Leon
Trotsky: A Discussion with Herbert Solow
Summer
1932
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 13. Supplement (1929-1933), New York 1979, p.
143-147]
Comrade
Solow would like to say a few things about the American Communist
Party’s policy on the war question.
The
policy of the American CP is in general the same as that of the
European parties. That goes also for the question of the antiwar
congress. On Münzenberg’s orders a certain Urivich came to New
York from Berlin with the responsibility of directing the
organization of the antiwar campaign. He was furnished with
recommendations to American pacifists and leaders of the CP. At a
preparatory conference which was attended by twenty-thirty persons,
including party members, Urivich declared that the antiwar movement
would be based on the following slogan: True patriotism does not mean
being in favor of war, but being against it.
Comrade
Solow referred further to a question which has stood at the focal
point of discussions in the American CP as well as among the American
public as a whole in the recent period: that is, the tension between
Russia and Japan on the one hand, between America and Japan on the
other, and the resulting “community of interest” between America
and Russia in the event of war. He cites a list of examples of which
the following is the most characteristic of an alleged danger of
social chauvinistic tendencies in the American CP: Trachtenberg, a
leading party functionary, is occupying himself with collecting
quotations from Marx designed to prove that an American war against
Japan would be a progressive war.
Also,
there is at present great interest in the question of American
recognition of the Soviet Union. Senator Borah
plays
the role of energetic advocate of recognition. His main arguments are
two: first, America needs to expand its business interests, and
second, America must not stand alone in the Far East. In the
Chinese-American conflict the interests of China are at issue as well
as those of Russia and America. Solow believes that the movement for
recognition will go forward — because it will be pointed out that
Stalin drove the real revolutionaries out of the leadership long ago.
With
respect to both problems, Solow believes that it is no longer
possible to assume responsibility for the actions of the Third
International. “If I had a group around me,” he says, “I would
found a Fourth International today — but then I am not a very
experienced politician.”
Trotsky:
What you have said on the attitude of the American CP towards
“alliances” between America and Russia against Japan,
exaggeration aside, cannot by a long shot be regarded as social
patriotism and social chauvinism. Social patriotism means going with
the bourgeoisie through thick and thin while declaring the “common
interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.”
In
case of a conflict between America and Japan, should we place
obstacles in the path of the American government? Yes or no?
The
American CP and the American proletariat can in no way declare the
interests of the American government to be their interests, can in no
case give up opposition to the government. They must vote against war
appropriations, and declare that they have no confidence that the
American bourgeoisie will not use those weapons to stab the Soviet
Union in the back, perhaps the very next day. We must do nothing to
make us responsible [for the government] in the eyes of the masses.
The means of struggle against the government are varied. Perhaps at a
certain moment [in a war] we do not call for strikes. When we are
strong enough to take power, however, then we must immediately bring
down the government and lead the war against Japan ourselves. But if
we are so weak that we cannot lead even small strikes, then this
question does not arise. If we are not sufficiently strong to create
major difficulties, then in that case I would suggest an oppositional
policy by all means, but not an aggressive one. If the government
does indeed make a turn, then we also make a turn.
Solow:
Is that to say that the interests of the American revolution have to
be sacrificed to the interests of the Soviet state?
Trotsky:
No. I refer to Lenin’s example. He spoke of the eventuality of
sacrificing the Soviet Union to the interests of the German
revolution. In the very same manner the Soviet state must now declare
that a Hitler regime in Germany means war with the Soviet Union.
There
are different methods of fighting one’s own bourgeoisie:
1.
In case of war by the American bourgeoisie against the Soviet Union.
2.
In case of war by the American bourgeoisie against Japan.
Is
there a difference between the two cases in the attitude of the
American
proletariat toward the American bourgeoisie?
In
the first case we have to stake everything on one card.
Are
we duty-bound to do the same in the second case? No. In this case we
can take a wait-and-see, although active, attitude. This war will
have [mass] discontent as a by-product, like every other war. The CP
must ready itself for the seizure of power, but the immediate
tactical approach will be different from the first case.
Solow:
Should strikes be renounced in general?
Trotsky:
Of course the class struggle does not stop. We will do all we can to
raise wages, etc., including strikes — although in those plants
that do work for the Soviet Union we shall try to settle matters
without a strike. But all those are tactical questions, which will be
settled according to the concrete situation. The main thing is the
strategy — whether the policy of the CP is to be the same if
America fights the Soviet Union or if it fights an enemy of the
Soviet Union. The strategic line remains the same — the struggle to
prepare the seizure of power by the proletariat. What changes,
however, is the tactical line, and these changes can go quite far.
One thing remains certain: we must undertake nothing that can make us
responsible for the American bourgeoisie, for the motives, goals, and
methods of their policies.
Solow:
Some American comrades say the German revolution must now be
sacrificed for the sake of the Russian Revolution.
Trotsky:
The Stalinists say that too, but they sacrifice it not for the sake
of the Russian Revolution, but rather for the sake of the
bureaucracy.
Solow:
What criterion do we use to judge when we no longer have a
dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia?
(Trotsky
answers with an exposition of the thoughts that are presented fully
in his pamphlet against Urbahns, “Defense of the Soviet Republic
and the Opposition [ Writings
29].”
He continues:)
The
question of the Third or the Fourth International is indeed bound
closely to the destiny of the proletarian state together with which
the Third International is closely entwined — through tradition,
through cadres, through moral and material influence. The collapse of
the Soviet Union would be the simultaneous collapse of the Communist
International and would place the founding of a new International on
the agenda. Should the Soviet Union find the road to the
international revolution (which would mean the replacement of the
Stalin bureaucracy and a regroupment in the [Soviet] party), then the
external and internal dangers for the Soviet Union would be swept
aside and the Third International would remain intact. Perhaps with
such internal regroupments there would also be very important splits
in the various parties.
The
Second and the Third Internationals are divided from one another by a
deep chasm. In that sense the continuity has really been broken.
Nevertheless, we have already seen how after the split in France, for
example, the followers of the Third International did not immediately
carry the split through, but instead fought to win the majority and
the newspapers, etc., inside the old party. So we see that no
prophecies of any kind can be made as regards organizational matters.
One
result of the fact that there is still a Second International is that
as yet only the most revolutionary
elements are assembled in the Third International, although they are
confused and partly corrupted. So then, in order to counterpose a
Fourth to the Third International one would have to be sure that it
can do better than the Third. But do we really have the necessary
cadres for that? Have there already occurred sufficiently crucial
events in which to test our cadres and to win over broad layers? The
Third International was formally founded following the October
Revolution,
and even then Eberlein (at the First World Congress) opposed founding
it immediately.
The
cadres for a Fourth International must first prove themselves, steel
themselves, and gain experience within the Third International. We
have already had a fourth international under Gorter.193
It was a miscarriage. We must have the great historical perspective
of a linkup of the Soviet Union with the revolution, but we must also
see the possibility of the demise of the Soviet Union. If we count
ourselves as belonging to the Third International it is not out of
organizational cretinism, but because millions of workers still see
their salvation in the Third International. A “new founding” now
would be absolutely wrong. It would make us look foolish in the eyes
of the most serious workers, and to look foolish is fatal, especially
in revolutionary politics.
Concerning
this business of Münzenberg’s antics it is necessary to expose the
entire history of the Anglo-Russian Committee, which became a prop
for English imperialism.
Since
you have a small group of intellectuals, I would like to say the
following to you: The kind of interest that is engendered by a
historical work is of a rather platonic-contemplative nature. But in
order to make a selection [of cadre], I think you should suggest the
reading of a “dry work,” for example, the documents on the
Chinese revolution that were assembled and published by the American
Left Opposition. They are concerned with disputed questions. Do try
to initiate such a discussion.