'Memory Wars': a three-part series by Jack Conrad

Konstantin Yuon New Planet (1921)

Jack Conrad is a leading member of the CPGB-PCC and a frequent writer for the Weekly Worker. His 2022 three-part series describing Leon Trotsky's 'The Lessons of October' is of considerable interest given how central the work is in understanding the Russian Revolution from a Bolshevik's perspective. Jack contends that Trotsky's interpretation of events should be questioned and overcome. What follows is my reflection on the series. 

Part 1:

• The history of 1917 is often used to justify sectarian existence: "if the Bolsheviks could do it, so can the chosen confessional sect or the broad left." this interpretation relies on a misrepresentation of the Bolshevik Party. 'The Lessons of October' is conventionally used to understand the Bolsheviks' program. Much of the left, even mainstream Communism (minus Trotsky's name) adhered to his account of events. 
• Trotsky claims that while the Bolsheviks did not seek to join the provisional government falling the Tsar's abdication in February of 1917, they did seek to exert pressure on the government because of a desire to remain within the framework of the bourgeois democratic regime and thus supported revolutionary defencism. 
• Revolutionary defencism flows from the flawed stagist theory of Marxism in which a bourgeois stage must be passed before the revolution becomes possible. Only after considerable delay could the socialist revolution take place. Trotsky is continuing this myth, an additional aspect (see Tony Cliff among others) of which states that Lenin, too, expected a long period of time to pass between the bourgeois and the proletarian revolution. In reality, the stagist approach was put forward by the Mensheviks. 
• If Lenin is seen as a stagist along with the rest of the Bolshevik party, then of course, his April Theses (1917) seem like a radical break with his past conception. But if stagism in the Bolshevik Party was a myth, then the April These contributed nothing new on that point. Trotsky's version of history makes it seem as if Lenin came over to Trotsky's version of permanent revolution after a long walk in the woods, so to speak. 
• All written history must be seen in its context. In 1924, Trotsky was waging a memory war within the Communist Party. He was seeking to win the Communist movement over to Trotskyism by saying that he had been fundamentally correct with his permanent revolution, while Lenin only later came around to the correct idea (having, supposedly, subscribed to a stagist theory until 1917). Trotsky's main targets were Zinoviev and Kamenev. He knew he was in a weak position following Lenin's death because of his very late arrival to the Bolshevik camp. T had Z and K beat when he pointed out their hesitancy to move from underground work to prepare for the insurrection; they, infamously, opposed the October insurrection. 
• But there was plenty of dirt of T: "in 1912 Trotsky famously brought together a motley crew of Bundists, Menshevik liquidators and Bolshevik boycottists - the August bloc - in an attempt to sabotage the Bolshevik-sponsored 6th (Prague) Conference of the Russian Socialist Democratic Labour Party. A move that an infuriated Lenin denounced as an attempt to “destroy the party." 

Part 2:

• The existence of dual power supposedly proved Lenin and the standing Bolshevik program incorrect. This is based on the idea that stagism dominated the strategy of the Bolsheviks. This is untrue. The Mensheviks were the true stagists. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were against handing power to the bourgeoisie following the democratic revolution. They say the bourgeoisie was cowardly and treacherous and didn't in fact want a people's revolution that would overthrow the tsar - they wanted a constitutional monarchy. The only force capable of overthrowing tsarism and creating a democratic republic was the workers and peasants alliance with the workers in the lead. 
• The Bolsheviks said the revolution would carry through the entire minimum program, and this could only be done via a provisional revolutionary government that embodied the interests of the masses. Economically, Russia would have to progress capitalistically - albeit under the armed rule of the working class and peasants. That meant the continuation of wage labor, albeit with workers taking over abandoned factories, the nationalization of the central bank, etc. We can presume this period was expected to last a relatively long time. 
• Main point: the Bolsheviks were not committed to handing power over to the bourgeoisie after the tsar was overthrown. The international dimension was of course crucial as the DOP and peasants could not survive for an extended period outside of larger revolutionary successes. 
• "The revolution could, given favorable internal and external conditions, proceed uninterruptedly from democratic to socialist tasks through the proletariat fighting not only from below but from above: ie, using state power. The revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat thereby peacefully grows over into the dictatorship (rule) of the working class. " Lenin and the Bolsheviks had their own conception of the permanent revolution by at least 1905 when Lenin wrote 'Two Tactics': "first to lead the “whole people” for a democratic republic, and then lead “all the toilers and exploited” for socialism." The term should not be identified only with Trotsky. The Bolsheviks will take the revolution forward from above and below in their conception of the permanent revolution; there will be no stopping at some artificial stage boundary. Kautsky also had a conception of the permanent revolution in which after coming to power the working class would have to render assistance to the rest of the world. 
• "By boldly, outrageously, claiming in effect that Lenin had become a Trotskyist in April 1917, Trotsky could, without fear of being contradicted by Lenin, enhance his own standing and at the same time vilify the role played by his three rivals."

Part 3: 

• Upon seeing that the February revolution had installed a bourgeois provisional government prevaricating over the war and stalling on a constituent assembly, Lenin abandoned calls for a workers and peasants republic. This was because the Tsar had fallen and Russia had essentially already become a republic. The demand had been realized. The slogan was changed. 
• The task now became how to combat the provisional government and expose its inability to meet the demands of the workers and peasants. Illusions in revolutionary defencism must be countered. The soviets must recognize their ability to take power. Trotsky describes this moment as Lenin abandoning the call for a 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry' in favor of the dictatorship of the workers and socialism. Trotsky creates the impression that he went over to Lein's side because Lenin had finally adopted Trtosky's position. 
• This is false: there was no break within the Bolsheviks. The creation of a provisional government after the Tsar fell was unexpected. the dual power was unexpected. It had been thought that a workers and peasants republic would be the form. The formulations would need modification but not fundamental change. 
• The Bolsheviks needed to adapt their language to speak with the newly revolutionized masses. Kamenev and Stalin recognized that the slogan 'revolutionary defensism' was open to misinterpretation. Their innovation was the demand to publish the secret treaties which would expose the policy of revolutionary defensism as a cover for continuing the Tsar's war aims.