Written: 9 April 1933.
Source: The Militant, Vol. VI No. 26, 13 May 1933, p. 3.
Transcription/HTML Markup: Einde O’Callaghan for the Trotsky Internet Archive.
Copyleft: Leon Trotsky Internet Archive (www.marxists.org) 2015. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0.
But how can we build a new party in Germany without breaking with the Comintern, rejoin the ones who, despite all, would like to force the contradictions of the historic process into the framework of the constitution. We must say that this side of the question seems to us least important. Why, even at the time when we were excluded from the Comintern and declared ourselves a faction thereof, the matter of the constitution was not of highest standing. For us it is a question of a political course, and not of the bookkeeping. If any section of the Comintern will yet succeed in rebuilding itself on a healthy basis, we will, of course, lean on this position to hasten the rebuilding of the whole Comintern; then our relations with the constitution also will become much improved. If, however, the Stalinist bureaucracy will bring the USSR to ruin, then no one will recall the constitution – it will be necessary to build a Fourth International.
Let us however return to Germany. In the first days of March the German Communist Party still meant a centralized apparatus, tens of newspapers, thousands of units, tens of thousands of members, millions of votes. We declared ourselves a part of this party and by that took a responsibility for the party as a whole before the outside world ; of course, not for the sake of the Stalinist apparatus but for the sake of the lower units connected with it. With their aid we hoped in time, that is, prior to a catastrophe, to renew the leadership of the party. Now, when the official apparatus, armored by ultimatism and illegality, must transform itself completely into a Stalinist agency, there can be no thought of influencing it through the lower strata from which it is completely cut off.
True, the Stalinist press of all the world talks of the “regeneration” of the German Communist Party underground (the illegal Rote Fahne, leaflets, etc., etc.) That the local organizations would start to stir after a temporary daze, was clear in advance. That the apparatus of such a large party, disposing of a numerous personnel and money, can issue illegally and semi-legally a considerable quantity of literature – there is nothing surprising in that. But we must repeat again: the German Communist Party has no illegal apparatus connected with the masses. What it has are the remains of the old organization which, by the will of Hitler found themselves in an illegal state. This is not one and the same thing. If the German Communist Party is active today it is due to the fact that Hitler has just started his executioner’s job and that the reaction has not penetrated deeply enough into the party. Both these processes however are on the order of the day. They will go parallel to each other, nourishing and accelerating each other.
For an illegal Communist party a special selection of people is necessary who understand the extent of the catastrophe and have a clear perspective and confidence in their banner. Such a selection can be made in no other way than on the basis of an irreconcilable criticism of the past. The collapse of the organization of the Stalinists, inevitable in itself, will release elements and clear the soil for the creation of an illegal revolutionary party.
But, one of the German comrades objects: “politically the party is, of course, a corpse; organizationally it is alive.” This formula reveals best of all the erroneousness of the position of my opponent. A party which is dead politically cannot have a “live” organization, since an organization is only a tool of policy. If however, the party is dead we must make the diagnosis openly, before the face of the workers, with all the necessary conclusions. What part of the old heritage will be transformed to the new party, what will be the forms of the transfer, what will be the stages in the development of the new party, what the relations between the builders and the remains of the old organization – all these are very important questions, which will have to be answered depending upon the development of the whole situation. But in order that the answer shall not be false, not illusory, we must start from what is irrevocably established by history: politically the Stalinist party is dead. Ambiguities and subterfuges are impermissible: they would only throw us off our own path.
The same comrade writes: “The slogan of reform is meaningless, as we do not know now what and how to reform; but we are also against the slogan of a new party since we do not consider that the fate of the old party is finally decided.” One contradiction is piled on top of another, despite the fact that the writer is an observant and keen comrade. If the party is “politically dead,” that means that its fate is decided. The apparatus will not resuscitate it: as testified by experience, an apparatus can kill the living but not resuscitate the dead. If the slogan of reform of the old party is “meaningless,” then nothing remains but the slogan of a new party.
The opponents are mainly frightened by the relation of forces: we, Bolshevik-Leninists, declare as liquidated a big organization which is still capable today of issuing ten times as much literature and [can] spend a thousand times more money than we, and yet, we “proclaim” a new party in the name of the small Left Opposition. To pose the question in this manner is to be steeped through and through in apparatus fetishism. Today, as yesterday, our main task is to form cadres. But this is not merely an organizational problem, it is a political problem: cadres are formed on the basis of a definite perspective. To warm up again the slogan of party reform means to set knowingly a utopian aim and by that to push our own cadres toward new and ever sharper disappointments. With such a course the Left Opposition would only become the hanger-on of a decomposing party and would disappear from the scene together with it.
Agreeing with the fact that the old party is liquidated and even admitting in essence the inevitability of creating a new party, one of the opponents strives for delay, for a moratorium of a kind. His arguments are of the following nature: only 10 percent of the party members, true, the most valuable ones, are critically inclined and listen to us: the remaining 90 percent and mainly the new recruits, have not at all understood yet the mistakes of the party. From this, it follows, that we must explain to these 90 percent, step by step, what occurred and only after that, start to build a new party. This is an abstractly-propagandist, and not a political – or speaking philosophically: a rationalistic and not a dialectic – approach to the problem.
It would of course be splendid if we could place 90 percent of the young Communists into a big school and give them a full course of study. But alas, these 90 percent fell into the school of Hitler. Today already they are not only half-torn from the party but from politics in general. A part will go to Fascism, a more considerable part will become indifferent. These processes will develop within the next few weeks and months:counter-revolution, just as revolution, works fast. Under the influence of the decomposition of the party, the ebbing away of the masses, the political sterility of the apparatus – all the best elements of the old party will keep on asking themselves and others: what to do? In this situation, to provide them with the slogan of “reform” would simply mean to mock at them. In moments of greatest crisis we must proceed not from the quickly changing moods of the party mass, but from objective changes in the political situation. Many of those Communists who today are still afraid to break with their bureaucracy, will blame us tomorrow for deluding them, for keeping up the fiction of the old party; pushing off from us, they will go to the Brandlerites or to the anarchists. The Brandlerites, as is reported, are already calling for a new party: this shows that, although opportunists, they are politicians. If we, with our revolutionary platform, should prove ourselves doctrinaires, then opportunistic politicians will always succeed in pushing us aside. What practically speaking will be our relations with the Stalinist organization in Germany in the next period? This question, naturally, interests the comrades most. Must we, ask our opponents, break with local organizations of the old party? No, that would be absurd. We must recruit the revolutionaries in all workers’ organizations, and primarily in the units of the old party, insofar as they exist. When the Third International proclaimed the complete break with the Second this did not prevent the Communists from working for a considerable period of time within the social democratic parties and even of conquering the majority of the French party together with l’Humanité. All the more so, our course towards a new party cannot and must not prevent our working in the units of the old party.
But, we hear the objection, the very slogan of a new party will antagonize against us the rank and file on this basis are possible: but we had also conflicts in the past despite the slogan of “reform.” We reed not doubt, however, that in the life of the active units of the old party much more space will be given to the relations with their own Central Committee than to the question of our new perspective. Here we may expect ever sharper conflicts. The Central Committee will defend Stalin and itself: therein lies its main objective. The worker Communists will demand honest answers and clear perspectives. While we stood on the position of reform, we did not advocate the breaking of discipline. Now the situation is radically changed. We will propose in the units the refusal to distribute worthless official literature, the boycott of the apparatus, the break with the C.E.C. It is understood that we will do all this tactfully and sensibly, considering the level of each unit and the circumstances. But our main line will be that of a new party. And we need not doubt that in spite of this line our relations with the revolutionary party units, in a new situation, in illegality, will be incomparably more friendly, than in the preceding period when we wanted to be only a faction.
We must not forget also that It is not a matter of the Communist party alone. The political collapse of the social democracy makes the appearance of a new “independent” party from its midst very probable. Can we suppose even for a moment that the Stalinist apparatus will be capable of attracting the left social democracy to its side, or even of influencing it in a revolutionary fashion? This is excluded beforehand. By their ultimatism, as well as by their whole past, which they do not want to and cannot renounce, the Stalinists will only slow up the development of the social democratic opposition, playing, in the service of Wels, the role of a garden scare-crow. From this point of view also, the perspective of a new party places itself imperatively on the order of the day.
Behind the majority of political and logical objections, there really lurks an unexpressed sentimental consideration: the Stalinist apparatus is under the blows of Fascism, many devoted and unselfish comrades are trying with all their might to save the organization – is it permissible under such conditions to “discourage” the fighters? This argument can be best expressed by two lines from a verse of a Russian poet: “Elevating illusion is more precious to us than the darkness of bitter truth.” But the philosophy of Pushkin is not the philosophy of Marxism. When, at the beginning of the century, we struggled against the petty bourgeois illusions and adventurism of the Social Revolutionaries, many good souls not only in the Narodnik camp, but even in our midst, indignantly broke with the Leninist Iskra which, you see, allowed itself to criticise terror unmercifully at the time when the terrorists were perishing in the hangman’s noose. We replied: the aim of our criticism consists precisely in tearing away the revolutionary heroes from individual terrorism and in leading them to the road of mass struggle. The illegal apparatus, appended to Manuilsky-Stalin, can bring nothing to the German proletariat save new misfortunes. We must say this openly and without delay, in order to save hundreds and thousands of revolutionaries from a fruitless waste of their energies.
|
|
L. Trotsky |
Last updated on: 3 September 2015