The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 17, 1925, Page 6

(Continued from pele Saturday) + * ” THE REVISION OF LENINISM UN- DER THE FLAG OF LENIN. The last attack of Comrade Trotzky (the “Lessons of October’) is nothing else than a fairly open attempt to revise—or even directly to liquidate— the foundation of Leninism. It will re- quire only a short time and this will be plain to the whole of our party and to the whole Inter- national. The “novelty” in this at- tempt consists in the fact that, out of “strategical” considerations, it is at- temped to carry out this revision in the name of Lenin. We experienced something similar at the beginning of the campaign of Bernstein and his followers, when they began the “revision” of the foun- dation of Marxism. The ideas of Marx were already so-generally recognized in the international labor movement, that even their revision, at least at the beginning, had to be undertaken in the name of Marx. A quarter of a century was necessary before the revisionists could finally throw aside their mask and openly pronounce that, in the field of theory, they had entirely broken away from Marx. This took place in a most open manner, in liter- ature, only in the year 1924 in the recently published collection of ar- ticles devoted to the 70th birthday of Kautsky. The ideas of Leninism at present predominate to such an extent in our country—that the “critics” of Lenin- ism consider it necessary to have re- course to similar methods. They un- dertake the revision of Leninism “in the name of Lenin,” citing Lenin, em- phasizing their fidelity to the prin- ciples of Leninism. This “strategy” however does not help. It is already seen through by the Leninist party. It only needs a few weeks and all the sparrows on the house-tops will be twittering over the collapse of this remarkable strategy. Comrade Trotz- ky has overlocked one triffe: that our party is so Leninist and so mature that it is capable of distinguishing Lenin- ism from Trotzkyism. The attack of Comrade Trotzky is an attack with inadequate means. Nobody will succeed in liquidating the foundations of Leninism, or carrying out even a partial revision of the prin- ciples of Leninism, or even succeed in getting Trotzkyism recognized as a “justifiable tendency” within Lenin- ism. Nobody will succeed in convinc- ing the party that we now need some sort of synthesis of Leninism and Trotskyism. Trotskyism is as fit to be a constituent part of Leninism as a spoonful of tar can be a constituent part of a vat of honey. What is Leninism? Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of the imperial- ist wars in the world revolution, whic}: began in a country where the peasan- try preponderate. Lenin was from head to foot a proletarian revolution- ery. But he knew at the same time that he had to work in a country in which the peasantry predominated, and in which the proletariat therefore can only be victorious when it adopts @ correct attitude towards the peas- antry. After Lenin already in the revolution of 5 had issued the slogan of “the democratic dictator- ship of the proletariat and of the peasantry,” he did not cease for a single moment to be a proletarian re- volutionary; he made no concessions to burgeois democracy (the menshevi- ki, among them comrade Trotzky, ac- cused Comrade Lenin at that time that he, who called himself a Marxist, was an ideologist of bourgeois democracy), but he was the only one who, not with mere words, but by deeds, prepared the way for the socialist revolution in a situation when bourgeois democracy was still a force and was capable of shattering czarist despotism. Lenin felt himself at that time to be the recognized leader of the prole- tarian revolution—and this he was in ‘tion of its class aims, that is to pro- ceed on the road to the victory of the proletarian revolution. He knew that he and his party, in every country, would do-everything possible to extract } from this situation the maximum for the final aim of the proletarian revolu- tion. He so understood the connec- tion between theDourgeois-democrat- ic and the proletarian-socialist revolu- tion, that the first precedes the second, that the secqnd solves in passing the questions of the first, that the second eonfirms the work of the first. And as Lenin knew this, he man- euvered with the mastership of a gen- ius in three revolutions, always at the head of the working class, always con- cretising his tactics so that every suit- able historical situation is used to its fullest limits in the interests of his class. Lenin was, on Oct. 24, 1917, not the same man that he became on Oct. 26, 1917. “Who laughs last, laughs the longest” wrote Lenin some days before the October revolt in an article on the party program. . Therefore, Lenin defended at that time among other things the neces- sity of retaining the minimum pro- gram. But on the morrow, after the victory of the October insurrection, the ingenious commander of the work- ing class was not the same as he was one day before this victory. My class has become stronger, the enemies of my class have become weaker, the forces of the workers’ revolution have increased, hence, therefore, more pressure, more boldly forwards! That is the real Lenin! He knows that it is a very difficult way along which one has to lead millions of workers, behind whom, if we wish to be victor- ious, there must follow the millions and millions of peasants of eur coun- try. From the great slogan! “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and of ‘the peasantry” (1905-1907) via the “dictatorship of the proletariat and the poorest peasants” (1917) to the actual “dictatorship of the proletariat” which will be realized on the basis of “alliance with the peasantry’— that is the road of Leninism. ’ From menshevism of the Axelrod type (1903-1905) via the “permanent” (1905-1907) variation of menshevism, to the complete abandonment of the revolation and its substitution by the menshevik free coalition (1909-1914), to the policy of vacillations (block with Tzeidse and fight against the Zimmerwald left during the war (1914-1917)—that is the road of old Trotzkyism. If one considers the literary history of bolshevism, one can say that it is esentially contained in the following works of Lenin: From “The Friends of the People,” along with “Develop- ment of Capitalism” to “What is to be Done?” along “Two Kinds of Tac- tics” to the “State and Revolution” with “The Renegade Kautsky.” These are the most important literary sign posts of Leninism. Let us consider what these sign posts indicate. “The Friends of the People” and “The Development of Capitalism” constitute a penetrating analysis of the theory of Marxism and the most concrete, profound study of economics and of the social structure of that country in whieh Bolshevism commences to come into action. “What is to be Done” along with “Two Kinds of Tactics” is the incomparable critic ism of social democratic’ optimism, the insurpassed elucidation of the role of the workers party in the revolution together with the laying down of the tactics of the proletariat in a peasant country on the eve of the bourgeois- democratic revolution which one must endeavor so to carry thru that it be- gins as soon as possible to develop into the socialist revolution. The “State and Revolution” and the “Ren- egade Kautsky” are the application of Leninism to the world arena, are along with the book “Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism” the most profound analysis of the latest im- fact. He knew and belfeved that the |perialism and the laying down of the Bolshevik party, that is, the genuine | tactics of the already beginning soctal- advance-guard of would help the working class as far|the firstel. e. the bourgeois-democratic| Our Revolution, 1904. Russian edition, oh gps the proletariat,|ist revolution, which grows out from as possible on the road to the realiza- revolution. — Bolshevism or Trotskyism? Compare all this with Trotzkyism! If Lenin is the classical type of the proletarian revolutionary, Trotzky is the “classical” type of the intellectual rcvolutionary. The latter has of course certain strong features, he succeeded sometimes in combining with the pro- letarian mass, but that which forms the nature of his political activity is the intellectual revolutionarism. We give below a compressed polit- ical description of the life of Trotzky- ism «which possesses the authority of coming from the pen of Lenin; “He, Trotzky, was in the year 1903 a meushevik, left this party in 1904, returned to the mensheviki in 1905 and paraded round with ultra-revolu- tionary phrases. In 1906 he again abandoned this party; at the end of 1906 he- again defended the election alliance with the cadets and in the spring of 1907 he stated at the London conference that the difference between him and Rosa Luxemburg rather con- stituted a difference of individual shades of opinion than a difference of political tendency. Today Trotzky borrows some ideas from the one fraction and tomorrow from the other and therefore considers himself as a man standing above both fractions.” (Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XI, Part Il, Page 308-309.) “Never in a single. serious question of Marxism has Trotzky had a firm opinion ,b> zlways seueezes himself in a division between this or that differ- ences of opinicen and always runs from one side to the other. At present he is in the company of the ‘Bund’ and of the liquidators.” Thus wrote Lenin in an article in the revue “Enlightenment,” published in 1914. “However well meant the intentions of Mariow and Trotzky may be sub jectively they support by their toler- | ance Russian imperialism.” ‘hus wrote Lenin in the “Social- demokrat” No. 1, October, 1916. Lei us compare the literary sigu posts of dolshevism with those in cieating the read of development of Trotzkyism. These are the following hooks of Comrade Trotzky: “Our Pol. itical Tasks” (1903}, “Qur Revolution” (1905-1966), then his collaboration to the liquidatory journal “Nesha $a- rja” {Our Dawn), then a bright ino- ment—the book over Kautsky (1919) --which was followed by the “New Course” and “The Lessons of Oc tober” (1923-1924). The retrograie development of Comrade Trotzky finds particular sharp expression in the twu last named works. What was the book: “Our political tasks”? This book which appearee with a dedication of the mensheyvist pat: | riarch P, A. Axelrod, was the most valgar menshevist book which the his- tory of menshevist literature has ever known. In this book Comrade Trotzky came to the conclusion of a liberal labor policy. And what was the book: “Our Revo- lution,” the most left of the books of Trotzky in the first epoch. In this book (see also his book “1905’) there was laid down the notorious theory of the “permanent revolution” which Comrade Trotzky is now attempting to impose upon bolshevism. This “theory” was regarded by Comrade Lenin and all the Bolsheviki as a variety of menshevism. Not every- bedy will remeber that in this “left” book in which Comrade Trotzky to a certain extent defended the “work- ers” revolution against the bolshevik idea of a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, Trotzky wrote: “But how far can the socialist pol- icy of the working class go under the economic conditions of Russia? One May say one thing with certainty: it will much rather encounter political hindrances than be supported by the technical backwardness of the coun- try. Without direct state support of the European proletariat the working clase of Russia will not be able to maintain power and transform ‘their temporary rule into a long enduring socialist dictatorship. One caunot doubt this for a moment.” (Trotzky: Page 277-288.) By G. Zinovieo What is the meaning of the state support of the European proletariat? In order to possess the possibility ot affording state support to the Rus- sian revolution, the European prole- lariat would first have to capture power in Europe. In the year 1905 und in general up to the war 1914-18 there could be no talk of this. But Trotzky preached the “permanent” revolution in the year 1905. What is to be inferred from this? Only this that Trotzky in the year 1905 either did not seriously believe in any permanent revolution or that he preached the permanent revolution in 1905 only under the condition that the European proletariat afforded us “state support,” which meant that Yrotzky “postponed” the workers revyo- lution in Russia until the victory of the proletarian revolution in Europe. In the latter case Trotzky appears as the representative of the most stereo- typed social democratic standpoint: ‘let “them” first make the revolution ard then “we” will “immediately” make the workers’ revolution. Trotzky wrote in those times a : deal as to a victorious Russian revolution being only possible as a part of a victorious internatinal revo- tution, for western European capital supported ezarism with loans, etc. There was a grein of truth in this and here Trotsky only repeated that which the Bolsheviki said. But Trotz- ky as usual conceived this connection of the Russian revolution with the international revolution too mechan- ically. Comrade Trotzky did not grasp the concrete way of the revolution in our country. He does not even yet grasp the actual importance of the peasantry in our revolution. If any proof were necessary for this, Trotzky has provid- éd this in his last work: “The Lessons ef October.” We quote the following: “it was-precisely the unripeness of the revolution under the thoroughly unique conditions created by the war which delivered the leadership or at feast the appearance of leadership ever the petty beurgeois revolution- sties which consisted in the fact that they defended the historical claim - of the. bourgeoisie to power. This however does not mean that the revo- tution could only follow that road which it followed from February to October, 1917. This last road resulted not merely from the class relations but from those temporary conditions created by the war. “As a result of the war the peasantry appeared in the organized and armed form of the army comprising many millions. Before the proletariat could organize itself under its own flag in order to draw the masses of the vil- lage behind it, the petty bourgeois reyolutionaries found a natural] sup- port in the peasant army exasperated by the war. With the weight of this army of millions from which every- thing immediately depended the petty bourgeois revolutionaries exercised pressure upn the proletariat and at first drew it after them. That the course of the revolution could have The road from February till Oc tober, 1917, resulted, as you can see; not only from the class also from those temporary (! tions created by the meaning of this brain wave? sumes that the war did not the class relations, is was a mere chance event, Russo-Japanese war, t srew 1905, the general rehearsal for 3917---was it also a chance? Was that not also created by the temporary conditions? What profoundity thought! It there had been no war—and Leninism teaches that the imperialist war is the inevitable out- come of Imperialism, as the g eEan é ¢Contlinead oe