Trotskyists well-received in
A DELEGATION of American Trotskyists representing Trotsky's family visited
Moscow in March to press demands for rehabilitation of the Russian revolution leader. The following are major excerpts
USSR
HIS WAS the time chosen
It is only necessary to allow the
T for a 10-visit by a delegation of U.S. Trotskyists — from an article on the trip published in
Susan Weissman, Paul Siethe April issue of Socialist Action, the gel, Ralph Schoenman and Carl
Finamore. We were joined during paper of a US Trotskyist group of the the final days of the trip by Vlady same name. Sections dealing with the
Kibalchich, son of Victor Serge, a leader of the Left Opposition dur-
Soviet elections and the Moscow ing the 1920s and '30s.
People's Front have had to be left out for
One of the main objectives of the trip was to deliver a letter to the
Soviet authorities from the family
The visit took place just before the of Leon
Trotsky. The letter requested that Trotsky's name be
Soviet elections, and the author began cleared and that his works be pubby noting the intense political activity lished freely in the Soviet Union.
We quickly arranged a meeting going on in Moscow at the time.
with Otto Latsis, Deputy Editor of
Kommunist, the theoretical journal of the Central Committee of the
CPSU. Latsis agreed to give the letter to the CPSU Central Committee for discussion, but did not promise an official response from Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev.
Discussion of Trotsky in
Soviet press
Latsis also informed us that some of
Trotsky's writings would soon be published by the government publishing house. But the partial, edited publication of Trotsky's views concerned us. The official government biographer of Stalin, General Dimitri Volkogonov, has already written that Trotsky was the "Demon of the Revolution" and would have been worse than Stalin.
Every week, we were told, excerpts of
Trotsky's writings or reports about Trotsky's views appear in Pravda and other major Soviet publications. These reports deal almost exclusively with the period of war communism during the civil war, when Trotsky called for the militarization of labor after his own proposals for a
NEP-type program (limited concessions to the medium and large farmers) were rejected.
Certain problems were readily apparent.
The presentation of Trotsky's views was being organized by the same political machine that he had so eloquently indicted over 60 years ago.
The selection of excerpts, the failure to place them in the context of the party
International Viewpoint #162 • May 1, 1989 space reasons.
### CARL FINAMORE debates at the time, and the refusal to publish Trotsky's full views have greatly distorted Trotsky's role and ideas in the minds of many Soviet people today. We often encountered the view that Trotsky — and even Lenin - were the intellectual precursors of Stalinism.
One of our first meetings was with Roy Medvedev, the Marxist dissident who is now running for Deputy in the Congress [of People's Deputies]. Medvedev told us that he does not agree with Trotsky's ideas and that he supports glasnost and Gorbachev. But, as a historian, he said he completely opposes the current distortions of Trotsky's political views. Medvedev, in fact, publicly attacked Volkogonov's false characterization of Trotsky.
Trotsky's rehabilitation inevitable
Medvedev told us, however, that he believes it is very difficult for the Soviet leadership to clear Trotsky's name. He said that Trotsky's political positions were so antagonistic to the whole Stalinist machinery and the basic structure of the bureaucratized society that taking this step would be a major challenge to the regime. ered Trotsky's rehabilitation inevitable, it is my view that it will be some time before this happens. It is not necessary for the bureaucracy to clear Trotsky's name now.
mostly one-sided discussion about him to continue.
Whatever happens, it is obvious that the Left Opposition opponents of Stalin are not going to get a fair hearing if the presentation of their views is left in the hands of the governing apparatus. Nonetheless, there are big openings for supporters of Trotsky to participate in the current discussions about the history of the anti-Stalinist opposition.
Almost immediately after our arrival, we identified ourselves not only as representatives of Trotsky's family but as political supporters of his views. We encountered absolutely no fear or apprehension. On the contrary, there was tremendous interest in what we had to say.
As a result of this approach we stumbled on an important meeting we otherwise would have missed. People found out about us and said, "Oh, you're the Trotskyists, well you should go to the writers"
meeting, it's going on right now!"
Writers' Union discuss
Trotsky's role
They said this meeting was not all that unusual. They repeated what we had heard earlier from Medvedev, that there are regular seminars, panel discussions and occasional articles in the press (and even on
Leningrad TV several weeks ago) that raise the question of Trotsky's rehabilitation.
We rushed to the Writers' Union meeting. There were 150 people present. The keynote speaker was Dr. Stuartsev, who gave a two-hour presentation on the need to clear Trotsky's name and the role Trotsky played in history.
The talk was followed by a lively discussion from the audience. At one point, a
106-year-old Red Army veteran got up to speak about his personal experiences with
Trotsky.
We were greeted as representatives of
Trotsky's and Serge's family and were warmly received. Vlady Kibalchich spoke in Russian from the podium in support of clearing the name of his father (Victor
Serge), himself and Trotsky. Vlady is still stripped of his Soviet citizenship. *
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
Moscow
----- photo credits and running heads -----
6
A long wait at the
CZECHOSLOVAKIA will have to wait a while longer for the dawn of a new epoch. Despite expectations to the contrary, the April meeting of the Central Committee of the ruling Communist Party failed to send ailing head of state Gustav Husak into retirement, while none of the anticipated personnel changes took place.
Party leader Milos Jakes' report was described in the western press as a perfect example of immobility and
Chigniew Jujka crossroads
Brezhnevite orthodoxy. COLIN MEADE
HERE ARE however fundamental differences between the situation in of Mikhail Gorbachev and that of Czechoslovakia now. The Czechoslovak Brezhnevites are fighting every inch of the way to keep their predominance. While Gorbachev was helped into power by old guard figures such as Andrei Gromyko, Lubomir Strougal — who tried to present himself as the prospective Czechoslovak Gorbachev — was despatched into oblivion last year by his Brezhnevite opponents amidst allegations of corruption.
Comments such as that of Jakes at the CC that he is inspired by "some aspects" of the "revolutionary paths" being taken in the USSR should not be allowed to obscure the anti-perestroika, and especially antiglasnost, line of the Czechoslovak leader. This expresses itself through the constant attacks in the press on the Czechoslovak Prague Spring — widely regarded as a precursor of perestroika — and its leader Alexandr Dubcek, recently described by the party daily Rude Pravo as an agent of foreign powers, who, in the grip of megalomania, "led our party and country to the edge of catastrophe."
Reaffirming the "leading role of the party"
Furthermore, at a time when significant experiments with a limited form of pluralism are taking place in neighbouring Poland and Hungary, as well as in the Soviet Union itself, the Prague leadership has embarked on the elaboration of a new constitution which will, along with some gestures in the direction of the new thinking, re-affirm the principle of the "leading role of the party." Meanwhile the rejection of any dialogue with non-party forces has been underlined by repression against any efforts at independent organization.
After the spontaneous week of demonstrations in January in memory of the student Jan Palach, who burnt himself to death in 1969 in protest at the social consequences of the Soviet invasion, a number of people were imprisoned or given suspended sentences for "hooliganism" and "incitement to rebellion", among them the well-known playwright Vaclav Havel. Criticism and support from other regimes
On March 9, Ivan Jirous and Jiri Tichy were jailed for seven and six months respectively for "incitement to rebellion" because they had circulated a petition that criticized the political record of the bureaucratic "communist" regime. And on March 17 two members of the Independent Peace Association, Hana Marvanova and Tomas Dvorak, received suspended sentences on similar charges stemming from their role in the 10,000-strong unofficial demonstration which marked the twentieth anniversary of the Warsaw Pact invasion of August 1968.
The Polish party daily, Trybuna Ludu, reported a protest by the Polish writer's union against Havel's imprisonment, and an unofficial demonstration over the same issue was allowed to take place in Budapest. Key figures in both the Polish and Hungarian leaderships have expressed their reservations about the policies being pursued in Prague in recent months.