A certainly infamous figure which is dreaded by most Marxists-Leninists, with good reason at least. However, one thing that the dialectical principle teaches us is that to overcome something, its useful, positive, or correct aspects must be preserved.
I became less and less against the historical figure of Trotsky, but I remain anti-Trotskyist, because there are a big difference between Trotsky and Trotskyism. What made me change my mind over time was realizing that I have actually never read anything by Trotsky, I still don’t know his biography, but it’s a fact that he was very relevant in the October Revolution.
After reading the first two chapters of The revolution betrayed, I noticed how Trotsky’s 1936 analysis on the relationship between the peasantry and the state industry under the NEP was correct up to the academic standards of E. H. Carr (1950–1978),[1] Charles Bettelheim (1978)[2] and R.W. Davies (1980)[3], using statistical data available at their time. I don’t know about Trotsky’s conclusion on the character of the Soviet state because I haven’t read his work in full.
Much like Stalin, Trotsky is a very contradictory figure, so it’s very hard to simplify them by picking a side and denying the usefulness of the other. It’s a dogmatic mentality that we should strive to avoid at all costs, because the truth is the whole, not the single perspective we pick. The intention of this post is a call for us to overcome these barriers that hamper our understanding of the past, and therefore, the present. I have noticed how many Marxists-Leninists are able to read works produced by bourgeois academics, yet preserve a hatred for certain figures (such as Trotsky, Bukharin, Khrushchev, etc.) so big that they cannot understand the historical place of them.
14 volumes of A history of Soviet Russia, published between the years of 1950 and 1978. ↩︎
Charles Bettelheim (1978). Class struggles in the USSR, second period: 1923–1930. New York: Monthly Review Press. ↩︎
R. W. Davies (1980). The socialist offensive: the collectivisation of Soviet agriculture, 1929–1930. The industrialisation of Soviet Russia, vol.1. Palgrave Macmillan ↩︎
Trotsky is not simply a Marxist shunted off to the wayside for no reason; we only have to dig deeper to see what he was made off. He was a traitor and there’s no way to defend him unless you take everything he ever said at face value. Which you can’t, he had a hand in the development of an “opposition” block whose whole goal was to remove Stalin from power(there is more, but this was getting long). What kind of third-rate Marxist oscillates from one opposition block to the next first against Lenin then against Stalin. There’s a reason that the most prominent Marxists of the day were against Trotsky: why would we not be. Especially now when the fog has disappeared and we can witness him for who he was from the Russian revolution to his death, we can now say that he was nothing but an opportunist willing to overthrow a socialist country for him to take power.
I do love how you compare Stalin to Trotsky. Yes, very alike indeed one was the general secretary of the USSR who left it as a superpower and the other well he did create the red army.
You don’t have to be dogmatic about it, read through his works if you’d like, that’s fine, but remember who wrote it.
Most literature(Western) on the USSR prior to the opening of the archives is useless generally speaking, and we have newer work that actually uses the files from the archives so there’s no need to read inferior work.
Finally a comparison worth making Trotsky, Bukharin, and Kruschev I would throw Gorbachev in there as well just for completion. So what we have here is four traitors, two were executed(assassinated for Trotsky) the other two were able to take power. Bukharin, what a figure right; directly participated in the attempted overthrow of the USSR, a fantastic choice to make. Khrushchev, what a great choice throwing a god into hell, praised Stalin to the stars and then threw him into the mud placing all the blame onto Stalin’s shoulders even when he heavily participated in many of the errors that were made. During the great purge, Krushchev was let’s say very liberal when it came to accusing innocent people, but that’s all in the past we must hold up this liar and traitor as someone worth reading. Does this mean that we should not read their work? No, you would have to be stupid to not read them what better way to understand your enemy. Though since we have a lot of work to do I would suggest throwing them on the back burner as there are more relevant Marxists to read in comparison to this band of traitors.
A series of quotes and links (They can all be found here (and a lot more). Great page, by the way, https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/trotskyism/ )
I found these to be the most important. Who was Trotsky? “At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that ‘between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf’. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”
V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 20. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. p. 346.
Permanent revolution? “You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.”
Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard. March 1, 1936. Works, Vol. 14. Red Star Press Ltd., London, 1978.
“a) proceeding from the law of uneven development under imperialism, Lenin, in his fundamental article, ‘The United States of Europe Slogan,’ drew the conclusion that the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries is possible;
b) by the victory of socialism in individual countries, Lenin means the seizure of power by the proletariat, the expropriation of the capitalists, and the organisation of socialist production; moreover, all these tasks are not an end in themselves, but a means of standing up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, and helping the proletarians of all countries in their struggle against capitalism;”
J.V. Stalin. The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I., November 22-December 16, 1926.
CIA and Trotsky https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm
Against Trotsky https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/haywood/black-bolshevik/ch06.htm
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73i.html
https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm
From Stalin https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/11/23.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm
From Lenin https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
Sorry for the ramble, but this time it was necessary considering the topic. TLDR: Go through the links. Have a good day comrades.