Trotsky to Krupskaya - Reading notes: The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-27)

The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-27)

By Leon Trotsky

Letter to Krupskaya

May 17, 1927

Nadezhda K. Krupskaya, Lenin's widow, had been one of the signers of the "Declaration of the Thirteen" in July 1926, but had separated from the Opposition by the time of the Fifteenth Conference in October-November of that year. In the period of renewed Opposition activity following Chiang's mid-April coup in China, Trotsky sent repeated protests to the Politburo over its China policy, but none of them were published or circulated. On May 9, Zinoviev spoke at a public meeting and protested Pravda's boycott of the Opposition's views. For this he was censured by the Moscow and Leningrad party committees and by the Central Committee. Evidently, Krupskaya wrote to Zinoviev criticizing the Opposition for making a "fuss" over China. On May 20, Pravda published an undated letter to its editorial board that was apparently a compromise between Krupskaya and the CC. In it she explained her differences with the Opposition (it had gone too far in its criticisms, its criticism had become factional) and called for an objective and sober discussion of the disputed questions, saying that criticism in the party was

Dear N.K.:

I am writing to you on a typewriter so that you won't have to bother deciphering my handwriting, which has not improved with the years.

I read your letter. Although it was addressed personally to G.E. [Zinoviev], its subject is, to be sure, far from personal, so I therefore permit myself to speak out about it.

Most of all, I am struck by the word "fuss." Kosior used this word at the last plenum in relation to our speeches on the crushing of the Chinese workers and our capitulation to British Menshevism. Who is right in these questions: we or Stalin? Or is there a third position? Can one really speak of a "fuss" without having answered, in accordance with Lenin, this essential question?! "Fuss"-this signifies a squabble of little or no importance. What is this-the crushing of the Chinese workers by our "ally" Chiang Kai-shek, whom we feed, clothe, shoe, and acclaim, while we order the Chinese Communists to subordinate themselves to him-is it a detail, a trifle, which we can pass over? Or again, that we declared before the whole world our unity with the thoroughly prostituted British Mensheviks while their dirty work in relation to the British workers, China, and ourselves is in full swing? What is this: a joke, a trifle? And our criticism-is this a "fuss"?!

Perhaps it is still possible to doubt the extent to which such facts as the electoral instructions, "enrich yourselves, "and so forth, are symptomatic and alarming. But in the light of recent events, can there be even the slightest doubt that Stalin and Bukharin are betraying Bolshevism at its very core-proletarian revolutionary internationalism? In the question of our relations with the Chinese "national" bourgeoisie, surely the entire history of Bolshevism, starting with 1904 when this question was first actually posed, has been totally negated.

N.K., you don't say a word on this point: Is Stalin's position or ours correct concerning the question on which the whole course of the Chinese revolution and the whole course of the Comintern depend? You merely repeat the word that Kosior tossed off, "fuss."

You say that self-criticism is one thing and criticism from the outside is another. But aren't you a member of the Central Control Commission? So why don't you secure for party members the possibility of self-criticism? Haven't we asked the Politburo and presidium of the Central Control Commission to convene a closed session of the plenum, without taking minutes, in order to discuss the essence of the situation? Of course, we intend to make an all-out fight therefor the basic principles of Bolshevism on the basic issues of world revolution. But they have denied us this request. Why indeed is there no "self-criticism"? Not so long ago we both said that self-criticism does not develop because we have an unhealthy, rude, and disloyal regime. Do you really think that the regime improved during the last half-year? Or are the questions that require self-criticism today too petty and insignificant? A "fuss"?

We, the revolutionary wing of the party, have suffered a defeat. That is indisputable. But we have suffered a defeat of the same sort that Bolshevism suffered in 1907-12.

The defeat of the German revolution in 1923; the defeats in Bulgaria, in Estonia; the defeat of the General Strike in Britain; the defeat of the Chinese revolution in April, have severely weakened international communism. This process has a twofold expression: on one hand, during these years the number of members of Communist parties and the number of votes they received were severely reduced; and, on the other hand, the opportunist wing was greatly strengthened. Are we really excluded from this worldwide process? The grave defeats of the world revolution and the slowness of our growth surely have an impact on our proletariat, too. The bureaucratic blockheads do not understand this. They think that the official "educational" circulars of Agitprop and not the worldwide social and political processes determine the outlook of the proletariat. The ebbing of the international revolutionary mood of our proletariat is a fact, which is reinforced by the party regime and the teaching of false doctrines ("socialism in one country," and so forth).

Under these conditions, is it any wonder that the left, revolutionary, Leninist wing of the party has to swim against the stream? The more our forecast is sustained by the facts, the more furiously they fulminate against us. This proceeds entirely from social laws and is inevitable for the genuinely Marxist wing in a period of a temporary but deep dip in the revolutionary curve. But we, and only we, preserve the ideological succession of revolutionary Bolshevism, learning and teaching-without Lenin-to apply the Leninist method of analyzing what is being done, and of forecasting what is in the offing. Didn't we warn the party about the inevitable defeat of the unarmed proletariat by Chiang Kaishek, whom we armed? Didn't we predict almost a year ago the shameful Berlin capitulation to the very principles that Vladimir Ilyich dedicated almost his entire life to struggling against? And were we wrong in stating that the wrong line being followed in domestic policy could take forms that are a menace to us in case of war? And now, while it is still not too late, aren't we obliged to raise an outcry about this with one-hundredfold force? Is this really a "fuss"? Can it possibly be a "fuss"?

Stalin has now decided to change the "war of attrition "that has been waged for the past half-year against the Opposition into a "war of annihilation." Why? Because Stalin has grown weaker. His bankruptcy on the Chinese and sequences of this bankruptcy for our international situation. The growing right wing is bringing pressure on Stalin: why did you get involved in the General Strike or in China? Why did you excite Chamberlain, calling forth the danger of intervention? We will build socialism in one country. That is the basic, fundamental, essential tendency of the present moment, which is "defeating" us now. Precisely because Stalin has become immeasurably weaker under the blows of the muffled criticism from the right and our half-stifled criticism from the left, he must change his war of attrition into a war of annihilation. The question is one not of trifles and not of small modifications, but of the basic line of Bolshevism on basic questions. Whoever says "fuss" is proposing that we swim with the stream in conditions where the stream is flowing against Bolshevism.

No, N.K. that we will not do. We will swim against the stream, even if you repeat aloud after Kosior the word "fuss." And we never felt as deeply and unmistakably our ties with the entire tradition of Bolshevism as we do now, in these difficult days, when we and only we are preparing the future of the party and the Comintern.

From my soul I wish you good health.