I’m not a headstone-hunter, but in my life there are three
graves I have gone out of my way to stand before: Thomas Jefferson’s, F. Scott
Fitzgerald’s, and now Leon Trotsky’s.
I believe I’ll leave it there. I can’t think of anyone to add to this list who
would improve it.
For Trotsky’s grave, of course, I came by far the furthest
out of my way: he is buried where he was murdered, on August 20 1940, by an
agent of Stalin who had infiltrated the household where he spent the last years
of his wandering exile, in Coyoacán, Mexico.
The house has been preserved as a museum, and it was a short
walk from the hostel where I’m staying, as is the house/museum of Frida Kahlo
in the same neighborhood which had lines around the block and pink-and-white taxis
continually pulling in and away on the pretty tree-shaded street. Far fewer pilgrims go to the Trotsky House,
which for one thing is on a sort of access road alongside the roaring main artery,
a grey no-man’s land of niche shops, graffitied walls and barbed wire. The museum appears as a solid red building
set slightly back from the street, and I was the only person in view as I
walked in and bought my ticket.
You don’t walk directly into the house, but first pass
through a simple museum foyer of a few white rooms, featuring many
photographs and a few artifacts from Trotsky’s life. The emphasis is on his last years here in Coyoacán:
a dapper leprechaun-like figure in tweeds and round eyeglasses, with his
pointed beard white and a big shock of white hair brushed back from his brow. He is seen together with his artistic friends
(Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera among them) and his wife Natalia, and in typical
domestic scenes, tending his garden, picnicking with Natalia. I spent a lot of time here before proceeding
to the house.
To those who don’t care about Trotsky, none of this would
have much meaning, but it’s true that Trotsky shares with Jefferson a
sympathetic, small-scale old age, a rarity among earth-shaking statesmen:
puttering in the garden, tending to grandchildren, writing.
The difference with Trotsky, which makes his life invaluable
and his name still dangerous, is that in this life he was a man on the run, Stalin’s number
one enemy, exiled, chased around the world, sentenced to death in absentia, and
finally assassinated in his home. If a
man be measured by the quality of his enemies then few shine brighter in history
than Trotsky. The biggest lie of the
20th Century, that Stalin’s Soviet Union was the ideal Communist society, as envisioned
by Marx and intended by the Bolsheviks (and many still believe it) remains fatally
undermined by the life, opposition, and fate of Trotsky. To the extent that history lowers a damning
judgement upon Soviet Communism, as it should, to that exact same extent rises again
the figure of Trotsky, spokesman for an untried alternative and a better revolution
still to come.
Trotsky’s house and gardens have been preserved within the
compound, which is appropriate as they themselves were a compound, complete with
guards and defensive fortifications. (There
were previous assassination attempts, involving machine guns, before the
successful one.) For all that, the old
Mexican house with its small homey rooms is beautiful. You approach it through a green high-growing garden,
in the center of which is the simple obelisk of the gravestone featuring the
name and the hammer-and-sickle icon.
Inside, you can walk through the rooms (kept separate behind
low plexiglass), including the study where Trotsky was murdered at his desk by
Ramón Mercader with an ice axe.
I found I was using my camera differently than at any point
on my trip so far. Gone was any concern
for getting a “good” photograph. Instead
I just had the simple urge to document: to record that I was there, to preserve
what I was seeing.
In the house one feels dramatically the double nature of
Trotsky’s household in his last years. The
rooms are small and tidy, the beds low with woven blankets, the kitchen
primitive but filled with colorful Mexican ceramic pots and crockery, a closet
where some of Trotsky’s and Natalia’s simple clothes are hung. At the same time, the house is bursting with
books and periodicals in multiple languages, and the office contains desks,
radio, typewriters and Dictaphone for a hard-working staff.
Trotsky’s home in exile was also the nerve center for the world anti-Stalin
left; it was in these years that he testified before the Dewey Commission and
founded the Fourth International to oppose not only Stalinism but Nazism.
One feels something else here: that Trotsky was the last of
the great INTELLECTUAL world leaders—like Jefferson again, someone as famous for his ideas, writings, encyclopedic knowledge and borderless curiosity as
for his actions on the political stage. Stalin,
in contrast, was ignorance personified, and as for the world leaders today, I
can’t name one who even puts up a pretense.
We lost a lot when we lost Trotsky.
It was hard to pull myself away from the old house and the
green garden. I admit that they do have a café
on the grounds, which I didn’t patronize, but I don’t mind saying I bought a Red Star T-shirt at the ticket counter on the way out.
***
P.S., For those interested in Trotsky’s ideas, the Fourth
International that he founded is still active, and puts out a daily online newspaper
with superb writing and analysis from the Trotskyist perspective, at
www.wsws.org.
P.P.S., There will be another post soon in which I put in more information about myself and my trip!
I have to disagree with your idealistic view of Trotsky, Matt. Yes, he was a brilliant man, but I am not at all sure that his course for the follow-up to the Russian Revolution would have offered much improvement over Stalin's. He was the architect of the Red victory in the civil war that followed the revolution, which he prosecuted ferociously and with a solid measure of cruelty. His cruelty was, of course, a precision instrument based on his intellectual prowess and not on paranoia and insecurity like Stalin's. Personally, I would not mention him in the same breath as Thomas Jefferson.
ReplyDeleteNina, I'm currently reading a book about the Russian Civil War and you're absolutely right about his ruthlessness. Indeed, his main contribution to the war was the centralized, hierarchical, undemocratic Red Army organization that violated his own principles and set much of the template for the centralized state that followed. The only excuse is that the Whites were just as ferocious and cruel and it was a battle for survival; neither side was what you would call sympathetic. Where Trotsky shines for me is his later opposition to the bureaucracy and (okay, I admit it) his good writing. As for the comparison with Jefferson, well, they were both idealists who helped found nations. (By the way, in the "John Adams" miniseries they went out of their way to equate Jefferson with Trotsky; at one point they have him say, "My house is in a state of permanent revolution"; it's quite funny.) Cheers!
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll give you the "good writing" part. :-) One of the fascinating what-ifs is how Russia may or may not have been different if Trotsky had been in town when Lenin died, thus possibly preventing Stalin from making himself Lenin's heir and successor.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I've heard you speak about Trotsky and your admiration for him. I've been reading "Trotsky and the Jews" by Joseph Nedava and in many ways Trotsky's ruthlessness made him less than admirable. But that ruthlessness was also his strength. In a remembrance of Ben Gurion by Shimon Peres, Peres quoted B-G praising Trotsky's statesmanship at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and noting that, to be effective, a true leader has to have that same determination and that ability to be ruthless. Such folks are cut from special cloth.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading as fast as I can to catch up with your narrative. I think I know what you're going to chose to do but whichever of the Plans A-D you opt for, I'm a fan of your great adventure.