| Category | Template | Form |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Text | Text |
| Author | Author | Author |
| Collection | Collection | Collection |
| Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
| Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
| Template | Form |
|---|---|
| BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
| BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
| BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Letter to Arne Swabeck, March 7, 1933
| Author(s) | Leon Trotsky |
|---|---|
| Written | 7 March 1933 |
A Personal Letter on the CLA
Dear Comrade Swabeck:
After having a series of discussions with you and becoming acquainted with the [CLA] documents, I think â entirely apart from any assessment of the minorityâs attitude â that in the organizational policy of the majority of the central committee there are elements of formal intransigence which may appear as bureaucratism and which in any case will injure rather than enhance the authority of the central committee and its influence.
1. After the June plenum, where all the decisions were approved unanimously, your group attempted to have recourse to cooptation in order to guarantee a majority for itself in the central committee, although nobody could understand in what respects the majority is different from the minority.
2. The proposal of the central committee to the New York branch concerning proletarianization was a mistake not in its general tendency but in its mechanical approach to the issue and the manifestly practical hopelessness of the proposal under the given conditions.
3. In consideration of the fact that the two groups have approximately the same weight it would be, it seems to me, reasonable for the majority to make a concession to the minority and after the designation of Comrade Cannon as permanent secretary to draw in also Comrade Abern as assistant secretary.
4. It appears to me absolutely impermissible to deprive Comrade Abern of his vote on the occasion of the departure of Comrade Swabeck.
5. The elaboration, behind the backs of the minority, of a draft thesis on the prospects of American imperialism represents an obviously factional step, all the less justified as on this question no differences have appeared up until now. The situation became that much worse as the document was destined for discussion with foreign comrades who in that way learned about the draft thesis before the minority members of the central committee of the American League.
6. The [majority] proposal to immediately transfer the [national] headquarters [from New York] to Chicago is practically equivalent to a split.
7. Not convincing, it seems to me, is the allegation that in spite of the hopes of any âoptimistsâ the situation became even more acute after the League began to pass from the propaganda to the agitation stage. It is by passing from one stage into another that the malady usually comes to the surface. But serious successes in the field of mass work will inevitably produce a favorable influence upon internal relations and in every case provoke a radical regroupment by gradual isolation of demoralized elements.
A split now would have an a priori character, understandable to nobody but its initiators, and would destroy the authority of the Left Opposition in America for a long time to come. In the meantime it is particularly clear from the letters of Comrade Cannon that great perspectives are opening up for the American League.
I permit myself to establish the following axiom: The Oppositional minority has a certain right to manifest impatience but the majority leadership has no such right.
Fraternally,