The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1929-06-17

Trotzky's Letter to the Rus
sian Workers" 1oas printed IN the
United States in the Ne1O York
Nation" an organ of the liberal
petty-borgeoisie, aOhich has al
a0ayS stood IN the l0ay. hindering
every real forward movement of
the American quorking class.
The "Nation" printed Trotsky's
scu1rilouS document undsr the pre-
tense of being "fair." Under this
cloak of fairness" they joined
auth the rest of the defamers of
the First Workers Republic in
their task of undermining the So
Union. Needless to sag the spirit
of their so-called "fai1mess" acas
not entended to the defenders of
the U. S. S. r.
We are herewith printing Com
rade YarosIavsky's ANSWER to the
letter" of the renegade Trotzky.
EDITOR.
The articles published in the
"Pravda" in March in regard to
Trotzky very naturally called forth
great Indignation among his adj
herents. But for all their vehement
protests the Trotzkyites did not sue
coed in cloaking their theological de-
cay, which was accelerated by Trotz-
lly's contributions to the reactionary
fascist and bourgeois press. Prac-
tically at the same time, articles
from his pen appeared in various
organs of the most reactionary bour-
geoisie, such as the DAILY Express"
in standard bourgeois organs, such
as the "Neue Freie Presse," in petty
bourgeois publications like John
OLondon's Weekly" in the left"
Trotzkyite "Volkswille," in "Contre
lie Courant," the organ of the Right,
while interviews with him appeared
in the ultra-reactionary "Rheinisch-
Westfalische Zeitung" and in the
Turkish "Aksham" and "Jumruriet."
All these facts show that the entire
bourgeois press and the entire press
of the renegades of the Comintern
were at Trotzky's disposal. The naive
Juvenile members of the illegal
Trotzkyist movement believed these
dabblers in politics, these leaders of
the illegal movement, who declare
that Trotzky was merely making use
of the bourgeois press. Even blind
man can see who is being exploited,
by whom, and what for.
The Trotzkyites started by declar-
ing that it was simply inconceivable
that Trotzky should have published
his first article in a publication like
the DAILY Express" In leaflet
dated March 9th they declared the
article published by that paper to
be nothing but "a libellOus forgery
of Chamberlain for the deception of
the British proletariat." This would
have been very mild description of
the article in question, had it really
been faxed. But the assertion was
all the more pitiable in view of the
fact that, as the Trotzkyites were
subsequently forced to admit, the
article in the 'Daily Express" was
not faxed at all but had really been
written by Trotzky. What was then
the sequel to this assertion? If on
March 9th the Trotzkyites had as
serted the article in the "Daily Ex-
press, to be "a libellous forgery to
deceive the British proletariat," how
could they then approve of the pub
LEGATION of such an article by Trot-
zky when they learnt that this
articles in the fascist "corriere della
Trotzky himself, just as had his
articles in the fascist "orriere della
Sera," in the Journal" the organ of
the Paris boulevards, and in the
most reactionary publications of
Europe and America?
They attempted to find a 'justifi-
cation" of the principle underlying