Leon_Trotsky_Essay

Year 12 Modern History Assessment Task 201168 “In the end the fear of Trotsky is the fear of that very revolution which the rulers of the Soviet Union have abandoned in all but name. And Trotsky speaks to them in its threatening voice. He speaks for the power of people against those who speak for the power of the state. He speaks against privilege to those who speak for the subservience of others. He speaks for the liberation of ideas, to those who speak only for the confinements of their own. He speaks for the will to resist, regardless of cost, to those who know only how to speak for the intimidation of dissent”. Ronald Segal Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) Leon Trotsky: proletarian revolutionary, Marxist theorist, ruthless military leader, exile, prolific writer and force for opposition. Left and right wing historians have long debated Trotsky’s role in the Soviet Union in the period 1917-1940. Isaac Deutscher praises Trotsky as a pragmatic revolutionary prophet and committed Marxist theorist whose leadership was usurped by the manipulations of Stalin. Conversely, Richard Pipes condemns Trotsky as a brutal fanatic, an inept politician and an ineffectual exile. The reliability of both these historians is limited by their political perspectives. Pipes has a strong anti-Communist bias, and as delegates attending a Socialist Scholars Conference wrote: “No one familiar with Professor Pipes’s career and opus could have expected of him anything but a diatribe against Trotsky”. Similarly, there is little doubt that Deutscher’s opinion is clouded by his Marxist ideals and his past as an active Trotskyist. Trotsky’s career may be divided into four key phases: revolutionary, military leader, politician and exile. Between 1917 and 1922, Trotsky played a revolutionary role. After becoming a Bolshevik in July 1917, Trotsky was arrested for organising the ‘July Days’, a premature Bolshevik attempt to seize power. When released to help defend Petrograd against the Kornilov coup in August, he was instrumental in coordinating the actions of the Petrograd Soviet. He was elected chairman in September, once the Bolsheviks had gained overall control. Trotsky sided with Lenin against Zinoviev and Kamenev when the Bolshevik Central Committee discussed an uprising against the Provisional Government. He persuaded Lenin to wait until the end of October to coincide with the Congress of Soviets, allowing the Bolsheviks to claim they were adhering to their principle of “All Power to the Soviets”. Trotsky led the Military Revolutionary Committee in the insurrection on 24-25 October, with Red Guards assuming control over the city and Winter Palace. Historians disagree over Trotsky’s role in the October insurrection. Pipes argues that Trotsky was not the leader of a popular revolution, as Deutscher asserts, but the megalomaniacal coordinator of a classic coup d’etat whose “sole concern was holding on to power”. Furthermore, he attributes the success of the revolution to Lenin rather than Trotsky. Deutscher, however, challenges this view, writing that the insurrection was “carried out according to Trotsky’s, not Lenin’s plan”. Overall, we can deduce that Trotsky was a key leader in the insurrection, the revolutionary strategy being essentially his conception. With Lenin in hiding and so unable to coordinate revolutionary forces, Trotsky played a more significant role as the chief organiser and driving force of the uprising. During the Bolshevik consolidation of power, the transitional period from the tsarist order to new socialist order, a key Bolshevik objective was to secure peace. An armistice between Russia and Germany was signed in early December 1917 and Trotsky, as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, headed the Soviet delegation during the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations. Trotsky believed that the terms proposed by Germany were too harsh. He opted for a policy of “no war, no peace” and delayed signing, hoping for a socialist revolution in Germany. However, after nine weeks, the Germans lost patience and advanced into Russia. Upon Lenin’s insistence, an even harsher treaty was signed on 3 March 1918. Trotsky resigned from his position as Commissar for Foreign Affairs and refused to attend the final meeting. Pipes deems Trotsky’s behaviour foolish and arrogant. He blames Trotsky for the “humiliating peace” that resulted, underlined by the Russian people’s dissatisfaction at the territory lost and the perceived surrender to Imperial Germany. By contrast, Deutscher claims that Trotsky’s motives in the negotiations were a prime example of his commitment to ideology and to ‘Permanent Revolution’. He also highlights the fact that Trotsky’s stalling brought the Bolsheviks crucial breathing space as they prepared to face domestic opposition in the lead up to the Civil War. We can conclude that, while Trotsky remained unwavering in his pursuit of ideology, his resistance was ultimately not in Russia’s best interests. The treaty was denounced as a betrayal of the socialist revolution. Trotsky’s second significant role was as military leader. During the Civil War (1918-20), Trotsky was Commissar of War and Chairman of the Supreme Military Council. As planner and supervisor of military operations, he transformed the Red Army from a network of small, independent detachments into a single, disciplined machinery of power. Pipes argues that Trotsky’s role has been overplayed. He underlines Trotsky’s lack of military experience and asserts that “his strategic sense left… a great deal to be desired”. Pipes constructs Trotsky as a ruthless tyrant, comparing his brutality to that of Stalin’s. He points to the terroristic tactics used to instill discipline into the troops, and claims that such methods “exceeded in savagery anything known in the tsarist armies” . He also suggests that Trotsky abandoned his ideology in the quest for power. Certainly, Trotsky employed harsh disciplinary measures. He reintroduced the death penalty, enforced conscription, reinstated Tsarist officers as ‘military specialists’, restored hierarchy in the army and abolished soldiers’ committees. Pipes contends that Trotsky’s savagery is exemplified by his role in suppressing the Kronstadt mutiny of February 1921, which resulted in the death of 15,000 loyal communist soldiers. By contrast, Deutscher depicts Trotsky as an extraordinary strategist who “founded a great army and guided it to victory”. Deutscher and Ronald Segal endorse Trotsky’s ruthlessness, arguing that, “regardless of cost”, the end justified the means. They claim that, ultimately, the preservation of the revolution was the imperative aim. Deutscher writes that, although Trotsky’s view was often challenged, he “was never to compromise over it or to yield an inch from it” , reinforcing his unwavering commitment to ideology. Deutscher also highlights the way in which Trotsky lifted the morale of the Red Army by travelling along the front in his personal armoured train, inspiring the troops with his revolutionary zeal and oratory powers. We can conclude that, though Trotsky may have employed some vicious methods, he did so in preservation of his ideology and revolutionary ideals. Over the course of the Civil War, Trotsky proved himself to be a brilliant military leader and strategist who played a major role in attaining Red victory. The third significant phase of Trotsky’s career was as a politician during the 1920s. With Lenin increasingly sidelined after 1922 due to ill health, Trotsky became tangled in a power struggle with Stalin. As Stalin’s influence grew, Trotsky’s declined as he became associated with an ‘opposition’ coalition. In March 1923, Trotsky assured Kamenev he would support Stalin’s reappointment as General Secretary, an odd decision at such a critical juncture in his career. Deutscher credits Trotsky’s passivity to his “magnanimity” and “heroic character” . He writes that “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… It seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background, should be his rival” , suggesting that Stalin was incompetent and could not hope to equal Trotsky. Pipes, however, attributes Trotsky’s accommodating policy to “the conviction that it was hopeless to challenge Stalin” , intimating that Stalin’s political capabilities outweighed those of Trotsky. These different interpretations illustrate key left and right wing views relating to Trotsky’s aptitude as a politician. By the end of the decade, Stalin had emerged as the clear victor of the power struggle. Historians have formed different perspectives on why Trotsky lost power. Deutscher depicts Trotsky as “a fallen Titan” , a true revolutionary and genuine Leninist whose leadership of the Soviet was usurped by the megalomaniacal and opportunistic Stalin. In contrast, Pipes claims: “His defeat had nothing ennobling about it. He lost because he was outsmarted in a sordid struggle for political power” . Pipes sees Trotsky as a prime illustration of the defeated and embittered opponent. He points to Trotsky’s limited political acumen: his absence from Lenin’s funeral, for example, allowed Stalin to associate himself with the cult of Lenin. In addition, Trotsky’s opinions were unpopular: his idea of ‘Permanent Revolution’ and his left wing strategy of modernisation were both less patriotic and economically practical than Stalin’s ‘Socialism in one Country’ and ‘Urals-Siberian’ method of modernisation. Pipes also sees Trotsky’s personality as a key factor in his downfall: his arrogant manner, the force of his convictions and his inflexible ideological positions provoked fears of ‘Bonapartist’ ambitions. Ultimately, although Trotsky was a key figure in the power struggle of the 1920s, he was outmanoeuvred by Stalin, who worked as a “grey blur” behind the scenes to cultivate personal loyalty. As a result, Trotsky’s role as one of the most influential figures in the Bolshevik Party was diminished. The final phase of Trotsky’s career was as an exile. In 1925, Trotsky lost his position as Commissar for War and his Politburo seat. In 1926, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev formed the left-wing United Opposition against Stalin, but this failed due to the ban on factionalism. In October 1927, Trotsky was removed from the Central Committee and on 14 November, was expelled from the Party. In 1928, Trotsky was exiled to Alma Ata. He remained in exile until his assassination in Mexico on 20 August 1940 by a Stalinist agent. Trotsky’s role from the late 1920s onwards changed from that of a pragmatic revolutionary to, firstly, a theoretical intellectual, and secondly, a force for opposition and a focus for the anti-Stalinist movement. The main vehicles for spreading his influence were his prolific writing, orations and organisations, all aiming to establish a new international movement based on revolutionary Marxism. As a theoretical intellectual in exile, Trotsky formulated revolutionary ideology. He supported the dictatorship of the proletariat and perfected his theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’. In 1929, he created Bulletin of the Opposition, a journal focused on true communism. The International Left Opposition was established in 1930, and his Fourth International in 1938, socialist organisations that formed a base from which Trotsky could comment on Soviet and international developments. Right-wing historians such as Pipes and Nikolai Berdyaev argue that Trotsky’s role as a theoretician was insignificant, as he was not truly committed to ideology and lacked a power base to make himself heard. Deutscher, however, sees Trotsky’s theories as a unique and invaluable analysis of the nature and practise of revolution. He claims that Trotsky “came forward as the legatee of classical Marxism and also of Leninism”, suggesting that the insights Trotsky attained in exile made him the rightful heir to Marx and Lenin. On balance, we can deduce that Trotsky made an important contribution to revolutionary socialism and to the working class movement. The fact that the USSR banned his theoretical writings, and that most governments refused him entry into their countries, indicates that they feared his ideology of worldwide revolution and the extent of his influence. This is testimony to the importance of his role as a theoretical intellectual. During exile, Trotsky was also a force for opposition and a focus for anti-Stalinism. His contacts with Russia unbroken, Trotsky became known as ‘the pen’, using writing as an effective political weapon. In 1936, he published The Revolution Betrayed, an indictment of Stalin’s regime focusing on how Stalin had betrayed the original Bolshevik ideals. Trotsky criticised the repression, the estrangement between the government and proletariat and the entrenched privilege of Stalinist Russia, and campaigned for reduced bureaucratic control of the Communist Party. Deutscher and Segal maintain that such vocal criticisms epitomise the way in which Trotsky spoke “for the power of the people”. Deutscher claims that Trotsky became “the symbol and sole mouthpiece of opposition to Stalin” . Furthermore, he argues that the fact that Stalin felt threatened enough by Trotsky to eradicate him from Soviet history and coordinate his assassination attests to his importance as a force for opposition. Conversely, Pipes claims that Trotsky’s criticisms stemmed from resentment over his own failures. He suggests that Trotsky’s writings are those of a “selfish schemer” attempting to destroy Party unity, undermine Stalin and regain lost power. Pipes asserts that Stalin’s compulsive need to downplay Trotsky’s role does not indicate Trotsky’s significance, but rather, has lent him undue importance. Overall, we can conclude that Trotsky played a significant role as a force for opposition. He fuelled substantial worldwide opposition to Stalin’s regime and generated support around the globe. Although his geographical isolation and the inaccessibility of his writings to those living within the USSR meant that he was unable to instigate change within the Soviet Union itself, Trotsky remained an ongoing threat to Stalin’s regime and a permanent symbol of true Marxism for the people. Trotsky’s role in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1940 remains a period of fierce controversy. Pipes, a fervent anti-Communist, is decidedly prejudiced against Trotsky, while Deutscher, a Marxist, portrays him favourably. Yet, despite Deutscher’s bias, he is considered one of the greatest authorities on Trotsky, adding credibility to his arguments. In conclusion, therefore, Trotsky played a significant role between 1917 and 1940: he led the 1917 October Revolution, was a brilliant military strategist during the Civil War, a capable politician during the 1920s and a theoretical intellectual and focus for anti-Stalinism whilst in exile. As such, Leon Trotsky spoke for the power of the people, against privilege, for the liberation of ideas and for the will to resist. His legacy lives on, and as Deutscher writes: “His deeds had shaken the world; and neither he nor the world could forget them.” Bilbiography Carr, E.H. (1950). The Bolshevik Revolution: 1917-1923. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Cliff, T. (1993). Trotsky Volume IV 1927-40: The Darker the Night, the Brighter the Star. London: Bookmarks. Deutscher, I. (1954). The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879-1921. USA: Oxford University Press. Deutscher, I. (1959). The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky 1921-1929. London: Oxford University Press. Deutscher, I. (1963). The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky 1929-1940. London: Oxford University Press. Figes, O. (1996). A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. Great London: Pimlico. Fitzpatrick, S. (1999). Everyday Stalinism. New York: Oxford University Press. Fitzpatrick, S. (2001). The Russian Revolution. USA: Oxford University Press. Hallas, D. (1979). Trotsky’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press Ltd. Kochan, L. (1981). Russia in Revolution. USA: Academy Chicago Pub. Lynch, M. (1995). Trotsky: The Permanent Revolutionary. London: Hodder Arnold. Pipes, R. (1995). A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Great Britain: Harvill. Pipes, R. (1994). Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime 1919-1924. Great Britain: Harvill. Schapiro, L. (1960). The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. Segal, R. (1979). Leon Trotsky. Ohio: Pantheon Books. Service, R. (2004). Stalin: A biography. London: Macmillan. Westwood, J.N. (1981). Endurance and Endeavour: Russian History 1812-1980. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wikipedia. (2006). Leon Trotsky [Internet]. USA: Wikipedia. Available from: Woods, A. 2000. In Memory of Leon Trotsky [Internet]. London: In Defence of Marxism. Available from: World Socialist Web Site, 1996. The New York Times, Richard Pipes and Historical Truth [Internet]. USA: IBW Online 1996. Available from: