The Central Committee of the United Communists of Europe presents here the result of an internal discussion about Trotskyism. As we show in this article, we do not call ourselves Trotskyists, but take the best elements of Trotskyism and integrate it into revolutionary Marxism. We wish to uphold Leon Trotsky as a revolutionary communist who has much to teach communists today.
Leon Trotsky was a revolutionary communist whose contributions to socialist revolution are unmeasurable. From his early days as a militant in the Petrograd Soviet during the 1905 Revolution, to his principled opposition to Stalinism in the twenties and thirties, Trotsky was present at each stage in the revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century. As a theorist in works like Results and Prospects and the Permanent Revolution, he produced some important interventions that provided clarity to a confusing situation. Although he was not free of mistakes and theoretical weaknesses at times, Trotsky must be included in the canon of revolutionary Marxism.
A serious engagement with Trotsky should be part of a larger investigation of the primary theorists of Bolshevism: Lenin, Radek, Zetkin, Kollontai, Bordiga, Bukharin and Zinoviev. This is important, for Trotsky was a participant in a much larger revolutionary movement in Europe in the early twentieth century. Between 1890 and 1927, there was no such thing as Trotskyism, for Trotsky with his comrades identified as revolutionary Marxists and Bolsheviks. It was only after the defeat of revolutions in Germany, Hungary and China, and the increasing bureaucratisation of the Soviet state that Trotsky emerged as an independent figure from the Stalinist leadership of the CPSU.
Initially, Trotsky and his comrades viewed themselves as oppositional figures who still thought the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) could be reformed and put it back on the revolutionary road. Uniting with figures such as Bukharin and Zinoviev, Trotsky criticised the increasingly domestic focus of the Soviet leadership, their ultra-leftism in the Third Period, and right opportunism during the Popular Front. Due to the hostile environment created by the Stalinist faction, they often had to operate underground in secrecy, making it much harder to openly agitate for their programme. It was only after the Stalinist leadership had murdered all the original Bolsheviks and promoted mostly careerist bureaucrats to positions of power, that Trotsky perceived the necessity of splitting and forming a new Fourth International. From this moment on, Trotskyism became a distinct current in the international communist movement, which called for a political revolution to remove the Stalinist bureaucracy and the restoration of Soviet democracy.
Trotsky continued to defend the system of socialist planning in the USSR, public ownership of the means of production, and the gains of the October Revolution. The bureaucrats in charge of the state were viewed as parasites who exploited the socialist state for their own benefit. They derived huge material benefits from their position in the bureaucracy, such as higher incomes, better housing, higher quality schooling for their children, and access to more resources. In the later years of the USSR, there was an active consumerism in the Soviet bureaucracy. Soviet bureaucrats had access to private transportation, summer homes, and electronics. Although the standard of living of the working class was high in the Soviet Union, working people did not have access to the same resources of the bureaucracy.
Trotsky did not view the Soviet bureaucracy as a class, but a strata of the working class, similar to the labour aristocracy or a trade union bureaucracy. Furthermore, the Soviet bureaucracy is not the same thing as state-power. Trotsky defended the socialist state as an instrument to defend the progressive system of social property. The bureaucracy was a stratum that emerged out of the very particular conditions in the Soviet Union from the thirties onward. Unless they were removed, the Stalinist bureaucracy would restore capitalism, which is exactly what began happening from the 60s onward, but was not fully completed until 1991.
A major effect of the dominance of the Soviet bureaucracy was a massive growth of the second economy, which functioned as a material basis for corruption and other harmful behaviours. As Kieran shows in Socialism Betrayed, managers in the USSR in the 60s and 70s would often hoard goods and raw materials. These would sometimes be sold privately on the black market, undermining the proper functioning of the Soviet economy. Also, in cases where the factory had not met plan targets, the hoarded products would be used to meet plan fulfilment. The Soviet police and other authorities would often accept bribes in the form of money, goods, or services in exchange for tolerance of such behaviours. A political revolution that removed the bureaucracy would have to make managers accountable to the workers. This would require stronger involvement of the popular masses in socialist planning through strengthening of workplace organisations. It would require mass campaigns to expose corrupt party leaders and replace them with honest members of the party.
During the entire period of 1929 to 1991, a political revolution remained an option for the Soviet working class and the popular masses. Such a political revolution could take many forms. In some conjunctures, it could involve the permission of multiple socialist parties, which would be allowed to agitate for their programme so long as they did not engage in counter-revolutionary activity. Furthermore, it would mean that those who have political jobs would not receive a wage higher than a skilled worker, would live in working class neighbourhoods, would not be given private transportation, and would derive no material benefits from their job. Moreover, a political revolution would require a liberalisation of the toxic conformist climate under Stalin, and be replaced with one of open debate and discussion. Essentially, a political revolution would involve a return to the early October Revolution, in which there were many political parties, debates, art movements, and opinions, and in which criticism was an essential component of Bolshevism.
Although there were some periods after Stalin in which a more open climate was possible, most of the post-Stalin period was still characterised by the dominance of Soviet bureaucrats. This system was transported to Eastern Europe in countries like the German Democratic Republic, the Polish People's Republic, and the Hungarian People's Republic. Just like the Soviet Union, these were transitional social formations–workers states–which had a progressive economic system that could not fully realise their potential due to the dominance of a bureaucratic stratum. Some Trotskyists–particularly Ernest Mandel, Michel Pablo, and other figures in the Fourth International– offered critical support to these deformed workers states and defended them against imperialism. They were adamant that these were not capitalist countries and contained a significantly higher quality of life than under capitalism. Their criticism was waged against the conservative bureaucratic leadership, which was holding back socialism and needed to be removed through political revolution.
Trotsky's positions are correct in many ways, for they provide a historical materialist analysis of what went wrong in the Soviet Union and offer a solution that does not involve counter-revolution. He and his followers were bullied and some murdered for their views–including Trotsky himself–by Stalinists. It is atrocious that many members of the CPUSA in the thirties engaged in gangsterism and violence against any perceived Trotskyist, while presenting themselves as true defenders of humanity. Despite many of the correct conclusions of Trotsky and his followers, there has been a tendency to avoid analysis that does not correspond to Trotsky's framework by Trotskyists.
Instead of digging into the wealth of material produced by revisionist historians such as Arch-Getty, Katja Hoyer and Kristen Ghodsee, as well as non-Trotskyists like Charles Bettelheim and Nicos Poulantzas, many Trotskyists have just presented Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed and later Trotskyist accounts from Ernest Mandel as a complete analysis of the former transitional workers states. This has led to a tendency to engage in practices similar to the Stalinists, which treat Trotsky and a small canon of Trotskyist writers as a closed system that contains a complete explanation. Trotskyist organisations often do not go beyond calls for 'political revolution' or think outside of Trotsky's framework of the 'degenerated workers state'. Some, like the International Marxist Tendency, will even imitate the worst Stalinist practices by denouncing Marxist figures outside of the Trotskyist canon like David Harvey as anti-Marxist, academic or bourgeois. One wonders why this is necessary, as it creates an internal climate that is no less hostile than a Stalinist party, and tends to create a situation where meaningful communist discussion is impossible. This is certainly not true of all Trotskyist organisations, as some--Trotskyist Fraction-Fourth International, for example--are quite open to engaging in Marxist debates and show an ability to do so without being dogmatic. However, there is a strong tendency for this not to happen, sometimes even in the best Trotskyist organisations.
At the beginning of this article, we indicated that 'Trotskyism' did not exist prior to the domination of the communist movement by the Stalinist faction. Rather, there was a wealth of discussion and debate by a wide-range of figures including Lenin, Bordiga, Bukharin, Trotsky, Radek, Clara Zetkin, Kollontai, and other lesser known names. Trotsky was the main defender of this legacy after most of the original Bolsheviks were murdered and produced some of the most path breaking accounts of Stalinist degeneration. Despite this, we do not need to be Trotskyists and should not continue uncritically defending every one of Trotsky's positions. Instead, we should create networks and organisations that return to the original, collective political climate of Bolshevism, while integrating Trotsky's work into revolutionary Marxism. Doing so will allow communists to engage with a wide-range of Marxist writers, as well as some non-Marxist figures. It will also allow us to make a genuine criticism of some of Trotsky's writings, which will follow the kind of procedure that characterised a debate during the first four congresses of the Third International.
The United Communists of Europe sees itself as upholding the best traditions of the communist movement, and takes what is true in Trotskyism and integrates it into revolutionary Marxism. There are indeed some communist organisations that have followed this path, notably the Mandelite Fourth International and the journal Historical Materialism. The Fourth International claims that it upholds an open Marxism, which is inspired by Trotskyism but also engages with other traditions such as liberation theology and Maoism. This is a correct attitude, but unfortunately, there is a low level of serious theoretical engagement within the Fourth International. Due to its 'broad left' political line, its members participate in leftist mass parties such as Bij1 or the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, the Scottish Socialist Party in Scotland, the Workers Party of Belgium, or the Left Bloc in Portugal. Often, there is a kind of tailism, which involves a reluctance to take an independent position and subordination of one's forces to the reformist leadership. They do host yearly schooling, such as their Ecosocialism conferences, but these often contain a lot of speeches from movementist figures and only a very mild, watered down theoretical engagement. As a result, many Fourth International members are very good activists and involved in the social movements, but very weak on Marxist theory. This is unfortunate, given that one of their main members was Ernest Mandel, one of the greatest Marxist theorists of the twentieth century.
Other Trotskyist currents, such as the International Socialists, occasionally will publish important historical debates within Marxist theory in their journal. At their yearly Marxism conference, one will find an incredible selection of Marxist books from a wide-range of different currents. Unfortunately, the International Socialists devote very little time to Marxist theory, putting all of their time into attending and tailing demonstrations. This creates dedicated activists who lack a serious Marxist education and burnout after a few years. Besides these, there are Trotskyist currents such as the International Marxist Tendency, who devote time to Marxist theory but are unwilling to engage with Marxist and non-Marxist literature outside of their parties current. Instead, they promote the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, as well as Ted Grant and Alan Woods, while denouncing everyone else as an academic Marxist. The IMT, which has recently rebranded itself as the Revolutionary Communist International, is a great organisation for people who want to worship communist imagery and recite slogans. However, it is no different from a Stalinist organisation and often acts like a sectarian cult that drives people away from Marxism.
The United Communists of Europe is open to engagement with those involved in the better currents of Trotskyism (i.e. the Fourth International, Historical Materialism, etc.), as well as those involved in independent communist collectives. Through our International Communist Study Group, we will organise a detailed study of revolutionary Marxism of which Trotsky will most certainly be a part. Our hope is to create an organisation that integrates the best traditions of revolutionary Marxism in order to lay the foundation for a future communist party across Europe.
Comments
Post a Comment