Trotskyism and World War II

This book is published by the Spartacist League, a small but rather notorious left-wing group in the United States. The group considers itself to be Trotskyist, but their politics look like a parody version of Soviet "Stalinism". Weirdly, this crackpot outfit actually publishes interesting historical documents on a semi-regular basis.

During the 1930's, the Trotskyist movement took the position that in the event of a war between the Soviet Union and some capitalist power, Trotskyists should defend the Soviet Union, despite being politically opposed to Stalin's regime (which they actually wanted overthrown). Simultaneously, however, the Trotskyists also called for "revolutionary defeatism" in *all* capitalist nations, including those occupied by Nazi Germany or those allied with the Soviet Union. Thus, when Hitler smashed Czechoslovakia, Trotsky refused to defend the Czechs, arguing that their democratic republic was actually "imperialist". Of course, Trotsky also opposed Hitler, but his position was nevertheless absurd, especially since a sector of the political establishment in Czechoslovakia was defeatist - since they wanted to collaborate with Hitler! (Hacha, Tiso, etc) Meanwhile, the "Stalinist" Communist Party called for defence of Czechoslovakia and an alliance with the Soviet Union. Trotsky, the eternal revolutionary, was still stuck in the realities of World War I, when the establishment on all sides had been equally "defencist".

The Spartacist League, however, considers the Trotskyist position at this point to be the correct one.

Shortly before the dramatic fall of France in 1940, however, an emergency conference of the Fourth International adopted a new line, known as the Proletarian Military Policy (PMP). The PMP demands trade union control over military conscription, a position only applicable to the Western democracies (including the United States). Simultaneously, Trotsky himself made statements implying that he was ready to defend "all good things in America" against the Nazi German threat.

But what on earth does the PMP mean?

Essentially, there are two possible interpretations. The first is that the Trotskyists were still "revolutionary defeatists" in the Western nations, and that the PMP was simply a smart way of hiding the full implications of their position, since it was grossly unpopular. In other words, something similar to Lenin's claims to be a "proud Great Russian" during World War I, when he was actually opposed to all Russian nationalism whatever. Thus, the Trotskyists were sounding less defeatist for purely prudential reasons (or lying through their teeth, if you like). The other interpretation is that the Fourth International actually changed its position, replacing "revolutionary defeatism" with some kind of "revolutionary defencism". In plain English, Trotsky had come out on the side of the Western Allies, which he had previously denounced as "imperialist".

A strong argument in favour of the first position (that it was just a tactical ruse) is that the American Socialist Workers Party (SWP) opposed U.S. entry in World War II, while nevertheless claiming to support the PMP. An argument in favour of the second position is SWP leader Cannon's statement "the workers didn't make revolution in time, so now the two tasks [fighting Hitler and fighting for the revolution] have to be telescoped and carried out together". Here, Cannon is suggesting that the objective conditions have changed, not just that the subjective mood of the masses makes prudence necessary. At the same time, the fact that Cannon - a close collaborator of Trotsky himself - could make seemingly incompatible statements, might suggest a third interpretation: nobody really knew what the PMP was supposed to mean, or how it should be applied. The PMP was the child of political confusion. Indeed, the European Trotskyist movement split over the PMP. Some groups (such as the British RSL and the zany Left Faction) rejected it, others (such as the British WIL) accepted it, and still others went all the way and became explicitly pro-Allied.

"Documents on the Proletarian Military Policy" contains a long introduction by the Spartacist League, criticizing the PMP, and documents from various Trotskyist groups expressing approval or opposition to the policy. Two texts by Max Shachtman, a defector from the Trotskyist movement, have also been included. The pamphlet should be read together with additional material in "Writings of Leon Trotsky 1939-40" and "The Socialist Workers Party in World War II". Another important book on the PMP and its application is "Socialism on Trial" by James P. Cannon.

My own position is that I honestly don't know what Trotsky and the emergency conference of the Fourth International might have meant with the PMP. Trotsky was at bottom a sectarian, locked in a contradiction between his sectarianism-utopianism and the vagaries of real world politics. The SWP seems to have suffered from the same shortcomings. World War II was a litmus test, a test the Trotskyist didn't really pass. Rather than explicitly supporting the Allies - all of them, including the Western Allies - the Trotskyists either insisted on an anachronistic revolutionary defeatism á la World War I, or adopted the hopelessly confused Proletarian Military Policy. Only a few groups took the correct position: defence of both the Soviet Union and the Western democracies against Nazi Germany, the spearhead of reaction at a world historical scale. As already indicated, the Spartacist League regard the super-sectarian position as correct, while simultaneously being even "harder" on defence of the Stalinist USSR than Trotsky himself. (For instance, they reject the slogan "independent Soviet Ukraine", etc.) Frankly, their position is difficult to take seriously.

Despite this, I nevertheless feel that "Documents on the Proletarian Military Policy" deserves five stars. The pamphlet is also available directly from the Spartacist League (if you dare to contact them), and at a considerably lower price, too. ;-)