TROTSKY: Angel of Enlightenment or Frustrated Dictator?
Lynch, Michael, History Review
In reviewing the career of one of the key figures in modern Russian history, Michael Lynch rejects the notion that Trotsky would have been a more humane leader than Stalin.
In recent years, following the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the USSR, the whole period of the Russian Revolution has come in for reappraisal. One key feature of this has been the renewed interest in the role of Leon Trotsky. There are Marxists still to be found who regard Trotsky as the true heir to Lenin and the Russian revolution of 1917. In their interpretation, Trotsky was outmanoeuvred by Stalin, who then imposed a tyrannical regime on the USSR at total variance with what Lenin had intended. If only Trotsky had won the power struggle, runs their argument, the true spirit of 1917 would have survived and Russia would not have descended into the Stalinist darkness with its brutality, its purges, and its gulag.
Even non-Marxists ask whether, had Trotsky triumphed over Stalin, the USSR would have been saved from the horrors it subsequently experienced. Would revolution have developed a human face? Would the Soviet Union have developed into the first truly successful Marxist state? Indeed, would Trotsky, as his supporters continue to claim, have led the way to world revolution? These question cannot be satisfactorily answered since they belong to the `what ifs' of history. But that they continue to be asked illustrates Trotsky's abiding significance.
An outline of Trotsky's career up to 1917
Trotsky's real name was Lev Bronstein. He was born into a Jewish land-owning family in the Ukraine in 1879. A gifted child, he was quick to learn foreign languages and showed great interest in Russian and European culture. From his youngest days his short-sightedness obliged him to wear spectacles, something which he took pride in since he felt it made him look intellectual. Throughout his life he also suffered from colic, which at times was so intense that it incapacitated him.
According to his autobiography, young Bronstein was rebellious from an early age. He had a natural sympathy for the peasants who worked on the family estate and who always seemed hungry and miserable. On one occasion a group of them showed their plight by lying in front of Trotsky's father and waving their cracked and bleeding feet in the air. David Bronstein was sufficiently moved to give the peasants wine and to promise to help them.
However, what is instructive about the story is that Lev was not moved in the same way as his father. The young revolutionary viewed the peasants' hardship as something to be exploited for political ends. The truth was that Trotsky approached the question of economic deprivation very much as an intellectual. He was not concerned with the relief of suffering for humanitarian reasons. Indeed, he regarded suffering as highly valuable, since it intensified the bitterness of the downtrodden and sharpened their taste for revolution. Trotsky came to share with Lenin a distaste for what they called `economism', that is the attempt to raise the standards of peasants and workers by improving their living and working conditions. Such efforts only delayed the revolution. It was the task of true revolutionaries to intensify class warfare by exploiting grievances, not to lessen it by introducing reforms. For Trotsky the slogan was `the worse it is, the better it is'.
In 1898 Lev Bronstein, by now an active Marxist, was exiled to Siberia for his involvement in protests against the tsarist regime. Four years later he escaped and fled abroad, adopting the revolutionary title of Trotsky, the name of one of his former goalers. In London, he met Lenin for the first time and collaborated in the publication of a revolutionary journal, The Spark. As the delegate from Siberia, he attended the Second Congress of the Marxist Social Democratic Party (the SDs) in 1903. It was at this Congress that the SDs split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. By 1912 the two factions had polarised into separate Marxist parties. Lenin's Bolsheviks believed in the necessity of a single, exclusive party to act as the vanguard of the workers' revolution while the Mensheviks favoured a coalition of all the revolutionary parties.
Trotsky's broad sympathies lay with the Mensheviks and it was as a Menshevik that he became president of the St. Petersburg Soviet during the 1905 Revolution, the period of concessions made by the Tsar in the face of popular pressure for reform. However, the Soviet was a short-lived affair; it was crushed in the repression that the tsarist regime imposed once it had recovered its nerve and reversed the policy of concession. Trotsky was exiled for a second time. Again he escaped and was smuggled out of Russia. He did not return until 1917. In the interval he lived variously in Britain, Finland, France, Austria, Spain, Switzerland and the USA. It was during these years of absence from Russia that he developed his theory of `permanent revolution', the notion that revolution was not a single event but a continuous process of international class warfare that involved the spread of worker risings from country to country until the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat was achieved worldwide.
The European war which broke out in 1914 was condemned by Lenin and Trotsky as a struggle between the capitalist-imperialist nations. Nevertheless, the war proved the saving of the Russian revolutionaries; without its coming they might have remained a scattered and ineffectual group, one of history's lost causes. But Russia's growing wartime crises exposed the weaknesses of the tsarist system and made the 1917 Revolution possible. The February Revolution, which witnessed the collapse of tsardom and its replacement by the dual authority of the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet, enabled the emigre revolutionaries to rush back to Russia. Trotsky returned in May and immediately joined the Bolshevik Party. Two months later he was arrested for his part in the `July days', a bungled attempt by the Bolsheviks to overthrow the Provisional Government. He was released soon after. As 1917 wore on, the Petrograd Soviet became increasingly dominated by the Bolsheviks. Trotsky was elected its chairman, a position which left him ideally placed to plot the next Bolshevik assault on the Provisional Government. This duly and successfully came in October 1917. If Lenin was undeniably the inspiration behind the October Revolution, Trotsky was indisputably its organiser. As the driving force on the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC) of the Petrograd Soviet, he drafted the detailed schemes for the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in the name of the Congress of Soviets.
Trotsky after 1917
Trotsky became Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the Bolshevik government. He was the chief negotiator in the Russo-German talks that resulted in Russia's withdrawal from the war in 1918 under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Soon after, he became Commissar for War, responsible for organising the resistance of the Reds (the Bolsheviks) against the Whites (a loose grouping of all the reactionaries opposed to the October Revolution) in the Civil War of 1918-20 that was fought to determine whether the Bolsheviks could maintain their control over the new Soviet Russia. The eventual Bolshevik victory depended largely on the performance of the Red Army under Trotsky, as Commissar for War. Although a civilian, he used a combination of organisational flair and iron discipline to transform a motley collection of troops into a highly efficient fighting force which finally routed the Whites.
The early 1920s were not merely a time of military trial for the Bolsheviks. The new regime also underwent enormous strains economically. Trotsky urged that a hard line be taken; he fully supported Lenin's policy of war communism with its repressive measures and tight political control. He was instrumental in destroying the Russian trade unions as an independent force, and in 1921 it was he who ordered the brutal suppression of the Kronstadt workers who had protested against the Bolshevik government's misuse of power. When Lenin, faced by widespread famine, subsequently introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP), which allowed the peasants to engage in trade for profit, Trotsky publicly agreed, but there is no doubt that he was unhappy with this concession to capitalism. He refused to accept that the peasants should be allowed to dictate the pace of revolution. His view that they should be coerced into line prefigured in a striking way the policy of enforced collectivisation that Stalin later adopted.
Lenin's terminal illness between 1922 and 1924 meant that during the last two years of his life a power struggle had already begun. Yet at his death there was still no clear successor to the leadership. In terms of sheer talent, Trotsky ought to have been a main contender. But in some respects his very abilities were his limitations. He had never been fully accepted by his fellow Bolsheviks, and, despite his following in the army and among international revolutionaries, he was distrusted by the Communist Party (CPSU) within the Soviet Union. This enabled Stalin, who held a number of key positions in both government and party, to isolate Trotsky. By 1927, Trotsky had effectively lost the power struggle. His concept of permanent revolution was condemned as anti-Soviet, since it appeared to put the pursuit of international revolution before the establishment of `socialism in one country', Stalin's term for the consolidation of Communist rule in the USSR. In 1928 Trotsky was forced into internal exile at Alma Ara. A year later he was permanently exiled from the USSR itself.
Trotsky spent his last eleven years in a variety of countries, before finally settling in Mexico. All the while he continued to depict Stalin as a betrayer of the revolution of 1917 and endeavoured to develop an international following opposed to the Soviet regime. In 1939 Trotsky was instrumental in the founding of the Fourth International, a movement of anti-Stalin Marxists drawn from some thirty countries. In Stalin's judgement, Trotsky in exile had a certain value to the Soviet authorities since he could be used as an all-purpose hate-figure, association with whom was proof of anti-Soviet activities. Finally, however, Stalin came to the conclusion that as long as Trotsky remained alive he would be a political danger. In 1940 in Mexico City, Ramon Mercader, a Soviet agent acting on Stalin's direct orders, assassinated Trotsky by driving an ice-pick into his head.
In order to evaluate the significance of this extraordinary career, we need to pose a number of questions.
How successful was Trotsky?
Trotsky's single greatest practical achievement remains his organisation of the October rising. Without him the Bolshevik Revolution would not have followed the course it did. Lenin was the great inspiration behind the Bolshevik coup but the actual planning of the event was the work of Trotsky. As he himself put it, `If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution.' Ironically, Stalin was still more generous in his estimation of Trotsky's role in 1917: `The entire work of the practical organisation of the uprising was carried out under the immediate direction of the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. One may state without hesitation that the party was indebted first and foremost to Comrade Trotsky.'
Trotsky's other major success was the creation of the Red Army, whose military victory over the Whites guaranteed the survival of the Bolshevik regime and enabled it to consolidate its hold over Russia. These were outstanding accomplishments. But they did not bring Trotsky power. It was Stalin, not he, who succeeded Lenin as Soviet leader. Trotskyism survived only in exile as a set of ideas in opposition to Stalinism. Since Trotsky was in government for only four of his forty-two years as a politician, Trotskyists are thrown back on to the inspirational quality of his political ideas as the rationale for their belief in him. Yet here, too, his record is very limited. Trotskyism as a political movement has been very much a minority, fringe, activity. The Fourth International for which Trotsky had high hopes won supporters in thirty countries but then broke up into competing factions. In historical terms it is merely a curiosity.
Why was Trotsky unable to succeed Lenin's as leader?
Until recently most historians answered this question by stressing Stalin's skill, luck and ruthlessness in outsmarting Trotsky in their power struggle. Clearly these were important factors, but what many scholars are now beginning to emphasise is that Trotsky politically was his own worst enemy. He suffered from two particularly damaging handicaps. One was his air of intellectual superiority which many Bolsheviks saw as arrogance and which made him a difficult person to work with or to like. This prevented his developing a strong body of supporters within the Party.
The second handicap was his suspect Menshevik past. Old-guard Bolsheviks regarded his sudden conversion to Bolshevism on his return to Petrograd in 1917 as a calculated act of expediency, used to ingratiate himself with Lenin and so remain at the centre of events. The Bolshevik distrust of Trotsky as a dangerous self-seeking opportunist hardened into the view that, like Oliver Cromwell in the English Revolution or Napoleon in the French, he was intent on using his leadership of the army to impose a military dictatorship. There is a strong case for saying that fear of Trotsky's intentions was the basic reason why the Bolsheviks closed ranks against him following Lenin's death in 1924.
How important was Trotsky's Jewishness?
In the period following his exile from Russia in 1929 Trotsky was disparaged as having come from a family of `kulaks' (rich exploiting peasant landowners). But the Bronsteins had not really fitted this description. Their prospects of acquiring real wealth in tsarist Russia had always been small. Jews were legally restricted to living in designated areas and they were debarred from a whole range of public positions. This discrimination was part of a long-established anti-Semitic tradition which frequently expressed itself in violent, government-directed, pogroms. Indeed, the savage treatment they received at the hands of the state was a principal reason why so many Jews were to be found in the ranks of the revolutionaries. In 1897 a separate Jewish revolutionary organisation was formed, known as `the Bund'.
Significantly, Trotsky chose not to join it. This was one example of his wish throughout his career to play down his Jewishness. In later life he reflected: `My Jewishness never played a leading part -- nor even a recognised one -- in the list of my grievances.' As a declared atheist he had no time for Judaism as a religion. During his period as a Commissar in the Bolshevik government, a delegation of Jews came to beg him to use his influence to lessen the widespread persecution of their people that had restarted after 1917; he dismissed them with the words, `I am not a Jew, but an internationalist.'
Yet Trotsky was aware that, in a society of deeply ingrained anti-Semitism, his Jewishness made him an outsider. A remarkable example of his consciousness of this occurred in 1917, when Lenin offered him the post of Deputy Chairman of the Soviet government. Trotsky rejected it on the grounds that his appointment would be an embarrassment to Lenin and the government. `It would', he said, `give enemies grounds for claiming that the country was ruled by a Jew.' It is evidence such as this that leads historians to suggest that Trotsky's Jewishness was a key factor in limiting his ambition and undermining his bid for power.
Was Trotskyism a humane alternative to Stalinism?
There are still those who regard Trotsky as the Communist with the human touch, the man who would have led the Russian Revolution towards democratic socialism. But this interpretation is hard to sustain in the face of the record of his fanatical behaviour as a Soviet commissar between 1917 and 1921. In the 1990s, Dmitri Volkogonov, the Russian biographer of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, produced evidence from previously unexamined Russian state papers to show that Lenin and Trotsky had worked together on a deliberate policy of terror that precisely foreshadowed the later Stalinist tyranny. Stalinism, therefore, was not a reversal of Leninism but a continuation of it. Trotsky's enforced militarisation of labour, his crushing of the trade unions, the extreme methods he used to discipline the Red Army, his savagery against the Kronstadt rebels in 1921, and his ferocity towards the Russian peasantry undermine the romantic image of him as `the angel of enlightenment' in an otherwise cruel world.
In exile, Trotsky denounced Stalinism not because it was brutal but because it was brutal for the wrong reasons. All the signs were that, had Trotsky had the opportunity to enforce his concept of revolution on the Bolshevik state, he would have used very similar means to those that Stalin employed. Absolute authority was the necessary requirement of Bolshevik rule. Long before Stalin imposed himself on the Party, Trotsky had supported Lenin in the creation of the one-party totalitarian state, with its secret police, show trials, and prison camps. Trotsky believed unashamedly in state terror.
How did Trotsky justify his terror tactics?
Trotsky's understanding of the class war led him to assert that, after the Bolsheviks had taken power in 1917, the Revolution had entered the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He meant by this that Russia had entered a period in which the workers, having taken power, were engaged in a violent struggle against the forces of reaction. The ferocity of the combat justified the workers and their representatives in using the most extreme methods to maintain their dominance and so prepare the way for the classless society that was to follow. Were the workers or their government to show less than absolute commitment in persecuting their class enemies, they would be failing in their historical duty. Writing of his policies during the period of war communism, Trotsky explained:
`Violent revolution was necessary because the undeferrable demands of history proved incapable of clearing a road through the apparatus of parliamentary democracy. Anyone who renounces terrorism in principle must also renounce the political rule of the working class. The extensive recourse, in the Civil War, to execution by shooting is to be explained by this one simple but decisive fact. Intimidation is a powerful instrument of both foreign and domestic policy. The revolution kills individuals and thus intimidates thousands.'
Trotsky, like all true Marxist revolutionaries, believed that the end justified the means He gave his full backing to the following assertion by a Cheka police chief in 1918:
`Murder, lies and treachery are immoral and shameful if they are harmful to the cause of the proletarian revolution; these same lies, treachery and murder are moral and laudable if they serve this revolution.'
The present had to be forced to serve the future. The terrorising of class enemies might be disturbing in emotional and social terms, but to allow this reaction to determine policy would be to give in to `bourgeois morality'. He wrote that `When the revolution has been fully achieved violence will necessarily and naturally cease. The further we go, the easier it will get, the freer each citizen will feel himself to be.' Such thoughts inspired his destruction of the Russian trade unions and his demand that workers become wholly obedient to the commands of the Bolshevik government. He explained his policy in these terms:
`The road to socialism lies through the highest concentration of state power. Like a light bulb which, before extinguishing itself, flashes brightly, so the state prior to its disappearance takes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. of the most pitiless state, which coercively controls the life of the citizens in all its aspects.'
What inspired Trotsky throughout his political life was the conviction that human society was governed by scientific laws which it was the duty of true revolutionaries to discover and to apply, no matter how `pitiless' those laws might be.
Timecheck on Trotsky 1879 Lev Bronstein born in the Ukraine 1898 exiled to Siberia 1902 flees abroad (as Trotsky) and lives in Western Europe 1903 attends Second Congress of Social Democratic Party, siding with Mensheviks 1905 President of St Petersburg Soviet 1907 exiled again 1917 (May) returns to Russia (July) arrested (October) chairman of Petrograd Soviet, organises Bolshevik coup 1918 Commissar for Foreign Affairs, negotiates Treaty of Brest-Litovsk 1918-20 Commissar for War, organises Reds in Civil War 1921 orders brutal suppression of Kronstadt Rising 1924 (January) death of Lenin 1927 power struggle lost 1928 goes into internal exile 1929 goes into exile outside USSR 1939 helps to found Fourth International 1940 (August) assassinated in Mexico City by Stalinist agent
Books on Trotsky
Terry Brotherstone & Paul Dukes, (eds), The Trotsky Reappraisal (Edinburgh, 1992)
Pierre Broue, Trotsky (Paris, 1988)
Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky (OUP, 3 vols., 1954-70)
Dmitri Volkogonov, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire: Political Leaders from Lenin to Gorbachev (Harper Collins, 1997)
Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky the Eternal Revolutionary (Free Press, 1996)
Bertram D. Wolfe, Three Who Made a Revolution (New York, 1948)
Michael Lynch teaches history at Leicester University and is the author of Trotsky the Permanent Revolutionary (Hodder & Stoughton, 1995).…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: TROTSKY: Angel of Enlightenment or Frustrated Dictator?. Contributors: Lynch, Michael - Author. Journal title: History Review. Publication date: March 1999. Page number: 12. © 1999 History Today Ltd. COPYRIGHT 1999 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.