Interview Given to the Social Democratic Press

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

A week ago a Constantinople correspondent for the German Social Democratic press called on me. I gave him roughly the following interview:

You yourself realize that my granting an interview to the Social Democratic press is something rather unusual for both sides. This first, and very likely last, interview has been brought about by quite exceptional circumstances.

As I am now applying for admission to Germany, where the majority of the government consists of Social Democrats, I am chiefly interested in making clear my attitude toward the Social Democracy. Obviously on this question nothing has changed. My attitude toward the Social Democracy remains what it was. Moreover, my struggle against the centrist faction of Stalin is only a reflection of my general struggle against the Social Democracy. Neither you nor I have any need of vagueness or of leaving things unsaid.

Some Social Democratic publications are trying to find a contradiction between the principles I hold in regard to democracy and my application for admission to Germany, i.e., to a democratic republic. There is no contradiction here. We do not at all “deny” democracy as the anarchists “deny" it (verbally). Bourgeois democracy has advantages in comparison with the forms of the state that preceded it. But it is not eternal. It must give way to socialist society. And the bridge to socialist society is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In all capitalist countries, communists take part in the parliamentary struggle. Making use of the right of asylum does not differ in principle in any way from the utilization of the right to vote, of freedom of the press and assembly, and so on.

You are interested in my struggle for democracy in the party, the trade unions, and the soviets. Social Democratic publications have from time to time attempted to portray this as a step toward bourgeois democracy on my part. This is a monumental misunderstanding, the roots of which are not hard to disclose. The Social Democratic formula of today goes like this: “Stalin is right against Trotsky; Bukharin is right against Stalin.” The Social Democracy stands for the restoration of capitalism in Russia. But one can take this road only by pushing the proletarian vanguard into the background and suppressing its independent activity and critical voice. Stalin’s regime is the necessary result of his political line. Since Social Democracy approves of Stalin’s economic policy, it ought to reconcile itself to his political methods as well. It is unworthy of a Marxist to speak of democracy “in general.” Democracy has a class content. If a policy aimed at restoring capitalism is what is needed, then that is incompatible with democracy for the ruling proletarian class.

An actual transition back to capitalism could only be secured through the dictatorial power of the bourgeoisie. It is ridiculous to demand the restoration of capitalism and at the same time to sigh for democracy. That is sheer fantasy.

You ask how I view the fact that in the capitalist countries the central committees of the Communist parties are introducing a dictatorial regime suppressing the independent activity of the party. Yes, I have more than once spoken out against this. But it should be clearly understood that neither the capitalist parties nor the Social Democracy have felt called on to accuse the leadership of the Communist parties of arbitrariness, since not only all the bourgeois parties (take a look at America) but also the Social Democracy are based on such a regime. All questions are decided by a narrow circle of people at the top. The masses find out about everything post factum. They are allowed to criticize and grumble, but nothing more.

You ask if it is not possible for the Comintern to be turned into an instrument of the Soviet Union’s national policy. The question has been incorrectly posed. If the national-reformist line based on the theory of socialism in one country were to win out definitively in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, this would lead inevitably to the growth of national-reformism in all the Comintern sections, which in this case would be transformed, after the example set by the Social Democracy, into instruments of the national politics of their own countries. This would mean the destruction of the Comintern. This is why the Opposition is conducting a struggle against the revision of Marxism on the fundamental question of the international character of the proletarian revolution.

Such, fundamentally, is the content of the interview I gave. In accordance with my request, the correspondent submitted the interview to me in written form. Except for two points, he had set forth my views more or less accurately-if in a slightly modified form. I requested the elimination of two paragraphs (about the regime in the Western Communist parties and about the relations between the Comintern and the Soviet government), because they had been presented inaccurately. The correspondent promised to eliminate these two paragraphs.