MIA > Archive > ETOL > Trotskyist Writers > Rosmer
From The New International, Vol. XVII No. 5, September–October 1951, pp. 250 & 282–283.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
|
Readers of Labor Action have already read the text of the letter by Natalia Sedova Trotsky, widow of Leon Trotsky, in which she makes public her complete break with the Fourth International and the Socialist Workers Party, and the political reasons for the break. Her declaration has been published in a number of countries. In France, the full text was printed in the latest issue of la Révolution Prolétarienne, the review of the French syndicalists. Appended to that text was a commentary by Alfred Rosmer. Comrade Rosmer, as many of our readers know, was one of the principal founders of the Communist International in France and for years a member of its Executive Committee. One of the first French communists to support the Russian Opposition from the very beginning, Rosmer was at all times associated with the Trotskyist movement and presided over its first international conference in Europe. His commentary on Comrade Trotsky’s declaration is therefore of more than ordinary interest. It is reproduced here in full. – Ed. |
The break which this letter [by Natalia Trotsky] makes public is an important fact: it will mark a date in the history of the Left Opposition formed within the Russian Communist Party back in 1923, when Lenin was definitively removed from political life by illness, and thereby in the development of the communist movement which arose out of the October Revolution. An authoritative voice declares that those who consider themselves the faithful disciples of Trotsky and who are now in the leadership of the Fourth International, have lost all rights to speak in his name. On more than one occasion, every time that she saw them take a step in the calamitous road on which they had started, Natalia Trotsky endeavored to bring them back to the correct conceptions of the Opposition. In vain. Then, when their “Trotskyism” finally assumed the aspect of a deformation of communism, unsupportable in certain respects, the disavowal became mandatory. Marx once found himself in a similar situation, when, no longer recognizing himself in the “Marxism” of Hyndman, he exclaimed: “If that is Marxism, I am [not a Marxist.]” [1]
The American Trotskyists had some reason to consider themselves the continuators and the qualified representatives of Trotsky. When he found refuge in Mexico, he was in close contact with them, and in the discussions which led to the splitting of their party in the winter of 1939–1940, Trotsky was on their side. That brought them an exceptional influence among the groupings of the Fourth International. Their sincerity and their devotion could not be questioned. Their essential error comes from their belief that the best way of remaining faithful to the teachings of Trotsky was to stick blindly to the position of 1940: “Russia is a proletarian state; the defense of the U.S.S.R. remains in the program of the opposition.” The upsets which shook up the world left them unmoved, for Stalin’s armies were carrying the revolution with them. On all the fundamental questions, their positions were – and are – always the Stalinist positions; sometimes they are even more royalist than the king, more Stalinist than Stalin. Having remained frozen to the theses of 1940 prevents them from understanding that Russia is no longer anything but a Great military and militaristic Power, which carries out nothing but the traditional policy of the Great Powers, placing on it its own stamp only by virtue of the bestiality of a totalitarian regime with the blessing of the Metropolitans.
1. In the printed edition the words in square brackets were omitted. See Correction, The New International, Vol. XVII No. 6, November–December 1951, p. 314.