On Comrade Treint's Declaration, May 23, 1931

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

1. Comrade Treint adhered to the Opposition in the latter half of 1927, that is, at a time when the immediate victory of the Opposition was not to be hoped for. Since that time, despite the fact that the Opposition was crushed and the Stalinist bureaucracy triumphed, Treint has made no attempt to return to the Stalinist ranks, either by a partial capitulation or a complete one. These facts unquestionably speak in Treint’s favor. The comrades who have observed Treint close at hand acknowledge that he has a revolutionary temperament, the ability to carry on a struggle under difficult conditions, tenacity, and so on. All these are qualities of undoubted worth. To reach an understanding with Treint, to draw him into the work both of the League and of the International's apparatus would be most desirable. The rather large number of French comrades with whom I have had talks since the spring of 1929 concerning the French Opposition and the International Opposition know that I have insisted all along on the need for Treint to be drawn into leadership work in the Opposition and that in so doing I had invariably run into objections on all sides. What these objections have come down to is that the way Treint conducted himself during the 1923-27 period, that is, during the years when the victory of the centrist bureaucracy over the Leninist wing of the party was in essence prepared and assured in full, made him completely unacceptable in the ranks of the Opposition — all the more so because he was in no way inclined (so many comrades said) either to comprehend the full extent of the evil he had done or to reject the methods he had acquired in the school of Zinoviev, Stalin, and Manuilsky. Without denying the weight of these arguments, I have nevertheless insisted that an honest attempt at collaboration — under new conditions and on a new basis — should be made before any conclusions be drawn one way or another. In every meeting with French comrades, whatever the various shades of opinion, I have always posed the question of Comrade Treint along the lines thus indicated — without exception.

Today we have before us the draft of a declaration that is supposed to give the motivation behind Comrade Treint's readiness to enter the League. What form does Treint's position take today?

2. Treint begins by reprimanding all other groups for not having immediately joined the Redressement group, led by him. I do not think this is a serious way to pose the question, or that it strengthens Treint's position. As I said before, the other groups distrusted Treint so much that they considered it impossible even to accept him into their midst. That feeling is still strong (in saying this, I do not close my eyes at all to the fact that in some cases comrades who have sharply opposed collaboration with Treint have had the same shortcomings he has, without having his positive qualities). It is quite strange and out of place, under these circumstances, for him to make accusations in retrospect against those who did not recognize the leading role of the Redressement group, especially when it was in existence for only about a year and ct half (autumn 1927-spring 1929). One cannot ask for something in advance that can only be won through joint effort

3. Treint refers to the fact that he has taken his stand on the basis of the first four congresses of the Comintern. But he forgets to add that he also stands upon the Fifth Congress, and that that stand means support to the smashing of the German revolution, contributing to the defeat of the Chinese revolution, to the victory of British Labourism, to the crushing of the Left Opposition, eta Two or three issues of a magazine are totally insufficient for determining to what extent a given group (or individual) has freed itself from such theory and practice as that of the Fifth Congress. It would be wrong to exclude the Redressement group, but to grant it hegemony, a priori, would be criminal light-mindedness. The Paz group also had pretensions to hegemony. It referred back not only to the four congresses but also to its solidarity with the Russian Opposition since 1923 and to the fact that it was free of any taint of the Fifth Congress. From a formal standpoint the Paz group had much more right to such a claim than the Treint group, but we did not judge formally. The real problem was for a truly revolutionary nucleus to be crystallized out of the variety of rather heterogeneous groups, all of which were relatively untried politically. This could not be achieved in any other way than through an experience in which all the groups professing the same principles would work together in common. That was precisely the course taken by the initiating elements of the Left Opposition. In spite of all the mistakes and waverings within and around the League, we have no reason to regret the course that has been taken.

4. Comrade Treint is absolutely right when he refuses to acknowledge the infallibility of the 1923 Opposition. As far as I know, no one has asked him to do so. Treint is right, too, when he stresses the heterogeneity of the 1923 Opposition. But Zinoviev, who was the leader of Treint's international faction, admitted on the record in 1926 that the main nucleus of the 1923 Opposition was right on all fundamental questions. By departing from this viewpoint in his declaration, Treint fails to dispel the mistrust felt towards him; on the contrary, he feeds it.

Treint considers it appropriate to pass an extremely sharp judgment on one of Comrade Rakovsky's statements. At first glance this episodic element in and of itself seems to have but a secondary importance But it is to the highest degree characteristic of Comrade Treint, that is, of his negative traits. The course of Comrade Rakovsky's political career is public knowledge. The "declaration" Treint speaks of is one of many that have been signed or written by Comrade Rakovsky in recent years. Even if the particular statement were as unfortunate and contradictory as Treint makes out, it would be necessary even then to view this particular isolated step in connection with the entire course of Rakovsky's political career, which has been laid out in unbroken continuity in documents and in his correspondence with the Russian Opposition. To all this Treint closes his eyes. The only fact of significance to him is that he, Treint, once upon a time had something negative to say about one of Rakovsky's statements. And that is sufficient grounds for Treint to include in his own declaration, consisting of two and a half short printed pages, a harsh condemnation of Rakovsky’s statement, regardless of his political record on the whole. This single small detail speaks more eloquently than the lengthiest tracts!

5. Further on, Comrade Treint declares that he has differences with Trotsky's cothinkers on a whole series of major questions: he cites the questions of permanent revolution, capitalist realignments, and the real situation of the Russian Revolution as those requiring more extensive discussion. Fine. But if that is the case, then he is more unjustified than ever in accusing Trotsky's cothinkers retroactively for not having recognized the hegemony of Redressement in advance and for having proposed "more extensive discussions" on the basis of joint work. Can it be that Comrade Treint really doesn't see the extent to which he is violating all proportions and perspectives?

6. Personally I fully agree that a discussion on the questions of the permanent revolution, the situation in the USSR, etc., is necessary. It was precisely as a basis for such discussion that I first formulated my theses on permanent revolution, and wrote a pamphlet on the subject, and it was as such that I formulated my theses on the USSR some time ago, which I have proposed as a draft platform on that question. A discussion on these points is greatly needed, and Comrade Treint's participation in it is greatly to be desired.

Nevertheless Comrade Treint is, to say the least, incautious when, in two short lines, he counterposes Lenin's internationalist point of view to Trotsky's permanent revolution. In my works I have tried to show — and thus far no one has even tried to refute what I consider proven — that if disputes in the area of literary prognostication are left aside and Lenin's conception and mine are taken as they were manifested in the experience of the revolution and as they were formulated by Lenin and myself on the basis of that experience, it is impossible not to acknowledge the identity of these positions. The entire politics of the epigones, and their policies in China in particular, are based on counterposing Lenin's and my positions. As late as the May 1928 plenum [of the Executive Committee of the Communist International], Comrade Treint still voted for the official resolution on the China question (with a statement of reservations). By this he showed how far away he had been during the years 1923-27 from the very foundations of Lenin's views. Since then he has taken no part in the discussions on the question of permanent revolution based on the experiences in China, India, the recent experience in Spain, etc. Nonetheless, he finds it possible to counterpose Lenin's internationalism to Trotsky's permanent revolution, thus actually echoing Manuilsky's worn-out phrases.

What Comrade Treint has in mind by the phrase "capitalist realignments" is unclear to me: is he objecting to the slogan of "a Soviet United States of Europe"?

What can we conclude? Comrade Treint's declaration shows that there is much truth in his opponents' objections and warnings. Nevertheless I consider the conclusions drawn by these opponents to be incorrect Though Treint is inclined to demand a priori recognition of his leadership — that, after all, is what the main points in his letter come down to — it would be wrong to reply with an a priori refusal to attempt collaboration with him. Some may say that no a priori refusal is involved, since we have had experience with Treint But that is wrong. Times change, conditions change, and people change along with them. It is necessary to make an attempt at collaboration. What form should it take? That should be left to the comrades who would be responsible for carrying out such collaboration. It would be good if, in that effort, Comrade Treint could be persuaded to abandon the most inappropriate parts of his declaration — above all, the one relating to Comrade Rakovsky, who does not even have the chance to reply, not even with one small document, to this openly abusive act on Treint's part. If the declaration were to be published in La Vérité in its present form or a modified one, the editors would do well to print the appropriate rebuttal along with it. That would not greatly facilitate the process of collaboration. But then the responsibility would fall entirely on Comrade Treint.