66

p There are several objective reasons for the great gap between Trotskyite words and deeds.

p First, only in words, and by bitter, abusive attacks on those who are in the very thick of the revolutionary struggle, the Trotskyites satisfy their urge to be to the "left of the Leftists." They themselves, in view of their “specific” position, most frequently stand on the sidelines of the dayto-day struggles. Whenever they seek to back up their impassioned words and catchy slogans with practical action, they conflict with the interests and needs of the revolutionary movement and do great harm.

p Second, Trotskyite organizations, because of their objective position and small numbers, are more like political sects lacking close ties with the masses or with any class. That is why Trotskyite slogans are not backed up by the activity of large social forces or based on their immediate or long-term interests or needs.

p Third, as a rule many Trotskyite supporters are hot-headed individuals who tend to cool down quickly. Because of the frequent drop-outs the sections of the "Fourth International" seek to play on the emotions of the novices who fall for their propaganda. After every series of “ fireworks” there comes the moment of truth for Trotskyite adherents. The slogans of the "Fourth International" are left in limbo, arousing suspicion among some, indignation among others, while still convincing those who have yet to learn of their futility from personal experience. The 67 great abundance of slogans is, consequently, due to the ability of the Trotskyites to adapt to the moods and feelings of narrow groups of persons who fall for Trotskyite propaganda, groups whose composition keeps constantly changing. To appreciate what a difference there is between what Trotskyites say and do, and how such revolutionary catchwords lead to capitulatioinism, let us examine some of the slogans and stands of modern Trotskyism.

p What is the worth of Trotskyite talk about instant socialist revolution? The "Fourth International" and its sections have much to say about the need for a socialist revolution as soon as possible. Taking their statements at face value, they seem to be the most ardent advocates of instant revolutionary action and the immediate overthrow of capitalism. They declare: "To advocate a series of steps like a stairway means beyond dispute to turn away from the revolution."   [67•1 

p But is revolution in any sense a race? Revolution is activity by broad masses of people waging a resolute and uncompromising struggle against their exploiters. Revolutions would have been impossible in the past, just as they are inconceivable now or in the future, without rousing broad sections of the working people to take part in political life and establishing a massive army of political fighters. And this is no easy matter.

p It is common knowledge that the Communists have always considered it extremely important to steadily extend the social basis of the revolutionary movement. They proceed from the 68 assumption that the growth of political activity and militancy among fresh contingents of the working class, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, the students and the middle sections of the population create the prerequisites for fundamental social change, for socialist revolution and establishment of the working class’s power in alliance with other sections of the working people.

p The Trotskyites opposition to this line of preparing the political army of the socialist revolution can be seen from their attacks against the struggle for general democratic demands and the policy of establishing a broad anti- monopoly front.

p Documents and statements issued by Trotskyite groupings stress that the movement for democratic rights tends to divert the working class from the tasks of the "revolutionary overthrow" of the capitalist system.

p The Trotskyites describe the struggle for democratic rights as follows: "Instead of making mass struggles converge toward the question of power, their tendency is to disperse these struggles in space and in time over multiple objectives.”   [68•1 

p This expresses the Trotskyites’ negative attitude to the general democratic movement which helps to involve broad masses of people in action against monopoly capital and to carry them forward to socialist revolution. It is easy to see that the stand taken by Trotskyism today is, to some extent, a follow-up of the views of 69 Trotsky who neglected the general democratic stage of the revolution.

p Meanwhile, experience has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of Lenin’s remarks that the working people "cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy."   [69•1 

p Would the Great October Socialist Revolution have taken place if the masses had not been prepared for it in persistent struggle against the autocracy, if they had not been mobilized by the slogans to democratize the state system in Russia, to put an end to the First World War, and to effect a radical solution of the land problem? Would the socialist revolution have won out in Eastern Europe, if the masses had not, in the course of their struggle against the fascist and collaborationist regimes, come to understand the need for fundamental social change? Here is a more recent example: would the revolution have triumphed in Cuba but for the long and persistent struggle against the Batista dictatorship and efforts to attain a democratic state system which preceded the revolution?

p Present-day revolutionary practice likewise disproves the Trotskyite reasoning about general democratic demands being incompatible with the proletariat’s struggle for its ultimate goals. With growing frequency the working class is moving into spheres of economic and political life which were once monopolized by the 70 hourgeoisie. It demands the nationalization of key branches of the economy owned by the monopolies; the establishment of workers’ and democratic control at every level—from the enterprise to the national level; reorientation of industry to take care of urgent social needs, etc. Will not the realization of these demands undermine the political pillars of the capitalist states?

p The Communists are always mindful of Lenin’s sage advice with regard to conditions in Russia, when he said there was a need for a programme of action for the resentful students, for the perturbed teachers, and for the indignant believers. A merger into a single tide of all the different general democratic movements (from strikes to demonstrations by peace advocates) helps to lash out at monopoly capital in an ever broader front and to create the prerequisites for a takeover of power by the working class and its allies, and to carry the masses forward to socialist revolution.

p Indeed, the Trotskyites have clearly compromised themselves by attacking the struggle for democracy. In their way out of this impasse, some Trotskyite groups have included some of general democratic demands in their programmes. For instance, some American, British and French Trotskyites insist that they come out for higher wages, shorter working hours and workers’ control in production.

p But these statements in support of general democratic demands go hand in hand with the old package of ultra-Leftist slogans and meaningless pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric. The Trotskyites themselves declare that these demands cannot be realized until capitalism is eliminated.

71

p The American Trotskyites, for example, declare: "We must fight not only for these demands but for a consciousness in the working class that these demands can only be realized if the workers come to power."   [71•1  They are echoed by the British Trotskyites, who say: "The working class must defend its basic rights against the international capitalist conspiracy, and it can only do so by preparing for power.”  [71•2 

p These frank statements confirm that the occasional Trotskyite muttering about general democratic rights, "transitional demands," and the like, are merely designed to cover up their lack of interest in such "minor," from their point of view, issues.

p Consequently, it turns out that the Trotsky ites are really not concerned about the tasks of advancing the revolutionary struggle and the vital interests of the working people.

p This is also borne out by Trotskyite attempls to discredit the idea of establishing a united anti-monopoly front. They attack any alliance of the anti-monopoly forces as fiercely as Trotsky attacked the Popular Front. Today’s "Fourth International" leaders frankly say that the attitude to the anti-monopoly front is the same as it was to the Popular Front in the past, and urge their followers to support the "traditional Trotskyite line.”

p The stand taken by the Trotskyites today against the united anti-monopoly front is not 72 surprising, since it has a certain logic and consistency. Indeed, having assured first the peasantry of the Third World and now the students of the need for independent action apart from the proletariat, it would be inconceivable for Trotskyites to now support any united anti- imperialist front.

p But there again one is confronted with this question: have the Trotskyites not urged a division of the anti-imperialist forces so as to make it easier to weave their web of intrigue, to get extremist-minded persons to fall for their propaganda?

p Indeed, a thorough analysis of the documents issued by various "Fourth International" groups shows that in contrast to the united anti- imperialist front they have tried to set up a narrow, "sectarian front" made up only of Trotskyites and their sympathizers. Here is what the French Trotskyites want the young people to believe: "There can be no accord except on the basis of the ’Fourth International Programme.’ "   [72•1  This approach has never had anything in common with the interests of the revolution.

p However, there is every indication that the "Fourth International" has scant concern for the problem of revolution: its only concern is to display its “radicalism” and to boast of its "Leftism.”

p What is behind the Trotskyite slogan of a "Socialist United States’"? In July 1971, the Trotskyites held a conference at Essen which, 73 they say, was attended by almost 5,000 young men and women from various European countries. The only slogan in the hall—in German, English, French, Spanish and Russian—said: "Long Live a Socialist United States of Europe.”

p At a meeting held by Latin American Trotskyite youth one will find a similar slogan: "Long Live a Socialist United States of Latin America." The Trotskyites also have other slogans calling for the establishment of socialist states in Africa and Asia.

p At first sight these slogans may appear to be revolutionary, making the Trotskyites sound like people who think in global, all-European and even world-wide categories.

p While having only a very hazy idea of what they mean by "united states,”   [73•1  the "Fourth International" stated quite explicity that without setting up a united states revolution is inconceivable in any West European country. In other words there must be revolution everywhere or not at all.

p The London International Committee of the "Fourth International" declared in early 1969: "The proletarians in various European countries are linked not only by tradition and historical ties, but also by the fact that no European proletariat can take the power without raising the problem of the United Socialist States of Europe. The reorganization of the economy on socialist foundations is inconceivable in any European country unless it is extended to the whole of Europe.”  [73•2 

74

p Back in 1963, a Trotskyite leader known as Germain (and also as Mandel) declared: "We must give the United States of Europe slogan with more concrete content." However, nothing has been clarified by Trotskyite documents issued of late.

p A French Trotskyite newspaper says: "The struggle of proletariat can be successful only on an international scale." The Trotskyites also marked the beginning of 1972 by calling for the establishment of a united states of Europe.  [74•1 

p Law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism in the imperialist epoch revealed by Lenin not only permitted to substantiate the possibility of transition to socialism taking place first in a few countries or even in one individual country, but also provided the basis for elaborating the doctrine of the diversity of forms of transition to socialism.

p History has shown that the world revolutionary process consists of a series of socialist, democratic, anti-colonial and anti-imperialist revolutions in various countries, which are connected with the general development of the world liberation movement. Imperialism would still be dominating the entire world, had not the Communists, the masses of workers and the peoples of the world seized on the opportunities in the individual countries for overthrowing the power of capital or colonial oppression.

p In their efforts to refute something that has long since been generally established, the Trotskyites have found no better means than to 75 return to Trotsky’s assertions that "socialism cannot be built in one or several countries.”

p It is true that they have been forced to reckon with the economic successes of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Trotskyite publications even contain admissions that these countries have certain economic and social advantages over the capitalist countries. Nevertheless, the Trotskyites also seek to prove that socialism can only be built on a world scale. The Latin American grouping of the "Fourth Inter national" declares: "The historical conditions are such that no nation in the world can build socialism by itself. No revolution can end in victory and develop towards socialism, because this can take place only on a world scale.”   [75•1  Another Trotskyite grouping insists that centuries will pass before socialist construction becomes an immediate issue.

p In this day of successful socialist and communist construction and growing awareness throughout the globe of the need for socialist development as the main prerequisite for social progress to view the socialist transformation of society as a matter of the unforeseeable future is not merely archaic, it is downright reactionary.

p Marx and Engels used to say that the pettybourgeois ultra-revolutionary directs his blows not against the existing governments, but against revolutionaries who reject his dogmas. The founders of Marxism were then criticizing Bakunism. But that is just what Trotskyism has also done. While paying lip-service to the 76 struggle against imperialism it has, in fact, acted against the vanguard revolutionary forces and against the world socialist system which is the decisive force of the anti-imperialist struggle.

p The Trotskyites have attacked everything truly new and revolutionary that is coming about and taking hold on the globe. They have fiercely attacked revolutionary Cuba which has taken the path of socialist construction. They have urged "the overthrow of Castro."   [76•1  Fidel Castro told the Transcontinental Conference in Havana in January 1966 that the Trotskyites have shown themselves to be a "vulgar instrument in the hands of imperialism and reaction." They were equally hostile to the victory of the Popular Unity bloc in Chile. Of late they have mounted a blatant campaign of slander against Salvador Allende, accusing him of "paving the way for counter-revolution," and saying thlat he did not differ in any way from Harold Wilson in Britain, and so on.   [76•2 

p The "socialist united states" slogan is merely a cover up for the Trotskyite pretensions of being "revolutionaries." They use it to slander any revolutionary programme put forward by the working class in any country.

p What does the Trotskyite talk about an armed uprising amount to? One cannot seriously assert that the Trotskyites say or write much about an armed uprising. You can go through stacks of their propaganda material and speeches without finding any mention of armed uprising. Nevertheless, the Trotskyites often 77 hypocritically charge the Communist parties with having abandoned armed forms of revolutionary struggle. In their polemics some Trotskyites have frequently called themselves the "party of armed uprising" which is outright deceit.

p First, one need only look at the programmes of the Communist parties to see that the fundamental position of the Communists is recognition of the need to master every form of class struggle, including armed struggle, and to be prepared to swiftly and resolutely switch from one form to another, depending on the concrete conditions and on the alignment of class forces at home and abroad. The Trotskyites lie when they allege that the Communist parties advocate only the peaceful path of revolution and disregard the need for armed struggle.

p The Communists have never pinned their hopes on the bourgeoisie benevolently handing over power to the people without struggle, as the Trotskyites insist. Regardless of what course the revolution takes—be it peaceful or nonpeaceful—enforcement measures will be needed to suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie. If the bourgeoisie fails to submit to the political demands of the masses, armed force will be necessary. Thus, peaceful and non-peaceful forms of struggle may supplement each other since there is no clear-cut demarcation between them.

p In some instances, armed revolutionary struggle is inevitable. The Communists have never regarded the peaceful path as an absolute. Realizing that the imperialist forces can resort to armed struggle, they urge the working people to be prepared for such eventualities, In other 78 words, even while being oriented to the peaceful path of revolutionary development the Marxist-Leninists know full well it is necessary to be prepared for armed struggle if the situation should demand it. One of the main prerequisites for the peaceful development of the revolution is that the forces of the working class and its allies must be far superior, and capable of preventing the monopoly bourgeoisie from resorting to armed violence.

p Second, the Trotskyites deliberately keep quiet about the fact that many of them have long sin ce dropped all mention of iarmed struggle from their political lexicon. Thus, there is not a word about it in the policy-making statements of the Socialist Workers’ Party of the USA, where the Trotskyites are so timorous that they have called upon the young people to refrain from taking part in action which may lead to arrests. They have siabotaged demonstrations that were officially banned. When the police use waterhoses against Negroes and beat up women and children during anti-racist demonstrations, the Trotskyites not only keep to the sidelines, but also scoff publicly at "Uncle Toms" and " handkerchief heads.”

p Third, despite their bellicose statements the Trotskyites have been very light-minded and irresponsible about the armed uprising slogan. For some this amounts to the previously mentioned criminal "revolutionary gymnastics" tactic. For others it is just a lot of talk and still others consider it a means of justifying " revolutionary idleness" of passively sitting by, waiting for "D-day.”

p British Trotskyites, for instance, love to talk 79 about armed uprising, but in practice do nothing but befuddle the young people they have won over with promises of an early revolutionary D-day when everything will be settled in short order. They try to draw in 15 and 16- yearolds and to convince them that the revolution is "just around the corner" and that the Trotskyites have a revolutionary programme for that eventuality.  [79•1 

p Hopes for D-day were also expressed at the congress of the Socialist Labour League in June 1968, when the Trotskyites declared that they were preparing for decisive changes in the near future. Six months later, in January 1969, they urged a meeting of Trotskyite young people to "make 1969 a year of revolutionary decisions." In early 1970, the Trotskyites once again urged preparation for the "forthcoming major battles." Similar calls were sounded in 1972.

p The Trotskyites show just how one can mark time for years under the slogan of armed uprising which is gradually becoming quite meaningless. This is not surprising since the Trotskyites know little about the scientific, Marxist view of armed uprising.

p Lenin used to say that armed uprising, like war, is an art, which has its own rules.

p First, the uprising must be based on the leading class and not on a conspiracy or even a party. Second, the uprising must be based on a revolutionary upsurge among the people. Third, the uprising must be timed to a moment when the leading ranks of the people are most active 80 and vacillation among the enemies and among the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution is the greatest.

p Armed uprising is not a putsch. It is bound to be defeated unless objective and subjective conditions are ripe for revolution, unless there is a revolutionary situation and unless the masses are prepared for struggle. Such is the lesson to be learned from the events in Indonesia, for example, where the armed uprising proved to be premature.

p Analyzing the causes and the effects of the reckless tactics, which led to the defeat of the Communist Party there, the Marxist-Leninist group of the Indonesian Party emphasized that it was premature to begin military operations before serious revolutionary work of a preparatory nature had been carried out, before the emergence of a clear-cut revolutionary crisis which would develop into a revolutionary situation, and before the establishment of an organized and highly influential Marxist-Leninist party at the core capable of guiding the armed struggle and ensuring massive support from the forces allied with the working class.  [80•1 

p The international communist movement has not forgotten Lenin’s warning about being hasty with premature and unprepared action. In a letter to the Polish Communists on October 19, 1921, which was first published in 1962, Lenin stressed: "The Government and the bourgeoisie must be prevented from strangling the revolution by bloody suppression of a premature 81 uprising. You must not be provoked. You must wait for the tide to rise to its highest: it will sweep everything away and give victory to the Communists.

p “If the bourgeoisie kills 100-300 people, this will not ruin the cause. But if it is able to provoke a massacre, to kill 10-30 thousand workers, this may delay the revolution even for several years...

p “The revolution must be allowed to grow to full ripening of the fruit.”   [81•1 

p What the Trotskyites have been saying about armed uprising has nothing to do with MarxismLeninism. Nor has it anything to do with the interests of the revolution.

p Is it revolutionary to call for nuclear war and to fight against peaceful co-existence? Lately the Trotskyites have been very active in the anti-war youth movement, which is a fairly patchy picture socially, politically and organizationally.

p There is a militant, progressive core within the anti-war youth movement which has been pursuing a consistent and diverse struggle against the imperialist policy of aggression, militarism and the arms drive. But that movement also includes young people whose protest boils down to the burning of draft cards, something that is politically useful but does not go beyond the framework of passive resistance.

p There are some in the youth movement who breathe fire and brimstone. They believe that in response to imperialist aggression and the 82 policy of US ruling circles “local” wars should be staged and armed conflicts sparked off in other parts of the world. The most zealous advocates of these views insist that in order to check imperialism the Soviet Union should resort to the threat of using nuclear weapons or even start an atomic war.

p In other words, paradoxical though it may seem, some in the anti-war youth movement do not advocate peace and international detente, but stepped-up hysteria, a policy of brinkmanship, and reckless rattling of nuclear weapons. Those are the young people the Trotskyites primarily appeal to.

p What the emissaries of the "Fourth International" are saying is echoed by the advocates of war, and sometimes their statements are as alike as two drops of wiater.

p Maoist groups, for instance, seek to convince the youth not to fear war and refer to the declaration made by the Peking leaders in 1960 and not repudiated or considered erroneous since then despite all their political turns and twists. They claimed that nuclear war was beneficial and that on the wreckage of imperialism the victorious people could rapidly create a civilization a thousand times higher than under the capitalist system and build a truly beautiful future.

p The Trotskyites claim they had made such pseudo-theoretical anti-humanistic statements before the Maoists came out with them. The leader of the Latin American Trotskyites, Posadas, said in a Trotskyite journal that the issues the Peking leaders had put forward as " revolutionary conclusions" were simply the conclusions 83 made by the "Fourth International." He quotes, in particular, what he himself said long before Mao Tse-tung, namely, that "A ’communist society’ could rapidly be constructed on the wreckage.”   [83•1  In this regard Posadas declares: "The most destructive of wars will necessarily have the most progressive consequences...”   [83•2 

p Posadas’s allegation that "the masses are not afraid of nuclear war,"   [83•3  show that the very substance of Trotskyism is anti-humanistic. It is noteworthy, moreover, that Posadas’s followers declare humanism to be a "principle of bourgeois life, a feeling produced by the instinct of self-preservation.”   [83•4 

p The Trotskyites and other ultra- revolutionaries of their kind refuse to reckon with the fact that nuclear war would be a great tragedy for mankind and while it would put an end to imperialism it would greatly harm the cause of communism. It is hard to believe, as the Trotskyites insist, that it would be possible in a short period to create anything harmonious or admirable after a thermonuclear war that would wipe out whole states and nations, and its fatal radioactive effects would poison the lives of many generations. Mankind would be thrown back many decades into the past. Ultimately nuclear war would retard, not accelerate, the establishment of socialism and communism on a world scale.

p The destructive nature of thermonuclear 84 weapons is not the only reason why MarxismLeninism rejects the Trotskyite idea of bringing about world socialism by means of world war. In contrast to the feudal lords and the bourgeoisie, who established their formation with fire and sword, the working class has never regarded war as the only way to attain socialism. It has always rejected the Trotskyite slogan that "war is the mother of revolution." Socialist ideals are not established by foisting socialism on anyone. They take hold because they are strictly scientific and in keeping with mankind’s objective development, because Marxism-Leninism has been profoundly substantiated and proven and has been winning over ever-greater number of people.

p The Trotskyites insist that only those who are prepared to settle accounts between capitalism and the socialist revolution through a nuclear war are "true revolutionaries”.  [84•1 

p The Trotskyites cannot have much faith in the revolution if it is based on nothing more than readiness to have a nuclear war. It would seem that all one needs to do to become a revolutionary anywhere, say in some remote country of Latin America, is to voice support for an atomic war. Incidentally, the Trotskyite conception of "revolutionary nuclear war" may have gained some acceptance on that continent among those who labour under the illusion that they can escape the consequences of a thermonuclear Wiar.

p A revolutionary in our day is not one who sings the loudest praises of nuclear war. To be a revolutionary one needs to strengthen the might 85 and cohesion of the great socialist community, the main gain of the international working class. To be a revolutionary means to make use of every opportunity to continue to attack the monopolies in the advanced capitalist countries. To be a revolutionary means to fight for the national liberation and social emancipation of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. To be a revolutionary means to help strengthen the interrelationships and the mutual support of the forces of world socialism, the working class movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation and anti-imperialist revolutions in the Third World countries.

p One must, of course, add that not all presentday Trotskyites openly agree with Posadas on the need for a "preventive nuclear war." Many realize that such open championing of a third world war will not yield any political dividends. But judging by the fact that all present-day Trotskyites fiercely attack the policy of peaceful co-existence between states with differing socfal systems, they share Posadas’s ideas, even if they do not always say so in so many words.

p The Marxist-Leninist view of peaceful co- existence is by no means a pacifist advocacy of peace. Rodney Arismendi, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uruguay, put it very well when he said that the "system of socialist states has put a bridle on the imperialist plans and this prevents the imperialists from getting back through the window when they have been thrown out of the door.”   [85•1 

86

p What is peaceful co-existence in practice? Among other things it is the failure of the Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression against Egypt in 1956. It is the thwarting of intervention against Syria in 1957, and against Iraq in 1958, It is the frustration of plans by the Israeli militarists and US imperialists to oust the progressive regimes in the Middle East. It is also the all-round assistance to the Vietnamese people in warding off US imperialist aggression.

p The Trotskyites are certainly aware of these facts. Nevertheless, they insist that it is "futile, to count on the possibility of peaceful co- existence developing into state relations, except on the basis of the use of force.”   [86•1  They believe that the policy of peaceful co-existence is " international class collaboration," and that negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement of outstanding issues are harmful to the revolution.

p The unseemly practical action that stems from such an attitude can be seen from the Trotskyite position on the war in Vietnam. They sabotaged political action in support of the Vietnamese people under the pretext of their favourite formula "all or nothing," declaring that the overthrow of the monopolies in the advanced capitalist countries was the only sure way of helping the people of fighting Vietnam.

p They have even said that action to display solidarity with the Vietnamese people tends "to wall off the genuine anti-imperialist feeling of thousands of young people from revolutionary politics.”   [86•2 

87

This Trotskyite “Leftist” talk helps the cause of reaction and war.

p Such is the “theoretical” worth of the revolutionary-sounding Trotskyite slogans.

p Summing up the brief analysis of some aspects of activity by present-day Trotskyites and their ideologists, one comes to the following conclusion:

Present-day Trotskyism is a petty-bourgeois Left-extremist trend, which plays on the growing anti-capitalist, revolutionary sentiments of the non-proletarian sections of the working people, mainly the urban intelligentsia and the students; it is the substitution of cosmopolitanism for proletarian internationalism, and from that standpoint denying the possibility of socialist revolutions triumphing in the framework of individual countries; it is lack of faith in the triumph of the revolution and of socialism covered up by calls for world revolution; it is bellicose anti-Leninism seeking to destroy Lenin’s doctrine and replace it with Trotsky’s views; it is malicious anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism speculating on communist ideas.