Leon
Trotsky: On Workers' Self-Defense
October
25, 1939
[Writings
of Leon Trotsky, Vol 12, 1939-1940, New York ²1973, p. 99-105]
Every
state is a coercive organization of the ruling class. The social
regime remains stable so long as tie ruling class is capable, by
means of the state, of imposing its will on the exploited classes.
The police and the army are the most important instruments of the
state. The capitalists refrain (though not fully, by far) from
maintaining their own private armies, declining in favor of the
state, so as thus to hinder the working class from ever creating its
own armed force.
While
the capitalist system is on the rise, the state monopoly of the armed
forces is perceived as something natural, even by the oppressed
classes.
Before
the last world war, the international Social Democracy, even in its
best periods, did not even raise the question of arming the workers.
What's more, they rejected such an idea as a romantic echo of the
remote past.
It
was only in czarist Russia that the young proletariat in the first
years of this century began to resort to arming their own fighting
detachments. This revealed the instability of the old regime in the
most vivid fashion. The czarist monarchy found itself less and less
able to regulate social relations by means of its normal agencies, i.
e., the police and the army; and it was forced more and more to
resort to the aid of volunteer bands (the Black Hundreds with their
pogroms against the Jews, Armenians, students, workers, and others).
In response to this the workers, as well as various nationality
groups, began to organize their own self-defense detachments. These
facts indicated the beginning of the revolution.
In
Europe the question of armed workers' detachments arose only toward
the end of the war; in the United States it arose even later. In all
cases, without exception, it was and is the capitalist reaction that
first begins to set up special fighting organizations, which exist
side by side with the police and army of the bourgeois state. This is
explained by the fact that the bourgeoisie is more farsighted and
ruthless than the proletariat. Under the pressure of class
contradictions, it no longer relies totally on its own state, since
the state's hands are still tied to a certain extent by "democratic"
norms. The appearance of "volunteer" fighting organizations
that have as their objective the physical suppression of the
proletariat is an unmistakable symptom that the disintegration of
democracy has begun, owing to the fact that it is no longer possible
to regulate the class contradictions by the old methods.
The
hope of the reformist parties of the Second and Third Internationals
and trade unions that the organs of the democratic state would defend
them from fascist gangs has always and everywhere turned out to be an
illusion. During serious crises, the police invariably maintain a
posture of friendly neutrality, if not outright collaboration, with
respect to the counterrevolutionary gangs. However, the extreme
vitality of democratic illusions results in the workers being very
slow to take up organizing their own fighting detachments. The
designation "self-defense" fully corresponds to their
intentions, at least in the first period, because the attack
invariably originates from the side of the counterrevolutionary
gangs. Monopoly capital, which is backing them up, launches a
preventive
war
against the proletariat, in order to render it incapable of making a
socialist revolution.
The
process by which workers' self-defense detachments come into being is
inseparably linked with the entire course of the class struggle in a
country; and, therefore, reflects its inevitable aggravations and
moderations, its ebbs and flows. Revolution comes upon a society not
by a steady unbroken process, but through a series of convulsions,
separated by distinct, sometimes protracted intervals, during which
the political relations are so modified that the very idea of
revolution seems to lose any connection with reality.
In
accordance with this, the slogan of self-defense units at one time
will meet a sympathetic response, and at another will sound like a
voice calling in the wilderness, and then again, after a while, will
acquire new popularity.
This
contradictory process can be observed especially clearly in France
over the course of recent years. As a result of a creeping economic
crisis, reaction openly went over to the offensive in February 1934.
Fascist organizations experienced rapid growth. On the other hand,
the idea of self-defense acquired popularity in the ranks of the
working class. Even the reformist Socialist Party in Paris was
compelled to create something akin to a self-defense apparatus.
The
"People's Front" policy, i. e., the complete prostration of
the workers' organizations before the bourgeoisie, postponed the
danger of revolution to the indefinite future and allowed the
bourgeoisie to take the fascist coup off the agenda. Moreover, having
been freed from immediate internal dangers and finding themselves
face to face with an intensifying threat from abroad, the French
bourgeoisie began immediately to exploit, for imperialist aims, the
fact that democracy had been "saved."
The
impending war was again proclaimed to be a war to preserve democracy.
The politics of the official workers' organizations took on an openly
imperialist character. The section of the Fourth International,
having taken a serious step forward in 1934, felt isolated in the
period that followed. The call for workers' self-defense hung in
mid-air. Who in fact were they to defend themselves from? After all,
"democracy" had triumphed all along the line… The French
bourgeoisie had entered this war under the banner of "democracy"
and with the support of all the official workers' organizations,
which permitted the "Radical Socialist" Daladier to
immediately set up a "democratic" likeness of a
totalitarian regime.
The
question of self-defense organizations will be revived in the ranks
of the French proletariat with the growth of revolutionary resistance
against the war and imperialism. The subsequent political development
of France, and of other countries as well, at the present time is
inseparably linked with the war. The growth of mass discontent will
at first give rise to the most savage reaction from above.
Militarized fascism will come to the aid of the bourgeoisie and its
state power. The issue of organization for self-defense will confront
the working class as a life-and-death matter. This time, one must
assume there will turn out to be a sufficient supply of rifles,
machine- guns, and cannons in the hands of the working class.
Similar
phenomena, although in less vivid form, were revealed in the
political life of the United States. After the successes of the
Roosevelt era, betraying all expectations, gave way in the autumn of
1937 to a headlong decline, reaction began to come forward in an open
and militant manner. The provincial mayor Hague immediately became a
"national" figure. The pogrom-minded sermons of Father
Coughlin were echoed widely. The Democratic administration and its
police retreated in the face of monopoly capital's gangs. In this
period the idea of military detachments for the defense of the
workers' organizations and press began to get a response among the
most conscious workers and the most threatened stratum of the petty
bourgeoisie, particularly among the Jews.
The
new economic revival, which began in July 1939, obviously connected
with armaments expansion and the imperialist war, revived the faith
of the Sixty Families in their "democracy." To this was
added on the other hand the danger of the United States being drawn
into the war. This was no time to rock the boat! All the sections of
the bourgeoisie closed ranks behind a policy of caution and
preservation of "democracy." Roosevelt's position in
Congress is becoming stronger. Hague and Father Coughlin have retired
far into the background. Simultaneously the Dies Committee, which
neither the right nor the left took seriously in 1937, has acquired
in recent months considerable authority. The bourgeoisie is again
"against fascism as well as communism"; it wants to show
that it can cope with all types of "extremism" by
parliamentary means.
Under
these conditions, the slogan of workers' self-defense cannot help but
lose its power of attraction. After an encouraging beginning His as
though the organizing of workers' self defense has wound up at a dead
end.
In
some places it is difficult to draw the workers' attention to the
matter. In others, where large numbers of workers have joined
self-defense groups, the leaders don't know how to make use of the
workers' energy. Interest wanes. There is nothing unexpected or
puzzling about all this. The entire history of workers' self-defense
organizations is one of constantly alternating periods of rise and
decline. Both reflect spasms of the social crisis.
The
tasks of the proletarian party in the area of workers' self-defense
flow from the general conditions of our epoch as well as from its
particular fluctuations. It is immeasurably easier to draw relatively
broad sections of the working class into fighting detachments in
circumstances when reactionary gangs are making direct attacks on
workers' picket lines, trade unions, press, etc. However, when the
bourgeoisie considers it more prudent to abandon the irregular bands
and push methods of "democratic" domination over the masses
into the foreground, the workers' interest in self-defense
organizations inevitably diminishes. This is what is happening right
now. Does this mean, however, that we should abandon the task of
arming the workers' vanguard under these conditions?
Not
at all. Now, at a time when the world war has begun, more than ever
before, we proceed from the inevitability and imminence of the
international proletarian revolution. This fundamental idea, which
distinguishes the Fourth International from all other workers'
organizations, determines all our activities, including those which
relate to the organization of self defense detachments. This does not
mean, however, that we do not take into account the conjunctural
fluctuations in the economy as well as in politics, with the
temporary ebbs and flows. If one proceeds only on the basis of the
overall characterization of the epoch, and nothing more, ignoring its
concrete stages, one can easily lapse into schematism, sectarianism,
or quixotic fantasy. With every serious turn of events we adjust our
basic tasks to the changed concrete conditions of the given stage.
Herein lies the art of tactics.
We
will need party cadres specializing in military affairs. They must,
therefore, continue their practical and theoretical work even now, in
a time of "low tide." The theoretical work must consist of
studying the experience of military and combat organizations of the
Bolsheviks, the Irish and Polish revolutionary nationalists, the
fascists, the Spanish militia, and others. We must put together a
model program of studies and a library on these matters, arrange
lectures, and so forth.
Staff
work must at the same time be continued without interruption. We must
assemble and study newspaper clippings and other information
concerning every kind of counterrevolutionary organization and, at
the same time, of national groupings (Jews, Negroes, and others),
which in a critical moment can play a revolutionary role. This is, in
fact, relevant to an extremely important part of our work, devoted to
defense against the GPU.
Precisely
on account of the exceptionally difficult situation into which the
Comintern has fallen -and to a considerable extent the foreign GPU
secret service which is supported by the Comintern — we can expect
vicious blows at the Fourth International on the part of the GPU. We
must be able to find them out and avert them in time!
Alongside
this tightly restricted work, intended for party members only, we
must create broader, open organizations for various kinds of
particular objectives, one way or another connected to the future
military tasks of the proletariat. This would pertain to various
kinds of workers' sports organizations (for athletes, boxers,
marksmen, etc.), and finally, choral and music societies. When there
is a shift in the political situation, all these subsidiary
organizations can serve as an immediate basis for broader detachments
for workers' self-defense.
In
this outline of a program for action we proceed from the view that
the political conditions of the given moment, above all the weakening
of the pressure of domestic fascism, leave narrow limits for work in
the area of self-defense. And that is the case in so far as it is a
matter of creating strictly class- based military detachments.
A
decisive turn in favor of workers' self-defense will come only with a
new collapse of democratic illusions, which under conditions of world
war should come quickly and should assume catastrophic proportions.
But
by way of compensation, the war is opening up now, at this very
moment, such possibilities for the training of workers in military
affairs as were impossible even to conceive of in peacetime. And this
is true not only of the war but also of the period immediately
preceding the war.
It
is impossible to foresee all the practical possibilities beforehand;
but they will undoubtedly become wider with each passing day as the
country's armed forces expand. We must focus the greatest attention
on this matter, creating a special commission for this purpose (or
entrusting the matter to a self-defense staff and enlarging it as
need be).
Most
of all we must take full advantage of the interest in military
problems which has been aroused by the war and organize a series of
lectures on questions of contemporary arms types and tactical
methods. Workers' organizations can enlist for this military
specialists who have absolutely no ties to the party and its aims.
But this is only the first step.
We
must use the government's preparations for war in order to train in
military matters the largest possible number of party members and
trade unionists under its influence. While fully maintaining our
fundamental aim — the creation of class- based military detachments
— we must firmly link its accomplishment with the conditions
created by the imperialists' preparations for war.
Without
in any way wavering from our program we must speak to the masses in a
language they understand. 'We Bolsheviks also want to defend
democracy, but not the kind that is run by sixty uncrowned kings.
First let's sweep our democracy clean of capitalist magnates, then we
will defend it to the last drop of blood. Are you, who are not
Bolsheviks, really ready to defend this
democracy? But you must, at least, be able to the best of your
ability to defend it so as not to be a blind instrument in the hands
of the Sixty Families and the bourgeois officers devoted to them. The
working class must learn military affairs in order to advance the
largest possible number of officers from its own ranks.
"We
must demand that the state, which tomorrow will ask for the workers'
blood, today give the workers the opportunity to master military
technique in the best possible way in order to achieve the military
objectives with the minimum expenditure of human lives.
"To
accomplish that, a regular army and barracks by themselves are not
enough. Workers must have the opportunity to get military training at
their factories, plants, and mines at specified times, while being
paid by the capitalists. If the workers are destined to give their
lives, the bourgeois patriots can at least make a small material
sacrifice.
"The
state must issue a rifle to every worker capable of bearing arms and
set up rifle and artillery ranges for military training purposes in
places accessible to the workers."
Our
agitation in connection with the war and all our politics connected
with the war must be as uncompromising in relation to the pacifists
as to the imperialists.
"This
war is not our war. The responsibility for it lies squarely on the
capitalists. But so long as we are still not strong enough to
overthrow them and must fight in the ranks of their army, we are
obliged to learn to use arms as well as possible!"
Women
workers must also have the right to bear arms. The largest possible
number of women workers must have the opportunity, at the
capitalists' expense, to receive nurse's training.
Just
as every worker, exploited by the capitalists, seeks to learn as well
as possible the production techniques, so every proletarian soldier
in the imperialist army must learn as well as possible the art of war
so as to be able, when the conditions change, to apply it in the
interests of the working class.
We
are not pacifists. No. We are revolutionaries. And we know what lies
ahead for us.