LET HISTORY JUDGE STALINISM

21ine Urgins ana Consequences or Staunism (acmilan z0./9) is the first independent attempt in the Soviet Union to understand the Stalin era which has come out of that country. It is a damning indictment of Stalin and Stalinism which confirms everything which Trotsky wrote about the bureaucratic degeneration of the first workers' state. From the great tension under which it is written, its passion drawn from the sufferings of millions of people, is also a testimony to the fact that the conquests of the October 1917 Revolution have not been destroyed. Medyedev writes as a communist intellectual, an oppositionist who is harassed and persecuted for his struggle tố tell the truth as he sees it. His book has great merits and deserves a careful study both for what it provides in the way of corroboration for the Trotskyist analysis and what it leaves out. On some crucial questions the book is fundamentally wrong. This series of articles submit Medveder's book to detailed scrutiny with the aim of pursuing the struggle against Stalinism to the end. It will deal in particular with his errors and omissions and point the way for a more rounded analysis which must begin with the works of Trotsky which are cited in the footnotes.

BY TOM KEMP PART 2 Medvedev rightly sees that 'the rise of Stalinism cannot be understood without examining, if only briefly, the struggle within the Party during the middle and late 1920s. Many episodes connected with that struggle need to be reconsidered in the light of the tragic events of the 1930s'.

Nevertheless, he seriously underestimates the importance of the defeat of the Left Opposition, led by Leon Trotsky. The interpretation he puts forward, although more honest than that of the apologists for Stalin, is incorrect and inadequate.

The position he holds is that of the impartial observer who tries to occupy some middle ground between the contending forces. Admitting that what was at stake was more than a struggle for power but also 'serious theoretical and practical disagreements and a contest of ideas, especially over the methods and possibilities of building socialism in the Soviet Union', he refuses to accept that 'Stalin was completely wrong in his struggle with the opposition or that his opponents were completely right' The point is that only two alternatives were presented. Stalin's policy and its consequences, including his drive for personal power, has to be taken or rejected as a whole. Bits of it cannot be picked out for praise and others for blame.

Onlv the Left Opposition carried on a consistent struggle against Stalin and his policies and put forward a line which was a continuation of Lenin's policy and offered the prospect of reversine his disastrous course.

Medvedev's account of the inner-party struggle of the 1920s, behind a façade of impartiality, is basically hostile to Trotskv. He makes out that Trotsky had *a poorlydisguised ambition to lead the party' and that he was the first to come out with a platform of his own.

In fact, Trotsky's behaviour during Lenin's last illness and after his death in 1924-1925 shows no evidence of a bid for personal power. Trotsky was, indeed, careful not to do anything wnien mignt give any 1L:.- ...L:_L substantiation to those of his enemies who were making such allegations.

After casting doubts on Trotsky's intentions, 1 Medvedev gives a fair account of his earlier political career and shows that the adverse references to Trotsky in Lenin's pre-1917 writings, so assiduously collected and underlined by the Stalinists, were not intended to stick for all time. In fact the differences between Lenin and Trotsky arose almost exclusively over the latter's attempts to conciliate the different factions of Russian Social Democracy, which he subsequently admitted to have been a mistake.

What Medvedev says about the earlier nhases of Trotskv's career are only remarkable LAAY PAnOrO VI eA VEUAJ because the old distortions and suppressions still prevail in historical works published inside the Soviet Union. It is not yet possible to show in its entırety the key role which Trotsky played in the organization of the insurrection in October 1917, in the formation of the Red Army and the winning of the Civil War— during which time he enjoyed the full confidence of Leninand that Stalin's role was a comparatively minor one.

To say that in these years Trotsky was starting his own Dersonality cult is again a slander for which therě is no substantiation. That he seemed to many to be the natural successor to Lenin arose from the actual position which he held in the party and in the sympathy of the masses as well as in the Communist International. Next to Lenin's, Trotsky's speeches and statements were the most authoritative and he plaved an important part in shaping the key documents of the early years of the Comintern.

As a theorist Trotsky was an authoritative and creative Marxist. Contrary to Medvedev's view, the theory of the permanent revolution was development of classic Marxism and not, as he makes out, a major error based on the 6... da. dimention of tha anrnl., unaeresumauon or ine revolutionary potentiality of the peasantry'.

This favourite and time-honoured charge which the Stalinists made against Trotsky from the early days of the opposition's struggle might have been dealt with by Medvedev in at least a • more critical way. Presumably educated in the Stalinist party schools and unable to consult all the relevant literature, he has allowed himself to take on trust the official propaganda. He even gives it added weight because it is mixed in with some valid criticisms of Stalinism.

Preserving the worker-peasant alliance When Stalin, having obtained control of the Party apparatus through his assumption of the organizational post of general secretary, made an alliance with Kamenev and Zinoviev and invented 'Trotskyism', the 'underestimation of the peasantry' became one of its main distinguishing marks.

First of all, of course, no disagreement arose between war, win muraiov, commander or Red Army Moscow garrison, during the Civil War.

Lenin and Trotsky on the peasant question in the period 1917 to 1924. During the Civil War Trotsky repeatedly urged the need to preserve the worker-peasant alliance. Early in 1920 he put forward a programme which foreshadowed the New Economic Policy and included concessions to the peasantry. All the documents of the Left Opposition insist on the need to win over the middle as well as the poor peasants.

Rumours of a difference of opinion between Trotsky and Lenin on the government's attitude towards the middle peasants had been circulated during the Civil War. When the matter. was raised Lenin wrote:

'Comrade Trotsky • says... that the rumours of disagreement between him and me are a monstrous and a despicable lie, propagated by the landlords and capitalists and their conscious and unconscious servitors. I, upon my part, fully confirm this statement of comrade Trotsky. There are no disagreements between him and me, and in regard to the middle peasants, there are no disagreements not only between Trotsky and me, but in general, in the Communist Party of which we are both members."

What the Stalinists did was to pick up a rumour which had been circulated by the enemies of the Bolsheviks and turn it to account in their factional attack on Trotsky. It was, of course, combined with bitter hostility to the theory of permanent revolution with which Trotsky was identified Medvedev shrugs off this theory in a phrase: It resembled Marx's and Lenin's theories of uninterrupted revolution in name only. We are never informed what the difference was, if any.

What is certain, however, is that in the autumn of 1924 Stalin enunciated a major revision of Marxism, the theory of

'socialism in one th to be When was henceforth the hallmark of Stalinism. serious analysis of Stalinism must therefore begin with this 'theory' and its social basis.

Since Medvedev is not convinced that it is wrong, he is naturally unable to make head or tale of its antithesis: the theory of permanent revoluIn declaring that it was possible for socialism to be built in the Soviet Union without waiting for the spread of policy to combat them in the articles which were collected into a short book called 'The New Course'" Trotsky called upon the party ranks to carry unremitting struggle against bureaucratism, appealing particularly to the youth of the party. He saw that only the building up of the economy and an increased output of goods could provide the material basis for a successful struggle against these trends which were threatening to strangle the revolution. dard. of This living living. experience is of incalculable significance to the massco, especially the older generation. They have grown more cautious, more sceptical, less directly responsive to revolutionary slogans, less receptive to major generalizations. These moods which unfolded after the ordeals of the Civil War and after the successes of economic restoration, and which still remain undisrupted by new shifts of class forces — these moods constitute the Friday uly 28,