Letter to the International Secretariat, November 1935

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

An Answer to Comrades in Anvers

To the International Secretariat:

The letter from the group of comrades in Anvers is without any doubt dictated by the best intentions, but it contains a series of obvious misunderstandings.

a. The Anvers comrades accuse us of not insisting on common work between Charleroi and Vereecken. They consider our attitude to be dictated by an “incorrect” feeling toward Vereecken. The Anvers friends shut their eyes, in an astonishing way, to the fact that the Charleroi group is not now connected with the IS and did not sign the Open Letter.

What is the reason for this? The special situation of the Charleroi group within the Belgian [Labor] Party and within its left wing. Whether the political line of Charleroi is correct or not is a separate question; but that political line has its logic. In setting itself the task of influencing the left wing by friendly collaboration with it, the Charleroi group does not want to appear to the left wing as an agent of an organization outside the party. Is such a policy of “accommodation” legitimate? To be sure, it has its dangerous aspects. But they can be more than balanced by positive results, given firm internal cohesiveness. If the Charleroi group considers it impossible, in the present period, to maintain official ties with the IS, and doesn’t sign the Open Letter, how then can one demand that this group enter into official connection with Vereecken? It must be added that neither the Secretariat, nor the organizations that have signed the Open Letter, thought or think of the Charleroi comrades as capitulators or as traitors. Whereas precisely these accusations have been hurled at them by Comrade Vereecken, who has not retracted his false and obviously sectarian accusations to this very day.

b. The Secretariat is ready to do everything to facilitate collaboration in the future; it has proved this by offering Comrade Vereecken the opportunity to sign the Open Letter and by submitting all the documents to him. It only takes two seconds to break a leg, but for the bone to mend requires several months. We are all well aware of the positive and revolutionary qualities of Comrade Vereecken, his ideological intransigence, his devotion to the cause, his perseverance. But over the years we have learned only too well his negative qualities also: the absence of balance and a sense of proportion, the inclination to excessive exaggeration, indiscipline, and capriciousness — all these traits are characteristic of sectarianism. Democratic centralism imposes obligations on an opposition too: if everyone wanted to do only what pleased him, it would inevitably destroy both democracy and centralism. I do not know where the Anvers comrades have witnessed the ideal democratic centralism which they, following Vereecken, hold up against us; not on this mortal earth, I’m sure. But we believe that there is at present no other organization that discusses so honestly and with such good faith, not only in form but in essence, and decides all contested matters so democratically, as our organization does. Of course, not a few mistakes are committed. But Vereecken commits ten times as many errors against the ABC of democratic centralism as Charleroi. Vereecken’s August article is not only wrong but criminal in its total lack of balance and of sense of proportion. Not one worker who really believes Vereecken’s article will join the Fourth International, and since Vereecken’s group is condemned to vegetate ineffectually outside the Fourth International, his article can only sap his own foundations. That is the fate of sectarianism in general. On the French and Belgian questions (not to mention the others) Vereecken has made so many errors that he was forced to become more prudent. Nevertheless, when the IS threw him a lifeline, his answer was to throw stones at them. That is the reason why I, for one, have been obliged to write an article against sectarianism for our press, taking Vereecken as a model.

c. Speaking of democratic centralism, the Anvers comrades picture things as though the Charleroi group does what the Secretariat “orders.” In reality, Charleroi has determined its entire political line, while not as anarchistically as Vereecken, still, with great independence. I personally have been far from agreeing with all the steps of our Charleroi friends, and I have told them so more than once. But I consider them to be comrades, and not capitulators and traitors. There is the difference. But Vereecken wants to maintain the right to scathe them as capitulators and at the same time … demand their collaboration. Naturally, Charleroi is unlikely to accept. To regain our complete confidence, that is, to eliminate the fear of new anarchistic goings-on, Vereecken will have to openly recognize that his position on the French question has been incorrect from beginning to end, and that his accusations against the Secretariat have been refuted by the facts, just like his accusations against the Charleroi group.

Practical conclusion: The bone broken by Vereecken must be patiently and persistently mended. For that to happen, it is necessary for Vereecken to remain among the groups of the Fourth International. That naturally does not mean that he gives up the right to criticize. But he has to use that right with balance and proportion (that is the dividing line between Marxist criticism and sectarian criticism). And it would not be amiss if he added … a little self-criticism too. Under these conditions, the reconstruction of unity would be assured. By what path? I cannot predict that. Here a great deal depends on the special situation of the Charleroi group. But this special situation will not last forever. The revolutionary party to come can and must be prepared from different sides simultaneously.

Crux [Trotsky]