| Home | Contact | Links | ||
|
||
|
||
|
|
Spartacus and Trotskyism, 2019 (1946)Source: We have never felt much inclined to enter into an ungrateful dispute with the Trotskyists, neither in illegality nor afterward. As far as we can remember, there has only been one polemic on our part. This happened when some Trotskyists and v.s.v. [Association of friends of Spartacus] comrades in Zutphen, in a meeting where one of the leaders of the Trotskyist r.c.p. [Revolutionary-Communist Party] spoke, by means of a motion, expressed the wish that the possibilities of fusion between r.c.p and Spartacus would be taken into consideration. We were of the opinion that the answer given by us in our weekly, and orally in Zutphen by one of our speakers at a later meeting, would have been sufficient. It appears that this is not the case, especially with regard to the r.c.p., so we would like to reiterate our position. The reason for this is as follows. From time to time we notice that the r.c.p. continues its attempts to foster the mood among Spartacus comrades, that both political tendencies belong together. It is an old trick, which we have known for a long time from Leninist, Stalinist and Trotskyist parties. For example, in the case of the Stalinists it was sometimes called “united front”, often “popular front“, but in essence it was always aimed at the formation of fractions within the organization of a different movement. Trotskyism, which is so much weaker from an organizational point of view, has in this, as Trotsky himself demonstrated throughout his life, the particularly accentuated form of entry into other political organizations, through ideological work, conquering the organism or, if that doesn’t work, creating a new scission. The latter then goes hand in hand with the vilification of previously adulated, but not sufficiently obedient “leaders”. We are not surprised by this method of achieving one’s goal through obscure back roads. Nor that it sows hatred as well as confusion, for this is the natural consequence of such manipulations. Trotskyism, which, as has been said, applies this type of work more regularly, systematically and somewhat more overtly, has thus made itself hated in circles of revolutionaries throughout the whole world. Wherever we look, in America, France, Belgium, the Netherlands; everywhere the words fusion and quarrel are most closely connected. Because if a merger had been carried out, and if the organized group work had started, then the most inferior arguments, the most serious slander and insinuations were not too bad to achieve the goal. The r.c.p. is well aware that it is useless to openly knock on the door of the Communist’s League “Spartacus” for a merger. There are two reasons for this. The first is that, knowing the past, “Spartacus” does not know of any good or honest intentions with Trotskyism. The second reason is that the Communist’s League “Spartacus” sets itself completely different tasks than the Trotskyist parties. From one of our comrades we have just received a letter for inspection, which was sent to him by an r.c.p. leader. Apart from the fact that it deals with cases and mentions names that should understandably be omitted, it asks our comrade to work within “Spartacus” for the unification of the organizations. The letter-writer, while pointing out himself and his comrades as modest people, goes so far as to propose the plan that the weekly publication of such a new formation would be called: De Tribune. He says verbatim: “I am a Leninist and they say they are against it. Would that really be the case? I doubt it. The issue is much more superficial.” One sees what is going to happen. When the fusion-weapon is to be struck like an axe into the other organization, it is suggested that the differences are only superficial. But then the greatest impudence comes up. A so-called copy of another letter, allegedly sent in April 1946 to the Communists’ League “Spartacus” in Amsterdam, is added to this letter, in which it is recognized that “the disputes that are currently separating us are incompatible within the discipline of one party”, but at the end of which the plan is put forward to publish a joint discussion organ and to hold discussion meetings, so that after a certain period of time a decision can be made as to whether or not a closer cooperation is possible. This so-called copy closes the door. We have never received such a letter, and it was known to the r.c.p. from earlier occasions that “Spartacus” did not appreciate it the least. Here is an enhanced example of the methods to use members of an organization and to encourage them to fraction-work. We would also like to go into the contents of this so-called copy for a moment. We read: “Both your movement and ours are the result of the r.s.a.p. While our party has made the Leninist program of the old party its own, and has drawn the consequences from it, which at the time were not yet sufficiently seen by the r.s.a.p., like: [first and foremost] affiliation to the IV. International”, … etc. And subsequently: “It was inevitable that we would all make mistakes after the sudden loss of an experienced leadership, often numerous mistakes. Both you and we had insufficient experience.” Modesty adorns man, one sometimes hears, but this modesty is a bit too obvious. Both made mistakes, but the r.c.p. has drawn the right consequences, which the r.s.a.p. did not yet, mind you: not yet, see sufficiently. Too bad for the r.c.p. that the facts are slightly different. Of course, we also recognize that the r.s.a.p. has gone through a development and that the revolutionary workers could not dwell on the r.s.a.p. position. But the development for the r.s.a.p. has been characterized by outgrowing the Trotskyist movement. It has never actually belonged to that formation and it has come up against it in ever sharper conflict. This was done with the consent of the “experienced leadership” and in spite of the fact that from time to time some supporters of Trotskyism entered and left the r.s.a.p. as fractionists. In the end the relations were so sharp tense that Trotsky, in accordance with the method mentioned above, said that “Sneevliet was connected with the Dutch government by means of silver cords”. So there is less reason for the r.c.p. to consider the ten fallen comrades as their comrades. This distancing from Trotskyism by the r.s.a.p. did not only apply to the “Russian method” applied used in the so-called Fourth International, which ruled out any possibility that thoughts different from the official ones by Trotsky could come to fruition. It was not only a condemnation of the entry and fraction politics, but it was also closely related with the growing awareness within the r.s.a.p. that already in the first period of the Russian Revolution germs were present in Bolshevism that had to lead to everything that would be written down later on account of Stalinism. That’s why Sneevliet, unlike Trotsky, who doesn’t say anything interesting about it in “My Life”, nor in the “History of the Russian Revolution”, called Kronstadt “a black page in the proletarian struggle for freedom”. It is for this reason that in the then monthly publication of the r.s.a.p. “De Rode October” some articles by E. Bauer appeared about “Rosa Luxembourg in our time”, in which her critique on the abolition of the workers’ democracy in Russia was expressed and how this had to lead to a government of party leaders and to paralysis of the councils. And it is therefore, that the r.s.a.p. deleted from its program of principles the phrases about “the unconditional defense of the Soviet Union.” In illegality, this development has continued and the issue of a completely new reorientation of the party, whereby the old trade union policy and parliamentarianism would be re-examined, and the entire stakes of the movement would be directed towards enterprise committees and propaganda for the councils, was not completed by those whom the r.c.p. calls “our experienced leaders”, but against whom they had fought as Stalinists or as Trotskyists, due to the blow that struck the old formation in March and April 1942. However, the line has continued, so the issues have become even less ‘superficial’ than they were before the war. It is clear to us, that social-democracy, Stalinism and Trotskyism are all tendencies that accept state socialist ideas, ideas which were once combated by the then still united social-democracy, for example by W. Liebknecht and against which, by the way, Marx himself had also fulminated. It is clear to us that just now capitalism grows towards ever more extensive state exploitation, called “socialization” by the state socialists, but that this does not lead to Communism, but to state capitalism. And from that point of view, much of what happened in Russia becomes very understandable to us. The task of “Spartacus“ is to direct all its forces towards bringing the insight that the liberation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself, and that no brilliant leaders or parties can take over this task from the proletariat. This concept brings with it that the new becoming international party, which has to form, among others, the cadres for the mass actions to come, has also been assigned a completely different task. Not the task of forming its own power and its conquest of power, but a serving task in the coming to consciousness and international solidarity of the struggling masses. Never will one read in “Spartacus” what Cannon, the leader of the official Trotskyists in America, wrote: “A Trotskyist does everything for the party, even if he has to crawl into the mud.” Those who accept this are also ready to go through everything that unfortunately so many former revolutionaries underwent in the third international. We like to leave it to capitalism and to old-style parties to teach the workers how to crawl through the mud. Our task is to propagate independent thinking and pride among the workers. That is why it can’t be useful to make the impression in any way, as if there is a familiarity between Spartacus’ views and the State-socialist and party-political views of Trotskyism. The creation of common publications in view of considering closer cooperation at a later date only bears the evil to feed the thought of such kinship. One may, as is done in the letter, reproach us with ultra-radicalism from that side. The consequences of Trotskyism, that encourages workers to vote for the c.p.n., which it characterizes itself as nationalistic and treacherous, notably with the argument to thus strengthen the class understanding by “transitional slogans”, will become clear enough in the long run. For it are “transitional slogans” that can only lead to new defeats for the working class, because they distract it from its real task, the organization of the struggle. Just as the workers once expected “freedom, work and bread” by voting for the s.d.a.p. so will those who vote for the c.p.n. … From the representatives of that party “higher wages and lower prices” will be wrongly expected. This is not a “progressive transitional policy” but one of retreating into low parliamentarianism. We do not participate in this, neither in such parliamentary and party politics, nor in supporting state-socialist ideas. We only hope that this will mark the positions between Trotskyism and Spartakism once and for all. Editorial note1. It concerns the article: Spartacus en de trotskisten [Proposal for a fusion of Spartacus and c.r.m. at Zutphen, signed by A. Vullinga [=Age Vallinga] voor “Spartacus”, afdeling Zutphen, and Jan de Boer for the c.r.m., section Zutphen, a proposal rejected by principle]. Compiled by Vico, 21 September 2019 |
|
. An internationalist Articles Selection & Review; translation by J.J., 6 August 2019; the notes have not been maintained, a new note was added.