Leon
Trotsky: "With Both Hands"
The
Stalin Bureaucracy and the USA
December
1932
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 5, 1932-33, New York 1972, p. 17-23]
The
internal condition of the Soviet Union is making a new political turn
inevitable and increasingly urgent, a turn that must be more extreme
than all those that preceded it Everybody feels it Many see it
clearly.
The bureaucratic leadership, at the focal point of the difficulties
and dissatisfaction, maintains an obdurate silence. Perhaps because
it does not yet know what road to tread? Or perhaps because it
prefers to keep still about the already-trodden road until it has
become an irrevocable fact?
To
"drive" the duped, lulled, and half-stifled party,
unnoticed by it, upon a path it does not want to take — that is the
tactical method of Stalin. The transition from the "dry"
system to "wet" in alcoholic beverages was never decided by
the party; the bureaucracy simply continued to raise the alcoholic
content of light beverages in order to increase state revenues and in
this way took the country from 4 to 40 percent The same method is
applied by Stalin in every field. All the more necessary is it now to
pay sharp attention to the maneuvers of the bureaucracy, which is
silently preparing a new "surprise" for the working masses.
Symptoms even of a secondary order must be checked on attentively and
distrustfully; by taking everything into consideration, it may help
to block the bureaucratic leaders long before they have carried the
new turn up to 40 percent, after which it may no longer be possible
to reverse it
The
eminent American specialist in agricultural-machinery construction,
Thomas Campbell, worked for a period of time as a technical adviser
of the Soviet Union. After his return to the United States he
published a book, Russia:
Market or Menace ?The high point of this book, at least politically
speaking, is its report of an extended conversation of the author
with Stalin.
This conversation, about whose authenticity there can be no doubt, as
we shall see, deserves not only to be reprinted but also to be
submitted to a careful examination.
"As
soon as we were seated I explained to Mr. Stalin through the
interpreter that before we entered into any business negotiations I
wanted to speak to him frankly and without offense in regard to my
trip to Russia and several other matters which were on my mind. He
immediately agreed to this and with one motion of his arm pointed
towards the door, upon which his secretary left the room in about
three steps. I then said to Mr. Stalin, 'I am very anxious, Mr.
Stalin, that you should know that I am here without any intent of
giving you any false impressions. I am not a Communist, I do not
believe in the Soviet form of government; I am not a disciple of Bill
Haywood or Emma Goldman, and I resent many of the things which I hear
about your government Nevertheless, I am much interested in your
agricultural development as I am an agricultural mechanical engineer
and have spent most of my life trying to develop mechanized
agriculture in the United States. We had a poor crop in Montana this
year, and the work which your government has offered me is
interesting. I will not, however, make any kind of working agreement
with your government if it cannot be done absolutely independently of
my political beliefs and strictly on a business basis.' Whereupon
Stalin arose alertly from his chair, crossed to my side of the table,
took my hand in both of his, looked me straight in the eye, and said,
'Thank you for that, Mr. Campbell. Now I know that I can believe you.
Now I know that we can respect each other and perhaps we can be
friends. ’
"He
then motioned me to sit down and asked me to continue. I went on to
explain that we in the United States resented many things which we
had heard about the Soviet government, such as the confiscation of
property, elimination of personal rights, nationalization of women
and children, repudiation of debts and religion, and above all what
we thought was an attempt to interfere with our own government I told
him that neither he nor his government could expect the friendship,
cooperation, and recognition of our government if they ever did try
to interfere with our affairs.
"Mr.
Stalin immediately replied that he realized this and he too wanted to
speak with the same frankness and without offense. He said that he
knew there were such unfavorable reports in our country, and took
considerable time to explain the true conditions in Russia. He
unhesitatingly admitted, with disarming frankness, that under Trotsky
there had been an attempt to spread communism throughout the world.
He said that was the primary cause of the break between himself and
Trotsky. That Trotsky believed in universal communism while he wanted
to confine his efforts to his own country. He explained that they had
neither the time nor the money to try to communize the world, even
should they wish to do so, and that his own chief interest was to
improve the conditions of the people in Russia, without any
interference whatsoever in the government of other countries.
"We
discussed the Third International® and other reports of Soviet
propaganda, and I must admit that Mr. Stalin convinced me that there
is no attempt now on his part, or on the part of officials of the
Soviet government, to interfere with the government of the United
States. We discussed politics, economics, banking, business, trade
with the United States, transportation, agriculture, and education. I
was amazed at Mr. Stalin's knowledge of general affairs. He reminded
me of many of our big industrial leaders who must have a general
knowledge of practically all affairs to hold their positions. His
words, as they were transferred to me through the interpreter, were
carefully chosen, and I was particularly surprised at his knowledge
of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, my own lack of
knowledge of this same Constitution caused me considerable
embarrassment, and the first thing I did, upon reaching London, was
to find a bookstore and buy a copy.
"The
conference lasted until well after dark, as the sun sets early in the
northern country. Upon leaving, he told me that the interpreter would
prepare a typewritten copy of our conversation, which I received two
weeks later in London, signed 'J. Stalin,' and with this note —
'Keep this record, it may be a very historical document some day. ’"
The
authenticity of the interview, as is clear from the circumstances
described, is beyond any doubt Campbell is no light-minded journalist
seeking sensationalism, but an energetic Yankee businessman, an
important American man of wealth and builder of machinery. He is
quite kindly disposed towards Stalin. In reporting the interview,
Campbell relied not only on his memory but also on the official
report supplied to him. Finally, Campbell's report has nowhere and
never been denied. These facts sufficiently confirm the authenticity
of the interview from the formal side But much more important is the
inner political logic of the conversation, its accordance with the
spirit of the participants and the circumstances. No journalist,
moreover, could have thought up that double handshake or that
excellent description of the true essence of the differences of
opinion between Stalin and Trotsky.
The
Yankee remains true to himself to the very end in this conversation.
The solid bourgeois, who has had a bad harvest this year and is
therefore all the more inclined to do a stroke of business with the
godless nationalizers of women, sticks his leg upon the Soviet table
and slaps the leader of the Bolsheviks on the shoulder
half-patronizingly, half-warningly.
No
one will reproach Stalin for attempting to utilize the meeting with
Campbell to facilitate an agreement with the American government and
market. But why this "sudden" rise to his feet, this
gripping of Campbell's hand with both of his, and this proposal not
only of "mutual respect" but also of "friendship"?
Does this resemble the conduct of a representative of the workers'
state who is carrying on business negotiations with a representative
of the capitalist world? Alas, no resemblance at all! But it does
resemble the crawling conduct of a petty bourgeois before a big
bourgeois. This little occurrence, which, frankly, it nauseates one
to read, is very characteristic. It makes it possible to discern the
true political consciousness of Stalin, who is so resolute and
relentless in struggle against Opposition Communists and dissatisfied
workers.
Fifteen
years after the October Revolution, Stalin speaks with the American
capitalist in virtually the same tone in which Miliukov and Kerensky
once spoke with Buchanan in the not-very-glorious days of the
impotent coalition. The resemblance lies not only in tone but also in
content "The necessity is openly preached amongst you in the
press and in public for concluding the war," Buchanan cuttingly
reproached the February powers-that-be. "Not us," Miliukov,
Tereshchenko, and Kerensky defended themselves, "only the
Bolsheviks. But we'll finish them off right enough." "Just
look," Kerensky then assured Buchanan, holding his hand with
both his own because he did not have a third hand — "just
look, Lenin is already driven into illegality again and Trotsky is in
Kresty prison."
Stalin's
position, of course, is essentially different, for the October
Revolution is a historical fact and the "apparatus" bases
itself on its social consequences. But the political task of the
bureaucracy does not consist in spreading the October Revolution
throughout the world; it is for this program that Trotsky was exiled
from the USSR, Stalin respectfully reports to the American bourgeois.
His, Stalin's, task consists in improving the position of the Russian
people by means of "friendship" with American capital.
Unfortunately, it is precisely Stalin's policy in the field of
"improving the position of the people" that leads to
constantly sadder results.
Perhaps
a pundit will be found to contend that by his assertions about
international revolution, etc., Stalin simply aimed at deceiving the
American as to his real opinions. What's wrong with that? Is it worth
making a point of it? Only a completely hopeless idiot could possibly
believe such an explanation.
To
begin with, is it permissible to seek to deceive an adversary by such
declarations which must inevitably confuse and demoralize friends?
For what Stalin plainly declared to the whole world was that, in
contradistinction to the Left Opposition, his faction has renounced
the theory and practice of the international revolution. May one play
with such things in the interests of diplomacy? Even within the
limits of diplomacy such a game would be doomed to a miserable
fiasco. A private conversation, even if it lasts till sunrise, is not
enough to exercise any influence upon the ruling class of the USA.
The Yankees are serious businessmen. They will not buy a pig in a
poke. Assertions must stand on facts and lead to facts. The
declaration of Stalin is no maneuver and no trick; basically it flows
from the theory of socialism in one country.
It
was prepared by the entire policy of recent years. In the near
future, too, it may become the doctrine of the new course on which
the bureaucracy is entering more directly every day, thanks to its
blindness and its failures.
Can
it really be forgotten that the Soviet government, to everyone's
surprise, supported the Kellogg Pact? The motivation, dictated by
Stalin and intended only for home consumption, stated: even if the
Kellogg Pact does not go far enough, it is nevertheless a step
forward. Soviet diplomacy, of course, is under no obligation to say
out loud everything it is thinking. It must not, however, without
undermining the ground beneath its feet, make any declarations or
moves which help the enemy deceive the workers and weaken their
vigilance.
The
Kellogg Pact is not a step forward to peace, but a diplomatic cover
for the mightiest and most dangerous of all the imperialist bandits.
The matter is not merely confined to the pact Litvinov recently
supported the American proposal for "partial disarmament."
In this connection the Soviet press did not expose Hoover's demand,
but only those imperialists who did not want to go along with it
Hoover's proposal, just like the Kellogg Pact, has as its aim neither
disarmament nor prevention of war, but the concentration of control
over war and peace in the hands of the USA. The preparation of
favorable moral and material points of departure for the coming war —
that is the one task of the American imperialists.
If
it is assumed that Soviet diplomacy could not express itself openly —
that is not our opinion — then the press should have spoken for it
But when Stalin-inspired diplomacy clings to the proposals of Hoover
and Kellogg "with both hands," it is deceiving the world
proletariat and weakening the Soviet state. Whereas the centrists in
Amsterdam based themselves entirely on petty-bourgeois pacifism,
which is honestly meant for the most part and is at all events still
rooted in the masses, in Geneva they joined hands on the "left"
with imperialist pseudo-pacifism, whose roots are to be found in the
banks and trusts. On the question of war, the epigones openly and
demonstratively with the revolutionary tradition of Leninism. Their
immediate objective is to win the trust of American capital. The
nocturnal conversation in the Kremlin constitutes irreplaceable
commentary on the speeches of the Soviet delegates at Geneva.
Yet
diplomacy does not exhaust the question, and in this field it cannot
claim first place. Where does the Communist International fit in? For
four and a half years now no congress of the Comintern has been
called and nobody knows when it will be called, if ever. Stalin does
not so much as find time to appear at the plenum of the Executive
Committee of the Communist International and leaves the leadership to
people who for the most part need leading themselves. Is it not a
deliberate demonstration of contempt for the Comintern? Does it not
signify that in actuality, and not only in conversation with the
American bourgeois, Stalin has completely given up the policy of
international revolution? No, he did not deceive Campbell. He only
described, with rare frankness, the situation as it really is.
Still
another question, and the most essential of all, was clearly
illuminated in the Stalin-Campbell dialogue: the question of
socialism in one country. In spite of all the half-baked prophecies,
the five-year plan did not increase the economic "independence"
of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, the advances in
industrialization have extended and deepened the connections of
Soviet economy with world economy and consequently have increased
their mutual dependency. The double handshake of Stalin and his
deferential reassurance to American capital of his differences with
the Left Opposition are, in the last analysis, nothing but the
political expression of the economic dependency of the Soviet Union
on the world market The humiliating character of this "expression"
is determined by the psychology of a very highly situated but
nonetheless petty-bourgeois bureaucrat, whom great events always find
unprepared.
The
more the Stalin faction turns its back on the international
revolution, the more it will feel its dependency on world capital,
the more it will cling to it convulsively "with both hands."
Stalin's handshake is not only a symbolical act — it is almost a
program. While he thoughtlessly and flatly accuses the Opposition of
aiming to turn over Soviet industry to foreign capital, Stalin is
obviously preparing for a change in the international as well as the
internal political course.
Caught
in a vise, the bureaucracy is capable of engaging in any adventure,
including treacherous ones. To trust it blindly is to be an accessory
to treason. Today more than ever we are duty-bound to watch Stalin's
conduct in the field of foreign political relations not only with
tireless attention but also with sharp distrust
On
guard! Be prepared!