TROTSKY IS DEAD
341
Rarely is an entire historical movement concentrated in the
person of a single individual as revolutionary Marxism in our time
was concentrated
in
the person of Trotsky. Should Stalin be assas–
sinated tomorrow, he could be replaced by any one of a dozen
colleagues. So too with Hitler. These men have been raised to
power less for their individual qualities than because they are the
type
demanded by certain historicalforces. Trotsky's characteriza–
tion of Stalin as "the supreme expression of the mediocrity of the
apparatus" is just, as is his comment on Hitler: "Another political
figure would be hard to find that is in the same measure the focus
of anonymous historical forces. Not every exasperated petty bour–
geois could have become Hitler, hut a particle of Hitler is lodged
in every exasperated petty bourgeois." Were some accident to
befall these men, the historical afflatus, with some help from the
Minister of Propaganda, could seek out another vehicle with not
too much difficulty. Every one has heard the story that there are
two, three, a half dozen replicas of the "real" Hitler (who is even
declared to have died years ago) who appear in public in his place.
Whatever the truth of these tales, it is significant that they are not
considered entirely impossible. There might conceivably be a
stand-in for Hitler. Never for Trotsky. At the first sentence of his
first article, at the first interview on world events, the fraud would
have been detected.
Or imagine Stalin or Hitler in exile. Would they exercise any
influence on the consciousness of our times? Would any one seek
their views on world events except as a journalistic curiosity?
Would, most brutal test, any one read their hooks? We know that
Napoleon on St. Helena is remembered chiefly for his quarrels
with the miltary governor. These men have been able to change the
world, but they have nothing to say to the world. Like most great
historical figures, they are specialists, their talents and tempera–
ments narrowed to achieve certain ends in a certain favorable his–
torical period. As individuals, they are disappointing. Napoleon's
aphorisms are interesting to us because they were uttered by
Napoleon. Stalin's writings aren't interesting even for this reason.
Trotsky was less "specialized" in this sense than any histori–
cal personage that comes to mind. For the power that Trotsky exer–
cised in the last decade of his life was a power independent of all
the·apparatus of power, an individual triumph of intellect and
