The Daily Worker Newspaper, February 7, 1925, Page 14

(Continued from last issue) , The forms in which the bourgéoisic has exercifed its influence over th« proletariat have changed with thc changes of the historical epoch. Anr the forms and methods of menshevisr havé: changed accordingly. What haz remained unchanged is the “wild’ Leninist struggle against menshevism Lenin’s ability to distinguish the true character of menshevism in very changing form, and to recognize’ the essential hostility of menshevis: against the Bolshevist ideology and the development of the Bolshevist Party. Everyone knows this, or at least it may be assumed that every- one ought to know it. Everyone com- prehends that those who are not fully conscious that Bolshevism signifies a systematic struggle against menshe- vism, understands nothing whatever of Bolshevism, nothing of the history of Bolshevism, and nothing of the rea- sons why Bolshevism has been victor- iousi = But. everyone does not. know thoggh it hds been assumed till re- y, that ‘evéryone was bound tc kndw it, that"prédisély as Leninism or. iginated, grew, and conquered in a constant and systematic struggle against menshevism; it originated, grew, and conquered in a constant and systematic struggle against Trotsky- ism, Why? Because Trofskyism, during the whoie of the period in which our party was preparing for the decisive class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, and in which Leninism was the source of the tefich- ing of the proletarian revolution and welded the party together as leader of the revolution—during the whole of this time Trotskyism played no other role than that of an agent of menshe- vism, a glossing over of menshevism, a masking of menshovism. Everyone who studies the history of the party in the works of the party in the works of Lenin—and we have not, nor shall we ever have, a better and profounder textbook on the his- tory of the party and the revolution, or one richer in matter and the con- clusions to be drawn from it—will be inevitably convinced that during the whole of his struggle for ithe» party and»for the revollition, and during the whole of his struggle against the men- sheviki, Lenin regarded Trotsky (tak« ing theline followed by him for de- cades inits totality,and his separate actions) exclusively as an agent of menshevism, as a servant of menshe- vism, as a tool employed by menshe- vism for the purpose of gaining infiu- ence in this or that section of the working class. To Lenin, Trotsky and Trotskyism were characteristic and not accidental phenomena, caused by the pressure exercised by the bour- geoisie, in precisely the same manner as the other phenomena hostile to the really proletarian party, the many: other groups and sub-groups, fractions and sub-fractions, whole and semi- tendencies, which the working class have had to combat when creating their own party. To Lenin, Trotsky was entirely un- interesting as a personality after the year 1903. For Lenin and for the party he has been the typical embodi- ment of one of those historical cur- rents which have run counter to the creation of the Bolshevist Party, and to the development of Bolshevist ideo- logy, the-ideology of. proletarian revo- itn nae Bolshevist proletarian or- gatiization.~ Tp Lenin, Trotsky was the-wordy embodiment of an element hostile to the proletariat, an element showing talent at times and at other times entirely superfluous and extrav- agant; he regarded Trotsky as little a8 @ personality as he regarded Mar- tov, Tschernov, and Axelrod as per- sonalities, To him these were again simply the embodiment of certain so- cial phenomena. This systematic struggle against Trotskyism and anti- Bolshevist current is to be found in every volume of Lenin’s works up to the time when Trotsky joined our party. At this point there is an in- terruption, followed by the resumption of this struggle—in another form. The Period of pe * age Revolution Up to the time of the 2nd Party Congress, up to the split between Bol- sheviki and mensheviki, Comrade Trotsky worked for the Leninist Iskra, like Martov, Potressov and other mensheviki. Comrade Trotsky’s zeal for the execution of Lenin’s plans even led to his receiving the nick- name of “Lenin's cudgel,” at the first meetings of the party congress. An honorable role!. But for ‘Comrade Trotsky’s political history this role is less characteristic than the fact that he immediately changed roles as soon as the mensheviki appeared on the scene at the later sessions of this same congress. The organizatory rupture between the: mensheviki and. the Bolsheviki took place at the Party Congress on the quéstion of the election of the Central Committee of the party. Three members had to be elected to the C. C. With respect to two mem- bers the mensheviki and the Bolshe- viki were in agreement. As _ third member the mensheviki wanted the “Lenin’s cudgel” of ‘yesterday, but Lenin would not agree at any price. The mensheviki would not give way at any price. It is. propable that Lenin and. Martov had both form- ed.a correct. estimate of the de- gree in which the “cudgel” was “Len- in’s.” Lenin had the majority at the congress and Trotsky was-not elected. Upon this, Comrade ‘Trotsky, in col- laboration with Martoy, Axelrod, and others, formed the fraction of the mensheviki, broke the-decisions*of the party congress, headed the. boycott against the central authorities of the party under Lenin’s leadership, and wrote a political pamphlet against Lenin—one of the most arrogant and offensive productions in menshevist literature, in which Lenin’s whole pol- icy is explained as mere greed of power on the part of a “candidate for the post of dictator.” The whole set of mensheviki, headed by Martov, Dan, and others, recommended the press to propagate this pamphlet as far as pos- sible. This was the beginning of the history of menshevism, and of the his- tory of Comrade Trotsky in the party. Trotsky, now become sword-bearer to Martov and Axelrod, lost all inter- est as a political figure in the eyes of Lenin, Lenin entered into lengthy and systematic conflicts with the men- sheviki, with Plechanov, Martov, Ax- elrod, Martinov; he explained and re- vealed their’ standpoint to the work- ers; but he held it to be superfluous to lose time in contentions with their co-worker, Trotsky. . “Plechanov must be combatted, Mar- tov’s arguments. must ‘be refuted, and We can contend. against the <eftréne:! opportunist, Marfindv;- but it Is not worth while to lose time in contend- ing against Trotsky”—so said Lenin at that time to his fellow workers. But when, in the summer of 1905, Comrade Trotsky tried to draw him-. self out of the menshevist bog by presenting the ideas of Parvus on “permanent revolution” in his own wording, then Lenin entered into a de- tailed discussion on the ideas and slo- gans brought out by Parvus, and re- jected them. With reference to Trot- sky’s pamphiet he merely expressed his regret that the “revolutionary so- cial democrat,” Parvus should deem it possible to concur “with Trotsky” and his “revolutionary phrases.” Lenin had not another word to say about Comrade Trotsky and his “original” theory. (See Lenin, complete works, Russian edition, Vol. 7, page 130.) And now Comrade Trotsky is en- deavoring to lay precisely this pam- phiet before the party as certificate of his revolutionary past, and is trying to prove that Lenin was only right in so far as he shared the standpoint of Trotsky’s pamphlet. We shall deal with this in detail later on. During the whole period of the first revolution, when the working masses had for the first time: the opportunity of testing in action the various. the- ories of the Russian revolution and their resultant tactical. methods, and when Lenin defended the Bolshevist scheme of revoliftion in desperate bat- tle, he did not think it once necessary to add anything’ his characteriza- tion. of Trotsky’s principles, .or to the designation of “revolutionary phrases.” Lenin knew that ‘Trotsky’s “left phrases” on the “permanent revolu- tion” would certainly have no effect upon the actual course taken by the labor movement revolution, and would not in the least prevent Comrad Trotsky from ‘remaining in ‘the men- shevist organization, co-operating in, the menshevist central organ, and col- laborating politically with the menshe- viki. Lenin had the Marxist habit of judging people, parties and fractions according to their deeds, and not ac- cording to their words, During the whole epoch of the first revolution (1905 till 1907), which gave the proletariat its first opportunity of appearing in the arena as mass-force and of expressing its class policy and relations to other classes by actu- al action, there was a bitter struggle between two tactics only, between two |. political trends only, between two schemes of Russian revolution only, between menshevism; which under-es- timated or neglected the peasantry and aimed at an understanding be- tween the working class and the bour- geoisie, and Bolshevism, which called upon the. peasantry to support the | Working class, both in its. struggle against czarism, and in its struggle against the bourgeoisie on behalf of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. This struggle between Boisheviki and mensheviki during the first revolution, essentially a struggle for the direction to be assumed by the revolution, as also the whole:of the first revolution itself; contained all the elements of the’ struggle ended in the second revolution’ in 1917. The Par- vus-Trotsky ‘theory + played‘ no part whatever in either the first or the sec- ond revolution, It Temained the em- pty: phrase foreseen by Lenin, and had! nothing to’ do With the actual “course taken by ‘the class struggle. It has not been preserved in the living events of the actual struggle, but solely in the dusty files of old menshevist newspapers. ‘Therefore Lenin never lost,a word, during the revolution, in the refutation of this theory. The Period of Counteg-Revolution. The tide of revolution ebbed. The party reorganized for diffcult and tedi- ous work in the atmosphere of coun- ter-revolution. The “left phrases” en- tirely lost effect. The foundations for new tactics had to be saved—the ban- ner of the revolutionary tactics of the proletariat and the principles of their ter-revolutionary pogroms, the destruc- illegal organization—from the coun- tion of proletarian organizations, the orgies of apostasy, the atmosphere of exhaustion in the working class, and the treachery and malicious joy at the failure of the revolution. The banter of the revolutionary| policy of the working class, derided and trodden in the dust by all the mensheviki, had to he defended. At this moment, the most difficult of all for the Bolshevist Party, ce the whole atmosphere en- gendered by the crushing of the revo- lution.taek effect.against the Bolshe- vikii Gnd. aid Was given an all sides to menshevist and liquidatory tenden- cies (liquidatory both with regard to party and the revolution)—at this mo- ment Comrade Trotsky, Who at the time of the rising revolution com- bined with Parvus in wanting “to be absolutely more revolutionary than the others,” shold obviously have rushed to the help_of the Bolsheviki. At least this was the course taken by Plechanov, who been our op- ponent in principle from 1906 till 1907; the old revolutionist could not bear to stand aside, and in the face of general apostasy he rushed into the fight side by side with the Bolsheviki, under the slogan of “General Differ- entiation,” that is, a general separa- tion of proletarian revolutionists from the menshevist liquidators.* Trotsky acted differently. © ? , During this period of- beginning counter-revolution, Comrade Trotsky stepped forward for the first time at the London party Congress. At this congress the Bolsheviki were fighting against the menshéyist liquidators, es- pecially against’ the fraction of the second Duma, headed by men now well known to us, Dan and Zeretelli. The Bolsheviki. criticised this Doma fraction as a fraction which, repre- senting the mensherist standpoint, was attempting to, tread the path of West European social democratic par- liamentarism. We ave only too well aware that this is a hothouse in which the most poisonoys fruits of treachery against the working class find the most fertile soil. The Bolsheviki criticized severely the very first step being taken in this direction. Comrade Trotsky of course defend- ed the menshevist fraction against the attacks of the Bolsheviki. Lenin char- acterized his standopint as follows: “Trotsky spoke on behalf of the Center; he expressed the views of the ‘federation.’ (The federation is the most opportunist and unprincipled or- ganization which ever existed in the party; lack of principle is even more characteristic of it than opportunism. It was the organization of the artis- ans, and reflected their unproletarian spirit.) He attacked us for submit- ting the draft of an ‘unacceptable’ * Plechanoy's revolutionary enthu- siasm was however not maintained for very long, , L. K. L: Kamenev resolution. He threatened with an actual split. Is this not monstrous? The fact that it is possible for @ question to be put in such a man- ner shows in itself that our pgrty contains something foreign in it. . . This is not a standpoint based on principles, it is the lack of principle characteristic of the ‘Center’— and at the same time, naturally, of its de- fender, Trotsky.” (See Lenin, com- plete works, vol. 8, pages 387 to 388.) Comrade Lenin found equally trenchant terms in which to charac- terize Comrade Trotsky’s standpoint at the time when our party summed up its experiences won in 1905, and established on this basis the founda- tion for the whole future of the party. The words uttered by Lenin at this time reached into the future, and’ fore- saw the role which Comrade Trot- sky was destined to play in our party during the next decade: = : : This was Comarde Trotsky’s first | deed after the: revolution” of 1905." yf ' From this timé onwards until the year 1917 Comrade Trotsky acted unceas- ° ‘ingly, as defender of the. mensheviki against the Bolsheviki, as adversary of the Bolshevist Party steeling itself in the struggle of that time; and he was invariably regarded by the §arty as an adversary. ~ Let us follow Lenin still furthr, and see how he characterized the role played by Comrade Trotsky during the difficult process of creating a Bolshevist Party, that is, during the process of creating the theory and organization for the leadership of the preletarian revolution. (To be continued) Physical Culture In Soviet Russia (Continued from page 1) Councils for Physical Development, which was held in the spring of last year, recorded the fact that a tremen- ° dous success has already been at- tained in this domain; but it is also emphasized that much still remains to be accomplished, both in the fleld of ideological elaboration “of the ciples of physi¢a enlture % field of the méthodology and organ- ff ization of this work. Soviet practice shows, however, that once the mass of the people has made up its mind to accomplish a given task, their aim will be attained. The Supreme Council for Physical Culture is firmly convinced that it will succeed in its aim of turning Russia, from a land of capitalist slavery, of semi-serfdom and backwardness in the} domain of health, into a land of free, happy, healthy labor, The Walden Book Shop 307 Plymouth Court (Between State and Dearborn dust South of Jackson) CHICAGO BOOKS FOR THINKERS: SCIENCE, LITERATURE. |. | | ECONOMICS, HISTORY, sae Any Book in Print at Once. Jimmie Higgins Book Shop. 127 Sgn tw Place NEW YORK CITY A Workers Party Book Shop LEARN ESPERANTO The International Language . The following hg are received All, grammar and ulary. to and its Critl ety Prof. Collinson. Ks WORKERS’ ESPERANTO ASSN., 525 7th St., Rockford, IM, Esperanto for ne vocab “Ido for Workers” (Textbook in German OF Russian)... SOC “An Elementary Grammar” a i CRs ORB ) on, siheidbeties ncthinseccsdsntelss 188 The Workers’ Ido Federation Room 5, 805 James St., N. S., PITTSBURGH, PA. ‘mega a