Letter to the International Secretariat, March 7, 1931

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The International Secretariat and the International Bureau

To the International Secretariat

To the National Sections of the Left Opposition

Dear Comrades:

Certain influential members of the Left Opposition — especially in Germany — are attempting to create a legend or a series of legends around the International Secretariat, in order to hide their own mistakes. Among these numerous inadmissible proceedings, we must include the rumor that the IS was created to “combat” the International Bureau. It suffices to reconstruct the facts for this legend to disappear like smoke.

The Bureau was elected at the April conference last year and was composed of Comrades Rosmer, Markin, and a representative of the German Opposition, in which capacity Comrade Landau later was appointed.

Following the crisis in the French Opposition one member of the Bureau, Comrade Rosmer, forsook the work in the League, which hampered the normal functioning of the Bureau. I more than anyone else have been able to judge how injurious the voluntary withdrawal of Comrade Rosmer from the work of the French and the International Oppositions has been. All the steps and measures I have undertaken to make it easier for Comrade Rosmer to return to his work — the last attempt of this sort is known under the name of the so-called “Prinkipo peace pact” — did not achieve the desired results. For reasons which I do not accept, Comrade Rosmer considers it possible for him to remain away from the work of the International Left.

In order to consolidate the IB, I proposed, in agreement with some of the other comrades, to co-opt Comrades Nin and Shachtman into the Bureau. But Comrade Nin was shortly afterwards arrested, not to speak of the fact that he is entirely absorbed by the Spanish affairs. Comrade Shachtman is on the other side of the ocean. The other three members of the Bureau are always to be found in three different parts of Europe, and one of them was actually, as has been said, cut off from all work for several months.

In such a situation nothing else remained to be done except to attempt to create, in a fixed place, a Secretariat functioning regularly. This proposal was unanimously adopted by both groups in the [French] League and by all the other national sections. Objections came only from the German leadership, at the head of which Comrade Landau stands.

What was the original composition of the Secretariat? It is well known: Mill, Souzo, and Naville. This composition was likewise adopted unanimously. At the time the proposed Secretariat was accepted, Comrade Souzo’s positions on the French crisis and the German differences were completely unknown to me. What was most decisive for me was the fact that Comrade Souzo possesses a certain experience in conducting the work of the party and that he was the head of an important though small national group. Soon after, it appeared that in the internal crisis of the League, Comrade Souzo supported Naville and was conducting a sharp struggle against the majority of the French League. Thus the Naville faction became a majority in the Secretariat, which certainly did not correspond to its ideological and political weight in the International Opposition. Personally, I regretted it, but I accepted it as a fact. We must add that the third member of the Secretariat, Comrade Mill, occupied an extremely conciliatory position on the organizational questions. Thus, the composition of the Secretariat totally refutes the legend that the Secretariat was artificially selected for the purpose of combatting the Bureau.

The chief author of this legend is Comrade Landau. He is also the one who poses as the defender of the rights of the Bureau against the assaults of the Secretariat. But how do things work out in practice? When the very important question of the fate of the Austrian groups arose, I considered that in this case the intervention of the International Bureau was necessary and I proposed to the latter the drafting of a platform for the unification of the Austrian groups. Comrades Rosmer and Markin declared themselves in favor of my proposal. Comrade Landau was against it. That was of course his right. However, he did not confine himself to this alone, but behind the back of the Bureau he advised his partisans in Austria to ignore the decision of the majority of the Bureau and to act along the lines of his platform, which the Bureau had rejected. Copies of Landau’s letters have been sent to us from Austria, and in my opinion they should be communicated to all the sections. The attitude of Landau in this capital question signifies virtually the liquidation of the Bureau. No serious revolutionary can respect a leading body when one of its members, left in the minority, allows himself not only to ignore the decisions of the majority of this body and remain unpunished, but even to advise the national sections involved to follow suit. The present “defense” of the Bureau by Comrade Landau I can only consider as an ignoble comedy.

I return to the history of the Secretariat. When the political mistakes of the old Executive Committee of the League, especially on the trade union question, became completely evident, Comrade Naville resigned from the Secretariat. The method of resignations is an abnormal method in a revolutionary organization. But on the other hand, Comrade Naville did not, perhaps, have any other way out: the representative of the French Opposition cannot participate in the Secretariat if he does not have any support in the Executive Committee of the League and La Vérité.

The Executive Committee of the League named Comrade Frank as candidate to the International Secretariat. Comrade Frank reflects the opinions of the majority of the League, the Executive Committee, and the editorial board of La Vérité. I believe that the national sections have no reason to object to the replacement of Comrade Naville by Comrade Frank. Aside from all other considerations, this assures a more harmonious agreement between the Secretariat and the majority of the International Opposition.

I want to call attention to the fact that even in its new composition the Secretariat is completely free from all factional partiality. Comrade Souzo, as has been said, remains entirely for the positions of Comrade Naville, but unlike the latter, Comrade Souzo has a small national section behind him.

What is necessary in order to reestablish the normal functioning of the present IB as the highest political body, which, due to its composition alone, can intervene only in exceptional and important matters? For that it is necessary:

(a) That Comrade Rosmer return to active work in the League.

(b) That the German Opposition overcome its present crisis, because today Comrade Landau represents the minority of the organization, which is waging an implacable struggle against the majority and prevents the honest convocation of a conference to be prepared loyally.

(c) Aside from this, it is necessary that the repetition of an organizational disloyalty such as Landau committed in the Austrian question be made impossible in the International Bureau.

It is obvious that in all cases where the Secretariat finds it indispensable to inquire the opinion of the members of the present Bureau, it has the full privilege to do so, and such an inquiry will no doubt have great political significance. But it is quite evident that aside from the conditions cited above, the International Bureau in its present composition cannot play the active role of a directing center.

The task which falls to the International Secretariat becomes all the more important and responsible. To undermine its authority, to impede its work, is a veritable crime. I believe that all the sections have an interest in supporting the Secretariat against the sabotage of certain personages and circles.

The Secretariat is as yet indisputably weak. Much time has been lost. The daily work merits the criticism of all the national sections. But at the same time we must not forget that the Secretariat is today the only tie that links together the International Opposition. Only the Secretariat is able to prepare a serious international conference. We have the right and the duty to demand of the Secretariat a rigid organizational loyalty toward all the sections. We can demand of the Secretariat that it send the minutes of its meetings to all the sections, so that its work will be carried on under the control of the entire International Opposition. But, on the other hand, we must protect the Secretariat against all attacks, insinuations, and intrigues. The elementary needs of the Left Opposition demand it.

With communist greetings,

L. Trotsky