LENIN VERSUS TROTSKY AND HIS FOLLOWERS
In the modern world ideological struggle is becoming increasingly intense and has given rise to a wide variety of political trends and theories. Many of them reflect, in one way or another, the objective process by which the masses are becoming more active politically. Trotskyism holds a special place on the political scene. The Trotskyists attempt to divert from the correct path those non-proletarian groups, in particular the students and the intelligentsia, who are taking an increasingly active part in the political struggle and who can and must act in alliance with the working class and its revolutionary vanguard, the communist parties.
At the end of the 1920's and in the early 1930's, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties exposed the pseudo-revolutionary, defeatist essence of Trotskyism, and consequently it was, as an ideological and political trend, swept off the political scene. The Trotskyist organisations either disintegrated or deteriorated into small sectarian groupings which were constantly bickering among themselves.
Over recent years, Trotskyism has revived somewhat. In a number of capitalist countries of Europe and Latin America, and in the United States, the Trotskyists have also stirred. They have begun publishing political literature in which they expound their theories, and they have started to propagate their views in a vociferous manner. A political movement which goes under the name of "modern Trotskyism", or "neo-Trotskyism"has appeared.
This new brand, however, does not in any essential detail differ from the old, traditional Trotskyism either as to its social basis, its methodology, its political orientation, or as to the methods of infiltrating the working class movement it uses.
It is true that in this new historical period the Trotskyists cannot always use Trotsky's old ideas. At times his theories are somewhat altered, they are modified and modernized. This is however only an attempt to adjust Trotskyism to the new conditions. The aims of the movement, however, have not changed.
The contradictions and class antagonisms in capitalist society have become accentuated to the utmost, and the monopoly bourgeoisie finds it increasingly difficult to keep the masses under its ideological control. The monopoly bourgeoisie is trying to check the growth of their political activity, to divert their revolutionary energy into the wrong channel. Various pseudo-revolutionary theories, including Trotskyism, are pressed into service. This is only too easy to understand: leftist phraseology and the mere show of revolutionary ardour do not in themselves endanger the foundations of capitalist society. It is no coincidence that the numerous books written by Trotsky and Trotskyists are now being widely printed by bourgeois and liberal publishers.
The Trotskyists have some views and ideas in common with the non-proletarian strata of certain groups of the intelligentsia and students and they use this to try and force upon them certain distorted political concepts, to encourage them in all sorts of adventurism. They incessantly harp on “the untapped possibilities” which if used might, they insist, speed up the development of the revolution; they proclaim noisy “revolutionary” slogans, and call for armed insurrection, whether or not the conditions for such an attempt are favorable. This is “leftist” opportunism of the purest water.
“Leftist” opportunism has always been one of the worst enemies of the revolutionary movement. Marx, Engels, Lenin and their supporters vehemently opposed such opportunism. The Maoists, following in the footsteps of the anarchists, the Trotskyists and other pseudo-revolutionaries, have embraced left opportunism and the danger for the revolutionary movement of “concealed” opportunism has thus greatly increased.
“Left-wing” opportunism is typical of petty- bourgeois revolutionism.
When the petty-bourgeoisie follows a consistently revolutionary line, it can reach an understanding of the need for proletarian leadership.
Petty-bourgeois revolutionism in such a case moves towards proletarian revolutionism.
The situation is quite different when the petty bourgeoisie and its various groupings gravitate towards the bourgeoisie, and reject the leadership of the working class and its revolutionary vanguard. In this case petty bourgeois revolutionism inevitably impedes the progress of the revolutionary movement.
“Left-wing” opportunism and flagrantly right-wing opportunism are two sides of the same coin. The right-wing opportunists prefer to come to terms with the imperialist bourgeoisie rather than fight against it, and thus they weaken the revolutionary movement. The “left-wing” opportunists loudly denounce any collaboration with the bourgeoisie, but in actual fact they weaken this movement and draw some of its groups into harmful adventures. The ideological foundation of both “left-wing” and right-wing opportunism is the same—lack of trust in the revolutionary potential of the working class and its political vanguard, the Marxist-Leninist parties.
The modern Trotskyists resort to political demagoguery. While paying lip service to Lenin they try to replace Leninism by Trotskyism. (This was Trotsky’s method). They describe Trotsky as Lenin’s supporter and a loyal and in fact the only follower to continue Lenin’s cause.
The Trotskyists obviously think they can get away with such gross deception because many who take part in the working class and national liberation movement, and in particular many young people, do not know the history of the ideological and political struggle in the course of which the Communist Party of theUnion was created and consolidated, because they do not know the ideological enemies in the struggle against whom Bolshevism took shape and gained its strength.
In order to expose modern Trotskyism one has to go back to primary sources, examine the ideological struggle against Trotskyism, and recall the principal political and theoretical arguments which Lenin advanced in the course of this struggle”arguments which have retained their force to this day.
The present collection contains Lenin's articles, letters and speeches which relate to his struggle against Trotsky. They are presented in chronological order. They reconstruct the irreconcilable ideological struggle that Lenin and the Bolsheviks waged against Trotskyism, convincingly disclose the essence of Trotsky's anti-Marxist theories and thereby lay bare the thesis of modern bourgeois propagandists that Lenin and Trotsky did not in any substantial way disagree in principle and that they had only transitory differences of opinion. Trotsky has always been an ideological enemy of Leninism.
In 1915 he wrote bluntly that he and his newspaper Nashe Slovo were waging an ideological struggle against Lenin's followers and supporters. *
The first articles and speeches contained in this collection reflect the initial period of Lenin’s struggle against Trotsky’s ideas. Lenin made his first criticism of Trotsky at the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in 1903 (see commentary 1).
The extent of the working class movement in Russia both in numbers and activity had by this time become considerable. A revolutionary Marxist party was needed in order to transform the disjointed and largely spontaneous activity of the workers into a politically conscious class struggle. The Second Congress of the RSDLP was responsible for the founding of such a party and therefore marked an important stage in the working class struggle. There were two opinions on the Programme and the Rules of the Party: one was revolutionary and the other opportunist. Trotsky found himself on the side of the opportunists. He opposed Lenin’s revolutionary line on the question of the programme and on organisational questions. The draft of the party programme contained the Marxist view on the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the winning of political power by the working class. Trotsky did not object to this position in words. However in actual fact he opposed it. He expounded views which coincided with the views of the West European opportunists and the Russian Social-Democrats who became known at this congress as Mensheviks. According to Trotsky, the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat was possible only if the proletariat constituted the majority of the nation. In this case the revolution in Russia would have to have been put off indefinitely. The victory of the socialist revolution in October, 1917, served as a graphic refutation of this opportunist thesis and bore out the correctness of Lenin and his supporters.
At the Second Congress Trotsky’s opportunist position appeared especially clearly over the question of the organisational structure of the Party, particularly with regard to the first paragraph of the Rules outlining the conditions for Party membership (see commentary 2). Lenin considered that a Party member must belong to one of the Party organisations, work under its guidance, obey its decisions, and observe Party discipline. The Party consequently was seen as a politically-advanced, organised body, which gave the working class political leadership.
Martov (see commentary 3) and Trotsky who supported him believed that any militant worker might belong to the Party without necessarily being a member of one of its organisations and without necessarily having to meet the requirements of Party discipline. It was dangerous to admit to the Party people who did not belong to any concrete Party organisation because in this way the Party was open to all sorts of accidental fellow-travellers. “It would be better,” Lenin commented, “if ten who do work should not call themselves Party members (real workers don’t hunt after titles!) than that one who only talks should have the right and opportunity to be a Party member.” (see p. 27).
At its Second Congress the Party split into the Bolshevik and the Menshevik factions. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin and supported by the masses of workers and peasants went on to form a united revolutionary party capable of giving the working people of Russia leadership in their struggle to overthrow czarism, make a socialist revolution and to achieve the complete democratisation of state and public life, and the fundamental transformation of society along socialist lines. The Mensheviks and the Trotskyists who adhered to the positions of reformism were gradually losing their influence in the revolutionary movement.
In January, 1905, a revolution broke out. This was a bourgeois-democratic revolution which, had it been victorious, would have led to the overthrow of the autocracy and to the establishment of a democratic republic. The main motive force of this revolution was the proletariat (this was the principal difference between the first Russian revolution and the bourgeois- democratic revolutions which had at different times taken place in a number of West European countries). At this stage the proletariat acted in alliance with the peasantry; at the next stage of the revolution, the proletariat was to assume leadership in the struggle for the transition of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.
One of the key questions at that time was the question of a provisional revolutionary government to emerge in the place of the deposed czarist regime. The Bolsheviks believed that such a government had to represent the revolutionary classes, i. e., to be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.
The Mensheviks and Trotsky disagreed with this view of the revolution and its motive forces. The Mensheviks considered that the revolution in Russia, in the same way as the earlier bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe, must be headed by the bourgeoisie which, if the revolution was successful, would assume political power; the proletariat ought not therefore to compete with the bourgeoisie in putting forward its class aims because the proletariat’s task was to support the bourgeoisie. The Mensheviks completely discounted the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. Trotsky on the other hand went to the other extreme expounding his strange “left” theory of “permanent revolution”, a theory which he had borrowed from Parvus (see commentaries 5, 6, 59). This theory was “interesting” in that it completely ignored the objective conditions of the current revolution. Trotsky considered that the working class could assume political power alone, without allies. He advanced the slogan “a workers’ government without the czar”. This slogan meant the isolation of the proletariat from the many millions of peasants who made up a powerful revolutionary force in the struggle for the liquidation of the remnants of the old, pre-capitalist relations in the countryside. Thus Trotsky was against the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, putting forward instead his theory of “permanent revolution” which he opposed to Lenin’s analysis of the character and the motive forces of the revolution. Trotsky ignored the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolution and consequently his theory was tantamount to an attack on Lenin’s theory of the growth of a bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.
The Revolution of 1905-1907 in Russia failed to achieve its objectives and was defeated. A period of brutal reaction set in. Czarism struck its main blow at the party of the working class. The Party was forced to change the style of its work. Lenin considered that in the new conditions it was most important of all to preserve the revolutionary party which firmly adhered to a Marxist position. It was necessary to combine illegal and legal forms of work, thus making it possible to strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses. The Party concentrated its efforts on accumulating strength, on the study of the experience and lessons of the revolution, and on preparations for future struggle against the czarist autocracy. The Bolsheviks sought to accomplish these tasks by fighting both the right-wing and the “left-wing” opportunists. The right-wing opportunists were the Menshevik-liquidators (see commentaries 17, 18, 21). Frightened by the onset of reaction in Russia they advocated the dissolution (liquidation) of the revolutionary proletarian party and demanded that it should be replaced by a legal reformist party. The “left-wing” opportunists (known as otzovists, from the Russian word “otozvat”-—“to recall”—Ed.) (see commentaries 17, 19, 25, 35) called for undelayed revolutionary action, and sought to recall the representatives of the working class who were members of the State Duma (parliament) (see commentary 10), and of other legal organisations. They were thus pushing the Party along the path of adventurism and sectarianism, thereby trying to separate the Party from the masses. Both the liquidators and the otzovists posed a serious threat to the very existence of the Party. Lenin wrote at that time: “The alternative facing the Social-Democratic Party was either to perish or to rid itself entirely of these tendencies.” *
Lenin. Coll. Works, Vol. 17, p. 541.What was Trotsky’s position at this point? Trotsky adhered to the so-called “centrists” (see commentary 11) and claimed that he was “above all factions”. That however was not the truth. While insisting that there was no difference in principle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and that the struggle between them was a struggle between two groups of the intelligentsia for influence over “the politically immature proletariat”, Trotsky and his followers called for the unification of these two groups in the interests ostensibly of social democracy. In Trotsky’s view, all the trends within the Party ought to “unify” regardless of their attitude to liquidationism and otzovism. The Trotskyists hoped that through “unification” they would later secure the leading position in the Party and thus be in the position to have Lenin’s policy of struggle against opportunism rejected. Thus the Trotskyists, just like the liquidators, aimed their main blow at the Marxist revolutionary party which at that time of brutal reaction was becoming the vanguard of the proletariat in its revolutionary struggle. They wanted a reformist party open to all comers.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks made it quite clear that they would not unite with the opportunists. The Trotskyists then decided to organise a united bloc of all the anti-Party elements— the so-called “August” Bloc (see commentary 45). This bloc did not last long; it had been
built on an anti-Marxist, opportunist basis and therefore did not have any perspectives. The Trotskyists' attempt to create a centrist petty- bourgeois party in Russia thus failed. In a number of his articles ,”The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia (see p. 42), Trotsky's Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform (see p. 57), The Break-Up of the "August" Bloc (see p. 63) and some others, ”Lenin offered a profound Marxist analysis of the class nature of the inner-Party struggle in the Social-Democratic movement in Russia during that period.
During the first years of World War I (1914- 1918) the Bolshevik Party continued to prepare the masses for the overthrow of the czarist autocracy. This difficult work was carried on in the face of the opposition of the social chauvinists, the centrists and the '"left sectarians. All these brands of opportunism were nothing but vehicles of bourgeois influence in the working class movement. While adhering to Menshevism Trotsky advocated the ideas of centrism and Kautskyism (see commentaries 11, 64). Just as before Trotsky advocated an alliance with all opportunists regardless of their factional origin, under the"unity" slogan. The Bolshevik slogans (transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war and defeat of the czarist government) made it clear to the masses that the czarist autocracy was to be overthrown. Trotsky on the other hand advanced his own slogans such as "Peace at all costs" (including a negotiated peace settlement with the imperialist governments.”Ed.), "neither victories, nor defeats" (in other words, preservation of the status quo, which in effect meant that the imperialists should retain their dominant position in Russia.—Ed.).
At that time Lenin sharply criticized Trotsky’s characterization of the epoch of imperialism and his views on the prospects for a socialist revolution and its motive forces. Lenin proved that Trotsky had espoused Kautsky’s theory of “ultra-imperialism” which denied the existence of fundamental contradictions of imperialism and in fact sought to prove that the imperialist system was inviolable by its very nature. It was only one step to Trotsky’s defeatist assertions that socialism could not first win in one single country, and that the proletariat had no class allies.
The Bolsheviks exposed the pseudo-socialist and pseudo-revolutionary ideas of Trotsky and his followers and then in 1917 isolated them politically. Lenin wrote that they had never had anything in common with the working class and they could not be trusted an inch. Trotsky tried to dodge and manoeuvre. He even criticised his own views and hinted that he had no ideological differences with the Bolsheviks in principle.
After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February, 1917, Trotsky returned to Petrograd from abroad, and joined the “Inter-Regional Organisation of the United Social-Democrats” which had a membership of about four thousand. In August, 1917 the members of this organisation declared that they had no differences with the Bolsheviks and joined their ranks. Trotsky and his followers thus joined the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Later developments were to show, however, that he had not abandoned his old ideas.
Pseudo-revolutionaries usually hide their ideological bankruptcy under cover of “left” revolutionary phraseology. This was Trotsky’s method. At the most crucial moment of the social revolution, i.e. at the time when the armed insurrection to seize power was on the agenda, Trotsky proposed that it should be postponed until the Second Congress of Soviets.* Trotsky backed up his proposal with an assertion that assuming political power was not difficult and that the uprising should be timed for the congress of Soviets which would declare the takeover of political power. In his article The Crisis Has Matured Lenin wrote: “To wait for the Congress of Soviets would be utter idiocy, for it would mean losing weeks at a time when weeks and even days decide everything. It would mean faint-heartedly renouncing power, for on November 1-2 it will have become impossible to take power (both politically and technically, since the Cossacks would be mobilised for the day of the insurrection so foolishly ‘appointed’).” ** Lenin. Coll. Works, Vol. 26, p. 83.
After the victory of the October Revolution the working people of Russia proceeded to build a socialist state. Lenin considered that the revolution in Russia could fully transform the economic and political life on socialist lines. Trotsky did not share this view and insisted that the future of the Soviet republic fully depended on a victorious revolution in Western Europe. He categorically rejected the possibility of socialism in one country, saying that it was only a European revolution that could save us in the direct meaning of this word. Trotsky held to this line of reasoning during the Brest-Litovsk peace talks with Germany.
Soviet Russia was living through a difficult period. The war was still in progress. The Soviet government saw the ending of the war as its most urgent task. But the governments of Britain, France and the United States rejected the Soviet government’s appeal for a peace treaty on democratic principles. Thus in November 1917 the Soviet government began peace negotiations with Kaiser Germany and her allies—for the newly formed republic desperately needed a respite from the war in order to secure the gains of the revolution and to consolidate Soviet power.
Lenin declared in favour of signing a peace treaty with Germany immediately because the situation for the Soviet republic was so difficult. Lenin’s strategy and tactic on this question came up against Trotsky’s opposition. Trotsky who headed the Soviet delegation at the peace talks failed to comply with Lenin’s instructions and parried the German ultimatum of January 27 (February 9, New Calendar), 1918. with his formula “neither war, nor peace” which meant: “we are not going to sign the peace treaty, we are not waging this war any longer, we are going to demobilise our army.” At the same time he sent a telegram to the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces demanding that he order the demobilisation of the army. When he learned of these unauthorised actions, Lenin cancelled Trotsky’s instructions (see p. 91).
Trotsky’s adventuristic stand stemmed from his idea that revolutionary events outside Soviet Russia must be spurred on, and from his disbelief that Soviet rule could last for any length of time. He regarded the October Revolution as a “torch” that would kindle the conflagration of a European and ultimately a world revolution. On the basis of his ill-starred theory of “permanent revolution” and from his thesis that a world revolution must be started at any price, he was prepared to sacrifice Soviet power—the most important gain ever achieved by the working masses of Russia. Thus, Trotsky’s “ultra-revolutionism” was at one with the objectives of the aggressive imperialist states and with those of the bourgeois landlord counter-revolutionary forces inside Russia, all of which conspired the downfall of the Soviet Republic.
Unlike Trotsky and in spite of his prophecies, Lenin emphasised the connection between the anti-imperialist struggle of the proletariat in other countries and the revolutionary changes in Russia, and considered that the principal objective of the working people of Russia was to preserve the Soviet Republic as the bulwark of the world-wide liberation movement. He believed that the downfall of Soviet rule would have been a mortal blow to the cause of socialism throughout the world.
At the time of the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations the Party came under heavy pressure from the so-called “left-wing” communists dubbed by Lenin “heroes of the leftist phrase”, who insisted that a revolutionary war be started against German and world imperialism without delay. The “leftist” phrase-mongers accused the Party of opportunism, and of the betrayal of the interests of the proletariat of Russia and the rest of the world. Trotsky justified the activities of the “left-wing” communists and in fact identified with them. He held that the renunciation of peace with Germany would make it possible “to exercise a revolutionising influence on the German proletariat”. The Trotskyists tried to strengthen their position with references to the rising revolution in Western Europe. They even tried to predict the exact day imperialism would collapse and revolutions would break out in other countries. All these theses rested on the anti-Marxist idea of the possibility of “prodding” a world revolution by war, of the possibility of hastening the end of the imperialist system.
Lenin vehemently opposed those who advocated revolutionary war showing that their position was utterly untenable in the concrete situation of 1918. Soviet Russia found itself in difficult economic straits, the workers and peasants were tired of the war and there was no revolutionary army. At such a time to preach revolutionary war was nothing but adventuristic gambling with the destinies of the Soviet Republic.
That was another example of the way in which the Trotskyists and other “left” phrasemongers neglected the real situation and ignored the vital interests of the masses, their attitudes and their demands. The Trotskyists thought that it was they and not the people that made history.
In March, 1918, the Brest Treaty was signed, and the long-awaited respite from war came at last. This respite enabled the Soviet government to strengthen its power and to establish the Red Army to defend the gains of the revolution.
After a short period of peace the military intervention of imperialist states and the Civil War which lasted from 1918 until 1920 began. After putting the white-guard counter-revolutionaries and the foreign interventionists to rout our country could finally proceed to peaceful reconstruction.
In this transition period opposition groupings reflecting the views and sentiments of the petty- bourgeois strata in town and country and their fear of change, became more active within the Party. The activity of the oppositionists showed their lack of confidence in the strength of the Party and the people, in their ability to accomplish the tasks they had set themselves.
Under the guise of a creative approach to the urgent problems of that time they rejected the guiding role of the Party in the system of proletarian dictatorship, tried to sap the strength of the Party, to undermine Party discipline and to weaken the influence of the Party on the masses (see commentaries 91, 100).
Trotsky was largely responsible for this exacerbation of the inner-Party struggle. He came out with his slogan of putting the trade unions under state control, proposing that they be merged with economic bodies and that administrative-economic functions be assigned these newly formed organisations. Trotsky insisted that emergency, in fact, military methods of leadership be introduced as a regular part of trade union activities. He talked about the crisis of trade unions without having any reason for doing so, and proposed to take drastic organisational measures against them—he wanted to “shake up” the trade unions, putting men in charge who were able to “tighten the screws” and apply compulsory methods in their work with the masses (see commentaries 82, 86). He proposed that the trade union organisation be modelled on the Central Committee of the Amalgamated Union of Railwaymen and Water Transport Workers (see commentary 93), which used such methods. Trotsky’s proposals threatened to split the working class, turning it against the Party, which would have placed the entire system of proletarian dictatorship in danger.
Trotsky used the trade union question as an argument in his attacks on the Party and its unity. But his main dilferences with the Party lay, as Lenin put it, in his “different approach to the mass, the different way of winning it over and keeping in touch with it.”
To remove the danger of a split within the Party it was necessary to disclose to the masses the essence of these differences. Lenin’s speeches and articles played a tremendous role in the accomplishment of this task. The present collection includes the text of Lenin’s speech at the 8th Congress of Soviets (see commentary 83), The Trade Unions, the Present Situation and Trotsky’s Mistakes; excerpts from Lenin’s brochure, On the Crisis in the Party; Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin; Speech on the Trade Unions at the 10th Party Congress, all of which show the methods Lenin employed to tackle these urgent and difficult questions, including the trade union question. He considered each individual problem in the context of all the other questions related to the system of proletarian dictatorship, and against the background of the building of a socialist society. He showed that the trade union question was part of the general question of the Communist Parly’s attitude to the working masses in the conditions of socialist construction.
In exercising its leadership of the masses the Party applied persuasion, and not compulsion. These methods, Lenin argued, should apply to the activities of the trade unions, too. The trade unions must educate the working class in the spirit of communism; they must serve as a school for the masses to help them acquire the necessary experience in the economic and administrative fields. It was through the trade unions that workers were drawn into the building of a socialist society, it was through the trade unions that they exercised control over the activities of leaders of economic organisations. The principal tasks of the trade unions were to increase the productivity of labour, to strengthen labour discipline and to promote socialist competition.
The Party rejected the erroneous political line of Trotsky and other oppositionists (see commentaries 82, 86). Lenin’s course was overwhelmingly approved at the 10th Congress of the Party (see commentary 97). The resolution of the Congress defined the role and significance of the trade unions as the school of communism, emphasised the need to draw the broad sections of the working masses into participation in socialist construction, to restore the methods of working people’s democracy, and the electoral principles in the formation of trade union bodies.
In a speech at the 10th Congress Lenin spoke about the danger of factionalism in the Party. He submitted a draft resolution he had written as the congress was in progress. This draft, On Party Unity, includes the statement that “the Congress, therefore, hereby declares dissolved and orders the immediate dissolution of all groups without exception formed on the basis of one platform or another.” The resolution was approved by the delegates at the Congress.
But the Trotskyists did not cease their factional, anti-Party activities even after the Congress. In 1927, Trotsky and his followers were expelled from the Party for their factionalist activities.
In 1929 Trotsky was deported from the Soviet Union.
Lenin’s struggle against Trotskyism has long since been a part of the rich experience accumulated by the revolutionary proletariat in its fight against the various brands of opportunism. This revolutionary experience teaches all genuine revolutionaries how to discern the anti-revolutionary action behind the loud and resonant pseudo-revolutionary words and phrases. This struggle also shows that only creative Marxist- Leninist teachings can be the real guide to action for all true revolutionaries. Any attempts to denigrate or depart from Marxism-Leninism, any attempt at overt or covert revision or dogmatic distortion of Marxism-Leninism, any manifestation of a reluctance to reckon with objective reality which makes the necessary adjustments in the revolutionary theory, inevitably lead to a departure from the revolutionary path, to the betrayal of the revolutionary cause.
From: “Speech on the Report on the Activities of the Duma Group”
From: “The Attitude Towards Bourgeois Parties”
From: “The Aim of the Proletarian Struggle in Our Revolution” III
From a Letter: “To Maxim Gorky”From: “Notes of a Publicist”, THE “UNITY CRISIS” IN OUR PARTY
From: “The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia”
From: “Letter to the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the RSDLP”From: “The State of Affairs in the Party”
From: “Trotsky’s Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform”From: “The Liquidators Against the Party”
From: “The Break-Up of the ‘August’ Bloc”
From: “Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity”
From a Letter: “To Alexandra Kollontai”From a Letter: “To Henriette Roland-Holst”
From: “The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution”, THE SITUATION WITHIN THE SOCIALIST" INTERNATIONAL
From: “The Crisis Has Matured” V
From; Telegram to General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, January 29 (February 11), 1918
From;Telegram to General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief January 30 (February 12), 1918From: “Speech at the Evening Sitting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP(B). February 18, 1918”
MINUTES
From: “The Revolutionary Phrase”
From: “Political Report of the Central Committee, March 7”
From: “Reply to the Debate on the Political Report of the Central Committee, March 8”
From: “Speeches Against Trotsky’s Amendments to the Resolution on War and Peace, March 8 (Morning)”
From: “Speech Delivered at a Joint Meeting of Communist Delegates to the Eighth Congress of Soviets, December 30, 1920
From: “The Party Crisis”
From: “Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin”
From: “Speech on the Trade Unions, March 14”
From: “Preliminary Draft Resolution of the Tenth Congress of the RCP on Party Unity”
CommentariesSource
NOVOSTI PRESS AGENCY PUBLISHING HOUSE MOSCOW, 1975
