Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Socialist Appeal, Vol. IV No. 30, 27 July 1940, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Regarding the question of the war and the USSR which has been discussed in our International and particularly in the American section, the Communist League of China, following its own discussion and a careful study of the controversial documents received from other sections, places on record the following position and opinions:
1. THE QUESTION OF THE WAR: We consider that the thesis War and the Fourth International adopted by the International Secretariat in 1934 remains correct in principle. The actual development of the present war confirms, in its fundamental course, the analyses and predictions made in that document. Certain events, such as the actual groupment of the warring camps (e.g. Stalin’s alliance with the German imperialists) were not predicted, but this does not in any way invalidate the principled position put forward in the thesis.
The character of the second world war, as correctly defined by our thesis and other important documents during the past ten years, is a war of rival imperialist powers, that is, a war for the redivision of the world in accordance with the new correlation of forces among the imperialists. But here it is essential to keep in mind the point that the USSR, occupying one-sixth of the earth’s surface, is among the objects to be divided. It is one of the main objects.
The antagonism between the USSR and the imperialist powers, which in the class and sociological sense is the most fundamental in the contemporary world, has been modified to some extent by the degeneration of the USSR under the Stalin regime, and at the present time is overshadowed by the mighty conflict between the imperialists themselves. But it would be a criminal mistake to conclude from this that imperialist military intervention against the USSR has been removed from the order of the day. In our opinion the inter-relationship between the imperialist war and the coming anti-Soviet war, as formulated in Section 2 of the thesis (USSR and the Imperialist War), continues to correspond with reality. A statement by the Minority section of the American party, attributing to Comrade Trotsky the assertion that “the present war is an anti-Soviet war”, is a gross untruth. Nowhere can we find any such statement in the recent writings of Comrade Trotsky.
2. THE QUESTION OF THE USSR: It is true that the war requires us to pay the closest attention to every change occurring within the USSR, so that we may check our policy from time to time. But up to now, in the opinion of the Chinese Section, no change has taken place of such significance its to warrant a modification of our policy of unconditional defense of the USSR. In support of this contention, we advance the following reasons:
The mere fact of “aggression” does not suffice to prove that the USSR has an economic need for expansion. Would it be correct to say that the Soviet attacks on Poland and Georgia in 1920, the inclusion of Outer Mongolia in the sphere of influence of the USSR in 1923, and the decision to hold the Chinese Eastern Railway in 1924 were expressions of an economic necessity to “expand or die?” Or on the contrary: Can we say that Stalin’s policy coincided with the principles of “socialism in one country” when he sold the Chinese Eastern Railway in 1933 and abandoned the Amur River islands to Japan some time later?
Changes in form, when they surpass a certain degree, mean also a change in content. Quantity passes into quality. But the latest changes in the form of Kremlin policy – from one of concessions to one of aggressions – have not changed the character of the Soviet State. Nationalized property still remains. Although terribly exploited and distorted by the bureaucracy, this great gain of the October Revolution can be regenerated and become a mighty fortress of world socialism. Revolutionary militants of the IV International are therefore still bound to give unconditional defense to the USSR.
3. THE SOVIET-FINNISH WAR: For the reasons given above we took the position of defense of the USSR in the Soviet-Finnish war.
Just as we are uncompromising opponents of Stalin’s entire reactionary policy, so we did not support the invasion of Finland, which was part and parcel of that policy. But we are active revolutionists and it was therefore not sufficient to condemn the invasion of Finland. When the Red Army, dominated by Stalin’s reactionary policy, becomes involved in a war with a bourgeois state, we can no longer confine ourselves to criticism and condemnation. We then have to weigh the question which is the most favorable outcome for the workers’ state and the whole revolutionary movement: Defeat or victory for the Red Army? There is but one answer for a revolutionist. We must become real defenders of the USSR and place ourselves in the same camp with the Red Army.
It is necessary in many cases to distinguish ‘between political confidence and support and military action. In China we fight side by side with the armies of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Stalinists against the Japanese imperialists, but we have never extended an ounce of support to the Kuomintang or the Chinese Communist Party, whose policies we have never ceased criticizing. The mistake of the American Minority, it seems to us, lies in their refusal to distinguish between political confidence and military support.
4. ECONOMIC SYSTEMS AND THE NATURE OF WARS: The nature of a war between two states is mainly determined by the economic and social systems which prevail in the belligerent countries. This does not mean that one should unite all historical-economic systems in a single schema, and then establish which are progressive and which reactionary according to their place in the historical sequence. In the present epoch there are only two antagonistic economic systems: dying capitalism and the embryo of socialism (USSR). So far as there are backward economic systems found in i certain countries, none of them play any independent role. If a country with such a backward system conducts a war, the nature of the war must be determined by the object it fights against. If the war is directed against an imperialist power, then it is progressive (e.g., China against Japan, Abyssinia against Italy, India against Britain), for it will, if successful, clear the road for development of the productive forces in the backward country itself, and will, whether successful or not, weaken imperialism. On the contrary, a war by a backward country against a land which has abolished private property is wholly reactionary (e.g., China’s war against the USSR in 1929), for the backward country acts as a tool of imperialism. On this whole question the Minority have gone wrong because of their schematism and mechanical thinking.
5. ON THE QUESTION OF THE THIRD CAMP: We are advocates of the building of the “Third Camp” only in this sense: that we take a defeatist position with regard to both the “democratic” and fascist imperialist camps in the present war. But we will never consider ourselves in a third camp with regard to the antagonism and coming war between the USSR and the imperialists. The conception of the “Third Camp” advanced by the Minority in America identifies the USSR with the Stalinist bureaucracy and Nazi imperialism with the Soviet regime. This shameful confusion of things that should not be confused can only render service to the war camp of the “democratic” imperialists.
The Fourth Internationalists cannot take a defeatist position with regard to the USSR today, when Hitler is in alliance with Stalin, nor tomorrow when Stalin may ally himself with the British and French imperialists to fight Hitler. The Minority position, carried to its logical conclusion, means that no defense of the USSR is possible unless and until the USSR is completely isolated, without any imperialist allies, and falls victim to aggression. No more ridiculous position could be imagined for one calling himself a Marxist revolutionist.
6. ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL: Having read all the documents of both factions of the SWP and having heard a verbal report by Comrade S (a visiting member of the Minority), the Communist League of China has concluded that the discussion which preceded the SWP convention, and the discussion in the convention itself, were conducted in full keeping with the principles of party democracy. Complaints of “bureaucratic methods” advanced by the Minority seem to us quite insufficient to justify the action of the Minority in splitting the party.
In view of the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the war and the split, we endorse the proposal of the American, Canadian, and Mexican sections for the convocation of a Pan-American Conference, With representation from other sections if possible, in order to elect a new executive body for the Fourth International. With the hope that the loyal elements of the Minority may be won back, we also propose that the Minority be invited to send delegates to the conference
|
Shanghai, June 10, 1940 |
COMMUNIST LEAGUE OF CHINA |
Main Militant Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 24 May 2020