Letter to the International Secretariat, July 14, 1935

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

World Party of Social Revolution'

To the International Secretariat

Dear Comrades:

1. Our International must have a name. The “Fourth” is only a number, not a name. We can call it neither Socialist nor Communist, because these two names are already taken, and in a very compromising way. In the future we will certainly make the word “communism,” i.e., the banner of Marx and Lenin, an honorable one once again. For the moment, we cannot use it. “Revolutionary socialist” does not mean very much either, because the centrists tend to hide behind this name. It seems to me that the only appropriate name for our International is: World Party of Social Revolution. This name has the great advantage of clearly and unambiguously characterizing the historical task of our epoch, thereby justifying the existence of the new International. The Second International laments over the ruins of capitalism. The Third is a tool for maintaining the rule of the Soviet bureaucracy. The Fourth is the World Party of Socialist Revolution.

In the course of time, our sections will be able to adopt this name — at least as a by-name For example: “Workers Party of the USA (American section of the World Party of Social Revolution).”

It would be completely wrong to object that the social revolution is not the only and exclusive task of the workers’ movement, since all struggles in this period must be adapted to the needs of the social revolution and the name of the party has to indicate its principal task. It would be even more false to say that the name could frighten away the “masses.” That would be a classical centrist argument. The revolution is not a historical perspective but the task of the day. Our approach is precisely to call this historical task by its name. The name has to correspond to the thinking and the imagination of the masses and at the same time clearly distinguish us from the other organizations.

The question of the name is highly important. Therefore it has to be selected carefully and with the greatest possible unanimity. It is absolutely necessary for all sections to place this question on the agenda and have a discussion about it. At the same time, the sections should be informed about all other proposals, so that we can set the name of the new International by a referendum — let us say by mid-September. I believe that public meetings could successfully be devoted to this theme. Our propagandists could seriously motivate the name and then have the meeting itself take a vote on it. That way, broader layers will consider themselves to be co-founders of the new International.

2. It can be presumed that a new amalgam is being prepared in Moscow to strengthen the last one and claim new victims. It is absolutely necessary for our press to deal with this. It would also be good to write an explanatory memorandum for the entire workers’ press all over the world. The new Rundschau gives enough information about it. Comrade Parabellum could also use the Russian press for such a memorandum, which could then be published in the name of the IS.

3. On the question of the General Council: The members of the council in every city form an action committee, which naturally has no right to make decisions, but could be of great service in this matter. The central focus would be the Paris membership of the council, which could play an important role through regular collaboration with the Amsterdam secretariat.