 1914 article, Disruption of unity under the cover of outcries for unity, Lenin could write that

‘…we were right in calling Trotskyism a representative of the "worst remnants of factionalism’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.20; pp.327-47)

Also for Lenin, one of the features of Trotsky is that he

‘…does not explain, nor does he understand, the historical significance of the ideological disagreement among the various Marxist groups, although these disagreements run throughout the twenty year’s history of Social-Democracy and concern the fundamental questions of the present day’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.)

This was a damning criticism that amounts to saying that three years before the 1917 revolution, Trotsky did not consciously, that is concretely, understand what the real struggle was about in the Russian revolutionary movement.

And in this same article Lenin remarked of Trotskyism

‘All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.)

It is this ‘glittering’ effect of Trotskyism that can serve to ensnare politically naïve people, those untutored in Marxism-Leninism, who have come over to the anti-capitalist movement. To them we can only say, study the works of Marxist-Leninists. This it is not possible to do in any of the Trotskyite groupings, where the works of Lenin, with a few exceptions, is discouraged, presumably because of the critical observations some of them contain on Trotsky. As for Stalin’s works the contents are quite unknown to most Trotskyites.

What follows is, we hope, a timely contribution to understanding Trotskyism from the Marxist-Leninist perspective.

2. INTRODUCTION.

The question 'What is Trotskyism?' could be answered on several different levels, political, theoretical and methodological. Logically it would be possible to begin a discourse on Trotskyism by concentrating on the methodological level, proceeding to the theoretical foundations, and finally ending with the political conclusions associated with Trotskyism. In other words, this means we would discuss the methodological approach of Trotsky, then proceed to discuss his theoretical and political assumptions. On the other hand, we could discuss the political and theoretical assumptions of Trotskyism, and finally trace their roots to Trotsky’s methodology.

Since people encounter Trotskyism, firstly, as political and theoretical assumptions before any consideration of methodology is sought, this, perhaps, is the starting point we should adopt in an examination of Trotskyism as a political trend. We shall begin at the level of political appearance, move to semblance, i.e., semblance being the transition from essence to appearance, which dialectically corresponds to the theoretical level. From this level of semblance we proceed back to methodology, which, in philosophical terms, is essence. In other words, appearance, semblance and essence, or politics, theory and method, all interrelated and interacting on each other.

In order to proceed on this basis all non-essentials must be discarded as much as possible. Trotskyism can only be understood in relation to Leninism, or what is now universally known as ‘Marxism-Leninism’ if we proceed in this manner, because what is intended is not to furnish the reader with an historical account of the differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism but rather to explain these differences by concentrating on the more important issues, or contradictions which emerged between the two trends of thought.

That there are sharp differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism is something that participants in the communist movement take for granted. On the side of Trotskyism there is a persistent attempt to conceal these differences, or at least play them down. This exercise in concealment is undertaken, no doubt, with the aim of promoting the claim that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism, a view which Trotsky himself encouraged, or, as one Trotskyite group puts it, ‘Trotskyism is the Marxism of today’.

We, for our part, are more interested in the controversial claim that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism. The first question is, of course, if Trotskyism is Leninism, why use the term ‘Trotskyism’?

There is no point in taking recourse to the old Trotskyite falsehood that it was Stalin, or Trotsky’s other opponents who first coined the term ‘Trotskyism’ after the death of Lenin. The impression which Trotsky and, indeed, Trotskyites like to give is that the term ‘Trotskyism’ grew out of the post-Lenin controversy between Stalin and Trotsky. Further, Trotsky’s claim that Zinoviev was responsible for its manufacture finds no factual historical support whatsoever, as is shown in the preliminary remarks above.

It is on clear historical record that the term ‘Trotskyism’ was used on several occasions by Lenin himself in the pre-1917 revolutionary period. This period is where the differences between Leninism and Trotskyism began. The aim of this contribution is to explain that the differences between Leninism and Trotskyism are of a methodological, theoretical and political character, and therefore any attempt to view these differences on the political level alone will certainly remain superficial.

Any examination of Trotsky from the standpoint of scientific appraisal and not purely partisanship must look at Trotskyism not only as a one-sided difference with Leninism. These differences were strong enough to keep Trotsky outside of Bolshevism until 1917, but such an examination must explain how it was possible for Trotsky to join Bolshevism in 1917. If we disregard the elements of opportunism which no doubt were involved, or Trotsky’s fear of finding himself in isolation, then we need to look at that aspect of Trotskyism which united him with Bolshevism in 1917. In other words, how was Trotsky able to integrate, to a certain extent, with Bolshevism and play a significant if controversial role in Bolshevik proceedings. This document is not a criticism of Trotsky for having differences with Lenin, but rather a criticism of the superficial claim of Trotskyites that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism.

To some communists this work may be mistakenly regarded as superfluous. They KNOW Trotskyism is not Leninism. But their knowledge does not prevent other politically inexperienced people from being attracted to Trotskyism because of the revisionist, right-deviation which has plagued the communist movement for such a long time. These right-opportunist circles are a sort of recruiting agents for Trotskyism. These people oppose Trotskyism not because they are Leninists but because they are right opportunists. This is why a Marxist-Leninist critique of Trotskyism is still of considerable importance.

On joining the Bolshevik party in 1917, the relationship Trotsky had with the party was never without problems; indeed, the relationship was quite stormy. Lenin and Trotsky had substantial differences, but Lenin had differences with all the leading participants of the party. What gave notoriety to the contradictions between Lenin and Trotsky was not only the qualities of these differences, but also the later conflicts and disputes over a range of issues which emerged between Stalin and Trotsky.

There will, of course, always be differences between revolutionaries, so we do not assume here that Trotsky was wrong to oppose Lenin, rather it was his positions, which were usually to be found in error. It would also be true to say that in joining the Bolshevik party, Trotsky toned down his opposition to Leninism. Later, with Lenin removed by sickness and death, Trotsky’s full-blown opposition to Bolshevism re-emerged. Trotskyism was born in opposition to Bolshevism and soon returned to this state of conflict. What was different, of course, was that this new stage of opposition to Bolshevism, was claimed by Trotsky, to be directed at Stalin. This is not to argue that there were no differences between Trotsky and Stalin unrelated to Lenin. The unity of such differences must be sought at the level of methodology. In any event, Trotsky, for obvious political reasons, could not openly oppose Leninism. In fact the guise was adopted that he was defending Leninism against Stalin.

To return to a previous point regarding the elements of identity which made it possible for Trotsky to join the Bolshevik party. This was primarily about goals of a practical nature. There was never any theoretical subsumption in Trotsky’s practical and tactical unity with Bolshevism. Not theoretical considerations but objective developments led the Bolsheviks, under Lenin’s guidance, to proceed to the anti-capitalist stage of the revolution. For Trotsky, this was the realisation of permanent revolution in practice, and on this basis he entered the ranks of Bolshevism. 1917 was the closest Trotskyism came to Leninism, at the most general level. Before and after this period, the relationship was dominated by hostile conflict, which Trotsky managed to contain in the period of Lenin, not without highly significant episodes of conflicts. In fact, the period of Trotsky’s association with Bolshevism contains the richest source of conflict, which makes Trotsky’s claim of defending Leninism pointedly absurd.

These old conflicts between Leninism and Trotskyism are still of relevance because they serve to undermine the claim that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism in present day conditions; and also because Trotskyism contains a method, thus those who adopt the forms of Trotsky’s ideology, also absorb his method. Form and content cannot be separated.

In all essentials Trotskyism remains Trotskyism. From this standpoint we treat the tactical differences between Lenin and Trotsky as of secondary importance even if they contained the germ of more significant disagreements.

The question, what is Trotskyism, could be simply answered by the reply that Trotskyism is a rival of Leninism. Although this point would be obvious to those who have studied these differences, for those whose role is the concealment of these differences such a reply would be woefully inadequate. Opportunism often assumes protective coloration. So Trotskyism, although fighting against Leninism, does so under the banner of Leninism. The aim of this article is to examine five areas of a theoretical political nature, which shows that the claim that Trotsky led the continuation of Leninism, is in fact the line of those who want to replace Leninism with Trotskyism, whether consciously or unconsciously, as the ideological guide of the international communist movement.

It is important to add here that we do not have a conspiratorial theory about those who seek to replace Marxism-Leninism with Trotskyism. Although it can be argued that Trotsky aimed at this quite consciously, it would be simplistic if we assumed the same about his followers. In fact we are forced to adopt the opposite conclusions about them. Not only does petty-bourgeois eclecticism make it easy for them to confuse Trotskyism with Leninism, but they also arrive at this position because they subscribe to what they consider to be the explanatory credibility of Trotsky.

The problem these people face, therefore, is one of promoting Trotskyism without being seen to be opposing Leninism. This contradiction of theirs can be easily resolved if, in the first place, their grasp of Leninism leaves much to be desired. For such elements there is no contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism, or, perhaps, what contradiction there is, or was, can be safely relegated to the by-gone pre-revolutionary period of the Russian revolutionary movement. This certainly was Trotsky’s own attitude, so we should not be surprised if his followers adopt the same stance.

The Bolsheviks, or what became known as Marxism-Leninism, had opponents on the right and ‘left’ of the revolutionary movement. The rival of Leninism on the right were the Mensheviks, people like Martov and Plekhanov. As a rival of Leninism, Trotsky was on the ‘left’, in spite of Trotsky’s occasional collaboration with the Mensheviks against Bolshevism. It was the fact that his pseudo-left position often served the interests of Menshevism, which Lenin subjected to criticism in the pre-1917 period.

The view of Trotskyism as a pseudo-left rival of Marxism-Leninism can be established, firstly, around the question of the Russian revolution and the position Trotsky adopted towards it. Here we turn to the question of Trotsky’s rendition of Marx’s term: the revolution in permanence. Indeed, Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution is the intellectual starting point of what came to be called ‘Trotskyism’. This term, ‘Trotskyism’, was used, as we previously indicated, by Lenin in pre-1917 times to mean something different. The term was used by Lenin to signify opportunism. We are told by Lenin that, for instance,

‘…the "Trotskyites and conciliators" like him are more pernicious than any liquidator; the convinced liquidators state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where they are wrong, whereas the Trotsky’s deceive the workers, cover up the evil, and make it impossible to expose the evil and to remedy it’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 17; pp.242-44; September, 1911)

The inner significance of the term ‘Trotskyism’ was clearly for Lenin one of opportunism. It was the long-standing rivalry between Trotskyism and Leninism that gave rise to the term in the first place. As we have seen the term ‘Trotskyism’, for Lenin, was associated with not only covering up for the liquidators, but also with ‘revolutionary phrase-mongering’. It was not invented in the later Stalin - Trotsky dispute, a legend devised by Trotsky himself. Having got this particular contentious issue out of the way, we can say that the logical starting point for our analysis of Trotskyism is Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, to which we will now turn.