Leon
Trotsky: Letter to Maurice Dommanget
August
10, 1934
[Writings
of Leon Trotsky, Vol 7, 1934-1935, New York 1971, p. 65-68, title:
“The
Task of Revolutionary Teachers”]
Dear
Comrade,
In
this letter I shall attempt to summarize the discussion we had a few
days ago on questions concerning French teachers in general, and the
Federation Unitaire in particular.
I
cannot refrain from repeating: Monmousseau, this tightrope artist
without scruples or conscience, set a trap for us on the question of
merging the two federations, sacrificing union and revolutionary
considerations to the ruling CGTU bureaucrats' considerations of
prestige and ''pie-card" jobs. Their turn has nothing in common
with an honest acceptance of the revolutionary united front As far as
we can make out, two maneuvers are entangled in their obscure game: a
wider one, corresponding to the aims of Soviet diplomacy, and a
narrower, subordinate one, which is supposed to "satisfy"
the adventurist bankrupts of the Comintern. The semiofficial doctrine
of the ruling bureaucracy in the USSR seeks to explain the failure of
the Comintern — incontestable for them as well — by the
conservative qualities of the proletariat in the West. If the
reformists used to say that Bolshevism was no good for Europe, the
Comintern bankrupts now declare that the European proletariat is not
good enough for Bolshevism. On this issue, as on many others [three
illegible words] Western communism only represent two sides of the
same coin.
Having
thus transformed the failure of the Comintern into a failure of the
Western proletariat, the ruling bureaucrats draw the conclusion: "For
the security of the USSR, we have to look elsewhere for help. Since
the conservative proletariat is attached to democracy, nothing
remains but for us to attach ourselves to it, to support and preserve
democracy." We revolutionaries say, "To the extent that the
workers retain their confidence in democracy, we are prepared to
defend democracy with them against the fascist danger; but we can
never forgo our criticism of democratic illusions." The
Stalinists easily waive the right to criticize, since for them (the
Soviet bureaucracy) it is a question not of leading the proletariat
through the democratic stage towards the conquest of power but of
ensuring themselves international democratic support, as the only
realizable goal. French "democracy" is embodied in the
Radical Party, which cannot rule without the support of the Socialist
Party; but this party, in turn, can lend its support to the Radical
government only on condition that the Communists "shut up."
The overriding plan of the Soviet bureaucracy is to reestablish the
regime of Herriot, the "friend of the USSR," aided by Leon
Blum, freed from Thorez's
criticism
by the mechanism of the so-called united front. That is the principal
incentive of the great turn dictated by the telegraph.
To
calm the left wing of the Comintern, the Bela Kun
types,
they say: "All this is only a trick; hold your tongue and wait;
the right moment will come when we'll break open the united front,
catching the Socialist leaders asleep and unawares, and bring their
workers with us."
These
are the two entangled maneuvers. For the moment it is the first that
is operative. But if the democratic perspective leads nowhere, the
big bureaucrats can always squirm out of it by allowing the worst
Bela Kun adventurists to utilize the united front in their own
fashion.
What
is Monmousseau's place in this double and perhaps triple deal? I know
nothing about that, and Monmousseau himself knows no more than L
Nevertheless, he is sufficiently versed in Stalinist stage management
not to fear that the delicate structure propping up the turn will
collapse upon his own head. That is why, while carrying out orders,
he would really like to drag out matters, to dodge and slow things
down. Thus he was able to impose on the Montpellier congress
an
evasive and dangerous decision dodging the immediate merger of the
two federations. To put off the decision until January 1935 is not to
take the world and oneself seriously, since the coming months must
bring decisions that are all the more serious.
Let
one thing be well understood: the fascist danger is not an
agitational formula; it is an ominous reality that can soon assert
itself. The claims of Popu
and I'Huma
that "the united front has already made the fascists pull back"
are nothing but naive or dishonest bravado.
The
rise of fascism, like all historic processes of this type, is
accomplished by spasmodic leaps and twists. We are between two
spasms; that is the real key to the present situation.
And
it won't be Monmousseau who will succeed in "putting off"
the second leap until after January 1, 1935.
The
triumph of fascism would signify, in the first place, the crushing of
the cadre of revolutionary teachers. Even before it takes on the
workers' organizations, the fascist reaction will have to club its
way through the brain of the resisting civil servants and teachers.
Idle chatterboxes tell us: "The danger is far from imminent;
France is not Germany; the temperament of the French does not lend
itself to fascism." It is not our role to take such foolishness
seriously. Fascism is a product not of national temperament but of
social struggle. It becomes an unavoidable necessity for French
capitalism when its back is against the wall. And to the extent that
the national temperament opposes fascism, a fascist regime in France
will claim two or ten times the number of victims it claims
elsewhere. It is not accidental that all stages of French history
have witnessed the bloodiest of repressions.
Our
Federation Unitaire, with its 3,000 members, would be the first
mouthful for triumphant reaction. Physical self-defense alone forces
us to end our isolation and merge with the Syndicat National. Each
day we lose is an irreparable loss. Yes, I know, we are on vacation,
and many of us are enjoying it blissfully. When we look around us, we
almost have the impression of watching peasants, oblivious to danger,
tilling the slopes of Vesuvius a few moments before the fatal
eruption that will sweep away their property, their work and the
peasants themselves.
Whatever
the cost, we must find some means of overturning the dangerous
decision that the CGTU imposed upon the Montpellier congress. It is
wartime; formalities, even the most respectable ones, must yield to
supreme necessities. For my part, I am sure that a bold initiative on
the part of the federation leadership — which enjoys the full
confidence of the rank and file — would be supported by an
overwhelming majority of the federation. And merger of the two
federations — and here I agree with Delmas — would provide a
vigorous thrust for unification of the entire union movement,
shattering the bad will of the Jouhaux and Monmousseaus.
Naturally,
we can merge with the Confédérés [CGTers] only to promote the
revolutionary mobilization of the teachers. That is why we must work
out an action program that is precise, vigorous and adapted to the
situation. Witness the spectacle of Paul Faure, leader of the SFIO,
who, before the revolvers, clubs and machine guns of fascism,
develops Buddhist and Tolstoyan theories of not opposing evil by
violence! For him, the task is still to win the confidence of the
majority (51 percent) in order to bring about the socialist ideal.
But Austrian Social Democracy had its throat slit with 44 percent We
doubt Paul Faure's ability to beat their record. For even if one is
totally and exclusively committed to a democratic basis of winning
power with 51 percent of the votes, that possibility must be ensured
through armed defense against the fascist bands, just as workers are
obliged to defend the most modest of strikes by picketing. The
bourgeoisie says hypocritically: "The security of the nation
requires the arming of the nation." With utmost confidence we
can say, "The security of the proletariat's democratic rise to
power requires, above all, the arming
of the workers
and, in the first place, the creation of workers'
militias.”
Yet
here we see the Thorezes, Cachins and Monmousseaus rushing to the
defense of Paul Faure's Tolstoyan theories; it seems that only
"Trotskyist provocateurs" would oppose the armed reaction
with an armed proletariat Shameful, imbecilic sophistry! All the more
so coming from the lips of people who only yesterday still depicted
all of France (at least l'Humanité's France) as a land of barricades
and revolutionary battles. On this question the turn demonstrates
most clearly the slavish dependence of the CP and CGTU bureaucrats on
Soviet diplomacy. The Thorezes want to replace armed militias with
"self-defense of the entire proletariat." You bet! And what
becomes of the vanguard
role of the proletariat in this scheme? Without the support of the
working class, the militias are nothing, but without the militia, and
exposed to the blows of fascism, the class is very little. The
militia is the active army; the class is its great reserve. This ABC
of Marxism is abandoned, trampled upon and sullied as "Blanquism."
A teacher's self-defense — of this I am absolutely convinced —
must transform teachers into fierce propagandists and tireless
organizers of the workers'
and peasants' militias.
The aim of such a militia is defense
of the exploited masses, of their organizations, meetings, press, of
their democratic rights and social conquests.
What
I have said in this letter is not at all sufficient It is, I hope,
the beginning of an exchange of views on burning issues that directly
concern our federation, but whose implications go much further. Very
much interested in the opinions of you and other comrades, I am ready
to reply in turn. The vacation must not put us to sleep. Senator
Gautherot from Loire-Inférieure, as well as Fougères, deputy from
Indre, have already submitted questions concerning the teachers. The
reaction does not waste its time; let us not waste ours.
Fraternally,