The
Differences between Trotskyism & Stalinism, Communists & Anarchists,
and Why a Socialist & a Communist Are the Same Thing
An
Interview with Wolf Larsen
Question:
So what is the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism?
Answer:
It all goes back to the Russian Revolution.
Lenin and Trotsky were the leaders of the October Revolution in 1917 in
Russia. Stalin only played a minor role
in the October Revolution. Later, things
became very difficult in the Soviet Union.
The country was isolated. An
attempted workers revolution in Germany in 1919 failed. As time went on the communists like Trotsky
who lead the revolution became increasingly isolated within the Soviet Union,
and the bureaucracy began to usurp power from the workers and the
communists. This bureaucracy wanted to
defend its privileged interests, and Joseph Stalin became their leader. Lenin in his Last Will and Testament warns about the increasing power of the
bureaucracy and their leader Joseph Stalin.
Anyway, Joseph Stalin and the bureaucracy imprisoned, exiled, murdered,
and sent off to Siberia the very communists who had led the October Revolution
in 1917. Leon Trotsky was one of those
murdered by the Stalinists. Trotskyists
look to the October Revolution in Russia as a shining example of how the working
class can liberate itself from the capitalist system. Stalinism, on the other hand, has degenerated
into a bizarre multitude of different sects.
Some of these sects are outright reformist, like the "Communist"
Party USA. The "Communist" Party
USA fosters illusions in the Democrats.
The endlessly criticize the Republicans, but say little about the
Democrats. The Stalinist "Communist"
Party USA is basically a left-wing auxiliary of the Democratic Party. How pathetic!
Another branch of Stalinism is Maoism.
I'll tell you one thing, you never know what those crazy Maoists are
going to do!
Q.
So explain to us about Maoism.
A. Some of the Maoists foster illusions in the
Democrats by pushing an anti-Republican agenda.
They don't necessarily say vote for the Democrats but basically they
only criticize the Republicans. They
hardly criticize the Democrats at all.
Other Maoists zig-zag from the left to the right and back again – that
is that their politics are all over the place.
You never know what crazy irresponsible adventure the Maoists might jump
into next. Perhaps this is partly
because Chairman Mao was a bit of an adventurer himself, and many of his
adventures caused the Chinese people to suffer horribly.
Q.
But didn't Mao lead the Chinese people into a successful revolution?
A. It was a successful revolution in the sense
that the bourgeoisie was overthrown and Chang Kai-shek and his bloody ruthless
Kuomintang were kicked out of mainland China.
Kicking the Chinese bourgeoisie out of mainland China helped the Chinese
people have a better standard of living.
All of that is wonderful! However,
because Mao and his organization were Stalinist the Chinese people never
enjoyed a workers democracy. Stalinists
are not very big on democracy. In Stalinist
countries you have a privileged bureaucracy that live like parasites off the
workers state. You don't have a workers
democracy in Stalinist countries.
Besides that, Mao unleashed two horrible idiotic adventures called the Great
Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
The Great Leap Forward was an attempt to bypass the five-year plans that
had been giving China growth rates of 10% a year.
Q.
The five-year plans was giving China growth rates of 10% a year?!
A. That's correct. Long before China opened its doors to foreign
corporations there was 10% growth rates a year under the five-year plans. China's economy was doing very well. In spite of the fact that the Chinese economy
was doing well Mao decided to have this "Great Leap Forward" thing
where he threw the five-year plans and the planned economy in the garbage, and
he substituted a bunch of crazy irresponsible adventurous nonsense that
temporarily ruined the Chinese economy.
For this, the Chinese bureaucracy and the other Stalinist hacks in the
party basically pushed Mao aside and implemented the five-year plans again and
that's when the Chinese economy began to pick up steam again and growth rates
reached 10% again. Anyway, Mao didn't
like being isolated on the sidelines (at this point he was basically a
figurehead without the power he had before) so Mao unleashed the Cultural Revolution
in order to get into power again.
Q.
So Mao unleashed the Cultural Revolution as a cynical power grab?
A. That's correct. The Cultural Revolution caused all kinds of
havoc in China. Plenty of people
needlessly suffered. Meanwhile, it was
the 1960s and from abroad the Cultural Revolution grabbed the interests of
radicals around the world. Certainly the
Cultural Revolution was a lot more interesting than anything going on in the
Soviet Union at the time. But the Cultural
Revolution for those who experienced it was interesting in a very bad way. But from abroad the Cultural Revolution and
its slogans and Mao's little red book grabbed a lot of interest.
Q.
So that's how a lot of the Maoist groups around the world were born?
A. Yes.
So basically a lot of these Maoist groups were born or inspired by all
of the craziness of the Cultural Revolution and that crazy adventurer Mao and
not surprisingly a lot of Maoist groups can be described as just plain
crazy. But at least they're not
terrorists – they don't engage in terrorism – thank goodness. It's not impossible that some Maoist group
might lead a workers revolution someday, because there are some Maoist groups that do not push illusions in the Democrats and
other reformist parties. However, I would
hope that a Trotskyist party would lead the revolution instead of a Maoist one,
because Trotskyists are much more responsible and disciplined. And remember, the October Revolution in
Russia in 1917 was very responsible and disciplined. Amongst other things it was relatively free
of bloodshed. The bloodshed did not come
until later when the Soviet Union was invaded by a number of imperialist
armies, and the counterrevolutionary White forces caused a lot of violence and
suffering and loss of lives. Capitalist
countries like the United States aided the counterrevolutionaries with armaments. Also, a workers state under Trotskyism would
be far better. Maoists are basically
adventurous Stalinists, and like all the Stalinists they tend to be very
uptight about sex. And like I said
earlier Stalinists are not big fans of workers democracy. Trotskyists want workers democracy.
Q.
But I've noticed that there are a confusing variety of different groups calling
themselves Trotskyist. How does one sort
it all out?
A. Most so-called Trotskyist groups are
reformist – they are Trotskyists in name only.
These reformist so-called "Trotskyist" groups basically push
illusions in the Democrats or some other reformist party. They seek an alliance with some
"progressive" wing of the bourgeoisie. There is no such thing as a quote unquote
progressive wing of the bourgeoisie. Leon
Trotsky was the co-leader of the Bolshevik Revolution with Lenin. Real Trotskyists want to repeat the October
Revolution of 1917 all over the world.
That is what Trotskyism is.
Trotskyists do not push illusions in reformist leaders or reformist
movements or reformist parties.
Trotskyists might work with reformist organizations to stop fascist
groups like the KKK or the neo-Nazis from marching, Trotskyists might march
alongside other reformist groups on a picket line, Trotskyists might defend
reformists from government repression. But
while doing all these things Trotskyists always maintain their political
independence. Trotskyists never push
illusions in a reformist leader or reformist movement or reformist party. Real Trotskyists understand that the
bourgeoisie state must be smashed, and replaced with a workers state. A Trotskyist understands that there are two
classes – the bourgeoisie and the working class – and you're on one side or
you're on the other.
Q.
A lot of academic socialists would say that all sounds like a bunch of empty
slogans. What do you think of academic
socialists and their sophisticated analysis of Marxism?
A. It depends on the academic. There are some academics who genuinely believe
in workers revolution, but many of these so-called "socialist"
academics do not believe in workers revolution.
Some of these "socialist" academic types love to play with
dialectical materialism and all that endlessly with no practical purpose, and
it's a bit like masturbation. It's a bit
like contemplating your navel. These
academics can contemplate their navels all they want. The Trotskyists will be leading the working
class to revolution. Anyone who is a
true Marxist is therefore a true Trotskyist.
To be a Marxist you have to be a Trotskyist. To be a Leninist you have to be a Trotskyist. Remember, Trotsky was the co-leader of the
October Revolution with Lenin. And
Trotsky led the resistance to Stalin.
Stalin polluted everything Lenin and Marx stood for. Academic drivel that has no practical use is
just that – drivel. However, academics who
want to be useful can use their knowledge for practical purposes, like helping
the working class achieve a revolution.
A real socialist academic will write and agitate with the purpose of
helping the working class achieve state power through revolution, or at least
his writings will help the struggles of workers in some way, perhaps by
chronicling the history of workers struggles for example.
Q.
What do you say about people who claim to be Marxist, but who say they are not
Leninist or Trotskyist?
A. What a bunch of nonsense! It was Lenin and Trotsky who put Marxist
ideas into practice in the October Revolution of 1917. Therefore to be a Marxist you must also be a
Leninist and a Trotskyist. Generally
speaking, people who say they are "Marxist" but renounce Leninism and
Trotskyism are people who enjoy playing with Marxism the same way that some
academics enjoy playing with it.
However, in a practical sense they are against the workers smashing the
bourgeoisie through revolution. In other
words, they are against the practical application of Marxism, they just want to
play around with Marxism.
Q.
What do you think of anarchy?
A.
Anarchy is complete naïveté, because the anarchists want to do away with the
state. If the working class has no state
– that is, it has no armed bodies of men with which to defend itself – then the
bourgeoisie and their henchmen will slaughter the workers just as they have
done infinite times in the past when the workers rebelled. Anarchy sets the workers up to die.
Q.
But don't Marxists believes that the state will fade away gradually under
communism?
A. In a very far distant future perhaps. But remember right after workers revolution
the bourgeoisie are going to be pissed off that all their wealth was taken away
from them and used for things like education, public transportation, a cure for
AIDS, etc. The former bourgeoisie is not going to be too happy about waking up
in the morning and going to work, which is something that a lot of them don't have
to do under capitalism. And no doubt
some of these bourgeoisie may have stashed away loads of money in secret
places. They might be in a position to
finance counterrevolution. No doubt many
of their former henchmen may still be around and more than happy to help the
former bourgeoisie try to reestablish their power through violent means. So in order to stop the former bourgeoisie
and their henchmen from making a violent counterrevolution there will have to
be a workers state so that the working class has the means to defend
itself. In addition, there may be other
countries that will still be capitalist for a while, so a workers state will
have to have a military in order to defend itself against the possibility of
being invaded by capitalist countries intent on restoring the bourgeoisie to
power. Therefore, as long as there is
the threat of counterrevolution or being invaded the workers must have a state
to defend themselves.
Q.
What is the difference between a socialist and a communist?
A. There is no difference – they are the same
thing. A socialist is a communist and a
communist is a socialist. After the
workers revolution there will be socialism.
Socialism is a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. Communism is a very advanced stage of
economic development. I doubt that any
of us will live long enough to see communism.
However, after a workers revolution we can enjoy socialism. Under socialism everyone will have the right
to a job, we will double the minimum wage, there will be free quality medical
care and child care, and after capitalism has been wiped off the face of the
earth there will be no more war. That's
socialism. Since the workers revolution
will bring about socialism and in the distant future communism that means socialists
and communists are the same thing.
Socialists are communists and communists are socialists.
Q.
I thought that socialists were more like what has occurred in some Western
European countries, and communism is more like what has happened in the Soviet
Union and China.
A. Neither socialism or communism has ever been
achieved on the planet earth so far.
What occurred in the Soviet Union and in China is Stalinism, and
Stalinism is neither socialism nor communism.
What occurred in Western Europe is not socialism either, what occurred
in Western Europe is more like capitalism with a safety net. The workers in Western Europe fought very
hard for their safety net. That's how
they got it. The only way to achieve
socialism is to have a workers revolution.
People who advocate a workers revolution are socialists and
communists. A socialist is a communist
and a communist is a socialist. The
terms are interchangeable.
Trotskyism vs. Stalinism from my YouTube channel SucksCapitalism:
Marxism vs. Anarchy from my YouTube channel SucksCapitalism:
Buy the book Capitalism Sucks on Amazon or other online retailers,
or just scroll down to read Capitalism Sucks for free.
You can also click on whatever chapter you wish listed
in the upper right hand column of this page.
You can also click on whatever chapter you wish listed
in the upper right hand column of this page.
