 | |
| Author | Leon Trotsky |
|---|---|
| Original title | Their Morals and Ours |
| Translator | Victor Serge (French) |
| Language | Russian |
| Genre | Nonfiction |
| Publisher | Pathfinder Books (America) |
Publication date | 1938 |
| Publication place | Soviet Union |
| Media type | |
Their Morals and Ours is a short pamphlet ofethical essays written byRussian revolutionary,Leon Trotsky, in 1938 against various lines of criticisms presented against the perceived actions ofBolsheviks in that "end justifies the means".[1]
There had been an increasing disillusionment among left-wingintellectuals with the advent ofStalinism and the viability ofMarxism following theRussian Revolution. A number of Trotsky's associates such asMax Eastman,Victor Serge,Boris Souvarine,Ante Ciliga had raised questions about his responsibility over the suppression of theKronstadt rebellion in 1921. This has prompted some figures to trace the origin ofStalinism to this initial prelude of repression.[1]
Trotsky defended his action that the Kronstadt rebels would have been a proxy for counter-revolutionary forces and insisted that there was indeed amoral alongsidepolitical difference between his use of violence in thecivil war as an exercise of the government to defend itself and the laterterror monopolised under Stalin. Contrastingly, Trotsky situated the origin of Stalinism inmaterial factors such asthe defeat of communism in the West, thepoverty andisolation of theSoviet Union, conflicts between thetown andcountry along with the "logic" of thesingle party system. In the face of this mounting criticism, Trotsky would develop and articulate his response with the extended essay,Their Morals and Ours.[1]
The first section weighed the specific criticisms that categorise Marxism and Bolshevism in particular as "amoral" due to their perceived adherence to the praxis that the "end justifies the means". Trotsky argued that moral criteria are firmly rooted in their material context rather than "eternal moral truths" based on religious revelation or a particular conception of human nature.[2] He further rejected the abstract generalization ofvirtue norms in the manner ofImmanuel Kant's "categorical imperative" as he considered this precept to lack any concrete basis.[2]
Trotsky proceeded to argue that norms of virtue developed by the character of social relations and viewed the notion that the end could justify any means to be an absurd caricature of Jesuit norms.[2] He further rejected the equivocation between violence employed byoppressed groups and violence utilized by oppressor groups as stated:
"History has different yardsticks for the cruelty of theNortherners and the cruelty of theSoutherners in the Civil War. A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains -lets not the contemptible eunuchs tells us that they are equals before a court of morality".[3]
Trotsky believed that the means and ends frequently "exchanged places" as whendemocracy is sought by theworking class as an instrument to actualize socialism. He also viewed revolution to be deducible from thelaws of the development and primarily theclass struggle but this did not mean all means are permissible.[2] Fundamentally, Trotsky argued that ends "rejects" means which are incompatible with itself.[1] In other words,socialism cannot be furthered throughfraud,deceit orthe worship of leaders but through honesty and integrity as essential elements ofrevolutionary morality in dealing with the working masses.[1]
In the middle section of the essay, Trotsky argued that several differences existed between Stalinist morality andLeninism along his own actions.Trotsky argued that Stalin's objectives were not "the liberation of mankind" but its enslavement in a newtotalitarian form.[2] Specifically, he argued that Lenin had employed terror and violence during the most challenging period of the revolution, theRussian Civil War, whereas Stalin had renewed these severe methods as a normal method of government.[2]
Inversely, Trotsky would defend some of his wartime decisions such as enactinghostage-taking but argued that none of the relatives ofcommanders who did betray the army and contribute to additional human casualties, were themselves ever executed. He further maintained that had these draconian measures been adopted rather than “superfluous generosity” to opponents at the start of theOctober Revolution then Russia would have experienced far less casualties.[4] In parallel, Trotsky noted that this measure had been similarly utilized by members of theParis Commune andThe Spanish Republicans to counter initial acts of disproportionate violence conducted by their enemies.[5]
Trotsky demarcated Stalinism from the October Revolution in several areas:
"Stalinism in turn is not an abstraction of "dictatorship", but an immensebureaucratic reaction gains the proletarian dictatorship in a backward andisolated country. The October Revolution abolishedprivileges, waged war againstsocial inequality, replaced the bureaucracy with self-government of the toilers, abolished secret diplomacy, strove to render all social relationship completely transparent. Stalinism reestablished the most offensive forms of privileges, imbued inequality with a provocative character, strangled mass self-activity under police absolutism, transformed administration into a monopoly of the Kremlin oligarchy and regenerated the fetishism of power in forms that absolute monarchy dared not dream of".[6]
According to political scientist Knei-Paz, the final section of the essay examined the question of terrorism. In these final paragraphs, Trotsky reiterated the established Marxian attitude in which terror directed at "individual oppressors" is legitimate as an exercise of a mass working-class movement rather than individuals for the purpose of human liberation. Trotsky argued that this could not be subjected to judgements premised on moral absolutes which denounced any form of violence.[2]
The publication of the work provoked a number of written responses. American philosopher,John Dewey, was critical of his deductive approach and had written a reply shortly afterwards. Dewey accepted Trotsky's analysis of the relationship between Marxist ends and means along with the interdependence of these axioms which were formulated for the liberation of mankind as the ultimate end.[2] However, Dewey argued that Trotsky's line of thinking had exhibited alogical fallacy and he had been inconsistent in the application of his arguments.[2] Dewey also believed thatorthodox Marxism shared strong parallels with orthodox religions andidealism in the belief that human ends are interlaced with structure of existence. According to Deutscher, Trotsky believed that Dewey's arguments were a familiar restatement of disillusioned figures who eventually disavowed revolutionary politics and accepted the establishedstatus quo.[2] Later Marxist theoretician,George Novack would later issue a rebuttal to Dewey's criticisms with his essay,Liberal Morality, in 1965 published in theInternational Socialist Review.[7]
The book had also ignited personal controversy with his long-standing political associate, Victor Serge. Trotsky had incorrectly assumed that Serge had authorised anad hominem attack of him in a French translation of the work without verifying the facts with either Serge or the French publisher.[8] This was in part due to his growing isolation from political events in exile.[8] Serge would later write a manuscript in 1940 in which he characterised Trotsky as the "last great representative of a great historical event" from the revolutionary era but argued there was a "germ of an entire totalitarian mentality" which manifested in the increasing intolerance of other left-wing groups such asanarchists andsocialists among the Bolsheviks.[9] He also expressed the view that Trotsky did not sufficiently distinguish the nature and varied motives of criticisms directed at Bolshevik rule.[10] As an example, Serge compares unfavourably the opinions ofreactionary historians that merely invoked Kronstadt to discredit the concept of revolution with the legitimate concerns, in relation to personal freedoms, raised by anarchists that cited the same example of Kronstadt to defend the theme of revolution.[10] Serge was adamant that Trotsky still retained residues of this intolerant attitude on the matter of thePOUM government during theSpanish Civil War.[10] He also felt that Trotsky overlooked practical questions related to socialism as a goal and an action in his essays. Yet, Serge shared some agreement with Trotsky about the hypocritical nature of conventional morality in religious and intellectual circles and that class struggles rather than individual sentiments shaped the conditions of the civil war.[10] Serge's biographer, Susan Weissman had deemedTheir Morals and Ours as "Trotsky at his polemical best in this book, brandishing wit and colourful language" but stated that Trotsky had mistakenly criticised Serge and lumped him with other anti-Leninist and anti-Bolsheviks for which she argued reflected a wider ignorance of Serge's writings.[8]
.jpg)
