Letter to the British Minority, January 23, 1934

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Differences with the British Minority

Emergency Committee

Minority British Section

Dear Comrades:

Re your letter of January 7:

I am entirely in agreement with the proposal of the IS which you subject to criticism in your letter of January 5.

We all agreed that after its entry into the ILP the British section as such should cease its independent organizational existence. But you split. It is not a question now of a section but of its part. The existence of an organization of Bolshevik-Leninists can by no means hinder you as long as you declare openly that you split off from this organization, do not submit to its discipline, and in general are not connected with it. Such a statement, which corresponds fully to the actual situation, must show more clearly to every member of the ILP the honesty of your intentions.

You write that your future relations to the majority of the section are not clear to you. From the letter of the Secretariat it is absolutely clear that no organizational relations are presumed.

Until this date you have as yet not entered the ILP and apparently made no effort in this direction. This shows that you lose time out of purely fictitious considerations. Can you demand of the IS that it break with the majority of the section when you have not at all proved in practice that you can really enter the ILP and develop useful activity there? And if the ILP should for any reason whatsoever not admit you? Then it would be necessary to reunite with the majority of the section. It is absolutely wrong, therefore, to demand a break with that group which remains outside of the ILP.

Your criticism of the draft of the declaration proposed by the IS seems to me not just. First of all, the IS, of course, did not intend at all to bind you in every word. Instead of starting correspondence and losing time you should have introduced certain changes in the declaration. But also your criticism of points “b” and “f” does not seem to me correct. You affirm that you also have other differences with the majority, outside of the attitude to the ILP. Possibly. But other differences were by no means causing a split. Only the question of the ILP lent to these disagreements an extreme sharpness. For the IIP itself this disagreement is of the greatest importance. Finally, the IS would not object, of course, if you had added: “and also differences on certain other questions.” Needless to start a correspondence on such details.

Even less weighty are your objections to point “f.” You take no responsibility for the majority. It is wrong to assert in advance that it is incapable of learning by experience. If not all will learn, then perhaps a part will, etc.

The split can be justified only by your actual success within the ILP. Otherwise the split will prove a grave error, the responsibility for which will rest on you. You must clearly realize this. At this moment you should forget the existence of the majority of the section, enter the ILP and develop energetic activity. Then all the difficulties will be solved by themselves.

With best wishes for your successful work.

Fraternally yours,

L. Trotsky

Minority British Section

Dear Comrade:

I received from Comrade Weber of the American League an outline of lectures on the question of the state. Even a cursory reading convinced me that this is a serious work basing itself on a rich Marxian bibliography. I am forwarding this outline to you and hope that it will be useful in your propagandists work.

Fraternally yours,

L. Trotsky