The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 8, 1925, Page 7

ey “The idee becomes power when it pene- trates the masses.” Karl Marx. SPECIAL MAGAZINE SUPPLEMENT SATURDAY, AUGUST 8, 1925. THE DAILY WORKER. Age 290 SECOND SECTION This magazine supple- ment will appear every Saturday in The Daily Worker. Trotsky Trounces Eastman By LEON TROTSKY. Readers of the DAILY WORKER will remember the controversy aroused by the publication of Max Eastman’s book “Since enin Died.” The DAILY WORKER was able to smash the campaign of the capi- . talist press (which was using Eastman’s book as part of their propaganda for’ War. against the Soviet Union) by securing a telegraphic refutation direct from Trotsky himself. In the article below Trotsky follows his telegram with a detailed and crushing refutation of Eastman’s book. We print it in full, notwithstan- ing heavy demands upon our space; because it gives an object lesson in the worthlessness of ninety-nine per cent of the assertions made by the ‘capitalist press—and its dupes—about the Worker's’ Republic of Russia. This is.the more urgent since the war-propaganda against Russia-— altho suspended—may be resumed at any moment. * * About Eastman’s Book, “Since Lenin Died” OON after my return from Sukhum to Moscow, I learned from a tele- gram from Comrade Jackson, of the SUNDAY WORKER, about the publi- cation of a book by Eastman under the title “Since Lenin Died,” which was being made use of by the capi- talist .press for attacks upon our Party and the Soviet Government. Altho my reply to Comrade Jack- son was published in due course in } the paper, I nevertheless think it use- ful to reproduce here its first part: “Eastman’s book, about .which you write, is quite unknown to me. The bourgeois papers which quoted it have not reached me. It goes without say- ing that I repudiate in advance and most ‘categorically all comments di- reeted: against the Russian Commun- ist Party.” ‘Further on in the tele gram I repudiated the absurb insinu- ations as to my alleged change in favor of bourgeois’ democracy and-free- dom of trade. . UBSEQUENT I received East- man’s book from Comra-e Inkpin, secretary of the British Communist Party, who wrote me a letter similar to Comrade Jackson’s telegram. I had no intention of reading and still less of replying to Eastman’: book being of the opinion that my _ telegram to Comrade Jackson, which in the meantime had appeared in the British .and general foreign ~ press, would be sufficient. Nevertheless, some of my. Party comrades who had read the pamphlet expressed their opinion that, in view ‘of the references in the pamphlet to conversations with me, my silence might indirectly assist it in damaging our Party, This has induced me to pay more attention to Eastman’s production, and to acquaint myself in detail with its contents. Fa ees N the strength of well-known inci- dents in our Party life, of the discussion of the methods of Party democracy, of State regulation of eco- - Romic life, etc, Eastman arrives at conclusions which are unreservedly and entirely directed against the Party and may, if accepted on their face’ value, bring discredit on the Party and the Soviet Government. I shall dwell first of all upon one item which is not only of historical but also of the most actual and vital importance—i. e., the Red Army. About the Red Army. Fp tea makes it appear as if the Army, thru the change in the per- sonnel of leadershtp, had broken up and lost fts effectiveness, etc. It ts a mystery how and whence Eastman de- rived this notion. Its absurdity is quite patent. At any rate, we should not recommend imperialist govern- ments to base their schemes upon Eastman’s revelations. . Eastman, by the way, does not seem to notice that by ing the Red Army thus he supports ‘the thoroly rotten Menshevik legend about Bonapartism and Pra»terianism—since * * it is clear that an army, apt to be broken up on account of a personal change in leadership, would not be a Communist or proletarian, but precis¢- ly a Bonapartist and Praetorian army. The author quotes in his booklet a large number of documents, and mentions many incidents not infre- quently second, third and fourth hand. There is in this little booklet a not inconsiderable number of obviously fallacious and mendacious assertions, from which we need only select a few of the more important. Lenin’s_ Letters. N several places Eastman alleges that the Central Committee has “hidden away” from the Party a num- ber of most important documents writ- ten by Lenin in the last period of his life—such as the letters on the na- tional question, the so-called “will,” etc. This cannot by. any other name than @ #lander"against the Central Committee of our Party: Eastman’s words lead one to imagine that Lenin had intended these letters for the press. This is absolutely untrue. In the course of his illness Lenin more than once addressed proposals, letters, etc., to the leading organs of the Party and its congresses, All these letters and proposals were, of course, invariably delivered to the quarters to which they were ad- dressed, were brought under the no- tice-of the delegates at the 12th and 13th Party Congresses, and never failed to have due effect upon the de- cisions of the Party. Lenin’s “Will. F all the letters have not been pub- lished this is because the author did not intend them for publication. As for the famous “will,” Lenin never left one, and the very nature of his relations with the Party as well as the nature of the Party itself made such a “will” absolutely impossible. In ‘the guise of a “will” the emigre and foreign bourgeois and menshevik press have all along been quoting one of Lenin’s letters (completely mutt- lated) which contained a number of advices on questions of organization. The 13th Party Congress studied this letter most attentively, and drew .con- clusions in accordance with the condi- tions of the moment. All talk about a secreted or in- fringed “will’ is so much mgr ae invention directed against the real a Soe and of the interests of the Party created by him. No Suppression. OT less mendacious is Eastman’s statement that the Central Com- mittee had wanted to suppress Lenin’s article about the Workers’ and Peas- ants’ Inspection. The dissensions, if one may at all, speak here of dis- sensions, which arose in»this connec- tion on the Central Committee were of quite secondary moment, having reference only to the question whether the publication of Lenin’s article should, or should not be, accompanied by a statement of the Central Com- mittee that there were grounds for Sear oa af But even ern ! was settled unanimously at the same sitting, andvall the members of the Politibureay.and the Orgbureau pres- ent signed an address to the party’s organizations saying, inter alia: “With- out entering, in this parely informa- tive letter, into a discussion of pos- sible historical dangers, of which the -question has been rightly raised by Comrade Lenin in his article, the members of the Orgbureau and the Politibureau deem it necessary, with a view to avoiding possible misunder- standings, to declare with complete unanimity that there are in the in- ternal work of the Central Committee absolutely no data which could in any way suggest the danger of a split.” This document, not only has, with ten others, my signature, but its very text was written by myself on Janu- ary 27, 1923. . * ¢ As this letter, expressing the unani- mous attitude of the Central Com- mittee towards Lenin’s proposal about the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspec- tion, also has at bottom the signature of Comrade Kuibyshev, another men- dacious statement of Eastman’s is ipso facto refuted, viz., that at the head of the Inspection was placed Comrade Kuibyshév as an opponent of Lenin’s scheme of organization. — .:o * Another Falsehood. IQUALLY false and based obviously upon fantastical rumors is the statement by Eastman that the Cen- > Hesoniscated or kept another my piinphte or Pals 1923 or in 1924 or at any other time. It is equally false to assert as East- man does that Lenin offered me the post of President of the Council’s Commissars and the Council of Labor and Defence. | learn this piece of news for the first time from Eastman’s pamphlet. . * . NE could not doubt, when atten- tively reading the pamphlet, point out a number of other mistaken state- ments or preversions and distortions. One hardly, however, needs doing this. When making use of Eastman’s “in formation” and quoting his statements, the capitlaist and, more particularly, the menshevist press have invariably underlined his near relations to me as the author of my biography, his al- leged “friendship” with me—thus try- ing in an indirect way.to lend his ar- guments a weight which in themselves they have not and cannot have. I am, therefore, obligd to speak also on this subject. Trotsky’s Relations with Eastman. pe the nature of my real re- lations with Eastman will best be seen from a business letter which I wrote at the time when there was as yet no thought about his book “Since Lenin Died.” At the time of my stay at Sukhum, I received from one tades in Moscow, w! a i “Leo Trotsky: A Portrait of His Youth.” The accompanying letter from my comrade informed me that the manu- script which had been sent by the author to our State Publishing House, for publication in the Russian lan- guage, was making a strange and, to us, unfamiliar impression by its sen- timental tone. I replied to this letter by one dated April 3, 1925: “Even without reading Eastman’s manuscript I entirely agree with you that it would be a mistake to publish it.. Tho you have kindly sent the manuscript to me, I have neither appetite nor desire to read it. T willingly take“your word that the manuscript is quite unappetizing, es- pecially to.us Russian Communists.” “Eastman for a long time had per sistently tried to convince me that it was very difficult to interest Amert cans in Communism, but that they could be made interested in Commun. ists. His argument did not lack plau- sibility, and it was this which prompted me to render him some as- sistance of a very limited nature: the limits were shown jn my letter to him.* “Of course I did not know at the time that he was going to publish this book in Russian. I should ptoba- bly have advised the State” Publica- tions House not to print it. “Naturally, I am unable to prevent his publishing the book abroad. He is a ‘free’ writer, has lived\in Russia,~ has collected materials, and fg at pres- ent in France, if not in America. “Should I ask him not to print this book as a personal favor to me? | am not sufficiently intimate with him for that. And altogether, it would hardly be proper to do so.” * ¢ &! repeat, the question was about a perfectly harmless booklet relating to my youth, up to 1902, but the tone of my letter leaves no room for doubt that my relations with Eastman dif- fered in nothing from my relations with a number of other Communists or foreign “sympathizers” who have asked my assistance in studying the October Revolution, our Party, and the Soviet State—not more than that. _ i, ae ‘Quixatioy ITH a vulgar self-assurance, East- man writes sarcastically about my nearest comrades of the Centrat Committee, whom, according to him, I spoke of in a friendly manner, at the moment of the “acrimonious” discus- sion. Evidently, Eastman regards him- self as being called upon to correct my “mistake” and endows the lead- ing personnel of our Party with such traits as could not be branded other wise than by the word slander. We have seen above om-what a rot- ten foundation Eastman is trying to erect his building. Heexploits single incidents of the Party discussion in order to blacken our Party and to un- dermine all confidence by perverting the meaning “of facts and distorting all and every proportion. I should think, however, that any serious and reflective reader need not even take the trouble to ‘verify. Eastman’s refer- ences and “documents: ( more- over would not be qooeabiate every- body), but would find it sufficiently simple to ask himself if the derogatory characteristics given by Eastman to the leading personnel of our Party had been true, how conld this Party have gone thru the long years of un- derground struggle, have made the greatest revolution in the world, have been able to lead the millions, and to assist the formation of revolutionary parties in other countries? No honest workers will ever believe the sort of picture drawn by Eastman, Tt contains its own refutation. It is immaterial what were Hastman’s intentions, His booklet can only ren- der service to the worst enemies of Communism and revolution. It there- fore objectively constitutes a weapon of counter-revolution, July 1, 1925. * On May 22, Bay I replied to the re- iterated requests of Eastman as follows: I-ehall try to render you assistance in respect of — fide information, but I cannot agree nt gd your manuscript, wore al ouy e fine techs San ath “ti 5 only for the characteristics and: nae i is quite obvious that I do I am prepared to bear som ited re- sponsibility for the facts vg Yt give you at your request. | - bility for the rest “wilt have to ay entirely by you."’ This work of his cae reaches the events ‘of 1902.