The Daily Worker Newspaper, October 1, 1927, Page 9

in the northern state, very few so-called democratic “liberties.” I have read in old American books that in the northern states supporters of slavery who in public places, aye, even in beerhouses, claimed free- dom of speech and freedom of opinion often went home with numerous bruises on their bodies, and I must say that your complaints concerning the viola- tion of freedom‘ of speech today arouses in me very little sympathetic response. As far as the southern “democrats” are concerned, it was not an infrequent occurrence that they tarred and feathered the op- ponents of slavery. The abolition of Negro slavery, i, e., its substitution by “wage slavery,” was not achieved by “free” exchange of opinion but by civil war. We are now fighting for the abolition of wage slavery, for the destruction of capitalism. This question is much more important and difficult than the abolition of the slavery of a few million Ne- groes. The whole of humanity is divided into two main camps: on the one hand, the revolutionary proletariat; on the other, the imperialistic bour- geoisie. Those who hover between will, when the critical moment comes, join the one camp or the other, The fight does not cease for a single day. It is not a question of abstract freedom—abstract opinions—it is a question whether this country shall be socialist or capitalist. And I must tell you in all frankness that we are disposed to reward with genuine proletarian punches whoever tries to divert us into the path of capitalism. If people in America say that we violate freedom, we answer that in do- ing so we resemble the actual fathers of American freedom, History has invented no other means of getting humanity forward. Human society, torn as it is by class antagonisms, is not a debating club. In the fight each class avails itself of every means of persuasion and compulsion. We are the pioneers eof a new order of society. Our enemies are in- comparably more numerous, richer and better equipped than we. They waylay us at every step. They have invented clever tricks whereby to deceive the masses, and call these tricks rules of democracy. Whenever there is a question of fundamental mat- ters, of the protection of property, they themselves never respect these rules. In the athletic ring one can afford to wrestle in accordance with the estab- lished rules. But when it comes to a question of danger to human life, or when a man is defending that which he cherishes most highly, he will bite, scratch, butt and kick without the slightest regard for the rules of the ring—and he is right. In order to achieve the ends for which they are fighting our enemies need this so-called “democratic freedom.” We will not give it to them, We shall steadfastly defend with every means of persuasion and compul- sion at our disposal the dictatorship of the prole- tariat as the sole path to the new and actually free order of society. If, however, our friends now present. or absent would promise to do away with the dominion of the banks, trusts, armies, dreadnoughts, aeroplanes— on land, on the water and in the air—on the same day, we would promise to grant complete and un- restricted freedom to all parties and all Persuasions. And now for another question which was not included in the original list and which—as also the critical interjections of the president of the delega- tion—relate to the Communist Parties in England and America, It has here been said that in America there exists no hostility towards Communism “as such” but a hostility towards Communists, because they allegedly, in contract to the Communists of the Soviet Union, do not work creatively but de- structively, I am afraid that we could not arrive at agreement on this point. Before we had seized power, we Russian Communists were also accused of destructive tendencies and the same accusation is made even today. The complaints about the “wrong methods” of the British and American Com- munists I receive with civility in accordance with $6. Ax) Kay Tr > Pravda Exposes Errors of Trotsky The “Pravda” on. Trotzky’s Interview As Comrade Trotzky in the interview published above deviates essentially from the Leninist views of the Party on some of the most important ques- tions of the international struggle of the proletariat, the Redaction of the “Pravda” is compelled to make a few remarks. Does “Democracy” exist in Soviet Russia, or does it not? To the important question thus formulated by the American delegation Comrade Trotzky has failed to give the correct Leninist answer. Instead of emphasising the fact that with us, against bourge- ois democracy, there exists proletarian democracy as the highest form of Democracy, Comrade Trotzky has deviated from the class conception of Demo- eracy to the incorrect comparison of “Democracy in general” with “Dictatorship in general” contained in the formulation of the question by the delegation. Comrade Trotzky finally led back the question of Democracy as a “mask” which the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie needs, but which the dictatorship of the proletariat does not need. He thereby com- pletely overlooks the proletarian democracy which is based on the dictatorship of the proletariat. He seeks to erase from history a fact of the very greatest importance, namely, the unparalleled dev- elopment of Democracy under the Soviet Regime. Let us compare the “answers” of Comrade Trot- zky with that which Lenin said on Democracy -in the Soviet Union. In his “Theses on the Constitu- ent Assembly” of December 1917, Lenin wrote: From the first days of the Revolution of 1917 the revolutionary Social Democracy re- peatedly emphasised. when putting forward the demand for the convovation of the Constituent Assembly, that the Republic of the Soviets re- presents a higher form of democracy than the usual bourgeois republic with a Constituent As- sembly. For the transition from the bourgeois to the socialist system, for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the republic of the Workers’ Sold- iers’ and Peasants’ deputies is (in comparison with the usual bourgeois republic with a Con- stituent Assembly as the crown of the whole) not only a form of a higher type of democratic institution, but also the only form best secur- ing the relatively most painless transition to socialism.” (Lenin, Vol. 15, page 50—Russian edition. Thick type by the “Pravda.”) ‘In the Brochure “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky” (1918), Comrade Lenin said: Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy. The Soviet power is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic.” Only the most conscious sycophant of the bour- geoisie, or a politically dead man who does not see real life behind the dingy, dusty bourgeois books, who is filled through and through with bourgeois prejudices and thereby becomes objectively the lackey of the bourgeoisie, could fail to see that. Only a man who is incapable of putting the question from the standpoint of the oppressed clas- Ses could fail to observe that . . .” Lenin then speaks of the political relationships in the bourgeois countries: “We are governed (and our State is “de- termined”) by bourgeois-minded officials, bour- geois parliamentarians and bourgeois judges. That is the simple, obvious and indisputable trtth which is recognised by thousands and millions of members of the suppressed classes in the bourgeois countries—including the demo- cratic countries—as a result of their everyday experiences, In Russia, on the other hand, the bureaucratic apparatus is completely shattered, not one stone has remained upon another. The old judges and the bourgeois Parliament have been driven out. A much more accessible representa- tion has been granted to the workers and pea- sants: their Soviets have replaced the officials or their Soviets have been placed over the of- ficials, and their Soviets elect the judges. This fact alone suffices to enable all suppressed classes to recognise the Soviet government, i. e. the given form of the dictatorship of the pro- letariat as being a million times more demo- eratic than the most democratic bourgeois Re- public. Kautsky does not understand this truth which is tain and obvious to every worker, because : tten” to put the question thus: ie ‘or hap sit 0 Sm arog the matter from the stan t ure” democ- (that fs classless? or democracy standing shoes the elasses?). He argues like Shylock: a pound of flesh, nothing more. Equality for ut this there is no democ- (Lenin, Volume 15, pages 462—463.) In the “Theses on bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat” (First Congress of the C. I. in 1919) Lenin wrote: “Tt is precisely’ those masses who, even in the most democratie bourgeois Republics, were equal according to the law but with the help of various shifts and tricks were kept away from participation in political life and from making use of democratic rights and liberties, are at present (under the Soviet regime. Ed.) drawn into permanent, unhindered and at the same time decisive participation in the democratie administration of the State.” (Lenin, volume 16, page 44—Russian edition). Lenin speaks of the “democratic administration of the State” by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Comrade Trotzky, however, “replies” to the Amer- ican delegation, that “democracy” can serve only as a “mask” of the bourgeoisie. Comrade Trotzky does not approach the question of democracy from the class standpoint; he remains on the level of those considerations on “democracy in general’ which Comrade Lenin chastised on several occas- ions. 2. Comrade Trotzky, who in his answer to the American delegation (and also apparently towards himself) has not theoretically cleared up the ques- tion of proletarian democracy in the Soviet Union, has naturally given an entirely incorrect and dis- torted picture of the actual political conditions in the Soviet Union. In the first place, Comrade Trotzky gave a quite inadequate answer to the following question of the American delegation: “Is the day approaching when Soviet Russia will grant the workers, as well as those who are not in agreement with the policy of the government, freedom of opinion in public life?” Comrade Trotzky dealt only with the question of the bourgeois parties and passed over in complete silence the indirect assertion, that in the Soviet ‘Union there exists no “freedom of opinion” for the workers, as formulated in the question of the dele- gation. Comrade Trotzky, who passed over this as- pect of the matter, thereby gave the enemies of the dictatorship of the proletarat occasion to continue to spread the malicious calumny which obviously to Some extent caused uneaSiness even to the mem- bers of the American delegation who put such a question. In our opinion the facts of Soviet reality will convince these members of the delegation that the assertion, that the workers in the Soviet Union have no “freedom of opinion” is a slanderous invention. With us more than 60 millions of the working popu- lation, from the age of 18 and without distinction of sex or nationality, have the right to participate in the Soviet elections. Of this number over 50%, that is over 30 millions workers and peasants, took active part in the campaign at the last election. Our elections do not consist in the electors simply dropping a voting paper into ballot box; with us the electors take an active part in the meetings, at which the reports on the activity of the Soviets are delivered and diseussed, at which their activity is subjected to an all-round criticism, at which the electors take part by making practical proposals for improving the work of the Soviet, for correcting failures and shortcomings and at which they dis- cuss the candidatures of persons put forward on the lists. Over 30 million workers and peasants made use of their election rights at the last Soviet elec- tions at such meetings on the basis of the prolet- arian democracy. The numbers of those actively participating in the elections is increasing every year. There is no bourgeois country that can show anything like it. In our country there are ten million workers and employees organised in the trade unions. That is a number that has not been reached by the trade union movement in any bourgeois country. The per- centage of organised workers and employees with us is the highest—it amounts on the average to 90%. During the trade union elections and on the occasion of the regular reports of the trade union . organs, the members express their opinions quite freely and thereby’ realize proletarian democracy. Without doubt, for the. bourgeois and anti-pro- letarian parties, the advocates of the overthrow of the power of the workers and the re-establishment of capitalism, there exists with us no “freedom of opinion.” That, however, has nothing whatever to . do with the freedom of opinion of the workers. For this reason there exists in our country a proletarian and not a bourgeois democracy; a democracy for the poor and not for the rich; for the workers and toilers in town and country and not for the cap- italists and big landowners. Secondly, Comrade Trotzky declares that under the regime of the Soviet Union “discontent” is the driving force. In the general formulation in which (Continued on page ey