Inferior Practice or ‘Why pick on Trotsky?’

You probably won’t have spotted the bad pun in the title but it’s relevant – there’s theory and there’s practice (or praxis, if you’re a pedant). Leon Trotsky was outstanding at the first and, many would claim, just as great at the second but I’d object that there was a grave mismatch. Don’t worry, this isn’t going to involve a lot of marxist theory or terminology. I will explain one though, which might come up, and that’s ‘dialectics’. Initially it meant a logical discussion between people with opposing points of view. A German philosopher called Georg Hegel proposed a three-stage process – argument, counter-argument, resolution (thesis, antithesis, synthesis in his terminology). Marx and Engels borrowed this and twisted it to their own uses in order to explain changes in human history. I’d describe it as an attempt to base their theories in science – in this case Newton’s Third Law of Motion: action and reaction are equal and opposite. It’s a useful approach but shouldn’t be used obsessively ’cos we’re talking about human beings not billiard balls. That’s where bolsheviks like Trotsky went horribly wrong.

According to Marx and Engels, the dialectics of history meant that the oppressed and exploited working class (proletariat) would inevitably rise up and replace the ruling class (bourgeoisie) through ‘self-activity’. Class distinctions would then disappear and communism would bring prosperity and peace to the world. It’s a nice theory and still might happen but has nothing to do with what is perceived to be communism by its enemies, nor with what’s been done in its name. Trotsky played a major part in that degeneration.

I don’t disrespect him, Leon (Lev) Bronstein, who changed his name to Trotsky, was a real revolutionary, at least to begin with, and did time twice (1899 and 1906) for his activities even before the Revolution. He was also a great speaker and writer. I’ve read the first part of his ‘History of the Russian Revolution’ in translation and it’s an excellent, if obviously very partisan, account. Like many, his positions changed several times, starting with the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1898 (note the name, friends in Labour and those supposed Social Democrats now with the Lib-Dems; it didn’t become the Communist Party until 1918). When the RSDLP split at the London Congress in 1903, he sided with the moderate minority (Menshevik) faction but tried to get the two parts to work together. He didn’t join the Bolsheviks until after the Revolution kicked off in March 1917 (note also that this was the real revolution; what happened in November – October in the old calendar – wasn’t a revolution but a coup d’état). He rose rapidly to the top. This is when theory and practice began to diverge.

Of course Marx and Engels hadn’t been too shy to contradict their own theories. Not content to let the inevitable march of history take its own course, they set up the International Workingmen’s Association (the 1st International) with the aim of steering it in the right direction. Soon enough they managed to throw out the anarchists by the simple expedient of moving the 1876 congress to New York, knowing the anarchists couldn’t afford the fare. So much for self-activity.

The bolsheviks weren’t slow to follow, beginning with the suppression of all the other revolutionary groups in Russia, not forgetting the anarchists, which Trotsky did not oppose. Trotsky began his revisions soon enough, firstly by putting trade unions under military control, so that strikes couldn’t happen, then by putting all the soviets (assemblies), that had formed amongst soldiers, sailors, workers and peasants in the early days of the revolution, under direct Bolshevik control. This was followed by the suppression of the soviets in the armed forces and the reinstatement of tsarist officers. The rationale (ie pitiful excuse) for this was the failure of German communists to effect a revolution after the fall of the Kaiser, thus contradicting Marx’s prediction that the working classes of the advanced economies in the West would rise first. Russia was the wrong place to start the revolution, so they’d have to busk it. This was how Marxist-Leninism was born. Consequently the civil war continued for 4-5 years more against the tsarist White Army and its allies, England and France, sending reluctant soldiers who’d just defeated the Germans to overthrow the revolution … and, of course, the anarchists in the Ukraine.

Then there was Kronstadt. If any Trot gives you the old line “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs”, resist the urge to break theirs and say “You can’t make an omelette unless the hens lay eggs.” That’s another thing the bolsheviks got wrong. It’s 1921 and the régime of ‘war communism’ drags on – the Red Army is winning and has just crushed the anarchist Black Army that helped them beat the tsarists, but workers’ rations and wages are still low and peasants are tired of having their produce ‘requisitioned’ without payment (ie stolen) to feed the Party and the army. Strikes break out in Petrograd (St Petersburg’s better name), birthplace of the revolution. The sailors and soldiers at the naval base of Kronstadt at the mouth of the Neva River come out in support. They produce a list of demands which includes, amongst other things, an end to one-party rule by the bolsheviks. As Commissar for War, Trotsky negotiates by sending in the army. In twelve days the revolutionaries are crushed, those who don’t die or escape to Finland are sent to the gulag. The leaders are executed or gaoled (much the same thing in those prisons). Lenin then recognised the justification of the rebels cause by ending war communism and allowing some liberalisation of the economy (the New Economic Policy). Trots will still defend this with old bolshevik conspiracy theories (lies) and omelette obscenities but those are the bare historical facts.

What’s my conclusion to all this? That Lev Trotsky began as a brave and genuine revolutionary but, when the bolsheviks took over the Russian people’s revolution in November 1917, he joined what he saw as the winning side and he then crushed the revolution … yes, he gets most of the credit. To my mind it was effectively over by 1919 when the unions and soviets were taken over completely by the bolsheviks and Trotsky was the person who headed that process. Kronstadt was the last gasp of independence. He remains a hero to many on the Left now because he tried to resist Stalin but he’d laid the table for Josip and the rest was inevitable. Did he deserve that icepick in the head in 1940? It was just cause and effect … or dialectics, if you like.

RA 2-4.8.17

2 thoughts on “Inferior Practice or ‘Why pick on Trotsky?’”

Robert Crick says:

October 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Thanks for a neatly turned essay on the dialectic, rhetoric at its best. Next question: is there any link between Lev Bronstein the revolutionary (and possible counter-revolutionary) and Mattvei Bronstein the theoretical physicist, executed on the day of his trial at the age of 30 a year after his breakthrough in the theory of quantum gravity. The Planck length might well be called the Bronstein length if had not been liquidated so early.

And the next question is how can revolutionary theory (and practice) be advanced by taking account of quantum mechanics? After all, Galileo transformed theories of social change by displacing Aristotle’s laws of motion.
1. Richard Anthony says:
  
  October 12, 2017 at 6:21 pm
  
  Dear Mr Crick, thank you for an interesting comment on my Trotsky piece. A brief search on line showed nothing to indicate Mattvei Bronstein might have been closely related to Leon. Had he been, he would have been arrested a lot sooner than he was and it almost certainly made sure Stalin would sign his death warrant. A sad waste of a very talented man.
  
  As for your question ‘how can revolutionary theory (and practice) be advanced by taking account of quantum mechanics?’, I’m no theorist so that’s one for smarter bastards than me. But it’s very relevant – in 1958 Werner Heisenberg published a little book called ‘Physics and Philosophy’ in which he pointed out that philosophers (and political theorists for that matter) had till then taken very little notice of what physics told us about the nature of reality. It’s quite readable, even for a non-expert in either field. The point it raises is, if quantum effects do have an impact on the macro-environment, then the uncertainty principle blows a very big hole in any deterministic theory, such as Marxism. The act of observation itself changes the state of what’s being observed or measured – as any journalist, whistle-blower or secret policeman could tell you.
  
  RA

Comments are closed.

Old school lies

This will be an ongoing feature which lists and decodes words and phrases that are commonly used, especially by journalists, in total, and often deliberate, ignorance of their true meaning. You may disagree; you may wonder if I’m right. Best thing is to go look for yourself and find out. They are in no particular order - just as they come to me or seem appropriate to the current headlines. If you can think of any more, please let me know.

"I believe in being tolerant …"

The 16 November was the UN’s International Day for Tolerance. Sounds highly desirable but then I think it also sounds arrogant. It’s like that old tag-line for the 1960s - ‘the Permissive Society’. Who has the right to tolerate or permit another’s existence or behaviour? According to my dictionary, tolerate comes from the Latin word ‘tollere’, meaning to lift up. That’s fine if someone asks to be lifted up but more often they’re demanding not to be held down. Whether it’s race, religion, caste, class, income, gender or sexuality, our world is riven by divisions with those on top consciously or unconsciously bearing down on those lower in the hierarchy than themselves. Asking them to ‘tolerate’ their poorer or weaker neighbour is not what’s needed. Nor should those lower in the pile tolerate their supposed superiors. They have a right to their intolerance but not by categorising all those who seem to oppress them as enemies. Sometimes education and understanding (or ‘overstanding’ for the Rastas) are enough. Sometimes, however, a fight is necessary. RA 4.11.17

"For God, King and Country"

This obscenity is found on war memorials, often in Latin: ‘Pro Deo, Rege et Patria’. I call it an obscenity because the majority of those servicemen and women did not die for those fictions but either because they had no choice in the matter or to save their comrades. Lying on the battlefied with his legs blown off, a soldier was more likely to be calling for a medic or his mother than any so-called deity, even if he believed in one. Still less for his monarch - it was centuries since any king had been anywhere near a battle, let alone the front line. On the other hand a fair few of those ‘fallen’ may have fought to defend their country, however they envisioned that, from invasion and destruction by the enemy. So we’re talking about patriotism. This term is touted as the ‘decent’ form of nationalism, in that it should not imply any superiority over other nations. But a cursory glance at the history of war, imperialism and sport shows the lie in that. It has to be endlessly invoked because it’s a relatively new phenomenon - the idea of nation states is barely five hundred years old and much less in most parts of the world. Most people’s loyalty is to groups much nearer to them - their family, their tribe, their work mates, their football team, their community, if there is one, their co-religionists. Their traditional enemies are likewise mainly closer to them. So, at times of war and other international conflicts, patriotism/nationalism has to be revived and reinforced and the enemy dehumanised - ‘The only good Indian/German/ Jap/etc is a dead one’. The problem for the rulers is that these false emotions are hard to control when they’re trying to be on good terms with the Indians/ Germans/Japs/etc. Then ‘patriotism’ becomes extreme nationalism, which the right wing make a show of deploring, while using it to their advantage wherever possible. As someone said long ago, “What’s moderate racism?” So what’s moderate nationalism? Another set of blinkers to stop us seeing clearly.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other lies

On the 16th November 1917, Lenin is reported as stating at the Congress of Peasant Assemblies (Soviets) that anyone who attacked the soviets was a counter-revolutionary. He wasn’t lying, he was a counter-revolutionary and it only took 2 years until, under Trotsky’s direction, the Bolsheviks took over all the soviets, put the army and navy under the command of officers, often previously Tsarist ones, and the trade unions under military control in the guise of necessary measures to win the civil war. The soviets never regained their autonomy, the armed forces and unions stayed under Party control. It took only another 9 years until the peasants lost ownership of their lands under forced collectivisation. Whether Lenin would have agreed with this is debatable … for what that’s worth. As for socialist, it’s another word, like Christian, that’s been tortured out of any resemblance to its founders’ teachings. “Are you, or have you ever been, a Communist?” - every Christian should answer “Yes!” if they understood the meaning of either word. If we invent new words, they’ll get twisted too. Give up attacking labels and go for those people who misuse them to hurt other people. The dictatorship of the proletariat Another lie - it means the dictatorship of the Party. The Bolsheviks broke the first rule of revolutionaries - not to substitute yourself for the class. Marx called for ‘self activity’. This happened in Russia in March 1917, was crushed by the Party and all memory erased by Stalin. No wonder they’re in the shit now. What’s in a name? More lies:- Democratic = Stalinist or a quasi-monarchy as in North Korea People’s = ‘Communist’ Party, aka Stalinist Freedom = Fascist Christian* = Fascist or at least extreme conservative [* substitute a religion of your choice] RA 20-21.10.17

“Communism failed”

It didn’t because we’ve never seen it exist for more than brief periods and then only under extreme internal and external pressures. Communism does not mean what was practised in the USSR, China and Eastern Europe. Nor is it what the paranoiacs in the USA mean by the term - any movement that opposes or tries to limit US imperialism or the domination of US businesses. Fidel Castro, for instance, wasn’t a communist but was forced to seek support from the USSR because Washington refused to recognise the justice of the revolution and wanted to keep looting the Cuban economy. As envisioned by Marx and Engels, communism should mean socialism-max - ie, not just common ownership of the means of production, etc, but also control of it and achieved by what Marx called ‘the self-activity of the proletariat (the working class)’. The Communist Party may have preached communism but it never practised it. Instead what they created was state capitalism under centralised, militarised police-state control. This was called the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, which meant in effect the dictatorship by the party hierarchy*. That’s not what Marx and Engels had in mind, though they may have been persuaded to go along with it, if they’d still been around - Marx, at least, was a politician. That doesn’t mean that all Party members were in agreement with this. There have been many, many genuine communists in the Party, but those who weren’t murdered by the bosses’ death squads and police in the West, were executed or destroyed in the camps in the East. Any survivors became cynical and born-again right-wingers or transferred their allegiance to Trotskyist groups. A truly communist world - that is one where everyone’s needs are provided for fairly, where there’s no more exploitation and where everyone really does have a voice and a choice in the running of public affairs - is the only hope for the long-term survival of the human race. The worst crime the so-called Communist Parties have committed is to make the word poisonous for those who need to hear it. [* These became known as the ‘namenklatura’ and were, in effect, a baby bourgeoisie who appeared in their full glory when the USSR collapsed.]

“It’s survival of the fittest”

This is used as a ‘scientific’ justification for unbridled competition and ascribed to Darwin. In fact he didn’t say it, that was Thomas Huxley in support of Darwin. What those who repeat this line overlook is that Darwin was talking about species, not individuals, and success in reproduction, not the Olympics or the market.

Socialism doesn’t work

The fact is it’s never had the chance to, that is beyond small communities and businesses. On the level of a nation state we’ve only ever had partial attempts that tried to co-exist with a capitalist economy or worse, as in one-party/one leader dictatorships like the USSR under Stalin or the Chinese Peoples’ Republic under Mao Zedong. Socialism does not mean nationalisation and total state control. However, like christianity, the movement was taken over by power junkies as soon as it showed promise and the term became tainted with their policies. The best description of what it could be is in the famouse Clause 4 of the Labour Party’s constitution that was dumped by ‘New Labour’: ‘To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.’ Written by Sidney Webb, one of the original right-wingers in the party, this was long regarded by most members as Labour’s ‘bucket list’ at best. ‘Common ownership of the means of production’ became nationalisation, though that’s not the only possible meaning - the co-operative movement had another, ‘workers’ control’ is another. The slogan of socialism became ‘evolution not revolution’, which overlooks the fact that evolution proceeds by revolutionary jumps and no fossils of intermediate species (ie giraffes with longer and longer necks) have ever been found. It’s also rarely mentioned that the first people to call themselves social democrats were Marx and Engels’ organisation (I bet someone corrects that) and so did Lenin, Trotsky & Co - the Communist Party came later. RA May Day 2017

“Political correctness gone mad”

Some people keep grinding this out like they know what they’re talking about, but I dare anyone to say what they want in its place. ‘Call a spade a spade’? Well, say it in the right place and see what the reaction is. I’ve heard a slightly different version of its origin recently but prefer the one I first read, that it was a put-down by reactionaries to attempts by students at the University of California to stop people using racist language freely as if it were protected under ‘freedom of speech’. As far as I’m concerned it wasn’t, or shouldn’t have been, intended to ‘purify’ the language but rather a consciousness-raising way of realising who you’re insulting and the effect it has on them. If you still think it’s OK to use an old term for people of colour then say it out loud, or try the phrase “All Muslims are ..”, in a situation where you’re outnumbered by members those different groups. See how brave you are. No-one is saying you can’t be critical of someone of a different ethnicity or religion or ideology, just be careful you’re not ‘tarring everyone with the same brush’, to use another old racist phrase. It’s not just impolite or bad for your health, it’s untrue. RA 25.3.17

Old school lies - The country has spoken

... and other hallucinations. This personification of the ‘land’ is common with politicians and most often with those of a nationalist tendency. The fact is that, in the case of the EU Referendum, 75% of the electorate voted and those votes were divided almost half and half. Yes, there was a slight majority for leaving but, if you factor in those who didn’t vote, their silence implies as much their acceptance of the status quo as agreement to leave. That the government didn’t insist on a 2/3 or ¾ majority, as most organisations do for significant changes to their rules, shows their rank stupidity. So, while we watch and wait for the conclusions of this farce to unwind, the next time ‘the country’ is called on to speak, make sure it’s been listening more carefully.

“We’ll never be part of a federation”

Gordon Brown (remember him?) has suggested a compromise solution to the argument over the SNP’s demand for another referendum about independence for Scotland to make it a federal partner of the UK instead. Seems an idea worth considering but a big no-no for the Tories under Thatcher was becoming part of a federal Europe. This feeling among the idiots in British politics resurfaced in the EU referendum last year. It seems to have escaped their notice, however, that we already live in what is really a federal state. I know it’s called a union, but that’s increasingly becoming a misnomer as the different parts seek even more independence than they had before and don’t forget that Scotland had different education and legal systems and its own currency long before devolution, while Northern Ireland even had its own parliament. In fact England began life as a federation of separate states and regions before the Normans invaded and those differences didn’t disappear overnight. So there’s nothing to be afraid of in getting closer to other peoples or in giving them more autonomy to govern themselves. ‘Sovereignty’ is a fiction in a world dominated by global capitalism. It only becomes real when you claim your own and join with like-minded folk to assert it. RA 18.3.17

Old school lies - “Uncontrolled immigration” - Pots & kettles

With Trump’s latest ravings and Brexit ringing in our ears and the sounds of drawbridges being raised across Europe and elsewhere, there are two things we don’t hear and should be restated every time this issue is discussed. One is the fact (not opinion) that we, British, French, Italians, Portuguese, Dutch and Germans, forcefully immigrated into many parts of the world without the residents’ consent and thus created much of the world we see today with all of its mess. This hypocrisy is not lost on some people, see: theindigenouspeoples.com [more...]

Old school lies - Free Trade

Has been in the news a lot recently and big deals have been on the table - TTIP between the US and the EU, CETA between Canada (as a cover for US corporations) and the EU and TPPA between the US, Australia, Japan and others that Trump has just dumped. It’s going to be interesting how big business reacts to this. However free trade has never existed in modern times. It was the slogan of 19th century liberals who wanted to get rid of the protectionism of the big land-owners which kept food prices high. When they had achieved this goal the aristocracy lost their grip on power and were removed, as in France, or had to accommodate the bourgeoisie into the ruling class, as in the UK. The idea that ‘free trade’ meant on equal terms was always false. It means the freedom of the powerful - whether states or corporations - to set the terms of the deal to their own advantage at whatever cost to the other parties. Now we have the USA, the most protectionist country on the planet, with a new protectionist President, offering ‘free trade’ deals with the UK and whoever else, despite calling time on those treaties listed above. Clearly the game goes on but DT wants it just with his rules. Same old, same old ... And don’t forget that smuggling, piracy and black marketeering are just as much part of ‘free trade’ as so-called legitimate businesses.

Old school lies - UK Independence

Those who voted to leave the EU in order to ‘reclaim’ the UK’s ‘independence’, and not just that bunch of clowns in UKIP, have clearly not been told that the UK has not been independent since WW2, when it was sold to the USA in return for some of their hardware to fight off the Germans. Technology sharing - began in 1940 with the British Technical and Scientific Mission that handed over most of the advanced research done in the UK, including into nuclear weapons and jet engines. While this was supposedly a one-off deal, there is little reason to suppose it ended there, particularly in the areas of cryptography, surveillance, nuclear technology and new materials. Traffic the other way is limited at best. So many UK companies are owned or controlled by US corporations, that any idea of their independence is nonsense. Then there are UK firms, like BAE Systems, with US subsidiaries that are governed by US nationals under the Special Security Agreement, which allows them to operate in the States, while "The British members of the corporate leadership, me included, get to see the financial results; but many areas of technology, product and programme are not visible to us...” (a quote by a British board member). Intelligence ‘sharing’ - 1943 the British–U.S. Communication Intelligence Agreement, BRUSA, that connected the signal intercept networks of the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) at the beginning of the Cold War. NSA still has a ‘first peek’ option on all the intelligence that GCHQ obtains. Nuclear weapons - any idea we can use our ‘independent deterrent’ independently of the US is fairyland - they control the buttons. Then again there’s the media - most of ours now controlled by a megalomaniac Ozzie pornographer with US citizenship who wants to take over even more of our TV viewing, especially the news. As for finance, the USA effectively controls the IMF and US-based credit ratings agencies control the value of our currency, as well as that of the UK’s stock and bond markets. ‘Brexit’ has delivered us even more firmly into their hands and any ‘free trade deals’, whether TTIP, CETA, TiSA, or separate ones with the USA, will sew up the whole package completely. As puppets go, Pinocchio had more independence than the UK.

Old school lies - Making Britain great again

It never stopped being great - Great Britain is just the name of the island that comprises most of England, Wales and Scotland. It’s a geographical term to distinguish it from little Britain (Bretagne) in north-west France. So, sorry you Northern Irish Unionists, you’re not British - check your passport! Why the hell else would everyone else in Europe translate Great Britain into their own language? They don’t all think we’re so wonderful.