Harpal Brar, Trotskyism or Leninism (1993), 146-7.

Was Stalin against world revolution?

The most ignorant of the Trotskyites often assert that Stalin was a narrow nationalist, whereas Trotsky was an internationalist because Stalin wanted socialism in the USSR whereas Trotsky wanted socialism everywhere, a world revolution. If it were true that Stalin wanted a revolution in the USSR only, and nowhere else, then this Trotskyite accusation would have substance in it. The fact of the matter is that this accusation in a monstrous lie and only one of the many examples which demonstrate the depths to which Trotskyism has sunk in order to belittle one of the great leaders of the Bolshevik Party, Comrade Stalin. Anyone who has any respect for historical accuracy and cares to look at the documents concerning the controversy under discussion would find that there were no differences of opinion at all within the Party regarding the desirability and necessity of following a proletarian internationalist policy - the policy of rendering fraternal help to the proletarians of other countries engaged in decisive struggles. The Bolshevik party under the leadership of Stalin fully realised the importance of following, and did follow, a proletarian internationalist policy because it fully recognised that the true consolidation of socialism in the USSR could only take place after the victory of the proletariat in other countries. All revolutions and revolutionary struggles mutually support each other. Let us quote for the benefit of ignorant Trotskyites the well-known pronouncement on this subject by Comrade Stalin (the same Stalin whose name only has to be mentioned for Trotskyites and other reactionaries to foam at the mouth - though foaming at the mouth and showing signs of delirium are no answer to harsh facts):

“After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry after it the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build socialist society. But does that mean that in this way the proletariat will secure a complete and final victory for socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of a single country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention, which means against restoration? No, it does not. For this victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.” {Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, emphasis added).

So it is clear that there were no differences in principle in the CPSU(B) as to the need to follow an internationalist policy. There were, however, differences as to the content of this internationalist policy. Basing himself on his notorious theory of 'permanent revolution', according to which socialism could not be built in Russia without aid from a successful proletarian revolution in Europe, Trotsky did from time to time advocate adventurist policies in order to export socialist revolution into Europe. These policies of adventurism prompted by a lack of faith in the ability of the Russian working class and peasantry to build socialism unaided from abroad, were naturally and rightly rejected by the Party.

Therefore, there was no controversy as to whether the proletariat of the USSR should give fraternal assistance to the revolutionary struggles of the proletarians abroad. The controversy was: could the USSR build socialism without the assistance of a victorious proletariat of Europe. Stalin and the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik party answered this world-historic question in the affirmative.2 History has fully vindicated Comrade Stalin and the Bolshevik party, but of this we shall have more to say later on.