Letter to Jean van Heijenoort, January 2, 1938

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Dear Com. Van

I haven't even a copy of the "Case of L.T," here, I cannot therefore analyze the text nor, above all, the context. But the question is very clear even without that – at least for those who do not deliberately want to get tangled up. The commission, as was its duty, manifested a deep interest towards the question of my attitude toward the USSR and especially during war. "If you don't want to support the gov'ts allied to the USSR, you are practically a defeatist.” Such was the meaning of the commissioners' arguments,, particularly, if I do not deceive myself, Stolberg and in part, the lawyer Finerty. It is easy to see that they reproduce in this way the argumentation of our ultra-lefts, only with the opposite sign (one can see even in this that ultra-leftism is bourgeois thought, only turned upside down, and carried to an extreme). I answered in the sense that we develop our policy not thru governments, but thru the masses and while remaining in irreconcilable opposition towards the bourgois gov'ts allied to the USSR, such as France, in the practical application of our general line we do all – all we possibly can, to protect the interests of the defense of the USSR (or China, etc.). Then I had to give in this connection some brief examples, along the line of those which served me in the discussion on the Chinese question (two ships, etc). In sum, the question reduces itself to knowing whether we are obliged to defend the USSR or another more "authentic” workers' State, in case of war, without giving up revolutionary opposition – and if yes, by what means. This question is dealt with in my article directod against Craipeau, For the moment, I have nothing to add to it.

It is possible that there is some lack of precision in the stenographic report. It is not a matter here either of a programmatic text well-thought out, or even of an article, but of a stenographic report drawn up by the Commission. You know that I did not even have the chance to revise it myself. Some misunderstandings, imprecisions may have crept in. Enemies can make use of them, but serious comrades must grasp the question in its totality, I remain completely on the base of the theses of the 4th Int'l on war. There is a subject precisely related to this theme and which from its inception had aroused the opposition of Ver. and Craipeau. It is on this that we must speak out: Has or has not the experience of the last years confirmed our theses on this decisive point?

I saw by chance that the American Lovestoneites have also tried to use the same isolated citation so as to present the matter as if I had two opposing policies during war – one for the democratic countries, the other for the fascist countries. Nothing is more absurd. The war will not be the competition of political regimes.

It is a question of sharing the world, of definitively subjugating China and winning back the USSR for capitalism. Our policy during the war must therefore be adopted to the character of the war.

We are against the enslavement of China as we are against the reestablishment of capitalism in the USSR. We therefore help the USSR, likewise China, during war by all the means at the disposal of an oppressed and non-ruling class which remains in irreconcilable opposition towards its gov't by preparing to overthrow it and seize power. This is how the question is posed. Whoever poses it otherwise seeks to evade answering it or else, very simply, to tangle it all up.

As for Comrade Ver., who unfortunately moves further and further away from Marxism, it is extremely characteristic that he finds it possible to support Sneevliet in his totally opportunist struggle henceforth in the open, against the 4th Int'l and at the same time direct against us his ultra-left intransigence. So as not to deprive the NAS of governmental manna, Sneevliet has a completely conciliatory, diplomatic and equivocal attitude towards his gov't in peace-time. Can one believe for an instant that in case of war, with Holland's participation, Sneevliet will be capable of a revolutionary attitude? Only a blind man could believe it.

The duty of every revolutionist in Holland, as elsewhere, is to denounce pitilessly the policy of Sneevliet which can only compromise the 4th Int'l, Instead of that, Ver. sets himself up as Sneevliet^'s guardian-angel. He protects him against fraction work, that is, against Marxism, as he already had protected these poor centrists of the POUM against "nucIei-work" on tho part of the 4th Int'l. The world appears to be up side-down in Ver.'s head, by every occasion, he only make a new mistakes to cover up the proceeding ones or to turn attention away from them. He is oscillating now between Sneevliet and the Bordigists and his oscillations become more and more menacing, fortunately not for the 4th, Int'l, but unfortunately for Ver. himself. ; I have already written in a preceeding letter that we must save Ver from himself. This task becomes more urgent than ever but Com. Ver. can be saved neither by concessions nor by considerations. The firm bulwark of all the 4th Int'l sections, the Belgian included, must be opposed to him. In any case the decisive question for Ver's future is not his factious distortion with regard to badly interpreted, isolated quotation,^; but his attitude towards the POUM and Sneevliet, that is for Marxism or opportunism, for the 4th Int'l or for the London-Bureau.

This is all I can pay for the moment and I really believe that after all the polemics of these last years, it completely suffices

My best greetings,

L. Trotsky