The Militant (logo)  
   Vol. 70/No. 11           March 20, 2006  
 
 
Gov’t censorship is always aimed at working class
 
The following excerpt is from the article “Why I Consented to Appear Before the Dies Committee1,” in Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-40), published by Pathfinder Press. We are reprinting it in place of the regular Books of the Month column, as a contribution to the discussion on the Danish cartoon controversy (see Letters and Reply to a Reader in this issue). This book is part of a 14-volume series of Trotsky’s writings. The entire series is available at www.pathfinderpress.com, other book distributors, or book centers listed below. Trotsky was a central leader of the Bolshevik party, the October 1917 Russian Revolution, and the Communist International (Comintern). He was expelled from the Communist Party and the Soviet Union after a bureaucratic clique headed by Joseph Stalin usurped political power in the USSR in the 1920s, following the death of V.I. Lenin, the central leader of the Bolsheviks. Under Stalin’s regime, the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and the Comintern degenerated politically and were turned from proletarian organizations into instruments of implementing the counterrevolutionary policies of the ruling Stalinist bureaucracy. Trotsky led the international fight to oppose the betrayal of the Russian Revolution by the Stalinist regime and to continue implementing Lenin’s political course and the program of world revolution developed by the Communist International under Lenin’s guidance. Copyright © 1973 by Pathfinder Press. Reprinted by permission.

BY LEON TROTSKY  
Why did I agree to appear before the Dies Committee? Naturally not in order to facilitate the realization of Mr. Dies’s political aims, particularly the passing of federal laws against one or another extremist “party.” Being an irreconcilable opponent not only of fascism but also of the present-day Comintern, I am at the same time decidedly against the suppression of either of them.

The outlawing of fascist groups would inevitably have a fictitious character: as reactionary organizations they can easily change color and adapt themselves to any kind of organizational form since the influential sections of the ruling class and of the governmental apparatus sympathize considerably with them and these sympathies inevitably increase during times of political crisis.

As for the Comintern, suppression could only help this completely degenerated and compromised organization. The difficulty in the Comintern’s situation is a result of the irreconcilable contradiction between the international workers’ movement and the interests of the Kremlin ruling clique. After all its zigzags and deceptions, the Comintern has obviously entered its period of decomposition. The suppression of the Communist Party would immediately re-establish its reputation in the eyes of the workers as a persecuted fighter against the ruling classes.

However, the question is not exhausted by this consideration. Under the conditions of the bourgeois regime, all suppression of political rights and freedom, no matter whom they are directed against in the beginning, in the end inevitably bear down upon the working class, particularly its most advanced elements. That is a law of history. The workers must learn how to distinguish between their friends and their enemies according to their own judgment and not according to the hints of the police.

It is not difficult to predict an ad hominem objection: “But just that Soviet government in which you yourself took part proscribed all political parties except the Bolsheviks?” Entirely correct; and to this day I am ready to bear responsibility for its actions. But one cannot identify the laws of civil war with the laws of peaceful periods; the laws of the dictatorship of the proletariat with the laws of bourgeois democracy….

It is true that the dictatorship in the Soviet Union did not die out, but on the contrary took on monstrous totalitarian forms. This is explained by the fact that out of revolution arose a new privileged caste, which is incapable of maintaining its regime except through measures of a hidden civil war. It was precisely over this question that I broke with the Kremlin ruling clique. I was defeated because the working class, as a result of internal and external conditions, showed itself to be too weak to liquidate its own bureaucracy. I have, however, no doubt that the working class will liquidate it.

But whatever the situation in the USSR may be, the working class in the capitalist countries, threatened with their own enslavement, must stand in defense of freedom for all political tendencies, including their own irreconcilable enemies. That is why I do not feel the slightest sympathy for the aims of the Dies Committee.


1. “Why I Consented to Appear Before the Dies Committee” was first published in the Dec. 30, 1939, edition of Socialist Appeal. Trotsky had prepared this statement as a press release to be issued upon his arrival in the United States, where he had been invited on October 12 of that year to appear before the Dies Committee. Shortly before he was due to make the trip, however, on Dec. 12, 1939, the Dies Committee retracted its invitation to Trotsky. U.S. congressman Martin Dies was the first chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee established in 1937 to conduct a witch-hunt against communists and other labor militants. The Dies Committee was named after him.
 
 
Related articles:
Banning Danish cartoons is trap for working people  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home