Comrade Witte’s Violations of Bolshevik Organizational Principles

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

(After a precise listing of all the illegitimate acts of Comrade Witte)

It seems absolutely unbelievable that Comrade Witte invokes democracy for his actions. Let us leave aside the character of the “democracy” in his own section. In any case, one of the basic principles of democracy is to submit to the decisions of the majority. The IS, for better or for worse, is elected by the representatives of the major sections and as a result reflects the point of view of the majority of our international organization. Being in a minority at the plenum, Witte had the right to bring his point of view to the attention of the leaderships of all the sections, to prepare for a change in the composition or policies of the IS at a future international conference or at another enlarged plenum. Such an approach would have been totally compatible with the principles of democratic centralism. Instead, Witte has called on the [French] League not to carry out the decisions of the democratically elected center. Acting in such a way is a blow against democracy and at the same time a mark of contempt for centralism. In other words, Comrade Witte’s conduct is absolutely incompatible with Bolshevik principles of organization.

At the plenum, Witte simply said: “The Greek section will leave. I am the Greek section.” These words alone adequately characterize Witte’s political and organizational methods, and the regime he has established in the Greek section. But Witte obviously overestimates his potential and his strength, not looking objectively at the situation. Even if he could succeed on the basis of the principle, “I am the Greek section” — a Bonapartist, non-Marxist principle — in breaking the Greek section away temporarily, such an action can only lead to deep ferment inside the section. The workers will want to examine why and how they were separated from the International Opposition, which up until now has given them their basic ideas and political direction. In previous years, splits in the Greek section did not turn out badly. However, it is perfectly clear that one of the major causes of these splits was the principle, “I am the section.” We can hardly doubt that Marxist-Leninist ideas, counterposed to Witte’s methods, will produce new differences within the Greek section. Witte will retain a narrow, purely national sect in the style of the sect of Landau and Company, which will lead a hopeless existence with respect to the great prospects that are now opening before us.

In analyzing the history of Witte’s conflict with our international organization, we can establish the following state of affairs: Witte is obviously accustomed to ordering his national section around and reducing the democratic elements to a minimum. That was his custom when he was called into the central [IS] leadership. Circumstances rapidly made it clear that his national experience is absolutely insufficient for the tasks of an independent international leadership. In itself, this is not an irreparable misfortune. The IS as a whole is composed mainly of young militants, who are compelled to learn from experience. Such an apprenticeship has the quality of a friendly collective effort. But Comrade Witte brought with him a ready made principle: “I am the IS.” When he ran up against natural resistance, he took upon himself the task of dominating the entire IS by means of organizational measures behind the scenes. So systematically and with a plan, behind the hacks of the IS and of the Executive Committee of the League, he began to fan all sorts of grievances, to compromise the IS, not even stopping at deliberately false statements, etc.

In this effort, Witte allied himself with the most unprincipled and undisciplined elements, who at heart had nothing in common with Bolshevik-Leninist ideas and who are still in our midst only because their disruptive, and for the most part demoralizing, work has gone unpunished too long. Even during his short trip to London, Witte tried to bring the British section into opposition to our international organization and its leadership. For that purpose, he specifically told the English comrades that the proposal to enter the ILP had come from isolated individuals and not from the plenum. However, the plenum, with Witte’s active participation, had unanimously adopted a resolution on this question (enclosed is the relevant excerpt from the minutes). Comrade Witte could hardly have failed to recall that decision, because he had taken on himself the task of carrying it out, that is, of defending it before the English comrades. This example, with those cited above, gives us a sufficient sample of the methods Comrade Witte resorts to.

For what purpose? He declares that no political difference separates him from the Left Opposition. We have heard the same statement dozens of times from the lips of Rosmer, Landau, Frey, Mill, etc. They all agreed to accept the “ideas” of the Left Opposition, provided that that did not bind them to the logical consequences of policy or practice, to sincere collective effort, or to revolutionary discipline. This sort of attitude toward the ideas of the Left Opposition is characteristic not of a Bolshevik-Leninist, but of a petty-bourgeois fellow-traveler. The presence of such elements in our organization is unavoidable for a certain period of time. The best of them will gradually be trained in the proletarian milieu, and the worst will be thrown out; but it is absolutely evident that petty-bourgeois fellow-travelers, thoroughly imbued with the thought, “I am the organization,” have no place in the leading body of our international organization. Comrade Witte agitates strongly against the IS plenum, accusing it of being incapable of working, etc. … We are not at all inclined to close our eyes to the defects and shortcomings of our work. We are prepared to take every step to improve the work of the IS in every area. But we demand that comrades not forget that in the plenum there was not a single activist assigned to devote all his time to the affairs of the IS. We don’t even have anyone to handle the technical work of copying and duplicating documents.

However, despite the great shortcomings of our work, Comrade Witte has less right than anyone else to reproach us. Up until the month of September, Comrade Witte was the full-time secretary for [ ] months. All the comrades recognize that precisely during that period, the IS was almost completely nonexistent. Letters went unanswered, and most of the sections complained of the lack of any directives. The fact that Comrade Witte was devoting all his time to stirring up trouble behind the scenes does not, in our opinion, speak well in his behalf.

Several times, the plenum of the IS addressed itself to Comrade Witte, reminding him of his obligations and suggesting that he carry on his opposition through legitimate channels. Witte replied to these appeals and reminders from the comrades by intensifying his disruptive activity. Such a situation can no longer be tolerated. The plenum cannot allow one of its members to systematically and deliberately break discipline and to urge lower bodies to break it.

The plenum decrees: we find further collaboration with Witte impermissible; we charge Comrade Witte with the responsibility for this situation; we call on our Greek section to replace Witte with a comrade who is really guided by the organizational principles of Bolshevism.

P.S. It would be good to insert in the text a phrase of this sort: Comrade Witte is fairly new in the Left Opposition. He has hardly participated in the work of our organization. He has scarcely had a chance to show that he has actually mastered Bolshevik ideas and methods. We believe that he still has much to learn in that regard. That is why we find the fact that Comrade Witte poses as an implacable judge of everything and everyone, and even aspires to personally split our organization, totally out of place.