Letter to Max Shachtman, May 1, 1933

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

A Warning and a Criticism

Dear Comrade Shachtman:

1. The question of the American conference disturbs all the leading European comrades, principally from the same standpoint as that which I attempted to formulate in my official letter. Some comrades are of the opinion that your fraction is a heterogeneous one, as seems usually to be the case with young opposition groups. You must not, dear friend, have any illusion on the score of the division of sympathies in Europe: your group will have the sympathy of the Spanish comrades and of the split-off groups. All our groups will be inclined, after the experiences of the past, to support the Cannon group. I am trying to every extent possible to remain unprejudiced. For that reason I have been already accused, even though unjustly, of indirectly supporting the Shachtman group. Do not have any illusions on this score. I repeat: at the present stage of the internal American struggle, that is, when preponderant political differences have not yet been crystallized, your group will in the eyes of all our, sections bear responsibility for any eventual split as well as for the protracted internal struggle. Unintentionally you are burdened with a heavy heritage in Europe: since every group which we have had to combat here made use of your name and in this connection your name became symbolic for all sections. By this I do not at all want to say that this is right. If I were of this opinion I would not oppose with all my energies the sharpening of the struggle within the League and the perspective of a split, because I know that individual tendencies and groupings alter and change greatly.

2. Your position on the trade union question seems to me formalistic. We fought bitterly with Gourget in France not because he wanted to adapt himself to the trade union milieu but because he did not want to subordinate his own activity to the control of the League; and the kind of adaptation must be determined not individually but collectively. It is not a question of unfurling our “banner” in the trade unions once or twice and precisely because of that disappearing from them, but of gradually winning points of support and thereby gaining the possibility of fully unfurling the banner. That you wanted to prevent the recent trip of Cannon to Illinois seems to me entirely false, even from the standpoint of the factional struggle.

3. My opinion on the Negro question is of an entirely hypothetical nature. I know very little about it and am always ready to learn. I will read your manuscript with great interest.

4. I will try to answer your questions on the history of the Comintern as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I cannot do it right now as I am occupied with matters that absolutely cannot be postponed.

With heartiest greetings.

Yours,

L.D.