Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of Stalinism: The ... - Indymedia

142 Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of Stalinismmany institutional weapons in the hands of Stalin as the head of the centralparty apparatus. 38 Trotsky’s position on this question remained ambiguous.While he did not personally call for its repeal, the declaration of the fortysix,which in most other ways echoed his outlook and proposals, did. At thisstage, Trotsky, still working within the avenues available to him in the party,had to be strategic about when and where to press. Engaged in a very delicatediplomatic process in the Politburo, he chose not to call for the repeal of theban on factions, perhaps letting others make the point for him.The article “Groups and Factional Formations,” which is part of TheNew Course, illustrates Trotsky’s ambiguity on this score. 39 On one hand,Trotsky formally insisted on the undesirability of factions and did not callfor the repeal of the ban. 40 The thrust of Trotsky’s intervention, however,went in the opposite direction. He tactfully explained that the ban by itselfwas no guarantee to solving the underlying problems faced by the party, particularlyin the absence of a patient and tolerant attitude on the part of theleadership. 41 In fact, Trotsky’s review of the salient episodes in the party’s historyproved that the sharpest factional disagreements had been successfullyresolved in the absence of the ban against factions. 42 It was abundantly clearthat the general principle of Trotsky’s critique was advocating the democratizationof the party. He characterized the party under the regime of bureaucratismas “living . . . on two stories: the upper storey, where things aredecided, and the lower storey, where all you do is learn of the decisions.” 43Against this model Trotsky counterpoised the ideal and memory of the partyas “a democratic organization, that is, a collectivity which decides upon itsroad by the thought and the will of all its members.” 44 Without a vibrant andactive internal democracy, the party effectively lost its “principal superiority,its multiple collective experience”—the real guarantee of its survival andeffective leadership. 45Trotsky’s early critique of bureaucratism also applied, in essence, to hisappraisal of the international situation and role of the Comintern. Whilethere was nothing in The New Course addressing this question directly, afterthe revolutionary developments in Germany came to a head in 1923, Trotskywas to readily extend his critique to this sphere as well. Thus the methods ofthe Stalinized Comintern were criticized by Trotsky not just as ineffective—and as they led from to one disaster to another, they certainly were—but fortheir profoundly bureaucratic character as well. The “Bolshevization” of thisinstitution set a disastrous precedent that would be replicated at every turn,after every mistake, establishing an institutional culture in which Moscowdominated the conduct of other national parties by administrative fiat. Thesorry spectacle created by this revolving door of cronies and scapegoats did