Prognoses That Have Been Confirmed

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

At the Tenth Plenum of the ECCI, i.e., a year ago, it was mentioned that humanity had entered "with both feet" into the revolutionary zone. At the Sixteenth Congress of the Communist Party it turned out:

"The development of the economic crisis is leading [!] in individual [!!] countries to its further development — into a political crisis" (from Molotov's report).

However, the economic crisis came only a year and a half after the Sixth World Congress, only a few months after the Tenth Plenum; but this crisis, we are told, is only "leading to further development." How fortunate that there exist the words "further development" which can be used to plug the holes in some prognosis or other.

"The intensification [!] of elements [!!] of a new [!!!] revolutionary upsurge is an indisputable fact" maneuvers Molotov, the very one in whose word of honor the Tenth Plenum believed. "This puts the work of the Communist parties and the Comintern on a completely new footing. All this calls for an adaptation of the work of the Communist parties to the new [!] problems of the revolutionary struggle."

However, the Sixth Congress with its supplementary Tenth Plenum had already brought the Communist parties onto the rails of the third period and of revolutionary upsurge. How does it come about, then, that all that is required is to begin adapting "to the new problems of the revolutionary struggle"? Isn't it possible to explain it a little more precisely? Are the parties turning to the left or the right? Going forward or going back? Or are they simply turning on their own axes?

"In the period 1928-29, the upsurge took place only in the United States of North America, France, Sweden, Belgium, and Holland …" (Molotov).

However, just in the middle of 1929, France stood "in the front ranks of the revolutionary upsurge." How does it suddenly turn out then that it underwent not a revolutionary but — industrial-commercial upsurge? It does not become any easier from hour to hour.

Manuilsky at the Sixteenth Congress posed "the problem of the uneven development of the revolutionary processes in different capitalist countries, the problem of the advanced countries lagging behind the rate of development of these processes in such secondary countries as Spain or in such colonial countries as India."

However, the resolution of the Tenth Plenum of the ECCI bore witness that Germany, France, and Poland occupy the first place in the approaching revolutionary upsurge. The first two countries in any event cannot be called insignificant or colonial.

Manuilsky goes further and states directly, "In the advanced capitalist countries the sweep of the revolutionary movement has not yet assumed open revolutionary forms.”

But how did things stand at the Tenth Plenum of the ECCI?

Finally, the resolution of the Sixteenth Congress modestly and vaguely announces "the opening of the end of relative capitalist stability."

This means that the whole Tenth Plenum has gone awry. But, alas, the disasters and devastations that it caused in the ranks and at the top have not gone awry.

And these "leaders" are astonished that the number of members in the sections of the Comintern is declining and the circulation of the press falling.

That is the same as if the director of some collective farm in the Moscow region sowed in December and harvested in April, and was astonished that he had a "disproportion" between his "influence" (in the offices of the collective farm and in the regional committee) and the quantity of grain in the silos.

Molotov is this kind of director of this kind of administrative collective — called the "Third International."