Leon
Trotsky: Minutes of the Commission I
September
18, 1932
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 13. Supplement (1929-1933), New York 1979, p.
150-154]
Trotsky:
As
its task the commission proposes to take up current problems of the
International Left Opposition and to aid the International
Secretariat, so far as possible, in the preparation of the
international conference. First of all, proposals should be made for
the agenda of the international conference and also on the content of
the preparatory work and on the theses, resolutions, and draft
programs.
Field:
The
international conference should, above all, set the conditions for
the membership of the national sections. The present conditions are
very loose.
Trotsky:
Conditions
for the individual members or for the sections?
Field:
Both.
Among these conditions the following should be mentioned:
1.
A return to the twenty-one conditions of the Comintern on one hand,
and on the other, a clear overview of our differences with the
present leadership of the Comintern.
2.
The organization’s principles — the question of the world
revolution and of socialism in one country.
3.
Our relationship to the party — our position as a faction. How far
can differences go inside the faction while still remaining in the
movement?
4.
Work of the Opposition: What are its tasks? Relationship of
propaganda and work among the masses, the education of the cadre,
proposals to the party.
Trotsky
proposes concretely that a comrade be instructed to provide and work
through the twenty-one conditions and the resolutions of the
[Comintern’s] first four world congresses.
Under
the first point it would read approximately as follows: The Left
Opposition recognizes the twenty-one
conditions
and the fundamental, principled resolutions of the first four world
congresses.
However,
that isn’t enough. We must enumerate the resolutions we consider
decisive, because there are also secondary resolutions which are no
longer applicable.
A
small commission or a single comrade should be assigned to carry out
the necessary preparation, to produce, enumerate, and write out the
resolutions in question, because these must go into the resolution of
the international conference.
Resolved:
Comrade
Frankel is unanimously chosen for this work.
Trotsky:
Our
differences with the Stalinists — with the epigones in general —
must be laid out precisely. In the text which we are now planning it
will say: “A Critique of the Resolutions of the Fifth and Sixth
World Congresses and the Subsequent Plenums.” The resolutions of
these meetings should be summarized as a sort of catalog of the
mistakes of the epigone leadership.
Resolved:
Comrade
Otto [Schüssler] is unanimously chosen for this work. Comrades
Frankel and Otto will form a commission to treat the work of all the
world congresses, etc.
Trotsky:
I
believe it would be good to illustrate the questions critically
through a specific example, and which example is obvious: Spain.
Even in general we will have to be concrete, but Spain offers us a
fresh example which has shaken up all questions again. If the current
situation lasts long, we could lose a national section there.
Our
tasks: First, to work out the programmatic part: the social structure
of Spain, to study the programmatic line of the party and of the Left
Opposition, and make our own proposals.
Other
aspects of the question: to work through the resolutions of the
Spanish section and their literature that we have on hand and, in the
case of questions which are at issue — for example, the question of
the relationship to the party, faction, work of the faction — to
determine what is false in the activity of the Spanish section. That
should be begun at once and at an accelerated tempo.
A
resolution
was passed unanimously establishing a committee consisting of
Comrades Field, Frank, and Frankel to treat the Spanish question.
Trotsky:
Extracts
from the correspondence with the leadership of the Spanish section
should be communicated to the membership of the Spanish section and
the International Left Opposition. We must learn from the Spanish
mistakes and experiences.
The
Spanish committee has two-three parallel tasks to perform:
1.
Principled political questions,
2.
Internal questions, and
3.
Personal-organizational questions.
After
we have carried out the preparatory work, our organizational proposal
should lead to the conclusion that the Spanish section should convene
a new national conference to express its views on the proposals of
the International Secretariat. Comrades delegated by the
International Secretariat must be present when the conference takes
place.
The
latest issue of the Moscow Pravda
[September 9] published an article by [ ] on Spain, saying among
other things:
“After
the defeat of the general strike in January, the Trotskyists and
other renegades of communism asserted that the revolution was beaten
and that the period of defeats had begun. The new waves have since
repeatedly demonstrated that the renegades were wrong. The swiftness
and ease with which the generals’ revolt was smashed shows that the
forces of the revolution are not broken,” etc.
Thus
the article contains the claim that the Spanish Trotskyists had
declared that the revolution was over. Comrade Weisbord gives a
similar account in a letter on Spain.
This
question can become the starting point of part of our Spanish work.
We can ask questions of the Spaniards and so on.
It
is necessary to draw very sharp lines on this question. Sudden turns
and crises appear in the course of every revolution. The question is
also treated in the second Spanish pamphlet [“The Spanish
Revolution and the Dangers Threatening It,” May 28, 1931, in The
Spanish Revolution (1931-39)]
insufficiently to be sure, and in comparison to the Russian
Revolution and the Great French Revolution. The Russian Revolution
reached its high point in the course of eight months — the Great
French Revolution began in 1789 and reached its high point only in
1793, that is, in close to four years. Some characteristics of Spain
perhaps place it closer to the old French example. In any case, the
opinion is expressed in the pamphlet that it is entirely possible
that the Spanish revolution will develop for some years before
reaching its culmination point, especially since the Spanish
proletariat is unprepared. During the Great French Revolution the
programs and goals were worked out in the course of the long
struggle. It was entirely different in Russia, where a revolutionary
party existed for decades beforehand.
When
Comrade Nin said, after the January mass strike: “Now we’ve
entered into a period of slump,” that didn’t mean anything. One
must determine exactly the character of this slump.
A
second question, which, however, concerns the Stalinists more, is the
following: the Pravda
article already mentioned says that in general the positions of the
party were correct, then goes on more or less:
“Not
all party branches, not all provincial organizations were successful
in establishing the face of the Communist Party, counterposing it to
the maneuvering social fascists and Republicans, even though there
was an opportunity to show that the party fights not only against the
monarchists, but also against the republican government which gives
the monarchists cover,” etc.
Thus,
it has become evident that the party was surprised by events and that
the whole theory of social fascism came to nothing. Not only had the
party not differentiated itself from the Socialists, but it didn’t
even differentiate itself from the republicans. The article itself
expresses, in a cowardly way, the typical, opportunistic bankruptcy
of the ultraleftists in confronting reality. For
us it is of the greatest importance to obtain and compile the facts.
For us this will be a classical example.
I
will try, on the basis of the Pravda
article, to write a letter in the form of an inquiry to Comrade Nin.
Field:
In
addition we must determine the general content of the platform of the
International Left Opposition.
Trotsky:
We
must begin with an analysis of the current world situation, drawing
up perspectives, the strategic tasks of the proletariat, and the
subsequent consequences for individual countries.
Frankel:
The
IS should propose to the individual national sections that they send
in a political and organization report. It is absolutely necessary
that Comrade Trotsky give directives for this work.
Trotsky:
These
directives must first be worked out in discussions. It is possible to
propose a short sketch of the general situation and the perspectives
to each section.
Frankel:
It
is important to draw the lessons of the internal struggles up to now.
This should be considered later.
Field:
The
treatment of the Russian Revolution in the framework of the permanent
revolution.
Trotsky:
This
belongs more or less in the framework of the general platform. The
Russian draft platform [“Problems of the Development of the USSR”]
has not yet been discussed. Things in Russia are going very badly
now. The latest newspapers bring very alarming news — economically
it can’t get worse. The cumulative effect is making itself felt
now.
Frankel:
We
should discuss the Russian draft platform here.
Field:
Also
the first platform of the Russian Opposition.
Schüssler:
In
addition, the slogans of the United Soviet States of Europe and of
the Soviet Federation of the Balkan States should be taken up.
Additional comrades should be drawn into the work, for example,
Comrades Schürer and Neurath.
Comrade
Schürer on the question of the Brandlerites, their development in
the course of the last years in light of events and quotations.
Frank
proposes
that the Italian question be taken up.
Trotsky:
A
practical proposal — the International Secretariat should set up a
“fund for the international conference” to finance individual
delegations.
At
the next meeting the Spanish
question
will be taken up.