Arne Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From The Militant, Vol. VI No. 43, 16 September 1933, pp. 1 & 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The international conference of Left Socialist parties and independent Communist organizations, held in Paris, August 27–8, adjourned without being able to define a future common course. That was to be expected. The reason for it is the wide divergence of views represented, ranging from an international Communist position to that of outright reformism. Hence the main resolution adopted speaks vaguely of retrieving the international unity of the working class on a revolutionary Socialist basis. Nevertheless distinct progress can be recorded from this conference by virtue of the fact that the beginnings of a firm international revolutionary kernel emerged. Three important groups, the Revolutionary Socialist Party of Holland, the S.A.P. of Germany and the Independent Socialist Party of Holland definitely committed themselves to the position taken by the International Left Opposition.
Represented in the conference were the following parties and groups: (1) the Independent Labor Party of England; (2) the Socialist Labor Party of Germany (S.A.P.) (3) the Revolutionary Socialist Party of Holland; (4) the Independent Socialist Party of Holland; (5) the Swedish Communist Party (Kilbom Brandlerites); (6) the Norwegian Labor Party; (7) the Italian Maximalists; (8) the Spanish Communist Federation (Workers and Peasants Bloc); the Independent Polish Socialist Party (represented by proxy by a member of the I.L.P. Delegation); (10) the Party of Proletarian Unity of France; (11) the Independent Roumanian Socialist Party; (12) a representative of the Left wing of the Russian Socialist Revolutionists; (13) the Leninbund, Germany; (14) the International Left Opposition. Participating as observers in the conference were also an American Socialist and two delegates of the French “Socialist Action”.
During the general discussion the conference revealed three distinct tendencies. The first tendency was represented by the International Left Opposition expressed in its declaration submitted. That contained our analysis of the defeat in Germany, recorded the bankruptcy of the Second and Third Internationals and proposed an orientation for new national parties and a new International. As already mentioned the representatives of the Revolutionary Socialist Party of Holland, the S.A.P. of Germany and the Independent Socialist Party of Holland adhered to and signed this declaration.
On the opposite side were the delegates from the Party of Proletarian Unity of France and the Norwegian Labor Party. They took the position that the strength of the proletariat will be realized through the unity of the organizations. By that they meant the unity of Communist and Social Democratic organizations. In support of this tendency were the representatives of the Roumanian party, of the Left Social Revolutionists and of the Maximalists, the latter, however, declaring themselves against unification of the two Internationals.
In between these two tendencies the British I.L.P. found a position. While its representatives criticized both internationals they expressed hope in possibilities for the reform of the Comintern. Somewhat similar was the attitude of the Swedish Kilbom party which found itself in agreement with the I. L. P. criticism but has not yet defined its further course. It should be noted that by its participation in the conference the Kilbom party broke the discipline of the Brandler organization of which it is still a part.
It was quite inevitable that groups of such divergent views could not find their way to a common orientation and a common course of action. Before that can be hammered out further clarification is necessary. And with that there is also likely to be further differentiations, those who remain adherents of the reformist views going their own way, while the revolutionists pursue their course toward the restoration of the International. However, due to the confusion still existing and expressed’ at the conference, the resolution adopted by the majority, inexact and vague in the most important points of view, failed to pose the orientation of the new International. Where it speaks in the general abstract manner of retrieving the international unity of the workiug class, that will have as many and as distinct different interpretations as their were tendencies represented. Some of the delegates undoubtedly supported the resolution because it postponed the new regrouping of revolutionary force outside the two internationals, others because they did not yet consider it necessary to create a new International and finally there were those who interpret the failure of the two Internationals as proof of the necessity of unification of all workers organizations on the basis of concrete demands and without regard to divergent principles.
Summed up this conference nevertheless presents to us a picture of the travail and the birth pangs of a movement. We recall the time of the rise of the Bolshevik revolution and the collapse of Social Democracy how important sections and groups within it were struggling to find their way to Communism and in most cases not without difficulties. Again this process is repeated, but, as it appears, at an accelerated tempo. The lessons of Germany are sinking in deeply among several of these present groups and parties developing Leftward toward international Communism. This general development is the fact of monumental importance standing out above all difficulties and all the confusion still apparent.
The decadence and betrayal of Social Democracy became the compelling force driving many of these parties in a Leftward direction. Such new groups will still emerge. But the Stalinist control of the Comintern instead of facilitating has hindered this process, and that in a large measure accounts for the confusion still existing amongst them. In their further developments those parties will therefore find themselves ever more faced with the task of smashing the Stalinist barriers.
Before this conference the Left Opposition affirmed its break with Stalinist Centrism and its greater irreconcilability than before towards reformism. That position will in the coming period stand out the more impressively and win its way within the parties groping for an international revolutionary orientation. The firm kernel which has already emerged augurs well for the future.
Arne Swabeck Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 25 October 2015