THE COLLAPSE OF THE LEIPZIG TRIAL

Trotskyism and Fascism

THE COLLAPSE OF THE LEIPZIG TRIAL—THE CHARGES IN THE PROLETARIAN COURT PROVED 

TN LEIPZIG, a fearless proletarian fighter for truth sat in the ■“■prisoners’ dock. 

“I admit,5’ said Comrade Dimitroff, hurling his challenge at the judge, “that I am speaking a language that is stern and severe. But my language is frank and sincere. ... I can say with a clear conscience that in this court, and consequently before the bar of public opinion, I have spoken the truth on all points.” 

An unbending revolutionary character, an indomitable pro­letarian will steeled in ceaseless class struggle among the toiling masses, were required to secure victory in this struggle for truth at a fascist trial. 

All the efforts of the police commissars, of the examining magistrates, of the official fascist lawyers, of the judges, of the gang of perjurers headed by Goering and Goebbels were exerted in order to prevent Comrade Dimitroff from seeing, hearing and speaking, in order to blind him and gag him. He was treated with particular severity in prison; for months he was kept in chains; while he was being searched efforts were made to fasten upon him false documents fabricated by the fascist police. He was com­pletely isolated from the outside world. Not a single political document sent to him by his friends was handed to him, he was not permitted to call witnesses whose truthful evidence would have been dangerous for the provocateurs; attempts were made to force upon him as his counsel a lawyer who was a political agent of the fascist executioners.


A whole pack of perjurers— fascist deputies and journalists, police officials and provocateurs like Karvane who, before he became a National-Socialist member of the Reichstag, belonged to the Trotskyist group of Katz in Germany; political spies and criminals, and finally, the most hardened provocateurs in the Hitler government, Goering and Goebbels—were brought against him. During the examination of  witnesses he was prevented from speaking on numerous occasions. During those moments at the trial when the situation became most dangerous for the provocateurs he was removed from the court. He was prevented from putting oral questions and was com­pelled to submit them in writing in order that the judge might examine them first. Efforts were made to intimidate him by threats of vengeance outside the court by that mad executioner Goering. Even during his final speech he was interrupted no less than thirty times. He was prevented from quoting articles published in the Voelkischer Beobcwhter, the official organ of the National­Socialist Party. He was not even permitted to read the indictment, which towards the end of the trial actually became a document exposing those who had drafted it as provocateurs. And, finally, he was prevented from finishing his speech in defense and was compelled to formulate his demands to the court in the briefest manner. 

But all this did not save the fascist court from the most shame­ful disgrace and defeat in the history of capitalist justice, for even in their abbreviated form the charges formulated by Com­rade Dimitroff at the end of his speech in summing up the trial were a verdict of political death for the fascist regime. 

In complete contrast to the farcical trial staged by the fas­cists, the Soviet court was not interested in anything so much as to ascertain with the greatest possible care the real circum­stances of the criminal activities of the Trotsky-Zinoviev Center, particularly of those who had traversed the incredibly long path of disgrace from the counter-revolutionary struggle within the Party to collaboration with the Gestapo. 

In their struggle against the Communist Party and against the Soviet government, against the people of the Soviet Union, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites resorted to methods of counter-revolu­tionary struggle each more criminal than the other. They started with a controversy in the Party with the object of imposing their will upon it. Then they fruitlessly tried to carry their counter­revolutionary agitation among the masses; but the latter cast them aside, and so they finished up with bandit terrorism. 

Those of the accused who had been members of the Communist Party could not but tell the court how cynically they had betrayed the confidence of the Party which had repeatedly given them opportunities of abandoning the path of counter-revolu­tionary struggle against the Soviet government. 

Not for one year, but for ten years, first the Party control bodies and then the judicial authorities tried hard to get these people to tell even the most simple, elementary truth about their views, plans and activities. More than once these people uttered hypocritical speeches of repentance, pretended “truthfully” to reveal their past crimes against the Soviet government and prom­ised to stop them once and for all. This false, perfidious and treacherous “truth” was all the more dangerous a weapon in the arsenal of the Trotskyites and Zinovievites for the reason that these despicable terrorists resorted to it not only for the purpose of saving themselves from punishment for crimes they had already committed, but also in order to continue committing their crimes. 

“For ten years, if not more,” admitted Kamenev in his final plea before the Supreme Court, “I waged a struggle against the Party, against the government of the Land of Soviets, and against Stalin personally. In this struggle, it seems to me, I utilized every weapon in the political arsenal known to me—open political discussion, attempts to penetrate into factories and works, illegal leaflets, secret printing presses, deception of the Party, the organization of street demonstrations, conspiracy and, finally, terrorism. 

“I once studied the history of political movements and I cannot remem­ber any form of political struggle that we did not use during the past ten years. The proletarian revolution allowed us a period of time for our polit­ical struggle which no other revolution gave its enemies. The bourgeois revolution of the 18th century gave its enemies weeks and days, and then destroyed them. The proletarian revolution gave us ten years in which to reform and to realize that we were in error. But we did not do that. Three times was I reinstated in the Party. I was recalled from exile merely on the strength of my personal statement. After all the mistakes I had com­mitted I was entrusted with responsible missions and posts. This is the third time I am facing a proletarian court on the charge of terroristic inten­tions, designs and actions.” (The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terror­ist Centery p. 169.) 

But the Trotskyite and Zinovievite adventurers took advan­tage of the opportunities the Party afforded them to mend their ways, not in order to ponder over their misdeeds and to abandon their path of crime, but in order to adopt more cunning methods to deceive the vigilance of the Soviet state. They sank lower and 

lower; they became counter-revolutionary bandits working under­ground and, placing no limits to their foul designs, established contacts with the Gestapo. Eighteen months after the foul murder of Comrade Sergei Kirov by the Trotsky-Zinoviev Center, how­ever, the hour struck when this diabolical game was completely exposed, and the criminals realized that their lies could no longer save them. Under the weight of irrefutable evidence they began, bit by bit, to tell the truth about their criminal misdeeds. And although they admitted only those facts which they could not possibly deny, the evidence against them was so irrefutable that when the indictment was drawn up the actual picture of the crim­inal activities of the terrorists became clear. 

The task which confronted the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. was to reveal the whole truth to the people; to subject the evi­dence to the closest scrutiny, to establish with the utmost impar­tiality the extent to which the various accused were implicated in the crimes, to ascertain the aims and motives which prompted them, and to determine the degree of guilt of each one of them. The whole world knows that the proletarian court fulfilled this task without in any way restricting the accuseds5 right of defense, without hindering them in any way from contesting the evidence, in giving their own evidence, in making any explanation they cared to make, and in submitting any evidence they cared to bring in refutation of the charges against them. 

It is a fact that not one of the requests the accused made to the court was rejected. It is a fact that not a single question put by any of the accused was vetoed by the President of the Court. It is a fact that not a single explanation made by any of the accused, even when it was repeated over and over again, was interrupted by the President of the Court. It is a fact that the accused were not only permitted to quote all the documents in the case, but any known document and fact, even if it was not actually in the case. It is a fact that the accused took full advan­tage of their rights, freely constructed their speeches in defense, and told the court all they wanted to tell it in the way that they thought best. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the prominent English jurist, D. N. Pritt, who was present at the trial, described what he saw as “truly remarkable”. 

“At every stage of the trial,” he wrote, “the judicial atmosphere was completely maintained. . . . And throughout the hearing, when the result was a foregone conclusion, and nothing that was or could be said could do much to lessen the guilt or the complete social worthlessness of the accused, they received the same courteous treatment, the same liberty to intervene at almost any moment and say anything they wanted at length. ... At no stage did any sign or sound of hostility emerge that might have disconcerted or upset the prisoners. . . .” 

Although given every opportunity to refute the charges made against them, all the sixteen accused, in open court, admitted that they were the organizers and members of the Trotsky-Zinoviev terrorist gang, that in its terroristic struggle this gang did not hesitate to resort to the most cynical and sordid methods, that it was this gang that killed Comrade Kirov and prepared a number of terroristic attempts on the lives of Comrade Stalin and his closest comrades. 

But, say the defenders and protectors of these terrorists, the charges were based entirely on the bare confessions of the ac­cused! Is this true? No, it is obviously false! It is said in the hope that those who have not read the report of the trial will believe this unsupported statement. 

As a matter of fact, the crimes committed by the Trotsky- Zinoviev gang were proved in open court by documents, facts and material evidence. It is precisely for that reason that every one of the accused was compelled to confess. It was impossible for him to persist in his denials any longer; he was exposed by objective clues as well as by the evidence of the rest of the accused. 

Take, for example, the confession of Valentine Olberg, who stated that he had been sent to the U.S.S.R. by Trotsky to commit terroristic acts with the aid of the agents of the Gestapo and that he was assisted in his preparations for these terroristic acts in the Soviet Union by his brother, Paul Olberg, who, in the guise of a specialist, was sent to the U.S.S.R. especially for this purpose by the German secret police. Was the confession of Valentine Olberg merely a “bare” confession or even the result of genuine repentance? No, not in the least. He could not deny that he was preparing to commit terroristic acts because the weapons and explosives with which he had intended to make an attempt on the life of Comrade Stalin were discovered. He could not deny his connections with the Gestapo because documents which proved this beyond doubt were discovered. 

One of the proofs submitted to the court was a passport made out in the name of a citizen of the Republic of Honduras which was taken from Valentine Olberg when he was searched. Olberg had no connection whatever with the Republic of Honduras; con­sequently, the passport was obviously a false one. But the pass­port was issued to Olberg by a person evidently authorized to do so, the Consul-General of the Republic of Honduras in Berlin, Lucas Paradess. When this document fell into the hands of the Soviet investigation authorities Olberg had to explain, first, why this Consul-General took it into his head to transform Olberg into a citizen of the Republic of Honduras, and second, why Lucas Paradess found himself in Prague where this false pass­port was issued. In answering these questions Olberg could not help revealing the circumstances of his three journeys to Moscow. 

It transpired that, having received instructions from Trotsky to prepare for and carry out the murder of Comrade Stalin, Olberg first went to Moscow at the end of March, 1933. But he could not remain in the U.S.S.R. at that time because the fal-e passport he then had was unsuitable. He returned to Prague where, with the aid of his brother, he established contacts with Tukalevsky, an agent of the German secret police, who undertook to arrange the matter for him. In his evidence at the trial Olberg said: 

“Then I wrote a letter to Sedov in Paris telling him about the proposal made by the agent of the Gestapo, and asked him to inform me whether L. D. Trotsky would approve of an arrangement with such an agent. After some time I received a reply sanctioning my actions, that is to say, my understanding with Tukalevsky. Sedov wrote saying that the strictest secrecy was necessary, and that none of the other members of the Trotskyite organization was to be informed about this understanding.” (Ibid., p. 89.) 

And indeed, as if by magic, the Consul-General of the Repub­lic of Honduras in Berlin, whom Olberg needed, found himself in Prague. And here Olberg, with the aid of Tukalevsky and 13,000 Czechoslovakian kronen which were paid to this Consul, is transformed into a citizen of the Republic of Honduras. Olberg obtained the money to pay for the passport from Sedov, Trotsky’s son. 

The case of the Honduran passport was one of the incidents of the trial which revealed the connection and collaboration be­tween the Trotskyite and Zinovievite bandits with the Gestapo. 

Moreover, already exposed as having conducted joint terror­istic work with the Gestapo, Valentine Olberg had no reason for concealing the general agreement between the Berlin Trotskyites and the Gestapo to commit acts of terror against the leaders of the Communist Party and the Soviet government. 

But the defenders of the Trotskyite provocateurs may ask: Did not Olberg, for some reason or other, invent this story about his false passport? Did not Olberg invent this Tukalevsky or, at all events, his connection with him? Is not the story about the brother, Paul Olberg, an invention? What objective proof is there that the Berlin Trotskyite organization had entered into a pact with the Gestapo? 

But these cunning evasions will not help the terrorists. 

Tukalevsky is a real, live person. As Olberg stated, he occu­pied the post of Director of the Slavonic Library of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague. In view of the facts revealed at the Moscow trial the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs has suspended him from this post pending the results of the investi­gation of this matter. Not only is Olberg’s connection with Tuka­levsky proved; it is also proved that Tukalevsky was interested in the terroristic work. One of the exhibits at the trial was Tuka- levsky’s visiting card bearing code signs; this card had been sent to Olberg in Stalingrad, but it fell into the hands of the Soviet investigating authorities. 

Paul Olberg, who also came to the U.S.S.R. from abroad, was exposed as an agent of the German secret polce. While under examination he corroborated the evidence of his brother, the Trotskyist Valentine Olberg, concerning his terroristic work and added: 

“Valentine Olberg informed me that an official of the German secret police told him that all persons taking part in preparing and committing terroristic acts would be given refuge in Germany.” (Ibid., p. 25.) 

As for the agreement between the Berlin Trotskyites and the Gestapo, sufficiently convincing proof of this is contained in the fact that, notwithstanding their alleged “revolutionary” prattle, 

the handful of Trotskyite adventurers in Germany have not been arrested and are living happily under the fascist dictatorship. 

Absolutely false also is the assertion of the slanderers that in their confessions in court the members of the terrorist gang “re­peated a well-rehearsed role” without troubling to explain to the court the role which each of them played in the common crime. On the contrary, each one of the accused took advantage of all the means of defense in order to minimize his own guilt at the ex­pense of the others; each one of them, and particularly the lead­ers, tried to hide behind the backs of the others. But in the face of the irrefutable evidence against all the accused this fight among them merely helped to reveal more fully the whole sordid picture of their crimes, and served to strengthen the grounds of the charges made against each one of them. We will quote a few examples. 

Smirnov, Trotsky’s closest friend, and the actual organizer and leader of the Trotskyite counter-revolutionary underground organization in the U.S.S.R., tried, at the beginning of the trial, to minimize the actual part he had played in the terroristic activ­ities. Under the weight of irrefutable evidence, however, exposed by facts, he was compelled, toward the end of the trial, to admit his crimes. Smirnov tried to conceal Trotsky’s role as the direct initiator and organizer of the terroristic murders and attempts at assassination; but towards the end of the trial this “Trotsky’s deputy in the Soviet Union”, as the other accused called him, could not help admitting that it was Trotsky who was the initiator. 

Smirnov’s starting point in his defense at the trial was his assertion that, having received instructions to adopt terroristic methods of struggle from Trotsky’s son, Sedov, in Berlin, in 1931, he regarded this instruction merely as Sedov’s private opinion which was not obligatory for the Trotskyite counter-revolutionary underground organization in the U.S.S.R. But this evasion was refuted by the other leaders of the Trotskyite terrorist organiza­tion, Mrachkovsky and Ter-Vaganyan, who stated that after re­turning from Berlin in 1931, Smirnov communicated the decision to adopt terror as Trotsky’s instruction. But it is not the fact that Smirnov was once again proved to be lying that is decisive in exposing Trotsky, but the fact that even Smirnov, while defending 

Trotsky to the very utmost, could not deny that in 1932 he re­ceived absolutely definite instructions directly from Trotsky, who demanded that the adoption of terror against the leaders of the Party and the Soviet government be not postponed. 

During Smirnov’s examination the following dialogue took place between him and the Public Prosecutor concerning this instruction of Trotsky’s: 

Vyshinsky: It can be considered as established that in 1932 you re­ceived fresh instructions from Trotsky through Gaven? 

Smirnov: Yes. 

Vyshinsky: Did these instructions contain direct reference to the neces­sity of embarking on a terroristic struggle against the leadership of the Party? 

Smirnov: Quite true. 

Vyshinsky: In the first place, against whom? 

Smirnov: No names were mentioned there. 

Vyshinsky: But you understood that the terroristic struggle was to be­gin first against Comrade Stalin? 

Smirnov: Yes, I understood it to mean that. 

Vyshinsky: And that is what you communicated to your colleagues? 

Smirnov: Yes. (Ibid., p. 82.) 

Why was Smirnov, throughout the course of the trial, com­pelled, step by step, to retreat from his attempt to shield Trotsky? Because he was proved to be lying, not only by the other accused, but also by the witness Safonova, his own wife, between whom and himself, he had to admit, there were no personal grudges. Safonova was a member of the leading center of the Trotskyite organization and was present at the meeting in the autumn of 1931 at which Smirnov reported that in Berlin he had received, through Sedov, instructions to adopt terroristic methods of strug­gle. In communicating this line Smirnov had emphasized that it originated from Trotsky. In her evidence Safonova said: 

*‘At that same meeting Smirnov informed us that the center had de­cided to adopt terrorism, and in the first place to commit a terroristic act against Stalin. In 1932 Smirnov received from Trotsky directions brought by Gaven. These directions were a direct confirmation of Trotsky’s instruc­tion on terrorism previously received by Smirnov through Sedov. Smirnov also informed us about these directions. These directions were not only a confirmation of those conveyed through Sedov, but were at the same time instructions on the necessity of hastening the terroristic act against Stalin.” (Ibid., pp. 76-77.) 

The verdict of the court, however, is based on the fact which nobody, not even Smirnov, disputed, namely, that in the autumn of 1932, on the instructions of Trotsky received by Smirnov, the amalgamation took place of the Trotskyite and Zinovievite under­ground counter-revolutionary groups and that a united center was formed for the purpose of committing individual acts of terror against the leaders of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet government. 

Thus it was Smirnov’s own evidence, the object of which was to shield Trotsky, that served as the actual corroboration of all the other facts which exposed Trotsky. 

Take another incident during the trial, when Zinoviev’s role as head of the gang which agreed to collaborate with the Hitler­ites for the purpose of organizing terroristic acts against Comrade Stalin and his comrades-in-arms was being investigated. Zino­viev’s role in this was most strikingly revealed in connection with the collaboration between Nathan Lurye and the German fascist Franz Weitz. 

The evidence in the case established that Nathan Lurye, who had been sent to Moscow by Trotsky for the purpose of making an attempt on the life of Comrade Stalin, had entered into con­nection for this purpose with Weitz, a confidential agent of Himm­ler, then chief of the fascist S.S. Nathan Lurye joined Weitz’s fascist terrorist group, and after Weitz’s departure he became its leader. However, compelled by the evidence to admit these facts, the bandit Nathan Lurye was no longer interested in concealing from the Soviet investigating authorities his conversation on this subject with the other bandit, Moissei Lurye, who was his teacher in Trotskyism while they were still in Berlin. Moissei Lurye, in his turn, sought the advice of the higher authority, Zinoviev. What reply did Zinoviev give to his fellow bandit? He said that since it was a matter of fighting against the Soviet government and of committing terroristic acts against its leader, collaboration with the fascists should not give rise to any disquietude. 

This fact is so monstrous that the question arises whether Moissei Lurye did not denounce Zinoviev in order to minimize his own guilt, and whether Zinoviev failed to protest against this denunciation for some reason or other, for example, because he would not be believed even if he did protest against it. But precisely because this doubt might have arisen the whole chain of evidence: Trotsky—Nathan Lurye—Franz Weitz—Moissei Lurye —Zinoviev—Franz Weitz, was carefully investigated by the court at every link, particularly the last link, Zinoviev—Franz Weitz. Moissei Lurye’s statement about his conversation with Zinoviev concerning Weitz was most critically and all-sidedly examined. And what was the result? 

Both Zinoviev and Lurye confirmed that the question of the permissibility of joint terroristic work with Weitz was really dis­cussed by them. Both confirmed that during their conversation one of them said that “Lassalle considered it possible to utilize Bismarck in the interests of the revolution.” But they did not merely repeat each other’s words. No, they were fighting against each other. Each one related this conversation in his own way, to suit his own interests, and to damage those of the other. 

Moissei Lurye’s version of the conversation was that Zinoviev “drew the parallel of Bismarck and Lassalle” in order to prove that collaboration with the fascist-terrorists was permissible and that he, Lurye, merely submitted to Zinoviev’s authority. Zinoviev stated, however, that it was Moissei Lurye who referred to Lassalle and that he, Zinoviev, challenged this analysis and ex­pressed opposition to Nathan Lurye’s membership in the fascist terrorist organization. But this dispute between the “teacher” Zinoviev and his “pupil” Lurye leaves no doubt whatever that a conversation about collaboration with Himmler’s agents did really take place between them. And Zinoviev admitted that this con­versation took place, not because he was prepared to admit any sort of denunciation. No, he combatted Moissei Lurye’s version and tried to throw the blame upon him. The only reason that he did not entirely deny that this conversation took place was be­cause he could not possibly do so. 

Thus the dispute between Zinoviev and M. Lurye regarding their respective points of view during their conversation about Franz Weitz merely confirms the fact that this conversation actu­ally took place. And even if we were to believe the version which Zinoviev advanced in his own justification, although there are no grounds for believing it, it remains beyond doubt: (1) that there was collaboration between Nathan Lurye and the Hitlerite 

Weitz in organizing terroristic acts; (2) that Zinoviev knew about this collaboration; (3) that this collaboration did not cease after the conversation between Zinoviev and Moissei Lurye; (4) that Nathan Lurye, who through the medium of Franz Weitz entered the service of Himmler, acted with the consent of the Trotsky - Zinoviev terrorist center, which consent was communicated to him by Moissei Lurye. 

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” such, according to the admission of the accused, was the “theoretical” formula put into circulation by the leaders of this gang for the purpose of removing all doubts in the minds of the actual assassins about the permissibility of working jointly with the Gestapo. 

Incidentally, these assassins did not very much feel the need for “theoretical” justification. Even before the exhortations of scoundrels like Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, they were quite prepared to merge themselves with the fascist terrorists. In his evidence Nathan Lurye stated: 

“I arrived at the conclusion that since the Trotskyites had adopted the method of fighting with arms this had its logic, that is to say, that if a fascist offered his services for the purposes of terrorism, those services should be made use of. I continued my connections with Franz Weitz and worked under his practical guidance.” (Ibid., p. 103.) 

Thus, in Leipzig, in an atmosphere of fierce intimidation of the fascist court, Comrade Dimitroff forced the charge fabricated against him by the Hitler government against the wall. He ex­posed the real picture of the burning of the Reichstag. Before the whole of the civilized world he put fascism in the dock. He put the brand of criminals and provocateurs on the foreheads of the fascist leaders. 

In Moscow, howeyer, where all the accused were not only given full guarantees of the formal right of defense, but were given every opportunity of actually exercising this right, the guilt of all the accused of heinous crimes committed against the Soviet people, and against the international proletariat, was proved up to the hilt. 

Instigated by Trotsky, the Trotsky-Zinoviev center, consist- 

ing of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Evdokimov, Bakayev, Mrachkovsky and Ter-Vaganyan, decided to kill Comrade Kirov. For this pur­pose it organized a number of terrorist groups. In order to expe­dite the murder and to check up the preparation made for it, Kamenev went to Leningrad in June, 1934, and Bakayev went in November, 1934. Zinoviev did everything he could to hasten Nikolayev’s treacherous shot, declaring that “we are losing pre­cious days”. By the hand of L. Nikolayev, the Trotskyite and Zinovievite scoundrels foully murdered Comrade Kirov by a treacherous shot in the back. Simultaneously, these despicable murderers also prepared to commit a number of terroristic acts against Comrade Stalin and other leaders of the Soviet govern­ment and the C.P.S.U. Not satisfied with the criminal work of the terrorists in the U.S.S.R. Trotsky, during the period of 1932­1936, systematically, in collaboration with the fascists, sent to the U.S.S.R. specially selected, downright scoundrels such as Berman- Yurin, Fritz David, Nathan Lurye, Moissei Lurye and Olberg who, while on Soviet territory, operated in close alliance with the agents of the bloody German S.S. and directed all their efforts in preparation to murder Comrade Stalin. Twice the scoundrels Bakayev, Reingold and Dreitzer, on the instructions of their chiefs, tried to kill Comrade Stalin. The Trotskyite Nathan Lurye, in collaboration with the terrorist organization of Franz Weitz, prepared in Moscow, in the period of 1932-33, attempts on the lives of Comrades Stalin, Voroshilov, Kaganovich and Orjoni- kidze. In 1934, while in Chelyabinsk, Nathan Lurye tried to make an attempt on the lives of Comrades Kaganovich and Orjonikidze ; and in 1936, on the instructions of the other assassin, Moissei Lurye, he tried to murder Comrade Zhdanov. In collaboration with the Pilsudskyite and Hitlerite organizations operating in the Ukraine, preparations were made for attempts on the lives of Comrades Kossior and Postyshev. 

In all these nefarious crimes against the Soviet people, and against the whole of humanity, the leading, political and organizational role was played by the arch-provocateur Trotsky, who, it is to be regretted, was not in the prisoners’ dock. 

SOCIALISM COMES OUT OPENLY—THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION HIDES ITS FACE