[Marxism] On being able to criticize

["Jurriaan Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>]

As far as I am concerned, Brian is a fellow socialist who can criticise to
his heart's content. If however he criticises and expects no
countercriticism, then he is gravely mistaken. I stated my point of view and
I'll leave it at that. I regard the dispute about "permanent revolution
versus socialism in one country" as a perverse, twisted political dispute
that is really irrelevant to activists today (except for a few sectarians
maybe). For the rest I could agree with your comment.

In the context of great uncertainty about the political future, what Trotsky
was really talking about at the time was the perspectives of the CPSU on the
world political situation, political honesty, and the party programme. What
Stalin was talking about was the fact that a war-weary population in the
Russian empire (which had experienced first world war and then a civil war)
wished for social and economic reconstruction, and that the party had to
retain its grip on political power.

A sectarian controversy then ensued about "who was the most revolutionary
and who was the true revolutionary", in which Stalin aimed to discredit the
Workers' Opposition (and subsequently the Left Opposition) for the purpose
of consolidating his own power over the party apparatus.

Since it was true that the population was war-weary, and that there was
practical speaking little chance after 1923-1924 of igniting revolution
outside the Russian empire, Stalin's new doctrine about "socialism in one
country", adapted from Bukharin's theories, was bound to have more popular
appeal, even although Stalin falsified the historical record to appear
consistent, and modified the original bolshevik programme with his political
innovation.

That's just to say that in a big political battle, the first casualty is
usually the truth - i.e. it doesn't matter so much anymore who is telling
the truth, but who has power and who can wield it. Stalin presented matters
as if Trotsky and his supporters denied that it was possible to begin a
process of socialist transition in the Soviet Federation. But that was
false, and Trotsky spent a lot of time just trying to correct
misrepresentations of his own position in the party press.

On the surface, the dispute seemed to be about economic policy and foreign
policy. But in reality it was an ideological battle for the hearts and minds
of the party, a ruthless internal power struggle. This internal power
struggle meant that the real questions, namely "what is the most effective
and desirable socialist policy for the Soviet Republics" and "how should we
assess the world political sitituation for the purpose of foreign policy"
could not be publicly debated anymore in a rational and constructive manner,
with a good team spirit. This created a false counterposition between
"building socialism at home, and aiding revolutionary movements abroad".

Trotsky was fighting a losing battle, both because he had never been a real
"party apparatchnik", because of the more conservative popular mood after
the conclusion of the civil war, and his previous "militarisation of labour"
schemes. He was a skillful diplomat, orator, negotiator and commander, but
not a skilled party worker who could sway the members and get them on his
side. Thus, all the cards were stacked against him, and he was bound to lose
the argument, something he knew himself very well. But having been a leader
of the revolution, he could not very well retire to a dacha in Odessa, and
so he persisted in his political fight, thereby digging his own political
grave as far as the CPSU was concerned.

So really the lesson to draw is that the true controversy was not about
"socialism in one country versus permanent revolution" but about
organisational methods and styles which did not permit the question of what
was the best policy to follow to be rationally and sensibly debated anymore.
This being the case, it is a sad thing that many socialists today still try
to ape 1920s style. If they stopped being apes, then we could start to think
through socialist political policy in 2004.

Jurriaan





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism