LEON TROTSKY
AND THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, Part 2
BOOK REVIEW
THE CHALLENGE
OF THE LEFT OPPOSITION (1926-27), LEON TROTSKY, Pathfinder Press, New York , 1980
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 under
this byline 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.
The period under discussion is one when Stalin further consolidates
his hold on the party and state bureaucracy and begins (along with Bukharin) a
much more conciliatory policy toward the peasant, especially the rich peasant,
the so-called kulak. Such a policy, essentially at the expense of the working
class, makes no sense until it is understood that this is the long slippery
slope to a theoretical and practical result of what the theory of ‘socialism in
one country’ means in the reality of mid-1920’s Russia . As a result of the 1923-24
defeat of the Left Opposition, the way the Soviet Union
was ruled, who ruled and for what purposes all changed. The defeat of the Joint
Left Bloc here on underlined that change.
On the international level the ill-fated
British-Russian trade union alliance and
the utterly disastrous policy toward the Chinese Revolution meant a dramatic
shift from episode mistakes of policy toward revolution in other countries to a
conscious set of decisions to make the Communist International, in effect,
solely an arm of Soviet foreign policy. Make no mistake this is the ebb tide of
the revolution.
In a sense if the fight in 1923-24 is the decisive fight to save the Russian revolution (and ultimately a perspective of international revolution) then the 1926-27 fight which was a bloc between Trotsky’s forces and the just defeated forces of Zinoviev and Kamenev, Stalin’s previous allies was the last rearguard action to save that perspective. That it failed nevertheless does not deny the importance of the fight. Yes, it was a political bloc with some serious differences especially over
Communists have always prided themselves on the creation production and distribution of their programs. Many a hard fought hour has been spent perfectly such documents. In this the Left Opposition held to tradition. For communist program is not only important, it is decisive. Tell me your program and I will tell you where you fit politically (in the communist movement). Unlike bourgeois parties and politicians who have paper programs, easier for disposal, the idea of program is to focus the way to fight for power. Thus, the key document in this selection is the Platform of the Left Opposition which was geared to the 15th Russian party Congress. While not perfect or complete due to the bloc-nature of the opposition at that time it gives a pretty good idea of how to get the Soviet Union out of some of the extensive internal economic difficulties created by the Stalinist/Bukharinite ‘soft’ agricultural policy, increase internal party democracy and break the
No comments:
Post a Comment