The mistakes of the rightists in the communist coalition on the trade union issue

The original link of China Labor Forum: https://chinaworker.info/zh-hans/2022/01/17/31521/

Telegram link of China Labor Forum: https://t.me/chinaworkerISA

Twitter link of China Labour Forum: https://twitter.com/OctRevolution1 7

If you are interested in subscribing to "Socialist" magazine, please send an email to: chinaworker.isa@gmail.com

Trotsky, January 1931

some preliminary comments

1. If the theoretical structure of Marxist political economy is entirely based on the concept of value as materialized labor, then the revolutionary policy of Marxism is based on the concept of the party as the vanguard of the proletariat.

Whatever the social and political causes of opportunistic errors and deviations, they are always ideologically attributable to a misunderstanding of the revolutionary party, its relationship to other proletarian organizations and the class as a whole.

2. The concept of the party as the vanguard of the proletariat presupposes the complete and unconditional independence of the party from all other organizations. In the course of the class struggle, various agreements (camps, alliances, compromises) with other organizations are inevitable, but we can only do so if the party always faces the class, always moves under its own banner, acts in its own name, and speaks to the masses These can only be allowed if the purpose and limits of the agreement are clearly explained.

3. On the basis of all the wavering and all the mistakes of the leadership of the Comintern, we have found a misunderstanding of the nature and tasks of the party. The Stalinist theory of "two-class parties" contradicts the basic tenets of Marxism. And the fact that the official Comintern has tolerated this theory for several years, and has still not condemned it with the necessary firmness, is the clearest sign that the official line is wrong.

4. The fundamental crime of the Soviet centrist bureaucracy is its wrong position towards the party. The Stalinists sought to administratively incorporate the entire working class into the various strata of the party. As a result, the party is no longer a vanguard, voluntarily selected from the most advanced, self-conscious, dedicated and active workers. The party merged with the class and lost its resistance to the bureaucracy. On the other hand, the Brandlerites and other followers of the centrist bureaucracy defended the Stalinist regime by using the vulgar phrase "the Russian proletariat lacks culture" to identify the party and the class, that is to say the theoretical elimination of the party, Just as Stalin eliminated the party in practice.

5. The disastrous policy of the Comintern in China was based on the abandonment of party independence. An actual agreement with the KMT at a given period was inevitable. But letting the Communist Party join the KMT was a fatal mistake. This wrong development turned into one of the worst crimes in history. The Chinese Communist Party was formed only to hand over its power to the Kuomintang. It went from the vanguard of the proletariat to the tail of the bourgeoisie.

6. The disastrous experiment of the Anglo-Russian Committee was based entirely on trampling on the independence of the British Communist Party. In order for the Soviet unions to maintain their alliance with the strike-breakers of the British General Council of Trade Unions (they claimed to be in the national interest of the Soviet Union!), the British Communist Party had to lose all independence and effectively disintegrate the party into a so-called minority movement, That is, it has become a left-leaning opposition within the trade union.

7. Unfortunately, even among left-wing opposition groups, the experience of the Anglo-Russian Committee is the least understood and grasped. Some in our camp even consider it sectarianism to demand a break with the strike-breakers. For Monat in particular, the original sin that brought him into the arms of Dumoulin was clearly manifested in the question of the Anglo-Russian Commission. However, the issue is of enormous importance: neither communism in general nor the left opposition can get their way without knowing what happened in Britain in 1925-1926.

8. Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev - all united on this issue, at least at first - tried to replace the fragile British Communist Party with a "broader faction" , it is certain that the leaders of this genre are not "Communists", but "friends", quasi-Communists, or good people and acquaintances. Of course, these good people, "reliable leaders", do not want to submit to the leadership of a weak Communist Party. This is their full right; the party cannot force anyone to obey it. An agreement between the Communist Party and the "Left" (Purcell, Hicks, Cook) on the basis of part of the tasks of the trade union movement is of course entirely possible, and in some cases necessary. But there is one condition: the Communist Party must maintain its complete independence, even within the trade unions, act in its own name on all issues of principle, criticize its "leftist" allies when necessary, and in this way gradually win over the masses trust.

However, this only possible path seemed too long and uncertain to the bureaucracy of the Comintern. They believed that through their personal influence on Purcell, Hicks, Cook and others (behind the scenes communication, correspondence, banquets, friendly congratulations, gentle exhortations) they could gradually and covertly bring the left-leaning opposition ( "Broad genre") onto the bed of the Comintern. In order to ensure the success of this in a more secure way, these dear friends (Purcell, Hicks and Cook) will not be annoyed, annoyed or unhappy by petty tricks, untimely criticism, sectarian intransigence, etc. . However, since one of the tasks of the Communist Party is precisely to destroy the peace and warn all centrists and semi-centrists, radical measures must be taken to subordinate the movement to the minority on the Communist Party. Only the leaders of the movement appeared in the trade union sphere. The British Communist Party has practically detached itself from the masses.

9. What are the demands of the Russian Left Opposition on this issue? First, re-establish the full independence of the British Communist Party from the trade unions. We believe that it is only under the influence of the party's slogan of independence and open criticism that a minority movement can form, understand its mission more accurately, change its leadership, secure its place in the trade unions, and at the same time consolidate the position of communism.

How did Stalin, Bukharin, Lozovsky and their comrades respond to our criticism? "You want to push the British Communist Party down the path of sectarianism. You want to drive Purcell, Hicks and Cook into the enemy's camp. You want to break with the minority movement."

What did the left-wing opposition refute? "If Purcell and Hicks break with us, it's not because we're asking them to convert to communists immediately - no one's asking for that! - but because we want to remain communists ourselves, which means Purcell is not a friend, but a masked enemy. The sooner they show their true colors, the better for the masses. We simply do not want to break with the minority movement, instead, we must pay the utmost attention to this movement. The smallest step forward together by the masses or part of the masses is more important than the dozen or so abstract programs of intellectual circles. Loyalty to the masses is not the same as surrendering before the interim and semi-leaders. The masses need the right direction and Correct slogan, which precludes all theoretical reconciliation and all protection for exploiting the backward thinking of the masses."

10. What were the results of Stalin's experiments in England? The minority movement, which included nearly a million workers, looked promising, but it planted the seeds of its own destruction. The masses only knew that the leaders of the movement were Purcell, Hicks and Cook, and that Moscow had vouched for them. These "left" friends have shamefully betrayed the proletariat in the first ordeal. The revolutionary workers fell into chaos, became apathetic, and naturally extended their disappointment to the Communist Party, which itself was only a passive part of the whole mechanism of betrayal and treachery. The minority movement disappeared; the Communist Party reverted to a trivial faction. Thus, the greatest movement of the English proletariat, which had brought about the general strike, not only failed to shake the machinery of the reactionary bureaucracy, but strengthened them and damaged the British communism.

11. One of the psychological roots of opportunism is low-level frivolity and impatience, lack of confidence in the gradual growth of the party's influence, and desire to win the masses through organizational means or personal communication. From this came a policy of co-operation behind the scenes, a policy of silence, concealment, self-abandonment, pandering to the ideas and slogans of others; and, finally, a complete reversion to an opportunistic stance. The subordination of the CCP to the Kuomintang, the workers’ and peasants’ parties established in India, the subordination of the British headquarters to the minority movement, etc. – in all these phenomena we see the same bureaucratic unionist approach, which starts from the low-level The revolution begins with impetuousness and ends with opportunistic betrayal. [1]

This is why, over the past few years, we have insisted on the educational significance of the above-mentioned case of the Comintern strategy. In every new experience, we should re-examine and examine these mistakes, not only to condemn historical mistakes and crimes after the fact, but to learn how to correct them from the beginning, in new circumstances similar errors are identified.

12. It must be said straight: the mistakes made by some members of the French opposition, members of the Communist League, on the trade union issue, show a striking resemblance to the tragic British experiment. Only, the mistakes in France were much smaller and had not yet developed on the basis of a mass movement. This has led some comrades to ignore these mistakes or underestimate their importance in principle. However, if the coalition allows its future union work to proceed according to the methods laid out by the old leadership majority, the ideology and banner of the Left Opposition in France will be damaged for a long time to come.

It is a crime to turn a blind eye to this matter. Since correcting these mistakes through private advice and warnings in the initial stages has not been successful, only those who publicly point out these mistakes and think so can correct the policy through a collective effort.

13. Beginning in April 1930, the Union, in order to unify the interests of the opposition, practically gave up independent work in the trade unions, including striving to have its own programme, leadership and policy. Within these boundaries, we have striking parallels with the British experiment in minority movements. It must be noted, however, that in the French context there were certain characteristics from the outset that made this experiment even more dangerous. In the UK, the minority movement as a whole leans more to the left than the official leadership of the trade unions.

Can the same description describe the Unity Opposition? Do not. Among the latter ranks are those who clearly lean towards the right-wing opposition, namely reformism. We don't yet know their exact proportions.

The main force of the unified opposition is the teachers' union. In France, teachers have always played an important role in socialism, syndicalism and communism. Among teachers we will undoubtedly find many friends. However, the federation as a whole is not a federation of the proletariat. Because of its social composition, the teachers' federation can provide very good agitators, journalists and individual revolutionaries, but it cannot be the basis for a trade union movement. All its documents show that its political ideology is not clear enough. The federation's Marseille congress showed that its members oscillated between the official line, the left-wing opposition and the right-wing opposition. If we are to cover up their mistakes, vacillations and lack of precision, we will do the worst for their members and for the proletarian movement as a whole. Unfortunately, until a few days ago, this was the policy of the editorial board of Pravda - the silence policy - and it is no accident.

14. Do you want to break with the United Opposition? Whoever asks this question means that communists, as communists, cannot participate in the work of uniting the opposition. But if that were the case, it would be fairly straightforward to show that the United Opposition was a group of hidden enemies of communism. Fortunately, this is not the case. The United Opposition as a whole is neither a communist nor an anti-communist organization because it is heterogeneous. We are obliged to take this heterogeneity into account in our actual activities. We can and must pay the highest attention to groups and even individuals who are moving towards Marxism. But all of this comes with one condition: when we appear before union workers, we act in the name of the Communist League and do not accept any scrutiny of our actions, except in the league itself (or in re-establishing communist unity). under the control of the entire party after that.

15. In the ranks of the unified opposition there are people who undoubtedly have strong sympathies with the left-wing opposition, but are still not members of the coalition; they must be drawn under our banner. There are those with equivocal positions who have gone to great lengths to maintain that position, transforming the organization into a "platform." With these people, we can reach strategic agreements on clear grounds that preserve full freedom of mutual criticism. Finally, in the ranks of the united opposition there are also elements that are not arguably incompatible with us, who by chance wander in lost, or infiltrate as agents of reformism. They use vague methods to divide the unity opposition. The sooner they are debunked and eliminated, the better for the cause.

16. But don't we support working with all workers in unions, regardless of their political and philosophical views? Of course, the United Opposition is not a trade union; it is a political faction whose mission is to influence the trade union movement. Let Monat and his friends act in disguise, the revolutionaries act openly in front of the workers. In the Unity Opposition, we can only work with those who stand shoulder to shoulder with us and move forward together, even if they may not be with us to the end.

17. Some comrades insist above all that the Communists must use ideas, not mechanical methods, to gain their influence over the trade unions. This idea may seem indisputable, but it is often translated into empty clichés. The centrist bureaucracy also very frequently and very sincerely declares that its mission is to influence ideas, not mechanical pressure.

At the end of the day, the whole issue boils down to political and economic direction, slogans and programmes of action. If the direction is right, if the slogan is in line with the needs of the moment, then the masses in the trade unions will not be "bound"; on the contrary, if the direction is wrong, if the policy of revolutionary upsurge is proposed at a time of political slump, or vice versa, then the masses It is inevitable to see it as a mechanical stress. The question therefore boils down to whether the theoretical premise of the left-wing opposition is serious enough and deep enough, and whether its cadres are sufficiently educated to correctly assess the situation and come up with corresponding slogans. All of these have to be tested in practice. Therefore, we must not allow silence or underestimate our temporary allies and our own sins and mistakes.

18. Some members of the coalition, as inconceivable as they may seem, protest against the intention of someone or others to subordinate the unified opposition to the coalition.

Without self-awareness, they established themselves on the same tragic arguments that Monat used against communism as a whole. In practice, this means that some comrades working in the union want to be completely independent of the union; they believe that, through their tactics, admonitions and personal ingenuity, they will achieve results that the union cannot achieve through collective work. Other comrades, who wished they had similar independence in the press, also welcomed these trends. The question is: if these comrades have no confidence in the alliance, why should they join?

19. What is the situation with regard to the "subordination" of the unified opposition? The question itself is wrong. Only its members belong to the alliance. As long as the majority of the United Opposition is not in the coalition, it is only a question of persuasion, compromise or alignment, and certainly not of subordination. In fact, those who oppose the unity of the opposition to submit to the alliance, they actually demand the alliance to submit to the unity of the opposition. This is the situation so far. In its trade union work, that is, in its most important work, the Union is subordinate to the unified opposition, giving up all independence of the Union for their benefit. Marxists cannot and must not tolerate such a policy - not even one more day.

20. Some leading comrades, who until yesterday stubbornly pursued the policy of surrender, announced today that they "completely agree" with the need to transform the unified opposition into a bloc. In fact, they wanted to settle for a name change. The sooner they "agreed" with the Marxist criticism, the more they actually fought to keep everything as it was. They just want to disguise the old policy with the language of Marxist criticism. These methods are not new, but time will not make them more attractive. If a revolutionary organization allows an opportunistic policy to disguise itself in revolutionary rhetoric, it will be corrupted for a long time (if not forever) by the poison of duplicity and falsehood. Let's firmly hope the league won't allow that.

Biyucada,

January 4, 1931

Notes

[1] Leading comrades in the United States tell us that certain comrades—to be sure, only individual comrades (literally)—represent and Loves in the U.S. alliance in the name of “mass work” Tongpai's group camp spoke. It's hard to imagine anything more absurd, stupid, and pointless than this. Did these people know anything about the history of the Bolshevik Party? Did they read Lenin's work? Do they know the correspondence between Marx and Engels? Or did the whole history of the revolutionary movement pass them by forever? Fortunately, the vast majority of members of the American coalition do not accept these ideas at all.