Issuing body: International Secretariat / International Left Opposition (Bolshevik-Leninists)
THE PLENUM OF THE INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION (19–21 AUGUST 1933)
Presentation
On the 19th, 20th and 21st of August a session of the Plenum was held — the leading body of our international organisation, made up of representatives of the six principal European sections.
On the agenda of this assembly were important questions, first and foremost that of our relations with the Communist International and its national sections. The previous Plenum, held in May, had come out for the orientation, in Germany, toward a new party, but had not changed our traditional fundamental position as a faction of the Communist International. The development of events was going to place all our sections before the same problem — that of the new party — after it had already arisen for our German section. In the course of recent weeks, in various sections, the question of the break with the Third International had been raised; the International Secretariat decided to convene a Plenum to debate it, various theses and documents being already under discussion in the sections of the Left Opposition.
A lengthy discussion took place at the Plenum on the proposed change of orientation — not so much, moreover, on its necessity as on the consequences it would entail, the means and paths of its realisation, and above all the precise definition of the new orientation.
Was a new orientation necessary? Each of the delegates underlined this by pointing to recent facts. Through simple government prohibition: the disappearance of the Austrian CP, without provoking the slightest reaction; the elimination of the Bulgarian CP's parliamentary and municipal representation, carried out amid complete passivity; and by noting that the resolutions of the CI and of the German Central Committee confirming the "correctness" of the line that had led to defeat had not aroused any current of opposition within the sections of the CI. All this testified to the profound rupture with the masses, to the complete and irremediable degeneration of the CI and its sections, where the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy, and not those of the proletariat, dictated the policy to be followed. In order to give concrete expression to this turn, the Plenum decided to change the name of our international organisation, which is henceforth to be called: the International Communist League (Bolshevik-Leninists).
Whatever doubts or uncertainties as to the new orientation may have been voiced in some sections, for lack of material with which to judge the state of the various parties of the Communist International, were not even raised at the Plenum. The only question that gave rise to any difficulties concerned the Soviet Union. What should be the attitude of the Russian Bolshevik-Leninists after their break with the party bureaucratised by the Stalinist faction? The discussion arrived at the following points:
the Soviet state is, by its origins and by the dominant character of property relations, a proletarian state; this state is in the process of degeneration; the policy of its bureaucratic government facilitates the work of Thermidorian elements and weakens the position of the Soviet Union in the face of the capitalist world. Hence one of the essential tasks of the new International and of the new parties is the defence of the USSR, which the Stalinist parties are as incapable of ensuring as they are of barring the road to fascism. The task of the new party to be built in the USSR is to halt the development of the Thermidorian forces and to reform the Soviet state so as to bring it back to its original foundations. On this Russian question, however, the Plenum did not consider the matter to have been exhausted.
On what basis should a new International, new parties, be created? In other words, what kind of International, what kind of parties should be built? In recent months, since the German catastrophe, one can perceive among those who lay claim to the revolutionary movement certain revisionist tendencies with regard to the principles on which the Third International was founded by Lenin and Trotsky. For some, the basis of the future regroupment of the labour movement ought to be broadened; for others, there is supposedly something false at the very foundation of Bolshevism itself, and so on. The leadership of the international faction of the Bolshevik-Leninists therefore had to state its position clearly on this point. We had fought for years to bring the CI back onto the basis of its original principles; we did not succeed in preventing the degeneration of that organisation from running its full course; it remains for us, therefore, to work for the creation of a new international organisation on the basis of the principles that led to the victory of October — those of Marx and of Lenin. Concretely, this was expressed as follows: on the basis of the work of the first four congresses of the CI, enriched by the experience of the Left Opposition — an experience given concrete form in the 11 points adopted by it at its pre-conference of February 1933!
On this subject, the Plenum decided to amend point 10, whose wording had corresponded to our policy as a faction working for the reform of the CI — "Distinction, within the field of present-day communism, of three groupings: Marxist, centrist and right-wing..." — a text that corresponded to our struggle within the Communist International to overcome the right-wing and centrist currents. At present, we are working for a regroupment, within a new International, of scattered revolutionary elements who can be won over on the communist basis defined above. The new wording proposed for ratification by the sections is as follows:
"Struggle for the regroupment of the revolutionary forces of the world working class under the banner of internationalist communism. Recognition of the necessity of creating a genuine communist international capable of applying the principles enumerated above."
How is this regroupment to be carried out? By what paths? What are the elements capable of being regrouped? There remain, of course, a good many honest revolutionary elements within the ranks of the parties of the CI, or under their influence. We in no way abandon the intention of winning them to true communist principles; but instead of inviting them to fight alongside us to bring about a change of course in their own party, we shall call on them to fight alongside us to build the true communist party which, by fulfilling the tasks of a party, will clear the political scene of the Stalinist organisations.
Another of the fields of activity of our faction, with a view to working toward this regroupment, is constituted by those left socialist organisations which have abandoned the Second International and are moving toward communism, or are in the process of undergoing a similar process. Our press has already dealt with this question. At the Plenum, the question was discussed concretely in connection with an international conference of these organisations, convened in Paris for the 27th and 28th of August by the Independent Labour Party. Should we attend, and if so, what should our position there be?
Given the change of orientation that had been decided, our participation in such a conference could not fail to be decided upon. It was to be, for us, a first step on the road to the creation of the Fourth International. And the Plenum decided to set out our position in a declaration to the congress, marking the bankruptcy of the two Internationals, the necessity of creating a new one, its foundations, and its essential tasks.
As regards the tactics to be followed at this conference, the Plenum decided that, above all, our delegation should set out the content of our declaration; that, secondly, it should seek to obtain a clear demarcation between those groupings orienting themselves, or capable of orienting themselves, toward the new International, and those groupings absolutely incapable of doing so — either because they gravitate around the Second International, like the Norwegian Labour Party (NAP), or because they have only dubious relations with the labour movement, like the Proletarian Unity Party (PUP).
The discussion also turned to the struggle to be waged against fascism. On the subject of the boycott, the Plenum, taking realities into account, decided to denounce the phraseology of the reformists, which aims to subordinate each proletariat to its own national bourgeoisie in the name of the struggle against fascism; the Plenum came out, on the contrary, in favour of directing agitation against fascism and its terror so that, in given circumstances, it should culminate in powerful demonstrations such as an anti-Hitler week, a boycott for a fixed period, and so on. To this end, the Plenum decided to send a letter to the presidiums of the CI, the RILU [Red International of Labour Unions], the LSI [Labour and Socialist International] (which was holding its congress at that very moment), and the IFTU [International Federation of Trade Unions] — a letter which we publish in this same issue. Naturally, we shall not confine ourselves to an appeal to the leaderships, but shall bring the question before all the organisations.
Finally, the Plenum also dealt with organisational questions concerning our faction. It noted that, in the face of our tasks, we do not have sufficient political and material forces at our disposal to fulfil them. It considered various measures, and, in particular, a strengthening of our international body so that it might guide and drive forward our sections along the new path on which they are embarking.
La Vérité, no. 171 (8 September 1933).