In The 74th Anniversary Year Of The Assassination Of Great Russian Revolutionary Leon Trotsky A Tribute- DEFEATED, BUT UNBOWED-THE WRITINGS OF LEON TROTSKY, 1929-1940
BOOK REVIEW
If you are interested in the history of the International Left in the first half of the 20th century or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. I have reviewed elsewhere Trotsky’s writings published under the title The Left Opposition, 1923-1929 (in three volumes) dealing with Trotsky’s internal political struggles for power inside the Russian Communist Party (and by extension, the political struggles inside the Communist International) in order to save the Russian Revolution. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes in English of his writings from his various points of external exile from 1929 up until his death in 1940. These volumes were published by the organization that James P. Cannon, early American Communist Party and later Trotskyist leader founded, the Socialist Workers Party, during the 1970’s and 1980’s. (Cannon’s writings in support of Trotsky’s work are reviewed elsewhere in this space). Look in the archives in this space for other related reviews on and by this important world communist leader.
To set the framework for these reviews I will give a little personal, political and organizational sketch of the period under discussion. After that I will highlight some of the writings from each volume that are of continuing interest. Reviewing such compilations is a little hard to get a handle on as compared to single subject volumes of Trotsky’s writing but, hopefully, they will give the reader a sense of the range of this important revolutionary’s writings.
After the political defeat of the various Trotsky-led Left Oppositions 1923 to 1929 by Stalin and his state and party bureaucracy he nevertheless found it far too dangerous to keep Trotsky in Moscow. He therefore had Trotsky placed in internal exile at Ata Alma in the Soviet Far East in 1928. Even that turned out to be too much for Stalin’s tastes and in 1929 he arranged for the external exile of Trotsky to Turkey. Although Stalin probably rued the day that he did it this exile was the first of a number of places which Trotsky found himself in external exile. Other places included, France, Norway and, finally, Mexico where he was assassinated by a Stalinist agent in 1940. As these volumes, and many others from this period attest to, Trotsky continued to write on behalf of a revolutionary perspective. Damn, did he write. Some, including a few of his biographers, have argued that he should have given up the struggle, retired to who knows where, and acted the role of proper bourgeois writer or professor. Please! These volumes scream out against such a fate, despite the long odds against him and his efforts on behalf of international socialist revolution. Remember this is a revolutionary who had been through more exiles and prisons than one can count easily, held various positions of power and authority in the Soviet state and given the vicissitudes of his life could reasonably expect to return to power with a new revolutionary upsurge. Personally, I think Trotsky liked and was driven harder by the long odds.
The political prospects for socialist revolution in the period under discussion are, to say the least, rather bleak, or ultimately turned out that way. The post-World War I revolutionary upsurge has dissipated leaving Soviet Russia isolated. Various other promising revolutionary situations, most notably the aborted German revolution of 1923 that would have gone a long way to saving the Russian Revolution, had come to naught. In the period under discussion there is a real sense of defensiveness about the prospects for revolutionary change. The specter of fascism loomed heavily and we know at what cost to the international working class. The capitulation to fascism by the German Communist and Social Democratic Parties in 1933, the defeat of the heroic Austrian working class in 1934, the defeat in Spain in 1939, and the outlines of the impending Second World War colored all political prospects, not the least Trotsky’s.
Organizationally, Trotsky developed two tactical orientations. The first was a continuation of the policy of the Left Opposition during the 1920’s. The International Left Opposition as it cohered in 1930 still acted as an external and unjustly expelled faction of the official Communist parties and of the Communist International and oriented itself to winning militants from those organizations. After the debacle in Germany in 1933 a call for new national parties and a new, fourth, international became the organizational focus. Many of the volumes here contain letters, circulars, and manifestos around these orientations. The daunting struggle to create an international cadre and to gain some sort of mass base animate many of the writings collected in this series. Many of these pieces show Trotsky’s unbending determination to make a breakthrough. That these effort were, ultimately, militarily defeated during the course of World War Two does not take away from the grandeur of the efforts. Hats off to Leon Trotsky.
*********
BOOK REVIEW
If you are interested in the history of the International Left in the first half of the 20th century or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. I have reviewed elsewhere Trotsky’s writings published under the title The Left Opposition, 1923-1929 (in three volumes) dealing with Trotsky’s internal political struggles for power inside the Russian Communist Party (and by extension, the political struggles inside the Communist International) in order to save the Russian Revolution. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes in English of his writings from his various points of external exile from 1929 up until his death in 1940. These volumes were published by the organization that James P. Cannon, early American Communist Party and later Trotskyist leader founded, the Socialist Workers Party, during the 1970’s and 1980’s. (Cannon’s writings in support of Trotsky’s work are reviewed elsewhere in this space). Look in the archives in this space for other related reviews on and by this important world communist leader.
To set the framework for these reviews I will give a little personal, political and organizational sketch of the period under discussion. After that I will highlight some of the writings from each volume that are of continuing interest. Reviewing such compilations is a little hard to get a handle on as compared to single subject volumes of Trotsky’s writing but, hopefully, they will give the reader a sense of the range of this important revolutionary’s writings.
After the political defeat of the various Trotsky-led Left Oppositions 1923 to 1929 by Stalin and his state and party bureaucracy he nevertheless found it far too dangerous to keep Trotsky in Moscow. He therefore had Trotsky placed in internal exile at Ata Alma in the Soviet Far East in 1928. Even that turned out to be too much for Stalin’s tastes and in 1929 he arranged for the external exile of Trotsky to Turkey. Although Stalin probably rued the day that he did it this exile was the first of a number of places which Trotsky found himself in external exile. Other places included, France, Norway and, finally, Mexico where he was assassinated by a Stalinist agent in 1940. As these volumes, and many others from this period attest to, Trotsky continued to write on behalf of a revolutionary perspective. Damn, did he write. Some, including a few of his biographers, have argued that he should have given up the struggle, retired to who knows where, and acted the role of proper bourgeois writer or professor. Please! These volumes scream out against such a fate, despite the long odds against him and his efforts on behalf of international socialist revolution. Remember this is a revolutionary who had been through more exiles and prisons than one can count easily, held various positions of power and authority in the Soviet state and given the vicissitudes of his life could reasonably expect to return to power with a new revolutionary upsurge. Personally, I think Trotsky liked and was driven harder by the long odds.
The political prospects for socialist revolution in the period under discussion are, to say the least, rather bleak, or ultimately turned out that way. The post-World War I revolutionary upsurge has dissipated leaving Soviet Russia isolated. Various other promising revolutionary situations, most notably the aborted German revolution of 1923 that would have gone a long way to saving the Russian Revolution, had come to naught. In the period under discussion there is a real sense of defensiveness about the prospects for revolutionary change. The specter of fascism loomed heavily and we know at what cost to the international working class. The capitulation to fascism by the German Communist and Social Democratic Parties in 1933, the defeat of the heroic Austrian working class in 1934, the defeat in Spain in 1939, and the outlines of the impending Second World War colored all political prospects, not the least Trotsky’s.
Organizationally, Trotsky developed two tactical orientations. The first was a continuation of the policy of the Left Opposition during the 1920’s. The International Left Opposition as it cohered in 1930 still acted as an external and unjustly expelled faction of the official Communist parties and of the Communist International and oriented itself to winning militants from those organizations. After the debacle in Germany in 1933 a call for new national parties and a new, fourth, international became the organizational focus. Many of the volumes here contain letters, circulars, and manifestos around these orientations. The daunting struggle to create an international cadre and to gain some sort of mass base animate many of the writings collected in this series. Many of these pieces show Trotsky’s unbending determination to make a breakthrough. That these effort were, ultimately, militarily defeated during the course of World War Two does not take away from the grandeur of the efforts. Hats off to Leon Trotsky.
*********
In Honor Of Leon Trotsky On The 74th Anniversary
Of His Death- To Those Born After-Ivan Smirnov’s Journey
From The Pen Of Frank Jackman
Ivan Smirnov came out of old Odessa town, came out of the
Ukraine (not just plain Ukraine like now but “the” then), the good black earth
breadbasket of Russian Empire, well before the turn of the 20th
century (having started life on some Mister’s farm begotten by illiterate
peasant parents who were not sure whether it was 1880 or 1881) although he was
strictly a 20th century man by habits and inclinations. Those habits
included a love of reading, a love of the hard-pressed peoples facing the
jack-boot (like his parents) under the Czar’s vicious rule, an abiding hatred
for that same Czar, a hunger to see the world or to see something more than
wheat fields, and a love of politics, what little expression that love could
take.
Of course Ivan Smirnov, a giant of a man, well over six
feet, well-build with the Russian dark eyes and hair to match, when he came of
age also loved good food when he had the money for such luxuries, loved to
drink shots of straight vodka in competition with his pals, and loved women,
and women loved him. It is those appetites in need of whetting that consumed
his young manhood, his time in Odessa before he signed on to the Czar’s navy to
see the world, or at least brush the
dust of Odessa off his shoes as the old saying went. Those loves trumped for a
time his people love, his love of liberty but as we follow Ivan on his travels
we will come to collide more and more with those larger loves.
So as we pick up the Ivan Smirnov story he was no kid, had
been around the block a few times. Had taken his knocks on the land of his
parents (really Mister’s land once the taxes, rents, and dues were taken out)
when he tried to organize, well, not really organize but just put a petition to
Mister which was rejected out of hand and which forced him off the land. Forced
him off under threat to his life. He never forgot that slight, never. Never
forgot it was Mister and his kind that took him away from home, split his
family up. So off he went to the city, and from there to the Black Sea Fleet
and adventure, or rather tedium mixed with adventure and plenty of time to
read. He also learned up close the why and wherefores of modern warfare, modern
naval warfare. Knew too that come some minor confrontation the Czar’s navy was
cooked. As things worked out Ivan had been
in the Russian fleet that got its ass kicked by the Japanese in 1904 (he never
called them “Nips” like lots of his crewmates did not after that beating they
took that did not have to happen if the damn Czar’s naval officers had been
anything but lackeys and anything but overconfident that they could beat the
Johnny-come-lately Japanese in the naval war game). And so Ivan came of war age
and political age all at once.
More importantly he had transferred into in the Baltic fleet
when the revolution of 1905 came thundering over their heads and each man, each
sailor, each officer had to choice sides. He had gone with rebels and while he
did not face the fate of his comrades on the Potemkin his naval career was over. That was where his love of
reading from an early age came in, came and made him aware of the boiling
kettle of political groupings trying to save Russia or to save what some class
or part of a class had an interest in. He knew, knew from his dismal experience
on the land, that Mister fully intended to keep what was his come hell or high
water. He also knew that Mister’s people, the peasantry like his family would
have a very hard time, a very hard time indeed bucking Mister’s interests and
proclaiming their own right to the land all by themselves. Hadn’t he also been
burned, been hunted over a simple petition. So he from the first dismissed the
Social Revolutionary factions and gave some thought to joining the Social
Democrats. Of course being Russians who would argue over anything from how many
angels could fit on the head of a needle to theories of capitalist surplus
value the party organization had split into two factions (maybe more when the
dust settled). When word came back from Europe he had sided with the Mensheviks
and their more realistic approach to what was possible for Russia in the early
20th century. That basic idea of a bourgeois democratic republic was
the central notion that Ivan Smirnov held for a while, a long while and which
he took in with him once things got hot in Saint Petersburg in January of
1905.
That January after the Czar’s troops, his elite bloody
Cossack troops in the lead, fired on (and sabre-slashed) an unarmed procession
led by a priest, damn a Russian Orthodox priest, a people’s priest who led the
icon-filled procession to petition the Czar to resolve grievances great and
small Ivan Smirnov, stationed out in the Baltic Fleet then after the
reorganization of the navy in the wake of the defeat by the Japanese the year
before had an intellectual crisis. He knew that great things were going to
unfold in Russia as it moved into the modern age. He could see the modern age
tied to the ancient agrarian
age every time he had leave and headed for Saint Petersburg with its sailors’
delights of which Ivan usually took his full measure. He could see in the city
within a city, the Vyborg district, the growing working-class district made up
of fresh recruits from the farms looking for higher wages, some excitement and
a future. That was why he had discarded the Social Revolutionaries so quickly
when in an earlier generation he might very well have been a member of People’s
Will or some such organization. No his intellectual crisis did not come from
that quarter but rather that split in the workers’ party which had happened in
1903 far from Russia among the émigré intellectuals around who was a party
member. He had sided with the “softs,” the Mensheviks, mainly because he liked
their leader, Julius Martov, better than Lenin. Lenin and his faction
seemed more intent on gaining organizational control, had more hair-splitters
which he hated, and were more [CL1] wary of the peasants
even though both factions swore faith in the democratic republic for Russia and
to the international social democracy. He had sided with the “softs” although
he saw a certain toughness in the Bolshevik cadre that he admired. But that
year, that 1905 year, had started him on a very long search for revolutionary
direction.
The year 1905 started filled with promise after that first
blast from the Czarist reaction. The masses were able to gather in a Duma that
was at least half responsible to the people, or to the people’s representatives.
At least that is what those people’s representatives claimed. More importantly in
the working class districts, and among his fellow sailors who more likely than
not, unlike himself, were from some strata of the working class had decided to set
up their own representative organs, the workers’ councils, or in the Russian parlance
which has come down in the history books
the soviets. These in 1905, unlike in 1917, were seen as supplementary to other
political organizations. As the arc of the year curved though there were signs
that the Czarist reaction was gathering steam. Ivan had trouble organizing his
fellow sailors to action. The officers of his ship, The Falcon, were challenging more decisions. The Potemkin affair brought things to a head
in the fleets. Finally, after the successes of the Saint Petersburg Soviet under
the flaming revolutionary Leon Trotsky that organ was suppressed and the
reaction set in that would last until many years later, many tough years for
political oppositionists of all stripes. Needless to say that while Ivan was
spared the bulk of the reprisals once the Czarist forces regained control his
career in the navy was effectively finished and when his enlistment was up he
left the service.