Muste Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From The New Militant, Vol. I No. 17, 13 April 1935, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
It was pointed out in a recent issue of the New Militant that the Communist Party in following out its new “labor party” line was flirting with left liberal congressmen. In California Utopians and legislators who stand for Upton Sinclair’s Epic plan for the abolition of poverty within the borders of one state (deduction from the “theory of Socialism in one country” and leading eventually to the abolition of poverty in the tenth ward perhaps?) seem to be regarded as “comrades to be” in the new labor party.
This is, however, mild stuff compared to the line which Ambassador Troyanovsky gave the Bond Club of New York in his speech on March 22.
The ambassador of the Workers’ State was addressing the gentlemen of the Bond Club on the peace policy of the Soviet Union. He suggested that the United States might agree to refrain from helping an “aggressor” in the next war. This would exercise a restraining effect upon “hot-headed adventurers” (Marxian analysis of the war mongers !). He went on to give the Soviet diplomat’s definition of “aggression”.
He expressed encouragement over the prospect of “general acceptance” of this definition “among countries interested in the observance of peace” (and which imperialist nations may they be?).
But “this would be merely a first step on the road to maintaining peace”. At last we are to get the Bolshevik doctrine, one opines, especially as the ambassador goes on to assert: “We have to dig to the bottom of contemporary troubles.” Breathless the workers hang on his words. What is the true road to peace, according to the oracles of Moscow? Here it goes: “It is necessary to work out practical plans for the economic rehabilitation of the world and especially for Europe.” Can it be that Troyanovsky actually means that not workers’ revolution but the economic rehabilitation of capitalist countries is the road to peace? In order to dispel all doubt he went on to say: “Probably the advice of broad-minded business men would be available and useful in this connection.”
When British or German Social Democrats collaborated with “broad-minded business men” for the economic rehabilitation of capitalism in one country instead of using the crisis for the overthrow of capitalism, what did the C.I. say that was? And when the ambassador of the Soviet Union offers collaboration with “broad-minded business men” for the rehabilitation of world capitalism as the road to world peace, what shall we call this policy?
Socialism ca n be built in one country, the Soviet Union, according to Stalinist theory, even though the rest of the world remains capitalist. From this nationalist standpoint it appears quite logical that the Soviet Union should help rehabilitate capitalist countries in order, let us say, that it may obtain credits from them. Since the Communist parties presumably cannot follow a line in contradiction to that of the present rulers of the Soviet Union but rather exist primarily or well nigh exclusively for “the defense of the Soviet Union,” the Communist parties also must not “rock the boat” in capitalist countries, must maintain the status quo of the Flandin government in France, must actively or passively, openly or tacitly, help in the economic rehabilitation of these countries.
Thus the Soviet Union through the present leadership of the Communist (Stalinist) International is used not for the overthrow but for the rehabilitation of capitalism, not to build but to emasculate the revolutionary movements in capitalist countries. These nations get a chance to organize their forces for the eventual attack upon the Soviet Union. The one real defense of the Soviet Union, the revolutionary movements in capitalist countries, is destroyed. The destruction of the workers’ state is prepared.
The policy of the Soviet Union is not a proletarian peace policy – the only true peace policy is that of working class revolution – but a pacifist policy. Pacifism has ever proved and will again prove the road to war, to the ruin of the masses. The Stalinist policy is not internationalist, but nationalist. It is not progressive, it is reactionary.
If the workers of the Soviet Union, those who made the revolution, knew what was happening they would overthrow this regime. But they do not know. They cannot know. The arguments Stalin uses against party opponents is exile or a bullet in the head. Those who do understand what is happening are well nigh powerless to do anything about it. Well may we reiterate, therefore, the statement of the Declaration of Principles of the Workers Party:
“The effective defense of the Soviet Union today and the support of those revolutionists in the S.U. who fight for the reform of the Soviet State and the revival of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin’s time based on the principles of revolutionary internationalism and workers’ democracy depend therefore upon the building of new revolutionary parties in the capitalist countries and a new revolutionary international.”
Upon this depends also the liberation of the masses in capitalist countries from unemployment, poverty, Fascism and war. To this task the Workers Party dedicates itself.
It is no wonder to us that the C.P. daily subjects the Workers Party to bitter and slanderous attack. That does not disturb us. It furnishes daily confirmation of the fact that the C.P. has no real answer to the issues that we raise, that it is well aware that the W.P. and the other parties throughout the world, striving for the Fourth International, are its real and destined to be victorious, foes.
By that same token we are the heralds to the workers of the world of the new revolutionary movement. In place of the party and the international which have organized defeats we shall organize victories. For the Workers Party! For the Fourth International!
Muste Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 28 July 2015