The daily worker., 1925-05-13
BY JAN SEN.


THE question of the driving forces
= of the Russian revolution loomed
big at the last discussion within the
ranks of the Russian Communist
Party in connectiontwith the publica-
tion of Trotsky's Lessons of October.
In connection with this discussion,
some comrades in the Comintern ex-
pressed the opinion that the differ
ence between Trotsky and Lenin is
that Lenin contributed much more to
the development of the Russian Revo-
luton than Trotsky could have done
on the basis of his theory of revolu-
ton. This is a thoroly erroneous
viewpoint, for it does not show any
basic and essential difference between
Lenin's theory of revolution and that
Of Trotsky.
In his appreciation of the charac-
ter and driving forces of the Russian
revolution in 1905, Lenin pointed out
to the mensheviks that they held err
roneous views of the peculiarities of
the Russian ourgeois-democratic rev.
olution. The Judgment of the menshe-
viks followed the usual conventional
historical lines. Their idea was that
If the revolution is a bourgeois revolu-
ton it's main driving force must be
The bourgeoisie. Lenin on the other
hand pointed out that the Russian
rgeois-democratic revolution was
an agrarian-peasant. revolution. Lenin
had come to this conclusion when
studying the peasant movements I'M
190203. The liberal bourgeoisie, far
from supporting these peasant move
ments, resisted them with all it's
might On the basis of an economic
analysis of the tendencies of the de-
velopment of econimic life in Russia,
Lenin came to the conclusion that two
types of evolution were possible for
the Russian of those days. On the
one hand, the American type-total
abolition of servitude, latifundia, elm
nation of medieval agrarian relations
large scale development of an untram-
melled capitalist system of agricul-
ture. On the other hand the Prussian
type-slow evolutionary transforma-
ton of large estates into capitalist
concerns. From the viewpoint of OBJ
jective economic development both
these types were possible and the task
of the party of the working class did
not consist in meditating Realistically
on objective historical development,
but impressing energetically on the
scales of history and contributing to
the development of Russia by means
and methods most advantageous to
the working class. Lenin never tired
of exposing the erroneous interpreta-
lion given by the mensheviks to the
nature of the Russian bourgeois-demo-
cratic revolution. Lenin pointed out
altho the Russian revolution had to be
socially and economically bourgeois
democratic revolution, its main driv-
.ng forces had to be the working class
md the peasantrys The mensheviks,
as well as the authors of the we'll
known theory of permanent revolu-
tion-Parvus and Trotsky, fail to un-
derstand these main historical pecul-
iarities of the Russian revolution.
The mensheviks asserted that the Boil
shevik formula revolutionary demo-
cratic dictatorship of the proletariat
and peasantry" would inevitably lead
the working class to socialist exagger-
ations and illusions, and will be the
grave of the socialist ideal for long
time to come The advocates of
permanent revolution" said that the
task of the working class consisted in
initiating Immediately the socialist
revolution. Parvus and Trotsky's