Alternate views of Leon Trotsky
Historians have long debated Leon Trotsky’s role in Russian history. Right wing historians like Richard Pipes see Trotsky was just another authoritarian leader, like Lenin and Stalin. They emphasise his brutality as a military commander and his naivety as a politician. The left wing view of Trotsky is divided between those who still accept the Stalinist version of events, and those who see him as a prophet, betrayed by schemers and fools alike. Isaac Deutscher is probably the best example of the latter view.
Richard Pipes’ view
Richard Pipes is one of the best known critics of Leon Trotsky. Pipes is an American anti- communist historian, who is contemptuous of virtually all aspects of the Bolshevik Revolution and communism in general. Pipes is very critical of Trotsky’s career, and believes his place in history is exaggerated. These views are expressed in his two key works, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (published in 1995) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime 1919-1924 (published in 1994).
In Pipes’ view, Trotsky’s role in the November Revolution has been exaggerated by his admirers. Pipes believes that Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, and that Trotsky just carried out Lenin’s commands.
Pipes also criticizes Trotsky for his negotiating strategy at Brest-Litovsk. He argues that the idea of delaying the negotiations only riled the Germans, resulting in a more punitive and humiliating peace than would otherwise have been the case.
Pipes’ main criticism of Trotsky during the Civil War is the brutality with which he pursued his goals. He points to the reintroduction of conscription and the death penalty, and the abolition of soldiers’ committees as negative developments, and believes that Trotsky’s methods were more brutal than those of the Tsarist regime. In particular, Deutscher condemns Trotsky for his role in the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921.
Deutscher also believes that Trotsky failed to confront Stalin because he believed he could not win such a contest. To quote Pipes, “His defeat had nothing ennobling about it. He lost because he was outsmarted in a sordid struggle for political power.” He also believes Trotsky lost because his ideas for Russia’s future were inferior to Stalin’s. Finally, Pipes places great emphasis on Trotsky’s personal flaws – his arrogant behaviour towards his colleagues, and his inflexible policy positions.
Pipes’s critique of Trotsky also includes the latter’s period in exile. Pipes believes that Trotsky’scampaign against Stalin was the result of base motives rather than high ideals. In other words, Trotsky merely wanted revenge, and was willing to destroy the Party in order to achieve it.
Isaac Deutscher’sview
Isaac Deutscher is probably the most famous pro-Trotsky historian in the twentieth century (apart from Trotsky himself, of course). His three volume biography was the first to counter the prevailing views of Trotsky up until the 1950s. Deutcher’s views on Trotsky stem from his own Marxist beliefs and his brief time as a communist.(He was expelled from the Polish Communist Party for criticizing Stalin’s views.) His three books are The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879-1921 (published in 1954) The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky 1921-1929 (1959) and The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky 1929-1940 (published in 1963).
In Deutscher’s eyes, Trotsky was a revolutionary hero – a man of principle who represented the interests of the working class. He was also a brilliant Marxist theoretician – Lenin’s true heir.
As far as the Revolution is concerned, Deutscher sees Trotsky’s role as crucial. It was he who did most of the organising, he who put Lenin’s directives into effect. In particular, he persuaded Lenin to delay the uprising until November, so that it coincided with the All Russia Congress of Soviets. In this way, the Bolsheviks could claim that they were seizing power on behalf of the soviets rather than on behalf of the Party. Deutscher believes the uprisingmight not have succeeded if it had happened any earlier than this. Deutscher also reminds readers that Lenin was in hiding during the insurrection, so he could not have played an important role.
Deutscher also defends Trotsky’s handling of the treaty negotiations with the Germans. He believed the tactic of delay bought the Bolsheviks time to prepare for the looming civil war. He sees the tactic as stemming from Trotsky’s faith in his theory of permanent revolution. The longer he delayed, the greater the chance the German working class would rise up and overthrow the Kaiser’s regime. This idea seems naïve now, but it should be remembered that revolution did break out in Germany a year later, following defeat.
With regard to the Civil War, Deutscher commends Trotsky for his brilliant military leadership. He excuses the abuses that were committed during the conflict, arguing that the future of the Revolution was at stake. He also dismisses any criticisms of Trotsky over the Kronstadt Rebellion on the grounds that Trotsky was not present when it was crushed.
Deutscher attributes Trotsky’s unwillingness to confront Stalin during the early days of the power struggle to his loyalty to the Revolution. According to Deutscher, Trotsky truly believed that Stalin would not and could not succeed Lenin because he was an inferior candidate. To quote the historian, “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… It seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background, should be his rival.”
Isaac Deutscher also believes Trotsky acted from the noblest of motives while in exile. He genuinely hated the system Stalin had imposed on Russia and the Party, and his activities posed a serious threat to the dictator. Evidence of that threat comes from the fact that Stalin had him killed.