Comrades, the comrade who spoke before me, Comrade
Malzahn, objected to the tone adopted by Comrade Heckert. However,
Malzahn himself spoke in a similar tone. As a result, I am obliged to be
as meek as a little lamb. (Laughter) In the present discussion
of different positions and problems, in my opinion, we have quite often
spoken of things that are truly obvious. So, for example, when Comrade
Hempel of the KAPD spoke here of new methods of mass action, that is a
quite obvious matter for us here. We discussed this theme in some detail
even before the War. It is just as obvious that, as regards what has
been said here about offensives in general, even Comrade Lenin
recognises that there is no Marxist who could speak against offensives
in general. It would therefore be perhaps desirable, to include that
sentence by Comrade Lenin in the theses. (Laughter)
Trotsky: But only using the wording of Comrade Lenin: ‘Only asses could believe the contrary.’
Bukharin: In discussing the world situation as a
whole, we must keep in mind that it is not at all excluded for the
relative temporary equilibrium that seems to prevail in Europe to be
suddenly disrupted, and for the situation in this or that country to
suddenly change. In this regard, Comrade Lenin spoke of a number of
things, and his remarks need to be interpreted somewhat – of course, to
be interpreted strictly in the fashion of Lenin. Let me provide some
examples.
In the first phase of our revolution, the Central Committee of our
party sent instructions to all our agitators to protest against the
shameless lies of the bourgeoisie, who claimed that we, the Bolsheviks,
were for civil war. Those were our own instructions. And in the
situation at that time, these instructions were entirely correct. Now if
we take quite a different situation, for example, just before the
October Revolution, this sentence and these instructions would be not
only completely wrong but completely criminal. At that time, of course,
we gave all our agitators instructions to carry out an uprising and
engage directly in civil war.
Let us take a second example, which comes from after the winning of
political power. During the [1918] Brest-Litovsk Peace, our party and
Comrade Lenin, the recognised leader of our party, were for the
Brest-Litovsk Peace, as you all know. Later, during the [1920] Polish
events, the same Comrade Lenin was for the offensive, for a military
policy. That was absolutely correct, of course. These examples show that
the tactical line is something that is not fixed but is absolutely
in motion, always determined by the specific position, specific
conditions, and the specific conditions. If we can grasp that, we will be able to deliver a warning to comrades who find Comrade Lenin’s speech to be undialectical. (Laughter)
We all know very well that the future Executive, however it is
composed, must heavily upbraid any party that, under certain
circumstances, does not take the offensive. In other words, the general
tactical line proposed in the theses by the Russian delegation cannot
be used as justification for all conceivable future vacillations
committed by opportunist forces inside the Communist Party. (Loud applause)
Now a few words about conditions in Germany. A certain entirely
undialectical contradiction exists among the different comrades. On the
one hand, it is said that we must study our errors very carefully, and,
on the other, that we should talk only of the future. In my opinion that
is not a contradiction but an absurdity. We must, should, and will talk
about the conditions. Despite the various remarks of Comrade Malzahn, I
will say a few words about the Levi affair, because it is by no means a
personal matter but concerns a current. And we know very well that
there is sill a certain political affinity between certain forces in the
German party and Paul Levi. To continue to speak about the March Action
now and going forward would be quite strange, since a great deal has
been said already. Nonetheless, I would like to analyse certain passages
of Levi’s most recent article, passages showing us that Levi has now
developed into a quintessential Menshevik.
I will start with the question, ‘sect or party,’ which as you know
plays a major role. When we look back on the past and recall what Levi
did during the Second Congress, it is clear that during the congress he
said that the Communist International should be pure, that it would be a
crime against the Communist International to admit syndicalist trade
unionists. If we do that – these were his very words – that action will
amount to burying the International. (
Shouts: ‘Hear, hear!’)
That is what Paul Levi said during a session of the Executive. Now he
has turned around completely. Now Levi is claiming that we were against
mass parties and mass organisations of the proletariat. That is no
dialectical contradiction. Rather it means that Levi is seizing hold of
any argument in order to break free of the party. In the question of the
relationship of masses to leadership, Paul Levi spoke out quite sharply
against the KAPD, and rightly so, referring to this group’s lack of
understanding of the role of leadership in a mass party. Now, however,
an article by Levi expresses solidarity with a group within the Russian
party, namely the so-called Workers Opposition, which is the embryo of
the tendency that is fully developed in the KAPD.
1
This appears in black and white in Levi’s last article. That tells us,
once more, that Levi grasps at any tool to destroy the big workers’
party, the Communist Party. (
Loud applause)
Let us take a third question, ‘the struggle for the dictatorship of
the proletariat’. For us, this struggle is of course self-evident. Even
Levi could not think otherwise. Taking his most recent article, we find
the following on conditions in Russia:
It seems to us that creating the possibility of
political struggle is all the more urgent, given that Russia has entered
the phase of granting concessions.
2
What is that supposed to mean? The text of the article as a whole
indicates what it means. Levi says that the situation in Russia is not
yet sufficiently clear. In his view, Russia today is undergoing a
political and social crisis. The Communist Party needs to make a
correction in order to find the right path. From what side will this
correction come? From the side of the Social Revolutionaries, of course,
from the side of the Mensheviks, that is, against the dictatorship.
That is clearly specified here. Of course this signifies a blow against
all the policies of the Russian party. This also has a certain
relationship with what Levi said earlier against Moscow and Moscow’s
dictates. Aside from that, these are psychological considerations. From a
logical point of view, what we have here is the embryo of a conception
that is directed against the dictatorship of the proletariat as such. (Loud applause) Of course, this is a fully Menshevik conception. To express it differently, this is the transition from the concept of the dictatorship to that of free democracy. There is no other way to interpret it.
Then we have, in addition, the question of the dictatorship of the
party. We Marxists – at least, we orthodox Communists – have always
maintained that the dictatorship of a class can be expressed only
through the dictatorship of the vanguard of that class; that is, the
dictatorship of the class can be realised only through the dictatorship
of the Communist Party. We have always rejected the entirely absurd
concept that counterposes the dictatorship of the class to the
dictatorship of the party. That is nonsense. And Levi was with us
completely on that point. Now we find, in his most recent pamphlet,
ideas regarding Russian affairs, but there are also conceptions that
attempt to generalise the Russian experience. We read there:
Every dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship
of Communists, but not every dictatorship of Communists is a
dictatorship of the proletariat.
So if there is a rift between the proletariat and the Communist
Party, then the dictatorship of the Communist Party is not the
dictatorship of the proletariat. In response, I would ask: how do we
determine in this case the classes in the party? Is it possible, from a
Marxist standpoint, to form a classless party? Yes or no? Obviously, as
Marxists, our answer to this question must be ‘no’. There is no
classless party. It follows that if the Communist Party is at the helm,
it represents the interest of some class. What class? If it is a
Communist Party, it represents the interests of the proletariat.
So what can be the meaning of this sentence of Levi’s? The sentence
has and can have only one meaning, namely, a concept hostile to the
party dictatorship. From a purely theoretical point of view, the
following situation may arise: The proletariat becomes demoralised. The
party governs. The party does not have the support of the entire
proletariat, and perhaps not even the majority of the proletariat. Now
tell me please, in such a situation, where a part of the proletariat has
been declassed, does the ruling party not represent the interests of
the proletariat? In such a case, who does represent the real interests
of the proletariat? The party, of course, the ruling party. What then is
the point of all this talk? The goal of this chatter is simply to
develop the embryo of a line of thinking opposed to the dictatorship of
the proletariat as such and therefore for bourgeois freedom, for democracy. This line of thought is absolutely clear.
We can observe that the embryo of such liberal concepts is also found
in the KAPD. I have touched on this question deliberately because I
consider this ideology and these symptoms very dangerous. In my opinion,
this signifies the road to the Mensheviks and the road out of the Communist Party. (Loud applause)
We must therefore draw the following conclusions: An energetic battle
must be waged against such tendencies, or the remnants of such
tendencies, in all parties, including the German party. Every formation,
every group that crystallises out of such conceptions must be
immediately dissolved. In my view, we must put an end to the opposition
faction, as such, within the German party. (Loud applause)
I will now move on to another question, that of the KAPD. Comrade
Hempel declares that we do not need leaders or theoreticians. This
statement, in my opinion, stands as evidence that hatred of leaders is
so strong in this party that it has made a poor choice of leaders. (Laughter)
This party publishes various educational pamphlets and propaganda
articles. Among the pamphlets we find one by their main theoretician,
Hermann Gorter, Class Struggle and the Organisation of the Proletariat.
This pamphlet presents the KAPD’s line of thinking and ideology much
better than the speech of Comrade Hempel today. Gorter is not such an
adroit diplomat as Hempel, although Gorter is a man of letters and
Hempel an ordinary worker. By the way, we heard another ordinary worker
today, Comrade Burian. Now let us listen to what Gorter says in this
pamphlet.
The greatest weakness of the German and world revolution and one of
the main causes of its defeats is the fact that it is not guided by a
policy that is scientific, that is, historic-internationalist.
As we shall see, Gorter writes like a good Christian cleric. He continues:
In determining tactics and strategy, the question of productive and
class relations in Germany, Western Europe, and America was not given
priority and perhaps was not considered at all. The main responsibility
here lies with the Russians – Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek, etc. – and the
entire Third International.
The idea expressed in this sentence is then developed in the pamphlet
along various lines. That was from page 1. At the end of the pamphlet,
Gorter writes as follows:
The Kronstadt proletariat revolted against you, against the Communist
Party. You proclaimed a state of siege in Petersburg that was also
aimed against the proletariat. (Given all your policies, you had no
choice in the matter.) After doing that, did it not occur to you that it
might be better to have a dictatorship of the class rather than one of
the party? And that it would perhaps be better in Western Europe and
North America to have a dictatorship not of the party but of the class?
And that the ‘Lefts’ are perhaps right after all?
To wrap up, he writes:
If the Russian policies of party and leader dictatorship are still
pursued here, after the disastrous results they have already produced,
that is no longer a matter of stupidity but a crime. A crime against the
revolution.
So first Gorter says that for agrarian Russia the only correct policy
is a dictatorship of the party. Naturally that does not apply to the
developed capitalist countries of the West. Consequently, it is a crime
against the International and the revolution to mix up these two
different things. Then, on the last page, he says that mistakes have
been made in Russia, and that KAPD policies must be applied in Russia as
well. (Protests from the KAPD representatives) Dear comrades
of the KAPD: it’s written here in black and white. Let me cite a Russian
proverb. It says, ‘The crocodile is as long from tail to nose as it is
from nose to tail.’ (Laughter) That goes for politics as well.
The final page of Gorter’s pamphlet refutes completely what he said
on page 1. So there is no difference between Russia and North America,
and vice versa. Then Gorter tells us about the trade unions, and that to
impose the relationships of agrarian Russia on distant countries is a
bankrupt policy. The trade unions are outmoded institutions and are
therefore of no use.
KAPD representatives: That is not true.
Bukharin: Dear comrades, that is written here in
black and white. Tell me, why should we not apply exactly the same
policy to the parties? The parties, too, arose previously; they too
arose in an earlier period. You respond that this is why the Social
Democracy is of no use. That means, it follows, viewing the question by
analogy, that the old trade unions were also useless. What has happened
to the parties must also have happened to the trade unions. Either the
one or the other. And if you apply the line of reasoning you have
developed for the parties to the trade unions as well, the picture
becomes quite clear. The old trade unions really had quite different
functions, which by no means justifies the entire theory of the trade
unions presented by Comrade Hempel in his speech today. We carried out a
theoretical and practical struggle with the trade unions in Russia and
in other countries. We always fought against those views on the
trade-union question. We said that the unions are mass organisations of
the proletariat, which must be educated toward the final struggle
together with the party, together with the other party organisations.
You have not offered any counter-argument.
Gorter relies here on quite a curious argument. Completely distorting the matter, he declares:
Our modern Western European and American world is
cartelised, imperialist, and based on banking capital. In such a world,
capital is no longer organised by trades but rather by enterprises.
So, not by trades but by enterprises. That is completely wrong. It is
not a matter of enterprises, or even branches of production, but by
various combinations of production branches. What Gorter says is
complete nonsense. Suppose it were true, what would that tell us,
according to Gorter? It would mean that we should also consolidate our
trade unions. Gorter provides no other evidence, and neither does
Comrade Hempel. You cannot say that new epochs demand new organisations.
New organisations are all very good, but experience teaches us that the
old organisations should not be given up. The sentence about organising
by enterprise is wrong, factually speaking. All you can conclude from
that is simply that the trade unions should be organised in the same
fashion as production is. If you are satisfied with such generalities,
why not apply this to the party as well?
The arguments about the relationships among the parties and between
the leadership and the masses are just as weak. Gorter says that the
party was able to win in Russia because the proletariat was small. In
other countries, capitalism is enormously large and the enemy is much
bigger and stronger, and therefore we do not need any leadership or
party in the strict sense of the word, but rather entirely different
organisations. I must reply that the entire argumentation is completely
wrong. The party and the leaders cannot be counterposed one to the
other. If we have a large party, it must have a central committee. What
does ‘central committee’ mean? It means simply the leadership.
The [chair’s] bell has given me a signal. So in conclusion I will say
only this to the comrades of the KAPD: You maintain that you are good
Communists, as stated by your theoretician, who considers himself a
representative of a proletarian party that is better than us. Any
halfway intelligent person tries to establish the social causes of the
crisis [in Russia]. How did this crisis find expression? Simply through
an attempt at a peasant
vendee aiming to overthrow the proletariat.
3 You do not want to recognise that, and still you say, ‘We are a more proletarian party than you.’
KAPD representatives (raising objections): That’s a slander!
Bukharin: That is no slander. It’s written here in black and white. What other sense could these words have?
Radek: No sense at all. It’s nonsense. (Laughter)
Bukharin: In my view, we must tell the comrades that
these goals and these ideas unite the KAPD fully with its most hated
enemy, with Paul Levi. You stand on the same theoretical foundation as
Paul Levi.
KAPD representative: And what about in practice?
Bukharin: Given that your practice is rather
different from your theory, that shows you to be complete muddle-heads.
That is why we call on the KAPD comrades not to let themselves be led
astray in this fashion by their leaders. Their leaders must not write
such things, otherwise we will have to finish off with the entire party.
(Loud applause)
Notes
1.
The Workers Opposition was a group within the Russian CP that led by
Alexandra Kollontai, Aleksandr Shlyapnikov, S.P. Medvedev, and others.
Formed in September 1920, it called for trade-union control of
industrial production and greater autonomy for CP fractions in the
unions. After its position was rejected by the Tenth CP Congress in
March 1921, the Workers Opposition subsequently raised criticisms of
measures adopted introducing the NEP. Following its censure at the
party’s Eleventh Congress in March–April 1922, the Workers Opposition
ceased organised activity.
2. Levi, ‘Von den Konzessionen’, published in
Unser Weg
(Sowjet), 6 (15 July 1921), pp. 167–72. ‘Concessions’ here refers to
Soviet Russia’s willingness, under the New Economic Policy, to permit
limited foreign investment projects, subject to government control.
3.
Vendée is a department in northern France that was a centre of royalist
and peasant insurrection against the French Revolution from 1793 to
1795.
