Re: Trotsky vs Stalin or Lenin vs Trotksy ?

[m-14970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Hugh Rodwell)]

Antonio thinks:

>It seems all the antagonism between those two lines goes back to the
>antagonism between the "internationalist" and the "socialism in one
>country" approach of the revolution. However, this  antagonism had begun
>not with Trotsky vs Stalin but precisely with Lenin vs Trotsky, and goes
>back, at least, to the Brest-Litovsk peace treat (tratado?)(3 March
>1918).

There is no way the treaty Brest-Litovsk marks any special turning point in
the development of internationalist or one-country positions in the
Bolshevik leadership.

For internationalism, if you want turning points, you must go back at least
to Zimmerwald, and to understand Zimmerwald you must go back to the
outbreak of WWI and the social-patriotic treachery of the German
Social-Democrats. If you see Brest-Litovsk as determining the whole
internationalist relationship between Lenin and Trotsky, where does this
leave the first five congresses of the Communist International? Why was it
founded in the first place?

Also, disagreements over Brest-Litovsk can't be distorted into a Lenin vs
Trotsky matter. It was Lenin vs the whole of the Bolshevik party. The
disagreement between Lenin and Trotsky was smaller than any of the other
disagreements going on. Basically it concerned whether to assume in advance
the Germans would renew their offensive against Russia if the treaty wasn't
signed (Lenin), or to sit tight and let the Germans reveal their aggressive
hostility towards Russia in reality (Trotsky). The advantage of the latter
position would be that it would be impossible for the British and French to
smear the Bolsheviks to the British and French workers as paid agents of
the Germans, accepting gold to close the Eastern front. The disadvantage
would be the extra territorial losses, and the extra harshness of other
terms the Germans would dictate if they had to wait.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---