Letter to Maurice Dommanget, August 10, 1934

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The Task of Revolutionary Teachers

Dear Comrade,

In this letter I shall attempt to summarize the discussion we had a few days ago on questions concerning French teachers in general, and the Federation Unitaire in particular.

I cannot refrain from repeating: Monmousseau, this tightrope artist without scruples or conscience, set a trap for us on the question of merging the two federations, sacrificing union and revolutionary considerations to the ruling CGTU bureaucrats' considerations of prestige and ''pie-card" jobs. Their turn has nothing in common with an honest acceptance of the revolutionary united front As far as we can make out, two maneuvers are entangled in their obscure game: a wider one, corresponding to the aims of Soviet diplomacy, and a narrower, subordinate one, which is supposed to "satisfy" the adventurist bankrupts of the Comintern. The semiofficial doctrine of the ruling bureaucracy in the USSR seeks to explain the failure of the Comintern — incontestable for them as well — by the conservative qualities of the proletariat in the West. If the reformists used to say that Bolshevism was no good for Europe, the Comintern bankrupts now declare that the European proletariat is not good enough for Bolshevism. On this issue, as on many others [three illegible words] Western communism only represent two sides of the same coin.

Having thus transformed the failure of the Comintern into a failure of the Western proletariat, the ruling bureaucrats draw the conclusion: "For the security of the USSR, we have to look elsewhere for help. Since the conservative proletariat is attached to democracy, nothing remains but for us to attach ourselves to it, to support and preserve democracy." We revolutionaries say, "To the extent that the workers retain their confidence in democracy, we are prepared to defend democracy with them against the fascist danger; but we can never forgo our criticism of democratic illusions." The Stalinists easily waive the right to criticize, since for them (the Soviet bureaucracy) it is a question not of leading the proletariat through the democratic stage towards the conquest of power but of ensuring themselves international democratic support, as the only realizable goal. French "democracy" is embodied in the Radical Party, which cannot rule without the support of the Socialist Party; but this party, in turn, can lend its support to the Radical government only on condition that the Communists "shut up." The overriding plan of the Soviet bureaucracy is to reestablish the regime of Herriot, the "friend of the USSR," aided by Leon Blum, freed from Thorez'scriticism by the mechanism of the so-called united front. That is the principal incentive of the great turn dictated by the telegraph.

To calm the left wing of the Comintern, the Bela Kuntypes, they say: "All this is only a trick; hold your tongue and wait; the right moment will come when we'll break open the united front, catching the Socialist leaders asleep and unawares, and bring their workers with us."

These are the two entangled maneuvers. For the moment it is the first that is operative. But if the democratic perspective leads nowhere, the big bureaucrats can always squirm out of it by allowing the worst Bela Kun adventurists to utilize the united front in their own fashion.

What is Monmousseau's place in this double and perhaps triple deal? I know nothing about that, and Monmousseau himself knows no more than L Nevertheless, he is sufficiently versed in Stalinist stage management not to fear that the delicate structure propping up the turn will collapse upon his own head. That is why, while carrying out orders, he would really like to drag out matters, to dodge and slow things down. Thus he was able to impose on the Montpellier congressan evasive and dangerous decision dodging the immediate merger of the two federations. To put off the decision until January 1935 is not to take the world and oneself seriously, since the coming months must bring decisions that are all the more serious.

Let one thing be well understood: the fascist danger is not an agitational formula; it is an ominous reality that can soon assert itself. The claims of Popu and I'Huma that "the united front has already made the fascists pull back" are nothing but naive or dishonest bravado.

The rise of fascism, like all historic processes of this type, is accomplished by spasmodic leaps and twists. We are between two spasms; that is the real key to the present situation.

And it won't be Monmousseau who will succeed in "putting off" the second leap until after January 1, 1935.

The triumph of fascism would signify, in the first place, the crushing of the cadre of revolutionary teachers. Even before it takes on the workers' organizations, the fascist reaction will have to club its way through the brain of the resisting civil servants and teachers. Idle chatterboxes tell us: "The danger is far from imminent; France is not Germany; the temperament of the French does not lend itself to fascism." It is not our role to take such foolishness seriously. Fascism is a product not of national temperament but of social struggle. It becomes an unavoidable necessity for French capitalism when its back is against the wall. And to the extent that the national temperament opposes fascism, a fascist regime in France will claim two or ten times the number of victims it claims elsewhere. It is not accidental that all stages of French history have witnessed the bloodiest of repressions.

Our Federation Unitaire, with its 3,000 members, would be the first mouthful for triumphant reaction. Physical self-defense alone forces us to end our isolation and merge with the Syndicat National. Each day we lose is an irreparable loss. Yes, I know, we are on vacation, and many of us are enjoying it blissfully. When we look around us, we almost have the impression of watching peasants, oblivious to danger, tilling the slopes of Vesuvius a few moments before the fatal eruption that will sweep away their property, their work and the peasants themselves.

Whatever the cost, we must find some means of overturning the dangerous decision that the CGTU imposed upon the Montpellier congress. It is wartime; formalities, even the most respectable ones, must yield to supreme necessities. For my part, I am sure that a bold initiative on the part of the federation leadership — which enjoys the full confidence of the rank and file — would be supported by an overwhelming majority of the federation. And merger of the two federations — and here I agree with Delmas — would provide a vigorous thrust for unification of the entire union movement, shattering the bad will of the Jouhaux and Monmousseaus.

Naturally, we can merge with the Confédérés [CGTers] only to promote the revolutionary mobilization of the teachers. That is why we must work out an action program that is precise, vigorous and adapted to the situation. Witness the spectacle of Paul Faure, leader of the SFIO, who, before the revolvers, clubs and machine guns of fascism, develops Buddhist and Tolstoyan theories of not opposing evil by violence! For him, the task is still to win the confidence of the majority (51 percent) in order to bring about the socialist ideal. But Austrian Social Democracy had its throat slit with 44 percent We doubt Paul Faure's ability to beat their record. For even if one is totally and exclusively committed to a democratic basis of winning power with 51 percent of the votes, that possibility must be ensured through armed defense against the fascist bands, just as workers are obliged to defend the most modest of strikes by picketing. The bourgeoisie says hypocritically: "The security of the nation requires the arming of the nation." With utmost confidence we can say, "The security of the proletariat's democratic rise to power requires, above all, the arming of the workers and, in the first place, the creation of workers' militias.”

Yet here we see the Thorezes, Cachins and Monmousseaus rushing to the defense of Paul Faure's Tolstoyan theories; it seems that only "Trotskyist provocateurs" would oppose the armed reaction with an armed proletariat Shameful, imbecilic sophistry! All the more so coming from the lips of people who only yesterday still depicted all of France (at least l'Humanité's France) as a land of barricades and revolutionary battles. On this question the turn demonstrates most clearly the slavish dependence of the CP and CGTU bureaucrats on Soviet diplomacy. The Thorezes want to replace armed militias with "self-defense of the entire proletariat." You bet! And what becomes of the vanguard role of the proletariat in this scheme? Without the support of the working class, the militias are nothing, but without the militia, and exposed to the blows of fascism, the class is very little. The militia is the active army; the class is its great reserve. This ABC of Marxism is abandoned, trampled upon and sullied as "Blanquism." A teacher's self-defense — of this I am absolutely convinced — must transform teachers into fierce propagandists and tireless organizers of the workers' and peasants' militias. The aim of such a militia is defense of the exploited masses, of their organizations, meetings, press, of their democratic rights and social conquests.

What I have said in this letter is not at all sufficient It is, I hope, the beginning of an exchange of views on burning issues that directly concern our federation, but whose implications go much further. Very much interested in the opinions of you and other comrades, I am ready to reply in turn. The vacation must not put us to sleep. Senator Gautherot from Loire-Inférieure, as well as Fougères, deputy from Indre, have already submitted questions concerning the teachers. The reaction does not waste its time; let us not waste ours.

Fraternally,