Resignation from the Fourth International. Natalia Sedova Trotsky

[Red Dreadnought]

Written: May 9, 1951
First Published: 1971 (English translation)
Source: Natalia Trotsky and the Fourth International Pluto Press, 1972
Online Version: Natalia Sedova Internet Archive, October 2001
Transcribed/HTML Markup: Mike Bessler

To: Executive Committee of the Fourth International
To: Political Committee of the Socialist Workers Party Comrades: You know quite well that I have not been in political agreement with you for the past five or six years, since the end of the war and even earlier. The position you have taken on the important events of recent times shows me that, instead of correcting your earlier errors, you are persisting in them and deepening them. On the road you have taken, you have reached a point where it is no longer possible for me to remain silent or to confine myself to private protests. I must now express my opinions publicly.
The step which I feel obliged to take has been a grave and difficult one for me, and I can only regret it sincerely. But there is no other way. After a great deal of reflections and hesitations over a problem which pained me deeply, I find that I must tell you that I see no other way than to say openly that our disagreements make it impossible for me to remain any longer in your ranks.
The reasons for this final action on my part are known to most of you. I repeat them here briefly only for those to whom they are not familiar, touching only on our fundamentally important differences and not on the differences over matters of daily policy which are related to them or which follow from them.
Obsessed by old and outlived formulas, you continue to regard the Stalinist state as a workers state. I cannot and will not follow you in this.
Virtually every year after the beginning of the fight against the usurping Stalinist bureaucracy, L.D. Trotsky repeated that the regime was moving to the right, under conditions of a lagging world revolution and the seizure of all political positions in Russia by the bureaucracy. Time and again, he pointed out how the consolidation of Stalinism in Russia led to the worsening of the economic, political and social positions of the working class, and the triumph of a tyrannical and privileged aristocracy. If this trend continues, he said, the revolution will be at an end and the restoration of capitalism will be achieved.
That, unfortunately, is what has happened even if in new and unexpected forms. There is hardly a country in the world where the authentic ideas and bearers of socialism are so barbarously hounded. It should be clear to everyone that the revolution has been completely destroyed by Stalinism. Yet you continue to say that under this unspeakable regime, Russia is still a workers state or with socialism. They are the worst and the most dangerous enemies of socialism and the working class. You now hold that the states of Eastern Europe over which Stalinism established its domination during and after the war, are likewise workers states. This is equivalent to saying that Stalinism has carried out a revolutionary socialist role. I cannot and will not follow you in this.
After the war and even before it ended, there was a rising revolutionary movement of the masses in these Eastern countries. But it was not these masses that won power and it was not a workers state that was established by their struggle. It was the Stalinist counter-revolution that won power, reducing these lands to vassals of the Kremlin by strangling the working masses, their revolutionary struggles and their revolutionary aspirations.
By considering that the Stalinist bureaucracy established workers states in these countries, you assign to it a progressive and even revolutionary role. By propagating this monstrous falsehood to the workers vanguard, you deny to the Fourth International all the basic reason for existence as the world party of the socialist revolution. In the past, we always considered Stalinism to be a counter-revolutionary force in every sense of the term. You no longer do so. But I continue to do so. In 1932 and 1933, the Stalinists, in order to justify their shameless capitulation to Hitlerism, declared that it would matter little if the Fascists came to power because socialism would come after and through the rule of Fascism. Only dehumanized brutes without a shred of socialist thought or spirit could have argued this way. Now, notwithstanding the revolutionary aims which animate you, you maintain that the despotic Stalinist reaction which has triumphed in Eastern Europe is one of the roads through which socialism will eventually come. This view marks an irredeemable break with the profoundest convictions always held by our movement and which I continue to share.
I find it impossible to follow you in the question of the Tito regime in Yugoslavia. All the sympathy and support of revolutionists and even of all democrats, should go to the Yugoslav people in their determined resistance to the efforts of Moscow to reduce them and their country to vassalage. Every advantage should be taken of the concessions which the Yugoslav regime now finds itself obliged to make to the people. But your entire press is now devoted to an inexcusable idealization of the Titoist bureaucracy for which no ground exists in the traditions and principles of our movement.
This bureaucracy is only a replica, in a new form, of the old Stalinist bureaucracy. It was trained in the ideas, the politics and morals of the GPU. Its regime differs from Stalins in no fundamental regard. It is absurd to believe or to teach that the revolutionary leadership of the Yugoslav people will develop out of this bureaucracy or in any way other than in the course of struggle against it.
Most insupportable of all is the position on the war to which you have committed yourselves. The third world war which threatens humanity confronts the revolutionary movement with the most difficult problems, the most complex situations, the gravest decisions. Our position can be taken only after the most earnest and freest discussions. But in the face of all the events of recent years, you continue to advocate, and to pledge the entire movement, to the defense of the Stalinist state. You are even now supporting the armies of Stalinism in the war which is being endured by the anguished Korean people. I cannot and will not follow you in this.
As far back as 1927, Trotsky, in reply to a disloyal question put to him in the Political Bureau by Stalin, stated his views as follows: For the socialist fatherland, yes! For the Stalinist regime, no! That was in 1927! Now, twenty-three years later Stalin has left nothing of the Socialist fatherland. It has been replaced by the enslavement and degradation of the people by the Stalinist autocracy. This is the state you propose to defend in the war, which you are already defending in Korea.
I know very well how often you repeat that you are criticizing Stalinism and fighting it. But the fact is that your criticism and your fight lost their value and can yield no results because they are determined by and subordinated to your position of defense of the Stalinist state. Whoever defends this regime of barbarous oppression, regardless of the motives, abandons the principles of socialism and internationalism. In the message sent me from the recent convention of the SWP you write that Trotsky's ideas continue to be your guide. I must tell you that I read these words with great bitterness. As you observe from what I have written above, I do not see his ideas in your politics. I have confidence in these ideas. I remain convinced that the only way out of the present situation is the social revolution, the self-emancipation of the proletariat of the world

[REDFOREVER]

Wow... Thats really good! Thats right on! Poor woman, and I imagine the death of comrade Leon was very hard.

[REDFOREVER]

I should say MURDER! Damn Stalinist reactionary bastards..

[Devrim]

Actually what she is saying is that the Trotskyists are 'damn Stalinist reactionary bastards'.

Devrim

[Red Dreadnought]

Well, isn't necessary express ourselves in such hard manners. The ideology of "troskists" objectivally has the role of left wing of stalinism. But I think there are a lot of honest militants in "trotskists" organizations.

[Tower of Bebel]

I wonder how big the Fourth International was at the time, and if it had a real bureaucracy.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

What about all the Trotskyists who don't subscribe to the views Natalia Sedova argues against?

[Devrim]

Well, isn't necessary express ourselves in such hard manners. The ideology of "troskists" objectivally has the role of left wing of stalinism. But I think there are a lot of honest militants in "trotskists" organizations.

Sorry, I was only quoting the previous poster to illustrate the point. I think that there are a lot of honest militants in Trotskyist organisations. One has to look at the role of those organisations though.

I wonder how big the Fourth International was at the time, and if it had a real bureaucracy.

I think you have misread this. She is referring to the Soviet bureaucracy.

What about all the Trotskyists who don't subscribe to the views Natalia Sedova argues against?

They stopped being Trotskyists. What she is arguing against here is the whole idea of Soviet Russia (and China, Poland etc) being a workers' state, and the defence of workers states.

One could argue that the Cliff tendency (now the UK SWP) rejected that with its adoption of his ideas on state capitalism, but one could equally argue that they are not really Trotskyists (in any sort of orthodox sense).

The positions that she is criticising were held by all of the Trotskyist organisations.

I think that we can look at this letter as an expression of the crisis of Trotskyism that took place after the war.

Devrim

[Red Dreadnought]

¿What do you know about Cliff? They make this analysis of Urss, but I'm no sure they took the necesary consequences. I'm no sure, but I think they supported "national resistences" in II World War, and it's no clear that they were "defeatist" about Urss.

And they also defend (more or less critically) all kind of nationalism movements, given them some "socialist" potential: provisional IRA, ETA, Malcomn X, even they promote in Catalonia some "left nationalist" candidatures at local elections. Thus, de facto they are supporting "stalinist" movements.

[Tower of Bebel]

I think you have misread this. She is referring to the Soviet bureaucracy.

Just wondering if it's possible to have a durable bureaucractic regime without a bureaucracy (that partially depends on the size of the party). One of my problems with Trotskyism after 1940 is the adoption of some possible bureaucratic ideas and means taken from the Bolshevik model that may have necessitated many of the splits within the movement.

[Yehuda Stern]

Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqnevercalledmenigger
What about all the Trotskyists who don't subscribe to the views Natalia Sedova argues against?

They stopped being Trotskyists. What she is arguing against here is the whole idea of Soviet Russia (and China, Poland etc) being a workers' state, and the defence of workers states.

Actually, that's nonsense. We in the ISL are Trotskyists and we agree that the USSR stopped being a workers' state in the late 1930s (after the smashing of the Left Opposition) and that the other "socialist states" were always state capitalist.

[Devrim]

Actually, that's nonsense. We in the ISL are Trotskyists and we agree that the USSR stopped being a workers' state in the late 1930s (after the smashing of the Left Opposition) and that the other "socialist states" were always state capitalist.

Yehuda, you can call yourselves Trotskyists if you like. It doesn't bother me at all. Oh the other hand don't be surprised if people associate Trotskyism with certain ideas that you may not hold.

In my opinion there was a crisis of Trotskyism after WWII based on the failure of Trotsky's analysis. There were splits internationally towards a 'state capitalist' perspective, Munis, Natalia Sedova, Stirnas, Johnson/Forrest tendency, Castoriadis, Cliff are just some of the better known examples.

The vast majority of these people broke with Trotskyism, and recognised it as a break themselves. Cliff's break was not as severe as that of the others mentioned. I still think though that most people would not think that the IST was a Trotskyist tendency, and certainly not an 'orthodox' one.

Devrim

[Devrim]

¿What do you know about Cliff? They make this analysis of Urss, but I'm no sure they took the necesary consequences. I'm no sure, but I think they supported "national resistences" in II World War, and it's no clear that they were "defeatist" about Urss.

And they also defend (more or less critically) all kind of nationalism movements, given them some "socialist" potential: provisional IRA, ETA, Malcomn X, even they promote in Catalonia some "left nationalist" candidatures at local elections. Thus, de facto they are supporting "stalinist" movements.

Yes, you are absolutely right about their positions today. However, in the Korean War (i.e. at the time of the crisis in Trotskyism)they didn't support the USSR. There was a break, but Cliff's was the least complete.

Devrim

[REDFOREVER]

Point Taken, and agreed.
For the record, I was referring to the Spanish agent that assassinated comrade Trotsky..

[Yehuda Stern]

Yehuda, you can call yourselves Trotskyists if you like. It doesn't bother me at all. Oh the other hand don't be surprised if people associate Trotskyism with certain ideas that you may not hold.

I'm not - then again, that you (not "some people") do so, even though you know very well that there are Trotskyist tendencies that don't hold these positions, makes you a bit dishonest, no?

[Devrim]

I'm not - then again, that you (not "some people") do so, even though you know very well that there are Trotskyist tendencies that don't hold these positions, makes you a bit dishonest, no?

No, I don't think that it makes me dishonest. The SWP does not refer to itself as Trotskyist even though it is influenced by his ideas.

The only Trotskyist tendency that I have heard of that holds these ideas is yours.

The defence of 'workers' states' is a key part of what is generally considered to be Trotskyism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Actually, that's nonsense. We in the ISL are Trotskyists and we agree that the USSR stopped being a workers' state in the late 1930s (after the smashing of the Left Opposition) and that the other "socialist states" were always state capitalist.

The state capitalist argument was repeatedly condemned by Trotsky, and to have held this position in the late 30s would have put you outside of the Trotskyist movement.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think the FI was so anti-democratic that it would not allow a faction with our ideas to exist in it, as long as it would adhere to the basic perspective of the FI and to democratic centralism. I think, in fact, that since our theory of state capitalism is very different than those of Cliff and Johnson-Forrest, we might have been able to convince many people in the FI of the correctness of this theory. But then this is just meaningless historical speculation. At any rate, what you have said about people not adhering to the deformed workers' state theory automatically becoming non-Trotskyist is obviously nonsense.

[Bolshevik-Leninist]

A few things:

1) Trotsky never held a "deformed workers' state position". Never. He did consider the USSR to be a "degenerated workers' state" through his death, but he considered Stalinism to be by that point totally counterrevolutionary. It is not at all "orthodox Trotskyism" to consider Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, and other states established without working class revolutions to be "workers states".

2) My organization (League for the Revolutionary Party - Communist Organization for the Fourth International) believes that the USSR ceased to be a workers' state when the working class was removed from state power in the 1930s, culminating in completion by 1939. This is because the Trotskyist conception of a workers state is such that the law of value continues to operate, despite the working class holding state power. The law of value ceases to operate only when the transition to socialism, which is the goal of the workers states, has been carried out--which cannot be completed in one country. Thus, the defining characteristic of a workers state is that the working class holds state power. This was never the case in Eastern Europe (where the same capitalist ruling circles often bloodlessly became the new 'communist' rulers), China or Cuba (which did have revolutions, but never working class revolutions).

3) We published Natalia Trotsky's resignation letter in issue 38 (Winter 1991) of our magazine, Proletarian Revolution, noting that we agree with much of what she argues, though we do defend North Korea from US imperialism, as we still conceive of North Korea as an oppressed nation. Similarly, we defend Afghanistan from Russian imperialism, which means limited military support to the resistance fighters, despite their being backed by US imperialism.

[Devrim]

1) Trotsky never held a "deformed workers' state position". Never. He did consider the USSR to be a "degenerated workers' state" through his death, but he considered Stalinism to be by that point totally counterrevolutionary.

But nobody has even discussed that on this thread. All that has been mentioned is 'defence of workers' states'. Not a discussion about the nature of those 'workers states'. Personally I think that the whole deformed/degenerate workers' states discussion is a nonsense. Of course Trotsky never had any input into this discussion as he had died half a decade previously*.

His thoughts are Stalinism are quite clear. However, I think that he held that position while saying that there was still something progressive in the economic forms in the USSR.

It is not at all "orthodox Trotskyism" to consider Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, and other states established without working class revolutions to be "workers states".

In my opinion it is. Those are the positions that orthodox Trotskyists hold. Then again, unlike others on this thread I have no interest in passing my own organisation off as Orthodox Trotskyist. I think that you will find that members of the main Trotskyist groups would hold the defence of workers' states to be a fundamental part of Trotskyism. It doesn't mean that they are right. I think it does mean that that is what 'Orthodox Trotskyism' is.

My organization (League for the Revolutionary Party - Communist Organization for the Fourth International) believes that the USSR ceased to be a workers' state when the working class was removed from state power in the 1930s, culminating in completion by 1939.

But then I think it would be also fair to put your organisation in the Cliff tradition even if they didn't adapt his theories. I would put your organisation outside of 'Orthodox Trotskyism'.

Again it is all down to how you define 'Trotskyism'. Maybe I will start another thread on that.

We published Natalia Trotsky's resignation letter in issue 38 (Winter 1991) of our magazine, Proletarian Revolution, noting that we agree with much of what she argues, though we do defend North Korea from US imperialism, as we still conceive of North Korea as an oppressed nation.

I think that this is a question of kicking the concept out of the war and letting it back in through the window. As you know one of the things that Natalia objected to was the defence of North Korea.

Similarly, we defend Afghanistan from Russian imperialism, which means limited military support to the resistance fighters, despite their being backed by US imperialism.

This is a pretty good example of bedfellows that the national liberation argument leads you to choosing.

Devrim

*Though just as an aside it might be interesting to know how he characterised Mongolia.