Letter to Jan Frankel, May 8, 1933

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Tact, Caution, and Flexibility

Dear Friend:

Responding to your letter of May 2.

I am happy that we agree on the question of the German paper. This is a very important question. We can and must make the paper rise to the occasion. Circumstances are such that we must set ourselves the goal of converting it into a weekly paper. To be sure, the paper must be reinforced financially, by means of a correct organization of distribution.

It is not clear to me why you propose to change the size [of the pages] of the paper. Given conditions of illegal circulation, this is completely uncalled for. Iskra came out in approximately the same size as Unser Wort; portability depends on the weight of the newsprint and not on the size.

The circumstance that the German leadership, for the present, has spoken out against a new party is a small misfortune: events will work on our side and we will complement the events with criticism. Much worse is the fact that E. [Bauer] and others have become embittered with the Secretariat, and in general with the foreign sections. The accumulating misunderstanding should be dispersed at all costs. Here the Secretariat must, in my view, display the very greatest flexibility and complete freedom from personal ambition. This experience shows, by the way, how caution is needed in the very formulation of sharp questions: often all of the subsequent character of the discussion depends on how the question was posed from the start itself.

It will have to patiently explain, in a comradely manner, all of the misunderstandings of E., taking into account the exceptionally unnerving situation in which he has to work.

Your report on the slogans of the Stalinists (general strike with the perspective of armed insurrection [in Germany]) is extremely important. These gentlemen are again singing wedding songs at a funeral. For the Canton undertaking they do not have enough forces. But for Sofia, maybe enough. An attempt, in any case, is not excluded. Perhaps I’ll have to write about this.

Rudolf [Klement] has already become entirely adjusted to the work. He translates rather well from the Russian. Still slowly for the present, it is true, but he will develop with each new week. In parallel with this, Jean [van Heijenoort] is improving in translations from the Russian to the French. In both these directions we will render still greater assistance from here to the Secretariat. Do you happen to know why the second volume of my History has not been published?

As regards the Copenhagen congress, no excessive expenditures are needed. It would be extremely important to ascertain whether we have anything in Copenhagen and to organize conveyance of mandates.

It is necessary to unfold a serious campaign on behalf of Chen Tu-hsiu. Must write in detail about this to Pierre.

I also believe that our press should devote attention to the trial of Sneevliet. We should maintain friendly relations with them, while there are no political obstacles to this of an immediate character.

Do you happen to know where Urbahns is? Have Maslow and Ruth Fischer arrived in Paris?

Best regards.

Yours,

L.T.

P.S. Just received your letter of May 5 with the enclosure of Italian documents. I have already sent my official proposal for the plenum on the Italian question. If the Secretariat wants to have authority, then in general it must display the very greatest tact, and in those cases where members of the Secretariat are involved the Secretariat must be ten times more cautious and flexible. The decision which I proposed could create a delay, and the future would then show how serious the disagreements are.