Theanti-Stalinist left encompasses various kinds ofleft-wing political movements that opposeJoseph Stalin,Stalinism,neo-Stalinism and thesystem of governance that Stalin implemented as leader of theSoviet Union between 1924 and 1953. This term also refers to those that opposed Joseph Stalin and his leadership from within theCommunist movement, such asLeon Trotsky and the party'sLeft Opposition.
In recent years, the term may also refer to left and centre-left wing opposition todictatorship,cult of personality,totalitarianism andpolice states, all being features commonly attributed toMarxist-Leninist regimes that took inspiration from Stalinism such as the regimes ofKim Il Sung,Enver Hoxha and others, including in the formerEastern Bloc.[1][2][3] Some of the notable movements within the anti-Stalinist left have beenTrotskyism andTitoism,anarchism andlibertarian socialism,left communism andlibertarian Marxism, theRight Opposition within the Communist movement,Eurocommunism,ultra-leftism,democratic socialism andsocial democracy.
A large majority of the political left was initially enthusiastic about theBolshevik Revolution in the revolutionary era. In the beginning, theBolsheviks and their policies received much support because the movement was originally painted by Lenin and other leaders in alibertarian light.[4][5][6] However, as more politically repressive methods were used, the Bolsheviks steadily lost support from many anarchists and revolutionaries.[7][6][4] Prominentanarchist communists andlibertarian Marxists such asSylvia Pankhurst,[8]Rosa Luxemburg,[9] andEmma Goldman[6] were among the first left-wing critics ofBolshevism.
Rosa Luxemburg was heavily critical of the methods that Bolsheviks used to seize power in theOctober Revolution claiming that it was "not a movement of the people but of the bourgeoisie".[10] Primarily, Luxemburg's critiques were based on the manner in which the Bolsheviks suppressed anarchist movements.[11] In one of her essays published titled "The Nationalities Question in the Russian Revolution", she explains:[10]
To be sure, in all these cases, it was really not the "people" who engaged in these reactionary policies, but only the bourgeois and petit bourgeois classes, who – in sharpest opposition to their own proletarian masses – perverted the "national right ofself-determination" into an instrument of their counter-revolutionary class policies.
Because of her early criticisms toward the Bolsheviks, her legacy was vilified by Stalin once he rose to power.[12] According to Trotsky, Stalin was "often lying about her and vilifying her" in the eyes of the public.[12]
The relations between the anarchists and the Bolsheviks worsened in Soviet Russia due to the suppression of movements like theKronstadt rebellion and theMakhnovist movement.[7][13][6] The Kronstadt rebellion (March 1921) was a key moment during which many libertarian and democratic leftists broke with the Bolsheviks, laying the foundations for the anti-Stalinist left. The American anti-Stalinist socialistDaniel Bell later said:
Every radical generation, it is said, has its Kronstadt. For some it was theMoscow Trials, for others theNazi-Soviet Pact, for still others Hungary (TheRaik Trial or1956), Czechoslovakia (the defenestration ofMasaryk in 1948 or thePrague Spring of 1968), theGulag,Cambodia,Poland (and there will be more to come). My Kronstadt was Kronstadt.[14][15][16][17]
Another key anti-Stalinist,Louis Fischer, later coined the term "Kronstadt moment" for this.[15]
Like Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman was primarily critical ofLenin's style of leadership, but her focus eventually transferred over to Stalin andhis policies as he rose to power.[18][6] In her essay titled "There Is No Communism in Russia", Goldman details how Stalin "abused the power of his position" and formed a dictatorship.[6] In this text she states:[6]
In other words, by the Central Committee and Politbureau of the Party, both of them controlled absolutely by one man, Stalin. To call such a dictatorship, this personal autocracy more powerful and absolute than any Czar's, by the name of Communism seems to me the acme of imbecility.
Emma Goldman asserted that there was "not the least sign in Soviet Russia even of authoritarian, State Communism".[6] Emma Goldman remained critical of Stalin and the Bolshevik's style of governance up until her death in 1940.[19]
Overall, the left communists and anarchists were critical of the statist, repressive, andtotalitarian nature ofMarxism–Leninism which eventually carried over to Stalinism and Stalin's policy in general.[19] Conversely, Trotsky argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on theopposition parties such as theMensheviks andSocialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions ofSoviet Russia had improved.[20]
He is an unprincipled intriguer, who subordinates everything to the preservation of his own power. He changes his theory according to whom he needs to get rid of.
The struggle for power in the Soviet Union after the death ofVladimir Lenin in 1924 saw the development of three major tendencies within theAll-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). These were described by Trotsky as left, right, and centre tendencies. TheRight Opposition was a label formulated by Stalin in Autumn of 1928 for the opposition against certain measures included within thefirst five-year plan, an opposition which was led byNikolai Bukharin,Alexei Rykov,Mikhail Tomsky, and their supporters within theSoviet Union that did not follow the so-called "general line of the party". Stalin and his "centre" faction were allied with Bukharin and the Right Opposition from late 1924, with Bukharin elaborating Stalin's theory ofsocialism in one country. Together, they expelled Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and theUnited Opposition from theCommunist Party in December 1927. However, once Trotsky was out of the way and the Left Opposition had been illegalized, Stalin soon turned on his Right Opposition allies. Bukharin and the Right Opposition were, in their turn, sidelined and removed from important positions within the Communist Party and the Soviet government from 1928 to 1930, with Stalin ending the NEP and beginning the firstfive-year plan.
One of the last attempts of the Right Opposition to resist Stalin was theRyutin affair in 1932, where a manifesto against the policy ofcollectivization was circulated; it openly called for "The Liquidation of the dictatorship of Stalin and his clique".[22] Later, some rightists joined asecret bloc withLeon Trotsky,Zinoviev andKamenev to oppose Stalin. HistorianPierre Broué stated that it dissolved in early 1933.[23]
Leon Trotsky and Stalin disagreed on issues ofindustrialization and revolutionary tactics.[25] Trotsky believed that there was a need for super-industrialization while Stalin believed in a rapid surge andcollectivization, as written in his5-year plan.[25] Trotsky believed an accelerated global surge to be the answer to institute communism globally.[25] Trotsky was critical of Stalin's methods because he believed the slower pace of collectivization and industrialization to be ineffective in the long run.[25] According to historianSheila Fitzpatrick, the scholarly consensus is that Stalin appropriated the position of theLeft Opposition on such matters asindustrialisation andcollectivisation.[26] Trotsky also disagreed with Stalin's thesis ofSocialism in One Country,[25] believing that the institution of revolution in one state or country would not be as effective as a global revolution.[27] He also criticized how the Socialism in One Country thesis broke with theinternationalist traditions ofMarxism.[28] Trotskyists believed that a permanent global revolution was the most effective method to ensure the system of communism was enacted worldwide.[27] According to his biographer,Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky explicitly supportedproletarian internationalism but was opposed to achieving this viamilitaryconquest as seen with his documented opposition to thewar with Poland in 1920, proposed armistice with theEntente and temperance with staginganti-British revolts in theMiddle East.[29] Overall, Trotsky and his followers were very critical of the lack of internal debate and discussion among Stalinist organizations along with their politicallyrepressive methods.[27][28]
During the 1930s, critics of Stalin, both inside and outside the Soviet Union, were under heavy attack by the party. According to historian,Bernhard H. Bayerlein, the increasingly "repressive transformation" of the Communist movement "strengthened intermediate oppositionist and anti-Stalinist currents” in the left.[30]
Outside the Communist movement, for example, theInternational Revolutionary Marxist Centre was founded in 1932 as an international association of left-wing parties which rejected both more moderate mainstreamsocial democracy and the StalinistThird International.
While defending the Russian Revolution from outside aggression,Leon Trotsky and his followers at the same time urged an anti-bureaucraticpolitical revolution againstStalinism to be conducted by the Soviet working class themselves. In 1936, Trotsky called for the restoration of the right of criticism in areas such aseconomic matters, the revitalization of thetrade unions and the free elections of theSoviet parties.[31] Trotsky also opposed the policy of forced collectivisation under Stalin and favoured avoluntary, gradual approach towardsagricultural production[32][33] with greater tolerance for the rights ofSoviet Ukrainians.[34][35] From 1936, Trotsky and his American supporterJames P. Cannon described the Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers' state", the revolutionary gains of which should be defended against imperialist aggression despite the emergence of a gangster-like ruling stratum, the party bureaucracy.
TheGreat Purge occurred from 1936 to 1938 as a result of growing internal tensions between the critics of Stalin but eventually turned into an all-out cleansing of "anti-Soviet elements".[36] A majority of those targeted were peasants and minorities, but anarchists and democratic socialist opponents were also targeted for their criticisms of theseverely repressive political techniques that Stalin used.[28] Many were executed or sent toGulag prison camps extrajudicially.[36] It is estimated that during the Great Purge, casualties ranged from 600,000 to over 1 million people.[36]
With all the greater frankness can I state how, in my view, the Soviet government should act in case of a fascist upheaval in Germany. In their place, I would, at the very moment of receiving telegraphic news of this event, sign a mobilisation order calling up several age groups. In the face of a mortal enemy, when the logic of the situation points to inevitable war, it would be irresponsible and unpardonable to give that enemy time to establish himself, to consolidate his positions, to conclude alliances ... and to work out the plan to attack.
Concurrently, fascism was rising across Europe. Initially, during the Comintern's "third period", Communist parties saw the democratic left associal fascists, or as a worse enemy than fascism. The anti-Stalinist left played a major role in the emergence ofanti-fascism in this period.[38] The Soviet leadership switched to apopular front policy in 1933, in which Communists were expected to work with liberal and even conservative allies to defend against an expected fascist assault. Although Communists and theirfellow travellers in CP-dominatedfront organisatons played a major role in the anti-fascist movement after 1933,Enzo Traverso and other historians have argued that the historiography has often obscured the role of the anti-Stalinist left: “it was possible to be both antifascist and anti-Stalinist, and... the fascination exercised by Stalinism at this time over the antifascist intelligentsia was not irresistible."[39]
One of the most conflicts of the time was theSpanish Civil War. While the whole left fought alongside theRepublican faction, within it there were sharp conflicts between the Communists, on the one hand, and anarchists, Trotskyists and thePOUM (the Spanish affiliate of the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre) on the other.[40][41] Support for the latter became a key issue for the anti-Stalinist left internationally, as exemplified by theILP Contingent in theInternational Brigades,George Orwell's bookHomage to Catalonia, the periodicalSpain and the World, and various pamphlets byEmma Goldman,Rudolf Rocker and others.[42][43][44]
Illustrating the role of the anti-Stalinist left in the anti-fascist movement, historian Jonathan Hyslop gives the example of the "Antwerp Group" of former Communist activists in theInternational Transport Workers' Federation, led byHermann Knüfken. This group sent fighters to Spain, where they joined aninternational militia linked to theUGT union federation, but were expelled by the group’s Communst Party leader,Hans Beimler, over political differences, whereupon they joined the anarchistDurruti Column.[38] Traverso gives the examples of socialistsGaetano Salvemini (who founded the first clandestine anti-fascist newspaperNon mollare [it] ("Don't Give Up") in January 1925[45]) andCarlo Rosselli (who founded theGiustizia e Libertà anti-fascist group and then fought in Spain as the leader, withCamillo Berneri of theMatteotti Battalion, a mixed volunteer unit of anarchist,liberal, socialist and Communist Italians).[46]
In other countries too, non-Communist left parties competed with Stalinism as the same time as they fought the right. TheThree Arrows symbol was adopted by the GermanSocial Democrats to signify this multi-pronged conflict.[47]
Dissidents in theTrotskyistSocialist Workers Party, witnessing the collaboration ofJoseph Stalin andAdolf Hitler in the invasion and the partition of Poland and the Soviet invasion of theBaltic states, argued that the Soviet Union had actually emerged as a new social formation, which was neither capitalist nor socialist. Adherents of that view, espoused most explicitly byMax Shachtman and closely following the writings ofJames Burnham andBruno Rizzi, argued that the Sovietbureaucratic collectivist regime had in fact entered one of two great imperialist "camps" aiming to wage war to divide the world. The first of the imperialist camps, which Stalin and the Soviet Union were said to have joined as a directly participating ally, was headed by Nazi Germany and included most notably Fascist Italy. In that original analysis, the "second imperialist camp" was headed by England and France, actively supported by the United States.[48]
Shachtman and his cothinkers argued for the establishment of a broad "third camp" to unite the workers and colonial peoples of the world in revolutionary struggle against theimperialism of the German–Soviet–Italian and the Anglo–American–French blocs. Shachtman concluded that the Soviet policy was one of imperialism and that the best result for the international working class would be the defeat of the Soviet Union in the course of its military incursions. Conversely, Trotsky argued that a defeat for the Soviet Union would strengthen capitalism and reduce the possibilities for political revolution.[49]
Josip Broz Tito became one of the most prominent leftist critics of Stalin afterWorld War II. TheCommunist Party of Yugoslavia and the policies that were established was originally closely modeled on that of the Soviet Union.[50] In the eyes of many, "Yugoslavia followed perfectly down the path of Soviet Marxism".[50] At the start, Tito was even considered "Stalin's most faithful pupil".[51] However, as the Yugoslavian Communist Party grew in size and power, it became a secondary Communist powerhouse in Europe.[50] This eventually caused Tito to try to operate independently, which created tensions with Stalin and the Soviet Union.[50] In 1948, the two leaderssplit apart because of Yugoslavian independent foreign policy and ideological differences.[50][51]
Tito and his followers began a political effort to develop a new brand of socialism that would be bothMarxist–Leninist in nature yet anti-Stalinist in practice.[50] The result was the Yugoslav system of socialistworkers' self-management.[50] This led to the philosophy of organizing of every production-related activity in society into "self-managed units".[50] This came to be known asTitoism. Tito was critical of Stalin because he believed Stalin became "un-Marxian".[50] In the pamphlet titled "On New Roads to Socialism" one of Tito's high ranking aides states:[50]
The indictment is long indeed: unequal relations with and exploitation of the other socialist countries, un-Marxian treatment of the role of the leader, inequality in pay greater than in bourgeois democracies, ideological promotion of Great Russian nationalism and subordination of other peoples, a policy of division of spheres of influence with the capitalist world, monopolization of the interpretation of Marxism, the abandonment of all democratic forms ...
Tito disagreed on the primary characteristics that defined Stalin's policy and style of leadership. Tito wanted to form his own version of "pure" socialism without many of the "un-Marxian" traits ofStalinism.[51] Tito has also accused Stalinist USSR's hegemonic practices in Eastern Europe and economic exploitation of the Soviet satellite states asimperialist.[52]
Other foreign leftist critics also came about during this time in Europe and America. Some of these critics includeGeorge Orwell,H. N. Brailsford,[53]Fenner Brockway,[54][55] theYoung People's Socialist League, and laterMichael Harrington,[56] and theIndependent Labour Party in Britain. There were also several anti-Stalinist socialists in France, including writers such asSimone Weil[57] andAlbert Camus[58] as well as the group aroundMarceau Pivert.
In America,the New York Intellectuals around the journalsNew Leader,Partisan Review, andDissent were among other critics. In general, these figures criticized Soviet Communism as a form of "totalitarianism which in some ways mirroredfascism".[59][60] A key text for this movement wasThe God That Failed, edited by British socialistRichard Crossman in 1949, featuring contributions byLouis Fischer,André Gide,Arthur Koestler,Ignazio Silone,Stephen Spender andRichard Wright, about their journeys to anti-Stalinism.
Following thedeath of Joseph Stalin, many prominent leaders of Stalin's cabinet sought to seize power. As a result, aSoviet triumvirate was formed betweenLavrenty Beria,Georgy Malenkov, andNikita Khrushchev. The primary goal of the new leadership was to ensure stability in the country while leadership positions within the government were sorted out. Some of the new policy implemented that was antithetical of Stalinism included policy that was free from terror, that decentralized power, and collectivized leadership. After this long power struggle within the Soviet government, Nikita Khrushchev came into power. Once in power, Khrushchev was quick to denounce Stalin and his methods of governance.[61] In a secret speech delivered to the 20th party congress in 1956, Khrushchev was critical of the "cult of personality of Stalin" and his selfishness as a leader:[61]
Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. This is supported by numerous facts.
Khrushchev also revealed to the congress the truth behind Stalin's methods of repression. In addition, he explained that Stalin had rounded up "thousands of people and sent them into a huge system of political work camps" calledgulags.[61] The truths revealed in this speech came to the surprise of many, but this fell into the plan of Khrushchev. This speech tainted Stalin's name which resulted in a significant loss of faith in his policy from government officials and citizens.[61]
There were attempts within the Soviet Union'ssatellite states to find a left-wing path that departed from Moscow's directives, met with repression by Soviet-backed governments. In June 1956, thePolish Army violently repressed theworkers' uprising at Poznań against the economic policies of thePolish People's Republic. TheHungarian Revolution of 1956 lasted fifteen days before being crushed by Soviet tanks. The repression in Hungary led to further disillusionment with Stalinism globally, and precipitated splits within and departures from Communist parties. In the UK, for example, historianE.P. Thompson, then a party member, later recalled many callingforan“organized movementof the Marxistanti-Stalinist left" outside the party.[62] This was the catalyst for the emergence of theNew Left.[63]: 285
During this period, known as theKhrushchev Thaw (1956–64), a dissident left emerged in the Soviet Union, including the Vail group inLeningrad (1956–58), who read texts by anarchists and the Workers Opposition and published “Theses on the Hungarian Revolution” and “The Truth About Hungary,” which emphasized the role ofworkers’ councils; and theUnion of Communards in Leningrad (1960-1965), who wrote pamphlets such as “From the Dictatorship of the Bureaucracy to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, drawing on Lenin'sState and Revolution to criticise Soviet bureaucracy.Mayakovsky Square in Moscow became a key meeting point for such groups from 1958.[64]
During thisCold War era, the American non-Communist left (NCL) grew.[65] The NCL was critical of the continuation of Stalinist Communism because of aspects such as famine and repression,[6] and as later discovered, the covert intervention of Soviet state interests in theCommunist Party USA (CPUSA).[66]: 31 Members of the NCL were often ex-Communists, such as the historianTheodore Draper whose views shifted from socialism to liberalism, and socialists who became disillusioned with the Communist movement. Anti-Stalinist Trotskyists also wrote about their experiences during this time, such asIrving Howe andLewis Coser.[66]: 29–30 These perspectives inspired the creation of theCongress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), as well as international journals likeDer Monat andEncounter; it also influenced existing publications such as thePartisan Review.[67] According toJohn Earl Haynes andHarvey Klehr, the CCF was covertly funded by theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support intellectuals with pro-democratic and anti-Communist stances.[66]: 66–69 The Communist Party USA lost much of its influence in the first years of the Cold War due to the revelation of Stalinist crimes by Khrushchev.[68] Although the Soviet Communist Party was no longer officially Stalinist, the Communist Party USA received a substantial subsidy from the USSR from 1959 until 1989, and consistently supported official Soviet policies such as intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Soviet funding ended in 1989 whenGus Hall condemned the market initiatives ofMikhail Gorbachev.[69]
From the late 1950s, several European socialist and Communist parties, such as inDenmark andSweden, shifted away from orthodox Communism which they connected to Stalinism that was in recent history.[63]: 240 Albert Camus criticized Soviet Communism, while many leftists saw the Soviet Union as emblematic of "state capitalism".[70]
After Stalin's death and the Khrushchev Thaw, study and opposition to Stalinism became a part of historiography. The historianMoshe Lewin cautioned not to categorize the entire history of the Soviet Union as Stalinist, but also emphasized that Stalin's bureaucracy had permanently established "bureaucratic absolutism", resembling old monarchy, in the Soviet Union.[71]
After Fidel Castro's visit to the United States in 1959, various American academics began publishing essays and books on the character of theCuban Revolution andFidel Castro. Some arguing that Castro was veering away from the goals of the Cuban Revolution, and towards Stalinism. Others argued that the criticisms of Castro were unwarranted.[72] Throughout 1960, many articles were published in the socialistMonthly Review journal, arguing against any rumored "betrayal" of the Cuban Revolution. These articles were influenced by the writings of socialistsPaul Sweezy andLeo Huberman, who visited Cuba in 1959.[73]
In 1961, the historianTheodore Draper famously published in the anti-StalinistEncounter magazine thatFidel Castro had betrayed theCuban Revolution and could bring international war. The article was passed toJohn F. Kennedy, who considered it before approving theBay of Pigs Invasion.[74] According to Draper, the Cuban Revolution was a middle class movement for democracy. Castro, after coming to power, began pursuing a wave of land reforms in 1960 and 1961. During this time, Castro drifted away from his original democratic goals. Eventually, Castro heavily integrated Communist officials into his provisional government, and by Draper's conception, Castro had abandoned the democratic goals of the Cuban Revolution, and his own land reform plans of 1960–1961.[75]
Draper considered his betrayal thesis to be a criticism of the accounts of socialists likePaul Sweezy andLeo Huberman who were sympathetic to Castro. Draper attempted to present a Marxist interpretation of Castroism, that made analogies to Trotskyist conceptions of Stalinism as a betrayer of theRussian Revolution.[76]
Draper's work as a historian of the Cuban Revolution brought him to the attention of theHoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, an anti-Communistthink tank located atStanford University.[77] Draper accepted a Hoover Institution fellowship and remained there until 1968, at which time he departed, ill at ease with the growing conservatism of the institution.[77]
Anti-Stalinist leftists, influenced byWestern Marxism, continued to organise in the Soviet Union.Roy Medvedev published thesamizdatPolitical Diary to influence “party-democrats” in the hopes of reforming the regime.Elkon Gergieveich Leikin, a veteran of the anti-Stalinist oppositions of the 1920s, wroteThe Origins of Stalinism, published by the French TrotskyistLeague of Revolutionary Communists in the early 1980s. In 1977, the Young Socialists formed at theMoscow State University, withBoris Kagarlitsky among its members. In the late 1980s, anti-Stalinist leftists formed Trotskyist and anarchist currents in the collapsing USSR.[64]
The fall of the Soviet states briefly led to the revival of the anti-Stalinist left, as Traverso relates:
At the beginning we were euphoric: “the Berlin Wall is falling down, and this means a German Revolution is coming.” This was the view of Ernest Mandel, for instance: after many decades of passivity and exclusion, the German proletariat would suddenly return in the heart of Europe to accomplish a socialist revolution, which would be the convergence between an anti-capitalist revolution in the West and an anti-bureaucratic, anti-Stalinist revolution in Eastern Europe. Germany was considered the place where these revolutions could merge. Everybody was extremely enthusiastic. Trotskyists, who had always been anti-Stalinist, couldn't help but support this movement.[78]
propagated the anti-Stalin ideas of other personalities, such as those of Professor Ota Sik
Media related toAnti-Stalinist left at Wikimedia Commons.svg)
