Moscow, 1973
[1] ~ [2]CONTENTS
THE ANTECEDENTS AND ORIGINS OF THE "FOURTH INTERNATIONAL" 6
BRINGING UP THE PAST, OR FOUR QUESTIONS, Mr. FRANK 17
PRAISES GALORE: FIRST THE PEASANTS, NOW THE STUDENTS, WHO NEXT? 26
STUDENTS IN THE 1970s 30
BANKING ON IGNORANCE 35
WHO BENEFITS FROM THE IMPETUOUSNESS
OF YOUTH AND HOW 39
``REVOLUTIONARY GYMNASTICS" 46
THE HARM OF THE THEORY OF STUDENT ``VANGUARDISM'' 53
CAPITULATION BEHIND A BARRAGE OP ``LEFTIST'' CATCHWORDS 66
HOW THE TROTSKYITES SPLIT THE RANKS
OF THE YOUTH 87
WHAT IS BEHIND THE TALK ABOUT A TROTSKYITE YOUTH INTERNATIONAL? 96
[3] ~ [4] __ALPHA_LVL1__ [introduction.]Recently Troskyite groups have become more active in some capitalist countries. They put out scads of propagandist literature, magazines and newspapers. Here and there various groupings of the so-called "Fourth International" have held international congresses, conferences and symposia.
A sign of renewed Trotskyite political activity is their stepped-up scheming in the youth movement. This has been noted in capitalist countries like France, Britain, Belgium, Japan, the USA and Canada. More and more of the "Fourth International" emissaries scurry back and forth across these countries to spot young men and women who are likely to fall for Trotskyite ideas. An increasing amount of Trotskyite materials are being circulated in universities and other academic institutions. In places Trotskyite youth groups have been set up.
[5]Why are the leaders of the "Fourth International" so active among the youth? What is their purpose? What do they expect of the youth?
For the answers to these questions one needs to take a brief look at the "Fourth International," its origins and political make-up.
__ALPHA_LVL1__ THE ANTECEDENTS AND ORIGINS OF THEThe "Fourth International" was set up with the greatest of ease and no effort whatsoever by Trotskyites who, in the main, did not represent anyone except themselves. It came about on a September day in 1938, when a score or so of people met in a small smoke-filled room in a Paris suburb. The meeting appeared to be no more than a reunion of people of various beliefs who had decided to get together for a chat over a cup of coffee. When they dispersed, they announced they had set up an "international.''
Curiously enough the ``founders'' of the "Fourth International" were rather secretive about their affairs; after the conference they issued a communique saying they had met in Lausanne, Switzerland, instead of in Paris.
Other details concerning the birth of the ``International'' were also kept secret. Up to now, there has never been any public statement about the total number of Trotskyites in the ``International''. In bequeathing his archives to Harvard University, Trotsky stipulated that the secret material of the "Fourth International" 6 was not to be published until 1980, and that " historians must not have access to it. The ideological mastermind of the "Fourth International" was apparently anxious to make certain that, along with other information, the number of his followers in 1938 was not disclosed.
There were no more than a handful, that much is clear. Besides, most Trotskyite groups broke up as soon as they were formed and those that managed to keep together a little longer were torn by strife and quarrels, and kept breaking up into smaller groups. You could count the members of such ``mini-organizations'' on the fingers of your hand.
Who were these men who formulated the political platform of international Trotskyism? This is no idle question. After all, present-day Trotskyites sing the praises of the founders of the "Fourth International" and regard the "theoretical propositions" formulated at the time as their long-term programme of action.
In the 1930s Trotskyites were mainly men and women expelled from, the ranks of the Communist parties for their subversive activity. What they hated most was the Soviet Union and the Communists. They were so blinded by hatred that they were incapable of rational thinking or taking objective stock of world developments.
A little history will explain why they were so embittered.
Let us first go back to the 1920s. Soviet Russia had just emerged victorious from its lifeand-death struggle against external and domestic counter-revolution. Weakened but undaunted, it put away the gun and took up the spade 7 and the pick to build a new world from the ruins.
The Communist Party adopted the course of socialist construction, guided by Lenin's precept that Soviet Russia had all that was necessary to build a socialist society. This line was opposed by Trotsky and his handful of adherents, who at the time emerged in the Communist Party of Soviet Russia and in the Communist parties of several other countries. The Trotskyites accused the parties of "breaking with Marxism," of being "nationally limited," and "politically blind/' Trotsky insisted that socialism could not be built within the framework of one nation. In a postscript to the Peace Programme in 1922 he wrote: "An upswing of the socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the proletariat triumphs in the major countries of Europe.''
Trotsky's line would have imperilled Soviet Russia's revolutionary gains. According to his logic, the country had to wait for a revolution in other countries and to do nothing until then to strengthen the socialist elements in its socio-- economic life. Trotsky ignored the fact that this would inevitably have led to a revival of various capitalist elements and the remnants of the exploiting classes, who were bound to try to consolidate their positions. This could have given rise to the restoration of capitalism, which would have thrown the entire world revolutionary movement back many years.
Indeed, that what would have been the case had the Soviet people and the Communists of the world accepted the ``recommendations'' of Trotsky and his adherents. History is the best judge, 8 and it has proved that the Communist Party's Leninist policy w.as the correct one. The experience of sociialist construction in the Soviet Union has become a valuable gain for the international Communist movement. Indeed, would it have been possible to rid mankind of fascist enslavement, had it not been for the politically monolithic Soviet Union with its mighty and highly developed socialist economy?
Such advances as the transformation of the Communiis't movement into the most influential force of day, the formation of the world socialist system, the spread of the national liberation movement and the ever-growing attraction of the ideas of scientific socialism on a world-wide scale, all began in the 1920s, when the Soviet people undertook their peaceful offensive to scale the heights of socialism.
Trotsky, who loved to pose as an oracle and a prophet, proved incapable of understanding the tendencies of world social development. Today, looking back on that period from the standpoint of the 1970s, one comes to realize the obvious fact that the Communists were very wise and politically astute to expel the Tro'tskyite whiners and capitulationists.
Would anyone dare to censure a group of mountaineers who had just started ascending a steep slope if they decided to leave behind the misfits who, on the quiet, had been acting as trouble-makers and creating dangerous situations so as to prevent the others from going ahead ?
And that is precisely what Trotsky and his associates tried to do, using every means to prevent the Soviet people from advancing along the socialist path. They began by trying to stalemate 9 the efforts of the Party and the Soviet people by starting all sorts of discussions and setting up factions and groupings, and followed it up with open anti-revolutionary and anti-Party action. They engineered anti-Soviet demonstrations, printed slanderous leaflets and appeals in underground printing shops, and set up illegal Trotskyite centres.
This was in no sense an accidental "fall from grace," this was the logical result of anti-Party activity by Trotsky and his followers for many years.
Let us briefly go over the main stages the Trotskyites went through.
Take the 1903-17 period. In Russia, the Bolshevik Party, the first Marxist-type party in history, was in the process of consolidation, gaining in strength and vitality. It was then that the strategy and tactics in the struggle for Russia's revolutionary transformation were being determined. Lenin, the founder of the Bolshevik Party, threw himself heart and soul into the task of charting the ways to effect the world revolution.
Lenin came to the brilliant conclusion that in the epoch of imperialism the socialist revolution could initially win out in a few countries or even in one country.
That was the conclusion which enabled the Communist Party to mobilize the working class to carry through the socialist revolution in Russia. Lenin's theory of revolution also presented a clear-cut idea of the world revolution as a series of national revolutions following each other at different intervals of time and helping more and more countries to free themselves from imperialism.
10Lenin's theory of socialist revolution and his faith in the proletariat was opposed by Trotsky, who put forward ideas which would have deprived individual national contingents of the working class of any concrete programme of action and destroyed their self-confidence in their own powers.
Trotsky's "permanent revolution" theory held that no revolution can succeed unless it is worldwide, or at any rate European. He insisted that any revolutionary action would fail unless it became a part of a series of synchronized revolutions taking place in various countries.
In 1906, Trotsky insisted that if a revolution were to win 'out in Russia, its future would hinge on the possibility of a world-wide or European onslaught on capitalism. And what if this failed to take place?
In that case, Trotsky declared, the revolution in Russia would be crushed by the joint forces of the imperialist powers. He wrote: "It is hopeless to think that a revolutionary Russia could stand up in face of a conservative Europe.''
Besides this pessimistic attitude Trotsky made various insulting statements about the working class of Russia (which he declared was " insufficiently prepared" for revolution), about the peasantry (which, he alleged, would stab the proletariat in the back), and claimed that revolutions could succeed anywhere except in Russia.
Thus, Trotsky cannot be accused of inconsistency in his views on revolution. There is a direct connection between his statements about the impossibility of socialist construction in Soviet Russia and lack of faith in a revolution being successful there. One springs from the other.
11While Lenin's theory of socialist revolution has always fired the revolutionary enthusiasm of the national contingents of the working class, Trotsky's schemes of permanent revolution have always deprived the working class of any given country of a concrete programme of action for every telling aspect of the struggle: both before and after the revolution.
Trotsky's concepts were objectively designed to disarm the working class ideologically in every country. In a letter addressed in 1928 to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern, Trotsky flatly declared: "In our epoch, the epoch of imperialism, when world economy and world politics are controlled by capitalism, no Communist party can formulate a programme which would more or less proceed from the conditions and tendencies of its national development.''
What, then, was the way out? How did Trotsky regard his idea of permanent revolution? What did he propose ?
He claimed that on assuming power a revolutionary proletariat had to mount a war against the rest of the capitalist world, fighting until full victorious or its ultimate defeat. Only in this way, carried forward by the "red bayonets" of the revolution, could it sweep across the globe, Trotsky insisted, or go down in defeat right after its triumph. There was good reason why Trotsky told the 7th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1918: if the revolutionary proletariat is still incapable of meeting imperialism in decisive battle, "then say that for the revolutionary proletariat Soviet power is too heavy a burden, that we have come much too soon, and that we must go underground.''
12Accordingly, Trotsky tried to urge the working class of Russia to go in for all kinds of risky ventures. Within a few months after the Great October Socialist Revolution, in early 1918, he tried to impede the conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Germany, thereby bringing the country to the brink of disaster. In August 1919, he sent the Central Committee of the Party a letter substantiating a "strategic plan" for " revolutionary wars." He declared that "the road to Paris and London lies via the towns of Afghanistan, the Punjab and Bengal," and suggested that a "cavalry corps (30,000-40,000 riders) be formed with the idea of "launching it against India.''
For all its apparent Leftism, the " revolutionary wars" concept is just another oapitulationist strand in the notorious "permanent revolution" theory. It sprang from the same lack of faith in prospects for the internal development of the revolution. After all, Trotsky's proposed "raids into the enemy rear" would merely intensify world imperialism's attacks on Soviet Russia. The provocative and venturous nature of Trotsky's ``recommendations'' are quite apparent when we recall that the Soviet Republic was then caught between the hammer of external and the anvil of internal reaction.
Trotsky and his followers were resolutely rebuffed by Lenin and the Communists whenever they tried to impose their ideas on the Party, since such ideas were diametrically opposed to the basic tasks of the revolutionary movement. On the eve of the October revolution, Lenin and his followers in no uncertain terms exposed Trotsky's assertion that the working class could not take power in one country. Immediately after the 13 revolution, the Party condemned the Trotskyite insistence that the proletariat would be unable to maintain state power in Russia. In subsequent yetars, the Leninists resolutely dissociated themselves from the handful of Trotskyites who strove, on the basis of the selfsame "permanent revolution" theory, to divert the Party and the Soviet people from the tasks of socialist construction.
Trotskyism and Leninism also took a fundamentally different view of the basic tasks involved, in organizing the proletarian party. Through out its history, Trotskyism opposed the Leninist principles of Party life iand exhibited an anarchist distaste for Bolshevik organization and discipline. Trotskyism urged that the Party be transformed into a conglomerate of hostile factions and trends, and fought fiercely against its becoming the militant vanguard of the working class capable of leading the proletariat to triumph in the socialist revolution and heading the construction of the new, socialist society.
Trotskyism took many twists and turns: at one time it openly attacked the Party, at others it pretended hypocritically to favour unity and offered to act as ``mediator'' between opposed tendencies in the revolutionary movement; finally Trotskyism, posing as an advocate of Leninism, tried to kill its revolutionary essence. Like a chameleon, Trotskyism changed colour, adapting itself to the current political situation.
When Trotsky still belonged to the Communist Party, Lenin once told Maxim Gorky: "He is with us, but he is not one of us." Lenin resolutely rejected the Trotskyites' efforts to break up the Party and to turn it into a debating society. 14 It was Lenin who wrote the historic resolution "On Party Unity," adopted by the 10th Party Congress in 1921. This resolution explicitly prohibited any factional struggle. Lenin wrote: "Non-observance of this decision of the Congress shall entail unconditional and instant expulsion from the Party."~^^1^^
This was the precept the Communists went by in expelling the Trotskyites from their ranks, when the latter, on Lenin's death, mounted a frontal attack on the Party and tried to substitute Trotskyism for Leninism. The ideological and organizational defeat of Trotskyism was not just the result of action by the Parity leadership or a narrow circle'of Party representatives. No indeed. All local Party cells, all Communists without exception, had their say regarding the policies and practices of Trotskyism. At the Party meetings held in 1927, over 99 per cent of the Communists voted for the Party policy and only 4,000 persons, less than one per cent, supported Trotsky's views.
The 15th Congress of the Party, held in late 1927, adopted decisions that put on record this defeat which the Party as a whole had inflicted on Trotskyism. The Congress stressed that the Trotskyite opposition "had taken the path of capitulation to the forces of the international and domestic bourgeoisie and had objectively become a third-force instrument against the regime of the proletarian dictatorship." Trotskyite views were deemed incompatible with Party membership.~^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin. Coll. Works, Vol. 32, p. 244.
~^^2^^ For details about the struggle carried on by Lenin and the Communists against Trotskyism from 1903 to 1927, see S. Dimitriev and V. Ivanov, Historical Lessons of Lenin's Struggle Against Trotskyism, the same series.
15For the Soviet Union and the enlire international Communist movement, the ideological and organizational defeat of Trotskyism was of historic importance. Remarking on this fact, William Z. Foster, wrote: "In this fight not only was the fate of the revolution in Russia at stake, but also that of the world Communist movement. A victory for the Trotsky forces would have been a decisive success for world reaction."~^^1^^
As a result of the persistent and purposeful struggle by the Communist parties their ranks were cleared of Trotskyites. In February 1928, the 9th Plenary Meeting of the Comintern's Executive approved the decisions of the 15th Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks), stating that: "Henceforth, adherence to the Trot skyite opposition and solidarity with its views cannot be compatible with membership of the Communist International.''~^^2^^ This resolution was fully approved by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern.
Mamy Trotskyites, in different countries, expelled from the Communist and Workers' parties in the 1920s and the 1930s cast around for new forms of anti-Communist struggle. Hence the decision to set up what they called the "Fourth International.''
What were the Trotskyite slogans in 1938? What were the aims at the time?
_-_-_~^^1^^ William Z. Foster. History of the Three Internationals. The World Socialist and Communist Movements from 1848 to the Present, New York, International Publishers, p. 349.
~^^2^^ Communist International in Documents, Decisions, Theses and Addresses of Congresses of the Comintern and Plenary Meetings of the Comintern's Executive. 1919-1932, Moscow, 1933, p. 749.
16 __ALPHA_LVL1__ BRINGING UP THE PAST, OR FOURIn trying to win over young people, the Trotskyites seek to create the impression that, for their "International," the interests of the revolution have always come first. This idea is being driven home, for instance, in the Fourth International, written in a popular style by one of the leaders of modern Trotskyism, Pierre Frank, and clearly designed for the youth. In the introduction Frank states his work is intended to give young people a better understanding of the history of the "Fourth International.''
The book is replete with assertions about the "Fourth International" being the "successor to revolutionary Marxism," and that it has always sought to "enrich Marxism." Frank lays it on thick in embellishing the activity of the "Fourth International" in the pre-wiar period, claiming that at the time the Trotskyite ``International'' "was of invaluable service to the working class movement."~^^1^^
He does not explain just what he meant by that, apparently assuming that the reader must accept his statement in good faith.
To fully appreciate what the words and deeds of the "Fourth International" meant, we must recall events in the late 1930s. This was a time of dramatic events. Every day that passed without war was darkened by the awareness that world war was imminent. In Germany, the Nazi clique was going ahead with plans to cover the globe _-_-_
^^1^^ Pierre Frank. La Quatrieme Internationale. Contribution a Thisloire du mouvement trotskyste, Paris, 1969, pp. 7,8, 43,
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 8-138 17 with a web of concentration camps.Everyone who clearly saw the source of the war danger, all those who had the courage of their convictions, rose to fight against fascism. The struggle against war and fascism brought together men of different political beliefs. Many were tortured in Nazi prisons and paid with their lives for their courageous, anti-fascist stand.
What stand did the Trotskyites take then? What were the ``services'' Mr. Frank so vaguely mentions? A study of the historical documents and the facts of the pre-war period and the declarations and actions of the "Fourth International" itself inevitably gives rise to a number of questions.
The first question: Why does Frank say nothing of the Troitiskyites' shameful attitude to the struggle against fascism?
After all, it is a fact---which Frank cannot deny---that the Trotskyite ``International'' fought tooth and Mail against the Communists' calls for all anti-fascist forces to rally together in a united Popular Front. The Communists regarded the Popular Front as the form of alliance capable of frustrating fascism's military plans and permitting the working class to influence the entire course of historical development. By urging the masses to take more vigorous action against fascism, the Communists were also preparing the most favourable conditions for the subsequent transition to the attainment of new, socialist goals.
The Trotskyites did their utmost to prevent the establishment of the Popular Front and to split the anti-fascist ranks. The German Trotskyites, who styled themselves "the International 18 Communists of Germany," labelled the "united front tactic a form of .. .revisionism," and urged that the anti-fascist front be repudiated.
They were matched by the Italian Trotskyites, who, as soon as Mussolini took over, tried to counteract Communist efforts to unite the antifascist forces. Antonio Gramsci, having been informed in his prison cell that some political prisoners were in danger of succumbing to TrotskyHe influence, had good reason for sending a terse warning to the other prison cells that "Trotsky is a puttano (the prostitute)of fascism."~^^1^^
Gramsci was quite right. The Italian and German Trotskyites' efforts to prevent unity of the anti-fascist forces were in no sense errors or aberrations. They amounted to a deliberate policy masterminded by Trotsky.
Soon after the publication of Frank's book in Paris, there appeared another book about Trotskyism, by Jean-Jacques Marie, who had little sympathy for the Communists. He quoted a statement by Trotsky which smacked of hatred, declaring the anti-fascist front to be an instrument designed to rescue imperialism, and " imperialism's final political recourse in its fight aga inst the proletarian revolution.''~^^2^^
At the time the Trotskyites were out to prevent anti-fascist unity rather than fight against fascism. The policy-setting documents of the "Fourth International" called for opposing the theory and practice of the Popular Front. In different countries they acted as follows:
_-_-_~^^1^^ Palmiro Togliatti. Selected Articles and Speeches, Moscow, 1965, Vol. 1, p. 210.
~^^2^^ Jean-Jacques Marie. Le trotshysme. Questions d' histoire, Paris, 1970, p. 105.
2*
19In France, the Trotskyites urged "instant revolutionary action" instead of forming the Popular Front. When such a front was set up despite their opposition, they declared that the proletariat was "hacking down on its class positions," and tried to sow the seeds of discord in the ranks of the anti-fascists.
Later, the Trotskyites called for non-- participation iki the Resistance Movement on the plea that there was need to organize an "independent proletarian struggle." On some occasions, individual Trotskyite outfits (such as their so-called Communist League) urged fraternization with the Nazis or served on various collaborationist organizations for highly obscure "tactical reiasons.''
During the civil war in Spain, the Trotskyites tried to break up the Popular Front and spread defeatist attitudes in am effort to wreck the regular army and to spread insubordination.
In other countries the Trotskyites did their utmost to prevent a broad international campaign from being launched to support Spain's Republican government. While the Communists sent in volunteers and collected funds and medicines, the Trotskyites sabotaged the activity of committees set up to provide the Spanish people with material and medical assistance.^^1^^
Such are the facts, and if Frank fails to mention them in his book, it does not follow that it was not so. By omitting them from his "history," Frank simply misleads the youth.
Seeking to present the history of Trotskyism in its best light, at the end of his book Frank _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Betty Reid. Ultra-Leftism in Britain. Published by the Communist Party, London, 1969, p. 11.
20 mentions several Nazi victims who were allegedly members of the Trotskyite "International." However, even among card-carrying Nazis there were anti-fascists who did underground work. If a handful of Trotskyites did take part in the anti-fascist struggle, they were obviously---and this should be emphasized---acting contrary to the decisions of Trotskyite centres and the Trotskyite political line.The second question: Why does Frank say nothing about the attitude of the ``founders'' of the "Fourth International" to the questions of war and peace? Is it because their attitude was nothing to boast about?
The whole policy of the Trotskyite `` International'' is concentrated on belittling the struggle for peace carried on by the Communist parties in the 1930s. The 7th Congress of the Comintern in 1935 stressed: "The central slogan of the Communist parties must be the slogan of struggle for peace."~^^1^^
There, again, instead of opposing the fascist war-mongers, the Trotskyites came out against the Communists who were in the forefront of the struggle for peace.
The Trotskyites declared that events should be allowed to run 'their course, even if the whole world was engulfed in the flames of war. They claimed the revolution would stand to gain because it heralded the end of capitalist regimes. The "Fourth International" declared that "war has often proved to be a mother of revolution.''
On the strength of such ultra-revolutionary _-_-_
~^^1^^ Resolutions of the 7th World Congress of the Communist International, Moscow, 1935, p. 36.
21 catchwords, the Trotskyites held that the struggle for peace was "bourgeois pacifism," and accused the Communists of "backing down on their class positions" and of being cowards. The Nazi troops invaded one country after another, but in the same manifesto the Trotskyites declared: "The 'Fourth International' indignantly rejects the appeals to help the democratic forces fight against fascism." They also insisted that the "slogan of patriotism is a false slogan.''These Trotskyite statements played into the hands of the Nazis, who did not want to have to contend with organized forces in their drive for world domination.
The third question: Why does Frank say nothing about the stand taken by Trotsky and his followers with regard to imperialist-devised plans for aggression against the Soviet Union? Is it because Trotsky's prophecies did not materialize and that Trotsky's attitude on the whole was blatently reactionary?
The Trotskyites hated the Soviet Union more than any other country, and at the time some of them (like Shachtman, who incidentally, chaired the constituent congress of the "Fourth International") insisted that the Soviet Union did not differ in socio-economic structure from the imperialist states. While Trotsky did not share this view, believing it to be "extreme," he urged, like Shachtman, the forcible overthrow of the Soviet system. In 1936, Trotsky cynically declared: "No devil ever cut off his own claws," meaning that the social order in the Soviet Union had to be changed forcibly.^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ Sec Unsere Zeit, Januar 29, 1970.
22Trotsky believed this could be done during a possible imperialist aggression against the USSR and asserted that "the first major social upheavals from outside may plunge... Soviet society into a state of civil war."~^^1^^
Trotsky's predictions were remarkably like the Nazi propaganda claims about the Soviet Union being "a colossus on clay feet," and Goebbels's prophecies about internecine strife in the USSR if it were involved in a war. No wonder the respectable Social Democratic West German magazine, Die neue Gesellschaft, said that Hitler admitted having "learnt a great deal" from Trotsky^^2^^.
At any rate, for several pre-war years the Trotskyites echoed the Nazis' appraisal of the Soviet Union's military capabilities. A Manifesto, issued by the "Fourth International" a year be fore Nazi Germany's attack on the USSR, declared that the Soviet army was extremely weak and that the country would be paralyzed by "centrifugal nationalist tendencies" from the outset.^^3^^
When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, the Trotskyites declared that the war continued to be an imperialist war and that the Soviet Union should not be given support. During the war, the "Fourth International" kept insisting that the establishment of the anti-Hitler coalition was contrary to the interests of the revolution and opposed the launching of a second _-_-_
^^1^^ Die neue Weltbiihne, Wochenschrift fur Politik, Kunst, Wirtschaft, 1933, No. 49, S. 1527.
^^2^^ Die neue Gesellschaft, 1962, Heft 3, S. 216.
~^^3^^ Manifesto of the Fourth International on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian Revolution, pp. 22-3.
23 front, because this would "hold back the revolutionary European workers."~^^1^^The fourth question: Is it a coincidence that Mr. Frank keeps quiet about Trotskyite opposition to the Communist parties' policy of defending democracy? Perhaps he finds it better to ignore this?
In the 1920s and 1930s, the necessity of defending democracy became particularly acute due to the spread of fascism in a number of countries and the efforts of monopoly capital to whittle down democratic freedoms.
The Communists came out staunchly in defence of democracy. At the 7th Congress of the Comintern, Georgy Dimitrov said: "We are not Anarchists, and it is not at all a matter of indifference to us what kind of political regime exists in any given country: whether a bourgeois dictatorship in the form of bourgeois democracy, even with democratic rights and liberties greatly curtailed, or a bourgeois dictatorship in its open, fascist form. While being upholders of Soviet democracy, we shall defend every inch of the democratic gains which the working class has wrested in the course of years of stubborn struggle, and shall resolutely fight to extend these gains.''~^^2^^
Meanwhile, the Trotskyites insisted that it was futile to champion democratic freedoms, and again insisted that the proletariat was backsliding from its class positions. They regarded _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marxism Today, 1964, No. 9, pp. 276-7.
~^^2^^ Georgy Dimitrov, Sel. Works, Vol. 2, p. 101.
24 the struggle for democracy as spreading " illusions among the masses." The "Fourth International" Manifesto declared this struggle useless "because democracy is inevitably transformed into a reactionary dictatorship''.To put a better face on their opposition to the Communists' struggle for democracy the Trotskyites went in for irresponsible demagogy and slogans like "socialism right now," "everything is possible.''
Leo Figueres, a member of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party, stresses in his book, Trotskyism Is Anti-Leninism: "Had these outwardly `ultra-revolutionary' slogans not been resolutely rejected by the Communist Party and Maurice Thorez, they would have led, in the summer of 1936, to the disintegration of the Popular Front, the alliance of the proletariat and the middle class sections, who would have found themselves beset by the darkest reaction. This would have opened up the way to an early victory by fascism."~^^1^^
Indeed, no matter how the Trotskyites' prewar activity is viewed, the result is the same: objectively it aided and abetted the forces of fascism. The Trotskyites were revolutionaries in word, but in deed they sought to divide the ranks of the anti-fascist fighters and to spread a mood of surrender, despair and futility. These are the only ``services'' they can claim to have rendered.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Leo Figuferes. Le trotskysme, cet antileninisme, Paris, 1969, p. 193.
25 __ALPHA_LVL1__ PRAISES GALORE: FIRST THE PEASANTS,In the post-war period, the Trotskyites have been feverishly seeking ways to fortify their positions. They had so discredited themselves during the war that many of their organizations had disintegrated.
This was a period during which nothing serious was said or written about Trotskyism. Now and agiain, one heard a ridiculing story about four Swiss Trotskyites all getting together for a ``congress'' of their organization, expelling one of them from their midst and then printing a notice in the newspaper about their congress.
Indeed, the Trotskyites themselves admitted that their ideology, policy and the courses they followed were undergoing a very critical period which some of them obscurely termed a "stage of laboratory research.''
It was a period of feverish trying to find ways and means of galvanizing the "Fourth International" and its affiliated sections. In the late 1950s someone came up with the suggestion that Trotskyism could make headway by relying on the peasantry in the Third World countries.
Even some of the followers of the "Fourth International" were taken aback at the idea. After tall, Trotskyism has traditionally taken a very adverse attitude to the peasantry. The " permanent revolution" theory qualified the peasantry as a "reactionary mass" and a "counter-- revolutionary force." Trotsky insisted that even if 26 the working class succeeded in ``bestirring'' 'the peasantry, "it would continue, in its spontaneous opposition to the old regime, to bear all the marks of economic and ideological isolation and political immaturity, cultural backwardness and helplessness, which in any movement always tend to paralyze its social energy and force it to stop at the point where real revolutionary action begins''.
Suddenly, at the 5th Congress of the "Fourth International" in 1957, the Trotskyites declared that the national liberation movement was the key element of the world revolution and began to extol the peasantry of the Third World countries as the most revolutionary force of our day.
The 6th Congress, four years later, declared: "For historically based reasons throughout its existence the 'Fourth International' has developed mainly in the advanced capitalist countries which, until the beginning of the last war, it regarded as the Number One centre of the world revolution. We now have to reorganize the activity of the 'Fourth International' as applied to the epicentre of the world revolution, the colonial revolution, and to transfer our main efforts to that area for the time being."~^^1^^
The Trotskyites tried theoretically to back up their "new orientation" with various arguments based on history, discourse on the epicentres of world revolution, and other attributes of the ``conceptual'' approach.
Actually, the Trotskyites were not at all concerned about the world revolution or the development of the national liberation movement. _-_-_
^^1^^ Quatieme Internationale, 1961, n° 12, p. 70.
27 Nor were they worried about the needs of the peasantry in the Third World countries. They had their own narrowly egoistical interests and selfish ends in mind. They declared that survival of the "Fourth International" depended on the efforts made in the Third World countries, that its "last chance" was to make headway among the peasantry.Hector Lucero, a leading member of the Paris Secretariat of the "South International," stressing at a meeting in December 1960 the need for the most intensive activity by Trotskyites among the peasants of Latin America, Asia and Africa, said: "Unless the `International' succeeds in fulfilling this task with regard to practice, organization and action. . . it will lose its theoretical role and will become a mere keeper of the texts." The Secretariat discussed the question as to whether Trotskyism should "regroup its forces" by sending its representatives into national liberation movement areas. Some favoured a system whereby the " `International' moved from place to place.''~^^1^^
The Trotskyites tried hard to induce as many peasants as possible to side with them, but their drive was an utter flop. The peasants did not flock to the banners of the "Fourth International''.
However, the leaders of the Trotskyite `` International'' refused to become "keepers of the texts," and looked around for a "new lease on life.''
This was soon forthcoming. In 1968, new calls _-_-_
~^^1^^ Bulletin interieur du Secretariat international de la IV e Internationale, Paris, decembre, 1960, p. 15.
28 were issued for an urgent campaign among the student youth. A special resolution was adopted by a congress of supporters of the Paris Secretariat urging that attempts be made to make headway among the students and youth. "Work with young people and students constitutes the central task which the `International' should be prepared to tackle throughout the whole period ahead." The Congress urged the sections to "mobilize their best forces for the success of this work.''~^^1^^Trotskyite journals, which had assured their readers that it was the peasantry of the Third World that would awaken the working class of the advanced capitalist countries, now cast the students into the role of "stimulator." The Trotskyites declared: "This student movement. . . does not express a particular phenomenon of the student sector, but the seeking for proletarian power and fundamentally the social proletarian force on which the movement supports itself, the proletariat not being able to express this same level through lack of centres and of leadership.''~^^2^^
The present leaders of the "Fourth International" prefer not to recall Trotsky's high-- handed statements about the "inferior pnacticism of the youth." They now find much more suitable his statements made at the time when he sought to play up to the youth by setting them against the older generation.
Indeed, the Trotskyites were clearly casting about for something to latch onto, which is the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Quatrieme Internationale, 1969, n° 37, p. 89.
^^2^^ European Marxist Review, 1968, No. 1, p. 109.
29 case with those who have no solid social basis, who are unstable in their political sympathies (now flirting with the peasants, now with the students). This is to be expected of those who are devoid of responsibility and not bound by any commitments. They have nothing to lose, because they have nothing. It is quite possible that tomorrow they will just as easily turn away from the youth as they had turned away from the peasants of the Third World, when they found they were not getting the hoped-for results.What, then, are the expectations of the "Fourth International" today, in assuring the youth of its strong attachment?
__ALPHA_LVL1__ STUDENTS IN THE 1970sThe question to ask is what are the students in the 1970s really like? They are portrayed in so many different ways.
Some see only their way of dress, their long hair and seemingly strange behaviour---all of which has made older people grumble about the outlandish ways of young people today.
Others are amazed by the fact that students today have the prodigious task of assimilating much more information than the graduates of several decades ago.
A third group wants to know why more and more young people with a higher education in some countries of Western Europe, America and capitalist Asia are unable to find the kind of jobs they are trained for and swell up the ranks of 30 the unemployed, not having worked a single day in their lives.
However, everyone agrees that the student today is different from his counterpart of some 10-15 years ago. At the time, bourgeois propaganda declared clearly with more satisfaction than regret the mass of students "passive," a generation that "accepted things as they were." A West German newspaper said pointedly that the most the students were capable of demanding in the way of ``social'' needs was an auditorium to dance in all night and toilet paper for the student lavatories. This rude and clearly derogatory assessment indicated there was no fear that the young people would get mixed up in sharp conflicts.
The ruling bourgeoisie got a rude shock, however. According to the United Nations, in the late 1960s, student riots raked 50 capitalist countries.^^1^^ The reactionary press had to change its tune about students, calling them `` psychopaths'' with a mania for destruction, and " spiritual vandals." They were said to be possessed by the devil, and what they were doing to be sheer hell. In this way the university administration and their sponsors try. to castigate the students for their political action.
However, the reasons behind the intensified political activity among students are in no way physiological. Indeed, students of today are no more intent on sowing wild oats than students in the 1950s.
The reasons are socio-economic. After all, _-_-_
~^^1^^ See World Marxist Review, 1972, No. 2, p. 11.
31 students do not live in a vacuum, they are affected by the social environment and the changes and shifts taking place in society.It is the scientific and technological revolution that has forced students to ponder over the present and the future. The student today is no longer a potential member of the privileged sections of bourgeois society. At best, he faces the prospect of becoming an exploited wageworker like the low-paid producer of material goods.
The scientific and technological revolution gives rise to a growing need for specialists in production and not armachair intellectuals. Whereas up to now a sizable portion of the students came from petty-bourgeois and middleclass families, many more now come from working class families. All these go to make up the student body which is aware of the economic hardships their families have had to suffer as a result of monopoly oppression.
In seeking to take an ever more iactive part in their chosen way in life and to acquire the knowledge required by modern production, students have been demanding changes in the higher education system which took shape decades ago. Those who come from poor families also demand scholarships that would enable them to complete their course. Going beyond their immediate interests, the students have come out against the discriminatory aspects of the education system, insisting that all talented young men and women, regardless of the social status of their parents, should have access to university education.
32In some capitalist countries, students have been insisting that their academic institutions should have nothing to do with the military-- industrial complex. They have opposed racist restrictions and the recruitment in the universities of ``volunteers'' for imperialist aggression. The students, representing the interests of their generation which refuses to become cannon fodder, have frequently been in the forefront of the fight against US aggression in South-East Asia.
Consequently, the social conflict here has deep-rooted social causes. A large section of the students feel that "everything is their concern." Aside from matters pertaining to academic institutions they now protest about many things that have long since become incurable vices of capitalist society.
Students are voicing their protests with greater insistence, if only because of their steadily increasing numbers. In some countries, the number of students has doubled and even trebled in the past ten years.
Of course, the student body is far from being homogeneous, for it epitomizes the complex socio-class relations characteristic of capitalist society as a whole. Hence the great factionalism among students both ideologically and organizationlly.
Alongside Communist youth groups, it contains adherents to ``classical'' capitalism, advocates of "capitalist reforms," and young people who are politically passive and sometimes seek a way out in drugs. Some groups believe that rioting is the answer, insisting on immediate direct __PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3-136 33 action which they are not ready for and, therefore, which amounts to sheer recklessness.
For all its shortcomings, the student movement has established itself as an important factor of the anti-imperialist struggle. The growing political activity of the youth is evidence of the political bankruptcy of the capitalist system, and denotes an important change in the balance of class forces.
The youth, at times unconscious of the importance of its acts, shows that capitalism is no longer the answer to present-day requirements. The material and moral alienation, the crime and the injustice, which capital gives rise to and legalizes, infuriate ever greater numbers of young men and women and impel them to take vigorous action.
The ruling bourgeoisie has been steadily losing its hold on the young, and it is a well-known fact that no social formation, no class can expect to look confidently to the future unless it has a majority of the youth behind it.
Young people possess a vast store of energy. Properly channelled, this energy will swell the global tide of revolutionary action led by the working class, and this will greatly strengthen the front of anti-imperialist struggle.
However, besides being the subject of class struggle, young people are also the object of diverse political intrigues. Amongst the youth one constantly comes across self-styled "friends of the youth" who, in fact, are no such thing. Very frequently they are motivated by self-- seeking, egoistic interests. Of late, the Trotskyites have been making their presence felt among this ill-assorted lot.
34 __ALPHA_LVL1__ BANKING ON IGNORANCEWhen in the late 1950s, the Trotskyites decided to find a way of getting into the good graces of the peasantry, the first thing they took into account was the fact that many of the peasants who had joined the anti-imperialist struggle lacked the necessary political and organizational experience. Speakers at the "Fourth International" congresses repeatedly noted with satisfaction that sizable sections of the peasantry in the Third World countries had not found common ground with the Communist parties and knew nothing about their programmes.
The Trotskyites decided to fill the political vacuum which, they believed, existed among the peasants. Their scheme was as follows: without going too deeply into every aspect of Trotskyite ideology, they should try, merely by putting forward two or three appealing slogans, to recruit a part of the peasantry, even if only a small one, and on that basis to set up peasant unions, which would naturally be led by Trotskyites. Only then, they said, might the peasant unions "play the role of the revolutionary party.''~^^1^^
However, the interests of the peasants were so far removed from those of the Trotskyites (of which more later) that they soon sent them packing. In a manner of speaking, the peasants advised the Trotskyites "to look for simpletons elsewhere." The Trotskyites took this with poor grace, accusing the peasants of the Third World countries of political inertness, unwillingness to rise to the struggle, etc.
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1967, No. 5, p. 17.
__PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35This, incidentally, has happened before. When the Trotskyites were expelled from the revolutionary working class movement, they also asserted that the proletariat was ``passive'', that it had "lost its revolutionary potential", and that it had committed all the deadly sins. The Trotskyites have always praised those they expected to brainwash, and ran down those who would have nothing to do with them.
In their flirtation with the students, they tried once again to play up one of the main shortcomings of many revolutionary-minded young people, namely their lack of a scientific world outlook or a clear-cut idea of the course of struggle. In April 1969, the Paris Secretariat noted with satisfaction that a certain section of the young people were very poorly equipped with regard to theory and organizational notions. A special resolution adopted by the congress said that the students were a "reservoir for recruitment," it is to them ithat first of all "the doctrine and the stand of the Trotskyite movement" had to be introduced.^^1^^
Whom did the Trotskyites have in mind? They had decided that the best bet were the students who came from petty-bourgeois families. Accordingly it was said that "The student Sector has played a fundamental role as part of the petty bourgeoisie.''~^^2^^
In other words, when the Trotskyites extolled the students, they do not have in mind its antiimperialist-minded section, but only the young _-_-_
~^^1^^ Quatrieme Internationale, 1969, n° 37, p. 89.
~^^2^^ European Marxist Review, 1968, No. .1, p. 111.
36 people of petty-bourgeois origin. The Trotskyites were interested in them mainly because these young people tend to be very vague about the form and method of struggle.The "Fourth International" made no secret about the fact that a sizable section of the young people in the capitalist countries are badly informed about past and present Trotskyite activity. This is variously expressed as follows: "The young people have no preconceptions about Trotskyism," and "The young people do not regard Trotskyism as a bogey.''
What the young people know about Trotskyism frequently boils :dOwn to what they have read in anti-communist writings or what they have been told by bourgeois professors, who are. known to be openly partial to Trotskyism.
Today, bourgeois propaganda is the Trotskyites' most reliable ideological ally. Journalists, historians, sociologists and even some writers have started to popularize Trotsky's ideas and, distorting the historical facts, have sought to present Trotskyism as a revolutionary doctrine. Trotsky is lauded in university auditoriums. His books are included in obligatory reading lists, and the student who has not read them stands a chance of not passing his exams.
The voices of bourgeois scientists and the present ideologists of the "Fourth International" so blend with each other in a common eulogy to Trotskyism that they can scarcely be distinguished. When one reads or hears some bourgeois spokesman one may easily mistake him for an emissary of the "Fourth International," and only find out otherwise by looking him up in Who's Who.
37Why are the respectable gentlemen in bourgeois science and journalism so eager to boost Trotskyism? Why is such an effort being put into singing the praises of Trotskyism to the student youth ?
The main reason is that the ruling bourgeoisie has been seeking ways to counteract the stepped-up student political activity. Official propaganda has resorted to various tricks to intensify the ideological confusion prevalent among a large section of the youth. It has promoted various false theories about the lasting and immutable nature of the bourgeois system in the advanced capitalist countries, it has praised the numerous formulas for ``improving'' capitalism, and it has tried to put across to the youth all manner of pseudo-seditious and pseudo-revolutionary views and conceptions.
, Back in 1915, Lenin wrote that the " bourgeois society is continually producing politicians who love to assert they belong to no class, and opportunists who love to call themselves socialists, both of whom deliberately and systematically deceive the masses with the most florid and radical words"~^^1^^.
Since then, history has repeatedly confirmed the aptness of this observation. Bourgeois propaganda has constantly supported those who have used a barrage of ``Leftist'' catchwords to split the ranks of the anti-imperialist fighters.
This alliance has constantly been of help to diverse pseudo-Leftists who do not have to make such an effort to put across their views, since it _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin. Coll. Works, Vol. 21, p. 429.
38 is being done by those who run the publishing houses, the printing works and promote the sale of books.All this must be borne in mind if one is to understand why a section of the youth have a distorted view of Trotskyism, of its policies and practices, of its past and present. This is not only due to Trotskyite activity, but also to bourgeois propaganda which backs them up.
The ruling bourgeoisie has not only aided Trotskyism propaganda-wise by publishing Trotsky's numerous "works," but has actively helped and continues to help it make political capital of the erroneous Trotskyite views which have been drummed into the heads of young people in the capitalist countries. Trotskyism, on the other hand, has done its part.
__ALPHA_LVL1__ WHO BENEFITS FROM THE IMPETUOUSNESSOperating among the youth, the Trotskyites not only take advantage of their ignorance about the past and present of Trotskyism, but also try to capitalize on some attitudes among the youth.
A fairly large part of Left-radical young people want to put an end to the social injustice of capitalist society at once, and chafe at any delay. What such young people say and do is marked by a high level of emotionalism that springs from a sense of indignation.
However, these young people have a very vague idea as to how to fight effectively. Their 39 spontaneous action looks more like a demonstrative outburst which now and again assumes absurd forms (like the assertion that it is better to set fire to a department store than to own one, and to act accordingly, slogans like "Peace to Men, War on Institutions" or terroristic acts resulting in the senseless loss of life).
Such actions harm, rather than advance, the revolutionary struggle, since they help the reactionaries to compromise the very idea of revolution. They cause fairly large sections of the working people to recoil from participation in the anti-imperialist movement, and do much harm to the young people themselves. There is good reason why a series of such excesses, which do nothing to change the state of affairs, is usually followed by a lengthy interval of political apathy and passivity.
It would be wrong, of course, merely to condemn some of the actions taken by these young people without seeing what causes them. One must realize that these young people, indignant at the injustices of capitalist society, challenge it in forms which, they think, make it clear what side they are on.
Indeed, these young people are searching for ways and means of struggle, now and again groping blindly in the dark, and wasting their young strength and energy in endless discussions and debates. Thus, students of British academic institutions stage ``referenda'' that go on and on without producing results, or "general assemblies" to discuss "all matters" for days on end.
All of his, including the shortcomings as well, shows that the young people are becoming more 40 radical and persistent, and that they have a growing sense of social responsibility. The process of radicalization itself must be welcomed by those who want to see the revolutionary potential built up and the political army of antiimperialist fighters increased.
However, the Left-radical young people now and again put one in mind of a boat which has shoved off from one shore and is floating in midstream. These young men and women have already freed themselves from the influence of the prevailing bourgeois ideology or are in the process of doing so, but they have not yet joined the proletariat, the only consistent revolutionary class of capitalist society. In their efforts to take an independent stand, the Left-radical young people insist on keeping the proletariat at arms' length as well.
These young people do not always realize that their conflict with capitalist society is a class conflict which goes to the very roots of society and cannot be resolved except in close alliance with the other anti-imperialist movements.
Those who now take an ultra-Leftist stand fall into two categories. The first lot includes those who sincerely believe that revolutionary spirit is determined by the number of windows broken in the course of demonstrations and the height of the flames in burning buildings. They accuse those who do not approve such false stereotypes of revolutionary struggle of being overly cautious or cowardly.
And besides these honestly misled people there are the ones who feed on the ideas of "Left radicalism" and use them for purposes of 41 mimicry and to strengthen their own positions in the revolutionary movement. The pseudo-Leftist ideas they spread are not due to erroneous conceptions or lack of information, but a deliberate and malicious policy of encouraging Leftist mistakes and helping them take root.
The purpose of this is to create favourable conditions for introducing conceptions which have nothing in common with the interests of the revolutionary struggle or the needs of the youth.
Herbert Marcuse, an American professor, owes his recent popularity in the Left-radical movement to the fact that some of the young people flirted with the ideas of nihilism. Marcuse rejected the legal forms of class struggle and "totally repudiated" the modern industrial society, thereby seeking to provide a theoretical basis for adventurist, anarchist action.
This outwardly respectable elderly man delighted in the wildest anarchist pranks. He glorified anarchist action which he termed extremely progressive. He once told a correspondent that he regarded the anarchist element as a very powerful and highly progressive force.
At one time, some young people succumbed to Marcuse's influence, and almost accepted him as the champion of their interests and idol of the Left-radical movement. But very soon the young people, who are sensitive to any pretence, saw through the fine words and swiftly realized that Marcuse was, in fact, little concerned with fundamental change. The young people began to throw his books into the scrap heap, and attended his lectures across Europe merely to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes.
42The anarchists have also continued their attempts to capitalize on the impatience of the youth. Their predecessors, the 19th-century anarchists, used to say that every man had a devil on his left shoulder and an angel on his right one. The one induced man to rebel and the other to conform. Today, the anarchists clearly direct their appeal to the devil, in an effort to incite the worst in the young which is presented as ultra-revolutionariness.
Here is an excerpt from the book Obsolete Communism---the Left-Wing Alternative by Cohn-Bendit, one of the ``ideologists'' of modern anarchism. He says: "Put on your clothes now---we hope you have read these pages in bed---and go to cinema. Look there at the sad tedium of a life from which you are generally excluded. See the sequences dancing before your eyes, the actors enacting what you experience daily, except that with you it is unfortunately no acting. Then, as soon as the first ad of the next show appears on the screen, take out your tomatoes or rotten eggs and act. Say `No' to everything. After that, go out and tear off all posters... And so, act! Seek a new relationship with your girl-friend, love in a different way, say `No' to the family. Begin the revolution here and now---not for others, for yourself.''~^^1^^
It is hard to say whether this ``advice'' is prompted more by the urge for publicity by extolling base instincts or attempts to stultify young people and to discredit the very idea of _-_-_
^^1^^ World Marxist Review, Prague, 1971, pp. 37-8.
43 revolutionary struggle. At any rate, many young men and women managed to see through CohnBendit and declared him to be an unprincipled political careerist, whose ``recommendations'' were not worth much.They did take some of his advice, though. When he tried to speak at public lectures he was pelted with rotten tomatoes. Cohn-Bendit found himself in the same boat with his rival Herbert Marcuse.
Of course, it would be premature to conclude that Marcuse and Cohn-Bendit are completely out of the picture. They still have some followers among the youth, but their influence among the ultra-Leftist youth has sharply declined. This is a situation which the Trotskyites would like to make the most of and to win over the ones who have dropped Marcuse and Cohn-- Bendit. There are people in the "Fourth International" who believe that advantage could be taken of the increasing exodus of young people from the Maoist groups. One writer said in a Trotskyite mouthpiece in May 1971: "I have no doubt that many of the Maoist organizations' members will either leave disillusioned or be expelled. That is those members who had believed in the `anti-imperialist' Maoist phraseology''.~^^1^^
The Trotskyites have, consequently, tried to cast their net fairly far out in the hope that someone would fall into it, be it the `` Marcuseans'' or the anarchists, or even the disillusioned members of Maoist organizations.
The bait they use is the old one of expressing sympathy and praising various reckless actions _-_-_
~^^1^^ Workers Press, May 31, 1971.
44 by the Left-radical youth. The negative features of the student movement are played up as virtues. However, the Trotskyites regard the movement itself as a distorting mirror in which the beautiful may appear ugly and the ugly seem quite presentable.They have praised the youth to the skies for their impetuousness and lack of restraint insisting that these are the qualities which enable young people to play a leading role in the revolutionary struggle.
In efforts to please the anarchist-minded section of the youth and to win them over, the Trotskyites have even been prepared to include some anarchist slogans in their own `` theoretical'' platform. The French Trotskyites, grouped round the magazine Verite, have formulated the following programme to lure the youth: "A government without rulers," without police, without bureaucrats." This has much in common with the calls issued by some neo-anarchists.
It is true that now and again Trotskyite journals criticize certain anarchist actions by the students, but this is being done in passing, without any clear-cut repudiation of anarchist ideology, or any condemnation, which would alienate those who favour nothing but "direct action.''
The Trotskyites seek to create the impression that they alone know just how the energies of the Left-radical youth should be directed. They claim that they know how to activate the youth, because they alone have a clear-cut idea of the ways of the class struggle.
Actually, the Trotskyites have no such programme at all.
45 __ALPHA_LVL1__ ``REVOLUTIONARY GYMNASTICS"Anyone encountering oral and written statements by Trotskyite ``ideologists'' is in for a blast of impassioned catchwords, ardent calls and trenchant slogans. One is struck by the pathos in Trotskyite "programme statements," the lack of any ideas, the frenzied appeal in place of arguments that verge on hysteria and are accompanied by crude abuse of those who disagree.
Not long ago Trotskyite ``Leftist'' talk denoted a certain adaptability to the moods of certain sections of the peasantry in the Third World. How was this expressed?
When guerrilla action broke out in some Latin American countries, the Trotskyites hastened to declare they were all for this form of struggle, thereby hoping to bolster their political positions. At every congress of the "Fourth International," from 1957 to 1968, the Trotskyites declared that they were for guerrilla warfare. It did not seem to embarrass them that Trotskyite theorists have never attached any importance to this form of struggle.
However, the men of the "Fourth International" did not confine themselves to declaring that they supported the guerrilla movement. The laboratories of the "Fourth International" devised the tactic of "revolutionary gymnastics" based on the principle that one armed uprising should follow another no matter how ill prepared they were and unsuccessful. When the "stage of action" came, the results were not that important. .. The main thing was "permanent mobilization of the masses to attain revolutionary 46 objectives," "opening of new fronts" and a steady curtailment of "mobile columns."~^^1^^
The guerrilla movement was deemed superior to all other forms of class action. Any fight without rifles and not in the mountains was declared to be unworthy of the youth.
The Trotskyites tried hard to put across the idea of spontaneous action in the guerrilla movement. Through their spokesman, Blanco, the Latin American Trotskyites declared: "time for propaganda and agitation is over," "the open struggle should be initiated as quickly as possible.''~^^2^^
There is good reason why the Trotskyites were for separatist, spontaneous action. They hoped it would be easier to put across their ideas in the guerrilla movement, if they could steer clear of action by the urban working folk and Communist party influence. They alleged that true revolutionaries would be bound to share their views. The Trotskyites urged that the guerrilla detachments should be open to all without any check-up, and those refusing to partake in their wild schemes were called enemies of the revolution.
The Trotskyite attempts to apply their theories greatly harmed the revolutionary struggle. Thus, in 1963, they managed to provoke scattered, unprepared peasant detachments in Cuzco Department in Peru, to rise under Blanco under the slogan "Land or Death." The uprising was soon defeated by government troops, and some 200 peasants were imprisoned for taking part _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1965, No. 2, p. 43.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 41-6; and 1967, No. 5, p. 8.
47 in the guerrilla action or helping the guerrillas.The Trotskyites themselves, analyzing the results of this operation, admitted the "relative isolation of the action led by Blanco, who could count on the aid of only a small organization already hit by severe repressive measures.''~^^1^^
In 1965 and 1966, Blanco's followers once again won over a small group of peasants to their ultra-Leftist slogans and got them to set up a guerrilla detachment. The government jumped at this pretext to massacre the Leftist forces.
The Peruvian Communist Carlos Zamora, in a letter printed in L'Humanite, wrote: "This was a pretext, because it was clear to everyone that a few dozen guerrillas, totally isolated from the people, did not present a serious threat to the government. However, the latter used the occasion to inflict a heavy blow on the Left-wing opposition as a whole. Hundreds of activists and trade-unionists, not connected with the guerrillas, were arrested.''~^^2^^
In Latin America, it became quite obvious that the Trotskyite pseudo-Leftist conceptions led to defeats and served to divide the revolutionary forces and help the reactionaries. These "armchair revolutionaries," as the Venezuelan Communists called them, did everything possible "to push the revolutionary movement over the edge.''~^^3^^
Exposing Trotskyite machinations in the Latin American revolutionary movement, Fidel Castro told the Tricontinental Conference at _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1967, No. 5, p. 10.
~^^2^^ L'Humanite, Janvier 2, 1968.
~^^3^^ Documentos politicos. Revista de politics national e international, 1967, Np. 4, p. 24.
48 Havana in January 1966 that the Trotskyites "sought to isolate this movement from the people, to isolate it from the masses and to foster absurd propositions''~^^1^^The Trotskyites were soundly defeated in their attempts to promote reckless and provocative methods among the peasantry. Nevertheless, in the recent period they have been lauding such "revolutionary gymnastics" in the advanced capitalist countries as well, particularly among the youth.
Just as the emissaries of the "Fourth International" not long ago called for scattered peasant action, so they now urge separate "youth riots." By advocating irresponsible slogans such as "converting every university into a fortress of the revolution" and also by taking provocative action inducing some young people to reckless escapades verging on hooliganism, the Trotskyites have been leading the youth movement into an impasse and impeding the consolidation of the anti-imperialist fighting forces.
The Trotskyites regard the youth movement by itself, apart from its social environment, from the highly acute class struggle being waged by the working class and the other working people. They try to convince the young people that they must act on their own, without forming any political alliances.
Thus, Alain Krivine, a leader of the Trotskyite youth movement in France, declared on television on May 18, 1969, that any alliance of the Left-wing forces was a notorious myth. He said the Trotskyites were "opposed to any alliance of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Cuba Socialista, 1966, No. 54, pp. 93-4.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4-136 49 the Left-wing forces because today it had no meaning.''True enough, at times some Trotskyites have urged the students to co-operate with the working class. However their own explanations show that the purpose is to recruit young workers into the "Fourth International" and not to establish revolutionary understanding between the working class and the students.
The Trotskyites believe that the young people they win over may become better propagandists of their ideas than the emissaries of the "Fourth International," who have compromised themselves in the eyes of the people. Speakers at the Conference of the British Socialist League in June 1968 stressed that these are the young people who should be sent to the factories to establish contacts with the workers.
By encouraging reckless putschist tendencies which now and then are evident among the young and by lauding isolated action that lacks mass support, the Trotskyites show they are not at all interested in broad co-operation between the students and the working class and other working people.
On the one hand, the Trotskyites declared that they have succeeded in winning over the " revolutionary vanguard," meaning the advanced and conscious section of the youth. On the other hand, they have to admit that many of the fourteen and fifteen-year-olds who join them came out into the streets only "to beat up the cops.''~^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1968, No. 5, p. 27.
50During the 1968 events in France, the Trotskyites befuddled the minds of the youth by calling for "instant armed uprising," although the conditions did not exist for such an uprising. Moreover, the armed forces of repression were just waiting for the right moment to move in and "put down the disorders." Speakers at the Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party in July 1968 stressed that such a course would lead to a bloodbath of the working people and lay open the working class and its vanguard, the Communist Party, to defeat.
Indeed, the irresponsible statements by the French Trotskyites about the need to "go out into the streets arms in hand" and the fires at the barricades lit by the young people they had incited, gave the authorities the pretext to act as champions of "law and order." Trotskyite Leftist catchwords not only helped to divide the anti-monopoly forces. They also were a direct support to the reactionaries who were glad to use the pseudo-revolutionary attitudes for their own purposes.
The followers of the "Fourth International" behaved just as provocatively in Japan, where they had long been engaged in intrigues in the youth and student movement. Their fire-brand action has repeatedly provided the reactionaries with pretexts for carrying out sanguinary reprisals, as they did during the mass demonstrations by working people at Sinjuku (October 1968) and lokosuka (January 1969) among others.~^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ See Kommunist, 1971, No. 18, p. 22.
51Such provocative views and actions tend to become all the more dangerous since they are closely tied up with the ideas being spread by other Leftists operating among the youth. Such "revolutionary gymnastics" are also being advocated by all the other ultra-Leftists, who insist that "defeats help to radicalize youth, whereas victories produce illusions.''
The anarchists, for instance, hold that in clashes they provoke there should be no fear of loss of human life, just as "a man who gets behind the steering wheel of his car is aware that its tire may go flat.''~^^1^^ Such ideas are also being spread among the youth by Maoist groups, who insist that loss of life should not be feared since revolutionaries allegedly have the task, no matter how small they are in numbers, to "bring about a revolution." The Maoists present the revolution itself as a succession of disorderly and absolutely spontaneous ``riots''.
In these conditions, "revolutionary gymnastics" is a tactic that helps to produce a peculiar climate of political adventurism and pseudo-- revolutionariness among Left-radical young people. The Trqtskyite slogan about answering police violence in the language of revolutionary violence is practically no different, if at all, from the anarchist call to counter violence with violence. In both instances the most reckless action is being ``theoretically'' justified, and this includes arson, terroristic acts,, the burgling of shops, and the provoking of pointless and futile clashes with the police.
In the vortex of our day, and in the involved ways of class struggle, the young people find it hard to discover the right path to revolution. The Trotskyite tactic of "revolutionary gymnastics" prevents the young people from finding this path without undue delay.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Der Spiegel, Mai 13, 1968, S. 42.
52 __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE HARM OF THE THEORY OF STUDENTOf late spokesmen for pseudo-Leftist trends have vied with one another in their eloquence in putting forward conceptions which differentiate between the student youth and other contingents of the anti-imperialist movement, particularly the working class. They want the young people to feel they should depend only on themselves and that they are powerful enough to ``rouse'' and then to lead others of different political views and age groups. The students are presented as an abstract body not confined to any social or political framework. It has revolutionary features because it is young (and revolutions, the Trotskyites declare, "have always been carried forward on the shoulders of the young"). The revolution itself is presented by the ultra-Leftist propagandists as something irrelevant to class, and devoid of leadership and purpose.
The Trotskyites are prepared to invest the students with the role of leader on a world scale in the fight for socialism. For example, the London International Committee of the "Fourth International," declared: "youth must lead the fight to overthrow capitalism---not just here in 53 Britain but all over the world."~^^1^^ As to supporters of the Paris Secretariat of the "Fourth International," they have gone farther in claiming that students already have a well-formed revolutionary outlook and that young people have a "Marxist revolutionary / ideological basis,"~^^2^^ a fact they claim the youth have confirmed in action.
One Trotskyite who has left the ranks of the French Communist League, explains why he did so as follows: "The League's activity among students tended to produce illusions about the students being able, on their own, to bring the government to its knees and, what is more, of being able to become the `leaders' in mobilizing the masses. I felt this view to be erroneous."~^^3^^ True enough, the young Trotskyite found no better way out than to switch to a rival Trotskyite organization called "Youth Alliance for Socialism.''
Most Trotskyite ideologists reason along these lines: a) young people have always taken an active part in past revolutions; b) young people are now ever more actively joining in the revolutionary struggle; and c) consequently, the young can well head the revolutionary movement of our day.
Indeed, no one will object to the idea that youth have always played a prominent part in revolutionary struggle. Everyone knows that there were many young people who dedicated themselves to the revolution and even died for it _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Newsletter, January 13, 1968.
~^^2^^ Quatrieme Internationale, 1969, n° 34, p. 40.
~^^3^^ Jeune revolutionnaire, novembre 17, 1971.
54 among those who overthrew the tsar, the landowners and the capitalists in Russia in 1917. Nor is there any doubt that young people did much to enable socialist revolutions to triumph and take hold in various countries of Eastern Europe and Asia. The young people played a prominent part in the Cuban revolution.All that is true. But who would deny that other young people acted to the contrary? After all, there were young people among the Cadet units who defended the Winter Palace in Petersburg in October 1917, as the headquarters of the bourgeois Provisional Government, and shot and shelled other young men who fought on the side of the workers and the soldiers. There were young people in the armies of Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel and in the foreign legions who tried to quell the revolution during the Civil War. There were young people who, after the Second World War, shot revolutionary activists in the back as they fought for the new, workers' and peasants' power in the East European countries. And there were young people who joined the ranks of the counter-revolutionaries in Cuba, and who now take part in organizing provocations against Freedom Isle.
Historical experience and the need to advance the revolutionary struggle today make it imperative to involve young people on an ever-- broader scale on the side of the revolution as a component part of the struggle to win over the masses. It is essential to strive to narrow down the circle of young people who deliberately champion the bourgeois order. It is essential to keep increasing the number of young men and women rejecting the capitalist system and rising against 55 social injustice, violence and spiritual degradation.
Every new generation taking part in the revolutionary fight reduces the possibility of mistakes (which can be tragic) and miscalculations (which can have fatal consequences at times), as previous experience in revolutionary action is assimilated. This schooling in revolutionary action, this knowledge of the diverse forms and methods of class struggle is essential in order to have the correct approach to the most complicated questions of revolutionary strategy and tactics today.
The student ``vanguard'' theory also is at cross-purposes with the objective need to enlarge the anti-imperialist movement and to rouse the young people to struggle. The theory may have a revolutionary ring but it is very reactionary.
Student ``vanguardism'' tends to undermine the unity of anti-imperialist ranks. This `` theory'' is based on an artificially setting the youth against their elders in the anti-imperialist struggle. However, in our day, as never before, it is important to combine the experience of the older generation of revolutionaries with the enthusiasm of the youth, brushing aside the stereotyped assertions about the "generation gap" frequently used by imperialist propaganda for ideological disruption in the revolutionary movement and to impede the handing down of experience in the class struggle.
Only mutual understanding between the various contingents of revolutionary fighters can fail attempts by the ruling bourgeoisie to retain 56 power by promoting splitting tendencies within the anti-imperialist front and resorting to the traditional "divide and rule" tactics, so as to deal with the class adversaries one by one. Imperialism regards any division of the revolutionary forces as a temporary respite, and their unity as a mortal danger.
The ruling circles of the capitalist countries have been trying hard to prevent young students from finding common ground with the working class, resorting to every means---from falsification and slander, crude flattery and demagogy to the stick and the carrot.
The student ``vanguard'' theory has essentially the same aim.
The "Fourth International" slanders the proletariat, declaring that it has "lost its revolutionary spirit." The following fact shows how absurd these assertions can be.
There months before the French working people took action in May and June 1968, AvantGarde, the Trotskyite youth paper, stated: "In the advanced capitalist countries, the relative stability of the existing regions, and the extreme weakness of the vanguard obviously excludes in the immediate period all struggles of a revolutionary character capable of bringing down our own bourgeoisie.''~^^1^^ These assessments, which clashed with the post-war revolutionary practices of the French proletariat, had an especially absurd ring in view of the events which followed soon afterwards.
High-handed statements about the _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Newsletter, February 18, 1969.
57 revolutionary potentialities of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries were also made at the 9th Congress held by the Paris Secretariat of the "Fourth International" in April 1969. Its resolution described the working class as " demoralized.''~^^1^^The Trotskyites began to play up detrimental features, like political indifference and right-- reformist ideology which are still lo be found among some sections of the working class. At the same time, they denied, without backing it up with facts, that the proletariat was being invoided on an ever-broader scale, in action against monopoly capital, while the social battles were more and more frequently acquiring a strong political tenor.
This was to make students believe the Trotskyites' absurd conclusions labout the proletariat being ``passive'' and the students having a " special mission." Hence the conclusion about the need to ``rouse'' the proletariat and the adventurist, provocative recommendations.
What is the overall result of such a policy? Students are induced to mistrust and even dislike the working class for allegedly being far too cautious. Quite naturally, the proletariat becomes wary of certain adventurist acts by individual students which, the Trotskyite and other ultraLeftist ``ideologists'' believe, will ``awaken'' the workers.
In other words, the obj'ective basis is being created for misunderstanding between the working class and a section of the students, and for continued and growing differences between them. _-_-_
^^1^^ Qualrieme Internationale, 1969, n° 37, p. 33.
58 Such is the true nature of the student `` vanguard'' theory.Student ``vanguardism'' has done much harm particularly to the young people. A component part of most student ``vanguard'' theories is the effort to provide a pseudo-scientific basis for the desire of a section of the students to act in isolated groups. Separatist action is extolled and advertised as a principle of behaviour.
There again, the Trotskyites speculate on the lack of knowledge among the youth.
The experience of revolutionary struggle shows that "student disorders" and "youth riots" present a real danger to capitalism only when they become an organic part of the class battles led by the proletariat. They have always been put down unless they were tied in with working class action.
This has been repeatedly proved by the day-- today political struggle in our own period. Wherever student action has merged with the struggle of the working class and the other working people, the class struggle has inevitably acquired greater strength, forcing the reactionaries to retreat in face of the common, concerted anti-- imperialist front. All the anti-monopoly forces, including the students, benefited ias a result.
On the other hand, wherever the students rose to struggle alone, without their natural allies, most frequently it cost them dear. The forces of reaction massacred those who relied only on their own strength.
Left-radical young people talk a lot about the need for socialist revolution, but they do not always realize that such a revolution is impossible 59 without the leadership of the proletariat. All the successful socialist revolutions have been headed by the working class. That was the case in Russia in October 1917, and in the period in which the democratic people's revolutions in the East European countries developed into socialist revolutions.
This has also been borne out by the Cuban revolution, where the general strikes staged by the urban and rural proletariat from 1955 to 1959 paved the way for successful revolutionary struggle. Fidel Castro stressed: "It is the working class that, by its general strike, together with the insurgent army foiled the plans of the reactionaries who intended to deprive the people of victory at the last moment, as they had done repeatedly before. It was the strike---and we insist on this with a full sense of responsibility, being entitled to do so by virtue of our own participation in the events of those decisive hours---that wrecked the final schemes of the enemies of the people... The general strike transferred power into the hands of the revolution."~^^1^^
The long-term and the immediate interests of the young make it imperative that they take concerted action with the working class. Anything that promotes this must be cherished, encouraged and developed. Anything that hampers this must be discarded and shoved aside. One of the things that young people are bound, sooner or later, to discard is the student ``vanguard'' theory, which has harmed the youth most of all.
Student ``vanguardism'' plays into the hands of the pseudo-revolutionaries, the provocateurs. _-_-_
^^1^^ Fidel Castro. Speeches, Moscow, 1960, p. 162.
60 Objectively, the student ``vanguard'' theory can benefit only those who seek to achieve the following: to have the students politically separated from the working class; to have the student ranks split with the Left-radical youth ranged against the others (as the "revolutionary elite" vis-a-vis the mob); and to play up various reckless acts and irresponsible views as full-fledged "conception.''Who stands to gain from all this? Only those who mix among the students to "fish for young souls" and to take the opportunity to bolster their shaken political positions.
There is a direct connection between the stepped-up subversive operations by Trotskyites and other ``Leftists'' among the youth and the spread of "student vanguard" conceptions. Wherever these have won the greatest support the Trotskyites, along with the anarchists and the Maoists, have been most active. Conversely, wherever the students have rejected this defective "theory," the pseudo-revolutionaries have failed to make any headway.
In other words, the ultra-Leftist groups alone stand to gain from separate, sectarian action by the students, whereas concerted action by the young people and the working class has, as a rule, left no room for these groups to manoeuvre.
The leaders of ultra-Leftist groups, inciting the youth to take hasty, reckless action in the hope of assuming the leadership in the revolutionary struggle, actually plan to take over the leadership of the Left-radical youth movement. Of late one observes that ultra-Leftist leaders have managed to attract public notice when they manage to induce some section of the youth, however 61 small, to engage in action which is obviously doomed to defeat. The young people get hurt, but the ultra-Leftist leaders are quite happy to have gained an audience and write-ups in the press.
There is good reason why the Trotskyites and the other Leftists have been trying hard to keep young people from being influenced by the Communists, who have proved that unprepared, separate action is futile and has nothing to offer.
The Trotskyites have resorted to all manner of lies to get the youth to distrust the Communist parties. They have even declared that the Communists "hate the young" land are "hostile to the students" so as to fool those who know nothing about the Communists and how highly the latter regard the role of the youth in the revolutionary struggle.
When dealing with more informed young people the Trotskyites try other tactics. They claim that although the Communists want to find common ground with the youth it is not to the advantage of the young people who would lose their identity in joint struggle.
The following shows how much leaders of the "Fourth International" fear Communist influence. During the 1970 electoral campaign in Britain they mounted a propaganda drive under the slogan: "Labour---Yes, Communist---No.''
In trying to keep the youth from establishing ties with the Communists and accepting the ideas of scientific socialism, the Trotskyites would leave the youth movement without guidance. But neither reactionary university professors, who falsify Marxism in every possible way, nor the Trotskyites who have substituted a system of 62 pseudo-revolutionary views for Marxism-- Leninism, can teach the students the laws of social development and the strategy and tactics of the class struggle. Only the Communists can do this.
The Trotskyites keep saying that the young people learn best from what they claim are mistakes being made by the Communist parties. And they continue to present falsifications of the strategic and tactical propositions of international Communist movement as Communists' " mistakes.''
The Trotskyites count on the fact that most students have yet to learn that never has there been a party in history that has been more revolutionary than the Communist party. Whenever the time came to act and whenever the situation called not for catchwords but for the ability to formulate slogans and a political line promoting revolutionary development, it was the Communists who were in the forefront of the revolutionary ranks.
The Communist parties deserve the credit for
ensuring concerted and purposeful action by the
proletariat and its allies in the past and they are
continuing and will continue to do so in the
future. The Communists have guided socialist
revolutions, and sharpest class battles in the past
and present, which have wrested new positions
from imperialism. The Communists have always
been in the vanguard of mass movements for the
great goals of social progress. Revamping and
improving the strategy of the class struggle, they
helped the working people to find the best ways
63
and forms for the revolutionary transformation
of society.
It was the Communists who led the working class of Russia in the first decisive battle against capitalism. It was the Communists who raised aloft the banner of struggle against fascism during the Second World War, in the most trying period of mankind's history. Today, the Communists are guiding socialist and communist construction over one-third of the globe. The Communists spare no efforts, and are prepared to sacrifice their very lives, in the revolutionary struggle in the capitalist countries. They are, indeed, the most resolute and consistent fighters everywhere for maintaining and consolidating world peace and frustrating misanthropic plans for a thermonuclear war.
The Communists may not always be right, but one can hardly deny that they are the most influential political force of our day, a revolutionary force that has been steadily growing. The future belongs to the Communists, because they are sure of their goal and will never be diverted from it.
The Communists are not surprised that many people in the capitalist countries now seek to take a stand to the ``Left'' of the Communist parties or, at any rate, to present themselves as being to the ``Left'' of the Communists. This is not news in itself---ever since the Communist movement emerged and gained in stature, individuals and groups have been cropping up in political life and claiming to be more revolutionary than the boldest revolutionaries.
As Marx and Engels once observed, "in every 64 new historical phase old mistakes reappear momentarily only to disappear forthwith."~^^1^^ Something similar is taking place in our own day.
Nor is there anything new about the Trotskyites' spreading the attitude of ideological indifference and political promiscuity. Krivine has cynically declared that the students are apt to change views and parties like their shirts, without any marked effect on their studies and activity.
There is good reason for Krivine's shirt-- andparty metaphor. He is clearly eager to have Trotskyite groups filled with renegades from other parties and organizations. But because the young people are naturally repulsed by many of the planks in Trotskyite ``programme'' the emissaries of the "Fourth International" insist that they should join it or leave it, if they do not like it. In their heart of hearts the Trotskyites hope that at least some will stay on, thereby helping to bolster the Trotskyite positions.
The leaders of the Trotskyite groups are not worried about the fact that many, on closer acquaintanceship with Trotskyite propositions, realize their futility and leave such groups disillusioned and morally devastated. Very frequently such people give up political activity altogether. Even a short time in Trotskyite ranks tends to make one lose interest in participating in the class struggle. The Trotskyites outdo all others in quelling the revolutionary fervour of the young people since their catchwords are ``Leftist'' in form and capitulationist in content.
_-_-_~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels. Sel. Works, p. 271.
__PRINTERS_P_66_COMMENT__ 5---136 65 __ALPHA_LVL1__ CAPITULATION BEHIND A BARRAGE OFThere are several objective reasons for the great gap between Trotskyite words and deeds.
First, only in words, and by bitter, abusive attacks on those who are in the very thick of the revolutionary struggle, the Trotskyites satisfy their urge to be to the "left of the Leftists." They themselves, in view of their ``specific'' position, most frequently stand on the sidelines of the dayto-day struggles. Whenever they seek to back up their impassioned words and catchy slogans with practical action, they conflict with the interests and needs of the revolutionary movement and do great harm.
Second, Trotskyite organizations, because of their objective position and small numbers, are more like political sects lacking close ties with the masses or with any class. That is why Trotskyite slogans are not backed up by the activity of large social forces or based on their immediate or long-term interests or needs.
Third, as a rule many Trotskyite supporters are hot-headed individuals who tend to cool down quickly. Because of the frequent drop-outs the sections of the "Fourth International" seek to play on the emotions of the novices who fall for their propaganda. After every series of `` fireworks'' there comes the moment of truth for Trotskyite adherents. The slogans of the "Fourth International" are left in limbo, arousing suspicion among some, indignation among others, while still convincing those who have yet to learn of their futility from personal experience. The 66 great abundance of slogans is, consequently, due to the ability of the Trotskyites to adapt to the moods and feelings of narrow groups of persons who fall for Trotskyite propaganda, groups whose composition keeps constantly changing. To appreciate what a difference there is between what Trotskyites say and do, and how such revolutionary catchwords lead to capitulatioinism, let us examine some of the slogans and stands of modern Trotskyism.
What is the worth of Trotskyite talk about instant socialist revolution? The "Fourth International" and its sections have much to say about the need for a socialist revolution as soon as possible. Taking their statements at face value, they seem to be the most ardent advocates of instant revolutionary action and the immediate overthrow of capitalism. They declare: "To advocate a series of steps like a stairway means beyond dispute to turn away from the revolution."~^^1^^
But is revolution in any sense a race? Revolution is activity by broad masses of people waging a resolute and uncompromising struggle against their exploiters. Revolutions would have been impossible in the past, just as they are inconceivable now or in the future, without rousing broad sections of the working people to take part in political life and establishing a massive army of political fighters. And this is no easy matter.
It is common knowledge that the Communists have always considered it extremely important to steadily extend the social basis of the revolutionary movement. They proceed from the _-_-_
^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1961, No. 3, p. 86.
__PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 assumption that the growth of political activity and militancy among fresh contingents of the working class, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, the students and the middle sections of the population create the prerequisites for fundamental social change, for socialist revolution and establishment of the working class's power in alliance with other sections of the working people.The Trotskyites opposition to this line of preparing the political army of the socialist revolution can be seen from their attacks against the struggle for general democratic demands and the policy of establishing a broad anti-- monopoly front.
Documents and statements issued by Trotskyite groupings stress that the movement for democratic rights tends to divert the working class from the tasks of the "revolutionary overthrow" of the capitalist system.
The Trotskyites describe the struggle for democratic rights as follows: "Instead of making mass struggles converge toward the question of power, their tendency is to disperse these struggles in space and in time over multiple objectives.''~^^1^^
This expresses the Trotskyites' negative attitude to the general democratic movement which helps to involve broad masses of people in action against monopoly capital and to carry them forward to socialist revolution. It is easy to see that the stand taken by Trotskyism today is, to some extent, a follow-up of the views of _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1967, No. 3, p. 7.
68 Trotsky who neglected the general democratic stage of the revolution.Meanwhile, experience has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of Lenin's remarks that the working people "cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy."~^^1^^
Would the Great October Socialist Revolution have taken place if the masses had not been prepared for it in persistent struggle against the autocracy, if they had not been mobilized by the slogans to democratize the state system in Russia, to put an end to the First World War, and to effect a radical solution of the land problem? Would the socialist revolution have won out in Eastern Europe, if the masses had not, in the course of their struggle against the fascist and collaborationist regimes, come to understand the need for fundamental social change? Here is a more recent example: would the revolution have triumphed in Cuba but for the long and persistent struggle against the Batista dictatorship and efforts to attain a democratic state system which preceded the revolution?
Present-day revolutionary practice likewise disproves the Trotskyite reasoning about general democratic demands being incompatible with the proletariat's struggle for its ultimate goals. With growing frequency the working class is moving into spheres of economic and political life which were once monopolized by the _-_-_
^^1^^ Lenin. Coll. Works, Vol. 22, p. 144.
69 hourgeoisie. It demands the nationalization of key branches of the economy owned by the monopolies; the establishment of workers' and democratic control at every level---from the enterprise to the national level; reorientation of industry to take care of urgent social needs, etc. Will not the realization of these demands undermine the political pillars of the capitalist states?The Communists are always mindful of Lenin's sage advice with regard to conditions in Russia, when he said there was a need for a programme of action for the resentful students, for the perturbed teachers, and for the indignant believers. A merger into a single tide of all the different general democratic movements (from strikes to demonstrations by peace advocates) helps to lash out at monopoly capital in an ever broader front and to create the prerequisites for a takeover of power by the working class and its allies, and to carry the masses forward to socialist revolution.
Indeed, the Trotskyites have clearly compromised themselves by attacking the struggle for democracy. In their way out of this impasse, some Trotskyite groups have included some of general democratic demands in their programmes. For instance, some American, British and French Trotskyites insist that they come out for higher wages, shorter working hours and workers' control in production.
But these statements in support of general democratic demands go hand in hand with the old package of ultra-Leftist slogans and meaningless pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric. The Trotskyites themselves declare that these demands cannot be realized until capitalism is eliminated.
70The American Trotskyites, for example, declare: "We must fight not only for these demands but for a consciousness in the working class that these demands can only be realized if the workers come to power."~^^1^^ They are echoed by the British Trotskyites, who say: "The working class must defend its basic rights against the international capitalist conspiracy, and it can only do so by preparing for power.''^^2^^
These frank statements confirm that the occasional Trotskyite muttering about general democratic rights, "transitional demands," and the like, are merely designed to cover up their lack of interest in such "minor," from their point of view, issues.
Consequently, it turns out that the Trotsky ites are really not concerned about the tasks of advancing the revolutionary struggle and the vital interests of the working people.
This is also borne out by Trotskyite attempls to discredit the idea of establishing a united anti-monopoly front. They attack any alliance of the anti-monopoly forces as fiercely as Trotsky attacked the Popular Front. Today's "Fourth International" leaders frankly say that the attitude to the anti-monopoly front is the same as it was to the Popular Front in the past, and urge their followers to support the "traditional Trotskyite line.''
The stand taken by the Trotskyites today against the united anti-monopoly front is not _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Newsletter, April 5, 1969.
~^^2^^ Workers Press, November 8, 1971.
71 surprising, since it has a certain logic and consistency. Indeed, having assured first the peasantry of the Third World and now the students of the need for independent action apart from the proletariat, it would be inconceivable for Trotskyites to now support any united anti-- imperialist front.But there again one is confronted with this question: have the Trotskyites not urged a division of the anti-imperialist forces so as to make it easier to weave their web of intrigue, to get extremist-minded persons to fall for their propaganda?
Indeed, a thorough analysis of the documents issued by various "Fourth International" groups shows that in contrast to the united anti-- imperialist front they have tried to set up a narrow, "sectarian front" made up only of Trotskyites and their sympathizers. Here is what the French Trotskyites want the young people to believe: "There can be no accord except on the basis of the 'Fourth International Programme.'~"~^^1^^ This approach has never had anything in common with the interests of the revolution.
However, there is every indication that the "Fourth International" has scant concern for the problem of revolution: its only concern is to display its ``radicalism'' and to boast of its "Leftism.''
What is behind the Trotskyite slogan of a "Socialist United States'"? In July 1971, the Trotskyites held a conference at Essen which, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Informations ouvrieres. 1970, n° 479, p. 12.
72 they say, was attended by almost 5,000 young men and women from various European countries. The only slogan in the hall---in German, English, French, Spanish and Russian---said: "Long Live a Socialist United States of Europe.''At a meeting held by Latin American Trotskyite youth one will find a similar slogan: "Long Live a Socialist United States of Latin America." The Trotskyites also have other slogans calling for the establishment of socialist states in Africa and Asia.
At first sight these slogans may appear to be revolutionary, making the Trotskyites sound like people who think in global, all-European and even world-wide categories.
While having only a very hazy idea of what they mean by "united states,''~^^1^^ the "Fourth International" stated quite explicity that without setting up a united states revolution is inconceivable in any West European country. In other words there must be revolution everywhere or not at all.
The London International Committee of the "Fourth International" declared in early 1969: "The proletarians in various European countries are linked not only by tradition and historical ties, but also by the fact that no European proletariat can take the power without raising the problem of the United Socialist States of Europe. The reorganization of the economy on socialist foundations is inconceivable in any European country unless it is extended to the whole of Europe.''^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Quatrieme Internationale, 1963, n° 20, p. 53.
~^^2^^ Fourth International, 1968-69, No. 3, p. 107.
73Back in 1963, a Trotskyite leader known as Germain (and also as Mandel) declared: "We must give the United States of Europe slogan with more concrete content." However, nothing has been clarified by Trotskyite documents issued of late.
A French Trotskyite newspaper says: "The struggle of proletariat can be successful only on an international scale." The Trotskyites also marked the beginning of 1972 by calling for the establishment of a united states of Europe.^^1^^
Law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism in the imperialist epoch revealed by Lenin not only permitted to substantiate the possibility of transition to socialism taking place first in a few countries or even in one individual country, but also provided the basis for elaborating the doctrine of the diversity of forms of transition to socialism.
History has shown that the world revolutionary process consists of a series of socialist, democratic, anti-colonial and anti-imperialist revolutions in various countries, which are connected with the general development of the world liberation movement. Imperialism would still be dominating the entire world, had not the Communists, the masses of workers and the peoples of the world seized on the opportunities in the individual countries for overthrowing the power of capital or colonial oppression.
In their efforts to refute something that has long since been generally established, the Trotskyites have found no better means than to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Jeune revolutionnaire, novembre 17, 1971; Janvier 5, 1972.
74 return to Trotsky's assertions that "socialism cannot be built in one or several countries.''It is true that they have been forced to reckon with the economic successes of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Trotskyite publications even contain admissions that these countries have certain economic and social advantages over the capitalist countries. Nevertheless, the Trotskyites also seek to prove that socialism can only be built on a world scale. The Latin American grouping of the "Fourth Inter national" declares: "The historical conditions are such that no nation in the world can build socialism by itself. No revolution can end in victory and develop towards socialism, because this can take place only on a world scale.''~^^1^^ Another Trotskyite grouping insists that centuries will pass before socialist construction becomes an immediate issue.
In this day of successful socialist and communist construction and growing awareness throughout the globe of the need for socialist development as the main prerequisite for social progress to view the socialist transformation of society as a matter of the unforeseeable future is not merely archaic, it is downright reactionary.
Marx and Engels used to say that the pettybourgeois ultra-revolutionary directs his blows not against the existing governments, but against revolutionaries who reject his dogmas. The founders of Marxism were then criticizing Bakunism. But that is just what Trotskyism has also done. While paying lip-service to the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Revista Marxista Latinoamericana, Montevideo, 1968, No. 14, p. 116.
75 struggle against imperialism it has, in fact, acted against the vanguard revolutionary forces and against the world socialist system which is the decisive force of the anti-imperialist struggle.The Trotskyites have attacked everything truly new and revolutionary that is coming about and taking hold on the globe. They have fiercely attacked revolutionary Cuba which has taken the path of socialist construction. They have urged "the overthrow of Castro."~^^1^^ Fidel Castro told the Transcontinental Conference in Havana in January 1966 that the Trotskyites have shown themselves to be a "vulgar instrument in the hands of imperialism and reaction." They were equally hostile to the victory of the Popular Unity bloc in Chile. Of late they have mounted a blatant campaign of slander against Salvador Allende, accusing him of "paving the way for counter-revolution," and saying thlat he did not differ in any way from Harold Wilson in Britain, and so on.~^^2^^
The "socialist united states" slogan is merely a cover up for the Trotskyite pretensions of being "revolutionaries." They use it to slander any revolutionary programme put forward by the working class in any country.
What does the Trotskyite talk about an armed uprising amount to? One cannot seriously assert that the Trotskyites say or write much about an armed uprising. You can go through stacks of their propaganda material and speeches without finding any mention of armed uprising. Nevertheless, the Trotskyites often _-_-_
~^^1^^ Workers Press, June 22, 1971.
~^^2^^ Informations ouvrieres, 1971, n° 543, pp. 5, 7.
76 hypocritically charge the Communist parties with having abandoned armed forms of revolutionary struggle. In their polemics some Trotskyites have frequently called themselves the "party of armed uprising" which is outright deceit.First, one need only look at the programmes of the Communist parties to see that the fundamental position of the Communists is recognition of the need to master every form of class struggle, including armed struggle, and to be prepared to swiftly and resolutely switch from one form to another, depending on the concrete conditions and on the alignment of class forces at home and abroad. The Trotskyites lie when they allege that the Communist parties advocate only the peaceful path of revolution and disregard the need for armed struggle.
The Communists have never pinned their hopes on the bourgeoisie benevolently handing over power to the people without struggle, as the Trotskyites insist. Regardless of what course the revolution takes---be it peaceful or nonpeaceful---enforcement measures will be needed to suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie. If the bourgeoisie fails to submit to the political demands of the masses, armed force will be necessary. Thus, peaceful and non-peaceful forms of struggle may supplement each other since there is no clear-cut demarcation between them.
In some instances, armed revolutionary struggle is inevitable. The Communists have never regarded the peaceful path as an absolute. Realizing that the imperialist forces can resort to armed struggle, they urge the working people to be prepared for such eventualities, In other 77 words, even while being oriented to the peaceful path of revolutionary development the Marxist-Leninists know full well it is necessary to be prepared for armed struggle if the situation should demand it. One of the main prerequisites for the peaceful development of the revolution is that the forces of the working class and its allies must be far superior, and capable of preventing the monopoly bourgeoisie from resorting to armed violence.
Second, the Trotskyites deliberately keep quiet about the fact that many of them have long sin ce dropped all mention of iarmed struggle from their political lexicon. Thus, there is not a word about it in the policy-making statements of the Socialist Workers' Party of the USA, where the Trotskyites are so timorous that they have called upon the young people to refrain from taking part in action which may lead to arrests. They have siabotaged demonstrations that were officially banned. When the police use waterhoses against Negroes and beat up women and children during anti-racist demonstrations, the Trotskyites not only keep to the sidelines, but also scoff publicly at "Uncle Toms" and " handkerchief heads.''
Third, despite their bellicose statements the Trotskyites have been very light-minded and irresponsible about the armed uprising slogan. For some this amounts to the previously mentioned criminal "revolutionary gymnastics" tactic. For others it is just a lot of talk and still others consider it a means of justifying " revolutionary idleness" of passively sitting by, waiting for "D-day.''
British Trotskyites, for instance, love to talk 78 about armed uprising, but in practice do nothing but befuddle the young people they have won over with promises of an early revolutionary D-day when everything will be settled in short order. They try to draw in 15 and 16-- yearolds and to convince them that the revolution is "just around the corner" and that the Trotskyites have a revolutionary programme for that eventuality.^^1^^
Hopes for D-day were also expressed at the congress of the Socialist Labour League in June 1968, when the Trotskyites declared that they were preparing for decisive changes in the near future. Six months later, in January 1969, they urged a meeting of Trotskyite young people to "make 1969 a year of revolutionary decisions." In early 1970, the Trotskyites once again urged preparation for the "forthcoming major battles." Similar calls were sounded in 1972.
The Trotskyites show just how one can mark time for years under the slogan of armed uprising which is gradually becoming quite meaningless. This is not surprising since the Trotskyites know little about the scientific, Marxist view of armed uprising.
Lenin used to say that armed uprising, like war, is an art, which has its own rules.
First, the uprising must be based on the leading class and not on a conspiracy or even a party. Second, the uprising must be based on a revolutionary upsurge among the people. Third, the uprising must be timed to a moment when the leading ranks of the people are most active _-_-_
^^1^^ Marxism Today, 1965, No. 3, p. 95.
79 and vacillation among the enemies and among the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution is the greatest.Armed uprising is not a putsch. It is bound to be defeated unless objective and subjective conditions are ripe for revolution, unless there is a revolutionary situation and unless the masses are prepared for struggle. Such is the lesson to be learned from the events in Indonesia, for example, where the armed uprising proved to be premature.
Analyzing the causes and the effects of the reckless tactics, which led to the defeat of the Communist Party there, the Marxist-Leninist group of the Indonesian Party emphasized that it was premature to begin military operations before serious revolutionary work of a preparatory nature had been carried out, before the emergence of a clear-cut revolutionary crisis which would develop into a revolutionary situation, and before the establishment of an organized and highly influential Marxist-Leninist party at the core capable of guiding the armed struggle and ensuring massive support from the forces allied with the working class.^^1^^
The international communist movement has not forgotten Lenin's warning about being hasty with premature and unprepared action. In a letter to the Polish Communists on October 19, 1921, which was first published in 1962, Lenin stressed: "The Government and the bourgeoisie must be prevented from strangling the revolution by bloody suppression of a premature _-_-_
^^1^^ See Bulletin d'information, Prague, 1969, n° 7, p. 27.
80 uprising. You must not be provoked. You must wait for the tide to rise to its highest: it will sweep everything away and give victory to the Communists.``If the bourgeoisie kills 100-300 people, this will not ruin the cause. But if it is able to provoke a massacre, to kill 10-30 thousand workers, this may delay the revolution even for several years...
``The revolution must be allowed to grow to full ripening of the fruit.''~^^1^^
What the Trotskyites have been saying about armed uprising has nothing to do with MarxismLeninism. Nor has it anything to do with the interests of the revolution.
Is it revolutionary to call for nuclear war and to fight against peaceful co-existence? Lately the Trotskyites have been very active in the anti-war youth movement, which is a fairly patchy picture socially, politically and organizationally.
There is a militant, progressive core within the anti-war youth movement which has been pursuing a consistent and diverse struggle against the imperialist policy of aggression, militarism and the arms drive. But that movement also includes young people whose protest boils down to the burning of draft cards, something that is politically useful but does not go beyond the framework of passive resistance.
There are some in the youth movement who breathe fire and brimstone. They believe that in response to imperialist aggression and the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin. Coll. Works, Vol. 42, pp. 354-5.
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---136 81 policy of US ruling circles ``local'' wars should be staged and armed conflicts sparked off in other parts of the world. The most zealous advocates of these views insist that in order to check imperialism the Soviet Union should resort to the threat of using nuclear weapons or even start an atomic war.In other words, paradoxical though it may seem, some in the anti-war youth movement do not advocate peace and international detente, but stepped-up hysteria, a policy of brinkmanship, and reckless rattling of nuclear weapons. Those are the young people the Trotskyites primarily appeal to.
What the emissaries of the "Fourth International" are saying is echoed by the advocates of war, and sometimes their statements are as alike as two drops of wiater.
Maoist groups, for instance, seek to convince the youth not to fear war and refer to the declaration made by the Peking leaders in 1960 and not repudiated or considered erroneous since then despite all their political turns and twists. They claimed that nuclear war was beneficial and that on the wreckage of imperialism the victorious people could rapidly create a civilization a thousand times higher than under the capitalist system and build a truly beautiful future.
The Trotskyites claim they had made such pseudo-theoretical anti-humanistic statements before the Maoists came out with them. The leader of the Latin American Trotskyites, Posadas, said in a Trotskyite journal that the issues the Peking leaders had put forward as " revolutionary conclusions" were simply the conclusions 82 made by the "Fourth International." He quotes, in particular, what he himself said long before Mao Tse-tung, namely, that "A 'communist society' could rapidly be constructed on the wreckage.''~^^1^^ In this regard Posadas declares: "The most destructive of wars will necessarily have the most progressive consequences...''~^^2^^
Posadas's allegation that "the masses are not afraid of nuclear war,"~^^3^^ show that the very substance of Trotskyism is anti-humanistic. It is noteworthy, moreover, that Posadas's followers declare humanism to be a "principle of bourgeois life, a feeling produced by the instinct of self-preservation.''~^^4^^
The Trotskyites and other ultra-- revolutionaries of their kind refuse to reckon with the fact that nuclear war would be a great tragedy for mankind and while it would put an end to imperialism it would greatly harm the cause of communism. It is hard to believe, as the Trotskyites insist, that it would be possible in a short period to create anything harmonious or admirable after a thermonuclear war that would wipe out whole states and nations, and its fatal radioactive effects would poison the lives of many generations. Mankind would be thrown back many decades into the past. Ultimately nuclear war would retard, not accelerate, the establishment of socialism and communism on a world scale.
The destructive nature of thermonuclear _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1963, No. 4, p. 132.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 134.
~^^3^^ Red Flag, June 25, 1969.
~^^4^^ Revista Marxista Latinoamericana, Montevideo, 1968, No. 14, p. 207.
__PRINTERS_P_83_COMMENT__ 26s 83 weapons is not the only reason why MarxismLeninism rejects the Trotskyite idea of bringing about world socialism by means of world war. In contrast to the feudal lords and the bourgeoisie, who established their formation with fire and sword, the working class has never regarded war as the only way to attain socialism. It has always rejected the Trotskyite slogan that "war is the mother of revolution." Socialist ideals are not established by foisting socialism on anyone. They take hold because they are strictly scientific and in keeping with mankind's objective development, because Marxism-Leninism has been profoundly substantiated and proven and has been winning over ever-greater number of people.The Trotskyites insist that only those who are prepared to settle accounts between capitalism and the socialist revolution through a nuclear war are "true revolutionaries''.^^1^^
The Trotskyites cannot have much faith in the revolution if it is based on nothing more than readiness to have a nuclear war. It would seem that all one needs to do to become a revolutionary anywhere, say in some remote country of Latin America, is to voice support for an atomic war. Incidentally, the Trotskyite conception of "revolutionary nuclear war" may have gained some acceptance on that continent among those who labour under the illusion that they can escape the consequences of a thermonuclear Wiar.
A revolutionary in our day is not one who sings the loudest praises of nuclear war. To be a revolutionary one needs to strengthen the might _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1963, No. 4, p. 132.
84 and cohesion of the great socialist community, the main gain of the international working class. To be a revolutionary means to make use of every opportunity to continue to attack the monopolies in the advanced capitalist countries. To be a revolutionary means to fight for the national liberation and social emancipation of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. To be a revolutionary means to help strengthen the interrelationships and the mutual support of the forces of world socialism, the working class movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation and anti-imperialist revolutions in the Third World countries.One must, of course, add that not all presentday Trotskyites openly agree with Posadas on the need for a "preventive nuclear war." Many realize that such open championing of a third world war will not yield any political dividends. But judging by the fact that all present-day Trotskyites fiercely attack the policy of peaceful co-existence between states with differing socfal systems, they share Posadas's ideas, even if they do not always say so in so many words.
The Marxist-Leninist view of peaceful co-- existence is by no means a pacifist advocacy of peace. Rodney Arismendi, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uruguay, put it very well when he said that the "system of socialist states has put a bridle on the imperialist plans and this prevents the imperialists from getting back through the window when they have been thrown out of the door.''~^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ R. Arismendi. Problems of the Latin American Revolution, Moscow, 1964, p. 137.
85What is peaceful co-existence in practice? Among other things it is the failure of the Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression against Egypt in 1956. It is the thwarting of intervention against Syria in 1957, and against Iraq in 1958, It is the frustration of plans by the Israeli militarists and US imperialists to oust the progressive regimes in the Middle East. It is also the all-round assistance to the Vietnamese people in warding off US imperialist aggression.
The Trotskyites are certainly aware of these facts. Nevertheless, they insist that it is "futile, to count on the possibility of peaceful co-- existence developing into state relations, except on the basis of the use of force.''~^^1^^ They believe that the policy of peaceful co-existence is " international class collaboration," and that negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement of outstanding issues are harmful to the revolution.
The unseemly practical action that stems from such an attitude can be seen from the Trotskyite position on the war in Vietnam. They sabotaged political action in support of the Vietnamese people under the pretext of their favourite formula "all or nothing," declaring that the overthrow of the monopolies in the advanced capitalist countries was the only sure way of helping the people of fighting Vietnam.
They have even said that action to display solidarity with the Vietnamese people tends "to wall off the genuine anti-imperialist feeling of thousands of young people from revolutionary politics.''~^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lutte ouvriere, 1971, n° 139, p. 11.
~^^2^^ The Newsletter, January 18, 1969.
86This Trotskyite ``Leftist'' talk helps the cause of reaction and war.
__*_*_*__Such is the ``theoretical'' worth of the revolutionary-sounding Trotskyite slogans.
Summing up the brief analysis of some aspects of activity by present-day Trotskyites and their ideologists, one comes to the following conclusion:
Present-day Trotskyism is a petty-bourgeois Left-extremist trend, which plays on the growing anti-capitalist, revolutionary sentiments of the non-proletarian sections of the working people, mainly the urban intelligentsia and the students; it is the substitution of cosmopolitanism for proletarian internationalism, and from that standpoint denying the possibility of socialist revolutions triumphing in the framework of individual countries; it is lack of faith in the triumph of the revolution and of socialism covered up by calls for world revolution; it is bellicose anti-Leninism seeking to destroy Lenin's doctrine and replace it with Trotsky's views; it is malicious anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism speculating on communist ideas.
__ALPHA_LVL1__ HOW THE TROTSKYITES SPLIT THE RANKSNot having a positive programme that could arouse the enthusiasm of the youth, the Trotskyites have been forced to keep changing the ways 87 and means of ideologically befuddling the youth. In this sphere, Trotskyism has shown itself to be highly ingenious, acting on the principle that the "aim justifies the means.''
The emissaries of the "Fourth International" have tried every means to recruit and to involve young people for no matter how brief a time. They have used the policy of "entryism," that is, secret infiltration of various youth organizations. They have tried the tactic of setting up Trotskyite youth groups as the main means of splitting the youth movement. They have sung the praises of those who rise to the Trotskyite ideological bait. They have resorted to gross falsification of planks in the programmes of youth organizations close to the Communist parties. They have also used half-truths to justify their slanders of the Communists and members of Communist Youth Leagues, whenever they feel that a half-truth is more effective than an outright lie.
The Trotskyites are becoming more diversified as well as more brazen and aggressive in their attempts to undermine the youth.
At one time Trotskyites operated among the youth chiefly by pursuing their policy of " entryism." Trotskyite emissaries infiltrated various mass and other organizations, pretending to support the programmes of these organizations and saying nothing for the time being about their views. ``Entryism'' was said to be the only means of bolstering the positions of the "Fourth International." A decision of their 1963 International Congress said that they "have no choice but to practice `entryism'; that is, to participate as an integrated component in the 88 international life of the mass movement.''~^^1^^ In 1969, this was expressed in clearer terms: "The sections of the 'Fourth International' are as yet too small to lead the masses in their own name and under their own banner in a decisive struggle for power.''~^^2^^
In their efforts to justify such underhanded tactics the Trotskyites insist that revolutionaries have always resorted to illegal methods. It is easy to disprove these statements. After all, the "Fourth International" is employing such underhanded, conspiratorial methods not to eliminate the exploiting system, but to undermine and destroy from inside mass organizations which, in the main, take an anti-imperialist stand. Nor do the Trotskyites keep changing their names to evade government or police persecution. Their reasons have nothing in common with revolutionary struggle.
In accordance with their tactic of "entryism," the Trotskyites seek to infiltrate all kinds of organizations, ranging from political bodies to athletic clubs. A speaker at a congress of the British Trotskyite "Socialist Labour League" declared: "We must work always along the line of mass activities, dances, sports and big public demonstrations,"~^^3^^
The Trotskyites have been especially active in political youth organizations, acting in whatever fashion is needed to engage in splitting tactics, so as to induce some members to turn to the Trotskyites, the "true revolutionaries.''
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Socialist Review, 1963, No. 4, p. 129.
~^^2^^ Ibid., 1969, No. 4, p. 69.
~^^3^^ The Newsletter, June 18, 1968,
__PRINTERS_P_89_COMMENT__ 7-138 89Thus, for a long time, the Trotskyites worked in the National Students' Union of France. Having gradually surrounded themselves with followers and "sympathizers," they tried in April 1970 to get into the leadership with a barrage of ultra-Leftist slogans. However, they were given a fitting rebuff by the Union's Congress held at the time.
The Trotskyites' subversive activity in the Canadian Union of Students, to which the students of most large university towns belong, had more unpleasant consequences. Allied with other ultra-Leftist groups, notably, the Maoists and the anarchists, the Trotskyites tried to foist an adventurist policy on the Union which gave the reactionary forces a pretext to hit out at it.
Intrigues by the Trotskyites and other `` Leftists'' were one of the reasons why the West German "Socialist Students' Union" broke up in 1971. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Paris Secretariat of the "Fourth International" tried hard to put across adventurist propositions in the FRG student movement. Secretariat representatives were smuggled into the Union, messages of greetings were sent to student conferences and Trotskyite propaganda material was widely circulated. The Union was rent by contradictions and eventually broke up. At the same time, the Trotskyites tried to get together their own "sponsoring committee to set up a revolutionary organization" in West Berlin, which also included the Maoists and various other anarchist-minded "Leftists.''~^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin ilber Trotzki. Eingeleitet von J. Schleifstein und J. Heiseler, Frankfurt Am Main, 1970, S. 31.
90The Trotskyites have also been trying to step up their activity in the anti-war youth movement, under the pretext of ultra-Leftist slogans and ``concern'' for ``radicalizing'' the struggle for peace and bringing about a "turn towards a revolutionary alternative.''
The "Fourth International" insists that there is need to bring to the fore the task of "seizing power" and "immediately overthrowing capitalism." Such calls are objectively designed to break up the peace movement and to discourage its numerous supporters who, while fighting to avert nuclear war, do not believe there is any need to overthrow capitalism. Here and there, the Trotskyites have tried to confine the peace movement to demands for a policy of confrontation with governments and the police.
The Trotskyites have used every channel to impose their views on young people, infiltrating international meetings of young peace supporters, student forums held in various capitalist countries and anti-war youth organizations.
At the 1962 Youth Festival in Helsinki, the Trotskyites circulated handbills and pamphlets among the young people that were mainly, as they put it, "to explain that there can be no peace in the world except in the event of final victory of socialism in the leading capitalist countries---the USA and Great Britain"---which makes it necessary "to fight for world revolution as the only solution for the peace problem." Many delegates tore up the material without reading it. However, while admitting this was so, the leaders of the "Fourth International" oriented 91 their sections to circulating such handbills and pamphlets in the future as well.^^1^^
The Trotskyites also spread capitulationist views (behind their traditional "all or nothing" formula) at the 1968 Youth Festival in Sofia, but they were given a fitting a rebuff by the young people who saw through the Trotskyite statements and slogans.
The "Fourth International" adherents have also been weaving their web of intrigue in some national anti-war youth associations.
In the USA they managed to infiltrate the Student Mobilization Committee, one of the biggest youth organizations fighting against the US aggression in Vietnam and the recruitment of students for the "dirty war." Together with other ``Leftists''---the Maoists and the anarchists--- the Trotskyites have been trying to split this organization into a number of differently oriented groupings. As a result for some time now this organization has been less active since much time and effort is spent on settling internal dissention.
The Trotskyites have made it a principle to pursue splitting activities. In the USA, for instance, they demand that special black, Mexican and other ``strike'' forces be set up to operate as independent groups within the peace movement.
In Japan, the Trotskyites have tried to get the ``Zengakuren'' student organization to accept its insidious attitude to the questions of war and peace. Playing on the fact that many students were disposed towards the use of "violent mass _-_-_
^^1^^ Quatrieme Internationale, 1962, n° 17, p. 39.
92 action" in the movement against US domination of Japan, the Trotskyites accused the leadership of the student organization of pacifism, reformism and of abandoning revolutionary methods in the struggle. As a result, they managed to get a section of the young people to break away and set up a separate Trotskyite group, thereby weakening "Zengakuren.''One of the main trends in Trotskyite subversive activity is the attempts to split up Communist youth organizations. The "Fourth International" is infuriated because more and more young people have been won over by Communist ideas. An all-out effort has been made to impede the growing influence of the Communist parties.
The Trotskyites' main aim is to win over as many young men and women as they can from these organizations and to involve them in Trotskyite activity. For many years they have sought to do so in France and Britain. And their ultrarevolutionary catchwords have induced a few score of students to withdraw from some progressive youth organizations. But, of course, the harm was done not to the organizations but to the young people themselves.
The Trotskyites are never idle during the congresses, conferences and meetings held by Communist youth organizations. It is a busy time for them standing near entrances to the premises trying to hand out anti-Communist leaflets and other propaganda material. They call out various slogans trying to get the young people to question the way of political struggle they have chosen. They will go to any lengths to establish personal contacts with individual members of 93 youth organizations, brief though they may be.
``Fourth International" groups try their best to prevent the establishment of new Communist youth organizations. In February 1970, the Trotskyite Young Socialist Alliance tried to break up the Congress of the Young Workers' Liberation League in the USA. At the time the Trotskyites put out an "open letter" attacking the Communist parties and the socialist countries.
The Trotskyite Young Socialist Guard also sought to alienate young Communists from the Party at the national conference of young Communists in Belgium in March 1970. The propaganda circulated among young people falsely asserted that revolutions are won and progress made in socialist construction without direct Communist party guidance.
Anyone following Trotskyite activity in the youth movement is bound to feel their main purpose is to spread mistrust and hatred for the Communist parties and the youth organizations associated with them. A Trotskyite paper published in France, following a few platitudes about the need to fight imperialism, calls for action above all against the Communist party, which it claims is the main obstacle to this struggle.~^^1^^ In some instances, the Trotskyites have even organized the beating up of young Communists. In the course of election campaigns the Trotskyites invariably attack progressive candidates in many countries on the ground that these men "do not reject the entire capitalist system.''
The Trotskyites intolerance and an almost pathological hatred for everyone who does not _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Jeune Revolutionnaire, raai 30, 1970.
94 share their views goes hand in hand with demagogic and provocative assertions about their readiness to work with various Left-radical organizations. In the late 1960s, and early 1970s, the Trotskyites have assiduously been trying to play the part of ``well-wishers'' of these organizations.Exposing the true meaning of the Trotskyite statements, the theoretical organ of the Communist Party of the USA correctly stressed: "when they speak of 'unity,' with such organizations, what they have in mind is to penetrate, disrupt and destroy them.''~^^1^^
Indeed, the same thing happens in any Leftradical organizations where the Trotskyites rear their heads. In large, mass-scale organizations, emissaries from the "Fourth International" get small groups of their followers to initially operate as ``factions'' and "opposition." Then the ``opposition'' either withdraws from these organizations or is expelled for splitting and subversive activity.
In small organizations the Trotskyites seek to win over a majority of the members and impose their own programme. When these moves succeed, they set themselves the aim of ousting all the young people who do not agree with them and are indignant over their behaviour. In such instances, the Trotskyites attempt to get exclusive control over such organizations. What usually happens is that such organizations, which were weak in the first place, finally fold up.
In their subversive activity within the Left-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ Political Affairs, 1969, Nos. 9-10, p. 52.
95 radical youth movement, the Trotskyites frequently come out with slogans borrowed from others. On several occasions (in France and the USA) they suddenly declared they favoured a political settlement of the Vietnam problem, although this runs counter to their platform. The Trotskyites did so to avoid scaring off the young people with their unbridled, adventurist maximalism, and to gradually prepare them to switch over to positions close to those of the Trotskyites.In short, the Trotskyites use various tricks and dodges to split the ranks of the youth in order to create favourable conditions for bolstering their own positions. Their narrowly egoistical, self-seeking interests are quite apparent in the propaganda campaign they have launched to establish a Trotskyite youth international.
__ALPHA_LVL1__ WHAT IS BEHIND THE TALK ABOUT AThe Trotskyites have managed one way and another to get together youth groups in several countries including Britain, France, the FRG, Belgium, the USA, Canada, Japan and in some Latin American countries. Of late they have started a propaganda campaign in some countries urging that preparations be made for establishing a Trotskyite "Youth International." The magazines and newspapers put out by "Fourth International" groupings keep insisting that the time has come for such a step. While some question how feasible it is, the Trotskyites have been stepping up their activity to put across the idea with the Paris Secretariat of the "Fourth 96 International" and an outfit calling itself "For the Reorganization of the Fourth International" being the most insistent.
In November 1970, the Paris Secretariat held an international meeting in Brussels which was attended, if we are to believe its periodicals, by almost 3,000 persons, mostly under 30. The meeting was prepared by the French "Communist League" and the Belgian "Young Socialist Fighters" organization. Krivine, who heads the " Communist League," urged that there be a " consistent merger of the old Trotskyite cadres with the new generation" thus clearly aspiring for leadership of the proposed international Trotskyite youth alliance.
Another active group is the French "Alliance of the Young for Socialism" (Alliance des Jeunes pour le Socialisme) which is part of the organization "For the Reorganization of the Fourth International." In May 1970, the ``Alliance'' declared at its congress that it was out to establish a " revolutionary Trotskyite youth international." It sent its activists to a number of the West European countries to establish contacts with similar Trotskyite organizations.
In 1971, these contacts were considerably extended. On May 17, the ``Alliance'' organized what it claimed to be a 40,000-strong demonstration to mark the centenary of the Paris Commune (the police put the number of demonstrators at 10,000). Representatives of Trotskyite and other Left-extremist youth organizations came to Paris from Britain, the FRG, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and other countries.
The ``Alliance'' was active in the conference held in Essen, in the FRG, on July 3 and 4, 1971. 97 They claim that it was attended by 5,000 young men and women, including 4,000 from France, and also by representatives of youth groups from a number of other West European countries, the USA and Latin America.^^1^^
The Essen conference set up a "liaison committee," or a "co-ordination committee," to prepare for the establishment of a Trotskyite youth international.~^^2^^ Since then the Committee has met twice: in November 1971 and in January 1972.
Other Trotskyite groups of the "Fourth International"---the London "International Committee" and the Latin American ``Secretariat''--- have been keeping close tab on what their rivals are up to, declaring they will also take steps to establish their own "youth international.''
International Trotskyism has set itself at least three aims in seeking to set up a "youth international.''
First, the Trotskyites hope to get more of a hold on the young people who have succumbed to their propaganda. They hope to get the International's centre, which would be based on larger groups, to influence the smaller Trotskyite youth groups to step up their activity. In the long run this amounts to an ideological subversive campaign against the unity of the anti-imperialist youth movement. The idea is that the establishment of Trotskyite groups as an independent international structure would strengthen the positions of international Trotskyism and increase the number of its followers.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Informations oumieres, juillet 7-15, 1971.
~^^2^^ See Ibid., aout 4, 1971.
98Second, the Trotskyites hope that, if successful, they would have more opportunity of infiltrating the working class. The idea of the youth international is a means of implementing the Trotskyite proposition: "Through the young people to the workers." Germain has posed the task as follows: to attract the vanguard of the young people and then penetrate the working class.
Third, the Trotskyites expect to bolster the positions of international Trotskyism in its fight against the Communist parties and the socialist countries. They have made no secret of the fact that their ``International'' is mainly to be an outfit that is hostile to the international Communist movement, to the Soviet Union and to the whole socialist camp.
Analysis of the theory and practice of Trotskyism and of its policies with respect to the young prompts the following conclusions:
Trotskyism is against strengthening the positions of the revolutionary-minded students. The objective consequences of all Trotskyite activity among the youth is the loss of their allies and isolation from the proletariat, the most revolutionary class. Everything the Trotskyites have been doing to separate the student movement from other contingents of the great anti-- imperialist army, to foster splitting tendencies in the movement and promote internal strife, weakens the youth movement and isolates it from the principal sectors of the class struggle.
Trotskyism is against any real movement among the young to the Left. While voicing Leftist, pseudo-revolutionary catchwords the Trotskyites have been trying to get the student 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1973/WATL101/20110403/101.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2011.04.03) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ movement to take extreme Rightist positions. Alongside efforts to spread mistrust of the working class, they have been inciting the students to fight the Communist parties, the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat, and the socialist countries, the bulwark of the international revolutionary movement, instead of directing their fire against imperialism. The Trotskyites have been working hard to get the young men and women to swallow their ultra-revolutionary bait, to take their place alongside those who dish out aritiCommunist propaganda in the imperialist camp, the extreme Right-wing leaders and ideologists of social-reformism.
Trotskyism is out to discredit the very idea of revolution in the eyes of the young. While remaining on the sidelines of class battles the Trotskyites keep flinging dirt on revolutions of the past. They question any successes scored in the anti-imperialist struggle today. At the same time, with a few meaningless slogans, they seek to convince the youth that revolutions in separate countries have no prospect. When they do talk of revolution, it is not action by the masses, but something like "revolutionary gymnastics" by men who are steeped in sectarianism and have lost their revolutionary orientation. The Trotskyites have very little understanding of the revolutions of the past and the ways of revolutio nary development in the present and in the future.
Trotskyism means indifference to the vital interests of the youth. It is much too self-centred and egoistic to display interest in anything except strengthening its own positions by any means. Its present attention to the youth will 100 apparently continue until the young people turn away from it. Policy-making documents issued by Trotskyites of late show that it is alien to the needs and interests of the young people and is hardly aware of what they are. Just as it denies the need to struggle to secure the proletariat's general democratic demands, it takes the same attitude to the vital needs of the students of the capitalist countries. Acting on their traditional "all or nothing" formula, the Trotskyites promise the young people to solve their problems "at one go" some time in the distant future. Meanwhile, they have no intention whatsoever of complying with the young people's desire to have their demands taken into account in a programme of current revolutionary action.
Trotskyism corrupts the healthy young people who fall for its propaganda. In the post-war pe riod hundreds and perhaps thousands of young people have joined Trotskyite organizations in various capitalist countries, but at any given moment the membership has never been more than a small fraction of all who have come and gone, disillusioned and heartsick. Many have rejected Trotskyism only to become totally indifferent to politics. Is it possible to gauge the harm done by Trotskyism?
Probably some of the ones who became apathetic were very vigorous, resourceful young people who might have made a great contribution to political struggle. Thus, Trotskyism has done a great deal of harm to the revolutionary struggle and to the efforts to extend and deepen its social basis.
Are the young people aware of all these negative aspects of Trotskyism? Unfortunately, not 101 always or everywhere. For the time being, various "Fourth International" groupings manage to benefit from the lack of experience and knowledge among the youth.
But of late, more and more young people have been seeing through Trotskyite schemes. As the young people become more politically aware and ideologically mature, they have been more adamantly rejecting the plot of the Trotskyites and other pseudo-revolutionaries of that kind.
In the 1970s, many young people who had broken away from the "Fourth International" found their way to those who are truly fighting against imperialism, instead of opting out of politics altogether as many had done in the past. These young people join the Communists or the Communist youth organizations. Thousands of young men and women have become disillusioned with the ``Leftists'' and have joined the Communists.
The young people want nothing to do with Trotskyism. With time more and more young people will break away from the "Fourth International." The more actively is Trotskyism exposed as the handmaiden of imperialist reaction and the enemy of socialism, peace and democracy the sooner this will happen.
[102] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]M. BacManoB
TPOUKHCTbl TOJIKAK3T MOJlO.HEJKfa? Ha amJiu&CKOM x3biK.e Uena 25 KOH.
[103]