Trotsky, Krupskaya, and the Bolshevik Tradition

Trotsky, Krupskaya and the Bolshevik Tradition [1]

﹝United States﹞Paul Le Blanc

Translated by Li Yue and edited by Han Da

The discussion of Trotsky's relationship with Lenin's Bolshevik organization will be based on the reflections of Nadezhda Krupskaya, one of the founders and central figures of the Bolshevik tradition, who also led the Close comrade-in-arms and companion for three decades of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution . The life and thought of Leo Trotsky are well known and will be presented in the main part of this report. But before that, I want to focus more on Krupskaya. [2]

impression and reality

It's no secret that people's knowledge of her has dwindled. We can see this in the attitude of a young Bolshevik intellectual, Nikolay Valentinov, in 1904, who later became an old Menshevik intellectual. Reflecting on his relationship with Lenin and Krupskaya years later (in his book Encounters with Lenin ), he expresses his thoughts at the time in nine short words: "Lenin made me Very interested, and Krupskaya is not.”[3]

For Valenlianov, one aspect of Krupskaya's mediocre intellect is reflected in her revolutionary clichés. He wrote: "Whenever Krupskaya speaks of a school teacher, she emphasizes platitudes such as 'Russian workers live badly', 'Our peasants have no rights', 'dictatorship is the enemy of the people' I cringe when I do." There's another reason, of course: these clichés--lacking the interesting intellectual polish that might interest him--are inseparable from her everyday notions, for what she chooses Life adds vitality. "[4]

Valentinov has no patience for these things. “Lenin is the only subject I would like to discuss with Krupskaya,” he told us. “I respect her, but I think intellectually she is a very ordinary person. She has nothing to stand out or stand out from the crowd. Different places.” In saying this, he seemed to ignore the central role she played in coordinating communication and organizing within a network of Bolshevik activists in Russia and abroad. For him, the basic approach to these practical issues may be far less important than the more interesting polemic and theoretical approaches. He went on to share these illuminating comments: "There are hundreds of women revolutionaries like her, no doubt: I should say that she belongs to the class of women in which there is no femininity.  … Lepeshinsky Thought Krupskaya was very beautiful during her exile in Siberia about five years ago. Somehow I don't believe this..."[5]

Apparently Valentinov had not seen Krupskaya's photographs from the 1890s, and as her biographer Robert McNeal put it, the young woman in the photograph, "fundamentally speaking She was beautiful.[6] With little trace of fashion or makeup on her face, she always seemed to exude a promise of wit, seriousness, and enthusiasm. Traditional appeal was soon given way to a condition known as Grey's Disease (usually Destroyed by a thyroid disease called a goiter - but years later, that commitment, seriousness and intelligence continues to shine in the picture. Her ingenuity, it turns out, is the reason for Valentinoff's downfall.

Valentinov assured us that Krupskaya "couldn't have noticed that I thought she was boring." He explained: "Because I take 'contact' with Lenin very seriously, and I know that wives have or It might have an impact on their husbands, so I was careful to avoid anything that might anger or offend Krupskaya, and thus lead to a change in Lenin's attitude toward me." He emphasized: "Krupskaya There's no reason to complain about my lack of external respect and attention." Almost after his next breath, he had to add: "However, for no apparent reason, I noticed that Krupskaya's goodwill towards me was waning and It turned into hostility. It happened gradually." He further explained that Lenin's discussions with him gradually increased to reduce his discussions with Krupskaya resulting in jealousy, but there may still be more immediate reasons. In describing Krupskaya, the knowledgeable historian Sheila Fitzpatrick described her as "observant, shrewd, unflattering, suspicious of pretentiousness". [7]

Later critics followed Valentinov in disparaging Krupskaya. Take General Dmitri Volkoganov - whose career transitioned from a communist theorist of the Brezhnev regime to an anti-communist theorist of the post-Soviet Yeltsin regime is well known. In his biography of Lenin, he explicitly places her (in his words) "in Lenin's shadow" and that "life has meaning only because she is connected to him". But a serious look at her actual life doesn't match that. As a young woman—influenced by parents who criticized the tsarist order—she corresponded with Leo Tolstoy on issues of social inequality, liberation struggles, and mass education. She was drawn to Marxism and the struggles of the working class long before she met Lenin. The main reason she attracted Lenin was this shared commitment. While deeply influenced by Lenin's thinking and practical orientation for the rest of her life, her role was that of a radical activist - biographer Robert McNeal aptly describes her as having shouldered the burden over the years "First Secretary of the Bolshevik Party" with great responsibility. [8]

After the victory of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, she became a core member of the People's Committee for National Education, focusing on education and culture. In Russian, it is the People's Committee for National Education ( Naodnyy Komissariat Prosveshchinya, marked "Narkompros") headed by Anatoly Lunacharsky. Describing the committee's work, Lunacharsky explained that "the working masses are hungry for education" and that it is the duty of the regime to provide "schools, books, theaters, etc." that will enable "the people, consciously or not," in their own developed "their own culture" under democratic control. He insisted that "the proletariat must draw on the art of the past in order to create its own art." According to Lunacharsky, Krupskaya was "the soul of the People's Committee for National Education."[9] I am a trained teacher, influenced by the methods of Tolstoy and the American philosopher and educator John Dewey.

In the late 1920s, Dewey himself provided a witness report, Impressions of Soviet Russia , which partially described the work of the People's Committee for National Education. In extensive discussions with him and others, Krupskaya was inspired by the way in which he attempted to summarize the tasks of the Soviet regime. Here's Dewey's explanation:

Its purpose is to make personal cultivation accessible to everyone. The economic and political revolution that has taken place is not over; it is the means and basis for cultural development that remains to be achieved. This is a necessary means, because without economic freedom and equality, the possibility of the full development of all individuals cannot be realized. But economic change is about enabling everyone to fully enjoy everything that gives human life value.

However, it turns out that Krupskaya's greatest fame comes from her memoirs of Lenin and her experiences living with Lenin. "As a narrative of Lenin's life, Krupskaya's memoirs are informative and generally accurate," commented Krupskaya biographer Robert McNeill. Although the book is partisan in terms of its explicit support for Lenin, he remarks that such partisan tinges are rarely accompanied by personal grudges or exaggerated polemics, and the frankness and objectivity of her account as a whole is truly surprising. admiration. [11]

Now we should talk about her opinion of Trotsky.

Lenin and Trotsky

In a well-researched survey, Jane McDermid and Anya Hillyar concluded that Krupskaya "was a devoted revolutionary , not only allowed the Bolshevik organization to survive the difficult years of relocating abroad, but also played an important role in the creation of the organization from the ground up in 1917." The ideological and political interaction with Lenin was far greater than is sometimes recognized. more alert.

Over the years, this has enabled her to provide a profound explanation of its evolution, enriched by assessments of the many active individuals associated with it. Much of this is reflected in her outstanding memoirs, available in two different English translations: Memories of Lenin (based on a second edition in 1930) and Reminiscences of Lenin, published in 1970. Lenin ) (based on 3rd edition 1933). [13]

More ideas can be found in some of the content Krupskaya shared with others. She was close to the German revolutionary Clara Zetkin (a close associate and confidant of Rosa Luxemburg in her early years). Zetkin mentioned a conversation with Krupskaya in a letter to a friend in March 1924. "She said to me recently that [Lev] Kamenev and [Grigory] Zinoviev's assertion that Lenin never trusted Trotsky was wrong," she said after Lenin's death in the Russian Communist Party wrote in the antitrust campaign launched by the top. "On the contrary: Lenin had always liked Trotsky in the last days of his life and held him with great respect. After Lenin's death, she also wrote to Trotsky expressing this impression."[14] A short note from Krupskaya:

Dear Lev Davidovich, I am writing to tell you that about a month before his death, Vladimir Ilyich was looking through your book and he stopped where you summed up Marx and Lenin, Let me read it to him again; he listens carefully, then reads it himself. There is one more thing I want to tell you. Vladimir Ilyich's attitude towards you has not changed since you came to London from Siberia to meet us, until his death. N. Krupskaya[15]

In the 1930 edition of her memoirs, Krupskaya described a heated discussion with Lenin when Trotsky first visited Lenin in their London apartment in the autumn of 1902. "The heartfelt advice of the 'young eagle' and the first conversation both made Vladimir Ilyich pay special attention to the newcomer," Krupskaya recalled. "He talked to Trotsky about We talked a lot and walked with him." Lenin was satisfied with the way Trotsky articulated his position and appreciated Trotsky's ability to grasp the essence of the differences within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. The "student of Lenin" was what the old Marxist theoretician Plekhanov thought of him. [16]

Trotsky's Anti-Lenin Phase

Trotsky was then firmly committed to helping create the new Russian Social Democratic Labour Party as a well-coordinated, centralised organisation with the revolutionary Marxist views of Iskra at its core. But during the second party congress in 1903, divisions arose among the supporters of Iskra, and Trotsky was disgusted by Lenin's negative tendencies, which had hurt some esteemed members of the Iskra faction-Pa The relationship between Pavel Akselrod and Vera Zasulich. Krupskaya noted that the majority of the delegates "supported those who were 'offended,' but merely seeing the personal attacks in the event ignored the whole substance of the discussion," adding: "Neither did Trotsky Grab the substance.”[17] She explains:

The essence of this is that the comrades around Lenin are more seriously committed to the principles they want to see implemented at all costs and carried out in all practical work. The other group held more of the mentality of ordinary people, made compromises and concessions in principle, and respected others more. [18]

Another political divide soon deepened the factional split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. In the upheaval expected to overthrow the despotism of the tsarist Russian monarchy, the so-called bourgeois-democratic revolution, Lenin's Bolsheviks insisted on the need for an alliance of workers and peasants, while the Mensheviks advocated for a liberally oriented worker-peasant-capitalist alliance. Although Trotsky was closer to the Bolshevik views on this point, he continued to insist on a conciliatory attitude on organizational issues based on optimistic revolutionary fatalism. He later explained this:

I believe that the logic of class struggle will force both factions to follow the same revolutionary line. At that time, I was not clear about the great historical significance of Lenin's position, his irreconcilable policy of ideological division and, if necessary, split policy, the purpose was to unite and temper the loyal backbone of the revolutionary party. [19]

From 1904 to 1917, this disparity led to frequent and heated debates between Lenin and Trotsky. During the revolutionary upsurge of 1905, there was a strong tendency for Trotsky to merge with Bolshevism. Lunacharsky remembered being said before Lenin that Trotsky was gradually becoming the leader of the powerful democratic workers' council, the Petersburg Soviet. "Lenin's face darkened for a while," according to Lunacharsky, but "he then said: 'Well, Trotsky won it all by virtue of his excellence'"[20] It was during this period that Trotsky began to formulate his theory of permanent revolution, and years later (as Bolshevik Adolf Yuefei later told Trotsky), "I heard with my own ears Lenin's admission that even in 1905, You, not him, are right." [21]

However, in the years following the failure of the revolution, Trotsky insisted on his fatalistic conciliatoryism, while Lenin favored the development of an independent Bolshevik party—a fierce recrimination on both sides. Impressed by the growth and quality of Lenin's Bolshevik organization after fifteen frustrating years, Trotsky decisively rejected the conciliationist views, prompting Lenin to comment: "Since then, there has never been a better Bolshevik than Trotsky.[22]

Trotsky and his Bolshevik comrades

Krupskaya insisted on the positive side of Trotsky's brilliant but controversial essay "Lessons of October" in 1924. Her critical critique of Trotsky (which we will examine here) begins with a commentary, in stark contrast to the assertions of Zinoviev, Stalin, and other more hostile critics. She writes, "Comrade Trotsky fought for Soviet power with all his might during the crucial period of the revolution," referring not only to Trotsky's central role in October 1917, but also to his Role in organizing and leading the Red Army to victory during the Russian Civil War of 1918-1921. Krupskaya continued: "He persevered heroically in a difficult and responsible position". "In order to defend the victory of the revolution, he worked with unprecedented energy and performed miracles. The party will not forget this."[23]

However, his years of independence and his relative organizational and political isolation from both the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions influenced how Trotsky tended to cooperate with the Bolshevik party after joining the party. According to Lunacharsky, Trotsky's "extreme arrogance, inability or unwillingness to show any kind of human kindness or concern for people, lacking the usual charisma of Lenin, plunged Trotsky into a certain loneliness. "This can be shown to be exaggerated, but not completely false. "Trotsky had little talent for working in political groups," Lunacharsky continued (to use another hyperbole), acknowledging that "in the sea of political events, these personal characteristics are completely unimportant. , Trotsky's utterly positive talent stands out."[24]

The truth in Lunacharsky's criticism must be faced squarely. Trotsky's utter disdain for others (except Lenin) who played an important role in the history of Bolshevism is astounding - not only in "Lessons of October", but even in his classic memoir "My Life" and in other works. Regarding My Life, Isaac Deutcher argues that post-revolutionary developments are "still too novel" and Trotsky's account is "hampered by tactical considerations and lack of foresight." As Deutcher points out "The book is full of deep insights, episodes, and characterizations," but the discussion of the inner life of Bolshevism is bolstered by a variety of characters and perspectives (including Zinoviev, Kamenev , Krupskaya, Stalin, etc.), "the apparent need to identify himself closest to Lenin, whom Trotsky considered the true hero of the Russian Revolution, seemed to hinder his development."[25]

Krupskaya's criticism

This brings us to Krupskaya's critique of "Lessons of October," which repeatedly emphasizes the need to see the Bolsheviks as a revolutionary collective. "Trotsky said a lot about the party, but for him the party was a leadership, a head," she pointed out. But she insisted that "the party is a living organism in which the central committee ('leadership) is not isolated from the party, and members of the lowest party organization are in daily contact with the members of the central committee... This victory So it is possible, precisely because of the close connection between the Central Committee and the collective organization." She concluded from this: "If the party is organized in this way, if the leadership knows the will of the collective organization, not just from the resolution, and work according to this will, then the waverings or mistakes of individual members of the leadership will not have the decisive significance that Comrade Trotsky assigned them.”[26]

Referring to Trotsky's main targets in "Lessons of October" against Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, Krupskaya argues: "When our party When faced with a brand new emergency, unprecedented in history, it is only natural that we cannot make a consistent assessment of the situation, and it is the task of the organization to find the right common course.”

She stressed: "Lenin has always attached great importance to the collective organization of the party. His relationship with the party congress is based on this. At each party congress, he brings up everything that has come to his mind since the last party congress. He believes that He has the primary responsibility for the Party Congress and the entire organization.”[27]

She complained that "Trotsky did not recognize the role played by the party as a whole, as a complete organization," she stressed: "It is true that the personality of the leader is a crucial issue. Therefore, we The most talented, best and most determined of our members must be selected to serve as our managers.” But she insists, “It’s not just a matter of their individual abilities, it’s a question of whether the staff is in harmony with the organization as a whole. closely related issues.”[28]

against Stalinism

In 1926, Krupskaya, along with former opponents Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, became an important figure in the United Opposition. The opposition's platform underscores the key points of Trotsky's analysis. One of them is perpetually revolutionary internationalism: "The victory of socialism in our country is inseparable from the revolution of the proletariat in Europe and the world and the struggle against the yoke of imperialism in the East."[29] Criticism of bureaucratic dictatorship:

The immediate cause of the growing crisis within the party is the bureaucracy, which has grown staggeringly since Lenin's death and continues to grow. The divergence in the direction of economic policy and the thoughts and feelings of the proletarian vanguard inevitably reinforces the need for coercive means and gives all politics an administrative-bureaucratic character... Lenin repeatedly referred to bureaucratic distortions in the state apparatus , and the need for unions to constantly protect workers from the Soviet regime. But . . . bureaucracy hits workers hard in every sphere—in the party, the economy, family life, and culture. … . [30]

The platform of the opposition also reflects the organizational sensitivities expressed by Krupskaya:

"It is clear that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the leadership to implement its policies using methods of intra-party democracy, and the less the vanguard of the working class considers these policies their own. The problem of absurdity at the top is closely related to the suppression of criticism. To Lenin Deep dissatisfaction with the Communist regime established after death, and even greater dissatisfaction with policy changes, inevitably generated opposition and sparked heated debate. Only on the basis of intra-party democracy is it possible to build a sound collective The system of leadership. There is no other way.”[31]

The United Opposition proved unable to withstand the mounting threats and pressures, mutual accusations between organizations, personal attacks, and increasingly severe government repression orchestrated by the Stalin regime. Zinoviev, Kamenev, and others surrendered and publicly attacked their views, only to be purged, arrested, humiliated, and killed. Many uncompromising people were arrested and sent to Siberian prison camps, where they were eventually executed. Trotsky was exiled and finally murdered in 1940. A few months later, Krupskaya gave up the opposition, but she bravely wrote and published a memoir about Lenin. As late as 1935, Trotsky spoke of Krupskaya's "constant refusal to act against her conscience". [32] In the last four years of her life, however, the Stalinist regime was even able to take this away from her - forcing her to accept everything she opposed, formally sanctioning the slander and massacre of older comrades. [33]

In exile, Trotsky continued to pay homage to revolutionary collectivism in the Bolshevik tradition, but in his retrospective analysis (for example, in his memoir "My Life"), he also reiterated his admiration for other outstanding The rejection of the "individualism" of the Bolsheviks, which Krupskaya has criticized before. However, Trotsky's weakness may also prove to be an advantage - enabling him to better resist, criticize and mobilize against the bureaucratic tyranny known as Stalinism. At the same time, he sought to preserve the legacy of Krupskaya and the revolutionary organization he represented for future generations. [34]

August 29, 2021

Notes

[1] An earlier short version of this article appeared in Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal , Australia, 1 August 2021 ( http://links.org.au/trotsky ) -krupskaya-bolshevik-tradition ). It was prepared in a shorter presentation for the online conference "Trotsky em Permanencia" (Trotsky em Permanencia), to be held in Brazil from August 2 to 6, 2021 Also prepared ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD4l_KYDPVQ&t=777s ).

[2] For Bolshevik organizations, see Paul Le Blanc, Lenin and the Revolutionary Party (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2015). For Trotsky, see Paul Le Blanc, Leon Trotsky (London: Reaktion Books, 2015). Basic information and judgments about Krupskaya can be found in Georges Haupt and Jean-Jacques Marie, Makers of the Russian Revolution, Biographies of Bolshevik Leaders (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974), pp.156-158; Robert H. McNeal, Bride of the Revolution: Krupskaya and Lenin (London: Victor Gollancz, 1972); Jane McDermiad and Anya Hillyar, "In Lenin's Shadow: Nadezhda Krupskaya and the Bolshevik Revolution, " in Ian Thatcher, ed., Reinterpreting Revolutionary Russia (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp. See also Barbara Evans Clement, Bolshevik Women (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Sheila Fitzpatrick, Food for the Enlightenment: The Soviet Educational and Artistic Organization under Lunacharsky (1917-1921) (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1970) discusses the Rupskaya's work in the People's Committee for Education.

[3] Nikolai Valentinov, Encountering Lenin (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 143

[4] Valentinov, p. 142.

[5] Valentinov, p. 141.

[6] McNeil, p. 51.

[7] Valentinov, p. 142; Fitzpatrick, p. 54.

[8] McNeil, pp. 88-129.

[9] Fitzpatrick, 12, 26.

[10] John Dewey, Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World (New York: The New Republic, 1929), p. 112.

[11] McNeil, p. 267268.

[12] McDermid and Hillier, p. 161.

[13] Krupskaya, Memories of Lenin , vol. (New York: International Publishers, 1930) and Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin (New York: International Publishers, 1970).

[14] See Zetkin, Letters to Yelena Stasova (9 January 1924 and 29 March 1924) in Zetkin, Letters and Writings (London: Merlin Press, 2015) , p. 126.

[15] Trotsky, My Life, An Autobiographical Attempt (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), p. 510.

[16] Krupskaya, Memory of Lenin, p. 85.

[17] Ibid., p. 104.

[18] Krupskaya, Memories of Lenin, p. 96.

[19] Trotsky, "Permanent Revolution, Summary and Prospects" (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1978), p. 173.

[20] Lunacharsky, Silhouettes of Revolutionaries (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967), p. 60.

[21] Adolf Joffe, "Letter to Trotsky" (November 16, 1927), International Newsletter, January 19, 1928, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 83; see Marxist Library https://www.marxists.org/archive/joffe/1927/letter.htm

[22] Trotsky, The Stalinist School of Forgery (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1972), p. 105.

[23] Krupskaya, "Lessons of October", The Error of Trotskyism (London: British Communist Party, 1925), pp. 370-371. Trotsky's October lessons and avalanche of criticism (including Krupskaya's) in Trotsky's Challenge: The "Literary Discussion" of 1924 and the Fight for Reprinted in the Bolshevik Revolution (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2017) with extensive scholarly reviews and literature. .

[24] Lunacharsky, p. 67.

[25] Isaac Deutscher, The Banished Prophet: Trotsky, 1929-1940 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 221, 222, 229.

[26] Krupskaya, “Lessons of October,” pp. 366-367.

[27] Ibid., pp. 367-368.

[28] Ibid., p. 368.

[29] The Thirteen Statement (July 1926) in Trotsky, The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-1927), edited by Naomi Allen and George Saunders (New York: Pathfinder Press) , 1980), p. 86.

[30] Ibid, 74, 76, 81, 82.

[31] Ibid, 76, 84, 89.

[32] Leon Trotsky, Trotsky's Diary in Exile (New York: The Athenians, 1963), p. 35.

[33] McNeil, pp. 281-288; Katy Turton, Forgotten Lives: The Role of Lenin's Sisters in the Russian Revolution (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 122-123, pp. 125-127 pages.

[34] See Dianne Feeley, Paul Le Blanc, Thomas Twiss, Leon Trotsky and the Organizational Principles of the Revolutionary Party (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2014).

Paul Le Blanc is an educator, historian, and longtime socialist activist based in Pittsburgh, United States. His latest book, Revolutionary Collective: Comrades, Critics and Dynamics in the Struggle for Socialism , will be published by Haymarket Books in the US later in 2022.

Original link: https://johnriddell.com/ 2021/08/29/trotsky-krupskaya-and-the-bolshevik-tradition/