Leon Trotsky: A New Period – New Tasks

[My own translation of the German translation in Russische Korrespondenz, Volume II, Issue 1/2, January-February 1921, pp. 43-47. Corrections by native speakers would be extremely welcome]

Two kinds of questions are at present attracting the attention of the party: workers' democracy and economic construction.

The word democracy, by which a particular state order is designated, is in this case used quite inaccurately to designate a regime of self-activity of the toiling masses in the party, in trade union and soviet organisations. This may give rise to misunderstandings, especially abroad, where the Mensheviks and Kautskyans will endeavour to capitalise, albeit modestly, on the misuse of the terminology in our party discussions. Since the word democracy has already been put into circulation for want of a more suitable one, it is necessary to keep a close eye on it oneself and to remind others that it is not the formal democracy which, by means of a complicated and carefully thought-out rite, was supposed to feign the sovereignty of the masses, the responsibility of the superiors to the masses, etc., and in reality cloaked the self-serving dictatorship of an exploiting minority over the toiling majority. By workers' or soviet "democracy" we mean a real and constantly growing participation of the toiling people in the construction of the new society, whereby this construction work of the masses, guided by a unified goal, will gradually overcome the gap that exists between the most advanced and the most backward sections of the toilers themselves.

If, however, the need has arisen to put the term "workers' democracy" into circulation, without being content with the general term soviet order, this is due to the fact that during its more than three years of existence, depending on external, and to some extent also on internal conditions, the soviet regime sometimes experienced a limitation, sometimes an expansion, and at certain moments reduced the direct participation of the soviet organs in the solution of the most important questions in progress to a minimum. Without doubt, this temporary self-restraint was a sign of the extraordinary viability and elasticity of the soviet order, which is everywhere and at all times not a regime of form but a regime of essence. The restriction of the soviet organisations led by the communist party was due to the exceptionally difficult international military situation, and this restriction took place and remained in place precisely because the mass of the party had recognised its importance and inevitability and consciously carried it out.

Precisely for this same reason, when the front question, i.e. the question of the being or non-being of the soviet republic lost it sharpness, the party was immediately clear, that all internal forces and resources would have to be grasped and grouped accordingly for the solution of the nearest tasks. If the decision of the question of the being or non-being of Soviet Russia at a certain point in time required a maximum of concentration of the will of the party and the state, then the question of the future of Soviet Russia can only be solved by the greatest possible activity of the party, by its closest contact with the masses, by taking into account their experiences and moods, by developing the self-activity and creative forces of millions of workers and peasants. In this transition from one period to another lies the meaning of the slogan of workers' democracy which is currently occupying the party. It is not at all a revision of the Party Statute or the Soviet Constitution. The statute of our party is fully imbued with the spirit of democratic centralism. This means that the forms and methods of centralist top leadership are ordered from below, by the party itself. At present, the party wants to make its control over the elected organs more direct and active, to increase the participation of the masses in this control. The outward expression of the revival of workers' democracy must be, and already are, more frequent mass meetings, discussion of all fundamental questions, more frequent application of the system of eligibility, criticisms, discussions, more detailed and direct illumination of topical questions by the press, etc., etc. It is under this sign that the party congress meets.

Workers' democracy, however, as I have said, is not a democracy of form but of essence. Assemblies, discussions, polemics, conferences, congresses, elections – these are all, in the final analysis, forms which are intended to express the thoughts and the will of the masses. But what will give content to all these forms? What questions and tasks must be at the centre of party life at the present time, and thus also of meetings, discussions, conferences and elections? Without doubt: questions of economic life in the country.

It is not only a question of our newspapers, party meetings and other assemblies being occupied with presentations on the unified economic plan, on concessions, the state regulation of agriculture, and so on. Such a literary-political mobilisation of public opinion on the occasion of various questions, including economic ones, is also peculiar to the regime of bourgeois democracy. We must take a deeper view of our task. What is needed is an internal regrouping of the forces of soviet democracy and their economic reorientation, or rather their re-education in the field of production. Repeatedly we have had to reorient ourselves and adapt to the historical tasks on the agenda. The last three years have been almost exclusively a time of military selection, military education. The party not only nurtured in each and every one of its members the will to victory, but also grouped, sought out and selected workers exclusively from the point of view of concern for the front, which eclipsed everything else. This military build-up of the party – without violating its communist essence – is one of the greatest miracles of history.

The education of our militarised workers' democracy (for our military construction was undoubtedly based on an self-reliance of the workers, albeit limited in its outward expression) was merely a transitional episode in relation to that epoch of education for production which is now beginning. The building of a unified socialist economy is, by its very nature, a specific education of people for the economy. Even capable communists who came into a bad and weak military unit have repeatedly failed and been swept away by the wave of panic. The will to economy alone is not enough, just as the will to victory is not enough. Certain habits, individual and collective methods, a certain grouping of people is necessary, which is done and perfected from the point of view of the economy. Certainly, certain skills acquired by tens of thousands of party members in military service will find, and have already found, their use in the economy: the habit of working on a large scale, the understanding of the role and importance of concerted mass effort, of exactness and strict responsibility. These traits and habits must find their economic application strictly in harmony with the character of production and its inner needs. Education for production is an incomparably greater, more formidable task than that of military education. The army commandeered millions for a few years; the economy comprises tens and hundreds of millions of people and requires from them the greatest exertion of strength during the whole of the coming epoch.

The education of the millions by the party (production propaganda is merely a part of this work) is only possible successfully if we re-educate ourselves. At first glance, it may seem that since the working class is a producing class, education for production and the production standpoint must be familiar to all workers. This is a great mistake. The working masses are accustomed to automatic production, but under capitalism they never had the opportunity to transplant their active spirit and will into production. Now, through the course of events, they are also excluded from automatic production. As for the more advanced working class layers, they have educated the masses and itself for active struggle against the capitalist system of production. Comrade Sosnowski explained quite correctly in one of his reports that the school of illegal activity in the revolution was, in a certain sense and for a certain time, a school of hostility to production not only for the masses but primarily for the vanguard of workers itself. A worker conscious of the importance of production is one who looks at his tool, the workbench, the factory, the economy as a whole, from the standpoint of a regulated total production, a scientific organisation of production and an increase in the efficiency of labour. Such a worker teaches the masses by word and deed that their interests as consumers can only be secured through proper production. The effort to eliminate hunger, cold, disease and ignorance must become a conscious will on the part of the workers to raise their work to the necessary level. The forms of organisation must be evaluated first and foremost from the point of view of production. A worker conscious of the importance of production, an organiser, a leader, must acquire an exclusive importance in the consciousness of the toiling population in town and village.

In this fundamental, decisive work in the field of educating the masses for production and in the selection of capable, productive workers for a leading activity, the first place belongs to the trade unions. Only now, after the removal of the fronts and the transition of the country to economic activity, is a wide field for creative work opening up to the industrial unions. Only now can the trade unions fulfil their true purpose in the workers' state, i.e., become organisations which gather the workers not only by industry but also for production and secure for themselves the leading role in production. This presupposes in the trade unions themselves, starting from the lowest nucleus, an assertion of the production point of view and the selection of workers from this point of view.

The party educated the worker and militant on the basis of everyday experience. It awakened class consciousness in the worker by means of small details of factory life, formulated his hatred of the exploiter and to exploitation, worked tirelessly and persistently to widen his view and steeled his will. The party preached irreconcilability to him not only towards the traitors but also towards the wavering figures. By doing this, the party created itself.

During the last two to three years, the party educated the commanding worker, the commissar, the member of the Red Army. It linked the will for revolutionary victory to a certain military system. It overcame the narrowness of guerilla-ism and expanded the knowledge of the advanced sections within the Red Army to such an extent that they were able to think on a general-national and international scale. Now we must begin to create, educate and bring to the fore the type of an economist and producer, a builder for communist Russia. This work should and must, in its whole essence, be carried out on an incomparably broader mass basis than military work. The task is not merely to seek out and select, through party channels, thousands and tens of thousands of workers to strengthen the industrial associations and economic organs. This is a very important part of the task. But only one part. What is necessary – and this is the essence of the question – is to teach the masses to place this economist and producer in a responsible post and to support him in his fundamental task of increasing the material resources to the country. The question of appointments will occupy all the less space in practice and in discussion the more the trade unions will imbue themselves and the masses with the criterion of productivity.

It is to this that the whole attention of the advanced workers must be directed. If our international situation creates more favourable conditions for the development of workers' democracy, the economic situation at home and the whole meaning of the soviet regime require that our democracy becomes a democracy of production, and this necessity testifies to the fact that the soviet state will develop into a communist society.