Leon Trotsky: Letter to a Group of SAP Comrades

(January 11, 1934)

[Writings of Leon Trotsky, Vol 6, 1933-1934, New York ²1975, p. 201-208, title: “The SAP, the ICL and the Fourth International”]

Dear Comrades,

In your letter of December 27, you raise some questions, both specific and general. I shall try to answer them as fully as possible.

The history of the inception and development of the SAP is known to you. After splitting from the [German Social Democratic] party, the opposition wing of the Social Democracy gained the possibility of progressive development Splitting away from their organization [KPO], a minority of the Brandlerites gained the possibility of moving forward. These two groups were drawn together both by their progressive sides (their break with the old bureaucracy) and by their negative sides (their theoretical amorphousness, lack of clear strategic conception and so forth). However, the evolution of the SAP was mechanically cut short by the Nazi overturn. But from it, certain leaders of the SAP have drawn absolutely erroneous notions as regards the political significance of their own experience and the conditions for the formation of a revolutionary party in general.

The fight of the SAP against the Communist League does not bear a progressive character; it is conservative; it is a fight to preserve its own amorphousness and its privilege not to think out political ideas to their conclusion. As always happens in such cases, this struggle is refracted in the consciousness of the comrades of the SAP and appears to them as a struggle against our "sectarianism." A revolutionary organization whose cadres have not absorbed into their blood and bones the strategic lessons of the last decade cannot possess, under present conditions, the necessary force of resistance to the decomposing tendencies; and, in any case, it will prove incapable of leading real masses.

In defining sectarianism, the leaders of the SAP resort not to the Marxist criterion but to the trade unionist, that is, to the measure of bare numbers, "the mass". They have failed to grasp the laws that govern the transition of a principled quality into a mass quantity; they have not pondered over the objective and subjective preconditions that are necessary for such a transition.

This is how comrades of the SAP often put the question: Why is it that, with correct principles, with a Marxist analysis of events and so forth, the Left Opposition remains so isolated? The answer is clear: because it lacks the skill of keeping quiet about its own principles and of adapting itself to different ones. Such an argument exposes completely the anti-historical, anti-dialectical and vulgar thinking of the critics themselves. Our great teachers, Marx and Engels, remained in a state of frightful political isolation from 1850 to 1864. The Russian revolutionists, with Lenin at their head, were cruelly isolated from 1907 to 1912, and as late as July 1914 their isolation assumed a character almost hermetic. Our critics, who are little given to meditation, have overlooked the following facts of no little importance:

1. The Russian Left Opposition, which expressed the most consistent, dynamic tendencies of the Russian proletariat, must have become weakened in proportion as the bureaucracy grew out of the revolution and pushed the proletariat into the background.

2. The Left Opposition, which expressed the connection between the October Revolution and the international revolution, must have become weakened in proportion as the weakness of the international revolution manifested itself.

3. The Left Opposition was dealt the first cruel blow immediately after the capitulation of the German Communist Party in 1923; the defeat of the Polish proletariat and of the English General Strike in 1926, by weakening the world proletarian vanguard, weakened the Left Opposition, the vanguard of the vanguard; the collapse of the Chinese Revolution of 1927 swung the scales decisively in favor of the theory and practice of "socialism in one country”; and finally, without dwelling on a whole series of intermediate events of the same type, the German catastrophe of 1933 dealt the crudest blow to the world proletariat With these unheard-of historical defeats as a background, the Opposition was able to educate by its theoretical analysis numerically small cadres, but could not lead the masses.

4. The decline and the demoralization of the Comintern could not but compromise, in the eyes of the masses, all revolutionary groupings, especially those that were connected with the Comintern by their origin.

5. Finally, one must add the eleven years' campaign of slander organized by the Stalinist bureaucracy over the whole world. In the entire political history of mankind, there is hardly to be found a persecution so rich in financial resources and in apparatus, so systematic and persistent, so poisoned in content, and that, at the same time, was covered by the authority of the first workers' state.

The leaders of the SAP shut their eyes to all these "trifles." And in addition, they forget to point out where is to be found another revolutionary grouping besides ours that has disclosed its ability to lead the masses during this period. If some organization or other, the SAP in particular, did achieve partial, purely empirical, in the nature of things, episodic and, besides, extremely unstable "successes," it is indebted for this to a great degree to the critical and political work of the Left Opposition.

Finally — and at the present time this is of the utmost practical importance — there are facts by the hundred and the thousand that demonstrate to those who are able to decipher political symptoms that the Left Opposition has already broken through the blockading ring. The Left Opposition is penetrating into diverse working-class circles and preparing the triumph of revolutionary Marxism on a new historical stage. Among the number of such symptoms is the behavior of the SAP itself. While with its right hand, the SAP, together with Tranmæl, signed the equivocal, diplomatic and also harmful resolution, with its left hand, it found itself compelled to sign, together with us, the declaration in favor of the Fourth International — the only progressive revolutionary document of the last period. Obviously this document could not result in immediate miracles; but it will find its way despite the vacillations of even those who are among the number of signatories.

To have a basis for their right to ideological amorphousness, the leaders of the SAP have invented a special theory, which may be summed up in the phrase, "don't speak about things as they are." Contrary to everything we have been taught by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and flying in the face of what our own experience teaches us, this principle is based upon an unconscious or semiconscious confusion of a pedagogic and an agitational approach to a particular group in a particular instance with the principled position of a party in its relations to the proletariat, other parties and historic events.

At a gathering of workers who are monarchists or Catholics, I would deal cautiously with the altar and the throne But in the program of my party and in all its policies, its relation to religion and monarchy must be formulated with absolute exactness. At a meeting of a reformist trade union, I, as a member of the union, might be compelled to leave much unsaid; but the party as a whole, in its papers, its public meetings, pamphlets and proclamations, is duty bound to say everything.

Should police conditions compel the legal press to be cautious in its formulations, the party must have an illegal press besides. When Marxists demand that "things be spoken of as they are," they have in mind not every isolated speech in some special situation or other but the policy of the party as a whole. The party that for "tactical" reasons hides its position is no revolutionary party, because it repels the advanced workers, because it adapts itself to the prejudices of the backward workers. And the backward workers can be reeducated only through the advanced workers.

But even at a particular meeting, while using all the tact necessary in approaching a given group, one must not forget that among them there are workers on different levels and that, while it may be necessary to adapt oneself to the backward ones in the method of exposition, it is impermissible to adapt one's political position to them. Thus, for instance, there cannot, at present, be a single, political mass meeting at which revolutionary Marxists are not obliged to bring forward the idea of the Fourth International in one form or another. Even though today this slogan musters only a handful numerically, it is nevertheless immeasurably more important and fruitful than repeating general phrases or presenting criticism that may be correct but that fails to draw the clear and necessary conclusions. In any case, no "tactical" considerations can condone fraternization and embraces with political fakers and traitors in the eyes of the workers.

The most important strategical lessons of the last decade have been formulated by us in the eleven points that you are acquainted with. These brief theses are based upon the collective work of the International Left Opposition. Before discussing "sectarianism," one should determine one's own attitude to the basic problems formulated in these eleven points. This has always been our demand to the comrades of the SAP, and we continue to demand precisely this today. Without a specific criticism of our principled position and the methods flowing from it, the charge of "sectarianism" can remain only so much empty sound.

Had the leaders of the SAP studied the documents, pondered and discussed the tragic experience of the Anglo-Russian Committee, which was of some historical significance, they would not be making now the experiment of their own "German-Norwegian Committee," a pale copy of the pathetic original. It would not take much effort to demonstrate that all the arguments brought in defense of the unprincipled and hopeless bloc with Tranmæl are only repetitions, almost word for word, of the arguments used by Stalin, Bukharin and Lozovsky in defense of their bloc with Purcell and Citrine. Disregard for theory, which is only the generalization of the practice of the past, takes its cruel revenge in this given instance also.

Occasionally one may hear the following reproach from our allies: the Left Opposition analyzes the situation quite realistically, and it advances the correct slogans; but why does it take such an intransigent attitude toward those organizations that stand outside of the Second and Third Internationals? Why does it demand from them "100 percent" Marxism? Behind this extremely characteristic approach there is hidden an entire world attitude in which there is hardly to be found 51 percent Marxism.

A revolutionary organization must, of course, study most attentively the objective situation in order not to mistake its own desires for the mood of the masses. But the party will be able to utilize the objective conditions and gain the leadership of the masses only provided it has the following: ideological cohesion, fighting unanimity and invincible discipline. The chief historical instrument of our epoch is the party of the proletariat This instrument must be forged of the best steel, well tempered and sharply ground. Only if such an instrument exists is it possible to work successfully upon the raw historic material.

A realistic study of objective conditions, on the one hand, and an irreconcilable strictness in one's relation to one's own party, on the other hand — these are two organically indissoluble sides of Marxism. Without a scientific orientation, without an accounting of the condition of the masses, without paying attention to external impediments, one can have only the policies of sectarianism and adventurism. Without a day-to-day struggle for principled purity and for the intransigence of the party, one can have only petty-bourgeois floundering in the waves of history.

You are no doubt aware that, together with my closest German friends, I stood for a merger as soon as possible with the SAP, hoping that the education of a unified organization would be hastened by our joint experience coupled with mutual criticism. But after initial vacillations, the leaders of the SAP have rejected the merger. The immediate reason was provided by the question relating to the Norwegian Labor Party (or what is practically one and the same thing, the London Bureau). They refused to merge with us in order to have the possibility of continuing their hapless romance with Tranmæl

A special theory has been advanced in order to adorn this uncouth reality: the theory of the excessive influence of a single "personality," the danger of a "personal" regime and so forth. From the viewpoint of Marxism, individuals are dangerous or useful depending upon what ideas and methods they represent Fortunately, or unfortunately, none of us has at his disposal any means other than the means of exerting ideological influence; that is, we have neither state power nor control of the treasury connected with it nor any hired agencies. Under these conditions, the pretended dread of "personality” is, in reality, fear of certain definite ideas. Semi-hostility in one's relation to the principles of the Left Opposition goes hand in hand with the urge to preserve one's right to amorphousness, which seemingly is capable of engendering a great attractive power for the "masses."

In order to justify their gravitation toward Tranmæl, Maurin and the like — certainly, oh, most certainly! for the sake of the "masses” — a legend has been put into circulation that we have made it our goal to "compromise" the leaders of the SAP and to tear away their followers from them. It is self-evident that every ideological and political struggle bears within it the danger of lowering the authority of those leaders who stubbornly continue in their mistakes and who screen with ad hominem arguments their inclination to sit on a fence.

Precisely because of this, I urged a merger so that the necessary discussion could take its place in an orderly and friendly manner within the framework of a single organization. The idea of using any sort of artificial measures to "compromise?' and "eliminate” the leaders of the SAP is so absurd as to make it hardly worthwhile to dwell on. We are only too well aware how poorly we are equipped at present with qualified revolutionary workers, and because of this we are least of all inclined to reduce their number artificially. And besides, what motives could there be for this? As a matter of fact, those comrades who do not wish to part company with their attitude of going fifty-fifty feel that the criticism of fence-sitting is malicious personal criticism. Such has always been the case.

For better or for worse, it was not possible to realize the merger at the given stage. Our German section must, of course, resume its complete organizational freedom. Does this imply a break with the SAP in the sphere of preparing the Fourth International? No, that would be wrong. The formation of the Fourth International is a very complex process, and in this process I trust that the activities of the International Communist League will play a very prominent role, but still, not the only one.

You express the desire that the League should become the axis around which would crystallize all those revolutionary elements that have broken with the Second and Third Internationals. This formulation is correct but, as you yourselves realize, it is not quite complete. Also included must be the youth, who belong to neither International and who compose the great reservoir of the future. But even the adherence of groups that split away from the old Internationals must not be thought of as following a straight line altogether. For instance, the members of the SAP split away from the two old Internationals, then drew close to us but wavered, halting at a certain distance away from us.

Does this imply that we must reject all attempts at joint work with them? This would be real sectarianism, in the spirit of the Bordigists who think that they will continue sucking their own fingers until history comes to its senses and begs them to take the lead. Propagating the ideas of the Left Opposition, recruiting more and more new adherents, individually and in groups, into the ranks of the International Communist League, carrying on an agitation among the masses under the slogan of the Fourth International, educating our own cadres, deepening our theoretical position — such is our basic work in the historic period immediately ahead of us. But this work does not exclude mergers, agreements and blocs with organizations drawing close to us who desire to work for the creation of the new International.

True, for the last period the leaders of the SAP have been evincing an ever-greater friendliness to the right in relations with centrists and even reformists, and an increasing hostility in relation to us. Should this evolution proceed further in the same direction, it would, of course, signify the break of the SAP with us and, coupled with this, the inevitable collapse of the SAP itself, because, as was said above, only a principled and tempered organization standing under international control can possess the force of resistance to the decomposing tendencies of our epoch. I do not think, however, that matters as regards the SAP are hopeless. If our arguments failed to help or did not help sufficiently, then the saving action will come from the actions of the "friends" from the right One need have no doubts that Tranmæl and Co. will provide in the immediate future a few objective lessons to those Utopians who deem it possible to transform enemies into friends by dint of skillful manipulations.

It would be an unlawful pretense, to say nothing of adventurism, to proclaim that the new International has already been established today. Of course, you do not demand this.

We are erecting only the foundation and preparing the timber. But over this timber, we, at this very moment, unfurl the banner of the Fourth International so that all shall know what sort of structure is being erected. Should some participant or other in the construction tomorrow arrive at the conclusion that the work is beyond his powers or not to his liking, we would be sorry, but we would go on putting up the walls. In the interests of joint work, we are ready to make reasonable concessions in all practical questions; but we do not place the fate of the Fourth International in dependence upon the goodwill of this or that ally.

At this moment we are working out documents dealing with the fundamental questions of proletarian strategy, first and foremost, the relation to war. We will strain every effort in order to achieve unanimity on this question with our allies. Should we fail, we shall issue the documents in our own name. Life waits on no one. To give Marxist answers to events in time means to build the new International.

What position should you take under the conditions in which you find yourselves? I think that one must begin with principled self-determination. As matters stand today (through no fault of ours), you must choose between the League and the SAP. From your letter it is apparent that your group has not determined its position on the question of the Norwegian Labor Party, the London Bureau and so forth. Concurrently, these and analogous questions will serve as touchstones for the determination of a correct Marxist line in the course of the next few months. You are duty bound to determine your own position. Of course, not within the next twenty-four hours; the documents must be studied, the necessary data collected, the question of today must be compared with the experience of the Anglo-Russian Committee and so forth. Should all this not prove sufficient, it will then be necessary to postpone the final decision until new events have brought the test Personally I have not the slightest doubt that the events in this question as in all major questions will work for the International Communists. Needless to say, I should like to infect you too with this assurance in order to attract you to come over to our ranks.

With International Communist greetings,

L. Trotsky