Leon
Trotsky: A Suppressed Speech of Lenin
And
Other Items
Autumn
1932
[Writing
of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 4, 1932, New York 1973, p. 306-310]
The
Third Congress of the Comintern assembled in Moscow three months
after the "March days" of 1921 in Germany
The
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.