Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index

Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive

The New International, August 1944

Notes of the Month

The Allies versus Europe


From The New International, Vol. X No. 8, August 1944, pp. 243–247.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.


The most recent developments in the war combine with the fourth anniversary of the assassination of Leon Trotsky to call to mind again some of the rich and lasting contributions he made to revolutionary thought and action. It cannot be expected of any man who comments continuously about our turbulent and complex times that his every word will have equal weight, last forever and forever keep its luster. The stature of the public man is measured by how many of his words (and of his deeds!) retain, or even gain in validity as time passes, are legitimated, so to speak, by history. Measured in these terms, the stature of Trotsky continues to grow.

Read what the bourgeois statesmen said a year ago, let alone their utterances of earlier date, and it is like dipping into a stale and stagnant pool. Read back some of the writings of this great Marxian thinker, to whom words were at once the product and the guide to action, and it is like a draught from a sparkling, refreshing, stimulating stream. Remarkably appropriate for our time is the first of two brilliant speeches he delivered as far back as twenty years ago (July 28, 1924) on Europe and America. Critical thought of any kind was already drying up – and rapidly – in the leadership of the Communist International. Against this drab background, Trotsky’s audacious and profound analysis of the world situation shone all the more brightly. It continues to throw light on the situation and the problem of our day.

Europe on Rations

Europe, ten years after the outbreak of the First World War, had landed in a blind alley. The failure of communism in Western Europe to measure up to its task had opened a new period of European evolution, a period of government power for the “democratic-pacifist elements of bourgeois society.” Upon what did they rest? Decrepit European capitalism could no longer grant the working class those pre-war reforms which were the basis for the strength of labor reformism. But across the Atlantic, in the United States, capitalism was still powerful. European reformism was being compelled to shift its basis by entering the service of American capitalism, to “fall politically into dependence upon the boss of its bosses”! The American bourgeoisie as the boss of the European bourgeoisie? This was precisely the relationship that American imperialism was relentlessly working to establish.

What does American capital want? What is it trying to do? It seeks, it is said, stability. It wants to reestablish the European market in its interest it wants to restore to Europe its purchasing power. In what way? Within what limits? In actuality, American capital cannot want to make Europe a competitor. It cannot allow England, let alone Germany and France, to recover their world markets, because it is itself caught tight, because it exports products and exports itself. It aims at the mastery of the world, it seeks to install the supremacy of America over our planet. What must it do with regard to Europe? It must, it is said, pacify it. How? Under its hegemony. What does this mean? That it must permit Europe to rise again, but within well-defined limits, vouchsafing it definite, restricted sectors of the world market. American capital now gives orders to the diplomats. It is preparing to give orders likewise, to the European banks and trusts, to the whole European bourgeoisie. That is what it is aiming at. It will assign definite sectors of the market to the European financiers and industrialists. In a word, it wants to reduce capitalist Europe to rations, to put it differently, to tell them now many tons, liters or kilograms of this or that material it has the right to buy or to sell.

As far back as the theses for the Third Congress of the Communist International we wrote that Europe is Balkanized. This Balkanization is now being continued. The Balkan states always had protectors in the person of Czarist Russia or Austro-Hungary, who imposed upon them changes in their policy, of their governments, or even of their dynasties (Serbia). Now Europe finds itself in an analogous situation with regard to the United States and, in part, Great Britain.

To the extent that their antagonisms will develop, the European government will go to seek aid and protection in Washington and in London; the changes in parties and governments will be determined in the last analysis by the will of American capital, which will tell Europe how much it must drink and eat ... Rationing, we know from experience, is not always very pleasant. The strictly limited rationing that the Americans will establish for the peoples of Europe will apply likewise to the ruling classes not only of Germany and of France but also, in the end, of Great Britain. (Trotsky, Europe et Amérique, pp. 26f.)

This was said twenty years ago. It reads as if it were written yesterday!

What is the question at present in Europe? (continued Trotsky). Alsace-Lorraine, the Ruhr, the Saar Basin, Silesia; that is, a few miserable scraps, a few strips of territory. Meanwhile, America is building up its plan and is preparing to put everybody on rations. Contrary to England, it does not propose to establish an army, an administration for its colonies [1], Europe included; no, it will “permit” the latter to maintain at home a reformist, pacifistic, anodyne order, with the aid of the social democracy, the radicals and other petty bourgeois parties and show them they ought to be grateful to it for not having violated their “independence.” There you have the plan of American capital, there is the program on which the Second International is reconstituting itself. (Ibid., pp. 42f.)

The American plan to put Europe on rations was interrupted by the supreme effort made by German imperialism under the Nazis to play essentially the same role on the continent that American imperialism had worked out for itself. Essentially the same role – but for reasons cited in these pages on previous occasions, in an outwardly more violent and brutal form. Germany’s supreme effort to become and remain master of Europe did not correspond either to her own resources and power or to the place it occupies with regard to her most powerful rival, the United States. Had Germany really been able to organize Europe in a planned, coordinated, peaceful manner, the continent would have found no difficulty in withstanding the encroachments of American imperialism.

This is, however, precisely what German fascism was utterly incapable of doing. By its very nature, and consequently by the very way in which it “united” Europe, there was a multiplication and aggravation of economic, political and cultural antagonisms, a sharpening of all the contradictions that left the Old World exhausted and helpless, and an inevitable plunge into the most devastating war in history. The job of uniting Europe remains to be done by the working class; a socialist Germany would be the firmest and surest pillar of such a unification.

Now it is quite clear that a German military victory in the war is out of the question. Her defeat is a matter of time. What will happen to Germany and Europe (more accurately, to Germany and therefore to Europe) after the fall of the Nazi regime? That is the decisive question in world politics today and tomorrow. Consequently, it is also the decisive question in American politics. Let us approach the question from the angle of the latest events in Germany.

The Crisis in Germany

The “attempt” upon Hitler’s life, the executions of the officers, the trial of the other officers by the “people’s” court, the confessions, the agitational campaign throughout the country by the Nazi machine – all these are distinctly familiar. The actors are different, the stage manager is different, the theater is different; the roles are almost the same, the staging is almost the same, the technique is quite the same. It is the enacting of the Moscow Trials, the Moscow frame-up, all over again!

The poison is mixed, but Stalin escapes miraculously; the wrecking of the automobile is all arranged, but Molotov escapes miraculously; the bomb is thrown, but Hitler escapes miraculously. Were the miracles performed on paper by the GPU also performed on paper by that other Providential Power that preserves the lives of National Saviors, the Gestapo?

In Moscow, the accused were (they always are!) “agents of a foreign power” and “enemies of the socialist fatherland.” In Berlin, word for word the same thing, “socialist fatherland” included. In Moscow, they were “fascist dogs.” In Berlin, they are “blue-blooded swine.” In the Moscow Trials, the “guilty” freely and drearily “confessed” anything and everything asked of them. In Berlin, too.

In Moscow, the prosecutor-judge, Andrey Vyshinsky, was a Menshevik renegade turned Stalinist. In Berlin, the judge-prosecutor, Roland Freisler, was a Stalinist renegade turned fascist! (Surely there could not be two men of that name, and the one who presided over the trial of the officers in the Berlin “people’s” court is the same Roland Freisler, must be the same gentleman, who once staffed the Communist Party of Germany.) Here indeed is the last touch needed to complete the parallel!

Does it follow that there was not really an attempt to kill Hitler? There may well have been. But genuine or staged, it makes very little difference. Hitler needed such a situation, whether staged by enemies or friends. This is shown by the uses to which the affair was put by the regime.

By implication, if not explicitly, the responsibility for the German retreats and defeats was shifted to the Junker aristocrats. They are convenient scapegoats, perhaps the only scapegoats the regime has left. They never had any ties with the masses, they never enjoyed popular support or even the support of the Nazi rank and file.

The regime sought to enhance its reputation as indispensable leader of the nation, as national savior, by depicting the real and alleged defeatists as foreign tools. Here too, as well as in what follows, the plagiary from the Kremlin is patent.

It sought to intimidate any opposition, especially any potential opposition, by the violence of the measures taken against it, to show that – if it may be put that way – the head of any opposition would be chopped off before it got a chance to grow. Were the Nazis also trying to convey the idea to the Allies that no Badoglio would be allowed to live in Germany, and that if any future negotiations were contemplated, the Nazis would be the only ones left in the country with whom such negotiations could be undertaken? That seems impossible, yet it is conceivable that such a thought flitted through the Hitlerite mind. In any case, it would seem perfectly clear that the Nazis understand that no terms will be presented to them by the Allies except such as would extinguish them.

Above all else, the “plot” was used by the regime to rush through a super-mobilization plan for the last-ditch defense. Under the new arch-dictatorship of Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Goebbels, the last drop of sweat is to be squeezed out of the German people, the last drop of blood poured onto the battlefields, in defense of the bestial regime. Hitler’s whole problem resolves itself into how much more sweat and blood the masses will allow him to extract from their shrinking bodies.

From this standpoint, appearances seem to belie a deep crisis of the regime. Under the Kaiser, in the First World War, the symptoms of the crisis were first manifested among the masses. The last year of the war was marked by a growing number of strikes, a revolt of the sailors, widespread discontentment and clamor for peace. It might almost be said that the revolt which finally overthrew the regime was openly organized among the people. So far as can be seen, there is no evidence that the masses in Germany today are on the move. [2]

Looked at superficially, this would lead to gloomy but unwarranted conclusions, based in reality on a lack of understanding of the “mechanics” of the revolutionary uprising under despotic regimes. Under such regimes, the first cracks usually occur at the top, produced by the impact of severe economic crises or of military setbacks. The dictatorship gives the masses no means, no institutions, no instruments, through which to express themselves. It gives the masses no organizations in which they can unite their forces, no matter how great their discontentment. It keeps the closest police watch over every person, and answers the first protest with a bullet. How can the masses appear on the scene as a serious force? Through the rifts inevitably created in the social and political summits!

The Logic of Revolution

There is a logic in such situations that has been revealed in a dozen revolutions occurring under the most tyrannical police regimes: In the crisis, be it induced by economic or military difficulties, every regime, be it ever so despotic, ever so monolithic at the top, ever so powerful, is confronted at one stage or another with this question: Shall we drive ahead, or retreat? Shall we make a concession to the people, or tighten the vise? Shall we launch another offensive, or sue for peace? Shall we risk the wrath of the masses, or try to appease them? Shall we stake all, or try to save part?

Invariably – assuming a really critical situation – the regime divides on these questions, between the tendency that gives one answer (let us say the “hard”) and the tendency that gives the other (let us say the “soft”). Again assuming that the situation is really critical, the minority finds itself compelled to solicit the support of the lower ranks of the police regime to which, up to yesterday, it gave only orders. The majority, in self-defense, is forced to act likewise. The dispute spreads to the remotest ends of the state machine. It is at these ends that it is in direct contact with the masses.

From the masses the lowest ranks of the regime absorb, if not the popular discontent, then at least apprehensions over the discontent. Toward these masses they are no longer able to act with the same confident arrogance and brutality they were able to show when the regime itself was confident and united. The masses, in turn, begin to feel, and then to see, that their rulers are not only united in their attitude toward the people, but are divided among themselves. If the crisis endures, the rift at the top becomes a breach which widens down to the bottom. The masses, yesterday silent, docile, passive, depressed, impotent – at least apparently – change overnight, and pour through this breach with irresistible force. The regime crumbles. The people are masters of the streets and the palace.

With one change or another, this is the way the history of the coming German revolution will write itself.

Has the rift at the top begun in the Nazi regime? Indubitably. Hitler painted the picture of the “plot” in these words: “It is a very small clique of criminal elements which now will be exterminated quite mercilessly.” Goering repeated that “only a miserable clique of former generals” was involved. But four days after these speeches, sixteen of Moscow’s German generals, who led Hitler’s armies only yesterday, radioed an appeal to the German people to “resist Hitler, refuse to carry out orders, break with the Hitler regime.” And ever since the debacle at Stalingrad, there has been the unprecedented formation and growth in Russia of the Union of German Officers, lately joined by Marshal von Paulus himself, which has repeated the line of the July 25 appeal of the sixteen generals.

The reiteration of this theme by the captured German generals may not endear the Junkers or Junkerdom to the German masses, but it cannot but make a profound impression upon them; if not upon all, then upon many; if not today, then tomorrow. “Even our generals believe the war is lost.”

The conviction that their cause is hopeless has not prevented men from fighting and dying to the last soldier before this. But it is especially when the war seems hopeless that the troops – and the civilians behind them – ask themselves more persistently and profoundly: What are we fighting for? Whom are we fighting for? They will fight to the last, under such circumstances, only when the answer is satisfactory. In the case of fascist Germany, the answer is less and less satisfactory to more and more people. The Nazi regime is doomed. The masses will not fight for it to the end.

Yet Hitler may very well enjoy one last burst of energetic support from the people. For this he will have the Allies, and only the Allies, to thank. Everything they have done, except in the purely military field, was a gift to the Nazis, prolonging their tenure of power and prolonging the war. When the people of a country are told that in the event they are defeated their land will be cut into at least three artificially-separated pieces; that they will be held formally and for a long time to account for a war into which they were themselves dragged; that they will be taken from their homes by the millions and transported like cattle for slave labor in foreign lands; that the conqueror-“liberator” will keep from them the very democratic rights of which they were deprived by their own despots; that they will have to bear a crushing burden of tribute to the victors and bear it unto the seventh generation, in accordance with the most barbarous scriptural injunctions translated into the language of modern imperialism; that their industries will be taken from them or demolished entirely; that part of their land will even be annexed like an outright colonial possession; that their country as a whole will be militarily occupied for a long time to come; that every phase of their economic, political, cultural and spiritual life will be more rigorously controlled and supervised than the English control and supervise India – it is anything but surprising that such a people will continue to fight the enemy abroad even under the rule of a hated enemy at home. It will be most astonishing if they do not continue to fight in a new and different way against the foreign enemy after the enemy at home has been crushed.

Wilson and Roosevelt

There cannot be any doubt that if the Allies had (more accurately, if they could have) announced their war aims to the German people in the terms of Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points, the war would long ago have been over, and the Nazi regime would have passed into limbo with it. But that is like talking about sailing a boat with last year’s wind. In the quarter century between Wilson and Roosevelt too much has happened for a Wilson policy to be possible. The international crisis of capitalism has reached an unprecedented stage of acuteness and virulence, manifested among other things in the war of unprecedented violence and hopelessness. Capitalism is a social order that must expand or die. That is a general phrase. Concretely it acquires real and terrible meaning: Each national sector of capitalism must expand in a contracting world, or strangle within its narrowing walls like an epileptic in agony. The cry for “Lebensraum” was only the desperately anguished appeal of a restricted German capitalism for a breath of life. But it is not only Germany that has been jammed into this Black Hole of Calcutta. The others are there as well. The breath of life for one capitalist power means trampling underfoot the other capitalist powers so as to get closer to the little window. The less air there is, the more violent the fight to monopolize it, the more complete is the abandonment of civilized relations in favor of the snarl and grunt of jungle warfare, the law of fang and claw.

The decay of capitalism throughout the world combines the highest technique in the means of destruction with the most abominable political barbarism. Only modern capitalist barbarians could try to turn a noble people like the Poles into a colonial cadaver. Only somewhat less crude modern capitalist barbarians can contemplate carving the living flesh of a civilized land like Germany into half a dozen parts, like our brutish forebears carved up a felled bison in a cave.

If there is no longer any possibility for Wilsonism in Rooseveltian America, it is fundamentally for the same reason that there was no longer any possibility for the comparatively democratic Hohenzollern regime in Germany. Along with capitalism as a whole, both of its big sectors have been driven by the world crisis to lower levels. It is like a mathematical equation: The Roosevelt plan (and Churchill’s, and Stalin’s) for Balkanizing and colonizing Germany is to Wilson’s Fourteen Points, as Hitler’s ruthless crushing of Europe is to Kaiser Wilhelm’s comparatively gentle treatment of the continent. In both cases the difference is determined by the continued decay of imperialist society.

Dismemberment of Germany

The dismemberment of Germany by the Allies is not more “justified” or less “justified” than the crushing of Europe by Germany; but it is more absurd. As our readers know, the “liberators” of Washington, Moscow and London have already agreed to cut Germany into three main and separate parts, each to be occupied and ruled by one of the “Big Three,” the East by Russia, the West by England, the South by the United States. This is not all. The fantastic de Gaulle has already laid claim in London and Washington to the whole of Baden and the Palatinate on the left bank of the Rhine, that is, he aims to repeat the French adventure of 1923 on which Poincaré broke his fool neck. The governments-in-exile of Belgium and Holland, which have yet to regain their own independence, are already talking about depriving sections of West and Northwest Germany of their independence by annexation as victor’s booty.

The most transplanetary insanity is that of the Polish government-in-exile. It rightly suspects the Moscow Greeks bearing gifts in the form of East Prussian land grants. At the same time, this “government,” which has as much prospect of presiding over the restored independence of Poland as it has of seeing the back of its head without a mirror, issues solemn statements about its “historical right” to the same East Prussia! What right? According to a pamphlet issued by the London Poles, East Prussia and Danzig “have belonged to Poland during long periods of their history,” East Prussia having been a fief of the Polish crown until 1657, and that while admittedly East Prussia’s inhabitants are German in their majority, “the Germans in reality were colonists who exterminated the native Prussians.” Moreover, “Warsaw is only sixty miles from East Prussia, while Berlin is 240 miles away” and – master stroke! – “Economically East Prussia is a drain on the German treasury” – a heartbreaking situation which wrings the withers on Pan Mikolajczyk! (Out of understandable prudence, the official Polish pamphlet does not note that all of the Ukraine down to the Black Sea and all of the Baltic countries were also at one time fiefs of the Polish crown ...)

On the basis of the Polish arguments: Southwestern United States, Texas included, go back to Mexico; Romania goes back to Rome, along with Marseilles and Nice; Alaska goes back to Russia; all of Australia is annexed to Dartmoor Prison; and if the Poles remain shy about claiming the region of Kiev, it should be returned to its true founders, the Vikings.

Madness crowds madness. Millions of German workers are to be sent away as slave-labor “reconstructors” of other countries. Then German industry is to be crippled in a dozen different ways. Whereupon? Whereupon Germany, paralyzed and maintained in forced poverty, is to pay a heavy tribute! How? Out of what? Out of its vast industrial production? No, it is not to be vast! Out of its export surplus? No, unless hunger and unemployment can be profitably exported.

A Germany enslaved and impoverished means a Europe prostrate, unable to rise, and devoid of peace. Anyone who does not understand this should be forbidden to meddle in politics. There was some glimmer of an excuse for not understanding it before the criminal Versailles Treaty; today, after the Versailles experiment, after the collapse of Weimar, after the experience of Hitlerism, after the Second World War, there is no excuse whatsoever.

Prospects in Post-War Germany

The victorious proletarian revolutionary power will not, it is clear, directly replace the fallen Nazi regime. The German proletariat will need a period in which to regain its strength and a correct orientation. Everything depends on it. In the first period following the inevitable overturn of Hitlerism, the Stalinist and Social Democratic bureaucracies will endeavor to rebuild a movement under their own domination. Fortunately, their hopes exceed their prospects.

The Stalinist gang will appear everywhere as the defender of GPU and Russian army rule over that part of Germany which is given the Kremlin as its share of the booty, as the defender, in general, of the oppression, disfranchisement and exploitation of the German masses. The Noskes and Scheidemanns of 1918–19 will look like friends of the people in comparison. The correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor (August 7) asked the principal official newspaper spokesman of the Kremlin, a venomous animal by the name of Ilya Ehrenburg, what the Russians would do about a revolt of the Germans which will “overthrow Hitler and welcome the advancing Red Army with appropriate banners.” “Those,” replied this tender flower of Stalinist humanism, “would be the first people we should shoot.” In the Daily Worker of February 18, the German Stalinist boss, Hans Berger, writes: “Hitler has enough Ehrlichs and Alters. Their names are Schulz and Kunz and Mueller [i.e., Smith, Jones and Robinson, or Tom, Dick and Harry]. The problem of a future Germany is to get rid of national socialism and of its professional instigators against the Soviet Union. We don’t think that the world and a new Germany need so-called democratic socialists who want to carry Ehrlichs and Alters in their luggage when and if they return to Germany.” A vote of thanks is due candor, even if the candor of the assassin. The pistol of the GPU executioner is to reach, if not to the Rhine, at least to the Spree.

The social democrats will appear in Germany as the mildly remonstrative servants of Anglo-American imperialism, the power they helped impose as an iron heel on defeated Germany. As Trotsky said so perspicaciously in 1924, they will oppose their own (the German) bourgeoisie “not from the point of view of the proletarian revolution, not even to obtain reforms, but to show that this bourgeoisie is intolerant, egotistical, chauvinistic and incapable of coming to an agreement with pacifistic, humanitarian, democratic American capital ... To colonize Europe, to make it its dominion, American capital has no need of sending missionaries there. On the spot there is already a party whose task is to preach to the peoples the gospel of Wilson, the gospel of Coolidge, the Holy Scripture of the Stock Exchanges of New York and Chicago. That is the present mission of European Menshevism!” To which may be added, in 1944, that the social democrats – those of them not bought up or murdered by the Stalinists “when and if they return to Germany” – will preach servitude to American capitalism as the only barrier to the encroachments of Moscowl Thus the roles are divided in advance.

But the German people, above all, the German working class – this is a force with which the oppressors and the traducers have not fully counted. To be sure, the imperialists know there will be resistance to their rule. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why there has been started the big propaganda campaign in the Allied countries about the “preparations being made by the Nazis to go underground after the Allied victory.” That such preparations are being made need not be doubted. That the “underground” Nazis will seek to exploit the crimes and stupidities of the imperialists and their agents in Germany also need not be doubted. What is sinister in the propaganda campaign on this point however, is the fact that it attempts in advance to label every German worker who, after the war, fights against imperialist oppression and exploitation, against national humiliation – to label him a Nazi tool, if not a Nazi outright!

Yet it is precisely upon this worker, and those like him, that the future of Europe depends. It is such workers who will constitute the ranks of the reconstructed revolutionary movement of Germany. This movement will be proud and powerful, and victorious in the end, because it will be a revolutionary, internationalist, socialist movement which fights not only for a free Germany but for a free, prosperous, peaceful and united Europe against all those who seek to crush Europe. It will be proud also because it will take up, on a higher plane, the struggle for national freedom and democracy which constitutes the only heroic tradition of the young bourgeoisie of a century or two ago. It will be, it will have to be, the champion (the only consistent and militant champion) of national unity, national freedom and democracy – against the Balkanizers, colonizers and oppressors, of Germany and Europe. The crusaders of socialism become ever more clearly the soldiers of democracy, as the imperialist bourgeoisie and its Stalinist associates seek to hurl the world back to a new and hideous barbarism.

We will yet see how prophetic was Trotsky’s warning in 1924:

Driven by the logic of rapacious imperialism, America is making a gigantic experiment of rationing upon many peoples. This plan will collide in its realization with fierce class straggles and national struggles. The more the power of American capital is transformed into political power, the more American capital develops internationally, the more the American bankers take command of the governments of Europe – the stronger, the more centralized, the more decisive will be the resistance of the proletarian, petty bourgeois and peasant masses of Europe. For, to make a colony out of Europe is not as simple as you think, Messrs. Americans!

Messrs. Russians-in-the-Kremlin, too. It was they who stilled Trotsky’s voice with a pickaxe. Like their American and British colleagues, they will yet hear this voice echoing the revolutionary forward march of the European people.


1. An English comrade, writing in the London Socialist Appeal (his letter is reprinted elsewhere in this issue), says with high disdain: “About Shachtman’s theory of the colonization of Europe, I need not say much. I don’t think this preposterous theory can find much support among us.” So much the worse for the “us,” who call themselves students and followers of Trotsky. The Englishman’s words, and the spirit that animates them (i.e., blind factionalism and ignorance), are almost identical with those used by the late Jay Lovestone, who, in November 1925, spoke just as contemptuously about “the old theory of Trotsky on Europe being put on rations and transformed into a dominion of America.” What Trotsky thereupon said to the American, Lovestone, applies word for word to the Englishman, Peck: “If you want to write on any subject whatsoever – be it in English or in French, in Europe or in America – it is necessary to know what you are writing and where you are leading the reader ... We will conclude by the advice that Engels gave a certain Stiebeling, also an American: ‘When one wishes to concern himself with scientific questions, it is first necessary to learn to read writings as the author wrote them, and above all not to read out of them what is not written in them.’ These words of Engels are excellent and are valid not only for America but for all five parts of the world.” We add only: Valid not only for Lovestonites but also for Trotskyists.

2. Unless. of course, you want to make a public laughing-stock of yourself by crediting and, as The Militant did recently, publishing solemnly the report of the “national conference” that was held “illegally in Germany” by the “Trotskyist” (!) trade unions.

Top of page

Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index

Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive

Last updated on 17 December 2015