Lenin and Trotsky: What They Really Stood For | Theory for Fighters

[00:00:00]If you then ever wondered why the modern left feels conservative, cynical, or stuck in a cycle of reformism that never goes anywhere, I would say you're actually looking at the ghost of Stalin.

[00:00:09]The divide between Trotsky and Stalin, these dead white Russians, could actually give us some indication as to why we're losing right now and how we can start winning. Welcome to Theory for Fighters, where we take a Marxist concept, explain them, and their applicability to real-life class struggle and organizing. And look, you can argue that this divide between Trotsky and Stalin is that it is history. But Marxists don't run from history. We actually study it to arm ourselves. And actually, we use it, believe it or not, to unify the movement and to unify the class. But we say that this unity should not be a false one. It should be a political unity built on the real understanding of the facts. And most people entering the movement today are interested in these debates and want answers. And look, the same debates that we face in the movement today are the ones that the Bolsheviks faced when they were building their party. How do revolutionaries break their isolation from the masses? How do you actually build a revolutionary party? What is our approach to trade unions? What is our approach to existing parties and mass movements? Is revolution or socialism actually even possible? And what's our attitude towards liberals and reformists? And what is the Marxist position on war? These questions find their clearest expression in the history of the building of the Bolshevik party and of the Russian Revolution. And to clarify the answers to those debates that we have today, we have to clarify what is the real position of Lenin and also of Trotsky and not to kind of build these kind of caricatures or straw men.

[00:01:34]In fact, I think the best advice is what Lenin said himself is to make communism something that you study for yourself, not something that you learn by rote.

[00:01:42]And on this basis, you will come to the correct conclusions by assessing and mulling over the facts for yourself. So, use this video as a point for further study.

[00:01:51]Look at all the links, I'll put them in the description of the video for further reading that you can do. So, before we go any further, I'm going to clarify I'm going to use this term Stalinism and I'm going to clarify first why I'm using that term and not Marxism-Leninism. I'm not using it as an insult or a lazy label. I'm using it as a scientific category to distinguish between Marxism, Leninism, and the specific policies and outlook that were developed under Stalin and later adopted by so-called Marxist-Leninist parties. These parties often claim to be the exclusive heirs of Lenin and of Leninism. And so, many Marxist-Leninists will reject the term Stalinist, insisting that Stalin merely applied Marxism to the concrete conditions of Russia. Marxism is often described as scientific socialism and like any science, we use categories. And so, Stalinism is a shorthand for what Trotsky termed proletarian Bonapartism, which essentially is a term that encapsulates the ideology, the outlook, the methods of this kind of bureaucratic cast that rose to the top of society, rose to domination of a series of what we call degenerated workers states. And again, I'm going to use the term cast and not class. It was not a capitalist class. It was a cast of people that derived its position of power not from the private ownership over the means of production, but from its position atop a planned economy. And so, by extension, its interests and its outlook were kind of conditioned by this need to maintain that position atop society and ensure political stability at all costs. And this was also the only way that they could preserve their privileges that they gained from being atop the planned economy and being this bureaucratic cast. And I would say this is not a personal thing, but this outlook of ensuring political stability at all costs is why Stalinism became a fundamentally counter-revolutionary ideology, especially on the international stage. Because world revolution, actually, do you know what?

[00:03:48]Revolution in general, because it threatened the bureaucrats status both materially and politically. And so at its core, I would say Stalinism is actually reformist. It's not revolutionary. Where capitalism still existed, the regime in Moscow preferred stability. They preferred stable arrangements, peaceful coexistence, defense of democracy over revolutionary upheaval. And again, there are many examples of this.

[00:04:13]If you want to know more, just leave a comment and maybe I can make a video on them in the future. But, in a lot of countries inspired by the Russian Revolution, capitalism was overthrown.

[00:04:23]And so in these countries, they would often look to Russia as an example for material support. And so in these countries, the Stalinist bureaucracy fostered these kind of small ruling cliques kind of modeled actually after themselves, especially in the Eastern Bloc, in Asia, because it wanted to have these kind of pliable regimes. And essentially, it wanted to be the premier socialist power in the world. So when I say Stalinism, this is kind of the outlook that I'm referring to. This conservative, bureaucratic, a defense of the existing order kind of dressed in socialist verbiage, but fundamentally opposed to revolutionary internationalism. Okay, so you might now be asking, okay, great, that's Stalinism. What is Trotskyism and is this something that we should describe ourselves as? And I would say Trotskyism is much more than just anti-Stalinism.

[00:05:13]And again, I know I'm going to get a lot of comments. It's not revisionism. I would say a passionate defense and continuation of the genuine methods and ideas of Marxism. And an unconditional defense of the Soviet Union and of the planned economy in Russia. And in all of Trotsky's writings and speeches, you'll find a polemic basically against kind of unthinking repetition of phrases, slogans, things such as revolution isn't possible. Oh, we have to limit our demands to what is immediately uh possible right now. The working class isn't ready to take power. And one of the key ideas that he develops is his theory of permanent revolution, which he first draws out after the 1905 Russian Revolution. And you will often hear, "Oh, it's Stalin who applied Marxism to the real conditions of Russia."

[00:06:05]But actually, I would say this was Trotsky who was applying Marxism to the real conditions of Russia. And permanent revolution is not a call for a simultaneous set of spontaneous revolutions all at once. Actually, in fact, the term permanent revolution was first used by Marx in 1850. And he uses this term essentially to develop a thesis on the 1905 revolution. And long before there was any kind of antagonism between Trotsky and Stalin, Trotsky saw to essentially challenge this kind of what we describe as a Menshevik point of view. I.e., that revolution has to happen in certain stages. Because it was a commonly held view at the time that before workers or the working class could ever take power, the bourgeoisie would first have to carry out its historical role of bringing forth capitalist democracy and republics like those in Western Europe. Although, when you do look at Britain and France, which are the classical examples, it didn't quite happen like that. And then only after a long period of capitalist development would socialism actually become possible. So, in his work Results and Prospects, Trotsky argued that actually this idea, this idea of a revolution having to always go through these stages actually distorts the ideas of Marx and Engels. And he says instead, any theory or perspective for whether a revolution is possible, whether a revolution is going to happen, has to be based on the real class forces within society and the balance between them. And in Russia, for example, what was going to be the class that was going to be capable of bringing forth democratic reforms, land reforms? Was it going to be the capitalist class that was in bed with the Tsarist regime and the landlords, or was it going to be this emerging revolutionary working class in the industrial centers of Russia with the peasantry behind them? His theory contained a lot of foresight. I would say it was actually proven correct by the 1917 revolution because when you have the revolution in February, when the provisional government come to power, i.e. the bourgeoisie, i.e. the people that the Mensheviks said should be carrying out the democratic reforms, should be carrying out the land reforms, should be ending the war, they achieved absolutely nish. It's because fundamentally in Russia, they had no interest in overthrowing the Tsar or carrying out land reform or fighting for a constituent assembly or a new constitution. The events of February, the emergence of the working class onto the scene of history is what forced their hand to get rid of the Tsar anyway and form this provisional government.

[00:08:34]And again, what is the applicability of this? There are still all across the world struggles for basic democratic reforms such as representation in parliament, an end to social media bans.

[00:08:45]Even though they are reforms, they take on revolutionary dimensions and it's not the liberals and it's not the capitalists who are fighting for these reforms. It is the working class. An important part of the theory of permanent revolution is that the working class, having achieved the victory of these democratic reforms, having fought for these reforms, they're not going to stop at half measures or just political measures. They won't just stop at bourgeois reforms to put power back into the hands of the capitalist class that exploit them. They will begin the struggle for a society that's run in their own interests and that is the struggle for socialism. And so hopefully, you can see there the incompatibility between Trotsky and Stalin's outlook.

[00:09:26]And Trotsky often accused Stalin of treating Marxism in a very scholastic, abstract and a very rigid way. And this is why we as revolutionaries in the classical will to take theory really seriously. There's actually a very good Trotsky quote on this. He who operates blindly in the domain of theory, i.e. someone who says they have no theory, is condemned to capitulate blindly to the facts. And I would say this is exactly what Stalin did. He capitulated to the facts. There's this kind of worship of the established fact.

[00:09:58]And essentially, he took something that was true, which is the workers had successfully come to power in Russia, and totally distorts that with this theory of socialism in one country in 1924 by basically saying, well, it's only in Russia where the workers can come to power, and that the USSR could build socialism on its own, and there was no need for international revolution. Again, you should contrast this with what Lenin was saying. What he did see that the salvation for the Russian Revolution was contained within the European and world revolution.

[00:10:29]That's why they set up the Communist International, people. And again, Trotsky opposed this because it's a basic revision of Marxist principles.

[00:10:36]Obviously, Stalin used this to accuse Trotsky of pessimism. Basically, "Oh, you believe that socialism can't be built in Russia. You're such a pessimist." And again, Stalin basically claimed, "Oh, well, if we can't build socialism in one country, it was basically futile to even have a revolution in the first place." And it's like the Menshevik era, but it's kind of in reverse. So, the Mensheviks would say, "Oh, okay, the workers shouldn't take power because the conditions aren't ripe." Whereas Stalin would said, "Well, because they have taken power in Russia, it must be possible to achieve socialism right now." But again, this theory wasn't or this belief that you could build socialism was not extended to other countries. This is what led to Stalin advising the Chinese Communist to work with the Kuomintang because oh, the workers in China is not ripe for a revolution. By the way, they did have a revolution in the late 1920s. And again, this kind of blind worship of facts leads tactical errors such as this theory of social fascism and the third period, which essentially extrapolated that because social democrats have faith in the capitalist system because they want to work within the capitalist system and because fascists are also supporters of the capitalist system, they must therefore both be fascists and therefore social democracy is just the moderate wing of fascism. And this directly contributed to the immobilisation of the working class movement in Germany and totally divided it. And it allowed Hitler to come to power without so much breaking a window pane.

[00:11:59]Those are his words. And it's this kind of method, you see it so often. Lenin quotes kind of ripped from their context, blindly repeated and taken out of context to justify old and new lines, zigzags. And these were enforced throughout the movement not through political conviction, through convincing people, through the strength of argument, and by convincing people that they work in practice. They were enforced by slander, by expulsions and actually even through murder. And the result was the total elimination of Marx's thought from the Communist International. So, the dispute between Trotsky and Stalin wasn't just about personal disputes.

[00:12:39]It wasn't the fact that Trotsky wanted to be in charge or should have been in charge. It was a defense of the essence of Marxism and also the defense of Marx's ideas. Trotsky even had to defend Marx's ideas from people that claimed to be on his side. Trotsky polemicized against people that joined the left opposition who only joined because they were opposed to Stalin or they in somehow they objected morally to Stalin or it uh it offended their sensibilities. But he criticized them for having no grip or understanding of the Marxist method. And actually he polemicizes greatly against leading members of the American SWP during World War II for not maintaining an unconditional defense of the workers state in Russia even in its degenerated form, even with Stalin in charge. And in his final years he produces major writings of Marxism refuting these political deviations, and reasserting dialectical materialism not as a set of quotes, but as a living method. And it was that method that guided his whole life. And obviously, he was pursued throughout his whole life for his ideas by Tsarist authorities, by British imperialism, and then again by Stalin.

[00:13:43]Western so-called democracies, they refused him asylum, forcing him into far-flung exile. His family members were hunted down and even murdered, and he lived under the constant threat of assassination. And obviously, he was so targeted because he was so feared. And so, how is this applicable to today? I would say that we should study the debates between dead white Russians in the same way that we should study debates between Engels and Dühring, or Marx and Malfus. These can ground us in the real revolutionary methods of Marxism. It means that we can offer a perspective and a way forward for the working class. When we understand really what is going on and the processes that lie behind them, it means that we take an independent revolutionary perspective. It means that we don't seek compromises with the ruling class. It means that we fight to unify a movement that can actually overthrow capitalism and run society for itself by learning the errors of the past and not blindly just feeling its way through. So, this is why it is important to study these debates. If there are other topics that you would like me to cover in future, anything historical, theoretical, tactical, let me know in the comments below and I'll see you next time.