A Lesson in Democracy I Did Not Receive The Story of a Visa

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

I have already related, in my articles for the world press, the fact that after I emphatically refused to go to Turkey, the train carrying me toward Odessa was held over en route for twelve days and that during this time, according to Bulanov, the GPU representative in charge, the Soviet government tried to obtain for me the right to enter Germany. In expectation of a favorable reply and with the object of avoiding further delays, the GPU even worked out the route by which I would supposedly travel to Berlin. On February 8, I was informed that this entire plan had fallen through, owing to the unyielding resistance of the German government. Such at any rate was the understanding of the matter with which I arrived in Constantinople. Here, in one of the Berlin papers, I read the speech of the president of the Reichstag, delivered on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Weimar National Assembly. It closed with these words: “Vielleicht kommen wir sogar dazu, Herrn Trotzki das freiheitliche Asyl zu geben. (Lebhafter Beifall bei der Mehrheit.) [Perhaps we shall even arrive at the point of granting Mr. Trotsky the democratic right of asylum. (Vigorous applause from the majority.)]”

The statement by the president of the German Reichstag had been preceded by a semiofficial report in the German press to the effect that actually the Soviet government had not applied for a visa for Trotsky. Löbe's words were a complete surprise to me, since everything that had gone before had given me reason to believe that the German government had decided the question of my admission to Germany in the negative. Such at any rate had been the categorical assertion of the agents of the Soviet government. If it had not been for Löbe's speech I would naturally not have applied to the German government, only to receive a certain refusal. It is too obvious that such a refusal would quickly be turned into a “precedent,” making it easier for other governments to refuse me in turn. But there before me lay Löbe's speech, which put the whole question in a new light.

On February 15, I called in the GPU representative who had escorted me to Constantinople and said to him: “I must draw the conclusion that the information given me was false. Löbe's speech was made on February 6. We sailed from Odessa for Turkey only on the night of February 10. Consequently, Löbe's speech was known to Moscow at the time. I recommend that you telegraph Moscow at once suggesting that on the strength of Löbe's speech they make an actual request that Berlin grant me a visa. That would be the least discreditable way of winding up the intrigue that Stalin has apparently built up around the question of my admission to Germany.”

Two days later the GPU representative brought me the following reply: “In answer to my telegram to Moscow, I have had confirmation that the German government categorically refused a visa for you as early as the beginning of February. A new application would be pointless. As for Löbe's speech, it was simply irresponsible in character. If you wish to verify this, you can apply for a visa yourself.”

This version did not seem credible to me. I judged that the president of the Reichstag ought to know the intentions of his own party and government better than the agents of the GPU did. The same day I wired Löbe to inform him that on the strength of his statement I was applying to the German consulate for a visa. The democratic and social democratic press took great satisfaction in pointing out for all to see that a believer in revolutionary dictatorship was now obliged to seek asylum in a democratic country. Some even expressed the hope that this lesson would teach me to value the institutions of democracy more highly. Nothing remained but for me to wait and see how this lesson would work out in practice.

Meanwhile, of course, I could not allow any ambiguity or lack of clarity on the question of my attitude toward democracy. I supplied the necessary explanations on this point to a representative of the German social democratic press who called on me. These I will quote in the form in which I wrote them down immediately after the interview:

“As I am now applying for admission to Germany, where the majority of the government consists of Social Democrats, I am chiefly interested in making clear my attitude toward the social democracy. Obviously on this question nothing has changed. My attitude toward the social democracy remains what it was. Moreover, my struggle against the centrist faction of Stalin is only a reflection of my general struggle against the social democracy. Neither you nor I have any need of vagueness or of leaving things unsaid.

“Some social democratic publications are trying to find a contradiction between the principles I hold in regard to democracy and my application for admission to Germany, i.e., to a democratic republic. There is no contradiction here. We do not at all ‘deny’ democracy as the anarchists ‘deny’ it (verbally). Bourgeois democracy has advantages in comparison with the forms of the state that preceded it. But it is not eternal. It must give way to socialist society. And the bridge to socialist society is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

“In all capitalist countries, communists take part in the parliamentary struggle. Making use of the right of asylum does not differ in principle in any way from the utilization of the right to vote, of freedom of the press and assembly, and so on.

“You are interested in my struggle for democracy in the party, the trade unions, and the soviets. Social democratic publications. have from time to time attempted to portray this as a step toward bourgeois democracy on my part. This is a monumental misunderstanding, the roots of which are not hard to disclose. The social democratic formula of today goes like this: ‘Stalin is right against Trotsky; Bukharin is right against Stalin.’ The social democracy stands for the restoration of capitalism in Russia. But one can take this road only by pushing the proletarian vanguard into the background and suppressing its independent activity and critical voice. Stalin’s regime is the necessary result of his political line. Since social democracy approves of Stalin’s economic policy, it ought to reconcile itself to his political methods as well. It is unworthy of a Marxist to speak of democracy in general.’ Democracy has a class content. If a policy aimed at restoring capitalism is what is needed, then that is incompatible with democracy for the ruling proletarian class.

“An actual transition back to capitalism could only be secured through the dictatorial power of the bourgeoisie. It is ridiculous to demand the restoration of capitalism and at the same time to sigh for democracy. That is sheer fantasy.”

I do not know whether this interview ever appeared in the German social democratic press. Apparently not. I am also unaware of what effect it had on the voting of the social democratic ministers. At any rate, the democratic right of asylum, as I understand it, does not consist in a government’s allowing people to enter its territory only if they hold views similar to its own. Even Nicholas II and Sultan Abdul Hamiddid that. Nor does it consist in a democracy’s admitting exiles only with the permission of the government that exiled them. The right of asylum (on paper) consists in a government’s giving refuge even to its opponents, provided they undertake to observe the country’s laws. I of course could enter Germany only as an irreconcilable opponent of the Social Democratic government.

The defense of my interests vis-a-vis the German government was taken up by a lawyer, Kurt Rosenfeld, a left Social Democrat by party membership. He did this on his own initiative, out of ideological conviction, and without any profit to himself. I gratefully accepted the services he offered, regardless of his membership in the Social Democratic Party.

I received from Dr. Rosenfeld a telegram asking what restrictions I would agree to abide by during my stay in Germany. I replied: “I intend to live in complete isolation, outside of Berlin; not to speak at public meetings under any circumstances; and to confine myself to literary work within the bounds of German law.”

Thus it was no longer a question of the democratic right of asylum but of the right to reside in Germany on an exceptional basis. The lesson in democracy that my opponents were going to accord me was given a restrictive interpretation from the very outset. But this was not the end of it. A few days later I received another telegraphic inquiry: Would I agree to come to Germany only for purposes of medical treatment? I wired in reply:

“I request that I be given at least the opportunity to stay in Germany for a course of treatment absolutely necessary for my health.”

Thus the right of asylum at this stage had shrunk to the right of treatment. I named several well-known German physicians who had treated me during the previous ten years, whose aid I now needed more than ever before. Members of the German press in Constantinople seemed to think that my admission was assured. As we shall see, I regarded the question less optimistically, but nevertheless I did not consider success ruled out.

Toward Easter, the German press sounded a new note: in government circles, it was stated, the opinion was held that Trotsky was not really so ill as to absolutely require the help of German doctors and German health resorts. On March 31, I telegraphed Dr. Rosenfeld:

“According to the newspaper reports, my illness is not sufficiently hopeless to obtain my admission to Germany. I wonder whether Löbe offered me the right of asylum or the right of interment? I am willing to submit to any examination by any medical commission. I undertake to leave Germany at the close of the health-resort season.”

Thus, in the course of a few weeks, the democratic principle was three times truncated. The right of asylum was at first reduced to the right of residence on a specially restricted basis, then to the right of treatment, and finally, to the right of interment. But this meant that I could appreciate the advantages of democracy in full measure only as a corpse.

Earlier, on March 19, in a letter to Dr. Rosenfeld, I had, among other things, written the following:

“Allow me to inform you briefly — as the representative of my interests, and not as a member of the Social Democratic Party- how I view the situation. Prompted by Löbe's speech, I applied to the German government a month ago. There is still no answer. Stalin apparently arranged matters with Stresemann in such a way that I would not be admitted to Germany regardless of whether the Social Democrats should want to admit me or not. The Social Democratic majority in the government will leave this question hanging in midair until the next governmental crisis. I would have to wait patiently all the while, bound hand and foot; that is, I would be forced to disavow the attempts of my friends to win me the right of asylum in France or in other countries. After another two or three weeks, public opinion will have lost interest in this question. Thus, I would lose not only the coming health- resort season but also the possibility of moving to another country altogether. That is why, in the present situation, a formal refusal would be preferable from my point of view to any further postponement of the decision.”

There was still no answer. Once again I telegraphed Berlin: “Regard the absence of reply as a disloyal form of refusal.” Only after this, on April 12, that is, after two months, did I receive a communication that the German government had denied my application for admission. There was nothing left but to telegraph the president of the Reichstag, Löbe, which I did on the following day: "Regret have not received the possibility for practical education in the advantages of the democratic right of asylum.”

Such is the brief and instructive history of this affair.

Stalin demanded, through Stresemann, that I not be admitted to Germany, and he got his way, in the name of the friendship of the Soviet government. Thälmann demanded that I be denied admission to Germany — in the interests of Thälmann and the Communist International. Hilferding demanded that I not be admitted, because I had had the imprudence to sketch a political portrait of Hilferding in my book against Kautsky and because that portrait bore too painful a resemblance to the original.Hermann Mueller had no reason to refuse Stalin a favor over a question like this. Under these conditions, the platonic defenders of the principles of democracy could with impunity write articles and make speeches in favor of my being granted the right of asylum. They had nothing to lose in this, and I had nothing to gain. In exactly the same way, democratic pacifists speak out against war on every occasion in which it is not on the agenda.

According to what I am told, Chamberlain has displayed special energy in regard to the question of my visa. This honorable gentleman has more than once expressed the opinion that in the interests of democracy I should be placed against a wall. They say that in addition to general considerations of conservatism, Chamberlain has certain personal motives. It is possible that I actually did refer, without due respect, to his political genius in my book on Britain. Since special negotiations have been under way in Paris all this time, neither Stresemann nor Hermann Mueller had any reason to cause Chamberlain any vexations. Moreover, Chamberlain would not have wanted them to do anything that went against their political preferences. Thus everything fit together more neatly than could have been imagined.

As if that were not enough, we have last of all, from Stalin and Thälmann, the first successful application of a united-front policy on a broad international scale. Through the GPU, on December 16, Stalin proposed that I renounce my political activity. The same condition was advanced by the Germans as something taken for granted during the discussion of the asylum issue in the press. This means that the government of Stresemann and Mueller likewise regards as dangerous and harmful the ideas against which Stalin and Thälmann are fighting. Stalin, by diplomatic means, and Thälmann, by means of agitation, demanded that the Social Democratic government refuse me admission to bourgeois Germany — presumably in the interests of the proletarian revolution. On the other flank, Chamberlain insisted that I be denied a visa — in the interests of the capitalist order. Thus, Hermann Mueller was able simultaneously to satisfy both his partners on the right and his allies on the left. The Social Democratic government became the connecting link in an international united front against revolutionary Marxism. In order to find the fitting imagery for this united front one need only turn to the first lines of the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels: “All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter (communism): Pope and czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies.” The names are different, but the substance is the same. The fact that today the German police are Social Democrats alters the situation but little. Essentially they are protecting the same thing as the Hohenzollern police.

Of course it is understood that if the right of asylum had been accorded me, that in itself would not in the least mean a refutation of the Marxist class theory of the state. All that needs to be said on this point may be found in the quotation from my interview with the German social democratic correspondent given above. The regime of democracy does not derive from self-sufficient principles but from the real requirements of the dominant classes. But democracy has an inner logic of its own. By the force of this logic, it necessarily includes the right of asylum. The granting of refuge to a proletarian revolutionist in no way contradicts the bourgeois character of democracy. But there is no need to go into these arguments now, for in Germany, under the rule of the Social Democrats, no right of asylum has been found to exist. After the Stalinists, who had broken with Marxism and the October Revolution, expelled me from the Soviet republic, the German Social Democrats refused me a visa precisely because I represent the principles of Marxism and the traditions of the October Revolution.

What was involved, on this occasion, was only a single individual. But social democracy — this extreme left wing of the bourgeois world — did not hesitate even for a moment to trample underfoot one of the “principles” of pure democracy. And how will things stand when practical decisions need to be made on the question of private ownership of the means of production? How will those ill-fated and tattered principles of democracy fare at times like that? We have already seen how in the past and will see it again in the future more than once. The episode of my visa, a completely secondary matter in the long run, brings into sharp relief a fundamental problem of our era and at one blow topples the myth, false and reactionary through and through, that a peaceful transition to socialist society is possible. This is the only lesson to be drawn from my recently conducted experiment. This is a serious lesson and it will find its way into the consciousness of the masses of workers.