Leon Trotsky, The Lessons of October - Platypus

Leon Trotsky 59”democratic” stage of the revolution, becoming legalized, as it were, at thatstage, and subsequently being inherited and utilized by us. This will notbe repeated in the proletarian revolutions of the West. There, in most cases,the soviets will be created in response to the call of the communists; andthey will consequently be created as the direct organs of proletarian insurrection.To be sure, it is not at all excluded that the disintegration of thebourgeois state apparatus will have become quite acute before the proletariatis able to seize power; this would create the conditions for the formationof soviets as the open organs of preparing the insurrection. But this isnot likely to be the general rule. Most likely, it will be possible to create sovietsonly in the very last days, as the direct organs of the insurgent masses.Finally, it is quite probable that such circumstances will arise as will makethe soviets emerge either after the insurrection has passed its critical stage,or even in its closing stages as organs of the new state power. All thesevariants must be kept in mind so as to safeguard us from falling into organizationalfetishism, and so as not to transform the soviets from whatthey ought to be flexible and living form of struggle into an organizational”principle” imposed upon the movement from the outside, disrupting itsnormal development.There has been some talk lately in our press to the effect that we are not,mind you, in a position to tell through what channels the proletarian revolutionwill come in England. Will it come through the channel of the CommunistParty or through the trade unions? Such a formulation of the questionmakes a show of a fictitiously broad historical outlook; it is radicallyfalse and dangerous because it obliterates the chief lesson of the last fewyears. If the triumphant revolution did not come at the end of the war, itwas because a party was lacking. This conclusion applies to Europe as awhole. It may be traced concretely in the fate of the revolutionary movementin various countries.With respect to Germany, the case is quite a clear one. The German revolutionmight have been triumphant both in 1918 and in 1919, had a properparty leadership been secured. We had an instance of this same thing in1917 in the case of Finland. There, the revolutionary movement developedunder exceptionally favorable circumstances, under the wing of revolutionaryRussia and with its direct military assistance. But the majority of theleaders in the Finnish party proved to be social democrats, and they ruinedthe revolution. The same lesson flows just as plainly from the Hungarianexperience. There the communists, along with the left social democrats,did not conquer power, but were handed it by the frightened bourgeoisie.The Hungarian revolution triumphant without a battle and without a victorywas left from the very outset without a fighting leadership. The CommunistParty fused with the social democratic party, showed thereby thatit itself was not a Communist Party; and, in consequence, in spite of the