TROTSKY'S ATTACK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 156, 3 July 1937, Page 2 (Supplement)

TROTSKY'S ATTACK.

'THE REVOLUTION BETRAYED' LIGHT OX STALIN REGIME. That old caw "The pen is mightier than the sword" comes to mind in reading Leon Trotsky's "The devolution Betrayed" (Faber and Faber). Its author, denied the opportunity to take further active part in the aff;: ire of the Soviet Union, of which he was one of the founders, is an exile, not welcome anywhere except in Mexico and perhaps not permanently welcome there. He is in exile, but he has a mighty ally and weapon in his pen. Reading his book, one finds it easy to understand why he is so .hated by "the regime" in Russia and why the regime is intent upon "liquidating" his supporters, and him, too, if it could lay hands on him. While Trotsky lives the Stalin regime will have no individual enemy half as formidable as Trotsky. The Bureaucracy. Trotsky's danger to the regime lies not only in his personal record in the Revolution, his close association with Lenin (now dead and deified) and his knowledge of Lenin's wishes and intentions, but also in the nature of his criticism. In brief, he asserts that power in the Soviet State is not in the hands of the T»orkers, but has been seized by a great and growing bureaucracy. This, together with its supporters—those who profit or hope to profit, directly or indirectly, from its existence—numbers | 12 per con€ or perhaps 13 per cent <>f\ the population. The rest of the people live in miserable subjection. In effect, he says that the masses, as the outcome of the Revolution perverted by the bureaucracy, have done little more than exchange one set of oppressors for another. He himself, in this book, appears the milk-white (or should one say blood-red-?) Communist, the incorruptible, striving with his pen to save the Revolution from being ruined. Beyond a doubt he means it and feels it. What is more, he supports his charges against the bureaucracy with evidence— often the statements of the men he attacks which is exceedingly persuasive. As a piece of controversial writing his book has seldom been equalled. "Privileges to a Minority." In the early days of the Soviet State. say« Trotsky, there was equality— equality of general poverty." Now, although the state of production is. still far from guaranteeing all necessities to everybody, "it is already adequate to give significant privileges to a minority, and convert inequality into a whip for the spurring on of the majoritv." "Nobody who has wealth to distribute ever omits himself." Moreover— and in this assertion it seems that the author ,has support in recent events in Russia the bureaucracy is fearful, intolerant and savagely repressive of criticism and internal opposition. In the desperate days of 1917-21, Trotsky says, it was possible to dispute openly and fearlessly in "the party" about the most critical question "of policy. "Why now (he asks) after the cessation of intervention after the shattering of the exploiting classes, after the indubitable success of industrialisation, after collectivisation of the overwhelming majority of the peasants, is it impossible to permit the slightest word of criticism of tho unremovable leaders? The reason, he says, is that the gulf between the bureaucracv and the masses grows ever wider, and. the leaders become ever more fearful of discontent among the masses. The chief merit of a Bolshevik is now declared to be obedience. . Wants World Revolution. And what would Trotsky have the leaders of the Soviet do? Here alikfor those who are deeply interested in Russian developments, and for those "ho are not, is the point of greatest importance. He denounces the rc-imc for not continuing to support 1-on-nSV' V . an<l W ' ,h aII the '"cans P 1® to !t > the movements for a ievolution in every country, for "in the last analyse the safety of the workersState could be guaranteed onlv by the growth of the world revolution." * For him the League of Nations, collective security courts of arbitration, disarmament etc, are "pacifist illusions," and the Soviet has no business to have anv tz°:rn w,th thcm - t ° t,,e boast that since ,ts entrance into t!.c League the Soviet has had "more friends than ever before." he replies that l»v its policy the Kremlin has lost Russia the confidence of "the colonial peoples a d of the toiling masses in general!" \"t Russia, but the bureaucracy, has gained J .ends; the Soviet Union "remains in the e\es of the bourgeousic of the w hole world an irreconcilable enemy" in his view the Soviet, while for 'it's own purposes it makes this or that diplomatic, or military •-hm.H " WUh * ca P' ta,ist country, should in no way limit or weaken the truggle of the proletariat" in that with fh <" ° thor word *' whi,e . tho , Government of any other country, the Soviet should be* secretly fomenting revolution against that Government! If this policy has been abandoned (as Trotsky angrily a «crtsi it is no wonder that the Soviet of .. talin is regarded as a more respectable neighbour than of old. However, it should be noted that the policy has not been changed because of'an access of scruple, but to strengthen the Soviet's position, and Trotsky contends that the result has been not to strengthen, but to weaken it. "A Premeditated Frame-up." The final chapter in the book contains the speech wlueli Trotsky was to have given, by telephone from Mexico, to a mass meeting in New York on February ]ast ' ~ speech was not heard presumably because the telephone was cut. It is devoted to an analysis and ! destruction of the Soviet's case against trS ti lek1 ek and others thcn on trial. The charges, lie declares, were a premeditated frnme-up." This speech I in itself deserves wide attention. Of the book as a whole it may be said that while Trotsky's motive in writinp it is not above suspicion, it is indispensable to an understanding of the state of the Soviet Union to-dav