An Advocate Takes Up a Position on the French Situation

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

1. The turn in France has aroused passionate and prolonged discussion. Nothing could be more natural. We learn by experience and we analyze our experience by the Marxist method. Only the International Bolshevik-Leninists can allow themselves such a discussion.

The little faint hearts of the SAP, who yesterday were making common cause against us with the miserable de Kadt,are talking today of our "annihilation."

We have an ideological tradition. We have a clear-cut program. We give a clear-cut answer to every question. Answers from our sections agree in the main, without being arranged in advance. That means that we have trained cadres. If we form blocs with other organizations or if one of our sections even enters the Socialist Party, we do this always in the name of our principles, which prove incontrovertible and which we are learning and shall learn to apply to the conditions of each country.

2. Our internal discussion must now pass from the stage of perspectives, hypotheses and proposals into the stage of analyzing application. We must study the most recent experience of our French section. The experience is still very short, but very important. The first step along the new path already shows the complete incorrectness of the objections raised by the opponents of the entry. It is precisely for this reason that they have to change their arguments daily and even shift the field of discussion, to say nothing of the "intransigents" who have already entered the Socialist Party so as to fight us there.

3. What did the opponents who were guided only by ideological and political considerations say? Let us take the document that contains the position of the majority of the Belgian section. In it we read: "How are we to conceive that we enter the SFIO as an independent political faction, retaining its own banner and its organ? Is this not to be premature and to leave the strength of the SFIO bureaucracy out of account? The history of left socialist groups teaches us that the Social Democratic parties can no longer afford to let revolutionary factions grow within them." We ask the Belgian comrades: Have you read the special issue (Number 4) of Combat des Jeunes and Number 220 of La Vérité? If the expression "entry with banner unfurled" has a meaning, Combat des Jeunes and La Vérité are that unfurled banner, and nevertheless Le Populaire has published advertisements for La Vérité four times, and it has already been possible for our comrades to be taken into the SFIO. Such a fact would be impossible in Belgium, Holland or many other countries. It can be explained by the present situation of the Socialist Party in France. The basic error of the Belgian document consists in the fact that it treats Social Democracy as an abstraction, independent of time and place, instead of analyzing what the real state of affairs is with the SFIO. Read the passage quoted above again, and you will be convinced of this. In the whole document devoted to the entry into the SFIO there is not a word of the peculiarities of this party or its state at the moment in comparison with, say, the Belgian Labor Party (POB).

4. The opponents said, "The entry into the SFIO means almost automatically the abandonment of the slogan of the Fourth International." Read Combat des Jeunes and La Vérité Our section entered the SFIO to fight for the Fourth International there.

5. Not the slightest reconciliation with Social Democracy as a system of ideas and actions is possible for us. But this system of ideas is represented in different ways in living bodies. In certain circumstances they begin to fall apart. The system as such collapses. It is replaced by a struggle of different tendencies, and this struggle can create a situation that demands our immediate and direct intervention and even organizational entry into the Socialist Party.

6. The Belgian document sees only "the system of ideas" and not the living body of the workers' organizations. This basic error is also shown in the way the document brings up the Russian experience: "The supporters of entry into the SFIO seem to forget that the break between the two basic tendencies of the workers' movement took place in 1903 in the Russian Social Democracy." This view is mechanical in method and incorrect in content. For the authors of the document, it seems that after the 1903 split there were two absolute entities, Bolshevism and Menshevism, which developed in two different parts of the universe. That is pure metaphysics. The history of the struggle of Bolshevism against Menshevism is in fact rich in lessons. It is a pity the document makes use of it in a one-sided, abstract, formalistic manner.

7. History did not stop in 1903. The split turned out to have been too early, that is, not in tune with the objective situation and the mentality of the masses, and the Bolsheviks had to reunite with the Mensheviks at the end of 1906. But here the document interrupts us: "It is admittedly true that under the pressure of the masses toward unity there came about a link between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in 1906. In our opinion, an alliance of two factions of the workers' movement is to be equated with a united front Hence the historical reference is no more relevant than the first one (to Marx)." I am very sorry to have to say that this is turning the Russian experience upside down. It was a case not of an alliance or a united front but of a fusion of the two parties, confirmed by the Stockholm congress of 1906, and this united party, though split by factional struggle, existed till 1912, i.e., six years. What does this error arise from? From the fact that the authors of the document are not even able to conceive that the two absolutely irreconcilable "essences" (after the 1903 split) could come closer again and find accommodation together in a single party. The historical error is the product of the metaphysical method.

8. The attempt has been made to scare us with the prediction that the entry "would be exploited to the full by the Stalinists" (document of the Belgian majority). We replied, "The Stalinists, who are fraternizing with the Socialist bureaucracy, will not be able to accuse us of betrayal, of capitulation to reformism, etc., at least not before new orders."

The facts have proved us right Of course the Stalinists are attacking us, but not as abettors of reformism but, on the contrary, as destroyers of the Socialist Party. They warn the Young Socialists "fraternally” of our diabolical tricks (L’Avantgarde). That means that it is the Stalinists who are appearing as helpers, indeed as lackeys, of the reformist bureaucracy against us, and not as revolutionary accusers. If one still required this confirmation of the correctness of our turn, it is to be found in the columns of the Stalinist press. *

9. Who is playing revolutionary accuser? The Bordigists and Co. With them it is very simple. They speak only in the name of eternity. They still regard themselves, if I am not wrong, as a faction of the Third International. What does that mean? Nothing. They might as well regard themselves as a faction of the Salvation Army.

It would really be wasted effort to pay even the slightest attention to these premature corpses. The ideas, wants and criticism of a simple member of the Young Socialist Guard [JGS] of Belgium are a hundred times more important for our orientation and our methods than the learned nonsense of Bilan.

10. What is important is to study experience. The Socialist youth of France has received our comrades and their Combat des Jeunes with open arms. They have guaranteed them the organizational seniority rights on the basis of their connection with the Leninist youth. The bureaucratic apparatus declared this decision invalid as being in conflict with the statutes. The sections of the Socialist youth had to make do with a protest resolution. This significant fact shows that the view the majority of the League had of the relations between the base and apparatus is confirmed by the facts, at least as far as the youth is concerned.

11. Does this mean that everything is assured? Far from it Not a few difficulties are caused by the intrigues and calumnies of the unrestrained elements of the minority who try to blacken the League in the eyes of the Socialists. But that is not the problem. These people, who go from one extreme to the other, only show their emptiness and liquidate themselves.

There are more important factors that can turn against us. The situation in and around the SFIO may change. The bureaucracy may set about radically getting rid of us. Even if that should occur tomorrow, we can already register considerable gains: the League is oriented toward the masses; the prejudices of a self-satisfied and barren sectarianism are uncovered; the connections with the best Socialist elements are established; our publications have undergone an unprecedented increase in circulation and in entirely new circles. Even more, our youth as Socialists have for the first time had the opportunity of approaching the Stalinists "to discuss with them in comradely fashion." And all this despite the indisputable fact that the "substances" Bolshevism and Menshevism are more irreconcilable than ever.

12. However, expulsion does not stand on the agenda. We must work and root ourselves. To that end we must not turn to the ultraleft conservatives, must not justify ourselves before the shrill accusation of people who lost all balance and all sense of responsibility (Bauer and others), but rather speak in language understandable by Socialist and non-party workers who seek a way out of the impasse.

13. Our Swiss section writes that, after negotiations and political as well as theoretical discussion, the four hundred members of the Zurich Socialist youth proposed to our comrades to enter into their organization as a Bolshevik-Leninist faction, guaranteeing them in advance full freedom of action and a place in the leadership and on the editorial board. Can we accept these conditions? Yes or no? If the conditions are correctly represented, the only answer is: We must enter into the Socialist youth. It would be a mistake, more, a crime, even worse, sectarian stupidity, not to enter.

All our sections must study not only the far-removed experience of the struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism in Russia but also the living experience of our French League as well as the claims and forecasts of both sides through their confirmation by reality. Each section will draw precious lessons from it. It is a question not of applying the same procedure under different conditions but of learning how to proceed suitably in a national and even local situation. Each section must make a survey of all organizations, groups and strata of the proletariat in order to understand how to intervene in time and how to propagate ideas by realistic means.