Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 10:15:54 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Critique of Trotskyism



I'll just throw this one out, without going through the arguments
properly.

It's interesting to compare the development of Trotsky's thought
on the USSR with the development of his thought on fascism.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On the USSR, the outward expression of his analysis, "political
revolution" , "degenerated workers state" remained constant
>from 1928 to 1940. But the actual content changed every five
years or so.

Between 1928 and 1933, political revolution meant a peaceful 
revolution. The underlying social make up was that of a 
workers state, all you needed was to get rid of the bureaucracy.

After 1933, more under the influence of the events in Germany than
the USSR, Trotsky came to the conclusion that the CP's were
objectively counter revolutionary ( this was more than confirmed
by the events in Spain ). The conclusion in the USSR was
that "political revolution" would have to involve the use of force
by the working class.

Towards the end of his life, Trotsky described the USSR as like 
a ball at the top of the hill, about to role one way, towards
socialism, or the other, towards capitalism, inherently unstable.
A degenerated workers state could not remain as such on a long
term basis - and the coming war would decide the issue one way 
or the other.

While Trotsky stood out against Stalinism, and did so from a
Marxist perspective, the content of his analysis changed quite
often.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, in stark contrast, Trosky's analysis of how
to fight fascism remained remarkably constant. Sure, the
country and particular circumstances changed, but the basic
analysis did not. Time and again, Trotsky argues for a united
front, usually as opposed to a popular front, sometimes against
ultra leftism or squadism, along with a revolutionary party
fighting against the reformists for socialism, warning of the
dangers of centrism.

Sometimes, within this prespective, the basic analysis stays
the same, but the phraseology changes : "military but not
political support" for the Spanish Republican government.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, there is a contrast between his theoretical sure footedness
and his ability to do anything about it.

In 1928, in the USSR, there was actually quite a high level of
working class militancy. There was also a considerable number
of Trotskyists - say, 10,000. We are used to thinking of Stalinism
as an indestructable monolith, but it was not so in 1928. Stalin
stumbled upon collectivisation and rapid inustrialisation rather
than had a clear cut plan.

What did for the Trostkyists was that they didn't see Stalin as
the main enemy, but the classic "rightists". They were completely
wrong footed by the collectivisation and industrialisation. Very
brave Trotskysists, who had endured persecution under the Tsar,
capitulated, because their politics, not their bravery, had let 
them down.

On the other hand, Trotsky was obviously right about Germany, Spain,
France, etc. The tragedy was, his forces on the ground were so
miniscule all he could do was leave a legacy to subsequent generations,
transmitted "over the heads of the 2nd + 3rd internationals" , to
subsequent generations - in practise, he could do sod all about it.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK

---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---