TROTSKY'S NEW BOOK

"THE DEFENCE OF TERRORISM"

In a review of Trotsky's new book, "The Defence of Terrorism," the "London Times" reviewer says:—

Socialists are to-day the most bitter of all controversialists, and there is acerbity on both sides; but it differs much in degree and even in kind, reflecting the respective policies of the parties, which may for convenience be labelled Moscow and Berlin. Kautsky, we should perhaps explain, is the leading intellectual spokesman of the German Social-Democrats. They have always been sufficiently arrogant, and Kautsky is no exception ; but his style is restrained in comparison with the truculence of his Bolshevik antagonists. Their characteristic weapons are unmeasured scorn, furious invective, and offensive terms of abuse, and they use them on other socialists with greater zest than on anti-socialists, just as religious sects used to spend more energy in belaboring each other than in rebuking total unbelievers. Extreme intolerance is the mark of Moscow, and the counterpart of this mood in controversy is violence in action.
The battle between Berlin and Moscow is not about the object, which is the overthrow of "capitalism" and the substitution of some other "system," (called socialism by Berlin and communism by Moscow), it is about the means to be employed in attaining this end. Berlin stands for the way of democracy and gradual change, Moscow for violence, civil war and terrorism. There is nothing essentially new in Trotsky's handling of the theme, but he has been brought by Kautsky's recent indictment to deal more explicitly than before with certain points. Reduced to its simplest terms, his main argument is that the end justifies the means. The end is the "proletarian revolution" ; the shortest and best, if not the only, way to it is civil war, terrorism, suppression of free speech, and rigid compulsion all round; therefore all these things are justified. He does not deny that they have been applied, as the Bolshevik agents here and elsewhere do, or that they are exceedingly painful and destructive. Not at all ; he admits them and also "the extremely bloody character of the revolution," but says they were necessary to the end in view.

The problem of revolution, as of war, consists in breaking the will of the foe, forcing him to capitulate and to accept the conditions of the conqueror. (P. 51.)
However deeply Kautsky goes into the question of immediate and remote conditions which determine the cause of human cruelty, he will find in history no other way of breaking the class will of the enemy except the systematic and energetic use of violence. (P. 52.)
But the revolution does require of the revolutionary class that it should attain its end by all means at its disposal—if necessary, by an armed rising; if required, by terrorism. (P. 55.)
War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. . . The revolution works in the same way; it kills individuals and intimidates thousands.

These extracts should suffice to show the line of thought. The same argument is used to defend every form of compulsion, oppression, and cruelty and even the old German defence of terrorism is repeated. The severer the measures the greater the humanity, because they shorten the process Trotsky admits the destructiveness of civil war, but the lesson he draws is not that it should be avoided, but that it should be made short by "resoluteness in action." He cites the familiar German excuse for outrages, Not kennt kein Gebot, and repeats his own former remark that the proletariat will throw that saying "in the face of those who attempt to stop them by the laws of bourgeois legality," meaning the doctrines of morality, humanity, and so forth.
Yet he calls the war a "bloody lunacy," and speaks of the "bestial methods" by which the Allies were victorious. What is the difference? Why is war a "bloody lunacy" and civil war, which is much more destructive, as Lenin has admitted, an irreproachable proceeding ? Why are military operations conducted by the Allies "bestial methods," but terrorism exercised by the Red Army, including "a series of lessons, some of which were very severe" (p. 105) perfectly justifiable? The answer is that the civil war and the terrorism of the Red Army are Bolshevist proceedings; whatever the Bolsheviks do is right, because they are Bolsheviks. Their cause is sacred not to be questioned: it is a holy war they wage. When asked, in what their tactics differ from those of Czarism, Trotsky replies :

The gendarmerie of Czarism throttled the workers who were fighting for the Socialist order. Our extraordinary commissions shoot landlords, capitalists, and generals who are striving to restore the capitalist order. Do you grasp this distinction? For us Communists it is quite sufficient.(P..56.)

They are only "acting in accordance with the iron laws of a war in which we desire to guarantee our victory" (p. 69). It is enough for them that they desire it. This is fanaticism—absolute conviction of the goodness of the end they desire. But for other people it is not enough. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? The usual answer is an appeal to Marx, whose word is treated as supreme— or inspired, as one may say in the language of religion which these people repudiate, though their psychology is the same. Such authority is self-sustained, and neither capable of proof nor in need of it to those who possess the faith. The only question to them is what Marx said, and the only interpretation they allow is their own. As already indicated, most of the Bolshevist controversy is on this question, but Trotsky has little to say about it here. He takes the Marxian hypothesis for granted, as axiomatic, and builds his case on that assumption. "The proletariat is the historically rising class," he dogmatically states : "the bourgeoisie to-day is a falling class." It is the historical mission of the proletariat to destroy the bourgeoisie, and the Bolsheviks are carrying it out. "The man who recognises the revolutionary historic importance of the very fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the Red Terror." No other justification is needed : but he finds proof that they and they only express "the interests of historical development" in the fact that "Noske crushes the Communists, but they grow," while "we have suppressed the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries—and they have disappeared." This remarkable combination of Oriental fanaticism, with Occidental categories of thought belies Kipling's lines about east and west ; they meet in Bolshevism.
 

Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW : 1888 - 1954), Monday 30 January 1922, page 1