Why did the Russian Provisional Government fail in 1917?

The Russian Provisional Government failed in 1917 for a variety of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, they refused to end the country’s involvement in World War One. Due to the government’s preoccupation with winning that War, many economic and social problems were overlooked or ignored. Institutions known collectively as The Soviet were also attempting to gain more power. They didn’t want to run the government, but they did want greater autonomy for the workers. In effect, they sucked power away from the Provisional Government. These issues and several others led to the failure of the Provisional Government and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in October of 1917.

The Russian Provisional Government was formed in the aftermath of Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication from the throne on March 2, 1917. After Nicholas’ departure, the Duma was the only real legal authority left to run the country. Out of this body the Provisional Government was formed by a coalition of various Duma parties. It was intended to be an interim body to hold power until the Constituent Assembly could be called and a constitution could be written.[1] Headed first by Prince G. E. Lvov, the new government saw as its primary task as winning the War, only then would other issues be dealt with.

Massive economic and social problems, inefficient decision making by the Tsar, as well as Russia’s high casualty rate in World War One had led to the collapse of autocracy. The Duma, which had pressed for gradual liberalization of the country, was headed mostly by the Octobrists and the Kadets, the center-right political parties. This was by design, as the electorate had been severely restricted so that only those two parties could win a majority. They were tasked with preparing the country for national elections and the Constituent Assembly. This would require granting “full freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion, and equality to all citizens.”[2]

However, there was another body claiming power as well, the Soviet. They claimed to represent the peasants’ and workers’ interests. They provided services for workers and sailors. This “Dual Power” created a complex system of authority that did not function efficiently. The Provisional Government might have had authority, but it was unclear whether or not they had power. Whether or not the population would follow them was not known. The Soviet, on the other hand, held true sway with the workers and peasants.

The soviets were formed as “workers councils,” and were made up of both common people and the intelligentsia. They worked to secure rights for workers and after March 1917, they sought to protect the gains made by the first Revolution. The Petrograd Soviet was the head of a nationwide network of soviets that were located throughout Russia. Far more radical than the Duma, they were composed mostly of Socialist Revolutionaries and Social-Democrats.[3] The Petrograd Soviet also included many of the soldiers stationed in the city’s garrison and sailors stationed at the nearby naval base of Kronstadt.

At first the soviets and the Provisional Government coexisted rather peacefully and the Petrograd Soviet approved of the new government’s policies. However, as time went on, they began to fight for control over the military and foreign policy. Order Number 1, issued by the Petrograd Soviet’s army section, authorized army units to elect soldiers to represent them in the soviets. It also stated that army units did not have to obey orders given by the Government unless those orders were approved by the Soviet first.[4]

In 1917 the majority of the Russian Army was made up of peasants, who were confused as to what exactly they were fighting for. With no clear motivation to fight or stake in victory, they made a poor fighting force. While many of the soldiers continued to fight on the Front, they were more loyal to the soviets than the Provisional Government. This was because the soviets were calling for the nationalization of land. It seemed to most of the peasantry that the soviets were fighting for their interests while the Provisional Government was simply continuing the policies of autocracy.

The new government felt it had to fulfill its obligations to the Allies and continue the war “and fight for ‘lasting peace through victory.’” The Provisional Government was immediately recognized by the Allied forces. Secret treaties signed by the government implemented a new expansionist war policy, hoping to gain territory in the Ukraine and Austria-Hungary. The soviets protested this by calling for the European workers to overthrow their governments and “achieve a just and democratic peace ‘without annexations and indemnities.’” [5]

In April of 1917 Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks, returned to Russia from exile in Switzerland. His new tactic was no confidence or support to the new government, primarily because they were continuing the War. In time, he would sway most of the Bolshevik leadership to his line of thinking. In his April Theses, published shortly after his return, he denounced any cooperation with the new government. Lenin states, “…the war on Russia’s part remains a predatory imperialist war.”[6] Due to this fact, the soviets must not support the ongoing war and must completely break off any support for the Provisional Government.

Later in the Theses, Lenin explains, “It must be explained to the masses that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the only possible form of revolutionary government…therefore, our task is, while this government is submitting to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a…persistent analysis of its errors and tactics…”[7] No support for the Provisional Government and “All Power to The Soviets!” were the two principles of the April Theses. While not a majority in the Soviet yet, the Bolsheviks were gaining influence.

While the Provisional Government was preoccupied with winning the War, the country’s economic and social problems began to grow worse. “In three [domestic] areas in particular the government’s response was found wanting: the nationality question, the agrarian crisis, and industrial relations.” Russia had been a large, multiethnic empire and now the various nationalities were demanding autonomy. Disagreements about how to handle the “nationality question” led to the fall of Lvov’s government on July 15. [8]

The second pressing domestic issue, the agrarian crisis, was growing worse with time. Immediately after the Tsar’s abdication, and in the power vacuum that followed, peasants began seizing the land of nobles in the countryside. Many peasant soldiers deserted their posts to go back home and participate in the land grabbing. The Provisional Government, fearful of even more peasants deserting the army, refused to implement any sort of land reform. Their inaction made the problem worse because now the peasantry had no reason to support the new government.

The third domestic issue was that of industrial relations which had been an ongoing problem for some time. As Russia began to industrialize in the early 1900’s, the population of industrial workers, especially in Petrograd and Moscow, exploded. Most of the manufacturing was centered on these two cities. Low wages, inflation, lack of work, lack of adequate housing and food was making life increasingly harsh for the factory workers. “In industry workers began to organize factory committees to defend themselves and to keep the factories open in the fact of economic disruption and lockouts.”[9]

One reason that the Provisional Government did not settle many of these domestic issues was because they wanted to wait for the Constituent Assembly. Realizing that most of the people would only accept the legitimacy of a government elected by that assembly, they put off many issues until it could be convened. It was scheduled to open in January 1918.

Alexander Kerensky emerged as the new leader of the Provisional Government after Lvov’s exit. Kerensky was a moderate socialist who believed that the goal of the new government was to finish the agenda set by autocracy.[10] He was the only person to be involved in both the leadership of the soviet and the Provisional Government and it put him in a precarious position. While the Soviet had forbid any of its members in participating in the new government, they made an exception for Kerensky.

In July 1917, a failed Bolshevik uprising led to the imprisonment of most of the party’s leadership and Lenin once again fled the country, this time to Finland. It appeared as though the Bolsheviks were now eliminated as a threat to the Provisional Government. However, a chain of events would soon see them released.

On August 26 General L.G. Kornilov of the military high command called for the surrender of the Provisional Government. In place of that government he planned to install a military dictatorship.[11] It is unclear whether or not Kornilov himself would have headed this government, but it was a threat nonetheless. He threatened to have his troops “march on Petrograd,” if the Provisional Government did not surrender.

Kerensky, frightened that the capital might be seized by Kornilov’s forces, asked the Petrograd Soviet for help. The Soviet agrees on the condition that all their comrades are freed, including the Bolsheviks. The workers of the Soviet were armed and made into units of “Red Guards.” Kornilov was moving his troops by rail, and since the Bolsheviks had influence with the railway workers, they simply had the trains stopped so that Kornilov and his men could be arrested.

The Bolsheviks were seen as heroes after this incident and it further weakened Kerensky’s government.[12] In September they finally gained a majority in the Soviet and Lenin, finally back from Finland, realized that the time to seize power was close at hand. He pushed the leadership in Petrograd to seize power immediately. By October, it was clear that Kerensky’s attempts to form a “third coalition” and maintain power were failing. There were too many political parties and they could not agree on any policies moving forward.[13]

The continuing devastation of the War and the Provisional Government’s refusal to end it was the key issue in bringing about its’ collapse. They had tried to shift tactics in war propaganda, now billing the conflict as a struggle against German autocracy. The soldiers, however, didn’t buy it. In the industrial centers of the country, Moscow and Petrograd, unrest over the War was steadily growing just as it had earlier that year in February. The situation was growing from bad to worse. Kerensky’s offensive had failed; the Germans were gaining more ground by the day. This further eroded any support the government might have had left. It was clear that they were ineffective on both foreign and domestic issues.

This ineffectiveness left the door open for a new force to gain power. The only coherent policy alternatives being offered were those of the Bolsheviks. On the night of November 6, they made their move and soldiers from the Petrograd garrison seized government buildings and stormed the headquarters of the Provisional Government at the Winter Palace.[14] This would end the freest period in Russia’s history and lead to a dictatorship of epic consequences.

In the end, it was the continuation of an unpopular, offensive and expansionist war that led to the Provisional Governments failure. Instead of trying to forge a new road ahead following the March Revolution, the new government instead went on with business as usual. They did not implement the reforms necessary to win the support of the population. They thought that overnight, after the first revolution, Russia had been transformed and an era of democracy would ensue. Without a government willing to actually change policy, it was perhaps doomed from the beginning.

---

[1] Sakwa, Richard. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London and New York 1999. Pg 32

[2] MacKenzie, David and Curran, Michael W. A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond (6^th Edition). Wadsworth Thomas Learning 2002. Pg 418

[3] Sakwa. Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union Pg 12

[4] MacKenzie and Curran. Pg 419

[5] Ibid, Pg 419

[6] Sakwa, Pg 34

[7] Ibid, Pg 35

[8] Ibid, Pg 37

[9] Ibid, Pg 38

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid, Pg 44

[12] Ibid

[13] MacKenzie and Curran, Pg 421

[14] Sakwa, Pg 51

Too Funny

I can't give credit to who made this up as I don't know the original author, I saw it posted in the comments at Huffington Post.  It's just too funny and accurate to not repost.

"A dude was in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He lowered his altitude and spotted a fisherman in a boat below. He shouted to him, 'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know were I am 

The person in the boat consulted his portable GPS and replied, 'You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above the water elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude. 

The dude rolled his eyes and said, 'You must be a Democrat.' 

'I am,' replied the man. 'How did you know?' 

'Well,' answered the dude , 'everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me.' 

The Democrat smiled and responded, 'You must be a Republican .' 

''I am,' replied the dude . 'How did you know?' 

'Well,' said the Democrat, 'you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault.'"

Rethuglicans devour their own.

Over the past few years the Republican Party has shifted from center-right on the political spectrum to far-right.  Especially after Bush left office, conservatives began an effort to purge their party of those who might be independent-minded.  During the previous administration and before, many Democrats switched their party affiliation to Republican, including Joe Lieberman and the like.  Republicans at the time claimed that the Democratic Party was shifting farther to the left and alienating its moderates, therefore leaving them nowhere else to turn but the opposition.  Now, however, the roles are reversed.

 

So how come when Lieberman left the Democratic Party (like Zell Miller) it was his principles, but when Specter leaves the Republican Party, it's "simply self-preservation?"  The answer, my friends, is quite simple.  The Republican Party is a fairly militant organization.  For years, the rhetoric of the far-right and the evangelicals of the party were in the minority, outnumbered by moderates and centrists focused on pragmatic solutions to problems.  Since their loss of control of the Congress in 2006 and even more so after 2008, the Republicans have tacked right, HARD right.

 

Their reasoning is that they only lost the election because they weren't conservative ENOUGH.  Right...that's why people voted for Obama and other Democrats...because John McCain wasn't conservative enough.  On its face it seems like an absolutely ridiculous strategy, and that's because it is.  No political party ever won an election by alienating people, and that is exactly what they're doing.  They're pushing any party members that aren't right-wingers out.  You saw it at the Tea Parties and you see it on Hannity every night, the rabid attack of any Republican official who supports rational economic policy.

 

When three Republicans voted for the bank bailouts, the party vilified them and shifted resources towards their competitors in state primaries.  This happened to both Snowe and Specter.  They were both attacked viciously after their votes and Specter, who faces a primary challenge from "Club for Growth" member and former congressman Pat Toomey (Total douchebag), got the worst of it.  Essentially, he was told that if he didn't shape up and start voting the way the Party wanted him to, they'd support Toomey against him in the Republican Primary.

 

So what would you have done?  Your party abandons you, insults you, then says they're going to put you out of a job.  Damn right I'd switch parties.  

 

This all has a lot to do with conservative media.  Those who have their own shows (Hannity, Beck, etc.) have been calling for party purges for some time.  But when the news of Specter's defection hit, Hannity flipped his shit completely.  On his show last night, his anger was palpable as he almost yelled about Specter's treasonous departure from "his principles."  He had on Newt Gingrich who egged him on, saying they were better off without Arlen.  Right, you're better off without that vote blocking the Democratic supermajority in the Senate *eyes roll*.  What really seems to be at the root of this is that Arlen left before they had a chance to kick him out.

 

Come on, let's get real people.  If you can't see that the Republican Party is acting like a child that doesn't get its way, then I don't know if there's any hope for you.  This is not about principles or conservative ethics.  This is about power, pure and simple.  The Republicans are pissed they lost the election and so they've set out to destroy what they can't have.  

 

Sean Hannity used to rail against all those left-wingers who compared Bush to Hitler and protested the Iraq War, he called them anti-American, he called them degenerates, he called them losers.  Now, he's on the air nightly claiming Obama has a "secret, deep-seated hatred of American values."  He has publicly stated he wants the President's economic recovery program to FAIL.  His only motivation seems to be hatred of a black President at this point.  Once again, this is not about principles, this is about acting like a damn child.  This is why the Republicans lost the election, and they STILL don't get it.

 

It's about whose policies work, not who is the most ideologically pure.  Your policies failed, you had 8 years to implement them, they didn't work.  This is what makes democracy great.  Now the half the country that loved Bush can understand how we felt under eight years of that fucking ignoramus.  The only difference here is that people are protesting policies THAT HELP THEM.  Everyone of those retard teabaggers probably makes less than $250k/year, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE GETTING A TAX CUT, NOT A TAX INCREASE.  

 

So before you make yourself look like an idiot...read a book.

 

But if you watch FOX News you'll never hear the truth..

 

The Tea Parties Fail

I spent April 15th in class and work, so I didn't make it down to the Old Capitol here in Tallahassee, where the tea party was being held.  I did, however, view thousands of images from tea parties from all over the nation from a variety of sources.  I also have done everything I could to try and get speeches and pronouncements made at these gatherings.  I have come to a really bad conclusion about all this tea-bagging nonsense.  That is, when a corporation (one of the largest in the world at that) sponsors a "protest movement," it is most certainly NOT "grassroots."  

 

The Fox News Channel hyped these tea parties like crazy over the past two weeks or so.  In that time, they had numerous commercials advertising the tea parties.  Now, that would have been fine if they were advertising their _coverage_ of the event, but instead, they were actually encouraging people to attend.  FNC representatives like Sean Hannity took center stage at many of these events.  Indeed, on Hannity's program for about a week leading up to the protests, he repeatedly encouraged his viewers to attend.  

 

Secondly, they had absolutely no cohesive message.  There was some ranting about spending but a lot of the signs had either a racist or violent message.  There was the usual nonsense about Obama being a "secret Muslim" and a socialist, along with the birth certificate deniers, neo-Nazis and militiamen.  Now, some of this might have been overlooked, except for the fact that the attendees were almost exclusively white.  The only real theme seemed to be anti-Obama.  That may be understating it a bit, however, as there were most certainly those there who wished harm to the President.

 

I'll just give you a small taste of what I've been seeing.  Check out this link .

 

Conservatives over the past few days have had the balls to complain about the Department of Homeland Security report that warned of the growing influence of right-wing extremism.  Are they trying to be ironic?  Not to mention the fact that the Bush administration commissioned an almost identical report in 2001, before 9/11, that came to the exact same conclusion this report did.  They noted the declining influence of left-wing domestic terrorism and the rise of right-wing domestic terrorism.  The Department of Homeland Security also released another report alongside the current one.  It analyzed left-wing extremists and their utilization of hacking in their attacks against the federal government.  So, really, not only can you not complain about this, you really shouldn't mention it at all.  Why?  Because they just spent the last few weeks courting right-wing extremists for their tea parties.  Duh.

 

The last thing I'll mention is how kind of pathetic these protests were.  Despite the backing of a major 24-hour news network and the Republican Party, all they managed to do was show the country exactly how nuts the far-right fringe is.  They didn't expose any "populist outrage," aside from a few wingnuts.  It most certainly didn't seem to resonate too well with people, because only about 100,000 people total gathered at these tea parties.  Not only that, but now both Fox News and the Republican Party have allied themselves with white supremacists, militiamen, anti-federalists and every other fringe group.

 

So, good job guys.  Liberals really enjoyed tax day.  I hope we get to do this again sometime real soon.  =)

 

Oh, and when we protest millions show up.  Sorry.

How did Leon Trotsky view the development of the Soviet Union after his exile?

Leon Trotsky was one of the central operators of the October Revolution in Russia. His position as Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet at the time of the Revolution gave him immense influence. He helped negotiate the treaty that ended hostilities between Russia and Germany. He became a member of the leadership of the Politburo of the Communist Party and held his own in debates with Lenin, Stalin, Zinoviev and Bukharin. He defended the new revolutionary government against the Whites in the Russian Civil War. Undeniably he was one of the dominant political personalities in the early Soviet Union.

This did not, however, make him immune to controversy and even denouncement. The first few years of Soviet rule were turbulent ones and the leadership of the Party was controlled by the flamboyant and bellicose speakers, of which Trotsky was the most famous. He had started out as a journalist but quickly became involved in politics at a young age. His involvement with the Petrograd Soviet cemented his place in revolutionary history. Trotsky belonged to the Mensheviks, a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Although the faction was vehemently opposed to the other faction's idea of a violent uprising, Trotsky was of a different mind. He eventually joined the Bolsheviks and became one of Lenin's greatest supporters.

Trotsky inspired true fanaticism and dedication to the Revolution, especially in the soldiers of the Petrograd Soviet, who occupied the government buildings of the city on November 6, 1917. The next day the Winter Palace itself, the seat of the Provisional Government, was captured by the Petrograd soldiers under the command of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko. Ovseenko was released from the Peter and Paul Fortress the same day as Trotsky earlier in August, after a failed Bolshevik insurrection in July.[1] Ovseenko was completely loyal to the Bolsheviks. This effectively ended the new government created in the wake of the February Revolution earlier that year, when Tsar Nicholas II had abdicated his throne. All over Russia, the Bolsheviks attempted to seize power, with varying degrees of success.

Trotsky was nominally in charge of the new Soviet government and Lenin was rushed back from exile in Finland. At the Second All-Russian Congress of the Soviets, Trotsky introduced a measure to turn over function of the government to the Soviets, away from the Provisional Government. At this time not many of the members of the Soviet Congress knew about the seizure of power the night before by the Bolsheviks. About halfway through the vote, the word broke about the Bolshevik seizure of power. As the Mensheviks and other socialist minorities in the Soviet Congress screamed about the illegal nature of the Bolsheviks’ actions, Trotsky harangued them. As they got up to leave, Trotsky literally screamed that they were doomed to the “garbage-heap of history!”[2] The dissenters walked out of the chamber and essentially capitulated to the Bolshevik coup.

It is important to note that the Bolsheviks firmly believed that the fall of the Provisional Government in Russia was a prelude to a European proletariat revolution. In other countries like Germany and Italy the communist parties were large in number and highly influential. To many that participated in the Russian Revolution, it was taken for granted that the world revolution was right around the corner. Although it came as a surprise to many that the first country to be affected was Russia because of its backward development and lack of a large, influential capitalist class. Trotsky believed that Russia’s revolution gave the Soviets an opportunity to aid their European counterparts and that this should be the new Soviet Republic’s highest priority.

Trotsky also believed that until the world proletariat had gained power, the revolution must be permanent. Revolution in Russia must be ongoing until it had spread over the whole globe. This was also the policy of the Bolsheviks until Stalin’s rise to power. This goes a long way in explaining some of Trotsky’s behavior during the negotiations in Brest-Litovsk.
Once Lenin returned to Petrograd, Trotsky became his advocate, giving eloquent speeches everywhere he went. He quickly became People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs and secured the new Soviet state peace with Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on February 10, 1918. Unfortunately, Brest-Litovsk was seen as a farce, with Trotsky wildly denouncing the Germans at every opportunity and pulling political stunts. At first, he tried to simply declare an end to hostilities without signing a treaty at all. This gamble failed, and the Germans resumed their march toward Petrograd. The Soviets ended up with a worse settlement than the original one because of Trotsky's gambles.[3]

Shortly after obtaining power, the Congress of the Soviets passed a Bolshevik-sponsored resolution banning freedom of the press. To the consternation of many in attendance, Trotsky seemed wholly unabashed about censoring the “bourgeois press.”[4] This did not seem to bother many of the Bolshevik leadership. Lenin had long contended that it would be necessary to shut down the bourgeois press when they took power. They simply could not allow the enemy to get away with printing propaganda and weakening the Soviet’s power. All printing presses and paper were now brought under the control of the State.

After helping Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks seize power, Trotsky went about securing what he saw as the gains of the revolution. He was tasked with building the new Workers' and Peasants' Red Army to help defend the Soviet Republic in the Civil War. He had no military experience, but was appointed War Commissar because, to quote Lenin, "There was no one else to do it."[5] He quickly realized he would have to introduce conscription, mostly from the peasants. Widespread resistance to the draft among the peasants led to horrific massacres by the Soviets.

His first test came even before he left for Brest-Litovsk, when about 700 Cossacks marched toward Petrograd. Trotsky, with the help of an old tsarist military officer pushed the invaders back. This led him to recruit many old tsarist military men as long as they were politically reliable. This would eventually cause tension between Trotsky and other Bolsheviks, most notably Stalin and his Tsaritsyn group[6], who wanted to be able to fire commanders at will if they saw fit. It was just one of the events that foreshadowed the coming fractures within the Party.

Leon Trotsky proved himself a worthy military leader. He had his own armored train that he used to visit the front, speaking to the troops personally. Though many in the Party thought his “princely journeys to the front,” a waste of time and resources, it became a sort of psychological weapon against the enemy. It was almost as good as a division in reserve. [7]

Order in the new Red Army was maintained through strict discipline and propaganda. Trotsky himself would speak to the troops regularly to inspire them. Not obeying orders was a death sentence. Any unauthorized retreat was a death sentence. Fear and fanaticism kept the new army functioning through the lack of food and supplies.[8]

Trotsky had not only helped to bring the Bolsheviks to power, he had secured that victory for the newly-formed Communist Party of the Soviet Union. His contributions to the military and political struggles gave him a lot of clout in the new Party. He led the Red Army to victory and helped to save Moscow and Petrograd,[9] where he put himself in mortal danger to lead the defenders. What had started as a poorly-organized volunteer militia called the Red Guard had become a real, professional army.

Behind in the scene, back in Moscow where the leadership was meeting regularly to discuss the progress of the War, Trotsky’s leadership was being undermined. Stalin, already seeing Trotsky as a potential rival, began to undermine his authority at the front. Like Tsaritsyn, there were many other places where Trotsky’s use of old tsarist officers did not help his case.

Largely through Trotsky's leadership, the Soviets were able to defend their positions and in many cases push the invaders back. The War lasted from 1918 to 1921 but there would be sporadic rebellions until 1923. The upheavals of war, natural disasters, social catastrophe, and revolution caused serious damage to the new Soviet Republic. The death count, including World War One deaths, stands at around twenty million people. Factories, bridges, raw materials, and mines were sabotaged or destroyed. Lenin's policy of War Communism had helped the Soviets during the Civil War but now a new approach was needed to jump-start the economy.

In 1920, the Soviet economy was falling apart and it was decided that without a moderate return to capitalism in some areas such as agriculture, the economy could not develop. Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921. This step would lift the total ban on private property and allow some small business to operate at a profit. This was vehemently opposed by the Left Opposition of the party, who viewed it as a return to Capitalism. Trotsky in particular was not enthusiastic about retreat. Lenin used Stalin and his flunkies to undermine the position of Trotsky within the Party.[10]

The NEP was promulgated on March 21, 1921 and soon the economy began growing at a modest pace. The aims of the NEP were to help the Soviets catch up with the west in terms of industrialization and militarization. Lenin's influence was strong enough to get it passed but not without ruffling feathers. Trotsky was won over by the effects of the NEP but was really in favor of the militarization of labor, in effect putting the workforce of the Soviet Union under direct control of the state. He believed that everyone should be compelled to work, by force if necessary. This would allow the proletariat to "secure the socialization of the means of production." [11]

The trade union debate further pushed Trotsky away from others in the Party. In reality, Lenin believed, just as Trotsky did, that there was no need for workers to have their own independent organizations in a workers’ state. It was simply too politically inconvenient for him to say so at the time. However, Trotsky went so far as to suggest the complete militarization of Soviet society. His successes in the Red Army had shown him the efficiency of a regimented military. “Trotsky argued that the ability of socialism to conscript forced labor was its main advantage over capitalism.”[12]

While Lenin had never been enamored with Trotsky, he did believe him to be a capable political leader. As his health declined, the issue of succession came to the forefront. The trade union debate and other arguments had largely split the Politburo into two groups. Lenin wanted to curb what he saw as the growing threat of Stalin and the Party bureaucracy[13] and urged Trotsky to challenge Stalin on issues like intra-party democracy.

There came now a great struggle within the Party that would sew the fate of Leon Trotsky and many others. Many thought Trotsky to be Lenin’s only obvious heir. Stalin believed otherwise, and began to sabotage Trotsky’s image in the Party. For quite some time, Stalin had been able, through the power of appointments, to stack his own supporters in most of the important positions.

By 1925 Lenin was dead and Stalin was firmly in control of the party apparatus. Issues like intra-party democracy further split the party into two distinct camps. Stalin was determined to be the last one left standing when the dust settled. Eventually Trotsky was relieved of almost all of his party duties. He was left virtually unemployed with nothing to do.

Popular opinion had swung against him, and many of his supporters were being denounced and expelled from the Party. Opposition was now seen as treason, and Stalin led the charge against the “counter-revolutionary agents” within the Party. In February 1929, Trotsky was formally expelled from the Soviet Union. His supporters often suffered similar or worse fates, many ending up in the gulag. Trotsky’s expulsion from the Party was the start of a vicious campaign against him in the party press. Show trials in which many of the Old Bolsheviks were made to denounce Trotsky did not make things easier for him.

Once free of the political constraints of writing in the Soviet Union, Trotsky began to write books and articles damning Stalin’s leadership. The Soviet Union, he argued, was headed in the wrong direction. Stalin’s purges of many of the original revolutionary heroes of the Soviet Union had left a huge vacuum of power which Stalin nimbly used to establish his own rule. To Trotsky it was no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of Stalin. Some of the first material he published was about the Stalinist propaganda. Point by point, Trotsky exposed the false claims about the miracles of socialism supposedly occurring in the Soviet Union. [14]

The most famous, The Revolution Betrayed was published in 1936. In it, Trotsky lays out his main criticisms of Stalinist Russia. Three main points were that Stalin had become a “Soviet Thermidor,” essentially meaning he became a force for the counter-revolution in Soviet Russia.[15] Second, that the Soviet Union has become a degenerated workers state. That is, the bourgeoisie has been overthrown but then when the proletariat took power, it was later dispossessed by Stalinism. Third, that the policy of “Socialism in One Country,” was doomed to failure because of the nature of permanent revolution.[16] The last criticism was the one Stalin simply could not tolerate.

Given his own role in the Revolution and his immense power and prestige at the beginning of it, many of his criticisms seem somewhat self-aggrandizing. At many opportunities he had the chance to change many of the things he saw wrong with the system and he declined to do so. His view was colored by his past involvements with the organization he now criticized and many of his arguments cannot be taken at face value. While Trotsky’s reasons for publishing The Revolution Betrayed may have been somewhat vain, it did have an effect on International Socialism.

Regardless of Trotsky’s motives, many of his criticisms are correct. Stalin did largely set the Revolution back to before the proletariat took power. The execution of many of the Old Bolsheviks for espionage or treason who had participated in the October Revolution made it easier for Stalin to replace them. His power now secure, much of what Trotsky saw as the progress of the Revolution was halted.

The idea that the Soviet Union had become a degenerated workers state is one that brought many to Trotsky’s way of thinking. He believed that what existed in the Soviet Union was not socialism but rather a degenerated workers state. The workers had overthrown the bourgeoisie but had not yet gained true power for themselves.[17] This was essential to Trotsky’s ideas.
The Comintern, or Communist International, which was originally an organ to spread Revolution to Europe, came firmly under Stalin’s control. He used it as a tool to bring money and arms coming into Russia at the expense of aiding revolutionaries abroad. This was a heretical sin in Trotsky’s eyes, dedicated as he was to the idea of world revolution. Stalin thought that the great world revolution was not imminent and that focus must now shift to strengthening Soviet Russia, the stronghold of socialism.[18]

Subsequently, Trotsky also opposed the idea of “Socialism in One Country,” viewing it as giving more power to the bureaucracy and because he thought it disobeyed the laws of combined and uneven development. Stalin saw the bureaucracy as an efficient way to accumulate power and wanted to expand it. In Trotsky’s view, Stalin’s departure from strong internationalism was hurting the prospects for the world revolution. While seeking to build up the stronghold of socialism in Russia into a model workers' state, Stalin switched from a policy of actively trying to foment revolution in European countries to somewhat normal diplomatic relations.

Trotsky was labeled a “permanentist” for his view, but it was and remains one of his bedrock theories. He believed that it was impossible for socialism to be achieved in any one country while the rest of the surrounding countries remained in the hands of the capitalist classes. The only thing that would develop from this situation was isolation and decay, not growth. Russia had not experienced the necessary bourgeois revolution and accumulation of capital to make a transition to socialism without help from outside the country. [19]

This became an even larger issue when fascism came to power in 1933 in Germany. Trotsky had early on advocated a policy of a "United Front." That is, for Soviet Russia to ally itself with workers' movements outside of the Marxist organizations. This would broaden their impact on the political left by engaging with those outside of the traditional communist parties. A political alliance with other workers' movements would allow Soviet Russia to have a far greater influence in other countries. Trotsky believed that a United Left could defend themselves against the dangers of fascism.[20]

Trotsky’s view of the development of the Soviet Union after his exile was largely critical and analytical. He criticized the steps taken after (and some before) Lenin’s death and under Stalin’s leadership. He broke down Stalinist propaganda and exposed the truth from the lies. He believed that the mistakes made by the leadership in the Soviet Union would ultimately lead to a new political revolution.[21]

Leon Trotsky had immense power when the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917. He was the most ardent supporter and vigorous defender of the Russian Revolution. As the leader of the Petrograd Soviet and backed up with armed soldiers, he could have had anything he wanted in those first days of November. He could have steered the Revolution in any direction he saw fit. Instead, he gave that power away to Lenin and the Party and laid the foundations for the rise of Stalin and his cult of personality. Trotsky had helped make the Revolution into a dictatorship.

References

[1] Figes, Orland. A People’s Tragedy. Penguin Books: New York, New York 1996Pg. 455
[2] Reed, John. 10 Days That Shook The World. Boni & Liveright: New York , March 1919. Pg 94
[3] Ibid, Pg 95
[4] Gellately, Robert. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler. Vintage Books, Random House: New York, 2007. Pg 43
[5] Warth, Robert D. Leon Trotsky. G.K. Hall & Co, Twayne Publishers: Boston, 1977. Pg 96
[6] Ibid, Pg 100
[7] Ibid, Pg 101
[8] Ibid, Pg 102
[9] Ibid, Pg 105
[10] Gellately. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler. Pg 146
[11] Trotsky, Leon. Terrorism and Communism [Dictatorship vs Democracy]. Viewed Online, Chapter 8 “The Militarization of Labor.” Originally Published in 1920, re-edited 2006.
[12] Figes. A Peoples Tragedy. Pg 723
[13]Bensaïd, Daniel. “The Baggage of Exodus.” 100 Years of Permanent Revolution: Results and Prospects, 2006. Pg 62
[14] Howe, Irving. Leon Trotsky. The Viking Press: New York, 1978. Pg 121
[15] Bensaïd. “The Baggage of Exodus.” Pg 63
[16] Trotsky, Leon. The Revolution Betrayed. Viewed Online, Chapter 12 (Appendix). Originally Published in 1936. .
[17] Trotsky. The Revolution Betrayed. Viewed Online, Chapter 3. .
[18] Gellately. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler. Pg 149
[19] Trotsky. The Revolution Betrayed. Viewed Online, Chapter 12 (Appendix). .
[20] Trotsky, Leon. The United Front for Defense: A Letter to a Social Democratic Worker. Viewed Online. Originally Published in April 1933. <>.
[21] Trotsky, Leon. The Revolution Betrayed. Viewed Online, Chapter 11, Sec 3. .

The Birth Certificate "Issue"

Really, the only issue seems to be WorldNet Daily getting its panties in a bunch.  There are a few independent blogs out there and a few crazy state reps that believe this garbage.  And apparently, 300,000+ signatures (from an online petition) to "investigate" on what authority President Obama is exercising his authorities.  Now, it would seem that most people were satisfied when the LA Times (I think) posted a picture of Obama's birth certificate.  But just as those who once whispered of a vast left-wing conspiracy under former President Clinton had seemingly disappeared...BAM Democrats win another Presidential election!  

 

So now those same crazies that thought Janet Reno was poised outside their house waiting for the precise right moment to steal their guns...are back.  And WND has cultivated this little nutty population over the years with articles about really sinister stuff.  If I read WND every morning as my main news source, I'd be one frightened motherfucker.  I think I'd probably be building a somewhat perverted version of Glenn Beck's "DOOM BUNKER."

 

Now, McCain was born on an Army base on foreign soil.  If you want to be straight up honest about it, yea, we own that land, but it ain't OURS.  Technically, McCain was born on a piece of soil owned by America in a country far away from our own.  That guy definitely wasn't born IN AMERICA.  So what, Obama's birthplace is the only one that matters?  In any case, if he wasn't born in Hawaii, he has damn sure lived in America his entire adult life and most of his adolescence.  

 

If Obama was a secret Muslim Marxist, we'd know by now.  He wouldn't keep up the show, it would be pointless, he has the political capital to do any sort of power grab he'd need to.  What's the point?  I just find the whole idea amusing quite frankly.  But all this really gets down to something dirty that's underneath the bitching and moaning about birth certificates.  There are a few things in America that still get swept under the carpet.  

 

We may have a black President, but racism and xenophobia are most definitely not gone.  There's still a segment of the population (I'd put it at say, three-hundred thousand?) that has a knee-jerk negative reaction towards people different from themselves.  This population is shrinking but it's not dead.

TMT

The Modern Trotskyite is a blog I started after getting a number of inquiries on Twitter about who I was.  I'm not famous, I'm not well-known, and I don't really think I'm all that special.  I'm a Junior at Florida State University in Tallahassee, FL.  I'm 22 years-old and live with my girlfriend.  I'm a History Major, but still exploring potential Minors.  My thoughts are currently swayed toward International Affairs.  I love history, particularly Russian and Asian history.  I am also interested in foreign languages, though particularly Spanish.  I can speak a little bit of it, and am continuing to learn it through courses at school.

I'm a lefty on the political spectrum.  I have read a lot of the old stuff, both liberal and conservative.  Going back to the French Revolution, and forward towards the creation of Conservatism, I read what Burke wrote about it and the American Revolution.  It seems to me that although the conservatives did have a few good points, I just can't find it within myself to agree with them.

It just really goes back to that whole, "those without property have no place in politics" bit.  It really tends to turn one off from a point of view. 

 Although Metternich's principles at the Congress of Vienna have been lauded for "restoring Europe," they also set back natural progressive social reform several generations.   The "Great Powers" completely ignored the liberal trends introduced in the Revolution.  None of the gains would be implemented and all that was built would be sacrificed to the sacred cow of "Order."  

Although Europe had peace until about 1914, the Congress' reactionary tendencies muffled any real debate about it on the Continent.  This is what happens when reactionary conservatives are left to run the show.  The Revolution didn't die, they just buried it for a while.  

But why am I even talking about this?  What does it have to do with anything?  Well, I'm a big fan of the idea of progress.  Conservatives, then and now, believe in the restoration of a past that never was.  The "Good Ol' Days!" as they usually say.  In fact, Conservatism as an ideology is founded upon the idea that all that was good is in the past, dead and gone.

The founding principles of Conservatism, written by Burke, admit to no real plan to help society.  They have no real ideas of their own, only reactions to the ideas of others.  They reject abstract reason as a way to govern.  They believe in a government that is at once paternalist and filicidal at the same time.  

Throughout most of history, conservatives have been wrong.  That's really the only criticism I have.  It's just that you guys are incorrect, I'm sorry.  Conservatives originally opposed popular sovereignty, democracy, the popular vote, the end of the slave trade, women and black suffrage, and so on.  It's this belief that somehow, everything new is bad and everything old is good.  We should go back to the way our father's did things because...that's the way they did them (regardless of whether or not our father's had good jobs, health care, social security, etc.).

It's this glorification of the past that I don't understand.  I get Traditionalism, wanting to have things you cherish.  I get that.  I even get why you'd be interested in the past.  Heck, I LOVE history.  But you have to learn from it, grow from it.  Conservatives hold the line against rational progress.

That's not to say that conservatives are the only ones who are at times overzealous.  I don't really think I need to mention the Bolsheviks.  But looking from the past the foundations of conservativsm, let's look at its' present.

The current most widely-known American conservatives are probably George Bush, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.  You have these guys going on TV daily, on only one television network (guess), and spewing hateful garbage about the progressive cause.  They advocate torture of prisoners, military action against Iran & Iraq, capital punishment, banning abortion, slashing funding for schools (because they are "controlled by unions!"), escalation of the war on drugs, banning of research on stem cells, outlawing gay marriage, and on and on.  I don't believe in any of it.  

When laid out bare for all to see, the core values and views of conservatism just make me ill.  That's who I am, that's what I think, and so there's your explanation.

All that being said, I love to talk to conservatives.  I love them as people, I think they deserve the best in life just like everyone else.  I will treat you respectfully as long as you do the same.