Leon
Trotsky: Who Will Prevail?
Published
August 1930
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 2, 1930, New York 1975, p. 337-343]
The
provisional character of the Sixteenth Congress is displayed more
crudely than the most imaginative Oppositionist could have
anticipated. What is the isolated episode of Uglanov worth? This
bully, audacious when connected to the apparatus, a nonentity on his
own, repented for the second time by unreservedly recognizing all the
"tempos" and all the "periods." Shouldn't that
have been enough? They laughed at him. Is that what you were asked?
Are you a little child? Then acknowledge that Stalin is a born leader
and endorse the fact.
Evidently
Uglanov acknowledged it and, of course, endorsed it. Everything is
now reduced to this. The five-year plan may vary; yesterday the rate
was 9 percent, today it is 30 percent. The five-year plan may become
a four- or three-year plan and, for collectivization, even a two-year
plan. But that is not the question. Acknowledge Stalin's leadership.
The congress was not convened around a program, ideas, methods, but
around a person.
Stalin
surrounds himself with a Central Committee, the Central Committee
with district committees; and the district committees select the
party. The congress is only a showplace for things that have been
settled in advance. Taken as a whole, this is a preparation for
Bonapartism within the framework of the party. Only a blind person or
a tired official can fail to see and understand this. But to see and
understand and to keep quiet is possible only for scoundrels. There
are not a few of them among the capitulators.
Stalin's
ten-hour report — what emptiness of bureaucratic thought!
The
figures on the economic successes are not presented to instruct, but
to dazzle and deceive the party. The successes are incontestable. It
is not we who were skeptical. We foresaw them and fought for them
when the motto of the party was "slow growth," when the
Kaganoviches, in defense of the 9 percent rate of the five-year plan,
called us demagogues, when the Yaroslavskys, in reply to criticism of
the shameful minimal rate of the original five-year plan, threw
volumes of production-control figures at the heads of the speakers,
when the Molotovs jeered at the very idea of the possibility of a 20
percent growth after the end of the reconstruction period. The
successes are incontestable. We foresaw them and fought for them for
a long time.
In
the first production-control figures of the 1925 plan, far from
precise and very cautious, we could discern "the music of
socialism in construction." What sarcasm this expression aroused
among the philistines, the ignoramuses, the fools, the talentless
geniuses of the all-powerful apparatus. Now that all the immense
possibilities inherent in the October Revolution have blazed their
way through the most obstinate difficulty, the narrow conservatism of
the bureaucracy, the latter parades at its congress:
"We
are the October Revolution! We are socialism! We are everything, for
we are the state!" And then Stalin appears and explains: "The
workers' state, that is me; and everyone and everything, that is also
me." And because they have trampled on and destroyed the control
of the masses, they need an arbitrary power, a boss, the crown of the
hierarchy, the first among all — Stalin. That is why they rise and
proclaim in chorus: "Yes, he is all of us." That is the
music of the Sixteenth Congress.
The
economic successes are considerable. But the difficulties and
contradictions are greater still. About these, Stalin said nothing.
Or rather, he said only enough to conceal the difficulties and
minimize the contradictions.
Only
the figures that describe the rate of growth were given; not one
figure that describes the quality of production! It is as though one
were to describe a person by giving the dimension of height without
that of weight. The same was true of net costs. The whole economic
system, and above all the effectiveness of its direction, is tested
by the productivity of labor, and in the tributary economic forms of
the market the productivity of labor is measured by production costs
or net costs. To ignore this question is the same as to declare a
person healthy on the basis of appearance, without listening to
complaints or checking the heartbeat.
The
interdependence between the city and the countryside is regulated by
exchange; money is not yet a thing of the past. Stalin said nothing
about the danger of inflation.
The
relation between the prices of agricultural products and industrial
products is one of the central problems not only of the economy, but
of the whole social and political system based on the October
Revolution. Are the "scissors" of agricultural and
industrial prices opening or closing, the "scissors" whose
one blade represents the worker and the other the peasant? Not a word
about this in the report.
On
the contrary, the dilemma "Who will prevail?" is now
conclusively settled, according to the report, on the basis of the
weakening of capitalist forces in the internal market. But this does
not decide the question. The countryside has not yet said its last
word. The contradictions of the countryside have not disappeared;
they are being brought into the framework of the collective farms
where they will soon show up. A good harvest will make them sharper.
The drivelers and numskulls will surely say that we are against a
good harvest. All the Rudzutaks
were Mikoyaning, all the Mikoyans were Rudzutaking on this theme for
many years until, in their ardor, they ran their heads against the
kulaks' barns. It was then they proclaimed in Pravda
that as a result of two good harvests the kulak had influenced the
middle peasant and taught him to conduct a grain strike against the
workers' state. The less the leadership is capable of foresight, the
more the process of differentiation continues on its inevitable
course. This process will encompass all the collective farms and
deepen the inequalities between the collective farms and within them.
And that is when the leadership, which is great on making predictions
after the fact, will convince itself that the collective farms,
lacking a solid material and cultural base, are subject to all the
contradictions of a market economy. The majority of the
bureaucratically created collective farms will become the arena of
the class struggle. This means that the dilemma "Who will
prevail?" will reassert itself in all its scope and on a higher
plane.
But
the conflict will not be limited to the field of agriculture. The
internal forces of capitalism in the USSR draw their strength and
significance from the forces of world capitalism. But Mikoyan, the
child prodigy, will probably have to convince himself that there
really is "this world market to which we are subordinate, to
which we are bound, from which we cannot escape" (Lenin at the
Eleventh Congress). The dilemma "Who will prevail?" is in
the final analysis the question of the relations between the USSR and
world capitalism. This problem has been posed but not yet solved by
history. The internal successes are of great importance because they
make it possible to consolidate, to progress, to hold on while it is
necessary to wait. But no more than that. The internal economic
struggles are vanguard battles with an enemy the bulk of whose forces
are beyond the border. The dilemma "Who will prevail?” not
only on the military field, not only on the political field, but also
and primarily on the economic field, is posed before us on a world
scale — or more precisely, encircles us.
Military
intervention is a danger. Economic intervention through low-priced
commodities is an incomparably greater danger. The question of
economic power and political stability leads in the final analysis to
the question of labor productivity. In a market economy, labor
productivity is expressed by net cost and selling price. The
”scissors” between domestic prices and the prices on the world
market are the most important measure of the relationship of forces
between the advance of socialism and its capitalist encirclement.
What has happened to the "scissors" in the last two and a
half years? On this essential question there is no reply. Stalin does
not give any accurate comparative coefficients, any Marxist formula,
to define the dynamic interdependence between the domestic and the
world economy. An engineer who runs an electric station must have a
chart of the control apparatus so that he can follow all the
fundamental processes of production and distribution of energy.
Similarly, those who direct the economy of the Soviet state must have
an up-to-date "chart" of the system of coefficients that
characterize — not only the absolute growth of industry — but
also the curve of net costs, the purchasing power of the Chervonets,
and the domestic and foreign "scissors." If not, the
leadership is compelled to react blindly to economic disruption,
until the safety mechanisms explode one after the other, fire breaks
out, and the consumers are lost in the chaos.
Ten
hours of empty bureaucratic thought will teach the party nothing.
Quite the contrary, it will only lull it with the disgraceful melody
of "national socialism."
The
most threatening danger today, however, is not the "scissors"
between domestic and foreign prices. The most threatening danger is
the "scissors" between the party bureaucracy and the
working class, the complete subjection and dispersion of the party.
The monstrous show of "monolithism" is crowned by a small,
very small, circumstance, but a very menacing one: the monolithism of
two million cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of the
leadership. On the thirteenth anniversary of the dictatorship, after
all the economic and cultural successes, after the question "Who
will prevail?” is claimed to have been conclusively settled, the
party regime should be much more free and flexible than at the time
of the civil war. But the ruling party, that is, the bureaucracy,
does not tolerate a single critical remark by a worker or a single
timid question by a student: "Is not the Central Committee
responsible for the deviations?" The entire press, raging in
typical fashion, denounces a critical remark or a question as the
most immediate threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The
GPU bureaucracy is not to be outdone by the party bureaucracy, for
its Yagodas and sub-Yagodas have ripened under the Stalinist sun. The
Agabekovs stand guard for Stalinist monolithism up to the moment they
desert to the class enemy.
One
of the deported Oppositionists is hunted down for having corresponded
with Trotsky, on the basis of the statute
on espionage.
This idea undoubtedly comes from the master himself. For his mastery
consists only of such ideas. In his speech to the congress, Stalin
said that the Left Opposition supplies information to the world
bourgeois press. What information? The verbose speaker did not say.
From the information it gets from our publications, however, the
bourgeoisie can draw only one conclusion: that in spite of the
Thermidorean lies of Stalin's agents, we Bolshevik-Leninists are an
inseparable part of the Soviet republic, that we are its devoted
soldiers, ready to defend it to the very end, and at the same time we
are the left wing of the international proletarian vanguard. The
world bourgeoisie and the social democracy understand this very well.
That is why they enclose us in a hostile blockade, in which the
Dovgalevskys, the Bessedovskys, and the Cachins collaborate with
Tardieu, the Krestinskys come to an understanding with the ministers
of Hindenburg, and the Sokolnikovs conspire with the Hendersons. This
is the true alignment of forces on the great chessboard.
As
for us, we ask: What information is needed by the world bourgeoisie
after that furnished by the official Stalinist press agency, and
primarily by Stalin himself? The president of the Council of People's
Commissars is said to be a saboteur. Yesterday's leaders of the
Comintern are branded "agents of the bourgeoisie." For the
amusement of children, they exhibit yesterday's directors of the
trade unions and the Moscow organization, the same ones who had been
purging the organizations of "Trotskyism" through the
years. On top of this, the official press published a story about the
desertion of "Trotskyists" from the ranks of the Red Army
to Chiang Kai-shek. Is all this a joke? The world bourgeoisie knows
the history of the Red Army well enough to ask, "If
this is true, what does it mean?"
At the same time, proven Bolsheviks, stalwart revolutionaries, are
persecuted for having corresponded with Trotsky. Aren't these facts,
furnished every day and every hour by the Stalinist apparatus, which
tramples underfoot and drags in the mud the whole past of the party
and the revolution solely for the purpose of forging a falsified
biography for the provisional boss, sufficient for the bourgeoisie?
And
to add to that, the Stalinist informers appear in a second edition.
Bessedovsky, Krukov, Agabekov, who ceaselessly combated Trotskyism
for seven years and who yesterday — literally yesterday
— directed the purging of the cells, desert to the class enemy,
furnishing the police services of imperialism with all the Soviet
government secrets that they were given in confidence or that they
learned of. What more information does the bourgeoisie need than that
furnished constantly by the Stalinists of today and the Stalinists of
yesterday, who supplement each other?
After
Blumkin was shot, Stalin replaced him with Agabekov. That is a fact
which sums up Stalin's policy in the party. At the same time, the
revolutionaries who correspond with Trotsky are persecuted by the
Agabekovs on the basis of the statute that is supposed to permit
Stalin to perpetrate new assassinations. Whoever does not understand
the symptomatic and threatening import of this fact is a hopeless
idiot. Whoever understands this and keeps quiet is a scoundrel.
Neither
repression nor threats will silence us. The stake of the struggle is
too important: it is the fate of the October Revolution and the party
of Lenin, not only the party of the Soviet Union but the
international party of Lenin, which today has fallen under the
direction of the sergeant Prishibeyev using the pseudonym of Molotov.
At stake is the preservation of world communism. The struggle between
Leninism and Stalinism is not decided. This is where the question
"Who will prevail?" takes on its full amplitude. Repression
will not cause us to turn from our course. The bloodiest and most
envenomed violence of Stalin will not separate us from the party and
will not put us in opposition to the party, which Stalin is
attempting to strangle. We will carry on our struggle with twofold,
threefold, tenfold energy. Today we continue to serve the goals we
served in the 1905 revolution, during the imperialist slaughter, in
the 1917 revolution, during the civil war, in the first period of
economic reconstruction, at the foundation of the Comintern, in the
struggle for a bold tempo of socialist construction against the
cowardice of the philistine epigones. Against national socialism, for
the international revolution!