Letter to Alfonso Leonetti, February 5, 1931

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

To Alfonso Leonetti on the French Section

Dear Comrade:

You did not reply for a long time to my last letter, which, I confess, surprised me somewhat.

I hasten to reply to your letter of January 28. You are completely correct when you say, “The [International] Bulletin, printed on a mimeograph machine, could come out regularly every fifteen days, without requiring a regular staff. With a bit of good will and initiative, it could come out in several editions (French, German, English, Italian).” For my part, I am astounded that to this day, the Italian edition, for example, has not appeared. Nor do I find any articles by you (perhaps I am wrong) in Bulletin number 3. In my letter to you I insisted above all on the necessity for the New Italian Opposition to give our international organization a helping hand. Once again I admit I do not understand whom you are asking for “a bit of good will and initiative” in this matter. I wish nothing more than the closest collaboration with you personally and with your whole group in our international organization. The comrades in Prinkipo are quite prepared to collaborate effectively in producing a twice-monthly Bulletin (by contributing articles, translations, news, etc.). It would also be very good to enlarge the International Secretariat with comrades who are capable of representing, at least morally, one or another national section and who can make a useful contribution to the collective work. What do you think of the Archio-Marxist comrade, whom I do not know personally? But they could bring on some comrade provisionally, with a consultative vote, to give him a chance to learn and to be seen by the others. Make your proposals and, above all, involve yourself personally in the work of the Secretariat, of which you are a member.

The social composition of the [French] League is not satisfactory — you are quite correct about that. In my correspondence with the French comrades I have often insisted on the necessity of applying policies and methods that could really group workers around the League. But I believe it also requires a correct and most energetic orientation toward the young workers. The fact that they have not passed through the party is no objection — we must educate them. That must go side by side with our efforts directed toward the party.

Nor do I see the salvation of the League in a “purge.” We must do everything to reestablish the possibility of collective work, but on a more correct basis than before. Despite my bad experiences with the Naville group, I am in no way forced to consider them as “incorrigible.” But, to be sure, it is not enough to “recognize” at such and such a date the errors on the trade union question in order for everything to be set aright. That is not the only mistake, although it is, perhaps, the most serious in its consequences. On the formal basis of the Left Opposition, Naville’s politics were just a series of mistakes. I explained the essential feature of these mistakes, in very mild terms, in my letters to Naville. Since Naville officially complained of the harshness of my letters, and their injustice, I sent some copies of them that I had for the comrades of the League who might be interested. If you wish, you may ask Comrade Molinier on my behalf to get these letters for you. The very fact that I spent time on this abundant correspondence shows that I tried hard for a year and a half to persuade Naville and his friends, without having recourse to an open discussion. I was always met by a deaf ear and a mentality far removed from what I consider to be a revolutionary one. The “Prinkipo peace pact” was my last attempt to restore some civility to at least part of the discussion. This attempt did not succeed because of Naville. Now the League must understand the whole network of errors committed and understand what kind of political mentality can “recognize” something, and then turn around and do practically the opposite. Naville “recognizes” the syndicalist errors (he even “recognized” them in my room at Prinkipo — only to do the opposite the next day), but he supports in the League and in other countries the comrades who oppose the correct policy, and he fights against the comrades who had fought against these errors. The latest statement written by the Naville grouplet on “The Situation in the League” is a truly lamentable document: it has no political appreciation of the quibbling of the “semi-parliamentary,” semi-Souvarinist “opposition.” Gourget defends his ideas, which are false. And what does Naville defend? He dodges, he maneuvers, he plays a “parliamentary” game in an organization that is supposed to be revolutionary. While formally recognizing his error, he hastens to show that he has learned nothing. It is a great danger — for him. He ought at least to learn that his assessment of other comrades was not only condescending, but altogether wrong.

As for your criticism of two articles in La Vérité, I believe you have really hit on a weak spot. I have already written to the editors on that point. I believe one could perhaps formulate our policy for this transitional period as follows: (a) defense of the living standard that existed before the [economic] crisis (at least) by the policy of the united front; (b) using the policy of the united front for an offensive against the reformists, whose situation is becoming precarious because of the crisis, and who remain the most important pillar of the capitalist regime; (c) systematic, combative, and offensive agitation and propaganda against the capitalist regime, to prepare for the action offensive when the circumstances permit. That is a bit too general and too abstract, but as a point of departure it will do.

At the same time I am not sure if you have chosen a good course by raising your objections right from the outset in the form of a polemical article. I believe that at least the most responsible comrades should polemicize against each other only when other possibilities of settling matters are exhausted. Why not explain your position to the editors in person, or by letter? This is all the more reasonable since you now have on the Secretariat a member of the editorial board. I have decided on open criticism of certain comrades only after repeated attempts, over a long period, to reach an understanding with them. You are a member of the Administrative Secretariat, which now, de facto, replaces the International Bureau (which scarcely exists). It is a position of great importance, which enables you to settle many matters by well-timed interventions.

My best wishes, and my strongest hope of reaching an understanding with you on the policies to be pursued.

L. Trotsky

P.S. As for [Carlo] Sforza, you can safely leave him to his fate; since he is not descended from the famous family, I can well dispense with genealogical research. Have you received a copy of the book, The Third International After Lenin?

L.T.