Leon
Trotsky: Letter to Joseph Vanzler
May
2, 1940
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 14, New York 1979, p. 857-859, title: “A
Serious Work on Russian Revolutionary History”
Dear
Comrade:
I
read your manuscript attentively. My original impression was only
reinforced: You are very well acquainted with the literature on the
question and have composed a very serious work. I have no principled
objections at all to make, only some isolated, partial observations.
I am writing in Russian, because it is easier for me.
Your
first chapter is called “Peculiarities of Russian Capitalist
Development: An Historical Illustration of Combined
and Uneven
Development.” I would put uneven
before combined,
because the second grows out of the first and completes it. Aside
from that, in the text of this same chapter the concepts of uneven
and combined
development, although they are illustrated factually, are not defined
by a single word. In my opinion, you ought to give a short
theoretical definition of uneven
and combined
development.
On
page 12, the tenth line from the bottom, it is said that the
Narodniks had no understanding whatever
of the classes in society. This assertion is too categorical. Like
any petty-bourgeois radical movement, they distinguished very well
the class of the nobility, the big bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy, and
even the kulaks. But they ignored the distinction between the
proletariat and the peasantry, as also the stratification of the
peasantry itself. In other words, they transformed all working people
into one “class.”
Page
13. At the end of the paragraph you ascribe to Lenin that which
rightfully belongs to the Emancipation of Labor Group
(thirteenth
line from the bottom).
Page
14. You write that Volkhovsky, Shishko, and Kravchinsky later
remained with the right
Socialist Revolutionaries. As far as I know, they all died before the
Social Revolutionary Party split into lefts and rights. Kravchinsky
died even before the founding of the Social Revolutionary Party.
On
the same page it is said that around 1879 a section of the Narodniks
lost faith in conspiratorial methods of organization. This could give
cause for misunderstanding. The Narodniks lost faith in the
possibility of illegal organization of the masses.
But the organization of the Narodniks remained conspiratorial.
On
the same page you say that the new organization was called “People
and Freedom” [Narod i Volya]. This is a misunderstanding. The name
was “People’s Will” [Narodnaya Volya]; as is known, the word
“volya” in Russian has two meanings: freedom and will, in the
sense of the right to decide.
On
the same page you say that Plekhanov organized a third group, which
was called at first the “Black Redistribution.” In reality “Land
and Freedom” split into two organizations: “People’s Will”
and “Black Redistribution.”
Page
16. You say at the beginning: “The Narodnik movement was
anti-Marxist precisely because it ignored the workers.” It would be
better to say, it seems to me, that it ignored the independent class
character of the proletariat, dissolving the workers into the
laboring people in general.
On
page 17 you say about the People’s Will movement that it was
quixotic and heroic. I would leave out the designation “quixotic.”
In quixotism there is a comical element that was altogether lacking
in the People’s Will.
Page
21. The thirteenth line from the bottom. Here you are talking about
the adherents of People’s Will; whereas you should, in my opinion,
be speaking about the Narodniks in general.
Page
26. You speak of the fact that Plekhanov’s view of the
intelligentsia was a typical Menshevik
view. This sounds like an anachronism, because the Mensheviks
appeared significantly later.
At
the end of the same page it is stated with condemnation that the
Emancipation of Labor Group still adhered to terror. It would be
necessary, it seems to me, to explain that it is a question of
individual
terror, which isolated the revolutionists from the workers’
movement and concentrated all hopes on the activities of small
circles of “heroes.” We also stood for terror, but mass terror
carried out by the revolutionary class.
Page
28. The opposition of Blagoyev and Plekhanov is true only to the
extent that is well known. It is true that Blagoyev turned up in the
Third International, which did him credit. But all the same he
remained a fairly big opportunist in questions of revolutionary
struggle.
These
are all of my observations. As you see, they touch more the
formulation than the essence of the thing. In general the work will
be useful to the highest degree.
P.S.
Has your interest been drawn to the so-called Tanaka Memorial by the
former Japanese minister of foreign affairs? The Japanese pretension
to world supremacy is expounded in this memorial. Do you perhaps
have, by any chance, any kind of materials or data related to this
memorial? If not, it’s not necessary to search for any.
Warmest
greetings.
Yours,
L.T.