The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 20, 1924, Page 11

How One Should Not Write the Hisiory of October (Continued from page 1) of those revolutionaries who after- wards formed the kernel of the Com- munist Party. Comrade Trotsky was most decided- ly opposed to this slogan, which he considered as a narrow slogan, unsuit- ed for mass propaganda. Is that per- chance an “anticipation” of the Len- inist standpoint? 2. Defeatism and the fight against it, The second distinguishing criter- ion of the Bolshevik attitude was the slogan that the revolutionary social democrats {we would now say Com- munists) must, in the imperialist war, before all desire the defeat of their own government. Comrade Trotsky characterized this attitude as an in- verted nationalism, or nationalism with a minus sign. Now, however, the deep meaning of this Leninist attitude, whose roots form the chief source of the Bolshevist idea, is now perfectly clear. Yes, the chief source. One only needs to read, for example, the recently published polemic between Lenin and Plechanov over the draft program of the Russian social demo- cratic labor party (Lenin’s collected works No. 2) in order to perceive this. In this polemic with Plechanov, Len- in finds fault with the Plechanov draft on the ground that this is a text book and not a declaration of war; there we read about capitalism in general, whilst we require war against Russian capitalism—that is the es- sence of this polemic on the part of Lenin. Why did Lenin insist upon this? Precisely because he was a fighter and not a declaimer. The slogan of the defeat of one’s own government was a declaration of war on every form of pacifism, even when it was hidden un- der the feather bed of noble phrases, on every one who advocated the de- fense of the fatherland, even when it was hidden under the cleverest mask. This was the most decided break. A real sevetance of all connections with one’s own bourgeois state. It was pre- cisely such an attitude which deter- mined in reality, in actual practice, the international standpoint of Bol- shevism. This was the second differ- ence of principle between Trotsky and the Bolsheviki. 3. Unity with the menshevist frac- tion of Tcheidse. Even during the war Comrade Trotsky still advocated unity with such elements as the Tcheidse fraction, and he did not have the cour- age to declare for a definite organiz- atory break which was the necessary preliminary to a correct policy. It was not without reason that Lenin greatly feared that many comrades would be misled by Trotskyism.. It is interesting to note that Trotsky, even in May, 1917, did not perceive his earlier errors. Thus we read on page 380 of the book in question: “On the 7th of May, 1917, there was opened the city conference of the United Social Democrats (sol- sheviki and Internationalists). The conference greeted Comrade Trotsky who was present as a guest. In reply to this greeting Comrade Trotsky declared that for him, who always stood for the unity of the social democratic forces (heavy type by the “Pravda”) unity is not an end in itself, that this formula must be giv- en a revolutionary content, ete. (Page 380) From this it is perfectly clear that Comrade Trotsky does not only not condemn his fight for the unity of the liquidators, but makes this tre- mendous fatal error almost the basis, so to speak, of unity with the Bol- sheviki, this time fortunately being prepared to give the formula a revolu- tionary content. organizatory question is also observed at present, (it was clearly revealed Comrade Trotsky in the last the following: sectarianism still ex- ists as a heritage of the past. But in order to reduce it the ‘Meshrajonzy’ must cease their separate exist- ence.” (Page 66)* é Comrade Trotsky already therefore, when he advocated uniting with the Bolsheviki, condemned Bolshevist sec- tarianism as a bad inheritance of the wicked past. But do we repudiate this heritage ~ Not in the least, for this so-called sec- ‘arianism was, as a matter of fact the method of the creation of o party, that is the organizatory b: principle of Bolshevism. And when Comrade Trotsky writes on Page 6. of his “preface”: That he has recog: nized his “great .organizatory” ni takes, and on page 66 justifies the charge of sectarianism directed against pre-revolutionary Bolshevism, this means that he has not yet drawn all the consequences and all the teach- ings from the history of our party. He can, however, not do this if he consi- ders the birthday of the party to be the day of its union with the “Mesh- rajonzy,” or even the glorious October days, in which Comrade Trotsky, not without birth pangs, was himself born a Bolshevik. 4, Fight against the Zimmerwalc left. Finally, there must be mention ed the attitude of Comrade Trotsky o a “world scale.” Comrade Trotsky who conducted the fight against chau vinists, social patriots, etc., was scorn- ful towards the Zimmerwald left. H regarded them likewise as sectarians as a Bolshevist whim, quite unadap: ed for the conditions abroad. Alread. in America, where, as Comrade Le ner assures us, Comrade Trotsky anti- cipated the latter standpoint of Com- rade Lenin, he conducted an active fight against solidarizing with the Zim- merwald left. Trotsky could not ap- prove this “split” from the Zimmer- waid centrists. The comrades who were entrusted with the editing of “1917” did not take any trouble to illu- minate for the international prole- tariat this part of our party history, which is quite as important for the in- ternational as the question of civil war, of defeatism, ets.; for here there is no less at stake than the choice be- tween the Second and the Third Inter- national, 5. The conception of “permanent” revolution. Comrade Trotsky has, as is proved, not only “anticipated” Len- in’s later standpomit, but he provea himself to be right in one of the most essential points of our revolutionary theory and at the same time of our revolutionary strategy, and that is, in the question of “permanent” reyoli. tion. Comrade Trotsky writes concern- ing this as follows: “Lenin, immediately before 1905, gave expression to the unique char- acter of the Russian revolution in the formula of the democratic dic- tatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. This formula, as the later.. development showed, could merely.. be of importance, as a stage to the socialist dictatorship of the prole- tariat, supported by the peasantry.” (Page 17.) What can be the meaning of that? In 1905 there was a fight of the Bol- sheviki, who issued the slogan “dic- tatorship of the - proletariat and the peasantry,” on the one hand and the Trotsky-Parvus group, whose slogan was “Down with the czar and up with a labor government!” on the other hand and finally with the Poles, at the head of whom stood Rosa Luxemberg, who issued the formula: “the prole- tariat supported by the peasantry.” Whose standpoint proved to be cor- question. Indirectly, however, he finds the correctness of his formula con- firmed: The formule of Lenin could *This refers to the so-called “Mesh- Aeeg se baat existed side by side with “merely” be a stage to the formula of Trotsky. But to say that the standpoin: of Trotsky proved to be correct is false It proved to be incorrect, and the fur ther development has proved its in- correctness. The peculiarity of Com- rade Trotsky’s attitude consists pre- cisely in the fact that he wished to skip a stage which could not be skip- ped. (He forgot one trifle, the pea- santry.) “It is not sufficient to be a revolu- tionary and a follower of socialism or a Communist in general” wrote Com- rade Lenin. “One must understand how to find at amy moment the par- ticular link in the chain which one must seize with all his force in order to hold the entire chain and to prepare a sure transition to the following link.” (Collected works Volume 15, Page 223.) It is precisely this which the slo- gan of Comrade Trotsky failed to give. lle has “disregarded” that special link of the chain which should have been grasped with all force, he has under- estimated: the role of the peasantry and thereby practically isolated him- self from the workers. “Magnificent, catching, intoxicating slogans, which have no basis—that is the nature of the revolutionary phrase.” (Lenin 15. Page 100.) It does not follow from the fact -hat after many years, and after we have passed over a certain stage, the socialist revolution has set in, that ‘omrade Trotsky is right. Such an ‘ssertion would contradict the facts ind would be based upon a misunder- tanding of the nature of the tactics £ Bolshevism, of its, if one may so say, political methodology which unites 2 persistent march forward to the great aim with an austere soberness, which rejects all prejudices and all superficiality in its estimate of every concrete situation. Here also Com- rade Trotsky is in the wrong. Here also his book entirely misleads the reader. Not to mention the fact that Comrade Trotsky remains silent as to how his “permanent” ultra-left phrase was wedded to an extremely right Policy and a bitter struggle against the Boishevik Party. tv. My The Lessons of October and the Com- munist International. One of the practical foundations up- on which the “Preface” of Trotsky is based is the endeavor, to put it mild- ly, to “dispute” the policy of the E. C. C.L He sets out to take revenge for the discussion he lest in 1923 and thereby to oppose, not only the line of the C. C., but also the policy of the Comintern as a whole. For this pur- pose he lias distorted the meaning of the most important epochs of the class struggle of the proletariat in Ger- many and in Bulgaria. In this he hints that the mistakes of several comrades in 1917 caused the failure of the Com- munists in Germany and in Bulgaria in 1923. The structure of this idea is very simple when we strip off the husk of words. XYZ erred in the Rus- sian October, XYZ now leads the Com- munist International. The Comintern has lost the battles, a, b, ¢ It fol- lows that XYZ are responsible for this, as they are carrying on their traditions of the Russian October. Briefly stated, that is the meaning of the long effusion. The frame of this completely ridicu- lous syllogism has a concrete content. It is therefore necessary critically to illuminate this content, whereupon the whole complicated construction of Comrade Trotsky will Gollapse. Point 1. Bulgaria. Comrade Trotsky writes: “In the past year we had two severe defeats in Bulgaria. First the party, owing to doctrinaire and fatalistic considerations, missed a most extraordinary favorable mo- ment for revolutionary action (the peasants’ revolt after the Zankov putsch). Afterwards the party, in order to make good its mistakes, plunged into the September revolt without having prepared the politi- cal and organizatory pre-conditions therefor.” (Page XII.) As the reader will easily see, the reason for the defeat is here consider- d to be, first menshevik fatalism, and secondly unlimited optimism (no pre- aration, etc,). These two features we also mentioned in characterizing he types of October opportunism. The sumnection between the Russian Oc- ober and the present Comintern lead- srship is therefore completely set up. Let us, however, examine the facts a little more closely. The first defeat was the result of the fact that the Bul- garian party had dealt with the pea- santry quite incorrectly, and did not know how to estimate their move- ment or the role of the Peasants’ league as a whole, or its left wing. They rather adopted the standpoint: “Down with the king, up with a work- ers’ government.” At the decisive moment, when it was necessary to take the leadership into their hands and to mount up on the crest of a powerful peusants’ wave, the party de- clared itseif neutral, claiming that the fight was between the town and the rural bourgeoisie, which was no con- cern of the proletariat. These were the “considerations” of the C. P. of Bulgaria. They have been commit- ted to writing, and can be now proved by documents. If we wish to have an analogy with our October (we should, by the way, be more cautious with analogies), it would be much more apt to take the Kornikov days (Ker- ensky-Stambuliski, Kornilov-Zankov). Here, according to the statement of Comrade Trotsky himself, too much support was given to Kerensky, and the distinction between the fight against Kornilov and the defense of Kerensky was not understood. In Bul- garia, however, the exact opposite er- ror was committed. Wherein therefore lie the “Lessons of October”? Apart from this, the comrades who are at present members of the BE. Cc. C. L. adopted during the Kornilov days a thoroly correct attitude, and the whole E. C. C. I. exercised a thoro- ly correct criticism of the C. P. of Bulgaria and urged them on. The second defeat in Bulgaria is a fact, and Comrade Trotsky describes the conditions under which it took place. Will you be so good, Comrade Trotsky, to say, whether in this case you support the old formula of Plecha- nov during the time of the menchevist decay: “One should not have taken up arms”? Was it necessary or not for the Bulgarian Communists to take up arms? Yes or no? Comrade Trotsky does not reply to this. According to our opinion, it was necessary to take up arms, as only by this means was it possible to main- tain contact with the peasantry who were entering the struggle with ele- mentary force, But there was no time for preparation. That is the true pic- ture of the events. The “Lessons” of Comrade Trotsky have nothing in the least to do with it. Point 2. Germany. Still more interesting is the ques- tion of the defeat of the German pro- letariat in October last year. “We have seen there in the second half of the past year a classical (heavy type by the “Pravda”) de- monstration of the fact that a most extraordinary favorable revolution- ary situation of world historical im- portance can be missed.” According to the opinion of Comrade Trotsky therefore, the failure here consisted in the fact that a “classical” moment was missed. It was neces- sary at all costs to take up the de- cisive struggle and the victory would have been ours. Here Comrade Trotsky draws a complete analogy with the October revolution in Rus- sia. There as here, we were pushed forward. In Russia, under the pres- sure of Lenin, we decided upon action and were victorious—in Germany, without the pressure of Lenin, no de- cision was made and the appropriate moment was lost. Now, however, un- der the influence of the Russian Oc- tober revolution it is declared that the forces for the decisive struggie were not sufficient. That is the meaning (Contiiwed on page 8)