Some reprints from educational bulletins (1978, 1979,1986)

In recent debates within the Committee for a Workers' International, there has been general unanimity on the useful role that party bulletins can play in providing resources for discussion and education. I am posting articles from three bulletins that may be of interest:

1) "On Students and Intellectuals" [Leon Trotsky, November 1932] - reprinted from a Student Bulletin (October 1978)

And so Trotsky arrived. Anyone expecting to be faced with an old, brutal, fearful figure would be disappointed. Quite the opposite. There was something friendly, highly cultivated, pleasant, and likeable about him. After greeting each of his visitors, he sat down in the empty armchair and waited for our questions.

Where does the revolutionary outlook of students come from - when in fact they are revolutionary? At the addition of this last qualification, a very revealing and mischievous smile came over the familiar features of his face. "There you put your finger on it!"

Do they owe this to their social and economic position, or do we have to turn to psychology, perhaps even to psychoanalysis, to explain it? Once again a mischievous smile. "First and foremost, you have to understand that students do not constitute a distinct and unified group in society. They fall into various groups, and their political attitude closely corresponds to the one prevailing in these various groups in society. Some students are radical-orientated; but of these, only a very tiny number can be won over to the revolutionary party.

"The fact is that very often radicalism is a sickness of youth among what are actually petty-bourgeois students. There is a French saying: 'Avant trente ans revolutionaire, apres canaille' - Under thirty a revolutionist, thereafter a scoundrel. This expression is not heard only in France. It was also known and used in connection with the Russian students in the prewar period. Between 1907 and 1917 I was living in exile, and I travelled around a lot, giving speeches to the various colonies of Russian students abroad. All these students were revolutionary in those days. During the October Revolution in 1917, 99 percent of them fought on the other side of the barricades.

"You find this radicalism among youth in every country. The young person always feels dissatisfied- with the society he lives in-he always thinks he can do things better than his elders did. So the youth always feel they are progressive - but what they understand by progress varies quite a bit. In France, for example, there is both a radical and a royalist opposition. Naturally this radicalism includes a certain number of healthy oppositionist forces, but for the most part it amounts to what can only be called careerism.

"Here we have the real psychological motor force. The young feel shut out; the old take up all the space, and the young can't find any outlet for their abilities. They are dissatisfied quite simply because they themselves are not sitting in the driver's seat. But as soon as they are sitting there, it's all over with their radicalism. 

"It's like this: gradually these young people move into the available posts. They become lawyers, office heads, teachers. And so they come to look upon their earlier radicalism as a sin of their youth, as a simultaneously repulsive and charming error. As a result of this memory of his own youth, the academician comes to lead a double life throughout his entire life. What it is, is that he himself believes that he still possesses a kind of revolutionary idealism, and in reality he retains a certain liberal veneer. But this veneer is only a coating for what he really is - a narrow-minded, petty-bourgeois social climber, whose real interests boil down to his career."

Trotsky shifted in his chair a bit and looked around 'with a kind, apologetic smile. Can students be of any importance to a revolutionary movement? "The revolutionary student can only make a contribution if, in the first place, he goes through a rigorous and consistent process of revolutionary self-education, and, in the second place, if he joins the revolutionary workers' movement while he is still a student. At the same time, let me make clear that when I talk about theoretical self-education, I mean the study of unfalsified Marxism."

What should be the relationship between the academician and the workers' movement? A stem and determined expression comes into Trotsky's eyes. "He must realise that he is coming into the workers' movement as a learner and not as a teacher. He must learn to subordinate himself and do the work that is demanded of him, and not what he wants to do. The workers' movement for its part must regard him with the greatest scepticism. A young academician must first 'toe the line' for three, four, or five years, and do quite simple and ordinary party work. Then, when the workers have confidence in him and are completely certain that he is not a careerist, then he can be allowed to move up- but slowly, very slowly. When he has worked with the workers' movement in this way, then the fact that he was an academician is forgotten, the social differences disappear."

What, then, is the role of the intellectual in the revolutionary movement? "His role is to draw general conclusions on the basis of concrete facts. If this process of drawing generalisations out of current conflicting material is not constantly going on, the movement becomes banalised."

Earlier you said that by a theoretical self-education you meant the study of unfalsified Marxism. What do you mean by unfalsified Marxism? "Criticism of Marxism is not so dangerous. Falsification is a different matter. What I mean by it is theories that go by the name of Marxism, but that have actually abandoned the essence of Marx's teachings. The revolutionist Bernstein, for example, made the movement itself the main thing in his theory and pushed the ultimate goal into the background. What resulted from this 'Marxism'? In England, a MacDonald - or a Lord Snowden. You can find other examples yourselves. Such falsification only uses the name of Marxism in order to deceive the workers.

Well, but, as Lis Toersleff wrote, the world hasn't stood still since Marx's time, has it? "Of course not. I'm no fetishist - Marxism did not come to a halt when Marx died. Marx could also be wrong - mainly in his predictions of when events would occur, and then he erred only in his assessment of the timing. Lenin integrated newly emerged historical factors into Marxism and thus adapted it to our time."

Trotsky then took up the question of democracy and dictatorship: "We Communists do not deny - as, for example, the anarchists do - the importance of democracy. But we recognise its importance only up to a very definite point. That point is reached as soon as the class contradictions become so great that the tension causes a short circuit to occur. At that point, democracy can no longer function, and the only alternatives are either a proletarian or a bourgeois dictatorship. Look at the evolution of the Social Democratic republic in Germany from 1918 to the present. In the early days, the Social Democrats had power, but now it is reactionary generals who are sitting at the wheel.

"Democracy can no longer even play its own game because 'If the class contradictions. Look, for example, at how the democratic right to asylum - the right of an exiled person to residency - is observed these days." With the mention of the right to asylum, you could see that Trotsky was again coming back to Dalgas Boulevards With a broad smile, he continued: "I am not a stubborn Marxist. You can still get me to believe in democracy. But first you'll have to comply with two wishes: first bring about socialism in Germany through democratic means, and second get me a residence permit in Denmark." 



2) Letter from Engels to Bebel [ 20 June 1873] - reprinted from a Summer 1979 bulletin

I am answering your letter first because Liebknecht’s is still with Marx, who cannot locate it just now. It was not Hepner but Yorck’s letter to him, signed by the Committee, which caused us here to be afraid that your imprisonment would be used by the Party authorities, which unfortunately are entirely Lassallean, to transform the Volksstaat into an ‘honest’ Neue-Sozial-Demokrat. Yorck plainly confessed to such an intention, and as the Committee claimed to have the right to appoint and remove the editors the danger was surely great enough. Hepner’s impending deportation gave them another pretext for carrying out these plans. Under these circumstances it was absolutely necessary for us to know what the situation was; hence this correspondence. .

With regard to the attitude of the Party towards Lasalleanism, you can of course judge what tactics should be adopted better than we, especially in particular cases. But there is also this to be considered. When, as in your case, one is to a certain extent in the position of a competitor to the Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiter Verein (General Association of German Workers) it is easy to pay too much attention to one's rival and to get into the habit of always thinking about him first. But both the General Association of German Workers and the Social-Democratic Workers' Party together still only form a very small minority of the German working class. Our view, which we have found confirmed by long practice, is that the correct tactic in propaganda is not to draw away a few individuals and members here and there from one's opponent, but to work on the great mass which still remains apathetic. The primitive force of a single individual whom we have ourselves attracted from the crude mass is worth more than ten Lassallean renegades, who always bring the seeds of their false tendencies into the Party with them. And if one could only get the masses without their local leaders it would still be all right. But one always has to take a whole crowd of these leaders into the bargain, and they are bound by their previous public utterances, if not by their previous views, and have above all things to prove that they have not deserted their principles but that on the contrary the Social-Democratic Workers' Party preaches true Lassalleanism. This was the unfortunate thing at Eisenach, not to be avoided at that time, perhaps, but there is no doubt at all that these elements have done harm to the Party and I am not sure that the Party would not have been at least as strong to-day without that addition. In any case, however, I should regard it as a misfortune if these elements were reinforced.

One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for “unity.” Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger, for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters.

Naturally every party leadership wants to see successes and this is quite good too. But there are circumstances in which one must have the courage to sacrifice momentary success for more important things. Especially a party like ours, whose ultimate success is so absolutely certain, and which has developed so enormously in our own lifetime and under our own eyes, momentary success is by no means always and absolutely necessary. Take the International, for instance. After the Commune it had its colossal success. The bourgeoisie, struck all of a heap, ascribed omnipotence to it. The great mass of the membership believed things would stay like that for all eternity. We knew very well that the bubble must burst. All the riff-raff attached themselves to it. The sectarians within it began to flourish, and misused the International in the hope that the most stupid and mean actions would be permitted them. We did not allow that. Well knowing that the bubble must burst some time all the same, our concern was not to delay the catastrophe but to take care that the International emerged from it pure and unadulterated. The bubble burst at the Hague, and you know that the majority of Congress members went home sick with disappointment. And yet nearly all these disappointed people, who imagined they would find the ideal of universal brotherhood and reconciliation in the International, had far more bitter quarrels at home than those which broke out at the Hague! Now the sectarian quarrel-mongers are preaching conciliation and decrying us as the intolerant and the dictators. And if we had come out in a conciliatory way at the Hague, if we had hushed up the breaking out of the split - what would have been the result? The sectarians, especially the Bakuninists, would have got another year in which to perpetrate, in the name of the International, much greater stupidities and infamies even; the workers of the most developed countries would have turned away in disgust; the bubble would not have burst but, pierced by pinpricks, would have slowly collapsed, and the next Congress, which would have been bound to bring the crisis anyhow, would have turned into the lowest kind of personal row, because principles had already been sacrificed at the Hague. Then the International would indeed have gone to pieces - gone to pieces through "unity"! Instead of this we have now got rid of the rotten elements with honour to ourselves--the members of the Commune who were present at the last decisive session say that no session of the Commune left such a terrible impression upon them as this session of the tribunal which passed judgement on the traitors to the European proletariat - we have left them to expend all their forces in lying, slander and intrigue for ten months - and where are they? They, the alleged representatives of the great majority of the International, now announce that they do not dare to come to the next Congress (more details in an article which is being sent off for the Volkstaat with this letter). And if we had to do it again we should not, taking it all together, act any differently - tactical mistakes are of course always committed.

In any case I think the efficient elements among the Lassalleans will fall to you of themselves in course of time and that it would therefore be unwise to break off the fruit before it is ripe, as the unity people want.

For the rest, old Hegel has already said: A party proves itself a victorious party by the fact that it splits and can stand the split. The movement of the proletariat necessarily passes through different stages of development; at every stage one section of people lags behind and does not join in the further advance; and this alone explains why it is that actually the "solidarity of the proletariat" is everywhere realised in different party groupings which carry on life and death feuds with one another, as the Christian sects in the Roman Empire did amidst the worst persecutions.

If the Neue Sozial-Demokrat for example has more subscribers than the Volksstaat, you ought not to forget either that each sect is necessarily fanatic and through this fanaticism obtains, particularly in regions where it is new (as for instance the General Association of German Workers is in Schleswig-Holstein), much greater momentary successes than the Party, which simply represents the real movement, without any sectarian oddities. But on the other hand, fanaticism does not last long.

I have to close my letter as the mail is about to be dispatched. Let me only add hurriedly: Marx cannot tackle Lassalle until the French translation is finished (approx end of July), after which he will definitely need a rest as he has greatly overworked himself. 3) "A few words about the Party regime" [Leon Trotsky, December 1937] - reprinted from a bulletin,Winter 1986-7To the Editors of Socialist Appeal:

During the past months I have received letters in regard to the inner regime of a revolutionary party from several apparently young comrades, unknown to me. Some of these letters complain about the “lack of democracy” in your organisation, about the domineering of the “leaders” and the like. Individual comrades ask me to give a “clear and exact formula on democratic centralism” which would preclude false interpretations.It is not easy to answer these letters. Not one of my correspondents even attempts to demonstrate clearly and concretely with actual examples exactly wherein lies the violation of democracy.On the other hand, insofar as I, a bystander, can judge on the basis of your newspaper and your bulletins, the discussion in your organisation is being conducted with full freedom. The bulletins are filled chiefly by representatives of a tiny minority. I have been told the same holds true of your discussion meetings. The decisions are not yet carried out. Evidently they will be carried through at a freely elected conference. In what then could the violations of democracy have been manifested? This is hard to understand.Sometimes, to judge by the tones of the letters, i.e, in the main instance by the formlessness of the grievances, it seems to be that the complainers are simply dissatisfied with the fact that in spite of the existing democracy, they prove to be in a tiny minority. Through my own experience I know that this is unpleasant. But wherein is there any violation of democracy?
Neither do I think that I can give such a formula on democratic centralism that “once and for all” would eliminate misunderstandings and false interpretations. A party is an active organism. It develops in the struggle with outside obstacles and inner contradictions.The malignant decomposition of the Second and Third Internationals, under severe conditions of the imperialist epoch, creates for the Fourth International difficulties unprecedented in history. One cannot overcome them with some sort of magic formula. The regime of a party does not fall ready made from the sky but is formed gradually in struggle. A political line predominates over the regime. First of all, it is necessary to define strategic problems and tactical methods correctly in order to solve them. The organisational forms should correspond to the strategy and the tactic.Only a correct policy can guarantee a healthy party regime. This, it is understood, does not mean that the development of the party does not realise organisational problems as such. But it means that the formula for democratic centralism must inevitably find a different expression in the parties of different countries and in different stages of development of one and the same party.
Democracy and centralism do not at all find themselves in an invariable ratio to one another. Everything depends on the concrete circumstances, on the political situation in the country, on the strength of the party and its experience, on the general level of its members, on the authority the leadership has succeeded in winning. Before a conference, when the problem is one of formulating a political line for the next period, democracy triumphs over centralism.When the problem is political action, centralism subordinates democracy to itself. Democracy again asserts its rights when the party feels the need to examine critically its own actions. The equilibrium between democracy and centralism establishes itself in the actual struggle, at moments it is violated and then again re-established. The maturity of each member of the party expresses itself particularly in the fact that he does not demand from the party regime more than it can give. The person who defines his attitude to the party by the individual fillips that he gets on the nose is a poor revolutionist.It is necessary, of course, to fight against every individual mistake of the leadership, every injustice, and the like. But it is necessary to assess these “injustices” and “mistakes” not in themselves but in connection with the general development of the party both on a national and international scale.
A correct judgement and a feeling for proportion in politics is an extremely important thing. The person who has propensities for making a mountain out of a mole hill can do much harm to himself and to the party. The misfortune of such people as Oehler, Field, Weisbord, and others consists in their lack of feeling for proportionAt the moment there are not a few half-revolutionists, tired out by defeats, fearing difficulties, aged young men who have more doubts and pretensions than will to struggle. Instead of seriously analysing political questions in essence, such individuals seek panaceas, on every occasion complain about the “regime”, demand wonders from the leadership, or try to muffle their inner scepticism by ultra-left prattling.I fear that revolutionists will not be made out of such elements, unless they take themselves in hand. I do not doubt, on the other hand, that the young generation of workers will be capable of evaluating the programmatic and strategical content of the Fourth International according to merit and will rally to its banner in ever greater numbers.Each real revolutionist who notes down the blunders of the party regime should first of all say to himself: “We must bring into the party a dozen new workers!” The young workers will call the gentlemen-sceptics, grievance-mongers, and pessimists to order. Only along such a road will a strong healthy party regime be established.