The International Left Opposition, Its Tasks and Methods

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The task of the coming conference of the Left Opposition (Bolshevik-Leninists) is to adopt a clear and precisely formulated platform and organizational statutes, and select its leading bodies. The preceding theoretical, political and organizational work of the Left Opposition in various countries, especially in the last four years, has created sufficient premises for the solution of this task.

The fundamental programmatic and political documents of the Left Opposition are issued in no less than fifteen languages. The Left Opposition publishes thirty-two periodicals in sixteen countries. It has reorganized and strengthened its sections in nine countries and has created new sections in seven countries in the past three years. But its most important and most valuable achievement is the undeniable raising of the theoretical level of the International Left Opposition, the growth of its ideological solidity, and the expansion of its revolutionary initiative.

Origin of the Left Opposition in the USSR

The Left Opposition arose in 1923, ten years ago, in the land of the October Revolution, in the ruling party of the first workers' state. The delay in the development of the world revolution necessarily called forth a political reaction in the land of the October Revolution. Complete counterrevolution means displacement of the rule of one class by that of another; reaction begins and develops while still under the rule of the revolutionary class. The bearer of the reaction against October was the petty bourgeoisie, particularly the better-off elements of the peasantry. The bureaucracy, which is closely connected with the petty bourgeoisie, put itself forward as the spokesman of this reaction. Supported by the pressure of the petty-bourgeois masses, the bureaucracy won a large measure of independence from the proletariat After replacing the program of international revolution by national reformism, it made the theory of socialism in one country its official doctrine. The left wing of the proletariat fell under the blows of the Soviet bureaucracy in an alliance with the petty-bourgeois, predominantly peasant, masses and the backward strata of the workers themselves. That is the dialectics of the replacement of Leninism by Stalinism.

After the organizational defeat of the Left Opposition, the official policy became definitively a policy of empirical maneuver between the classes. The dependence of the bureaucracy upon the proletariat meanwhile expressed itself in the fact that, in spite of a series of blows, it did not dare or was not able to overthrow the essential achievements of the October Revolution: nationalization of the land, nationalization of industry, the monopoly of foreign trade. Still more — when the party bureaucracy in 1928 felt itself endangered by its petty-bourgeois allies, particularly by the kulaks [rich peasants], its fear of entirely losing its support among the proletariat led it to carry out a sharp turn to the left The final results of this zigzag were the adventurist tempo of industrialization, the wholesale collectivization of the land, and the administrative defeat of the kulaks. The disorganization of the economy brought about by this blind policy led at the beginning of this year to a new turn to the right

Thanks to its privileged position and conservative habits of thinking, the Soviet bureaucracy has many features in common with the reformist bureaucracies of capitalist countries. It is far more inclined to trust in the "revolutionary" Kuomintang, the left" bureaucracy of the British trade unions, petty-bourgeois "friends of the Soviet Union," and liberal and radical pacifists than in the independent revolutionary initiative of the proletariat But the need to defend its own position in the workers' state forces the Soviet bureaucracy over and over again into sharp collisions with the reformist lackeys of capital. In this way, under unique historical conditions, a faction of bureaucratic centrism was separated out of proletarian Bolshevism, and has laid a heavy hand on a whole epoch of development of the Soviet republic and of the world working class.

Bureaucratic centrism signifies the worst degeneration of the workers' state. But even in its bureaucratically degenerated form, the Soviet Union remains a workers' state. To transform the struggle against the centrist bureaucracy into a struggle against the Soviet state is to place oneself on the same level as the Stalinist clique which declares, "the state is I."

Unconditional defense of the Soviet Union against world imperialism is such an elementary task of every revolutionary worker that the Left Opposition tolerates no vacillations or doubts on this question in its ranks. As before, it will break ruthlessly with all groups and elements which attempt to occupy a "neutral" stance between the Soviet Union and the capitalist world (Monatte-Louzon in France, the Urbahns group in Germany).

The Left Opposition in Capitalist Countries

The Third International arose as the direct result of the experience of the advanced workers in the epoch of the imperialist war and postwar upheavals, particularly that of the October Revolution. This determined the leading role of Russian Bolshevism in the Third International, and therefore, also, the influence of its internal struggles on the development of other national sections. Yet it is absolutely false to regard the evolution of the Comintern during the last ten years as a mere reflection of the factional struggle within the Russian Communist Party. There were reasons rooted in the development of the international workers' movement itself which drove the young sections of the Comintern to the Stalinist bureaucracy.

The early postwar years were years of expectancy everywhere, particularly in Europe, of imminent overthrow of bourgeois rule. But by the time the internal crisis of the Soviet party broke out, most of the European sections had suffered their first great defeats and disappointments. Particularly depressing was the impotent retreat of the German proletariat in October 1923. A new political orientation became an inner necessity for the majority of the Communist parties. When the Soviet bureaucracy, exploiting the disappointment of the Russian workers in the delay of the European revolution, set forth the national-reformist theory of socialism in one country, the young bureaucracies of the other sections breathed a sigh of relief; the new perspective offered them a road to socialism independent of the process of international revolution. In this way, the reaction within the USSR coincided with the reaction in the capitalist countries and created the conditions for successful administrative repression of the Left Opposition by the centrist bureaucracy.

But in their further move to the right, the official parties collided with the real Kuomintang, the real bureaucrats of the trade unions and the Social Democracy, just as the Stalinists collided with the real kulaks. The new zigzag to an ultra-left policy that followed led to the split of the official Comintern majority into the ruling center and the Right-Oppositionist wing.

In the camp of communism, therefore, during the past three years it has been possible to follow clearly three fundamental groups: the Marxist wing (Bolshevik-Leninists); the centrist faction (Stalinists); and finally the right, or properly speaking, right-centrist wing (Brandlerites), which leads directly to reformism. The political developments in almost all countries without exception have confirmed and daily confirm in life the correctness of this classification.

It was and continues to be completely characteristic of centrism to work hand in hand with the right as the current most nearly akin to it in principle, but never to make a bloc with the Bolshevik-Leninists against the right. As for the right wing on the international scale, like all forms of opportunism, it is marked by extraordinary differences and contradictions among its national constituents, while they all have in common hostility to the Bolshevik-Leninists.

In the USSR, under the conditions of the dictatorship and the absence of legal opposition parties, the Right Opposition inevitably becomes the instrument through which class forces hostile to the proletariat exert their pressure. In this consists the main danger of the Right Opposition. On the other hand, the consciousness of this danger paralyzes those leaders of the Right Opposition who are bound up with the party through their past.

In the capitalist countries, where all types of reformism to the right of the Communist parties can operate, the right wing has no field of activity. Insofar as the Right Opposition has mass organizations, it turns them over, directly or indirectly, to the Social Democracy (Czechoslovakia, Sweden), with the exception of the revolutionary elements who find their way to the Bolshevik-Leninists (Czechoslovakia, Poland). The Brandlerite elements who have remained independent here and there (Germany, USA) place their hopes on being called back and pardoned sooner or later by the Stalinist bureaucracy; with this perspective, they carry on a campaign of lies and slander against the Left Opposition quite in the spirit of Stalinism.

Fundamental Principles of the Left Opposition

The International Left Opposition stands on the ground of the first four congresses of the Comintern. This does not mean that it bows before every letter of its decisions, many of which had a purely conjunctural character and have been contradicted by subsequent events. But all the essential principles (in relation to imperialism and the bourgeois state, to democracy and reformism; problems of insurrection; the dictatorship of the proletariat; on relations with the peasantry and the oppressed nations; soviets; work in the trade unions; parliamentarism; the policy of the united front) remain even today the highest expression of proletarian strategy in the epoch of the general crisis of capitalism.

The Left Opposition rejects the revisionist decisions of the Fifth and Sixth World Congresses and considers necessary a radical restatement of the program of the Comintern, whose Marxist gold has been rendered completely worthless by centristic alloy.

In accordance with the spirit and the sense of the decisions of the first four world congresses, and in continuation of these decisions, the Left Opposition establishes the following principles, develops them theoretically, and carries them through practically:

1. The independence of the proletarian party, always and under all conditions; condemnation of the policy toward the Kuomintang in 1924-28; condemnation of the policy of the Anglo-Russian Committee; condemnation of the Stalinist theory of two-class (worker-and-peasant) parties and of the whole practice based on this theory; condemnation of the policy of the Amsterdam Congress, by which the Communist Party was dissolved in the pacifist swamp.

2. Recognition of the international and thereby of the permanent character of the proletarian revolution; rejection of the theory of socialism in one country and of the policy of national Bolshevism in Germany which complements it (the platform of "national liberation").

3. Recognition of the Soviet state as a workers' state in spite of the growing degeneration of the bureaucratic regime; the unconditional obligation of every worker to defend the Soviet state against imperialism as well as against internal counterrevolution.

4. Condemnation of the economic policy of the Stalinist faction both in its stage of economic opportunism in 1923 to 1928 (struggle against "super-industrialization," staking all on the kulaks) as well as in its stage of economic adventurism in 1928 to 1932 (over-accelerated tempo of industrialization, 100 percent collectivization, administrative liquidation of the kulaks as a class); condemnation of the criminal bureaucratic legend that "the Soviet state has already entered into socialism"; recognition of the necessity of a return to the realistic economic policies of Leninism.

5. Recognition of the necessity of systematic Communist work in the proletarian mass organizations, particularly in the reformist trade unions; condemnation of the theory and practice of the Red trade-union organization in Germany [RGO] and similar formations in other countries.

6. Rejection of the formula of the "'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" as a separate regime distinguished from the dictatorship of the proletariat, which wins the support of the peasant and the oppressed masses in general; rejection of the anti-Marxist theory of the peaceful "growing-over" of the democratic dictatorship into the socialist one.

7. Recognition of the necessity to mobilize the masses under transitional slogans corresponding to the concrete situation in each country, and particularly under democratic slogans insofar as it is a question of struggle against feudal relations, national oppression, or different varieties of openly imperialistic dictatorship (fascism, Bonapartism, etc.).

8. Recognition of the necessity of a developed united-front policy with respect to the mass organizations of the working class, both of trade-union and political character, including the Social Democracy as a party; condemnation of the ultimatistic slogan "only from below," which in practice means a rejection of the united front and, consequently, a refusal to create soviets; condemnation of the opportunistic application of the united-front policy as in the Anglo-Russian Committee (a bloc with the leaders without the masses and against the masses); double condemnation of the policy of the present German Central Committee, which combines the ultimatistic slogan "only from below" with the opportunistic practice of parliamentary pacts with the leaders of the Social Democracy.

9. Rejection of the theory of social fascism and of the entire practice bound up with it as serving fascism on the one hand and the Social Democracy on the other.

10. Differentiation of three groupings within the camp of communism: the Marxist, the centrist, and the right; recognition of the impermissibility of a political alliance with the right against centrism; support of centrism against the class enemy; irreconcilable and systematic struggle against centrism and its zigzag policies.

11. Recognition of party democracy not only in words but also in fact; ruthless condemnation of the Stalinist plebiscitary regime (the rule of usurpers, gagging the thought and the will of the party, deliberate suppression of information from the party, etc.).

The fundamental principles enumerated above, which are of basic importance for the strategy of the proletariat in the present period, place the Left Opposition in irreconcilable hostility to the Stalinist faction which currently dominates the USSR and the Communist International. Recognition of these principles, on the basis of the decisions of the first four congresses of the Comintern, is an indispensable condition for the acceptance of single organizations, groups, and persons into the International Left Opposition.

Faction and Not Party

The International Left Opposition regards itself as a faction of the Comintern and its separate national sections as factions of the national Communist parties. This means that the Left Opposition does not regard the organizational regime created by the Stalinist bureaucracy as final. On the contrary, its aim is to tear the banner of Bolshevism out of the hands of the usurping bureaucracy and return the Communist International to the principles of Marx and Lenin. That such a policy is the only correct one under the given conditions is proven both by theoretical analysis and historical experience

Although the special conditions of Russian development had brought Bolshevism to a final break with Menshevism as early as 1912, the Bolshevik Party remained in the Second International until the end of the year 1914. The lesson of the world war was necessary to pose the question of a new International; the October Revolution was necessary to call the new International into being.

Such a historical catastrophe as the collapse of the Soviet state would, of course, sweep away with it the Third International too. Similarly, the victory of fascism in Germany and the smashing of the German proletariat would hardly allow the Comintern to survive the consequences of its disastrous policies. But who in the camp of the revolution will today dare to say that the collapse of the Soviet power or the victory of fascism in Germany cannot be avoided or prevented? Not the Left Opposition, in any event On the contrary, its policies are directed toward defending the Soviet Union against the danger of Thermidor, which has been brought closer by centrism, and toward helping the German proletariat not only to defeat fascism but also to conquer power. Standing on the foundation of the October Revolution and of the Third International, the Left Opposition rejects the idea of parallel Communist parties.

The entire responsibility for the splitting of communism lies on the Stalinist bureaucracy. The Bolshevik-Leninists are prepared, at a moment, to return to the ranks of the Comintern and to observe strict discipline in action, while at the same time, on the basis of party democracy, carrying on an irreconcilable struggle against bureaucratic centrism. Today, under the conditions of the split, our adherence to the Communist International cannot be expressed by organizational self-limitation, by refusal to assume independent political initiative and to engage in mass work, but must be expressed by the content of our policy. The Left Opposition does not adapt itself to the Stalinist bureaucracy, does not pass over its mistakes and crimes in silence; on the contrary, it subjects them to irreconcilable criticism. But the aim of this criticism is not to set up competitive parties against the existing Communist parties, but to win over the proletarian nucleus of the official parties and in this way to rebuild the parties on a Marxist foundation.

This question is put more clearly and more sharply in the USSR than anywhere else. The policy of a second party there would mean a policy of armed insurrection and a new revolution. The policy of the faction means steering a course toward internal reform of the party and the workers' state. Despite all the slanders of the Stalinist bureaucracy and its admirers, the Opposition remains solely and completely on the ground of reform.

Our relation to the Communist International is defined by the name of our faction: Left Opposition. The content of our ideas and methods is characterized with sufficient clarity by the name Bolshevik-Leninists. Every section must bear both of these complementary designations.

Cleansing the Ranks of the Left Opposition and the Composition of the International Conference

The Left Opposition can grow and strengthen itself only by cleansing its ranks of accidental and alien elements.

The revolutionary upsurge after the war not only seized the young generation of the proletariat but also revived a great variety of sectarian groups which sought a way out on the roads of anarchism, syndicalism, pure propagandism, etc. Many of them hoped to find an arena for their confused ideas in the Communist International. Petty-bourgeois bohemian elements, thrown out of their ruts by the war and the postwar upheavals, also flocked under the banner of communism. A part of this many-hued army of partisans dispersed itself in the Communist movement and entered its apparatus; poachers often make the best gendarmes. The dissatisfied ones, on the other hand, either immediately turned away from politics or attempted, on the way, to attach themselves to the Opposition. Such elements are prepared to accept the best principles, in words, on condition that they not be prevented from remaining good bourgeois (Paz and Co.), and that they not be obliged to observe discipline of thought and action (Souvarine) or to give up their syndicalist and other prejudices (Rosmer).

In approaching the task of assembling its ranks on the national as well as the international scale, the Left Opposition had to begin with the various groups that actually existed. But from the very beginning it was clear to the basic nucleus of the International Left Opposition that a mechanical combination of separate groups which count themselves among the Left Opposition is permissible only as a starting point, and that later on, based on theoretical and political work as well as internal criticism, the necessary selection must be made. In fact, the last four years were for the International Left Opposition a time not only of clarification and deepening of theory on the ground of the individual countries, but also of its cleansing of alien, sectarian, and adventurist bohemian elements, without a principled position, without serious devotion to the cause, without connection with the masses, without a sense of responsibility and discipline, and for that, all the more inclined to listen to the voice of careerism (Landau, Mill, Graef, Well, and other varieties of the same general type).

The principle of party democracy is in no way identical with the principle of the open door. The Left Opposition has never demanded of the Stalinists that they transform the party into a mechanical sum of factions, groups, sects, and individuals. We accuse the centrist bureaucracy of carrying on an essentially false policy which at every step brings them into contradiction with the flower of the proletariat and of looking for the way out of these contradictions by the strangling of party democracy. Between the organizational policy of bureaucratic centrism and its "general line" there is an inseparable connection. In contradistinction to Stalinism, the Left Opposition is the bearer of the theory of Marxism and of the strategic achievements of Leninism in the world labor movement.

As far as principled methods are concerned, the International Opposition has never broken with any group or with any individual comrade without exhausting all methods of ideological persuasion. Exactly for that reason, the work of selecting cadres that has been accomplished possesses an organic and permanent character. By checking over each and every one on the basis of performance, the Left Opposition must carry through to the end the cleansing of its ranks of alien elements since only in this way, as experience has shown, can it expand and educate its proletarian cadres. The international conference can rest only on the work that has already been done, and deepen and consolidate the results of this work.

The proposal to call a conference with each and every group that counts itself in the Left Opposition (the groups of Landau and Rosmer, the Mahnruf, Spartakos, the Weisbord group, etc.) represents an attempt to turn the wheel backward and shows a complete lack of understanding of the conditions and laws of development of a revolutionary organization and of the methods of selection and education of its cadres. The preconference not only rejects but condemns such an attitude as being in radical contradiction to the organizational policies of Marxism.

On Party Democracy

The sections of the Left Opposition, originating out of small propaganda groups, gradually are being transformed into workers' organizations. This transition puts the tasks of party democracy in first place. Regular organizational relations must finally replace the kind of regime in which a few comrades, who are closely connected and understand each other even by the most informal indications, make all their decisions in a casual manner.

The foundation of party democracy is timely and complete information, available to all members of the organization and covering all the important questions of their life and struggle. Discipline can be built up only on a conscious assimilation of the policies of the organization by all its members and on confidence in its leadership. Such confidence can be won only gradually, in the course of common struggle and reciprocal influence. The iron discipline which is needed cannot be achieved by naked command. The revolutionary organization cannot do without the punishment of undisciplined and disruptive elements; but such disciplinary measures can be applied only as a last resort and, moreover, on the condition of solid support from the public opinion of the majority of the organization.

The frequent practical objections, based on the "loss of time" in abiding by democratic methods, amount to shortsighted opportunism. The education and consolidation of the organization is a most important task. Neither time nor effort should be spared for its fulfillment Moreover, party democracy, as the only conceivable guarantee against unprincipled conflicts and unmotivated splits, in the last analysis does not increase the overhead costs of development but reduces them. Only through constant and conscientious adherence to the methods of democracy can the leadership undertake important steps on its own responsibility in truly emergency cases without provoking disorganization or dissatisfaction.

The preconference directs the Secretariat to observe the carrying-out of the principles of party democracy in content as well as in form, within each section as well as in the reciprocal relations between the Secretariat and the sections, particularly and above all in the preparation for the international conference.

The Left Opposition in Italy (Relations with the Bordigists)

The so-called left faction of the Italian Communists (Prometeo group or Bordigists) has its own traditions which are sharply distinguished from the traditions of the Bolshevik-Leninists. The Bordigists, who had originated in the struggle against the opportunism of the old Italian Socialist Party, at one blow put themselves on the ground of anti-parliamentarism and of ultimatism, and persisted in their opposition to the Comintern in the early period of its first four world congresses. Their formal abandonment of anti-parliamentarism, which took place after the Second World Congress, changed nothing essential in the policies of the Bordigists. Rejection of the struggle for democratic slogans under any and all conditions and of the united-front policy with regard to the Social Democracy — today, in the year 1933, after the enormous experience in all the countries of the world — sufficiently proves the sectarian character of the Prometeo group. The Bordigist faction, while claiming the role of an independent Marxist current, has proven its complete inability to exercise any influence on the development of the official Italian party. Within the latter, there has arisen a new Marxist grouping, the New Italian Opposition (NOI), based entirely on the ideas of the Left Opposition. Just as glaring a mark of the sectarian character of the Prometeo group is its complete inability, in spite of its existence of more than ten years, to extend its influence to other countries. The national limitations of Bordigism, from the standpoint of Marxism, represent its harshest and most bitter condemnation.

The International Opposition, in this case as in others, has made every attempt to allow the integration of the Bordigists with the Bolshevik-Leninists. The gigantic events which have taken place in the last few years in China, Spain, and Germany have been an exhaustive test of the differences of opinion on the question of democratic slogans and of the policy of the united front. Every critical blow which the Left Opposition struck against the Stalinists rebounded equally against the Bordigists. The three years of existence in common, the/criticism of ideas and the test of events, have brought them no nearer to us. Now the necessary conclusions must be drawn.

Within the framework of a mass party it would be possible to live together with the Bordigists — under the condition of firm discipline in action. But within the framework of a faction it is completely impermissible, especially after the entire experience we have gone through, to support the fiction of unity with an alien group which remains ideologically rigid and isolated in a sectarian manner.

The Bordigists themselves have never assumed a loyal attitude toward our international organization. By compelling all their members, regardless of their individual opinions, to . speak and vote at meetings and conferences of the International Opposition in no other way than in the spirit of the majority of their faction, the Prometeo group has placed its national discipline higher than the international. It thereby violated not only the principles of democratic centralism but also those of internationalism. This alone proves that the Bordigists were never actually an organic part of the Left Opposition. If, in spite of this, they still cling to their formal adherence to the International Left Opposition, it is only to disguise the character of their group as a purely national sect. But a policy of disguise is not the policy of Marxism.

While giving due recognition to the honesty and revolutionary devotion of many Bordigists, the Left Opposition believes that the moment has arrived to declare openly: the Prometeo group does not belong to the International Left Opposition.

The only section of Bolshevik-Leninists for Italy is the New Italian Opposition.

The Left Opposition in Austria

The Austrian Frey group first joined our international organization, then left it, again attempted to enter, but refused to supply information about its internal condition, and then took the initiative in breaking off negotiations. Through its actions it has shown that the tasks and aims of the Left Opposition are completely alien to it, and that it needs the international banner of the Bolshevik-Leninists only as a cover for its hopeless stagnation. The preconference openly states that the International Left Opposition bears neither direct nor indirect responsibility for the Frey group. The Secretariat is directed to take steps, with the help of the German section, to develop and strengthen an independent section of the Left Opposition in Austria.

On the Spanish Section of the Left Opposition

The Spanish revolution created exceptionally favorable objective conditions for the rapid development of communism. But the lack of cadres who were in any way trained made it very difficult for the Left Opposition as well as for the official party to take advantage of a truly historical situation. Although the Spanish section surpasses a number of other sections in the number of its members (this must be credited to the revolutionary upsurge) its ideological consolidation and the character of its leadership present a most unsatisfactory picture.

In order to understand the reasons for this, we must establish the most important mistakes of the leading cadres of the Spanish Opposition:

In Catalonia, whose proletariat offers a natural milieu for the rapid growth of Bolshevik-Leninist influence, the leading comrades lost time in an inexcusable manner; instead of coming out openly under their own banner at least as a small nucleus, they played hide-and-seek with principles during the most critical months of the revolution, engaging in diplomacy with and then hanging on to the tail of the petty-bourgeois nationalist and provincial phrase maker, Maurín.

Things were not much better in the other parts of Spain, where the Left Opposition, while ignoring the official party and substituting revolutionary sentimentalism for the Marxist education of cadres, failed for a long time to draw the necessary borderline between itself and the Right Opposition.

No less harmful was the fact that the leading comrades submitted to the influence of the worst side of the Spanish revolutionary tradition, turned their backs on the international experience and, while declaring in words their solidarity with the Left Opposition, in actual fact supported, directly or indirectly, all the muddleheads and deserters (Landau, Rosmer, Mill, etc.).

On the question of faction or independent party the Spanish section at its last conference took a position which is ambiguous, to say the least, by declaring itself in favor of setting up its own list of candidates at parliamentary and other elections. This decision, which is contrary to the policy of the Left Opposition and was in no way prepared for in practice, remained a platonic but nonetheless harmful demonstration.

On the road of alienation from the Bolshevik-Leninists the leaders of the Spanish Opposition went so far as to consider it possible to change the name of their organization. By assuming the name of "Left Communists" — an obviously false name from the standpoint of theory — the Spanish comrades put themselves in contradiction with the International Left Opposition and at the same time approached the name taken by the Leninbund, the Rosmer group, etc. No serious revolutionary will believe that such an important step was taken by accident, without a political reason. At the same time no Marxist will approve a policy which does not openly declare its aims but takes refuge on principled questions in diplomacy and maneuver.

By its demand that the international conference be opened to all groups declaring themselves adherents of the Left Opposition, including those that split away as well as those that were expelled, the Spanish Opposition shows how far removed it has been and is from the real development of the International Left and how little of its internal logic it has acquired.

While accusing the other sections of wrong organizational policies, without attempting to justify their accusations, the Spanish comrades at the same time have in fact proven the entire falsity of their own methods. The struggle that suddenly broke out between the two groups in the Central Committee has led the Spanish section to the verge of a split. The organization as a whole was taken utterly by surprise since neither of the two contending groups has been able up to now to formulate the principled foundations of this bitter struggle.

On its present ideological foundation the Spanish section cannot develop any further. Taking clear account of the fact that the correction of the mistakes which were made and the creation in Spain of an organization firm in principle and organized in a revolutionary manner can only be the result of long and systematic work, the preconference proposes the following immediate measures:

a. All important international documents on the questions in dispute must be translated into Spanish and be brought to the knowledge of all the members of the section. Concealing of facts must be stopped. What is said here refers particularly to the Mill case, where the leaders of the Spanish section not only supported an obviously unprincipled person against the International Opposition, but even now, in defense of the mistakes which they have made, permit themselves completely inappropriate insinuations against the International Opposition.

b. Both contending groups within the Central Committee must give up the idea of an unprincipled split and of organizational measures, and make the necessary provisions so that the discussion on the disputed questions will run through normal channels and be participated in by all of the members of the organization without exception.

c. The internal discussion must be carried on in a bulletin whose editorial staff must guarantee the most complete impartiality toward each of the contending groups.

d. All the principled questions of the International Left must be placed on the agenda, and sympathies, antipathies, and personal insinuations must not be allowed to become substitutes for the taking of clear political positions.

e. An all-sided discussion must prepare the way for a new national conference.

The preconference directs the Secretariat to follow the internal development of the Spanish section with special attention, to help it carry out the measures stated above and other suitable measures in full agreement with the tasks and methods of the Left Opposition.

On the Crisis of the German Section

The preconference declares that in spite of exceptionally favorable conditions and correct initial positions, the German section has not utilized all the possibilities that were open to it. The crisis connected with the capitulation of Well and Co. has shown that the cadres of the German Opposition need a serious renovation. While the overwhelming majority of the rank-and-file members of the organization, after getting the first serious information about the crisis, immediately took the correct attitude toward Well's clique, expressed in the word "Outside!", the leadership and the editorial staff, on the other hand, showed impermissible vacillation and lost time, failing to provide adequate information to either their own local organizations or the foreign sections. With such methods on the part of the leadership a revolutionary organization cannot win. The Bolshevik-Leninists are being bitterly persecuted not only by all the forces of the old society, including the Social Democracy, but also by the Stalinist bureaucracy. The Left Opposition can open a road to the masses only through the greatest energy, absolute dedication to its ideas, and constant readiness to defend its banner to the end. To tolerate in the leadership those who are vacillating, passive, tired, or candidates for capitulation is an out-and-out crime. In the leadership it is necessary to assure a predominance of revolutionary workers who are closely connected with the masses and completely permeated with consciousness of the great mission history has placed on the Left Opposition. The approaching conference of the German Opposition must be carried through from this point of view.