Marxist Revolution USSR

Okay so Leon Trotsky argued that the Soviet bureaucracy would either fall to a renewed proletarian revolution or would re-establish capitalism and dissolve itself.

The latter happened nearly 60 years later.

What if the old Bolsheviks with Trotsky overthrew the Stalinist government(combined with a revolution in Germany or something).

Is a Trotskyist revolution possible in the USSR Why or why not?
 
Trotsky was not an old Bolshevik. Indeed, the fact that he didn't join the Bolshevik party until 1917 was one of the things that worked against him in the 1920's.
 
I know that but a large cadre of old Bolsheviks were executed during the purges.

Yes, and relatively few of them had ever been Trotskyists; in fact, many had never been Oppositionists of any kind whatever (or if they had been, had long since recanted).
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Trotsky was so disliked that other high ups in the Party were willing to team up with Stalin to keep him from power, and that was despite Lenin's warnings about Stalin.
 
Is a Trotskyist revolution possible in the USSR Why or why not?

Trotsky was disliked by the leadership of the party, and by many party officials as well since it was up to the General Secretary Stalin to appoint most of these officials.

However, Trotsky was quite popular with the Red Army (unsurprisingly, since he was a better general than Stalin and as People's Commissar of the Military had influence on the nomination of officers). I think that any leftist revolution in the early Soviet Union would in fact be a coup d'état lead by Trotsky as Commissar.
 
Trotsky was disliked by the leadership of the party, and by many party officials as well since it was up to the General Secretary Stalin to appoint most of these officials.

However, Trotsky was quite popular with the Red Army (unsurprisingly, since he was a better general than Stalin and as People's Commissar of the Military had influence on the nomination of officers). I think that any leftist revolution in the early Soviet Union would in fact be a coup d'état lead by Trotsky as Commissar.

For a contrary view, see Roy Medvedev, *Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism*:

"... The idea of a military solution to the internal party conflict occurred to some members of the Trotskyist opposition. Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin had some apprehensions in this regard, which explains the changes made on the Revolutionary Military Council as early as 1924 and the removal of Antonov-Ovseyenko as head of the Political Directorate of the Red Army and his replacement by Bubnov.

"It must be said quite emphatically, however, that at the time of the discussion in the party there was never any real threat of a military coup, if only because the Red Army was never just a 'docile' instrument in Trotsky's hands. Trotsky could rely fully on the soldiers of the Red Army when he gave the order to march on Warsaw, but he could not have raised the Red Army against the Central Committee and the Politburo...

"If Trotsky in 1924 thought as he wrote in 1925, it would have been one more of his illusions... [A] military ouster of the triumvirate and the party apparatus loyal to it would have been an extremely difficult and uncertain undertaking--an adventure with very little chance of success. If Trotsky refrained from such a step, one can assume that what held him back was not concern over Bonapartism but uncertainty of his control over the Red Army.

"The German edition of Serge's memoirs contains a foreword by the prominent German revolutionary Wollenberg, who went to live in the Soviet Union after the failure of the German revolution and in the thirties fled to the West from the persecution of the NKVD and the Gestapo. Wollenberg convincingly disputes the version of events presented by Serge:

"'What a colossal mistake in assessing the concrete situation that had arisen in the land of the Soviets within a few months after Lenin's death! I must add that at the time Lenin died I was still on military duty in Germany. As a specialist in civil war I held a prominent post in the German Communist Party. At that time I thought along more or less the same lines as Serge and as Trotsky apparently thought about all these matters for another decade or more.

"'But when I moved to Moscow, I saw my error. In Moscow I was forced to realize that the leading figures on the Red Army general staff, such as Tukhachevsky, with whom I became friends, admired Trotsky greatly as the organizer of the Red Army, as a man and a revolutionary, but at the same time they took a critical attitude toward his general political position.

"'...I had very close contact with the army in general, and, through it, with the Russian village. There could be no doubt that the top military command had full confidence in the party leadership.... And in the entire party there was an unquestionable majority in favor of the triumvirate, that is, the leading threesome formed after Lenin's death: Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin. That was the order in which the importance of the three members was estimated at the time--with Stalin last.

"'If the Soviet constitution could have been changed for a plebiscite to be held, it is impossible to say which of Lenin's successors would have gathered the most votes. But it can be said for certain that, given the hostility of the peasants and the middle class (which was reappearing in the first half of the 1920s) in relation to Trotsky, who was considered an 'enemy of NEP,' the outcome would have been rather unfavorable for him.

"'It is necessary to state this with full clarity because to this day Trotskyists of all varieties, as well as Soviet experts in West Germany and other countries, continue to spread the tale in speech, in print, on radio and on television that after Lenin's death Trotsky supposedly missed a 'sure bet.' Apparently Victor Serge believed this too right up to his death.'"
http://books.google.com/books?id=91fB88t2_zwC&pg=PA133
 
I don't think Trotsky ever saw a military coup as a viable way to subvert the bureaucracy. When relating to the military, he saw himself somewhat as a Carnot, the military organiser of the revolutionary army, but never as a Bonaparte. He pretty much always indicated that the overthrow of the bureaucracy had to come from the workers themselves. It's interesting when Trotsky is discussing the topic of the workers overcoming the bureaucracy, he specifically mentions the international events that were inspiring Russian workers and bringing the bureaucrats into disarray:

"in 1923 the bureaucracy was quite shaken up and that only the German defeat and the discouragement of the Russian Proletariat which followed it restabilized its position. During the Chinese revolution (1925-27) the crisis was repeated with similar phases. The first five year plan and the great rumblings in Germany which preceded Hitler’s rise (1931-33) once again threatened the bureaucracy’s domination. Finally, can we doubt for an instant that if the Spanish revolution had been victorious and if the French workers had been able to develop their May-June offensive of 1936 to its conclusion, the Russian proletariat would have recovered its courage and its combativity and overthrown the Thermidoreans with a minimum of effort? It is only a succession of the most terrible and depressing defeats throughout the entire world that has stabilized Stalin’s regime." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/ussr.htm

I agree with Trotsky in this regard - an aspect of the strengthening of Stalin's regime was certainly the failure of the international revolutionary movements and the USSR's isolation. But Trotsky either forgets or is ignorant of the mechanical bureaucratic tools that Stalin used to ascend to power and maintain that position - namely his control of the orgbureau that allowed for him and his ally Kaganovich to appoint members to important positions, to virtually appoint delegates to congresses and so through it all basically control the flow of information and weigh congresses in their favour. I think the Stalinist bureaucracy would be adaptive enough to take on a somewhat conciliatory position in moments of turmoil and still manage to control enough of the flow of information and decision making so as to essentially maintain their positions even if they had to make some concessions. By Lenin's death this method of controlled administration was already virtually in Stalin's hands and thus allowed his ascension to the top - it would take some different events and decisions during the Civil War, in my opinion, to maintain and promote working class power.

Not saying that it would be entirely impossible, only that I feel that by the mid 20's and onwards it was already increasingly unlikely.
 
"'If the Soviet constitution could have been changed for a plebiscite to be held, it is impossible to say which of Lenin's successors would have gathered the most votes. But it can be said for certain that, given the hostility of the peasants and the middle class (which was reappearing in the first half of the 1920s) in relation to Trotsky, who was considered an 'enemy of NEP,' the outcome would have been rather unfavorable for him.

Just that Stalin himself hold more radical viewos on peasantry and forced collectivization than Trotzsky. He just was clever enough not to show them.

such as Tukhachevsky, with whom I became friends, admired Trotsky greatly as the organizer of the Red Army, as a man and a revolutionary, but at the same time they took a critical attitude toward his general political position.

Is there a way to change this? I mean a way for Trostky to get some political friends in high army positions to be eventually able to stage a coup against the Soviet government? I think a coup is the only way to overthrow Stalin - a revolution wasn't in the cards since Kronstadt when the last leftist, non-communist opposition was broken, and any peasant uprising would have brought conservatice elements to power.

"'It is necessary to state this with full clarity because to this day Trotskyists of all varieties, as well as Soviet experts in West Germany and other countries, continue to spread the tale in speech, in print, on radio and on television that after Lenin's death Trotsky supposedly missed a 'sure bet.' Apparently Victor Serge believed this too right up to his death.'"

Even if Stalin died of an (natural or violent) death after Lenin passed away?

When relating to the military, he saw himself somewhat as a Carnot, the military organiser of the revolutionary army, but never as a Bonaparte.

Well, the difference between Bonaparte and Carnot isn't that important if you consider that Carnot suggested a coup against the parliament to Napoleon in 1815, because the parliament was refusing to fight on after Waterloo.
 
Well, the difference between Bonaparte and Carnot isn't that important if you consider that Carnot suggested a coup against the parliament to Napoleon in 1815, because the parliament was refusing to fight on after Waterloo.
More that he was committed to republican ideals and would leave office if someone was using the army to seize greater power but since I am not as well versed in that era of France, it was probably a bad analogy.
 
More that he was committed to republican ideals and would leave office if someone was using the army to seize greater power but since I am not as well versed in that era of France, it was probably a bad analogy.

No no it was a quite appropriate analogy since Carnot and Trotsky played analogous roles in defending the revolution from enemies on the right and on the left (Carnot was a moderate, even if he was obviously more radical than Napoléon).

My anecdote just prove that even democrats like Carnot can be willing to use force against public institutions if it's necessary to save the revolution.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Is a Trotskyist revolution possible in the USSR Why or why not?
the ironic thing about Trotsky is that his economic policies almost certainly involved intensifying the bureaucracy: he basically wanted the same thing Stalin actually did which is to crash industrialize the country and keep complete state control over said industries. Which meant you needed a bureaucracy to manage it and I have no idea how Trotsky avoids the degenerate worker's state or w/e he calls it from happening.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Is there a way to change this? I mean a way for Trostky to get some political friends in high army positions to be eventually able to stage a coup against the Soviet government? I think a coup is the only way to overthrow Stalin - a revolution wasn't in the cards since Kronstadt when the last leftist, non-communist opposition was broken, and any peasant uprising would have brought conservatice elements to power.
.
There were numerous ways of getting rid of Stalin if the opposition was unified or saw Stalin was dangerous from early on, Lenin's testament was extremely damaging to Stalin and he offered to resign as GenSec and there was a real chance the opposition could have forced him out in the early 20s before he consolidated power.
 
the ironic thing about Trotsky is that his economic policies almost certainly involved intensifying the bureaucracy: he basically wanted the same thing Stalin actually did which is to crash industrialize the country and keep complete state control over said industries.

Well while it's true that both Stalin and Trotsky wanted to collectivize the agriculture to boost industrial production, I doubt the left opposition would have used as much force, and the whole economic planning might have been a lot more realistic. I especially doubt that something like the Holodomor would have happened under Trotzsky, since first industrialization and collectivization might have been more careful and second Trotsky wasn't a friend of Stalin's Russian nationalism. I expect a much slower, more intelligent pace of industrialization under Trotsky.

Which meant you needed a bureaucracy to manage it and I have no idea how Trotsky avoids the degenerate worker's state or w/e he calls it from happening.

I think we should try not to believe everything Trotsky said. When he wrote The Betrayed Revolution, he was out of power since 10 years. His views might have changed in this time, or at least he feigned to change his views. One of his main point of criticism is that the Soviet Union doesn't have multi-party elections: which actually is a good point. But I think we should recall who crushed the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921, rebellion that demanded the same things as Trotsky in his book The Betrayed Revolution?

So I don't think he really believed that bureaucracy was a bad thing...
 
But he insisted the workers most overthrow the bureaucracy though?

I find it interesting that Leon Trotsky was one of the first people to predict the USSR's dissolution. Turns out he was right,
 
I think we should try not to believe everything Trotsky said. When he wrote The Betrayed Revolution, he was out of power since 10 years. His views might have changed in this time, or at least he feigned to change his views. One of his main point of criticism is that the Soviet Union doesn't have multi-party elections: which actually is a good point. But I think we should recall who crushed the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921, rebellion that demanded the same things as Trotsky in his book The Betrayed Revolution?

So I don't think he really believed that bureaucracy was a bad thing...
The Revolution Betrayed wasn't the only thing Trotsky had written regarding bureaucracy and his issues with it. He wrote about them as early as 1923, describing the bureaucracy as a dangerous conservative faction and the platform of the joint opposition written in 1927 is particularly critical of bureaucracy. I don't think that one of his 'main' criticisms in The Revolution Betrayed is that the soviet union doesn't have multi-party elections but rather that workers have been excluded from the decision making of the party and the state.
 

RousseauX

Donor
btw if you want an actual example of the proletariat overthrowing the bureaucracy: it was Poland in the 1980s with the solidarity labor movement, and that brought back capitalism too

I think one of the problem is that if you don't want a bureaucracy you have to concede the market (which is basically what the NEP was doing) and once you have a market even if it's officially conducted by socialist firms it's a pretty blurry line between Socialism and Capitalism.
 
btw if you want an actual example of the proletariat overthrowing the bureaucracy: it was Poland in the 1980s with the solidarity labor movement, and that brought back capitalism too

I think one of the problem is that if you don't want a bureaucracy you have to concede the market (which is basically what the NEP was doing) and once you have a market even if it's officially conducted by socialist firms it's a pretty blurry line between Socialism and Capitalism.
I read somewhere a lot of the solidarity leaders were either KGB or CIA assets. In any case very different era and situation.

I just think its such a cool idea-having a Marxist revolution in the 30s USSR, the workers storming Stalin's office and reinvigorating the USSR.
 
btw if you want an actual example of the proletariat overthrowing the bureaucracy: it was Poland in the 1980s with the solidarity labor movement, and that brought back capitalism too

I think one of the problem is that if you don't want a bureaucracy you have to concede the market (which is basically what the NEP was doing) and once you have a market even if it's officially conducted by socialist firms it's a pretty blurry line between Socialism and Capitalism.
Perhaps something more in line with what Trotsky was advocating for would be Hungary 1956. Whilst there was certainly an element of nationalism and pro-capitalism a lot of the thrust of the movement led to independent workers councils organising production and organising the dismissal of unpopular state officials - the workers might smash Stalin statues but they would also generally assume the role of local government after dismissing the state officials. The revolution started with students calling for the right to strike, a minimum living wage and they made demands that all Party members should be elected from top to bottom in secret ballots. I think it definitely could be seen as an anti-bureaucratic political revolution that was, essentially, crushed at the bayonets of the Stalinists.
 
Perhaps something more in line with what Trotsky was advocating for would be Hungary 1956. Whilst there was certainly an element of nationalism and pro-capitalism a lot of the thrust of the movement led to independent workers councils organising production and organising the dismissal of unpopular state officials - the workers might smash Stalin statues but they would also generally assume the role of local government after dismissing the state officials. The revolution started with students calling for the right to strike, a minimum living wage and they made demands that all Party members should be elected from top to bottom in secret ballots. I think it definitely could be seen as an anti-bureaucratic political revolution that was, essentially, crushed at the bayonets of the Stalinists.
I've read about that-I believe the WSWS had an article about that some years ago.
 
Top