Leon
Trotsky: Another Letter to Hungarian Comrades
September
17, 1930
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 2, 1930, New York 1975, p. 382-285]
Dear
Comrades,
I
received your letter of August 30 including your comments on my
circular letter. The reason for my late reply is that your letter was
sent to Bratislava to be translated into German. If you can write
from Budapest in German, that would speed up our correspondence. But
if that would entail difficulties for you, write in Hungarian and I
will continue to send your letters to be translated.
I
am very glad to learn, both from what two French comrades had to say
and from your letters, that an organization of young worker
communists exists in Hungary that upholds the point of view of the
Left Opposition. I will be quite happy to keep in touch with you in
the future.
As
far as I can judge from your description, there are various
tendencies in the ranks of the Hungarian Opposition, which are
inevitably bound to go off in different directions; and the sooner
this happens, the better.
In
Hungary there is not thus far, apparently, an independent
organization of the Right Opposition (like the Brandlerites in
Germany, the Lovestone group in America, the Neurath group in
Czechoslovakia, etc.). The right-wing elements, it seems, still cover
themselves with the overall banner of the Opposition. This is a
danger.
On
the other hand, there are in the ranks of the Opposition more than a
few ultralefts and just plain muddleheads, who combine right-wing
views with ultraleft ones, those like Korsch
or
Urbahns in Germany, the Prague group around Artur Pollack, etc.
To
draw a line between ourselves and such elements is absolutely
necessary. This can be done only on the basis of principled issues
both on the Hungarian level and internationally. It will be
absolutely necessary for you to acquaint yourselves more closely with
the discussion that has gone on among us Bolshevik-Leninists, on the
one hand, and among the rights and ultralefts, on the other.
Hungarian comrades in emigration will presumably translate the most
important documents of this discussion for you, or at least excerpts
from the documents, so that you can be fully abreast of these matters
and can take an active part in all the work of the International
Opposition.
The
need to draw lines of principle does not at all mean, of course, that
one must expel every worker who goes astray on one question or
another or who hesitates or vacillates. On the contrary, we should
argue for our views in the most comradely and patient way, giving the
members of the organization or sympathizers a chance to think over
each question on their own and to arrive at the correct conclusions
independently, even if that means hesitation and vacillation. This is
especially true for an organization made up of young people. It is
necessary to break with those elements who already have a fully
formed view of the world which is opposed to ours and who only try to
take advantage of the membership of the Opposition to spread views
hostile to Marxism and Leninism.
You
write that the official Hungarian party is a tiny sect, but you add
at the same time that your organization is a still tinier sect. It
seems to me that you wrongly apply the term sect
to yourselves. A weak organization is not yet a sect. If it follows
correct
methods, it will sooner or later win influence within the working
class. Sect
is a term I would use only for an organization of the kind that is
forever doomed, by virtue of its mistaken
methodology, to remain on the sidelines of life and of the
working-class struggle
You
are absolutely right when you say that you must independently take up
the work that the official party cannot or will not carry out. It
would be senseless to ask permission of the Stalinist bureaucracy,
which expels and persecutes the Bolshevik-Leninists. It goes without
saying that now and in the future you will have to struggle
independently to win the masses over to the banner of communism. But
it does not follow from this at all that a second party and a fourth
international are needed. Even if the official party in Hungary were
much weaker than our organization, that would still not decide the
question, for, as you have written quite correctly, this question has
to be decided on an international
scale. Of course in every single country the Opposition's methods of
action will be decided by national conditions and above all by the
relation of forces between the Opposition and the official party in
the given country.
I
am sending you herewith a copy of my letter dated today and addressed
to the conference of the German Opposition, for the letter deals
precisely with the question of the attitude of the Opposition toward
the official party in a country where millions of workers follow the
party.
Some
Hungarian Oppositionists argue, according to what you have said, that
an immediate transition from feudalism to socialism is inconceivable
and that therefore the Soviet republic can never lead to socialism
but only to capitalism. This way of posing the question is wrong
through and through. In Russia on the eve of the revolution it was
not feudal but capitalist relations that played the dominant role;
otherwise where would the proletariat have come from which proved to
be so capable of taking and holding state power?
Equally
incorrect is the argument that NEP would inevitably
lead
to capitalism. This question cannot, in general, be decided a priori:
everything depends on the relation of forces. The proletariat of the
most advanced countries, when it takes power, will probably permit
market relations to continue for a rather long transitional period,
gradually giving them an ever more regulated form and in this way
finally eliminating the forms of commodity exchange in the economy.
In
order for state capitalism
in the true sense of the term to become established in Russia, power
would have to pass into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Without a civil
war that is inconceivable. Can such a civil war occur? It is entirely
possible. The policies of the Stalinist bureaucracy have greatly
weakened the proletariat's position, reduced its revolutionary
spirit, and at the same time, through a whole series of mistaken and
even senseless actions, driven the petty bourgeoisie into a terrible
state of embitterment. In the event of a civil war, which side would
prove victorious? This can never be stated beforehand. But we would
have to do everything possible to assure that victory fell to the
proletarian side. There can be no doubt that if the bourgeoisie —
the domestic variety aided by its foreign counterpart — tried to
regain for itself all that was taken away in October 1917, the
proletariat, repressed as it is by the Stalinist apparatus, would
awaken with mighty revolutionary energy. In a struggle of this kind
to defend the gains of October, the Stalinist apparatus would be
likely to lose its predominance as well. To make it easier for the
Soviet proletariat to resolve its problems is the duty of the
International Left Opposition and, first of all, of the Russian
Opposition.
Only
one thing is sure: the Soviet Union will not build a socialist
society without the victory of the proletariat in the West, in the
advanced countries. But since the existence of the Soviet Union makes
that victory easier, the struggle for the revival and strengthening
of the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union is one of the
most important tasks of the Communist Opposition.
I
firmly shake your hand, and send you warmest communist greetings, and
wish you success.
Yours,
L.
Trotsky