Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 21:46:53 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Lenin on Trotsky & social-imperialism


The present current of Trotskyism presents itself as
a line for the workers and oppressed people to follow.
It even pretends to "comform to the teachings of Lenin"
What's the truth?

Despite the fact that indivudual Trotskyites on
some questions may take up positions that are not
entirely reactionary, the main thing about Trotskyism
is that it *is* a bourgeois ideology and should be
repudiated by the great majority of people.

One small fact that supports this: The standpoint
of Trotsky himself, as opposed to Lenin, on the
question of self-dependence of nations in 1916.

As I quoted from a 1916 article by Lenin in my
recent "UNITE! Info #20en":


'Outspoken social-imperialists, such as Lensch, still rail both
against self-determination and the renunciation of 
annexations. As for the Kautskyites, they hypocritically 
recognise self-determination - Trotsky and Martov are going
the same way here in Russia. *Both of them*, like Kautsky,
say they favour self-determination. What happens in practice?'

'Take Trotsky's articles "The Nation and the Economy" in
*Nashe Slovo*, and you will find his usual eclecticism: on the
one hand, the economy unites nations and, on the other, 
national oppression divides them. The conclusion?'

'The conclusion is that the prevailing hypocrisy remains
unexposed, agitation is dull and does not touch upon what
is most important, basic, significant and closely connected
with practice - one's attitude to the nation that is oppressed
by "one's own" nation.'

............ 

'No matter what the subjective "good" intentions of Trotsky and
Martov may be, their evasiveness objectively supports Russian
social-imperialism.'

[So far Lenin]

Substitute 1979-89 for 1916 and look at what the followres
of Trotsky said, and still today say, about the Soviet
social-imperialists' aggression against Afghanistan, you
get an even better picture of the difference between
Leninism, on the one hand, and Trotskyism, on the other.

True enough, we who in the main are adherents of Stalin
have some quite awkward questions to reply to concerning
events in 1939-1940, for instance. I promise to return to
them - only, I don't know more precisely when. It *is*
somewhat unsatisfactory to have this historical question
and certain others in the main unanswered, this must be
admitted. But the Trotskyites are not right there either.

Rolf M.