TROTSKY AGAIN.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 3 July 1925, Page 6

TROTSKY AGAIN.

BACK TO LEADERSHIP

WHAT IT MEANS TO RUSSIA

A wireless message from Moscow has reached Berlin that the triumvirate, Stalin. Kamenev and Rykov, will transform themselves into a Directory of four by co-opting Trotsky. This would mean Trotsky’s heturn to power (says an exchange). So much, has been reported about Trotsky by various news agencies—even the above report, for instance, has been “officially” denied from Moscow • —that there is now a general tendency by the public at large to accept all news about him with the proverbial grain of salt. It is pointed out, however. by the Press here that as this news came from the official Soviet wireles s station, it is in all probability true. If this is so then it is a matter of more than passing interest. Trotsky in himself personifies so much of* the revolution that his position in the Soviet Government cannot be treated as a mere accident of fate; as in the case of most prominent politicians all the world over. When Lenin died the great figure of the Russian revolution was removed. Tho only other personal symbo. of the struggle! both to Russian and foreign eyes, was Trotsky. But noe even his greatest admirers claimed that he. was Lenin’s equal. It was recognised that while Trotsky, was the brilliant orator, the great organiser, and, jn an emotional sense, the spear-head of the revolution, Lenin was the calm, directing mind behind all. What, however, Trotsky’s partisans did claim was that Trotsky was the heir of Lenin’s mantle, an t ] both in Russia, and the outside world it was confidently expected that Trotsky would he appointed to Lenin’s position —the Chairmanship of the Council of People’s Commissars. Instead a triumvirate was appointed —and Trotsky was not even one of the three. WHY TROTSKY RETIRED.

Soon it developed that .the omission of Trotsky from the triumvirate was due to his serious differences with, the other leaders of the Communist party on a vital question “of policy. This difference has for some time past been intensified by the acrimony of the debate arising from the difference itself. Viewed from the outside _ the struggle apparently developed along recognised political lines —the real issue was obscured in a welter of attacks and counter-attacks on the personalities involved. Finally it was stated that Trotsky’s retirement was due to the publication of his hook, “The Lessons of October” (the Bolshevik revolution occurred in October, 1.917), wherein he kept closely to the line of the historical accuracy at the expense of the feelings of some of his colleagues. All this contained a modicum of truth, but’to anyone familiar with the heat wherewith political controversy was carried on within the ranks of the Russian social democracy, it obviously could not lie the full explanation. If. whs not the method <>f the controversy, hut the principle behind it that led to Trotsky’s fetiremeiit. NOT “A LA LANTERNE!”

Trotsky contended that the time had come for the deinocratisation of the Communist party. Zinoieff, Bucharin, Kamenev, Stalin and the rest were determined that “the time was not yet ripe.”

Looking for. historical parallels, writers and journalists outside Russia immediately jump'ed to the Drench Revolution. This was Dan toil, Robespierre, Marat over again. One party was going to the guillotine! Rut. despite the proverb, history does not repeat itself —at least, not. in photographic detail. In the Drench Revolution there were many parties, wi th varying, aims; in Russia there is but one party, and but one aim. In France the real difference lay m the aims; in .Russia the real difference lies in methods.

Trotsky maintained that the prerevolution Bolsheviks, by keeping control solely to .themselves were devitalising the' Communist party and turning the younger members into machines

“theirs not to reason why. . His opponents declared that they must retain the power until all danger of counter-revolution had vanished, that if Trotsky had his way all kinds of subversive elements might, by the malices of politics, capture key positions, ami change the course of the revolution.

Neither side was anxious to bring matters to open conflict, but gradually the struggle waxed bitter and still bitterer. I n the end the gage of battle was openly proffered, and as openly accepted. At 'a convention of the Communist party in May, 19114. the issue •was fought out, and Trotsky was defeated. A NEW STEP—WHITHER? Now lie is to be recalled to power. It is said he will be placed in control of the Soviet’s trade organisation, and that tin’s will mean a return to Lenin’s policy of cultivating friendlier relations with Capital. But this was not the issue jn the struggle. If Trotsky’s return signifies a reversal of his defeat at the convention, then the Communist party will be democratised, and some of the younger elements will share power with the “old guard” of the Bolshevists. What their influence will be there is at present no means of gauging. All that is certain is that it will mark a new and important step in the history of the revolution. Whether that step will be in the direction of a return towards capitalism, or whether it wii; lead to the intensification of the revolution of the future must reveal.