Trotsky and Trotskyism- How Trotskyism was integrated into the left of capital

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Internationalis...
Trotsky and Trotskyism- How Trotskyism was integrated into the left of capital
Printer-friendly version

                    A new book has been published!

                   Trotsky and Trotskyism

                   How Trotskyism was integrated into the left of capital

                                      Internationalist Voice

                   Homepage: www.internationalistvoice.org

                   Email: [email protected] 

The fundamental question that has arisen is how, from one of the main creators of the glorious October Revolution, from the famous orator of the Communist Revolution and from one of the heroes of the Civil War, a counter-revolutionary and anti-communist ideology called Trotskyism was formed. The bitter truth is that Trotsky himself was the original architect of Trotskyism, and integration of Trotskyism into the left of capital began during Trotsky’s lifetime and was completed irreversibly during World War II. It should be noted, however, that Trotsky died as a revolutionary, despite all the mistakes and confusion at the time of his death.

 Therefore, Trotsky and Trotskyism belong in two different camps. If Trotsky had not been assassinated, he might have distanced himself from Trotskyism. We have seen that Natalia Trotsky distanced herself from the Trotskyists and did not want to be known for the counter-revolutionary actions of the Trotskyists.

Trotsky, as chairman of the Petrograd Workers’ Councils, played a key role in councils in both 1905 and 1917. It is safe to say that after Lenin, Trotsky was the most important figure in the glorious October Revolution. Nevertheless, although Stalinism was the gravedigger of the October proletarian revolution, Trotsky was instrumental in implementation of the most brutal anti-labour policies, such as the militarization of labour, crushing of the Petrograd strike movement, the Kronstadt uprising, and so on, until he emerged as the opposition in 1923. For a long time, Trotsky was silent in the face of the counter-revolutionary rise, appeasement with power and Stalinism.

Referring to his successes in the Civil War, Trotsky stressed that these experiences could be used on the labour front as well, and that “militarization of labour” for the entire working class could be developed and applied to the reconstruction of Russia. Following the inefficiency of war communism, of which Trotsky was one of the main founders, Trotsky became a staunch supporter of the new economic policy (NEP). He played a major role in approving the ban on factionalism and was a key figure in approving the “United Front” tactic.

Trotsky could not understand the changes in capitalism and consequently could not understand the decline of capitalism. He failed to understand that the form of organization of the working class is determined not by the working class but by growth and development of capitalism. In the growing age of capitalism, trade unions were workers’ organizations, but as capitalism entered its age of decline, trade unions merged into the capitalist state.

Some of Trotsky’s supporters, including Mandel, have argued that Trotsky had a correct Marxist understanding of the transition period (dictatorship of the proletariat), socialism and communism. By referring to Trotsky himself, we have shown that the Trotskyists’ claim is not true and that Trotsky has been confused in this regard.

The Trotskyists claim that Trotsky was a serious critic of the anti-Marxist thesis of “socialism in one country” and fought against it throughout his life. But this is not true, and Trotsky not only has ambiguities in this regard but also occasionally loses his Marxist horizon and appears in the role of defender of “socialism in one country”.

We have shown that Trotsky abandoned the idea of ​​workers’ councils as a proletarian power, in favour of party dictatorship, and he strongly advocated substitutionism, that is, party dictatorship instead of working-class dictatorship. The fact is that party dictatorship is an unconscious privilege of parliamentarism.

During Lenin’s struggle against the dangers of the revolution, Trotsky did not stand by Lenin, and he remained silent and practically appeased the ruling power and Stalin. Trotsky not only obeyed Stalin but also promoted a culture of obedience and appeasement.

For Trotsky, nationalization was tantamount to socialization, so for him, the main task of socialism was not abolition of wage labour but expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It was in this context that, for Trotsky, private property in the hands of private capitalists was characteristic of capitalism, and state ownership was characteristic of socialism. Trotsky was unable to recognize that the bureaucracy he was talking about was a new ruling class with the means of production and, collectively, appropriation of the surplus value of exploitation of the working class. The resulting surplus value was to be divided among the members of the ruling class, the bureaucracy. The whole process was done collectively.

Trotsky saw the basis of Stalinism as the workers’ state. Trotsky considered the gravedigger of the October proletarian revolution, Stalinism, proletarian. The counter-revolutionary, who celebrated his victory over the ruins of the glorious October Revolution, became a stronghold of the counter-revolution and the greatest obstacle to advancement of proletarian positions.

For years, the main focus of the Trotskyist struggle was reform of the international communist, in other words, the struggle and attempts to resurrect the stinking corpse. But the aim of the Communist Left was not to revive the stinking corpse; rather, to form a faction, defend the proletarian and communist positions and fight against the Comintern, which had now become the centre of the counter-revolution.

Until 1934, there was some connection between Trotsky and Trotskyism with the Communist Left, but in that year, the rift and break were finalized. The Communist Left had come to the conclusion that following the merger of the Comintern with the capital camp in 1928, along with the temporary defeat of the proletariat and being defensive of the class struggle, a new party could not be formed on the basis of the proletariat agenda. Because party formation is not voluntary but the product of certain conditions of class struggle, in which existing organizations and groups are unable to meet the need for class struggle, the formation of a world party is going to be on the agenda. The Communist Left stated that what was needed was formation of communist factions, to defend proletarian positions and programmes so that they could form a new party when the conditions for a global class struggle demanded it.

If we look beyond some of the radical rhetoric from the Transitional Programme, the Fourth International Programme (the same minimum programme of the Social Democrats or the Stalinists) can be seen to emerge – the proposal of the National Assembly, the Constituent Assembly, national freedom, land reform, and so on. The transition programme states that workers must be equipped with a democratic programme as the first step. Why did the Bolsheviks, led by Trotsky himself, oppose the Constituent Assembly in Russia in 1917 and believe that all power should be in the hands of the Soviets? Trotsky’s transition programme reflects Trotsky’s departure from Marxism and his return to social democracy.

Trotsky called on the international proletariat to be cannon fodder in defence of the Soviet Union. For five years, the Trotskyists called on workers in all countries to massacre one another in the imperialist war, in World War II and in defence of the Soviet Union. The Trotskyists became good soldiers for bourgeois democracy and Stalinist counter-revolution and turned workers into cannon fodder in imperialist slaughter. As the Trotskyists became soldiers of the bourgeoisie during World War II, the Trotskyists were irreversibly integrated into the bourgeois camp.

The Trotskyists declared that the post-World War II era had changed the prospects of the labour movement; in other words, that the working class was no longer the material force of the social revolution. In the new age, colonial revolutions that would take the form of permanent revolutions would be part of the world revolution. In other words, the material force of the world revolution would not be the working class but the partisans of the colonial revolution.

In the age of imperialist decline, in the age of imperialism, all wars are reactionary; all wars are imperialist, and only social revolution is progressive. The fundamental question that arises is what was the position and orientation of the Trotskyists in the face of the imperialist wars? The Trotskyists, without exception, under the banners of “defending the revolution”, “defending democracy”, “fighting fascism”, “national liberation”, “liberation war” and “the right to self-determination”, etc., in all imperialist wars, have slaughtered workers, treated workers as cannon fodder and dragged the workers to imperialist slaughter.

Treating workers as cannon fodder in imperialist conflicts lies in the genetics of the Trotskyists, in their very DNA. There has never been an imperialist war in which the Trotskyists have not led the workers into imperialist slaughter. Workers’ blood drips from the hands of the Trotskyists.

Today, Trotskyism, after hundreds of splits, has collapsed into sects with conflicting beliefs and positions. These groups are the political apparatus of the left of capital. They are working, not for the emancipation of the working class, but for state capitalism.

Natalia Trotsky, Trotsky’s widow, was one of the Trotskyists who refused to join in with the reactionary and bourgeois actions of the Trotskyists and to be known or considered a Trotskyist in the continuation of Trotskyist counter-revolutionary policies. However, she failed to critique Trotskyism itself, the root cause of the Trotskyist counter-revolutionary positions.

The process of this study showed that the true heirs of communism – the Communist Left (although in absolute isolation and in the most difficult conditions and despite weaknesses and ambiguities in all social events) – were loyal to proletarian positions, presented proletarian horizons, tried to enrich Marxism and have become an important part of the historical memory of the proletariat. Therefore, the Communist Left will be the only possible alternative in the future world revolution.

Table of Contents:

  • Introduction
  • Trotsky and the Revolution of 1905
  • Trotsky in Zimmerwald
  • Trotsky and His Role in the October Revolution
  • Trotsky and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
  • Trotsky and the Treaty of Rapallo
  • Trotsky and the Civil War
  • Trotsky and War Communism
  • Trotsky and the New Economic Policy
  • Trotsky and the World Revolution
  • Trotsky and the Transition Period
  • Trotsky and the Thesis of Socialism in One Country
  • Trotsky and Substitutionism
  • Trotsky and the Decline of Capitalism
  • Lenin’s struggle Against Bureaucracy
  • Trotsky and Appeasement with Power
  • Trotsky and the Platform 46 People
  • Trotsky and the Communist Left
  • Trotsky and the Workers’ Opposition
  • Trotsky and the Kronstadt Tragedy
  • Trotsky and the United Front
  • Trotsky and the Last Resistance of the Opposition
  • The Break Between Trotsky and the Communist Left
  • Trotsky and the Nature of the Soviet Union
  • Trotsky and the Political Revolution
  • Trotsky and Entrism
  • Trotsky and the Rise of Nazism
  • Trotskyism and the Events in Spain
  • Trotsky and the Formation of the Fourth International
  • Trotskyism and the Transitional Program
  • Trotskyism and World War II
  • Trotskyism and the Concept of Imperialism
  • Trotskyism and the Material Force of the Socialist Revolution
  • Trotskyism and the Crisis in the Counter-Revolutionary Camp
  • Trotskyism and the Imperialist Wars
  • Trotskyism and the Trotskyists
  • Trotskyism in Iran
  • Summary and the Last Word

 

Internationalist Voice

February 2022

joan
 

 

Preliminary remark

This is a text written rather quickly,not thoroughly checked in all aspects, so it may contain errors.

The publication by Internationalist Voice of a book on Trotsky and Trotskyism is a very good thing, even if we perhaps do not fully agree with its contents.
I have not yet read the book, of course, and it is not clear to me how and where it can be obtained, whether it can be read online in full, etc.
I would like clarification on this from Internationalist Voice.

There was already the pamphlet on Trotskyism from the ICC section in France "Le trotskysme contre la classe ouvrière" https://fr.internationalism.org/brochures/trotskysme
(Unfortunately only in French and for a more or less large part mainly or only about groups in France (Therefore not less interesting, but still limited). I thought this brochure was also partly translated into English.
In addition, the ICC has published many "loose" articles in different languages about Trotsky and Trotskyism.(Note 1)

As I said, the publication of Internationalist Voice's book on Trotsky and Trotskyism is a very good thing.
This is because
1) Trotsky played an important positive role in the struggle of the working class
-chairman of the Saint-Petersburg/Petrograd Soviet in 1905 and in 1917,
-internationalist during WW 1,
-the joining of the Mezhraiontsy (interrayonists) to the Bolsheviks in 1917,
-winning soldiers for the uprising in 1917 by his speeches,
-chairman of the Revolutionary Military Committee in 1917,(Note 2)
2) he also showed very many weaknesses and made many mistakes

(both before and after the October revolution ) among others :
- not joining the Bolsheviks in 1903, but trying to play an (impossible) intermediate role somewhere between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks,
- advocate of the "militarisation of labour" (1920),
- the important role in crushing of the Kronstadt revolt (1921),
- later as leader of the Trotskyist movement ,
- the opportunistic organisation of the current (formation of groups in as many countries as possible as quickly as possible at the expense of the clarity of the program) culminating in the premature formation of a "4th International" in the midst of a counterrevolution (1938),
- his rejection of the Communist Left ("Italian Fraction")
- the at least very opportunistic positions in connection with the Italian-Ethiopian War (1935-1936), the Sino-Japanese War (started in 1937), the Popular Front in France (1936-1938) and the so called Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)
3) Trotskyism originally formed an opposition group to Stalinism, albeit very late, very confused and very weak (Note 2)
4) Trotskyism with all its different groups and factions is at present in different countries and on a world-wide scale probably the most important and the most dangerous enemy of the working class struggle, of the struggle for communism.
This is precisely because it was once an expression of the working class struggle, albeit very late, very confused and very weak.
This is in contrast to Maoism (never an expression of the working class struggle, but only a form of expression of an already existing bourgeois current, Stalinism) and anarchism (never a pure expression of the working class struggle, always so much encompassing, always confused, although it belonged to the 1st International (with Bakuninists as well as Proudhonists) and there were always anarchist groups defending proletarian,especially internationalist positions).

The danger of Trotskyism lies in its extreme ability to speak, depending on the circumstances, of parliament, bourgeois democracy and trade unionism or of workers' councils, of nationalism or of internationalism, etc.,etc.
Perhaps the very fragmentation of Trotskyism into dozens of groups (Note 3) makes it all the more dangerous because there will almost always be a Trotskyist group that is adapted to the given circumstances.
If one group is "burnt out" by, for example, too strong an engagement in elections for organs of the bourgeois state, another group with a more workers' council discourse can take over and thus (try to) keep the struggling working class in the bourgeois sheepfold.

I did not mention before an important, if not the most important, element of Trotskyism.
Namely, the defence of the "Soviet Union" as a "degenerate workers state", whose socio-economic basis would still be good, but which had to be "corrected" by a mere political revolution.

This position formed the basis of the later defence of other "workers states" (Warsaw Pact countries, China, Cuba, Vietnam,...) and also of the "friends of my friends"(sic) the bourgeois democracies (republics and monarchs ) during WW2 and the "anti-imperialist" allies of the "Soviet Union" (Egypt, Syria, etc., etc., and all kinds of parties, militias, etc., etc.).

Note 1
There is a very useful text from the ICC in which the positions of left communism are contrasted, point by point, with those of Trotskyism (nature of the “Soviet Union”,parliament, trade union, national liberation, anti-fascism, etc.).Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find this text.
Probably there are comrades with a better memory or better search-qualities. :)

Note 2

It is questionable whether the creation and leadership of the "Red Army" was a good thing.
Note 3
"Trotskyism" in the "Soviet Union" was at one time and for a short time (?)much more than Trotsky and the "real" Trotskyists (faithful of Trotsky).If I am correct Sapronov, Ossinsky and Vladimir Smirnov also belonged to "Trotskyism" at one time.
Note 4
On Wikipedia there is a list of as many as 32 (!!!) Trotskyist still more or less active "Internationales".

Some well-known, with sections in many states (4th International (tendency Mandel)),ISA,IMT,IST,...),others totally unknown (to me).

 

Draba
joan wrote:

joan wrote:

Even if we perhaps do not fully agree with its contents.

Joan Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, the book is not currently available online in English but will be available online in English in the future.

Unfortunately, I do not understand what you mean by "we". So may I ask who are "we"? Thanks in advance.

joan
1) Thank you Draba for your

1) Thank you Draba for your quick and clear answer.

I understand that for now the book exists only in Farsi (on line and/or on paper).

 

2) Apologies for the confusion I caused by my “slip of the pen” and the use of the “pluralis majestatis”.

I do not represent any group, only myself.

It should have read "Even if I perhaps do not fully agree with its contents."

 

3) I think it is useful to discuss and try to reach as much agreement as possible about Trotskyism and how to counter it.

About the "distant" past (1903,1905,1917,1920-21,1936-37,1938,1940… But also about today with Ukraine, with Kazakhstan, with partial struggles and identity politics, etc.

 

 I would like to call all comrades as has already been said on other threads of this Discussion Forum :

"Feel free to add your comments !"

So Please also contributions about the content.

joan
The war in Ukraine and Trotskyism

Since its passage into the bourgeois camp, Trotskyism has never missed an opportunity to attack the consciousness of the working class by pushing proletarians to take the side of one imperialist camp against another during the conflicts that have followed one another since the Second World War. Their position in the face of the military chaos in Ukraine confirms this once again. These watchdogs of capitalism oscillate between openly warmongering positions, calling for support for one of the warring camps, and others, apparently more “subtle” and “radical”, but still justifying the continuation of barbaric militarism. The lies and mystifications of Trotskyism are a real poison for the working class, intended to disorientate it by posing as a form of Marxism!” (set in bold by me)

How right those words are!
It is the beginning of a rather short, but very clear article in the ICC press,
"Trotskyism: beating the drums of imperialist war "World Revolution 392 - Spring 2022
Submitted by ICConline on 14 April, 2022 - 11:39
 https://en.internationalism.org/content/17171/trotskyism-beating-drums-i...

(Note 1)

Very good is the exposure, in their own words, of the "internationalism" and "revolutionary defeatism" of the Trotskyists.(Note 2)

Also very useful is to once again go against the so-called "right of self-determination of peoples"(for anyone (Ukraine,people of Donbass, etc.).

The article speaks of "a weakness in Lenin's position on imperialism" (in relation to the position of Rosa Luxemburg) and clearly states

"the error of the Bolsheviks and the Communist International, who lived directly through the transition from the ascendant period of capitalism to its decadent one, without having drawn all the implications, is understandable. But, after a century of wars of aggression by any country against any other (Iraq against Kuwait, Iran against Iraq, etc.), to peddle the same position is pure mystification!"

 

Given that "the lies and mystifications of Trotskyism" "a real poison for the working class, intended to disorientate it by posing as a form of Marxism" are not limited to one country or only a few countries, the article deserves to be translated into even more languages.

(This optionally with reference to the associates of the NAP (member "4th International",tendency Mandel),LO (member and probably most influential group of the "Internationalist Communist Union",etc.) in other states).

 

 

Note 1

It dates back (originally) to 27 March 2022 and appeared earlier in French (hence the French examples (NAP and LO)), but it had slipped my attention.

"Le Trotskyism, grand rabatteur de l'impérialisme, recruteur de chair à canon" ("The Trotskyism, the great beater of imperialism, recruiter of cannon fodder")

 Révolution internationale n°493 - avril juin 2022

https://fr.internationalism.org/content/10741/trotskisme-grand-rabatteur...

The article is also included in the "Dossier spécial "Guerre en Ukraine"".

Note 2

I know that there are differences of opinion about the appropriateness of "revolutionary defeatism" in the current war or the current period.

I hope to deal with that later, in this or another thread.

 

 

This contribution is posted both in

Russia-Ukraine crisis: war is capitalism's way of life” and in

Trotsky and Trotskyism - How Trotskyism was integrated into the Left of Capital”

 

d-man
I also look forward to when

I also look forward to when this will appear in English.

joan wrote:
Trotskyism" in the "Soviet Union" was at one time and for a short time (?)much more than Trotsky and the "real" Trotskyists (faithful of Trotsky).If I am correct Sapronov, Ossinsky and Vladimir Smirnov also belonged to "Trotskyism" at one time.

No, they were known distinctly as "Decists" already early on. Later Smirnov (one of their leaders) even strongly criticised Trotskyism, whereas Dashkovsky (another Decist) was less hostile to working with Trotskyists. Translations of some of the Decist writings are online, listed at the top here. Also scroll down for Dashkovsky's defense of Trotsky, written in the 1960s (he survived the purges, and as a kind of time-capsule he preserved the old Trotskyism by himself, obviously not being in contact with the Trotskyism after Trotsky outside the SU).

joan wrote:
he also showed very many weaknesses and made many mistakes (both before and after the October revolution ) among others :...
- advocate of the "militarisation of labour" (1920)

Well, I somewhat came to understand Trotsky reasoning for that, when I saw the following excerpt (source; Trotsky):

Trotsky wrote:
on January 25, 1920 on the subject of the labour armies, Trotsky said: ‘This experiment is of the most vital moral and material importance. We cannot mobilise the peasants by means of trade unions, and the trade unions themselves do not possess any means of laying hold of millions of peasants. They can best be mobilised on a military footing. Their labour formations will have to be organised on a military model – labour platoons, labour companies, labour battalions, disciplined as required, for we shall have to deal with masses which have not passed through trade union training.’

So it seems it was a policy specifically due to the circumstance of a country with a large percentage of peasants (and maybe not even to expand industrialization, but merely to fill the emptied/lost proletarians in the previously existing industry).

joan
"militarisation of labour"

D-man wrote :

joan wrote: 

he also showed very many weaknesses and made many mistakes (both before and after the October revolution ) among others :...
- advocate of the "militarisation of labour" (1920)

Well, I somewhat came to understand Trotsky reasoning for that, when I saw the following excerpt (source; Trotsky):

Trotsky wrote: 

on January 25, 1920 on the subject of the labour armies, Trotsky said: ‘This experiment is of the most vital moral and material importance. We cannot mobilise the peasants by means of trade unions, and the trade unions themselves do not possess any means of laying hold of millions of peasants. They can best be mobilised on a military footing. Their labour formations will have to be organised on a military model – labour platoons, labour companies, labour battalions, disciplined as required, for we shall have to deal with masses which have not passed through trade union training.’

So it seems it was a policy specifically due to the circumstance of a country with a large percentage of peasants (and maybe not even to expand industrialization, but merely to fill the emptied/lost proletarians in the previously existing industry).”

Thank you for the clarification.
This fact, that the "militarisation of labour" was mainly or exclusively intended to mobilise peasants to replace the lost workers in industry is new to me.
I thought until now, and I understood it from all the reading, that the "militarisation of labour" was intended to militarise the working class, to degrade it to mere "soldiers of labour", without any rights except the "right to work" under the slogan "Shut up and work". And in this sense related to or a foreshadowing of the very repressive attitude of Trotsky and the Bolshevik regime (is not identical to all Bolsheviks) towards the workers' strikes of 1920 and 1921 in Petrograd and Moscow.
I have not yet read Trotsky's text referred to as "The Labour Armies The Transition to Universal Labour Service In Connection with the Militia System", December 1919.
Some quick reflections.
1) By "peasants" do we mean "real peasants", i.e. those who run their farm alone, with their family, or possibly with the help of personnel?
Or also farm workers ?
Farm workers often aspire to become farmers themselves, i.e. to own their own farm, but this does not alter the fact that as farm workers they are an integral part of the working class.
Often, far too often, almost all non-urban dwellers are turned into farmers, while non-urban inhabitants belong to different classes and layers just as much as urban inhabitants.
(Both in the city and outside the city the inhabitants of one and the same house can even belong to different classes or strata, such as the fact that in the 19th century nobles and higher bourgeoisie (= ruling class) lived together with their butlers, chambermaids , kitchen staff, gardeners, etc., in the same house. (All these household-the the , garden- and kitchen workers also belonged to the working class (even though they were not in the same situation as workers in the fields or factories and often felt different or better than other workers). ))

2) Workers and peasants are often mentioned in the same breath, as if these two classes have completely or largely the same interests.
E.g. also in the expression "workers' and peasants' republic" as a designation of the so-called "German Democratic Republic" (East Germany)

3) One can consider the "militarisation of labour" as a form of violence, and if it concerned the peasants, it was therefore not a violence of the soviet regime (at least in name still a "dictatorship of the proletariat") against the workers, not violence inside the working' class.And although working-class violence against other non-exploiting classes or strata (such as peasants without staff ) must be as limited as possible, it is not always avoidable and not always condemnable.

4) Trade unions : The mention of trade unions by Trotsky shows that he still considers them as organs of the working class, in contrast to the KAPD and other parts of the "German-Dutch Left" in the same period.
Trotsky shared this point of view with the majority of the Bolsheviks
(if not all Bolsheviks) probably also and especially because the trade unions had hardly been able to show their negative influence before the decadence phase of world capitalism began.
As a result, the fundamental difference between trade unions and workers' council-type organisations was not always so clear.
Both were usually illegal as well.
All this also in contrast to countries like the UK, Germany, Belgium and others.
It would be good if I would reread the trade union discussion in the bolshevik party.

5)Didn't the fact that one had to mobilise the peasants to replace the absent workers (Note 2) mean that the land was not or less cultivated and that this in turn created food shortages, that one solved (or tried to solve) one problem (shortage of labour in industry) by creating other problems?

6) The fact that Russia was a country with a large percentage of peasants and that this was a problem was yet another indication of the fact that a proletarian revolution must happen on a world scale or it does not happen.
(Theoretically, Trotsky was also convinced of the latter).
Because in many other countries the peasants did not form a large percentage of the population, it should not have been a problem on a world scale.

Note 1
At most, peasants without staff exploit themselves and/or their own families, but that is a separate category of exploitation.
Note 2
What exactly do you mean, d-man, by "emptied" proletarians ?

 

d-man
joan wrote: I thought until

joan wrote:
I thought until now, and I understood it from all the reading, that the "militarisation of labour" was intended to militarise the working class, to degrade it to mere "soldiers of labour", without any rights except the "right to work" under the slogan "Shut up and work". And in this sense related to or a foreshadowing of the very repressive attitude of Trotsky and the Bolshevik regime

I don't exclude the possibility that you can find something to support your assumption, and maybe it turns out we're talking about two different things even. The understanding that I have, is that it was the particular problem of demobilisation of the Red Army (as we discussed on the Kronstadt thread), transition the soldiers into civil work, but still retaining the ability to call them back into the army any moment (as the civil war possibly had not yet finished), which occupied Trotsky (and btw, one perhaps best doesn't ascribe this solution to him alone, – if I recall Stalinists like to bash Trotsky over this).

There is nothing of violence by itself in this as far as I can see. Well, perhaps except if you consider the principle of army conscription itself bad already.

joan wrote:
Trade unions : The mention of trade unions by Trotsky shows that he still considers them as organs of the working class,

The problem was placing the peasants at work (see again the Kronstadt thread, which is probably better to continue this there, if so inclined). The task trade unions here are considered incapable of fulfuling, is not the defending of wages (their normal task), but directing people (in this case mostly peasants) to jobs. The latter function (of directing people to work) is a responsibility which occurs in bourgeois society by agencies other than trade unions I think. If you want to say Bolsheviks had illusions in trade unions in this context, it would rather have been that trade unions could be entrusted with functions beyond their original function (effectively transforming them into something else, but then the objection seems to be not about trade unions as such, but about the function of the newly transformed organisation).