Leon
Trotsky: Notes of a Journalist
Published
September 1930
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 2, 1930, New York 1975, p. 373-381]
Prognoses
That Have Been Confirmed
At
the Tenth Plenum of the ECCI, i.e., a year ago, it was mentioned that
humanity had entered "with both feet" into the
revolutionary zone. At the Sixteenth Congress of the Communist Party
it turned out:
"The
development of the economic crisis is leading [!] in individual [!!]
countries to its further development — into a political crisis"
(from Molotov's report).
However,
the economic crisis came only a year and a half after the Sixth World
Congress, only a few months after the Tenth Plenum; but this crisis,
we are told, is only "leading to further development." How
fortunate that there exist the words "further development"
which can be used to plug the holes in some prognosis or other.
"The
intensification [!] of elements [!!] of a new [!!!] revolutionary
upsurge is an indisputable fact" maneuvers Molotov, the very one
in whose word of honor the Tenth Plenum believed. "This puts the
work of the Communist parties and the Comintern on a completely new
footing. All this calls for an adaptation of the work of the
Communist parties to the new [!] problems of the revolutionary
struggle."
However,
the Sixth Congress with its supplementary Tenth Plenum had already
brought the Communist parties onto the rails of the third period and
of revolutionary upsurge. How does it come about, then, that all that
is required is to begin adapting "to the new problems of the
revolutionary struggle"? Isn't it possible to explain it a
little more precisely? Are the parties turning to the left or the
right? Going forward or going back? Or are they simply turning on
their own axes?
"In
the period 1928-29, the upsurge took place only in the United States
of North America, France, Sweden, Belgium, and Holland …"
(Molotov).
However,
just in the middle of 1929, France stood "in the front ranks of
the revolutionary upsurge." How does it suddenly turn out then
that it underwent not a revolutionary but — industrial-commercial
upsurge? It does not become any easier from hour to hour.
Manuilsky
at the Sixteenth Congress posed "the problem of the uneven
development of the revolutionary processes in different capitalist
countries, the problem of the advanced countries lagging behind the
rate of development of these processes in such secondary countries as
Spain or in such colonial countries as India."
However,
the resolution of the Tenth Plenum of the ECCI bore witness that
Germany, France, and Poland occupy the first place in the approaching
revolutionary upsurge. The first two countries in any event cannot be
called insignificant or colonial.
Manuilsky
goes further and states directly, "In the advanced capitalist
countries the sweep of the revolutionary movement has not yet assumed
open revolutionary forms.”
But
how did things stand at the Tenth Plenum of the ECCI?
Finally,
the resolution of the Sixteenth Congress modestly and vaguely
announces "the opening of the end of relative capitalist
stability."
This
means that the whole Tenth Plenum has gone awry. But, alas, the
disasters and devastations that it caused in the ranks and at the top
have not gone awry.
And
these "leaders" are astonished that the number of members
in the sections of the Comintern is declining and the circulation of
the press falling.
That
is the same as if the director of some collective farm in the Moscow
region sowed in December and harvested in April, and was astonished
that he had a "disproportion" between his "influence"
(in the offices of the collective farm and in the regional committee)
and the quantity of grain in the silos.
Molotov
is this kind of director of this kind of administrative collective —
called the "Third International."
The
Wind Turns About
Molotov
says of the decisions of the Sixth World Congress:
"In
them there is given a fundamental analysis of world development and
its perspectives, which received full [!] confirmation [!!] in the
events that followed."
This
is all the more comforting because the only world reporter to the
Sixth Congress, Bukharin, was declared within a few months to be a
bourgeois liberal.
The
theses of the Sixth Congress, from the report of the "bourgeois
liberal," announced "the growing Bolshevization of the
party, the amassing of experience, internal consolidation, the
overcoming of internal struggle, the overcoming of the Trotskyist
opposition in the Comintern."
"The
overcoming of internal struggle" sounds especially good in this
triumphant melody. But Molotov conceals from us what took place after
the Sixth Congress, i.e., after the happily achieved Bolshevization:
"Of
the list of members and candidate members of the ECCI after the Sixth
Congress, seven members are now outside the ranks of communism,
having joined the camp of the renegades."
It
transpires that, every time, it is necessary to begin from the
beginning. The wind of "Bolshevization" turns about. And it
further transpires that in the struggle against the "Trotskyist
opposition" tomorrow's renegades did not occupy the last place.
In a strange way, it was just they who played the leading role.
Stalin
and Roy
"It
is clear," said Molotov at the Sixteenth Congress, "that it
is not such people as Roy, who defended the policy of a bloc with the
national bourgeoisie and has now gone over to the camp of the
right-wing renegades, who could create a communist party in India."
The
bloc with the national bourgeoisie, which is the basis of Stalin and
Molotov's tactics in China, is written into the program of the
Comintern. Or can it be that it was Roy who wrote the program? Or did
the present leader of the Comintern simply forget the program? Or is
he intending to reexamine it?
The
petty-bourgeois Indian democrat Roy considers, as is well known, that
for the sake of the Indian revolution communists should construct
neither a communist nor a proletarian party, but a
popular-revolutionary party above classes, an Indian Kuomintang. Roy
was expelled from the Comintern as a right-winger. Generally
speaking, there is no place for proponents of a Kuomintang in a
proletarian International. But the point is that Roy did not
introduce his great idea about the incapacity of the party of the
proletariat to lead a popular, that is, workers' and peasants',
revolution into the Comintern — he got it from the Comintern. As
early as 1927 Roy's idea enjoyed official acceptance. The following
extract from the leading organ of the Comintern on Roy's views on the
tasks of the revolution in India appeared in April 1927:
"Comrade
Roy's book is devoted to the most central question of contemporary
revolutionary politics in India — the question of the organization
of a popular party representing the interests of the workers, the
peasants, and the petty bourgeoisie. The necessity of such an
organization flows from the present conditions of the national
revolutionary movement in India."
And
further:
"Hence
the task of the proletariat is to organize all these petty-bourgeois
classes and layers into a single
popular-revolutionary party and lead it to the assault on
imperialism. We
recommend this book to the reader who wants to form a definite and
clear conception of the contemporary state of the national
revolutionary movement in India, for
it gives the Leninist interpretation of contemporary revolutionary
politics in India" (Kommunistichesky Internatsional,
number 15, April 15, 1927, pp. 50 and 52).
And
how could the Comintern organ say otherwise? Roy's idea was in fact
the idea of Stalin.
On
May 18, 1927, Stalin answered a question from the students of the
Chinese university in Moscow on the leading revolutionary party in
China thus:
"We
have said and we still say that the Kuomintang is a party of a bloc
of several oppressed classes… . When I said in 1925 of the
Kuomintang that it was the party of the worker-peasant bloc, I did
not at all have in mind the characteristics of the actual [?] state
of affairs in the Kuomintang, the characteristics of those classes
which in fact adhered to the Kuomintang in 1925. When I spoke of the
Kuomintang, I had in mind the Kuomintang only as a
model of a special type of popular-revolutionary party in the
oppressed countries of the East,
especially in such countries as China and India, as a special type of
popular-revolutionary
party
which has to rely on the support of a revolutionary bloc of workers
and the petty bourgeoisie of town and countryside."
And
Stalin finished off his answer with the assertion that the Kuomintang
must still in the future be "a special type of
popular-revolutionary party in the countries of the East." The
ridiculous, not to say unscrupulous, excuse that in 1925 Stalin was
not speaking of the Kuomintang as it is, but of the Kuomintang as it
ought to be, not of a fact but of an idea, is explained by the fact
that Stalin had to justify himself to Chinese students after
Chiang Kai-shek's coup, when it was already shown by experience that
the Kuomintang contains not only oppressed classes, but also their
oppressors. Stalin, however, did not hesitate. He merely separated
the pure idea of the Kuomintang from the vile fact and asserted that
this is the "type of popular-revolutionary party" for the
countries of the East in general. This also meant the
"Kuomintangization" of India.
Roy
is nothing but a worthy disciple of Stalin.
On
Straw in General and Lozovsky in Particular
Here
is what Lozovsky said about France at the Sixteenth Congress of the
Communist Party:
"…
in France several trade unions … have set up a so-called unitary
opposition
with its own platform and with its own evaluation of the present
situation and the immediate perspectives."
What
is the most remarkable thing?
"The
most remarkable thing about this 'Unitary Opposition' consists in the
fact that it is a bloc of the right wing and the Trotskyists, and
that this platform is also the platform of Trotsky's organ in France,
La
Vérité,
at the head of which is Rosmer, the faithful follower of Trotskyism.
The 'Unitary Opposition' is a creation of Trotskyists and shameless
[!] right-wingers [!!]. That is how the 'left [?] Bolshevik' line of
Trotsky and Company looks in practice. An organized opposition exists
only in France."
"The
most remarkable thing" is that in the above there is about 49
percent truth. The Left Opposition is in fact having great success in
the French trade-union movement. But then there comes the other 51
percent, for in fact the Unitary Opposition, which follows the banner
of the Communist Left, wages an irreconcilable struggle against the
right-wing, semi-reformist opposition which covers itself with
slogans of trade-union autonomy (Monatte, Chambelland) or directly
supports the "Workers and Peasants Party" of Sellier and
Company. There are no points of contact, whether political or
organizational, between these two oppositions.
What
in the world is "characteristic"?
"It
is characteristic" — according to Lozovsky — "that
wherever the Trotskyists have even the slightest influence, they come
out together with the Amsterdamers against the Communists."
It
is "characteristic" that there is not even 1 percent truth
here.
Is
there not perhaps something else "characteristic" ?
"The
Trotskyists assert that at a time of crisis economic struggle is
impossible."
Who
are these "Trotskyists"? Where did they assert this? When?
But let us not hold up the inspired Lozovsky:
"The
'left' Trotskyist Neurath found nothing better than …" etc.
But doesn't Neurath belong to the Right
Opposition in Czechoslovakia? Well.
What
is Lozovsky short of?
"What
we are short of in the independent revolutionary trade unions and
trade-union oppositions is the ability to attract new layers of
workers into struggle, to bind them with strong bonds to our
organizations, to implant ourselves in the factories" (from the
same speech).
In
a word, everything would be fine for Lozovsky except that he is short
of a few trifles: the ability to attract the masses, to organize
them, and to penetrate into the factories.
Lozovsky
is short of something else too, but from modesty he did not tell us.
Can
you imagine a revolutionary straw man in action? And moreover in the
role of a leader? You can't imagine it? That means you haven't seen
or heard Lozovsky. Here is an inimitable passage from the same speech
of his to the Sixteenth Congress, with our modest additions in
brackets:
"The
main thing now is to free the workers' movement of the colonial and
semicolonial countries from the slightest influence of the
bourgeoisie [even from the 'slightest'!], to introduce a sharp
differentiation between the classes [just try and hide it!], to raise
a wave of proletarian distrust in politicos of the type of Gandhi,
Nehru, Patel, Wang Ching-wei, etc. [but who has been raising a wave
of trust in them?]. The most important thing [aren't there too many
'most important things'?] is not to let the Menshevik-Trotskyist
ideas of Roy [but isn't Roy a disciple of Stalin and Lozovsky?] and
Ch'en Tu-hsiu [it was Lozovsky who gave him his Menshevik ideas!] get
a hold among the working masses, but to organize the masses in the
bold Bolshevik way [but isn't that just 'what we are short of' ?],
realizing that the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and peasantry [precisely!] is a step on the road to the
socialist revolution."
Straw
is a very useful thing on a farm. But as a leader — well, need more
be said?
Manuilsky
Faced with a Problem
Not
being able to hold his tongue, Manuilsky unexpectedly declared at the
Sixteenth Congress, "The question of the nature of social
fascism is a problem which has not yet been sufficiently worked out
in the Communist International."
There
you are! From the beginning they announced, confirmed, asserted,
canonized, and cretinized, and now they are going to "work out"
the question still more. Who, then, will deal with the "working
out"? We have to propose Radek. Apart from him there is no one.
Everyone else has taken off.
What
is Social Fascism?
Radek
must serve his novitiate. Toward this end he is writing verbose
articles in Pravda
on "the essence of social fascism." As Khemnitzer's
philosopher once asked: "What is this, a rope?" And since
the trouble is that the readers of the numerous articles on "social
fascism" disastrously forget all the excellent arguments of the
previous investigators, it is up to Radek to begin from the
beginning. To begin from the beginning means to declare that Trotsky
stands on the other side of the barricades. It is possible that Radek
had to insert this sentence on the special request of the editorial
board, as a moral honorarium for the publication of his article.
But
all the same, what is the essence of social fascism? And how does it
differ from true fascism? It appears that the difference (who would
have thought it?) lies in the fact that social fascism is also "for
carrying out the fascist policy, but in a democratic
way." Radek explains in long Words why nothing remained for the
German bourgeoisie but to carry out the fascistic policy through
parliament "with
an outward retention of democracy.''
So what is the point? Up until now Marxists have assumed that
democracy is the outward
disguise of the class dictatorship — one of its possible disguises.
The political function of the contemporary social democracy is the
creation of just such a democratic disguise. In no other way is it
different from fascism which, with other
methods, other
ideology, in part also with another social base, organizes, insures,
and protects the same dictatorship of imperialist capital.
But
— Radek argues — it is possible to maintain decaying capitalism
only with fascist measures. In
the long run
this is entirely correct. From this, however, does not flow the
identity of social democracy and fascism, but merely the fact that
the social democracy is obliged in
the long run
to clear the road for fascism, while the latter, coming to take its
place, does not deny itself the pleasure of battering a considerable
number of social democratic heads. Such objections, however, are
declared by Radek in his article to be an "apology for the
social democracy." This terrible revolutionary apparently thinks
that to cover the bloody tracks of imperialism with the brush of
democracy is a higher and more eminent mission than to defend the
imperialist coffers with blackjack in hand.
Radek
cannot deny that the social democracy clings to parliamentarism with
all its feeble power, for all the sources of its influence and
welfare are bound up with this artificial machine. But, protests the
inventive Radek, "it is nowhere said that fascism requires the
formal dispersal of parliament." Is that really the case? But it
was precisely the political party that was called fascist that for
the first time, in Italy, destroyed the parliamentary machine in the
name of the praetorian guard of bourgeois class rule. This, it turns
out, has no importance. The phenomenon of fascism is one thing and
its essence is another. Radek finds that the destruction of
parliamentarism does not require fascism, if this destruction is
taken as a thing in itself. "What is this, a rope?"
But
since he feels that this does not come off so smoothly, Radek adds
with still greater ingenuity: "Even Italian fascism did not
disperse the parliament right away [!].” What is true is true. And
yet it did disperse it, without sparing even the social democracy,
the finest flower in the parliamentary bouquet. According to Radek,
it looks as though the social fascists dispersed the Italian
parliament, only not right away but after reflection. We are afraid
that Radek's theory does not quite explain to the Italian workers why
the social fascists are now living in exile. The German workers, too,
will not easily grasp who it really is in Germany that wants to
disperse parliament: the fascists or the social democrats?
All
of Radek's arguments, like those of his teachers, can be reduced to
the fact that the social democracy in no way represents ideal
democracy (i.e., evidently not the kind of democracy that Radek had
rosy dreams about after his conciliatory embraces with Yaroslavsky).
The profound and fertile theory of social fascism is not built on the
foundation of a materialist analysis of the particular,
specific
function of the social democracy, but upon the basis of an abstract
democratic criterion that is peculiar to the opportunists even when
they want to or have to occupy a position on the most extreme wing of
the most extreme barricade (during which time they turn their backs
and their weapons the wrong way).
There
is no class
contradiction between the social democracy and fascism. Both fascism
and the social democracy are bourgeois parties; not bourgeois in the
general sense, but the sort that preserve a decaying capitalism that
is ever less able to tolerate democratic forms or any fixed form of
legality. This is precisely why the social democracy, notwithstanding
the ebbs and flows of its fortunes, is condemned to extinction,
giving way to one of two polar opposites: either fascism or
communism.
The
difference between blonds and brunets is not so great, at any rate
substantially less than the difference between humans and apes.
Anatomically and physiologically, blonds and brunets belong to one
and the same species, may belong to one and the same nationality, one
and the same family, and, finally, both may be one and the same
scoundrel. Yet skin and hair color has a significance not only for
state passports but in life generally. Radek, however, in order to
earn the hearty applause of Yaroslavsky, wants to prove that the
brunet is at bottom a blond, only with darker skin and black hair.
There
are good theories in the world that serve to explain facts. But so
far as the theory of social fascism is concerned, the only needs it
serves are those of capitulators serving their novitiates.