BOO KS
159
himself to draw the obvious conclusion: namely that there is very
little to connect the thoughts and anticipations of those who start–
ed the revolution with the new social reality to which it gave rise.
After all, the men of 1793 did not have a great deal to teach their
respectably bourgeois successors. It is true that the French Left has
retained a sentimental loyalty to the
grands ancetres.
Perhaps the
day will come when there is a monument to Trotsky in Moscow
(there is none to Danton in Paris, save for the Rue Danton, which
is not exactly one of the main thoroughfares). He certainly de–
serves one, although it was Lenin who made the crucial decisions
in 1917-21, and Stalin who a decade later inaugurated the "revolu–
tion from above." But more than that, plus of course a notable
place in the history-books?
If
Russia ever manages to escape from
Stalinist tutelage, the result is likely to be a decided reluctance to
worship at the shrine of "permanent revolution." After all, Trot–
sky's chief contribution to Marxist thinking was the idea that so–
cialist revolutions are possible in backward countries. This has now
been proved to the hilt, but experience has likewise shown that it
takes a totalitarian dictatorship to stabilize the new society, and
that this society is not classless. In the circumstances it seems a
little visionary on Mr. Deutscher's part to suppose that modern
s0-
cialism can go on nourishing itself from this source.
Nor is it likely that Trotsky's interpretation of what happened
to the Revolution after Lenin's death will find greater acceptance
as time goes on; for that interpretation was hopelessly romantic,
where it was not distorted by- partly misunderstood-reminiscences
of the French Revolution. Trotsky's thinking revolved around a
certain conception of what had taken place in France between 1789
and 1799. This theme was something he had in common with
Marx. But Marx was so far his superior in intellect and penetration
that in the end he came to take a highly critical view of the
J
acobin
heritage, whereas Trotsky never really got over the shock of dis–
covering that the Russian Revolution had re-enacted the French
drama on a larger scale. Mr. Deutscher, who is still under the spell,
faithfully reproduces the illusions of his hero and even hints that
future ages will come to recognize Trotsky as the outstanding intel-
