Letter to Alfonso Leonetti, June 15, 1934

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Proposals for the Next ICL Plenum

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your letter, which I found very instructive. I received it today when leaving my administration, which intends to discharge me. No matter. … As to the question of the [French] League, I speak of it in my criticism of the action program. I am sending you a copy. This is the most convenient form of explanation, because it requires everyone to use exact formulations and that eliminates misunderstandings and unnecessary discussions.

I am very uneasy about the situation in the League. Not from the standpoint of principled differences, but from the standpoint of its way of functioning. But it would be a big mistake to make the plenum an arena for bitter discussions concerning the League. Through discussion one can clarify ideas but not change characters and habits. Of course I am not opposed to discussion, but it must be kept to a few very precise points and be open to all the delegates. That means, in my opinion, that it is absolutely necessary to get rid of the misunderstandings in the French commission, before the plenum, to find common formulations for questions where there are no fundamental differences, and to counterpose exact formulations for points of difference. That is the only procedure that can avoid poisoning the atmosphere of the plenum.

As far as I know, they want to pose the question of an international conference. I have observed that the comrades and sections that give the least aid to our international organization are the most demanding in regard to an international conference. The question must fit the political reality. A conference means a few dozen delegates. How will the expenses be covered? And above all, where will the conference be held, to avoid harmful consequences as in Holland? If the Labour Party takes power in England, or in Norway, the situation can become politically more favorable for a conference. But in any case the financial question will remain. To speak of a conference today or even to try to set the date for it would just be bureaucratic lightmindedness. In illegal organizations — and that is what we are, internationally — organizational democracy is necessarily limited. The plenum, as fully attended as is possible, must take the place of a conference until there is a change in the political conditions. Those who disagree should present a practical alternative.

As for the Secretariat, I have already communicated my view — my conviction, even — to Geneva: Dubois must be formally placed on the Secretariat. The plenum could agree to the following resolution:

“To strengthen the Secretariat, especially its work in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the plenum decides to include Comrade Dubois [on the Secretariat], with decisive vote.”

That is a thousand times better than creating a transitional system that is subject to misinterpretation, will create a distorted situation, and will end up in a crisis. As a full member Comrade Dubois will vote on each question and assume his responsibilities. Experience will show — I hope and desire it with my whole heart — that that is the only correct way.

I am writing nothing to you on t^he Greek question; I have not yet had time to read the documents, nor the documents on the Polish question. I will write to you about that next time.

I draw your attention to the draft directive on the militia. I think this document is very important, because it dots all the i’s. I am sending you some notes concerning this directive.

Fraternally yours,

Crux [Leon Trotsky]

P.S. As to your article, I am returning it attached. My agreement with the substance and my disagreement with the slogan of a socialist government are explained in the other writings.