The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-01-17
Bolshevism or Trotskyism? . 6 z..,',


In order to possess the possibility
OF affording state support to the Rus
sian revolution, the European prole-
tariat would first have to capture
power in Europe. In the year 1905
and in general up to the war 1913
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 tho 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
T'rotzky postponed" the workers revo-
luton 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
and then I'VE" will Immediately"
make the workers revolution.
Trotzl1y wrote in those times
great deal as to victorious Russian
revolution being only possible as
part of victorious international revo-
luton, for western European capital
supported czarism with loans, etc.
There was a grain of truth in this
and here Trotzky only repeated that
which the Bolsheviki said. But Trotz-
Ky as usual conceived this connection
Iof the Russian revolution with the
international revolution too mechan-
ically.
Comrade Trotzky did not grasp the
cnncrete 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, Trotzlzy has prOvid-
ed this in his last work: THE Lessons
OF October" We quote the following:
1T was precisely the unripeness Of
the revolution under the thoroughly
unique conditions created by the war
which delivered the leadership or at
ssAot the appearance of leadership
syer the petty bourgeois revolution
siiss which consisted in the fact that
they defended the historical claim
OF the. hourgeoisie to power. This
however does rot mean that the revo-
luton could only fellow that road
which 1t 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.
CAS- 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 vii
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 Jpn the proletariat and at
first drew it after them. That the
course Of the revolution could have
been different with the same class
bases is best proved by the events
which preceded the war" blossoms
of October, Page XvIII-XIX)
The road from February till Oc-
tober, 1917. resulted, as you can see,
not only from the class relations, but
also from those temporary % condi-
tions created by the war. What is the
meaning Of this brain wave? It as
sumes that the war did not arise from
The class relations, that is to say it
was a mere chance event. Now, the
Russo-Japanese war. out of which
grew 1905. the general rehearsal for
i917---was it also chance? Was that
not also created by the temporary
conditions? What profoundly of