Workers Age: The Moscow Trials [Feb. 20, 1937] 1 The Moscow Trials: An Editorial Statement. Unsigned editorial in Workers Age, v. 6, no. 8 (Feb. 20, 1937), pp. 3, 6. Although there was good reason to antici- ernment and civil war in the Soviet Union, as pate it months in advance, the second great po- Trotsky has publicly done more than once in the litical trial recently completed at Moscow has last four years, and carrying out acts of terrorism aroused a feeling of dismay and horror hardly less and sabotage, there is no real difference of prin- intense than that which characterized labor and ciple: the difference is entirely one of tactics. The liberal opinion after the first trial some time ago. former may quite readily be transformed into the Thought itself is momentarily paralyzed at the latter, once all hope of an effective mass move- incredible spectacle of old Bolsheviks of world ment is gone or may be undertaken as a means of repute standing before a Soviet tribunal charged arousing such a mass movement. Even agreements with murder, wrecking, treason, and conspiracy with the enemy are conceivable—on the principle with the fascist enemy! But the Moscow trials are that it is better to save something, by concessions a fact and facts must be faced! to Germany and Japan if need be, than to lose everything by allowing Stalin, as those who hold Practical Consequences this conception must believe, to go on ruining of Trotskyist Principles. the revolution and destroying its fruits altogether. A not too remote analogy comes to mind in Lenin’s The fundamental Trotskyist viewpoint, once use of the Imperialist German government’s fa- openly held by Radek, Piatakov, and others and cilities to get into Russia to advance the revolu- presumably retained by them even after their “ca- tion, his readiness to yield large sections of Rus- pitulation,” embodies three main principles: (1) sian territory to Imperial Germany at Brest-Lit- that the chief danger to the Russian revolution ovsk in the hope of saving the rest, and his retreat comes from within; (2) that the ruling group towards capitalism in the NEP in order to pre- headed by Stalin represents a conservative, serve the foundations of Soviet power. Once ac- Thermidorian force opening the way for coun- cept the underlying political premises of Trotsky- terrevolution and capitalist restoration; and (3) ism and these matters become merely a question that the Stalin regime can neither be reformed nor of expediency, effectiveness, and calculation of removed in a “peaceful” or “constitutional” man- probable consequences, of time and place and cir- ner, but only by force and violence in some form. cumstance and relation of forces. On the basis of such an attitude and presuppos- ing its consistent translation into action, none of The Fundamental Problem. the defendants last August or this January falls outside the limits of political possibility. Between As for the trials themselves, it is altogether advocating the armed overthrow of the Stalin gov- out of the question to attempt any detailed evalu- 1 2 Workers Age: The Moscow Trials [Feb. 20, 1937] ation at the present time, in the sense of passing and such charges as have been made become pos- judgment upon the validity of each bit of evidence sible? How long can a regime be continued in or of the details of specific guilt of each of the which no one ever knows upon whom he can rely, accused. Those who are in such a frightful hurry in which men in high and responsible positions, to pretend omniscience on these matters are ei- such as Radek, the official spokesman, or Piata- ther special pleaders or are the tail to one or an- kov, the Assistant Commissar for Heavy Indus- other faction of the Russian communist move- try, or even Stalin’s private secretary, can no longer ment, ready to accept anything in blind faith from be trusted? Does not the very regime of hero cult, either Stalin or Trotsky. Discrepancies, contradic- personal exaltation of the leader, qualification for tions, even sheer impossibilities in the charges and office by syncophancy, elimination of collective allegations of the two trials are not hard to find, leadership, abandonment of democratic discussion but the impression seems to us inescapable — and — do not all these constitute a serious danger of it is shared by many observers not particularly more vital concern to every communist and real friendly to Stalin — that, even after such material friend of the Soviet Union than even the deeds or is discarded, there still remains a substantial bed- the fate of the defendants on trial? rock of fact: that efforts at assassination and sabo- Far from drawing the necessary conclusions tage were indeed made by some of the followers from these events, the leadership of the CPSU has and former followers of Trotsky and Zinoviev. sought to make factional capital out of them, thus These questions, important as they are, are further narrowing the regime. How else are we to still secondary to the fundamental one. When interpret the declaration in Pravda (December 15, objective judgment is passed on the Moscow tri- 1936) that: “We must not take the word of any als, it must surely be done primarily on the basis former oppositionist. No, not one!” How else are of the all-absorbing question: Is it Stalin or the we to interpret the effort obviously being made Trotskyist opposition that, by and large, represents today to extend the odium of Trotskyism to ele- the basic interests of the socialist revolution in ments whose political line has uniformly been dia- Russia, that is the bearer of the fundamentally metrically opposed to that of Trotsky? sound policies of socialist construction? And on It does not help matters either to imply that this question our position has been made clear anyone who has ever disagreed with Stalin or who more than once. The course of events itself, more- may ever disagree with him must necessarily have over, has pretty generally confirmed the viewpoint opposed Lenin or vice versa. Many ardent sup- of Stalin as against that of Trotsky on the vital porters of Stalin today were bitter opponents of questions of socialist construction in the Soviet Lenin throughout his career. Stalin also at times Union, on the tempo of industrializations, and opposed Lenin and certainly Lenin was, on occa- on the collectivization of agriculture. sion, very sharp in strictures on Stalin. At this mo- The Moscow trials also raise a number of ment, particularly, Stalin is far from the funda- very grave questions in other directions. Does it mentals of Leninist teaching on a number of ques- not constitute a serious reflection upon the type tions, such as the attitude towards bourgeois de- of regime to be found in the CPSU that, in a pe- mocracy and coalition government, proletarian riod of so many years, it has not succeeded in dis- policy in war, etc. Such mechanical equating of solving the various oppositional movements and Stalin, or any man, to infallibility, making oppo- reabsorbing their elements into the party, but sition to him the equivalent of counterrevolution, rather in consolidating and embittering them to renders absolutely impossible any real correction the point where such acts as have been confessed of errors or any judgment of questions of strategy Workers Age: The Moscow Trials [Feb. 20, 1937] 3 and tactics on their merits rather than on their rades — and by their own confessions as well! — sponsorship. to be assassins, wreckers, traitors, and fascists? Soviet Prestige Impaired. Danger of “Bloodletting.” When all channels of healthy criticism and There was a time, in 1922 — and the Soviet free discussion are closed, when all possibility of regime was far from being as strong and as firmly legal opposition is destroyed, what else is to be established then as it is today — when Lenin found expected? Even from a narrow practical stand- it possible to grant the accused Socialist Revolu- point, the folly of such a course should be clear. tionary terrorists on trial the services of foreign The trials were presumably expected to deal a counsel (Emile Vandervelde, Theodore Lieb- deathblow to Trotsky’s prestige at home and knecht, and Kurt Rosenfeld) and to commute the abroad. But what has been the actual result? Not death sentences finally passed upon them. There only has the political importance of Trotskyism was a time, too, not so many years ago, when Sta- been tremendously inflated in the eyes of those lin protested against a policy of “bloodletting” in who judge largely by appearances, but the impres- dealing with political problems. “The method of sion is beginning to arise, even in friendly circles, lopping off,” he once declared with a good deal of that perhaps the Soviet government is not so se- emphasis, “is full of the greatest dangers for the cure in the enthusiastic support of the masses as party. The method of lopping off, the method of had been previously supposed. “Even if you con- bloodletting, is dangerous and contagious: today, cede that the confessions are true. ,” the New this one is lopped off; tomorrow, that one; the Republic is forced to conclude, “it shows that the next day, someone else. What, then, will be left of present regime has had more enemies, and more the party?” But in the last decade this very sound implacably hostile enemies, within its own ranks, piece of advice has been ignored by no one as much than anyone could have believed possible.” There as Stalin himself. The policy of “bloodletting” has is no use trying to hide the painful fact: it is the reigned unchecked and, as Stalin warned in 1926, prestige of the Soviet Union that has been hardest the base of party and Soviet leadership has been hit as a result of the trials — and that, too, so dangerously narrowed, to the great detriment to soon after the very favorable impression made the foundation of the socialist regime.