Leon
Trotsky: A Discussion on Greece
Spring
1932
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 13. Supplement (1929-1933), New York 1979, p.
124-140]
Trotsky:
I would like to raise some questions about the problem of “faction
and party” so as to be able to draw some inferences for other
countries from the Greek experience. Should we remain a faction or
take steps toward a policy of independence vis-à-vis the party? A
situation can be envisioned where the party might be weak and the
faction strong, and thus able to make a bid to replace the party.
However, all attempts to move in such a direction up till now have
failed to produce any favorable results. We have seen the experience
in Germany (Urbahns) and in Belgium (Overstraeten), as well as the
attempts of the Right Opposition and the most recent experience of
the SAP.
What is the situation in Greece?
Two
more questions on this: First, what current
political questions divide the Archio-Marxists and the Communist
Party; that is, how do the fundamental differences express themselves
in practical work? Second, what experience has there been in the
electoral field?
Answer:
Suggests reading the written report that has been largely completed
and then basing the oral discussion on it.
Trotsky:
What is the Agrarian Party’s program?
A.:
They call themselves “anticapitalist.”
Trotsky:
Do they also call themselves “socialist”?
A.:
They call themselves “Marxists.”
Trotsky:
And what is their agrarian program?
A.:
“Against Communism and against capitalism.” Actually they are
representatives of the rich farmers.
Trotsky:
What slogans do they propose? (With regard to taxes, banks, etc.)
A.:
A debt moratorium on loans from the state and the agrarian bank,
lowering taxes for the peasants — for a “peasants’ government.”
Trotsky:
The feudalists after all were Turks, and they were driven out. But
what about the church; does it control large landed estates?
A.:
It does not have a lot of property. There were also big Greek
landowners; however in 1918-19 their holdings were taken away by the
land reform, which in return offered them large and lucrative
compensation.
Trotsky:
Who was the land distributed to? The refugees or the indigenous
population?
A.:
Both. There were 1,500,000 refugees. Among them, about 200,000
eventually received homesteading credits. However, large layers of
farmers have considerable tax debts. They are all now threatened with
the confiscation of their property.
A.:
Reports further on the political slogans of the Communist Party.
The
united front:
On this question, a bitter struggle prevails between our organization
and the official party. In general, the party rejects the united
front, even at the trade union level. Its policy is the united front
“from below” with separate leaderships for each strike and
struggle (set up by the party, of course). On this question our
struggle has intensified, especially during the last period.
Trotsky:
In connection with Germany, or as a separate question?
A.:
In our propaganda we connect up the events in Germany with the
attitude of the party in Greece. We are now in the midst of a big
crisis, and decisive battles are in the offing. Our congress raised
the perspective that these struggles could culminate in a general
strike.
Trotsky:
And the party?
A.:
After the liquidation of the third period, the party abandoned the
slogan of the political strike and now merely views the task as
struggling for direct, economic partial demands. In place of the
united front, the party created a “People’s Committee,” in
which only the party, its youth, and the red periphery organizations
participate. The Opposition has proposed that workers’ congresses
be held in every city, in which all tendencies in the working class
should take part and where committees based on proportional
representation should be established, which, as a higher form of the
united front, would provide leadership for struggles.
Trotsky:
These are soviets.
A.:
As we have defined their tasks, they should move from leading partial
strikes, the Unemployed movement, and actions around the housing
question and price and production control toward taking the
leadership of a general strike and becoming organs of dual power.
Trotsky:
These are soviets. But it is perhaps better for the moment not to
call them this. When we established the soviets in Russia, they were
not at first organs of power. They had to develop into that. Now,
however, the word “soviet” at once suggests the idea of immediate
conquest and exercise of power.
A.:
To our demands for workers’ congresses and struggle committees with
representation of all tendencies, the party counterposes its
“People’s Committee,” embracing only official party
organizations. The Spartakos group is opposed to our slogan and has
issued a manifesto advancing the slogan for a “workers’ and
peasants’ government.” This is defined as an intermediate stage
that would not yet represent the dictatorship of the proletariat but
would rather prepare the way for it. It is supposed to tax the rich
and cancel the peasants’ debts.
Trotsky:
We could include this slogan, and at the same time raise the question
of what bodies the workers’ and peasants’ government should base
itself upon. On the “People’s Committee” or on the “Workers’
Congress”? How many members does the Spartakos group have?
A.:
They say seventy-five. But this includes completely inactive,
dispersed, and vacillating elements.
Trotsky:
And the Factionists?
A.:
Thirty. They have allied themselves with the Spartakists, although
hardly a single one of them wants to work with them.
Trotsky:
What kind of organ do they have?
A.:
A monthly.
Trotsky:
Are they going through a rapprochement with the party? Don’t they
want to rejoin?
A.:
Several of them have gone back to the party. However, as an
organization they do not want to work with the party at all. We just
recently proposed a united front to the party. So far, no answer has
been received. It is unlikely that the offer will be accepted,
especially since the bitterest enemies of our organization are in the
new leadership, people who in the past even engineered the murder of
our comrades.
Trotsky:
To sum up: The Archio-Marxists are for a workers’ congress, to lead
partial struggles toward a general strike. The Communist Party calls
for a People’s Committee. But this is only a leading body. What is
it supposed to do?
A.:
The People’s Committee has attempted to organize demonstrations.
All of ten people showed up. Since then the party has said nothing
more about the People’s Committee.
Trotsky:
Does the People’s Committee have a legal existence?
A.:
Its manifesto had the address of the trade union organization. It
contains the slogans for a “soviet Greece” and for a “workers’
and peasants’ government.” The latter slogan has been around
since 1923-24. In those days it was advanced along the lines of the
Kuomintang and the Bulgarian tactic. At present the party has not
defined the character of this “workers’ and peasants’
government.”
Trotsky:
And what is the position of our organization regarding this slogan?
A.:
We can only view this slogan as purely formal, a substitute for the
“dictatorship of the proletariat.” Just raising such a slogan is
not enough to achieve it. We need transitional slogans that lead
toward this.
Trotsky:
We can accept raising this slogan as
a perspective, that
is, in the following sense: We have a bourgeois government, but we
want a workers’ government. So, we propose a workers’ congress.
Then, we can say to the party: You are for a workers’ and peasants’
government. In order to achieve this we need bodies on which such a
government can base itself, that is, a workers’ congress.
A.:
In our most recent proposal for a united front, we suggested a joint
platform for unity.
Trotsky:
The slogan for a workers’ and peasants’
government, which would be foolish for Germany, is correct in Greece,
where there is a peasant movement, a movement of debt-burdened
refugees. It represents masses. And since the proletariat in Greece
does not constitute a majority, the slogan for a workers’ and
peasants’ government can become important — as a form of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, but one that is comprehensible to
the peasants. It is in fact more than a form. The role of the
peasantry in Greece requires that the vanguard of the proletariat
take it into consideration and formulate its own policy and measures
accordingly. That was also the situation in Russia, yet we spoke
about a workers’ and peasants’ government only after the conquest
of power, and Lenin was not entirely certain about this
characterization. But for us the decisive fact was that the
proletariat had already won power and taken over the government.
A.:
We explained in our congress that we are opposed to the workers’
and peasants’ government as an “intermediate form,” but that we
consider it a synonym for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Trotsky:
The dictatorship of the proletariat has various stages. In Russia the
first stage was marked by the coalition with the Left SRs (November
1917 to July 1918). That was the coalition with representatives of
the peasantry. Two days following their resignation, the Left SRs
organized a revolt against the Soviet government and were jailed.
Subsequently, the Soviet government became more “Bolshevized.”
There was a difference between the first and second stages. In this
sense we can say that the term workers’ and peasants’ government
was “honest,” for there had been a workers’ and soldiers’
congress and, moreover, a peasant congress. This peasant congress
joined with the workers’ and soldiers’ congress, elected its
committee, and sent its representatives to the executive committee of
the workers’ and soldiers’ congress. That corresponded to the
peasants’ way of thinking at the time.
Fascism
A.:
The party speaks of social fascism, archio-fascism, agrarian fascism,
and monarcho-fascism.
Trotsky:
Does any real fascist organization exist?
A.:
There are fascist organizations that are politically insignificant,
artificial imitations of Italian fascism. Recently, an organization
of combat veterans and nationalists was formed. It is carrying out a
certain amount of activity and focuses on attacking the Communists.
But it does not call itself fascist and does not constitute a
political organization in the full sense. It is an imitation of the
Stahlhelme, from whom they have also borrowed their name. The group
is based in Salonika, where they have already been able to break up
trade union meetings.
Trotsky:
You have said nothing about the national question. What about
Macedonia and the minorities?
A.:
Our congress passed a resolution opposing the slogan of independence
for Macedonia, which was adopted by the party in 1925.
Trotsky:
Why?
A.:
This came after there had been a complete population exchange of
Greeks, Turks, and Bulgarians. Bulgarian Macedonia had 90 percent
Bulgarians, Greek Macedonia 90 percent Greeks, Serbian Macedonia the
same. Excluding the Jewish minority, who live only in the cities, all
of those in the countryside are Greeks from Asia Minor and the Black
Sea area.
Trotsky:
Why did the party raise the slogan for Macedonian independence?
A.:
Manuilsky and Kolarov pressed for it. At the time, the Bulgarian
party had made an alliance with Bulgarian nationalists, who called
themselves “Macedonians,” and hoped to win them over. It was on
this basis that the slogan for Macedonian independence was raised.
But the “Macedonians,” under the leadership of Tsankov,
immediately began to train their fire on the Communists.
Trotsky:
Should it be a question of the independence of Macedonia as a whole?
A.:
Yes.
Trotsky:
I’m not certain whether it is correct to reject this slogan. We
cannot say we are opposed to it because the population will be
against it. The population must be asked
for its opinion
on this. The “Bulgarians” represent an oppressed layer. We must
explain that the people have the right to decide for themselves. If
the government rejects a referendum, then we must struggle against
this decision. If the oppressed nationality rises up against the
government, then we must support them. This is the kind of language
we have to talk. And if the Macedonian Greeks declare their
opposition to the Athens government, demanding their independence,
should we dogmatically oppose it? I doubt it. But I am not familiar
enough with the question, since I only came into contact with the
Macedonian problem in 1913.
A.:
The Comintern dumped
this slogan, because it turned out to be unrealizable: Macedonia is
not a uniform national whole.
Trotsky:
But neither is Greece. Why couldn’t Macedonia likewise exist as an
autonomous union with different nationalities? The population has to
be polled about this.
A.:
What are the forces which will support this?
Trotsky:
It’s not our task to organize nationalist uprisings. We merely say
that if the Macedonians want it, we will then side with them, that
they should be allowed to decide, and we will also support their
decision. What disturbs me is not so much the question of the
Macedonian
peasants,
but rather whether there isn’t a touch of chauvinist poison in
Greek
workers.
That is very dangerous. For us, who are for a Balkan federation of
soviet states, it is all the same if Macedonia belongs to this
federation as an autonomous whole or part of another state. However,
if the Macedonians are oppressed by the bourgeois government, or feel
that they are oppressed, we must give them support.
Is
there a movement of Macedonians in Greece for autonomy?
A.:
No.
Trotsky:
In Sofia there is a Macedonian committee, which is, of course,
supported by the government; however, in Vienna during 1929-30, there
existed (and still exists?) a Macedonian newspaper that was published
by a committee backed by the Comintern. What do you propose for the
Balkans as a whole?
A.:
A soviet federation.
Trotsky:
And the party?
A.:
A soviet Greece. They say nothing about a Balkan federation of soviet
states. The party criticizes our slogan for a federation, because
they claim we use it to hide the fact that we are opposed to a soviet
Greece.
Trotsky:
Prior to the war there were the Tesniaki (left Social Democrats) in
Bulgaria, who supported a Balkan federation. At that time, this
slogan played a big role. We took it up although what was proposed
was a [bourgeois] democratic
federation. It is now clear that no democratic power exists in the
Balkans that could make such a federation a reality. Rather this is a
task for the proletariat. The perspective of a workers’ congress, a
peasants’ movement, a general strike, that is, the prelude to
insurrection in Greece, will pose the question of the Balkan
federation with greater force. “How can anyone imagine a victorious
revolution in a Greece caught in this birdcage system of the Balkan
states, hemmed in on all sides by dictatorship and fascism?” some
will say. We will answer: “A revolutionary perspective is
impossible without a federation of the Balkan states, which obviously
will not stop here, but rather will extend into the federation of the
United Soviet States of Europe.”
The
Trade Union Question
A.:
Our slogan on the trade union question is for trade union unity, with
workers’ democracy and the right of factions. The party
counterposes unity in the United General Confederation of Labor (the
red trade union).
Trotsky:
Which of the existing trade union federations is the strongest?
A.:
They are almost equal in strength, but the Stalinist federation is
more active. We participate in all the trade unions, but we are
strongest in the United General Confederation.
Trotsky:
Is the party’s influence in the United General Confederation
stronger than ours?
A.:
The party holds on to the leadership through artificial and violent
means. Although we are in the leadership in several trade unions in
the United Confederation, up to now we have not been able to get a
single representative in the national leadership. We hold the
leadership in the following United Confederation trade unions in
Athens: textiles, cement, bakers, pretzel makers, blacksmiths. In the
reformist federation we lead the cobblers, construction workers,
carpenters, and barbers. The metal workers’ organization in
Piraeus, which was under our leadership, and later won by the
Stalinists, is now in the hands of the reformists, who are directly
in league with the employers, the state, and the police. In Athens we
have thirty-two fractions (minority groupings). Each of these
fractions holds regular evening discussions, in which numerous
sympathizers participate. Finally, there are still a number of
independent trade unions that are not connected to any federation,
mostly those that have been expelled from one or the other.
Elections
Trotsky:
What position did the Archio-Marxists take on this question? What
experience have they had, and what is their present stand?
A.:
We approach this question from the standpoint of the relationship of
forces.
Trotsky:
How can our poor vote in the 1931 local elections in Salonika be
explained?
A.:
That question was discussed at the congress and it was established
that there had been a wrong estimate of the relationship of forces.
The information that we received from Salonika before the elections
was that the party organ was selling 70 copies an issue, our organ
3,000 an issue. The party had almost no support in the trade unions.
We held the leadership in six trade union organizations. The crowds
at the party’s public election rallies never numbered more than
300, while we drew 1,000 to 1,500. The unemployed movement was also
under our leadership. The results of the election were 2,300 votes
for the party, 390 votes for us. The discussion at the conference
revealed the following: (1) The information about newspaper sales was
false; not all copies were sold, many were merely distributed. (2)
The trade unions were not exactly mass organizations, and the
sympathy toward us was more local and personal than political in
character. Moreover, our influence was not as great as had been
reported to us. (3) A considerable portion of our supporters is
young, still without the right to vote; another section of workers
couldn’t get voters cards. (4) The party got the votes of the
passive elements, who do not attend rallies, cannot be mobilized by
the party, and whose activity consists only in voting. Our influence,
on the other hand, is precisely among the active elements of the
proletariat. (5) Behind the party stands the authority of the Soviet
Union and the Comintern.
Trotsky:
Points 1 to 4 could explain the party getting 2,000 votes and our
also only getting 2,000 or even 1,000. Therefore it is obvious, in
view of the results, that the last reason cited is the decisive one.
Only this can explain why the passive elements vote for the party and
not for us. Why must we especially stress this reason? Because along
with the local and national factors, the authority of the October
Revolution and the Comintern enters in as a powerful component of the
relationship of forces. There is experience to confirm this: Germany
(Urbahns, the Brandlerites, and-most recently the SAP); Belgium
(Overstraeten); in addition, the experience of a new Opposition group
in Košice in Czechoslovakia.
That
proves that the historical conditions still do not exist for a second
party. In the prewar International, the left wing struggled for years
as a small group. Mammoth events like the World War, the collapse of
the Second International, the Russian Revolution, were necessary to
create prerequisites for establishing a new International. In the
present era, events have not yet taken place that in the eyes of the
masses are of decisive enough importance to justify establishing a
new party. For that reason, not only can we not establish a new party
but rather we are caught up in the same receding wave as the official
party, since we are viewed by the masses as a part of the Communist
camp.
This
fact is very important for Spain. There we have a new group that now
has somewhat over 1,000 members and whose leadership has just
declared that they do not want to continue tail-ending the party, but
want to present their own slate in the elections. They will propose a
united front to the party and following the anticipated refusal, put
forward independent candidates. The danger facing the Spanish
organization along this path is tremendous.
At
the time of the elections the Greek comrades had already had their
own organ for ten months, and for an even longer time a number of
trade union newspapers. Until just recently, the Spanish organization
only had a monthly theoretical journal. If our organization in Greece
has 1,600 members out of a population of seven million, the Spanish
organization, which arose in the exceedingly favorable conditions of
a rising revolutionary wave, should have at least five times as many
members. In short, running our own candidates against those of the
Spanish Communist Party, which has grown at an incomparably greater
rate than the Opposition and which has incomparably greater resources
at its command, will lead to even less favorable results than was the
case in Greece. The stand of our Spanish comrades is very rash and
can compromise our organization for a long time.
The
National Question
Trotsky:
I would again like to raise the question of Macedonia and Epirus. So
far as I understand, not much importance has been given to this
question up to now. However, this question is very important for
educating the Greek workers, for liberating them from national
prejudices, for improving their understanding of the international
situation in the Balkans and generally. Official statistics give the
following information: There are 82,000 Macedonian Slavs among
Macedonia’s 1,400,000 inhabitants; there are 19,000 Albanians among
Epirus’s 300,000 inhabitants. The first question that comes to mind
is: Are these figures accurate? Our first task is to take an attitude
of total skepticism toward these figures. The statistics were drawn
up in the year 1925, at the time of the resettlement, under the
bayonets of military authority. What do they call “Greek”?
Perhaps those who speak Greek because they have to but don’t
consider themselves Greeks. If these figures are inaccurate, that
fact must evoke dissatisfaction and hatred among the nationalist
elements. If we say that the official statistics must be regarded
with great skepticism, we will win a lot of sympathy. Most important,
in this way we can win the confidence of the Bulgarian proletariat.
Even before the war the Bulgarians were also very distrustful of the
Greeks, since the Greeks are very nationalistic.
But
even if there really were no more than 82,000 Slavs in Macedonia,
this question would retain its great significance. Where does this
minority of 82,000 live? Probably on the Bulgarian border. The small
size of this national layer does not rule out autonomy. Thus in
Russia there is the tiny country of Moldavia, near Romania, existing
as an independent entity. The question will be asked: Do you want
even more Balkanization? To this we answer: We are for the formation
of large economic units. But this cannot occur against the will of
the masses. If these masses want separation, we must say: Go through
your experiment, you will come back to the soviet federation.
However, insofar as the bourgeois government of the ruling nation
prevents you from separating, we will defend you. The importance of
posing the question in this way is best illustrated by the fate of
the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and czarist monarchy.
In
Austria the semi-Marxists always came up with wise economic,
pseudo-revolutionary arguments to prove the need for retaining the
oppressed nations within the framework of the Austro-Hungarian
monarchy. The result: Austro-Hungary disintegrated into its component
parts. In Russia the Bolsheviks always championed the right of each
nation to its autonomy. As a result, Russia survived as an economic
entity. This was possible only because through their long years of
struggle for the right of self-determination of nations, the
Bolsheviks won the confidence of the nationally oppressed popular
masses and, above all, of the proletariat. I believe that the Greek
and international press must devote several articles to this
question. The entire problem must be thoroughly studied and a small
conference held with the Bulgarian comrades, so as to work out a
uniform policy.
A.:
This year large national revolutionary mobilizations against England
occurred in Cyprus. We spoke out in defense of the population’s
right of self-determination and explained the need for revolutionary
struggles. We took the same position with respect to the Dodecanese,
which are occupied by the Italians. The organization has concerned
itself with the Macedonian question for several years. The party’s
alliance with the Bulgarian nationalists severely undermined it. I
will write about this.
Trotsky:
In Cyprus and the Dodecanese it was oppressed Greeks, in Macedonia,
oppressed Slavs. If Communists stand up for the oppressed Greeks, but
do not support the oppressed Slavs against the Greek oppressor,
mistrust of us can only grow. If I am not mistaken, Engels said in a
polemic against Bakunin: Any revolutionary who holds out one little
finger to pan-Slavism is lost.
The
Agrarian Question
Trotsky:
What are the Archio-Marxists’ slogans on the agrarian question?
A.:
The conference drew up a series of demands: Cancel the debts of the
refugees and those of the poor peasants (debts to the National Bank,
usurers, outstanding unpaid taxes). Abolish the produce taxes (on
harvests and livestock).
Trotsky:
It is paid according to quantity of produce, and you want to repeal
this tax for poor peasants?
A.:
Yes. Our conference and our regional committees, moreover, put
forward a series of partial demands, divided by category — wine,
tobacco, and olive oil, which represent the most important products
of Greek agriculture. The conference commissioned the members of the
Central Committee to draft a separate report for each region. These
reports are still in preparation. For some time we have had a general
position on the agrarian question. However, only this year did we set
very practical tasks for ourselves in this field.
We
also opposed the Agrarian Party, since a peasants’ party, which
would stand between or above the two principal classes, the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat, isn’t possible. A “neutral”
Agrarian Party can only be an organ of the bourgeoisie. Many members
of the Agrarian Party are former Communists who were demoralized by
the policy of the official Communist Party and have since turned
toward the new party, believing that it is also a revolutionary
party.
Through
systematic work and theoretical clarification, large sections of this
party can be won to us. In certain peasant areas revolutionary
sentiments can be seen. Our comrades who live in nearby towns are
invited to villages to speak by peasant members of the Agrarian
Party. Peasants from entire villages are called together and listen
to our speakers with great sympathy. In a number of areas the
peasants are actively working to distribute our newspaper. The
situation is rather favorable for us, and it is not excluded that
under the pressure of the peasants, who are a hundred times more to
the left than the party leadership, as well as under the influence of
our activity, the Agrarian Party may quickly disintegrate.
Our
comrades are working out specific demands for each area that answer
to the needs of the peasantry there. Moreover, in accordance with the
decision of the conference, in the near future we will publish a
special peasants’ paper. As for the Communist Party, it labels the
Agrarian Party “agrarian fascism.” The Communist Party projects
forming farm workers’ trade unions. We are not opposed to this
idea, but it will not solve the peasant question, since the farm
workers constitute a negligible percentage of the farming population
and are found in only some areas. We put forward the slogan for
forming associations of poor peasants.
A
few more experiences: In Macedonia and Thrace the official party had
a great influence over the peasant population at one time. Now,
however, the party is visibly losing ground to the Agrarian Party; we
have to struggle against the Agrarian Party all the more, so as to
win back what the Communist Party has lost. The CP publishes a
fortnightly newspaper for the peasants. The Agrarian Party has two
daily newspapers and one monthly organ (that is, bourgeois newspapers
that have taken up support of the Agrarian Party). In the last
elections the Agrarian Party won a large vote. In some villages,
where the CP is not running any candidates, and where we have workers
native to the area who enjoy authority in the village, we want to run
candidates in order to carry out communist propaganda. The Agrarian
Party is very heterogeneous; they try to pull in everyone without
regard to their ideas. In their magazine you can find articles from
totally conflicting tendencies. The leaders of the same organization
write for and against socialism, for and against small property.
Another
serious problem in Greece is a lack of arable land. In some areas
reclamation is being carried out. The dearth of land has produced a
large migration from the countryside to the towns. This includes
people looking for work, artisans, merchants, as well as lumpen
proletarian elements.
Trotsky:
Do the agricultural workers’ trade unions already exist? And the
peasants’ associations?
A.:
No, not agricultural workers’ trade unions. A few local peasants’
associations. (Reads from the [Archio-Marxist] magazine Daulos
[Torch] the report of a regional committee and the struggle program
advanced by the committee.)
Trotsky:
The facts are very interesting and create the impression of a
prerevolutionary situation. I have the impression that in the present
circumstances our organization’s slogans are no longer adequate.
This situation requires advancing, along with limited demands,
general slogans that can give a common direction to the movement. One
might be workers’ and peasants’ control of the banks. For
example, let’s consider the question of remitting debts and
granting credits. There are, of course, poor and rich peasants, and
there must be control over whose
debts are to be canceled and who
is to be granted credit. There have to be organizations that can
exercise this supervision — peasant committees. Peasant
associations
are semi-political organizations that we can utilize to increase our
influence. Peasant
committees are
revolutionary bodies that turn against the state one day and become
revolutionary organs of state power the next. These committees
correspond entirely to workers’ soviets in the city. We must
combine the question of debt remission and credit with the demand for
control of the banks and for forming peasant committees. Peasants’
control! No secret diplomacy in the granting of credit! Open the
books of all banks! But since the peasants cannot understand the
books, they will turn to the workers in the city and ask their help.
We must understand how to crown limited and local demands with
demands of national scope and give the movement revolutionary
perspectives.
The
formation of the Agrarian Party is a symptom of a revolutionary
crisis like the events in Bulgaria in 1924. It is true that it cannot
be an independent class party. However, besides this correct
theoretical evaluation, we have to have a correct policy toward this
party, whose existence is now a fact. Our policy cannot be simply
negative. We must initiate a sorting-out process in this party and
show on the basis of the facts that it cannot be a substitute for a
Communist Party, but that rather it must be replaced by a Communist
Party. Our policy has already been defined by the demands we have
raised. We propose common struggles on the basis of these demands.
Either we will win over the revolutionary elements of this party or
else unmask them in front of the peasants. The same holds true for
the slogan for control of the banks and forming peasant committees.
In
the elections we can also run not only local workers, but even
revolutionary peasants as our candidates, asking them to embrace our
demands and to commit themselves to fight for these demands. Even if
peasants are members of the Agrarian Party, we can put them on our
slates if they embrace our program, since the Agrarian Party is not a
party but rather a collection of tendencies that must be broken up.
Of course, that does not rule out the possibility that one or another
peasant that we push to the fore will become corrupted after being
elected and will betray us rather than be decisively won over to us.
During the Duma elections the Bolsheviks again and again formed
voting blocs with the Social Revolutionaries, a tactic that was
severely criticized by the Mensheviks. To these criticisms, the
Bolsheviks answered: Our bloc is based on the struggle for democratic
demands. The liberal bourgeoisie is antidemocratic. We are prepared,
along with the SRs, to clash with the liberal bourgeoisie and its
Menshevik allies. The big difference between Russia and Greece is
that in the latter feudalism no longer exists. However, what still
exists is the bill
presented by feudalism in the form of the debt owed by the refugees
and poor peasants for the land they have occupied. The struggle to
abolish this indebtedness is the struggle for the final elimination
of feudalism.
Developments
in the USSR
A.:
A question about the meaning of the latest turn in Russia.
Trotsky:
We have written many times that a retreat was unavoidable. The
Stalinist bureaucracy proclaimed the program for thorough
collectivization on the basis of a completely inadequate technical
and economic foundation: It hoped to liquidate the kulaks by
administrative measures. It forced the middle peasants to enter the
collective farms and to acclaim this collectivization as a
magnificent success. We said that the peasants would consume their
basic agricultural capital, and the crisis would inevitably spread
beyond this sector. Collectivization cannot be carried through
without a technological foundation and without the necessary
psychological preparation. The outcome is evident: The existing grain
and livestock have fallen below minimum needs. In Moscow, Petrograd
[Leningrad], and other big cities, there are already difficulties in
maintaining the supply of food. In the provinces, on the other hand,
there is famine. That is true also in the peasant villages
(especially there, where grain must be brought in). The petty
bourgeoisie is suffering as a result, but so is the working class.
The number of collectivized peasants is now dropping. Independent
peasants — who previously were said not to exist — are now
beginning to be protected. Individual property and the free market
are being encouraged, a process of differentiation is being generated
among the collective farms and even more so among independent
peasants. After ruining the kulaks by administrative violence, the
bureaucracy is once again giving them the opportunity to thrive. We
have always proposed controlling the kulaks, trimming their claws.
The kulaks cannot be eliminated all at once, but they can be
regulated and cut down to size until the technical and cultural bases
have been laid for collectivization on a wide scale. Until February
1928, the kulaks were encouraged. The kulaks, who comprise 5 percent
of the peasantry, owned 40 percent (official figure?) of the grain
supply destined for the market and finally refused to deliver grain
to the cities, which resulted in the threat of famine. This is when
the Stalinist bureaucracy first launched its attack against the
kulaks and transformed the grain requisitioning campaign into a
campaign of annihilation
against the kulaks. Now, they have returned to the old position, but
on a new basis. This will have the greatest consequences for the
collectivization, and for the five-year plan. The distribution of
goods will be regulated not only by the plan but also by the free
market. How far this will go remains to be seen, since it cannot be
predicted how far the retreat will go. The introduction of the NEP
was very carefully managed, and nevertheless it touched off an
elemental growth of the free market. But at that time we had the
party, which attentively followed and controlled all developments. At
present, economically
speaking,
we are starting from a more advantageous position: Industry has
grown, the socialist sector has become stronger. But the political
factors are less favorable and they may get the upper hand over the
economic factors: (1) The workers
suffered
greatly while industry was being built up, but they were told that
this was the advent of socialism. We warned of the disillusionment
that would inevitably be provoked by such phrases. Now, not only will
the kulaks in the village accumulate capital but the Nepman in the
city will also, and a new process of social differentiation will
arise. The masses have become more critical politically and more
demanding, but also more disillusioned. (2) For the peasants
relinquishing their individual farms meant a catastrophic change in
their way of living. Now a return to an independent peasant economy
is starting. The peasants will say to themselves: “What they forbid
yesterday, they permit today. Why then did they turn us out of our
farms?” The authority of the state will be violently shaken, and,
on the other hand, the class consciousness of the kulaks will be
reinforced. (3)
However,
the most important element is the party.
Russia is a country with a vast, scattered petty-bourgeois population
(110 million peasants). More than half of them are collectivized. We
always predicted the inevitable differentiation and the danger of the
kulakization of the collective farms; we always stressed that the
collective farms represent only a transitional economic form, and
that they have to be regulated. The new turn will accelerate the
differentiation within the individual collective farms and among
them. In order to observe all these molecular processes and sound a
timely alarm, thousands and thousands of active leaders are needed.
The bureaucracy and statistics cannot be substituted for this. There
must be an independent revolutionary proletarian party, and this does
not exist. The NEP meant continual latent class struggle. It was the
task of the party to lay this bare. The party has now been displaced
by the bureaucracy, which deceives
the party and the proletariat about the situation and the tasks. In
1921 we told the party and the proletariat the absolute truth, that
we had to retreat to capitalist methods; we made clear the dangers
involved and warned against them. Even if we were obliged to arm the
kulaks economically,
we armed the proletariat politically
and militarily.
The party does not exist as a party now. Everything takes place in
the dark. Nothing can be foreseen. Hence the great dangers.