![]() Trotsky, socialism and democracy By Guillermo Almeyra Last August 20 marked the 69th anniversary of the murder in Mexico of Leon Trotsky, who chaired the St. Petersburg soviet in 1905 and 1917 and then led the struggle to reform Lenin’s party and the state which sprung from a revolution in which he inflexibly countered Stalin’s bureaucratic totalitarianism –stemmed from merging a single, monolithic party and the state into a unit steered by a pseudo-socialist bureaucracy– with the fight for internal democracy and freedom of speech. Both in Russia with its two revolutions and after World War I in Germany, Austria-Hungary or even Italy in 1920, the soviets –or workers’ and peasants’ councils like those of the soldiers, who were peasants in uniform– were an offshoot of the most resolved, learned and organized labor sector, not of the parties. To be sure, in 1905, the Bolshevik party was opposed to and distrusted these councils. They viewed them as competitors from a labor movement of workers and peasants likely to be manipulated by the Mensheviks, the anarchists and the social-revolutionaries, since not only all socialist organizations but also many unaffiliated individuals were represented in the councils. The reason was that these councils were the political body that coordinated and collectively discussed every idea circulating through the ranks of the working class. That’s how in 1905 Trotsky came to lead the organization where the ideas of every current existing within the revolutionary spectrum were openly discussed. Then, in 1917, the pluralistic and democratic soviets or councils where the Bolsheviks had to be in the majority in order to sic their views and proposals on other trends that used to prevail within the working class. Incidentally, Lenin’s Soviet government was not based on a one-party system, and definitely not on a monolithic one. True, there was freedom of association in the Bolshevik party; heated debates would take place among the various currents that Lenin’s followers often lost for being outnumbered; and there were internationalist Mensheviks and left-wing socialist revolutionaries in the government in addition to the Bolshevik party, a great many of whose members were anarchists. Trotsky’s conception was always that of Marx: the workers will achieve freedom by themselves, not through a minority or a self-appointed vanguard. The party is just an instrument, at the very best a teacher and an organizer, but never a replacement for those it claims to serve. And self-management is at the root of the construction of socialism, as stated by the councils that play the state’s role without being in it because they legislate, oversee and decide on the country’s resources in assemblies where discussion runs free, regardless of whether or not the existing trends are organized under a party. As early as in the turn of the 20th century, when together with Rosa Luxemburg he challenged the idea of an ultra-centralized, vanguard party that Lenin defended in 1903, Trotsky warned of the danger that such a kind of organization would choke the nation’s life and favor a dictatorship of the few or even of a top party figure. It was not until 1923, after his failure to revive an already lifeless party and a Soviet system from which the soviets –councils– of the revolutionary years had vanished and whose name was only useful to preside over the municipal meetings of a totally inactive organization, that Trotsky vindicated the conception of Lenin’s party. He did so because Stalin and his henchmen had accused him of being an anti-Leninist and anti-Bolshevik parvenu and the dictatorship’s apparatchiks had came up with a Marxist-Leninist theory totally unrelated to Marx or Lenin that turned into dogma and orthodoxy what used to be society’s method of revolutionary analysis. Against such distortion of Trotskyism by ruling bureaucrats bent on portraying him as a foe of Leninism, Trotsky called himself a Leninist Bolshevik, carried on where Lenin had left off and, regarding Party matters, fought Stalin on behalf of the brief life span enjoyed by the party that won in October under Lenin’s guiding hand. Yet, as far as the soviets were concerned, he kept on striving to bring them back to life and make them independent from a supposedly Soviet State. He also tried very hard until the day of his death to substitute state mediation bodies, such as labor unions under bureaucratic control, for councils –organs made up of workers of a given region or enterprise, whether or not they were members of any union or workers’ party– as a step to help the working class become politically independent and aware, contribute to build up the labor movement’s self-confidence, and improve its ability to make political and administrative decisions. While many believed that socialism would fall into the workers’ lap like manna from a Party-State heaven, Trotsky championed a socialism propped up with councils and self-management methods, perhaps tainted on and off with contradictions, temporary detours, administrative excesses and even a few concessions to the bureaucrats he loathed and was loathed by, but definitely one called to be the red beacon that pointed out the route of his whole political and conscious life. That’s why the bureaucrats wanted him dead, because he was incorruptible and his example unrivaled. And that’s also why we pay tribute to him at a time when many pretend to build socialism from the top down, with and from the state apparatus, while the workers merely repeat everything as one man. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/08/16/index.php?section=opinion&article=020a1pol |
||||
Trotsky, el socialismo y la democracia
|