[Published in La Vérité on 2 November 1934. My own translation of the French text. Corrections by English native speakers would be extremely welcome]
No workers‘ pacifism.
To be able to struggle, we must preserve and strengthen the instruments and means of struggle: organisations, the press, meetings, etc. Fascism threatens all this directly and immediately. It is still too weak to launch itself directly into the struggle for power, but it is already strong enough to try to bring down workers‘ organisations in one fell swoop after another, to dip its gangs into its attacks, to sow despondency and lack of confidence in their own strength in the ranks of the workers. Moreover, fascism finds unconscious auxiliaries in the person of all those who say that ‘physical struggle’ is inadmissible and hopeless, and demand that Doumergue disarm his fascist guards.
Form your combat detachments.
Le Populaire and above all l’Humanité write every day: ‘the United Front is a barrier against the fascists’, ‘the United Front will not allow’, ‘the fascists will not dare’. These are phrases. Socialist and Communist workers must be told bluntly: don’t allow journalists and superficial and irresponsible speech-makers to lull you with phrases. What is at stake are our heads and the future of socialism. We are not the ones denying the importance of the United Front. We demanded it when the leaders of the two parties were against it. The United Front opens up enormous possibilities. But nothing more. In itself, the United Front decides nothing. Only the struggle of the masses decides. The United Front will prove to be a great thing when the Communist detachments come to the aid of the Socialists and vice versa, in the event of an attack on Le Populaire or L’Humanité. But for that to happen, proletarian combat detachments must first exist, be educated, trained and armed. And if there is no defence organisation, i.e. no people’s militia, the Populaire and the Humanité can write as many articles as they like about the omnipotence of the United Front, but the two newspapers will be defenceless in the face of the first well-prepared attack by the fascists. We propose to make a critical examination of the ‘arguments’ and ‘theories’ of the opponents of the people’s militia, who are very numerous and very influential in the two workers‘ parties.
We need mass self-defence, not a militia, we are often told. But what is this mass self-defence? Without a combat organisation? Without specialised cadres? Without weapons? To leave defence against fascism to the unorganised, unequipped, unprepared masses, left to their own devices, would be to play an even more vile role than that of Pontius Pilate! To deny the role of the militia is to deny the role of the vanguard. So why a party? Without the support of the masses, the militia is nothing. But, without organised combat detachments, the most heroic masses will be crushed in dispersed order by fascist gangs. To oppose the militia to self-defence is absurd. The militia is the organ of self-defence.
On the ‘provocative’ nature of the militia.
‚Calling for the organisation of a militia,‘ say some of its opponents, who are admittedly not very serious and not very honest, ’is provocative.‘ This is not an argument, it is an insult. If the need to defend workers‘ organisations stems from the whole situation, how can we not call for the formation of militias? Perhaps they mean that the creation of militias ‘provokes’ fascist attacks and government repression? Then this is an absolutely reactionary argument. The advocates of liberalism have always told the workers that, by their class struggle, they were ‘provoking’ reaction…
The reformists repeated this accusation against the Marxists, the Mensheviks against the Bolsheviks. Ultimately, these accusations boil down to the profound idea that if the oppressed did not move, the oppressors would not be forced to beat them. This is the philosophy of Tolstoy and Gandhi, but it is in no way that of Marx and Lenin. If l’Humanité also wants to develop the doctrine of ‘non-resistance to evil through violence’, it must take as its symbol not the sickle and hammer, emblems of the October revolution, but the pious goat that feeds Gandhi with its milk.
The workers must arm themselves before they are beaten.
‘But the arming of the workers is expedient only in a revolutionary situation, which, as it is clear, does not yet exist.’ This profound argument means that the workers must allow themselves to be beaten until the situation becomes revolutionary. The very people who yesterday preached the ‘third period’ do not want to see what has happened before their eyes. The question of arming oneself has only arisen in practice because the ‘normal’, ‘peaceful’, ‘democratic’ situation has given way to an agitated, critical and unstable situation, which can become revolutionary or counter-revolutionary. This alternative depends above all on the answer to this question: will the advanced workers allow themselves to be beaten with impunity, one after the other, or will they respond to each blow with two, raising the courage of the oppressed and uniting them around themselves? A revolutionary situation does not fall from the sky. It is formed with the active participation of the revolutionary class and its party.
The militia, the instrument of a correct policy.
The French Stalinists now allege that the militia did not save the German proletariat from defeat. Only yesterday they denied the defeat in Germany and claimed that the policy of the German Stalinists had been correct from beginning to end. Today they see the cause of all evil in the German workers‘ militia, the Rot Front. Thus, from one fault they fall into another, opposite and no less monstrous. The militia in itself does not solve the question. We need a correct policy. And the policy of the Stalinists in Germany, denouncing ‘social fascism’ as the ‘main enemy’, organising the split in the unions, flirting with the nationalists, putschism, led fatally to the isolation of the proletarian vanguard and its collapse. With a strategy that was no good at all, no militia could save the situation.
The organisation of the militia alone will prevent terrorism and anarchism.
It is foolish to say that by itself the organisation of the militia leads to the path of adventure, provokes the enemy, replaces the political struggle by the physical struggle, and so on. All these phrases are nothing but political cowardice. The militia, as a solid organisation of the vanguard, is in fact the surest means against adventures, against individual terrorism, against spontaneous bloody explosions. The militia is at the same time the only serious means of reducing to a minimum the civil war imposed on the proletariat by fascism. If the workers, despite the absence of a ‘revolutionary situation’, only occasionally correct the patriotic ‘daddy’s boys’, the recruitment of new fascist gangs will become incomparably more difficult.
Against the fatalism of the bureaucrats.
But here the strategists, entangled in their own reasoning, come up with even more astounding arguments against us. We read verbatim: ‘If we respond to the revolver shots of fascist gangs with other revolver shots,’ wrote L’Humanité on 23 October, ‘we lose sight of the fact that fascism is a product of the capitalist regime and that by fighting fascism we are targeting the whole system.‘ It is difficult to accumulate more confusion and more errors in a few lines. You can’t defend yourself against fascists because they are ‘a capitalist product’! That means that you have to stop the whole struggle because all social evils are today ‚products of the capitalist system‘. When the fascists kill a revolutionary or set fire to a proletarian headquarters, the workers must philosophically state: ‘Ah, the murders and arsons are the products of the capitalist system’, and go home with a clear conscience. Marx’s militant theory is replaced by a fatalistic prostration, for the sole benefit of the class enemy. The ruin of the petty bourgeoisie is, of course, the product of capitalism. The growth of fascist gangs is, in its turn, the product of the ruin of the petty bourgeoisie. But, on the other hand, the worsening misery and revolt of the proletariat are also the products of capitalism, and the militia, in its turn, is the product of the intensification of the class struggle. So why, for the ‘Marxists’ in L’Humanité, are fascist gangs the legitimate product of capitalism, and the people’s militia the illegitimate product of… the Trotskyists? Decidedly, it is impossible to understand anything.
You can only fight the system by fighting those who support it.
It is necessary, we are told, to target the whole ‘system’. But how? Over the heads of human beings? Yet the fascists in various countries began by shooting guns and ended by destroying the entire ‘system’ of workers‘ organisations. So how can we stop the enemy’s armed offensive if not by armed defence, so that we can then take the offensive ourselves?
The militia provides a framework for the masses without isolating itself from them.
It is true that L’Humanité now accepts defence in words, but only as ‘mass self-defence’: ‘The militia is harmful because, you see, it cuts off the fighting detachments from the masses. Why, then, do the fascists have independent armed detachments which do not cut themselves off from the reactionary masses but, on the contrary, by their well-organised blows, raise the courage of the masses and reinforce their audacity? Is the proletarian mass inferior in its fighting qualities to the declassed working class?
No self-defence groups without weapons.
Entangled up to its neck, L’Humanité begins to hesitate: mass self-defence needs to create its ‘self-defence groups’. In place of the repudiated militia, special groups and detachments are being set up. At first sight, it seems that the difference is only in the name. But even the one proposed by L’Humanité is worthless. We can speak of ‘mass self-defence’, but it is impossible to speak of ‘self-defence groups’, because the aim of the groups is not to defend themselves, but to defend the workers‘ organisations. Of course, it’s not the name we’re talking about. The ‘self-defence groups’ must, in the opinion of L’Humanité, renounce the use of arms in order not to fall into ‘putschism‘. These wise men treat the working class like children who should not be allowed to have a razor in their hands. Moreover, razors, as we know, are the monopoly of the Camelots du Roi who, as legitimate ‘products of capitalism’, overthrew the democratic ‘system’ with them. So how are the ‘self-defence groups’ going to defend themselves against fascist guns? ‘Ideologically‘, of course. In other words, all they have to do is lie down. Since they don’t have what they need in their hands, all they have to do is look for ‘self-defence in their feet’. And the fascists, meanwhile, will ransack workers‘ organisations with impunity. But if the proletariat suffers a terrible defeat, on the other hand, it will not be guilty of ‘putschism’! Disgust and contempt, that is what this talk of cowards under the banner of ‘Bolshevism’ provokes,
From the putschism of the third period to present-day opportunism.
Already during the ‘third period’, of happy memory, when the strategists of L’Humanité were in the barricade delirium, ‘conquering’ the streets every day and calling ‘social-fascists’ all those who did not share their extravagances, we predicted: ‘From the moment these people have burnt their fingertips, they will become the worst opportunists.’ The prediction has now been completely confirmed. At the very moment when, in the Socialist Party, the movement in favour of the militia is strengthening and growing, the leaders of the party called Communist are running for the fire hose to cool down the aspirations of the advanced workers to form themselves into fighting columns. Can one imagine a more harmful and demoralising work?
Develop the militia by a political campaign among the masses.
In the ranks of the Socialist Party, one sometimes hears this objection: ‘The militia must be formed, but there is no need to talk about it out loud.‘ We can only congratulate those comrades who are concerned to keep the practical aspects of the matter from unwelcome eyes and ears. But it is too naive to think that we can create the militia secretly, within four walls. We need tens and then hundreds of thousands of fighters. They will only come if millions of workers and, behind them, the peasants too, understand the needs of the militia and create, around the volunteers, an atmosphere of ardent sympathy and active support. Clandestinity could and should only concern the technical side of the matter. As for the political campaign, it must be developed openly, in meetings, in factories, in the streets and in public squares.
Group workers of all tendencies together in the workplace.
The fundamental cadres of the militia must be factory workers, grouped according to the workplace, knowing each other and able to protect their combat detachments against the provocations of the enemy’s agents much more easily and much more surely than the most senior bureaucrats. Clandestine headquarters without official mobilisation of the masses will remain suspended in mid-air at the moment of danger. All workers‘ organisations must get to work. In this question, there can be no boundary between the workers‘ parties and the trade unions. Hand in hand, they must mobilise the masses together. The success of the people’s militia will then be fully assured.
Where will the workers find weapons?
‘But where are the workers going to get weapons?’ object the solid “realists”, in other words the frightened philistines.
‘The class enemy has guns, cannons, tanks, gas and aeroplanes. The workers have only revolvers and pocket knives.
This objection lumps together everything, in a jumble, to frighten the workers. On the one hand, our wise men identify the armament of the fascists with the armament of the State; on the other hand, they turn to the State and ask it to disarm the fascists. Remarkable logic! In fact, their position is wrong in both cases. In France, the fascists are still a long way from taking over the state. On 6 February, they entered into armed conflict with its police. That’s why it’s ‘wrong’ to talk about guns and tanks when it comes to the immediate armed struggle against the fascists. The fascists, of course, are richer than we are, and it’s easier for them to buy weapons. But the workers are more numerous, more determined, more devoted, at least when they feel a firm revolutionary direction. Among other sources, the workers can arm themselves at the expense of the fascists, by systematically disarming them. This is now one of the most serious forms of struggle against fascism.
When the workers‘ arsenals begin to fill up at the expense of fascist deposits, the banks and trusts will be more cautious about financing the armament of their murderous guards. We can even assume that in this case – but only in this case – the alarmed authorities will be able to begin to really thwart the arming of the fascists in order to prevent the growth of the workers‘ arsenal. We have known for a long time that only revolutionary tactics produce, as an incidental result, ‘reforms’ or concessions from the government.
But how to disarm the fascists? It is obviously impossible to do it by newspaper articles alone. Combat squads have to be created. Militia units must be created. A good intelligence service has to be set up. Thousands of informers and voluntary helpers will pour in from all sides when they learn that we are seriously committed to the cause. There must be a proletarian will to act*.
The workers‘ organisations must mobilise all their means to create the militia.
But fascist armaments are not, of course, the only source. In France, there are more than a million organised workers. Generally speaking, that’s not a lot. But it is more than enough to establish the beginnings of a people’s militia. If the parties and unions armed only one tenth of their members, that would already be a militia of 100,000 people. There is no doubt that the number of volunteers, the day after the call of the United Front for the militia, would far exceed this number. Party and trade union contributions, collections and voluntary subscriptions would make it possible, within a month or two, to provide weapons for 100 or 200,000 workers. The fascist scum would immediately chicken out. The whole perspective of the moment would become incomparably more favourable.
Against the passive conservatism of the bureaucracies.
To invoke the absence of armaments or other objective causes to explain why up to now there has been no move to create the militia is to deceive both oneself and others. The main, if not the only obstacle, is rooted in the conservative and passive character of the leaders of workers‘ organisations. Sceptical leaders do not believe in the strength of the proletariat. They put their hope in all sorts of miracles from above instead of giving a revolutionary outlet to the energy below. The socialist workers must force their leaders either to move immediately to the creation of the people’s militia, or to give way to younger and fresher forces.
(Domène, end of October 1934.)
*In l’Humanité of 30 October, Vaillant-Couturier showed very clearly that it was absurd to demand that the government disarm the fascists and that only a mass movement could disarm them. Since it is obviously not a question of ‘ideological’ disarmament but of physical disarmament, we hope that L’Humanité will now recognise the need for workers‘ militias. We are ready to sincerely welcome any step taken by the Stalinists in the right direction. But, alas, on 1 November, Vaillant-Couturier took a decisive step backwards: the disarmament of the fascists would not be carried out by the United Front, but by Doumergue’s police force ‘under the pressure and control’ of the United Front. A wonderful idea: without revolution, under ‘ideological’ pressure alone, transform the police into the executive organ of the proletariat! What’s the point of conquering power when you can achieve the same results by peaceful means! Under the ‘pressure and control’ of the United Front, Germain-Martin would be going to nationalise the banks and Marchandeau would be going to put the reactionary conspirators in prison, starting with his colleague Tardieu. The idea of ‘pressure’ and ‘control’ replacing revolutionary struggle was not invented by Vaillant-Couturier; he borrowed it from Otto Bauer, Hilferding and the Menshevik Dan. The aim of this idea is to divert the workers from the revolutionary struggle. In fact, it is a hundred times easier to crush the fascists by your own hand than by the hands of a hostile police force. And when the United Front becomes powerful enough to ‘control’ the state apparatus – that is, after the seizure of power, not before – it will simply drive out the bourgeois police and put in its place the workers‘ militia.
Schreibe einen Kommentar