Trotskyism further demonstrates its’ anti-Leninism through organization. Lenin and the Bolsheviks supported principality of a revolutionary proletarian party, disciplined and educated by the vanguard, which works against opportunism. Trotskyism on the other hand, ultimately attempts to achieve co-existence of “revolutionaries” and opportunists. Within a single party, Trotskyists wish for division and sectarianism. They then claim to wish for “unity,” but ultimately themselves are the most divisive. Historically, we see this in the August-Bloc; Martovites, Otzovists and Liquidators as well as Trots cooperated with their fights against Leninism and the Bolsheviks. Between 1903 and 1917, Lenin constantly denounced Trotsky for careerism, Menshivism, liquidationism, and conciliationism. “Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one’s transfer to Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to ‘fix up’ the whole rascally crew of ‘Pravda’ at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.” (Collected Works, Vol. 34, p. 400).
“The struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism is… a struggle over the question whether to support the liberals or to overthrow the hegemony of the liberals over the peasantry. Therefore to attribute [as did Trotsky] our splits to the influence of the intelligentsia, to the immaturity of the proletariat, etc, is a childishly naive repetition of liberal fairy-tales.”
“Trotsky distorts Bolshevism, because he has never been able to form any definite views on the role of the proletariat in the Russian bourgeois revolution.”
“In brief – he is a Kautskyite, that is, he stands for unity with the Kautskyites in the International and with Chkheidze’s parliamentary group in Russia. We are absolutely against such unity … ” (Collected Works, Vol. 43, pp. 515-516).
“…What a swine this Trotsky is – Left, phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left!! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to Sotsial-Demokrat!” (Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 285).
Stalin: “I do not know of a single trend in the party that could compare with Trotskyism in the matter of discrediting the leaders of Leninism or the central institutions of the Party.” (Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 366).
As for Trotsky’s role in the Bolsheviks, Stalin explains the situation quite clearly: “How could it happen that Trotsky, who carried such a nasty stock-in-trade on his back; found himself, after all, in the rank of the Bolsheviks during the October movement? It happened because at that time Trotsky abandoned (actually did abandon) that stock-in-trade; he hid it in the cupboard .Had he not performed that ‘operation’, real co-operation with him would have been impossible. The theory of the August bloc, i.e., the theory of unity with the Mensheviks, had already been shattered and thrown overboard by the revolution, for how could there be any talk about unity when an armed struggle was raging between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks? Trotsky had no alternative but to admit that this theory was useless.
“The same misadventure ‘happened’ to the theory of permanent revolution, for not a single Bolshevik contemplated the immediate seizure of power on the morrow of the February Revolution, and Trotsky could not help knowing that the Bolsheviks would not allow him, in the words of Lenin, ‘to play at the seizure of power.’ Trotsky had no alternative but recognize the Bolsheviks’ policy of fighting for influence in the Soviets, of fighting to win over the peasantry As regards the third specific feature of Trotskyism (distrust of (he Bolshevik leaders), it had naturally to retire into the background owing to the obvious failure of the first two features.
“Under the circumstances, could Trotsky do anything else but hide his stock-in-trade in the cupboard and follow the Bolshevik; considering that he had no group of his own of any significance, and that he came to the Bolsheviks as a political individual without an army? Of course, he could not!
“What is the lesson to be learnt from this? Only one: that prolonged collaboration between the Leninists and Trotsky is possible only if the latter completely abandons his old stock-in-trade, only if he completely accepts Leninism. Trotsky writes about the lessons of October, but he forgets … the one I have just mentioned, which prime importance for Trotskyism. Trotskyism ought to learn that lesson of October too.” (Collected Works, Vol. 6, pp. 366-367).
Trotsky and his supporters were the ones to opportunistically use Lenin’s death in an attempt to gain power as well. Stalin notes: “The Trotskyites are vigorously spreading rumours that Trotsky inspired and was the sole leader of the October uprising. These rumours are being spread with exceptional zeal by the so- called editor of Trotsky’s works, Lentsner. Trotsky himself, by consistently avoiding mention of the Party, the Central Committee and the Petrograd Committee of the Party, by saying nothing about the leading role of these organisations in the uprising and vigorously pushing himself forward as the central figure in the October uprising, voluntarily or involuntarily helps to spread the rumours about the special role he is supposed to have played in the uprising, I am far from denying Trotsky’s undoubtedly important role in the uprising. I must say, however, that Trotsky did not play any special role in the October uprising, nor could he do so; being chairman of the Petrograd Soviet he merely carried out the will of the appropriate Party bodies, which directed every step that Trotsky took .To philistines like Sukhanov, all this may seem strange, but the facts, the true facts, wholly and fully confirm what I say.” (Ibid, pp. 341- 342).
Trotskyism asserts itself against bureaucracy, but in itself will result in bureaucracy. Be it through military bureaucracy, or the bureaucracy that may ensue from the results of factionalism within Trotskyist groups, as bureaucracy itself can become numerous departments fighting each other with no unified agenda. Trotsky’s claims of “Stalinist bureaucracy” are also falsified. Stalin had said:
“Bureaucracy is one of the worst enemies of our progress. It exists in all our organizations.” – Stalin, Speech delivered at the Eighth Congress of the All-Union of the Leninist Young Communist League, 1927
“Bureaucracy in our organizations must not be regarded merely as routine and red tape. Bureaucracy is a manifestation of bourgeois influence on our organizations. With all the more persistence, therefore, must the struggle against bureaucracy in our organizations be waged, if we really want to develop self-criticism and rid ourselves of the maladies in our constructive work.” – Stalin, Against the Vulgarizing of the Slogan of Self-Criticism, 1928
“The surest remedy for bureaucracy is raising the cultural level of the workers and peasants. One can curse and denounce bureaucracy in the state apparatus, one can stigmatize and pillory bureaucracy in our practical work, but unless the masses of the workers reach a certain level of culture, which will create the possibility, the desire, the ability to control the state apparatus from below, by the masses of the workers themselves, bureaucracy will continue to exist in spite of everything. Therefore, the cultural development of the working class and of the masses of the working peasantry, not only the development of literacy, although literacy is the basis of all culture, but primarily the cultivation of the ability to take part in the administration of the country, is the chief lever for improving the state and every other apparatus. This is the sense and significance of Lenin’s slogan about the cultural revolution.” – Stalin (THE FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.), December 2-19, 1927.)
When bureaucracy of Stalin did arise, Stalin combated against it. Stalin raised cultural levels of the people to do so, carrying out education campaigns among the masses and the Party about Marxism-Leninism. While Trotskyists were busy complaining, Stalin was actually doing something; Marxism-Leninism increased the number of schools from 52,000 to 200,000 between 1930 and 1933, raising the students from one million to 4,500,000. The literacy improved from about 65% to 90% at this time as well. Stalin also would always try to incorporate the people themselves in the Soviet system.
“Precisely in order to develop self-criticism and not extinguish it, we must listen attentively to all criticism coming from Soviet people, even if sometimes it may not be correct to the full and in all details. Only then can the masses have the assurance that they will not get into “hot water” if their criticism is not perfect, that they will not be made a “laughing-stock” if there should be errors in their criticism. Only then can self-criticism acquire a truly mass character and meet with a truly mass response.” (J. V. Stalin, REPORT TO THE SEVENTEENTH PARTY CONGRESS ON THE WORK OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.) Pravda, No. 27, January 28, 1934)