British CP opposed Moscow Escrapes the history barrel

who never even got to the courtroom-—all this was not only accepted but actually commended and glorified by the British Stalinist leadership, including Dutt himself, in much the same terms as the much-heralded historian of the Party, Klugmann, faithfully condemned Tito and the "Titoites' in 1950.

Dutt chooses this 30th anniversary, of all times, to tell us in the literary supplement that the British Stalinists did voice their opposition to the Russians in the International and in Russia.

'Dissent'

He claims that the British Party, apart from dissenting on the colonial question in 1928, and criticising the deification of Stalin ('not that we were opposed to his political line and leadership,' Dutt says), at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, also took up. the question of the 'conduct of the security organs'. MODZEBAST onata SMIECH 'Two years later, at a meeting of a delegation, headed by Pollitt and attended by other leading comrades, including myself, with the international leaders, we were in conflict again over raising questions concerning the conduct of the security organs; and this dispute proved so intense that soundings were made to find support among us for the replacement of the General Secretary; but we all made clear that we stood by Pollitt on this matter.' How many Party members outside the charmed circle at the King Street headquarters have been told anything about this? Why is Palme Dutt so coy, confining himself to the correspondence column of the "Times Literary Supplement'?

For many years, he and his colleagues condemned as "Trotskyist' and, by implication, accomplices of tascism, anyone who questioned 'the conduct of the security organs' in the USSR.

Every Communist Party member surely has the right to demand that Palme Dutt discloses exactly what these criticisms were.

After all, D. N. Pritt, in his autobiography, has recently said that he had no regrets for the whitewashing jobs he did for these same security organs.

Come along Dutt, did you protest at the forced confessions, tortures, executions, without trial, the wiping out of a whole generation of the most outstanding fighters in the history of the proletariat? Or did you still agree with Stalin's 'policy and leadership', and decide to push aside your responsibility!

In fact the conduct of the British Stalinists in the 19361938 period (the reputed protest was in 1937), was nothing but base subservience to the Stalinist terror and Dutt's claim is a fraud, just like his reference to the Sixth Congress criticisms of the British Communist Party on the colonial question.

TINISY ISE T-E BAN LEFT THE On this issue, Dutt omits to mention that the Sixth Congress (1928) was the last at which such a discussion took place.

Congress part:

Line British Communist closed its mouth completely, and the dispute was entirely dropped.

It is only raised now, after 38 years, because Dutt is scraping the barrel to find an example of the British Party's 'independence' The active performance of the British Stalinists during the Moscow Trials has been fully documented by Brian Pearce in his article 'British Stalinists and the Moscow Trials' ('Labour Review', March-April 1958).

Only a fraction of the material from Pearce's article is sufficient to produce real anger at Dutt's recent claim.

William Gallacher wrote in the Daily Worker' about, the Trials: • 'Here one sees the Soviet legal system as it really is, the most advanced, the most humane, in the world....

(Review of Dudley Collard 'Soviet Justice and the Trial of Radek', 'Daily Worker, March 19, 1937.)

Remarkable feat Gallacher is dead and gone, but Gollan, present general secretary of the Party, made his own contribution in a pamphlet called The Development of Trotskyism from Menshevism to Alliance with Fascism and Counter-Revolution'.

In this publication he performed the remarkable feat of producing a list of 'the real Bolshevik Old Guard', to answer the argument that Stalin was attacking the old guard. His list included Kudzutak, Bubnov, Chubar, Kossior and Postyshey, all of whom were Dutt dutifully drew the Stalinist political conclusions, so ruthlessly acted upon, in pamphlet, The Truth About Trotskyism'; pointing out that it was 'essential to ... destroy. the Trotskyist propaganda and influence which is seeking to win a foothold withMoscow Trials has been fully documented by Brian Pearce in his article 'British Stalinists in the labour movement, since these attempts represent fact the channel of fascist penetration into the labour movement'.

Andrew Rothstein, writing in the 'Daily Worker' of February 5, 1937, said:

"The criminals have received their well-merited sentences.. .. Millions of people have had their eyes opened to Trotskyism, the essence of These and many other similar articles appeared for some three years after the early material of 1936, among which was a 'Daily Worker' editorial entitled 'Shoot the Reptiles!' (August 24, 1936.)

Ever since 1956, the Stalinist leaders have excused their silence on the great purges of Stalin on the grounds that they knew nothing about the 'abuses'.

Now • Palme Dutt says they actually protested at the time. Thus another question arises: What were the political reasons for remaining silent then and for so long afterwards?

It is an inescapable conclusion that Dutt and his friends let the matter drop because these Stalinist methods fended their kind of politics.

They did accept Stalin's policy and leadership, and were therefore unable to challenge the Stalinist abuses.

Only Trotsky and Trotskyism have been able to do that proceeding from the programme: Defence of the conquests of the October Revolu-