Letter to the Editors of Oktoberbriefe, October 7, 1932

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Zigzags and Eclectic Nonsense

To the Editors of Oktoberbriefe

Dear Comrades:

My Berlin friends inform me of your wish to receive an article from me for your publication. Since you are conducting a struggle to turn the SAP from its present centrist course to the path of communism, I am of course ready to cooperate with you in every way.

Now I should like, in a few words, to direct the attention of your readers to the extremely instructive piece in SAZ [Socialist Workers News] of September 28, under the heading "The Revolt of the Party Members in the KPD" [German Communist Party]. Not only does the piece convey a very interesting fact about the internal life of the KPD; it also throws a clear light on the leadership of the SAP itself. I choose three points from this piece, each of which has great programmatic significance.

1. The subheading reads: "Against the Ultraleft Zigzag Course of the Leadership." What sense do these words have? Perhaps there is an ultraleft course; but there cannot be a course of "ultraleft zigzags." In actual fact, the Stalinists are zigzagging between ultraleftism and opportunism: it is precisely in this that is expressed the centrist character of the Stalinist faction, but Seydewitz — like Brandler and Thalheimer — sees only "ultraleftism" in Stalinist policy, eyes closed to its no less impressive opportunist turns and exploits. However, the SAZ at the same time borrows from the Left Opposition the term "zigzags" to define the Stalinist course. The result is eclectic nonsense.

The Brandlerites speak only of the ultraleftism of the Stalinists because they, the Brandlerites, along with the Stalinists, have zigzagged in the direction of opportunism and still do. As for Seydewitz and Co., they have completely failed to think out all the stages in the path of the proletarian revolution since the world war. They, of course, consider criticism by the Left Opposition sectarian. Still less critically they chew on the wisdom of Thalheimer.

2. The piece in the SAZ gives an account of article number 6 of the newspaper of the Inner-Party Opposition. Unfortunately, I have not seen this article ("A Critical Party Voice"). The account in the SAZ arouses the most lively interest. The oppositionist magazine subjects to sharp criticism the policy of the official leadership and the party regime. The SAZ tells, later on, of "a letter from an Amsterdam antiwar congress delegate which reveals all the emptiness and theatricality of the undertaking." An extremely clear and important symptom!

What, however, is the attitude of the SAZ itself to the voice of the Inner-Party Communist Opposition? We read: "What is criticized here and what is demanded fully correspond to what the SAP has been saying since its inception on relations with the KPD. This is the most genuine affirmation of the correctness of our policy."

It isn't possible for me to check this assertion of the SAP on all questions since, as has been said, I don't have "A Critical Party Voice" at my disposal. But perhaps one question about Amsterdam will suffice. Where and when did the SAZ characterize the Amsterdam congress as an empty, theatrical undertaking? Dr. K. Rosenfeld represented the SAP at the antiwar congress. Did he expose there the lack of principle of the bloc of Stalinists and bourgeois Radicals, Freemasons, pacifist generals, and Hindu nationalists? Did he speak against the pompous and perfidious manifesto which erases all the boundaries between Marxism and pacifism? Did he support the objection of the six representatives of the International Left Opposition? Did he append his signature to our manifesto? Apparently not. The representative of the SAP took his place at the Amsterdam theatrical production in the role of a submissive actor.

On what basis does the SAZ write about "the affirmation of the correctness of our policy"?

3. The piece finishes with the words: "Only a complete change of course, reform of the KPD and of the Comintern from top to bottom, can help here." Reform? Is reform still possible? The KPD and the Comintern are not yet consigned to the scrap heap of history? Then by what right does the SAP declare itself the third party and prepare to receive the inheritance of the SPD and KPD? An independent party can have only one path: the path of the liquidation of the KPD. The path of reform is, on the contrary, the path of the resurrection of the KPD. It is necessary to choose between these two opposing paths. The very word "reform" — as regards the party and the Comintern — is borrowed by the SAZ from the platform of the Left Opposition. How and why? Because inside the Communist Party a cold wind has blown. The SAZ wants to prove its kinship with the Inner-Party Opposition. In itself, striving to win over a new group is completely legitimate for every political organization. But a principled basis is necessary. The SAP leadership does not have this basis. It purports to be an independent party, yet at the same time it talks of the "reform" of the KPD. It unites on the international arena with every hopelessly centrist organization and, at the same time, talks about reform of the Comintern.

Such a leadership is capable of leading any organization to destruction. I wanted to tell you this with all the necessary frankness.

L. Trotsky