> SA wrote: "the belief that society should be turned into a
> concentration camp in the interests of historical development - that
> was their ideology"
>
> which suggests that 'SA' (which stands for what, anyway,
> 'Sturmabteilung'?)
Charming.
> is essentially untrustworthy as a correspondent. It is one thing to
> say that Lenin and Trotsky's beliefs could lead to the view that
> society should be turned into a concentration camp, or that they did
> turn society into a concetration camp, but to say that their *goal*
> was to turn society into a concentration camp is just substituting
> your own conclusions for their actual proposition. Lazy thinking makes
> communication difficult.
I was referring specifically to Trotsky's explicitly stated belief that socialism means the *permanent* and *universal* use of forced labor throughout the economy. Note especially the first and last lines of this excerpt:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch08.htm
> All this organization is at present only in the embryo stage. It is
> still very imperfect. But the course we have adopted is unquestionably
> the right one.
>
> If the organization of the new society can be reduced fundamentally to
> the reorganization of labor, the organization of labor signifies in
> its turn the correct introduction of general labor service. This
> problem is in no way met by measures of a purely departmental and
> administrative character. It touches the very foundations of economic
> life and the social structure. It finds itself in conflict with the
> most powerful psychological habits and prejudices. The introduction of
> compulsory labor service pre-supposes, on the one hand, a colossal
> work of education, and, on the other, the greatest possible care in
> the practical method adopted.
>
> The utilization of labor-power must be to the last degree economical.
> In our labor mobilizations we have to reckon with the economic and
> social conditions of every region, and with the requirements of the
> principal occupation of the local population – i.e., of agriculture.
> We have, if possible, to make use of the previous auxiliary
> occupations and part-time industries of the local population. We have
> to see that the transference of mobilized labor-power should take
> place over the shortest possible distances – i.e., to the nearest
> sectors of the labor front. We must see that the number of workers
> mobilized correspond to the breadth of our economic problem. We must
> see that the workers mobilized be supplied in good time with the
> necessary implements of production, and with food. We must see that at
> their head be placed experienced and business-like instructors. We
> must see that the workers mobilized become convinced on the spot that
> their labor-power is being made use of cautiously and economically and
> is not being expended haphazardly. Wherever it is possible, direct
> mobilization must be replaced by the labor task – i.e., by the
> imposition on the rural district of an obligation to supply, for
> example, in such a time such a number of cubic sazhens of wood, or to
> bring up by carting to such a station so many poods of cast-iron, etc.
> In this sphere, it is essential to study experience as it accumulates
> with particular care, to allow a great measure of elasticity to the
> economic apparatus, to show more attention to local interests and
> social peculiarities of tradition. In a word, we have to complete,
> ameliorate, perfect, the system, methods, and organs for the
> mobilization of labor-power. But at the same time it is necessary once
> for all to make clear to ourselves that the principle itself of
> compulsory labor service has just so radically and permanently
> replaced the principle of free hiring as the socialization of the
> means of production has replaced capitalist property.
As Mike Beggs added:
> He's actually pretty open about this in his autobiography too. The
> attitude to forced labour I think is especially repellent, because
> he's not really arguing that it's just an unfortunate necessity due to
> the struggle against the Whites. Of course it doesn't make his whole
> corpus useless, but surely it's at least a little embarrassing for
> Trotskyists.
> James is turning this into a false binary: question any particular
> action or attitude of revolutionaries and you're a pacifist. The fact
> that he felt the need to argue the point is proof that it was a live
> political issue and called into question by his comrades.
I'd add that the whole pamphlet by Trotsky was a response to Kautsky, who somehow managed to predict what would become of this emancipation-through-mass-terror-and-compulsion revolution. Who could have known?
SA