This section of the magazine contains two items: The first is an editorial called "Drive the Trotskyist Wreckers out of the Workers Movement!" (pp. 99- 102).(This quotes liberally from a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, which we will describe below.) The second is an article by one I.Stankin called "Trotskyist Reserves in Romania" (pp. 103-105).
Between these two items, taking up half a page in bold capital letters, is a quote from none other than Joseph Stalin. The quote is from a speech by Stalin to the February 1947 plenum of the Soviet party, convened to evaluate the results of the first Great Purge trial, that of 1936.
It is odd that Basmanov didn't quote this "ingenious" authority on Trotskyisn. He certainly noticed the quote. And he has obviously learned about his subject from that authority, as we shall see.
The quote from Stalin states:
"IN CARRYING ON THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE TROTSKYIST AGENTS, OUR PARTY COMRADES HAVE NOT NOTICED, HAVE OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT PRESENT-DAY TROTSKYISM IS NO LONGER WHAT IT WAS, SAY, SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, THAT TROTSKYISM AND THE TROTSKYISTS DURING THAT TIME HAVE UNDERGONE A SERIOUS EVOLU- TION, WHICH HAS RADICALLY CHANGED THE FACE OF TROTSKYISM, THAT THEREFORE THE STRUGGLE AGAINST IT SHOULD ALSO BE RADICALLY CHANGED.
"OUR PARTY COMRADES HAVE NOT NOTICED
THAT TROTSKYISM HAS CEASED TO BE A POLIT- ICAL TENDENCY IN THE WORKING CLASS, THAT TROTSKYISM HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED FROM A POLITICAL TENDENCY IN THE WORKING CLASS, WHICH IT WAS SEVEN OR.EIGHT YEARS AGO, INTO AN UNPRINCIPLED AND SHAMELESS BAND OF SABOTEURS, WRECKERS, SPIES, AND MURDER- ERS, OPERATING UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE IN- TELLIGENCE ORGANS OF FOREIGN STATES."
The body of the editorial that preceded this quote explained that in line with the position outlined by "Comrade Stalin" at the February 1937 plenum, the presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International proposed:
"1. To urge the sections of the Communist International to develop a systematic struggle both at meetings and in the press against Trotskyism as an agency of fascism, using for this purpose the facts from the trials of the anti-Soviet Zinoviev-Trotskyist and parallel centers. To mobilize the vigilance of the working masses against the provocative activity of the Trotskyists, achieving their expulsion from the ranks of the labor movement as fascist agents." (Emphasis added.)
The editorial also includes the pleasant observation that since the labor movement in the capitalist countries does not have the means of "defending itself against the Trotskyist spies and wreckers that the proletarian state does" and since these "agents" are financed by "Hitler, Mussolini, Hearst and the Comité des Forges [the reactionary and powerful French corporate association of the 1930s]," the Comintern sections will have to fight all the harder.
Aside from the extreme unreliability of his source, Basmanov's reference doesn't even prove what he claims. There's no mention of Trotskyist literature being distributed free at factories on page 104 of Stankin's article or in any other part of it -- although it is filled with charges that Trotskyists are police agents, etc. The nearest thing to Basmanov's claim is where Stankin says: "For all its insignificance Trotskyism represents a danger in Romania too, first of all because it enjoys the support of the entire state apparatus, enjoys the support of the bourgeoisie."
The other issue of Kommunisticheskii Internatsional (No. 1, 1938) also fails to support Basmanov's assertion. Page 94 is in the middle of a "letter from Warsaw" by one "I.Swiencicki" entitled "Provocateurs at Work" -- one of the items under the overall magazine heading "The Struggle Against Counterrevolutionary Trotskyisn."
The general theme of the "letter" is that the Pilsudski regime, the Polish military dictatorship of the late 1920s and 1930s, had filled the Polish Communist party with spies and agents, and that that was the reason for all the internal disputes in the party.
The sentence that Basmanov would seem to be referring to in his footnote states, "It is well known, for example, that along with the foul book of the wellknown agent of the tsarist secret police, Regula, the Polish secret police published books of Trotsky's on its own printing press and tried to distribute them free in the prisons among the prisoners, in order to demoralize the weaker ones among them and recruit them to their network." (Enphasis added.)
Basmanov doesn't even have his information right from his own Stalinist sources. The claim was that the police printed and distributed Trotsky's books in Polish prisons. Not that “Trotskyist materials were distributed free at enterprises," which implies that the bosses had done this at certain plants or workshops. Is Basmanov just a sloppy scholar, or did he figure that he should make the charge sound a little more up-to-date and reasonable? Maybe he felt that the "police spy" bit wouldn't sound any more convincing than the "fascist agent, spy, and saboteur" thesis, which has been reduced over the years, without any explanation, to the lesser charge of "agents of the monopolies."
Incidentally, Basmanov didn't notice the real significance of the "letter from Warsaw." It must have been meant to justify the execution of "virtually all the Polish Communist party leaders" and the dissolving of the Polish CP on Stalin's orders in 1938. Stalin's purges struck not only at ‘all the remnants of the Bolshevik old guard; they hit countless foreign Communists who had fled repression in their own countries to exile in Moscow or who were working for the Comintern there.
Spanish, German, Italian, and many other Communists died or were imprisoned in the purges, but no party suffered like the Polish, whose entire top leadership was wiped out -- many of them had been compatriots of Rosa Luxemburg or active in the Russian Social Democratic party also in the prerevolutionary years. They all perished on charges of being "Trotskyites and fascist agents," and Basmanov -- or rather, his bosses -- do not blink an eye about using such foul frame-up accusations for their factional purposes today.
(B] (p. 246) It may be true that the capitalist "free press" blacked out information about the world Trotskyist movement around the time of World War II. But that was because the "democratic" imperialists made a quite conscious bloc with Stalin. Roosevelt's administration actually encouraged the painting up of the Stalin regime, and promoted the book Mission to Mos-
GQWaptater made into a movie, in which $hesMoscow Trials were justified to American ;audiences. The publishers of Trotsky's biography of Stalin even held up putting the book on the market until after the pwar, out of consideration for the feeliags of the head of the famous "cult of the personality." ~J The imperialists recognized the SORV: ices the Stalinist movement could render ig:the way of sidetracking or stalling revetytiens. They observed this in the cases Of Spain and France in the Popular Froentsera, and again in the immediate postwar " period when the Stalinist parties in France and Italy proved decisive in restabilizing the capitalist regimes in thoge ; sqouninies . 39 (OF- “course , when the alliance with Staliniem -ne-Longer suited their interests.,- wh 168 £6 “proved unable to stop revo- « lution in YugesLavia, China, and elsehere.,,-the."demeeracies" of the U.S. Suddoniy thei e peopaeonalst the Cold War. 5 mpRepagandists rediscovered ad. oppressive features of
ogee nee the uprisings rin East Ber-
lin, Poland, and Hungary, and later the SinenSovjak diepate «: athe Janelesia and pro-
course. these apitaliot capmpanies which. make -: profit -on a fat -+.as with sthose e+ now printing Che -Guevarats werks += dont « realize or don't care that they -are .burt-.. ing the long-range, general interests of theism chess .by: making. nevolutionary. soed aloket, Sages chome sac dessi ble: Onna MASS i *.
‘ange orate ism, of them. pe 1 Pr ws a capitalist. hota Ge same pontifical - ‘ate titudei pervades. the writings of apologists for ‘thes Sovi.et:bureaucracy 's. enn : Everywhere’ Shaye wee: “slander. H 4 S This is. not just a ‘case of paranoia on the: partyof; the bureaucrats and friends, -siner the: workd bourgeoisie. does -generate a constant: anti-Soviet campaign. The excessive: @oncern: that sées such slander in every: Question or criticism does :betray a guilty constience, in a bureaucracy which would: like’ nothing hetter than "peaceful coexistence": and .a ““pepular. front" with this same; ‘world - bourgeoisie... 2 .
This feeling of being persecuted, though, is at bottom a political fear of the masses and possible revolutionary spokesmen and leaders among them. Hence the arrest and imprisonment of Soviet intellectuals who dare voice criticisms.
[D] (p. 247) This is a small sample of Basmanov's fabrications. Trotsky sold his archives to Harvard University, not as is implied, disposing of them in his will. He did this so that they would not be destroyed in the oncoming war, or by Stalinist agents, who had already indicated their special interest in this historical material, which included such items as copies of the correspondence between Lenin and Trotsky.
[E] (p. 248) Another example of Basmanov's tendency to fabricate is the way he uses bourgeois sources. He rarely gives page references, so one cannot always be sure he hasn't invented a quote. In the Daniels book the wording that Basmanov uses is not immediately apparent, although on page 408 Daniels observes that the Left Oppositionists were "committed to the old Marxist vision." (Daniels' thesis is the standard one that the Left Oppositionists adhered to illusory "theory," while the practical man of action, Stalin, stole the power from under their noses.)
On page 40 of Communism and Revolution, a collection of essays on "the strategic use of political violence," edited by C.E.Black and T.P.Thornton (Princeton, 1964), there is a footnote that states: "Although Trotsky was later disavowed by the Soviet leadership, he was, next to Lenin, the foremost strategist of the movement at the time of the October Revolution and many years after, and his influence as a theorist loomed large even after his expulsion from the Soviet Union."
hh Unfortunately, this is one of many cases in which bourgeois sources are more accurate and objective, for their own reasons, than are the Soviet Basmanovs. The Kremlin. bureaucrats simply won't allow their -h?storians to get too objective about the Seviet past because that would threaten their ‘present position and policies. The result. is. writings by hacks like Basmanov, who don't -even:seem qualified to do the dirty work they're supposed to.
How -ekse ‘explain that Basmanov mistranslated ' ‘the title of the book by Charles Byrne . as Communitsm-and the U.S.A. [in Russian, -Kommurnizm i $.Sh.A.]? Actually the title is ‘Communism and Us (not U.S. It is an Australian counterpart to the "What We Should Know About Communism" trash churned out by the U.S. book industry.
What Basmanov tries to ignore is that these vituperative anti-Communists equate Trotskyism and Marxism only to direct their hate-filled vitriol equally
against both. Far from "popularizing" or "promoting" revolutionary socialism, they attack it strenuously, a fact Basmanov would be hard put to explain, so he avoids the question.
Byrne, for example, called Trotsky a "convinced Marxist" in the following context, where the Bolshevik-Menshevik split was being described:
"On the outskirts, adopting a superior position above and not slow to criticize all factions, was the brilliant egotistical Jew, Leo Bronstein, who adopted the name of Trotsky ~- a convinced Marxist, but determined to beat Lenin to the leadership." (p. 12.)
Elsewhere Byrne shows how "favorable" his opinion of Trotsky's views on world revolution is: "The prophecy of Lenin and Trotsky that the workers of the world, fired by the example of Russia, would rise in a world revolution and sweep away capitalism has not been fulfilled. Contrary to Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, the unregenerate workers have preferred their national loyalties to international class loyalties." (p. 19.)
It is interesting that Basmanov's quote from Osteuropa below is on the same order. Far from approving of Trotskyisn, Osteuropa wants to destroy the "legend" that for anti-Communists there could be anything “good" about Trotskyism. That Trotsky was one of the founders of the Soviet state makes him in their eyes, all the more evil. Since Basmanov could never explain this, it is odd that he uses the quote. Probably he just hoped his readers wouldn't notice.
[F] (Cp. 248) The quote is from page 16 of Librach's book, published by the notorious anti-Communist Praeger house (New York, 1964). Librach, though, not only equates Trotskyism with Marxism, he also dismisses any serious differences between Trotsky and Stalin. For him, behind everything lurks the Communist blueprint for world conquest.
Surely Basmanov would agree that this hate-filled ruling class spokesman, disguised by only a thin veneer of scholarship, has distorted both Stalin's and Trotsky's views in the following passage:
"The conviction that Communism would prevail throughout the world was also held by Stalin, both before and after he embarked on his battle with Trotsky over ‘socialism in one country.' Their antagonisms were primarily an expression of the struggle for power, and it has rightly been pointed out that Stalin no more gave up world revolution than Trotsky rejected the chance of building Communism in Russia." (p. 14.)
(G] (p. 248) Here is another small instance of Basmanov's "rough work." A Document History of Communism, edited with an introduction and notes by Robert V. Daniels, whose work on the Left Opposition we have criticized above, was published by Random House (New. York, 1960).
The collection includes excerpts from the writings also of Bukharin, Stalin (e.g., On Inadequacies of Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyist and Other Double-Dealers, March, 1937), Vyshinsky, Malenkov, Zhdanov, Earl Browder, Khrushchev, Mao, Liu Shao-chi, etc., etc. One might contend that it is something of an “amalgam" to include these authors with Lenin and Trotsky, but why go on?
{H] (p. 249) Basmanov here echoes Stalin's 1937 pronouncement (quoted above in Note A) almost word for word. The papal arrogance of this constantly repeated idea is matched only by the magic formula equating "Communist parties" with "international workers movement."
The fitting reply to this kind of arrogance, frequently indulged in by the pro-Moscow Communist parties, was given at the conference of the Organization of Latin American Solidarity. As one of the Working Committees stated, "No one can proclaim himself vanguard as such."
Or as Fidel Castro declared in his closing speech at that congress:
“We belong not to a small group within the revolutionary movement, but to an organization which comprises all true revolutionaries, and we will not be prejudiced against any revolutionary.
"That is, there is a much wider move~ ment on this continent than that of just the Communist parties of Latin America; we are committed to that wide movement, and we shall not be prejudiced against any revolutionary." (From International Socialist Review, Nov.-Dec., 1967, p. .
[I] (p- 249) It is impossible to sort out what Basmanov used for sources in giving these two different quotes on the question of the crisis of leadership. Neither of them, in Basmanov's Russian wording, corresponds exactly to the Russian wording of Trotsky's famous opening paragraph of the Transitional Program: "The world polit-— ical situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat." (See Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of t Fourth International, New York. Pioneer Publishers, 1946, p. 5.)
Nor does either correspond with Trotsky's restatement of the idea in the last sentence of the opening section of the Transition Program: "The historical crisis
of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership." (Ibid., p. 6. ;
Of course, this central idea is the rationale for the construction of a new, revolutionary international. It is because of the crisis of leadership that revolutionary parties must be built in country after country where none exist. It is curious that, for Basmanov, the logic of this formulation means neces- . sarily a “struggle against the Communist parties." All that can be said to this is, if the shoe fits, wear it.
[J] (p. 250) The "distress" of the bourgeoisie over the program of the Communist parties is best seen in the support given by the capitalist class to the position of the Latin-American advocates of "peaceful coexistence" as against the revolutionary line of the Cubans. A graphic example was the way: CIA-backed Cuban counterrevolutionaries reprinted and distributed a statement denouncing Fidel Castro and his policies written by the rightist leaders of the Venezuelan CP. —
As for the “massive growth" of Communist parties whose leaders faithfully adhere to the line of "peaceful coexistence" and popular frontism, a good example was the Indonesian Communist party, which mushroomed until it had three million members -- before it ran into a mas- Sive disaster. Some 500,000 were slaughtered by the counterrevolution, which took full advantage of the opening provided by leaders committed to building a popular front with Sukarno instead of making a revolution. Basmanov studiously avoids citing cases, although plenty are available, the Indonesian being but the latest in a long series.:
[K] (p. 250) Were these just "horror stories" or insistent warnings from the coleader of the October Revolution? When Stalin decreed the abolition of the Communist International as a friendship offering to his "democratic" ally Roosevelt in 1943, he confirmed in practice the correctness of Trotsky's observations and warnings.
And since then, despite occasional conferences, twenty-five years have passed in an era filled with crises and revolutionary struggles without any serious attempt by Stalin or his heirs to reconstitute an international. If anything, the splintering of the former Third International into national chauvinist, reformist remnants has carried the process from degeneration toward total fragmentation.
[L] (p. 250) None of the alleged quotes in the preceding paragraph are attributed to a‘specific source. No declaration of the Fourth International that I can locate carries these phrases, although a "Manifesto of the Fourth International Conference to the Workers of the World," in the December 1938 Bulletin of the Left Opposition declared that "neither of the old Internationals has proven capable of organizing the resistance of the proletariat to fascism" and charged that their policies had "facilitated the victory of fascism."
Did Basmanov make up his quotes? Or did he just spice up some actually existing passages, in the same way that he turned "prisons" into "enterprises," and "us" into "U.S.A"?
On the question of Trotsky defending democratic rights, Basmanov deliberately lied. One of the main pillars of the Trotskyist position is defense of democratic rights (which are historically a product of the bourgeois revolution). In fact the December 19438 Manifesto states precisely that, and quite clearly.
The crucial point is that it is fatal to rely on the bourgeoisie to defend democratic rights. Only the proletariat headed by a revolutionary party can be relied on to defend them consistently and to extend and broaden them into proletarian democracy. Trotsky never visualized the struggle against fascism as being merely "national"; and in Germany, of course, his main slogan was for the German Communist and Social Democratic parties to close ranks against the common threat represented by the Nazis. Unfortunately, Basmanov's mentor, Stalin, rejected this, propounding the theory that the Social Democrats were the "main enemy" and "twins" of the Nazis.
(M] (p. 250) The quote appears to have been extracted from the following sentence: "The traditional Trotskyist position against collaboration with the liberal bourgeoisie was again questioned in 1960." This appears in a detailed study by Ernest Germain, "From Wavering to Capitulation," published in the November 1964 issue of Quatriéme Internationale. (An English translation is available in the fall 1964 issue of the International Socialist Review, the sentence in question appearing on page 110.) Germain's analysis deals with the process by which a sector of the Ceylonese Trotskyist leadership grouped around N.M.Perera moved from a revolutionary-socialist position to "popular frontism" and participation in a coalition with the political representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie of Ceylon. Germain vigorously condemns the betrayers, who were lured into the bourgeois trap precisely when a great revolutionary opportunity opened for the socialist movement in their country. In the concrete context of the Ceylonese situation, the article offers an excellent exposition of the Leninist attitude of distrust and nonconfidence in the liberal bourgeoisie and why the Trotskyist movement believes it advisable to adhere to Lenin's position on this question.
Basmanov, of course, favors Pere-ra's adoption of popular frontism but evidently found it difficult to indicate it even to the degree of specifying the source of his quote.-
LN] (p- 250) Basmanov has given the Maoist not the Trotskyist prognosis for world revolution, as seen for example in Lin Piao's famous pamphlet. on People's War. The Trotskyist view is best presented in Dynamics of World Revolution Today, a resolution adopted by the 1964 Reunification Congress of the Fourth International.
The following passage from that resolution gives a somewhat more flexible analysis of the possible course of revolutionary development:
"So far as real perspectives are concerned, it is not. excluded that these countries [the former colonial ones] will become workers states before the political revolution triumphs in the Soviet Union and before the proletarian revolution scores a decisive victory in one or more of the imperialist countries. However, it would be inadvisable for revolutionary socialists to base themselves on this unlikely variant. [Emphasis added.] Such a perspective implies not only the continuation of the process of permanent revolution in the colonial world (which is sure to occur) but also the victorious conclusion of this process in many countries within a specified time limit (before victories elsewhere). [Emphasis in original.] A policy based arbitrarily upon any one of the many possible time sequences in the development of the three main sectors of the world revolution could lead to exceedingly grave political errors." (1964 edition, Workers Vanguard Publishing Association, 81 Queen Street West, Toronto, Canada, p-. 9.)
[0] (p. 250) This quote is from the "Manifesto on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian Revolution." (The Manifesto itself is discussed further below.) That 1940 document's analysis of the position of the colonial struggle in the world situation is the opposite of what Basmanov alleges. Here are some other passages from the section entitled "The Colonial Struggle and the War," which he conveniently fails to mention.
"In the colonial and semicolonial countries the struggle for an independent national state, and consequently the 'defense of the fatherland,' is different in principle from that of the imperialist countries. The revolutionary proletariat of the whole world gives unconditional support to the struggle of China or India for national independence, for this struggle, 'by tearing the backward people out of the Asiatic system, particularism and foreign bondage , strikes powerful blows at imperialism.' (War and the Fourth International.)" Here the 1940 manifesto, © quoting from a 1934 declaration, shows the continuity of the Trotskyist -position on the colonial question, something Basmanov naturally wishes to keep from his readers.
‘{P] (p. 250) Again Basmanov lies deliberately. The Trotskyist position on Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia), as on the colonial struggle in general, was the exact opposite of what Basmanov claims. In fact, Trotsky polemicized sharply against a neutral attitude on the Ethiopian question. (See his rebuttal of the "feudalism" argument in "On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo," for example, in the June 1936 New International. )
In "Questions of the Italo-Ethiopian War" (New International, October 1935), under the pen name "Parabellum," Trotsky wrote:
"The position of neutrality of the international revolutionary proletariat we dismiss with a wave of the hand: if it is true that the revolutionary proletariat is for the defeat of Italy, [since] it is not neutral, then it is for the victory of Ethiopia. If it desires the victory of Ethiopia, then it must help to produce it. This means that it does not remain 'neutral,' but that it actively intervenes for Ethiopia."
Trotsky quoted Lenin on the question of national liberation wars, in a discussion that could prove enlightening today for those confused on why revolutionaries support the Arab struggle -- not necessarily the Arab leaderships ~- as against the proimperialist Zionist expansion.
On Ethiopia, Trotsky also pointed to the "miserable attitude of the leaders of the Third International" and denounced the Stalinist line as reflected by the Kremlin spokesnan Maxim Litvinov, then president of the Council of the League of Nations. The Stalinists, like the bourgeois League, failed to take any effective action in support of Ethiopia.
Trotsky's revolutionary stand can be seen not only in his call for every possible effort to aid Ethiopia but in his prognosis of what Ethiopian victory could mean: "A defeat of Italy in Africa, a victory of Ethiopia, might deliver the imperialists a terrific blow in Africa. Should Ethiopia's national war be crowned with success, why shouldn't there be repercussions to this victory of the backward country in the form of uprisings in Egypt, in the large French and English colonies of Central and Eastern Africa, in South Africa? And might not victorious uprisings in Africa be implanted, repeated, and extended in Asia?"
Such was the "scorn" with which Trot— skyism in 1940 viewed the national libera~ tion movement.
(Q] (p. 251) In this paragraph Bas~
manov again gives several quotes without any source or reference. We can only conclude that once again he has cooked them up on his own gas burner. {[R] (p. 251) Again Basmanov gives unidentifiable quotes. But his reference to the question of the national bourgeoisie is the giveaway to the real policy he is pushing.
The key to the Stalinists' "peaceful coexistence" policy is their desire to maintain the status quo. Revolutions in other lands can serve to inspire the Soviet people to carry out a political revolution at home and cleanse the workers state of its bureaucratic excrescences. Thus the Kremlin has practical grounds for a bloc with the world bourgeoisie against revolutionary struggles.
But as heads of a "Socialist" state they cannot come out flatly against all revolutionary struggles. They thus speak for revolutions that will first have a national-—democratic, or "bourgeois," stage, the subsequent "socialist" stage being put off for an indefinite future. This provides a presumed basis for a bloc with the "progressive" sectors of the bourgeoisie against the "reactionary" sectors, i.e., those who convert anti-Communism into a political platforn.
If the Stalinists succeed in building a mass following on this basis, it is used for bargaining purposes with any sec-— tor of the bourgeoisie willing to bargain, even the ultrareactionaries. The policy also helps to maintain the status quo by delivering the masses to the bourgeoisie at a time of crisis when revolutionary possibilities open up. This is done by the bourgeois leaders in whom the masses have been told to have confidence. Recent instances were Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965.
The absurdity of expecting revolutionary action from the national bourgeoisie in the colonial world (and the same goes for the liberal bourgeoisie in advanced countries) was well expressed by Che Guevara in his message to Tricontinental on the eve of the OLAS conference:
",..the indigenous bourgeoisie have lost all capacity to oppose imperialism -~if they ever had any -- and constitute only their last trump.
"No other alternatives exist: it's either a socialist revolution or a caricature of a revolution." (Che Guevara Speaks, New York: Merit Publishers, 1967, p. 149.)
The general declaration of the OLAS Conference, after a careful historical, social, and economic analysis, also stated: "It would be absurd to suppose that, under such conditions, the so-called Latin~ American bourgeoisie could develop polit-— ical action independent of the oligarchies and imperialism in defense of the interests and aspirations of the nation...The impotence of the Latin-American bourgeoisie is absolute." The conclusion was clearly stated: "That the essential content of the Revolution in Latin America is to be found in its confrontation with imperialism and the bourgeois and landowning oligarchies. Consequently, the character of the Revolution is the struggle for national independence, for emancipation from the oligarchies, and for taking the socialist road to its complete economic and social development."
In his closing speech to the OLAS Conference, Fidel Castro added this fillip to the rejection of Stalinist theory of the “national bourgeoisie": "Meaningless phrases are bad, but so are the accepted meanings of certain phrases. Because there are theses that are 40 years old; for example, the famous thesis concerning the role of the national bourgeoisies. How hard it has been to become convinced, finally, that this idea is an absurdity on this continent; how much paper, how many phrases, how much empty talk has been wasted while waiting for a liberal, progressive, anti-imperialist bourgeoisie."
{S] (p. 251) Basmanov's quote from the “Manifesto on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian Revolution" cuts Trotsky's sentence short in the middle. The complete sentence reads: "In history war has not infrequently been the mother of revolution precisely because it rocks superannuated regimes to their foundation, weakens the ruling class, and hastens the growth of revolutionary indignation among the oppressed classes."
The general truth of this statement is being confirmed in particular today by developments in the Vietnam war and by the impact of that war upon the United States and the general world situation.
The other three quotes, for which Basmanov typically fails to provide the source, are not to be found in the Manifesto. It is hard to say whether Basmanov took the words out of isolated sentences or just made them up.
As for the Manifesto itself, it is a document of great importance. Adopted at an Emergency Conference of the Fourth International on May 9-16, 1940, in the very early days of World War II, it laid out a general analysis and perspective of the world situation in the context of the new war. The broad outlines of its analysis were strikingly borne out by events. (See Socialist Appeal, June 29, 1941, for the text.
(T] (p. 251) Basmanov's failure to cite his sources in this paragraph facilitates the amalgam he makes of several rather disparate currents, all of which perhaps
call themselves Trotskyist but which differ greatly in program and which have no connection with the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky, however much they may use the label "Fourth International."
In Latin America the ultraleft current headed by J. Posadas, increasingly isolated by its bizarre policies (such as calling for nuclear war and decrying the Fidelista leadership as "petty bourgeois"), has repeatedly been denounced and discredited by the world Trotskyist movement.
As for the ultraleft current in England, grouped around Gerry Healy, it really isn't fair -- for all their own bizarre positions, such as insisting that Cuba is a capitalist state and Fidel Castro another Batista -- to saddle them with Posadas' psychotic vision of a nuclear Armageddon.
{[U] (p. 251) The industrious Basmanov dug this quote out of an editorial in the November 1963 issue of Quatriéme Internationale on the treaty signed by the Kremlin at the time agreeing to make joint cause with Washington in blocking the dissemination of nuclear arms. Basmanov gives the sentence (which he does not translate quite accurately) a meaning that is the exact opposite of the original. This can be seen by reading it in context:
"For all these reasons, the revolutionary Marxists, who have always considered it their duty to speak the truth, the whole truth, to the masses, no matter how disagreeable it may be, broadcast a message to the masses following the signing of the Moscow Treaty, a message not of illusory hope and credulous relief, but of distrust and grave warning. Yes, the danger of a nuclear war that could destroy the entire material base of civilization if not all mankind remains graver than ever. Yes, this danger remains and will remain as long as imperialism retains substantial power, above all American imperialism. Yes, to eliminate this danger fundamentally and definitively, there is no short cut, no easy way out, there is only the struggle of the masses to disarm their own bourgeoisie, to overthrow them and by that to overthrow the only ones guilty of threatening a nuclear holocaust. And, at the present stage, unconditional support must be given the colonial revolution, including its armed form, because it represents today the surest means of weakening the imperialist bourgeoisie, and in that way aiding the proletariat of the imperialist countries to disarm and overthrow them tomorrow.
"No 'pessimist' or 'defeatist' conclusion is to be drawn from this realistic view of things except by those who, at bottom, have abandoned the perspective off proletarian revolution in the imperialisw countries. For us, on the contrary, it omy provides an additional reason for conductt ing the revolutionary struggle for which ° the Communist movement and its legitimate heir, the Fourth International, were founded: The struggle for the world revolution has today become literally a question of life or death for mankind. The choice is no longer between socialism and barbariam; today it is between socialism and atomic death.
In the same issue of Quatriéme Internationale is to be found the text of a report made by E. Germain at the world congress of the Fourth International in June 1963, "Political Situation and Tasks of the Trotskyists." The subheading on a key part of the report reads: "II. To Prevent a World Nuclear War." The theme of this section is stated as follows: "To continue to declare that a world war is inevitable would mean under these conditions affirming that humanity is condemned to suicide....The new consequences of a war, the fact of the development of arms of massive destruction, imposes an important modification in the revolutionary strategy of meeting the threat of a counterrevolutionary world war unleashed by imperialism. This strategy must aim at preventing a war. And, historically, only revolution can prevent war." (Emphasis in original.
[V] (p. 252) It is instructive to consider the tactic of "“entrism" -- which Basmanov views with such horror -- from the angle of Lenin's prescription on how revolutionaries should proceed in winning workers away from reformist or reactionary ideology and leadership. The following passage from Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder illustrates Lenin's views on this question. Ironically, in some countries, especially in Western Europe, those who call themselves Communists today, and who close the door on "Trotskyists" in mass organizations, best fit Lenin's characterization of "the ‘leaders' of opportunism."
"There need be no doubt that...the ‘leaders' of opportunism, will resort to every trick of bourgeois diplomacy, to the aid of bourgeois governments, the priests, the police and the courts, to prevent Communists joining the trade unions, to force them out by every means, to make their work in the trade unions as unpleasant as pos-— sible, to insult, bait and persecute then. We must be able to withstand all this, to agree to all and every sacrifice, and even -- if need be -- to resort to various stratagems, artifices, illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, as long as we get into the trade unions, remain in them, and carry on Communist work inside them at all aren (Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 37.
[W] (p. 252) This quote is taken from the document Dynamics of World Revolution:
Today (see Note N). It appears in the opening of a section on the organization-— al situation, problems, and prospects of the Fourth International. This part of the document deals fundamentally with the general question of how to build revolutionary parties and a revolutionary international, the prime need of our age. It is a pity Basmanov quoted no further from the passage; his readers could have benefited from it.
The following is a sampling, but the entire discussion deserves to be read and studied by those concerned with this general problen.
"To assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Fourth International ina more reasonable way, it is well to conpare it with its predecessors. The First International, established under the direct leadership of Marx and Engels never achieved great organizational strength, no matter how stupendous its theoretical accomplishments were in the history of mankind. The Second International added to the theory of Marxism and built huge organizations. But these all ended in the debacle of 1914. To achieve victory in Russia, the left wing found it necessary to split from the parent organization. The Third International moved ahead rapidly under the beneficent guidance of the Bolsheviks only to succumb to Stalinism and end finally in shameful dissolution as a wartime gift from the Kremlin to Roosevelt, the political chief of Allied imperialism. Obviously it is not easy to construct a revolutionary-socialist International and bring it to successful accon-— plishment of its aims." (pp. 36-37.)
[X] (p- 252) The space Basmanov devotes to the question of “entrism" can probably best be explained by the growing penetration of "Trotskyist" ideas in certain Communist parties, including many where the Trotskyists have not utilized the famous "entrist" tactic.
The full paragraph in Dynamics of World Revolution Today, from which Basmanov tore out his quote, is as follows:
"The world Trotskyist movement has given much consideration to the problem of setting out with small forces to win the working class and organize it into a party capable of challenging the rule of the capitalist class. The over-all principle on which it has proceeded on the orgamizational level is the Leninist dic-— tum that a revolutionist must not permit himself to be separated from his class under any circumstances. It is thus the norm for Trotskyists to belong to the union of their trade or industry and to play an active role in union affairs no matter how reactionary the union bureaucracy may be. They likewise belong to the big organizations of the masses whether they be nationalistic, cultural, or political in character. Insofar as possible, they advance the ideas and program of Trotskyism among the members of these organizations and seék to recruit from them." (p.41.)
(Y] (p. 252) This quote is also fron Dynamics of World Revolution Today, pp.41-42.
(Z] (p. 253) The quote is from an article called "Anti-Socialists in a 'left' dress," by one Dennis Goodwin, mainly aimed at a "National Rank and File Conference" on "Unity in Action" sponsored by the Newsletter of the Socialist Labour League. The following quote from Goodwin gives a taste of his general anti-Trotskyist arguments.
"Ever since 1917 [!] the Trotskyites rejected the policy of peaceful coexistence {such as Kerensky's? ~- G.S.], denied the possibility of building socialism in one country. Had their policy been adopted, there would have been no USSR, no People's China, and no People's Democracies today."
[AA] (p. 253) It is strange that the quotes in the two preceding paragraphs are not identified. Why should Basmanov be so cautious in this instance? -- unless he feels that here he is dealing with the crime of crimes of Trotskyism, i.e., seeking to stimulate discussion among the rank and file of the Communist parties on world political questions. The “international discussion" evidently refers to the Moscow-Peking dispute.
[BB] (p. 253) Evidently our scholar is here quoting from publications of the Posadas group. Among other illusions, Posadas came to believe that his utterances were read and absorbed by top Maoist circles. Basmanov's concern about tipping off Mao on the unholy activities of "Trotskyists" is touching proof of the Kremlin's comradely attitude toward the Peking "helmsman," despite the differences on various other points.
[CC] (p. 254) Space is required to deal with Basmanov's final footnote. The sources he mentions supposedly illustrate the "active struggle" by Latin-American CPs against Trotskyist "provocations."
Let's take a look. In World Marxist Review, 1964, No. 5 (pp. 11-18), we find an article by Jorge del Prado, member of the Political Commission of the Communist party of Peru, entitled "Mass Struggle -- the Key to Victory."
After an impressive summation of Leninist theory on tactics, Del Prado concludes, "We uphold the tactic of actively gathering strength." He then proceeds to explain the CP's electoral tactic of having supported the capitalist politician Belaande Terry in the 1963 elections. The CP had apparently come under fire from what Del Prado calls "the Trotskyite groups and
the so-called 'new left.'"
Del Prado argues that the Belatnde coalition's program "contained many democratic and progressive points slightly nationalist in coloring." (Slightly nationalist?!) He himself acknowledges that Belainde's party "includes spokesmen of the latifundistas, and the big bourgeoisie," as well as many “who represent the national bourgeoisie. The latter predominate in the leadership." Again, at the heart of the matter, we find the attrac-— tiveness to the Stalinists of the "national bourgeoisie" as possible allies.
Continuing his "active struggle" against Trotskyism, Del Prado gives the standard lesser-evil rationalization for supporting bourgeois candidates:
"Our task was to bar the road to the direct [!] candidates of the oligarchy and at the same time to oust the military junta." This is neat parliamentary magic. By voting in elections sponsored by the military, they "oust" the junta like rabbits out of a hat.
Unfortunately, after Belatinde was elected, he betrayed a "tendency to capit-— ulate to the reactionaries," says Del Prado. This tendency went as far as a witchhunt in which hundreds of Communists, among others, were rounded up. But to Del Prado this was all a mistake. "He [Belaande] could have followed another course ----he could have taken the way of establishing trade relations with the socialist camp, and first of all with the Soviet Union. Instead of relying solely on the High Command of the armed forces, Belaande could have relied more on the people."
Del Prado further shows his understanding of the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the state (how the ruling class uses the state, particularly its armed forces, to serve its own interests) by arguing that a little more pressure from the masses (under CP leadership, of course) might have pushed Belainde along that preferable course.
Del Prado considers Trotskyism in following passage: "The masses are not ready for armed struggle, as the failure of the recent attempt to develop it has shown. We have in mind the series of ill-starred bank raids carried out in most cases by Trotskyite groups. the yet
"Large-scale armed actions were launched in the Cuzco Department by the movement headed by the Trotskyite Hugo Blanco; attempts were made to get into the country through Puerto Maldonado. These weak, isolated actions likewise ended in failure and the loss of precious lives." (p. 14.)
In World Marxist Review, 1965, No.4 (pp- 40-42), appears a curious article by an unidentified advocate of the Moscow line, one A. Tzul. It is entitled "The Revolutionary Struggle in Guatemala: Its Achievements and Prospects."
Tzul first explains "the complexity of the situation" under the military dictatorship which seized power in March 196% and which was answered by revolutionary armed struggle, especially by the guerrilla movement. The "complexity" for Tzul flows from the possibility of upcoming elections. (They were finally held in early 1967.) There are "differences" over the tactics which "the progressive and patriotic forces" should adopt toward the elections, he explains.
"The point at issue is the character of the Guatemalan revolution and its immediate aims. We Communists maintain that the present revolutionary struggle bears a national-democratic character and that all who aim at freeing the country from the rule of the semifeudal oligarchy and the U.S. imperialists should join in it.
"We believe that the national bourgeoisie, the radical small bourgeoisie, and the middie classes generally can and should play a progressive role and contribute to the liberation struggle of our people. Those comrades who think differently and have evidently fallen for Trotskyist provocation hold that our revolution must be a socialist revolution, and that the regime to be established immediately after its victory must be a workers and peasants government, that is, one debarring all other social strata from the revolutionary bloc."
(The traditional view of revolutionary Marxists on the question of the middle classes, of course, is that because of their position in society, they always vacillate between the two major classes. An effective struggle by the working class may draw the middle classes along in its wake, and it is essential to win the middle class over in this way, that is, by waging a fight that causes them to believe in the possibility of a proletarian victory. But to leave the leadership in their hands is to abandon it to constant wavering and surrender to the big bourgeoisie. )
"In line with this ['Trotskyist' view]," continues Tzul, "they call on the workers everywhere to seize the factories and on the peasants to take over the landed estates and set up ‘organs of state power.' Since the political struggle has not yet attained a state at which these appeals can be carried into practice, they are utopian, and worse still, objectively provocative." (p. 41.)
A recent statement by the Guatemalan Fuerzas Armadas Rebeldes, denouncing the rightist leadership of the Guatemalan Communists, fittingly characterizes leaders like Tzul, whose "active struggle" Basmanov
finds so attractive. They are nothing more than the most radical wing of the democratic petty bourgeoisie.
Finally, in Kommunist 1964, No. 11 (pp. 121-130), we find an article entitled "The Liberation Movement in Latin America" by two Soviet experts, M. Kudachkin, and N. Mostovets. On pages 123-124, in a passage arguing for the perspective of an anti-imperialist national-democratic front . these experts mention the armed peasant movement in Peru in 1963, echoing Del Prado.
They say that since it was prema-
KHALIL TOUAME SENTENCED TO