The meaning of Trotsky's writings

Scan page 6

.. the methods of La Commune are diametrically opposite to all my conceptions of the organisation of a revolutionary party. "No domination"'-in other words, no programme. "On the basis of parity" means parity in cynicism with regard to principles, a scarcely enviable kind of parity. A "mass paper" is in reality an imitation of /'Oeuvre, dressed up in slogans borrowed from the right and the left and aimed at radicalising petty bourgeois who are not even able to understand that the preparation for civil war begins with the elaboration of a programme and that a "mass paper" can be nothing other than one of the instruments of this programme" she poir ity are cont aboi role Koll opp: abse cont and thei tion pati The Left Opp against the ris makes some important its about bourgeois moraland the family, but these often obscured by fusions in her own ideas ut motherhood and the of women.

One major failing of lontai's work on women's ression is the total ince of any discussion of traception and abortion how women's control of r sexuality and reproducrelates to their emanciAbortion is only mentioned once, when she justifies the grounds on which abortion was legalised in Russia in 1920.

Abortion, still a dangerous operation, was regarded as an evil which should be regulated, until social conditions are ripe for it to be unnecessary, instead of as a part of the right of women to decide whether to have children: "The task of labour in Russia is to strengthen in women the healthy instinct of motherhood, to make motherhood and labour for the collective compatible and thus do away with the need for abortion" . (p. 149). Kollontal constantly reters to the social obligation of women to have children, and regards motherhood, together with social provision for childcare and household' tasks, as a 'right.

She is correct in arguing that the material basis of the family will wither away under communism. As dining rooms, laundries, childcare ete. become socialised, having a child is no longer a burden on individual mothers, but becomes collective responsibility.

Bourgeois

However, she is inconsistent by remaining tied to the bourgeois idea that women have innate 'maternal instincts.

She suggests that socialism will simply allow women to have children without hardship rather than give women realistic choice as to whether or not they want children.

In Socien and Maternur (published in 1916), she says that Social Democracy is fighting for a society in which a woman.

"withou t giving up her active role in the struggle for the ideals of her class, can fulfil her biological function".

This failure to draw out the logical conclusions of her positions about the supercession of bourgeois sexual morality and the family made Kollontai incapable of fighting the Stalinists' resurrection of the family as an ideal social unit.

Kollontal an became ambassador if the SOv Union atter Odtober 193 ' Norway, Me xico and eit osition-wrongly condemned by e of the Stalinist bureaucracy in Her writings became inter mittent, but those repro duced in this collection shov that her reputation as leading Bolshevik was used tr promote Stalin's policies.

Contradicts

In her attack on the Left Upposition's principled fight against Stalinism, Kollontai contradicts the views on party democracy which she put forward in the Workers Opposition, by denying Trotsky's right to form a faction within the party.

She accuses Trotsky's faction of:

"destroying the cohesion of the collective ... The Opposition transgresses the basic demand of the masses: the demand that discipline be observed". (p. 313).

She covers up for the Stalinist bureaucracy by claiming that:

"The masses are already getting used to thinking things ut for themselves instead of relying ona leader". p. 312).

Expelled

'his was WIlL In ()ctr 1927, one munth ›ber betore Trotsky was bureaucratically expelled from the Communist Party, and about 18 months before Stalin made his violent "left turn' and forced collectivisation on the peasantry on a massive scale-the same peasants who Kollontai pretends are:

"creating new forms of economy and new life-styles, establishing new ways of coordinating sections of the government and sections of the economic organism"

The reality, of course, was that the peasantry in 1927 were thriving on the private enterprise which was reintroduced as a limited and temporary expedient in 1921, and which Stalin had encouraged and extended, allowing the Kulaks to get rich at the of he on Kollontai for leading the struggle the Soviet Union. expense of the working class.

Eighteen months later, the bureaucracy went to the opposite extreme and violently imposed collectivisation, without paying much attention to the mood of the masses' which Kollontai seems so concerned about.

In Soviet Woman-Citizenwith Equal Rights, Kollontai covers up for Stalin's policy of rehabilitating the family-the instrument of women's oppression.

She lists the genuine gains in social services-creches, public canteens, etc-but then goes on to praise the Soviet Union for conferring the order 'motherhood glory' and t medal of motherhood' 1,100.000 women.

Three medals Kollontai herself received three medals from the Soviet bureaucracy, including the 'Red Banner of Labour' in 1945, for her services to the Soviet state during the second imperialist war.

Reading this book makes it clear that Alexandra Kollontai's high reputation rests on some rather shaky foundations.

She undoubtedly made a major contribution to the October Revolution through her work among women and through her pamphlets, which Lenin commended as a means of popularising Bolshevik policies.

However, her writings indicate that she was unable to make a significantly original contribution to Marxist theory, either on the woman question or on wider issues.

Her subsequent journey through the Workers Opposition to ambassador for Stalinism, also reveals that she was not capable of conducting a principled and consistent fight for the two issues she is famous for defending: workers' democracy and women's emancipation.

Stal We repl It Is separate t the strands in Brei ma letter Cn tl le one hi out wit h some hat out 1th St.

York NY 10009 Jan. 27 , 1978 Comrades, your January 18 issue, the Pathfinder Press book The Crisis of the F rench Section (1935-6) by Leon Trotsky is reviewed by Tony Richardson, who calls it an "important book" and a *valuable contribution" but accuses the publishers and editors of miscellaneous misdemeanours and crimes.

Why he asks, did we "choose to publish this book?" The answer he replies "lies in the factional debate within the USFI (United Secretariat of the Fourth International) itself"

He then attempts to relate our decision to publish the book with current differences in the USFI, or at least his version of these differences.

The stupidity of this attempt is clear from the following dates. The book was published in July 1977. The introduction is dated February 1977.

Work was started on the book more than two years before the introduction was completed. It was impossible at that time to foresee the current state of factional debate within the USFI.

The publication of this book had nothing to do with what Richardson's feverish mind imagines.

Its publication was really decided on nine years ago, in 1969, when we resolved to gather and publish in English everything Trotsky had written during his last exile, 1929-40.

Nine years ago, the recen factional disputes in the USFI had not even begun.

After nine years and more than twenty new Trotsky books, after a great deal of work and expense, the project is almost completed and today's revolutionary generation has access to an infinitely fuller and better grasp of Trotsky's ideas than was available in his lifetime.

It deserves a better response than Richardson's slanders.

Sincerely George Breitman only fair to two distinct 'omrade Be points Tist ification Wild be read as implying that The Crisis in the French Section was published by the US Socialist Workers Party purely and simply as a factional manoeuvre.

We should stress that this is not the point we intended to make, and we regret any ambiguity on it.

We accept that the book is published as part of an overall scheme begun nine years ago.

Spells But on the other hand Breitman goes further, trying to turn this point into an attack on the political line of our review, which spells out the sharp contrast between Trotsky's conception of a revolutionary international as outlined in the book-and the conception held by the US Socialist Workers Party of which Breitman is a leading member.

Breitman does all he can to duck this question and befuddle readers by a string of dates, and a partial quote from our article, when he paraphrases:

"Why, he asks, did we "choose to publish this book"? The answer, he replies, "lies in the factional debate | within the USFI itself"

But our review was much more specific than this. It asked the political question:

... why did the SWP choose to publish this book, which contains an implicit indictment of their own positions?"

The review goes on to examine political points made in the SWP's own introductory comments to the book, which Breitman himself points out were not completed until February 1977. This date is important.

By February 1977 the French USFI section's daily paper Rouge had been running for some time on the kind of broad basis of "left unity" attacked by [rotsky in the book.

Advanced

And plans were well advanced for la the IM's "unity' Socialist Challenge.

The SWP leac lers known to have oppe ›sed ventures But Breitman a when he wrote tha mont] before in January SWP ready nching both the 1r) Trotsky, Crisis in the French Section, adopted a position of calling for the dissolution of the two main factions in the USFI.

This is why we justifiably drew attention to Breitman's comments on page 173 of the book where he states that:

"The current theory and practice of some sections of the Fourth International suggest that not all of their leaders have absorbed the lessons Trotsky tried to teach in 1935-6 about "broad" newspapers, the revolutionary attitude to centrist groups etc"

And we pointed this amounts to "a more diplomatic way of raising [the SWP's] differences ... attempting to use Trotsky's writings for their own opportunist purposes" (Socialist Press 83).

If this was not the case, why does Breitman not explain his editorial comments, instead of evading this central issue?

No reply Why does he not reply to our points demonstrating how the SWP, along with the USFI as a whole, refuse to absorb the lessons of these writings by Trotsky?

This does not mean that we in any way belittled the importance of the book itself. Headlined Lessons of Party Building' our article stressed that:

*Despite the factional stance of its editors, by showing Trotsky's method of approach to these problems of the Popular Front period to the questions or political independence and revolutionary discipline, this new book makes a valuable contribution to serious forces fighting for the reconstruction of the Fourth International"

The current political method and programme of the SWP and of the USFI as a whole (to which the SWP is prevented from affiliation by reactionary US legislation) are counter to the positions fought for by Trotsky in the foundation of the Fourth But even trom this false standpoint the SWP has performed a useful function in publication of Trotsky's writings.

Our concern is that admiration of the work involved in producing these b oks should not blind reader s to their political content and the lessons they carry for today's struggles.

Scan page 7

SOCIALIST PRESS. Wednesday ch A review of he film