Letter to the National Committee, Communist League of America, May 19, 1932

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

International and National Questions

To the National Committee,

Communist League of America

Dear Comrades:

In my letter to Comrade Glotzer I have already briefly explained the comical misunderstanding with regard to the labor party in my New York Times interview. I hope that Comrade Glotzer has informed you of the relevant parts. Enclosed, I am also sending you a more thorough treatment of this question.The document arose in the following manner: Comrade Weisbord, who has come here in the name of his group, naturally on his own initiative, and has already been with us for several days, presented before us (aside from Weisbord there are three other foreign comrades here) the views of his group on the labor party question. This naturally led to a discussion, and at the conclusion of the discussion I dictated the article enclosed to Comrade Weisbord. In literary form it is very much imperfect, for Weisbord took down my English version, so to speak, almost verbatim. If you want to print it, you will have to polish it up yourselves.

Further discussions with Weisbord are scheduled. I must admit that Weisbord has made a much more favorable impression upon me personally than by means of his letters and articles. I am of course holding back on all organizational positions, i.e., I refer him to the fact that the American League is our only organization in America and that the disputed questions must be regulated in America. As you can see from the enclosed document, I defend the leadership of the League quite energetically against Weisbord’s criticism (naturally, not out of diplomacy but out of conviction). But it appears to me that Weisbord’s group is already prepared now to join the League if the conditions are not too “debasing.” Don’t you think that after a sharp condemnation of the theoretical and tactical mistakes of this group by me, you can then open up a bridge for Weisbord and his group? That is only a suggestion. I do not in any way take it upon myself to speak in , your name, which is of course impossible, and not even in my own. But I must say that Comrade Glotzer’s report about the complete stagnation in the branches of the League has made a disturbing impression on me. Perhaps something in Weisbord’s criticism in connection with “mass action” is not so false as the other parts of his criticism.

I am very glad you have taken a firm position on the international questions. On the question of the international conference I am enclosing a letter by Gourov. You will understand why the author signs this letter as he does. This letter too is a condemnation of the fantastic idea of the Weisbord group with regard to an international conference at which not only the national sections but all the splinter groups and muddleheads would be represented. You know, of course, that many Spanish comrades flirt with this idea? In the Czechoslovak group also, which is quite new in our ranks, there is as yet no clarity on the international questions. It is therefore all the more important to take a firm position on the question of the composition of the conference and to lock the doors to all confusion and to all combinations by intriguers.

On the internal dispute of the American League I do not as yet take a position because I have not yet had an opportunity to study the question with sufficient attentiveness. When I take a position I will try not to allow myself to be influenced in advance by the false and damaging position of Comrade Shachtman on all the international questions, almost without exception. On the other hand, however, it is not easy to assume that one can be correct on the most important national questions when one is always wrong on the most important international questions.

With communist greetings.

Yours,

L. Trotsky