Trotsky vs. Stalin

[Vladyc]

You may remember my recent thread on the same topic (since it is still on the first page ). Anyway, here is a fairly comprehensive research paper I wrote on the differences between Trotsky's theory and Stalin's policies.

I would appreciate constructive criticism, since I am considering submitting it to a journal for high school research papers.

Be warned, though--It is fairly lengthy.

A Trotskyist Soviet Union


Following the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1923, a power struggle took place in the politburo of the Soviet Union. Although they were not the only ones involved, Lev Bronstein (better known as Leon Trotsky) and Josef Stalin ended up being the principle players in this struggle. Of course, as history tells us, Stalin was victorious, and Trotsky was forced into exile. However, it is certainly not inconceivable that Trotsky could have taken control, considering his authority over the Red Army. Had this occurred, he would have run the U.S.S.R. in a radically different fashion from Stalin, since Trotsky opposed almost everything Stalin did. Even so, many of Trotsky’s ideas turned out to be surprisingly similar in some ways to Stalin’s policies, particularly economically. More distinct differences are evident in other areas such as their foreign policies and political theory. These differences could have had a profound impact on the course of both Soviet and world history.

The theory of communism, first envisioned by Karl Marx, has an impact on all aspects of a society. Beyond the obvious changes in the economy, it also affects the culture of a society, its government, and its relations with other nations. Within the socialist movement, there were always huge differences in imagining how a socialist state would deal with these issues, among others. Rarely in its history has communism had such contrasting opinions as in the debate between Trotsky and Stalin, which continued until Stalin had Trotsky assassinated in 1940. One important difference between the two, though, was that Stalin had the opportunity to actually put his ideas into practice, while Trotsky was sent into exile. This makes it difficult to say with any certainty exactly how the policies of the two leaders differed, since Trotsky’s are simply theory. However, Trotsky did record exactly what he thought should be done in the Soviet Union in every stage of its history, from its birth to Trotsky’s death. Using these writings, a comparison of the two leaders becomes more possible. This paper explores the ways in which a Trotskyist Soviet Union would have differed from that which was ruled by Stalin.

With regard to economics, Trotsky was the most radically left of the Politburo in the early 1920’s. Although he recognized the necessity of Lenin’s NEP (New Economic Policy) following the devastation of war communism, the harsh communist policies necessitated by the Russian Civil War, he wanted to return to the path of true socialism as soon as possible. The NEP was a very limited introduction of capitalism to Russia, for the purpose of jump starting the economy. In establishing this policy, Lenin was using the Marxist idea that communism will only happen in an advanced capitalist society.

Trotsky agreed with Lenin to an extent, but he believed that it was possible and even necessary for Russia to skip over the advanced capitalist stage in its development.1 He first theorized this after the 1905 revolution, in his “Theory of Uneven and Combined Development.” In short, Trotsky thought that the proletariat should take power as soon as possible after the revolution, even if they were still a minority in the nation. This idea went completely against all previous Marxists, as well as the rest of the politburo. As a result of this belief, Trotsky did not think that it was necessary for the NEP to remain in place so long that Russia’s economy developed into advanced capitalism. Instead, he wanted a “single plan” for the planning of the economy.2

Soon after the NEP was put into effect, Trotsky became worried about the growth of capitalism in the Soviet Union. Businesses were accumulating too much capital, causing an increase in the power of the capitalist sector of the economy. Meanwhile, the state owned industry, which still encompassed any large scale operations like coal and iron, was losing money.3 Even as early as 1923, Trotsky had wanted the government to begin gradually but decisively expanding the socialist sector.4 Private businesses and trade would continue to be allowed at first, but in a much less prominent role. However, Trotsky was mostly alone in this view. Although he was backed in almost every other decision he made by Lenin, in this case he had no support in the politburo.

Trotsky thought that industry was more important to Russia’s economic growth at this point than was agriculture. Consequently, he preached the necessity of quick heavy industrialization. After a short period of allowing some capitalism to develop, major industries would need to once again be completely nationalized. Electricity, for example, was something that Trotsky felt needed to be entirely state-controlled. The electrification of Russia could not work effectively if it was being run by many independent private businesses, as was the case under the NEP. It was much more efficient to have a single, state run plan for electrification. 5

It is clear that if Trotsky had had total power at any point during the initial development of the U.S.S.R., he would have significantly hurried the progress towards socialism. This was not always so for Stalin. As in many cases, Stalin’s position on the NEP in the early 1920’s was whatever was most politically expedient for him. In this case, it was to oppose Trotsky as much as possible, instead siding with the much more moderate Bukharin. This did not stop Stalin from completely ending the NEP soon after he came to power. Ironically, his economic policies became very similar to those of Trotsky that he had previously opposed so vehemently.

Stalin began the switch to radically socialist policies in 1928, much sooner than Bukharin and his followers would have liked. The switch was initially triggered by a massive grain shortage in 1928 throughout Russia. The shortage prompted Stalin to return to the policies of war communism, simply claiming all the produce of the peasants. This drastic change was partly designed to show that the proletariat no longer wished to cooperate with the kulaks and other peasants whose aim was to “destroy the proletarian state.”6 At the end of the first 5-year plan, almost every agrarian household in Russia was collectivized. Not only did collectivization not increase agricultural output, but it was extremely bloody, resulting in millions of deaths.
In itself, this policy was not greatly different from Trotsky’s idea of collectivization which he had been proposing for years. Trotsky would not have needed the provocation of the grain shortage to begin this policy, of course, and as a result it may have been slightly less radical in the beginning. Still, his idea was much closer to what Stalin ordered than Lenin’s proposal of a very gradual collectivization over decades. The primary yet essential difference here between Trotsky and Stalin was that although both wanted quick collectivization, Trotsky wanted to persuade the peasants to collectivize voluntarily by example. Stalin stopped bothering with voluntary collectivization at the first opportunity, instead preferring the much simpler method of “unleashing class war in the countryside.”7

With his radical change in policy, Stalin had moved further left than Trotsky with this shift in policy. Trotsky did not stop his criticism of Stalin when Stalin’s politics moved “left,” though. On the surface it might appear that Trotsky had shifted his position, since his attacks on Stalin and the Soviet Government now came from the right, rather than the left. However, this was merely an indication of the huge change in Stalinist economic policy.8 Instead, Trotsky’s reaction to Stalin’s radicalism shows a remarkable consistency. Trotsky certainly did not hesitate to adapt his ideas to fit new circumstances, but it is clear that he would not have made such a drastic and potentially disastrous change in policy as a result of something like the grain shortage.

Trotsky’s continued criticism of Stalinism also demonstrates that he would not have endorsed, or even permitted, the large scale brutality that took place during Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture. With such a similarity between what Trotsky had been proposing economically and Stalin’s new plan of collectivization, it would seem prudent for Trotsky to have attempted to rejoin Stalin, possibly regaining influence in the Soviet government. In fact, many in Trotsky’s Opposition, called the “conciliators”, did opt to go this route.9 Trotsky, on the other hand, remained opposed to Stalin’s brutal method of collectivization controlled from “above,” rather than initiated voluntarily “from below,” with the full consent of the masses.

One question that remains difficult to answer is whether or not Trotsky would have been able to accomplish this lofty goal of voluntary collectivization. Firstly, during Stalin’s original policy of voluntary collectivization, less than ten percent of Soviet agrarian households had collectivized by the end of 1929. Clearly most farmers did not see any benefits to them in collectivizing. With the already high taxes they were compelled to pay, many farmers instead preferred to become subsistence farmers, not bothering to produce anything that the government would confiscate anyway. This situation only exacerbated the problem, and caused Stalin to decide to force collectivization. Additionally, class tension remained high in the Soviet Union, so the peasants were reluctant to help the proletariat-run government, even in many cases attacking government agents. All of these conditions were things that Trotsky would have had little control over, had he been able to implement collectivization the way he envisioned it. The success of Trotsky’s utopian plan for agriculture may still have been possible, but the odds were stacked against it.

In addition to economic policy, Trotsky also had many views on the other aspects of the running of a nation. Interestingly, he spent a lot of time commenting on the issue of culture in a communist state. During Stalin’s reign in the Soviet Union, culture was limited to art that supported socialism. All art in some way was designed to glorify the proletariat’s struggle against its bourgeois enemies and the goal of achieving socialist progress. The primary art “movement” under Stalin was Socialist Realism. This was largely used for propaganda purposes by the Soviet government.

Since the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks had attempted to control all art produced. This was originally attempted by creating an organization called the Proletkult. Although the Proletkult condemned old forms of art that were examples of capitalist decadence, it did support almost any form of modern art that was not traditional. Under Stalin, though, all art except for Socialist Realism was not only condemned, but virtually outlawed. Numerous famous artists were persecuted and not allowed to continue their work. In many cases, they were tortured, executed or sent to gulags as a punishment for utilizing any kind of art style that had existed before the revolution. These past art forms were labeled “formalism” by Stalin, and declared a threat to socialism.

Trotsky, on the other hand, was significantly more progressive on the issue of art. He did not hate pre-revolutionary art because of its capitalist roots, in fact quite the opposite. He encouraged appreciation and study of previous art forms, because it would help the proletariat to have a better understanding of art as a whole.10 Trotsky did not expect tremendous cultural output from the period of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, partly because he expected this period to be relatively short.11 However, he did look forward to a glorious cultural blossoming once communism had been fully established. Ideally, this would be a universal, classless culture. He felt very strongly about the importance of culture to a society, even saying, “The development of art is the highest test of vitality and significance of each epoch.”12 Additionally, Trotsky did not support the limiting of art at any stage of the socialist progression. In sharp contrast to Stalin’s harsh and restrictive policies, Trotsky stated that “The domain of art is not one in which the party is called on to command.”13 This clearly indicates a desire for full rights of freedom of expression in this area.

On certain cultural topics, though, Trotsky was less liberal. On the seemingly minor issue of the purity of the Russian language, for instance, Trotsky was very conservative. He strongly felt that the swearing and use of obscenities common among the lower classes was corrupting the Russian language. “To preserve the greatness of the language, all faulty words and expressions must be weeded out of daily speech.”14 He even supported official legislation against such unsavory language, the use of which would be a punishable offense. This is only significant in that it shows that there is a limit to how much free speech Trotsky was willing to grant.

Another huge contrast between Stalin and Trotsky was in their views on freedom of speech and opinion within the government. Trotsky thought that it was in the Soviet Union’s best interest to permit open discussion in the Communist Party. He recognized that differing opinions can frequently lead to a better solution. Stalin, on the other hand, was too paranoid to allow this. Dissenting opinions in his government were effectively outlawed, as was made horrifically clear in the Great Purges. Of course, considering the nature of Trotsky’s own downfall, it is possible that Stalin’s fear was well placed. Nevertheless, Trotsky’s espousal of political rights in this case is admirable.

The view of religion seems to be largely agreed upon by all Marxists. Ever since Marx first proclaimed it an “opiate of the masses,” it has been seen by Marxists as a threat to the communist ideal. When Stalin took power, he continuously persecuted the Eastern Orthodox Church, which was almost completely eliminated by the start of World War II. Huge numbers of clergy members were executed or sent to labor camps throughout the 20’s and 30’s. A similar fate met Jewish religious leaders during Stalin’s purges. Any other religious sect that had any kind of significant following in the Soviet Union was also outlawed.

Trotsky was no more accepting of religion than was Stalin. He made this obvious when he said “We utterly reject religion, along with all substances for it.”15 Trotsky also wanted to get rid of religion as quickly and efficiently as possible in the Soviet Union. However, once again he differs from Stalin in his proposed methodology. He supported a constant, forceful stream of propaganda against religion to be fed to both the workers and especially the peasantry, who were much more religious. This was something that was done throughout the history of the Soviet Union. Instead of mass executions of religious leaders, though, which he never even discussed, Trotsky hoped to find a replacement for religion in the minds of the people. His answer was a widespread use of cinema for both propaganda and the diversion of the Russian people.16 As it turns out, Stalin came to the same conclusion in the 30’s, and eventually created a large Soviet film industry. Of course, since these two things alone were not enough to eliminate religion in Russia, it is unclear how far Trotsky would have gone to achieve this goal.

Perhaps the thing that Trotsky most detested about both Stalin’s rise to power and his rule over Russia was his indiscriminant use of deception and outright falsification to achieve his ends. Trotsky recognized the importance of propaganda as a tool to spread the glories of socialism to the masses, as well as supporting government policies. However, he was fundamentally against the types of propaganda campaigns that Stalin utilized throughout his rule in order to maintain total power. This included “deceiving the masses, palming off defeats as victories, friends as enemies, bribing workers’ leaders, fabricating legends, and staging false trials.”17 Trotsky appeared determined to be completely honest with the people concerning all of his policies and ideas. Because this was the case throughout the period of his position of power in the politburo, as well as afterward, there isn’t a clear reason not to believe him in this. Obviously this could have changed had Trotsky gained total power, but there is no evidence to suggest that this would be the case.

continued next post...

 

[Vladyc]

Because socialism is fundamentally an economic system, it does not inherently require a specific type of government. As such, political structure was another of the great debate topics between the communists of early Soviet Russia. In this case, Trotsky closely followed Leninist theory, and the idea of “all power to the soviets.” Trotsky was a firm believer that democracy was an essential part of socialism. This does not mean, though, that he supported the type of democracy that accompanied capitalism in the west, or even that proposed by the many social democratic (petty bourgeois) parties. Instead, he advocated a “democratic dictatorship.” While this may seem like a contradiction in terms, it did not refer to the dictatorship of a single, tyrannical ruler, but rather to the dictatorship of the proletariat. In itself, this only meant that the proletariat and poor peasantry would hold power over the former bourgeoisie and kulaks. Within the ruling class, though, Trotsky supported democracy through the soviets. Eventually, once a classless society was created, this system would enable all citizens to have equal democratic rights.

Ever since the 1905 revolution, soviets had been the preferred method of local governing under a socialist system. These were organizations of workers or soldiers that democratically decided local laws and leadership. In theory, the elected leaders would in turn elect the next level of government, and so on until top levels of the government were elected. In this way, in the words of Lenin, soviets would be “institutions which both pass laws and carry them into effect.”18 Throughout the 1920’s, Trotsky and others observed the steady rise of bureaucratism. Elected officials were gradually losing power to executive committees and bureaucrats. Consequently, the government was becoming more and more distant from the working classes, who elected representatives to the soviets.19

Trotsky was very much opposed to this bureaucratism, especially since it was accompanied by an increase of the influence of the bourgeoisie and kulaks in the lower levels of the Soviet government. Towards the end of his membership in the politburo, Trotsky complained of elected officials being removed at the first sign of a conflict with party committees, and lengthening periods of time between elections. He strongly encouraged a drastic revival of the soviets, for the purpose of bringing the state closer to the true proletariat, and giving them much more power in the government.20 Had he been given the opportunity, this political restructuring does not seem like it would have been difficult for Trotsky to achieve, given that all it required was adjustments to the election procedure.

Political structure under Stalinism could not have been more different from what Trotsky envisioned. Stalin’s rise to power was facilitated by his gaining control of the bureaucracy during his time as General Secretary. He continued to support the bureaucracy after gaining total power, and it only grew in size and influence in the U.S.S.R. until it comprised virtually the entire government. According to Trotsky, the new bureaucracy “not only rules over the proletariat politically but also exploits it economically.”21 Since the bureaucracy was appointed from the top-down, instead of elected from the bottom-up, there was very little democracy anywhere under Stalin’s rule.

Stalin himself cannot be considered to have been anything but an absolute dictator. There were never any checks on his authority and nobody to stand up against him after he disposed of all the original members of the politburo. Still, by the nature of the democratic system that Trotsky favored, it is unlikely that he would have been removed from power by his own electoral procedure. Although the soviets were basically direct democracy at the local level, at the highest levels of government they were very representative. In this way, a Soviet Union under Trotsky’s control could have been considered a kind dictatorship, since only those at the top levels of the government would truly have control over who was ruling the country. Even so, if Trotsky had successfully implemented his idea of the soviets, the average worker would have had much more control over the state and specifically over their lives. Despite its possible imperfections, Trotsky’s political theory was clearly drastically different from Stalin’s totalitarian dictatorship.

Trotsky saw the domestic and international parts of the communist revolution as going hand in hand. In fact, the ultimate success of his domestic plans for socialism depended on the success of his international plan, at least in his view. Trotsky’s thoughts on international socialism were captured in his theory of Permanent Revolution, which he first formulated following the ultimate failure of the 1905 revolution. The basic idea of the theory was that the Soviet Union could not survive on its own as the sole socialist state. The only way the revolution would survive would be if it was spread throughout the world. Trotsky wrote that “the working class of Russia, by leading in the political emancipation will rise to a height unknown in history, gather into its hands colossal forces and means and become initiator of the liquidation of capitalism on a global scale.”22
The prediction that the Soviet Union could not last on its own ended up being false, of course, since it stood as the only communist country for decades. However, although Trotsky changed his ideas slightly over time, he never gave up on the idea of world revolution. Stalin viewed this position as outdated, given the failures of communist revolutions in Germany and Hungary soon after Russia revolted. He even wrote a book that attempted to disprove the necessity of international revolution called “Socialism in One Country” in 1924 which was supported by Bukharin. Stalin felt so strongly that Soviet Russia could be successful alone that he actually tried to discourage revolutions in places such as Germany, China and Spain throughout the 1920’s and 30’s. Trotsky hated this foreign policy, and did whatever he could to support foreign communist revolutions in these countries, even after his exile.
The first revolution in which Trotsky was directly opposed to the policies of Stalin and the Comintern occurred in China between 1925and 1927. When the revolution began, Stalin and Bukharin decided that there was no hope for it to become socialist. It was a revolution against western imperialists and appeared to be led exclusively by the bourgeoisie. At the beginning, the Comintern was supporting the revolution with only the goal of a democratic (bourgeois) dictatorship in mind, rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat.23 Trotsky strongly disagreed with this position, and he wanted full support of a socialist revolution from the start. He believed that China would not even have the bourgeois phase that the Russian Revolution went through in February of 1917. The poor peasants would revolt first against the Chinese equivalent of the kulaks, rather than waiting until the second revolution.
Trotsky turned out to be correct—in 1927 there was a massive worker uprising in Canton. This occurred without any prompting from the Comintern, although Stalin did decide to support the insurrection after it occurred, in order to keep up appearances. By this time, though, it was too late. Chiang Kai-shek, who had previously been an honorary member of the Comintern and supported by Stalin, turned against the communist uprising. In a brutal betrayal of the communists, Kai-shek and the Kuomintang massacred the revolutionaries. According to Trotsky, this tragedy could have been easily prevented. Simply by not supporting the obviously anti-communist Kuomintang, Stalin could have decreased Chiang Kai-shek’s power enough to stop him from being able to so thoroughly put down the rebellion. Had the Comintern actually taken an active role in establishing soviets in northern China in 1926, the revolution would have had a good chance of turning into a victory for socialism.24 If Trotsky was correct in his analyses of the situation in China, the Soviet Union would have had a communist ally in China over 20 years before Mao Zedong took power.

In addition to trying to achieve world revolution, Trotsky had another important foreign policy goal. He though that the most dangerous political idea of the 1920’s was fascism, and he was committed to preventing it from gaining further hold over the masses of western Europe. His views on fascism can be summed up in his quote, “If the Communist Party is the party of revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of counterrevolutionary despair.”25 Fascism was becoming another radical option to workers that were dissatisfied with the exploitive bourgeoisie and the economic depression. It had already succeeded in Italy, with Mussolini coming to power in the early 20’s. While the new Italian Communist Party had failed to gain widespread support, the fascists had with strong popularity. Coupled with the use of fascist gangs to intimidate the opposition, they were able to gain total power.26 By the late 20’s a similar situation was forming in Germany.
In the September1930 German elections, the Communist party received about 4.6 million votes, gaining 1.3 million since the 1928 election. Considering the situation in Germany seemed perfect for communist revolution, as it was nearing the bottom of the worst depression, the party’s gain in votes was actually very underwhelming. The Nazis, though, received 6.4 million votes, gaining 5.6 million. The Social Democratic Party still received 8.6 million votes, showing that they remained the strongest political force in Germany.27 The Comintern portrayed this election as a great victory for socialism, when in fact the Communist Party was losing influence compared to the fascists. But Stalin was not concerned about fascism. He actually considered the growth of National Socialism (Nazism) to be beneficial to the proletariat revolution, simply because it was a radical force that would overthrow the bourgeois regime.28 He assumed that any such radical movement would inevitably lead to socialism, so there was no reason to be concerned about it.

Trotsky felt otherwise, and was willing to compromise the most basic tenants of his international theory to prevent the rise of fascism. Whereas he would normally avoid showing any kind of support to the Social Democrats, in this case the situation was severe enough require this to happen. The only possible solution was to unite all the workers of Germany against the new threat. He decided that it was necessary to make agreements with the Social Democrats in order to accomplish this. Fascism was just as much a threat to social democracy as it was to communism, so in Trotsky’s view the two groups would have an interest in cooperating to stop the fascists from coming to power.29 He also thought that the social democrats were so fragmented and harmed by the social crisis in Germany that they would not pose much of a threat to a successful socialist revolution once fascism was defeated. As the election statistics show, had the two parties allied, they would have vastly outnumbered the Nazis in the number of proletarian votes.

In the end, Stalin did not allow this to happen. The workers remained in disunity, and Hitler exploited this to get into power. The Communist Party was quickly outlawed in Germany. No doubt Stalin regretted his indifferent policy towards the Nazis later, when they almost destroyed the Soviet Union. In this instance, Trotsky’s foresight could have prevented the rise of Hitler and even started a socialist revolution in Germany, had he simply been in a position of authority and able to act on his plans.

Another opportunity to both stop fascism and create another socialist country occurred in Spain in 1936. When the fascist General Franco revolted against the Spanish Republic, it appeared that the only hope for his defeat was a large-scale effort by the leftist parties, with the help of the Soviet Union, to fight him. Stalin did help the Spanish Left Republican parties, as by this time he had recognized the danger of fascism. Once again, though, his end goal was only the reestablishment of the old bourgeois republic. Because of this, he didn’t bother to throw the Soviet Union’s full support behind the leftists. Trotsky thought that this was the reason that Franco was victorious.

His plan for victory in Spain called for a full-scale socialist revolution to counter Franco. There were individual groups of Trotskyist revolutionaries, but these groups remained disunited and there was no overall plan for socialist victory. They ended up fighting the republicans, which only disrupted the fight against fascism. According to his “conditions for victory in Spain,” Trotsky would have fully supported the establishment of soviets in Spain, making leftist soldiers fully aware that it was socialist liberation they were fighting for, and not a return to the old democratic capitalism that was so dissatisfying.30 In this way, Trotsky could have won another victory for socialism.

There was one major downside to Trotsky’s foreign policy, though. He was so intent on world revolution that he wanted revolutions in such strongly capitalist countries as Britain, the United States, and France. The only reason Stalin was able to avoid open war with the west was his policy of “socialism in one country,” not even wanting communist revolutions to happen in other countries. Under Trotskyist theory, the only way that communism would be truly successful was if it had no capitalist rivals seeking to destroy it. Consequently, his policies would have brought the Soviet Union into direct conflict with the west. It is unrealistic to think that the United States, for instance, would have allowed the U.S.S.R. to actively support a revolution within the U.S.

Trotsky’s policy in Spain, for another example, would have greatly angered the western powers that were trying to preserve the old Republic. Stalin’s policy, by contrast, was engineered specifically to prevent possible conflict with these countries. In France, Trotsky correctly predicted that it too would fall to fascism, although not the way in which this actually happened.31 In this case also, he would have endeavored to “save” France from fascism by encouraging socialist revolution there. If he had had enough power over the Comintern to put these policies into effect, it is difficult to see how Trotsky would have prevented full scale conflict with the west.

Finally, it is useful to examine Trotsky’s views on morality. He was a believer in the fact that “the ends justify the means.” However, in order for this to be true, the “end” itself must be justified. Trotsky did, in fact, have a very specific definition of a “justified end.” This was “if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.”32 By this definition, not all means are justified, since they would not all lead to this end. This idea is very vague and open to interpretation, and no doubt Trotsky would have been able to justify all of his policies using it. Still, he did give some guidelines as to means that would never be justified, including many of Stalin’s policies, such as “those means which set one part of the working class against other parts or attempt to make the masses happy without their participation; or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and their organization, replacing it by worship for their ‘leaders.’” Trotsky had no moral objections to doing anything that would help the revolution, but many of the most amoral and destructive things that Stalin did, he would not have done, because they did not fit this criteria.

It is futile to suggest that Trotsky would have been “better” for the Soviet Union, since we have no objective evidence that any of his theories would have been successful. After all, Stalin did transform backward Russia into the most powerful nation in Europe by the end of his reign. But one thing seems clear, at least; that while Trotsky’s motive for all of his actions would have been for the aim of furthering the struggle towards true communism, Stalin’s motives were always for the aim of furthering his own political power and the power of the Soviet Union. Regardless of whether or not Trotsky’s policies would have been more effective than Stalin’s, the modern perception of the reality of communism would be much different today had Trotsky succeeded Lenin as leader of the Soviet Union.

Bibliography: (I have endnotes too, but I'm too lazy to post them)
Deutscher, Isaac, The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879-1921, London, Oxford University Press, 1954

Deutscher, Isaac, The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky 1921-1929, London, Oxford University Press, 1959

Deutscher, Isaac, The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky 1929-1940, London, Oxford University Press, 1963

Dmytryshyn, Basil, A History of Russia, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1977, pg 465-555

Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia and the Russians, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, pg. 355-490

Trotsky, Leon, The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25), New York, Pathfinder Press, 1975

Trotsky, Leon, The Challenges of the Left Opposition (1925-27), New York, Pathfinder Press, 1980

Trotsky, Leon, Problems of Everyday Life, New York, Monad Press, 1973

Trotsky, Leon, The Age of Permanent Revolution: A Trotsky Anthology, New York, Dell Publishing, 1964

Trotsky, Leon, Writings of Leon Trotsky (1933-34), New York, Pathfinder Press, 1972

Trotsky, Leon, My Life¸ New York, Pathfinder Press, 1970

Trotsky, Leon, Fascism: What it is and How to Fight it¸ New York, Pathfinder Press, 1944

Wolfe, Bertrand D. Three Who Made a Revolution, New York, Stein and Day Publishers, 1948.

 

[The Q-Meister]

It is futile to suggest that Trotsky would have been “better” for the Soviet Union, since we have no objective evidence that any of his theories would have been successful. After all, Stalin did transform backward Russia into the most powerful nation in Europe by the end of his reign.

Interesting conclusion. I read most of your essay and I must say, it is pretty solid. However, everything you have written in your essay seems to indicate the exact opposite of your conclusion; namely, that Trotsky would have been infinitely better for the Soviet Union than Stalin.

You stated yourself that workers would have far greater democracy, greater control over their own lives. That the rise of fascism and of Hitler might not have occurred. Certianly the criminal purges of the eternally paranoid Joseph Stalin murdering millions of people, including comrades, Bolshevik Revolutionaries, etc would not have occurred either.

As for creating a world superpower under Stalin, this is true, but at what cost for its ordinary citizens and workers? What good is it to be a superpower for the vast majority of society if all that means is purges, concentration camps and being sent to Siberia for saying the wrong things?

I would also suggest trying to differetiate Stalinism from Communism; Trotsky and most Marxists today would not consider Castro and Mao to be socialist or communist but petty-bourgeouis nationalists; which is what they really were and are. There may have been certain aspects of their regime which Trotsky would have supported or admired but their policies were centered around what is best for China, what is best for Cuba and not what is best for world socialism/world revolution. For Trotsky this would be a cardinal sin and a deep betrayal of socialist principles.

Lastly, Stalin was a supreme cynic with regards to his own version of "socialism" This we can tell from his policies concerning religion and his "socialism in one state theory" which flies in the face of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and just about every major socialist thinker up to that time period. With religion, Stalin opened up the churches during WWII and spoke of defending the Russian Motherland; notice that he did not even use revolutionary rhetoric at this point, did not summon up the legacy of Lenin or of international socialism but instead reverted back to the reactionary methods of God and Country when the Russian people were in a crisis.

All in all, a pretty good essay which I would like to read in full if I get the chance.

I am an aspiring social studies teacher and I must say, if you were in my class you would get an A! I thought it was a college-level paper myself, very well done.

 

[Ace]

Very good paper. The comparison between Trotsky and Stalin is excellent. The only problem I see with it is that comparing the two points of view is very suspect because both men vigorously opposed the other's point of view. And it didn't matter what position Stalin took, Trotsky opposed it. Therefore, how much do Trotsky's writings reflect his actual point of view in the 20s and 30s as opposed to just opposing Stalin's point of view?

As to the change in world affairs if Trotsky had assumed power instead of Stalin, it could have had a disasterous effect on the development of the USSR. Trotsky was a strong advocate of the Comintern which advocated socialist revolution everywhere. If Trotsky had been able to try this, it is possible that the western powers, USA, UK, and France might have sided with Germany and Italy against the USSR, and much sooner than 1941. Remember. in the West, Soviet Russia was an outcast until Nazi Germany attacked her.

 

[Vladyc]

Interesting conclusion. I read most of your essay and I must say, it is pretty solid. However, everything you have written in your essay seems to indicate the exact opposite of your conclusion; namely, that Trotsky would have been infinitely better for the Soviet Union than Stalin.

You stated yourself that workers would have far greater democracy, greater control over their own lives. That the rise of fascism and of Hitler might not have occurred. Certianly the criminal purges of the eternally paranoid Joseph Stalin murdering millions of people, including comrades, Bolshevik Revolutionaries, etc would not have occurred either.

As for creating a world superpower under Stalin, this is true, but at what cost for its ordinary citizens and workers? What good is it to be a superpower for the vast majority of society if all that means is purges, concentration camps and being sent to Siberia for saying the wrong things?

What I was trying to illustrate in my conclusion was that hypothetically saying that Trotsky would be better for the Soviet Union without actually seeing what effect his policies would have is useless. After all, who is to say that true soviet democracy would not cause chaos, with uneducated workers rising to high positions of government and making impractical laws? (By the way this did happen in the Petrograd soviet of 1917) Or that Trotsky's agressive foreign policy would not have led to the U.S.S.R.'s demise militarily?

I would also suggest trying to differetiate Stalinism from Communism; Trotsky and most Marxists today would not consider Castro and Mao to be socialist or communist but petty-bourgeouis nationalists; which is what they really were and are. There may have been certain aspects of their regime which Trotsky would have supported or admired but their policies were centered around what is best for China, what is best for Cuba and not what is best for world socialism/world revolution. For Trotsky this would be a cardinal sin and a deep betrayal of socialist principles.

Lastly, Stalin was a supreme cynic with regards to his own version of "socialism" This we can tell from his policies concerning religion and his "socialism in one state theory" which flies in the face of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and just about every major socialist thinker up to that time period. With religion, Stalin opened up the churches during WWII and spoke of defending the Russian Motherland; notice that he did not even use revolutionary rhetoric at this point, did not summon up the legacy of Lenin or of international socialism but instead reverted back to the reactionary methods of God and Country when the Russian people were in a crisis.

Well since both Trotsky and Stalin had very different interpretations of communism from Marx's original theory, I didn't really want to call one a communist and one not. Granted that Trotsky was much closer to Marx, but I thought it was simpler to confine the issue to Trotskyism and Stalinism.

 

[Hey Joni]

Great paper, Vladyc! I found it interesting and educating to read. Of course, a comparison between these two men can only be abstract these days, since only one of them got to actually make history. However, the paper gives a good idea of how things could have been different. Would it be for better or for worse - that is a question that can never be answered.

 

[zenspiderz]

Very interesting article. I have always had a soft spot for the communist principle of communal ownership of the means of production. Political democracy is worthless without economic democracy. However you stated that communism was first envisioned by Karl Marx; I am not entirely sure that is accurate although he is widely given credit for it. I think I am right in saying that the core principles of communism precede Marx and even the International existed before him.

 

[Vladyc]

However you stated that communism was first envisioned by Karl Marx; I am not entirely sure that is accurate although he is widely given credit for it. I think I am right in saying that the core principles of communism precede Marx and even the International existed before him.

You are correct in that there were certainly socialist movements before Marx, and they may even have described themselves as communists. Maybe "first envisioned" is not the best choice of words, but Marx's theory of communism brought together all past socialist theories in to one definitive idea.

Regardless, his works were the probably much more influential to the Bolsheviks than anyone that came before, so I felt it was important to include him.

And yes, communism is a very interesting idea. Unfortunately, we might never know whether it could possibly work, given the right leadership.

 

[Rammstein.]

Interesting conclusion. I read most of your essay and I must say, it is pretty solid. However, everything you have written in your essay seems to indicate the exact opposite of your conclusion; namely, that Trotsky would have been infinitely better for the Soviet Union than Stalin.

You stated yourself that workers would have far greater democracy, greater control over their own lives. That the rise of fascism and of Hitler might not have occurred. Certianly the criminal purges of the eternally paranoid Joseph Stalin murdering millions of people, including comrades, Bolshevik Revolutionaries, etc would not have occurred either.

As for creating a world superpower under Stalin, this is true, but at what cost for its ordinary citizens and workers? What good is it to be a superpower for the vast majority of society if all that means is purges, concentration camps and being sent to Siberia for saying the wrong things?

I would also suggest trying to differetiate Stalinism from Communism; Trotsky and most Marxists today would not consider Castro and Mao to be socialist or communist but petty-bourgeouis nationalists; which is what they really were and are. There may have been certain aspects of their regime which Trotsky would have supported or admired but their policies were centered around what is best for China, what is best for Cuba and not what is best for world socialism/world revolution. For Trotsky this would be a cardinal sin and a deep betrayal of socialist principles.

Lastly, Stalin was a supreme cynic with regards to his own version of "socialism" This we can tell from his policies concerning religion and his "socialism in one state theory" which flies in the face of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and just about every major socialist thinker up to that time period. With religion, Stalin opened up the churches during WWII and spoke of defending the Russian Motherland; notice that he did not even use revolutionary rhetoric at this point, did not summon up the legacy of Lenin or of international socialism but instead reverted back to the reactionary methods of God and Country when the Russian people were in a crisis.

All in all, a pretty good essay which I would like to read in full if I get the chance.

I am an aspiring social studies teacher and I must say, if you were in my class you would get an A! I thought it was a college-level paper myself, very well done.

How were Mao or Castro not communists? Mao was an upstanding communist who added several theories to Marxist-Leninist theory. Castro is a comrade of any actual Marxist as well, please list things that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Also, of course Stalin relied on God and Country. The majority of people believed more powerfully in such things than socialism, what else was he supposed to do?


I'd like to add that I think Stalin was a much, much worse leader than Trotsky would have been. I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and I agree with Comrade Mao that Stalin did lots of good for the Soviet Union, and in the end was about 70% good 30% bad (there's a direct Mao quote somewhere where he says exactly that about Stalin, but I don't feel like looking it up).

 

[Shekwan]

I would say Trotsky would win in a refereed boxing match, but Stalin would win in a no holds barred bout.

 

[innonimatu]

I think I am right in saying that the core principles of communism precede Marx and even the International existed before him.

Not quite right, he got involved in the First International from the start. But there had been the International Association of 1855 before that, founded by english chartists and french and polish exiles in London. So it's roots were not marxist. In fact Marx would contribute to divide and destroy it, after a blotched bureaucratic coup in 1871. Stalin might have be more "marxist" that it seems!

 

[greenpeace]

Very interesting read, I learned a bunch. BTW, I caught two typos:
"He though that the most dangerous political idea of the 1920’s was fascism,"
should be "thought" not "though" (its the 9th paragraph in the second post)
and
In the September1930 German elections
there should be a space between September and 1930 (also in the 9th paragraph)
I normally wouldn't have commented on typos, but since you said you might be turning it in, I decided you might want to know.