(A note for the readers of my blog: In my book, this entry is part of the fairly lengthy Karl Marx subsection of the Magnificent Shadows section. Regarding Trotskyism, see also my entry Trotsky, posted on this blog on February 3, 2011.)
Writing this Marxian subsection of a presumably serious philosophical section, the first impulse is to stay away from the philosophically frivolous international political movement, which Trotskyism has become, as there is hardly any novelty in Trotskyism per se, that can be substantially distinguished from a certain stage, we may call it the Leninist stage of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. Ironically, Trotskyism is derived from Leninism, which was not so much a philosophical version of Karl Marx’s teachings, as a political movement to take power in one country. Considering that the centerpiece of Trotskyan alleged originality is the idea of a permanent revolution, denying the feasibility of achieving its goals within a single country, here is already the core contradiction within Trotskyism, which in practical terms has always striven to achieve exactly that: a victory in the country where it has been practiced.
It will be eminently worthwhile to recall the historical fact that the term Trotskyism was coined in 1905 by Pavel Nikolayevich Milyukov, but not to distinguish it from Bolshevism and other ultra-leftist movements, as much as to stick Trotsky’s distinctively Jewish face on Russian radicalism as such. In specifying what it meant, Milyukov essentially described the basic Bolshevik political platform, and called it Trotskyism. The term remained meaningless outside its "Jewish connection" to Bolshevism, until the 1920’s, when, having won the Russian Civil War, Bolshevism proceeded with the next stage of institutionalization of its power in Soviet Russia.
I have explained already elsewhere, and, hopefully, with sufficient clarity, that Leninism and Stalinism were representative of the two different and consecutive stages of the Russian Revolution, representing a logical continuity, rather than some kind of internal tension and conflict. Lenin represented the destruction of the old order; Stalin’s role was to build the new one. Trotskyism, then, can be best described as the perpetuation of Leninism after it had outlived its purpose in Russia.
Needless to say, there was no logical place for Trotsky’s permanent revolution in the USSR, where the task set by the Bolshevik Revolution had already been accomplished. But, ironically, and most instructively for those who wish to be instructed, it was to become an immensely useful tool for the advancement of strategic Soviet interests. It was for exactly this reason that Trotsky was let out of the country (officially deported), in 1929, and the plan worked to perfection. Thus it was the Soviet Union that effectively launched Trotskyism around the globe, and then further obliged its proponents by turning their hero-leader into a martyr.
By thus unleashing Trotskyism on the outside world, the USSR was able to kill several birds with one stone. It allowed several strands within international “Marxism” to coexist, positioning itself in the more moderate part of the spectrum and finding a way to disassociate itself from the more obnoxious international activists and social pariahs. It was also able to provide a choice for those who did not wish to be perceived as Soviet agents, yet wished to remain in the Marxist fold. There were others, legitimate and respectable independent Western Marxists, who continued to function in their own quiet and unobnoxious mode, but, as they say, the more the merrier, and Trotskyism was certainly making life merrier, to use Comrade Stalin’s famous phrase first said in 1934, and then repeated again and again.
Thanks to Comrade Trotsky, radical Marxism was alive and extremely well.
Writing this Marxian subsection of a presumably serious philosophical section, the first impulse is to stay away from the philosophically frivolous international political movement, which Trotskyism has become, as there is hardly any novelty in Trotskyism per se, that can be substantially distinguished from a certain stage, we may call it the Leninist stage of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. Ironically, Trotskyism is derived from Leninism, which was not so much a philosophical version of Karl Marx’s teachings, as a political movement to take power in one country. Considering that the centerpiece of Trotskyan alleged originality is the idea of a permanent revolution, denying the feasibility of achieving its goals within a single country, here is already the core contradiction within Trotskyism, which in practical terms has always striven to achieve exactly that: a victory in the country where it has been practiced.
It will be eminently worthwhile to recall the historical fact that the term Trotskyism was coined in 1905 by Pavel Nikolayevich Milyukov, but not to distinguish it from Bolshevism and other ultra-leftist movements, as much as to stick Trotsky’s distinctively Jewish face on Russian radicalism as such. In specifying what it meant, Milyukov essentially described the basic Bolshevik political platform, and called it Trotskyism. The term remained meaningless outside its "Jewish connection" to Bolshevism, until the 1920’s, when, having won the Russian Civil War, Bolshevism proceeded with the next stage of institutionalization of its power in Soviet Russia.
I have explained already elsewhere, and, hopefully, with sufficient clarity, that Leninism and Stalinism were representative of the two different and consecutive stages of the Russian Revolution, representing a logical continuity, rather than some kind of internal tension and conflict. Lenin represented the destruction of the old order; Stalin’s role was to build the new one. Trotskyism, then, can be best described as the perpetuation of Leninism after it had outlived its purpose in Russia.
Needless to say, there was no logical place for Trotsky’s permanent revolution in the USSR, where the task set by the Bolshevik Revolution had already been accomplished. But, ironically, and most instructively for those who wish to be instructed, it was to become an immensely useful tool for the advancement of strategic Soviet interests. It was for exactly this reason that Trotsky was let out of the country (officially deported), in 1929, and the plan worked to perfection. Thus it was the Soviet Union that effectively launched Trotskyism around the globe, and then further obliged its proponents by turning their hero-leader into a martyr.
By thus unleashing Trotskyism on the outside world, the USSR was able to kill several birds with one stone. It allowed several strands within international “Marxism” to coexist, positioning itself in the more moderate part of the spectrum and finding a way to disassociate itself from the more obnoxious international activists and social pariahs. It was also able to provide a choice for those who did not wish to be perceived as Soviet agents, yet wished to remain in the Marxist fold. There were others, legitimate and respectable independent Western Marxists, who continued to function in their own quiet and unobnoxious mode, but, as they say, the more the merrier, and Trotskyism was certainly making life merrier, to use Comrade Stalin’s famous phrase first said in 1934, and then repeated again and again.
Thanks to Comrade Trotsky, radical Marxism was alive and extremely well.
No comments:
Post a Comment