You are on page 1of 8


The heritage of the Russian Revolution
In Thesis 1 we will confine ourselves to the defence of October, the Bolsheviks and
the Left Opposition and Trotskyism up to 1940. The defence of the heritage of the
Russian Revolution of October 1917 is number one because this is the prime
ideological task facing us as revolutionary socialists. We stress that the Berlin Wall
fell to the right, to the forces of capitalist counter-revolution, and not to the left, to the
working class as the force of socialist revolution. There is great historical confusion
on this point particularly among those left groups who hailed, together with
imperialism, the collapse of ‘communism’ and the victory of ‘democracy’. They were
hailing their own defeat and marginalisation. In an atmosphere of triumphant free
market capitalist reaction (e.g. Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 essay The End of History?)
many have now abandoned the heritage of October entirely, many have denounced
Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks and others have signalled their loss of faith in the
revolutionary potential of the working class by entering popular fronts (the UK SWP
in Respect) or by defending the ‘left’ bureaucracy where they have gained influence in
or even control of union executives (SP and SWP).

In defending the heritage of October we critically defend the actions of the Bolsheviks
in their main thrust before the victory of the counter-revolutionary Stalinist
bureaucracy based on the theory of ‘socialism in a single country’ after Lenin’s death
in 1924. That is we say that the victory of the Stalinist state-based bureaucracy over
the Bolshevik party represented a qualitative break with the struggle for world
revolution, a counter-revolution against that party and the revolutionary working
class. And we defend the actions of the Left Opposition, again critically and in their
main thrust, in championing that heritage until Trotsky’s defeat and expulsion from
the USSR in 1929 and his subsequent struggle to found the Fourth International in
1938. Those so-called revolutionary socialists who fail to do this capitulate to
bourgeois ideology in all its Anarchist, Libertarian Marxist, ‘Left Communist’ or
straight liberal reactionary and conservative forms, concede to the class enemy the lie
that bolshevism betrayed the working class and the Revolution, Leninism led to
Stalinism, Trotskyism is no better than Stalinism and the working class is bereft of all
ideological weapons with which to fight for a communist future. We see today many
forces representing or influenced by at least some of these tendencies, as well as many
who are opposed to them but in ways that are as yet confused for some and
unorganised and/or not sufficiently theorised for others. And, of course, these
conflicting tendencies will be reflected not just between individuals but also within
serious thinking individual revolutionaries, particularly the youth.

However we do acknowledge that the ultimate goal of human liberation from
oppressive alienation imposed by capitalist social relations are the same for the best
from the Anarchist/Left Communist tradition as they are from the Marxist/Leninist/
Trotskyist tradition. In particular we acknowledge a large measure of agreement on
the final aims with those from the Platformist Mekhno, the Friends of Durruti, the
International Communist Current, the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement tradition.

When Franco launched his coup in July 1936 the mainly anarchist workers defeated
his army in Catalonia and many other places by heroic self-sacrificing struggle. From
the IBT’s Platformism & bolshevism this is an account of what the leadership of the
anarchist FAI/CNT did1,
On 21 July 1936, after the working class had defeated the army’s attempt to seize power, leaders
of the CNT/FAI were summoned to the palace by Catalonia’s president. Diego Abad de
Santillán, a prominent FAI leader, reported that President Companys, who had no military or
police apparatus, told them: ‘You are masters of the town and of Catalonia, because you
defeated the Fascist soldiers on your own….You have won and everything is in your power. If
you do not need me, if you do not want me as president, say so now, and I shall become just
another soldier in the antifascist struggle. If, on the other hand, you believe me…then perhaps
with my party comrades, my name, and my prestige, I can be of use to you…’cited in The
Revolution and the Civil War in Spain, Pierre Broué and Emile Témime, p 130.

Santillán provided the following timeless example of the logic of ‘apolitical’
‘We could have remained alone, imposed our absolute will, declared the Generalidad null and
void, and imposed the true power of the people in its place, but we did not believe in
dictatorship when it was being exercised against us, and we did not want it when we could
exercise it ourselves only at the expense of others. The Generalidad would remain in force with
President Companys at its head….’ --Ibid. p 131.
Santillán was rewarded with the post of Minister of Economy in the Catalan

Of course the Friends of Durruti (FoD) rejected this rotten capitulation to popular
frontism. But they came close to advocating a workers’ state and so repudiating
anarchism – they were accused of ‘bolshevising anarchism’ by the rest of the
anarchists. When faced with the immediate necessity for a state to fight the fascists
and having no theory of a workers’ state the majority capitulated to the bourgeois state
but the FoD, with the Trotskyists, saw the necessity to fight on and so denounced the
FAI/CNT betrayals of June 1936 and the May Days of 1937. But in reality the FoD
sought to ‘anarchise’ bolshevism. Because they failed to understand that the workers
need their own state, as the IBT pamphlet points out, they proposed a revolutionary
army instead – a sort of untheorised semi-state. To whom could this army answer if
not to a government of soviets? And will not this government be forced to organise
the economy, set up a judicial system and a police force against counter-revolution?
This could only be a workers’ state. However as anarchists they reject all
‘authoritarian’ bureaucratic structures. Platformists, like all anarchists, lump together
the workers’ state and even the trade unions with the bourgeois state so they must
inevitably capitulate to the bourgeois state if power ever falls into their hands.

And like all anarchists they fail to distinguish between a united front and a popular
front, between military alliances against imperialism without conceding political
support or definite agreements on short term aims without political capitulation to the
bourgeoisie. In other words they reject the transitional method of the united front and
anti-imperialism united front as the communist method of placing demands for class
struggle action on the reformist leaders of the working class and for a real fight
against imperialism by the self-proclaimed anti-imperialist leaders of the national
liberation movements to expose both of them in practice before their followers and so
prepare for the building of a mass revolutionary socialist party.

Platformism & bolshevism, IBT, April 2002,
But the most telling criticism of Platformism is that outside of a world revolution
which builds communism on a global scale how can any isolated national revolution
survive? Even if it does repel the imperialist attacks and survive economic blockade is
it not bound to degenerate like the USSR under Stalin because of sheer grinding
poverty? Most left communists and anarchists (but not all) never look at these
problems at all. For them all that matters is their own local problems. If they had won,
supposing that were possible, they would have had to build their non-alienated
nirvana as a privileged minority – anarchism in a single locality is worse that
socialism in a single country because it is even further divorced from the reality of
globalised capitalism. And communism must supersede the globalised division of
labour by an international federation of workers states’ before all states can wither
away in the communist future. If your aim is not world revolution your fights will
always end up as the FAI/CNT in Barcelona in 1936 and 1937.

Simon Pirani’s book The Russian Revolution in Retreat’ 1920-24: Soviet Workers and
the New Communist Elite (Routledge, hardback at £80[!]) is another attack on
bolshevism. In an article in Marxist Voice No. 3 and in talks he attacks the Bolsheviks
pre-1920 for having abandoned ‘democratic principles – the convocation of the
Constituent Assembly, the primacy of the soviets of elected workers’ and peasants’
deputies, the rights of self-determination for colonised nations in the Russian Empire,
free political association and free speech, and the abolition of the death penalty’,
nonetheless their ‘room for manoeuvre was very, very limited’ because of the Civil
War until 1920 when the economy improved and discussions began on how to build
the new society’. We must first of all acknowledge that the conditions of Civil War
forced a rigid militarization on the Bolsheviks which was theorised as Marxism when
it should have been accepted as a temporary state of affairs which had to be
abandoned as soon as conditions permitted.

The first ‘mistake’ he has charged against the Bolsheviks is the suppression of the
Constituent Assembly. Although the Social Revolutionaries gained the majority in the
Assembly in the November 1917 elections (17 million to just under 10 million)
nevertheless the Bolsheviks won the cities by a very large majority, the SRs split
before the convocation of the Assembly with the Left SRs sympathetic to the new
Soviet power – most were later to join the Bolsheviks. The Assembly became a
bastion of the counter-revolution for the Cadets, Right SRs, Mensheviks and others. In
short the Soviets represented the socialist revolution albeit based on the working class
minority whereas the Constituent Assembly represented the bourgeois counter-
revolution based on the peasant majority. This was the political expression of the dual
power which had co-existed since the February Revolution. Having seized power in
the name of the working class in October the Bolsheviks could not cede it to a peasant
dominated body representing capitalist social relations immediately after they had
triumphed. The Bolsheviks correctly suppressed the counter-revolution. Rosa
Luxemburg made this charge against the Bolsheviks but even the ICC rejects this as
theoretically incorrect,
on “democracy” and “dictatorship”, there are profoundly contradictory elements in
Luxemburg’s views. On the one hand, she saw the Bolsheviks’ suppression of the Constituent
Assembly as negative for the life of the revolution, revealing a curious nostalgia for the
outmoded forms of bourgeois democracy. On the other hand, the Spartacus programme written
shortly afterwards called for the replacement of the old parliamentary assemblies by congresses
of workers’ councils, which indicates that Luxemburg’s views on this point had evolved quite
rapidly (ICC The Russian Communist Left p65)
He bases his arguments on the defence of the Factory Committees and Left
Communists. From 1918 the Left Communist Fraction existed and the Democratic
Centralists was influential until the middle twenties. The Workers’ Truth Group was
attacked by the Communist Workers’ Group’s Miasnikov in 1924 who said that by
then the Workers’ Truth had nothing in common with them, and that they were
‘attempting to wipe out everything that was communist in the revolution of October
1917’ and were therefore completely Menshevist….(and) shares with Menshevism the
vision that the revolution was premature. Most groups viewed The Workers
Opposition as opportunist and were united to ‘oppose the Russian Soviet
government’s New Economic Policy and United Front’ The Workers Opposition
Group was led by ‘Left Communists’ Alexandra Kollontai, Alexander Shliapnikov
and Sergei Medvedev and made many correct criticisms of the regime. For instance
Kollontai’s 1921 pamphlet The Workers Opposition made an analysis of
bureaucratisation which was later echoed by Trotsky and the Left Opposition. Despite
agreeing with many of their criticisms of the regime we do not accept their workerist
politics which concentrated on the needs of isolated groups, very often demanding
privileges which skilled workers’ like the metalworkers in Moscow could demand in
effect from the surplus value of less skilled and organised workers. The material
reality of isolation and poverty excluded the superabundance precondition for

For instance ‘Left communists’ like Nichcolai Bukharin never showed any
appreciation of the transitional method and his ultra-leftism consisted in infantile
‘class-against-class’ ultimatums which opposed the united front tactic at the Second
Congress of the Comintern in 1920 when Lenin had to declare himself on the right to
make the case for demands on reformist Social Democratic leaders to expose them in
practice and not just by sterile propaganda. The Left Communist line of ‘the united
front from below’ was later adopted by the Stalinists to counter Trotsky’s demand for
the workers’ united front and amounted in practice to the same sterile propagandism.
Bukharin’s ultra-leftism transformed itself seamlessly into rightism, championing the
rich peasantry under Stalin’s interpretation of the NEP, again rejecting the working
class as the vital conscious class force which must be won to revolution, as his present
day followers still do.2 We reject as muddled nonsense the theories of Libertarian
Marxists like Daniel Guerin who defines his current thus,
‘Libertarian Marxism rejects determinism and fatalism, giving the greater place to individual
will, intuition, imagination, reflex speeds, and to the deep instincts of the masses, which are
more far-seeing in hours of crisis than the reasonings of the ‘elites’; libertarian Marxism thinks
of the effects of surprise, provocation and boldness, refuses to be cluttered and paralysed by a
heavy ‘scientific ‘apparatus, doesn’t equivocate or bluff, and guards itself from adventurism as
much as from fear of the unknown.’

Together with the ramblings of former WRPer Cyril Smith, who thinks the Russian
Revolution was one big mistake (not making it would have been a good idea,
presumably), such petty bourgeois, anti-rationalist romantic nonsense has no place in
the Marxist lexicon. And it is in this Left Communist milieu that we are to seek out
the ‘third camp’ of revolutionary Marxism, according to the CPGB!

The Communist Left in Russia after 1920 - Ian Hebbes,
In Left Wing Communism Lenin polemicised against other Left Communists like
Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, Karl Korsch, Amadeo Bordiga and
Paul Mattick because they combined ringing revolutionary manifestos with an abject
failure to engage with the working class in struggle in their trade unions and reformist
social democratic parties by the united front tactic. Left wing communists today, like
the International Communist Current, reject the right of nations to self-determination
and so side with world imperialism, see parliament and elections as nothing but a
masquerade so are indifferent to the election of Tory governments and say ‘the
various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to
discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles’. This is indeed ‘an infantile
disorder’, a backward workerist bourgeois ideology.

Comrade Pirani criticises the Bolsheviks for not allowing other Soviet parties political
rights, for suppressing opposition to their rule and not allowing real measures of
workers’ control of ‘non-alienated labour’. In looking at the transitional period
between a workers’ revolution and the future communist society we must firstly
recognise that the social relations of production will continue to be bourgeois, even in
a healthy workers’ state, although these will be progressively eliminated as material
circumstances allow.3 The Soviet Union was ‘a bourgeois state without a bourgeoisie’
in Lenin’s words. In a degenerate or deformed workers’ state these relations become
permanent because the defence of the bureaucracy’s privileges necessitate national
economic autarky and so denies the possibility of building socialism through the
international division of labour. Obviously the aspirations of the working class are to
slough off the severe discipline of the bosses and their foremen and managers, to end
sackings, low wages, and exploitation in all its form. But this necessitates the
production of what Marx calls ‘super abundance’. Comrade Pirani makes a big deal
about the lack of alienated labour in the USSR. In the section of The German
Ideology called ‘The Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of
Communism’ this argument was brilliantly anticipated and fully answered by Marx,
This ‘alienation’ … can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to
become an ‘intolerable’ power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must
necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity ‘propertyless,’ and produced, at the same
time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions
presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the
other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical
existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary
practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the
struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and
furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal
intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the
phenomenon of the ‘propertyless’ mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent
on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal
individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local
event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence
intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition;
and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism (our emphasis).

In this passage we can see also direct anticipatory refutations of the theory of
‘socialism in a single country’. It contains the kernel of the main arguments Trotsky
uses in The Revolution Betrayed in 1936. The first premise could not be met in Russia
on its own; with its overwhelming peasant majority; ‘the great mass of (Russian)
By social relations here we mean the structure and forms of control and compulsion used to disciple labour so as
to produce wealth.
humanity’ certainly were not ‘propertyless’. And the second premise was not realised
either; the Russian working class remained isolated and not in ‘their world-historical,
instead of local, being’. Survival was the Bolshevik’s main goal from 1918 to 1920
and together this does explain, if not excuse, some of their excesses. However we
would be guilty of historical falsification if we did not set these excesses in their
historical context. Here again the IBT Platformism & bolshevism sets down these,
citing Paul Avrich (The Russian Anarchists, Princeton 1967),
A few months later, relations between the Bolsheviks and the left-SRs and anarchists were
severely strained by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk… Left Socialist Revolutionaries and a leftist
Bolshevik minority faction, considered it a shameful capitulation... Partly in preparation for the
anticipated guerrilla war against the Germans, and partly to discourage hostile manoeuvres by
the Soviet government, the local clubs of the Moscow Federation of Anarchists had been
organizing detachments of ‘Black Guards’, arming them with rifles, pistols and grenades….
After the stubborn anarchist campaign against the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the formation of
armed guards and their underworld excursions came as the last straw. The Bolshevik leadership
decided to act…On the night of 11-12 April, the Cheka (the Soviet security service) raided the
anarchist headquarters and a furious gun battle broke out. According to Avrich, “A dozen Cheka
agents were slain in the struggle, about 40 anarchists were killed or wounded, and more than
500 were taken prisoner.” In the months that followed, the SRs and anarchists sought revenge
through assassinations and bombings. Lenin was shot and seriously wounded. On 25 September
1918, a joint left SR-anarchist squad blew up the headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the
Communist Party during a leadership plenary. Twelve Committee members were killed, and 55
others were wounded.

It is easy to condemn with hindsight but surely we can understand why these groups
were now banned. The revolution was not crushed by the mistakes of Lenin, Trotsky
and the Bolsheviks nor by Stalin’s deviousness and cunning in outmanoeuvring
Trotsky, though these did make their contribution, but by sheer grinding poverty and
the despair it engendered in the masses (the working class primarily) when hopes of
world revolution faded. Neither the German Social Democrats nor the Bolsheviks had
knowledge of much of Marx’s early works on the question of alienation, although his
short work of 1843 On the Jewish Question was available. So they lacked crucial
insights into communism’s ultimate goal of human liberation. The surviving bits of
The German Ideology (1845), was finally literally liberated from the ‘gnawing
criticism of the mice’ only in 1932 as was The Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts of 1844. The Grundrisse was written in 1857-61 but was not published
until 1939-41. As Trotsky explains in The Revolution Betrayed, his chief contribution
to the Marxist cannon, when shortage arises at a market a queue forms, when severe
shortages arise scuffles break out and a policeman has to be called. Stalin’s
bureaucracy was the policeman of inequality whose main task was to say who got
what. Those with that task never forget themselves. Material reality reproduced ‘all
the old filthy business’.

Although we must lay part of the blame for this on both Lenin and Trotsky, however
Lenin’s last struggle against Stalin’s bureaucratic methods on the Georgian question
and Trotsky’s subsequent struggle to defend the heritage of October against Stalinist
falsification until his assassination by Stalin’s agent in 1940 fully justifies for us their
position, together with Rosa Luxemburg, as the twentieth century’s foremost
revolutionary socialists.4 Stalinism represented cowardly, right/ultra left centrist
See the review by Martin Kopple of Lenin’s Final Fight in The Militant (US) Vol.59/No.22, June 5 1995 for a
brief summary of this important record. The Pathfinder publication contains ‘everything Lenin is known to have
written from Dec. 21, 1922, until his last letter of March 6, 1923, addressed to Georgian communist leaders’
vacillations which cried ‘back’ at the point of revolution and ‘forward’ when it had
suffered a defeat and so could not advance, e.g. Germany 1923 – Stalin urged restraint
as the revolutionary situation developed and denied the defeat when the revolution
was lost, ‘the revolution is not a bear, it will not run off into the forest’ he ridiculously
proclaimed after the 1923 defeat..

From 1924 to 1933/5 the centrist Stalin based everything on defending the
bureaucracy by the mantra of ‘socialism in a single country’ and abhorred world
revolution as threatening to that bureaucracy. The gross errors in Germany, Italy,
Britain, China, etc. are understandable only in that context. After the adoption of
Popular Front right turn to class collaboration in 1935 we can no longer speak of
Stalinism’s errors, now they definitively embraced counter-revolution in collaboration
with capital to defend bureaucratic privileges. Stalinists consciously betrayed the
Spanish Revolution to sign a pact with Hitler; they betrayed the working class in
France and everywhere else, they consciously conspired and in WWII they actively
collaborated with world imperialism in the mass bombing of the proletariat in urban
centres from Warsaw to Berlin (by both ‘allies’), Dresden, Hamburg, Athens, Milan
and Turin, after the latter two had been liberated by the Italian partisans, Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. The allied conferences at Potsdam and Yalta were in effect tacit
agreements to betray and crush the post WWII revolutions.5 The ‘Red Army’ did not
call on Germany workers to arise and overthrow Hitler as help was at hand, they
slandered all Germans as Nazis as Churchill and Roosevelt did, they brutally mass
bombed, murdered and raped their way to Berlin as imperialism’s ally.

How might it have been had the German Revolution succeeded? The passage from
Marx’s 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme (demonstrating again the spurious
nature of Louis Althusser’s ‘epistemological break’ between the early and late Marx)
again can be negatively related to the USSR in 1920-24,
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the
division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has
vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the
productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all
the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of
bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
It takes but a moment’s reflection to see that ‘the narrow horizon of bourgeois right’
was not and could not have been ‘crossed in its entirety’ in this period in Russia and
indeed it cannot ever be crossed in an isolated state (even one as rich as the USA) cut
off from the great productive advantage which the international division of labour
affords to humanity in a globalised economy.

Neither could the Bolsheviks cede to the Kronstadt sailors in 1921, or to Makhno’s
Anarchist Revolutionary Insurgent Army not only because of their links with the
counter-revolution and the danger posed of imperialist invasion but because a
settlement would have had to come from the surplus of workers elsewhere; there was
not yet a privileged bureaucracy in command of the economy who were appropriating
a disproportionate share of the economic wealth. Comrade Pirani concedes that ‘there
is some evidence that counter-revolutionary forces wanted to exploit it to get at the
Bolshevik government’ in Kronstadt but this completely distorts the case. Trotsky

See Trotskyite economism? by Gerry Downing, Weekly Worker 651, Nov. 30 2006 for a fuller analysis.
proved otherwise in Hue and Cry over Kronstadt in 1938.6 Counter-revolutionaries
were central to the revolt and this is the reason there were no sympathetic strikes of
support in Petrograd. From recent researched archive documents it is sufficient to note
that all communists were imprisoned by the mutineers (‘Soviets without the
communists’ was their slogan) and the commandant of the Kronstadt prison, an
anarchist named Stanislav Shustov, was preparing to execute the leading Communists
and had set up a machine gun outside the cell where the twenty three of them were
held to do so but was baulked only by the advance of the Red Army across the ice
(Spartacist No. 59).7

Of course Comrade Pirani can point out that before Stalin’s triumph the Bolsheviks
policed inequality and he makes big on the question of the inequality of rations. The
crucial difference for us is that this was not a developed centrist not yet a hardened
counter-revolutionary party; its mistakes and failings were discussed and fought
against. However there is truth in the charge that bureaucratic methods were
employed against loyal oppositionists, particularly the anti-political workerist
currents, when political struggle would have been far more appropriate. This reliance
on force is understandable as counter-revolution was using any political space
afforded to it to rally for the overthrow of the Soviet regime. However space should
have been found for these loyal oppositionists, though we defend the harsh treatment
meted out to counter-revolutionaries in the Civil War and when they sought to
overthrow the state. However blanket oppression with only the Bolsheviks allowed
was the wrong approach as it facilitated the rise of Stalinism. Lenin’s secret ban on
factions in the 10th Congress in 1921 illegitimatised all opposition, even within the
party. This clearly did facilitate the victory of the Stalinist bureaucracy.

Finally let us reaffirm the revolutionary programme and method we seek to rediscover
and reapply as testified by Robert Coulondre, French ambassador to the Third Reich,
and Adolph Hitler as recounted by the ICC.
Hitler had boasted of the advantages he had obtained from his pact with Stalin, just concluded;
and he drew a grandiose vista of his future military triumph. In reply the French ambassador
appealed to his ‘reason’ and spoke of the social turmoil and the revolutions that might follow a
long and terrible war and engulf all belligerent governments. ‘You are thinking of yourself as a
victor...’ the ambassador said, ‘but have you given thought to another possibility - that the victor
might be Trotsky?’ At this Hitler jumped up (as if he ‘had been hit in the pit of the stomach’)
and screamed that this possibility, the threat of Trotsky’s victory, was one more reason why
France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich”. Isaac Deutscher rightly
highlights Trotsky’s remark on hearing of this conversation: “They are haunted by the spectre
of revolution, and they give it a man’s name” 8

Trotsky, Leon, Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt, January 15, 1938,
Spartacist English edition No. 59, Kronstadt 1921: bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution, Spring 2006,,
(International Review no.103 - 4th quarter 2000, 1940: Assassination of Trotsky,