Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive copy of his classic 1934pamphlet "A Program Of Action For France". Some of it reads like it was written today, or could have been.
BOOK REVIEW
THE CRISIS IN THE FRENCH SECTION (1935-1936), LEON TROTSKY, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1977
At first blush one would not think that a book about the trials and tribulations of creating a revolutionary workers party along Trotskyist lines in France in the mid-1930’s , other than being of some small historical interest, would be relevant to today’s militants as they fight to build their revolutionary workers parties. And this reviewer will admit, unlike other books he has reviewed, that it may be a strecth here. But, not much. Hear me out.
Aside from the obvious difference in the times, immediate tasks and the milieu worked in there are some lessons to be learned from the experiences of the disheveled French Trotskyist movement of that time. At that time there were two large mass working class parties-the Socialist and Communist Parties. Additionally, the writer of the book under review, exiled Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, whose authority among leftist anti-Stalinist elements was strong and whose moral authority was well recognized actually resided in France for much of this period and therefore could directly intervene in the struggle even if, of necessity, surruptiously. Nevertheless the task that Trotsky’s followers faced in transforming themselves from a ‘circle’ mentality of small propaganda groups to the creation of a small mass party which could challenge the authority of the Stalinists and Social Democrats is analogous to the type of task we face today.
Despite Trotsky’s great authority as a man who had actually led a revolution and defended that revolution through the creation of a Red Army among leftist anti-Stalinists, or maybe because of it, he had many problems trying to coalesce a cadre who could form the nucleus of a new international and new national revolutionary communist parties after the Nazi takeover in Germany in 1933 had forced him to a change of strategy toward the Stalinist organizations. This was particularly true in France where, despite a long and heroic tradition of revolutionary struggle, the leftist elements were in disarray and feuding over personal and petty differences. In short, this is an early example of the infamous “star” system of leadership that has plagued the France left to this day. And not only the French left as the American New Left of the 1960's amply demonstrated.
The notion that Trotsky tried tirelessly to pound home about the virtues and necessity of an authoritative collective leadership in a national section was then, as now, almost inconceivable to those headstrong militants. Nevertheless, Trotsky was forced to try to work with the cadre material at hand. Lenin was the consummate master of this skill. Trotsky, despite his many other talents, never reached Lenin’s level of skill on the party organization question. To our sorrow. Moreover, the 1930’s were a time of tremendous defeats and a downward curve in the revolutionary process. Despite these problems, as the book painfully details, Trotsky patiently tried to construct such an organization. And those eventually futile efforts, which I will leave for the reader to consider, form the bulk of the book.
There is, however, one political issue that stands out during this period which because it is operative for today’s militants I wish to note. That is the question of the entry of the French Trotskyists into the Socialist Party in order to gain influence and enlarge the organization. In the history of the Trotskyist movement this has been called appropriately the “French turn”. There are various ways to create a revolutionary organization- by splits of other organizations through the united front tactic, entries in larger left-moving organizations to break off a militant section and regroupment of separate organizations which are politically similar. I have criticized Trotsky’s tactic, which was taken up by virtually all sections of the International Left Opposition, for the American party-the Socialist Workers Party. I have argued elsewhere that, given the circumstances of the time, the type of recruit that came from the American Socialist Party and the troubles it caused to the organization later when the integrity of the organization was on the line that the proper tactic to intersect the left-ward anti-Stalinist movement of a section of the American working was with that of the “united front”.
This "united front" tactic may have been more appropriate in the small American milieu. Not so for the French" party. Under the circumstances of a rapid leftward movement of the French working class an entry policy made sense. In fact, it would have been unconscionable not to try it. The trouble, as always with new turns, was a debilitating fight in the organizations over opposition to this tactic. And in one of the small ironies of history when the entry maneuver had been tried and then had finally run its course those who had initially opposed entry did not want to leave the ‘comfy’ confines of the Socialist Party. Thus, the reader should pay careful attention to the arguments over this issue and the more substantial issue of how to create a revolutionary organization by a process of regroupment with other left-wing forces that are approaching political agreement. That, dear readers, is the one of the tasks before us today.
BOOK REVIEW
THE CRISIS IN THE FRENCH SECTION (1935-1936), LEON TROTSKY, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1977
At first blush one would not think that a book about the trials and tribulations of creating a revolutionary workers party along Trotskyist lines in France in the mid-1930’s , other than being of some small historical interest, would be relevant to today’s militants as they fight to build their revolutionary workers parties. And this reviewer will admit, unlike other books he has reviewed, that it may be a strecth here. But, not much. Hear me out.
Aside from the obvious difference in the times, immediate tasks and the milieu worked in there are some lessons to be learned from the experiences of the disheveled French Trotskyist movement of that time. At that time there were two large mass working class parties-the Socialist and Communist Parties. Additionally, the writer of the book under review, exiled Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, whose authority among leftist anti-Stalinist elements was strong and whose moral authority was well recognized actually resided in France for much of this period and therefore could directly intervene in the struggle even if, of necessity, surruptiously. Nevertheless the task that Trotsky’s followers faced in transforming themselves from a ‘circle’ mentality of small propaganda groups to the creation of a small mass party which could challenge the authority of the Stalinists and Social Democrats is analogous to the type of task we face today.
Despite Trotsky’s great authority as a man who had actually led a revolution and defended that revolution through the creation of a Red Army among leftist anti-Stalinists, or maybe because of it, he had many problems trying to coalesce a cadre who could form the nucleus of a new international and new national revolutionary communist parties after the Nazi takeover in Germany in 1933 had forced him to a change of strategy toward the Stalinist organizations. This was particularly true in France where, despite a long and heroic tradition of revolutionary struggle, the leftist elements were in disarray and feuding over personal and petty differences. In short, this is an early example of the infamous “star” system of leadership that has plagued the France left to this day. And not only the French left as the American New Left of the 1960's amply demonstrated.
The notion that Trotsky tried tirelessly to pound home about the virtues and necessity of an authoritative collective leadership in a national section was then, as now, almost inconceivable to those headstrong militants. Nevertheless, Trotsky was forced to try to work with the cadre material at hand. Lenin was the consummate master of this skill. Trotsky, despite his many other talents, never reached Lenin’s level of skill on the party organization question. To our sorrow. Moreover, the 1930’s were a time of tremendous defeats and a downward curve in the revolutionary process. Despite these problems, as the book painfully details, Trotsky patiently tried to construct such an organization. And those eventually futile efforts, which I will leave for the reader to consider, form the bulk of the book.
There is, however, one political issue that stands out during this period which because it is operative for today’s militants I wish to note. That is the question of the entry of the French Trotskyists into the Socialist Party in order to gain influence and enlarge the organization. In the history of the Trotskyist movement this has been called appropriately the “French turn”. There are various ways to create a revolutionary organization- by splits of other organizations through the united front tactic, entries in larger left-moving organizations to break off a militant section and regroupment of separate organizations which are politically similar. I have criticized Trotsky’s tactic, which was taken up by virtually all sections of the International Left Opposition, for the American party-the Socialist Workers Party. I have argued elsewhere that, given the circumstances of the time, the type of recruit that came from the American Socialist Party and the troubles it caused to the organization later when the integrity of the organization was on the line that the proper tactic to intersect the left-ward anti-Stalinist movement of a section of the American working was with that of the “united front”.
This "united front" tactic may have been more appropriate in the small American milieu. Not so for the French" party. Under the circumstances of a rapid leftward movement of the French working class an entry policy made sense. In fact, it would have been unconscionable not to try it. The trouble, as always with new turns, was a debilitating fight in the organizations over opposition to this tactic. And in one of the small ironies of history when the entry maneuver had been tried and then had finally run its course those who had initially opposed entry did not want to leave the ‘comfy’ confines of the Socialist Party. Thus, the reader should pay careful attention to the arguments over this issue and the more substantial issue of how to create a revolutionary organization by a process of regroupment with other left-wing forces that are approaching political agreement. That, dear readers, is the one of the tasks before us today.
No comments:
Post a Comment