Writings of Leon Trotsky (1930). Edited by George Breitman and Sarah Lovell. New York: Pathfinder Press, Inc.
The year 1930 was particularly rich in [Trotsky's elaboration] of theory and in his efforts to prepare his supporters for the battles ahead. It was Trotsky's second year in exile in Prinkipo, Turkey. Trotsky's isolation from the main political centers of the world was only physical. Through his contacts with the International Left Opposition, strengthened during the preceding year, he began to grapple with the problems of the revolutionary movement the world over. This volume is filled with articles on Italy, Germany, China, France, and of course his continuing in[terest in the] course of developments within [the USSR]. In 1929 Trotsky was preoccupied with defining the principled positions of the Left Opposition, developed in the preceding five year struggle within the USSR against Stalin, defending these positions against ultraleft and opportunist circles in and around the Left Opposition. He spent time, too, in taking the first important steps in developing Opposition organizations in various countries. In 1930 this work continued, but Trotsky was able to devote more of his writings to the development of perspectives, to strategy and tactics, and to preparation of the vanguard of the working class for the revolutionary tasks he knew lay ahead. Trotsky's understanding was rooted in the experiences of the early Bolshevik movement, the great lessons of the Russian revolution, and the development of these lessons during the first five years of the Communist International. We find in this volume the beginnings of an approach that would flower into the strategy of the united front which he defended so correctly against Stalin during the rise of fascism in Germany, and which he later developed into the Transitional Program of the Fourth International in 1938. Three basic themes run through this volume: Trotsky's proposals to the Communist International on world unemployment, his approach to democratic demands in fascist Italy and in China under the Kuomintang military dictatorship, and his polemic against Stalin's ultraleftist 'third period' course. The Great Depression, which began with the American stockmarket crash in 1929, had by 1930 led to wide-scale unemployment throughout the world. For Trotsky this was not simply a matter for analysis and comment, or for isolated agitation designed to build one's own group. Beginning as he always did from the objective conditions the working class faced, Trotsky proceeded to develop a policy that would advance the working class as a whole and undercut the schemes of the capitalists, who sought to use unemployment to dampen the strike action of the unions and to pit workers of one nation against those of another. At a time when he was fighting inside the Comintern, seeking to free it from the grip of the Stalinist bureaucracy, Trotsky made [a proposal] based on an [analysis] of [the effects] of trying to construct socialism isolated in a single country. The Soviet Union, more advanced in its social structure than the capitalist countries but far behind in its economic development because of the backwardness inherited from Russia's past, desperately needed trade with the West and the products of these more advanced industrial economies. At the same time, these capitalist countries were plagued by plant closings, excess capacity, and rising unemployment. In view of this situation, Trotsky urged a campaign for increased trade with the USSR, linking up the interests of unemployed workers in the capitalist countries with the interests of the workers state. On such a basis he felt that the Communist parties could seek united fronts with the Social Democratic parties for a common battle against unemployment. This could only expose these parties in a concrete struggle and strengthen the influence of the Communists among the masses. Trotsky's writings on Italy and China are also important illustrations of his appreciation of the role played by democratic demands in the struggle of the working class for socialism. Trotsky's writings on Italy are particularly interesting. Here he deals with the role democratic demands would play during a mass upsurge following the collapse of the Italian fascist regime, a situation with obvious parallels to the recent events in Portugal. Writing to leading elements in the Italian Communist party who were shortly to break with Stalinism and support Trotsky, he stated: 'But does this mean that we communists reject in advance all democratic slogans, all transitional or preparatory slogans, limit[ing ourselves strictly to the proletarian] dictatorship? That would be a display of sterile, doctrinaire sectarianism. We do not believe for one moment that a single revolutionary leap suffices to cross what separates the fascist regime from the proletarian dictatorship. In no way do we deny a transitional period with its transitional demands, including democratic demands. ... If the revolutionary crisis were to break out, for example, in the course of the next months ... the masses of toilers, workers as well as peasants, would certainly follow up their economic demands with democratic slogans (such as freedom of assembly, of press, of trade-union organization, democratic representation in parliament and in the municipalities). Does this mean that the Communist Party should reject these demands? On the contrary. It will have to invest them with the most audacious and resolute character possible. For the proletarian dictatorship cannot be imposed upon the popular masses. It can be realized only by carrying on a battle—a battle in full—for all the transitional demands, requirements, and needs of the masses, and at the head of the masses. It should be recalled here that Bolshevism by no means came to power under the abstract slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We fought for the Constituent Assembly much more boldly than all the other parties.' (Pages 224-25.) Trotsky's writings in this volume to his followers in China amplify the same point. Here he fought for an understanding of the critical importance of the struggle for a constituent assembly, even pointing out that if such an assembly had been held in Russia earlier, before the workers insurrection in October, the Bolsheviks would have fully participated in it. Such an experience, in Trotsky's opinion, would have hastened the workers revolution as it educated workers in 'the school of revolutionary parliamentarism.' Even if it did not hasten the second revolution, it would, he felt, have made the tasks after it easier. (See 'The Slogan of a National Assembly in China,' pages 164-67.) Trotsky's principled approach to the problems of revolutionary development came into sharpest collision with the course of Stalin. From 1923 until 1928 Stalin pursued a policy of almost no industrialization, little collectivization of agriculture, and conciliation with the wealthy peasants at home, combined with conciliation with capitalism abroad. The result was almost the complete collapse of the USSR's economy while the proletariat suffered crushing defeats internationally. Then suddenly Stalin veered in the opposite direction. Still clinging to his false theory of building socialism in one country, Stalin went over to a feverish, unrealistic pace of industrialization and collectivization within the USSR combined with a sectarian and ultraleftist course internationally. Stalin's policy abroad was designed as a cover for his domestic policies and helped isolate the Communist parties as he tightened his bureaucratic control over these parties. Stalin's ideological cover for this course was his theory of the 'third period.' This 'third period,' which he saw as beginning with the defeat of the revolution in China, was to be the final period of the onslaught on capitalism worldwide. He sought to pass off a defeat, for which he was responsible, as the opening of the final battle. Abstract demagogy about immediate revolution, imminent war, general strikes, soviets, replaced the policies of Bolshevism aimed at winning over the mass of workers from reformist leaders and preparing them for revolutionary struggle. On the level of theory, Stalin's concept of the 'third period' does not warrant serious attention. Without regard to the conjunctural situation, Stalin substituted the general revolutionary character of our whole epoch for a concrete stage in the development of the workers struggle, disregarding its special problems and tasks or reading them utterly wrong. Trotsky assessed Stalin's international policy in a pamphlet entitled 'The "Third Period" of the Comintern's Errors' (page 27), which should become must reading for all young revolutionists today. Several key points of Trotsky's argumentation are worth summarizing: The Comintern claimed that the masses were becoming radicalized. Each strike statistic was featured as proof that the masses were now more radicalized than they had ever been. The radicalization was seen as a simple quantitative matter, something growing ever greater, and—as the crisis developed—ever deeper. 'The radicalization of the masses is described as a continuous process: today the masses are more revolutionary than they were yesterday, and tomorrow will be more revolutionary than today. Such a mechanical idea does not correspond to the real process of development of the proletariat or of capitalist society as a whole.' (Page 27.) Trotsky explained that cyclical ups and downs are part of the very nature of the capitalist organism. A general period of decline does not signify the cessation of these cyclical ups and downs than does growing old signify the cessation of a person's heartbeat. These pulsations of the capitalist system affect the consciousness and activity of the masses. In fact, the general nature of the period is expressed concretely through these pulsations and their effect on the lives of workers. As we know, in our general period these cyclical fluctuations are distinguished from those in an earlier period by a growing irregularity in the fluctuations, the tendency toward deeper downturns and weaker rises. However, we are still only at the threshold of understanding the process by which the masses become radicalized and how we can develop tactics aimed at achieving revolutionary leadership of the masses. Revolution is not directly and mechanically linked to conjunctural ups and downs any more than it is touched off by the general character of the epoch. As Trotsky writes: 'The inevitability of revolution flows just as little from the periodicity of crisis as the inevitability of death from a rhythmic pulse.' (Page 36.) And further on: 'At the same time it must not be forgotten that wars and revolutions in our epoch result not from conjunctural crises but from the contradictions between the development of the productive forces on the one hand and the national boundaries of the bourgeois state on the other, carried to their ultimate conclusion.' (Pages 40-41.) We can say that, in general, conjunctural downturns tend to discourage strike activity and that strike activity that does take place assumes a defensive character. Revolutionists fighting in the unions under such conditions must recognize this and develop tactics in line with the defensive position of the class. Conjunctural upturns, on the other hand, encourage strike activity, which takes on a more offensive character. At the same time, such class offensives are not necessarily revolutionary, because the same economic forces that make possible small economic gains encourage illusions in purely trade-union nonpolitical activity. What radicalizes the masses the most and creates conditions for the development of revolutionary political consciousness is precisely the fluctuations in the conjunctural situation under general conditions of capitalist decline. This happens only if the revolutionary party is capable of developing its strategy concretely in the form of tactics suited to each stage of economic, political and social development. We can make this critical point clearer if we bring in a specific example—the rise of the CIO in the 1930s. The CIO did not arise out of the conjunctural downturn. The great organizing drive and sitdown movement took place in relation to a mild conjunctural upturn, but an upturn during which firings, layoffs, and insecurity continued to plague the working class. Trotsky sums up his approach this way: 'If our strategic line is determined in the final analysis by the inevitability of the growth of contradictions and the revolutionary radicalization of the masses, then our tactics, which serve this strategy, proceed from the realistic evaluation of each period, each stage, each moment, which may be characterized by a temporary softening of contradictions, a rightward turn of the masses, a change in the relation of forces in favor of the bourgeoisie, etc. If the masses were to turn leftward uninterruptedly, any fool could lead them.' (Page 55.) This alone should make it clear why the working class needs a conscious Marxist leadership. Marxism has nothing in common with sloganeering, dogmas, schemas, ultimatums, and the like. It requires a concrete study of political economy, of historical development, of all, all, the wealth of empirical data that can be gathered, and, especially and above all, continuous contact with the masses to learn what they think, how they change. This is why Marxism is materialist, beginning always from the material world, and is dialectical, seeing everything in its development, in its continuous, contradictory, and often rapid changes. To be sure, ultraleftism remains, of course, very much with us. However, it is important to distinguish between the ultraleftism of Stalin's 'third period' course and the development today of what appears on the surface to be similar trends among youth in particular. Stalin's ultraleftism corresponded with the passing political needs of a privileged bureaucracy that had developed a stranglehold on the workers state. Because it was only intended to meet particular political problems facing the bureaucratic ruling caste at the time, it was later discarded as abruptly as it had been adopted. Since 1934 the Stalinists have never fully reverted to such a position. Instead, they have become more brazen [in] their collaboration with the world bourgeoisie. But they can, in face of certain tactical needs, dredge up the old ultraleftist garbage. We have seen this in Portugal, where the Communist party has pursued a consistent policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie, [but which] utilized [the slogan of struggle against] 'fascism' against the Socialist party when this was useful to it, and defend its alliance to the Armed Forces Movement. Today, precisely because we are entering a new period of class struggle with revolutionary opportunities ahead in a number of countries, the problem of ultraleftism arises primarily in association with the radicalization of the youth. This ultraleftism is now akin to the trends Lenin and Trotsky had to fight within the ranks of the early Comintern. One of the difficulties is that many fail to arm themselves with the experiences of the past so that they can grasp the method of Lenin and Trotsky, how they approached strategic and tactical questions. Some young revolutionists tend to substitute their own feelings and energies for those of the [working] class, which today is at a different [stage of consciousness] shaped by its whole history and experience. It is [for all these reasons] that the study of Trotsky's writings is of such timeliness. Trotsky, like Lenin, always began from an analysis and understanding of the objective economic conditions affecting the class struggle. He then worked out a strategy to relate the socialist goal to the current struggles of the working class. This strategy was expressed through concrete tactics that permitted active participation in the day-to-day struggles of the masses, always from the viewpoint of the development of the working class as a whole, and the construction of a revolutionary party.