In the ranks of the Opposition there are people like Beloborodov whose "democratism" is still remembered by the workers of Rostov; Rozengolts, whose "democratism" was visited upon our water and rail transport workers; Pyatakov, whose "democratism" made the Donbass region not only yell but scream;... and Byk, whose "democratism" still makes Khorezm scream.197
During the power struggle of the 1920s a method of debating developed in which Stalin showed himself a past master. This system, essentially a semantic one, was an extremely important factor in enabling Stalin to defeat his opponents. Lenin deserves credit for developing this semantic system in 1903, when he called his group the Bolsheviks (majority supporters) when in fact they were in the minority on all but one question at the Second Party Congress. In the polemics that constantly shook the party from 1903 to 1917 (and after), Lenin always sought to pin a discrediting label on his opponents rather than defeat them by argument.
In the debates of 1923—1928 the adversaries constantly juggled labels and special terms such as "leftist," "rightist," "centrist," and "general line." Stalin demonstrated great virtuosity in this semantic game. The opponents of the "general line," which was constantly changing, could be accused of leftist views with rightist deviations or of a right deviation with leftist tendencies. Two new concepts were also created: "Leninism," a system of views that were always correct; and 'Trotskyism," a system of views that was always hostile to Leninism. Any inappropriate phrase spoken by chance or out of carelessness became a crime. Stalin's first shot fired against his fellow triumvirs, a month after the Thirteenth Congress, was an attack on Kamenev, who had spoken of Nepmans Russia rather than NEP Russia. "Does Kamenev understand the principled difference here?" Stalin asked in his comradely way. "Of course he understands it. Why then did he put forward this strange slogan? Because of his characteristic disregard for theory and precise theoretical definitions."19®
Every line was put through a strainer. Every word uttered by an opponent was reinterpreted, distorted, and falsified.
The best exammple of the semantic game Stalin played was his reduction of the dispute with Trotsky to a question of two slogans: "socialism in one country" and "permanent revolution." Lenin and all the other leaders had believed that the sparks of the Russian revolution would touch off a worldwide conflagration. After that would come the building of the radiant future. On March 12, 1919, Lenin said exactly that: 'The tasks of construction depend entirely on how swiftly the revolution wins out in the main European countries. Only after that victory will we be able to undertake the tasks of construction in a serious way."199 On November 6, 1920, he was even more categoricaclass="underline" "In one country it is impossible to achieve such a task as the socialist revolution."200
After the failure of the revolution in Europe, especially the fumbled attempts to start a revolutionary fire in Germany in 1923, all of the Bolsheviks understood that they had to build something in Russia. In late 1924, on the basis of a single sentence found in a 1915 article by Lenin, Stalin declared that it was possible and necessary to "build socialism in a single country," the Soviet Union. It was not enough, however, to formulate this positive program; he contrasted it to a negative program, which he called "the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution." Long before the 1917 revolution Trotsky had put forward the theory that the Russian revolution would inevitably "pass over" from a bourgeois democratic to a socialist revolution and that its ultimate fate would depend on the world revolution, which was also inevitable. In full agreement with Lenin, Trotsky believed that only assistance from the victorious world proletariat would make it possible to consolidate the victory of the Russian proletariat.
In 1924 the question of the transition from bourgeois democratic to socialist revolution was purely of historical interest. But Stalin used the
old formula of "permanent revolution" to construct the demon theory of Trotskyism, which allegedly denied the possibility of building socialism in the Soviet Union.
The debate between Stalin and Trotsky took place on two different levels. Trotsky argued theoretically in the traditional style of Marxist scholasticism. He agreed that the process of building socialism could begin in the Soviet Union, but he thought it impossible for the process to be completed within a single country. Stalin, for his part, avoided the fine points of theory, arguing in practical terms. He defended "Leninism" against 'Trotskyism." He defended the honor of the Russian proletariat against Trotsky, who supposedly had no faith in its capacities. He made it clear that the policy of "building socialism in one country" meant a peaceful, constructive life, while "permanent revolution" would mean new wars and revolutions. Trotsky's defeat was inevitable. Bled white by its suffering, the country longed for peace.
This debate was typical of all the internal disputes in the party from 1923 to 1928. There were no clear differences of principle, as can be seen from the content of the discussions and the ease with which the adversaries changed their minds and shifted from one camp to another. The real difference between Stalin and all of his opponents was the way they debated and their attitude toward dogma. Many factors contributed to Stalin's victory, but the most important was the inner weakness of his opponents, unable as they were to free themselves of the dogmas by which they were bound. This was especially true of Trotsky, the most outstanding of Stalin's rivals, but none of them were able to overcome the prejudices of old fashioned Marxism. Stalin, Lenin's best disciple, was a Marxist of a new type, a Marxist of the twentieth century, possibly even the twenty-first.
In many respects Trotsky and Stalin were twins. Their attitude toward party democracy was the same. Trotsky wrote in November 1930: "What we mean by the restoration of party democracy is that the real, revolutionary, proletarian core of the party must win the right to curb the bureaucracy and to carry out a genuine purge of the party."201 He went on to specify all the elements that had to be purged, quite a long list. Trotsky's and Lenin's attitudes toward democracy in society were also the same. Trotsky wrote in November 1932:
The regime of the proletarian dictatorship cannot and does not wish to hold back from infringing the principles and formal rules of democracy. It has to be judged from the standpoint of its capacity to ensure the transition to a new society. A bourgeois democratic regime, on the other hand, must be judged from the standpoint of the extent to which it allows the class struggle to develop within the framework of democracy.202
The dictatorship of the proletariat was not bound by any "formal rules of democracy," but the democratic regime must allow its enemies to fight against it.
In principle Trotsky's attitude toward culture was also the same as Stalin's. Writing in exile in June 1933, Trotsky granted that "the party is obliged to permit a very extensive liberty in the field of art," but he added, "eliminating pitilessly only that which is directed against the revolutionary tasks of the proletariat."203 Lastly, their attitude toward morality was the same. 'The means can only be justified by the end," Trotsky wrote. "But the end must also be justified. From the point of view of Marxism, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it increases humanity's power over nature and contributes to eliminating the power of man over man."204 From the standpoint of this morality (if it can be called that), Trotsky justified the murder of the tsar's children but condemned the murder of his own children by Stalin, because Stalin was not a true representative of the proletariat.205