A Suppressed Speech of Lenin And Other Items

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The Third Congress of the Comintern assembled in Moscow three months after the "March days" of 1921 in GermanyThe young leadership of the German Communist Party, which hadn't yet cooled down after the March battles, was arguing in approximately the following fashion: Since this is a revolutionary epoch then we, the revolutionary vanguard, must march in the lead, not stopped by any obstacle, and draw the working class along by our example. This meant proceeding not from the concrete circumstances or from the real condition of the proletariat, with all its varied groupings, but from the general characterization of the period as revolutionary. Such is the general historical-philosophical basis of revolutionary adventurism. In 1921, this philosophy was sketched only in timid strokes. Ten years later, it is developed, canonized, bureaucratized — under the name of the theory of the "third period."

It is till the more important to recall Lenin's attitude toward this theory since one of his clearest speeches is still being hidden away from readers in the Comintern's archives. We have in mind Lenin's speech of June 17, 1921, at a session of the Executive Committee of the Communist International on the eve of the Third Congress. In order to clarify the extracts from this speech, which are quoted below, it is necessary to recall that ultraleftism at that time was to be found in almost all the parties. A section of the French delegation, for example, was advocating — though after the event — refusal of military service by those subject to the draft in 1919. The delegate from Luxembourg accused the French party of not "hindering" the occupation of Luxembourg by French troops. Trotsky, in speaking against the opportunist policies of Cachin-Frossard, was forced, as he explained, to preface his speech with criticism of the ultraleftists. He showed that it was impossible to conquer militarism by the passive opposition of one military age-group ("the class of 1919," as the French say); what was needed instead was the active intervention of the whole working class. He showed that if the proletariat as a whole was not ready for a complete revolutionary overthrow, then it could not prevent the military occupation of Luxembourg. Attempts to solve these kinds of "private" problems by a show of strength when that strength was insufficient for solving the basic problem, L e., the seizure of power, lead to adventurism — a path that could prove fatal for young Communist parties.

Zinoviev, Bukharin, and Radek were on the side of the ultraleftists. But since they didn't know whose side Lenin would take, they themselves refrained from an open struggle. They pushed forward Bela Kun who defended not only the March strategy in Germany (for this strategy he personally bore a significant share of the blame), but also the ultraleftist criticism of the Luxembourg delegate and of a section of the French delegation, including Laporte, a future fascist

Lenin was not present at that session. Having found out about the debate that was developing, he sent for a verbatim transcript and then appeared at the session of the EC Cl and made a powerful speech against the ultraleftists:

"Comrade Bela Kun contends that only the opportunists are mistaken — but in actual fact the leftists too are mistaken. I have the verbatim transcript of Comrade Trotsky's speech. According to this report, Trotsky says that leftist comrades of this kind, if they continue along the same path, will destroy the Communist movement and the workers' movement in France (Applause.) I am deeply convinced of this. I have therefore come here to protest against the speech of Comrade Bela Kun, who has opposed Comrade Trotsky instead of defending him — which he should have done had he wanted to be a genuine Marxist. …

"Comrade Bela Kun thinks that to be a revolutionary means defending the leftists always and everywhere. Preparation for revolution in France, one of the biggest countries in Europe, cannot be carried out by any party alone. The French Communists winning the leadership of the trade unions — that is what would please me most. …

"When I look at the magnificent work of the Communist Party, when I see all these cells in the trade unions and other organizations, I say: The victory of the revolution in France is assured if the leftists don't do anything stupid. And when someone says, as does Bela Kun, that coolness and discipline have not proven correct — that is idiocy in the spirit of the left wing. I came here to say to our left-wing comrades: If you follow such advice you will destroy the revolutionary movement …"

Passing to the question of the French party's opportunist mistakes, Lenin said:

"Let us take another example — Marcel Cachin and others who in the French Chamber of Deputies refer to Anglo-French cooperation and say it is a guarantee of peace. This is opportunism, and a party which allows this is not a Communist party. Of course, in our resolutions we must show that such and such a statement cannot be tolerated, that this is not the Communist way. But it is necessary that the criticism be concrete We must brand opportunism. But the real opportunism of the party, reflected in the speech of Cachin, is not subjected to criticism. Instead of criticizing it they criticize this statement [of Trotsky's], and give new 'advice.' This is what Comrade Trotsky said in his speech {the German version of Trotsky’s speech is read).

"Therefore Comrade Laporte was completely wrong and Comrade Trotsky, who protested against this, was completely right. Perhaps the behavior of the French party was not thoroughly Communist. I am ready to admit this. But at the present moment such an idiocy — refusal of military service, etc. — would destroy the Communist movement in France and England. Revolution is not made by an appeal to those facing the 1919 draft. Comrade Trotsky was a thousand times right when he repeated this. But we still have the comrade from Luxembourg who rebuked the French party for not sabotaging the occupation of Luxembourg. Well! He thinks that this is a geographical question, as Comrade Bela Kun contends. No, this is a political problem, and Comrade Trotsky was completely right to protest against this. This is a very 'left-wing,' a very revolutionary idiocy, and one very harmful for the French movement …

"I know," continued Lenin, "that among the Communist youth there are genuine revolutionaries. Criticize the opportunists on concrete grounds, point out the mistakes of official French communism, but don’t do silly things yourselves. When the masses come more and more toward you, when you are approaching victory, then it is necessary to take control of the trade unions. The majority of trade unions yield wonderfully to preparatory work, and if we succeed in this it will be a great victory. Bourgeois democracy has no standing any longer, but in the trade unions the bureaucratic leaders from the Second and the Two-and-a-half Internationals still prevail. In the trade unions we must first of all gain a reliable Marxist majority. And then we will begin to make the revolution, not with the help of an appeal to the 1919 military age-group and not with the help of those idiocies in which Bela Kun specializes, but, on the contrary, through the struggle against opportunism and against the idiocies perpetrated by the left-wingers Perhaps this will be not so much a struggle as a warning against the speeches of Marcel Cachin — together with an openly declared struggle against the traditions of opportunism — and a warning against left-wing idiocies. That is why I considered it my duty to support fundamentally all that Comrade Trotsky said and to declare that the policy defended by Comrade Bela Kun is unworthy of any defense whatsoever by any Marxist or any Communist."

Who Bound Rakovsky?

In 1918 the Romanian invaders of Bessarabia addressed to the inhabitants of Mogilev the following appeal:

To The Peaceful Inhabitants of Mogilev

Hand over Rakovsky, bound, otherwise we will not stop the bombardment.

We want peace but Rakovsky wants war.

Choose him or us.

If you will only hand over Rakovsky to us you will get peace and we will send you provisions.

Romanian Army

But the Soviet revolution did not bind Rakovsky or hand him over to his enemies; he was necessary to it; great work lay ahead for him.

In October 1927 the French reactionary rulers demanded the recall of Rakovsky from Paris. Chicherin, in a note of October 12, 1927, protested against "the recall of Mr. Rakovsky to whose efforts and energy the Franco-Soviet conference is indebted to a significant degree for the results obtained." But precisely because of this energy and these talents of a revolutionary diplomat Rakovsky became hated by the French bourgeoisie. It became necessary to recall him.

But Stalin recalled Rakovsky simply to fulfill the wishes of the Romanian bourgeoisie: he bound Rakovsky hand and foot and, if he didn't hand him over to Bucharest, tied him up in Barnaul.

Just What Is This?

Ekonomicheskaya Zhizn comments on the decree of the Central Control Commission on the expulsion of "a counterrevolutionary group." The article shows groveling in unsurpassed fashion. In two smallish columns we read:

"Under the experienced leadership of the Central Committee with Comrade Stalin at its head";

further:

"… of the Leninist party, with Comrade Stalin its leader and teacher at its head”;

after this:

"Our party, under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, the most faithful disciple of Lenin";

right sifter that:

"The workers of our country and of the whole world see in the person of Comrade Stalin an unflinching fighter for socialism, under whose leadership [?] they are successfully going from victory to victory";

and finally:

"Under the banner of Lenin and under the leadership of his best pupil, Comrade Stalin. …"

All this was written not because it was Stalin's birthday, not on the occasion of his name day, and not on the anniversary of his "six conditions." No, this glorification, repeated five times, arises in an article devoted to the expulsion of a score of party members.

In the same article we find an aphorism which deserves to be immortalized: "The party has unmasked for all time the counterrevolutionary essence of the factional struggle against the general line of the party and against its Leninist leadership." Every leadership is "Leninist" because it leads, and its every line is "general," and every struggle is against the line of counterrevolution. This is unmasked — "for all time." And is, and was, and ever shall be. Amen.

"Big” and "Huge”

In Rabochaya Moskva's account of the September youth demonstration, we are told: "In the offices of the governing bodies hangs a big portrait of Ilyich." A few lines after that: "There is a huge portrait of Stalin in the Museum of History." Everything is in proportion: for the big Lenin — a big portrait; for the huge Stalin — a huge portrait.

Adoratsky and Zinoviev

In 1923 Adoratsky wrote regarding Zinoviev's History of the Party:

"The lectures by Comrade Zinoviev are only fleeting sketches but they give a correct perspective and in general faithfully outline the contours of the movement and really serve as a good introduction to the study of the history of the party…" (Proletarskaya Revolutsia, 1923, no. 5, p. 344).

It would be interesting to know what opinions Adoratsky, who has now replaced Ryazanov, holds on this question today.