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
LEON TROTSKY AND THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, PART I
BOOK REVIEW
THE CHALLENGE OF THE LEFT OPPOSITION (1923-25), LEON TROTSKY, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1975
If you are interested in the history of the International Left 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. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes in English of the writings of Leon Trotsky, Russian Bolshevik leader, from the start in 1923 of the Left Opposition in the Russian Communist Party that he led through his various exiles up until his assassination by a Stalinist agent in 1940. These volumes were published by the organization that James P. Cannon, early American Trotskyist leader founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the 1970’s and 1980’s. (Cannon’s writings in support of Trotsky’s work are reviewed elsewhere in this space) Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by this important world communist leader.
Since the volumes in the series cover a long period of time and contain some material that , while of interest, is either historically dated or more fully developed in Trotsky’s other separately published major writings I am going to organize this series of reviews in this way. By way of introduction I will give a brief summary of the events of the time period of each volume. Then I will review what I believe is the central document of each volume. The reader can then decide for him or herself whether my choice was informative or not.
Although there were earlier signs that the Russia revolution was going off course the long illness and death of Lenin in 1924, at the time the only truly authoritative leader the Bolshevik party, set off a power struggle in the leadership of the party. This fight had Trotsky and the ‘pretty boy’ intellectuals of the party on one side and Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev (the so-called triumvirate).backed by the ‘gray boys’ of the emerging bureaucracy on the other. This struggle occurred against the backdrop of the failed revolution in Germany in 1923 and which thereafter heralded the continued isolation, imperialist blockade and economic backwardness of the Soviet Union for the foreseeable future.
While the disputes in the Russian party eventually had international ramifications in the Communist International, they were at this time fought out almost solely with the Russian Party. Trotsky was slow, very slow to take up the battle for power that had become obvious to many elements in the party. He made many mistakes and granted too many concessions to the trio. But he did fight. Although later (in 1935) Trotsky recognized that the 1923 fight represented a fight against the Russian Thermidor (from an analogy with the period of the French Revolution where the radical regime of Robespierre and Saint Just was overthrown by more moderate Jacobins) and thus a decisive turning point for the revolution that was not clear to him (or anyone else on either side) then. Whatever the appropriate analogy might have been Leon Trotsky was in fact fighting a last ditch effort to retard the further degeneration of the revolution. After that defeat, the way the Soviet Union was ruled, who ruled and for what purposes all changed. And not for the better.
The most important document in this volume is clearly and definitely Trotsky’s Lessons of October. Although there are a couple of other documents of interest- The New Course, his program to try to bring the agrarian and the industrial crisis into focus-and The Problems of Civil War- Trotsky’s contribution to the so-called “literary discussion” in the party far outdistances those documents in importance. When this document hit the press there was definitely gnashing of teeth by the ruling trio in the Kremlin- Why? Lessons of October is essentially a polemic against fainted-hearted, opportunist failure to appreciate both the rarity of a revolutionary moment and the necessity to have a sharp combat- tested organization to take advantage of that situation. Moreover, this polemic was a direct attack on Zinoviev and Kamenev for their position against insurrection at the time of revolution and on Stalin’s March, 1917 call for political support to the bourgeois Provisional Government.
George Bernard Shaw once called Trotsky the “Prince of Pamphleteers” and he certainly earns that title in Lessons of October. Alas, those who write the best polemics do not necessarily win the power. Those 200,000 plus politically immature or careerist new party members beholding to the increasingly Stalinist bureaucracy drafted under the “Lenin Levy” saw the writing on the wall differently. That was decisive. Nevertheless, Lessons of October is not just any political document- it is an essential document for the education of today’s militants. It bears reading, re-reading, and reading again. I know I always get something new out of it each time I read it.
*******
LEON TROTSKY AND THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, PART I
BOOK REVIEW
THE CHALLENGE OF THE LEFT OPPOSITION (1923-25), LEON TROTSKY, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1975
If you are interested in the history of the International Left 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. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes in English of the writings of Leon Trotsky, Russian Bolshevik leader, from the start in 1923 of the Left Opposition in the Russian Communist Party that he led through his various exiles up until his assassination by a Stalinist agent in 1940. These volumes were published by the organization that James P. Cannon, early American Trotskyist leader founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the 1970’s and 1980’s. (Cannon’s writings in support of Trotsky’s work are reviewed elsewhere in this space) Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by this important world communist leader.
Since the volumes in the series cover a long period of time and contain some material that , while of interest, is either historically dated or more fully developed in Trotsky’s other separately published major writings I am going to organize this series of reviews in this way. By way of introduction I will give a brief summary of the events of the time period of each volume. Then I will review what I believe is the central document of each volume. The reader can then decide for him or herself whether my choice was informative or not.
Although there were earlier signs that the Russia revolution was going off course the long illness and death of Lenin in 1924, at the time the only truly authoritative leader the Bolshevik party, set off a power struggle in the leadership of the party. This fight had Trotsky and the ‘pretty boy’ intellectuals of the party on one side and Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev (the so-called triumvirate).backed by the ‘gray boys’ of the emerging bureaucracy on the other. This struggle occurred against the backdrop of the failed revolution in Germany in 1923 and which thereafter heralded the continued isolation, imperialist blockade and economic backwardness of the Soviet Union for the foreseeable future.
While the disputes in the Russian party eventually had international ramifications in the Communist International, they were at this time fought out almost solely with the Russian Party. Trotsky was slow, very slow to take up the battle for power that had become obvious to many elements in the party. He made many mistakes and granted too many concessions to the trio. But he did fight. Although later (in 1935) Trotsky recognized that the 1923 fight represented a fight against the Russian Thermidor (from an analogy with the period of the French Revolution where the radical regime of Robespierre and Saint Just was overthrown by more moderate Jacobins) and thus a decisive turning point for the revolution that was not clear to him (or anyone else on either side) then. Whatever the appropriate analogy might have been Leon Trotsky was in fact fighting a last ditch effort to retard the further degeneration of the revolution. After that defeat, the way the Soviet Union was ruled, who ruled and for what purposes all changed. And not for the better.
The most important document in this volume is clearly and definitely Trotsky’s Lessons of October. Although there are a couple of other documents of interest- The New Course, his program to try to bring the agrarian and the industrial crisis into focus-and The Problems of Civil War- Trotsky’s contribution to the so-called “literary discussion” in the party far outdistances those documents in importance. When this document hit the press there was definitely gnashing of teeth by the ruling trio in the Kremlin- Why? Lessons of October is essentially a polemic against fainted-hearted, opportunist failure to appreciate both the rarity of a revolutionary moment and the necessity to have a sharp combat- tested organization to take advantage of that situation. Moreover, this polemic was a direct attack on Zinoviev and Kamenev for their position against insurrection at the time of revolution and on Stalin’s March, 1917 call for political support to the bourgeois Provisional Government.
George Bernard Shaw once called Trotsky the “Prince of Pamphleteers” and he certainly earns that title in Lessons of October. Alas, those who write the best polemics do not necessarily win the power. Those 200,000 plus politically immature or careerist new party members beholding to the increasingly Stalinist bureaucracy drafted under the “Lenin Levy” saw the writing on the wall differently. That was decisive. Nevertheless, Lessons of October is not just any political document- it is an essential document for the education of today’s militants. It bears reading, re-reading, and reading again. I know I always get something new out of it each time I read it.
*******
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.
Just as well Ivan that things worked out as they did he had thought
many times since then because he was then able to come ashore and get work on
the docks through some connections, and think. Think and go about the business of
everyday life like marriage to a woman, non-political but a comfort, whom he
met through one of his fellow workers on the Neva quay and who would share his home
and life although not always understanding that part of his life or him and his
determination to break Russia from the past. In those days after 1905, the dogs
days as everybody agreed, when the Czar’s Okhrana was everywhere and ready to
snatch anyone with any oppositional signs Ivan mostly thought and read, kept a
low profile, did as was found out later after the revolution in 1917, a lot of low-level
underground organizing among the dockworkers and factory workers of the Vyborg district.
In other words developing himself and those around him as cadre for what these
few expected would be the great awakening. But until the break-out Lena River gold-workers
strike in 1912 those were indeed dog days.