8. From Marxism to Pacifism¶
Core Argument¶
Here, Trotsky delivers a devastating polemic against Karl Radek, whom he accuses of having abandoned Marxism for a pacifist and nationalist-reformist position, thereby aligning himself with the Stalinist bureaucracy. The core argument is that Radek, in a 1928 article, has committed a series of theoretical crimes: he has distorted Lenin’s historical perspective, resurrected the discredited theory of socialism in one country, and, most critically, substituted the revolutionary struggle for power with a reformist faith in the ‘pressure’ of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie as a sufficient guarantee against war and intervention.
Trotsky dissects Radek’s claim that Lenin, in 1905, believed the proletarian dictatorship could be maintained only with Western aid, but only at the ‘level of economic development’ of that year. Trotsky retorts that Lenin in 1905 spoke of the democratic dictatorship, not the proletarian one, and that the entire theory of socialism in one country is erected on this fraudulent distinction between economic levels. For Trotsky, the difference between 1905 and 1917 is a secondary factor; the decisive question remains the world relationship of forces. The dictatorship can only survive with the victorious revolution of the Western European proletariat, a point Lenin reiterated constantly, even in 1918, when he declared that without the German revolution, the Soviet Republic was “doomed.”
The polemic sharpens as Trotsky attacks Radek’s claim that Lenin was satisfied with ‘simple’ aid from the world proletariat, while Trotsky ‘exaggeratedly demanded’ state aid. Trotsky calls this a “shamefaced rehash of the Stalinist banalities.” He cites Lenin’s own words to prove that Lenin formulated the need for international revolution far more sharply than Trotsky ever did. The worst offence, however, is Radek’s assertion that the European proletariat, though unable to seize power, was strong enough to prevent the bourgeoisie from crushing the USSR through its ‘pressure’. Trotsky identifies this as the line that separates Marxism from opportunism. He argues that this ‘pressure’ was only effective because it coincided with the objective consequences of the imperialist war and, crucially, because it was a by-product of the struggle for power, which repeatedly assumed the form of civil war. To treat ‘pressure’ as a permanent, self-sufficient guarantee is to adopt the pacifist and reformist perspective of the Stalinist bureaucracy, which has converted the struggle against war into a system of ritualistic formulas divorced from the revolutionary struggle for power. The chapter concludes with Trotsky warning that Radek, having lost his compass, is being carried by a current towards the same nationalist and pacifist shores as the epigones he now serves.