A review of Basmanov´s peculiar book "Contemporary Trotskyism: Its Anti-Revolutionary Nature".
Mikhail Basmanov's book is, believe it or not, an old classic. Published in
1972 by the Soviet Communist Party, it has been translated to many different
languages. I've read it in both English and Swedish. It was complete crap both
times.
Basmanov's book is an attack on Leon Trotsky and Trotskyism, written from the viewpoint of post-Stalin Soviet Communism á la Khrushchev and Brezhnev. It's incredibly stale, repetitive and boring. Did I mention it was repetitive? Essentially, it's a kind of "lite" version of Stalin's charges against Trotsky, his old adversary.
Basmanov skillfully avoids all *really* controversial questions: the Moscow show trials, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the super-sectarian Third Period (mentioned only in passing), and the murder of Trotsky by a Soviet agent. While suggesting that the Trotskyists were somehow pro-fascist, Basmanov never directly accuses them of being agents of Nazi Germany or British imperialism. Presumably, the reader is expected to draw this inference for himself. All the other Stalinist attacks on Trotsky have been included: he was never a real Bolshevik, betrayed Lenin and Soviet Russia at Brest-Litovsk, wanted to export the revolution on bayonets, underestimated the peasantry, didn't believe in the possibility of revolution in a single country at a time, etc.
Being neither Trotskyist nor "Stalinist", I honestly couldn't care less, but sure, Trotsky and the Trotskyists were often (though by no means always) more "sectarian" than the official Communist movement under Stalin. However, Basmanov is incapable of seriously discussing the matter, instead pulling the usual tiresome falsifications out of his hat ("The Red Army wasn't founded by Trotsky"). He has to avoid the Polish-Soviet war of 1920, since Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky all wanted to export the revolution on bayonets. Nor does he mention the Soviet interventions in Mongolia, Iran or Georgia. Export much? Instead, the author tries to cast Lenin (Lenin!) as a proponent of Khrushchev's line of peaceful co-existence. Please. Even the NEP is glossed over in silence, perhaps because Trotsky and the Left Opposition proposed an immediate transition to industrialization, while Stalin cooperated with the pro-kulak Bukharin. Trotsky as defender of nationalized industry and trade, with Stalin as capitalist-roader? Impossible! Down the memory hole!
Basmanov's treatment of contemporary Trotskyism is little better. He conflates the Fourth International with a plethora of splinter groups, including the bizarre Posadists - a bit like attacking the Watchtower Society in a book directed against mainline Christianity. Basmanov is right when he points out that most Trotskyists were very sectarian during the period when the book was published. (This was during the "guerillist" turn of the Fourth International.) However, he once again avoids certain issues. There is no serious discussion of the U.S. Socialist Workers' Party, obviously because they weren't as sectarian as the other Trotskyists. Indeed, the SWP played an important role in the anti-Vietnam War movement, a movement Basmanov presumably supports. Instead, he (ridiculously) attacks the SWP for "entrism" in the U.S. labor unions. The Teamsters, perhaps?
Of course, I didn't expect much from a book actually published in Moscow!
On a more funny note, I noticed that the translators (who were presumably Soviet nationals) didn't understand the difference between the terms "Trotskyist" and "Trotskyite". The former is the Trotskyist self-designation, the latter a Stalinist slur. At several points, the translators inserted "Trotskyite" when quoting from Trotskyist documents, as if the Fourth International was using the Stalinist slur to describe itself! Overall, I must say that the author quotes Trotskyist documents in a very strange fashion, and he seems oblivious to the fact that the post-reunification leadership of the Fourth International is called the United Secretariat, rather than the "International" Secretariat. However, it's possible that gaffes of this kind are quite intentional, as a way of showing disrespect for the object being attacked.
This book is so incredibly bad (and repetitive) that it deserves zero stars (let me repeat that), but since that's not an option on this site, I give it one.
This book is so incredibly bad (and repetitive) that it deserves zero stars (let me repeat that), but since that's not an option on this site, I give it one.
This book is so incredibly bad (and repetitive) that it deserves zero stars (let me repeat that), but since that's not an option on this site, I give it one.
Got it?
Basmanov's book is an attack on Leon Trotsky and Trotskyism, written from the viewpoint of post-Stalin Soviet Communism á la Khrushchev and Brezhnev. It's incredibly stale, repetitive and boring. Did I mention it was repetitive? Essentially, it's a kind of "lite" version of Stalin's charges against Trotsky, his old adversary.
Basmanov skillfully avoids all *really* controversial questions: the Moscow show trials, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the super-sectarian Third Period (mentioned only in passing), and the murder of Trotsky by a Soviet agent. While suggesting that the Trotskyists were somehow pro-fascist, Basmanov never directly accuses them of being agents of Nazi Germany or British imperialism. Presumably, the reader is expected to draw this inference for himself. All the other Stalinist attacks on Trotsky have been included: he was never a real Bolshevik, betrayed Lenin and Soviet Russia at Brest-Litovsk, wanted to export the revolution on bayonets, underestimated the peasantry, didn't believe in the possibility of revolution in a single country at a time, etc.
Being neither Trotskyist nor "Stalinist", I honestly couldn't care less, but sure, Trotsky and the Trotskyists were often (though by no means always) more "sectarian" than the official Communist movement under Stalin. However, Basmanov is incapable of seriously discussing the matter, instead pulling the usual tiresome falsifications out of his hat ("The Red Army wasn't founded by Trotsky"). He has to avoid the Polish-Soviet war of 1920, since Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky all wanted to export the revolution on bayonets. Nor does he mention the Soviet interventions in Mongolia, Iran or Georgia. Export much? Instead, the author tries to cast Lenin (Lenin!) as a proponent of Khrushchev's line of peaceful co-existence. Please. Even the NEP is glossed over in silence, perhaps because Trotsky and the Left Opposition proposed an immediate transition to industrialization, while Stalin cooperated with the pro-kulak Bukharin. Trotsky as defender of nationalized industry and trade, with Stalin as capitalist-roader? Impossible! Down the memory hole!
Basmanov's treatment of contemporary Trotskyism is little better. He conflates the Fourth International with a plethora of splinter groups, including the bizarre Posadists - a bit like attacking the Watchtower Society in a book directed against mainline Christianity. Basmanov is right when he points out that most Trotskyists were very sectarian during the period when the book was published. (This was during the "guerillist" turn of the Fourth International.) However, he once again avoids certain issues. There is no serious discussion of the U.S. Socialist Workers' Party, obviously because they weren't as sectarian as the other Trotskyists. Indeed, the SWP played an important role in the anti-Vietnam War movement, a movement Basmanov presumably supports. Instead, he (ridiculously) attacks the SWP for "entrism" in the U.S. labor unions. The Teamsters, perhaps?
Of course, I didn't expect much from a book actually published in Moscow!
On a more funny note, I noticed that the translators (who were presumably Soviet nationals) didn't understand the difference between the terms "Trotskyist" and "Trotskyite". The former is the Trotskyist self-designation, the latter a Stalinist slur. At several points, the translators inserted "Trotskyite" when quoting from Trotskyist documents, as if the Fourth International was using the Stalinist slur to describe itself! Overall, I must say that the author quotes Trotskyist documents in a very strange fashion, and he seems oblivious to the fact that the post-reunification leadership of the Fourth International is called the United Secretariat, rather than the "International" Secretariat. However, it's possible that gaffes of this kind are quite intentional, as a way of showing disrespect for the object being attacked.
This book is so incredibly bad (and repetitive) that it deserves zero stars (let me repeat that), but since that's not an option on this site, I give it one.
This book is so incredibly bad (and repetitive) that it deserves zero stars (let me repeat that), but since that's not an option on this site, I give it one.
This book is so incredibly bad (and repetitive) that it deserves zero stars (let me repeat that), but since that's not an option on this site, I give it one.
Got it?
No comments:
Post a Comment