The Historical Journalhttp://journals.cambridge.org/HIS

Additional services for The Historical Journal:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Trotsky and Bor'ba

Ian D. Thatcher

The Historical Journal / Volume 37 / Issue 01 / March 1994, pp 113 ­ 125DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X00014722, Published online: 11 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0018246X00014722

How to cite this article:Ian D. Thatcher (1994). Trotsky and Bor'ba. The Historical Journal, 37, pp 113­125 doi:10.1017/S0018246X00014722

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/HIS, IP address: 139.184.30.131 on 17 Mar 2013

The Historical Journal, 37, 1 (1994), pp. 113-125Copyright © 1994 Cambridge University Press

TROTSKY AND BOR'BA

IAN D.THATCHER

University of Auckland

A B S T R A C T . Leon Trotsky's contributions to the journal Bor'ba, published in St Petersburgbetween February and July 1914, have been overlooked in scholarly accounts of his biography. Thispaper has two aims. First, to provide an exposition of Trotsky's contributions to this journal; and,second, to explain why they have been forgotten. Three explanations are offered. First, Trotskybiographers look to Deutscher's trilogy for the main events in Trotsky's life, and he does not mentionBor'ba. Second, Trotsky himself did not refer to his work for the journal in his autobiography MyLife. Finally, Stalin did not use Lenin's critique of Trotsky's participation in Bor 'ba as furtherammunition against Trotsky in the power struggle after Lenin's death.

I

The journal Bor'ba (Struggle) was published in St Petersburg betweenFebruary and July 1914. The editorial to the first issue claimed that the originsof the journal lay in August 1912.1 This refers to a conference convened inVienna with the aim of establishing unity between the various Russian marxistfractions. Bor'ba, a name chosen because it expresses 'the moving forces ofdevelopment of the whole world, the basic fact of human history',2 retainedthis aim of reconciliation. However, according to the editorial, this goal hadbecome even more urgent in the present epoch. This, it claimed, was becauseof important changes occurring in the workers' movement. First, the greaterpart of the previous leaders - the marxist intelligentsia - had gone over to thebourgeoisie in the years of reaction. Second, their place was being taken, andwould increasingly be taken, by a group of advanced workers, forged intoindependent socialist actors by the hammer of the Russian state. However, inthis transitional process the intelligentsia remaining loyal to marxism wouldcontinue to provide an important political and cultural service. It was in thiscontext that the editors of Bor'ba perceived the potential harm of continuingfractional struggle. Advanced workers acting in the political arena for the firsttime could be characterized by political confusion. The fact that new problemswere still interpreted through the prism of the old fractional schemas couldonly sow the seeds of further chaos. Fractional stances could only prove to bea hindrance to effective work. To the editors of Bor'ba, the main tasks of theday and their role of assistance were clear.

In the order of the historical day there stands the actual unification of SocialDemocratic workers, regardless of their fractional origins... Experience too clearly

1 Editorial, 'Ot ' redaktsii', Bor'ba, no. i, p. 6. 2 Ibid. p. 3.

" 3

114 IAN D. THATCHER

illustrates that such fractional lines do not work in practice but, on the contrary, thereis an inevitable coming together in the direction of a European SocialDemocracy... only the advanced workers having matured in their ideas can lead theproletariat on to the wide historical road. Their further path is also consequently clear:to gather forces on all levels of the class movement, to advance its unifying tasks, to armoneself and to be armed with a theoretical understanding of the conditions and courseof struggle; to clean one's consciousness from fractional narrow-mindedness, fromsectional impatience, to teach oneself and to teach voluntary discipline and free self-limitation.

In this work of upbringing and amelioration Bor'ba wants to be your theoreticalcounsellor and together with this your tool, advanced workers !3

Leon Trotsky was prominently involved both in the August bloc and inBor'ba. However, his contributions to this journal have been overlooked inscholarly accounts of his biography.4 The aim of this paper is to fill thisparticular lacuna.

II

Trotsky wrote a total of six articles for Bor'ba. They were mainly concernedwith presenting Trotsky's understanding of current events. The exception washis very first article published in issue i, an exposition of the main events ofRussian history between 1904 and 1914.5 However, by focusing upondeveloping political and economic trends, Trotsky also made this contributionone of contemporary relevance. He began by claiming that the decade formed'a watershed' between Russia's past and future. In 1905 old Russia hadreceived a crushing blow, and a new correlation of class forces had emerged.

3 Ibid. p. 6.4 The most recent western biography of Trotsky is that by P. Broue. His commentary on

Trotsky's involvement with Bor'ba is limited to the following: 'At the beginning of 1914 theRussian workers' movement came to life again; a legal workers' press began to develop, with theBolshevik Pravda and Luch for the Mensheviks carrying the polemic into the open. In FebruaryTrotsky returned to the Russian scene with Bor'ba, whose platform was unitary and non-fractional. First Lenin triumphed: it is demonstrated that the August Bloc has fragmented: thenhe becomes worried and accuses Trotsky of advocating unity with the liquidators aboveeverything else. It would appear that Trotsky did not reply to him. But the workers' movementwhich culminated in July 1914, with strikes and street demonstrations, is abruptly interrupted bythe declaration of war and the repression. The ephemeral existence of Bor'ba, eight numbers ofwhich three were seized, between February and July, will allow Trotsky's ideological sympathizersto regroup, and these one finds again in 1917 in the organization which in Petrograd was calledthe Mezhrayonka — the inter-district organization.

But it will not bring about reconciliation between Trotsky and Lenin. On the contrary.' P.Broue, Trotsky (Fayard, 1988), p. 143.

5 Anon, ' Istoricheskoe desyatiletie (1904-1914)', Bor'ba, no. 1, pp. 7-13. Reprinted in L.Trotskii, Politicheskaya khronika, Sochineniya, iv (Moscow, 1926), 497-506. This article is hereincorrectly attributed to Bor'ba no. 4. Although the editorial to vol. 4 states that 'The notes,appearing at the end of this volume, are intended to give readers factual information about theevents, people and political groupings etc mentioned in the volume. Several of the notes supplydocuments or extracts from documents, restoring long forgotten episodes of the political struggleto the readers' memory' (ibid. p. viii), there are no explanatory notes for Bor'ba or the August bloc.Furthermore, although vol. 4 covers the years 1900-14 the chronology of main events (ibid. pp.633-41) ends in 1913, thus ruling out any mention of Bor'ba.

TROTSKY AND BORBA I I 5

The 'new' proletariat revealed itself as the major force for change, based uponthe central role it played in the economy. The peasantry was discontented butnot politically united. It was this class in soldier's uniforms which, for Trotsky,killed the revolution. The petty bourgeoisie was weak, a fact reinforced by thefailure of the Cadet party in the first two Dumas. A reactionary alliance oflarge capital (worried by worker activity opposed to its economic interests),the landed gentry (fearful for its privileges) and the bureaucracy (attractive tolarge capital and the landed gentry because it had the army at its disposal) wasforged. This troika was cemented by the coup d'etat of 3 June 1907.6 Accordingto Trotsky, the battle for political domination in Russia would be fought outwithin the framework of this alignment of classes. However, for Trotsky thisbalance of classes was unstable and was being undermined from two differentsources.

First, there existed irreconcilable tensions within the reactionary troika.Large capital was above all interested in the development of the capitalistmarket. In Russia this meant a democratic state order and the resolution of theagrarian question. But the bureaucracy was opposed to the first, and thelanded nobility refused the second as it infringed upon its estate interests.Tsarism had attempted to paper over these tensions by pursuing an activeimperialist policy, but this had failed due to domestic unrest and an inefficientbureaucracy. Second, the recent rise in industrial activity had re-invigoratedthe workers' movement. This, in turn, had dislodged the whole country fromits state of political stupefaction. For Trotsky, in the period of decline whichinevitably follows a time of boom, these two sources of destabilization wouldaccentuate and combine to produce a profound political crisis. Furthermore,he claimed that the extreme nature of this crisis followed from the Russiancontext. Because the size of the Russian market was reduced by the existenceof serfdom and an autocratic state structure, any upturn in the economy wouldbe held back and any downturn deepened. In one paragraph Trotskyillustrated the mechanics of this process through the example of thedisintegration of the ruling troika:

Already the industrial upturn had kicked the bourgeois classes from their state ofstupefaction and servility... Wide bourgeois circles are irritated by the fact that theupturn has its limits in the insignificant capacity of the peasant market, that the influxof foreign capital is impeded by state anarchy. Hence the growth of the Progressives,hence the wave of Octobrist opposition, hence the splits and shuffles among the partiesof the Duma majority. And what will happen when the last rouble of the loan isreached, when the last verst of the railway is laid and it will be at a loss, when panicbegins on the exchange... Hostility between the third of June allies... in suchconditions can easily turn into a bitter brawl which fatally weakens the present stateof affairs. It goes without saying that wide bourgeois circles will suffer incomparably

6 This date refers to the change in the electoral law governing elections to the Duma. Thisamendment was issued by imperial manifesto with the aim of making the composition of theDuma more favourable to the government. Trotsky referred to 3 June 1907 as a 'coup d'etat'. Fora different interpretation of this event see R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York, 1990), pp.180-2.

I l 6 IAN D. THATCHER

more from the crisis than the exchange magnates and the capitalist monopolists. Butdissatisfaction grows and the ruling stratum becomes isolated. And all this on the basisof not abolishing agrarian serfdom which holds the productive forces of the country inits chains!7

Moreover, according to Trotsky, the impending industrial crisis would hit theproletariat hardest of all. Trotsky left open the question of whether theproletariat would be able to use this crisis to gain political supremacy.However, he did stress that in preparation for the challenge, political clarityand organizational unity were the urgent tasks of the day.

Trotsky analysed the origins and financing of the Russian state in 'Thestate and the economy'.8 This article was intended to introduce thefundamentals of a marxist analysis in a way which the workers could relate totheir everyday experience. Trotsky began by outlining the labour theory ofvalue, i.e. that all value is created through human labour. However, those whoactually work, the proletariat, receive only part of the value created by them;specifically that part called 'necessary value', used for sustaining life andprocreation. The remainder, 'surplus value', is that part appropriated by theruling classes. The state gathers its income partly from the ruling classes, butmainly from the working classes, in the form of direct and indirect taxation.Trotsky also stressed that the level of'necessary value' is not predetermined.The ruling classes try constantly to keep this to a minimum. Indeed, accordingto Trotsky a point was reached at which the worker no longer had enoughvalue to cover essentials. It was then that the proletariat first united to strugglefor a greater share of the value generated by them. From that point on totalvalue was distributed through a clash between the state, the propertied classesand the proletariat. However, for Trotsky the nature of this distribution ofvalue had taken a peculiar form in the Russian context:

nowhere in Europe has the people's share in the product from their own labour beenso sad, so curtailed... as in Russia. In this consists our main 'peculiarity!'.9

For Trotsky, Russia's peculiarity had derived from a situation in which theRussian state had attempted to acquire great power status, but with a muchweaker economic base than that possessed by its Western competitors. Inorder to fund investment in the army and in the latest technology, as muchmoney as possible had been squeezed from the indigenous population. Trotskyestimated that the Russian state collected thirty per cent of the people's grossrevenue, with a comparable figure in the West of between five and ten percent. According to Trotsky, this figure had been achieved mainly through theimposition of'hidden' (and therefore less noticeable) indirect taxation, mostnotably in the form of the state's monopoly on vodka. After an historicalexposition of the growth of this monopoly, Trotsky claimed that revenuecollected from the sale of vodka amounted to one-third of total state income.

7 ' Istoricheskoe desyatiletie', p. 12.8 Anon, 'Gosudarstvo i narodnoe khozyaistvo', Bor'ba, no. 2, pp. 3-8. Reprinted in Sochineniya,

iv, 525-33. 9 Ibid. p. 4.

TROTSKY AND BORBA IlJ

For Trotsky, the importance of vodka to the health of the state budgetrevealed the evil nature of the Russian state system. After all, he claimed, massdrunkenness is the product of huge social inequality. Those engaged in heavylabour in order to maintain a small rich minority have no real hopes oropportunities. Vodka offers an easy and most direct escape route from a drearyroutine. And Trotsky was quite clear that it was the state and the propertiedclasses who were responsible for the conditions then existing in Russian society.Moreover, he argued that heavy vodka consumption has two furtherconsequences. First, it acts as a soporific drug, i.e. workers turn to alcoholrather than to political activity. Secondly, in drunkenness the workerexperiences a moral and financial bankruptcy which, in turn, forces him backto the yoke of the capitalist. Thus a vicious circle is formed, which is clearlyfunctional for the privileged minority. In summing up, Trotsky found theRussian state guilty on two counts: first for creating a dependency on vodka;secondly, for making huge profits from alcohol.

The propertied classes and the state bear responsibility for that culture which cannotexist without the constant lubricant of alcohol. But their historical guilt is stillincomparably more terrible. Through fiscal means they turn alcohol, that physical,moral and social poison, into the main source of nourishment for the state. Vodka notonly makes the people incompetent to manage their own destiny, it also covers theexpenditures of the privileged. What a real devil's system!10

The article ended with the claim that only the Russian people expressing theirreal interests could bring the budget into correspondence with real needs.

It was partly with the aim of subordinating the Russian state system to theinterests of the people that Trotsky, in ' Parliamentarianism and the WorkingClass', argued for worker participation in the Duma.11 The first section of thearticle outlined the emergence of parliaments as bourgeois institutions.According to Trotsky, parliaments are the means by which the bourgeoisieensure that finance and law conform to the needs of capitalism. However, theexact form of bourgeois control depends upon specific contexts. Thus, forexample, the English bourgeoisie retained the monarchy and the house oflords as conservative ideological props in its struggle against the proletariat;while the French bourgeoisie veered between republicanism and constitutionalmonarchy in order to control its working class. The Russian bourgeoisieconformed to Struve's maxim that the further East one travels the weaker andmore cowardly the middle classes become. Russia's capitalists had grasped theopportunity of a parliament when Nicholas II approved the Bulyginconstitution on 6 August 1905. In accordance with its interests the Russianbourgeoisie viewed the Duma not as an institution for the expression of thedesires of the people, but as a ' comfortable arena for agreements with theforces of the old order'.12

10 Ibid. p. 8.11 N. Trotskii, 'Parlamentarizm i rabochii klass', Bor'ba, no. 1, pp. 31—5.12 Ibid. p. 32.

I l 8 IAN D. THATCHER

Given the bourgeois essence of parliaments, Trotsky wrote that it is notsurprising that the first reaction of the workers is often to boycott the electoralprocess. The working class choose this action in order to demarcate themselvesclearly from the bourgeoisie. However, for Trotsky, the tactic of boycott is self-defeating. It does not prevent a parliament from existing, or from fulfilling itsintended role. Indeed, the outcome of a boycott is political passivity on thepart of the working class and an unobstructed opportunity for middle-classhegemony. According to Trotsky, the advanced section of the working classsoon realize the deficiencies of boycott and call for participation in bourgeoispolitics as an agitational tactic. But for Trotsky this also is an untenableposition. Calling for participation because of its supposed agitationalsignificance is as senseless as calling a strike for that reason. Workers will strike,but only for understandable and attainable demands. The same holds true inthe parliamentary sphere. Thus Trotsky claimed that the agitational tacticwould either fail or develop into full-blown participation, i.e. a workers' partywith a definite programme. Moreover, such an approach would have a realinfluence on the type of laws passed and thus on the conditions in which theworking class would exist.

It follows that there is nothing Utopian in awakening the aspirations of the mass to exertdirect influence on the direction of laws through the medium of the Duma. On thecontrary: it means that the splintering class struggle is generalized in class politicaldemands, becoming more systematic, more principled and hence in its developmentalso more dangerous to the 3rd of June regime... If before [the Duma fraction] usedthe Duma tribune as a convenient stage for agitational speeches, then now it is all themore turning into a political loudspeaker of the class. Now it does not simply developwell-known programmatic slogans... but conducts a direct struggle for that list ofdemands, around which the masses unite in the factories and in the workers' districts.Only now does one acquire the possibility to involve the widest working masses in thesphere of their concerns. Only now do their actions, resulting from direct political andnot from abstract agitational considerations, acquire their full agitational measure.13

In the final section of the article Trotsky raised, and rejected, the possibilitythat worker participation would develop into 'reformist opportunism'.According to Trotsky, this would not occur for two reasons. First, he statedthat parliamentary successes would raise the self-belief of the proletariat andhence demands would become more radical over time; setbacks would hardenclass hostility. Second, Russian politics operated within an autocratic,oppressive structure, and this would militate against reformist tendencies. ForTrotsky, any attempt to abandon parliamentary tactics would amount toirresponsible opportunism and result in a break in the formation of working-class consciousness.

In the article 'A Duma Lockout' Trotsky provided supporting evidencefrom current events for his earlier theoretical reasons expounded for socialdemocratic participation in the Duma.14 This article focused upon the events

13 Ibid. p. 34.14 Anon, 'Dumskii lokaut', Bor'ba, no. 5, pp. 3-8. Reprinted in Sochineniya, iv, 488-97.

TROTSKY AND BOR BA IIO,

surrounding the struggle of social democratic representatives for a billguaranteeing inviolability of deputies. According to Trotsky, this bill wasmade necessary after the government had attempted to silence socialdemocrats inside the Duma. He argued that the government was motivated toact in this way by the nature of the present epoch.

In the Third Duma Stolypin's ministers allowed the speeches of the social democraticdeputies to pass by their ears with the arrogance of victors... they well knew that thewords entering the stenographic reports almost never reached the masses. But... thisarrogant disregard did not remain subsequently. In the meantime the masses changed;now they possess a political keenness. Between the masses and their deputies variousconnections have formed, and in first place stands the workers' press... Now [theministers] have started to think that all dissatisfaction is brought to life by Dumaspeeches; that strikes and demonstrations come straight out of Chkheidze's andMalinovsky's larynxes... The ministers have abandoned all other state worries for acareful censure of social democratic speeches.15

On 22 April 1914 social democratic representatives proposed a delay invoting on the budget until their demands for a bill had been met. TheOctobrist majority rejected this proposal. For Trotsky, this could not havebeen otherwise for two reasons. First, representatives are parasitic people whodepend upon the continued functioning of parliament. To expect them to voteagainst a budget would signify that they were prepared to commit socialsuicide; something which one could not expect from those connected with theestablished order. Secondly, the Octobrists represented large capital, whichwas reliant upon credit in government banks. To delay voting on the budgetwould thus mean to harm their own, Octobrist, constituency. However, socialdemocratic representatives continued to press their demands and usedobstructionist tactics during the speech of Goremykin, chairman of the councilof ministers. Rodzyanko, chairman of the Duma, apologized to Goremykinand threatened to discipline the left. They ignored his threats, and Rodzyankodecided to suspend all social democratic representatives for fifteen sessions.The Duma voted in favour. According to Trotsky, this amounted to a Dumalockout which, for several reasons, he considered a great victory.

First, the Cadets had been shown to be anti-democratic. Initially, they hadmade their support for the proposed bill conditional upon Octobristacceptance. However, for Trotsky, it was clear from the very beginning thatthis condition would not be met. Moreover, the Cadets had revealed theirservile nature when they responded to Rodzyanko's suggestion to suspend thesocial democrats by abstaining. Secondly, the social democrats had usurpedtraditional liberal ground. After 22 April nobody could doubt that it was thesocial democrats, i.e. that very group who argued that the solution to thecountry's problems lay outside the Duma, who were the real defenders ofdemocratic rights. It was with these considerations in mind that Trotskyclaimed that 22 April would enter the annals of social democracy as a greatday.

1S Ibid. pp. 3-4.

I2O IAN D. THATCHER

Trotsky raised the issue of extra-parliamentary proletarian activity in twoarticles, both of which focused upon the use of the strike. The first, 'A Workers'Coalition' consisted of a theoretical exposition of the role of the strike.16

Trotsky started the article with a lesson in semantics. In Russian both stachkaand zabastovka translate as 'strike'. However, according to Trotsky, stachka hasa broader meaning and, in fact, subsumes zabastovka:

^abastovka... means to stop work. Stachka means... a workers' agreement betweenthemselves with the aim of fighting for improvements in working conditions... If, nonethe less, stachka is normally identified with zabastovka then this is not accidental:collective down-tools is the strongest means at the workers' disposal.17

The semantic lesson concluded by pointing out the foreign equivalent tostachka, i.e. 'workers' coalition'. The rest of the article was devoted toevaluating common arguments advanced against the workers' coalition.

The first objection Trotsky considered was that advanced by 'bourgeoisprofessors': strikes weaken industry and thus harm the workers themselves.Trotsky countered this argument with two points. First, he distinguishedmodern labour from slave or serf labour in that the ' free' labourer is left toguard his own interests. For example, landlords looked upon serfs as theirproperty, so any detriment to the serf meant a loss of personal property. Thelandlord was thus obliged to care for the serf. But if, for instance, fifty minersand one horse die in an accident, the capitalist only feels the loss of the horse.He is able to replace the dead miners from the reserve army of labour, but hehas to buy a new horse. Moreover, the labourer's family has no recourse to lawbecause the courts are bourgeois institutions. Hence the labourers, possessingno advantage other than their labour power, are forced to use the strike as ameans of self-protection. Secondly, Trotsky argued that the strike is central tothe workers' sense of their own dignity. They use the strike to remind capitalthat they are not objects of use.

Those economists, politicians and moralists who break-out their thunder against thestrike are actually indignant at the fact that one cannot separate the workers' handsfrom the human brain and from the human heart. Since the most cunning Americansystem of labour cannot achieve this, then capitalism cannot free itself from thecoalition, just as it cannot free itself from the proletariat.19

The second objection considered by Trotsky was that which claimed thatthe strike is detrimental to society as a whole. For example, the strike disruptsproduction; it leads to a waste of unproductive labour power; it causes anincrease in prices and so on. For Trotsky, these arguments would hold trueonly if present society was geared towards maximum productive capacity ona rational basis. But, as a marxist, Trotsky rejected this outright; for himRussian capitalism qua capitalism had to be characterized by inefficiency,crisis, wasteful expenditure on militarism and a lack of planning. Hence he

16 N. Trotskii, 'Rabochiya koalitsii', Bor'ba, no. 3, pp. 11-15. 17 Ibid. p. 11.18 Ibid. p. 13.

TROTSKY AND BOR BA 121

claimed that the loss in production caused by a strike would be nothingcompared to the losses derived from the normal operation of a capitalisteconomy.

Trotsky rejected the claim that strikes lead to a rise in prices as a capitalisttactic calculated to convince the workers of the futility of strike action (whatyou gain as producers you lose as consumers), and to turn social opinionagainst the strike. However, according to Trotsky strikes are in no way relatedto the cost of goods. After all, marxism tells us that prices are determined bythe amount of labour needed to produce a commodity. In actual fact, thestrike is a tool used in the workers' battle for a greater share of surplus value.Trotsky highlighted the years of counter-revolution as a period of low strikeactivity and enormous price increases. According to Trotsky, this wassufficient evidence to prove that the real source of rising prices was thecapitalists themselves in the form of syndicates, trusts and cartels.

Furthermore, Trotsky concluded by turning the initial objections upsidedown, i.e. the strike leads to an increase in production:' Only a rise in workers'demands pushes [the capitalist] on to the path of introducing improvementsin machinery and a more economic use of labour power. '19 Ultimately, forTrotsky, the strike works in the interest of society as a whole, i.e. it is theweapon through which the producers of value produce a service of self-maintenance.

One can with full justification say that the workers' coalition is not only an inalienabletool in the proletariat's struggle for existence but also an indisputable condition for theself-preservation of the whole of society. In struggling for their class interests with thehelp of the coalition the proletariat advance as the bearers of the cultural future of theircountry.20

Trotsky analysed developments occurring in the then contemporary strikemovement in 'The Results of March'.21 In March 1914 mass cases ofpoisoning occurred at the Treugolnik Mills in St Petersburg. This resulted inprotest strikes not only at the mills, but also in a wave of sympathy strikes. ForTrotsky, these strikes were important for several reasons. First, this was thefirst time that the rubber workers had engaged in strike action. Trotskyinterpreted this as evidence that they were developing a class consciousness.Secondly, the sympathy strikes (most notably involving the metal workers)served the agitational purpose of highlighting the fact that workers in differentproductive conditions were united by a common class interest. Moreover, theworkers had been circumspect in their use of the strike. For example, when thecapitalists called a lockout on 20 March the workers had recognized this as atactic to goad them into more radical action, so that the full strength of the lawcould be used to crush them. Hence, the temptation to call a general strike hadbeen avoided for this reason. Trotsky highlighted another cause of workers'caution which he took as further evidence of their growing maturity: they

19 Ibid. p. 15. 20 Loc. cit.21 N. Trotskii, 'Martovskie itogi', Bofba, no. 4, pp. 8-13. Reprinted in Sochinenijya, rv, 506-14.

122 IAN D. THATCHER

knew that full victory was not possible at that time. The lockout lasted lessthan one week.

When the strikes had finished the St Petersburg soviet promised todistribute 100,000 roubles among workers' families and an independentenquiry into the poisoning. Trotsky was adamant that this action should notbe interpreted as bourgeois sympathy for the workers; rather it resulted fromantagonisms within the bourgeoisie. According to Trotsky, to those sections ofthe bourgeoisie suffering from depression (e.g. textiles) the actions of theowners of booming heavy industry appeared as signs of further greed.Moreover, many small-scale capitalists had lost money when the price ofshares in heavy industry had outstripped the possible income from thoseindustries. For Trotsky, this disgruntled section of the bourgeoisie had actedwithin the St Petersburg soviet in order to express their dissatisfaction with thefactory owners, not to support the workers. His warning against anymisinterpretation was clear:

If the strike movement had developed wider in response to the lockout then theantagonisms internal to propertied bourgeois society would undoubtedly have givenway to feelings of general class solidarity directed, in the last analysis, against theproletariat.22

I l l

Given the content of Trotsky's articles there thus far appears to be no reasonwhy his contributions to Bor'ba should subsequently have been overlooked.They clearly present his interpretations of the events of the time, and onewould expect them to have been examined just like any other part of hiswritings. However, at the outset of their research Trotsky biographers oftenlook to Deutscher's trilogy for the main events in Trotsky's life, and one findsno mention of Bor'ba in this standard work.23 Deutscher's oversight isunderstandable enough. After all, Trotsky himself did not mention thispublication in My Life.2i In turn, one can well understand his reluctance to doso.

By the time Trotsky came to write his autobiography he was concerned withpresenting himself as a true leninist.25 Hence, he wanted to avoid stressing past

22 Ibid. p. 12.23 I . D e u t s c h e r , The Prophet Armed (Oxfo rd , 1 9 5 4 ) ; The Prophet Unarmed (Oxford , 1959) ; The

Prophet Outcast ( O x f o r d , 1963) .24 One further reason for Deutscher's oversight is that he, unlike subsequent researchers, did

not have access to Louis Sinclair's excellent Trotsky: A Bibliography (Stanford, 1972). An updatedtwo-volume edition of this work was published by Scolar Press in 1989.

25 For example, in My Life Trotsky stressed that Lenin had been correct in arguing againstunity in social democratic ranks. However, he tried to minimize the significance of his involvementin such groupings as the August bloc by stating that the history of Russian social democracy wasalso one of a move towards unity. We thus find such seemingly contradictory statements as: ' theparty was formed by a merciless struggle of Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks... the history of thestruggle of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks is at the same time a history of uninterruptedattempts at unity'. L. Trotskii, Moya zhizn' (Moscow, 1990), pp. 250 and 258. Indeed, I have beenable to find only one subsequent reference by Trotsky to Bor'ba, in the article ' Diversii' publishedin Nashe Slovo of 11 July 1915. Here Trotsky defended the group Bor'ba after the foreign secretariat

TROTSKY AND BORBA I23

disputes with Lenin. Lenin had followed the publication of Bor'ba and hevociferously criticized its contents, most notably in 'Disruption of Unity underthe Cover of Outcries for Unity. '26 Here Lenin was referring to Trotsky'ssupposed ' non-fractionalism' and his calls for unity.

Trotsky pursued his arguments for unity in social democratic ranks in twoways. First, he expounded upon the reasons for unity published in the editorialto issue 1 (summarized at the beginning of this article) in further unsignededitorials.27 Secondly, through a medium of dubious taste, i.e. the obituary.

Trotsky wrote three obituaries for Bor'ba: B. N. Grosser-ZePtser,28 P. A.Zlydnev29 and S. L. Klyachko.30 They all followed a formula of firstestablishing the laudable nature of the deceased, and then mentioning theirsupport for the aims now pursued by Trotsky. For example, Zel'tser isdescribed as a great orator who left impressions only of 'internal strength,conviction and moral authority'.31 Trotsky then cites him from the 1907second London congress of the RSDLP: 'We are not fighting against thestruggle of ideas inside the party... We are fighting against the existence offractions, closed, united and subordinate to internal discipline.>32 Similarly, inhis obituary of P. A. Zlydnev Trotsky claimed that the deceased had a'realistic mind, self-possession and moral steadiness [which] made him thenatural representative of all collectives that he joined'.33 Moreover, althougha Menshevik, Zlydnev's psychology was 'absolutely alien to fractionalism...His work in the [ 1905] soviet finally formed his consciousness as a wide-party

of the organizational committee had pointed to the patriotic views of comrade An' (a member ofthe group Bor'ba) in response to Trotsky's critique of patriotic views in the foreign secretariat.

26 V . I . Lenin , ' O narusheni i edins tva , p r i k r y v u e m o m kr ikami o ed in s tve ' , Polnoe sobraniesochinenii, x x v (Moscow, 1961), 183—206. See also V . I . Len in , ' R a s p a d " A v g u s t o v s k o g o " b l o k a ' ,ibid. pp. 1-4; 'Razoblachenie "Avgustovskoi" fiktsii', ibid. pp. 27-30; 'Edinstvo', ibid. pp.77-80, etc.

27 See, for example,' Voprosy edinstva', Bor'ba, no. 3, pp. 34-39. This editorial argued for theprinciple of democratic centralism in workers' organizations. However, it was also claimed thatthe success of this organizational principle would be directly dependent upon the degree ofindependent activity on behalf of the advanced section of the working class. See also ' Bor'ba zaedinstvo i marksistskii tsentr", Bor'ba, no. 7-8, pp. 3—8. This editorial argued against theestablishment of a 'unity' social democratic fraction. Instead it stated that those in favour of unityshould maintain contact (hence the August bloc and Bor'ba), while remaining within existingfractions with the aim of bringing about a united workers' party based on the principles ofdemocratic centralism and a marxist centre. According to this editorial it is the marxist centrewhich 'ideologically overcomes the centrifugal tendencies of the right- and left-wings andbecomes the stronghold of general party opinion and party discipline' (ibid. p. 7). It is claimedthat without the marxist centre of Bebel and Kautsky, German social democracy would not havebeen able to maintain unity so successfully.

28 T., 'Pamyati B. N. Grossera-Zel'tsera (umer 6 Dekabrya 1912)', Bor'ba, no. 1, pp. 52-4.Reprinted in L. Trotskii, Politicheskie siluety, Sochineniya, vm, 208— 11. The notes to this volume alsocontain no entry for Bor'ba or the August bloc.

29 T . , ' P a m y a t i P . A. Z l y d n e v a ' , Bor'ba, no . 3, p p . 4 0 - 2 . R e p r i n t e d in Sochineniya, v m , 205—8.30 T . , ' S . L. K l y a c h k o ' , Bor'ba, no . 4, p p . 3 4 - 6 . R e p r i n t e d in Sochineniya, v m , 2 1 1 - 1 4 .31 ' P a m y a t i B. N . Grosse ra -ZePtse ra ' , p . 52. 32 Ib id . p . 5 3 .33 ' P a m y a t i P . A. Z l y d n e v a ' , p . 4 1 .

124 IAN D. THATCHER

free from... fractional patriotism.'34 The last obituary to be published, ofS. L. Klyachko, followed the established pattern. Thus, Klyachko waspresented as a man of tremendous goodwill and moral optimism who broughtout the best in everyone who met him. Furthermore, for Trotsky his charmingnature expressed nothing but ' hostility... to that fractional struggle whichtears the ranks of our party'.35 Klyachko's obituary ends with an image of thedying man handing money to a visiting comrade to pay Klyachko's five-month subscription bill to Bor'ba. Trotsky denied any possible charge ofcynicism in advance.

We are endlessly far from the pretension of connecting the authority of the name ofS. L. Klyachko with the business of Bor'ba. But we will always remember with pride thatthe last political movement of our old friend was a movement of help to our journal.3'

However, it was the message of so-called 'unity' that Lenin had criticized,and it was this criticism that made any mention of Bor'ba potentiallyembarrassing for Trotsky at a later date. Stalin had chosen the First WorldWar polemic between Lenin and Trotsky over the law of uneven developmentas the example to prove his leninist pedigree better than Trotsky's. Trotsky jresponded directly to this critique and there was no motivation for him to refer jto Bor'ba.37 Any such reference to the 1914 journal would have carried the idanger of widening the base of Stalin's critique, and even of providing further \evidence of his own 'anti-leninism'. Evidently, Stalin himself did not feel theneed to remind others of the existence of Bor'ba as further ammunition againstTrotsky.38 The journal did not serve his purpose of highlighting the difference 1between socialism in one country based upon Lenin's law of uneven idevelopment and Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, which was not so 1based. Moreover, the journal's emphasis on unity among all social democratic jfractions could have been embarrassing when the mid-1920s critique of jTrotsky was that he was engaging in fractional activity. 1

Furthermore, the journal was rather obscure, and Stalin might not have ibeen aware of its existence. After all, the 1929 edition of the Great Soviet iEncyclopedia states that numbers one, three and five of the journal were |confiscated.39 The entry in the 1929 publication is hostile to Bor'ba, but in |

34 Loc. cit. 35 'S.L. Klyachko', p. 36. 36 Loc. cit. j37 For Trotsky 's response to Stalin's ' uneven deve lopment ' cri t ique, and how this motivated 1

Trotsky to re interpret his earlier writings on the Russian revolution to correspond with the law 1of uneven a n d combined development , see I. D . Tha tche r , ' U n e v e n and combined development ' , .1Revolutionary Russia, iv (2) (1991), 235—58. \

38 For example , one finds no reference to Trotsky 's involvement with Bor'ba in the infamous 'Short Course. However , this book does conta in a section on the August b loc: Istoriya vsesoyuznoi \kommunisticheskoipartii (bol'shevikov) (Moscow, 1938), p p . 131-3.

39 T h e ent ry in the 1929 reference book is as follows: ' " B o r ' b a " , j ou rna l published in 1914 in :

Petersburg. T h e ideological leader of the j ou rna l was L. D. Trotsky. In the int roductory article ;to N o . 1, issued in Feb rua ry 1914, the editorial announced tha t they stood on the platform of theAugust bloc. At tha t t ime the August bloc was disintegrat ing, and this was reflected by the fact ;that Trotsky published his j o u r n a l and left the liquidationist Nasha zarya. T h e editorial of Bor'bacalled the o rgan a " non-fractional workers ' j o u r n a l " and informed about its intent ion to fight for" the purification of social democracy from all a n d every type of existing fractionalism " both from

TROTSKY AND BORBA 125

subsequent editions of the encyclopedia even this entry was deleted. Bor'badisappeared from Soviet historiography and this aided its general 'dis-appearance'. The recent (1989) Soviet republication of the 1920s referencebook, People of the SSSR and the Russian Revolutionary Movement includes V.Nevskii's contribution on Trotsky. This article mentions Trotsky and Bor'babriefly, but critically.40 One waits to see whether this republication inspires thefirst Soviet Trotsky biographies to examine the relationship between Trotskyand Bor'ba}1-

The fact that both Soviet historians and Trotsky did not subsequently raisethe issue of Trotsky's Bor'ba writings meant that they eventually becameforgotten. His contributions to this journal may not have been the mostinteresting and most crucial of his career. However, the account of Trotskyand Bor'ba is indicative of how aspects of his biography received attentionwhile others were allowed to be 'mislaid'.

the Bolsheviks and from the liquidationists. T h e j o u r n a l defended the idea of the formation of amarxist " c e n t r e " , which would be the basis for the unification of all " c u r r e n t s " a m o n g Russiansocial democracy. Defending uni ty with the l iquidationist-Mensheviks, in fact splitting from theworking class, the j ou rna l preached "conc i l i a t i on" a n d silence on the question of how the pa r tyunderground acted in favour of the liquidationists a n d the ant i -par ty elements of socialdemocracy. Trotsky's organ supported the Mensheviks a n d also the " vperedov t sk i " - finally wi thseveral reservations. Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of Bor'ba were confiscated by the police. T h e final number ,7-8 , was issued in J u l y 1914. At the beginning of the wa r Bor'ba was closed by the governmentalong with other social democrat ic organs. Despite the fact t ha t tha t j ou rna l called itself a workers 'journa l , in reality it had no connections with prole tar ian organiza t ions . ' BoFshaya SovetskayaEntsiklopediya, vn (Moscow, 1927), 204.

40 ' I n 1914 Trotsky founded a new jou rna l , Bor'ba, which cont inued the same line as theViennese Pravda: "non-fract ional l i n e " suppor t ing the Mensheviks . ' V . Nevskii, 'T ro t sk i i ' ,Deyateli SSSR i Oktybr'skoi Revolyutsii (Moscow, 1989), p. 723.

41 To my knowledge there are four forthcoming Soviet Trotsky biographies: Yu. Emel'yanov,Eskiyi k portretu Trotskogo; M. Kun,PutkKoioakanu. 0. L. D. Trotskom;T>(. Nikulin, Trotskii: vzgladyi domysly; and N. A. Vasetskii, ' Ta ne gozhus' na vtorye roli...': Stranitsy politicheskoe biografii L. D.Trotskogo. For the re-emergence of Trotsky studies in the U.S.S.R. under Gorbachev see I. D.Thatcher, 'Recent Soviet writings on Leon Trotsky', Coexistence, m (1990), 141-67, and I. D.Thatcher, 'Soviet writings on Leon Trotsky: an update', Coexistence, 1 (1992), 73—96. In his recentbiography of Trotsky, published chapter by chapter by the journal Oktyabr', Dmitri Volkogonovmakes no mention of Trotsky's work for Bor'ba. See D. Volkogonov, 'Lev Trotskii. Politicheskiiportret', Oktyabr', v (1991), 3-32; vi (1991), 139-60^11(1991), 114-49^111(1991), 109-38; ix(1990.