The Stalin school of falsification - Marxists Internet Archive

Stalin School of Falsification -- Chapter 9
with one's eyes shut.
In the autumn of 1923, we had a stupendous upsurge in the party, parallel with the lift in the German
revolution. But after its defeat we, too, suffered an ebb-tide. Out of this ebb-tide grew the Stalinist theory
of socialism in one country, a theory of decline, which is in radical contradiction with the fundamentals
of Marxism. In 1926, during the Chinese Revolution, simultaneously with the improvement of our inter
national situation, there was a powerful upward surge. Then followed an intensified ebb-tide -- after the
defeat of the Chinese Revolution. One must take the curve of the historical movement in all of its
concreteness. From 1923 on, we have had a series of major defeats. Only a miserable coward would lose
heart because of that. But he is blind, and a dullard and a bureaucrat, who cannot differentiate between
the right foot and the left, between the upsurge of the revolution and its ebb. When I had a discussion
with Brandler in January 1924, after the defeat, he said to me, "In the autumn of 1923, I was not in
agreement with you because you were over-optimistic; now you are too pessimistic and I am again in
disagreement with you." I replied, "Comrade Brandler, I fear that you will never make a revolutionist,
because you cannot distinguish between the face of the revolution and its other extremity."
Comrade Ordjonikidze approaches the question of the victory or defeat of the revolution independently
of any connection with the dialectic process, i.e., independently of the mutual interaction between our
policies and the objective conditions. He poses the question in the following manner: either the inevitable
victory of the revolution or its inevitable defeat. Now, I say: If we proceed to make real and thorough
mistakes, then we can doom the revolution. But if we apply all our forces to rectify a false line, then we
shall triumph. But to assert that no matter what we may do -- either in relation to the kulak, in relation to
the Anglo-Russian Committee, or in relation to the Chinese Revolution -- it can do no harm to the
revolution; that the revolution must triumph "anywny"-is to reason in the manner that only indifferent
bureaucrats are capable of doing. And so far as they are concerned, it is precisely they who are capable of
ruining the revolution.
Wherein does our revolution differ from the French?
In the first place, with respect to the economic and class foundation of the respective epochs. In France,
the leading role was played by the lower sections of the urban petty bourgeoisie. In our country-by the
proletariat. It was owing to this alone that the bourgeois revolution could grow over into a socialist
revolution in our country, and develop as such-with great obstacles and dangers remaining as yet. This is
the first point of difference.
The second point of difference: France was surrounded by feudal countries-more backward in the
economic and cultural sense than France herself. We, on the other hand, are surrounded by capitalist
countries more advanced than we are with respect to technology and industry, and with a more powerful
and cultured proletariat. We may expect revolutions in these countries in a comparatively near future. In
consequence, the international position of our revolution, despite the fact that imperialism is mortally
hostile to us, is in a wide historical sense far more favorable to us than was the case in France toward the
end of the 18th century.
Finally, the third point of difference. We live in the epoch of imperialism, in the epoch of the greatest
international and internal upheavals-and this creates the great rising revolutionary curve upon which our
policies are based. But it is impermissible to think that this "curve" will carry us through under any and
all conditions. This is false! He understands nothing who believes that we can build socialism even in the
event capitalism is able to crush the proletariat for several decades to come. This is not optimism but the
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937-st2/sf09.htm (17 of 21) [06/06/2002 15:07:02]