Leon
Trotsky: The Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union
Published
June 16, 1934
[Writings
of Leon Trotsky, Vol 7, 1934-1935, New York 1971, p. 17-20]
Soviet
foreign policy has taken a decidedly anti-Leninist turn particularly
since the recognition of the Soviet Union by the United States.
In
the first place, this recognition was granted only after American
capitalism had been fully convinced that the Third International
would no longer serve as an instrument of world revolution in general
nor as a revolutionary incitement and inspiration to the American
laboring masses in particular. Secondly, in order to emphasize their
good faith, the Stalinist bureaucracy officially declared that
President Roosevelt represented peaceful American capitalism, which
was honestly seeking a democratic and pacifistic solution to
present-day imperialist contradictions and conflicts.
Recently
Alexander A. Troyanovsky, the Soviet ambassador to Washington, stated
that the USSR and the United States should be able to find a "common
ground" in an endeavor "to secure complete or partial
disarmament." "The foreign policy of the Soviet Union,"
he continued, "shows an increasing activity for peace. … We
greeted the resumption of normal relations with the United States
from this point of view. Not material gains for our country, but the
gain for international peace was regarded in our country as the
important thing in friendly relations with the United States."
One
can hardly doubt Troyanovsky's love for peace, especially if we take
some of his other statements into account. "The cause of peace,"
he declared, "was so great that it must prevail over all other
problems." And among these problems he cited the most important
economic contradictions of our epoch. "All secondary [! ?]
problems, such as those of debts, of commercial competition, of
tariffs, and so on," he explained, "must be settled as soon
as possible by mutual agreements and to mutual satisfaction, for
these relatively small [! ?] questions spoil the international
atmosphere and prevent friendly efforts to consolidate peace."
Can
the worthy Stalinist ambassador really mean this? Has he completely
forgotten Lenin's teachings regarding the economic causes of war?
Troyanovsky should be reminded that in Imperialism:
The Last Stage of Capitalism
Lenin actually proves that the "secondary" and "small"
questions he mentions are at the very root of imperialist war in
particular and all war in general. Or is this counterrevolutionary
Trotskyism, Monsieur l'Ambassadeur?
In
line with this trend, the Stalinists have published abroad a brand
new interpretation of capitalism and imperialism. They have divided
the capitalist nations into two categories: one the peaceful,
democratic and pacifist; the other the warlike, fascist and
aggressive. (This is precisely the theory of the Second
International.) Under the former category are listed America, France,
the Little Entente® and possibly England; under the latter are
listed especially Germany and Japan.
Following
through this anti-Marxist political philosophy, Litvinov is now
engaged in discussions for an "understanding" with
imperialist France. Frederick T. Birchall, New
York Times
correspondent in Berlin, says that "… accompanying and
alongside the military agreement, it is understood a thorough
understanding has now been arrived at regarding Russia's entry into
the League of Nations. It is to take place as soon as possible with
the enthusiastic support of France, which, with the disarmament
negotiations as an excuse [mark well!], will send to Geneva in the
near future an impressive delegation. … The stage is all set in
France to hail the Russian understanding … as a further guarantee
of European peace and French security. Then France will be ready to
talk about disarmament."
This
maneuver is made in the name of Marx and Lenin, explain the
Stalinists, in order to secure allies (?!) against a probable attack
on the USSR from the side of fascist and warlike capitalism, namely,
Germany and Japan. Also the entry of the Soviet Union into the
capitalist League of Nations, characterized by the Third World
Congress of the Communist International as "the international
trust of the victorious states for the exploitation of their
vanquished competitors and the colonial peoples," has been
facilitated.
Today
Pravda,
the official organ of the Stalinist bureaucracy, explains the
politics of the League of Nations as follows: "As a matter of
fact, the withdrawal from the League of Japan and Germany — these
countries which do not even try to conceal their determination to
fulfill their imperialistic ambitions by the means of further
armaments, encroachments and wars — has brought up the question
whether the League could not to a certain degree [how cautious!]
become the center of united forces that are ready to delay the bloody
settlement of disputes and bring about at least some strengthening of
peace." And Karl Radek adds: "The danger of war against the
USSR does not come from the League but from open opponents of the
League and English diehards."
The
Theses and Resolutions of the Third World Congress of the Communist
International support this conclusion: "The new international
labor organization is established for the purpose of organizing
united action of the world proletariat, aspiring toward the same
goal: the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, and of an International Soviet
Republic, for the complete elimination of classes and the realization
of socialism, the first step toward the Communist commonwealth."
Stalinism
has eliminated all this. It has substituted in its place military
alliances with capitalist countries and the insane theory of
socialism in one country. The Marxism-Leninism of the Third World
Congress is now called counterrevolutionary Trotskyism. And in
support of this thesis the French imperialist government is now
persecuting Comrade Trotsky as a counterrevolutionist!
This
new Stalinist policy will endanger not only the Soviet Union but also
the prospects of a world revolution should an imperialist war break
out If the USSR is maneuvered into the League of Nations and thereby
tied to the imperialist chariot of France and the Little Entente, or
if it becomes a member of the permanent peace conference, it will
have been demonstrated in either case that the Soviet Union is on the
side of the strongest capitalist bandits. Thus, the emancipation of
the oppressed by proletarian revolution is renounced, and the Soviet
Union becomes a pawn (and ultimately a victim) in the imperialist
game.
This
policy, now aimed chiefly against Germany, is an inevitable
consequence of the dastardly betrayal of the German workers and
semi-proletarian masses by the German Communist Party under the
direct command of Stalin. At first the German revolution was
sabotaged in the interest of peace and credits. Now, with the threat
of Hitler before their eyes, Stalin and Co. veer towards imperialist
France in order to stay Hitler's hand, that is, to checkmate his
Drang
nach Osten [eastern
expansion] policy.
As
usual, the Stalinist bureaucracy does not calculate the effect of
this course on the German masses. Having lost faith in the world
revolution and, more particularly, disdaining the revolutionary aid
of the German masses in case of a fascist attack, Stalin once more
plays into Hitler's hands. Goebbels has already broadcast throughout
bleeding Germany that the Soviet Union has formed a technical
military alliance with the thoroughly hated France against the German
people. And thus the last drop of revolutionary blood is drained from
the veins of the German workers. This is the final stab in the back.
The
impending failure of the disarmament conference opens up a dangerous
prospect for the Soviet Union. England cannot afford to have France
increase its power on the Continent It will not allow Germany to be
further humiliated and crushed. It also supports the German
rearmament proposals. It continues on friendly terms with Japan. For
England needs both Germany and Japan, at least as potential allies,
to maintain its far-flung empire.
The
current policy of the Soviet Union, if carried through to the bitter
end, leads to imperialist entanglements and aims a deathblow at the
world proletarian movement.
It
is obvious that such a situation calls for a new party and a new
(Fourth) International.