B
0 0
K S
373
radical criticism of it in the light of historical experience. One can
put it that in joining the Bolsheviks in 1917 he struck a bargain, as it
were, with Lenin. The bargain came to this, that Lenin accepted his
theory of permanent revolution while in exchange Trotsky accepted
Lenin's ideas of a rigidly centralized organization and of a revolu–
tionary elite. It is astonishing that, with all their vaunted mastery of
the doctrine of historical materialism, Lenin and Trotsky should have
so readily equated the interests of the revolutionary elite (the party)
with the interests of the class (the proletariat) .
If
consciousness, as
the historical materialist believes, is the product of social existence,
then he above .all should be able to perceive that given the very real
difference between the social existence of the party and that of the
class, especially in the period when, after winning power, the party
disposes of the resources of the state and of the economy, a correspond–
ing difference in consciousness is bound to result-a difference not
merely in degree but
in
kind, a fundamental difference of needs and
interests. With the spread of the Stalinist infection, Trotsky began to
note this difference and even to insist on it, but he seems to have
drawn no theoretical conclusions from it so far as the basic principles
of Bolshevism are concerned. Moreover, after his expulsion from
Russia he introduced the very same ideas of dictatorship into the
program of his movement abroad, known in later years as the Fourth
International. Such ideas .amount to nothing less than the demand
that the masses again entrust the revolutionary party (namely the
Trotskyites) with power because . . . well, because it is
the
revolu–
tionary party and we should take its word for it. But in politics, as
Lenin once remarked, only idiots put their faith in words-a remark
which Trotsky rounded out brilliantly when he added that "the post–
Leninist period must teach even idiots to rid themselves of this
gulli–
bility." Trotsky's orthodox followers, who go on repeating mechani–
cally the phrases of 1918 no matter what happens, would no doubt
reply that the masses can always test the party's words by its acts.
But can they? The trouble is that once a party has been entrusted
with dictatorial power the masses have in effect been deprived of the
means to strike back at it
if
it betrays their trust. Unfortunately,
except for the bitter medicine of defeat in war, no method has yet
been devised whereby an experiment in modern dictatorship can be
undone. And as for the Leninist idea of "the relationship between
party and class,"* there is obviously a not inconsiderable element
*
Why
party
rather than
parties?
I suspect the singular, as I suspect all monistic
constructions.
