Leon Trotsky: Letter to Andreu Nin

September 1, 1931

[Writing of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 13. Supplement (1929-1933), New York 1979, p. 90-92, title: “Rosmer’s Politics”]

As to French matters, I can only deplore the fact that it has been impossible for you to keep track of their development sufficiently. To Rosmer, it does no doubt seem that his opponents are inventing differences. This man has some very fine personal qualities and a very admirable past. But he has three faults: (1) he is not a Marxist; (2) he is not a revolutionary; (3) he does not think politically. Exceptionally favorable conditions are necessary to raise him from the political level to which he is accustomed and in which he has been brought up — the level of the superannuated French sectarian circles, void of all that is alive, applying their old ideas without any enthusiasm, without any faith in the future, without any perspectives. The Russian Revolution temporarily served to uplift Rosmer. Here, his intimacy with me played a certain role. But he seized the first plausible pretext (unconsciously) to draw back from the revolution. The new meeting at Constantinople once again served as an impulsion. But after he left, I said more than once to those with me, I fear this change will not suffice for long. It actually turned out that it did not last very long.

The contradiction between the role he began to play and his entire character — his whole “mentality,” as the French say — has led him to actions which, it seems to me, cannot be reconciled with the dignity of a revolutionary. His two letters dealing with M[olinier] will always remain as stains on the moral physiognomy of Rosmer. He reproaches M. with occupying himself with financial affairs. But it is precisely in this field that M. displays his altogether exceptional revolutionary nature. He is undoubtedly a very capable businessman. He proved it in the commercial transactions in which he participated together with his brother. But did you know, for instance, this fact which accidentally has been made known to me: that when he left to see you, he did not pay his rent? He sold the furnishings of the apartment occupied by his mother, who recently died, and sent his old father, used to a certain measure of comfort, into a furnished room. In whose name was all this done? Personally, he lives in extremely modest fashion, and maintains himself at present by night work as a chauffeur (and he is a good chauffeur). Where then does the money made by his “brilliant” transactions go? Entirely to the needs of the organization. He personally gave up participation in the business of his brother the moment he occupied an important position in the League. This reduced the income with one blow, but his brother continues to support the organization generously. I ask you: what kind of hopeless philistine must one be to object to all of this? The commercial occupations of the M. brothers do not please Rosmer, you see. He distinguishes between honest, solid, respectable business and dishonest business — carried on by a communist! Engels, in his old age, once wrote on a similar occasion, to a German philistine, somewhat along the following lines: Yes, if I knew I could make a little million on the stock exchange in the interest of the revolutionary movement, I would immediately seize the opportunity. When I once mentioned this fact in a letter to Rosmer, he replied: But M. is not Engels. What can you do after that? … M’s big fault lies in the extreme explosiveness of the man. At a moment’s notice, he throws himself into doing everything for everybody, without asking the others and without coming back to them. By doing this, he often incites not only the bad workers against himself, but the good ones as well, who demand of him more normal and democratic methods of work. I have had some clashes with him on this field, and I fear I will have more in the future.

My differences with Rosmer began almost on the first day after his return from Prinkipo to Paris. Falling back into his former milieu, he almost automatically reestablished his former contacts and mode of thought. La Vérité all at once took on a stridently syndicalist tendency. With regard to MacDonald and his party, Rosmer wrote only in the spirit that they “don’t understand” how to defend the interests of the working class. If Cuvier could determine the species of animals by their jawbones, then these two words “don’t understand” help to identify the mental type of Rosmer. He saw the party on the one hand, and La Vérité on the other. He did not at all feel the need for an international organization. He thought of it more or less as of a burden. He protected Overstraeten, the Bordigists, all that is confused and formless, seeking thereby a support for his own formlessness. If it were a question of a younger comrade, we could of course say: he’ll learn. Unfortunately, all the others waited for Rosmer to teach them and were very quickly disillusioned. The result of this: the conflict of all the live and revolutionary elements with the Rosmer-Naville group. While trying to persuade, to criticize, at the same time I did everything possible not only to preserve the unity of the organization, but also to preserve the responsible position of Rosmer within it. Nevertheless, he did not look for a compromise. He wanted to crush the younger comrades, who actually were correct in their struggle against him. When I refused to support such treatment, Rosmer lowered himself to the point of spreading disgusting insinuations about M. At present, the Rosmer-Naville group is the biggest obstacle to the further development of the League.