ADVERTISEMENTS:
After reading this article you will learn about the controversy between Trotsky and Stalin.
It is not easy to locate the causes of the conflict between these two great Marxists. Stalin, with the help of his manoeuvring capacity, captured power.
But from intellectual point of view he was not at all respected by the Marxists. J. S. McClelland says that Lenin, Trotsky and several others made serious efforts to implement Marx’s eleventh thesis: the philosophers had only interpreted the world differently; the point is to change it. Both Trotsky and Stalin wanted to change the political, social and economic conditions of capitalist society. Both Trotsky and Stalin thought of different ways of applying Marx’s principles.
Again, both interpreted Marxism in their own way and this led to the conflict of opinion. But a close and protracted analysis will reveal that there is very little substance in the conflict between the two great leaders of Marxist thought.
McClelland rightly observes:
“As with all doctrinal disputes between the individuals in close proximity with each other it is always difficult to distinguish between points of dispute which are doctrinal and points of dispute which are personal”.
That is, there is little substance in the debate or conflict that arose between Trotsky and Stalin. Notwithstanding, the students of Marxist thought study the controversy between the two.
The first point of conflict between the two centres around the concept of the nature of revolution. Socialism in one country is not enough, because if a socialist country is surrounded by powerful non-socialist countries that will dig the grave for the socialist state.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The capitalist states could not tolerate the socialism. For this reason Trotsky thought that once socialism has been established in one country, serious and sincere efforts must be made to build up a socialist societies in other countries and this view of Trotsky is called the internationalisation of socialism and this is also a very important part of Trotskyism. Stalin openly challenged this view of Trotsky. Lenin also propagated the establishment of socialism in other countries. But he was quite aware that the situation of establishing socialism in other countries was not favourable.
Lenin said, “The first lesson to be learned from our governmental activities during the first year is that we must be on the alert, we must remember that we are surrounded by people, classes and governments who openly express their intense hatred for us”.
If it is not physically possible to build up socialism in all countries, then how can the socialism in one country are safeguarded? To this Stalin’s answer is – “the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and the support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian in other countries”.
Lenin also understood that all the capitalist countries are in alliance and they are determined to resist the advancement of socialism. It is practically impossible that the proletarians will ally and fight against capitalism.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is difficult to arrive at an agreed opinion why Stalin repeatedly argued for setting up a socialist society only in one country. In the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism and his noted work Problems of Leninism he discussed the issue elaborately and this surprises many.
Some people are of opinion that after Lenin’s death there was intense infighting within the CPSU (Communist Party of Soviet Union) and Stalin was so much power-hungry that he wanted to capture power at any cost, and, at the same time, he wanted to establish that he had been successful in setting up socialism in Russia.
Its sole purpose was to brighten his image as a true socialist. This, Stalin believed, would blunt the sharpness of attack launched by his opponents and at the same time brighten his image.
J. S. McClelland rightly says:
“As time went on, and Stalin’s need in the leadership struggle to brand Trotsky as an ‘adventurer’ became more acute, Stalin began to change his line, suggesting that the efforts and resources of Russia alone might be sufficient to build a socialist economy. Stalin continued to pay lip-service to the revolution in the West but shifted the balance in favour of the Soviet Union. He also said that the resources of Russia were insufficient for building up socialism in other countries and under this situation any attempt to build socialism in other parts of Europe would simply be adventurist and on that ground he called Trotsky an adventurist and all his followers un-Bolshevik. So we argue that Stalin was determined to convert Russia into a socialist society chiefly to consolidate his position in the party and brighten his image as a socialist”.
Trotsky seriously and sincerely followed so far as setting up socialist society in other countries of Europe is concerned. Lenin said world imperialism cannot live side by side with the victorious Soviet revolution.
Lenin understood that the conflict between imperialism and capitalism on one side and communism on the other side is inevitable. Naturally all-round efforts must be made to convert capitalist states into socialist ones.
Again, after few months, he said “as long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully the one or the other will be victor in the end.” Tortsky claims that by propounding a permanent revolution and internationalization of socialism he has simply followed what Lenin repeatedly asserted.
Hence the chief reason of difference between Stalin and Trotsky is the former wanted to strengthen and consolidate his position while the latter was determined to follow Lenin with all seriousness. Both Lenin and Trotsky apprehended (also predicted) that if there were no revolution in the neighbouring states of Russia, its revolutionary government would be overthrown by the neighbouring capitalist states. But the events proved that the communist government of Soviet Russia had not been overthrown and the revolutionary movements in several European states were turned into fiasco.
Some of the states were Germany, Italy, Hungary and Baltic states. The assessment of political situation of several European countries made by Lenin and Trotsky was not correct.
Analyzing the various aspects of controversy between Stalin and Trotsky, R. N. Carew Hunt, in his short but very illuminating book The Theory and Practice of Communism, writes – “The main content in Trotsky’s indictment of Stalin is that he (Stalin) gave up world revolution for “socialism in one country” yet this is not so. Stalin did not renounce world revolution; Trotsky did not reject the chance of building socialism in Russia”.
Historians have acknowledged that Stalin made several efforts to attempt revolution in few states of Europe, but only failure greeted him. Trotsky also desired to see a socialist state. If it were so what was the main reason of controversy between the two Marxists? Let us put it in the words of Hunt.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
He says:
“But as the controversy widened, the two viewpoints became more and more rigidly fixed. In the Stalinist scheme the establishment of socialism in Russia came first and world revolution second; in the Trotskyist conception this order was reversed. Yet fundamentally, the difference between the two men was one of temperament and not of theory. Trotsky believed that Europe was ‘ripe for revolution’ and from this standpoint the Russian revolution was only the prelude to a much wider upheaval”. This is the fundamental point of difference between the two great Marxists.
Kolakowsky believes that the conflict between the two is simply “imaginary”. They fought over an issue which for all practical purposes is a non-issue. Trotsky’s attack on the bureacratisation of party was mainly personal.
Kolakowsky says:
“Trotsky’s attacks on bureaucratic role within the party began when he himself was effectually deprived of power over the party apparatus, as long as he was still in power, he was one of the most autocratic champions of bureaucracy and of military or police control over whole political and economic system”.