Leon
Trotsky: Tasks of the Spanish Communists
May
25, 1930
[The
Spanish Revolution (1931-39).
New York 1973, p. 57-63]
Dear
Comrades:
I
warmly salute the appearance of the first issue of your newspaper.
The Spanish Communist Opposition enters the arena at a particularly
favourable and decisive moment.
The
Spanish crisis is unfolding at this time with remarkable regularity,
which affords the proletarian vanguard a certain amount of time to
prepare itself. However, it is doubtful whether this period will last
very long.
The
Primo de Rivera dictatorship has fallen without a revolution, from
internal exhaustion. In the beginning, in other words, the question
was decided by the sickness of the old society and not by the
revolutionary forces of a new society. This is not simply an
accident. On the one hand, the dictatorial regime, in the eyes of the
bourgeois classes, was no longer justified by the urgent need to
smash the revolutionary masses; at the same time, this regime came
into conflict with the economic, financial, political, and cultural
needs of the bourgeoisie. But up to the last moment, the bourgeoisie
avoided a showdown struggle with all its might. It allowed the
dictatorship to rot and fall like wormy fruit.
Afterwards,
the different classes, represented by their various political groups,
were obliged to take clear-cut positions before the masses. And here
we observe a paradox. The same bourgeois parties that because of
their conservatism had refused to conduct a serious struggle, no
matter how small, against the military dictatorship, now have put all
the blame for that dictatorship on the monarchy and declared
themselves republicans. As though the dictatorship had been hanging
by a thread from the balcony of the royal palace the whole time, and
as though it had not been kept up at all by the support, sometimes
passive, sometimes active, of the most substantial layers of the
bourgeoisie who, with all their strength, paralysed the activity of
the petty bourgeoisie and trampled underfoot the workers of city and
countryside.
And
what is the result? While not only the workers, the peasants, the
urban petty bourgeoisie, and the young intellectuals, but also almost
all of the big bourgeoisie either are or call themselves republicans,
the monarchy continues to exist and to function. If Primo did hang
only by a thread from the monarchy, then by what thread did the
monarchy hang, in such a "republican" country? At first
glance, it appears to be an insoluble riddle. But the answer is not
so complicated. The same bourgeoisie that was "tolerating"
Primo de Rivera was actually supporting him, as today it supports the
monarchy by the only means available, that is, by calling itself
republican and thus adapting itself to the psychology of the petty
bourgeoisie, the better to deceive and paralyse it.
For
a bystander, this scene, despite its high drama, is not without its
comical side. The monarchy is sitting on the back of the republican
bourgeoisie, which is in no hurry to throw it off. The bourgeoisie,
slipping stealthily among the restless masses with its precious load,
answers the protests, complaints, and curses in the voice of a
slapstick comedian: "Look at this creature on my back! It is my
sworn enemy. I will list its crimes for you: pay attention!"
etc., etc. And when the crowd, amused by this spectacle, begins to
laugh, the bourgeoisie takes advantage of this favourable occasion to
carry its load a little further on. If this is what is meant by
struggling against the monarchy, then what is meant by a struggle in
support of it?
The
spirited demonstrations of the students are only an attempt by the
younger generation of the bourgeoisie, and especially of the petty
bourgeoisie, to find a solution to the instability into which the
country fell after its supposed liberation from Primo de Rivera's
dictatorship, of which the basic elements are still totally
preserved. When the bourgeoisie consciously and obstinately refuses
to resolve the problems that flow from the crisis of bourgeois
society, and when the proletariat is not yet ready to assume this
task, then it is often the students who come forward. During the
development of the first Russian revolution [1905], we observed this
phenomenon more than once, and we have always appreciated its
symptomatic significance. Such revolutionary or semi-revolutionary
student activity means that bourgeois society is going through a
profound crisis. The petty-bourgeois youth, sensing that an explosive
force is building up among the masses, try in their own way to find a
way out of the impasse and to push the political developments
forward.
The
bourgeoisie regards the student movement half-approvingly,
half-warningly; if the youth deal a few blows to the monarchical
bureaucracy, that's not so bad, as long as the "kids" don't
go too far and don't arouse the toiling masses.
By
backing up the student movement, the Spanish workers have shown an
entirely correct revolutionary instinct. Of course, they must act
under their own banner and under the leadership of their own
proletarian organization. It is Spanish communism that must guarantee
this process and for that a correct policy is indispensable. That is
why the appearance of your newspaper, as I said before, coincides
with an extraordinarily important and critical moment in the
development of the whole crisis; to be more precise, it coincides
with a moment when the revolutionary crisis is being transformed into
a revolution.
The
workers' strike movement, their struggle against industrial
reorganization and unemployment, takes on a totally different,
incomparably more profound importance in the context of the extreme
discontent of the petty-bourgeois masses and of the sharp crisis in
the system as a whole. The workers' struggle must be closely linked
to all the questions that flow from the national crisis. The fact
that the workers demonstrated with the students is the first step,
though still an insufficient and hesitant one, on the proletarian
vanguard's road of struggle toward revolutionary hegemony.
Taking
this road presupposes that the communists will struggle resolutely,
audaciously, and energetically for democratic
slogans.
Not to understand this would be to commit the greatest sectarian
mistake. At the present stage of the revolution, the proletariat
distinguishes itself in the field of political
slogans from all the "leftist" petty-bourgeois groupings
not by rejecting democracy (as the Anarchists and syndicalists do)
but by struggling resolutely and openly for it, at the same time
mercilessly denouncing the hesitations of the petty bourgeoisie.
By
advancing democratic slogans, the proletariat is not in any way
suggesting that Spain is heading toward a bourgeois revolution. Only
barren pedants full of pat, ready-made formulas could pose the
question this way.. Spain has left the stage of bourgeois revolution
far behind.
If
the revolutionary crisis is transformed into a revolution, it will
inevitably pass beyond bourgeois limits, and in the event of victory
the power will have to come into the hands of the proletariat. But in
this epoch, the proletariat can lead the revolution — that is,
group the broadest masses of the workers and the oppressed around
itself and become their leader — only on the condition that it now
unreservedly puts forth all the democratic demands, in conjunction
with its own class demands.
First
of all, these slogans will be of decisive importance for the
peasantry. The peasantry cannot give the proletariat its confidence a
priori by accepting the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat
as a verbal pledge. The peasantry, being a large oppressed class, at
a certain stage inevitably sees in the democratic slogan the
possibility for the oppressed to overthrow the oppressors. The
peasantry will inevitably link the slogan of political democracy with
the slogan of the radical redistribution of the land. The proletariat
will openly support both demands. At the proper time, the communists
will explain to the proletarian vanguard the road by which these
demands can be achieved, thus sowing the seeds for the future soviet
system.
Even
on national questions, the proletariat defends the democratic slogans
to the hilt, declaring that it is ready to support by revolutionary
means the right of different national groups to self-determination,
even to the point of separation.
But
does the proletarian vanguard itself raise the slogan of the
secession of Catalonia? If it is the will of the majority, yes; but
how can this will be expressed? Obviously, by means of a free
plebiscite, or an assembly of Catalan representatives, or by the
parties that are clearly supported by the Catalan masses, or even by
a Catalan national revolt. Again we see, let us note in passing, what
reactionary pedantry it would be for the proletariat to renounce
democratic slogans. Meanwhile, as long as the national minority has
not expressed its will, the proletariat itself will not adopt the
slogan of separation, but it pledges openly, in advance, its complete
and sincere support to this slogan in the event that it should
express the will of Catalonia.
It
is useless to say that the Catalan workers do not have the final word
to say on this question. If they came to the conclusion that it would
be unwise to divide their forces in the present crisis, which opens
such sweeping opportunities to the Spanish proletariat, the Catalan
workers would have to aim their propaganda toward maintaining
Catalonia as a part of Spain, on one or another basis. As for me, I
believe that political judgement suggests such a solution. Such a
solution would be acceptable for the time being even to the most
fervent separatists, since it is completely obvious that in the event
of the victory of the revolution, it would be ever so much easier
than it is today for Catalonia, as well as for other regions, to
achieve the right of self-determination.
By
supporting all really democratic and revolutionary movements of the
popular masses, the communist vanguard will be leading an
uncompromising struggle against the so-called republican bourgeoisie,
unmasking its double-dealing, its treachery, and its reactionary
character, and resisting its attempts to subject the toiling masses
to its influence.
The
communists never relinquish their freedom of political action under
any conditions. It must not be forgotten that during a revolution
temptations of this sort are very great: the tragic history of the
Chinese revolution is irrefutable testimony to this, i * But while
safeguarding the full independence of their organization and their
propaganda, the communists nonetheless practice, in the broadest
fashion, the policy of the united front, for which the revolution
offers a vast field.
The
Left Opposition begins the application of the united-front policy
with the official Communist Party. The bureaucrats must not be
allowed to create the impression that the Left Opposition is hostile
to the workers who follow the banner of the official Communist Party.
On the contrary, the Opposition is ready to take part in all the
revolutionary activity of the proletariat and to struggle side by
side with those workers. If the bureaucrats refuse to act together
with the Opposition, then they must bear the full responsibility for
this refusal in the eyes of the working class.
The
continuation of the Spanish crisis means the revolutionary awakening
of millions among the toiling masses. Nothing indicates that they
will suddenly
enlist under the banner of communism. Instead, they will probably
first reinforce the party of the radical petty bourgeoisie, that is
to say, primarily the Socialist Party, especially its left wing, as
was the case, for example, with the German Independents during the
1918-1919 revolution. That is how the broad and real radicalization
of the masses will be expressed, and not in a growth of "social
fascism." Fascism could triumph anew — and this time in a more
"social" than "military" form, i. e., like the
"social fascism" of Mussolini — only as a consequence of
the defeat of the revolution and the disillusionment of the betrayed
masses who had believed in it. But in the face of the steady
development of recent events, a defeat can take place only as a
consequence of extraordinary errors on the part of the communist
leadership.
Verbal
radicalism and sectarianism in combination with an opportunist
assessment of class forces, a policy of zig-zags, bureaucratic
leadership — in a word, everything that goes to make up the essence
of Stalinism — are the very things that can reinforce the position
of the Social Democracy, the most dangerous enemy of the proletariat,
as the experience of the German
and Italian revolutionists showed with particular clarity.
Social
Democracy must be politically discredited in the eyes of the masses.
But this cannot be achieved by means of insults. The masses trust
only their own collective experience. They must be given the
opportunity during the preparatory period of the revolution to
compare in action the communist policies with those of the Social
Democrats.
The
struggle to win over the masses will unquestionably create the
conditions for this, if the communists insist in full view of the
masses on a united front with the Social Democrats. Liebknecht had
many areas of agreement with the Independents, especially with their
left wing. There was an outright bloc between the Bolsheviks and the
Left Social Revolutionaries.
And right up to the insurrection we reached a series of specific
agreements with the Menshevik-Internationalists
and made dozens of proposals for a united front. We lost nothing from
this policy. But, of course, what was involved was not a united front
like the Anglo-Russian Committee,
which meant that at the time of. a revolutionary general strike the
Stalinists blocked with the strikebreakers. And of course it did not
involve a united front in the spirit of the Kuomintang,
when, under the false slogan of a union of workers and peasants, a
bourgeois dictatorship over the workers and peasants was ensured.
Such
are the tasks and perspectives as they seem from the sidelines. I am
sharply aware to what degree the above comments are lacking in
concreteness. It is quite probable and even likely that I have left
out a number of extremely important circumstances. You will see for
yourselves. Armed with Marxist theory and Leninist revolutionary
method, you will find your road by yourselves. You will know how to
grasp the thoughts and sentiments of the working class and give them
clear political expression. The purpose of my letter is only to
recapitulate in a general way the principles of revolutionary
strategy that have been confirmed by the experience of three Russian
revolutions.
Warm
regards and my best wishes for success.
Yours,
L.
Trotsky