Documents 3 to 17 and 19 to 24 originally published in Internal Bulletins of the SWP and the International Bulletins of the International Committee
In reading 'The Rise and Fail of Stalinism' I came upon the following endorsement of the Trotskyist programme for the Soviet Union: 'The programme of action put forward in this connection by the Transitional Programme and which the Second World Congress reaffirmed and concretized, now acquires burning actuality.'
This statement of support would seem to apply to the programme in its entirety. The document, however, does not leave it at this. It proceeds to cite the Transitional Programme in a footnote. But in citing it, it stops short of the two last sentences reading as follows: 'Only the victorious revolutionary uprising of the oppressed masses can revive the Soviet regime and guarantee its development toward socialism. There is but one party capable of leading the Soviet masses to insurrection -- the party of the Fourth International!'
Why are these two sentences omitted? They contain the two central political conclusions of our programme, namely: (1) that only a mass uprising of the oppressed masses can guarantee the Soviet Union's further development towards socialism and (2) that only a Trotskyist party can lead such an uprising. Without such a clear-cut-statement as to how and by whom the programme will be carried out, it remains suspended in mid air. This omission becomes all the more glaring in view of the statement that this programme 'now acquires burning actuality.
I propose to deal here with the reasons for this omission as I deduce them from the document.
The main conclusions of the document.
The main political conclusions of the document can be summed up in the following passages of the introduction to 'The Rise and Fall of Stalinism.'
'The fundamental conditions under which the Soviet bureaucracy and its tight hold over the Communist parties developed, namely, the ebb of the revolution, the isolation of the Soviet Union and the backward condition of its economy -- these conditions have disappeared'(p.2).
These qualitative changes in the objective world situation -- that is the disappearance of all the conditions which originally gave rise to the Kremlin bureaucracy -- have already set into motion the forces for the socialist regeneration of the SU and the disintegration of Stalinism the world over.
That is the next proposition. It is stated as follows: 'The events which have taken place in the Soviet Union following Stalin's death do not constitute only the first stage of a process which must end in the socialist regeneration of the Soviet Union. These changes likewise constitute the relaxation of the brake, which has operated in the most conservative and even reactionary way over what today still comprises the most important revolutionary vanguard in the world, even in the many countries where the Communist parties are extremely weak. As a result there has opened up a new stage not only in the Soviet Union but also in the development of the Communist parties and of the non-capitalist countries, accelerating the disintegration of Stalinism in the sense indicated above.'
What can be the tasks of the Trotskyist movement in the face of this alleged development? If we are witnessing the beginning of the socialist regeneration of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of Stalinism as a political power on a world scale, then we have made a leap into a new epoch. This would require indeed that 'we junk old Trotskyism'. In this context the omissions from the Transitional Programme assume precisely this meaning.
From this also flow perspectives and role for the Fourth International which is set down in the document as follows:
'The role of the Fourth International, which was created in order to assure the continuity of Marxist revolutionary programme and organisation is to intervene in this disintegration in order to rally around its banner the forces influenced to this day by Stalinism.' (p.4.)
There is no support for this contention in the founding documents of our movement which assigns to the Fourth International the solution of the historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat. The Transitional Programme states categorically that 'the crisis of the proletarian leadership, having become the crisis in mankind's culture, can be resolved only by the Fourth International.
Yet it is the propositions set down above that constitute the general framework of 'The Rise and Fall of Stalinism.' It gives the impression of being a traditional Trotskyist document. This historic review of the world situation, following the Russian Revolution is largely based on Trotsky's writings. The analysis of the present situation and the predictions of things to come, seem to flow logically from this historical review.
A Liquidationist Document
But that is only the first impression. A careful study of the resolution reveals it as the most deep going revisionist document seen in our movement to date. Acceptance of the main line of the resolution would result in complete ideological disarming and eventual liquidation of Trotskyism.
If there has been so sweeping a change in the Soviet Union and in world Stalinism as the resolution asserts, then an entirely new system of political ideas and organizational perspectives is in order. For example, what is needed in the Soviet Union is not a Trotskyist party to lead the mass uprising, but a party of reform that would help along in the 'socialist regeneration' that is already on the way. Or, no party at all but an alliance with the 'reform' forces inside the CP. If Stalinism is disintegrating within the existing communist parties, why wrestle anywhere with the task of building independent parties! We should on the contrary be devoting our thoughts and efforts to the best ways of intervening in the existing Communist Parties to help the disintegration of Stalinism already taking place at an accelerated rate. Small though some of them may be -- they would nevertheless offer the best immediate prospects. There may be a chance to enter. Or perhaps fuse with a given CP or an important segnority in small doses without serious motivation. The resolution undertakes to provide such motivation.
Motivation for Political Conclusions
It begins with the following historical review as its point of departure:
'The evolution of the Soviet Union and of the world working class movement since 1917 is fundamentally determined by the dynamic of the relation of class forces on the world scale. This development has passed through three major phases: the rise of the revolution in 1917-23, the ebb of the world revolution in 1923-43, and the new revolutionary rise since 1943.'
Take careful note of the alleged three major phases and especially of the contention that the ebb of the revolution lasted from 1923 to 1943 -- twenty long years, while, on the contrary, there has been a continuous rise since 1943 -- the last ten years. This is the keystone for the contention that we are now living in a fundamentally different epoch. It therefore deserves the closest scrutiny.
To begin with, it introduces an entirely new calendar of revolutionary ebb and rise. From 1923 to 1943 it records nothing but 'ebb.' The defeats of the workers resulting from the betrayals of the traditional leaderships are used to blanket out the abundance of revolutionary situations. For precisely during these two decades designated as the period of ebb, the capitalist world was convulsed by one revolutionary crisis after another. 1923 itself was the year of the revolutionary situation in Germany created by the French occupation of the Ruhr. 1925-6 saw the British General Strike and profound revolutionary convulsions in Poland. 1925-7 was the period of the Chinese revolution. 1931-37 marked the Spanish revolution. 1934 saw the pre-revolutionary situation in France, which came to a climax in 1936, when the 'Peoples Fronts' destroyed it.
In other words, during this so called twenty year ebb, the whole capitalist world, engulfed in economic crisis, was shaken by revolutionary convulsions. Even the United States, the most privileged capitalist country in the world, witnessed a tremendous working class upsurge in this period. The Transitional Programme speaks of it as follows: 'The unprecedented wave of sit-down strikes and the amazingly rapid growth of industrial unionism in the United States (CIO) is the most indisputable expression of the instinctive striving of the American workers to raise themselves to the level of the tasks imposed on them by history.' Why then is this entire period wrongly designated as one of ebb? Because, the resolution tries to explain, 'despite these many opportunities the ebb of the revolution became more and more accentuated, it was not all due to the automatism of the mass movement, but, on the contrary, to the pernicious role played by the workers' leaderships.'
Criteria for Revolutionary Ebb and Rise.
This explanation confuses matters instead of clarifying them. It identifies revolutionary situations with revolutionary victories. Defeats are made to cancel out everything, including the appearance and struggle of the revolutionary masses. Trotskyists have never used such a criterion for determining the character of a given period. The distinguishing features of the period 1923-1943 was its profoundly revolutionary character, despite the countless betrayals of the Stalinists, Social Democrats and the Anarcho-Syndicalists (Spain).
This innocent looking re-evaluation of an entire historical period serves., as we shall presently show, a far from innocent design. For the moment, however, let us go along with the contention that the 'pernicious role played by the workers' leaderships justifies the designation of revolutionary periods as periods of ebb. This same criterion should then also be applied to the period beginning with 1943 -- the ten years of 'revolutionary rise.'
This period is quite fresh in our memory. Let us recall among other things that the Stalinists played the major role in betraying the French and Italian revolutions, in the crushing of the Greek revolution and in the general rehabilitation of the bankrupt capitalist system in Western Europe. This is also the period when we saw in Yugoslavia both the conquest of power by the CP as well as the merciless Kremlin campaign which finally drove the regime to seek 'protection' in the imperialist camp. There is obviously something wrong in including all of these under the general heading of revolutionary rise. Partial victories are here used to blanket out the 'pernicious role' of the official leadership. The authors of the resolution are not unaware of this, and to mend their fences they introduce the following modifying proposition. 'The period from 1943 to 1947 ...discloses itself as a transitional period between the ebb and the new rise of the world revolution.'
It is called 'transitional' because 'The world revolutionary rise was still not powerful enough to permit the bypassing and engulfing of Stalinism ...' (with the sole exception of Yugoslavia). It was only after 1947 therefore, when the real rise came. It was then that ' .. .the revolutionary wave, above all the victory of the Chinese revolution, overcame this total attempt by the Soviet bureaucracy to maintain a policy of equilibrium.
The factor of 'pernicious leadership' which determined the twenty years' period of 'revolutionary ebb' up to 1943, is cast off here with the same facility as it was introduced a moment earlier. It now gives way to a new mystical criterion -- the power of the revolutionary wave 'by-passing and engulfing Stalinism.' The epochs of revolutionary ebb and rise are juggled to serve preconceptions. All revolutionary struggles dating back to the October Revolution are thus cast in a new mould. For what purpose?
Is the purpose perhaps to lay claim that the Chinese revolution, unquestionably the biggest victory against capitalism since October 1917, has introduced a qualitative change in the world situation? Let us then discuss on that basis. But why come to this claim by such a devious route and in such a tortured manner? Why force historic events into an artificial construction of revolutionary ebb and rise in order to reach an understanding of the significance of the Chinese revolution? The interests of political clarity would dictate a direct approach. We would then take the Chinese revolution as the point of departure in a precise assessment of the concrete relationship of forces resulting from this revolution and determine whether it has indeed 'engulfed' Stalinism, and transformed this entire period dating back to 1943 up to the present and apparently for all time to come into a period of continuous revolutionary rise. A concrete analysis of the Chinese revolution and its consequences would not permit of such loose talk and thinking.
'The Engulfing' Revolutionary Wave.
The Chinese revolution has been thrown in as simply one of the ingredients of a new panacea -- the all-engulfing revolutionary wave. The other ingredient consists, as we have seen, of juggling with the rhythm of revolutionary developments. We come next to a third ingredient -- distortion of historic facts.
The resolution states that during the so-called transitional period, 1943-47, 'the world revolutionary rise was still not powerful enough to permit the by-passing and engulfing of Stalinism. ...But this wave was sufficiently menacing to bring imperialism to seek a modus vivendi with the Soviet bureaucracy; The latter undertook to halt or try to force back the revolution in return for territorial and economic concessions.' But then the resolution goes on to add that the revolutionary rise came into full force and 'Engulfed by the revolution, stifling within a vital area far too narrow for its needs and menaced by terrible economic shocks imperialism sought to pass on to the offensive. ...'
The above is at variance with what we have said on many previous occasions. The facts are 'engulfed' here under waves of inflated generalities. The truth is quite different.
Imperialism passed to the offensive not when it was 'engulfed by the revolution' but when the post-war revolutionary wave seemed to be no longer threatening; when capitalism in Western Europe was rehabilitated not so much thanks to US aid as to the 'pernicious role' of the Stalinists. It was precisely when the Stalinists finished their treacherous job that they were booted out of the West European cabinets. The Truman doctrine was proclaimed and the Marshall Plan followed. It was only then that the Kremlin bureaucracy, in self defence began to eliminate the capitalist elements in the buffer zone.
So far as Western Europe is concerned the years immediately following 1947 have been marked, by and large, by a recession and not a rise. It should'be obvious then, that we are dealing here not with a global revolutionary rise preceded by a 'transition' period, but with an uneven and contradictory development in which the betrayed European revolution (1943-47) has resulted not in a period of revolutionary rise but of the resumption of capitalist offensive. What the imperialists -- and the Kremlin -- did not figure on is that the Chinese CP, under the impact of the peasants uprising and in the face of Chiang's offensive would dare make a bid for power. The triumph of Mao Tse-tung therefore upset the equilibrium between the Kremlin and the imperialists, as the resolution claims, simply because that equilibrium had been previously upset on the European arena. We have thus witnessed the unfoldment of the Chinese revolution while the Western European workers were on the defensive.
The bankrupt and chronically sick capitalist government of France, for example, has dared to repeatedly provoke the workers by attacks on their living standards. How does this fit into the scheme of an 'engulfing' revolutionary rise? They dared do it because they knew that their rule is not threatened either by the Socialists or the Stalinists. It is noteworthy that even at the height of the general strike in France(Aug. 13, 1953) the N.Y. Times does not hesitate to say editorially, 'It would be a gross exaggeration today to believe or give the impression that a revolutionary situation is brewing in France. A better way of putting it is to use Paul Reynaud's phrase: "the sick man of Europe". French vitality is such that one can feel reasonably sure of recovery.' It is not 'French vitality' the N. Y. Times is relying on, but the prostration of the official workers' leaderships in France. 'The sick man of Europe' can go on being sick so long as there is no one to administer the coup de grace.
This general strike of several weeks' duration underscores the basic Trotskyist conclusion of the iron necessity of the revolutionary party as the only way of resolving the crisis of proletarian leadership. What is decisive is not a wave,'engulfing' or otherwise, but the issue of programme and leadership. The General Strike created a revolutionary situation in France, it posed the question of power point blank, but there was no revolutionary party in this situation. This is the principal lesson that must be drawn and hammered in France. It is just as true today in the period of'revolutionary rise' as it was in the alleged twenty-year period of 'revolutionary ebb.
Inflated Optimism.
This brings us to yet another ingredient of the mystic formula of 'engulfing waves' -- and that is inflated optimism. Let us take a close look at the following quotation.
'With the victory of the Chinese revolution over the Kuomintang regime, the period of the revolutionary upsurge, which began in 1943 with the downfall of fascism in Italy, entered a new stage, basically marked by a relation of international forces favourable to the revolution and evolving on a global scale more and more favourably for the revolution. The revolutionary wave spreads from country to country, from continent to continent. It has recently reached the Soviet Union itself and the buffer zone.
Such inflated optimism is not even excusable as a peroration in an agitational speech. But here it is presented as an ostensibly sober statement of fact, as the point of departure for the revision of traditional Trotskyism. It would be excusable to speak of'a new stage, basically marked by a relation of international forces favourable to the revolution' if one could point not only to capitalist decay, which is the constant element in our epoch, or the mood of the masses, who have Proved their revolutionary zeal and combativity over and over again, but also to parties and leaderships, whose revolutionary capacities are beyond doubt. This is a lesson we have learned from Trotsky and which has been verified again and again through bitter experience.
But even if we could boast of tested Marxist parties in every country of the globe, it would still be wrong to say in such a Pollyanna manner that 'The revolutionary wave spreads from country to country, from continent to continent'. It does not help in this painful epoch of transition from one social order to another to under-estimate the power and resources of the capitalist adversary and to minimize the crisis of leadership from which the revolutionary forces suffer.
Since October 1917 decaying capitalism has lost much ground. But a sober assessment must also take into account the fact that as a world system it has survived the onslaught of the October revolution, World War II and the Chinese revolution. Capitalism is still the dominant force in world economy. What is worse, there isn't a single capitalist country in which we can truthfully say that the crisis of proletarian leadership has been fully resolved. We have the beginnings. These can grow and develop into mass parties. The prerequisite for it is that they be not engulfed by illusions but learn how to face reality. It would be a good exercise in sober thinking to start with a listing of all the countries of the world, continent by continent to see where the above-quoted contention of the resolution actually stands the test. It does no good to add up all the plus signs on the side of the workers' revolution as against the minus signs on the side of capitalist counterrevolution. Such a balance sheet would naturally look very imposing. But you could only get into trouble if you try to draw on it.
Revolutionary Romanticism.
The concept of uninterrupted revolution was quite wide-spread, following October 1917. There were many then who saw ahead nothing but the continuous offensive of the revolution. They saw the weakness of world capitalism following the war, the inability of the bourgeoisie to strangle the October revolution and concluded that therefore there is nothing ahead but revolutionary offensive which would topple the system. They too overlooked one point: the importance of the party in scoring revolutionary successes. It took the combined authority of Lenin and Trotsky to put an end to this revolutionary romanticism and to direct the young Communist party to apply themselves to the task of educating cadres and winning the masses.
A similar mood is apparently rife in our movement following the Chinese revolution. But these are not the early 20's. We have lived through the experiences of the last three decades. We have had the benefit of Trotsky's illuminating analysis. Such romanticism is completely out of place in our ranks. The Chinese revolution is to be sure a great victory, but we can't expect from it more than it can give. Leaving aside the regime in China -- Stalinist in origin and ideology -- the country as a whole is completely dependent on the Kremlin for economic and technical assistance. This dependence has grown greater as a consequence of the Korean war. Following the Korea truce, the tendency in China must of necessity be similar to the tendency in the Soviet Union following the Civil War. While in Russia the tendency away from Internationalism and toward 'socialism in one country' met with the fierce resistance of the Left Opposition, i.e., the conscious wing within the ranks of the leadership, we are not aware of any such comparable revolutionary tendencies and forces in China. It is ominous that a bloody Stalinist-type purge followed the armistice in North Korea. This purge could not have taken place without the consent or connivance of the Chinese leadership who dominate the country militarily. We do not presume to know why the purge, but we can surmise. Under the circumstances of a truce which involves important concessions to imperialism those to be purged were most likely those who resisted these concessions.
What the Chinese revolution itself needs more than anything is the extension of the world revolution, so that it can be saved from further degeneration and retreat. This need cannot be resolved by glowing phrases about engulfing revolutionary waves.
The resolution stands on its head the Trotskyist concept that the key to the extension of the world revolution is in the hands of the subjective factor, i.e., the revolutionary party. Instead of the subjective factor being the necessary element in the revolution, the 'engulfing' revolution by its own inherent power resolves the subjective factor. This formula transforms the traditional workers' parties, the agencies of defeat in the past period into agencies of revolution in this so-called new epoch.
This revision of the Leninist-Trotskyist concept is impelled by an impatience with historical processes -- a desire to hurry things up. To find a streamlined solution applying equally well to all continents and which would settle all the contradictions once and for all.
The formula of 'engulfing revolution' does wonders -- on paper. It resolves the problem of revolutionary leadership not only for the capitalist countries, but also for those dominated by the Kremlin bureaucracy. The same alchemy which transforms the traditional parties of betrayal into parties of revolution operates equally well in both cases. This is why the resolution discards the key propositions of the founding programme of the Fourth International.
A syllogism for Conservatism
In the section on the buffer countries the resolution states: 'It is still too early to predict the precise organizational form which the revolutionary rise will assume in the buffer zone countries.
Why should it be too early 'to predict the precise organizational form which the revolutionary rise will assume in the buffer zone countries'? The transitional programme predicted it in precise terms for the Soviet Union in 1938. Furthermore, the 'Rise and Fall of Stalinism' states that the tasks in the buffer zone countries are 'in general similar to those we have in the Soviet Union.' Why then this sudden 'caution'! The truth is -- let's face it -- the 'too early to predict' formulation is a hypocritical cover for discarding the Trotskyist programme. The 'caution' in making predictions is discarded in the very next sentence. It reads: 'Two variants are possible.' The resolution then proceeds to make 'precise' predictions. They are precise chiefly in one sense: they leave no room for a Trotskyist party, as outlined in the following variants:
'The development of independent mass movements finding their co-ordination outside the legally existing organizations through the appearance of new political currents or the revival of Social-Democratic organizations. ...'
'The development of autonomous mass actions transmitting themselves to the native communist parties and giving rise to leftist currents capable of giving leadership to the upsurge. ...'
There is yet another variant.
'A combination of these two organizational forms can by no means be excluded.' This third variant is not explained. However, none of the three variants speak specifically of the emergence of a Trotskyist party. As we read on, furthermore, all the three variants become united into one.
Here is what the resolution says later on on this point: 'On the other hand, the more the outbreak of the revolutionary rise is retarded, the more will the young generation awaken to political life. This generation will have known no form of political organization other than the CP, and the latter will tend to become the natural arena in which the leadership of the new revolutionary rise will develop. That is why our forces must seek to realize their tasks, which are in general similar to those we have in the Soviet Union, through an entrist tactic toward the CP, while remaining prepared to join quickly any other mass organization which may appear at the beginning of the upsurge.'
The simple syllogism that since the young generation will have known no form of political organization other than the CP, therefore the CP will become the natural arena in which the leadership of the new revolutionary rise will develop, can be used with equal logic to predict indefinite political stagnation in every country of the world. Fortunately, life does not follow such a pattern. The political awakening of the youth, contrary to this conservative concept will take place in struggle and revolt against the existing political forms which are tantamount to their political disenfranchisement.
A Trotskyist worker in the Soviet Union or in the buffer zone would no doubt say to the above: 'Thank you for your learned advice and expert generalship with which you marshall your forces. But you see, the workers in my factory, young as well as old, have some prejudices against the CP. They see in it the party of bureaucrats who abuse them and mistreat them, of the secret police who always snoop on them, and the army officer caste who kick them around when they are soldiers. They are suspicious of everyone with a party card -- for fear he may be spying on them. They never confide in a party member because those who did had the misfortune of disappearing without a trace. There is a gulf between the workers and the CP. Wouldn't it be better to organize my own group even on a modest beginning? Such a group would be bound together by the common ties of hatred for the oppressive, treacherous bureaucracy. Opposition views among workers find an echo and protection. But to enter the party of the bureaucracy with opposition views and with illusions concerning the nature of this party would be tantamount to political and physical suicide.'
The confident statement in the founding program that 'There is but one party capable of leading the Soviet masses to insurrection' is not an abstract political slogan but a guide to action based on the Soviet reality.
It was painful to see that in its statement on the recent uprising of the East German workers, the IS raised the slogan 'democratize the CP.' The workers who rose up in a life and death struggle against the CP puppets of the Kremlin demanding their overthrow, are not told to build their own party as the only guarantee of victory. They are given the address of the party against which they revolted.
The inflated optimism about the revolutionary wave which is spreading from country to country and continent to continent, is thus a cover for deep pessimism about the capabilities of the working class and the revolutionary vanguard. The sum total of this line can only be liquidationism. Why bother building a party when everything is becoming resolved -- or will be resolved eventually -- by a mounting revolutionary wave. Why be interested in Trade Union activity or have patience with backward workers when everything is ablaze with revolution. Why study Marxist classics when they do not apply to the new epoch?
The claim may be made that in exposing the liquidationist political line of the resolution, we are opposing the entrist tactic. Far from it. We believe firmly in utilizing the entrist tactic as an aid in the construction of the revolutionary party. But this is not what is involved in the document under discussion. Entrism here is merely incidental to a political line of liquidationism.
The foregoing remarks on the resolution have dealt only with two aspects: the objective situation and the role of the party. Just as wrong are other contentions in the resolution to the effect that there has been a fundamental change in the Soviet economy, removing the conditions which gave rise to the bureaucracy. Wrong are the interpretations placed on the developments in the Soviet Union following Stalin's death. All of this, plus a more precise evaluation of the Chinese revolution, will no doubt be brought out in the discussion period. Here I attempt to call to the attention of the majority comrades the deep-going revisionism in the resolution which flies directly counter to reality and counter to the traditional political conclusions of our movement, with which the authors of the resolution say they are in agreement.
My remarks are intended to start the discussion going among the leading members of the majority. Once we have reached agreement among ourselves, we must carry the discussion into the ranks. We must once again Trotskyize the Trotskyist movement.
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 17.8.2003