As an unrepentant working class, self-taught Marxist-Leninist, and a staunch follower of the anti-revisionist line of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, I find myself in profound disagreement with Trotsky’s ‘theories’ and his contemporary adherents. Despite having previously delved into M. J. Olgin’s 1935 book, ‘Trotskyism: Counter-Revolution in Disguise, I felt compelled to revisit it, seeking a deeper understanding of the counter-revolutionary essence of Trotsky and his theories, particularly the so-called theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’
The dispute between Trotsky’s so-called theory of “Permanent Revolution” vs. Stalin’s (in actuality, Lenin’s) theory of “Socialism in One Country” began shortly after the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917. After the revolution, particularly after the defeat of the foreign intervention and the White Guards in the Russian Civil War, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) faced a significant political and theoretical dilemma. Most Russian Marxists, including Lenin, had anticipated that a revolution in Russia would spark a revolutionary wave in Europe’s more economically developed countries. As the Political Report of the Central Committee (March 6-8) reported:
…it is the absolute truth that without a German revolution we are doomed—perhaps not in Petrograd, not in Moscow, but in Vladivostok, in more remote places to which perhaps we shall have to retreat, and the distance to which is perhaps greater than the distance from Petrograd to Moscow. At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed (source).
However, the defeat of Germany’s 1918-1919 revolution and the short-lived Hungarian revolution of 1919 dashed such hopes. Western Europe no longer looked ripe for a proletarian revolution, but the Russian working class, in alliance with the peasantry, had already taken power in Russia. This left the CPSU, as the proletariat’s vanguard, with a complex theoretical question: what was the best course of action?
Stalin argued in favour of continuing to build socialism in Russia, even if Russia was blockaded and isolated and there were no immediate parallel proletarian revolutions in Western Europe, i.e., “Socialism in One Country.” As Stalin wrote in The Foundations of Leninism, the CPSU must continue to build socialism in Russia, albeit acknowledging that a socialist revolution in a single country was insufficient for the final victory of socialism:
…the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries (source).
The theory of “Socialism in One Country” logically builds upon Lenin’s theory of imperialism and socialist revolution. According to Lenin, the three main characteristics of imperialism are:
- The domination of finance capital, the export of capital to the colonies and dependent territories, and the existence of an omnipotent financial oligarchy.
- The growth in “spheres of influence,” the emergence of a world system of financial bondage, and the colonial oppression of the majority of humanity by a handful of advanced countries.
- The inevitability of imperialist wars and bitter struggles between those advanced countries for a re-division of the world.
These three enumerated characteristics of imperialism will inevitably lead to:
- An intensification of the revolutionary crisis in advanced capitalist countries. As the proletariat of the “mother countries” is increasingly exploited by the financial oligarchy, the class struggle intensifies, and the proletariat’s class consciousness increases, creating an internal crisis and strengthening the proletarian front.
- An intensification of the revolutionary crisis in the dependent and colonial countries, i.e., the national liberation movement.
- Wars between the imperialist states, which leads to their general weakening, and a coalition of the proletariat of the advanced imperialist states with the national liberation movement of the dependent and colonial countries, thus forming a united world front of the revolution against the world front of imperialism.
From these essential characteristics of imperialism, it follows that an imperialist system of the world economy exists, which is an integral unit continuously ripped asunder by its inherent contradictions, where the proletarian revolution has ripened everywhere, even in the comparatively backward countries, and may break imperialism as its weakest link.
Thus, a proletarian revolution can occur in a single country, not necessarily in multiple countries simultaneously, and not necessarily in a more advanced country. Lenin recognized this fact in his opposition to the slogans “United States of Europe” and “United States of the World”:
As a separate slogan, however the slogan United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first because it merges with Socialism, second, because it may wrongly be interpreted to mean that the victory of Socialism in a single country is impossible; it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to others (source).
Trotsky opposed the theory of “Socialism in One Country.” Why? What was his basis for this opposition? The basis for Trotsky’s opposition was his rejection of the law of the uneven development of capitalism. He denied Lenin’s theory of imperialism as an integrated whole that must inevitably be broken by the proletarian revolution at its weakest spot. As Trotsky wrote during the 1905-06 revolution:
Without direct State support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia cannot maintain itself in power and transform its temporary rule into a durable Socialist dictatorship. This we cannot doubt for an instant. (Leon Trotsky, Our Revolution, Russian Edition, 1906, p. 278.)
Trotsky clung to the outdated Menshevik view that the proletarian revolution must occur in the economically advanced countries of Europe, disregarding the law of the uneven development of capitalism and, thus, the possibility of building socialism in a single, backward country like Russia. If the proletariat of a country happened to find itself in control of State power, according to Trotsky, they would be unable to maintain it without the State support of the European proletariat. Without such support, a socialist revolution in Russia was impossible. As Trotsky wrote in his 1917 pamphlet Program of Peace:
The only more or less concrete historical consideration put forward against the slogan of the United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss Social-Democrat in the sentence which follows: ‘Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism.’ From this the Social-Democrat drew the conclusion that the victory of Socialism was possible in a single country, and that, therefore, there was no point in making the creation of a United States of Europe the condition for the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible fact. But this very unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of England, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa or Asia all these countries represent capitalist ‘Europe’, which has grown ripe for the social revolution. That no single country should ‘wait’ for others in its own struggle is an elementary idea which it is useful and necessary to repeat, in order to avoid the substitution of the idea of expectant international inaction for the idea of simultaneous international action. Without waiting for others, we begin and continue our struggle on our national soil quite sure that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if that should not happen, then it would be hopeless, in the light of the experience of history and in the light of theoretical considerations, to think, for example, that a revolutionary Russia could hold its own in the face of conservative Europe or that a Socialist Germany could remain isolated in the capitalist world. (Leon Trotsky, Collected Works, Russian Edition, Vol. III, Part I, pp. 89-90.)
Trotsky rejected Lenin’s theory of imperialism, as described above, and the law of the uneven development of capitalism. He failed to see that while England, Austria, Germany, and France were all advanced imperialist states, there were contradictions within them, between their proletariat and the ruling class, as well as between them, as demonstrated during the imperialist First World War, and between the advanced countries and the colonies and dependent territories (ex. India and Britain, German South West Africa/Namibia and Germany, Indochina and France). To Trotsky, the revolution wouldn’t come as a result of these contradictions but would come simultaneously or nearly simultaneously in the most advanced countries or none at all. Since revolutions don’t happen like this, this is an essentially defeatist, counter-revolutionary theory, which only serves to weaken the proletariat and strengthen the bourgeoisie. Lenin criticized this all-or-nothing thinking in January 1918:
I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense (source).
In addition to rejecting the law of the uneven development of capitalism, Trotsky, in typical Menshevik fashion, rejected the alliance of the working class with the mass peasantry, furthering his opposition to the development of socialism in Russia.
Contrary to Trotsky’s quasi-Marxist theory of “Permanent Revolution,” Marx and Engels envisaged a ‘Permanent Revolution’ as the proletariat leading the masses of oppressed peoples and petty-bourgeois democrats, first, against the old system, and secondly, against the petty-bourgeois democrats, together with the village poor, when the former entrench themselves and become the ruling power in the State. As Marx and Engels wrote:
While the democratic bourgeois wish to terminate the revolution as quickly as possible with the view to confine themselves at best to the realization of only these demands [the demands of the petty bourgeoisie], our interests and our tasks consist in making the revolution permanent until all more or less property-owning classes have been removed from power, until the proletariat has conquered State power, until the union of the proletarians not only in one country, but in all leading countries of the world, has developed to such an extent, that competition between the proletarians of those countries has ceased and at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians. What we are concerned with is not a change in private property, but the abolition of private property, not softening class contradictions, but abolishing classes, not improving existing society, but founding a new society (source).
Marx and Engels conceived of the ‘Permanent Revolution’ as the proletariat not terminating at the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution but making a permanent revolution, that is, advancing from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to a final socialist revolution, from a revolution to improve existing society to a revolution that founds a new society.
Just as Marx and Engels envisaged the proletariat leading all the oppressed classes, so did Lenin. As early as 1894, Lenin wrote:
When its [the proletariat’s] advanced representatives will have assimilated the ideas of scientific socialism, the idea of the historic role of the Russian worker, when these ideas will have become widespread, and there will be created among the workers stable organizations which transform the now sporadic economic warfare of the workers into a conscious class struggle,—then the Russian worker, rising at the head of all the democratic elements, will throw down absolutism and lead the Russian proletariat (hand in hand with the proletariat of all countries) on the straight road of open political struggle to a victorious Communist revolution (source).
This is a complete outline of the real Marxist ‘Permanent Revolution’: the proletariat leading other elements of the exploited classes towards a bourgeois-democratic revolution, overthrowing absolutism and establishing bourgeois democracy, and then continuing to fight until it overthrows the capitalist system and establishes Communism.
Why would the inherently petty-bourgeois peasantry support the proletariat? As Lenin understood, the peasantry is not an undifferentiated mass: rich peasants (kulaks), middle peasants, and poor peasants exist. In the struggle against absolutism and for the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the proletariat will ally with the peasantry as a whole. However, as soon as the bourgeois-democratic revolution is completed, class divisions will emerge among the peasantry, and the proletariat will ally with the semi-proletarian elements within the peasantry to eliminate the opposition of the kulaks and carry through the abolition of capitalism, overcoming the resistance of both the bourgeoisie and the kulaks. This is essentially what happened in Russia with the October Revolution in 1917 and, later, with the forced collectivization of the countryside and de-kulakization, in 1929.
True to his Menshevik roots, Trotsky rejected the alliance with the peasantry, seeing an undifferentiated mass of petty-bourgeois in it.
The Russian proletariat, finding itself in possession of power—even if this were only a consequence of a temporary combination of forces in our bourgeois revolution—will meet with organized hostility on the part of world reaction, and with readiness for organized support on the part of the world proletariat. Left to its own forces, the working class of Russia will inevitably be crushed by the counter-revolution the moment the peasantry will turn away from it. Nothing will remain for it but to link up the fate of its political domination, and consequently the fate of the entire Russian revolution, with the fate of a socialist revolution in Europe. That colossal State political power which it gets from the temporary combination of forces in the Russian bourgeois revolution, the working class will thrust upon the scales of the class struggle of the entire capitalist world. With State power in its hands, with the counter-revolution behind its back, with the European reaction in front of it, it will issue to its brothers the world over the old battle-cry, which this time will be the battle-cry of the last attack, ‘Workers of the world, unite! (source).
Although dramatic in style, the message is defeatist. If the working class of Russia is alone and has no allies, then it cannot achieve State power, and even if it does through some miracle, with world reaction in front of it and nine-tenths of the population against it from behind, it is doomed.
In 1930, Stalin brilliantly explained the essence of Trotskyism:
The essence of Trotskyism consists, first of all, in the denial of the possibility of building Socialism in the U.S.S.R., with the forces of the working class and the peasantry of our country. What does this mean? It means that if, in the near future, help does not come in the form of a victorious world revolution, we shall have to capitulate to the bourgeoisie and clear the road for a bourgeois-democratic republic. Consequently, we have here the bourgeois repudiation of the possibility of building Socialism in our country masked by ‘revolutionary’ phrasemongering about the victory of the world revolution.
The essence of Trotskyism consists, secondly, in denying the possibility of drawing the basic masses of the peasantry into Socialist construction in the countryside. What does this mean? It means that the working class is not strong enough to lead the peasantry after it in the task of shunting the individual peasant farms on to collective rails and that, if in the near future the victory of the world revolution does not come to the aid of the working class, the peasantry will restore the old bourgeois system. Consequently, we have here the bourgeois denial of the strength and opportunities of the proletarian dictatorship for leading the peasantry to Socialism, covered with the mask of ‘revolutionary’ phrases about the victory of the world revolution.
The essence of Trotskyism consists, lastly, in the denial of the necessity of iron discipline in the Party, in the recognition of the freedom of factional groupings in the Party, in the recognition of the necessity of constituting a Trotskyist party. For Trotskyism, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union must be not a united and single militant Party, but a collection of groups and factions, each with its own central organization, press and so forth. And what does this mean? It means that following the freedom of political groupings in the Party must come the freedom of political parties in the country, i.e., bourgeois democracy. Consequently, we have here the recognition of the freedom of factional groupings in the Party, leading directly to the toleration of political parties in the country of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and all covered up with phrases about ‘internal Party democracy’ and ‘improving the regime’ within the Party” (source).
Olgin similarly and concisely summarizes the essence of Trotsky’s opposition to the building of socialism in the Soviet Union based on Trotsky’s rejection of the possibility of “Socialism in One Country” and alliance with the peasantry:
What follows from a wrong premise is a number of counter-revolutionary conclusions which make up the main features of Trotskyism:
1. The basis is: The impossibility of socialism in one country;
2. Hence—the assertion that what is going on in the Soviet Union is not socialism;
3. Hence—the conclusion that what is being built in Russia is “national socialism”;
4. Hence—the conclusion that the “national socialist” government of the Soviet Union is “Thermidorian”, i.e., counter-revolutionary, and stands in the way of the world revolution;
5. Hence—the assertion that the Communist International, which is dominated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is the party of “national socialism”, is blocking the way of the world revolution;
6. Hence—the conclusion that the crying need of the world proletariat is to build a “fourth international” to be led by the “great strategist” of the revolution, Leon Trotsky.
7. It follows from the above that support of intervention and the killing of Soviet leaders are revolutionary acts (source).
Trotskyism represents a dangerous, counter-revolutionary, petty-bourgeois ideology, which serves to sow divisions within the working class and its vanguard, the Communist Party.
T. J. Petrowski 