| 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 |
Letter to Karl Radek, June 26, 1926
| Author(s) | Leon Trotsky |
|---|---|
| Written | 26 June 1926 |
Edited by Alexander V. Pantsov Translated by Richard Abraham and Steven I. Levine.
This letter was written in response to Radek’s theses On the Fundamentals of Communist Policy in China
To com. Radek.
It seems to me that it would be appropriate to develop in more detail two thoughts concerning the Guomindang, which you have expressed in passing.
In the first place, the necessity of the existence of a united democratic-Communist party is based on the national yoke. It is easy to accept this argument, because it liberates people from the necessity of thinking through the mechanism of national oppression. This mechanism is a class mechanism through and through.
There was a time when the European Social Democrats told us that we should ‘all’ work together against autocracy. Now we are inclined to repeat the very same thing to the Chinese. Of course, there is a difference between foreign imperialism and tsarism, but it is not necessary to exaggerate this difference. Naturally, it would be important to demonstrate the concrete mechanism of the imperialist yoke in relation to the various classes in China.
Secondly, it seems to me that it would be vital to show more sharply that China’s political evolution has entered a new phase, which commences from the independent emergence of their workers’ organisations, the trade unions.
The organisational cohabitation of the Guomindang and the Communist Party was correct and progressive for a specific epoch, which, however, has now come to an end. In the current epoch, this cohabitation has become more and more of an obstacle. The chronological moment is not put forward in the theses.
The remainder seems correct to me.
L. Trotsky
26 June 1926