The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 20, 1924, Page 5

“The idea becomes power when it pene- trates the masses.” —Karl Marx. (Comrade Trétzky’s Book: “1917”.) (Review continued from last week., ; i. * The Lessons of the Revolution of the! Year 1917, and the Struggle % Within the Party. - Shall silence be maintained regard- ing October and its prologue, the Feb- ruary revolution? Certainly not. That would show either a lack of conscien- tiousness or stupidity: -But, quite in vain, Comrade Trotsky, with his hints and allusions as. well as with open appeals, wishes to create the impres- sion that the history of October is . being dealt with in a “step-niotherly” fashion, because in this respect some sort of mental reservations (a false, “half-conscious estimate”) play a role. Such statements as: “Still more inad- missable . . would it be to main- tain silence, out of considerations of a personal character, which are of quite secondary importance, regard- ing extremely important problems of the October upheaval, which have in- ternational significance” (Page XII), are scarcely in place, This statement is certainly correct. But in the first place, Comrade Trot- sky conceals the fact that no less has been written over October than over any other period. Lenin’s writ- ings contain a brilliant estimate of this period, from which the party will be able for a long time to draw all the essential teachings of October. Secondly, Comrade Trotsky fails to mention that the persons in question have repeatedly admitted their errors as is well known to the whole party. Comrade Zinoviev, in his “History of the Russian Communist Party” and in earlier publications, has spoken with all clearness regarding them, and has declared the same before the party and before the Communist In- . ternational; Comrade Lenin also spoke concerning this, but at no time did he connect this error with the later, after October, activity of these} comrades who took tae: septs course | in October.* Comrade Trotsky now seeks to make use of these errors in order to revise the whole party policy and to “correctly expound” the whole history of the party. Therein lies the kernel of the statements of Comrade Trotsky. The whole analysis of the events from April to October is so stated as if the differences of opinion, which “tore the party to pieces,” had become more and more acute until they finally *It is necessary in this connection to refer to certain facts. In spite of differences of opinion, Kamenev, on the proposal of Lenin, was elected at the April conference to the central committee of the party, and in. the moment of the insurrection, on be- half of the central committee, took the chair at the ‘Second, Soviet Con- gress. Already in “November, 1917, Zinoviev, whose ‘disagreements with the central committee only lasted a|* - few days, on behalf of the central com- ' mittee of the party delivered a report to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee advocating the dissolution - of the constituent assembly. At the ‘Comrade SPECIAL MAGAZINE SUPPLEMENT THE DAILY WORKER. December 20, 1924. How One Should Not Write the History of October broke out into a conflict which almost jled to collapse, and that the revolution was only sayed, thanks to the efforts of Comrade Lenin who had the cour- age to oppose the central committee and who ‘was supported by Comrade Trotsky, who, so. to speak, “anticipat- ea”. the: fundamental idéa of Lettin. This analysis hardly contains .any- thing which is in accordance with the facts. In the first place, Comrade Trotsky totally ignores the party. It does not exist, its mood is not to be perceived, it has vanished. There stands only Comrade Trotsky, Lenin is visible in the distance, and we see a slow-wit- ted, nameless central committee. The Petrograd organization, which was the real collective organizer of the work- ers’ insurrection, is altogether absent. Comrade Trotsky’s. whole treatment of history revolves exclusively round parliametary -fraction.” (Page XXXVI.) All this is extremely—‘incorrect.” For already at the time of the sixth patty conference there had taken place-a complete ideological consolida- tion of the party. The central commit- .| tee elected at the sixth party congress stood unconditionally on the platform of .the revolt. Lenin exercised an enormous influence upon the central committee, for Lenin himself was a leading member of the C. C. as is known to everybody, But to represent the matter as if the majority of the Cc. C. were, so to speak, almost against the revolt, means not to know either the party or the central committee, and means to sin against the truth. Was not the revolt decided upon on the 10th of October, with an over- whelming majority of the central com- mittee? The tremendous energy, the | WHEN BIG CROOKS SHAKE _| “Cal” Coolidge, ef Teapot Dome fame, meets the British premier, y-hero of the fake Zinoviev letter. “the highest pinnacles” of the party { structure. With regard to the whole party structure we look in vain in the. artistically painted picture-puzzle of Trotsky: “Where is the party?” Is it permissable for Marx- ists to write history in such a man- ner? That is a caricature of Marxism. To write the history of October and to overlook the party means to stand ‘with both feet on an individualistic standpoint, upon the standpoint of heroes and masses. Such a standpoint is not suitable for the education of the party membership. But also from the point of view of an analysis of the leading figures, the chronicle of Comrade Trotsky cannot be approv- ed, for it distorts the facts. Let us see how Comrade ip ag describes the course of events: _. “The decisions of the Aprit con- ference gave the party a correct attitude. The differences of opinion _ of the leaders of the party were not _ liquidated thereby. On the contrary. “In the course of events they as- sumed a more concrete form, and they reached their acutest point at explain what is to be explained. _ (By Deni in the Moscow: Pravda.) truly enormous pelolationsty passion, the ingenious analysis of events and the powerful magnetic power of Com- rade Lenin gave a firm stamp to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the C. C. Comrade Trotsky, how- ever, wants at all costs to separate Lenin from the ©. C., to oppose them to each other and to tear asunder the indivisible band, which in reality was not loosened for a moment. History must not be distorted inthis manner. Were it not so, if that which Com- rade Trotsky writes were correct, then it would be quite unintelligible, 1. why the party was not split by the con- flict; 2. how it was able to triumph; 3. how the conflict (the resignation of some leading members of the CG. C.) could be liquidated within a few days by the return of these comrades to their. posts. - This “miracle,” (a mir- acle from the standpoint of the as- sumptions of Comrade Trotsky), as is known, was accomplished, and with- out much difficulty. | It is true that one can hint here that after the vie- tory there are many who are prepar- ed to join the victors, as one does “sit in judgment” against victors. But it must not be forgotten that the victory in Petrograd and in Mos- derations do not help in any way to ly understandable swe Ne wee con- . Pacifists, “| sought to approach the centrist ele- | SECOND SECTION This magazine supple- ment will appear every Saturday In The Daily Worker, lowing picture:. From April to Octo- ber, there gradually disappear the remnants: of vacillation in the party; in October they have been reduced to a minimum; the party is proceeding with firm ranks into the fight. Above there remain:some comrades who are not in agreement with the general line of the party. But precisely be- cause the party (that is no little thing, Comrade Trotsky) was united, pre- cisely because the overwhelming ma- jority of the C. C. went with Lenin, these comrades were also carried along by the general stream of the party and class, and immediately re- turned to their posts. They have been far more thoroly “proved” than mere- ly thru the October days. it, War, Revolution and the Standpoint of Comrade Trotsky. The “Chronicle” of Comrade Trot- sky, as well as his annotations to the same, not only incorrectly describe the relations within the party, but also the preparation of the “Bolshe- vizing” of Comrade Trotsky himself. (We are solely interested here in his political attitude.) We learn from the annotations of Comrade Trotsky’s bock, for example, that in the articles written by L. D. Trotsky in America there was almost completely anticipat- ed (!) the later political tactics of he revolutionary social-democrats. The fundamental conclusions of these articles agree in almost every detail (!) with the political perspectives, which Comrade Lenin developed in his famous “Letters from Abroad” (Page | 370.) We learn here that in the “course of time the differences of opinion be- tween the standpoint of “Nashe Slo- vo”* and Lenin became continually less. (Page 377.) On the other hand, we learn a whole number of details regarding the errors of the “Pravda,” of a number of Bolsheviki, ete, But after perusing the book we are little informed in what these differenc- es of opinion, which grew continual- ly less, consisted:. And we are decid- edly misled ‘if we take it as correct that Comrade Trotsky had already an- ticipated the Leninist policy, as stated by that terrible -busy-body Comrade Lenzner, who was entrusted with the perusal of the’ book and with adding the notes. (Lenin did not know that he, according to Comrade Trotsky, had committed a Plagiarism.) The ques- tion of the attitude during the war, however, gives the key to a number of other questions and leads us to the laboratory where the slogans were drawn up, which soon were to play such an extraordinary important, one erage rightly say, world-historical role. « We will attempt to call to mind sev- eral things in this respect. 1. “Peace” or “civil war.” This is the first-difference of opinion, one which - -involyes a considerable mea- sure of principle, for precisely here. is to be seen,*who and how has an- ticipated ‘the events, as well as the tactics, of ‘the revolutionary social democracy. The slogan of the civil war which, was issued by Lenin and the Bolshevik C. C. right at the be- ginning of the war was a specific Bol- shevik slogan, a@ slogan, which drew: & line of demarcation between’ true. revolitionaries, and, uot only all shades ‘of. chauvinists, but also of the. internationalists of a petty-bourgeois, | “humanitarian” | color who | ments.’ Only. by bluntly raising the | question of civil war was there creat-— ed the possibility to select the, cadre. : | oor on page 1) *“Our Word” at one time the organ of Trotsky.—Ed,