SPGB Euroelection broadcast for Wales

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Decent broadcast.

Could have been more of a reference to people, though. It didn't really make me feel anything until the last 30 seconds with the corny music, but there you go.

I agree it's a first.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

I mean, it's OK but why is there a conspicuous lack of LGBTQ representation on the video? Like why weren't our interests included in their vision of a better world beyond capitalism? From the looks of it, their World Socialism or whatever they call it seems restricted to a bunch of privileged old white people and one token POC. Not very representative of the world if you ask me. I can tell you that that video wouldn't encourage me to look further into them -- I would just assume they are another group unable to see how they are stuck in a fundamentally patriarchal white supremacist paradigm, and they may be for all I know.

Um, how do you know the people on that aren't LGBTQ?

[QueerVanguard]

Um, how do you know the people on that aren't LGBTQ?

If you read carefully what I wrote I said they made no mention of our interests hence we LGBTQ's weren't represented. The only thing that bothered me about the casting was that here is a group talking about "World Socialism" and it's cast is exclusively White except for one token POC. Shit, I bet even UKIP is makes more diverse commercials than that.

[Queen Mab]

The black woman isn't 'token', I think she's quite high up in the party. At least I remember her being in charge of proceedings when I went to a talk on Rosa Luxemburg at the SPGB headquarters.

[Dave B]

I think I would like to appeal to the moderators here.

I imagine that this person who I know well will be extremely offended as being referred to as “ a token black woman”.

[robbo203]

If you read carefully what I wrote I said they made no mention of our interests hence we LGBTQ's weren't represented. The only thing that bothered me about the casting was that here is a group talking about "World Socialism" and it's cast is exclusively White except for one token POC. Shit, I bet even UKIP is makes more diverse commercials than that.

Jeezuz christ - give em a break. Just how much do you think you can fit in within the time constraints of a public broadcast of only 2 mins 40 odd secs? Personally Im miffed that they didnt get to explain how a rise in the absolute mass of profits is compatible with a falling rate of profit as per Marx's Theories of Surplus Value but there you are - you can't always have everything exactly like you want it. Anyways, I think most people would take it as read that an organisation standing for genuine social equality across the board would apply that also to the question of LGBTQs. In the short time available to it, the essence of the message that it needed to get across was the idea of working to achieve a fundamentally different kind of society to capitalism altogther and I think it did that reasonably well

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Jeezuz christ - give em a break. Just how much do you think you can fit in within the time constraints of a public broadcast of only 2 mins 40 odd secs? Personally Im miffed that they didnt get to explain how a rise in the absolute mass of profits is compatible with a falling rate of profit as pewr Marx's Theories of Surplus Value but there you are - you cant always have everything exactly like you want it. Anyways I think most people would take it as read that an organisation standing for genuine social equality across the board would apply that also to the question of LGBTQs.

Except the SPGB doesn't, demonstrably. At best they make noises about "equality", but they never raise any slogans related to gay liberation and the smashing of the bourgeois family.

[robbo203]

Except the SPGB doesn't, demonstrably. At best they make noises about "equality", but they never raise any slogans related to gay liberation and the smashing of the bourgeois family.

How do you "smash" the bourgeois family and how do you convey that in the space of 2 mins 40 secs? I think the overwhelming majority of workers on hearing a slogan like that would immediately be turned off and simply dismiss you as a nutjob on a par with the Monster Raving Looney Party or whatever. You have to start on a positive note and with the big picture first and foremost. The more nuanced and detailed analyses comes with greater understanding. The Left is too fond of talking to itself and navel gazing, as it is. It needs to get out there and talk more in terms that most workers can relate to. Which is why I think the SPGB video is a bit of a mould breaker, frankly.

[QueerVanguard]

How do you "smash" the bourgeois family and how do you convey that in the space of 2 mins 40 secs?

You smash the bourgeois family by moving beyond Capitalism, pretty simple really. The monogamous marriage/bourgie family is a byproduct of property relations, this is well known to anyone who has looked at its history. When the SPBG cast were describing all the wonderful things that would happen in their World Socialism, one of those buffoons could have easily said "an end to the family and oppression of the LGBTQ community", it would have taken all of 2 seconds tops, but they didn't do that because a. they don't give two shits about ending LGBTQ oppression or the family and don't think that it will end after Crapitalism or b. they didn't want to scare petite bourgeois voters because they're spineless opportunists who are more interested in getting their duffs into Parliament than ending class society.

I think the overwhelming majority of workers on hearing a slogan like that would immediately be turned off and simply dismiss you as a nutjob on a par with the Monster Raving Looney Party or whatever.

Nice of you to assume workers are just as moralistic as the petite bourgeois, maybe you're projecting....

The Left is too fond of talking to itself and navel gazing, as it is. It needs to get out there and talk more in terms that most workers can relate to. Which is why I think the SPGB video is a bit of a mould breaker, frankly.

"Screw Lenin, political opportunism is grand! 'The people' are nationalist xenophobes too so let's not talk about ending racism or Fascism either!" Did I get that right?

[robbo203]

You smash the bourgeois family by moving beyond Capitalism, pretty simple really.

And how do you do that without first knowing 1) what is meant by capitalism 2) what is meant by "moving beyond capitalism". To give it its due, the SPGB video does at least make a decent stab at both these things . Most on the Left if they are even aware of 2) shrink from explaining what it entails lest they be seen as "utopian"

The monogamous marriage/bourgie family is a byproduct of property relations, this is well known to anyone who has looked at its history.

But how many people have "looked at its history". Be realistic. This is a Party Political Broadcast intended for general viewing by the public at large; it is not a friggin university history seminar. And it is constrained by strict time limits applying to the broadcasting of such material which are beyond the power of the SPGB to do anything about

When the SPBG cast were describing all the wonderful things that would happen in their World Socialism, one of those buffoons could have easily said "an end to the family", it would have taken all of 2 seconds tops, but they didn't do that because a. they don't give two shits about ending LGBTQ oppression or the family and don't think that it will end after Crapitalism or b. they didn't want to scare petite bourgeois voters because they're spineless opportunists who are more interested in getting their duffs into Parliament than ending class society.

This is grossly unfair, insulting and way off beam as far as the SPGB's view on using the parliamentary method is concerned about which you seem to know next to nothing. That apart , I still think it would be tactically dumb and psychologically inept to start off sloganising about "ending the family" because it could be so easily misconstrued. Its not a question of opportunism but using your common sense. Starting on a positive note and focussing on the big picture first is far preferable. Most workers unfortunately dont know what socialism is about and think it is something to do with the state or what happened in the state capitalist soviet union. You have to get rid of that idea first if you gonna make any progress at all

Nice of you to assume workers are just as moralistic as the petite bourgeois, maybe you're projecting....

But most workers are "moralistic" on a whole range of issues as public survey after public survey reveal. Whether it be on the merits of the death penalty or "British jobs for British workers". Sad but true. Im not quite sure why you counterpose the views of "workers" to those of the so called "petite bourgeosie". We can have a long discussion on who precisely are the latter though I take the Marxist view that capitalism is more and more just a two class class society consisting of capitalists and workers. Workers who wear a tie to work, speak with a plummy accent and have graduated from college are still just workers. Indeed ,there is a burgeoning literature on the whole concept of the shrinking "middle class" which you must surely have bumped into by now

"Screw Lenin, political opportunism is grand! 'The people' are nationalist xenophobes too so let's not talk about ending racism or Fascism either!" Did I get that right?

No you got it terribly wrong! The video talked precisely about a global alternative to capitalism - what you sneeringly called "their World Socialism" - which anyone with two brain cells to rub together would instantly recognise as a fundamental attack on the whole concept of nationalism. It also talked in terms of black and white , old and young etc uniting. Within the time constraints of a very short video you cannot explicitly say everything that might need to be said but I think enough was said to allow one to gain a very good impression where the SPGB stand as far as nationalism and racism is concerned. Dont you?

[QueerVanguard]

And how do you do that without first knowing 1) what is meant by capitalism 2) what is meant by "moving beyond capitalism". To give it its due, the SPGB video does at least make a decent stab at both these things . Most on the Left if they are even aware of 2) shrink from explaining what it entails lest they be seen as "utopian"

They didn't even take a stab at it. They basically said "wouldn't it be great if we could feed, cloth and house everyone on earth? Well we can because: Socialism!" Take the word "Socialism" out of the video and replace it with "Ethical Capitalism" and it would be identical to a Barack Obama advert. They didn't talk about ending private property or the dictatorship of the proletariat or anything else relevant to building Communism. They just rambled on about "Cooperation" as if that's some unique idea a million other bourgeois politicians don't go on about. There rhetoric is literally no different than what you'd find in the collected works of Proudhon or in Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village"

But how many people have "looked at its history". Be realistic. This is a Party Political Broadcast intended for general viewing by the public at large; it is not a friggin university history seminar. And it is constrained by strict time limits applying to the broadcasting of such material which are beyond the power of the SPGB to do anything about

Cool your jets and try actually reading what I say. I don't give a shit who has read the history. Explaining that Socialism will end LGBTQ oppression and the bourgeois family is explaining tangible fucking benefits workers will get after they destroy Capitalism. Whatever few right-wing moralist workers find that idea objectionable are going to be on the other side of the barricades with their moralist petite bourgeois and Capitalist and Fascist buddies any way. The name of the game is class struggle and we only win it by letting workers know exactly why its in their interests to destroy Capitalism, not by using moralistic language and hiding what will follow from Socialism because it might alienate petite bourgeois fuckwits.

This is grossly unfair, insulting and way off beam as far as the SPGB's view on using the parliamentary method is concerned about which you seem to know next to nothing.

Ever hear the expression Actions Speak Louder Than Words? If not, now you have.

That apart , I still think it would be tactically dumb and psychologically inept to start off sloganising about "ending the family" because it could be so easily misconstrued.

Its straight forward: we want to end monogamous marriage and bourgeois little family units because they are relics of the Capitalist age which we are moving past. You talk about how we shouldn't shrink at things? Well we shouldn't shrink that explaining *that* because most workers are already aware that marriage is a sham and raising kids in an isolated individual setting is a giant pain in the ass. They want to hear a party talking to that concern. We also shouldn't shrink at discussing LGBTQ and POC oppression, you know why? Because those are fucking *workers* and we aren't going to win the global class struggle if workers can't accept one another completely and unite against Capital.

Its not a question of opportunism but using your common sense. Starting on a positive note and focussing on the big picture first is far preferable. Most workers unfortunately dont know what socialism is about and think it is something to do with the state or what happened in the state capitalist soviet union. You have to get rid of that idea first if you gonna make any progress at all

All I'm seeing are bullshit excuse for a party more interested in political gain than smashing Capital.

But most workers are "moralistic" on a whole range of issues as public survey after public survey reveal. Whether it be on the merits of the death penalty or "British jobs for British workers". Sad but true.

That's a bunch of crap made up by the media to keep workers passive. Of course there are a *few* moralistic workers and Nationalist balls of shit floating around, but it's our job to shake them out of that bullshit and aim our message to the vast majority of workers who are already aware of their interests. Otherwise we're not going to make it anywhere anytime soon.

Im not quite sure why you counterpose the views of "workers" to those of the so called "petite bourgeosie".

Maybe it's because I'm a Marxist and understand how class works......

No you got it terribly wrong! The video talked precisely about a global alternative to capitalism - what you sneeringly called "their World Socialism" - which anyone with two brain cells to rub together would instantly recognise as a fundamental attack on the whole concept of nationalism.

Why would someone "recognise" that? I hear Liberals go on all day about how great global cooperation is but at the end of the day they still support borders and boundaries, nation-states, division. The SPGB didn't really say shit about how they want to end nations, why is that? If I had to guess it's because they're opportunists or actually think nations are going to exist after Capitalism. Either way its bad.

[consuming negativity]

Not only was I bored, but everybody in it looked bored except for the woman who started it off. Some random people with a blank background talking into a camera at a nauseating angle such as that is on the same attention-grabbing level as "hi, I like ice cream and long walks on the beach". The most interesting thing it did was say the word "socialism" a few times on television in a positive context, but that isn't even brave when you consider that even the actual socialists have already fallen asleep by that point in the broadcast.

[robbo203]

They didn't even take a stab at it. They basically said "wouldn't it be great if we could feed, cloth and house everyone on earth? Well we can because: Socialism!" Take the word "Socialism" out of the video and replace it with "Ethical Capitalism" and it would be identical to a Barack Obama advert. They didn't talk about ending private property or the dictatorship of the proletariat or anything else relevant to building Communism. They just rambled on about "Cooperation" as if that's some unique idea a million other bourgeois politicians don't go on about. There rhetoric is literally no different than what you'd find in the collected works of Proudhon or in Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village"

Well you're entitled to your opinion but I think your opinion is ridiculous frankly. Within the time constraints of a very short video you have to be selective - very selective. And I would love to see the evidence that statements such as these, repeated verbatim from the video, can be found in a "Barack Obama" advert as you absurdly claim...

"take common owqnership of the world and its resources" (so much for your claim that it didnt talk about "ending private property")

"A planet owned in common by all its people"

"No leaders. No government" (care to name a "capitalist politician" that advocates that? Ha!)

Your comments illustrate very well why the so called revolutionary Left remains a tiny irrelevant voice barely audible above the noise of capitalism and growing dimmer and fainter with ever passing year.

Here, for once, we have a revolutionary socialist organisation saying something that is unquestionably different from what the mainstream capitalist political parties are saying and yet you still find cause to whinge. Pathetic. Truly pathetic

[Blake's Baby]

... a party more interested in political gain than smashing Capital...

... The SPGB didn't really say shit about how they want to end nations, why is that? If I had to guess it's because they're opportunists ...

I can't really let these go. I guess, QueerVanguard, that you don't really know who the SPGB are.

They're about as far from 'opportunist' as you could get. In their entire existence since 1904 (they're the second-oldest political party in Britain), they have never had anyone elected to anything. They left the 2nd International when they formed out of the BSP because they considered it irredemably reformist (before WWI, 10 years before Lenin and Luxemburg etc had come to the conclusion that the 2nd Int had betrayed the working class). They adhere to the 'impossiblist' tradition, advocating nothing less than the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a world socialist society.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I can't really let these go. I guess, QueerVanguard, that you don't really know who the SPGB are.

They're about as far from 'opportunist' as you could get. In their entire existence since 1904 (they're the second-oldest political party in Britain), they have never had anyone elected to anything.

So they're alright, because they're unsuccessful?

They left the 2nd International when they formed out of the BSP because they considered it irredemably reformist (before WWI, 10 years before Lenin and Luxemburg etc had come to the conclusion that the 2nd Int had betrayed the working class).

Which just shows how irredeemably stupid their notion of reformism is, particularly since the Second International contained groups like the Bolsheviks and the Tesnyaki when the SPGB had their little spat with Hyndman.

Of course, during the October Revolution, the SPGB supported the worst elements of the Second International, the Mensheviks, objectively placing them on the same side as Kerensky, Kolchak and the British interventionists. To this day the SPGB mourns their beloved Constituent Assembly with an intensity that would have shocked the most committed Kadet.

They adhere to the 'impossiblist' tradition, advocating nothing less than the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a world socialist society.

They can advocate whatever they want in their meetings and their debates with fascists, it's not as if they're doing anything to bring the destruction of capitalism about. And the charge of homophobia is spot on - as I said, the SPGB explicitly rejected the slogan of an end to the discrimination of homosexuals. That's not even opportunism of the sort robbo displays here - "Oh, we can't mention gays because then the voters would reject us.". It's open hostility to gay liberation. Their attitude toward abortion, transsexuality etc. is also from the Edwardian period, as is most of their ideology.

[Gravediggers]

Well, the SPGB explicitly rejected the slogan of an end to the discrimination of lesbians in one of their execrable texts on "women and socialism" (I believe). The best they can muster is "in socialism no group will receive unequal treatment as a result of their gender of sexual preference", a statement any liberal would happily undersign.

But yeah, someone please vote for them, it might keep them quiet a bit.

Is this the quote from 'Women and Socialism':
vi) An end to discrimination against lesbians
This would mean a great deal to the individuals concerned. However, it is a very limited aim. Socialists seek to bring about a society in which no group receives unequal treatment as a result of their gender or sexual preference. To call for the end of discrimination against minority groups within capitalism will not and cannot bring about emancipation in its broadest sense, that is, the means for each individual to live a worthwhile life as defined by themselves.


If so your comments are way out of context in regards to the bigger picture of all discrimination originating within a class society. It appears the message in the quote is clear enough in that if you want to get rid of discrimination in all its forms get rid of class society.

[The Idler]

Of course, during the October Revolution, the SPGB supported the worst elements of the Second International, the Mensheviks, objectively placing them on the same side as Kerensky, Kolchak and the British interventionists. To this day the SPGB mourns their beloved Constituent Assembly with an intensity that would have shocked the most committed Kadet.

The SPGB never took the side of the Mensheviks (or any faction in Russia) and explicitly repudiate anything less than hostility to any other political group. By contrast in 1903, before the SPGB existed, Trotsky was explicitly offering support for the Mensheviks against the Bolsheviks. There were ideas of the Mensheviks that the SPGB would share, but surely you realise two opposing groups can share some of (or more accurately arrive at) the same ideas without being on each others side? If your view on the SPGB (or any other group such as Russian anarchists or anarcho-communists) is predicated on whether they supported the Bolsheviks actions during the October Revolution (and where does this place young Stalin), then this is a dogmatic analysis not a scientific one.

[Dave B]

It is bit rich coming from a Leninist Trot accusing the SPGB of supporting the constituent assembly.

What about Trotsky’s ‘long live the constituent assembly speech on the eve of the Bolshevik coup?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/clif...5-towards.html

And Lenin’s and the Bolshevik constant and reiterated support for the constituent assembly throughout 1917?

Quotes can be provided, I have most of them in a big file.




The 1919 Mensheviks were more Trotskyist than SPGB.

Resolution of the RDSRP [Menshevik] faction, prepared for the 7th Congress of Soviets (December 1919)

6. The congress considers that a leading role for the state in the economic life of the country is essential. However, it believes that this leading activity on the part of the state can increase the country's productive forces and gradually transform social relations in a socialist direction only if it is based on the active participation of workers' organisations in setting up and restoring economic life. In turn, this is only possible where workers' organisations are self-governing and independent of the state, and where general political conditions ensure that the proletariat can act freely of its own accord. The congress believes that work on restoring the economy must be based on freedom for the working masses to organise themselves and their own activities. Only in this way will it be possible to hold on to the positions which have been won by the workers. Then the path can be laid not to the restoration of capitalism and the political domination of the exploiters, but to real workers' power and the gradual establishment of socialism through the exercise of that power.

http://www.korolevperevody.co.uk/kor...-19-7-cong.htm

you would have thought that bureaucratic caste trots would have been interested in 1919 ,Menshevik warnings about;

………tendency of the developing Soviet bureaucracy to reduce the participation of workers' organisations in the administration and management of production to a minimum…..

And the;

………strengthening military and civil bureaucratism……

In fact the Menshevik centre had become almost indistinguishable from Trotskyism by the mid 1930’s.


Including their pre 'Revolution Betrayed' thesis of the soviet 'deformed workers state'.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Is this the quote from 'Women and Socialism':
vi) An end to discrimination against lesbians
This would mean a great deal to the individuals concerned. However, it is a very limited aim. Socialists seek to bring about a society in which no group receives unequal treatment as a result of their gender or sexual preference. To call for the end of discrimination against minority groups within capitalism will not and cannot bring about emancipation in its broadest sense, that is, the means for each individual to live a worthwhile life as defined by themselves.


If so your comments are way out of context in regards to the bigger picture of all discrimination originating within a class society. It appears the message in the quote is clear enough in that if you want to get rid of discrimination in all its forms get rid of class society.

The context was the SPGB rejecting the slogan of an end to the discrimination of lesbians. And in fact, the SPGB has never written on the gay question (good old Idler, trying to demonstrate the opposite could only link to a... theatre review), even when gay people made up the second most numerous group in the prisons of the British state. The SPGB can piously claim that gay people will not be discriminated against in socialism, but then again, everyone thinks that gay people, women etc. would not be discriminated against in their "ideal" society. The point is not to utter platitudes, any idiot can do that (and most idiots do), but to put forward a revolutionary programme that addresses the oppression (not simply "discrimination") of gay people. The SPGB have not done this - in fact they refuse to. Why, on this thread we have robbo, openly admitting that the execrable SPGB propaganda doesn't address gay liberation because they want to attract bigots (and in fact he compares gay liberation to points of economic theory that, while elementary to us, are beyond arcane to most people). I would say "fuck them, then", but this laughable remnant of a bygone era doesn't deserve even that.

The SPGB never took the side of the Mensheviks (or any faction in Russia)[...]

Yes, they did, and don't pretend otherwise. If printing articles against the war means taking a stand against the British state - and it does - then printing Menshevik-whiteguard articles against the Bolshevik state means siding with the Mensheviks, with the Whites, with Kolchak and with the British.

By contrast in 1903, before the SPGB existed, Trotsky was explicitly offering support for the Mensheviks against the Bolsheviks.

And in 1903, Trotsky was a scoundrel. But nonetheless, there is quite a difference between the Menshevik group in 1903 and in 1918. Originally, the Mensheviks were merely an opportunist group in Russian social-democracy. Sometimes they were better than that - there were a lot of Menshevik-directed sailour uprisings in 1905 and in the aftermath. By 1918, however, the best elements had left the Menshevik group, including Larin, Uritsky etc. What remained was a whiteguard organisation.

If your view on the SPGB (or any other group such as Russian anarchists or anarcho-communists) is predicated on whether they supported the Bolsheviks actions during the October Revolution (and where does this place young Stalin), then this is a dogmatic analysis not a scientific one.

It places Stalin on the correct side of the class line? You appear to have confused Trotskyism for some sort of petty opposition to Stalin personally. In 1918, Stalin and Trotsky were on the same side - the side of the proletariat - whereas the Mensheviks and the SPGB were not.

It is bit rich coming from a Leninist Trot accusing the SPGB of supporting the constituent assembly.

What about Trotsky’s ‘long live the constituent assembly speech on the eve of the Bolshevik coup?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/clif...5-towards.html

And Lenin’s and the Bolshevik constant and reiterated support for the constituent assembly throughout 1917?

Quotes can be provided, I have most of them in a big file.

"On the eve of the Bolshevik coup" apparently means in the Pre-Parliament. In any case, yes, the Bolsheviks supported the convocation of the Constituent Assembly (and Sverdlov presided at several of the sessions, a task that he apparently found immensely boring). Two things need to be kept in mind, though.

First, the Bolsheviks did not count on the PSR-PLSR split not being recorded by the voting lists. I have already gone into this at length: most people (as seen from the results in the peasants' soviets) supported the PLSR, but the elections returned a PSR majority.

Second, the Bolsheviks did not support the Constituent Assembly for the Constituent Assembly's sake, but as a possible organ of proletarian power. In fact the Bolshevik group was flexible when it came to institutions, alternately supporting and opposing the assembly, factory committees, soviets, unions etc. To the vulgar democrat this means inconsistency - but to socialists it is the only correct strategy. The proletarian party can't support any sort of institution mindlessly, but recognise the potential for revolutionary action in all of them.

you would have thought that bureaucratic caste trots would have been interested in 1919 ,Menshevik warnings about;

[...]

Ah, the Mensheviks and their beloved unions (the "workers' organisations" in question). In fact the "warnings" (I can think of less flattering descriptions of the Mensheviks' writings in that period) set up a false dichotomy between the state administration and the unions etc. The Soviet bureaucratic caste was also composed of the officials in the unions (Tomsky etc.).

In fact the Menshevik centre had become almost indistinguishable from Trotskyism by the mid 1930’s.


Including their pre 'Revolution Betrayed' thesis of the soviet 'deformed workers state'.

Now you're just making things up! See e.g. Abramovich's response to Otto Bauer in the journal Die Gesselleschaft. Or Dan's article in the same journal from 1932. Liebich discusses both in "Marxism and Totalitarianism".

[Dave B]

The Trials And Executions In Moscow

Eliminating the Opposition Under the New Constitution?
By Theodore Dan

We reprint the following letter sent to the editor of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN by Theodore Dan, appearing in that publication on September 4, 1936. Dan is the leader of the Russian Menshevik (Social Democratic) party, and a member of the Bureau of the Socialist and Labor International. While we are not in accord with all the political views of Theodore Dan, his letter on the trial and executions in Moscow is, we feel, of signal interest to our readers.—The Editors.
To the Editor of the Manchester Guardian.

Sir,—Sixteen men have been shot in Moscow and one, Tomsky, menaced and hounded into suicide. Among the sixteen were Zinovieff, Kameneff, Smirnov, Mratchkovsky, the most noted of the fellow-workers of Lenin, co-founders of the Bolshevik party and the international Communist movement, men who led the Bolshevik revolution and during its heroic period filled the highest posts in the Soviet State and in the party and trade union organizations. The turn of other Bolshevik leaders no less prominent, men who have held high positions in the State and the army—Radek, Bukharin, Rykoff, Piatokoff, Sokolnikoff, Serebriakoff—has still to come. Everyone who at any time played a leading part in the Bolshevik party is awaiting his fate in fear and horror.



Even those nearest to Stalin feel insecure.
Stalin is not content even with having the old party leaders shot; he is having them covered with infamy—and with them the leader who is now out of his reach, Trotsky, the actual organiser of the October rising, of the Red Army, and of the victories in the civil war. If one is to believe the court and the Soviet press, the men who were the making of the Bolshevik party and of international Communism, and who led the Bolshevik revolution, were nothing but blackguards and thieves, spies and mercenaries of Hitler and the Gestapo!


But did there really exist a terrorist conspiracy against Stalin among the old Bolshevik leaders? It is only too natural that terrorist ideas should simmer in many a hot head in a country in which every opportunity is lacking of organised peaceful opposition to the arbitrary “totalitarian” omnipotence of a single person. But one may well suspect that these hot heads would not be found on the shoulders of old and experienced politicians, who, as Marxists, had for many a year strongly condemned terrorism, if only on account of its futility. The suspicion becomes a certainty when one examines the case for the prosecution and the reports of the Soviet press on the proceedings.



There is not a single document, not a single definite piece of evidence, not a single precise detail of the alleged plans of assassination, not a single attempt to reconcile the conflicting statements made, and only two “witnesses,” both brought into court from prison and both due to appear themselves as defendants in the “second” terrorist trial before the same court!



There is nothing but malevolent phrases in general terms and, most incredible of all, the most abject of self-vilification and “confessions” on the part of the accused men, once more without any concrete detail of any sort concerning their “crime”; they fairly enter into competition with the State prosecutor in branding themselves, and actually beg for the death penalty.




But why is Stalin thus getting rid of the old party leaders on the very eve of the enactment of the new Constitution, with all its democratic flavour? Why is he breaking, at this particular moment, the bonds that still unite him with the old traditions and the past history of the Bolshevik party, the international Communist movement, and the Bolshevik revolution, as Napoleon once broke with the Jacobins from among whom he had risen to power?




In spite of all the democratic rights granted to Soviet citizens by the new Constitution Stalin intends to be in a position to make it a serviceable instrument of the consolidation of his personal dictatorship. For there is one right that is still denied the Soviet citizen—the right of free political self-determination and free organisation in general, without which all other rights can easily be rendered valueless. The political monopoly and the leadership in all permitted organisations and all State and municipal bodies, and therewith the disposal of the press, of the right of assembly, and so on, remains in the hands of the Communist party which Stalin has politically emasculated; in other words, it remains constitutionally reserved to Stalin himself.


But he still has to face the danger that certain provisions of the new Constitution, above all, the secrecy of the ballot, may become buttresses for a legal struggle of the working masses for their rights—above all, for the right of free organisation. For that reason he is urgently at work now making “innocuous” all those who are in a position to organise this mass struggle. He is sending Social Democrats wholesale into his concentration camps. And he is hurriedly exterminating the last of the old Bolshevik leaders whose names and whose opposition to him are known to the masses and who could thus become particularly dangerous to him in his peaceful and constitutional struggle for his sole dominance.


If the Soviet Union is to be preserved as the nucleus of peace, and the war peril facing all humanity thus exorcised, all friends of the Russian Revolution and of world peace must stand resolutely on the side of the Russian workers and peasants in order to assist them to defend the possibilities of democratic and Socialistic development of the Soviet Union against the nationalistic and Bonapartist policy of Stalin. The Moscow murders are perhaps one of the final warnings.—

Yours, &c.,
Paris, August 28.