Letter to All Members of the Spanish Left Opposition, April 24, 1933

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Dear Comrades:

The other day I received a copy of the written reply of the Barcelona Central Committee to the Organizational Commission for the convocation of a national antifascist conference. This letter, dated April 5, 1933, is a document that should be studied by every member of the Spanish Opposition who is devoted to the cause of communism.

What is the point of either an international antifascist congress or a national antifascist conference? The Left Opposition (Bolshevik-Leninists) explained this question in detail in documents and articles on the Amsterdam congress against war and in a number of subsequent declarations. The Stalinist bureaucracy isolated the communist proletarian vanguard by means of a false policy, which has made a united front of the workers impossible, particularly one against fascism and war. In order to camouflage its bankruptcy, the Comintern from time to time organizes a masquerade in imitation of a united front. It brings scattered groups of communist workers together with powerless individuals, pacifists, left democrats, and others, picturing such purely theatrical congresses, conferences, and committees as "a united front of the masses." We ourselves, at one time, took part in the Amsterdam congress, but only in order to expose this sham and thus draw the attention of the communist workers to the correct course. Needless to say, our attitude toward the coming antifascist congress is the same.

On this matter the Barcelona Central Committee has taken a position exactly opposite to that of the Bolshevik-Leninists. The letter of April 5 ceremoniously informs the Organizational Commission that the Left Opposition has joined the "united front" as if there were actually a united front involved rather than a mockery of the united front policy.

Helping the Stalinists embellish reality, the letter of the Barcelona' CC repeats the general phrases about how a united front against fascism is realizable despite the existence of differences. However, this elementary idea, true in relation to the mass proletarian organizations, loses its meaning in relation to bourgeois individuals, pacifists, democratic writers, and others. Moreover, the letter of the Barcelona CC declares: "A pacifist can be just as opposed to war as a revolutionary communist can, and even more so. It is perfectly logical for these people to be found in a united front against those who sire their enemies."

It is hard to believe that these words could have been written by people who consider themselves Marxists, who have some sort of concept of Lenin's politics and of the decisions of the first four congresses of the Comintern, not to mention the decade of work by the International Left Opposition, and particularly its declaration on the Amsterdam congress.

How can a pacifist be a greater enemy of war than a revolutionary communist? Marxist theory and political experience teach us that pacifism is an instrument of imperialism. Pacifists decry war during times of peace, but when war comes they quietly yield to militarism under the pressure of their own isolation and impotence, and more often than not they are transformed into its lackeys. The same thing applies to the struggle against fascism.

The purpose of the united front policy is to bring the Social Democratic and syndicalist workers into a rapprochement with the communist workers (and with communism) through the process of joint struggle against the class enemy. As far as isolated individuals from the bourgeois camp are concerned, that is a matter of tenth-rate significance. The best of them will support the workers more surely, to the extent that the policy of the united proletarian front is pursued correctly, and the masses are drawn together firmly. But abandonment of mass politics for the pursuit of individuals with big names is the worst kind of adventurism and political charlatanism.

Instead of exposing the very idea of an alliance between the Stalinist bureaucracy and bourgeois individuals, the Barcelona CC expresses confidence that the Organizational Commission views the tasks of the congress just as the CC itself does, and for that reason the CC "gladly" proffers its "loyal collaboration." What is this: diplomacy? If so, it is the kind that can deceive only our friends and co-thinkers. And why would Marxists become involved in diplomacy over this sort of issue, one that requires maximum clarity? No, one is forced to conclude that the Barcelona CC has a position totally contrary to Marxism on this major question in proletarian politics.

The struggle of leading Spanish comrades against the fundamental views and principles of the International Left Opposition (Bolshevik-Leninists) did not begin yesterday. It can be said without exaggeration that during the past three years there was hardly one serious Spanish or international question on which the leading Spanish comrades held a correct position. Mistakes, of course, are always possible, and in a young organization they are inevitable. But it is essential that an organization, and most of all its leaders, learn from their mistakes. Then it can go forward. The unfortunate thing here is that the comrades who are now on the CC of the Spanish Opposition do not allow the organization to discuss issues; instead, on every occasion, they substitute personal attacks and petty, insignificant accusations for principled discussion of differences. The struggle between Comrade Nin's group and that of Comrade Lacroix has, of course, a significance of its own. But the struggle that the group of Nin, Fersen, and others is conducting against the International Left Opposition as a whole, which violates the most fundamental principles of Marxism at every step, is a hundred times more important.

In any factional struggle personal conflicts and mutual accusations occur: that is inevitable. However, a revolutionary who determines his political position on the basis of purely personal episodes, accusations, sympathies, and antipathies is no good at all. Such a method is typical of petty-bourgeois radicals, incapable of rising to the level of Marxist principles. Petty-bourgeois squabbles have to date poisoned the leadership of the Spanish Opposition, preventing it from orienting itself correctly and paralyzing the development of the entire organization, despite the exceptionally favorable objective conditions. If rank-and-file members of the Spanish Opposition, real Bolshevik-Leninists, want to break out of this impasse, they will have to brush aside the debris of personal squabbles and examine political differences on the basis of their merit. It is necessary to study the entire history of these differences. But first and foremost, it is necessary to place the unprincipled CC document of April 5, 1933, at the center of the discussion. It is essential that every member of the Spanish Opposition understand that the root cause of the unending conflicts between Barcelona, on the one hand, and Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Vienna, New York, etc., etc., on the other, is the fact that the Barcelona CC has an anti-Marxist position and steadfastly refuses to abandon it.

With this letter, I am appealing to all members of the Spanish section because my attempts over the past three years to achieve a mutual understanding with the leading Spanish comrades has thus far accomplished nothing. With communist greetings.