Leon
Trotsky: Preface to the Polish Edition of Lenin's
Left-Wing
Communism, an Infantile Disorder
October
6, 1932
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 4, 1932, New York 1973, p. 221-227]
This
work of Lenin which we submit to Polish readers was written in April
1920. At that time the international communist movement had not
passed out of its childhood; its ills were indeed those of infancy.
Lenin,
while condemning formal "leftism" — the radicalism of
gesture and empty talk — defended no less passionately the real
revolutionary intransigence of class policy. In so doing, he had not
insured himself — alas, far from it — against misuse by the
opportunists of various breeds, who, since the publication of this
work twelve years ago, have quoted it hundreds and thousands of times
with the aim of defending unprincipled conciliation.
At
this time, in the conditions of world crisis, left wings in many
countries are detaching themselves from the Social Democracy. These
groups, on falling into the ditch that separates communism from
reformism, usually declare that their main historic task is the
creation of a "united front" or — still more
expansively — "the unity of the workers' movement." In
fact, nothing but such features as these conciliatory slogans make up
the whole physiognomy of the Socialist Workers Party of Germany,
which is led by Seydewitz, K. Rosenfeld, old Ledebour, and others.
Very little distinguished from the Socialist Workers Party of
Germany, as far as I can judge from here, is the small Polish
political group formed around Dr. Joseph Kruk. Theoreticians of these
groups, the best of them, appeal to Lenin's Left-Wing
Communism.
Only they simply forget to explain why they have always viewed Lenin
as an incorrigible splitter.
The
essence of the Leninist united-front policy consists in giving the
proletariat the opportunity — while maintaining a fighting,
intransigent organization and program — of achieving, in closed
ranks, even a small practical step forward; on the basis of such
practical steps by the masses, Lenin strove not to conceal or soften
the political contradictions between Marxism and reformism, but,
quite the contrary, to lay them bare, to explain them to the masses,
and thus to reinforce the revolutionary wing.
The
problems of the united front constitute the substance of the problems
of tactics. We know that tactics are subordinate to strategy. The
lines of our strategy define the historic interests of the
proletariat in the light of Marxism. We do not wish, by this, to
minimize the significance of tactical problems. Strategy without its
corresponding tactic is doomed to remain a lifeless abstraction of
the study. But it is no less useless to exalt specific tactics,
whatever their importance at a given moment, into a panacea, a
universal remedy, an article of faith. The first rule in the
employment of the united-front policy is a complete and
irreconcilable break with unprincipled conciliation.
Lenin's
book seemed to deal the deathblow to sham radicalism. The Third and
Fourth Congresses of the Communist International, in their
resolutions, almost unanimously endorsed the conclusions of the book.
But during the subsequent period, the beginning of which coincided
with the illness and death of Lenin, we observe that which astonishes
at first sight: ultraleft tendencies again come to the fore, acquire
strength, lead to a series of defeats, disappear, only to reappear in
a more acute and malignant form.
Formal,
point-blank protests against an agreement of any kind with reformism,
against any united front with the Social Democracy, against the unity
of the trade-union movement, and superficial arguments for the
creation of our own "pure" trade unions, as Lenin termed
them — all these ultraleft considerations are neither more
serious nor more intelligent than the ones expounded these days, not
by the feeble pipings of infants, but by the bass bellowings of
bureaucrats. What is the reason for this amazing relapse?
We
know that political tendencies do not exist "in the air":
deviations and mistakes, if persistent and prolonged, must be rooted
in a class basis. To speak of ultraleftism without defining its
social roots is to replace Marxist analysis by "bright ideas."
The right wing, the opportunist critics of Stalinism, for example the
Brandlerites, going further, actually reduce all the mistakes of the
Comintern to a simple, ideological misunderstanding. On a
super-social, super-historical, almost mystical basis, ultraleftism
is transformed into some form of malevolent spirit such as devours
the most pious Christians.
The
problem must be approached quite differently. Events conclusively
demonstrate that these mistakes, which before were only the
expression of individual personalities or of groups, and due solely
to their practical infancy, are now exalted into a system and have
become the deliberate method of control by an existing political
current: bureaucratic
centrism.
It is not really a question of the inconsistencies of ultraleft
thinking, since the political clique that today controls the
Comintern alternates its ultraleft mistakes with opportunist practice
And sometimes the Stalinist faction, instead of alternating between
radicalism and opportunism, uses both simultaneously in different
matters, in direct relation to the needs of its factional struggle.
Thus,
at this moment, we see on the one hand a refusal on principle to
carry through any policy of agreements, whatever they may be, with
the German Social Democracy and on the other hand we witness the
antiwar congress, called together through agreements with bourgeois
and petty-bourgeois pacifists, French Radicals, Freemasons, or with
pretentious individuals of the Barbusse type who consider it their
particular mission to "unite the Second and Third
Internationals.”
Those
simple and, as always, exhaustive arguments that Lenin advanced in
favor of "agreements," of "compromises," of
inevitable concessions, all unsurpassably serve to demonstrate the
limits which these methods must not transgress without most certainly
transforming them into their opposite.
The
tactic of a united front is not a universal panacea. It is subjected
to a higher test: does it effect the unification of the proletarian
vanguard on
the basis of an intransigent Marxist policy?
The art of leadership consists in defining, in each case, on the
basis of a concrete class relationship, with whom, to what end, and
to what limits the united front is acceptable, and at what moment it
must be broken.
If
one were to seek the perfect model of the way in which the united
front should not and cannot be formed, one could not find a better —
or rather, a worse — example than the Amsterdam congress of "all
classes and all parties" against war. This example deserves
examination point by point.
1.
The Communist Party in each and every agreement, temporary or
prolonged, must stand openly under its own flag.
Yet
at Amsterdam, parties, as such, were ignored! As though the struggle
against war were not a political task, and consequently a task of
political parties! As though that struggle did not demand the most
complete clarity and the most strict precision of thought! As though
any organization other than the party were capable of formulating as
completely and as clearly as the party the question of the struggle
against war! And yet the real organizer of this congress, that
ignored party, was none other than the Communist International
itself!
2.
The Communist Party must seek a united front, not with individual
lawyers or journalists, not with sympathetic acquaintances, but with
the mass organizations of the workers, and consequently, in the first
place, with the Social Democrats. But a united front with the Social
Democrats was excluded from the very outset. Even a united-front
offer to the Social Democrats — to test openly the influence of
the pressure of the Social Democratic masses upon their leaders —
was declared inadmissible!
3.
Precisely because the policy of the united front carries within
itself opportunist dangers, it is the duty of the Communist Party to
avoid every kind of dubious mediation and secret diplomacy behind the
backs of the workers. Yet the Communist International judged it
necessary to put forward — as formal banner-bearer and organizer,
as behind-the-scenes negotiator — the French writer Barbusse, who
supported himself on the worst Elements of both reformism and
communism. Without giving notice to the masses, but obviously with
the backing of the presidium of the Comintern, Barbusse had "talks"
on the subject of the congress with — Frederick
Adler.
The united front from above is banned, is it not? Yet as we see from
this, through the mediation of Barbusse, it is acceptable! It is
unnecessary to mention that the wire pullers of the Second
International are miles ahead of Barbusse in the field of political
maneuvering. Barbusse’s behind-the-scenes diplomacy presented the
Second International with highly advantageous excuses for shirking
participation in the congress.
4.
The Communist Party has the right, and even the duty, to win for its
cause even the weakest of allies — if they are real allies! But
in so doing it must not repel the working masses, who are its
essential ally. Yet the participation in the congress of individual
bourgeois politicians, members of the leading party of imperialist
France, cannot but repel the French socialist workers from communism.
Nor will it be easy to explain to the German proletariat why one may
march side by side with the vice-president of Herriot's party, or
with the pacifist General Schoenaich, while at the same time it is
declared inadmissible to make proposals for common action against war
to the reformist workers' organizations.
5.
It is most dangerous in applying the policy of the united front to
have a false estimate of one's allies — when false allies are
presented as true, the workers are deceived at the outset. Yet this
is the crime that the organizers of the Amsterdam congress have
committed and are committing.
The
French bourgeoisie is now, as a whole, "pacifist” — that
is not at all surprising: every victor endeavors to prevent the
defeated from preparing its war of revenge. The French bourgeoisie
seeks, always and everywhere, guarantees of peace in order that the
fruits of their pillage shall be held sacrosanct and inviolable.
The
left wing of petty-bourgeois pacifism is prepared, in seeking these
guarantees, even to ally itself with the Comintern. An episodic
alliance! On the day war is declared, such pacifists will side with
their own governments. The French workers will be told: "In our
fight for peace, we went to the utmost extremes, even to the
Amsterdam congress. But war has been forced on us — we stand for
the defense of the fatherland." The participation of French
pacifists in the congress binds them to nothing, and at the moment of
the declaration of war will entirely benefit French imperialism. On
the other hand, in the event of war for equal rights in the field of
international brigandage, General Schoenaich and his like will be
entirely on the side of their German fatherland and will exploit to
the full their newly acquired Amsterdam authority in its service.
The
Indian bourgeois nationalist, Patel, participated in the Amsterdam
congress for the same reason that Chiang Kai-shek participated with
"a consulting voice" in the Comintern. Such participation
will, without doubt, increase the authority of the "nationalist
leaders" in the eyes of the masses of the people. To any Indian
Communist who at a meeting calls Patel and his friends traitors,
Patel will reply: "Were I a traitor, I would not have been an
ally of the Bolsheviks at Amsterdam." So the Stalinists have
armed the Indian bourgeoisie against the Indian workers.
6.
Agreement in the name of a practical objective must in no case be at
the cost of concessions in principle, of silence on essential
differences, of ambiguous formulations that permit each participant
to interpret them in his own way. Yet the manifesto of the Amsterdam
congress is drawn up entirely on the basis of subterfuge and double
meaning, of play upon words, of hiding contradictions, of flamboyant
meaningless speeches, of solemn declarations which lead to nothing.
Members of bourgeois parties and liars of Freemasonry "condemn"
capitalism! Pacifists "condemn" pacifism! Then on the very
next day after the congress General Schoenaich, in an article printed
in Münzenberg's paper, declares himself a pacifist! And the French
bourgeois who has condemned capitalism returns to the ranks of his
capitalist party and gives his vote of confidence to Herriot. Isn't
this a scandalous masquerade, a shameful charlatanism?
Marxist
intransigence, obligatory when realizing the united front in general,
becomes doubly or trebly so when it is a question of a problem as
acute as war. The resolute voice of that one man Liebknecht, during
the war, had a significance incomparably greater for the development
of the German revolution than the sentimental semi-protests of the
whole Independent Social Democratic Party [USPD]. In France there was
no Liebknecht. One of the principal reasons is that in France
Freemason-Radical, socialist-trade-union pacifism builds up a sphere
cunningly snared with lies and humbug.
Lenin
insisted that in any kind of "antiwar" congress one should
not attempt to seek agreement on commonplaces, but on the contrary to
put the questions so clearly, so brutally, so precisely as to push
the pacifists into burning their fingers and drawing back — thus
providing an object lesson to all workers. Lenin wrote, in the
instructions to the Soviet delegation to the antiwar congress at The
Hague in 1922: "I think that if we have several people at The
Hague Conference who are capable of delivering speeches against war
in various languages, the most important thing would be to refute the
opinion that the delegates at the conference are opponents of war,
that they understand how war may and will come upon them at the most
unexpected moment, that they to any extent understand what methods
should be adopted to combat war, that they are to any extent in a
position to adopt reasonable and effective measures to combat war"
[Collected
Works,
volume 33, "Notes on the Tasks of Our Delegation at The Hague,"
December 4, 1922].
Just
picture for a moment Lenin voting at Amsterdam on the empty and
grandiloquent manifesto, hand in hand with the French Radical G.
Bergery, with the German general Schoenaich, with the nationalist
liberal Patel! One could not better measure the depths to which the
epigones have fallen than by the monstrous character of this picture.
In
this book by Lenin there is not a single formula which we do not
adhere to today. Today, twelve years after this book was written,
there has constituted itself — based on a systematic alteration of
Leninist policy and misuse of quotations from Lenin — a definite
tendency, bureaucratic centrism, a tendency that did not exist when
Lenin wrote his book.
It
is not hard to explain why the Stalinist tendency exists. It has
social support: the millions of bureaucrats, bred by a revolution,
victorious but isolated in a single country. The separate caste
interests of the bureaucracy create in it opportunist and nationalist
tendencies. But, nevertheless, it is the bureaucracy of a workers’
state,
encircled by a bourgeois world. At every moment it collides with the
Social Democratic bureaucracy of capitalist countries. The Soviet
bureaucracy, dictating the direction of the Comintern, imposes on it
the contradictions of its own situation. The whole policy of the
epigones' leadership oscillates between opportunism and adventurism.
Ultraleftism
has ceased to be an infantile sickness. It is now one of the methods
of self-preservation of a faction pulled more and more by the
developments of the world proletarian vanguard. The struggle against
centrist bureaucracy is now the first duty of every Marxist. Were
there no other reasons, for this reason alone we should greet warmly
this Polish edition of Lenin's admirable work.