Letter to Walter Held, March 29, 1934

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The Errors of Our Youth Delegates

Dear Comrade Held:

1. My understanding of the first, rather delayed and inexact information about the results of the youth conference is that you and Brandt were assigned to do the final editing of the call [for the new youth International], and, as always in such instances, it was to be hoped that, if the proper pressure were applied, the editing would make an unfortunate document less harmful. But, since this seems to be impossible, our international organization has no other choice, I think, than to publicly characterize at least the most harmful aspects of the document.

2. Maintaining an “elastic” position with respect to youth with possibilities for development does not at all mean remaining silent about their fundamental mistakes. The error was that our delegation completely disregarded the instructions they were given. This is not to mention that we had a right to expect some independent initiative in the way of Marxist implacability from our comrades, who are far better trained in theoretical matters than the other delegates.

3. I am astounded that you fail to recognize the obvious error in the very title of the resolution. Why shouldn’t we be mentioned by name just like the Socialist organizations? I cannot understand this at all. Did we at least ask for this? Did they refuse? For what reason? Did you simply accept the refusal and their reasons without comment? An organization’s name is also its banner. One does not surrender the banner in such a frivolous manner.

Instead of simply admitting the insufficiency of our delegation’s actions on this point, you invoke the fact that we have accepted the Dutch RSP into our ranks. This is pure sophism, and not very clever sophism at that! Did we change the name of our international organization for the sake of the RSP? Did we accept their program? Did we make any principled concessions? Quite the contrary. On the international level the RSP belongs to the Communist League. Where then is the analogy? No one is demanding that the OSP and the SAP be forced to call themselves “Communist.” We only ask that they not rebaptize us as “Socialists.” Is this, perhaps, not our right?

Not long ago, I wrote that a centrist treats a Marxist the way a petty bourgeois treats a proletarian, i.e., with contempt. But woe to the proletarian who does not know how to maintain his class dignity in negotiations with a petty bourgeois!

You defend the historically notorious formula of “transcending” [the Second and Third Internationals] by saying that it can also be interpreted in a “good” way. But a political manifesto is not supposed to be an equivocal, oracular pronouncement; it is supposed to enlighten, not deceive the workers. It is better to have no manifesto than an ambiguous one. In any case, you were obligated to counterpose in writing your own clear formulation to the ambiguous one in order then to communicate it to the working class as the authentic expression of our views.

4. You repeatedly remark that one cannot require the OSP and the SAP to characterize themselves as centrist. To this I say:

(a) We were dealing with the youth, and from them one can expect or hope for an “elastic” relationship with their own party.

(b) In politics what is required is foremost to express one’s own point of view and not to hasten to represent the point of view of one’s opponent.

You were obligated to suggest amendments about centrism, the NAP, the Amsterdam Bureau, and bring them to a vote. If the others reject these amendments with an ultimatum, you at least have the advantage of clarity: You can make these amendments public and thereby document your position. Whether we would have signed the resolution after all is a separate question. The final decision on this was from the outset reserved for the International Secretariat.

5. Your arguments about the general situation in Holland are just as incorrect. You say that the unification [of the RSP and the OSP] was necessary and would have opened up broad perspectives. But you consider the RSP’s line on the trade unions to be disastrous and this was one of the decisive points for the unification. You accuse the center [IS] of not having forced the RSP to alter its trade union line. On the one hand, you consider it impossible to introduce a Marxist amendment to a resolution, i.e., to make a simple change in the text, and on the other hand you think that it is possible, using some mysterious means, to bring a forty-year-old organization [the NAS] to its knees with a single blow. Our position on the trade union question is completely clear — even to the RSP. This is proven by the fact that the RSP officially declares that it wishes to change the line of the International Communist League on the trade union question. With all of our sections, even the smallest ones, we have learned by experience that one cannot change much through formal decisions alone, that educational work and particularly independent experience is necessary and that the creation of real homogeneity in thinking can be achieved only through protracted crises (see, e.g., Greece).

If you consider the NAS line to be disastrous, how do you imagine it to be possible for the RSP to assimilate the OSP through unification? You make reference to Lenin, who carried along even non-Bolshevik elements in the party. But in Holland we have no strong Bolshevik Party, and the Dutch leadership is tied down by the NAS, which cannot be corrected by a few impatient letters.

What do you suggest post festum? An ultimatum to the RSP and an unavoidable break? That would be completely insane since we have here a friendly organization that is capable of development. Or should we support the OSP, which in a purely formal way is correct on the trade union question (fundamentally it cannot be correct since it is opportunistic) against the RSP? A break with the RSP would be the consequence.

I developed this entire perspective for you last summer. I tried to impress upon you that support for our line had to be developed through tireless detail work, especially in the OSP. Unfortunately there is not a great deal you can say about this educational work among the young members. You make reference to the fact that the NAS question created a lot of problems for you in your educational work with the OSP youth. (But when you talk about the fusion question, you almost exclude the NAS question altogether.) Of course, it is difficult to do Marxist propaganda work when the leadership of the organization is not Marxist. But that was the task at hand, and I don’t believe that the NAS question could have been so disruptive in this work. A systematic series of classes on the history of the Left Opposition together with the history of the Third International could have surely educated a youth group in a solid Marxist spirit, and that would have been the only correct course of action.

6. I heard from comrades that there is a plan to send you to Sweden as a representative of the Left Opposition. That is a very important mission. In my opinion, however, this time there must be a clear and exact understanding of what is actually to be accomplished. I see this as educational work among the youth. If, after six months, you have ten young people around you who are familiar with our views and methods in all the most important questions and are able to apply them to the Swedish situation more or less on their own, that would be a great accomplishment. But if you are going to Sweden with the idea that you can open up broad perspectives at a single I blow by working at the top and through personal combinations, you will be disillusioned once again and transform your disillusionment into reproaches against the center. In other words, to be quite frank, in order to put the good qualities you possess to work for our common cause, you must radically reorient yourself in the work. It would be very important for you, like every other official representative of the center, to send in a short but detailed monthly report on your work. Then we can stand by you with advice and practical help.

I hope that you will not take offense at my frankness, which is meant not to endanger but to strengthen friendly relations.