Public schools in the US did not teach much about the Russian
Revolution and the Soviet System. And yet, as Trotsky wrote, " the
greatest democratic revolution in human history.
The confiscation of the landed estates, the total elimination of the
traditional class privileges and distinctions of Russian society, the
destruction
of the czarist bureaucratic and military apparatus, the introduction
of national equality and national self-determination ..."
And just why was this revolution ignored or bad mouthed in the US?
Fear. Fear that this same fate could await the American Elite. Do
they learn from the Czar's greed? Do they take less of the profits,
giving more back to those who earned it for them? No, they can't do
that, because within their ranks are dedicated greed mongers. Each
member of the Ruling Class must be on constant guard to ensure that
none of their fellow Elitists come sniffing around their bottom line.
In order to survive they must maximize their profit. Regardless of
anything else they believe, they cannot allow another Pirate to gain
access.
So of course we learn nothing about revolutions that topple long
established Monarchies.
But even as the American Ruling Class ignores the lessons from the
Russian Revolution, the American Working Class must pay close
attention to not only how that revolution unfolded, but why the People
ultimately lost control to Stalin. It would be a waste of lives and
energy if all we did was to replace the Empire with a government of
the People that was so poorly structured and disorganized that it was
open to be captured by a new oppressor.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/21/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://themilitant.com/2016/8016/801649.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 80/No. 16 April 25, 2016
(Books of the Month column)
Russian Revolution changed social, property relations
Writings of Leon Trotsky (1929) is one of Pathfinder’s Books of the
Month for April. Alongside V.I. Lenin, Trotsky was a central leader of
the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, just months after the
overthrow of the czarist monarchy in February. It was the first time
that the working class took and held political power, governing through
workers councils known as soviets. After Lenin’s death in 1924, Trotsky
led a fight to continue the Bolsheviks’ communist course, in opposition
to the political counterrevolution led by a privileged bureaucratic
caste headed by Joseph Stalin. Trotsky was eventually forced into exile,
and was assassinated in Mexico in 1940 by Stalin’s secret police. This
excerpt is from the article “Is Parliamentary Democracy Likely to
Replace the Soviets?” written from Turkey in February 1929. Copyright ©
1975 by Pathfinder Press. Reprinted by permission.
BY LEON TROTSKY
When people counterpose democracy to the Soviets, what they usually
have in mind is simply the parliamentary system. They forget about the
other side of the question, the decisive one at that — namely, that the
October Revolution cleared the path for the greatest democratic
revolution in human history. The confiscation of the landed estates, the
total elimination of the traditional class privileges and distinctions
of Russian society, the destruction of the czarist bureaucratic and
military apparatus, the introduction of national equality and national
self-determination — all this was the elementary democratic work that
the February revolution barely even addressed itself to before leaving
it, almost untouched, for the October Revolution to inherit. It was
precisely the bankruptcy of the liberal-socialist coalition, its
incapacity for this work, that made possible the Soviet dictatorship,
based on an alliance of the workers, peasants, and oppressed
nationalities. The very same causes that prevented our weak and
historically belated democracy from carrying out its elementary
historical task will also prevent it in the future from placing itself
at the head of the country. For in the intervening time, the problems
and difficulties have grown greater and democracy weaker.
The Soviet system is not simply a form of government that can be
compared abstractly with the parliamentary form. Above all it is a new
form of property relations. What is involved at bottom is the ownership
of the land, the banks, the mines, the factories, the railroads. The
working masses remember very well what the aristocrat, the big
landowner, the official, the loan shark, the capitalist, and the boss
were in czarist Russia. Among the masses there undoubtedly exists much
highly legitimate dissatisfaction with the present situation in the
Soviet state. But the masses do not want the landowner, the official, or
the boss back. One must not overlook these “trifles” in intoxicating
oneself with commonplaces about democracy. Against the landowner’s
return, the peasants will fight today just as they did ten years ago, to
the last drop of blood. The great proprietor can return to his estate
from emigration only astride a cannon, and he would have to spend his
nights out on the cannon as well. It is true that the peasants could
reconcile themselves more easily to the return of the capitalist, since
state industry thus far has provided the peasants with industrial
products on less favorable terms than the merchant used to earlier.
This, we should note in passing, is at the root of all the internal
difficulties. But the peasants remember that the landowner and
capitalist were the Siamese twins of the old regime, that they withdrew
from the scene together, that during the civil war they fought against
the Soviets together, and that in the territories occupied by the Whites
the factory owner took back the factory, and the landowner, the land.
The peasant understands that the capitalist would not come back alone,
but with the landlord. That is why the peasant wants neither of them.
And that is a mighty source of strength, even though in negative form,
for the Soviet regime. …
The Soviet system with its nationalized industry and monopoly of foreign
trade, in spite of all its contradictions and difficulties, is a
protective system for the economic and cultural independence of the
country. This was understood even by many democrats who were attracted
to the Soviet side not by socialism but by a patriotism which had
absorbed some of the elementary lessons of history. To this category
belong many of the forces of the native technical intelligentsia, as
well as the new school of writers who for want of a more appropriate
name I have called the fellow travelers.
There is a handful of impotent doctrinaires who would like to have
democracy without capitalism. But the serious social forces that are
hostile to the Soviet regime want capitalism without democracy. This
applies not only to the expropriated property owners but to the
well-to-do peasantry as well. Insofar as this peasantry turned against
the revolution, it always served as a support for Bonapartism.
Soviet power arose as the result of tremendous contradictions on the
international and domestic scene. It is hopeless to think that
democratic safety switches of a liberal or socialist type could
withstand these contradictions, which during the past quarter century
have built up to their highest tension; or that they could “regulate”
the thirst for revenge and restoration that inspires the ousted ruling
classes. These elements are stretched out in a long line, with the
merchant and industrialist holding onto the kulak, the landlord holding
onto the merchant, the monarchy tagging along behind them, and the
foreign creditors bringing up the rear. And all of them are straining to
take first place in the country in the event of their victory.
Napoleon correctly summed up the dynamics of the revolutionary age,
dominated as it is by extremes, when he said, “Europe will be either
Republican or Cossack.” Today one may say with far more justification,
“Russia will be either Soviet or Bonapartist.”
What I have just said should indicate that I am not about to assert the
existence of absolute guarantees for the permanent stability of Soviet
power. If the Opposition thought that, there would be no sense in the
struggle we are waging against the danger of Bonapartism. I am even less
inclined to claim that the solidity of the Soviet system can remain
unaffected by the particular policies of the present Soviet government.
The bitterness of our internal struggle shows full well how dangerous we
think Stalin’s zigzag policies are for Soviet power. But the very fact
of our struggle testifies also that we are far removed from the
so-called attitude of pessimism.
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
