 |
| Trotsky or Stalin? Take your pick. |
Editor: The revolutionary conservative writer Ernst Jünger had some good insights into why the mercurial genius of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky, lost out to the more stolid and sneaky talents of his rival Stalin. He ably expressed these in his 1930 review of Trotsky's memoirs "My Life" for the German National Bolshevik journal Widerstand. The gist of Jünger's analysis is that Trotsky, as a heavily Westernised metropolitan Jew, was left high and dry as "the essentially Russian aspect of this phenomenon began to become clearer."
Trotsky’s Memoirs (Original source: Trotzkis Erinnerungen von Ernst Jünger, Widerstand, 5/2 (1930), pp. 47-51.)
The study of these very insightful memoirs, which are available from S. Fischer publishers, will come easiest to anyone who knows how to look through the author’s eyes. Trotsky is a rationalist, albeit a rationalist of the most determined kind, who is by no means content with the order of things as they appear within the limits of knowledge. Rather, he is always ready to realise this order within the realm of Being [diese Ordnung im Sein verwirklichen] – provided the necessary conditions are present, i.e. if he has the power.
It may seem strange to associate this name, which is inseparably linked with one of the greatest processes of destruction in modern history, with the notion of order. And yet, it is justified. Readers who may have certain preconceptions about the nature of the Russian revolution, such as those that are widespread in our country, will be surprised to find a precise mind educated in political economy, western philosophy and the dialectics of class struggle, who in an afternoon discussion probably has engaging things to say about French novels, impressionist painting, and different kinds of duck hunting too.
To learn about the Scythian-barbarian aspect of this revolution, one has to consult other sources. This one mainly comprises its theoretical framework, its method of secret and open preparation, and its organisational principles of seizing and maintaining power. It is no coincidence that it fell to Trotsky to mould the prime instrument of its power, the Red Army, or that the task of scientific rationalisation – above all, the electrification of the armaments industry – was assigned to him when he seemed to become a risky incumbent of his position.
In these roles, he achieved significant feats. Inasmuch as the revolution was a western occurrence, it is fair to say that it was his real element. His star, however, was bound to fade to the extent that the essentially Russian aspect of this phenomenon began to become clearer. Here Trotsky treads on increasingly uncertain ground. His eyes are blind to the powers emerging from the soil, whose onset eludes his calculation. What he sees about them is only their personified aspect – that is, the new men gradually gaining control. He despises them as petit-bourgeois, nationalists, thermidorists and falsifiers of Marxist and Leninist ideas, yet he cannot help being out-manoeuvred in a way that is inexplicable to him.
If Trotsky were a pure theorist, then one might accept the dictum that is the unspoken motto of his memoirs, “against stupidity even gods fight in vain”, as an adequate excuse, albeit only from his own point of view. But since he is also a high-ranking practitioner, the excuse is insufficient: human stupidity, after all, is a certain factor – an important real element that every actor, especially the politician, has to take into account.
But maybe the people around Stalin are not as stupid as Trotsky thinks they are? Perhaps their superiority even consists in being a little less clever than him?
Be that as it may – these memoirs make for an insightful book.
Connected content:
Alt-Right Lies: Russian Revolution Not Actually Dominated by Jews
How Russian Bolsheviks Tried to Oppose the Russian Revolution
Trotsky’s Memoirs (Original source: Trotzkis Erinnerungen von Ernst Jünger, Widerstand, 5/2 (1930), pp. 47-51.)
The study of these very insightful memoirs, which are available from S. Fischer publishers, will come easiest to anyone who knows how to look through the author’s eyes. Trotsky is a rationalist, albeit a rationalist of the most determined kind, who is by no means content with the order of things as they appear within the limits of knowledge. Rather, he is always ready to realise this order within the realm of Being [diese Ordnung im Sein verwirklichen] – provided the necessary conditions are present, i.e. if he has the power.
It may seem strange to associate this name, which is inseparably linked with one of the greatest processes of destruction in modern history, with the notion of order. And yet, it is justified. Readers who may have certain preconceptions about the nature of the Russian revolution, such as those that are widespread in our country, will be surprised to find a precise mind educated in political economy, western philosophy and the dialectics of class struggle, who in an afternoon discussion probably has engaging things to say about French novels, impressionist painting, and different kinds of duck hunting too.
To learn about the Scythian-barbarian aspect of this revolution, one has to consult other sources. This one mainly comprises its theoretical framework, its method of secret and open preparation, and its organisational principles of seizing and maintaining power. It is no coincidence that it fell to Trotsky to mould the prime instrument of its power, the Red Army, or that the task of scientific rationalisation – above all, the electrification of the armaments industry – was assigned to him when he seemed to become a risky incumbent of his position.
In these roles, he achieved significant feats. Inasmuch as the revolution was a western occurrence, it is fair to say that it was his real element. His star, however, was bound to fade to the extent that the essentially Russian aspect of this phenomenon began to become clearer. Here Trotsky treads on increasingly uncertain ground. His eyes are blind to the powers emerging from the soil, whose onset eludes his calculation. What he sees about them is only their personified aspect – that is, the new men gradually gaining control. He despises them as petit-bourgeois, nationalists, thermidorists and falsifiers of Marxist and Leninist ideas, yet he cannot help being out-manoeuvred in a way that is inexplicable to him.
If Trotsky were a pure theorist, then one might accept the dictum that is the unspoken motto of his memoirs, “against stupidity even gods fight in vain”, as an adequate excuse, albeit only from his own point of view. But since he is also a high-ranking practitioner, the excuse is insufficient: human stupidity, after all, is a certain factor – an important real element that every actor, especially the politician, has to take into account.
But maybe the people around Stalin are not as stupid as Trotsky thinks they are? Perhaps their superiority even consists in being a little less clever than him?
Be that as it may – these memoirs make for an insightful book.
Connected content:
Alt-Right Lies: Russian Revolution Not Actually Dominated by Jews
How Russian Bolsheviks Tried to Oppose the Russian Revolution
