Letter to Jakob Walcher, October 2, 1933

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Private Opinions and Public Statements

Dear Comrade W.,

1. In my last letter I raised a certain reproach against you — that you did not differentiate between the NAP "as it is" and the NAP "as it should be." And I said that this was an incorrect way of looking at things. In making this criticism I relied on the following important sentence in your August 23 letter: "From a revolutionary standpoint it is perfectly clear that the NAP in its present form and with its present politics is useless for the new International" (my emphasis — L. T.).

But since you signed a common declaration with the NAP, which set the revolutionary regeneration of the workers' movement as its goal, it must be assumed that you are counting on the NAP in its future form with its future politics, that is — not with what exists but with what you would like to have exist I will be only too happy if I have misunderstood you. But the common declaration with the NAP still lacks an explanation and a justification.

2. Further in your letter of August 23 you maintain that the uselessness of the NAP for the new International "is not yet at all clear to many valuable people in the ILP, within the NAP, and probably this goes for the OSP in Holland as well. …" Quite possible. But it is precisely through an alliance with the NAP on questions of principle that you lead these "valuable people" astray. Since the Social Democratic nature of the NAP is "not yet at all clear" to them, you must explain it to them. This is what I have just done. You raise this effort toward clarification as a reproach against me. You call it "unwise." From a Marxist point of view, wisdom is what corresponds to reality and its tendencies of development For that reason we hold to the motto: "Say what is."

3. I have just been informed that the NAP has left the IAG. This fact — if it is true — can only strengthen the authority of those who did not want to issue common declarations of principle with the NAP. Even if the report is not true, the NAP will only add validity to our evaluation by its whole future conduct. Collaboration with the NAP not because I considerit worthy of an alliance but because others retain this prejudice, that is the fatal politics of continual adaptation to the right.

4. In your letter of September 4 you introduce a long citation from your August 22 letter to the SAP leadership concerning the NAP. This very fine citation characterizes the NAP as by nature a Social Democratic party that tolerates the bourgeois government and thus betrays and deceives the workers. Correct, good, straight to the point! But you only say this in a private letter to the party leadership. Why haven't you said the same thing publicly? Because, if you had publicly expressed your real thoughts on the NAP — which in my opinion is the duty of every revolutionary — your ties with the NAP would seem incomprehensible and impermissible. You've quoted to me from Brandler: "We are politicians, not seekers after truth." By this Brandler means that our public declarations do not have to be at all in keeping with our principled convictions (as for example with respect to the Stalinists). In other words — we can deceive the workers for their own good. This is pure casuistry, a philosophy for bureaucrats. From our conversation I am absolutely convinced that you have not adopted this contemptible philosophy. But I must call your attention to the fact that there is a huge gap between your evaluation of the NAP and your public relationship to it, a gap which can have dire consequences for the SAP.

5. You have said several times that there is nothing in the Declaration of Seven (together with the NAP) that we cannot defend. Dear friend! That is a purely legalistic — I might say a pettifogger's — way of looking at the question, not a. political or revolutionary way. In this case it is not a question of what the declaration says, but of what it leaves unsaid. Even the correct things it says only serve to cause confusion because they create the impression that there is agreement between the SAP and the NAP on the most burning questions of the international workers' movement. You write to the party leadership: "The NAP is for the unification of the Second and Third Internationals, we are for the creation of a new International, a communist International. This difference cannot be overlooked. Sooner or later it must be brought out."

But your joint resolution overlooks this difference quite deliberately, i.e., puts a brake on revolutionary development instead of furthering it.

6. It seemed sectarian to many comrades that we wanted to hammer home to all and sundry the falseness in principle of the Anglo-Russian Committee. But I must tell you that you are presently pursuing a policy toward the NAP that is the same as the Stalinists' policy toward the General Council of the British trade unions. In a specific situation one can conclude a very specific agreement with a specific goal even with the likes of the General Council riffraff. But the Stalinists fabricated meaningless resolutions that were acceptable to Citrine, Purcell, etc., because they placed no obligations on them. These resolutions, meetings, etc., were of the greatest service to the General Council riffraff. Their friendship with Stalin-Tomsky provided these highly placed strikebreakers with indispensable cover during the greatest crises they had to go through: the general strike and the coal miners' strike of 1926. Thus documents and testimonials that, formally speaking, may be unassailable — although they are meaningless from a revolutionary standpoint — are ripe for grandiose historical crimes. For this reason I think the comrades of the SAP have the greatest interest in diligently studying this historical parallel.

7. You refer to the fact that the Left Opposition has a reputation as a "disruptive element" as it is and that we must try not to substantiate this bad reputation even further. The fact that the Left Opposition desires to disrupt the opportunist organizations is quite correct and I confidently assume that the SAP pursues /the' same goal. Many found the conduct of our Paris delegation "disruptive." Your know my opinion: I credit them with far too much lenience. But this is not the most important point. You will grant, I hope, that without the Left Opposition the Declaration of Four would not have come about. And this declaration is a major political fact not disruptive but creative revolutionary work.

If we really want to make the Declaration of Four the point of departure for major constructive action, then we cannot at the same time set ourselves the goal of regenerating the workers' movement together with the NAP. These two acts are mutually exclusive. The workers need clarity, now more than ever.

I would find it extremely advisable if a discussion were instituted among the comrades of both organizations on the basis of our exchange of letters, since we do not polemicize for our own satisfaction but rather in order to contribute to the political education of broader circles.

With my best and most sincere regards,

Yours, L. T.