The Stalin school of falsification - Marxists Internet Archive

Stalin School of Falsification -- Chapter 11
have posed the question in this manner. This is the theory of Dan expressed in its most vulgar form: The
democratic revolution viewed as an abstraction, within the framework of which function the more
"moderate" and the more "resolute" forces, among whom there is a division of labor-the resolute
conquer, the moderate fortify. Nevertheless, Stalin's speech was not accidental. We have in it the pattern
of the entire Stalinist policy in China from 1924 to 1928.
Lenin, who had managed to arrive in time for the last session of this same Conference, castigated the
position of Stalin with an indignation that was impassioned despite all its restraint.
"Even our Bolsheviks [he said] show confidence in the Govemment. That can be explained only by
intoxication incidental to revolution. That is the death of socialism. You, comrades, place confidence in
the government. If that's your position, our ways part. I prefer to remain in the minority. One Liebknecht
is worth more than 110 defensists of his type of Steklov and Chkheidze. If you are in sympathy with
Liebknecht and extend even a finger [to the defensists] -- this will be a betrayal of international
socialism." (The March 1917 Party Conference. Session of April 4. "Report by Comrade Lenin.")
It should he borne in mind that Lenin's speech, as well as the protocols as a whole, have been kept hidden
from the party to this day.
18. How did Stalin pose the war question? In the same way as Kamenev. It is necessary to arouse the
European workers, but in the meantime we must fulfill our duty towards the "revolution." But how
arouse the European workers? Stalin's reply is contained in his article for March 17, 1917.
We have already indicated one of the most serious methods of doing so. It consists in this, that we
compel our own government to put itself on record not only against all plans of conquest . . . but also
openly to formulate the will of the Russian people, immediately begin negotiations for universal peace on
the basis of a complete renunciation of all conquests by both sides, and on the basis of the rights of all
nations to self-determination."
Thus, the "pacifism" of Miliukov-Guchkov was to have served as the means for arousing the European
proletariat.
On April 4, the day after his arrival, Lenin indignantly declared at the Party Conference:
"Pravda demands from the Government that it renounce annexations. To demand from the government
of the capitalists that it renounce annexations-Nonsense! Flagrant mockery of. . . "(The March 1917
Party Conference. Session of April 4. "Report by comrade Lenin.")
These words were directed wholly against Stalin.
14. On March 14, the Menshevik-S.R. Soviet issued a manifesto on war to the toilers of all nations. The
manifesto represented a hypocritical, pseudo-pacifist document in the spirit of the entire policy of the
Mensheviks and the S.R.'s who were urging the workers of other countries to rise against their
bourgeoisie, while they themselves remained yoked to the imperialists of Russia and of the whole
Entente. How did Stalin evaluate this manifesto?
"In the first place, it is indubitable that the bare slogan 'Down with War!' is absolutely worthless as a
practical path.
It is impermissible not to hail yesterday's manifesto of the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies in
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937-st2/sf11.htm (6 of 12) [06/06/2002 15:07:13]