Has France Entered the Period of Revolution?

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The Left turn in the C.I. began in 1928. in July, the “third period” was proclaimed. A year later, Molotov declared that France, together with Germany and Poland, had entered a period of “the greatest revolutionary events”. All this was deducted from the development of the strike movement. No figures, no facts were cited. They limited themselves to two or three examples taken from the last numbers of the newspapers. We took (see Militant, No. 29–33) the question of the dynamics of the French labor movement in the light of figures and facts. The picture given by Molotov, prompted by the words of others (the role of the prompters, we assume, was played by Manuilsky and Kuusinen) in no way coincided with reality. The strike wave of the last two years had a very limited character, even though it revealed a certain rise compared to the preceding year, which was the lowest of the decade. The weak development of the strike struggle in the last two years is all the more remarkable because France during 1928–1929 went through an undeniable industrial revival, clear enough in the metal industry where the strike movement was the weakest of all.

One of the reasons for the fact that the French workers did not utilize the favorable conjuncture is undoubtedly the extremely superficial character of the strike strategy of Monmousseau and the other pupils of Losovsky. It became clear that they did not know the state of industry in their own country. As a substitute for that they characterized as offensive, revolutionary and political strikes the isolated, defensive economic strikes primarily in the light industries.

This is the essential part of the analysis we made in our work on the “third period” in France. Thus far we have not seen a single article in which our analysis is submitted to criticism but evidently a very acute need for such a criticism is felt. There is no other way of explaining the appearance in Pravda of an enormous feuilleton, On the Strike Strategy of the Generalissimo Trotsky, where there are frivolous rhymes, quotations from Juvenal, and in general fathomless wit, but not a word about a factual analysis of the struggle of the French proletariat (for the last decade), particularly for the last two years. The article which evidently belongs to the pen of one of the recent gifts of the “third period” is signed modestly Radovoy (rank and filer).

The author accuses Trotsky that he knows strike defense but does not recognize the offensive. Let us assume that Trotsky is guilty of that. But is this a reason for renouncing an offensive struggle in the metal industry under the most favorable conditions and at the same time designate petty, defensive strikes as offensve?

The author accuses Trotsky of not distinguishing capitalism of the epoch of rise from capitalism of the epoch of decline. Let us assume that this is so. Let us forget about the struggle over the relation of the the crisis of capitalism and its cyclical crises which went on in the Comintern in the period of its Third Congress, when live thought was pulsing in the Comintern. Let us assume that Trotsky forgot all of that, and that Radovoy absorbed it all. But does this give an answer to the question whether France entered for the past two years into the period of decisive revolutionary events, or not? This is precisely what the Comintern has proclaimed. Has this question any significance or not? It would seem that it has. But what does the author of the witty feuilleton say on this point? Not a word. France and its labor movement are completely disregarded. As a substitute, this Radovoy proves that Trotsky is a “mis[lead]er” and that he serves the bourgeoisie.

Is that all? Yes, nothing more than that. But, a well-meaning reader will object, can so much be expected from a young Radovoy? He still has a chance to grow. After all it is not he who creates the trade union policy for France. For that we have serious revolutionary strategists, tested in struggle, as for instance, the general secretary of the Profintern, Losovsky.

Correct – we will reply to the reader – all this would be convincing if ... if only the Radovoy were not Losovsky himself. And in the meantime, the matter stands thus: the bouquet of soured light-mindedness and flaccid wit is such that it cannot deceive us.

The leading general, under the modest pseudonym, defends his own acts. With rhymes he drapes the calamities he inflicts upon the labor movement with his leadership, in connection with that, he assails the Left Opposition with all the magnificence of his vengeful irony: it can, don’t you see, be completely seated on one sofa. Let the Radovoy investigate: Are there any sofas in the jails that are filled with Oppositionists? But if they really were so few in number as Lovosky would have it, this would not frighten us at all. At the beginning of the war, the revolutionary internationalists of all Europe went to Zimmerwald on a few carriages. We never feared remaining in the minority. It is Losovsky who, during the war, was very much afraid of remaining in the minority and therefore defended in print the Longuetists, with whom he tried by all means to unite us, against us. During the October revolution, Losovsky was afraid that the Bolshevik Party would be “isolated” from the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries and he therefore betrayed the Party which he temporarily joined, and united with its enemies in the most critical period. But even later on, when Losovsky did join the victorious Soviet power, his quantitative evaluations were just as little reliable as his qualitative ones.

After the victory of which he was not in the least guilty, Losovsky, putting the minus signs where he had previously had his pluses, at the time of the Fifth Congress of the Comintern, declared in a triumphant manifesto that the French Socialist party “no longer exists.” and in spite of all our protests against this shameful light-mindedness, retained this contention when it became clear that the international social democracy nevertheless does exist, Losovsky together with his teachers, crawled on all fours through the whole policy of the Anglo-Russian Committee and was in a union with the strike-breakers during the greatest strike of the British proletariat. With what triumph – with a triumph over the Opposition – did Losovsky, at the session of the Plenum of the Central Committee, report the telegram in which Citrine and Purcell generously agreed to converse with the representatives of the All-Russian Trade Union Central Committee, after they had crushed not only the general strike but also the strike of the coal miners.

After the destruction of the Chinese revolution and the disintegration of the organizations of the Chinese proletariat, Losovsky, at the Plenum of the Central Committee (where he came as a guest because Stalin had not as yet decided to bring him in as a member) reporting the fantastic data about the conquests of the Profintern, gave the figure of the workers organized in the trade unions of China as three million. Everybody gasped. But Losovsky did not even wink an eye. He operates just as lightly with millions of organized workers as he does with rhymes for the coloring of articles. This explains sufficiently why Losovsky’s witticisms about the sofa on which the whole Opposition can be seated do not in the least overwhelm us with their magnificence. Sofas as well as furniture in general are undoubtedly in abundance in the offices of the Profintern, but unfortunately there are no ideas there. And it is ideas that conquer, because they win the masses ...

“But why did Losovsky sign ‘Radovoy’?” we hear a distrustful or a doubtful voice. There are two reasons: a personal and a political. The personal role of Losovsky is such that it is not of advantage to him to expose himself to blows. In delicate moments of ideological clashes he prefers modest anonymity, just as in the sharp, acute hours of the revolutionary struggle he is inclined to solitary deliberations. This is the personal reason. As we have said, there is also a political reason. Had Losovsky signed Losovsky, everybody would say: Is it possible that in the questions of the trade union movement, we really have nothing better than this? But seeing the signature of Radovoy (rank and filer) under the article, the well-meaning reader retains the possibility of saying: We must admit that Radovoy is a sorry scribbler. But nevertheless we still have Losovsky.