By MICHEL GOULART DA SILVA*
Em October Lessons one of Trotsky's first struggles in the defense of a political writing of the history of the revolutionary process of 1917 is found
The year 1924 not only marked Lenin's death, but also constituted a symbolic milestone for Stalin's dominance both within the Bolshevik Party and in the government of the Soviet Union. With this, opposition groups also gained strength, especially the Left Opposition, led by Leon Trotsky. When the development of the Stalinist bureaucracy was still a process in gestation, Trotsky raised several criticisms of it, and works such as Literature and revolution, July 1924, and October Lessons, completed in September of the same year.
Em October Lessons Here we find one of Trotsky's first struggles in the defense of a political writing of the history of the revolutionary process of 1917. Stalinism became notorious for its distortion of the facts related to any political process, both in the Soviet Union and in other countries to which its methods and concepts were gradually exported. Trotsky perceived this process while it was still in its infancy, defending the need to study in depth the documents and the political process of the Russian Revolution.
Em October Lessons, Trotsky drew attention to the scarcity of works produced about the October Revolution. Trotsky stated that “we do not yet have a single work that gives a general picture of it, highlighting its main moments from the political and organizational points of view”, nor have they even published “materials that characterize the different aspects of the preparation of the revolution or the revolution itself”.[I] After the victory of the insurrection, according to Trotsky, it seems that “we decided never to have to repeat it again; it seems that we did not expect any direct benefit from the study of October and the conditions for its immediate preparation, in relation to the urgent tasks of subsequent organization.”[ii]
In view of the defeats of the revolution in Europe, especially in view of the experience in Germany, it was found “that in the absence of a party capable of leading it, a proletarian coup d’état became impossible. The proletariat cannot seize power through a spontaneous insurrection.”[iii] In view of this, Trotsky states that it would be necessary to “(…) put the study of the October Revolution on the agenda of the party and the entire International. It is necessary that our entire party and particularly the youth study in detail the experience of October, which provided us with an incontestable verification of our past and opened a wide door to the future.”[iv]
Having noted the limitations in the field of studies about October, Trotsky points out that, even if the experience of the October Revolution were not to be repeated in Russia, it would have to be studied, mainly due to the fact that the proletariat of other countries had “to resolve its October problem”.[v] For Trotsky, this did not mean that the Russian experience should be a model to be mechanically followed by other parties, after all “each people, each class and even each party educates itself above all from its own experience”.[vi] In other countries, as was the case for Russia, a deep knowledge of the concrete economic and political situation would be necessary, identifying the dynamics of the class struggle, with the Russian experience being a reference for possible paths and not a closed model.
These reflections by Trotsky were aimed primarily at an audience of party and Communist International activists. At that time, Stalinism was beginning to gain ground and the process that would lead to the bureaucratization of Soviet power and the formulations of socialism in one country was taking shape. The year before the publication of October Lessons, the sector that would come to be known as the Left Opposition began to organize within the Soviet party, criticizing the process of bureaucratization of the party and the economic policy carried out by Stalin and his allies.
One of the most interesting aspects of Trotsky's book is its reflection, albeit in an embryonic form, on the process of crisis that began with the defeat of the revolutionary processes in Europe and its impact on the mood of communist militants, especially in the face of the rise of fascism in Italy, from 1922 onwards, and the successive defeats that occurred in Germany, between 1919 and 1923. In a reflection on the organizational dynamics of the party, Trotsky states:
“As a rule, crises in the party arise at every important turning point, as a prelude or consequence. Each period of the party’s development has its own special features, requiring certain habits and methods of work. A tactical change entails a more or less important break in these habits and methods: therein lies the direct cause of clashes and crises.”[vii]
This reflection seeks to show how the dynamics of the class struggle and political disputes in society can impact revolutionary organization. Trotsky, in reference to the dynamics of political processes, points out that,
“(…) if the turnaround has been too sudden or unexpected and the subsequent period has accumulated too many elements of inertia and conservatism in the party’s leadership, the party will prove incapable of assuming leadership at the most serious moment, for which it has been preparing for years or decades. The party will allow itself to be devastated by a crisis and the movement will pass unnoticed by it, heading towards defeat.”[viii]
To a large extent, this is the description of Stalinist action in different experiences over the decades. Trotsky, in his reflection, points to the central role of the party in the revolutionary process. In this sense, Trotsky states that “the proletarian revolution cannot triumph without the party, against the party or through the party.”[ix] For Trotsky, “the role of the party is all the greater the more formidably the class consciousness of its enemy has intensified.”[X]
According to Trotsky, this fundamental importance of the party does not arise by chance. Party members must understand the process that led to the political and organizational situation of both the proletariat and the workers’ organization itself. In this sense, returning to the importance of studying the Russian revolutionary experience, Trotsky points out that “the party can and must know its entire past in order to assess it appropriately and put things in their proper place. The tradition of a revolutionary party is not made of reticence, but of political clarity.”[xi]
The arguments put forward by Trotsky to highlight the importance of studying the Russian revolutionary process are related to the specificities of the period itself, based mainly on the needs of the workers' struggle, the role of political organization and the defense of proletarian internationalism.
*Michel Goulart da Silva He holds a PhD in history from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) and a technical-administrative degree from the Federal Institute of Santa Catarina (IFC).
[I] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Sundermann, 2007, p. 21.
[ii] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Sundermann, 2007, p. 21.
[iii] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Sundermann, 2007, p. 24.
[iv] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Sundermann, 2007, p. 25.
[v] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Sundermann, 2007, p. 22.
[vi] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Sundermann, 2007, p. 25.
[vii] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 27.
[viii] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 27-8.
[ix] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 114.
[X] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 115.
[xi] Leon Trotsky. The Lessons of October. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 117.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
