Letter to the Charleroi Federation, Belgian Left Opposition, June 28, 1931

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

French Leadership Problems

To the Charleroi Federation, Belgian Left Opposition

Dear Comrades:

I am anxious to reply to the questions you asked me in your letter of June 19.

1. The International Secretariat replied to you that it did not know the reasons that Comrade Rosmer has interrupted his activities in the revolutionary movement. You found this hardly possible. I understand your astonishment very well. Nevertheless, the reasons for Comrade Rosmer's departure from the League have remained just as unclear to me. The last letter he sent you supplies very little substance for drawing more or less political conclusions.

2. I must note with regret that the part of Comrade Rosmer's letter that speaks of my attitude in the internal conflicts of the League gives a false idea of what really happened. According to Comrade Rosmer's account, my intervention supposedly prevented Comrade Rosmer from removing from the League or from neutralizing within the League the negative elements headed by Comrade Molinier. Since, according to Comrade Rosmer, no political difference had appeared, it becomes completely incomprehensible why I got involved in the matter and why I supported Comrade Molinier against Comrade Rosmer. That is altogether wrong, from beginning to end.

Comrade Rosmer forgot to tell you that he stayed for some time with me, along with Molinier. Comrade Molinier created on us both, as well as on Comrade Marguerite Rosmer, an excellent impression by his devotion to the cause, his energy, his enterprising character, his selflessness. We already knew at that time that all kinds of malicious gossip were being spread concerning Comrade Molinier, one reason for which is Comrade Molinier's tempestuous character and his capacity for violating all the rules and superstitions of the philistines. Together with Comrade Rosmer and Comrade Marguerite we decided to oppose categorically all the gossip and insinuations. It is in that sense that I wrote a letter to the comrades in Paris, on the initiative of Comrade Gourget, which continued to give a positive estimation of Comrade Molinier by describing him as a genuine revolutionary and an excellent comrade.

After Comrade Rosmer's departure to Paris, he wrote me more than once not only with praise but with admiration for Molinier's work. In his letters, as in the letters of Comrade Marguerite, were to be found sentences like: "If we had two like Raymond we would move ahead much more quickly. …"

After a few months' time, Comrade Rosmer's letters began to make allusions to friction and conflicts that had arisen between Molinier and Naville. But Comrade Rosmer never said who, in his opinion, was responsible for these conflicts.

Next, I received two letters: one from Comrade Rosmer, and the other from Comrades Naville, Gerard, and Gourget — both directed against Molinier. From these letters I learned for the first time that Comrades Rosmer and Naville had attempted to deprive Comrade Molinier of the right to hold any post whatsoever in the League and had attempted to carry out the extreme measure of expelling him from the League. They made this proposal to the Paris region, and the Paris region decided against the initiators of the proposal to remove Comrade Molinier from his post as secretary of the Paris region, i.e., they decided against Rosmer and Naville. It was only after this that they turned to me to ask for my concurrence in opposing Molinier.

From this you can see that the Paris organization rejected the demands of Comrades Rosmer, Naville, and others and came to the defense of Comrade Molinier without my being involved in the least, and even without my knowledge.

It is also necessary to add that during the whole preceding period I was in constant correspondence with Rosmer and Naville but had no correspondence at all with Molinier. All the letters and documents that relate to this period are in my archives, and I will gladly put them at the disposal of any group of trustworthy comrades.

How did Comrades Rosmer, Naville, and the others motivate their demands for sanctions against Molinier? They said that Molinier "involved" himself in questions that he "knew nothing about," that he made nonsensical proposals, etc. To this I replied that if it were a question of political differences, I could intervene; that is why I asked them to tell me precisely what sort of proposals Molinier raised. At the same time I pointed out to Naville that it was totally inadmissible to divide the comrades into two categories: one category including comrades who could involve themselves in all questions, the other including comrades who were good only for technical work. Here, as in many other cases, Naville displayed a total lack of understanding of the spirit of a revolutionary proletarian organization, all of whose members have not only the right but the obligation to involve themselves in all questions from the smallest details and technical questions to the most complex questions of revolutionary politics.

It was only after this that I understood the character of the differences that constantly set Comrade Molinier against Comrade Naville. Comrade Rosmer in practice supported Comrade Naville without speaking his mind on the basis of the differences. These differences extended to our attitude toward the party, toward the trade unions, toward the International Left Opposition, and even toward the methods and character of the League's work. From letters, documents, and private conversations with the comrades of the two groups, I got the impression, and I was even convinced, that on all fundamental questions Comrade Molinier was much closer to revolutionary politics than Comrade Naville These differences did not have a personal character, but a principled character, and coincided on many points with the differences between Charleroi and Van Overstraeten, except that Comrade Naville never formulated his opinions with as much frankness as Van Overstraeten.

To this I should add that in order to justify his demand for extraordinary measures against Molinier, Comrade Rosmer thought it possible to rely on malicious gossip, which we have all known about for some time and which we did not consider worthy of attention. This argument raised by Comrade Rosmer made a very painful impression on me. I told him that insofar as he placed any importance whatsoever on the old or the new insinuations, he should demand the establishment of a control commission composed of reliable and impartial comrades to rule on the question as a whole. What other means could one propose in a revolutionary organization?

You know very well from your own experience what difficulty I had in deciding on a break with Van Overstraeten, despite the fact that you insisted on it (and quite correctly). I considered it my duty to exhaust all possible means to find a basis for collaboration. I acted in the same way with respect to the differences in the French section. After Comrades Naville and Rosmer proposed that I intervene in the dispute, I decided in agreement with both parties to attempt to separate the personal questions from the principled ones, lessen the friction, and create normal conditions for discussion of the disputed questions. Since it was impossible for me to come to France, I invited Comrades Molinier and Naville to visit me. I spent several days discussing all the disputed questions with them, and (with the participation of Comrades Mill, Frankel, and Markin) we arrived at agreement on certain measures which we jokingly called "the peace of Prinkipo." These measures included the creation of a control commission to rule on all the accusations of a personal nature. You should be familiar with the Prinkipo agreement (at any rate I asked that it be sent to you). At a plenary session of the League these measures were adopted unanimously, but Comrade Rosmer did not even come to the session and continued to boycott the League without explaining — even to me — the real reasons for his attitude.

The conditions of the "peace of Prinkipo” were violated in a disloyal fashion by Comrade Naville. Comrade Rosmer thought it possible to continue casting unwarranted aspersions on the character of Comrade Molinier without addressing himself to the control commission. These were the kinds of aspersions that talk about a great deal but say nothing, that make allusions, that equivocate, that compromise without saying things directly. The accusation was expressed in that unfortunate letter you sent me a copy of. In my opinion, this manner of functioning goes against the norms of a proletarian organization. Those are the facts.

3. A few words on the principled side of the thing. Rosmer and Naville directed the League's work throughout the whole first year. In La Vérité they developed the ideas of the Left Opposition on the most general questions, or allowed others to develop them. But Van Overstraeten, Urbahns, and Landau did the same thing. The real test began with the purely French questions, where it was necessary to take a combative position. Here Comrade Rosmer never took a clear position, especially on the trade-union question, and at the same time he supported the incorrect orientation of Gourget-Naville in the area of trade-union work. My letters to Comrade Rosmer in which I pointed out the extreme danger of this orientation date from the first days of the publication of La Vérité. Comrade Rosmer never gave me a clear answer. I did not pose these questions openly in the press or to the organization because I hoped I would be able to obtain favorable results through correspondence and other private initiatives. If Comrade Rosmer denies the principled differences, and even maintains that they were invented after the fact (by whom?), that can only demonstrate how light-mindedly Comrade Rosmer approaches the fundamental problems of the proletarian revolution. One can only maintain that indispensable feeling for revolutionary questions by maintaining uninterrupted contact with the revolutionary movement. Comrade Rosmer believes it possible to absent himself from the movement for months or years because of conflicts, even those of a personal nature Is it surprising then that with such an attitude toward the movement as a whole our principled differences seem to him of secondary importance or even nonexistent?

One more question — the last one Comrade Rosmer talks about "Zinovievist methods." What does he mean by this? It is necessary to stop playing with words and spreading confusion. What is the origin of "Zinovievist methods"? They came from a sharp political turn. When the epigones began to break the tradition of the party under the pressure of new elements and circumstances, they could not rely on the general agreement of the proletarian vanguard. On the contrary, they took action against this vanguard. Essentially, "Zinovievist methods" were based on the attempt of the bureaucratic apparatus to use lies and violence against the proletarian vanguard in order to impose on the broad working masses a political orientation that ran contrary to the traditions of the party and the interests of the proletariat Thus these methods flowed entirely from the politics behind them. What is the meaning of "Zinovievist methods" in the present instance? What proletarian vanguard are we doing battle against? What revolutionary wing are we crushing or forcing out and in the interests of what opportunist political orientation? These words should be carefully weighed. Today Zinovievist methods are often understood to mean anything that causes personal vexation or fails to satisfy the inclinations of each individual.

In reality just the opposite is true. Since 1923 the most disparate elements, including those whose ideas have nothing in common with ours, have rallied to the Opposition in Western Europe. Individuals like Paz graciously accepted the status or the self-image of left communists, extreme revolutionaries, but with the proviso that no one demand anything of them and that the proletarian revolution not upset their digestion. All over France there are these groups that get together once a week, discuss all sorts of things, and adjourn without deciding anything. Once a month they publish a small magazine in which each individual writes whatever comes into his head. The best of these prewar groups was the one headed by Monatte. But its spirit, habits, methods of work, and modes of thinking were infinitely removed from those of a proletarian organization, even a small and weak one that had nevertheless decided to place itself at the head of the masses. Souvarine's circle on the one hand and Naville's on the other are new examples of this same species. A few personal friends discuss the issues of revolutionary politics and publish their articles. That is all. Undoubtedly these habits have been introduced into the League. And when the most active, most revolutionary elements begin to pose questions in an entirely different manner, they are treated like troublemakers, enemies of the peace, disrupters, etc.

Is Comrade Rosmer wrong from a principled point of view, wrong from a political point of view, or even wrong from an organizational point of view? I had no reason to speak out against Comrade Rosmer to the extent that he had simply taken himself out of all activity. But at the present time Comrade Rosmer has become the flag of all those elements that are conducting a battle against our fundamental ideas, and who have up to now greatly compromised the ideas of the Left Opposition, compromised them to a far greater extent than they have propagated them. Before our eyes an attempt to form a bloc is taking place, a bloc of the Bordigists, of Landau, Naville, Van Overstraeten, and even Sneevliet and Urbahns — all those elements that are attempting in one way or another to cover themselves with the name Rosmer. One can hardly imagine a bloc that is more ridiculous, more of a caricature, more worthless. To give one's name to such a bloc is to discredit oneself forever. Even though several dozens of my letters have not produced results, I hope nonetheless that Comrade Rosmer will not give his name to this unworthy bloc, which is condemned in advance to a pitiful defeat. In any case I will do my best to reestablish the possibility for collaborative work; I will do everything except renounce the principles that are the foundation of the Bolshevik-Leninists' work.

With communist greetings,

L. Trotsky

P. S. In order to avoid all misunderstanding let me point out something that is self-evident. I did not take and do not take any responsibility for the political acts of Comrade Molinier, with whom I have more than once had differences in the evaluation of serious practical questions. When it appeared to me that Comrade Molinier was making serious errors, I said so, both to him and to other comrades. Some differences are inevitable in the course of collaborative work. No solidarity on questions of principle can guarantee agreement on all tactical and organizational questions. The differences with the Naville group have basically always been differences of principle As for Comrade Rosmer, as I said, he has always been very evasive on questions of principle, but he supported and continues to support Naville, Landau, and the others.