For some reason, the word "Trotskyism" is fashionable in "VO", and it is used in business and not in business. It is fashionable to call Khrushchev a Trotskyist (apparently, based on Kaganovich's words. Well, after all, he later rejected this statement and convinced Stalin that he was "actively fighting" against Trotskyism!), And even Gorbachev, although he from what side did you get to the Trotskyists? Well, it is clear that candidates and doctors of historical sciences, who have re-read a bunch of historical documents (and the works of Trotsky himself), defended candidate and doctoral dissertations on this topic, and have the opportunity to judge all this by proof, would have approved this good. But no, these "comrades" are just silent about this, they judge completely, completely different … And with perseverance, which is clearly worthy of better application. Where does this come from? From incomplete knowledge! In our difficult age, someone read something somewhere, caught a glimpse of it (heard it) on TV - so the “expert”, a political scientist at his best, is ready. Well, what exactly is Trotskyism, or, better, let's put it this way: what does modern science say about it, in which not retired military and practicing engineers are engaged?
A still from the 1937 film "Lenin in October". After Stalin's death, the film underwent numerous cuts. As a result, in 1956, director M. Romm removed from it all episodes where Stalin was shown among the main characters (for example, the scene of Lenin's meeting with Stalin when he arrives in Petrograd, Stalin's conversation with Vasily), and cut out explanatory captions, for example, about the "conversation between Lenin and Stalin, which lasted four hours." In 1963, the already shortened version of the film was cut down with the help of various technical tricks so that Stalin completely disappeared from the film. Somewhere it was blocked by a pre-filmed character, or even a table lamp. In those scenes that could not be thrown out, the lines of the heroes were re-voiced. For example, in the 1937 version, Lenin says to Vasily: "Run to Stalin and Sverdlov" - and in the 1963 version already "Run to Bubnov and Sverdlov."
But I would like to start with a funny one. To make everyone laugh … About Khrushchev … When I was in graduate school in Kuibyshev in the mid-80s of the last century, there was such a funny incident. There was a certain professor who fiercely hated Khrushchev. And he had a graduate student who did not come to the department, did not live in a hostel, but got a job at home and, living at home under his wife's wing, received both a salary and a graduate student's scholarship. And somehow the boss calls him, and … the "graduate students" tell him that, they say, he is calling. We said that you work in the archive. But be immediately. The chief is angry … Well, he is on the plane and in the morning of the next day arrives under the menacing eyes of his boss. He: "Where have you been?" Postgraduate student: "I work in archives, in libraries …" "And what did you dig up in the archives there?" “Yes, here: I found a document that at the factory where Khrushchev worked in 1917, even before he joined the Bolshevik Party in 1918, some Khrushchev was elected somewhere from … the Menshevik Party. Only now I have not found out whether it is Khrushchev or not. Initials are not specified …"
The professor beamed with his face: "I knew that this bastard had something in the past … Go back, go to the archives, find me confirmation that it is him, work as much as necessary …" So he escaped the wrath of the righteous, although how it all ended, I did not have a chance to find out. That is, he did not conduct any talks about Trotskyism. The Menshevik past seemed more important.
What is this story for? And to how difficult it is, literally bit by bit, to collect information about the past, how literally on separate "pieces of paper" one has to establish this or that fact. And here people who do not know what TsGANKh or TsGAOR are, they easily stick labels like that and, hesitatingly, declare people "Trotskyists", "world behind the scenes" and "agents of influence" … However, let's return to our Trotskyism.
So what is this theory? Here it is: if you re-read all of Trotsky's writings, now it is possible to do this, not that in Soviet times, when all his works were kept in the special storage of the Lenin Library, but were given out only to those who worked on this topic and had access forms No. 2 and 1, then it turns out that there is no special theory. What is there? There is a whole range of accusations against Stalin that he proclaimed himself Lenin's closest ally, never being such, that he created a cult of his personality and a powerful bureaucratic apparatus, which from the inside would undermine the socialist system in the USSR and become the reason for the restoration of capitalism, and, well, of course, that again Stalin created the conditions for the stratification of the Soviet people through the Stakhanov movement and the introduction of high salaries for the intellectual and military elite, as well as in the rejection of the idea of a world revolution and betrayal (in fact) of the world revolutionary movement.
A very revealing shot. Stalin behind Lenin on the right is the "right hand". Around "some are no longer, and those are far away." And who is left?
Trotsky's "scrapes" with the party leadership began as early as 1923-1924, when a general party discussion on the country's economic development, foreign policy and party building began. Trotsky proposed the idea of "pushing" the revolution in Europe. Like, it is necessary to organize a campaign of the Red Army in Poland and Germany; to turn the peasantry into a "colony" of the new socialist industry; and "shake up" the old party apparatus by replacing the "Leninist guard", since it allegedly took the path of "Thermidorian degeneration", with young communists from among the employees and students. Then his proposals were rejected. In words … However, let's see what happened then in practice.
Yes, the Red Army did not go to the West. However, Stalin actually destroyed the "Leninist Guard" (and many on "VO", it is enough to read the comments to the same article "Stalin as the Creator of a New Reality" reserve "of Soviet industry cadres, from where people were drawn constantly and without measure. That is, much of what Trotsky proposed in the early 1920s, Stalin himself implemented a little later, that's all. And it was all about personalities, not theories. Was it cramped for two bears in one den? Or how?
However, let's honor Trotsky himself and see.
Here is what he wrote about the repressions: "Under the guise of continuing the old struggle, Stalin brought the Cheka under the Mauser and exterminated the entire old generation of Bolsheviks and all the most independent and selfless representatives of the new generation." (L. D. Trotsky. "Stalin." - Budyonny and Voroshilov, again, remained safe and sound. But if you recall the same "Congress of Victors", then you will inevitably have to agree that not so Trotsky was wrong.
And here is even more interesting: “I don’t think that in all of human history you can find anything even remotely similar to that gigantic factory of lies, which was organized by the Kremlin under the leadership of Stalin, and one of the most important works of this factory is the creation of new biography "(LD Trotsky" Stalin ". Vol. 1). Here Trotsky certainly did not come up with anything. It is enough to look (without subsequent cuts, of course, such films as "Lenin in 1918", "Defense of Petrograd" and many other films to see: in a country where cinema was the most important art, it … worked a lot on this and before The Great Patriotic War, and after it.
Trotsky really did not like the Stakhanov movement, in which he saw a veiled attempt by the Soviet bureaucracy to introduce Taylor's sweatshop system in our country. He repeatedly wrote that this is ordinary piecework, disguised as a left phrase. “From within the Soviet regime, two opposite tendencies are growing. Since it, in contrast to decaying capitalism, develops the productive forces, it prepares the economic foundation for socialism. Since, for the sake of the upper strata, he brings the bourgeois norms of distribution to an ever more extreme expression, he prepares for the capitalist restoration. The contradiction between the forms of ownership and the norms of distribution cannot grow endlessly. Either bourgeois norms will have to, in one form or another, spread to the means of production, or, conversely, the distribution norms will have to come in line with socialist property "(L. D. Trotsky" Revolution Betrayed: What is the USSR and where is it going ? ").
Well, and of course, the "new bureaucracy" … What, didn't we have it? It was, and it appeared already in the 20s, and later it bloomed in full bloom, which was reflected in the same cinematography. Have you watched the movie "Volga-Volga"? What about Carnival Night? And "Give me a complaint book"? The years are different, and the "main characters" are absolutely recognizable and … indestructible, despite all the efforts of the "good characters". Well, they just can't cope with them. And here is what Trotsky wrote about this: “Nor can we expect that the bureaucracy will peacefully and voluntarily renounce itself in favor of socialist equality. If now, despite the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, she found it possible to introduce ranks and orders, then at a later stage she will inevitably have to look for support in property relations. One might argue that the big bureaucrat does not care what the prevailing forms of property are, as long as they provide him with the necessary income. This reasoning ignores not only the instability of the rights of the bureaucrat, but also the question of the fate of posterity. The newest cult of the family has not fallen from the sky. Privileges are only half the price if they cannot be inherited by children. But the right to bequeath is inseparable from the right to property. It is not enough to be a director of a trust; you need to be a shareholder. The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive area would mean its transformation into a new possessing class. " (LD Trotsky "Revolution Betrayed: What is the USSR and where is it going?").
And by the way, when commentators write on VO that everything has been destroyed by the party elite, then you can call it differently - “the highest party bureaucracy” (and it was not from Mars that it came to us, not like that right?). Once upon a time its representatives, who were below, were poor and honest, but rising higher and, realizing their measure of responsibility, they began to demand for themselves … more and more. Well, we know how it all ended. And by the way, we must understand that it could not and cannot be otherwise: there is not enough space for everyone at the top, and the trough too … all 18 million members of the CPSU are simply not able to feed equally well.
A still from the film "Lenin in 1918". And very touching. Lenin shares his wisdom with Stalin. And the witness is a child. And the future belongs to children. And the leader would have to sit down and pet the dog … This also affects weak minds. It is a pity that this is not the case in the films of Soviet cinema. But then there are photos and newsreel footage, where Lenin is shown in his arms with a cat.
And then it is quite interesting: the notorious slogan "cadres decide everything" is much more frank than Stalin himself would like, characterizes the nature of Soviet society. By its very essence, cadres are the organ of ruling and command. The cult of "cadres" means, first of all, the cult of the bureaucracy, administration, technical aristocracy. In the matter of promoting and educating cadres, as in other areas, the Soviet regime still has to fulfill the task that the advanced bourgeoisie had long since solved in its own right. But since the Soviet cadres appear under the socialist banner, they demand almost divine honors and ever higher salaries. The selection of "socialist" cadres is thus accompanied by a revival of bourgeois inequality. " And again, what is wrong here, what has Trotsky invented here?
Yes, but how Stalin himself answered all this, well, besides the fact that he sent who could be expelled, he sent someone to felling, and someone … to the wall. He wrote a work called "Leninism or Trotskyism." In it, he argued that Trotskyism was old and new. That the old Trotskyism "undermined the Bolshevik partisanship with the help of the theory (and practice) of unity with the Mensheviks." But the "new Trotskyism" is engaged in opposing the old cadres to the young party. “For Trotskyism, there is no single and integral history of our Party. Trotskyism divides the history of our party into two unequal parts, pre-October and post-October. The pre-October part of the history of our party is, in fact, not history, but “prehistory, an unimportant or, at least, not very important preparatory period of our party. The October part of the history of our Party is a real, genuine history. There are “old, prehistoric, unimportant cadres of our party. Here is a new, real, "historical party". It scarcely needs proof that this original scheme of the history of the party is a scheme for undermining the unity between the old and new cadres of our party, a scheme for the destruction of the Bolshevik party spirit."
But all of the above is sheer verbiage, if you think about it. Indeed, the goals of the party "before October" were the same, but after that they were completely different. Even the agrarian program of the Bolsheviks before October was the same, and its essence consisted in the "municipalization" of landowners' landed property. But immediately after October … the Socialist-Revolutionary program was adopted for some reason. And why so is understandable. Otherwise, the peasants would simply not accept! So Troitsky is not so wrong and wrong, is he?
“What is the danger of the new Trotskyism? In the fact that Trotskyism, in all its inner content, has every chance of becoming the center and rallying point of non-proletarian elements striving to weaken, to disintegrate the dictatorship of the proletariat. " (JV Stalin. "Leninism or Trotskyism"). Great, isn't it? The center of non-proletarian elements … But … and where are the proletarian elements in the government of the same Stalin, and what was their role there? Who is the reliance on, who decided the fate of the country? Isn't it the top of the party bureaucracy?
We have a website called "Marxist-Leninist Labor Movement" on the Internet. Well, there are very revolutionary comrades, and they write different things. But then one of their passages caught my attention. We are talking about a new, yes, yes, proletarian revolution in Russia and the reasons why it has not yet been carried out. We read: “We have a working class, and a huge one, taking into account also the rural proletariat. But his consciousness has not yet reached such a level that he could realize himself as a single whole - a separate social class, whose fundamental material interests completely contradict the interests of the bourgeoisie, and therefore create his own political party, reflecting these interests of his, which would lead his struggle against capital. And this is precisely the biggest problem of the modern labor movement, from which our main task follows directly - to help the working class achieve such a degree of consciousness that it could create such a party."
Lenin, Trotsky and Kamenev at a rally before sending soldiers to the Polish front.
But let's see: then in the past the workers lacked consciousness, and a party for them was created by the brothers of the regicides and the Jews - victims of the tsarist regime. Then he lacked the conscience to prevent the rebirth of the top of his own party, which is why at the end of the 80s, the consumption of alcohol so sharply increased in our country - “out of grief”.
Finally, today again all the same mantras - "consciousness has not yet reached such a level that he could become aware of himself as a whole." And the Internet is, and the site "Marxist-Leninist Labor Movement", and all previously banned books can be found and read. You can engage in self-education without leaving your home, but “consciousness has not reached the required heights”.
That is, everything that Trotsky wrote about has come true in one way or another and still exists today. Further … There is no theory of Trotskyism. There was a critical look at what was happening. And he … didn't like it. That is, the "two bears" did not share one den. And one pointed out to the other that … all his actions would eventually lead to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. And the other … the other decided that there is no man, there is no problem.
This is what Trotsky himself believed in (and did he?), This is the question. But the question is separate. Also based on the theory of Marx and Engels about the impossibility of the victory of the revolution in one country of the world and the belief that it is possible with Lenin and Stalin. It was on this issue that A. Bogdanov, who described our future in his novel "The Red Star", quarreled with Lenin, while Trotsky wrote another book: "Revolution Betrayed: What Is the USSR and Where Is It Going?"
The result is a paradoxical situation. It was Stalin who, criticizing and persecuting Trotsky, in fact turned out to be the main executor of his ideas. He turned the peasantry into a "colony", shook the same "Leninist guard" to the ground, created a new Soviet bureaucracy, and even did not give up on "permanent revolution". Didn't we, through the Comintern, finance all the foreign communist parties, and their leaders did not undergo military training in our camps in the military uniform of the Red Army? And after the 45th year, we most seriously supported everyone who just did not declare the transition to the "socialist path" of development. The primacy of heavy industry over light industry is also Trotsky invented everything, and Stalin brought it to life. For which Trotsky can be blamed, it is for his "rose-colored glasses" through which he looked at the teachings of Marx and Engels and the world revolutionary process itself. Well, he could not understand in any way that even with the help of people like him, those who were nothing, could never become everything. And if they can, they will immediately demand "many women and cars", and this will be the beginning of the end of any proletarian revolution!
