Leon Trotsky: Building a New International and the United Front Policy

August 24, 1933

[Writing of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 13. Supplement (1929-1933), New York 1979, p. 279-281]

1. The building of a new International presupposes joint work and ever closer organizational ties among the revolutionary political parties on the basis of a program meeting all the problems of our epoch.

2. A united front policy presupposes an agreement of labor organizations (political, trade union, etc.) to work together, regardless of their positions on questions of principle, for the sake of some particular practical aim — not permanent cooperation, but a coming to terms from instance to instance, for a period of time limited by the nature of the task itself.

3. No revolutionary proletarian party can carry out correct policies on the international arena if it does not make a sharp distinction between systematic work in building a new International and episodic, although also very important, agreements of a “united front” type.

4. A successful united front policy can be conducted on an international scale (the struggle against fascism, boycott of Hitler’s Germany, the struggle against the danger of war in general and against intervention in the USSR in particular) only if there exists a firmly tempered international nucleus, that is, a union of several proletarian parties on a solid programmatic basis and with a clear political perspective. Only such a union or alliance, constituting the first stage of development of a new International, is able to mobilize more organizations with more massive followings in the name of this or that combat task.

5. The proposed composition of the Paris conference is unquestionably based on a confusion between two distinct tasks: that of building a new International and that of organizing a united front. To go further along this path with eyes closed would be to dissolve the revolutionary proletarian parties in a formless conglomeration of organizations which do not know clearly what they want. Such a course would be equally disastrous for the new International and for the tasks of the united front.

6. To bring some clarity into the nature of the interrelations of the various organizations taking part in the Paris conference (or as yet proposed only to be invited) the nucleus of revolutionary organizations ought to immediately unite around a definite programmatic document that would formulate the principles they hold in common and would openly pose the task of building a new International. The draft of such a declaration (see the enclosed) should be discussed, revised, written up, and signed well before the opening of the conference. There is every reason to assume that at least four organizations (the SAP, RSP, OSP, and ILO) could unite around such a declaration.

7. There is no need for guesswork about whether such a declaration would be immediately supported by the Swedish [Independent] Communist Party (Kilbom), the Norwegian organization Mot Dag, or the British Independent Labour Party (ILP). Even if they do not adhere to it, the declaration would still become a powerful instrument for influencing them in the future. The declaration’s sphere of influence will grow together with the formation of the new International. After a short time, say, two months, the declaration would be replaced by a manifesto of the new International.

8. It is quite obvious that the Norwegian Labor Party (NAP) cannot in any case accept our declaration, which contradicts its politics entirely. But that does not at all mean we should reject any cooperation whatsoever with the NAP. It is simply that our relations with them must be based not on the program of the new International but on general united-front methods. Thus, for example, in fighting for the convening of a world congress of labor organizations the NAP could if it wished hold its own position.

9. If the ILP in Britain, the Swedish party of Kilbom, and others refuse now to adhere to our declaration, our relations with them at the present stage would be those of the united front, which of course would not exclude these organizations from joining the new International at a later stage.

10. The Leninbund, for example, could not adhere to our declaration in view of our irreconcilable differences on the nature of the Soviet state and on our obligations in this respect. To make concessions in this area to Comrade Urbahns’s theories concerning “state capitalism” would be to render our entire declaration valueless and to lay the basis for future internal explosions within the very heart of the new International.

11. It will not hurt at this point to skip over any evaluation of other organizations and groups attached to or drawn toward the Paris conference. Some of them are of no interest whatsoever, either from the point of view of revolutionary cadres or of mass organizations. Thus the PUPists can only compromise any body that might endure them for any time within its ranks. But secondary questions like these solve themselves with no difficulty if the correct fundamental line has been adopted.

12. It is necessary to begin, then, with a declaration of four (or even three) organizations that are closest to one another already. It would be an error to try to come to an agreement on the text of the declaration from the very start with such organizations as the British ILP or Kilbom’s party. That approach would only lead to countless meetings, corrections, negotiations, vacillations — and the initiative of the more advanced organizations would be lost in the general confusion. The main rule of strategy and tactics to overcome the indecisiveness of the other organizations is that our own organization should show decisiveness. To overcome the vacillation of others, it is necessary to stop vacillating oneself. If the ILP or Kilbom’s party agrees with much but not all of our declaration, they can support it with stated reservations, additions, etc., over their own signatures. In that case, every advanced worker would have a clear picture of the political relations between us. We can ask for nothing more. Diplomacy and hide-and-seek are alien to us. The new International can only be built by an honest statement of what really is.