Leon
Trotsky: Interview Given to the Social Democratic Press
March
24, 1929
[Writings
of Leon Trotsky. Vol 13, Supplement 1929-1933, New York 1979, p.
17-19]
A
week ago a Constantinople correspondent for the German Social
Democratic press called on me. I gave him roughly the following
interview:
You
yourself realize that my granting an interview to the Social
Democratic press is something rather unusual for both sides. This
first, and very likely last, interview has been brought about by
quite exceptional circumstances.
As
I am now applying for admission to Germany, where the majority of the
government consists of Social Democrats, I am chiefly interested in
making clear my attitude toward the Social Democracy. Obviously on
this question nothing has changed. My attitude toward the Social
Democracy remains what it was. Moreover, my struggle against the
centrist faction of Stalin is only a reflection of my general
struggle against the Social Democracy. Neither you nor I have any
need of vagueness or of leaving things unsaid.
Some
Social Democratic publications are trying to find a contradiction
between the principles I hold in regard to democracy and my
application for admission to Germany, i.e., to a democratic republic.
There is no contradiction here. We do not at all “deny” democracy
as the anarchists “deny" it (verbally). Bourgeois democracy
has advantages in comparison with the forms of the state that
preceded it. But it is not eternal. It must give way to socialist
society. And the bridge to socialist society is the dictatorship of
the proletariat.
In
all capitalist countries, communists take part in the parliamentary
struggle. Making use of the right of asylum does not differ in
principle in any way from the utilization of the right to vote, of
freedom of the press and assembly, and so on.
You
are interested in my struggle for democracy in the party, the trade
unions, and the soviets. Social Democratic publications have from
time to time attempted to portray this as a step toward bourgeois
democracy on my part. This is a monumental misunderstanding, the
roots of which are not hard to disclose. The Social Democratic
formula of today goes like this: “Stalin is right against Trotsky;
Bukharin is right against Stalin.” The Social Democracy stands for
the restoration of capitalism in Russia. But one can take this road
only by pushing the proletarian vanguard into the background and
suppressing its independent activity and critical voice. Stalin’s
regime is the necessary result of his political line. Since Social
Democracy approves of Stalin’s economic policy, it ought to
reconcile itself to his political methods as well. It is unworthy of
a Marxist to speak of democracy “in general.” Democracy has a
class content. If a policy aimed at restoring capitalism is what is
needed, then that is incompatible with democracy for the ruling
proletarian class.
An
actual transition back to capitalism could only be secured through
the dictatorial power of the bourgeoisie. It is ridiculous to demand
the restoration of capitalism and at the same time to sigh for
democracy. That is sheer fantasy.
You
ask how I view the fact that in the capitalist countries the central
committees of the Communist parties are introducing a dictatorial
regime suppressing the independent activity of the party. Yes, I have
more than once spoken out against this. But it should be clearly
understood that neither the capitalist parties nor the Social
Democracy have felt called on to accuse the leadership of the
Communist parties of arbitrariness, since not only all the bourgeois
parties (take a look at America) but also the Social Democracy are
based on such a regime. All questions are decided by a narrow circle
of people at the top. The masses find out about everything post
factum.
They are allowed to criticize and grumble, but nothing more.
You
ask if it is not possible for the Comintern to be turned into an
instrument of the Soviet Union’s national policy. The question has
been incorrectly posed. If the national-reformist line based on the
theory of socialism in one country were to win out definitively in
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, this would lead inevitably
to the growth of national-reformism in all the Comintern sections,
which in this case would be transformed, after the example set by the
Social Democracy, into instruments of the national politics of their
own countries. This would mean the destruction of the Comintern. This
is why the Opposition is conducting a struggle against the revision
of Marxism on the fundamental question of the international character
of the proletarian revolution.
Such,
fundamentally, is the content of the interview I gave. In accordance
with my request, the correspondent submitted the interview to me in
written form. Except for two points, he had set forth my views more
or less accurately-if in a slightly modified form. I requested the
elimination of two paragraphs (about the regime in the Western
Communist parties and about the relations between the Comintern and
the Soviet government), because they had been presented inaccurately.
The correspondent promised to eliminate these two paragraphs.