Dan La Botz's argument boils down to the following comment of his: "My view
is that full socialism was impossible in Russia in 1920, but different
decisions could have led to a democratic state, one that in the future
could have led to a socialist society" (From his reply
<https://links.org.au/lenin-versus-democracy-reply-critics-goodbye-lenin-and-leninism>.)
Basically, what he is saying is that social democracy or liberal capitalism
was possible. How? What forces could possibly have created such a regime
and with what resources? Where has a backwards, underdeveloped country, one
with a powerful and utterly reactionary feudal landlord class, ever
instituted such a regime that lasted for any length of time? I think the
path that history presented was either revolution or counter revolution.
That is what the Kornilov revolt and the subsequent White Army forces
showed.
In essence, La Botz is arguing for the "two-stage" theory - liberal
democracy in a backwards underdeveloped country today; socialism at some
point in the indefinite future.
Yes, Lenin and Trotsky made some serious mistakes. (And it's interesting
that almost all those who comment on this, including La Botz, fail to
mention Trotsky, who also played a key role. My suspicion is that they
don't want to raise the hackles of most "Leninists" of today.) I think the
source of their mistakes can be found in the famous "dog that didn't bark",
or in this case the fact that you will not see any serious, in depth
writings of theirs prior to the revolution - or during it for that matter -
in which the discussed the possibility of the revolution being isolated and
what consequences that would have aside from counter revolution. The
situation that they faced after the revolution seems to me to have been
entirely unanticipated. Or, to put it another way, they never anticipated
the danger of the revolutionary government degenerating through becoming
bureaucratized. The result was that they were unprepared for what they
faced.
As a result, Lenin and Trotsky made a series of decisions that helped
stifle democracy, which meant helping empower the bureaucracy. Take
Kronstadt, for example. I don't know - and I don't think anybody else
really does - whether it was militarily necessary to crush the revolt. But
even if it was, the point is that executions continued for days after the
revolt was crushed. And from what I've read, the Cheka really did get out
of hand. If those and similar steps had not been taken, maybe there would
have been a counter revolution, but I think the ultimate result was even
worse.
I think Lenin was starting to become aware of the bureaucratization in his
last year, as was Trotsky. One problem was that Trotsky was particularly
ill equipped to conduct the kind of intra-party struggle that was
necessary, the kind of struggle that was Lenin's strong point. That was his
weak point. (Lenin had different weaknesses.) So, before he died, Lenin
warned that Stalin would try to "make a rotten deal in order to betray."
And what did Trotsky do? He fell for exactly that! He agreed to keep
Lenin's "Last Will" secret in exchange for giving the main speech at the
following convention of the Communist Party. In the months and years that
followed Lenin's death, Trotsky delayed and delayed bringing the disputes
out into the open, not just within the Russian party, but internationally.
I think Stalin would have succeeded in taking over the Third International
anyway, but Trotsky's forces could have emerged somewhat stronger had he
acted more decisively and more openly earlier on.
Overall, I think had some of those decisions not been made there would have
been a counter revolution. The results of those decisions enabled the
Soviet government to hang on far beyond its sell-by date. The results of
Trotsky's mistakes helped enable that government to establish hegemony
within the Third International and the movement that surrounded it. The
consequences have been disastrous. Far better for the revolution to go down
in counterrevolutionary flames than for "communism" and even "socialism" to
have acquired the reputation it did. Even more important, counterrevolution
would have been far less disastrous than for the ideas of Stalinism to have
become dominant in what remains of the socialist movement! That influence
even includes among most of those who call themselves Trotskyist today.
Yes, the odious regime of the "Communist" government of Stalin helped give
"socialism" a bad odor among tens of millions of workers, especially in
Europe and the United States. And yes, the capitalist propaganda helped
that along as did repression, such as during the "Red Scare" of the 1930s.
Also, the union bureaucracy in the United States helped that along. But
nevertheless, it was possible for serious working class socialists to link
up with workers during all that period. The fact that they didn't means
they increased their own isolation. They - Trotskyists included - joined
the little left echo chamber that still exists to this day. And it is the
ideas of Stalin - which is to say Stalinism - that dominates in that echo
chamber, including among the so-called Trotskyists. So now, when the
opportunities for a serious working class socialist movement have never
been greater, exactly now revolutionary socialists are more isolated and
less of a force than ever!
There is a lot more to be said - about how socialists (La Botz included)
have capitulated to the "progressive" wing of the union bureaucracy; about
how socialists ("Trotskyists" included) have in practice accepted Stalin's
"two stage" theory regarding revolution in the former colonial world; about
how one result of this has been to open the door to the Putinization of the
socialist movement; about how the would-be revolutionary left still to this
day thinks that it's a matter of ever-lasting principle never to vote for
the Democrats and that there's no real difference between them and the
Republican/MAGA cult; about how even the non-Putinized socialist movement
fails to really challenge the Putinist "left" (for example at the recent
"anti fascist" conference in Porto Alegre
<https://oaklandsocialist.com/2026/04/25/the-international-anti-fascist-conference-that-wasnt/>)...
that and a lot more, but I'll leave it there for the moment.
John Reimann
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#41824): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41824
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/119000131/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
