Letter to Albert Glotzer, May 1, 1932

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The American Dispute and International Questions

Dear Comrade Glotzer:

Unfortunately I have not yet had the opportunity to carefully study the documents I have received on the American dispute. In any case I will catch up in the coming weeks. There is one thing that I would like to state from the outset: The programmatic and tactical documents are, of course, very important. But the general method of procedure, tested by the facts, seems to me far more important. Comrade Shachtman's procedure puts me off in the extreme, and I simply cannot separate the American dispute from the international questions.

Comrade Shachtman believes that while supporting all those tendencies I consider harmful and wrong, he can at the same time reassure me with general platitudes. For two years, he supported Naville and Landau in a determined and stubborn fashion, although not openly as befits a revolutionary in political questions. In his latest letter, he contends that he did not support Naville and Landau, which makes the most painful impression. At the same time he passes over in complete silence his position toward the German Opposition and the French League as well as his alliance with Mill, Felix, and Lacroix. To the best of my knowledge Shachtman is familiar with Comrade Lacroix’s incredible letters and this is not the first time that Lacroix has invoked Shachtman’s authority. But he says nothing about this. In addition, according to information I have received in letters (this is in any case the only fact that I have second hand, the rest I know from my own experience), Comrade Nin has stated that I initiated a “campaign” against Shachtman. I have written about Shachtman’s position only to Shachtman himself and to the central committee of the American League. Who could have given Comrade Nin this completely false information? If Comrade Shachtman uses the same methods in American matters, then many of his theses may be very good, but his politics are bad. The Brandlerites maintain that Stalin is wrong only on the international questions, but on the Russian questions he is right. I decline to use this kind of double-entry bookkeeping on Shachtman. For more than two years I made do with arguments and private letters. I then turned to the leadership of the American League to force Shachtman to show his colors. He always prefers to remain under cover and to substitute questionable personal combinations for politics. So I must tell myself that, against my will, a public debate with Shachtman and his international allies is becoming unavoidable.

Comrade Shachtman writes me that a phrase in my interview over the inevitability of a labor party has created confusion. I have already seen that in the Lovestone sheet. It is an accidental misunderstanding. I spoke about the inevitability of the “Europeanization” of American politics, i.e., in the first place about the development of a party of the working class. In doing so, I of course did not concretize the concept of this party in any way: whether it would be a labor party, a Social Democratic party or a Communist party. There naturally was no reason for me to enlarge on this point in an interview for a capitalist paper. In the Russian text of my statement it says “workers’ party” and not “labor party.” Any observant reader might have made that out for himself. That the American Brandlerites want to make capital out of this only shows that, like their German teachers, they are at the end of their tether.

With best greetings.

Yours,

L. Trotsky