Leon
Trotsky: Minutes of the Commission: III
October
28, 1932
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 13. Supplement (1929-1933), New York 1979, p.
164-167]
Frank:
On
the draft letter to the Spanish. Erwin’s reply favorable. French
League’s reply: no personal signatures, puts forward concept of a
IS meeting.
Trotsky:
The
personal signatures are a big mistake; we must correct the error and
explain that the letter is addressed to the leaderships of sections.
We have no need of a collection of signatures of isolated
individuals. We must send the letter to the the leaderships of the
sections. If it is adopted and signed with the names of the leading
members, it will carry more weight than if simply signed by the
section. But what is unacceptable is the signatures of isolated
individuals; we don’t want a faction within a faction.
Frank
reads
Souzo’s letter on the Spanish question.
Trotsky:
Lacroix
retracts his mistakes with respect to the second party, recognizes
his error, but fights those who are fighting against these errors.
Here is what might be said in the letter:
Some
comrades, like Lacroix, recognize that the decisions of the national
conference represent tendencies toward the formation of a second
party, but instead of denouncing those tendencies, these comrades
fight the foreign sections that have correct positions.
The
quotation from Lacroix in Souzo’s letter (acknowledging the error
of the national conference decisions) can be misleading, but it is
“lip service”; he acknowledges it in order to defend his section
against the others. Nowhere does he recognize clearly and in writing
that it is wrong. Lacroix recognized the error only in a personal
letter; he said nothing in Comunismo.
This double dealing should be noted in the letter.
Souzo’s
suggestions on the whole are correct. The question of the two parties
can be amplified somewhat in the letter. It must be emphasized that
the criticism of the conference resolution by Lacroix serves only to
provide him with a cover for the errors of his comrades.
As
for the suggestions of the French League, I don’t think it is
necessary to call an enlarged IS session at the present time. It’s
an appropriate idea, but more suitable for a later stage. It is
necessary to create in the Spanish Left Opposition a current critical
of the errors that have been made; and on the basis of this process a
meeting of the IS, enlarged to include the representatives of the
various tendencies of the Spanish Left Opposition, would be very
useful. At the present time, it is a big effort just to get the
letter ready, let alone do more; an enlarged IS will have great
importance after some responses have been received, after the
proposal has been discussed internally. (The letter will, moreover,
be the instrument for this.) At the present time, it is not a useful
way to proceed. On the other hand, I am in general agreement that
enlarged IS conferences should be convened periodically to resolve
important political issues.
(On
L. D. [Trotsky]’s proposal, the following was decided:)
1.
To eliminate immediately the misunderstanding over the use of
strictly personal signatures. What is wanted is decisions by the
leaderships of national sections. (It was desirable at this stage to
avoid an appeal directed to all members, in order not to
unnecessarily complicate things.)
But
to demonstrate to the Spanish comrades that it is an action taken
with due deliberation and analysis, each member of the leadership of
the sections should take responsibility.
2.
To use the suggestions of the Italian comrades in editing the letter.
3.
To endorse the proposal of the French League concerning the calling
of an enlarged IS. To consider this proposal as an appropriate one,
but to postpone it until the results of the letter and perhaps a trip
by a preparatory commission of the IS have created favorable
conditions for such a session of the IS.
4.
At this time we propose to broaden the proposal of the French League
of calling sessions of the enlarged IS periodically (every month or
two), except in emergency situations as determined by events (for
example, before Amsterdam [the antiwar congress]).
Frank:
The
French League disagrees on the question of the control commission. I
wrote to the League: During the peace of Prinkipo we nominated a
control commission that has never functioned and now Mill is taking
advantage of this.
Trotsky:
You
can’t spread harmful accusations about the organization, without
proof, like old gossips.
(With
respect to the work on the draft platform: the new documentation has
not yet arrived.)
Frank
reports
on the present work of the commission on the trade union question,
presenting excerpts from resolutions and discussions of the
Comintern.
See
L. D’s theses in La
Vérité;
L. D.’s contribution to the discussion on trade union unity (in La
Vérité);
the minutes of the Profintern.
At
first the Comintern encompassed unions, then it formed a trade union
section of unions adhering to the Comintern, and then the Red
International of Labor Unions [RILU or Profintern] was created. The
exact relations [between party and unions] were not very clear at
first: at the Third Congress there was still talk of a single
International, grouping the Communist parties and the other forms of
workers’ organizations.
On
the other hand, with respect to trade union unity, this unity was to
extend to the international sphere.
Trotsky:
With
respect to the relations between the party and the trade unions, a
much more rapid development was anticipated at the Third Congress —
the transitional period had been prolonged, and the Communists
instead of gaining had lost ground.
As
for unity internationally: if unity is to be achieved on the national
level, why not have a fusion of the RILU with the Amsterdam trade
union federation? Not at the top, of course, for that would be a
caricature of unity.
Van
noted the work done so far on the question of the united front. The
first three congresses contribute little to this question. It was put
on the agenda with the situation in 1921, and the events surrounding
it. An important article by Zinoviev posed it and at the Executive
Committee’s meeting in February 1922 an important resolution was
voted on this question, but following that there are no documents.
Field
examined
the following material on workers’ control:
The
First and Second Congresses of the Comintern and the first three
conferences of the German CP.
The
issue was ignored after the Fourth Congress. We also have what L. D.
wrote on this question with respect to Germany. But on the question
of nationalization there is a lack of material.
Promises
to present a draft resolution on the question at the next meeting.
Present:
Trotsky, Field, Frank, Otto, Van (secretary).
Excused:
Frankel.
The
commission did not have time to look over the minutes. They are the
responsibility of the secretariat [at Prinkipo] (Frank and Van). The
secretariat is to communicate them to the IS as information.