Leon
Trotsky: An Advocate Takes Up a Position on the French Situation
September
22, 1934
[Writings
of Leon Trotsky, Vol 7, 1934-1935, New York 1971, p. 95-99]
1.
The turn in France has aroused passionate and prolonged discussion.
Nothing could be more natural. We learn by experience and we analyze
our experience by the Marxist method. Only the International
Bolshevik-Leninists can allow themselves such a discussion.
The
little faint hearts of the SAP, who yesterday were making common
cause against us with the miserable de Kadt,
are
talking today of our "annihilation."
We
have an ideological tradition. We have a clear-cut program. We give a
clear-cut answer to every question. Answers from our sections agree
in the main, without being arranged in advance. That means that we
have trained cadres. If we form blocs with other organizations or if
one of our sections even enters the Socialist Party, we do this
always in the name of our principles, which prove incontrovertible
and which we are learning and shall learn to apply to the conditions
of each country.
2.
Our internal discussion must now pass from the stage of perspectives,
hypotheses and proposals into the stage of analyzing application. We
must study the most recent experience of our French section. The
experience is still very short, but very important. The first step
along the new path already shows the complete incorrectness of the
objections raised by the opponents of the entry. It is precisely for
this reason that they have to change their arguments daily and even
shift the field of discussion, to say nothing of the "intransigents"
who have already entered the Socialist Party so as to fight us there.
3.
What did the opponents who were guided only by ideological and
political considerations say? Let us take the document that contains
the position of the majority of the Belgian section. In it we read:
"How are we to conceive that we enter the SFIO as
an independent political faction, retaining its own banner and its
organ?
Is this not to be premature and to leave the strength of the SFIO
bureaucracy out of account? The history of left socialist groups
teaches us that the Social Democratic parties can no longer afford to
let revolutionary factions grow within them." We ask the Belgian
comrades: Have you read the special issue (Number 4) of Combat
des Jeunes
and Number 220 of La
Vérité?
If the expression "entry with banner unfurled" has a
meaning, Combat
des Jeunes
and La
Vérité are
that unfurled banner, and nevertheless Le
Populaire
has published advertisements for La
Vérité
four times, and it has already been possible for our comrades to be
taken into the SFIO. Such a fact would be impossible in Belgium,
Holland or many other countries. It can be explained by the present
situation of the Socialist Party in France. The basic error of the
Belgian document consists in the fact that it treats Social Democracy
as an abstraction, independent of time and place, instead of
analyzing what the real state of affairs is with the SFIO. Read the
passage quoted above again, and you will be convinced of this. In the
whole document devoted to the entry into the SFIO there is not a word
of the peculiarities of this party or its state at the moment in
comparison with, say, the Belgian Labor Party (POB).
4.
The opponents said, "The entry into the SFIO means almost
automatically the abandonment of the slogan of the Fourth
International." Read Combat
des Jeunes
and La
Vérité Our
section entered the SFIO to fight for
the Fourth International there.
5.
Not the slightest reconciliation with Social Democracy as
a system of ideas and actions
is possible for us. But this system of ideas is represented in
different ways in living bodies. In certain circumstances they begin
to fall apart. The system as such collapses. It is replaced by a
struggle of different tendencies, and this struggle can create a
situation that demands our immediate and direct intervention and even
organizational entry into the Socialist Party.
6.
The Belgian document sees only "the system of ideas" and
not the living body of the workers' organizations. This basic error
is also shown in the way the document brings up the Russian
experience: "The supporters of entry into the SFIO seem to
forget that the break between the two basic tendencies of the
workers' movement took place in 1903 in the Russian Social
Democracy." This view is mechanical in method and incorrect in
content. For the authors of the document, it seems that after the
1903 split there were two absolute entities, Bolshevism and
Menshevism, which developed in two different parts of the universe.
That is pure metaphysics. The history of the struggle of Bolshevism
against Menshevism is in fact rich in lessons. It is a pity the
document makes use of it in a one-sided, abstract, formalistic
manner.
7.
History did not stop in 1903. The split turned out to have been too
early, that is, not in tune with the objective situation and the
mentality of the masses, and the Bolsheviks had to reunite with the
Mensheviks at the end of 1906. But here the document interrupts us:
"It is admittedly true that under the pressure of the masses
toward unity there came about a link between the Bolsheviks and the
Mensheviks in 1906. In our opinion, an alliance
of two factions of the workers' movement is to be equated with a
united front Hence the historical reference is no more relevant than
the first one (to Marx)." I am very sorry to have to say that
this is turning the Russian experience upside down. It was a case not
of an alliance
or a united front but of a fusion
of the two parties,
confirmed by the Stockholm congress of 1906, and this united party,
though split by factional struggle, existed till 1912, i.e., six
years. What does this error arise from? From the fact that the
authors of the document are not even able to conceive that the two
absolutely irreconcilable "essences" (after the 1903 split)
could come closer again and find accommodation together in a single
party. The historical error is the product of the metaphysical
method.
8.
The attempt has been made to scare us with the prediction that the
entry "would be exploited to the full by the Stalinists"
(document of the Belgian majority). We replied, "The Stalinists,
who are fraternizing with the Socialist bureaucracy, will not be able
to accuse us of betrayal, of capitulation to reformism, etc., at
least not before new orders."
The
facts have proved us right Of course the Stalinists are attacking us,
but not as abettors of reformism but, on the contrary, as destroyers
of the Socialist Party. They warn the Young Socialists "fraternally”
of our diabolical tricks (L’Avantgarde).
That means that it is the Stalinists who are appearing as helpers,
indeed as lackeys, of the reformist bureaucracy against us, and not
as revolutionary accusers. If one still required this confirmation of
the correctness of our turn, it is to be found in the columns of the
Stalinist press. *
9.
Who is playing revolutionary accuser? The Bordigists and Co. With
them it is very simple. They speak only in the name of eternity. They
still regard themselves, if I am not wrong, as a faction of the Third
International. What does that mean? Nothing. They might as well
regard themselves as a faction of the Salvation Army.
It
would really be wasted effort to pay even the slightest attention to
these premature corpses. The ideas, wants and criticism of a simple
member of the Young Socialist Guard [JGS] of Belgium are a hundred
times more important for our orientation and our methods than the
learned nonsense of Bilan.
10.
What is important is to study experience. The Socialist youth of
France has received our comrades and their Combat
des Jeunes
with open arms. They have guaranteed them the organizational
seniority rights on the basis of their connection with the Leninist
youth. The bureaucratic apparatus declared this decision invalid as
being in conflict with the statutes. The sections of the Socialist
youth had to make do with a protest resolution. This significant fact
shows that the view the majority of the League had of the relations
between the base and apparatus is confirmed by the facts, at least as
far as the youth is concerned.
11.
Does this mean that everything is assured? Far from it Not a few
difficulties are caused by the intrigues and calumnies of the
unrestrained elements of the minority who try to blacken the League
in the eyes of the Socialists. But that is not the problem. These
people, who go from one extreme to the other, only show their
emptiness and liquidate themselves.
There
are more important factors that can turn against us. The situation in
and around the SFIO may change. The bureaucracy may set about
radically getting rid of us. Even if that should occur tomorrow, we
can already register considerable gains: the League is oriented
toward the masses; the prejudices of a self-satisfied and barren
sectarianism are uncovered; the connections with the best Socialist
elements are established; our publications have undergone an
unprecedented increase in circulation and in entirely new circles.
Even more, our youth as Socialists have for the first time had the
opportunity of approaching the Stalinists "to discuss with them
in comradely fashion." And all this despite the indisputable
fact that the "substances" Bolshevism and Menshevism are
more irreconcilable than ever.
12.
However, expulsion does not stand on the agenda. We must work and
root ourselves. To that end we must not turn to the ultraleft
conservatives, must not justify ourselves before the shrill
accusation of people who lost all balance and all sense of
responsibility (Bauer and others), but rather speak in language
understandable by Socialist and non-party workers who seek a way out
of the impasse.
13.
Our Swiss section writes that, after negotiations and political as
well as theoretical discussion, the four hundred members of the
Zurich Socialist youth proposed to our comrades to enter into their
organization as a Bolshevik-Leninist faction, guaranteeing them in
advance full freedom of action and a place in the leadership and on
the editorial board. Can we accept these conditions? Yes or no? If
the conditions are correctly represented, the only answer is: We must
enter into the Socialist youth. It would be a mistake, more, a crime,
even worse, sectarian stupidity, not to enter.
All
our sections must study not only the far-removed experience of the
struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism in Russia but also the
living experience of our French League as well as the claims and
forecasts of both sides through their confirmation by reality. Each
section will draw precious lessons from it. It is a question not of
applying the same procedure under different conditions but of
learning how to proceed suitably in a national and even local
situation. Each section must make a survey of all organizations,
groups and strata of the proletariat in order to understand how to
intervene in time and how to propagate ideas by realistic means.