Vol. 72/No. 31      August 4, 2008

BY LEON TROTSKY  
Question: What influence can “prosperity,” an economic rise of American capitalism in the next period, have upon our activity as based on the transitional program?

Trotsky: It is very difficult to answer because it is an equation with many unknown elements, magnitudes. The first question is if a conjunctural improvement is probable in the near future. It is very difficult to answer, especially for a person who does not follow the charts from day to day. As I see from the New York Times, the specialists are very uncertain about the question. In last Sunday’s issue of the New York Times, the business index showed a very confused tendency. During the last week there was a loss, two weeks before a rise, and so on.

If you consider the general picture, we see that a new crisis has begun, showing an almost vertical line of decline up until January of this year; then the line becomes hesitant—a zigzag line, but with general declining tendency. But the decline during this year is undoubtedly slower than the decline during the nine months of the preceding year.

If we consider the preceding period, beginning with the slump of 1929, we see that the crisis lasted almost 3 1/2 years before the upturn began, with some smaller ups and downs, lasting 4 1/2 years—it was Roosevelt “prosperity.” In this way the last cycle was of 8 years, 3 1/2 years of crisis and 4 1/2 years of relative “prosperity,” 8 years being considered as a normal time for a capitalist cycle.

Now the new crisis began in August 1937, and in nine months has reached the point which was reached in the preceding crisis in 2 1/2 years. It is very difficult to make a prognosis now concerning the time, the point of a new rise. If we consider the new slump from the point of its deepness, I repeat, the work of 2 1/2 years is completed by the crisis, yet it has not reached the lowest point of the preceding crisis. If we consider the new crisis from the point of view of time—nine years, or seven, eight years, it would be too early for a new upturn… .

To the first question, if such an upturn can be more favorable to the general perspective before our party, I believe we can answer with a categorical yes, that it would be more favorable for us. There cannot be any reason to believe that American capitalism can of itself in the next period become a sound, healthy capitalism, that it can absorb the 13 million unemployed. But the question is—if we formulate it in a very simple and arithmetical form—if in the next year or two years the industries absorb 4 million workers from the 13 million unemployed, that will leave 9 million. Would that be favorable from the point of view of the revolutionary movement? I believe we can answer with a categorical yes.

We have a situation in a country—a very revolutionary situation in a very conservative country—with a subjective backwardness on the part of the mentality of the working class. In such a situation, economic pickups—sharp economic pickups, ups and downs—from a historical point of view have a secondary character, but in the immediate sense have a profound effect on the lives of millions of workers. Today they have a very great importance. Such shake-ups are of very great revolutionary importance. They shake off their conservativeness; they force them to seek an account of what is happening, what is the perspective. And every such shake-up pushes some stratum of the workers onto the revolutionary road.

More concretely, now the American workers are at an impasse—in a blind alley. The big movement, the CIO, has no immediate perspective, because it is not guided by a revolutionary party and the difficulties of the CIO are very great. From the other side, the revolutionary elements are too weak to be able to give to the movement a sharp turn to the political road. Imagine that during the next period 4 million workers enter the industries. It will not soften the social antagonisms—on the contrary. It will sharpen them. If the industries were capable of absorbing the 13 million or 11 million unemployed, then it would signify for a long period a softening of the class struggle; but it can only absorb a part, and the majority will remain unemployed. Every unemployed person sees that the employed have work. He will look for work and, not finding any, will enter into the unemployed movement. I believe in this period our slogan of the sliding scale can receive very great popularity; that is, that we ask for work for everybody under decent conditions—in a popular form: “We must find work for all, under decent conditions with decent salaries.” The first period of a rise—economic rise—would be very favorable, especially for this slogan. I believe also that the other very important slogan of defense, workers’ militia, etc., would also find favorable soil, a base, because through such a limited and uncertain rise—the capitalists become very anxious to have immediate profits, and they look with great hostility on the unions which disturb the possibility of a new rise in profits.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home