But there was also an opposite danger:.
Trotsky's Challenge: The A'Literary Discussion' of 1924 and the Fight for the Bolshevik Revolution
If conditions develop in such a way that the proletariat is forced to bear too many sacrifices in order to preserve the alliance, if the working class came to the conclusion over a number of years that in the name of preserving its political dictatorship it had been forced to agree to excessive self-denial of its class interests, that would undermine the Soviet state from the other direction. The tempo of industrialisation was subject to objective limitations which must be observed. That would give rise inevitably to the phenomena of a goods famine and high retail prices, which would inevitably lead in turn to the enrichment of private capital.
Trotsky did not publish the document Our Differences because he was worried that it might promote an even further escalation of the accusations against him. He wrote:. If 1 thought that my explanation might add fuel to the fire of the discussion, or if the comrades on whom the printing of this essay depends were to tell me so openly and directly I would not publish it, however burdensome it may be to remain under the charge of liquidating Leninism.
I would tell myself that my only recourse was to wait until a calmer flow of party life allowed the opportunity, if only a belated one, to refute the untrue accusation. In the years to there was no mention of Trotskyism. Trotskyism was now being invented by Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin. The discussions which took place at this time among the Troika and their supporters were partially disclosed two years later when the Troika split up.
In his autobiography he wrote:. Lying in bed, I went over my old articles, and my eyes fell on these lines written in , at the peak of the reactionary regime under Stolypin:.
It grasps facts on the wing, and on the wing links them with the thread of generalisation But when the political curve indicates a drop, public thinking succumbs to stupidity. The priceless gift of political generalisation vanishes somewhere without leaving even a trace. Stupidity grows in insolence, and, baring its teeth, heaps insulting mockery on every attempt at a serious generalisation. Feeling that it is in command of the field, it begins to resort to its own means.
I say to myself that we are passing through a period of reaction.
A political shifting of the classes is going on, as well as a change in class consciousness The deep molecular processes of reaction are emerging to the surface. They have as their object the eradicating, or at least the weakening, of the dependence of the public consciousness on the ideas, slogans and living figures of October.
- Topics Mentioning This Author.
- Advances in Enzymology and Related Areas of Molecular Biology, Volume 30;
- G. F. Handel: A Guide to Research.
- Sex & Sexuality.
- Shop by category.
- Lubitz' Leon Trotsky Bibliography.
- Search this website?
That is the meaning of what is now taking place. Gigantic social forces were condemning Trotsky to defeat, and he was too clear-sighted not to see this. I did not agree with this.
Topics Mentioning This Author
In politics, and especially in revolutionary politics, popular names of acknowledged authority play a very important, sometimes gigantic, but yet not decisive part. In the final analysis, the fate of personal authority is determined by the deeper processes going on in the masses. During the rising tide of the revolution the slanders against the Bolshevik leaders only strengthened the Bolsheviks. During the ebb tide of the revolution the slanders against the same men were able to provide the weapons of victory for the Thermidorean reaction.
Lenin himself repeatedly emphasised the opposite. The chief task, the organisation of Socialist production, is still to be accomplished. Can we succeed and secure the definitive victory of Socialism in one country without the combined effort of the proletarians of several advanced countries? Most certainly not. The efforts of a single country are enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie: this is what the history of our revolution proves.
But for the definitive triumph of Socialism, the organisation of Socialist production, the efforts of one country alone are not enough, particularly of an essentially rural country like Russia; the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries are needed. Marxism has always envisaged socialism in international terms, because it held that historical advance is associated with greater and greater economic integration on an ever larger scale.
The rising bourgeoisie overcame local particularism and established the national market and the national state. The development of the productive forces under capitalism outgrew the national boundaries. As Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto :.
Modern industry has established the world market The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe The bourgeoisie has given To the great chagrin of reactionaries, the bourgeoisie has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency we now have the many-sided intercourse of nations and their universal interdependence.
If capitalism could not restrict itself to national boundaries, then socialism certainly could not. As he put it:. The large-scale defeats of the European proletariat, and the first very modest economic successes of the Soviet Union suggested to Stalin, in the autumn of , the idea that the historic mission of the Soviet bureaucracy was to build socialism in a single country It expressed unmistakably the mood of the bureaucracy.
When speaking of the victory of socialism, they meant their own victory. Thus the economist E. If the Russian worker were sufficiently mature to be inspired by international perspectives, we would not have needed the theory of socialism in one country. The mood of the bureaucracy was not out of step with that of the rank and file of the party and the mass of the working class, who had become wary of the expectation of international revolution, which had been dashed in , and , to rise again in and shatter once more with the German defeat.
Now Stalin appealed to stability, to the longing for peace which dominated the tired workers who had gone through years of war and civil war. He described Trotsky as the Don Quixote of Communism who might involve the party and government in the most dangerous escapades. The Russian workers were tired and could not but reject the sweeping historical perspective Trotsky held out before them.
It also had a great effect on the members of the Troika. It badly discredited Zinoviev and Kamenev while leaving Stalin untouched. As a matter of fact, his prestige was enhanced as a result. This helped Stalin to establish himself as the senior member of the Troika. Thus, unintentionally, Trotsky helped to defeat his future allies and to promote his most dangerous adversary. On 15 January Trotsky broke his silence. He addressed a letter to the Central Committee in preparation for its forthcoming session.
In it he made it clear that he did not intend to continue with the struggle to influence the party. I have not spoken once on the controversial questions settled by the Thirteenth Congress of the party, either in the Central Committee or in the Council of Labour and Defence, and I certainly have never made any proposal outside of leading party and Soviet institutions that would directly or indirectly raise questions that have already been decided.
Even now, weighing the whole progress of the discussion and in spite of the fact that throughout it many false and even monstrous charges have been brought forward against me, I think that my silence was correct from the standpoint of the general interests of the party. When this move failed he and Kamenev proposed to expel Trotsky from the Politburo.
The group of Leningrad comrades [led by Zinoviev] at first proposed that Trotsky be expelled from the Party We disagreed with Zinoviev and Kamenev because we knew that the policy of amputation was fraught with great dangers for the Party, that this method of amputation, the method of blood-letting — and they demanded blood — was dangerous, infectious: today you amputate one limb, tomorrow another, the day after tomorrow a third — what will we have left in the Party?
It warned Trotsky that it would be impossible for him to remain on the Political Bureau if he continued to violate party discipline. The resolution was passed with two abstentions by members of the Central Committee, Rakovsky and Piatakov, and one abstention by a member of the Central Control Commission, Pravdin.
Krupskaya was a member of the Central Control Commission and evidently voted for the resolution. This lasted throughout the year and into the summer of The Opposition practically disbanded.http://periocenter.ru/wp-content/north/gebi-s-yunimi-devochkami.php
In Defence of Marxism
Trotsky completely gave up any immediate struggle. He became so detached from party affairs that he spent his time in the Central Committee sessions reading books — French novels!
- Seals and sealing handbook.
- Thriving in the Wake of Trauma: A Multicultural Guide (Contributions in Psychology,)!
- Turning 15 on the Road to Freedom: My Story of the Selma Voting Rights March.
- Russia and the Formation of the Romanian National State, 1821-1878!
- Search this website?
- Grigory Zinoviev?
- Trotsky?s Challenge: The ?Literary Discussion? of 1924 and the Fight for the Bolshevik Revolution.
How desperately anxious he and his adherents were to avoid any renewal of struggle can be seen from the following incident. At the beginning of Max Eastman — the American Communist sympathiser who had been in Moscow from the autumn of to June , was known as a sympathiser of Trotsky and had received information about the struggle in the party from Trotsky himself — wrote a book entitled Since Lenin Died. In order to prevent a renewal of the inner-party struggle, Trotsky complied, denied what he knew to be true, and thus aided the campaign of falsification directed against himself.
This is pure slander against the Central Committee of our party. This is not at all in accordance with the facts.
Comrade Lenin has not left any Testament All talk with regard to a concealed or mutilated Testament is nothing but a despicable lie, directed against the real will of Comrade Lenin and against the interests of the party created by him. Three years later, on 11 September , in a letter from Alma-Ata to N. Muranov, Trotsky described what had actually led him to sign the above statement:. During the time when the Opposition still figured on correcting the party line by strictly internal means without bringing the controversy out in the open, all of us, including myself, were opposed to steps Max Eastman had taken for the defence of the Opposition.
In the autumn of the majority in the Politburo foisted upon me a statement concocted by themselves containing a sharp condemnation of Max Eastman. Insofar as the entire leading group of the Opposition considered it inadvisable at that time to initiate an open political struggle, and steered toward making a number of concessions, it naturally could not initiate and develop the struggle over the private question of Eastman who had acted, as I said, on his own accord and at his own risk. That is why, upon the decision of the leading group of the Opposition , I signed the statement on Max Eastman foisted upon me by the majority of the Politburo with the ultimatum: either sign the statement as written or enter into an open struggle on this account.
Caught on the horns of a dilemma — how to fight the bureaucracy while avoiding factionalism, with the workers tired and passive and himself very isolated — Trotsky gave way to the pressure of the Troika and tragically he denounced Eastman. My emphasis.