[Marxism] Comrades - we need a Trotsky essay

[Patrick Bond]

*"WITH BOTH HANDS"*


* The Stalin Bureaucracy and the USA*


* December 1932*



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 manoeuvres 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 offence 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, co-operation, 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 offence. He said that he 
knew there were such unfavourable 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 Milyukov 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," Milyukov, 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 manoeuvre 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 favourable 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 break 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!