Stalinists in a panic

THE H news that Russian historians are to write a new history of the Revolution, in which the role of Trotsky will be given more prominence, has caused consternation inside the British Commu nist Party.

Leading Stalinists, such as Bert Ramelson. (the Yorkshire Area Secretary of the Communist Party and a member of its National Executive), have been saying for 30 years that Trotsky was an agent of Hitler and played an insignificant role in the Revolution. These people are now having to eat their words and seek desperately for flimsy excuses to cover up for three decades of lies.

At a meeting of the South Leeds Communist Party branch recently, Ramelson delivered a so-called "lecture' on Trotskyism. He was unable, however, to prevent a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Labour League from attending that meeting. Here, in a series of three articles, is every point made by Ramelson, answered from the standpoint of Marxism.

• According to kamelson, Trotsky was for years opposed to a Revolution in Russia. Before the Revolution, says Ramelson, the Bolsheviks argued that the working class must ally with the peasants, the Mensheviks that it must ally with the ally with the middle class, whereas Trotsky said you could trust neither the peasants nor the middle class and that the Russian working class must wait for the Revolution in the West.

To back this up he gave a quotation from Trotsky without revealing its source:

'Without the direct state support of the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to remain in power.' This, Ramelson declared, proves that Trotsky was telling the Russian working class to sit back and do nothin g until the working class had t aken power in the West.

This quotation, in fact, comes from Results and Prospects, written by Trotsky in 1906.

A reading of this pamphlet makes it very clear that Trotsky was arguing that it was possible for the working class in Russia, in alliance with the peasantry, to be the first to seize power; that the bourgeoisie of Russia was incapable of completing the democratic revolution and that the working class would have to carry this through to the socialist revolution, without waiting for the working class in the West: and that this would give a stimulus to the socialist revolution in the West.

It is a pity that Ramelson not only did not tell his members where to find this quotation, but that he did not read a little further himself.

For Trotsky goes 'This will from the very outset impart an international character to the development of the events and open the broadest perspectives: the working class of Russia This is a polemic against Radek in 1928. Trotsky examines the arguments against his pre-war theory of the permanent revolution (as expounded in Results and Prospects) and takes up the history of his differences with Lenin before 1917, of which Stalin and his henchmen made so much. Trotsky shows that it was Lenin's criticisms of his attitude to the centralised Marxist party, which he afterwards understood and accepted, that kept them apart, and not their differences on the permanent revolution. 254 pages, PUBLICATIONS LTD., 186A Clapham by leading in the political emancipation will rise to a height unknown in history, gather into its hands colossal forces and means and become the initiator of the liquidation of capitalism on a global scale!

(My emphasis--J.G.)

2 Ramelson claims that the _Trotskyists have 'created a myth' that Trotsky was always the ally and supporter of Lenin. "They do not tell their young 17-year-olds' says he, 'about the opposition between Lenin and Trotsky before Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks in 1917: Trotsky and his supporters suppressed this, To prove this Ramelson quoted from Trotsky attacking Lenin in 1909, 1913 and 1917, and Lenin attacking Trotsky in 1910, 1914 and 1917. But he never said just where Trotskyists are supposed to have claimed that there were never any differences between Lenin and Trotsky. Nor did he explain what these differences were about.

The truth is that in his book 'My Life', Trotsky deals very fully with his break from Lenin at the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in 1903. On page 161 of this book Trotsky writes:

'Revolutionary centralism is a harsh, imperative and exacting principle. It often takes the guise of absolute ruthlessness in its relation to individual members, to whole groups of former associates. ... It is only the most impassioned, revolutionary striving for a definite end—a striving that is utterly free from anything base or personal-that can justify such a personal ruthlessness. In 1903 the whole point at issue was nothing more than Lenin's desire to get rid of Axelrod and Zasulitch off the editorial board (of Iskra'). My attitude toward them was full of respect and there was an element of personal affection as well.

Lenin also thought highly of what they had done in the past.

But he believed that they were becoming an impediment for the future. This led him to conclude that they must be removed from their position of leadership. I could not agree.

My whole being seemed to protest against this merciless cutting off of the older ones when they were at last on the threshold of an organised party.

It was my indignation at his attitude that really led to my parting from him at the second congress. His behaviour seemed unpardonable to me, both horrible and outrageous. And yet politically it was right and necessary, from the point of view of organisation. Lenin understood this before anyone else did.

'My break with Lenin occurred on what might be considered "moral" or even personal grounds. But this was merely on the surface. At bottom, the separation was of a political nature and merely expressed itself in the realm of organisational methods. I thought of myself as a centralist. But there is no doubt that at that time I did not fully realise what an intense and imperious centralism the revolutionary party would need to lead millions of people in a war against the old order. ...

At the time of the London Congress in 1903, revolution was still largely a theoretical abstraction to me. Independently, I still could not see Lenin's centralism as the logical conclusion of a clear revolutionary concept?

How does this become 'creating a myth' that there were no differences between Lenin and Trotsky? How is this 'suppressing' the split between Lenin and Trotsky? But this book was written in 1929.

Are we to conclude that Ramelson delivers a lecture without reading one of the most im15 / - soft cover, 25/- hard cover Available from: portant books written by the man he is lecturing about? Or that he has read this book but chooses to ignore it and repeats charges which he knows are completely untrue?

What is most important is Trotsky absorbed this lesson.

That is why Trotskyists are struggling to build such parties today in Britain and throughout the world, while the Communist Parties make continual compromises with the Church, with nationalism, and with opportunism of all kinds.

One other question needs answering. Why, when dealing with the years before 1917, did Ramelson omit all mention of 1905?

Could it be because in the Revolution of 1905 Trotsky was the leader of the Petrograd Soviet?

Or because the Bolshevik faction on the Soviet worked completely in harmony with Trotsky, and Lenin himself had no differences whatever with Trotsky during this revolution?

Or because when Trotsky was arrested after the revolution he rejected the advice of the Mensheviks that the members of the Soviet should plead that they had not planned an insurrection and instead led the defendants, with the full approval of Lenin, in declaring boldly in court that they had the political responsibility to lead an insurrection? * Even Ram at Too bag Trotsky tsky Even to admit that Tre played a leading role in the a leading role in Russian Revolution.

'It is a pity,' he now says, 'that the contribution of Trotsky between 1917-1920 was totally ignored.' He has to admit that Trotsky was brought straight on to the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, that he was a Bolshevik Minister, that he played the wearing —to quote Ramelson's own words —a magnificent role in the Red Red Army'.

First of all, let record straight.

Trotsky was arrested on July July 23, 1917, and was brought onto into the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party while still in prison.

On September 23, 1917, he was elected President of the Petrograd Soviet.

On October 9, 1917, he was made Chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee which planned the actual insurrection.

When the Bolshevik government was formed, he became Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and in December 1917 he led the Russian contingent at the Brest-Litovsk negotiations with the Germans.

He became Commissar for War in which capacity he built the Red Army from a few thousand Red Guards in October 1917 into an army of five million men in two and a half years. He directed this army in defeating the invasion of the White Armies and the imperialist troops.

In 1919 he was responsible for the reorganisation of the entire transport system of the Soviet Union. This had been in a state of ruin and, had it not been pulled round, the entire economy would have collapsed.

Amidst dozens of other jobs, he had charge of anti-religious propaganda throughout the Soviet Union.

A Marxist is required to explain the political basis on which Lenin and Trotsky came together. The facts are these:

The February Revolution did not bring the Bolsheviks to power but created a dual power between the Provisional government (which included capitalist Ministers and was eventually led by the fake 'socialist' Kerensky), and the Soviets, in which the workers, peasants and soldiers were organised.

The Provisional government continued the imperialist war, with all the sufferings for the masses that that involved.

When Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917 he demanded the overthrow of the Provisional High Street, London, - The lies about are thin government. He found himself in a minority of one on the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party.

Indeed, the Party newspaper, 'Pravda', then edited by Stalin and Molotov, carried articles supporting the Provisional government and at one time suppressed Lenin's articles.

When • Trotsky returned to Russia, in May 1917, he also demanded the overthrow of the Provisional government.

It was this fundamental political agreement on the need for proletarian revolution which brought Lenin and Trotsky together. Since that time, Lenin said, there has been 'no better Bolshevik' than Trotsky.

1 Trotsky, became 'too big-headed' and fought against Lenin over Brest-Litovsk and the trade únions. Stalin gained his position in the Soviet Union because he fought for Lenin's According to Ramelson, Lenin was for signing a peace with Germany while Trotsky was for continuing the war. It was Trotsky, Ramelson says, who led the opposition to Lenin with the result that the Bolsheviks finally had to accept much worse terms than the Germans had offered in the first place.

This statement is a very interesting distortion. What are the facts?

Trotsky led the Russian delegation at the Brest-Litovsk negotiations. After one month's negotiations he reported back to the Bolshevik Central Committee on January 8, 1918. Lenin urged acceptance of the German terms while Trotsky urged not a revolutionary war, but drawing out the negotiations, neither war nor peace, on the grounds that antiwar strikes had broken out in Germany and Austria. Hostilities were not taking place at this time.

It was not Trotsky, but Bukharin, who advocated a revolutionary war.

It was not Trotsky's position but Bukharin's which was carried at that Central Committee meeting. The actual voting was: for Bukharin's position 32 votes, for Trotsky's position ló votes, for Lenin's position 15 votes. It was not Trotsky who carried the party against Lenin, but Bukharin.

Why does Ramelson substitute Trotsky for Bukharin in this dispute? Because for many years, up to 1928, Bukharin was allied with Stalin against Trotsky.

It was Bukharin who produced the theory of 'Socialism in One Country, so beloved of the Stalinists. Similarly, it was Dzerzhinsky, also a close supporter of Stalin against Trotsky, who accused Lenin of surrendering the whole programme of the revolution.

In fact, in January 1918, Lenin proposed in the Central Committee that Trotsky be authorised to delay the signing of a peace for as long as possible.

The dispute was resolved in the following way. The Bolsheviks withdrew from Brest-Litovsk, without signing peace terms, on February 10, 1918. The Germans then resumed their offensive.

There was still a majority of one against Lenin on the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party until February 18 when Trotsky, seeing that the anti-war strikes in Germany and Austria had failed and that the divisions in the German ruling class had not prevented an offensive, voted with Lenin and gave him a majority.

The Bolshevik Central Committee then charged Lenin and Trotsky with the task of framing a message to the Germans suing for peace. The entire Central Committee unanimously voted for Trotsky to remain Commissar for Foreign Affairs until the peace was signed.

What was the truth about the trade union dispute?

According to Ramelson, Trotsky was contemptuous of the working class and thought that under socialism the trade unions should be organs of the state.

But the facts are much more complicated than this convenient over-simplification.

After the Revolution the entire Russian economy was in decay. The Bolsheviks had instituted war Communism, under which food was requisitioned and collected from the countryside by the state forces, all distribution of products was by government order only, and production was carried on under military discipline.

Trotsky was the one who first proposed that incentive payments should operate in the countryside in order to encourage the peasants to feed the towns. This idea, although rejected at first, was later adopted by Lenin in the New Economic Policy.

But meanwhile Russia was in an economic blind alley. In these circumstances Trotsky, who was reorganising the transport system by military discipline, considered that the trade unions had no independent role and sought to include them in the system of state administration of industry and state distribution of products.

Lenin considered that Trotsky over-simplified the relation between the working class and the Soviet state. In his speech on December 30, 1920, Lenin said:

'Comrade Trotsky speaks of the workers' state. Permit me, this is an abstraction. ... Our state is in reality not a workers' state but workers' and peasants' state. ... Our present state is such that the inclusively-organised proletariat must defend itself, and we must utilise these workers' organisations for the defence of the workers against their state and for the defence of our state by the workers.' In other words, it was precisely because of his vigilance against bureaucracy in the state that Lenin corrected Trotsky on this point. Proof of this is to be found in his remarks a few weeks later, on January 19, 1921.

He wrote:

'I stated, "our state is a workers' and peasants' state"

... On reading the report of the discussion noW see that I was wrong. ...

I should have said: 'The workers' . state is an abstraction.

In reality we have a workers' state with the following peculiar features (1) it is the peasants and not the workers who predominate in the population and (2) it is a workers' state with bureaucratic deformations"!

Where Ramelson extracts and isolates one important point of difference for his own purposes, he ignores the main content of the period-the struggle for the A journal Volume Two NO. 1 Cuba: Marxism and the Revolution by John Castle Struggle for Marxism in the III American Trotskyism with Trotsky III American Trotskyism with by Tim Wolforth endix report dated 12-15 June, 1940 establishment of a workers' state against bureaucracy, a struggle begun by Lenin and continued by. Trotsky.

How true is Ramelson's claim that Stalin fought for Lenin's ideas against Trotsky? It is not true at all.

In his last years Lenin began a fight against Stalin and urged Trotsky to join him in it.

Lenin had had to oppose Stalin (when he was Commissar of Nationalities) for brutal methods against national minorities, particularly in Georgia, and • had accused him of a 'Great Russian Nationalistic Campaign'.

He launched a strong attack on bureaucracy in the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection-which was headed by Stalin. And in the postscript to his will—long said to be a forgery, according to many British Stalinists, but finally admitted to be genuine by Khrushchev in 1956—Lenin said this about Stalin:

'Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable in relations among us Communists, becomes insupportable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore I propose to the comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint yet another man who in all respects differs from Stalin only in superiority namely more patient, more loyal, more polite and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc.' Since in his will Lenin had declared that the two most able men in the Party were Stalin and Trotsky, who did this leave to be Lenin's choice for leader after him, Mr. Ramelson?

Add to that that Lenin had urged Trotsky to accept the post of Vice-Premier; that he had written to Trotsky urging him to form a bloc with himself against bureaucracy; that he had appealed to Trotsky to take up the fight against Stalin on the Nationalities question-and where does that leave your picture of Stalin as the fighter for Lenin's ideas, Mr. Ramelson?

Will Mr. Ramelson try to say that it is a Trotskyist lie that Lenin lined himself up with Trotsky against Stalin? Be careful, Mr. Ramelson, so many of those Trotskyite lies' have turned out to be true.

Now available: Two issues of International Marxism Numbers One Rebuilding the Fourth International : Three shillings each. Obtainable from : PARK PUBLICATIONS LTD., 186A Clapham High Street, S.W.4.

Novem 1965