What is Trotskyism? - Tony Clark,

What is Trotskyism? - Tony Clark,

7. LENIN ON TROTSKY’S METHODOLOGY.

It was during the famous trade union dispute that arose in 1920 that Lenin approached the question of Trotsky’s methodology, although his previous categorisation of Trotsky’s rendition of ‘Permanent Revolution’ as absurdly ‘left’ certainly suggests a critical view of Trotsky’s method, i.e., pseudo-leftism.

In Trotsky’s methodology, we constantly see the primacy of the abstract over the concrete, theory over practice. Unlike Marxism-Leninism, there is a separation between the abstract and the concrete in Trotskyism. In his April Theses of 1917, Lenin approvingly recites Goethe’s dictum: theory my friend is grey, but green is the eternal tree of life.

In Trotsky’s version of ‘permanent revolution’ we see an abstract transition from the democratic revolution to the socialist stage of the revolution. Put in another way, the transition from the minimum to the maximum programme is purely abstract, independent of any concrete determining factors. And Trotsky, when writing on the permanent revolution in 1928, gives a truly remarkable testimony to the essence of his methodology, in that nowhere is there ever mentioned the connection between the world-shattering imperialist war of 1914-18 and the Russian socialist revolution. This unbreakable connection, ignored by Trotsky, is the starting point of Lenin’s truly remarkable April Theses. In the theses Lenin argues that

‘In our attitude to the war, which under the new government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory, imperialist one owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to "revolutionary defencism" is permissible’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 24; pp. 19-26)

And the concrete connection between the war and the eventual transition to socialism is outlined in Lenin’s remark that

‘It is impossible to slip out of the imperialist war and achieve a democratic, non-coercive peace without overthrowing the power of capital and transferring state power to another class, the proletariat’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 24; pp. 55-91; St. Petersburg, May 28th, 1917)

This connection is also referred to in Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism. Thus Stalin reminded the reader that

‘Practically, there was no way of getting out of the war except by overthrowing the bourgeoisie’. (J. V. Stalin: Foundations of Leninism; Foreign Languages Press Peking, 1973; p. 62)

In 1917, Lenin could write that

‘The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry had already been realised, but in a highly original manner, and with a number of extremely important modifications’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; pp. 42-54)

Whereas Trotsky, disagreeing with Leninism as usual, came to the opposite conclusion. Writing in 1928 he asserted that

‘…never in history has there been a regime of the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’. (Trotsky: The Permanent Revolution -with Results and Prospects- New Park Publications; p.4)

Lenin comes to one conclusion, while Trotsky asserts the opposite. Here, the concrete and the abstract, or Leninism and Trotskyism, are sharply demarcated. It is the struggle between these opposites that constitutes the content of the struggle between Leninism and Trotskyism. In other words, the struggle between Leninism and Trotskyism, in its different forms and at different periods, is in essence the struggle between the ‘concrete’ and the ‘abstract’ forms of reasoning. In other words, Lenin’s thinking possessed more content, rendering it more concrete, closer to life. Trotsky’s thinking, on the other hand, lacks content. The result is a less concrete approximation to the object.

Trotskyism, therefore, is an embodiment of the results of abstract reasoning, that is, a form of logic, which does not descend into the concrete totality. Unlike Leninism, Trotskyism remains trapped at the level of the general. In the trade union dispute Lenin remarked of Trotsky’s platform that it was

‘…highbrow, abstract, "empty" and theoretically incorrect general theses which ignore all that is practical and business-like’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.85)

This is simultaneously not only a criticism of Trotsky’s position but even more so of his methodology. This criticism is reinforced by an earlier remark by Lenin in connection with the same dispute when he argues that

‘All his theses are based on "general principles", an approach which is in itself fundamentally wrong’. (V. I. Lenin: op. cit.; p. 22)

It was Trotsky’s inability to descend into the concrete, combined with the absolutisation of the general, which constituted the essence of his methodology. This methodological one-sidedness also informed, with the utmost clarity, his concept of ‘transitional’ demands, which Trotsky introduces to replace the minimum-maximum demands of the Marxist revolutionary programme. For Marxists-Leninists, between reform and revolution or between minimum and maximum demands there is a leap from one to the other. The Transitional Programme ignores this leap. The bourgeoisie can always make concessions to any minimum, partial, demand, as a temporary manoeuvre to demobilise the struggles of the working class, but no concessions can be made to maximum demands, which pose directly the question of who rules; who is to be master in the house. Trotsky’s Transitional Programme is not based on an understanding of the dialectical leap, and ends up giving the impression of revolution in slow motion from capitalism to the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, maximum demands are labelled ‘transitional’. Trotsky replaces the revolutionary leap with the concept of transition. In actual fact the transitional programme depicts an abstract process, divorced from any real understanding of the concrete revolutionary process. Pseudo-left elements who continue to base themselves on this programme in a non-revolutionary situation have tended to remain isolated from the working class.

8. CONCLUSION.

Trotskyism began as an inability to understand the contradiction between the revolutionary and the opportunist elements in the workers’ movement and it sought to reconcile them. The theoretical origin of Trotskyism is the version of permanent revolution presented by Trotsky. It postulated the progress of the impending democratic revolution in Russia into the socialist revolution, that is to say, the minimum programme into the maximum programme, independently of internal and external factors. This postulation was at variance with Marxism-Leninism, not only because of the programmatic ‘underestimation of the peasantry’, which in this critique we have demonstrated clearly with irrefutable textual evidence, but also at the more fundamental level of methodology. In fact the progress from democratic to socialist revolution would not have been possible, or at any rate would have been highly unlikely, outside of the peculiar circumstances generated by the first imperialist war of 1914-18.

In this respect Lenin’s characterisation of Trotsky’s theory as ‘absurdly left’, taken in connection with his underestimation of the peasantry, was quite correct and understandable.

Likewise in Trotsky’s opposition to the building of socialism in one country, which by the way, Trotsky did not see fit to oppose when Lenin was alive, although the latter wrote about proceeding to build socialism in Russia on several occasions, there was a mechanical separation of the building of socialism in one country to world revolution. In other words for Trotsky the contradiction between building socialism in one country and world capitalism, in the concrete context of the Soviet Union, was absolute. Therefore Trotsky sought to split the international communist movement by forcing a choice between ‘socialism in one country’ and ‘world revolution’, failing to see that the two were complementary, not contradictory. This splitting activity, motivated by a lack of dialectical understanding, ill will and factional consideration served the cause of imperialism.

Furthermore, the contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism also expressed itself in Trotsky’s rejection of Lenin’s admonition that the struggle against bureaucracy could not be reduced to simply a political platform, rather it should be based on a long-term perspective. Again out of pseudo-leftism and factional considerations, Trotsky opted for a short-term perspective in the struggle against bureaucracy in direct opposition to Marxism-Leninism. We have shown that the theoretical origins of the struggle against bureaucracy begin, in fact, as a struggle against Trotskyism in the trade union dispute, 1920-21, a fact that is hidden by Trotskyism.

We have shown how Trotsky introduces the concept of ‘transitional demands’ to replace the concept of minimum and maximum demands, thus confusing the advanced workers about the revolutionary process, and the difference between non-revolutionary and revolutionary situations; replacing the concept of the revolutionary ‘leap’ with that of ‘transition’; and the struggle to defend the immediate interests of the working class with the direct struggle for power. In other words, he confuses the relationship between the ‘defensive’ and the ‘offensive’ stage of the class struggle.

Finally, we have shown the content of Trotsky’s methodology, which in fact is also the basis for the long-running contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism: in Trotskyism we see the primacy of the ‘abstract’ over the ‘concrete’, a tendency to confine reasoning to the level of the general, while ignoring the richness of the concrete. Without a doubt, on these premises, we can say that Trotskyism more than justifies the Marxist-Leninist claim that it is a pseudo-left ideology in competition with Leninism in the workers’ movement.

In answer to the question, 'What is Trotskyism?', the simplest reply is: Trotskyism is pseudo-leftism. A more lengthy reply is: Trotskyism was open opposition to Leninism, and has now become concealed opposition to Leninism.

Trotskyism is a petty-bourgeois deviation in Marxism. It is the triumph of abstract thinking over concrete thinking.

Tony Clark,

Communist Party Alliance.

August 20th 2001