12 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Lessons</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>October</strong>dencies <strong>of</strong> the utmost principled significance. <strong>The</strong> first and principal tendencywas proletarian and led to the road <strong>of</strong> world revolution. <strong>The</strong> otherwas ”democratic,” i.e., petty bourgeois, and led, in the last analysis, to thesubordination <strong>of</strong> proletarian policies to the requirements <strong>of</strong> bourgeois societyin the process <strong>of</strong> reform. <strong>The</strong>se two tendencies came into hostile conflictover every essential question that arose throughout the year 1917. It is preciselythe revolutionary epoch — i.e. . . , the epoch when the accumulatedcapital <strong>of</strong> the party is put in direct circulation — that must inevitably broachin action and reveal divergences <strong>of</strong> such a nature. <strong>The</strong>se two tendencies, ingreater or lesser degree, with more or less modification, will more thanonce manifest themselves during the revolutionary period in every country.If by Bolshevism — and we are stressing here its essential aspect — weunderstand such training, tempering, and organization <strong>of</strong> the proletarianvanguard as enables the latter to seize power, arms in hand; and if by socialdemocracy we are to understand the acceptance <strong>of</strong> reformist oppositionalactivity within the framework <strong>of</strong> bourgeois society and an adaptation toits legality — i.e., the actual training <strong>of</strong> the masses to become imbued withthe inviolability <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois state — ; then, indeed, it is absolutelyclear that even within the Communist Party itself, which does not emergefull-fledged from the crucible <strong>of</strong> history, the struggle between social democratictendencies and Bolshevism is bound to reveal itself in its most clear,open, and uncamouflaged form during the immediate revolutionary periodwhen the question <strong>of</strong> power is posed point blank.<strong>The</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> the conquest <strong>of</strong> power was put before the party only afterApril 4, that is, after the arrival <strong>of</strong> Lenin in Petrograd. But even after thatmoment, the political line <strong>of</strong> the party did not by any means acquire a unifiedand indivisible character, challenged by none. Despite the decisions <strong>of</strong>the April Conference in 1917,28 the opposition to the revolutionary course— sometimes hidden, sometimes open — pervaded the entire period <strong>of</strong>preparation.<strong>The</strong> study <strong>of</strong> the trend <strong>of</strong> the disagreements between February and the consolidation<strong>of</strong> the <strong>October</strong> Revolution is not only <strong>of</strong> extraordinary theoreticalimportance, but <strong>of</strong> the utmost practical importance. In 1910 Lenin spoke<strong>of</strong> the disagreements at the Second Party Congress in 1903 as ”anticipatory,”i.e., a forewarning. It is very important to trace these disagreementsto their source, i.e., 1903, or even at an earlier time, say beginning with”Economism.” But such a study acquires meaning only if it is came to itslogical conclusion and if it covers the period in which these disagreementswere submitted to the decisive test, that is to say, the <strong>October</strong> period.We cannot, within the limits <strong>of</strong> this preface, undertake to deal exhaustivelywith all the stages <strong>of</strong> this struggle. But we consider it indispensable at leastpartially to fill up the deplorable gap in our literature with regard to the
<strong>Leon</strong> <strong>Trotsky</strong> 13most important period in the development <strong>of</strong> our party.As has already been said, the disagreements centered around the question<strong>of</strong> power. Generally speaking, this is the touchstone whereby the character<strong>of</strong> the revolutionary party (and <strong>of</strong> other parties as well) is determined.<strong>The</strong>re is an intimate connection between the question <strong>of</strong> power and thequestion <strong>of</strong> war which was posed and decided in this period. We proposeto consider these questions in chronological order, taking the outstandinglandmarks: the position <strong>of</strong> the party and <strong>of</strong> the party press in the first periodafter the overthrow <strong>of</strong> tsarism and prior to the arrival <strong>of</strong> Lenin; thestruggle around Lenin’s theses; the April Conference; the aftermath <strong>of</strong> theJuly days; the Kornilov period; the Democratic Conference and the Pre-Parliament; the question <strong>of</strong> the armed insurrection and seizure <strong>of</strong> power(September to <strong>October</strong>); and the question <strong>of</strong> a ”homogeneous” socialistgovernment.<strong>The</strong> study <strong>of</strong> these disagreements will, we believe, enable us to draw deductions<strong>of</strong> considerable importance to other parties in the Communist International.