ON THE

P IATAKOV-RADEK TRIAL

Otber Pampblets by Villian Z. Foster

Whcrt Means a Strilre in Steel 5c

A brilliant exposition on strike tactics and strategy by the leaderand master strategist of thc great steel strike oL l9L9, analyzingthe present favorable outlook in the giant industry r,r,hich todayconstitutes the fountainhead of American imperialism, the vitalissues at stake, affecting the lives and welfare of millions, andthe political significance and probable efrects of the C.I.O.organization drive in steel.

UnionizinE SteelIn this invaluable booklet the leader of the t9l9 Steel Strikebriugs forth tlo lessons of that great struggle to aid ttre presentcampaign among the steel workers.

Industricrl Unionistn . 5c

In this pamphlet on the major issqts now facing the American, labor movement, the author shows how craft unionism and the

policies of ttre craft union leaders have failed to cope with thegrowing problems of the main bulk of ttre workers in Americanindustry.

Orgcrnizingfndustry

Methods in the Steel

A haudbook for steel organizers, based on tho eoutrd experiencesof the outstanding fighter for decades for the cause of industrialuaionisminthosteelindustry. It is valuable as a guide to orgaD-ization in any industry, and also for use in Workers Schoolcourses on trade unionisn"

o

Oriler trorn your local bookshop or lromV/ORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS

P. O. Box I48, Sta. D New York City

5c

5c

WILLIAVI Z. FOSTER

fuutriorusAND

oArusw€rsON THE

PIAT'AKOV-RADEK

'TRIAL

WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS

l.

*.

4-

7.

8.

9.

IO,

I l.

r2.

r3

Contents

The Trotskyites' Crimes .

I{eaction Rushes to Aid Trotsky

tr\ras ttre Tror.sky Plot "Fairrastic"?

Is the CourrterRevohttiorrai-y I)il{r:neratiort o[Troskyism "Urrrhinkabic"?

I{ow Did the Trotsky-Fascist ,,\iliarrce De-,.eiop}

\\/ere the Convictecl Plotters thc OldBolshevik Guard?

Is Capitalisrn Returninr; in thr. Soi,irr Union?ls the Proletarian f)ictatcrship a 'Iiyrannvi

Does the Soviet System Breecl Conspiracies?

Was the Trial a Frame-Up?

Why Did the Trotskyite.s Confcssi

Was 'fhere a Contradictiori Br:trtreetr thePiatakr.iv anrl Zinoviev Trials?

Why Not More lJocumentiiry Er,idi:irt:cin the 'I'rial?

Why \l,'as the Dearh Penalty .{pplied?Dicl the Conviction of the Trotskyite'l-rairors\,Veaken the Sovict Governrne,rrt?

Shoulci T'rntsky l{ave an "Irnparrial"lnternatirlnal Hearing?

Shall 'I-ronky Re Permitted ro (l()rne ri)the Unite<l Statesi

PUBLISHED BY IVOR.KER.S LIBRARY

P. o. Box r48. srr. D, NE\,y yoRr{

@b?0s

PUBI.ISHTRS, I\.](.:,

cI'rY, MAR{til, lg??

PAGB

5

I8

ll

t75.

6.

t4.

I lt.

7t

r6.

t7.

24

sF

JJ

il9

44

42

5t

6r

6a

68

76

1: The Trotskyites' Crimes

In the last week of January, rg37, seventeen Trotskyiteswere tried in Moscow, U.S.S.R., including G. Piatakov,Assistant Commissar of Heavy Industry; K. Radek, leadingeditorial writer of the Central Communist journal, Praada;G. Sokolnikov, former Ambassador to Great Britain; G.Serebriakov, Assistant Commissar of Communications andseveral other prominent ex-govemment olEcials. The de'fendants were accused of treason, sabotage, assassination

and counter-revolution.At the trial State Prosecutor A. Y. Vyshinsky presented an

indictment outlining the whole conspiracy which, led anddirected by Leon Trotsky from his European exile, rvas

aimecl to overthrow the Soviet government by violence withthe armed assistance of the fascists of Germany and Japan.It was a most dastardlv and astounding counter-revolution-ary plot. But the defendants, one and all, admitted itsauthenticity; .qome penitently, others boastfully and a fewdefiantly. f'he combined voluminous testimony of the ac-

cused fully snstained the terriLrle indictment in everyparticular.

One defendant after another told of his part in theconspiracy and furnished details of Trotsky's plot to smashthe Soviet g*overnment with the help of the fascists. Theaccused stated that the fascists, as their renard for over-throwing the Stalin regime and placing Trotsky in power,were to be given rich territorial concessions. Germany wasto receive the great Ukraine province and Japan was to be

3

ceded Sakhalin and the Maritime Provinces in the Far East.These two counries were also to get valuable trade conces-sions in the Soviet Union. Radek and Piatakov both testifiedthat Trotsky had made a bargain with "these capitalist gov-ernments accordingly. Piatakov averred that Trotsky's agree-ment with the leaders of the German National SocialistParty (Hitler fascists) contained the following points:

r. To guarantee a generally favorable attitude towardsthe German government and necessary collaboration withit on most important quesrions clf an internationalcharacter;

g. To agTee to territorial concessions;

3. To admit German industrialists to concessions (or insome other form) for the exploitation of such enterprisesin the U.S.S.R. as constitute necessary economic compli-ments to Germany economy. This concerned iron ore,manganese, oil, gold, timber, etc.;

4. To create favoratrle conditions for the activity ofGerman private enterprise;

5. In time of war to develop active diversion of plantsin the war industry and at the front. This diversionistwork [sabotage-W.Z.F.] was to be carried on under Trot-sky's instructions in agreement with the German generalstaf[.

Trotsky understood, of course, that such an agreementlvith the fascists, if carried out successfully, would involvethe restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. and he wasprepared to accept that also. R.adek testified during hisexamination that Trotsky had sent him a message as

follows:

"It must be understood that without a certain leveling ofthe social structure of the U.S.S.R., to that of the capitaliststates, this bloc protsky's group-W.Z.F.] rvill not be able tomaintain itself in power and to preserve peace."

4

--\SSASSINATION, ESPIONAGE, WRECKING

trn the furtherance of this monstrous plan to dismemberthe U.S.S.R. and to surrender the hard-won victories of the

October Revolution, the Trotskyites prosecuted a programof terrorism, espionage and sabotage. 'Ihe testimony of the

defendants themselves showed that the assassination ofSergei M. Kirov, a high Party official, December r, 1934,

for whom the sixteen Zinoviev-Kamenev leaders of the Trot-skyite group were cont'icted and executed last August, was

carried out in the course of the widespread terrorist con-

spiracy, and that steps were also under way to assassinate

Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and other Sovernment leaders"

The defendant Piatakov stated that Trotsky had declaredto him, "We must literally stick at nothing to overthrowStalin", and Radek testified that Trotsky had demanded the

"organization of a small group of uusted people to cairyout terrorist attempts on the lives of leaders of the Com-

rrunist Party of the Soviet lJnion, and primarily against

Stalin".The whole Trotskyite counter-revolutionary conspiracy

was based upon the overthrow of the Soviet government byfascist troops and Trotsky assassins. T'hey together workedto lay the basis for a military <iefeat of the U.S.S.R., and a

hasic part of the terrible scheme was to paralyze the Russian

industries, especially those most irnportant in war. f'o dothis dastardly industrial wrecking work, many of the Trot-skyite leaders were situated very strategically, occupyingprominent rnanagement posts in industry. They confessed

at the trial that they had caused a large number of rail-road wrecks, coal mine explosions, etc., in which manyworkers had been killed. How close this sabotage was con-nected with the fascist war plans was indicated by the de-

fendant Kniazer,, a former high railroa-d official, whotestified:

"In this matter instructions oI the Japanese intelligencraervice completely coincidcd rvith the instructions which I hadrmived somewhat previously from tJre Trotskyite organiratioru."

Another shameful aspect of the Trotskyite plot, onewhich also flowed logically from the entire counter-revolu-tionary scheme, r^/as the fact that several of the Trotskyiteleaden turned themselves into actual spies for the fascists.Using their key positions in industry and the governmenr.,they furnished valuable military secrets r.o rhe Japaneseand German governments, and for this conremptible work.as some of thern testified in court, they received moneyfrom the fascist butchers.

In view of the damning evidence presented against the&ccused Trotskyites, as well as their own open confessions,it was clear that the defendants were carrying on a criminalcounter-revolutionary conspiracy which, if successful, wouldhave no other result than to crush socialism in the U.S.S.R.and to enthrone fascisrn throughout Europe. There couldbe no other outcome of the trial than a verdict of guilty.All sixteen were convicted. Radek, Sokolnikov, Stroilov andArnold, because they had not actually comrnitted wreckingactivities that cost human life, were let off with sentencesof from eight to ten years. The rest were shot.

The condernnarion of the Trotskyite criminals was sup-ported by huge demonstrations of workers and. farmers aliover the Soviet Union, who had followed by radio ever1,-word spoken by the judges, witnesses and accused. Fromlong and bitter experience in twenty years of revolutionary,

6

2: Reaction Rushes to Aid Trotsky

The Piatakov-Radek trial, .together with the Zinovier'-Kamenev trial, has fully exposed the counter-revolutionarycharacter of Trotsky and his supporters. It has shown themup definitely to be enemies of the Soviet Union and theworld revolution, agents of Hitler, abettors of the fascistwar-makers. It has exposed Trotsky as the Benedict Arnoldof the Russian revolution, the Judas Iscariot of the workingdass. It has dealt a mortal blow to Trotsky's following,such as it is, everywhere.

But the capitalist reaction promptly rallies to Trotsky'sdefense. Ever since the birth of the Soviet Union twentyyears ago the capitalists of the world have utilized everypossible weapon to defeat the new socialist republic. Theysent their troops to overthrow it, blockaded and starved it,isolated it politically, poured out oceans of lying propa-ganda against it. The more the U.S.S.R. succeeds, rhe morebitterly ttrey hate and fear it. These inveterate enemies,quick to perceive the advantage to them of Trotsky's cease-

less lies against the Soviet flnion, naturally do not want tolose this valuaDle tool. So they rush to save Trotsky andto use the trial and the whole situation to weaken theirmortal foes: the Soviet Union, the Communist Interna-tional, the People's Front movement in the various coun-tries.

Through all their avenues of publicity, the capitalistsare now seeking to discredit the Moscow trial. They attackit openly and insidiously cast about it a network of lies,doubts, suspicions, and innuendoes. They have throwntheir press wide open for Trotsky and his nondescriptscribbler defenders to spread their poison against the SovietUnion. They are exceedingly anxious to confuse the work-ers on the entire matter. The world is now treared to the

spectacle of various reactionaries, from Hitler on, openlytzrking the so-called re'volutionary Trotsky's side. In hiseagerness for "fair play" and "justice" the fascist, Mr.Hearst, has made his filthy pape$ practically the officialorgan-1 of Trotsky to caffy his anti-Soviet slanders. And, ofcourse, there is the usual petty bourgeois trailers after re-action in this shameful campaign, such as the wishy-washyliberals and Trotskyized Socialists who are demandiug thatTrotsky be given a healing before an "impartial" interna-tional cornmission. And they are joined in this dernandby reactionaries of rnany stripes.

With one great blast the capitalist publicity forces in thepress, radio, pulpit, etc., taking their line from T'rorsky'sfrenzied denials of guilt, try to create an air of unrealityaround rire trial. They contest the validity of the wir.nessesand testimony. They charge that the whole trial was aframe-up or a political show. They exhausr their vocabularyto find adjectives to express their disbelief in the trial'sauthenticity. They cry that it is "monstrous", "incompre-hensible", "unbelievable", "inexplicable", "incredible",and, especially, "fantastic". -fhey seize upon the occasion(o rePeat eveqr time-worn slander against the U.S.S.R.

T'he purpose of this pamph.let is ro answer the variouslies, sianders, insinuations, false charges, trick questions,etc., raised by this reactionary capitalist chorus against theMoscow tr:ial and the Soviet government.

3: Was the Trotsky Plot '(Fantastic"?

Enemies of the Soviet Union, seeking to delude theAmerican masses, make the charge that the Trotsky treasonexposure is "fantastic". But to anyone who takes the trouble

8

I

to familiarize himself with the voluminous testimony Pre-sented at the Moscow trial and the political developrnents

leading up to it, the Piatakov-Radek afiair, like that ofZinoviev-Kamenev, is anything but "fantastic". On the con'

trary, it is of the earth earthy, of the very woof and warpof life itself. There was nothing whatever mysterious or''Dostoyevskyan" about it. 'fhe trial was the logical and

inevitable climax of a whole series of political theories and

developrnents operating over a long period of years; the

treason, espionage, terrorism and sabotage of the defen-

dants expressed the final political hankruptcy and degen-

eracy of the Trotsky tendency.For 35 years Trotsky has ben expounding theories and

movements at variance with and in opposition to the

policies of the Russian Communist Party. The essence ofhis political system was the theory of "permanent revolu-tion". In this theory Trotsky holds that socialism cannotbe built in one country; that a socialist government in the

LI.S.S.R. must needs have the armed state support of thervorkers in other countries or die; that socialism can onlybe established by a revolution in a whole series of the mostindustrialized countries, by a world revolution. This theoryis, in substance, that held by the Mensheviks, or opportu-rrist Socialists. lt leads in practice to the self-suppressionof the revolutionary movement in a given countr-y in thename of an ahstract world revolution. It is a theory ofpassivity and defeat, although to the initiated its insistenceupon the necessity for a world overthrow of capitalism be-

fore socialism can be built anywhere sounds very revolu-tionary"

Lenin for many years fought against this Trotskyitetheory, and after Lenin's death Stalin continued to leadthe fight. While militant champions of the world revolu-rion, they both insisted that socialism could be built in a

country as rich and broad as the Soviet Union. The longI

strugele in the Russian Communist Party, carried on bythe -frotskyites since t9z3 againsr the Party majority ledby Stalin, turned around this basic quesrion. Bur life itself,as Lenin pointed out, finally answers all political quesrions,and it answered this one in Stalin's favor by the unques-tioned success of the Soviet government in buildingsocialism.

-fhis final historical answer ro rhe T'rotsky theory thatsocialism could not be built in the U.S.S.R. alone is to befound in the huge development and complete socializationof Soviet industry, the alnrost enr.ire collectivization of theland and the reorganization of agriculture, the liquidationof the old exploiting classes, the tremendous irnprovementof the living and cultural levels o[ rhe masses, the broaddevelopment of Soviet democracy, the errormous strengthen-ing of the country's defenses, etc. Hisrory itself has shownconclusively that Trotsky was basically wrong. Trotsky,in considering the mass of peasants as enernies insteacl oIpowerful allies of the proletariat, had made a disastrou.serror; he had also grossly underestimated the srrength o{the Russian working class. And the masses of lvorkers andfarnrers in the Soviet Union, seeing clearly the merits of theissue, ovenvhelmingly rejected the Trotsky policies andgave its hearty support to the line of Stalin, of rhe CentralConrmittee.

But Trotsky, a perry bourgeois individualist intellectualwith an inflated ego and boundless ambition, remainecl un-reconciled to rhe bankruptcy of his polirical program andrhe defeat of his attempts to win the masses to support it.IIis group clung desperaiely to their discreditecl theories.continued their agitation, defied the party's decisions anddiscipline and they spread the fight throughorrt the SovierUnion and the Communist International. This finally ledto Trotsky's expulsion in ry27 and to his later exile. ManyoI his co-ieaders recanted, however, including Zinoviev,

IO

Kamenev, Radek, Piatakov and other defendants in therecent trials, and they remained Party members or werereinstated.

FROM PARTY OPPOSITION TO COUNTER-REVOLUTION

Trotsky nevertheless went on with his anti-Party line.But as he was devoid of mass support, he turned more andmore towards terrorist tactics. He denounced the Party as

counter-revolutionary and advocated the violent o'yerthrowof its leadership. Desperate, with no possibility of gettingthe Russian rnasses to back him, Trotsky inevitably turnedto coup d'etat methods of gaining porver. From open dem-onstrations against the Party in 19z6 to treason and terrnr-ism against its ieaders in rg37 was the logical path of hisbankrupted political tendency, and Trotsky went all theway along it. His bargain with the fascists to help themdefeat the Soviet government in war and to give themterritoty and economic concessions in return for placinghim and his group in power by force of Hitler bayoner.s

was the final capstone of Trotsky's political degeneration,the last station on the political route alons which he hadbeen traveling for a full generation.

Those who denounce the Piatakov-Radek triai as "fantas-tic" speak either from ignorance or with a deliberate in-tention to deceive. The Trotskyite defendants representeda counter-revolutionary tendency brouEht to book by his-tory, rejected and bankrupted by life itself; and the greatlessons of the trial will not lle lost upon rhe strugzlir.rsmasses of the world.

*: Is the Counter-RevolutionaryDegeneration of Trotskyism

"Unthinkable"?

Part of the "incredible", "impossible" theory of theMoscow trials, put forth by the Trotskyite schemers andswallowed by many political novices, goes to the effect thatit is quite out of the question to believe that the Trotskyitedefendants, many o[ whom had spent practically theirwhole lives in the revolutionary movement, would actuallydescend to terrorism against the Soviet leaders and to makean alliance with the worst enemies of the revolution, thefascists. But such arglrments ignore the harsh realities ofthe proletarian revolution and the complicated manifesta-tions and persistence of capitalist influences within theworkers' lines. Every revolution has its rrairors, often highlyplaced, and the proletarian revolurion is no exception. Ithas" constantly to refine aud purify itself by throwing ofithe capitalist dross within its own ranks. The history ofthe developing class struggle throughout the world is liter-ally strewn with the wrecks of individqals and movementswhich, with their policies bankrupted in the hard test ofthe class struggle, finally found themselves on the capitalistside of the barricade.

NO ROOM FOR PESSIMISM

Sorne syrnpathizels of the revolution are now crying outin alarm that if the Trotskyite plot is true, then how canthey have confidence in any group or party? They moanthat they cannot norv be sure but what all of them are un-reliable ancl non-revolutionary when put to rhe final test?Such people are indeed "parlor pinks"l Their naivere has

r2

nothing to do with the stern revolutionary struggle itself,

which irresistibly and ruthlessly seParates the capitalist slag

from the proletarian steel in hammering out the revolu-

tionary party of the proletariat.Consider, for example, the historical debacle of the

Seconcl International. This world organization, the Party

of Marx and Engels, with its tens of millions of members

in its parties, trade unions, cooPeratives, youth movements,

etc., troastfully held aloft the banner of revolution for twogenerations. Truly it was "unthinkable" (to the unthink-ing) that this great movement would betray the revolutionrvhen finally the test came.

Yet see what happened. When the World War broke inr9r4 the parties of the Second International, dominatedi:y opportunist leaders, with but few exceptions turned tailon their many militant anti-war resolutions and joined withrheir respective capitalist classes in dragging the workeninto the suicidal slaughter. "Fantastic" and "unbelievable",but an historical fact just the same. And then when in Ger-

many and other countries the workers rose in revolutionafter the war, it was these same opportunist Socialist leaders

who led in shooting them down. The "incredible" spectacle

was seen of the Second International, which was supposed

ro overthrow capitalism, actually becoming its savior. Thefurther "incomprehensible" sight was also observed of the

opportunist Socialist leaclers for many years carrying on arnost vicious struggle against the first socialist country inthe world, the U.S.S.R. And to cap their climax of politicalbankruptcy and "impossibility" they actually, in Germany,voted to sustain the Hitler government for whose accession

ro power they were mainly rcsponsible.The bankruptcy of the Second International was not met

by real revolutionists with empty cries of "fantastic" and''unthinkable". Under Lenin's leadership they were quickto understand the capitalist influences that had brought it

r3

about. They did not waste their time simply bewailing that!-he confidence of the workers had been berrayed, that noparty could be trusted and that now all was lost. On thecontrary, they proceeded to free the revolutionary move-ment from the capitalist poison that had so seriously sick-ened it. The result was the development of the worldCommunist movement, and, in these later years, the growthof revolutionary $entiment in the Socialist Parties and thebuilding of the People's Front movement. Such is the ironcourse of the socialist revolution.

RUSSIAN PA.R.TIES THAT FAILED

The history of the Russian revolution itself is repletewith similar experiences of movements, proclaiming them-selves revolutionary, that eventually went on the rocks inthe heavy seas of the revolutionary struggle. There was, ofcourse, the classical example of the Mensheviks (Socialistreformists) who, despite long years of revolutionary prop-aganda, actually became the last defenders of Russian capitalism and, from rgrT forward, canied on an armed strug-gle against the Soviet government. Long since gone into theranks of the enernies of the revolution are tr4artov, Dan,Axelrod, etc., once leading figures with Lenin.

But, also, and more instructive to us in considering the'Irotskyite group, was the case of the political bankruptcyand counrer-revolutionary degeneration of the Left Social-ist-Revolutionaries and the Anarchists. Both these groupsactually fought legally and heroically through the OctoberRevolution side by side with the Bolsheviks, and they haci intheir ranks many brave fighters with long records of strugglc,against tsarism. But in the ensuing terribly severe andcomplicated tasks presented by the revolution, althoughmany of their number became Bolsheviks, the groups assuch proved incapable of leading the masses to socialism.They became victims to latent capitalist tendencies in

t4

their ranks. Hence both of them fell by the wayside, ontothe scrap-heap of history.

The Left Socialist-Revolutionaries made a futile attemptto overthrow the Soviet government by a coup d'etat. Theywere defeated and soon thereafter degenerated into makingcounter-revolutionary alliances even with the worst WhiteGuard elements, who always operates on the principle of"anybody to beat the Bolsheviks". It was a Russian Social-ist-Revolutionary, Dora Kaplan, who shot Lenin. The Rus-sian Anarchist movement went the same general way. Theybroke with the Bolsheviks and took up arms against theSoviet government. It was an Anarchist who threw a bombinto a meeting of the Moscow Soviet, killing a score ofdelegates; the Russian Anarchists supported the Kronstadtrevolt of rger which was also backed by every reactionaq,force in Soviet Russia, and the Anarchist Mahkno led hisguerilla bands against the Red Army in the Ukraine. Andthese various movements, though they passed over to theside of counter-revolution, clung to their revolutionaryslogans and even shouted them all the louder, just as

Trotsky is now doing.

THE BREAK WITH THESE PARTIES INEVITABLE

It is of decisive significance that when the Mensheviks,Socialist-Revolutionaries, and Anarchists broke with therevolution the man at the helm of the Bolshevik Partywas not the "stubborn", "autocratic", "reactionary" Stalin,but the generally admitted great revolutionary leader,Lenin. Lenin used the same tactics towards them as Stalindid towards the'llrotskyites. He tried to the urmost to usethem for the revolution, but when they finally deserted ithe fought them nrthlessly. This whole course is commonsense, sound Marxian dialectics,

The Trotsky group in the Soviet Union has gone thesame way of political degeneration as the foregoing gr.oups,

r5

the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, and Anarchists,and for the same basic reasons. Like them, it could travelno further along the road of the revolution. It collapsedin the face of the difficult demands of the struggle. Its basictheory that socialism cannot be built in the Soviet Unionis utterly bankrupt and proven false. Huge successes in in-dustrialization and collectivization of the farms, great im-provements in the conditions of the masses, rapid strength-ening of the Soviet system in every direction-render ridicu-lous Trotsky's defeatist conceptions.

But, insteacl of accepting this decision of history, theTrotskyites, like the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anar-chists before them, developed from a policy of oppositioninto one of counter-revolutionary attack. And so, as did theothers, they find themselves in the carnp of the enemy.In every revolutionary situation there are only two sidesto the barricade.

TROTSKY, KAUISKY, HIIRVE, DORIOT AND CO.

It appears incredible to some people that a man wit}such a big revolutionary repurarion as Trotsky had in thepast can actually go over to the enemy as he has done. ButKautsky and Plekhanov, far grearer Marxists in their daythan Trotsky, also betrayed the revolution and descendedto the lowest depths of renegadism. And the Socialist-Revolutionary, Maria Spiridonova, was a woman with a muchmore heroic past than Trotsky, yet she took up arrns againstthe Soviet government. Have we not also seen the Anar-chist, Emrna Goldman, who noisily welcomed the found.a-tion of the Soviet government, finally reaping a goldenharvest from Hearst for her counter-revolutionary attacksupon that same government. And in other countries therewere many such renegade figures: the former ultra-,.Lefts',flerve, Briand, Doriot; in Italy, the former Socialist l\(us-solini, etc. All these people, like Trotsky, covered their

r6

political surrender with a cloud of revolutionary phrases.Not reputation for past activities, but present.day soundpolicy, is what establishes the revolutionary character or notof every individual and movement.

Trotsky vociferously denies his renegadism; for, of course,otherwise, he would be of no further major service to thecounter-revolution. He denies the evidence of the Moscowtrials completely. But his frantic denials and his protesta-tions of revolutionary spirit are overwhelmed by the ava-lanche of incriminating facts produced by the Moscow trials.He and his group stand convicted, as traitors, as BenedictArnolds, before the bar of history.

5: How Did the Trotsky-FascistAlliance Develop?

Many people express incredulity that Trotsky shouldactually make an alliance with the fascists, even though theevidence at the Piatakov trials proves conclusively that hedid so. And they ask, "flow then could so many of his

Sroup remain so long in the Communisr Party? Why werethey not expelled before?"

The answer to such questions is that Trotskyism hasundergone a gradual years-long degeneration. Although theessence of its eventual counter-revolutionary character wasto be found in its basic theories of many years ago, it wasonly under the continued pressure of the class strugglethat this anti-r'evolutionary narure of Trotskyism was fuflyexposi:d. Only as the Trotskyite tendency matured throughthe years did it give conclusive indications of its eventualcounter-revolutionary debacle.

t7

T'rotsky's original theory of permanent revolution, whichheld that socialism could not be built in the U.S.S.R. with-out armed state assistance from the workers of other coun'tries, bore the seed of his present treasonable fascist

alliance. During the whole pre-revolutionary period Leninfought resolutely against Trotsky's line, but on the eve ofthe revolution Trotsky, believing that the European revolu-tion generally was at hand, was moved to join and givesome cooperation to the Communist Party. But this cooPer-

ation was only temporary. It ended when it became clearduring the next few years, especially after the defeat of theGerman workers in rgzg, that the general European revolu-tion was still considerably off in the distance and that theRussian workers and peasants were confronted unavoidablywith the necessity of building socialism in their own coun-try without "state help" from the workers in other lands. Itwas the great genius of Lenin and Stalin that they realizedthe possibility and necessity of building socialism in a coun-try so broad and so rich in resources as the Soviet IJnion,anrl it was Trotsky's great blindness that he did not under-stand this fact.

TROTSKY SABOTAGES SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION

From rgz3 on, as the Communist Party led by Stalinplunged energetically into the building of socialism in theU.S.S.R., it naturally came more and more into conflict withTrotsky who said it was trying to accomplish an impossibletask. In the conflict as the building of socialism progressed,Trotsky gradually passed over from merely arguing that so-

cialism could not be built in one country into definite ob-struction of the socialist building that was actually takingplace. He hampered the Party for several years with hisproposals of desperate schemes for struggle against the mid-dle peasantry in the Soviet Union which, if adopted, wouldhave thrown the country into civil war, and also with his

r8

adventurist plans of provoking Premature revolts in othercountries, which would have plunged the U'S.S.R. intoforeign wars. And all this sabotage of the actual building ofsocialism Trotsky carried on in the name of his theory of"permanent revolution", of his idea that only with a worldrevolution could socialism be built in the U.S.S.R.

But the building of socialism went on in the U.S.S.R.

in spite of Trotsky's defeatism. Trotskyism was rejected by

the masses of workers and peasants in the great mass debates

and elections that occurred during the years of rgz3-27 and

Stalin's policy was heavily endorsed. Then Trotsky began

to pass over to the final stage of his counter-revolutionarydevelopment; to attemPt to overthrow by force the social'

ism that had actually been built in the Soviet Union not'withstanding all his defeatist theorizing and obstructionism'

The stronger socialism grew in the Soviet Union the

more desperate Trotsky became and the more he reached

for weapons of force to use against the Stalin leadershipand the Party. Violation of Party discipline, denunciationof the Party as "Thermidorean", charges that the Partyhad become nationalistic and had abandoned the worldrevolution, appeals for the establishment of a Fourth Inter'national, formation of new parties in various countries, callsfor a new revolution in the Soviet Union, building of an

underground conspiratorial organization, carrying on ofindustrial wrecking, organization of terrorist assassination

conspiracies against the Russian Party leadership, and theformation of an alliance with the fascists of Germany and

Japan to overthrow by violence the Soviet regime-were thevarious steps of Trotsky in his march into treason andcounter-revolution.

WHY TROTSKYISM EXPOSED ITSELF

It is always during great crises in the class struggle thatcapitalistic tendencies, long hidden, are exposed in the

r9

ranks of labor. Thus it was the World War and the post-war revolutionary struggles, with their gaeat tests, thatbrought out clearly the non-revolutionary character of theSecond International. It was when they were faced by theterrific tasks of consolidating the proletarian dictatorshipin the early years of the revolution that the Socialist-Revolu-tionaries and Anarchists collapsed in Soviet Russia andbecame rallying points for the counter-revolution. Andit was the huge task of actually building socialism inthe Soviet Union that bankrupted the Trotsky tendencyand showed up its policy of sacrificing the Russian revolu-tion, in the name of a world revolution still off in the future,to be anti-socialist in substance and a real aicl to the capital-ist system.

It is the menacing war situation which brings the coun-ter-revolutionary Trotsky ulcer to a head and gives it irsspecial characteristics. The German and Japanese govern-ments are preparing to attack the Soviet government, sothe Trotskyites, destitute of mass support in the U.S.S.R.and determined to overrhrow the Stalin regime at all costs,take the last step in their counter-revolutionary degenera-tion by making a united front with the fascist aggressorsand become war instigators against the Soviet Union.

Trotsky and his followers, of course, deny that they areadvocates of assassination, counter-revolution and the over-throw of the Soviet government with fascist aid. Naturally,as they make a show of ultra-revolutionism, these are notpolicies that they can shout from the house-tops. llhe testi-mony at the Piatakov-Radek trial, however, proves beyondintelliqent doubt that they are guilty. Moreover, Trotsky-ites have given rnany indications of their counter-revolu-tionary trends in their speeches and writings. Let a fewfacts and quotations illustrate this point ancl Eive point rothe testimony of the Moscow trials.

2C)

SOME ,.DOCUITTNTS,, FOR TROTSKY

As early as July, rgz7, Trotsky, who had already virtuallycondemned the Soviet government as cclunter-revolutionary,gave a clear indication of his present treason policy in aletter to the Control Commission of the Communist party.He compared himself to Clemenceau, who seized leadershipof the French government in tgt4 just as the German, *r"r.threatening Paris. Said Trotsky, "It is necessary to restoreClemenceau's tactics, who, as is well known, rose againstthe French government when the Germans were withineighty kilomerers of Paris."

written a longdoes he powert he has ith theso. Trot ]ack of

mass support in the U.S.S.R., abandoned hope of achievingpower by peaceful means. IIe says, in a pamphlet written ii1933, "No normal 'constitutional, way exists to remove the

denounce the Soviet Eovernment as onworse than, the tyrannies of Hitler

1l openly for its violent overthrow.*

- _ " Yl* F.asrman in public meetirrg, Nen, york, Dec. rg, 1996, anclMax Schachtman in his pamphlet, Behin,d, the Moscou Trials,-p. r3r.2t

Mexico City, January 26, rgg7, to the New York American.Says he:

"Inside the [Communist] Party Stalin has put himself aboveall criticism and the state, It is impossible to displace himexcept by assassination. Every oppositionist becomes, tpso facto,a terrorist,"

Trotsky realizes quite well that the consummation of hisbargain with the fascists for the overthrow of the Sovietgovernment would require the restoration of capitalism inthe U.S.S.R., and he long ago gave indications of his will-ingness to accept that restoration. As far bask as rg3o(Opposition Bulletin No. ro) he declared:

"Retreat is, ncvertheless, inevitable to discontinue mass

collectivization . to discontintre .jumps in industrialization. to revise the question of industrialization in the light ofexperience . . to abandon the'ideals'of a self-contained econ-

omy . to work out a nelv, alternative plan calculated on thervidest possible inter-action n'ith the rvorld market. It is

irnpossible to cmerge from the present contradictions withoutcrisis and struggle."

The defendant Radek, at the Piatakov trial, declaredthat Trotsky had summed up his counter-revolutionaryprograrn to him as follows:

"There is no socialism in the Soviet Union-it is merely capi-talist industrialism-r'var against the Soviet Union is inevitable

-the Soviec government will be defeated-therefore concessions

ruust be rnade by the Tr-otskyites rvho lvill come into power toHitler and Japan and then the revolution lvill beg-in anelv."

TROTSKY AN ANTI.LENINIST

Trotsky sets himself up as a super-Leninist. But his wholecounter-revolutiona[y program is a monstrous repudiation

22

of Leninism. Trotsky stands Leninism on its head, makesa ghastly caricature of the whole brilliant strategy of thegreat revolutionary leader, Lenin. Whereas Lenin advo-cated that [he workers and peasants shou]d work for thedefeat and overthrorv of their tsarist-capitalist govern-ment in the lvar and for the establishment of socialism,T'rotsky aims at the overthrow of the socialist governtnentand the re-esta'blishment of capitalism. Whereas Lerrin, arBrest-Litovsk, made peace with the weakened and hard-pressed German imperialists in order that the new Sovietgovernment might have a breathing spell and get a chanceto intrench itself, Trotsky makes an alliance rvith the ag-gressive fascist butcher Hitler to smash the Soviet govern-ment and destroy the socialisru the toilers have labored sohard to build up. Whereas Lenin was the grearest fighteragainst imperialist war, Trotsky has become the instigatorof the terrible fascist war that now menaces civilization.

From all the foregoing facts-the long opposition led byTrotsky on the theory that socialisill cannot be built inone country, his open revolt against the parry and con-demnation of the Soviet government as capitalistic, hismany articles and staternents advocating violent overthrowof the Soviet sovernment, his long and vicious slander cam-paign against the fl.S.S.R., the darnning evidence presentedagainst him at the Moscow trials-the conclusion is ines-capable that 'Irotskyism is guilty of making rreasonablealliance with the fascists. It has gone the counter..revolution-ary way of the various other groups and movements citedabove which, although using revolutionary phrases, werenot revolutionary at healt and which were unmasked bythe ruthless workings of the class struggle. -Ihe task nowremains definitely to brand the Trotskyites as traitors beforethe toiling masses of the world.

-.)

6: Were the Convicted Plotters the OldBolshevik Guard?

It is a favorite assertion of the Trotskyites and the capi-talist newspaper writers that the main body of revolution-ary fighters who carried through the Russian revolutionhas turned against the Communist Party ancl become sup-porters of Trotskyism. But such a contention in no waycorresponds to the truth. Associated with Stalin in the topParty leadership are such vctcran revolutionists as Molotov,Kalinin, Mikoyan, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, perrovsky, pos-tyshev, f-itvinov, Chuban, Yaroslavsky, Manuilsky, etc.;not to mention such well-known figures as the recently d.e-ceased Orjonikidze, Dzerjinsky, Kuibishev, Gussev, Kirov(murdered by T'rotskyites) and many more. Ilesides these,are the thousands of other lesser known ,.Otd llolsheviks,,who now occupy leading posts all over the U.S.S.R. prin-cipally, it was these reliable fighters-nor rhe Trotskys,Zinovievs, Piatakovs and Radeks-who were the iron Bol-shevik core of leaders who, with Lenin ar their head, le<lthe revolution through its earlier yearc, even as rhey arenow leading it.

'Ihe enemies of the Soviet government also seek to createthe irnpression that the Trotskyite opposirion suddenlysprans into being since the death of Lenin and the accessionof Stalin to the main leadership of the Communist party.This is done ro make it appear that Stalin,s policies haveantagonized the best revolutionists. But such a contention

back throueh many years of Lenin,s brilliant lead.ership.24

Much of the international notoriety that Trotsky and hisfollowers acquired was gained, in fact, out of the very fightsthat they have conducted against the Party leadership.

CHRONIC OPPOSITIONISTS

Trotsky himself fought the Bolshevik Party viciously forfifteen years in pre-revolutionary days. Affiliated with oppor-tunist Menshevik elements, he, in rgo4, denounced Leninas "a leader of the reacrionary wing" and was repudiatedby Lenin as a semi-Menshevik. Trotsky did not become amember of the Communist Party until r9r7, just on theeve of the revolution. He remained a Party member only afew years, meanwhile conducting several big strugglesagainst Lenin on such vital questions as the Brest-LitovskTreaty, the New Economic Policy, the role of the tradeunions, etc. Long before Lenin's death Trotsky was alreadytreading the path rhat eventually led out of the party andthat has finally brought him to fascism and counter-revolu-tion. Trotsky was never a real Bolshevik, and he has noclaim whatever to the term "Old Bolshevik,,. His afliliationto the Party, partial as it was at best, lasted only duringthe period of most acute revolutionary struggle, a timeduring part of lvhich even such divergent groups as rheLeft Socialist-Revolutionaries,rhe Anarchisrs, Synclicalists,etc., found it necessary to work with the Communist party.

The opposition record of the two Trotskyites, Zinovievand Kamenev. also stretched {ar hack into Lenin,s days.They rvere not provoked into rebellion by Stalin. In rgio,Zinoviev, to sarisfy Trotsky and the Mensheviks, broke withLenin and urged the suspensi6n of the iournal proletarii,edited by Lenin. In rgr4, Kamenev scandalizecl the wholeParty by congratulating the Grancl Duke N{ichael upon hissuccession to the throne. In 1916, Zinoviev went behindLenin's back and made an unprincipled alliance rvith anAnarchist group. In rqr7, Zinoviev and. Kameney voted

against the revolutionary seizure of power and expressed

in the public press the Party's plan of insurrection. For thisaction Lenin denounced them as strikebreakers and de-

manded their expulsion from the Party. After the revolu-tion these same two men even agreed with the Merrsheviksand Socialist-Revolutionaries to displace Lenin from thehead of the Soviet government and to put the Right Social-ist-Revolutionary, Avksentiev, in his place. Zinoviev andKamenev made various other oppositional moves duringLenin's life, and they eventually found their true politicalhome in the Trotsky terrorist nrovement.

Piatakov also had a long record of opposition underLenin, acting nearly always jointly with Trotsky. In r9r5,he opposed Lenin on the right of nations to self-determina-tion; in 1916, he defended Trotsky's dogma of the impos-sibility of building socialism in one country; in rgr7, heopposed Lenin's famous April Thesis; in rgr8, he foughtLenin on the basic Brest-Litovsk issue, and in the same year(as Prosecutor Vyshinsky pointed out) he actually plottedfor the arrest of Lenin and his removal as the head of theSoviet government. Piatakov also joined Trotsky in variousother fights against Lenin's policies and leadership. Radek,Sokolnikov and many others of the defendants in the twoMoscow Trotskyist trials had similar records of oppositionto Lenin.

THE PARTY AND THE OPPOSITION

It is often asked how it was possible, then, that menwho had committed so many grave political errors as theTrotskyites did, were, nevertheless, allowed to remain inthe Party and to hold responsible posts. The answer is tharin the earlier years of the Party life the wrong policies ofthese people, those who were members of the Party, didnot generally take the form of counter-revolutionary pro-posals. Although many of them were very serious and repre-

zG

hensible in character, as a whole their mistakes shaped upprincipally as serious deviations from the main revolution-ary line of the Party. Repeatedly they recanted their errorsand re-accepted the policy and discipline of the Party. TheParty under Lenin's leadership, as well as under that ofStalin in later years, accepted in good faith these promisesof more loyal conduct and made every efiort to utilize these

people's talents for the revolution. It was only in the lastseveral years, when facing the supreme test of actually build-ing socialism, in one country, that the long-germinatingTrotskyism degenerated definitely into actual coLrnter-revo-lution. Then the Trotskyites were expelled from the Party.If during these last years some of the Trotskyites managedto stay in the Party it was by the subterfuge of hiding theircounter-revolutionary activities behind pledges of Parryloyalty.

The Trotskyite opposition is of no recent growrh. Ir isnot a movement that has just sprung up against Stalidsleadership, but has a long historical continuity, going backto the first days of the Party. Even in its earliesr years,before its real course was fully understood, it always con-stituted a tendency that dipped in and out of the Party,something that never became part of the flesh and blood ofthe Party. This llrotskyite opposition tendency has nowfully matured. Its policies and leadership repudiated by thecourse of the revolution, it finally exposes its long-hiddencounter-revolutionary kernel and comes forth as the tool ofmurderous fascism, the ally of the worst enemies of therevolution. The great body of Bolsheviks who are no\ r sup-porting Stalin's leadership in the building of socialism inthe U.S.S.R" are in the main the same group rhat mostconsistently supported Lenin and that fought Trotskyismthroughout the whole life of the Party. Stalin was Lenin,sbest disciple, his most loyal aide, and Stalin's present poli-cies and leading group of co-workers are the historicalcontinuation of Lenin's policies and leadenhip.

27

7: Is Capitalism Returning i^ the

Soviet Union ?

In order to try to justify his counter-revolutionary course,

Trotsky raises the cry that capitalism is being re-establishedin the Soviet Union. He declares that Stalin has abandonedthe program of socialism, both in the U.S.S.R. and on aworld scale. For ten years Trotsky has been shouting thatthe Soviet Union has suffered a Thermidor; a tenn whiclris taken from the great French revolution and which sig-

nifies the beginning of a period of reaction after a revolu-tion. Trotsky hails the Moscow trials as further indicationsof the capitalist trend of the Soviet Union and the Commu-nist International. And, curiously enough, Hearst and otherreactionaries, in their own way, join Trotsky in sheddingcrocodile tears over Stalin's supposed turning away from hisrevolutionary principles.

'THE POLICY OF THE COMINTERN

Before examining the situation regarding socialism inthe Soviet Union, let us consider briefly the CommunistInternational world policy in the light of Trotsky's charges.In doing so we must see that, far from abandoning theworld revolution, the Communist International, headedby Dimitroff, is proceeding in the most direct manner alongthe road to socialism. This is by the route of the People'sFront struggle against war and for the preservation of de-mocrary, and the movement's leading theorist and organizeris Stalin.

Hitler and his fascist bloc of nations have two greatimmediate objectives. These are to wipe out Europeau

z8

democracy (and wit-h it every sern-blance of workers' parties,trade unionism, etc.), and to carry through a successful

war against the Soviet Union and other countries, for theredivision of the world. Good revolutionary strategy onour part demands that the maximum possible mobilizationof all the democratic and peace forces of the world be madein order to defeat the murderous plans of Hitler and hisallies. This is precisely what the Communist Internationalis doing, through the People's Front, which unites workers,farmers, professionals, small business elements, etc., in oneanti-fascist, anti-war movement. The People's Front policywas initiated by the Communist Parties in several countriesand it was stressed very much in the recent Seventh Con-gress of the Comintern in Moscow.

It should be clear even to a political novice that thestrategy of the People's Front fight against war and to pre-serve democracy against the fascist attacks is correct. IfHitler and his allies can be beaten in their plan to crushdemocracy, their defeat will constitute a mortal blow to thewhole program and set-up of the fascists everywhere. Itgoes without saying that the possibilities of a successfulfight for socialism are far greater in a country where theworkers have succeeded in defending their civic rights andorganizations against the fascist assault, than in a landwhere the fascists have overthrown democracy and wipedout practically every semblance of workers' mass rnovements.The fight for democracy and against war is the fight forsocialism. The great revolutionary issue of today is democ-racy versus fascism.

The Popular Front has justified itself, not only in theorybut also in practice. Its successes in Spain, France and Chinaare too obvious to require comment. And the toilers inGermany, Italy, Austria and many other countries, realizingthat this new Leninist united front movement constitutesthe greatest anti-fascist force possible in present-day cond.i-

2g

tions, are rousing themselves from the pessimism caused by

the victories of fascism in Central Europe, are developinga nelv unity and militancy, and are laying the foundationsof People's Fronts in their resPective countries. Everyrevolutionary force of today that is sincere and realisticmust fight for the People's Front.

The People's Front movement is raising an insttrmount-able barrier in the path of fascism. It is the nightmare ofHitler, Mussolini and Company, and it will eventually lead

to their undoing. Instead of abandoning world revolutionas Trotsky alleges, the Communist International, by stimu-lating the People's Front internationally, is advancing bythe shortest possible route to universal socialism.

SOCIALISM IN THE U.S.S.R.

Trotsky charges that capitalism is being restored in the

Soviet Union are also completely shattered by a glance at

the facts. Trotsky, paid highly for his writings by the bour-geois press, has become one of hired capitalist slanderers ofthe Soviet Union. FIis vitriolic attacks set the table for the

whole pack of reactionaries and give them material to feed

upon. A devastating reply to Trotsky's and his capitalistsupporters' lies about the U.S.S.R. going back to capital-ism is to cite a few points from Stalin's rePort to the recent

Soviet Congress upon the occasion of the adoption of thenew Soviet Constitution:

"We have in 1936 achieved the complete liquidation of capi-

talism in all spheres of national economy. Capitalism. has

been completely expelled from the sphere of our industry, and

the socialist form of production is now the system'tvhich alone

dominates. ln volume of production our presen[ socialist

industry exceeds pre-war industry more than seven-fold. . . . In. agriculture . we norv have mechanized production con-

ducted on the Iargest scale anyrvhere in the rl'orld, equippedlvith modern technique in the form of an all-embracinB systern

of collective . . . farms. . . .

3o

"The kulaks . have been liquidated and the small indi-vidual peasant farm sector with its backward medieval techniquenow occupies an insignificant place. . . The collective farms. . . together rvith the state farms, possess over 4oo,ooo tractorsrvith 7,58o,ooo horsepolver.

"As fol distribution throughout the country, the merchantsand speculators are llow completely expelled frorn this sphere.The who'le field of distribution is now in the hands of thestate, the cooperative societies and the collective farms. . .

"Thus the complete victory of the socialist system in allspheres of the national economy is now a fact." *

Stalin says further:

". . . The class structure of our society has also changed. . . ,

The landlord class has already been liquidated as a result of thevictorious conclusion of the Civil War. . , .

"The capitalist class has ceased to exist in the sphere of in-dustry. The kulak class has ceased to exist in the sphere ofagriculture. The merchants and speculators have ceased to existin the sphere of distribution. In this way, all exploiting classes

have proved to have been liquidated."Tl-re 'r,r.orking class has rernained. The peasant class has re-

m:rined 'l'he intellectuals have iemained." **

f'hen Stalin goes on to show how these producing classes

have been profoundly changed and developed by the revo-lution and how the advance of socialism is breaking downthe "dividing line between the r,vorking class and the peas-

antry, as $rell as between these classes and the intelligentsia".Also the many different peoples that go to form the SovietUnion have established "fraternal cooperatioo on thebasis of economic, political and military mutual aid, unit-ing them in one union, a rnulti-national state". "We nolvhave," concludes Staiin, "a fully-formed multi-national so-

cialist state which has passed all tests and which has a

* Stali.n on th,e IJeu \ctttiet Constil.rttiott, ytp 4-b, Tntet'national Pub-lishers. Ncrv Yorl<,

'*x lbirl- p 5.

3t

stability which any national state in any part of the wor-ld

might well envy."Stalin's analysis is incontestable. No intelligent Person

can deny the basic facts he here presents' The above-cited

great socialist victories of the Russian toilers, carrying withthem a rapid rise in living standards, a tremendous advance

in mass culture and the establishment of the most funda-

mental democracy of any nation, shout so loud that all the

world may hear and understand that socialism is already

definitely established in the U.S.S.R. Trotsky's attemPt todeny this patent fact shows to what ends he is now pushedl.o try to hold erect his defcated theory that socialism can'not be built in one country. His allegations that the Soviet

Union is turning back to capitalism are brazen lies; thel'are contrary to a whole world of reality and they prove the

political bankruptcy of Trotsky's whole Program.

STALIN, LEADER OF THE WORLD REVOLUTION

The entire course of the class sruggle everywhere provesconclusively that Stalin's policy leads to socialism and that'frotsky's program is anti-revolutionary and leads back tocapitalism. Trotsky's international policy, as well as hisproposals for the U.S.S.R. are counter-revolutionary. Hisbitter war against the People's Front benefits nobody butthe Hitlers, Mussolinis, and the like. Behind a smokescreenof revolutionary phrases, its practical results would be, if theworkers were unwise enough to aclopt it, to split the anti-fascist forces and make possible the victory of fascism.

The Trotskyist slogans for Spain, "Turn your guns againstthe Caballero government", "Down with Franco and downwith the People's Front", and "War at the front, revolu-tion in the rear", are stabs in the back of the Spanish toil-ing masses and are leading to the repudiation of the Trotsky-ites by the workers. The Popular Front government recent-ly arrested a number of Trotskyite leaders as traitors.

Trotsky's fight against anti-fascist Lrnity in Germany isdirect aid to Hitler, and his sabotage of the People's Frontin France has resulted in the expulsion of the Trotskyitesfrom the French Socialist Party. It is no accident rhatTrotsky's attempt to substitute the slogan of socialism versusfascism fits in exactly with the efiorts of the Ilirlers andthe fascists all over the world to do the same thing. LerTrotsky disguise it as much as he pleases with radicalphrases, his anti-People's Front fight nevertheless is counter-revoiutionary, capitalistic, the work o[ a movement whichplays the part of advance guard for fascisrn.

The program of Trotsky for the U.S.S.R., despite hisshouting of sonorous revolutionary phrases, is no less coun-ter-revolutionary than his world policies. His long-continuedefiorts to slow down industrialization and to prevent collec-tivization of the farms, his warlike attitude towards thepeasantry, his years-long attempts r.o embroil the SovietUnion in all sorts of pseudo-revolutionary adventures inother countries, his persistent attempts to disrupt and spiitthe Russian Comrrrunist Party-these endeavors, if success-ful, could only have the result of collapsing the Soviet

fiovernment and preparing the way for the restoration ofcapitalism in the U.S.S.R. And now, as exposed by thetestimony of the Moscow trial defendants, comes Trotsky'salliance with the fascists, his agreements to cede them terri-torial and industrial concessions and his program of indus-trial sabotage and assassination of Soviet leaders-all ofwhich would inevitably lead to the re-establishment ofcapitalism after a terrible blood-bath of the workers andpeasants.

The essence of Trotskyism is capitaiistic, not socialistic.Nor can all Trotsky's ioud mourhing of ultra-radicalismmask this basic fact which e-reryday events in the worldclass struggle make clear as light. Talk is cheap and evenHitler and Mussolini know well how to misuse radical

:t:t

phrases. It is precisely because Trotsky's prograrn leads

away from socialism rather than torryard it that the masses

in the U.S.S.R., and the most advancerl workers in all lands,

reject it. And it is also the reason why, although the hard-pressed masses are everywhere clamoring for real leadership,that Trotsky has to complain in Bulletin No. z of hisAmerican Committee:

"My vielvs are representetl by orrly a liny rninoritv in elerycountry."

8: Is the Proletarian Dictatorship a

Tyranny?

Ever since the rise of Hitler to power in Germany it has

been increasingly the fashion among enemies of the work-ing class everywhere to say that the Russian proletariandictatorship and the German fascist dictatorship are alike;to paint the Hitler despotism and the socialist Soviet gov-ernment in the same dark color. Such people, with an airof complete finality, vociferously declare that there is nodificrence between the two systems of society. Both are dic-tatorships, they say; both are ruled arbitrarily by one man;both oppress the masses; both suppress democracy; botheliminate their opposition by blood purges, and so on. f'heoccasion of the Moscow trials has caused a fresh outburst inthe press, over the radio, etc., of this "all-dictatorships-are-alike" theory ancl many people have thereby been dcceived.

But this whole line of capitalist propaganda-fnr that iswhat it is-violently contradicts the facts. In reality, fascismand socialism are extreme opposites. As social systems theyare poles apart and have nothing in cornmon. They are themutually hostile crystallizations of the most antagonisric

34

political and cuitural elements in human society. They arebitter enemies and in irreconcilable conflict with each other.Their theories, methods of organization and purposes arefundamentally difterent. Fascism defends outworn, dyingcapitalism; while the Soviets represenr the coming neworder of society, the next stage in social evolution, socialism.

Decisive in determining the character of a social systemis the question of which class owns the industries and theland and, therefore, which class controls the government.In fascist Germany, as in Italy and all other fascist countries,the industries and the bulk of the land are owned. by thecapitalist class, and it is these parasitic elements who alsocontrol the government. The workers and other toilershave snfiered a temporary but severe defeat. Fascism is thenaked dictarorship of the most reactionary eiements of thecapitalist exploiters, and its consequences have been a rapiclimpoverishment of the German people. In the Soviet Unionan exactly opposite situation prevails. 'fhe former exploit-ing class have been completely smashecl. The industriei andthe land are enrirely owned by the people's governrnent,which means the workers, farmers and other toilers. There

paralleled improvement in the cond.itions of the Russianmasses.

85

etc. It has also wiped out the basic peasant organizationsand crushed the poiitical parties of the middle class. -fhe

whole people have been regimented into iron-bound, capi-

talist-controlled organizations, whose sole aim is to enchainthe masses so that they can be the more readily exploited'The sword point of fascism is directed against the toilingmillions.

SOVIET DEMOCRACY

The Soviet governmerlt, on the contrary, is founded onthe tiberty of the masses. Despite the lies of internationalcapitalist mouthpieces, in no country in the world is there

so mrrch real democracy as in the Soviet Union. Nolvherehave the toilers such a great political organization as the

Communist Party, and their trade unions, cooPeratives, and

cultural organizations exist on a scale that utterly dwarfsthose in other countries, both regarding their size and the

breath of their functions. The new Soviet Constitutionraises this fundamental ancl growing liberty to a higherstage. This docurnent is, as Stalin says, "the only thoroughlydemocratic constitution in all the world". It is characteristicthat world democracy, now so viciously attacked by the fas-

cists in Spain and every country, finds in the Soviet govern-ment its most consistent and resolute defender. The swordpoint of the proletarian dictatorship is directed against theenemies and oppressors of the people and all their agents,

at home and al,rroad. The Russian workers and farmersare building the first real classless democracy in the histotlof the world.

But, say the critics, if the Soviet Union is a dernocracywhy is only one party allowed to exist? Stalin has given thecornplete answer to this question as follows:

"The party is part of the class, its advance guard. Severalparties and consequently freedorn of parties carr only exist in a

society where antagonistic classes erist r,vhose interests are hos-

36

tile and irreconcilable, where there are capitalists and rvorkers,landlords and peasants, kulaks and poor peasants.

"But in the U.S.S.R. there no longer are such classes as capi.talists, landlords, kulaks, etc. In the U.S.S.R. there are only twoclasses, lvorkers and peasants, rvhose interests nof only are notantagonistic but" on the contrary, amicable. Consequently thereare no grounds for the existence of several parties, and there-fore for the existence of the freedom for such parties in theU.S.S.R. There are grounds for only one party, the CommunistParty, in the U.S.S.R. Only one party can exist, ihe CommunistParty, which boldly defends the interests of the lvorkers andpeasants to the very end." *

Hitler is the puppet of the great Germau capitalists andmaintained in power by demagogy and terrorism. Stalin isnot a dictator, but the freely chosen leader of a great demo-cratic people. His tremendous prestige is not due to suchleader manufacturing tactics as those of Gerrnan fascism,but to his brilliant services in leading the Russian massesvictoriously in the tremendous task of building socialism.Hitler is a tyrant and a despot; Stalin is a great captain ofthe world's oppressed millions, as was Lenin, his giganticpredecessor.

Tales about the Soviet Union being overrun with secretpolice and about the private life of the peoples being every-where spied upon and about the masses living in terror area tissue of lies. They are part of the world capitalist cam-paign that has been built up in their artempt to discreditthe Soviet Union before the eyes of the world's toilingmasses. The extent, activities, efficiency and ruthlessness ofthe former O.G.P.U. have been enormously exaggerated byenemies of the Soviet government. The masses have no fearof this organization which is one of their clefenses againstthe counter-revolution. It is only the White Guards, wreck-ers, ancl political assassins who dread it. And an excellentdemonstration that it does not pry into the lives of the

* Ibid, p. 22.

c/

people is furnished by the fact that the wide ramificationsof the Trotsky treason, assassination and sabotage plotcould go on for so long without being exposed'

TFIE U.S.S.R. WORLD FORCE FOR PEACE

Fascism is imperialistic, and in its mad race for moreterritory and markets it is deliberately planning to Plungethe world into a frightful war. Fascism preaches race and

national hatred; it oppresses the Jews and it seeks to sub-

ordinate all people to its absurd Aryan superiority theories.Fascism, the book-burner, has enchained science ancl de-

stroyed real culture; it systematically cultivates suPersti-tion and is actually trying to reinstate the pagan gods ofancient German mythology.

At the antipodes of all this new fascist barbarism, theSoviet government stands as the world's great advocate ofpeace. It is the principal barrier to the war plans of thefascist butchers. In line with all this, socialism makes thecultivation of anti-Semitism and race hatred a heavily pun-ishable crime, and the many different races and peopleswithin its borders live together peaceably, in equality andfriendly cooperation. Socialism has stricken all shackles

from science; it is the inveterate enemy of ignorance andsuperstition in every form; it has set under way incom-parably the greatest mass culture movement in all history.

It is an out.rage to put the enlightened Soviet governmentin the same category as the barbarous Hitler and Mussolinityrannies. Fascism is night; socialism, day. Fascism repre-sents social reaction and decay; socialism means the steadyprogress and betterment of t.he masses. Fascism bringstyranny and oppression to the people; socialism brings a

growing freedom and increased mass well-being. The fascistregime is the twilight of the outworn capitalist system; thesocialist order is the dawn of the new society towards whichthe general complex of modern social forces is drawing hu-

38

manity. The misery, oppression and terror of Ftritler Ger-many are the death agony of capitalism; the struggles andhardships of the masses in the Soviet {Jnion, of which therecent Moscow trials are an expression, are the birth pangsof socialism. Instead of being the same, the fascist andSoviet system, irreconcilable enemies, and alien to eachother in every respect, represent two different worlds.

9: Does the Soviet System BreedConspiraciesl

Conscious enemies of the Soviet Union, as well as con-fused liberal friends, often undertake to place upon theproletarian dictatorship itself, the Soviet government, theblame for the development of the Trotskyite and othercounter-revolutionary plots that have been exposed fromtime to time. The Nation (Feb. 6, 1937), voices this ideaas follows:

"When a regime makes opposition illegal it sows rhe seeds ofconspiracy; the inevitable result is the growth of plots whichfind their sequel in ruthless repression and in trials like the onejust concluded."

In this statement The Nation is basically in error. Theplots and conspiracy that have been directed so continuouslyagainst the Soviet government do not develop because of alack of political democracy under socialism. They arise in-evitably out of the counter-revolutionary attacks to whichthe U.S.S.R. has been subjected ever since its foundationin r9r7. The overthrown Russian exploiting classes, to_gether with ,their fellows in the neighboring capitaliststates, are quite imeconcil:rble to the Soviet regime. Real_

89

izing fully that they have not the slightest chance to winthe masses and gain control of the Soviet government bypeaceful means, they constantly seize uPon whal,ever violentmethods the changing situation offers-armed revolt, kulakagrarian strikes, industrial wrecking, espionage, assassina-

tion, etc.-in orcler to destroy the Soviet system.

The conspiratorial groups in the U.S.S.R. which, duringthe past twenty years, have plotted and used violenceagainst the Soviet government, including the present Trot-skyite gang, regardless of their political pretenses, have

been the spokesrnen and banner-be:rrers of this irrecon-

cilable and ever-watchful counter-revolution. Extendingdemocratic civii rights to such inveterate enemies, instead

of softening their antagonism, oirly lacilitates and stimulates

their anti-Soviet conspiracies.This is shown clearly by a glance at SovieL history. For

the first three years after the revolution there was beside

the Communist I'arty several other Pal'ties in legal existence.

I remember a lreeting of the Moscclw Soviet in rgzl tllatI attended where there were at least a dozen minorityparties represented, although, o[ course, not the openly

tsarist and capitatrist parties which were illegal. Did the

prevailing freedom of speech, organization and action forthe legal Left parties other than the Communist Party,

after the revoiution, Prevent counter-revolutionary con-

spiracies and revolt into developing among them? Most

emphatically it did not.When in the crr-rcible of the revolution their policies

the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries carried through their

armed attempt to overthrow the Soviet government, and it

40

was also at this time that the Anarchists openly supportedthe counter-revolutionary Kronstadt uprising and furnishedarms to their bandit leader, Makhno, in the Ukraine.

SOCIALIST SELF-CRITICISM

Within the scope of Soviet democracy free criticism is

permitted, provided ir is based upon a constructi.rre attitudetowards socialism. The practice is much like that of theworkers in a strike. Although a strike is a highly democra[icmovemen,t, it is also very disciplined. No opportunity is

given to disruptive elements to break the strike. The dif-fetence is that ttrre Russian revolution is incomparably morevast and profound in its effects than the very greatest ofstrikes. At stake are the lives of millions of people, the fateof the new socialist order of society, the future existence ofcivilization itself. Correctly enough, counter-revolutionaryagitation and action in the Soviet Union is iternly re-pressed. Thus it was in the early years under Lenin's leader-ship, and so it is now with Stalin at the helm. The historyof the Trotsky fight against the Communist Party and theSoviet government shows at once a democratic toleration ofcriticism and an iron lepression of counter-revolutionaryactivities.

After Lenin's death in rgz4, when the Soviet governmentbegan to enter very actively into the enormously compli-cated and difficult task of building socialist industry andcollectivizing agriculture, a whole series of big oppositionalmovements took shape inside the Communist Party. Eachof these, confused by the difficulties of the country's tasks,

developed its own distinct political progmm in oppositionto that of the Central Committee of the Party. Withoutgoing into all the complications of these events, sumce itto say that there was first an opposition movement byTrotsky; then followed one led by Kamenev and Zinoviev;later these developed another, headed by Bukharin; Rykov

4r

IV

and Tomsk/, and finally all three groups-Trotsky, Zinov-iev, and Bukharin-combined themselves loosely into onebloc under Trotsky's leadership and carried on a vigorousstruggle against the Central Committee of the Party ledby Stalin.

These opposition groups, each in its turn and also whenthey were combined, because they had not yet displayedcounter-revolutionary features, were extended the maximumdemocratic freedom within the Party to plcsent their pol-icies to the mernbership. This was quite in accord with theLeninist tradition. Trotsky shouts all over the world thathe never had a chance to discuss his program with theParty members. But this is a brazen lie. How, for instance,could it have been possible, even if .Stalin had desired it,to prevent from being heard such politically powerfulfigures as Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Tomsky andvarious others, all of whom then occupied high posts?

TROTSKYISM HEARD AND REPUDIATED

The fact is, these leaders fully expounded their policiesto the Party membership and to the masses. From rgz4 torg2g the entire Party and its press rang with the historicdiscussion, and so, also, did the whole Communist Interna-tional. It was a prolonged, widespread, penetrating andintense mass political debate. Vote after vote among theParty members, in executive committees and in conventionswere taken. Many books and hundreds of pamphlets werewritten. And the final result of it all was that the realisticpolicies put forth by Stalin and the Central Committeewere repeatedly ratified by majorities running from go percent to 98 per cent. The Russian toiling masses, as a resultof the profound debate and their own vast experience, wereable to see the disastrous implications of Trotsky's theorythat socialism could not be built in the U.S.S.R. and, despiteits many well-known defenders, they rejected it decisively.

42

Up to this point in the internal Party struggle no restric-tions whatever had been used against the Trotsky opposition. These restrictions began when Trotsky refused toaccept the decisions of the Party, violated Party discipline,built an underground conspiratorial organization, and

started a campaign to overthrow the Party leadership andits policies by force. And as the Trotsky group and its pro-gram gradually degenerated more and more politically andeventually the Trotskyites took to assassination, sabotage,

espionage and treason, the Soviet government had no otherrecourse, in self-defense, than correspondingly to carrythrough its repression of the Trotsky movement and finallyto outlarv it altogether as counter-revolutionary and the

advance guard of fascism.Contrary to The Nation's statenlent, the degeneration of

the Trotsky opposition into a gang of counter-revolution-aries and the development of its treasonable conspiracy was

not due to any iack of democracy in the Soviet Union butto the fundamentally anti-socialist character of Trotsk)'ism,to its counter-revoiutionary heart which was exposed toview by the severe pressure of the revolutionary struggle inthe Soviet LInion and internationally.

In Soviet derrocracy there is ample room for honest dif-ferences of socialist opinion, but there is no place for openlycapitalist parties or conspiratorial gangs seeking to over-

throw the rvorkers and peasants' government and to re-

establish capitalism.

trO: Was the Trial a Frame-uP?

lrr their effnrts to discredit the Piatakov-Radek trial Trot-sky and his supporters, besides trying to surround the wholeafiair with an air of mystery and improbability, make actual

43

charges of frame-up. They allege that the trial was just agreat show in which the lives of the defeudants were ruth-lessly sacrificed. Norman Thomas, who is one of the loudestshouters for an "impartial" commission to hear Trotsky,shows his eminent "fairness" towards the Soviet Union bythe following insolent and shameful attack, in which heputs the U.S.S.R. on a level with Hitlerized Germany. Hesays in the Socialist Call,February 13:

"No defeat a recognized enemy can impose upon us, by force,

is so dangerous as the defeat we accept when in the name ofsocialism we adopt at any important point the standards andmethods of fascism. And this has been done by the CommunistParty in Russia in respect to certain political trials."

Such calumniators of the U.S.S.R. find all sorts of motivesand methods, often highly contradictory, as to why andhow the supposed frame-up was organized. Let us look ata few of the more widely publicized of these "exPlana'tions". In doing so with open eyes we cannot but arriveat the inevitable conclusion that the trials were genuine;that the only motive for them was to rid the Soviet Unionof the menace of a gang of assassins, spies and traitors; thatthe defendants had a fair trial; and that they were definitelyproved guilty.

THE FAI,SITY OI.' THE REVENGE THEORY

Trotsky charges Stalin with being a sadist monster who,out of a spirit of revenge and a desire to see others sufier,is systematically destroying his.political enemies. This lyingallegation has, of course, been given wide publicity in thecapitalist press. The truth is that Stalin was long too lenientand generous with the Trotsky opposition, as the sequelhas amply demonstrated.

Just an example or two to show this lenient attitudeon Stalin's part: Zinoviev had a very active share in the

first big struggle against Trotsky after Lenin's death, as

44

he was at that time opposed to Trotsky. Zinoviev wantedto expel Trotsky from the Party and ir is a matter olrecord that only Stalin's intervention saved the latter frourexpulsion. Or take the case of Trotsky's son, Sergei: Forseveral years, Trot-sky has been screamine in the worldcapitalist press that his son was in jail and being persecutedby Stalin. The fact was, however, as various capitalist news-paper correspondents have stated, that young Trotskywas working in a Russian factory as an engineer, educatedby the governmenf-, drawing a good salary and. living hislife unmolested.

A very lenient attitude was shown by the Party andthe government Lowards the -frotskyites in the earlier stages

of the fight, although they had grievously broken Partvdiscipline and departed from the Party's political line.This lenience was evideuced by the fact that when theTrotskyite leaders agreed to give up their political opposi-tion and to abide by the Party discipline and policy, theywere promptly entrusted with most responsible work andwere treated as friends by the Party lcadership. The highpositions occupied by Piatakov, Radek and the other de.fendants prove this. The fact is that these people tookadvantage of the Party's lenience and eagerness to save

them for the revolution and they repeatedlv violated theirpledges by carrying on underground Trotskyite activities.It lvas only when the Trotskyites degenerated into actuaiassassins and traitcirs that the government, in self defense,began to make l'eal war against them, The theory thatStalin is animated by revenge in his fight against Trotskyis a lie cut from the whole cloth.

TTIE TAKE THEORY OF AN INT'ERNAL CRISIS

i\nother allegation by Trotsky against the trials, repeated,of course, by Hearst and other sympathetic capitalist jour-nalists, goes to the effect that the prosecutions were de-

4lt

liberately staged by Stalin in order to divert the attenrionof the Russian masses away from their own supposedlyvery bad conditions. R.adek and Company were allegedlyscapegoats for Stalin. Trotsky declares: "This last rrialshows that a terrible political crisis is approaching inRussia", and he predicts the present government's earlydownfail.

Such stupid argument.s, which smack o'f the legularcrisis-sensation stories that have been coming frorn \\rhiteGuard correspondents in Riga and Warsar,v for many years,hardly need refutation. Irr reality, never r{ras the Sovietregime more firmly established and prosperous than now.Industry is progressing by leaps and bounds; today pro-duction amounts to g5o per cent of what it was in rgr8;and last year its rate of increase was zO per cent. That isto say: in 1936 industrial output was increased in one yearthe equivalent to about the whole pre-war yearly industrialproduction of tsarist Russia. Agriculture has been almostentirely collectivized, and is being swiftly mechanized andotherwise modernized.

Everyhody has work; the couutry has abolished unem-ployment and it passed through the world industrial crisiswithout any economic dislocation whatever. Real wages

of the workers are steadily advancing, ancl the peasantsare prospering" The government. is financially the stlong-est in Europe. The defenses of the countr-y are in goodorder and the great Red Army is loyal to socialism. Themasses of the people are enthusiastic and optimistic. Partyunity is high and the Trotskyites in the U.S.S.R. are onlya handful. A conclusive proof of the solidity of the presentSoviet regime is the extension of democracy under the newConstitution despite the menacing threat of war.

There is not the faintest sign of an economic or politicalcrisis in the U.S.S.R. Every serious observer knows this tobe true. Trotsky's allegations that the Piatakov-Raclek trial

46

was framed-up by Stalin to prevent his fall from leader-ship is sheer nonsense, fit material for the Hearst-Coughlinanti-Soviet propaganda machine for which it was intended.

THE MYTH THAT THE TRIAL WAS C,dUSED BY A CRISIS

OIi TI{E U.S.S.R. INTERNATIONALLY

Another bizarue theory put forth to serve as a basis forcharges of frame-up by the I'rotskyite plotters has it thattire Piatakov-Radek trial was concocted in order to bolsterup the Soviet government's "weakening" position interna-tionally; especially to create hate againsl Germany in theU.S.S.R. and abroad. But for silliness this "explana[ion"equals the rest of the Trotsky frame-up theories.

It does not require much observation to understand thatduring the past few years the position of the Soviet Unioninternationally has been enormously strengthened. Not so

long ago the U.S.S.R. was politically almost isolated, anoutcast among [he nations. But now it is recognized as apowerful factor that none may ignore, and its prestige issteadily in the ascendant. Its alliance with France, itsstrong position in the League of Nations, its firm attitudeagainst warlike Japan and Gel'many, its friendly relationswith China, its growing defensive agreements with neigh-boring st-ates, its expanding leadership among the demo-cratic forces of the world in the fight against fascism andwar-are all indications of the Soviet government's grow-ing power and inlluence in the arena of world politics.

But even if it should be necessary to irnprove the SovietUnion's position internationally, it is ridiculous to suP-

pose that the recent Moscow trials would have been organ-ized to accomplish this end. Their immediate effect has

been, to a small extent at least, the opposite, because

enemies of the Soviets have seized upon them to makeanti-soviet propaganda. It is characteristic that in the

r:apitalistic world, to which the whole progress of the pro-

47

letarian revolution is new and strange, every importantstep forward taken by the Soviet governmenr has beenat first more or less misunderstood by the masses in foreigncountries and hence exploited by alert anti-Soviet enemiesfor propaganda purposes. f'hus it was with the Bolshevikseizure of power in rgr7, the signing of the Brest-LitovskPeace Treaty, the initiation of the New Lconomic policy,the great drive to achieve the First Five-year plan, theaffiliation of the U.S.S.R. to the League of Nations, theformation of the Franco-Soviet alliances, etc., etc. At firstall these developments, so vital to the success of therevolution, were widely misunderstood; is was only aftera time that the friends of the Soviet Union in other coun.tries could perceive the corstructive elements in these greatstrategic steps and that thc enemy attacks against themlost their force.

So it is and will be in the case of the Moscow trials andthe exposure of the Trotsky tnovement as traitorous andcolrnter-revolutionary. The trials furnished a great revo-lutionary lesson that must be learned by the masses inter-nationally. A first efiect is a temporary hesitation amonga few friends of the Soviet Union in some countries anda big blast of hostile criticism from the enemy. Not onlythe reactionaries and fascists, but also a number of well-wishers of the Soviet goverilment. are o[ the opinion thatthe Sovict's position has been weakcned internationally as

a result of the trials. So the theory that the whole businesswas organized to build up Soviet world prestige would seemto fall flat.

But the fears of honest peopte that the L{oscow trialshave done the U.S.S.R.'s repuration real harm abroad arequite unfounded. As has been the case with every otherbig development in the U.S.S.R., the futl revolutionarvmeaning of the Zinoviev and Piatakov trials will soon be-come quite clear internarionally, even as it is now to the

48

rnasses in the U.S.S.R. The trials will before long be thor-oughly understood as bona fide, as a necessary strengthen-ing of the revolution's defenses against the capitalisrenemies, and their detractors will be confounded. Theinitial uncertainties of some friends about the trials willbe liquidated and the ultimate effect will be a tighteningup of the democratic and revolutionary forces everywhere.Historically, the Moscow Trotskyite treason trials are fatedto mark a most important advance by the world revolu-tionary struggle.

A FRAME-UP ORGANIZATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE

In the foregoing we have seen that a frame-up of theMoscow trials was politically impossible. Not only wouldsuch a crime be totally foreign to the whole fiber andbeing of the Soviet system, but there was also no con-ceivable political basis for it. Trotsky's allegations of fac-tional revenge, internal crisis and international expediencyas political motives for a frame-up, we have seen explodedinto nothingness when they were examined above. Andnow we shall see that a frame-up was not only politicallyout of the question but organizationally impossible as well.

To any fair-minded person who has read the materialof the Moscow trial it is evident at a glance that, even ifthe desire had been present, it would have been far beyonclthe scope of human ingenuity to organize a frame-upof these elaborate proceedings. lfhis was no case o[ one ortrvo defendants orr trial, confronted by government witnesseswhose testimony they contraclicted and then hastily foundguilty against their protestations of innocence, as we haveseen happen so many times in the United States. Here wasa vast and complicated political hearing which could norpossibly have been staged even if, unthinkably, the stateand the defendants had worked diligently together to doso. Apart from other reasons, the very vastness and intrica-

49

cies of the trial would make such a frame-up impossible.Now let us take a glance at the trial from this standpoint

of its complexity: First the Soviet prosecutor brought in an

elaborate indictment outlining in great detail the crimeso[ the defendants, their assassination plots, wrecking ac-

tivities, espionage, collaboraLion with fascist Germany, etc.,and these lacts were fully substantiated by a number ofstate's witnesses. Then the seventeen defendants, for a fullweek, save elaborate testifirony, amounting to completeconfessions of guilt which dovetailed completely with thestate's indictment and evidence. The defendants also

accused each other, and here again there was no substantialconflict or contradiction as the various accused Trotskyitesquite generally agreed r,vith each other's statements, al-though these were highly incriminating. Moreover, the hugemass of testimony taken in the Piatakov-Radek trial, whileelahorating upon that of the preceding Zinoviev-Kamenevtlial, in no sense refuted or contradicted it. Besides all this,the cvidence adduced at both these trials has stood the test

of world examination by bitter enemies eager to break itdown.* And, finally; both the trials were carried on in

* Trotsky canrrot possibly refute the damning evidence presentedagainst him in the Mosco$/ trials; so, in his desperation, he is re-

duced to the flimsy erpedient of trying to find some rvrong date, orincorrect address, or other trivial slip of memory by one or another ofthe defendants and then, on the basis of this, tries to discredit the

lvhole trial proceedings. Thus, for instance, Trotskyite strpporters triedto n'ipe out the whole Zinoviev-Kamcnev trial because Holtzman, one

of the defendants, declared that he had n-ret Trotsky in a Hotel Bristolin Copenhagen. "There is no such hotel," said the Tlotskyites. BUL itturns out that the tsristol, lo[g a Trotskyist rendezvous, is in realitya cafe, lvhich formerly had a common entlance with the adjoininghotel. It rvas quite a natural thing for Holtzman, a strangex in Copen-hagcn, to mistake the big sign on the Bristol as indicating the hotel as

well as the cafe. Thtrs, [he circumstattce rvith rvhich Trotsk,v hoped todestroy Holtzman's testimony gives it instead an especially convincingstamp of authenticity. Other Trotsky attacks upon the Oslo airplaneincident, the Romm visit to Trotsky, etc., are based on similar quibbles.

5o

public under the sharp eyes of scores of capitalist news-paper men and diplomats who keenly scrutinized everymove made in the hope of detecting even the slightest signsof a frame-up; but they found nothing.

Day after day, first in the Zinoviev-Kamenev uial of lastAugust, and then in the recent Piatakov-Radek trial, themaze of witnesses and defendants poured out their vaststream of testimony, totaling many hundreds of thousandsof words. And this €ireat volume of evidence, fitting togetherin all its parts, gradually built itself up into an impregnablemountain of proof against Trotsky and his lieutenants. Itproved beyond all shadow of a doubt that the Trotskyiteswere guilty of the monstrous crimes of treason, sabotage andassassination charged against them.

Leaving aside all other considertions, it would have beenan utter impossibility from simply a physical, technicalstandpoint to have artificially staged these trials. The great-est writer that ever lived could not have rtrritten theirhighly complex theme, with their ten thousand coordinateddetails and interlocking facts; also, the most brilliant troupeof actors in the world, even if they had rehearsed for a

lifetime, could not have played the parts of the severaljuclges, the 33 defendants and the various witnesses, oracted the many dramatic scenes, the innumerable spon-taneous cross questionings of one defendant by another orby the prosecutors the repeated displays of deep emotionby the accused, etc., with which the trials were so crowded.'Io even suggest that such a high drama of real life wasstaged is supremely absurd and preposterous.

It is no wonder that the capitalist correspondents on thescene from non-fascist countries, although many of themhad an anti-Soviet bias and were eager to find somethingto discredit the trials, were unable to locate any evidencewhatever of a frame-up. It remained for counter-revolu-tionary 'frotskyites, fascist Flearsts and "friends" of the

5r

U.S.S.R. like No-Llnan -I-honras, who contirruously assailthe Sovier Union on principle, to come f<lrward rvith im-possible charses or insinuations of frame-up. The false alle-gations of these people shatter like glass against the Gibml-tar of gernrineness of the Moscow trials.

11 : Why Did the Trotskyites Confess?

In their attempr to brand the Piatakov-Radek rrial as a

fraure-up Trotsky and his symparhizers especially seek rc,

discredit the confession of rhe convicred plorrers. Theyuse many arguments, often of a most fantastic character,to prove that the confessions of the seventeen defendantsin this trial, as well as those of the sixteen in the Zinoviev"Kamenev trial which preceded it, were all rnanufacturedand part of a gigantic frame-up.

In previous pages rve have seerr that it would have beenboth politically and physically irnpossible to organize rhesetrials as a frame-up and now, by looking into rhe marterof these defendants' confessions, we shall see that a frame-up was also psychologically impossible.

Defenders of Trotsky charge that the confessions werewheedled or forced out of rhe men on trial and they allegevarious lvays by which this was done, all contradictory toeach other. Most of these contentions are too absurd torequire any refutation, such as the "theories" that the menwere doped with an oriental "trurh drug", that they hadbeen subjected to a sinisrer light treatment, that they hadbeen hypnotized, that black magic had been practiced uponthem, that they were victims of a mass confession andsuicide hysteria, that their admissions of guilt were an ex-pression of the mysterious Slav soul, that the whole thinqwas a form of anti-Semitism, etc., etc.

52

One widely expounded "explanation" has it that the de-

lendants vo]untarily sacrificed themselves upon the altarof socialism; that is, they confessed upon Stalin's biddingin order to discredit Trotsky and to strengthen generallythe position of the Soviet government at home and abroad.What a megalomaniac Trotsky is to consider himself so

important that all these men would take their place beforea firing squad just to ruin hirn politically. And how absurdit. is to assert that these hard-boiled Trotskyite leaders, whohad been fighting Stalin for years, would suddenly agreeto die in disgrace for the sake of him and his policies.Such drivel is fodder for morons.

Another favorite Trotskyite "analysis" of the confessionsis that they were cajoled out of the men on trial by prom-ises of leniency. But this, too, does not hold water anybetter than a sieve. Consider the sixteen defendants in theZinoviev-I(amenev trial: They were experienced leaders,they knerv quite well that the death penalty was sure forthe crimes of political assassination and industrial wreck-ing and, consequently, they could not have failed to clearlyrealize that they, by confessing to these major ofienses, werewalking straight to their execution. Trotsky claims, how-ever, that. the Zinovievites were doirble-crossed, that is, thatthey were first promised leniency and then shot. But whatabout the seventeen defendants in the Piatakov-Radektrial, of several months later? They also were intelligentmen, sophisticated leaders and determined opponents ofthe Stalin regime. It is utterly incredible that these men,with the fate of Zinoviev and the others fresh in their minds,could possibly have been indr.rced by any kind of promisesto plead guilty to the monstrous crimes which they did.

NOT PROMISES AND NOT TERRORISM

The whole "promise" theory is thus wholly untenable.But this does not trouble Trotsky any; perhaps some un-

53

thinking people will believe it nevertheless? And for thosewho do nor swallow it, Trotsky has plenty more equallyflimsy "explanations". One of the rnost publicized of theseis that the men were terrorized into confessing.

But this "temor" theory also will not bear examination.!-irstly, there was not the slightest bodily sign upon thedefendants to even suggest that they had been subjectedto external physical or mental torture of any kind. Secondly,not one of them in the course of the extended testimonygave the least indication in his statements that he mighthave been terrorized. This latter fact is very important;for it must be remembered that the defendants, notwith-standing the crimes they had lately committed against so-

cialism, were men who had formerly passed through manyrevolutionary struggles and were inured to hardship anddanger. Surely one of the BB of them would have showncourage enough to protest at the trial, and thereby to thewhole world, if his confession had treen extorted from hirnby force. Such an individual, in any eveDt, could not havehad anything to fear in the way of physical harm fromhis jailers, certainly not when supported by the worldcapitalist press, The reason thar no such statement wasmade was because there had been no terror whatever usedagainst the defendants, and if any one of those on trialhad made such an accusation he would have been over-whelmingly proved a liar by the very men on trial with him.

In the celebrated Reichstag fire trial Dimitroff showedby his bold defiance of the fascists that the revolutionisrsdo not quail before terror, and the brave Rakosi, in hisrecent trial, likewise demonstrated that his revolutionaryspirit had not been broken after many years in Hungarianfascist dungeons. Thaelmann in Germany and Prestes inBrazil will, we may be positive, show the same indomitablespirit when they are brought to rrial. If the Trotskyiteleaders were revolutionists, as rheir friends maintain, how

54

was it possible that they could have all remained silentif they had been terrorized into confessing and let them-selves go without a protest to traitors' graves? The answeris that it was not possible.

THE REAL BASIS OF THE CONFESSIONS

A sound analysis of the trials shows that it would iravebeen psychologically impossible to secure the confession:from the Trorskyite plotters by means of promises, terroror any of the bizarre methods alleged. The inescapable con-clusion from an examination of the whole situation is thatthe confessions were voluntary and senuine.

Why, then, did the Trotskyites confess? The true ex-planation is simple enough. They confessed because theywere guilty; because the proof of the guilt that confrontedthem before the great tribunal of the revolution was so

overwhelming that it left them no other alternative thanconfession.

A number of elements combined to make the Trotskyitesadmit their crimes, but promises, terror, "truth drugs", etc.,were not among them. The principal immediate cause oItheir sense of guilt and their ultimate confessions lay inthe fact that the group were politically bankrupt and the1,

knew it. In the face of the tremendous advances of tireSoviet Union on every front the old Trotsky theory thatsocialism could not be built in the U.S.S.R.. had becomegrotesque by its absurdity. Only needed to complete thebankruptcy of the Trotskyite leaders, even in their owneyes, was the exposure of their plottings and their counter-revolutionary activities. When this was done in the pre-liminary examinations the road was thrown wide open forthe public confessions that. eventually took place.

It is clear from the testimony at the trials that a numberof the defendants were genuinely repentant for the crimesthey hacl commitled asainst the revolution and wanted to

55

make reparation for what they had done. They were dis-illusioned with their political course and realized they hadbeen led into a terrible trap by Trotsky. Such elements,who had had long experience in the Leninist pmctice ofself-criticism and admission of errors, would naturally takethe lead in confessing the whole monstrous crime. Othersof the defendants, who wanted to brizen the thing out,were thus confronted in these confessions with the cer-tainty of being convicted in open court and of losing everypossible chance for rnercy. Thus they themselves, in turn,found it rrecessary to acknowledge their treason.

It is incorrect to say, as many do, that the Trotskyiteswere convicted singly on the strength of their own confes-sions. Besides his own confession each defendant faced theincriminating testimony of his co-defendants, the state'switnesses, etc.

RADEK EXPLAINS

Radek, who in court was one of the most defiant of thedelendants and who by his manner gave the lie completelyto the Trotskyite promise-terrorism-hypnotisrn theories ofthe trial, told hor,v he was thus brought to rnake his ad-mission of guilt. FIe said that for a long time in jail he hadrefused to confess as he did not want to compromise hisfriends among the accused; but he finally agreed to do it.He said:

"They told me, 'We have already got fifteen depositions in-volving you, hut if you want to gain time to think it over goahead and think it over'. I thought it over for trvo arrd a halfmonths. Then an investigator said, 'You are the last; so whyrvaste time?' The next day I confessed."

lVe may be quite sure that the clever Radek made him-self perfectly certain that the fifteen depositions againsrhim by his co-plotters .,4/ere absoiutely genuine and that hehad no other way out, before he rnade the confession that

56

condemned him as a trait-or to the cause o{ socialism andcovered his name with eternal shame.

From whichever way the Moscow trials are fairly exam-ined the thesis of frame-up is seen to be totally inapplica-ble. Let me repeat that a frame-up of the defendants waspoliticaiiy, organizationally and psychologically irnpossible.'fhe Broohlyn Eagle, which is no l.riend of the Soviet Union,says:

"Harold Denny, correspcuden! of l'he Neu York Times, byno means sympathetic to Communism, reported that he hadtried in vain to detect a false note in the tlials that would in-dicate 'staging' or rehearsal." @eb. r,)

And so it was with every open-minded first-hand obselverof the trrals. Not one of thern but who has expressed hisconfidence that the trials were genuine.

The'I-rotsky criminals were guilty. f'he evidence againstthem was overwhelming arrd they could not escape it.They had a fair trial according to Soviet law. Thev werecoli'r.icted fairly and openly before the bar of the grearrevolution which tirey hacl betrayed, before the masses ofthe Russian people who had made every sacrifice for thesake of socialism. Flence, unfounded charges of frarne-upwill not save these traitors from the obloquy which theydeserve, nor prevent the rnasses of toilers in every countryfrom learning the counter-revolutionary character of Trot-skyism which these trials have so clearly exposed.

12: \Mas There a Contradiction lletweenthe Piatakov and Ziroviev Trials?

Confronted by the damning facts in the confessions ofsixteen men in the Zinoviev trial of August, 1936, and of

5l

seventeen in the Piatakov trial of January, ry97, all ofwhom showed him up to be the chief conspirator and

engineer of the fascist assassination and war plot againstthe U.S.S.R., Trotsky, in panic to free himself from thiscornplete exposure of his counter-revolutionary activities.is having recourse to many explanations, each less con-vincing than the other. He says, secure in his super-egotisticfaith that all must believe him. "I reject all the statementsmade against me by the defendants. Not a word is true."FIe shout-s that everything is a frame-up by Stalin. And inhis desperate efforts to make his contradictory charges offramc-up stand erect, 'Irotsky uses the most absurd argu-ments. Thus, in the printed report of what was to havebeen a telephoned speech from Mexico City to New York,Trotsky tries to bolster up his tottering "frame-up" allega-tions by citing a supposed contradiction between the testi-mony in the Zinoviev-Kamenev tlial and that of the recentPiatakov-Radek trial. Says Trotsky (Ne.w Yorh HeraldTribu,ne, Feb" ro, rg37):

"The trial of Zinoviev-Kamenev was concentlated upon '!er-rorism'. The trial of Piatakov-R.adek placed irr the center oftire stage no longer terror, but thc alliance of the Trotskyitesrvith Germany and Japan for the preparation of rvar, the dis-

rnernbermenc of the Lr.S.S.R., the sabotagc of industry and the

ex(ermiDaiion of the u'orkers. Ilotv io explain this discrepancy?"

'l'her-r Trotsky goes on to arsue that the Zinoviev trialwas not convincing to the world, and therefore it was neces-

sary for Stalin to cook up a new ancl rnore dastardly frame-

up; so the Piatakov trial was plepared. He goes on:

"Iloruever, for this second, more grandiose production, Stalin

lacked the principal actors; he had shot them. In the principalroles of the principal presentatioll he could place only secondary

actors! It is not superlluous to note that Stalin attached muchvalue to Piatakov and Radek as collaborators. But he had no

other people with l ell-kno\{'n rrames, rvho if only for their

58

distant past could pass as'I'rotskyites. That is why fate

descended sternly upon Radek and Piatakov."

What an absurdity is all this "explanation". Its ridicu-lousness, which must affront the mind of every intelligentperson, smacks of the insolence with which the fascists, to

iou"l .,p their crimes, customarily Put out most fantasiic

statements for the world to swallow. Consider for a moment

this nonsense that Trotsky asks us to believe. Stalin, he

alleges, had. not succeeded in the Zinoviev trial in ruiningTrotsky and thus had to brins forth more incriminatingcharges against him. So Stalin goes to the men Piatakov

and Radek, with whom Trotsky admits Stalin was on

friendly relations and valued highly as collaborators, and

arranges wittr them (and fifteen others) to confess to the

monstrous crirnes of assassination, sabotage, esPiollage, trea-

son and alliance with the fascists. This Piatakov, Radek,

et al are supposed to have agreed to do, although they must

have known that in so doing they would disgrace them-

selves forever as Benedict Arnolds and sign their own death

rvarrants. Piatakov ancl Radek, we are asked to believe,

agreed to rnake this awful sacrifice just to discredit Trotsky'lf this were so Stalin must be a wizard, or indeed a suPer-

hl,pnotist. What an inflated ego Trotsky has to assert rhat

men would go to such telrible lengths of su-icide in body

and reputation merely to injure him and his two-by-four

movement. And what fools he must think people are tobelieve such trash.

THE TB.UTH OF THE I,TATTER

Now, turning away from Trotsky's fairy tales, let us look

at realities. Contrary to Trotsky's allegations, in the Zino'

viev trial it was already pointed out by several defendants

that Trotsky was working hand-in-glove with Flitler's

Gestapo agents. If alt the irnplications of this treason were

not blought out at that trial it was clearly because t.he

59

goverrlment was not yet fully aware of them, and naturallythe Trotskyites on trial were eager to conceal such a terri-ble crime ancl shame. Besides only a few of the centralfigures among the defendants were in T'rotsky's close con-fidence and knew the full extent of the group's plotting.

Nevertheless, the Zinoviev trial did uncover enough oIthe Trotsky-fascist alliance so that the whole of this coun-ter-revolut.ionary plot was evetlrually brought to light. It isa matter of record that Radek, Piatakov and the otherdefendants in the recent Moscow trial, most of whom occu-pied high government posts and were quite trusted by theParty leadership, were exposed and arrested as a resultof the revelations made by the Trotskyites themselves dur-ing the Zinoviev trial. It was thc testimony of the Zinovievcase defendants also that led to the arrest of Bukharin,Rykov and others, who are yet to be tried.'That is how the shameful and criminal alliance ofTrotsky with the fascists of Gerrnany and Japan was ex-posed. Trotsky's story of a suicide agreemenr of Piatakov,Radek and the rest with Stalin is a bed-time story forpolitical infants. The two Moscow treason trials were notand could not have been frame-ups. To use such a con-temptible device as the frame-up against people rvhomTrotsky calls revolutionists, would be utterly aiien to thevery nature of the socialist regime in the U.S.S.R. Moreover,there was no possible political or personal motive for sucha frame-up. Trotsky's latest attempt [o prove his frame-upcharge by pointing out an alleged conrradiction betweenthe Zinoviev and Piatakov trials is futile. There was nosuch contradiction, and Trotsky's synrhetic story thatStalin "organized a frame-up" is of a piece with the mostfanciful fliehts in imagination of Baron Munchausen.

6o

13 : Why Not More DocumentaryEvidence in the Trial?

At the two recent Moscow Trotskyite trials there wereplaced in evidence not only the confessions of the 33 de-

fendants, whose testimony completely exposed the Trotskytreason plot and showed Trotsky to be its leader, but alsothe testimony of various witnesses and the presentation ofa number of documents shorving clearly the political de-generation of the Trotsky group into terorism and itscollaboration with fascism. This would seem to be morethan ample proof to convict in any court, but Trctsky andhis followers would have us ignore all this fatal evidence.'Ihey insist that the charge of treason was ullproved be-

cause there was insuflicient documents by the traitors them-selves presented to the court. Trotsky yells throughout thecapitalist world: "Where are your documents? Why didyou not produce written evidence?" And some unthinkingpeople are influenced by his clamor.

Of all the many attempts to discredit the Piatakov-Radekrial this demand for documents in which the Trotskyitesshould convict themselves in detail and in writing, is surelythe most stupid. \Alhat nonsense it is to suppose that thesemen, carrying on such a desperate enterprise, would pileup a lot of correspondence and other written materialabout it. With plain horse sense, The New Republic (Eeb-g) remarks: ". . . when you conspire to overthrow the gov-ernment of the largest country in the world, you do notput your plans on paper and keep a carbon copy."

There are rnany reasons why the Trotskyite traitors didnot write much to each other about their treasonable plansand activities. Firstly, they would naturally make everypossible effort to avoid putting on paper such counter-revohrtionary st',rff, f<lr should a stray docurnent fall into

6r

the hands of the government, it would lead to their ex-

posure and certain execution, Better to have a dozen rattle.snakes loose in their apartments than one such documentlying about.

TR{NED CONSPIRAI'ORS

Secondly, it must be remembered that most of the Trot-skyite leaders were men long trained in conspiratorialmethods during tsarist days. It is inconceivable, therefore,that they, playing with political dynamite as they were,

should have kept any considerable correspondence on the

matter. It is also certain that whatever letters and otherdocuments they wrote they guarded rnost carefully andquickly destroyed after transmission. Trials in the past

of Russian engineers and other saboteurs also produced veryfelv docurnents; for even these comparative novices hacl

sense enough not to write about their criminal actions. So

why expect the much more experienced Trotskyite leaders

to put their plots on paper and then carelessly allow themto fall into the hands of the authorities.

Thirdly, the Trotskyite conspirators who were tried hadvery little, if any, need for written correspondence' Theywere all people occupying high posts in the Party, the gov-

ernment and industry. In consequence they were able totravel freely throughout the U.S.S.R. and likewise to make

trips to foreign countries. They also had access to the fundsin their industrial and government work. They were trustedand not under any surweillance. Thus they could easily

keep in constant personal touch with each other. Why,then, should men so strategically situated and highly mo-

bile write each other a lot of letters discussing and planningto assassinate the Soviet leaders and to overthrow the

government?6z

IE THERE HAD BEEN MORE DOCUMENTS

But even if there had been a lot of documenrs put inevidence at the trial it would not have helped any so faras Trotsky's criticisms are concerned. He would have beenthe first to challenge their authenticity and to denouncethem as forgeries. He would have shown in great detailjust how incredible it was for such experienced men to puttheir plots in written form, and how easy it would be forthe accused, who he claims were in a gigantic "frame-up"against him, to have got their heads together and concocteda lot of false papers. The very existence of a body oIdocuments Trotsky would have hailed as proof positiveof a frame-up.

Trotsky plays safe either way. If there are few documentshe says there is no plot, and if there were much writtencorrespondence, he would denounce it all as spurious. Itwas by such a method that he "explained" the Zinoviev-Kamenev trial. As the defendants took the stand one afterthe other and told of their plans to kill Stalin and orherleaders (which resulted in the death of Kirov) and showedTrotsky to be the leader of it all, Trotsky wildly denouncedthe whole mass of deadly testimony as a pack of lies thathad been made up by the defendants under pressure andin return for promises of immunity. Then, when all theaccused were convicted and shot, Trotsky quickly hoppedover onto the other foot and declared that Stalin haddouble-crossed them and killed them all "to get rid of theevidence". It is a "heads I win, tails you lose" form ofafgument.

Trotsky may demand as long as he pleases that the Sovietgovernment produce more voluminous written evidence ofhis guilt. Maybe he thinks he can convince the world thatthe Soviet authorities, in order to convict him, have to putin evidence a few theses written by himself upon the art ofpolitical assassination of Soviet leaders, or a number of re-

63

ports on the progress of the campaign of industrial saborage,or a few letters from various Trotskyite plotters to eachother detailing military secrets that are to be furnished toGermany and Japan, or a stenographic copy of Trotsky'snegotiations with Hitler's Gestapo agents? But intelligentopinion will neither expect nor ask voluminous docu-mentary evidence in this case. The testimony of 33 men,all of whom knew when they were on the witness standthat they were facing death, besides the other evidence atthe trial, has definitely convicted Trotsky of treason tothe revolution and all his frenzied shouts about documentswill not save him from just condemnation by the toilingmasses of the world.

14: Why Was the Death Penalty Applied?

There are some people, generally friendly to the Sovie[IJnion, who argrre that unnecessary severity was showntowards the convicted plotters in the Zinoviev and Piatakovtrials. While agreeing that the defendants were guilty, theyassert that these criminals should not have been shot, butsent to prison. This position they try to sustain with argu-ments such as: "The executions were against the spirit otthe new Soviet Constitution", "It is bad policy in any case

to execute 'old Bolsheviks"', and "Inasmuch as the Trot-skyites are only a small group any\,vay, it was unnecessaryfor the powerful Soviet government to fight them so ruth-lessly". Hence, conclude these individuals, the Soviet gov-ernment, secure in its own strength, would have acted morewisely and created a more favorable world opinion if ithad made a "liberal gesture" and let off all the convicteclTrotskyite traitors with jail sentences.

But this whole line of reasoning, mostly sentimental in64)

character, overlooks many decisive realities. First, let usconsider the question of whether the trials violated thespirit of the new Soviet Constitution. This splendid docu-rnent, incoflrparably the most democratic in the world,Buarantees the Rr.rssian toiling masses many vital civicrights. But it does not disarrn the people in the face of themilitant counter-revolution. On the contrary, it provides aitrengthening of the defenses of socialism. The only reasonrhe Russian toilers were able at all to build socialism, toachieve such a great document as the new Constitution andto win the concrete freedom which it institutionalizes, tvasl:ecause they have for twenty ycars bravely and successfullyfought back the forces of counter-revolution which menacedthem from every side. And their only guarantee of retain-ing their new Constitution and all that it signifies is bycontinuing this revolutionary vigilance and struggle againstthe capitalist enemy. The Trotskyite trials were carried oniu the spirit as well as the letter of the new Constitution.'lheir general result will be to strengthen, not weaken,tlernocracy in the Soviet Union.

Now as to the question of the so-called "Old Bolsheviks"arnong the convicted Trotskyites. In the U.S.S.R. there is anrmendous mass reverence for the veteran revolutionarieswho went through the bitter struggle against tsarism andthe hardships of the proletarian revolution. The title "OldBolshevik" is the most honored of any in the whole country.In a previous section I have shown that many of the de-fendants never had a real claim to be called "Old Bolshe-viks". But in any event this revered name.cannot be usedas a mask for counter-revolution. When u 71nsyis1,, a Ka-rnenev, or a Piatakov turns his back upon all he learnedfrom Lenin and works with the capitalist enemy to over-throw the Soviet governmenr he disgraces and deserts thehonored ranks and traditions of the old Bolsheviks anddegrades himself into a dangerous criminal. Services to the

65

revolution in former year's cannot possibly condone present-

day acts of assassination, wrecking and espionage against

the Soviet government by degenerated political leaders.

The revolutionary proletariat turns its iron fist against al1

such counter-revolutionary activities, no matter from what

quarter they may come.

WHY THE TROTSKYITES ARE A REAL DANGER

Now let us consider the question of whether or not the

Trotskyites in the U.S.S.R. constitute an actual danger that

has to be ruthlessly crushed. It is true that this grouP, rvhichas Trotsky himself admits, comprise "only a tiny minority",with their bankmpted theory that socialism cannot be builtin the U.S.S.R., cannot possibly win a sufficient mass follow-ing to secure control of the government. It is also a fact

that Trotsky's terrorist program of assassination, industrialwrecking, etc., although capable of doing much harm and

therefore meriting the severest punishment, could never

of itself disorganize the economic and political life of the

.soviet Union sufEciently to enable the Trotskyite groupto seize power through a coup d'etat.

The worsi menace of the T'rotskyites ancl the most basic

reason for their ruthless extermination lie in their cooper-

ation with Hitler against the Soviet Sovernment in the

present threatening war situation. As traitors they are

dangerous like all other Judas Iscariots and BenedictArnolds. The whole world knows that Germany and Japanare just waiting for a favorable opportunity to attack the

U.S.S.R., and the greatest crime and danger of the Trotsky-ites is precisely because their alliance with Hitler vastly

sharpened the threat of this war attack and increased its

possibilities for success.

When Germany and Japan attack the Soviet Union theirassault will doubtless be made with lightning speed, prob-ably by huge air raids, without forewarning or formal

66

declaration of war. It is obvious rhar the chances for suc-cess of the fascist offensive wouid be enol:mously greaterif the flrotskyite traitors, besides having furnisheil Hitlervital military secrers, managed ro kill off several key Sovietleaders and to sabotage straiegic \,!'ar indusrries just on theeve o[ the arrack. Considering the vast importance of thetime element at tlre outbreak of a modern war, even a fewhours' disorganizati<in of the Soviet government throughTrotsky's planned assassinarions of Soviet leaders mightcost the U.S.S.R. a temible disaster by keeping its air fleeton the ground and its army immobile. It could leacl to a

ilff:I,?:::??Trotsky attack.

ProPosed Hitler-

The Trotskyite traitors, by their desperate plan to seizepower in the Soviet Llnion through an alliance with Hitler,were giving direct stimulus to the war plans of Hitler; theywere gambling with the lives of millions of people; they harlgrossly betrayed the revolution; they were helping the fas-cists in their efforts ro smash the Socialist IJ.S.S.R., to wipeout European democracy, and to rtrake fascist barbarisnrtriurnphant. T'hey had become part of the fascist counter.revrilutionary forces.

What, then, could the Soviet governmenr clo with menproven guilty of such monstrous crimes against the revolu_tion? Whar reply could it make ro their acrual killing <ltKirov and their planned assassination of other lead.ers; theirslaughtering of many workers in railroacl wrecks and mineexplosions deliberately brought about by their campaigno[ industrial wrecking; their espionage and plans

- with

Hitler to violently overrhrow the Soviet regirne? The Soviergo!'ernmenr is opposed on principle to the dearh penaltyand to long prison sentences and its criminal code is themost humane in the world. But in such a situation, when ir

67

15 : Did the Conviction ofTraitors Weaken theGovernment?

the TrotskyistSoviet

is a case of such terrible crimes agains! the masses andsocialism, talk of liberal gestures and ostrich policies ofignoring the danger presented by the Trotskyites are entirelyout of place. The revolutionary Soviet Bovernment, sur-rounded on all sides by hostile fascist countries eager todestroy it, gave, by its severe condemnation of the Trotsky-ite criminals, the only possible answer to their treason.

could put forth such unsound ideas. The plain fact is thatthe Soviet Union, instead of being weakened by the trials,will be greatly strengthened. Its body politic will be allthe healthier when relieved of this poisonous Trotskyisttrlcer.

Of course, it was a loss to the revolution that the clevermen among the defendants turned away from its service.This they did, however, in spire of every effort of the partyto prevent it. But once they had developed into counter-revoiutionaries there was no other couRe left for the SovietBovernment than to free itself of their corroding influence,and this it did resolutely. The whole Soviet regime cannor buttre the better and strorlger afrer being relieved of the alien,disintegrating Trotsky elements. Such was the case afterthe elimination, years ago, of the l\{enshevik, Socialist-Revo-Iutionary Syndicalist and Anarchist reactionary influences,and so it will be after the eradication of the 'frotskyire viruswhich was sapping Soviet vitality. Jusr as it would have beena disastrous error to "hush up" the basic difierences withthe Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc., in their tirne, so it rvouldbe impossible to try ro "patch up" or ..smooth over', thecliasm between the Party and the Trotskyites. The revolu,tion has already found fresh forces to replace the renegad.eTrotskys, Zinovievs, and Piatakovs, even as it did the notless able renegade Plekhanovs, Dans, Martovs and. Axelrodsof twenty years or so ago.

Not oun's BUT HITLER's Loss

The argument that the exposure and punishment of theTrotskyite trairors encourage Hitler ro arrack the Soviettlnion is simply balderdash. The fascists are more realisticthan are our naive liberals; Hitler and his cronies realizefully that what has happened in the Moscow trials is that,by the breaking up of the Trotsky gang o[ spies ancl assas-sins, they have lost a powerful weapon against rhe U.S.S.R.

69

Many liberals and confused Socialists are now complain-ing that the Moscow trials have lessened the vitality of theSoviet Union and injured its prestige arnong the world'stoiling masses. They say also that it increases the dangerof a Hitler attack upon the U.S.S.R., by exposing to thefascists inner r'veaknesses in the Soviet regime. Arnongothers, Norman Thomas, who has never turned a finger inreal support of the Soviet government, sheds many crocodiletears on this therne. The .l/ezrr Republic, February 3, alsoexpresses this general point of view when it declares that"the whole episode can only be considered a disasterthe harm done Soviet Russia throughout the world wouldbe beyond calculation. . . . It would give aid and encourage-ment to the fascist forces in Italy, Germany, ancl .fapan",and more along the same line. The general conclusion ofsuch people is that, in the name of unity, the whole mattershould somehorv have been mediated and hushed up.

But this entire line of reasoning is utterly false. No onebut the politically naive or the real enemies of the Soviet -

IJnion seeking a convenient cover from which to strike it68

They understand quite well that a nation can only bestronger by cleansing itself of the traitors within its ranks.The defeat of Trotskyism will strengthen the Soviet Unionand hence will tend to retard, not hasten, the war.

A number of American liberals, including some rvhousually have a friendly attitude towards the Soviet Union,are wavering and wobbling on this trial situation. But thishesitation will pass when they understand the whole matterbetter. Already we can note this corrective tendency at work.It is sharply expressed by the brilliant letter of Mauritz.A. Hallgren, in resigning his membership in the Trotsky-controlled "American Committee for the l)efense of Leor.r

Trotsky".By contrast with the confusion and uncertainties ol

American Socialists and liberals on the Trotsky issue, it is

refreshing to observe the spontaneous mass response of theRussian workers and farmers in condemnation of the Trot-skyite traitors and in sripport of the Communist Party andits leader, Stalin. This is because these masses are politicall,vliterate, trained in three revolutions. For thern the revolu-tion is no[ a matter of parlor spcculation and abstractacaclemic principles, but one of life and death. They arenot l-o be deceived by mere revolutionary phrases and fa-mous names. In the fire and struggle of revolution, theylearned to judge groups and personalities by the practicalresults of their policies and activities. They have lvitnessedat first hand the political decay of the Mensheviks, theSocialist-Revolutionaries, the Russian Anarchists and Syn-dicalists, and many other lesser movements. They have seen

whole groups of well-known figures swept aside by theirresistible force of the revolution when these leaders nolonger served to forward its development. They know theTrotskyites of old; every Trotskyite leader is as familiar tothem as our outstanding American public figures areto us. They have seen Trotsky's program beliecl b1' the

7o

whole development of the Russian Revolurion. And whenrhey observed the final bankruptcy of the Trotsky groupexposed in these trials, they can see its historical roots andcauses in the long struggle of Trotsky against the Commu-nist Part.y. To them the condemnation of Trotskyism as

counter-revolutionary and the advance guard of fascism is

not "fantastic", "incredible", or "bewildering", as ir is tosome American liberals. It is a logical and unavoidablcresult of the forward levolutionary march of the U.S.S.R.

'1.6: Should Trotsky Have an ((fmpardal)'

International Hearing?

Trotsky, aileging a frame-up and refusing to accept th€condernnation justly visited upon him by the Soviet courtsin the Zinoviev and Piatakov trials, is dernanding that hebe given an international hearing before what he calls an"impartial" committee, in order to refute the chargesa6;ainst him. Around this demand his handful of followershave tinkered together a fer,v committees in various coun-tries, with the support of many reactionary newspapers anda scattering of confused liberals. The organization in thiscountry is called the American Committee for the Defenseof Leon Trotsky.

Now on the surface of things this proposition seems tobe fair enough. What more just. than lhat a man be accorder]the right of his day in court? But it requires very littleexamination to see that the whole proposal is a sham, aninsidious attack against the Soviet Union, an attempt o1'Irotskyite schemers to build their disruptive movementby appeals to sentiments of fair play.

The answer to Trotsky's demand for an international

7t

hearing is simple: If Trotsky has a case, if he can defend

himself, why does he not return to Moscow and face the

courts of the Russian Revolution? There could be no ques-

tion of his receiving a fair trial, not only inasmuch as

Soviet courLs always give all prisoners an honest hearing,

but also because the u'hole world would focus its eyes uPon

a Trotsky trial in Moscow and follow it in rninutest detail'Under such a sharp and PeneEating scrutiny, there could

not be the faintest possibility of a frame-up. So what wouldTrotsky possibly have to fear in a Soviet court if he were

able to prove his innocence before the world? Moreover

Trotsky, in such a trial, would have an unequaled tribunefrom which to preach his doctrines to the internationallabor movement,

But Trotsky refuses to go to Moscow. And the reason is

clear enough; he has no case. He knows quite well that he

could not break down a single piece of the evidence already

proved against him, and he realizes that in the event of a

Moscow trial the whole world would have to recognize his

guilt. Nevertheless, Trotsky has to rnake some kind of a

pretense of innocence. So he comes forward with his lyingallegatiorrs that he could not get a fair trial in the U.S.S.R.'

and presents his demands for an international hearing'

do, that impartial hearings were held in other countriesat the time of the Reichstag fire trial is to insult the firstworkers' republic by placing it in the same category as

the barbarous Hitler regime.The movement for Trotsky's "impartial" hearing is a con-

scious Trotskyite attack upon the Soviet [Jnion, despite thefact that some honest people are being fooled by its paradeof liberal phrases. Should the hearing ever take place itwould necessarily be based upon a condemnation of theSoviet Union in advance as a framer-up of tevolutionaryleaders. The "trial" would be conducted by the bitterestenemies of the Soviet government, the Trotskyites; even ifa few liberals were duped into lending their names to itsdeliberations. Its proceedings would be but a barrage ofanti-Soviet propaganda. Its decision of "not guilty" for-frotsky, and hence "guilty" for the Soviet government,would be a foregone conclusion from the committee's make-up and control.

The "impartial" character of this anti-soviet movementmay tre gathered from the fact that of the American Com-mittee for the Defense of Leon Trorsky's 6o-odd members,some 20 are definitely Trotskyites and about that manyrnore are sympathizers of Trotsky's general line. Only afew are liberals of any influence, and these are graduallywithdrawing as they tregin to realize rhat they are beingused by Trotsky for anti-soviet purposes. Every enemy andfialse friend of the Soviet Union-the Norman Thomases,lValter Citrines, Pierre Monattes, Andre Nins, etc., aresupporting this Trotsky "impartial" hearing movement. Afine bunch of "impartial" figures indeed into whose handsto trust the interests and reputation of the U.S.S.R. Trotskymay feel quite safe that he will never be called upon bysuch people to make good his advertised bluff to return toMoscow and place himself in the jurisdiction of the SovietBovernment, if the "hearing" should find him guilty.

7n

TI{E FAKE INTERNATIONAI, TRIAL

"frotsky's so-called "impartial" hearing is a sham and heis fully conscious of this fact. He knows quite well that itcould not assume the aspect of a leal trial and bring outthe true situation. Only one side would be present. For theSoviet government to make an appearance at such a hear-ing would, in practice, mean to admit that it had com-mitted the monstrous crime of framing up an innocent man"The ver"y proposal of such a hearing is an attack upon the

integrity of the Soviet government. To urge, as Trotskyites

TRC/TSKY CANNOT CLEAN HIMSEL!'

For months now Trotsky has been shouting that he irinnocent. Yet he has ofiered nothing substantial to refutethe mountains of incriminating testimony presented againsthim in the two ll{oscow trials. Trotsky hints that he has

some mysterious revelations of Stalin's alleged frame-up thathe will present to his proposed "impartial" hearing. But hewould need no such international trial to bring his proofto light if he had any. -fhe world capitalist press is wideopen to him. Since the trial of Zinoviev and Karnenev inAugust he has issued dozens o[ long-winded statements tcr

the daily papers and they have been printed down to thelast detaii. But there has been nothing in them; onlyhystericai attacks and quibbling over insignificant items otr

the trial evidence. The bourgeois newspapers (always will-ing to strike a blow against the U.S.S.R.) would be morethan delighted to publish every scrap o[ slauder Trotsky,might care to produce to discredit the Soviet trials, let it bchowever fantastic. Moreover, they would pay him huge feesfor it. Mauritz Hallgren, on resigning from the TrotskyCommittee, says relative to Trotsky's holding back of allegedproof of a frame-up:

"But consider the absur<lity, the astounding cynicism of suchan attitude. Ilere are rnen [the Piatakov-Radek defendants-IV. Z. F.j arvaiting death on charges that Trotsky says areutterly false, and here is Trotsky who contends that he canprove they are false-and yet he withholds rhis indispensableproof for the sake of a book or for the sake of an intcrnatioualinquiry not yet arranged."r

The plain fact is that Trotsky is guilty of the trezrsonproved against him and the other Trotskyite leaders in theMoscow trials. He has no evidence wherewith to free him-

. Why I Resigned From the Trotshy Defense Commiltec, p. g, In-ternational Publishers, New York.

74

seif from the net of condemnation in which these trialshave so hopelessly entanglecl hirn. He wants his so<alled"impartial" international hearing, not because he can verifvhis frame-up charges, but so that he may continue andamplify the slanderous attacks he has been making fory'ears against the Soviet Union. Every friend of the U.S.S.R.should reject Trotsky's anti-Soviet "impartial" hearing. IfTrotsky r,t,ants his day in court le[ him go to Moscow.

17 : Shall Trotsky Be Permitted to Come

to the United States?

'fhe answer [o this question should be a categoric no!from the workers, farrners and middle class elements of thiscountry. Trotsky's coming here would bode no good toeither the American or the international struggle of thetoiling masses.

Trotsky's supporters organized in the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky demand his entryinto the United States on the ground of the right of asylurlfor political refugees. But there is no weight to their con-tention. Trotsky has nlready been accorded asylum by theMexican government, and is nolv living in Mexico City.BLrt even if this were not the case tlie United States shouldnot aclmit him. The workers, farmers and liberals of thiscountry have no interest what.ever to protect a man who iscarrying on a counter-revolutionary struggle against theonly socialist country, the U.S.S.R., and whose whole policyin other countries is one of demoralization and sabotageof the workers' fight. The toilers should demand the right

hut5

of asylum only for those fighters exiled by reaction, not forthose who have betrayed the revolution.

Another reason urged by Trotsky's friends why he shouldbe allowed to come into the United States is in order thathe may hold his international "impartial" hearing here.

tsut why does Trotsky have to come to this country for hismock trial? He has no American witnesses to assernble,

and as for his own testimony, which could be only a rePeti-

tion of his usual slanders against the Soviet governrnent,it would be carried in full by the world press even if he

should release it in the depths of the great African Congoforest. Trotsky's proposed hearing could only be a viciousattack upon the Soviet Union and the workers have nointerest in promoting it.

TROISKY WANTS THE UNITED STATES FOR HIS BASE

'fhe truth of the whole matter is that Trotsky wants tocome to the United States because he believes it wouldprovide a more favorable base for his operations. Mexicocramps his style, because the working class is almostsolidly opposed to him. He believes that if he could get here,

what with the workers not so politically conscious andalert to the meaning of his activities and with plenty ofreactionary support, he would be able to fish in the troubledAmerican waters and also to carry on more e{Iectively hisnefarious anti-soviet attacks and general internationalcoun ter-revolutionary agitation.

Trotskyism signifies far more than a struggle betweenTrotsky and the Communists. It is an issue in which all sec-

tions of the labor movement are directly interested. Trot-skyism means not only counter-revolutionary struggleagainst the Soviet Union and against the People's Frontmovement in Europe, but also disruptive activities in everyphase of the American class struggle. Trotsky's arrival in

76

this country woulct only bring harn to the working class.Trotsky makes a great show of ultra-revolutionism. But

the time is past when political leaders are judged simplyby their slogans. Their deeds are whar counr. But Mussoliniand Hitler rode into power behind a smokescreen of revo-lutionary sounding programs. Trotsky, despite his ultra-radical phrasemongering, is plainly doing the work of re-action. In the name o[ the revolution he works to splitand destroy every movement that is really advancing thecause of the revolution.

In his concluding speech in the recenr Moscow trial, ttredefendant Radek, tearing aside thernask of Trotskyism and exposing theacter of the movement, gave warningsof the world will do well to pay heed. After baring thecounter-revolutionary narure of Trotskyism in the U.S.S.R.,Radek declared:

". . . We must say to the Trotskyite elements irr f.rance, Spainand other countries-the experience of the Russian revolutionprovetl that Trotskyism is the n.recker of the working classmovement. To all those who struggle for peace, we musrsay Trotskyism is the weapon of the instigators of rvar. We sayit in a decisive voice, because ne have recognized it, rve havesuffered it, and it was inconceivably difficult for us to confess.. , . We have recognized rvhich historical forces used us as theirweapon, Too bad that in view of our intelligence .rve have recog-nized it so late. But Iet this recognition be of service to some.,,

TROTSKYITES FEW, I,LTI DISRUPTIVE

77

of disruption and demoralization. No sooner do the work-ers anyrvhere develop a promising organization or strugglethan the Trotskyites pop up, pronounce ir not revoiutionarvenough, and then ourline a course of action which, ifadopted, would wreck the whole movement. Such a policybecomes progressively more dangerous as the class strugglesharpens. In the U.S.S.R. and Spain lve see how in a revo-lutionary situation it develops into active aid for thefascists.

A revolutionary policy is the one followed by the Com-munist Party, which consists, on the one hand, of energeticsupport of every practical step of the workers and farmers toimprove their present-clay conditions, and, on the otherhand, the education of these masses in the principles ofMarxism-Leninism, the revolurionary goal of socialism. Onthe contrary, the line of the Trotskyites is one of sabotageoI the toilers' struggle ancl this satrotage is carried on to thetune of radical phrases. Although the Trotskyites are sofew in number they manage to exrend their disruptive ac-tivities to many fields of the class struggle.

In the trade unions the Trotskyites are definitely a dis-integrating influence. A characteristic example of their tacticswas seen when, right at the height of the recent West Coasrmarine strike, they made a vicious attack upon the ableand honest leader, Harcy Bridges, exactly when he wasunder bitter fire from the employers and the ccrnbineelreactionaries. The Trotskyites are also now busy sahotagingthe steel organizing campaign, and they openly denouncedthe recent Akron nrbber strike settlement. When the Work-ers' Alliance held its recent national demonstration ofW.P.A. workers in Mrashington, the Trotskyites foundthemselves lined up with the reactionaries in attacking iropenly.

The Trotskyites are also enemies in principle of thcFarmer-Labor Party and they leave no stone unturned to

?8

\

prevent its formation. It is indeed naive for liberals whosupport the Farmer-Labor Party and People's Front move-rnent generally, to invite its arch-enemy, Trotsky, to cometo this country.

The 'Irotskyites, during rhe pasr couple of years, havepenetrated into and secured a grip upon the Socialist party,and they have since reduced that organization to a mazeof warring sects and brought it to the verge of bankruptcv.These same people are sabotaging the fight in support ofSpaiu and the struggle for peace generally. In the youthmovement they are a disruptive influence and they aim towreck the very important Youth Congress. \A/herever oneencounters Trotskyites in the American labor strugele the1.are always the same: doing the work of division and dis-rul)tion under a cover of revolutionary phrases. Their wholepolicy serves only the purpose of reaction.

In the ranks of labor there is no place for these strike-breakers and counter-revolutionaries. Trotskyism is a dis-eased growrh that must be cut away from the body of theworking class. The Trotskyites must be exposed and drivenout. Let not any sincere friend of labor be fooled by senti-mental appeals for Trotsky and thereby help cultivate thisunhealthy sect. We must not let the traitor Trotsky come tothis country. If Trotsky wants asylum ancl a fair trial, lethim return to the Soviet Union and face the revolutionaryworkers whom he has betmyed. As Dimitroff has said, ,,Todefend Trotskyist assassins is to help fascism."

1s

An owtstandfui.g ftu.blisbing euent

FROMBRYAN

TOSTALilN

Bl 1MILLIAM Z. FOSTER'

Written by one of the greatest rvorking class leaders in the

United States, this book tlaces the career of the Left wing

in the American labor movement during the twentieth

century.

Xt. is partly autobiographical, but in the main it is an im-

personal history of the rise and decline of syndicalism in the

United States, the origin and development of dual unionism

and the boring-from-within policy, as rvell as an account

of the role of the Communists in the trade unions. It is the

work of a veteran organizer who has always been in t}ethick of the industrial struggles of his time.

"Thls mastetful analyEisoflabor Lreriences aa & workcr deYelopedorganlzatlons, Etrike taqtics, polit- the best org:anizer of the pastical-economic theory, revolution- twenty years.

writ-board

Fored in-::xL

unforgettabl€ &nd lntcrestln;h:i: J,lannod."--ltrlizabethQurle]'Flvnn.

o

Large Format, $2.50

Order lrom your local bookshop or t'rom.'VOR.KERS LIBRARY PI.JBLISHERS

P. O. Box ltl8, Sta. D Nerv York City

Read. More About

REACTION AND I'ESCISMIn }lundreds of Beeks, Pamphlets, Magazines for Sale at These Bmt-

stores and Literature Distribution Centers

Aberdeen, Vash,: ll5rl VestHeron St.

Ahron: 63 East ExchangeBaltimore: 501A N. Eutaw St.Berkeley : 247 5 Barcroft W ayBoston: 8 Beach StreetBuffalo: 51 Vest ChippewaButte: ll9 Hamilton St.Canbililget 6/2 l;Iolyoke St.Ca*ile*: 304 Federal StreetCblccgo: 200 West Van Buren

2135 lZest Division St.It26 Eztt ,7th St.

Cj*cia.ttat* t40 Maiu St.Cleoelanil: 1522 Prospect AvaD eroer : 5 2 I Mining Exchange BIdg.De c Moirte s : 22 2 Y mrgermaa BIdg.Detroit: 3517 Voodward Ave.Iluh*b: 28 Etst First St.Grund Rafiids.. 319 Bridge St.Hollyuooil: 1116 No. Lilliaa lVoyLas Argeles: 210 S. Spriag St.

24lly2 Brooklya AvesgeMtihso*, VJsc.: Commetcial Bank

BIdg., Room 417Milana*Lee: 419 Vesr State St.tll*teafiolis: El2 La Salle Ave.Nettark: 33 Halsey St.Neut Haow: 17 Droad St.Neu Oileats: 1!O Chartrer St.Nclr,t York: !0 Eart t3tf, St.

140 Second Ave.98 Pourth Ave., Brooklyr

Oohlaill: 567 12th StreetOnzba: 111 Kerbach Blmt

Vilte tot o cot*plete catalog to ory of tbc abotc oililrcssct ot 0o. WORKERS LIBRARY PI'BLISHERSP. O. Bor 148, Sta. D Nev YorlE, N. Y.

Patetson: 201 Markct St.Pbilailelpbia: 104 So. 9th Sr.Ptttsbargb: 602 Bigelow Dlvd.Portlord, Ore,: !14 S. W. Madi-

con St.

Prooiile*ce: 33! Vertminetet St.,Room 42

Rac-hte: 205 St.ts StreetReailing: 224 Nortf, Niath StrGGr

klcbnond, Va.: 2OJ N. 2ad EaSactameato: 102,1 Sirth St.St. Louis: f5!Q llaatlia dys.St. Paul: 570 lTabarla St.S4lt Lahe Citxt: t)4 Regeat St.Sar Diego: 615 E St.

Sat Etatclsco:170 Goldea Gate Avc.1609 O'Farrcll tlt.121 Hoiglt St.15 Enbarcadero

Sat Peilro: 244 V. Sirth Sc.

Santa Barbara:208 !?'. Caaoa Perdido

Seattle: Tlryz Pil'6 3r.Spohate: 114 No. BernsrdSaperior: 601 Tower Ave.Tacoma: 13ll Tecome Ave.Toledot 214 MichigaaVasbhtgton, D.C.: ll2, 14rL 0r.,

N. V.loungstoum:

,10 W. Fedctd &., t.l lL

To Gornbqt the Mencree oITrotslryism

READ AND DISTRIBUTE THESE PAMPHLETS

Murder at the Kemerovo MinesBy Ernest Fisch,er . 5c

To Defend Assassins Is to Help FascismBy Georgi Dimitroff 2c

Trotskyisrn Against $/orld PeaceBy Earl Browder . 1c

Tflhy I Resigned f,rom the Trotsky Defense CommitteeBy lllauritz H'ailgren Ic

At the Moscow TrialBy D. N. Pritt, K.C., M.P. 5c

Trotskyism and FascismBy P. Larug 10c

Trotsky, the TraitorBy Alex Bittelman

Trotskyism in the Service of Fascism AgainstSocialism and PeaceBy A. Y. Vyshinsky

Traitors AccusedIndietment ol th.e Piatakw-Rad,ek Trotskyist Group

Stalin on the New Soviet ConstitutionMolotov on the New Soviet ConstitutionLenin and Spain

By Earl Browd,er

o

COMPLETE CATALOGUE ON REQUEST

Order trorn your local bookshop or trom

TTORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERSP, O. Box lrff|, Sta. D New York City

3c

5c

5c

2c

5c

Ic