Trotsky preferring social-democrats over Stalin and Trotsky's role in
aiding Japanese imperialism

From [email protected] Fri Oct 27 22:40:34 1995
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 22:40:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement <[email protected]>
To: Chegitz Guevara <[email protected]>
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Trotsky: Sectarian turned traitor


On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Chegitz Guevara wrote:
> Pat, your amazing distortion of facts is almost to confusing to follow.
> The fact that Trotsky felt that the SOVIET bureaucracy was no longer
> capable of being reformed, does not mean that Trotsky felt the same way

Pat for MIM replies: Exactly, he thought the Soviet Union
couldn't be reformed except with him as leader, but at the same
time, he judged various Western anti-Soviet labor bureaucrats as capable of
reform. That's exactly what I'm saying C.G. We are not disagreeing
over the facts unless you want to deny that Trotsky
favored alliance with labor bureaucrats and social-dem hacks
generally.

> about the CP's outside of the Soviet Union whom he continued to appeal to
> in the fight against fascism. Trotsky tried to get, both the CP's and the
> SD's to work together against the fascists, while you keep on talking
> about the importance of fighting the SD's, and IGNORING FASCISM.

Pat for MIM replies: The people responsible for outlawing
communist militias in Germany were social-democrats. The same people
legalized the Nazis. Now if you are sincere about agreeing that
the thing in Germany was going to be settled in the street anyway,
how could you possibly proceed to arm youth and workers WITHOUT
lumping the social-democrats with the enemy? It only made
sense in that context to let the social-dems off the hook if
you hinged your strategy on electoral alliance with social-dems.
The social-democrats were worthless otherwise in any potential
alliance against the Nazis. They weren't about to fight the Nazis.

Actually from one of C.G.'s comments we see some electoral
illuions anyway. As often with Trotsky-defenders they share the
master's ambiguity with regard to Menshevism. We will return to this.

Something else to note is that C.G. is taking a "country-by
country" approach above. Trotsky might not have wanted it.
In addition, how much does C.G. think the CPs were  interested
in Trots preparing the Ukraine for Hitler to pounce on? In times
of war, issues sharpen and what is international becomes
domestic.

> Meanwhile you talk of alliances with the bourgeoisie over alliances with
> the backwards aspects of the labor movement. Oh, and the only Stalin led
> Bolsheviks were the ones who were led to the grave. The Bolshevik party
> was murdered by the Stalinist bureaucracy. I'm gonna have to drag out
> that old picture of the 1919 Bolsheivk leadership. Of the 42 people in
> the picture, by 1941, only Stalin and Kollentai were still alive. A
> handful died of natural causes, but the vast majority mysteriously turned
> traitor to their revolution and were executed.
>

Pat for MIM replies: Where did we deny that the 1930s were
hard times? That's all your above paragraph establishes.
But since you are defending Trotsky you might as well admit that
the majority of those 42 opposed him in his fight with Stalin.
While you are at it, tell us how you would have avoided
the fate of the rest of Europe to be overrun by pro-Nazi
traitors and regimes. When you are done, can I line up some
babies for you to kiss and become your campaign manager for
political office?

> > Anyone who reads Trotsky with one-tenth the critical eye
> > that is applied to Stalin will see that Trotsky spewed
> > some good Marxist rhetoric at times, but whenever it came
> > to issues of timing or strategy, he always made it clear
> > whose side he was really on--the imperialists'--as movement
> > history this century amply proves in its total lack of
> > Trotskyist revolution against imperialism.
>

> This is a bald faced lie. I challange you to substatiate it, with quotes

Pat for MIM replies: What are you some post-modern relativist?
Does reality matter to you at all? There is nothing to substantiate
when speaking of lack of Trotskyist revolution. A lack of
action by definition can't be substantiated, only compared
with the actuality of revolution led by communists in the tradition
of Stalin.

Since reality doesn't enter a Trotskyist's political opportunism,
and since all that matters to Trotskyists is being able like any bourgeois
politician to make verbal promises, I will now present another
example of Trotsky's sectarian anti-Soviet strategy for those who care
about action above empty dogmas no matter how well expressed.

Since Trotsky sought power in the Soviet Union, he was hoping
for imperialists to knock Stalin out. To this end he
instigated Japanese imperalism, and this is RECORDED IN
TROTSKY'S OWN PUBLISHED WRITINGS.

How did he get away with this? He told his supporters
that Japan was imperialist and hence going to attack
the Soviet Union anyway. As we can imagine now, it kinda
sounded reasonable to the rank-and-file Trots of the
time.

He warms up by revealing Soviet spying techniques to the whole world,
which is an example of the kind of thing why the U.S. House Un-American
Activities Committee invited him for testimony, and as was fully admitted
by him. (The Writings of Leon Trotsky: 1939-40, NY: Merit Publishers, p.
125.)

In his "The Tanaka Memorial" article in a section titled
"Last Articles and Letters," Trotsky has sections called
"Early Soviet Advantages in Intelligence Work" and
"Why I can Verify It's Authenticity." The "it" being
referred to is a Japanese government memo on its upcoming
war plans. Then Trotsky reveals "How the Document Was
Secured." He goes right into the details of
photography and agent work. That's what he considered
defending the Soviet Union, revealing Soviet intelligence
methods to the imperialists.

But it doesn't stop there. He admits that Stalin doesn't
reveal the Tanaka Memorial document, because Stalin does
not want "to provoke Tokio." (Ibid., p. 113)

Next he admits he can't be sure that he isn't revealing
certain agents to the Japanese, because he's not sure
if they are in Japan still. (Ibid.)

Finally, for the usual lack of strategic acuity demonstrated
by Trotsky after Lenin died, we have the following:
"It is more than likely that this time too Moscow
does not wish to cause any annoyances to Tokio in view
of the negotiations now under way in the hope of
reaching a more stable and lasting agreement. All these
considerations, however, recede to the background
as the world war spreads its concentric circles ever wider."
(Ibid.) Trotsky was fond of saying Stalin was too
cautious and conservative and would blow the war that
way. Trotsky proved wrong.

So above Trotsky is admitting his revelations could
cause difficulties for Soviet peace negotiations
with Japan in 1940. Trotskyists at the time
swallowed Trotsky's leadership whole, because
he was very articulate and attractive to those
of wishful minds. Trotskyists  imagined
Trotsky's revelations about Soviet intelligence
and the provocations against Japan were
a good idea, because Trotsky knew how to
defend the Soviet Union better than Stalin
did anyway. It was arrogant sectarianism
that played into imperialist hands again and
again.

However what is really disgusting at a level
about ten times more than anything else is that even once Stalin
proved Trotsky wrong, the Trotskyists still
cling to his traitorous anti-communism in the name
of Marxism. Stalin did succeed in putting aside the
war with Japan contrary to Trotsky's predictions,
and long enough that Stalin's Soviet Union only had to enter
the war against Japan at the very end when it was already
basically over--after the Soviets had won the war with
Germany.