Leon Trotsky: Against Desistance For the Radicals

Late 1934 or Early 1935

[Writing of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 14, New York 1979, p. 563 f.]

I find the position of the comrades who propose to desist in favor of the Radicals absolutely false and even incomprehensible — conditionally or unconditionally does not matter. The argument — that the Radicals must be unmasked by allowing them to make their experiment — is absolutely abstract and unhistorical. The political crisis in France arises precisely from the fact that Radicalism has made an experiment that coincides more or less with that of the Third Republic. If the middle classes do not break with Radicalism rapidly, it is not because they have any great illusions in its political possibilities, but because they do not see any upsurge. Fascism, which wishes to (and may) succeed Radicalism, is far from supporting it or taking the least responsibility for its actions or words. On the contrary, at the present stage fascism is more implacable toward Radicalism and the Freemasons than toward the workers’ organizations.

The fascist policy is absolutely correct. An upsurge must present itself to the middle classes as a force absolutely distinct from Radicalism and irreconcilably opposed to it. The same road is indicated for the proletariat. Every hesitation on this question will be fatal.

Analogies from Kerensky and Kornilov are really badly chosen. It was not a matter of elections when Kerensky was in the same government as Kornilov, but of an armed struggle against Kerensky by Kornilov. The Bolsheviks were of course ready to fight Kornilov side by side with Kerensky’s detachments. But without the least political responsibility for his [Kerensky’s] party. As for those Radicals who are ready to fight against the fascists or to help the workers to arm, we are naturally ready to accept their aid — and this is the only acceptable form of united front with the handful of Radicals that really want to fight. But this has nothing in common with resistance at the time of the parliamentary or municipal elections — or else our pledge to oppose “national unity” means absolutely nothing.