The Hungarian events fitted the general pattern of analysis of Stalinism. But in two important Trotsky's pre-war differed from the reality after the war.
*The first difference was that Trotsky had expected the Soviet bureaucracy to be overthrown during the war either by political revolution within the USSR or by a concerted imperialist drive to restore capitalism. In practice, the working class lacked the necessary organisation leadership, while the imperialists came out of the war divided, weakened incapable of challenging the Red Army in Europe, let alone the Soviet Union.
*In In Defence of Marxism, pointed to the means which he expected Stalin would be obliged to expropriating capitalism in Poland. He anticipated that use would be made of a controlled mobilisation of the working class.
"The appeal to independent activity on the part of the masses in the new territories and without appeal, even if worded with extreme caution, it is impossible to constitute a new regime will on the undoubtedly be suppressed by ruthless police measures in order to ensure the preponderance of the bureaucracy over the awakened revolutionary masses."
(Ibid pp18-19, emphasis added)
Czech Stalinists took power In 1948 "Prague Coup"
Trotsky's debates in the movement, respects
Unfortunately this analysis
Trotskyists in considerable effort and and
Trotsky had use in such an morrow rule.
While
Trotsky, was nationalisations place.
The mobilisations countries left open to shifting
In part
(Resolution
Congress 1951).
of Stalinism certainly much
"rightward"
that
This theme was reinforced in pre-war mass
Fourth
International
Stalinist and further information from
Finland and Poland was used to back it up.
Once aspect of Trotsky's analysis was one-sidedly taken up by some the post-war period, and was expended in
Vomen march through Petrograd in 1917 seeking evidence of the Stalinists utilising mass mobilisations to overturn capitalist
Czechoslovakian events were almost in line with the predictions made by few other situations fitted the theoretical mould. Far from resting in any way on mass mobilisations, the role of Stalinism in post-war eastern Europe was consistently to oppose and crush the mass mobilisations that did occur. It was only after the post-war revolutionary upsurge long finished that the main and expulsions if capitalist ministers from the coalitions took dogmatic search for ILLONS within the East European the Trotskyist movement serious confusion. The more "radical" face projected by the Tito leadership in Yugoslavia was superficially interpreted as a result of "mass pressure"
the bureuacracy in revolutionary direction, while Tito's rift with Stalin was seen in this light as an ideological break with Stalinist politics rather than a clash of material interests beween two rival bureaucracies.
this was due to _a nartow definition of Stalinism as
"The subordination of the interests of the workers in every country of the world those of the Soviet bureaucracy. of Yugoslavia, World
It is questionable whether this definition was adequate even in the monolithic Comintern before the war; but has been shown to be completely insufficient to deal with the more complex politics of the Stalinist movement since 1945.
While they were still able to spot the face of Stalinist reaction, many Trotskyists fell prey to the illusion movements could push "radical", bureaucracy left-talking sections of the itself to led movements for political revolution.
again these illusions ran up against the harsh facts of working class struggle, firstly in East Germany in 1953 and most graphically in Hungary 1956.