REVIEW ARTICLE:
Writings of Leon Trotsky (1929). Edited by George Breitman and Sarah Lovell. New York: Pathfinder Press, Inc. 1975. 461 pp, $13, cloth; $3.95, paperback.
[The publication] of this volume marks an [important step] in the most ambitious [proj]ect of [publishing] the writings of Trotsky since the Soviet Union [suppressed his] complete works [under] pressure in 1927. This volume marks the first of the series, [reprinting] Trotsky's writings during his [exile] (1929-40). Now the whole series is [being reissued], although three volumes remain [to appear], published in a new format and with [expanded] contents. [This] means that students of Trotsky can [read] the series in chronological order, [following] the development of Trotsky's poli[tical thought around] important world events as well as Trotsky's [assess]ment of the internal struggle to [build] the Fourth International. [The] new volume facilitates study, and [for those] who have already read some of the [material, invites] restudy, of Trotsky's eleven-year [struggle] to establish the political basis and to [assemble] the initial cadres for the Fourth [Inter]national, the continuity of Bolshevism [and] of Marxism itself. [These] volumes comprise all the available [writ]ings of Trotsky except those already [pub]lished in book form. While a massive [amount] of material remains unavailable in [an unclosed] section of the Trotsky archives at [Harvard], particularly material related to [the] internal development of the Fourth [Inter]national, these volumes permit us to [gain] a rich understanding of Trotsky and [his] thinking. One of the great advantages of the series is its chronological organization. Because of this we find combined into single volumes Trotsky's writings on a number of different countries with some of his writings on the problems of constructing the Fourth International under the particular world situation of the time. Thus we see a picture not just of Trotsky, the great thinker, or the brilliant analyst of world events, but most of all of Trotsky the party man, who assessed each development in the world situation from the point of view of constructing a new leadership of the working class dedicated to the sole purpose of establishing socialism worldwide. The circumstances facing Trotsky during the year of this volume, 1929, were perhaps among the most difficult he ever encountered. Between 1923 and 1928 Trotsky fought for revolutionary policies as a tendency within the Russian Communist party. He faced many difficulties, particularly in the last year of forced exile and isolation in Alma-Ata, but he remained in the USSR and was involved in the political life of the Communist movement there. Suddenly he was forcibly removed from Russia and transported to Turkey, a country whose language he did not know. He was cut off from old-time collaborators within the USSR, and just when he was beginning to develop relations with collaborators in other countries. At the same time, the world political situation was extremely difficult. The working class had suffered a series of major defeats because of Stalin's leadership of the Communist International. The German Communists refused to take the revolutionary initiative in the 1923 crisis provoked by France's invasion of the Saar Basin. Stalin became implicated in the collapse of the great British general strike of 1926 through his alliance with the British reformist trade union leadership. Then the revolutionary opportunities of the second Chinese revolution were destroyed in the 1926-27 period because of Stalin's policy of subordinating the Chinese Communist party to the bourgeois Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-shek. All this demoralized the vanguard of the working class and made things extremely difficult for the small band of revolutionists. On top of all this came the cynical turn made by Stalin in 1928 and 1929. Faced with the open rebellion of the middle and rich peasants and the virtual collapse of the Soviet economy, Stalin suddenly shifted to an ultraleft position, adopted large portions of the program of the Left Opposition, and in a bureaucratic and totalitarian fashion, imposed a super industrialization drive on the country. In foreign policy Stalin shifted to ultraleftist tactics and phraseology. At the same time that he was stealing part of the Left's program and distorting it, he stepped up his police pressure on the Left Opposition. The result was a series of capitulations in the Left Opposition—Karl Radek, for example—and a further isolation of the Left Opposition from militant workers in and around the various Communist parties of the world who were taken in for a time by Stalin's demagogy and the prestige of the October revolution. Nor were the groups that had rallied to the Left Opposition in various countries untouched by the difficulties of the period. These groups were themselves affected by the defeats and demoralization, some broke up into personal cliques, all of them suffered from isolation. In addition, their opposition to Stalin was not in all cases rooted in an alternative struggle for Bolshevism. All may have agreed that Stalin deserved to be criticized, but all did not necessarily agree as to the causes of the degeneration of the USSR, or the alternative Bolshevik program around which to assemble the cadres of the Communist movement. It is perhaps the greatest testament to Trotsky's revolutionary integrity and his profound understanding of Marxism that this man, who had led millions in the struggle for power in a civil war against the imperialists and their agents, could turn with such understanding and patience to work among the tens and at most hundreds of oppositionists scattered around the globe. Trotsky held no illusions about the difficulties of the period or the immensity of the tasks he now faced in his Turkish exile. 'We are heading for such difficult times that every cothinker, every potential cothinker, is precious to us. ... Mass actions tend as a rule to wash away secondary and episodic disagreements and to aid the fusion of friendly and close tendencies. Conversely, ideological groupings in a period of stagnation or ebb tide disclose a great tendency toward differentiation, splits, and internal struggles. We cannot leap out of the period in which we live. We must pass through it. A clear, precise ideological differentiation is unconditionally necessary. It prepares future successes.' (Page 80.) [In a letter of this period] he states: 'Revolutionary Marxists have been once again—not for the first time and probably not for the last time—driven into a position of an international propaganda society. By the very nature of things such a situation involves certain elements of sectarianism, which can be overcome only gradually. You seem to be frightened by the smallness of your numbers. This is, of course, unpleasant. It is, of course, best to have organizations numbering millions. But where are we, the vanguard of the vanguard, to obtain [them, when the] world revolution has suffered catastrophic defeats in the most important countries, defeats produced by a Menshevik leadership that hides behind a false mask of Bolshevism? Where? We are passing through a period of colossal reaction, following the revolutionary years (1917-23). On a new and higher historical stage, we, revolutionary Marxists, find ourselves thrown back into a position of a small and persecuted minority, almost as at the beginning of the imperialist war. As all of history demonstrates, beginning, say, with the First International, such regressions are unavoidable. Our advantage over our predecessors lies in the fact that the situation today is more mature and that we ourselves are more "mature," for we stand on the shoulders of Marx, Lenin, and many others.' (Page 159.) Trotsky's approach in this difficult period was to base himself on the conquests of the struggle of the Left Opposition over the preceding five years. This in turn was a development of the basic outlook and strategy of the Bolshevik party and the Communist International under Lenin and the experience of the Great October Revolution. He insisted that there were three basic tendencies within Communism: the right, represented by Bukharin, the center, headed by Stalin; and the Left Opposition. He noted the existence of a fourth, though minor, tendency, ultraleftism. The main ultraleft grouping was the German Leninbund, led by Hugo Urbahns. This tendency was actually a descendant of the Fischer-Maslow group that led the German Communist party in the period immediately following the passing of the 1924 revolutionary situation. The group, which was closely associated with Zinoviev, attempted to counter the right-wing policies of 1923 by persisting in a revolutionary offensive posture after the revolutionary [ebb]. The main dispute with the Urbahns group in 1929 centered on a serious Sino-Soviet conflict involving the Manchurian railroad. Trotsky defended the right of the Soviet Union to maintain its control over the railroad and opposed its being ceded to China. He felt that under the concrete conditions existing in China at the time, this would mean that the railroad would fall into the hands of right-wing generals in the North and thus endanger both the Chinese revolution and the defense of the USSR. Urbahns insisted it was simply a formal matter of national self-determination, since the area the railroad passed through was populated by Chinese. However, the dispute actually reflected deeper differences and in that respect was similar to the dispute that broke out within the American Socialist Workers party and the Fourth International in 1939 over the defense of the USSR under the concrete conditions of the Soviet invasion of Finland and Poland. Urbahns claimed that the Thermidor (counterrevolution) in the USSR was complete, that a form of state capitalism had been instituted; and he demanded that the Trotskyist forces act as independent parties rather than as an opposition faction within the Communist International. Trotsky resisted heavy pressure from his own supporters from 1929 until the victory of Hitler in 1933 to write off the Comintern as unreformable. He saw the Communist International and the Russian Communist party as products of the world's first successful proletarian revolution. Although they were caricatures of Lenin's party, Trotsky insisted on continuing the struggle to win over the ranks to Leninist policies. He carried this out without the slightest conciliation to Stalin and his policies. Only when a great objective event, the historic defeat in Germany of the world's strongest and most politically conscious working class, had taken place did Trotsky abandon this policy and move toward the construction of a fourth international. It was the great events of history, not subjective moods or passing events, that proved to Trotsky the unreformable counterrevolutionary character of Communist parties. Much of the internal polemics of this period dealt with Urbahns, who received some support here and there among confused oppositionists in other countries. The final break between Trotsky and the Leninbund took place in 1930. This assessment immediately brought him into conflict with Boris Souvarine, an early supporter of Trotsky's, who now sought to bring about a fusion of the Left Opposition with the right-wing breakaways from the official Communist parties, most notably Brandler's organization in Germany, which was of some size. Souvarine was typical of a kind of intellectual, demoralized by the rise of Stalinism and the various defeats, who caved in to the pressures of the times, running away from the difficult task of constructing actual organizations on the basis of principle. Before the year was out Trotsky would be forced to break definitively with Souvarine. In an open letter, he concluded: 'I am sure that tomorrow you will not be silent. You will pass to the other side of the barricades. Theoretically, you are already there. We record a man overboard and pass on to the next point on the agenda.' (Page 189.) We can note certain important features of Trotsky's approach to all these political problems in assembling the initial cadres of what was to become the Fourth International. First of all, Trotsky proceeded in a principled and objective manner on the basis of principled programmatic positions developed over a period of time. He did not cave in to passing pressures. He knew that he was laying the programmatic foundations for the future, and that these foundations had to be sound if massive revolutionary movements were eventually to be built upon them. [Secondly, he was an] internationalist. He proceeded from an international perspective and not from the peculiarities of individual countries and parties separated from this international perspective. He did not judge Brandler solely on the basis of German politics. He did not sort out the forces of the Left Opposition in France on French issues alone. Thirdly, he was painstakingly patient in his dealings with various oppositionists and potential oppositionists. He corresponded with Souvarine, breaking with him only when such a break was unavoidable. He fought for the Leninbund for over a year, despite the arrogant attitude of the Leninbund's leadership. He understood the objective circumstances causing confusion in the ranks of the oppositionists; and without compromise, but with great objectivity, he fought to the end for each confused individual or group, trying to help them find their way into the ranks of the international opposition. No break was precipitous, or politically unclear. Out of each effort, the small cadre of followers was educated and grew in revolutionary stature. The period was not without significant small successes, the most important being the development of the Trotskyist forces in France and in the United States. Because of Trotsky's extensive knowledge of France, his involvement as a Comintern representative in the early stages of constructing the French Communist party, and his personal contacts with French Communists, oppositionist activity began earlier in France than elsewhere on the continent. However, at the time Trotsky was sent into exile, the oppositionists were split up. A number of conflicting little groups, whose differences were unclear, formed around different individuals. The groups as a whole were ineffectual. The major, in many ways historic, break in this situation came with the development of the La Verite group through Trotsky's own initiative. This group, consisting primarily of youth, launched a weekly paper as the only way to break out of the impasse and to begin participating in the struggles of workers and reaching the cadres of the CP. In August 1929 when the weekly La Verite was launched, Trotsky greeted [it]: 'In France the influence of the Opposition is far too slight. This is because [there] are too many Oppositional groups. ... It is [the task of a newspaper to supply the masses with] and systematic Marxist evaluations of all the events of social life. Politics [demands] the continuity of thought, words, [and deeds]. That is why politics demands a newspaper. [But the] Opposition still lacks the resources to undertake a daily. You are obliged [to] begin with a weekly. This is already a step forward; provided, of course, you do not [stop] here but will continue to stubbornly steer—toward a daily.' (Page 222.) This effort did not receive support from all the opposition groups. Among those opposed was the lawyer Maurice Paz, a figure very much like Souvarine, who was content to 'oppose' Stalin as an independent intellectual but who resisted building a principled political movement against Stalin that aimed to become the leadership of Communist workers the world over. Trotsky's correspondence with Paz, included in this volume, has valuable lessons today for every young revolutionist: 'You do not find expressions forceful enough to disparage the five comrades who "took their inspiration from Constantinople." This sarcasm is out of place; and in bad taste. These comrades, however busy earning their living, came to help me at their own initiative and at their own risk, here, to Constantinople, at a very difficult time. Their help was invaluable to me. All of this is proper. But there is another part to the story. I said to myself, after having observed them closely, that comrades who are capable of such initiative and such personal sacrifice are revolutionaries, or can become such, because it is in this way, Comrade Paz, that revolutionaries are formed. You can have revolutionaries both wise and ignorant, intelligent or mediocre. But you can't have revolutionaries who lack the willingness to smash obstacles, who lack devotion and the spirit of sacrifice. I was not mistaken. These young comrades declared that they were completely prepared to give their time, their forces, their means for a weekly paper, and to mobilize others. So they are doing what they have promised, and you are sabotaging their work instead of helping them.' (Pages 191-92.) Just as important was the development of the American Left Opposition, led by James Cannon, Max Shachtman, and Martin [Abern]. This group was different from most [in Eur]ope because its leadership had [long] experience in the American [Communist] movement and concerned itself [from the] beginning with the serious task of constructing a party organization. [Its break] with the CP had been more recent, [and the] group was more internally cohe[sive. It was] in this period that Trotsky was [able to estab]lish his first contact with the [American group and to receive its support] in the task of sorting out the [confused oppositionist forces and] assembling the serious revolutionary cadres the world over. It was also in this period that the Militant was launched as a weekly publication, although it was not able to sustain this schedule until somewhat later. Trotsky's first public communication with his American supporters is included in this volume. The central points raised by Trotsky then are even more pertinent today. First of all, he recognized the critical role the American working class was destined to play in the world revolutionary process. 'The work to be achieved by the American Opposition has international historic significance, for in the final analysis all the problems of our planet will be decided upon American soil. ... We must not for a minute lose sight of the fact that the power of American capitalism rests more and more upon the foundation of the world economy, with its contradictions and its crises, military and revolutionary. This means that a social crisis in the United States may arrive a good deal sooner than many think, and have a feverish development from the start. Hence the conclusion: it is necessary to prepare.' (Pages 131-32.) In his conclusions Trotsky points out two specific areas that require the special attention of American revolutionists: the young workers and the Blacks: 'Every member of the Opposition should be obligated to have under guidance several young workers, youth from fourteen to fifteen years of age and older; to remain in continual contact with them, help them in their education, train them in questions of scientific socialism, and systematically introduce them to the revolutionary politics of the proletarian vanguard. Oppositionists who are themselves unprepared for such work should entrust the young workers they have recruited to more developed and experienced comrades. We don't want those who are afraid of rough work. The profession of a revolutionary Bolshevik imposes an atmosphere of aristocratic prejudices of the upper strata of the workers. It would be tragic if the Oppositionists were infected even in the slightest degree with these qualities. We must not only reject and condemn these prejudices, we must burn them out of our consciousness to the last trace. We must find the road to the most unprivileged and downtrodden strata of the proletariat, beginning with the Negroes, whom capitalist society has converted into pariahs, and who must learn to see in us their brothers. And this depends entirely upon our energy and devotion to this work.' (Pages 133-34.) In order to get the most value out of a book, it is important to understand it at all times in relation to the present situation we face. Our situation has certain similarities with that faced by Trotsky in 1929. We have passed through a long period of more than twenty five years dominated by the world capitalist boom, during which the only revolutionary developments were headed by other forces, particularly the Stalinists. It was a period of great difficulty for Trotskyists, great isolation, which produced splits, divisions, disorientation, and desertions much like those Trotsky faced in 1929. But 1975 is not 1929. We do not face [a] long period of defeats. Rather it is a transitional period characterized by the deepening crisis of capitalism worldwide, the revolutionary explosion in Portugal on the very continent of Europe, and the beginning of important class struggles in the United States as well. We find ourselves still with many of the problems of the past, the divisions, the confusions. We cannot shed all these problems as one does a winter coat in summer. We must confront these problems as patiently and in as principled a manner as Trotsky did in 1929. We are, however, entering a political summer. Opportunities for development are on all sides. Small forces can grow significantly in this new situation, and old disputes, and new confusions, can be tested quickly in developments in the class itself. There is no better time than now to study the whole history of the Fourth International as part of the necessary equipment to tackle these problems. We can only urge young revolutionists especially not to let the ever present pressures of day-to-day existence and activities push aside the just as necessary study of the rich lessons from the principled past of the movement Leon Trotsky initiated.