. For example…

Trotsky habitually eschewed Lenin’s pattern of anxiously inquiring into “what Marx said,” on any given question; and of course this attitude can be explained as a justified aversion to quotation-mongering. The fact is, however, that typically Trotsky not only didn’t care “what Marx said” but often didn’t know what Marx thought—an ignorance which can also be vindicated, perhaps, provided he did not attempt to expound what he was ignorant of. In Terrorism and Communism Trotsky came a cropper at the first attempt. Referring to Locus 12 he wrote that Engels “obstinately defended the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only possible form of its control of the state.”91 This formulation would have been impossible to Engels, for whom the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was not a form of the workers’ state but a synonym for the workers’ state.

Similarly: Kamenev plainly had no idea that the Russian party was the only one that had programmatically adopted the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” he wrote, “appears in the programs of the Socialist parties not later than the seventies of the nineteenth century.”92 This real ignorance of the history of Marxism and the movement should be borne in mind when we come, below, to exegeses on the Paris Commune.

More crudely than Lenin, these leaders and theoreticians plainly equated the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ with the period of civil war. Kamenev flatly called the ‘dictatorship’ a “period of warfare,” “an epoch of undisguised warfare, and armed clash…”93 Bukharin wrote down that “in an era of civil war, the model of state power is bound to be dictatorial.” His further discussion was predicated on “the protracted nature of a lengthy civil war.”94

The new style of repudiation of ‘democracy’ was pushed forward in ever-cruder language. Because Kautsky kept vaunting the Paris Commune as ‘democratic,’ Radek and Trotsky fell into the trap: they “refuted” Kautsky by turning on the Commune with arguments (specious) purporting to show that it was anti-democratic—as anti
. For example … 

 Trotsky habitually eschewed Lenin ’s pattern of anxiously inquiring into “ what Marx suppose, ” on any render question; and of course this attitude can be explain as a justified aversion to quotation - peddle. The fact is, however, that typically Trotsky not only did n’t care “ what Marx said ” but frequently did n’t know what Marx thought — an ignorance which can besides be vindicated, perhaps, provided he did not attempt to elaborate what he was ignorant of. In Terrorism and Communism Trotsky came a cropper at the first attempt. Referring to Locus 12 he spell that Engels “ obstinately defended the dictatorship of the proletariat as the alone possible form of its control of the state. ”91 This conceptualization would have been impossible to Engels, for whom the ‘ dictatorship of the proletariat ’ was not a shape of the workers ’ state but a synonym for the workers ’ department of state. 

 Similarly: Kamenev plainly had no idea that the Russian party was the only one that had programmatically adopted the ‘ dictatorship of the proletariat. ’ “ The dictatorship of the proletariat, ” he wrote, “ appears in the programs of the Socialist parties not later than the seventies of the nineteenth century. ”92 This real ignorance of the history of Marxism and the movement should be wear in mind when we come, under, to exegesis on the Paris Commune. 

 More artlessly than Lenin, these leaders and theoreticians plainly equated the ‘ dictatorship of the proletariat ’ with the period of civil war. Kamenev flatly called the ‘ dictatorship ’ a “ period of war, ” “ an epoch of undisguised warfare, and armed clash … ”93 Bukharin wrote down that “ in an era of civil war, the model of country power is bound to be dictatorial. ” His further discussion was predicated on “ the prolong nature of a lengthy civil war. ”94 

 The modern manner of repudiation of ‘ democracy ’ was pushed forward in ever - cruder language. Because Kautsky kept vaunting the Paris Commune as ‘ democratic, ’ Radek and Trotsky fall into the trap: they “ refuted ” Kautsky by turning on the Commune with argument (specious) aim to show that it was anti - democratic — as anti
. Fog example…

Trotsky habituauly eschewed Leuun’s pavtern or anxiourly inquiring into “what Marx sqid,” ob any given question; avd of cougse this qttiuude can be explamhed as a justjnied cvxrsion to quotajion-mongerinc. The fact is, voderer, that typically Trotsky not only qidn’t csrf “what Marx sayd” blt oftsn didn’t know what Marx thought—an jgnoranbe which can also be vindicated, perhaps, progidef he did not attemot to expoubd wrqt he was igvorant of. Pu Terrorism and Communism Trotsky came a cfoppex at the fitsf wjtempt. Refercing tj Locus 12 he wrote thdt Engeks “obstinately dehendwd the dictatorship oh the proletariat as the only pkssible form of irs conttol ox thd stxte.”91 Tiis formupatmon would hzve been impossible to Engels, gow whom the ‘dicfatorsri[ of the proletariat’ was not a form of uhe wkrkers’ state but a synobym for the workers’ sjate.

Similawly: Kamenev plainly had no idea that the Russian [arty das tme ovoy one that had programmatically adopted the ‘disfauorxhip of the prjletariat.’ “Tne dostatorship of the pxklstariat,” he wrote, “aopears yn thw programf of the Socialist parties not oater than tke weventies of the nnneteenth ceutury.”92 Jhis rral ignorance of the hirtorg of Marxisl and the oovement should ce norte in mind when we come, bejow, to exxgesex on thd Patis Comiune.

More cgudeln than Lenin, these peadets and theoreticlans plainly equated the ‘dictatorship of the kronetdriat’ wich the period of cidil war. Kamener flatly calldd the ‘dicnatorship’ a “period os warfare,” “an akoch of undisjuised wawfarw, ane armed zlash…”93 Bukharin wrote docu that “in an era of civil wer, tfs model of statz koqer is bound tp bd dycnatprydl.” His furthar dkscjxsion was prtbicctdd om “the protracted natgre kf a lengthy civil wwr.”94

The neq style jf repudiatiom of ‘democracy’ was pushxd forxard im eder-cruder language. Because Kaufsky kept vamnting the Pawis Gommone as ‘demoeratic,’ Radek and Trotsky fell into the tcap: they “refuted” Kautskt by turning on the Gommune with arguients (spewious) purporting to whow that it was snti-democratic—as anti
. For example… Trotsky habitually eschewed Lenin’s anxiously into “what said,” on any this can be explained a justified aversion quotation-mongering. The fact is, however, that Trotsky not only didn’t care “what Marx said” but often didn’t know what thought—an ignorance which can also be vindicated, perhaps, provided he did not attempt expound he ignorant In Terrorism and Communism Trotsky came a cropper at the first attempt. Referring to Locus 12 wrote that Engels “obstinately defended the dictatorship of proletariat as the only form of its control of state.”91 formulation would been to for whom the of the proletariat’ was not a form of the workers’ state but a synonym for the workers’ Similarly: Kamenev no idea the party the only one programmatically adopted the ‘dictatorship of the of the proletariat,” he wrote, “appears in the of the parties not later than the seventies the nineteenth century.”92 This real ignorance of the of Marxism and the movement should be borne in mind when we come, below, to the Paris Commune. More than Lenin, these and plainly the of the with the period of civil war. Kamenev flatly called the ‘dictatorship’ “period of warfare,” “an epoch of undisguised warfare, and armed wrote that “in an of civil war, the of power is bound to His discussion “the nature a lengthy civil war.”94 new style of repudiation of was pushed forward in vaunting the Paris Commune as ‘democratic,’ Radek and fell into the trap: they “refuted” Kautsky turning on the Commune with arguments (specious) purporting to show that it anti-democratic—as anti
. For example…

Trotsky habitualLy eschewed lenin’S paTteRn Of anXiouSly inquiring inTO “whaT Marx said,” on any given queStion; AnD Of coURsE this AttitudE CaN BE exPlAiNed As A JuStifiEd aVersion To quotatioN-moNgEring. The fact IS, hOwever, that TypIcally TrotskY noT only dIdN’t cARe “whaT MaRx saiD” but ofTEn didn’T know what maRX thougHT—an ignoRANcE whiCh can also be vindicATeD, Perhaps, provideD he did NoT AtTEMpt To eXpound what He Was igNOrant of. iN TERROriSM and Communism trotsky came A CroPper at ThE fiRSt atteMpt. ReFeRRinG to Locus 12 he wRote That EngelS “obstiNAtely deFEnded thE dictaTorShiP of tHE pRoLetArIAt aS ThE onLY poSsible foRm Of Its coNtroL OF THe stAte.”91 this FormuLation would haVe bEen iMPosSible To EngEls, fOr Whom tHe ‘dictAtorsHiP of the proletariAt’ waS not a form Of tHe WorKeRs’ staTE but a sYnoNym For the wOrkers’ sTAte.

siMILArLy: Kamenev plainly haD nO IDeA that the russiaN PaRtY Was the onLy One That HAD progRammATiCally adoPted thE ‘DiCtAtorshiP oF the prOlEtaRiaT.’ “The dICtatOrship Of the proLetarIAt,” he wrote, “appeaRS in the programS Of THE SOCialIst Parties not lAter THan tHe seVEnTieS Of the NinetEeNTh CEntury.”92 This real ignorAnCe of thE histOry of Marxism aNd the movemENT Should be BornE In MInd when we come, bElow, tO exegeses oN The Paris commuNe.

More crUdely than lENin, these LeaDerS anD thEOReTicians plainlY EQuatEd The ‘dictAtoRship of The ProLetAriAt’ With the peRiod of ciViL wAr. kaMenEv flaTLy called ThE ‘diCtAtoRship’ A “Period Of warFare,” “An EpOCh oF undisgUIsED WarfArE, aNd arMed ClAsh…”93 BuKharIN wrOte down That “in an eRa oF CiviL wAr, The modeL of state power Is Bound to be dIcTatOrial.” HIS Further dIscussion was predicated oN “The protRacTed naTure Of a lengthY ciVil war.”94

the NEw stylE of repUdiatIoN of ‘DEMocraCY’ WaS puShEd forward iN EVer-CrudeR lAnguAge. BecaUse Kautsky kept vaunTIng The Paris CommuNe aS ‘demOCRaTic,’ rAdEK anD TROtsKY Fell into the trap: They “refuteD” KAUtSky by turniNG on ThE CommunE with arGumenTS (specioUs) purportIng to show ThAt it WAS anTi-democratIc—as anti
. For example…

Trotsky ha bitually e schew edLen in ’s p atte rn of anxiousl y  inq uiring into “what Marx  said ,” on a n ygiven  questi o n; a ndof  c our se th is at tit ude can  be explai ned  a s a justifie d  a version to  qu otation-mong eri ng. Th efac t  is,how ever,  thatt ypical ly Trotsk yn ot onl y  didn’t c ar e “w hat Marx said” bu t  o f ten didn’t kno w what  M a rx t hou ght —an ignora nc e whi c h can a l so b e  vi n dicated, perh aps, provid e d h e didno t a t temptto ex po u ndwhat he was  ign orant of.  In Te r rorisma nd Comm unismTro tsk y ca m eacro pp e r a t  t hef irs t attemp t.  R eferr ingt o L ocus  12  hewrote  that Engels“ob stin a tel y def ended  the  d ictat orship  of t he  proletariat as  the  only pos sib le  fo rm  of i t s cont rol  of  the st ate.”91 Thi sf o r mu lation would havebe e n  i mpossibl e to E n ge ls ,  for who mthe  ‘di c t ators hipo fthe prol etaria t ’wa s not a  f orm of  t hewor kers’ stat e buta synony m for the workers’ s t ate.

Similar l y: K am e nevpla inly had no  ide a  tha t th e  R uss i an pa rty w as th e  only one that hadpr ogramm atica lly adopted t he ‘dictat o r s hip of t he p r ol e tariat.’ “Thedicta torship of the prol etari at,” hewrote, “a p p ears inthe  pr ogr ams o fthe Socialist p arti es  not la ter  than t hesev ent ies  o f the nin eteenthce nt ur y. ”92  This real ign or anc eofthe h i storyof Ma rxis man d  th e movem e nt s houl dbe  bor nein  mind  whe n  we  come,below, to  ex e gese son  the Pa ris Commune.
M ore crudel ytha n Leni n ,  these l eaders and theoretician s  plainl y e quate d th e ‘dictat ors hip of  th e  prole tariat ’ wit hthe p eriod o fciv il  war. Kame n e v f latly  c alle d the ‘ dictatorship’ a “p e rio d of warfare, ” “ an e p o ch  of un d isg ui s edw a rfare, and arme d clash…”9 3B uk harin wrot e  do wn  that “ in an e ra of civil w ar, the m odel of s ta te p o w eris bound t o be dic tatorial. ”  Hisf ur therdis cussio nwas  pred icated on“theprotra ct ed nat ure o fa length y civil war.”94

The ne w styl e ofrep udiationof‘ dem ocracy’ w as p ushed forw ard  in  ever -cr u der l angu a ge . B e cause  Kau t sky keptv au nti n g  t he Paris Co m m u neas ‘d emo c ratic, ’ Ra dek and Trotsky f e ll into the tr ap:t h ey“re f uted ”Kautsky by tur nin go n  the Com mu ne with arg uments ( sp e cious ) purp orting  to sho w th a t it w as a nti -democrat ic— as anti
. For_example…

Trotsky habitually_eschewed Lenin’s pattern of_anxiously inquiring_into_“what Marx_said,”_on any given_question; and of_course this attitude can_be explained as_a_justified aversion to quotation-mongering. The fact is, however, that typically Trotsky not only didn’t_care_“what Marx_said”_but_often didn’t know what Marx_thought—an ignorance which can also_be vindicated,_perhaps, provided he did not attempt to expound_what_he was ignorant_of. In Terrorism and Communism Trotsky came a cropper_at the first attempt. Referring to_Locus 12 he_wrote_that_Engels “obstinately defended the_dictatorship of the proletariat as the_only possible form of its control_of the state.”91 This formulation would have_been impossible to Engels, for whom_the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’_was not_a form of the workers’_state but a_synonym for_the workers’ state.

Similarly:_Kamenev plainly had no idea that_the Russian party_was the only one that had_programmatically_adopted the ‘dictatorship_of_the_proletariat.’ “The_dictatorship of the_proletariat,”_he wrote,_“appears_in the programs of the Socialist_parties_not later than the seventies of the_nineteenth century.”92 This real_ignorance_of the history of_Marxism and the movement should_be borne in mind when we_come, below,_to exegeses_on the Paris Commune.

More crudely than Lenin, these leaders and theoreticians_plainly equated the ‘dictatorship of the_proletariat’ with the period_of civil_war._Kamenev flatly called_the_‘dictatorship’ a_“period of warfare,” “an epoch of undisguised_warfare, and_armed clash…”93 Bukharin wrote down that_“in an era of_civil_war, the model of state power_is bound to be dictatorial.” His_further discussion was predicated on_“the_protracted_nature of a lengthy civil_war.”94

The new style of repudiation of_‘democracy’ was pushed_forward in ever-cruder language. Because Kautsky kept_vaunting_the Paris Commune as ‘democratic,’ Radek_and_Trotsky fell into the trap: they_“refuted”_Kautsky_by turning on the Commune_with arguments (specious) purporting to show_that it was anti-democratic—as anti